[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



















                                                                                                                                                                                  .. .........  ..................... . .....











                                                                                                                                                                                  I ME,;



                                                                            COMMONWEALTH of VIRGAINIA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0
                                                                 Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins
                                                                      Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy

                                                                                                                                                                           Final Comment Draft


                                                                                                                                                                                           APPENDICES





                                                                 QH
                                                                 96.8
                                                                 B5
                                                                 S54
                                                                 1996                                                                                                                                             Octotper.1996
                                                   Appendices








     A



          LIST OF APPENDICES TO
          VIRGINIA'S SHENANDOAH AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS
          TRIBUTARY NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY




          APPENDIX A: General Assembly House Bill 1411 and
                        Associated Nutrient Reduction Strategy Elements

     ':@4 APPENDIX B:   Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program

      -r- APPENDIX C:   Methodology of Nutrient Reduction Calculations

          APPENDIX D:   Description of Water Quality Modeling Scenarios

          APPENDIX E:   Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
                        Prevention Strategy -- Progress Report

          APPENDIX F:   Progress Report on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Description of
                        Preservation and Protection Programs for Living Resources

          APPENDIX G:   Local Government Partnership Initiative -- Progress Report

          APPENDIX H:   Southern Shenandoah Region: Tributary Assessment

          APPENDIX 1:   Northern Shenandoah Region: Tributary Assessment

          APPENDIX J:   Northern Virginia Region: Strawman Tributary Assessment

          APPENDIX K:   Lower Potomac Region: Tributary Assessment





































                                              APPENDIX A


                                   General Assembly House Bill 1411 and
                              Associated Nutrient Reduction Strategy Elements











                                                                                            I














 I










                                      LIST OF ITEMS IN APPENDIX A




                                      Item (Code Section)                                                      Location in Document

                                      HB 1141     ................................................................................. A-1


                                      Responsible Parties [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(i)]             .............................. Chapter V

                                      Programmatic and Environmental Benchmarks
                                      and Indicators [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(ii)]           ..................................... A-3

                                      Opportunities for Nutrient Trading [ï¿½ 2.1-1.12:2.A.5.(iii)]                  ...  A-5

                                      State and Local Benefits [ï¿½ 2.1-1.12:2.A.5.(iv)]               .................... A-12, Chapter III

                                      State Funding Commitments and Funding Sources
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(v)]       .............................................................. Chapter VII

                                      State Incentives [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(vi)]            .................................. Chapter VII

                                      Estimate and Schedule of Costs [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(vii)]                   ........ Chapter VII

                                      Scientific Documentation and Analysis as Necessary
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.6]      ................................................................... Chapter IV,
                                                                                                                        Appendices B & C

                                      How and When Subdivisions 1-3 are to be Achieved
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.7]      ................................................................... Chapter VI

                                      Process and Schedule if 40% Goal Not Met by 2000
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.8]      ................................................................... Chapter VI

                                      Cost Effectiveness and Equity of Proposed Actions
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.9]      ................................................................... A-14, Chapter VII

                                      Opportunity for Public Comment,
                                      Public Education and Information Program
                                      [ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:2.A.10]        ................................................................. Preface






                 VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 1996 RECONVENED SESSION


                                                                                                 REENROLLED


                                                        CHAPTER 1031


              An Act to amend the code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 5.1 of Title 2.1 an article numbered 2,
                 consisting of sections numbered 2.1-51.12:1, 2.1-51.12:2 and 2.1-51.12:3, relating to restoration
                 of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

                                                                                                          [H 14111
                                                    Approved April 17, 1996

                 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
              1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Chapter 5.1 of Title 2.1 an article
              numbered 2, consisting of sections numbered 2.1-51.12:1, 2.1-51.12:2 and 2.1-51.12:3, as follows:
                                                           Article 2.
                                                        Tributary Plans.
                 ï¿½ 2.1-5.12:1. Development of strategies to restore the water quality  and living resources of the
              Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
                 The Secretary of Natural Resources shall coordinate the development    of tributary plans designed
              to improve water quality and restore the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
              Such plans shall be tributary specific in nature and prepared for the Potomac, Rappahannock, York,
              and James River Basins as well as the western coastal basins (comprising the small rivers on the
              western Virginia mainland that drain to the Chesapeake Bay, not including the Potomac,
              Rappahannock York and James Rivers) and the eastern coastal basin (encompassing the creeks and
              rivers of the Eastern Shore of Virginia that are west of U.S. Route 13 and drain to the Chesapeake
              Bay). Each plan shall address the reduction of nutrient inputs to the chesapeake Bay and its
              tributaries.  Each plan shall also summarize other existing programs, strategies, goals and
              commitments  for reducing toxics; the preservation and protection of living resources; and the
              enhancement  of the amount of submerged aquatic vegetation, for each tributary basin and the Bay.
              The plans shall be developed in consultation with affected stakeholders, including but not limited to
              local government officials; wastewater treatment operators; seafood industry representatives;
              commercial and recreational fishing interests; developers; farmers; local, regional and statewide
              conservation and environmental interests; the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Partnership Council; and the
              Virginia delegation to the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
                 ï¿½ 2.1-51.12:2. Tributary plan content; development timeliness.
                 A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to ï¿½ 2,1-51.12:1 shall include the following:
                 1. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods of implementation designed
              to achieve the nutrient goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the 1992 amendments to that
              agreement signed by the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the
              District of Columbia, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
              Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, collectively known as the Chesapeake Executive
              Council.
                 2. A report on progress made pursuant to the "Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and
              Prevention Strategy" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on October 14, 1994, that is
              applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared
                 3. A report on progress on the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration Goals" signed by the
              Chesapeake Executive Council on September 15, 1993, that is applicable to the tributary for which
              the plan is prepared
                 4. A report on progress related to the objectives of the "Local Government Partnership Initiative"
              signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on November 30, 1995.





                    5. Specifically identified recommended state, local and private responsibilities and actions, with
                 associated timetables, for implementation of the plan, to include the (i) person, official, governmental
                 unit, organization or other responsible body; (ii) specific programmatic and environmental
                 benchmarks and indicators for tracking and evaluating implementation and progress; (iii)
                 opportunities, if appropriate, to achieve nutrient reduction goals through nutrient trading; (iv)
                 estimated state and local benefits derived from implementation of the proposed alternatives in the
                 plan; (y) state funding commitments and specifically identified sources of state funding as well as a
                 method for considering alternative or additional funding mechanisms; (vi) state incentives for local
                 and private bodies for assisting with implementation of the plans; and (vii) estimates and schedule of
                 costs for the recommended alternatives in each plan.
                    6 Scientific documentation to support the recommended actions in a plan and an analysis
                 supporting the documentation if it differs from the conclusions used by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
                    7. An analysis and explanation of how and when the plan is expected to achieve the element of
                 subdivision 1.2 and 3 of this subsection.
                    8. A process fi)r and schedule of adjustment of the plan if reevaluation concludes that the specific
                 nutrient reduction goals will not be met.
                    9. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and equity of the recommended nutrient reduction
                 alternatives.
                    10. An opportunity for public comment and a public education and information program that
                 includes but is not limited to information on specific assignments of responsibility needed to execzite
                 the plan.
                    B. Tributary plans shall be developed by the following dates for the:
                    1. Potomac River Basin, January 1, 1997.
                    2. Rappahannock River Basin, January 1, 1998.
                    3. York River Basin, January 1, 1998.
                    4. James River Basin, January 1, 1998.
                    5. Eastern and western coastal basins, January 1, 1999.
                    ï¿½ 2.1-51.12:3. Annual reporting.
                    The Secretary of Natural Resources shall report by November 1 or each year to the House
                 Committee on Chesapeake and Its Tributaries, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and
                 Natural Resources, the House Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Finance, the
                 Virginia delegation to the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Partnership
                 Council on progress made in the development and implementation of each plan. The annual report
                 shall include, but not be limited to:
                    L An analysis of actions taken andproposed and their relation to the timetables andprogrammatic
                 and environmental benchmarks and indicators.
                    2. The results and analyses of quantitative or qualitative tests or studies, including but not limited
                 to water quality monitoring and submerged aquatic vegetation surveys, which relate to actual resource
                 improvements in each tributary. The results and analyses are to be clearly related to designated
                 portions of each tributary.
                    3. A complete summary ofpublic comments received on each plan.
                    4. The current or revised cost estimates for implementation of the plans.
                    5. The status c'f Virginia's strategies as compared to the development, content and implementation
                 of tributary strategies by the other jurisdictions that are signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
                 2. That a tributary plan developed pursuant to this act shall not be implemented without
                 approval by an act of the General Assembly; provided, however, that any activity or program
                 ongoing as of Jane 30, 1996, may be continued. This requirement shall not be construed as
                 limiting in any manner the authority or ability of agencies of the Commonwealth to carry out
                 their sta.tutory or regulatory responsibilities.








             Programmatic and Environmental Benchmarks and Indicators

                     HB 1411 requires that programmatic and environmental benchmarks and indicators be
             identified to track and evaluate implementation and progress. In other words, how will we measure
             the success of our efforts? To answer this question, we must first examine what the Commonwealth
             is already doing to monitor the health of the Potomac River. Next, we need to identify what
             additional benchmarks and indicators are needed. Finally, we need to determine cost and
             responsibility for the additional benchmarks and indicators.

                     Existing state agency efforts to track programmatic and environmental benchmarks and
             indicators are listed below:


             Existing Programmatic Benchmarks/Indicators

                     Annual reports on the status and trends of nutrient loads from point source discharges.
                     Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program implementation.
                     Nutrient rnanagement plans completed and associated Nitrogen and Phosphate reduction
                     estimates, and acreage covered by nutrient management plans.
                     Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost Share program tracking, including BMP implementation,
                     and Nitrogen and Phosphate reductions estimates.
                     Erosion and Sediment Control program compliance tracking.
                     Forestry BMP tracking and Silvicultural Water Quality Law compliance.
                     Wetland and submerged land permit compliance tracking.

             Existing Environmental Benchmarks/Indicators

                     Periodic reporting of status and trends of nutrient loads at key locations in the Potomac
                     River, such as, the fall line, and Shenandoah River.
                     Periodic reporting of the status and trends of water quality in the Potomac River and the
                     Chesapeake Bay relating to nutrient levels and their impacts on living resources and habitat
                     (linkages to living resources include habitat requirements, dissolved oxygen monitoring, and
                     plankton composition and benthic community monitoring ).
                     Distribution and changes in submerged aquatic vegetation coverage.
                     Juvenile index for Striped Bass.
                     Finfish and shellfish harvest data.
                     Oyster spatset trends.

                     Federal programmatic indicators include tracking conservation tillage acres and highly
             erodible acres under the Conservation Reserve Program.

                     In addition to these existing efforts to track and evaluate implementation and pro  gress,the
             actions listed below are recommended. These actions would help to promote greater local
             involvement and ensure the efficient and cost effective collection of programmatic and

                                                             A-3










               environmental data.


               Recommended Programmatic Benchmarks/Indicators

                      Identify and track point source discharges which have committed to install nutrient
                      reduction, either voluntarily, by agreement, or by permit.
                      Identify and track point source discharges which have installed and are operating nutrient
                      reduction facilities.
                      Expand existing efforts to track voluntary BMP installation.
                      Encourage voluntary monitoring of Nitrogen and Phosphorous by wastewater Treatment
                      plants using established protocols.


               Recommended Environmental Benchmarks/Indicators


                      Expand citizen monitoring efforts to ensure quality assurance and quality control and
                      coordinate data collection and monitoring protocols for all tributaries.

                      The time and costs required to set up these additional monitoring and tracking programs is
               relatively minimal. Expanded 'Citizen monitoring would require an additional staff position and
               modest training budget at an approximate cost of $75,000 per year.


























                                                              A-4








               Opportunities for Nutrient Trading

               Introduction


                       An effluent trade involves an exchange of effluent control responsibility between discharge
               sources. Such an exchange creates opportunities to achieve water quality objectives in more cost-
               effective ways. The exchange of control responsibility is expressed in terms of an "allowance" or
               "credit" which specifies the quantity of effluent the discharger is allowed to release. The decision
               to trade is voluntary and sources engage in a trade only if both are better off following the trade. An
               exchange of allowances does not increase overall effluent discharge. An increase in discharges by
               one source is offset by a decrease in discharges by another source.

                       By purchasing additional allowances, a nutrient source that has a high cost of control can
               increase effluent discharge and avoid the installation of expensive pollution control measures. The
               source with the lower cost of nutrient control would agree to sell allowances only if fully
               compensated for assuming additional effluent control responsibilities. Total pollution control costs
               are reduced because the low-cost source is undertaking a greater share of pollution control.

                       To effectively achieve water quality objectives and lower effluent control costs, effluent
               trading systems iely on two elements found in any market -- financial incentives and individual
               choice. Consequently, effluent allowance trading is frequently referred to as a "market-based7'
               environmental policy. The combination of financial incentives and decision-making flexibility
               provides regulated sources both the reason and the means for developing and implementing new
               low-cost ways of controlling pollution.

                       Market-based approaches place a cost or price on the source's decision to continue to
               discharge effluent. In a trading system, the cost is the price to purchase allowances from another
               source. Within a properly operating trading system, the financial incentives for dischargers to reduce
               costs drive the search for more effective effluent control strategies.

                       An effective trading system must also grant discharge sources the flexibility to respond to
               financial incentives. Flexibility means sources have discretion to choose how and at what level to
               control effluent discharge. Increasing decision flexibility may require a departure from the
               conventional way regulatory requirements are implemented.

                       Flexibility is facilitated in several ways. First, sources should be granted discretion on how
               best to control effluent discharges internally. Regulatory constraints on effluent control options
               dampen  the source's willingness to seek low-cost control options. For instance, control technology
               requirements offer little opportunity for sources to explore alternative effluent reduction options.
               Likewise, regulated sources facing technology-based-performance standards may view their control
               options as limited to the technology used to set the performance standard.'

                       Flexibility is also related to the number and type of potential trading opportunities.

                                                                A-5








               Expanding the range of trading options for the regulated sources increases the possibility of finding
               low cost wading partners. The EPA estimated effluent allowance trading programs could reduce the
               costs of controlling effluent by billions of dollars.' By providing financial incentives and decision-
               making flexibility, however, trading systems create a pollution prevention dynamic that tends to
               underestimate acttud cost savings. In order to avoid the cost of paying another source to reduce
               pollution, discharge sources first search for inexpensive ways to reduce discharges internally. Once
               a trading program is implemented, control costs are much less than originally predicted because
               sources actively seek and implement new, innovative discharge reduction strategies. In reviewing
               the air emission trading experience, one EPA source noted that control costs are typically "lower
               by a factor of two or less because the market is more clever than we are and -technology marches
               on. 193


               Establishing an Effluent Allowance Trading System: Necessary Conditions

                       The establishment of an effluent allowance trading system requires the basic elements found
               in any market: a cornmodity to be traded, a demand for the commodity, and a structure in which
               people can trade the: commodity. Unlike markets for most private goods and services, however,
               establishing a successful effluent allowance trading system requires active government
               administration and oversight. Some government entity must help define an effluent allowance.
               Government administration also structures and oversees the system of exchange between potential
               traders.



               Defininiz an Allow nce


                       An effluent allowance trading system starts by defining the commodity to be traded - an
               allowance. The task of defining the commodity, however, is contingent on being able to measure,
               monitor, and enforce effluent discharges.

                       The tranifer of effluent discharge responsibility must be translated into common units of
               exchange. An allowance (or credit) specifies the quantity of an effluent a source may release into
               a body of water. To quantify an allowance, both the flow and concentration of effluent discharge
               must be measured. Once quantified, discharge can be expressed as total effluent (pounds, kilograms,
               tons, etc.) released per unit of time.

                       Because noripoint source discharge enters water bodies over a wide area rather than an
               identifiable point, it is generally more expensive and more difficult to measure directly. If direct
               measurement of a discharge is prohibitively expensive, the total amount of allowances could be
               quantified indirectly based on the type of BN4P practice implemented.' If this approach is followed,
               practices implemented will need to be translated into units of effluent reduced.

                       Translating control practices into effluent reductions may require additional information and
               research efforts. Computer models may be needed to estimate the total effluent load reductions



                                                                   A-6









               achieved from the proper installation and maintenance of the practice. The accuracy and reliability
               of these estimates can be confirmed and refined through detailed field test research. After such
               computer models are developed, calculating effluent reductions from site-specific control practices
               would be more reliable and less expensive.

                       Effective monitoring also will be required to maintain both the economic and environmental
               integrity of the effluent allowance. Monitoring ensures the best possible quantification and reporting
               of effluent discharge sufficient for trading and provides safeguards against efforts to violate the
               established rules. Sources may need to install and maintain monitoring equipment, and regularly
               sample effluent- To facilitate the development of a trading system, monitoring carmot be
               prohibitively expensive, and must be reliable. If direct - measurement of the discharge is not
               possible, monitoring will need to focus on the type of controls implemented. Thus, monitoring could
               involve some inspections into the proper implementation and maintenance of BMPs. Finally, some
               govemirnental unit will be needed to oversee the installation and operation of the monitoring
               program.


                       Water quality monitoring provides important effluent tracking information. In-stream
               monitoring provides valuable information linking changes in point and nonpoint discharges brought
               about by the tra&g system to the distribution and concentration of effluent through the watershed.
               Also, in-stream monitoring would ftinction as a check to ensure that point and nonpoint control
               practices are implemented and operating properly.

                       An effluent allowance is worthless unless enforced. Effective enforcement motivates the
               discharger to seek alternative cost-control strategies rather than to discharge illegally.'



               Creatine the Demand for Allowances


                       In order fbr the effluent allowance to be valuable, the demand for pollution control methods
               must be created. Demknd is created when sources are assigned or accept responsibility to limit
               discharges. Once effluent control responsibility is established, control responsibility must translate
               into meaningful, measurable limitations on discharge. Without a constraining discharge limit, there
               is no financial incentive to trade allowances or search for less expensive pollution reducing
               measures. A condition common to all enviro=ental trading programs, "quantitative restrictions
               must be established before markets can operate"".


               Creating a System of Exchange

                       For the exchange of allowances to occur, trading rules need to be clearly established. The
               trading environment specifies when and under what conditions trades take place. Government is
               responsible for the establishment and oversight of the system of exchange.




                                                                A-7









                      Effluent allowances trading systems can take three general forms - open trading, closed
              trading, andfull7closed trading. An open trading system allows regulated sources to modif@ their
              permits to reflect an exchange of pollution control requirements. Open trading systems are common
              in the air pollution control prograrn.'

                      A closed trading system sets a limitation or "cap" on effluent discharge for a geographical
              area and for a specified group of dischargers. The system allocates effluent control responsibility
              to individual group members in the form of allowances. Once allowances are distributed, discharge
              sources can trade as long as total effluent discharge within the system does not exceed the pollution
              cap.' The cap may be exceeded only if offset by effluent reductions from sources not under the cap.

                      A_full closed trading system-takes the closed trading concept and applies it to all effluent
              discharge sources in -a given watershed. This approach sets the number of effluent allowances equal
              to the total permissible discharge load. All point and nonpoint source dischargers are then assigned
              an initial allocation of allowances. By including all sources under the effluent cap, a full closed
              trading system is the most comprehensive application of the trading concept.

                      Closed trading systems differ from open systems in a number of ways. In the closed trading
              system, a regulatory agency such as creates all effluent allowances. Closed trading is an explicit way
              to manage total efflul.-rit discharge for a group of dischargers. Since the number of allowances in the
              system is fixed, new or expanding sources may increase discharges only by acquiring existing
              allowances. In an open system, discharge limitations are imposed on individual sources and effluent
              allowances are only created when a source discharges less than the amount allowed under a permit.
              Arguably, an open system requires more regulatory oversight to confirm allowance creation, approve
              trades, and ensure that total discharges in the watershed do not increase over time.

                      Closed trading systems may require significant changes -in the way regulatory agencies
              operate. Agency resources and attention may need to be directed away from devising BAT
              performance standards     'and requiring specific control technologies and toward discharge
              measurement, monitoring, and enforcement. Such a change will put less attention on how effluent
              is reduced and more emphasis on outcomes. By comparison, open systems represent'a more
              incremental departw-e from the conventional permit process.

                      While trading can take a variety of fonns. all trading systems require that government
              agencies create systems of exchange. A system of exchange should both facilitate and structure the
              interaction between trading participants. Defining a trading environment that provides ample wading
              opportunities and decision-making flexibility enhances the cost-saving potential of the trading
              system. Trading rules must facilitate exchange and assure that water quality goals are met.

                      Creation of an effluent trading system requires a careful delineation of rights and
              responsibilities among trading participants. An allowance trade should involve a clear transfer of
              financial and legal obligations for effluent control between traders. Any ambiguity or impartial
              transfer of effluent control obligations reduces the willingness ofsources to trade.


                                                                A-8









                      The exchange of pollution control obligations should occur regardless of whether the trade
               is between regulated sources or regulated and unregulated sources.' For example, suppose a
               regulated point source pays a unregulated farm operation to install a BNT to reduce nitrogen
               discharge. In exchange for accepting the payment, the previously unregulated farmer accepts some
               nitrogen control responsibilities. In the event that the farmer does not properly maintain the
               approved BMP, noncompliance penalties should apply to the source responsible for the failure to
               control discharge - in this case, the farmer. Otherwise, if the point source can be found liable for the
               farmer's failure to control discharge, the point source will avoid trading opportunities with the
               agricultural sector.

                      Often specific terms of trade are established between traders. Trading     ratios are frequently
               recommended for point-nonpoint trades. A 2:1 trading ratio, for instance, would require a two unit
               reduction in nonpoint source discharges for one point source allowance. The point-nonpoint nutrient
               trading ratio is usually greater than one to compensate for perceived uncertainty in nonpoint source
               control.'o In setting the trading ratio, a balance must be struck between lowering pollution abatement
               costs and protecting water quality. If the ratio is set too high, reducing nonpoint nutrient loadings
               may no longer be the most cost-effective means for point sources to reduce nutrient discharges. On
               the other hand, if the ratio is set too low and uncertainty is great, there is a potential that water
               quality objectives could be jeopardized. Also, the ratio may change due to location. Those sources
               nearest the impact zone would have more weight than those farther away.

                      The establishment of an effluent allowance trading system also creates a number of
               administrative and organizational requirements. At a minimum, an administrative system must track
               the exchanges of effluent control responsibility. Effluent allowance trades alter the distribution of
               effluent in a watershed. As distance between trading partners increases, the probability that local
               ambient water quality will be impacted also increases. A government administrative mechanism
               may be needed to define the geographic range of permissible trades within the watershed, develop
               trade approval criteria, and oversee and monitor the distribution of effluent discharge in the
               watershed." However, if the standards for an acceptable trade are too stringent or the trading area
               too limited, fewer trades will occur and the cost-saving potential of an effluent trading system
               diminishes.


                       The physical conditions surrounding n6npoint discharge sources also may require active
               government manag    ement oversight and assistance. If nonpoint discharges are not directly measured,
               effluent reductions (and thus the number of effluent allowances) associated with a given nonpoint
               source control practice (BMP) will have to be established. Reliance on point and nonpoint
               negotiating parties to establish effluent reductions from BMPs would introduce obvious incentives
               to overstate the effectiveness of a proposed nonpoint control practice, thus jeopardizing overall water
               quality.

                       In any market, traders will incur search and negotiation costs. Dischargers may also incur
               costs to gain administrative approval of a trade. Trade is facilitated by designing trading rules that
               reduce the costs of conducting a transaction. Trading costs can be reduced by the presence of a



                                                                 A-9








              "broker" organization(s). Typically, effluent discharges arise from a variety of sources engaged in
              many different types of production activities. A broker coordinates trading between these different
              parties. Private enw.-preneurs or public agencies can fill the broker role.

                      Finally, the trading participants must be certain that regulatory rules will not be subject to
              rapid or significant changes. Trading participants will be unwilling to pursue trades or low cost
              c.ontrol measures if sabstantial risk exists that their effluent control investments will be devalued or
              undermined by rule changes. Regulatory and trading rule stability is an essential condition of a
              successful trading program.


              Conclusion

                      Effluent allowance trading offers new opportunities to achieve more effluent reductionsi for
              every dollar spent. Trading provides regulated sources a reason to reduce discharges. In order to
              tap the cost-saving potential of a trading system, however, a successful trading program also must
              provide regulated discharge sources with decision-making flexibility in deciding how to manage
              effluent discharges.

                      The impleni-.ntation of a system of tradable effluent allowances requires a government
              commitment of resources and effort. Successful trading systems require that government provide
              three basic conditions: the creation and definition of an allowance, a quantitative restriction on
              effluent discharge, and the creation and administration of a system of allowance exchange.


























                                                                A-10











                   E8ndnotes

                   Ackerman, Bruce A. and Richard Stewart. 'RefoffrLing Environmental Law- The Democmtic Can for Market Incentives.*
                 Colwnbia Journal of Environmental Law 13 (1989): 171-199.
                 '. USEPA. -President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Benefits and Costs* EPA 800-R.94-6M. Office of Water,
                 Washington DC, 1994.

                   Compliance pdonj Report. February 29, 192, p. 4.
                   Letson, D. 'Point/Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction Trading: An Interpretive Survey. * Natural Resources Journal
                 32:219-232. Crutchfield, S.R., D. Letson, and A.S. Malik. 'Feasibility of Point-2Nonpoint Source Trading for Managing
                 Agricultural Pollutant Loadings to Coastal Waters." Water R'"Ourcel ResearelL 30 (October 1994) 10: 2SZ5-ZS36-, Malik.
                 A.S., B.A. Larson, and M. Ribaudo. 'Economic Incentives for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control., Waler
                 Resources Bullerin 30 (June 1994) 3: 471-479.

                   Bartfeld, E. 'Point-Nonpoint Source Trading: Looking Beyond Potential Cost savings. * Environmental Law 23 (1993):
                 43-106.

                 ' Braden, J.B., N.8R. Netusil, and R.F. 2Kosobud. 'Incentive-Based Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement in a Reauthorized
                 Clean Water Act.' Water Resources Bulletin 30 (October 1994): 781-791.

                   Closed systems are often c4lied "cap-Lnd-tradc" systems.

                   Under the EPA's draft guidelines, the exchange of responsibility my not occur in a trade between regulated and
                 unregulated sources. In some circumstances, the EPA guidelines suggest that regulated sources can be held acc untabIc for
                 the failure of a former trading partner to control discharges. EPA jupra note 2 at 7-4.

                   Battfeld supra note 5.































                                                                       A-1 I
 








                  State and Local Benefits

                         Following the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, substantial resources were
                  devoted to the study of the causes of the Bay's deterioration and the effectiveness of
                  different measures in restoring its ecosystem. Monitoring of the Bay indicated that certain
                  areas, particularly the mainstem., suffered from acute anoxia, which had adverse
                  consequences for fish and shellfish. Research established that this condition resulted
                  primarily from nutrient enrichment in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen loading. A
                  comprehensive model simulating the Bay's ecosystem attributed the loading to both point
                  and nonpoint discharges throughout the watershed. The original model was capable of
                  projecting dissolved oxygen levels for critical areas in the Bay during the average
                  summer. Simulations showed that a reduction of 1985 nitrogen and phosphorus discharges
                  in the range of 40 percent would restore the oxygen levels in the mainstem to a minimum
                  level of 1 milligram per liter, a level shown by research to eliminate the anoxia problem.

                          In response to these studies and the continued need to protect and rebuild the Bay's
                  natural environment, the signatory states signed the second Chesapeake Bay Agreement
                  in 1987. The 1987 agreement established a concrete commitment to a 40 percent reduction
                  in controllable nitrogen and phosphorus loads entering the mainstem of the Bay from 1985
                  point source and nonpoint source levels. Since the 40 percent reduction was based on
                  achieving target oxygen levels in the mainstem of the Bay, the reduction goal implies a cap
                  on discharges that should not be exceeded. The implied cap on nutrient loads was judged
                  to yield benefits in excess of the costs of achieving the controls necessary to close the gap
                  and then stay under the cap.

                          The signatory states agreed to encourage nutrient discharge controls on contributing
                  sources. This agreement to strive for the 40% reduction by the year 2000 was to be
                  reviewed at 5 year intervals. Each review was to consider the costs and the benefits to be
                  achieved by the cap and the most effective means to secure the needed reductions. The
                  next evaluation of the benefits of the cap will be part of the 1997 re-evaluation.

                          The 1992 amendments to the 1987 agreement have maintained the 40% reduction
                  goal despite new models estimating that the 40% reduction in nutrient discharges would
                  not completely solve the anoxia problem in the Bay's mainstem. The amendments have
                  also suggest*that a change of focus was needed to most efficiently address the anoxia
                  problem. Monitoring, research and modeling all indicate that the lower tributaries, the
                  James, the York and the Rappahannock, have little or no effect on anoxia in the main
                  trench of the Bay. Each tributary will be examined to determine its contribution to anoxia
                  in the Bay. The parties are expected to reconvene in 1997 to reevaluate the results of the
                  tributary analysis and further refine their plan.

                          Since the computer models are designed to simulate water quality changes in the
                  mainstern of the Bay, the program has not developed the necessary technical support to

                                                               A-12








                   ascribe benefits from nutrient reductions for other the areas of Bay watershed. Monitoring
                   efforts continue to document the changes in water quality (nutrient concentrations) and
                   trends in indicators of living resources. The correlation between nutrient reduction trends,
                   measures of ambient water quality, and indicators of living resources are positive. The
                   causal elements responsible for these correlations, however, are not completely understood
                   and more careful modeling is needed to establish a more precise link between control
                   efforts and outcomes. Therefore, the request for assessments of the state and local benefits
                   called for 'in HB1411 cannot be addressed without more extensive study and literature
                   synthesis than were possible with the resource and time available. Furthermore, the
                   consequences in the tributaries - the more localized effects - are even less easily
                   documented.


                          When costs for making load reductions are modest there is little demand for
                   documenting water quality benefits. The plans, and the process of plan development, for
                   the Potomac strategy reflect a concern over the rising costs of achieving the cap as the
                   final increments of reduction are approached.

                          As the costs of achieving the 40 percent goal rise, affected stakeholders are seeking
                   confirmation of the water quality and living resource gains from these expenditures. In
                   the coming years, the Commonwealth plan needs to be proactive in addressing the benefits
                   throughout the watershed. ne state will assure that the 1997 reevaluation provides the
                   best available and most conpelling evidence of the effects ofpast and prospective spending
                   on nutrient reductions and their contributions to living resource goals. 77ds evidence will
                   need to be developedfor the individual tributaries as well as the mainstern of the Bay.
























                                                               A- 13








                  Cost Effectiveness and Equity of Proposed Actions
                          The Potomac River Tributary Strategy planning process accepts that the nutrient
                  cap (and associated reductions required to meet the cap) is justified by the benefits
                  realized. It also seeks to achieve the cap. Given the acceptance of the cap, the Potomac
                  River Tributary Strategy is expected to reflect the following principles:

                          ï¿½   voluntary acceptance by discharge sources of the reduction practices needed to
                              meet the cap;
                          ï¿½   implementation of discharge reduction practices motivated by education,
                              technical assistance, tax write-offs and cost-share incentives;
                          ï¿½   selection of practices and recommended cost responsibility governed by local
                              preferences guided by state technical support;
                          ï¿½   a commitment to cost effectiveness (a cost dffective strategy will meet the cap,
                              and then accommodate economic and population growth under the cap, with
                              policies and actions that minimize the total costs to the private economy and the
                              taxpayer); and
                          ï¿½   equitable distribution of cost (the costs of the strategy will be distributed in a
                              manner judged to be equitable by the citizens and political leaders of the
                              Commonwealth).

                  The Potomac River Tributary Strategy: Information and Decision Making

                          The Potomac River Tributary Strategy was assembled from four regional
                  assessments. The regions were the Southern Shenandoah, Northern Shenandoah,
                  Northern Virginia, and Lower Potomac. These assessments were based upon a further
                  disaggregation to the county level. Technical assessments for each area were provided by
                  DCR and DEQ of 1) current loads from the sub-areas, 2) effectiveness of control
                  practices, and 3) costs of control practices. This information drew from readily-available
                  information on loadings, costs and effectiveness. The primary source of information was
                  the technical studies and estimates developed for the Bay Watershed Model. That model's
                  resolution is quite coarse, with the sub-watersheds in the model averaging about 1000
                  square miles in size. Also the data are provided by hydrologic and not political
                  boundaries. The loads from land uses, the possible control practices, the effectiveness of
                  practices, and their costs are often site-specific. However, due to its course resolution the
                  watershed model provide& average loads over a limited classification of land uses. A
                  limited number of BMPs and point source control practices are represented in the model
                  and costs for a practice are admitted to reflect only some of the financial outlays made for
                  implementation.

                          The regions had the opportunity to refine loading, cost or effectiveness estimates
                  if there was credible, technical information from other sources. However, the information
                  needed to be consistent with the approaches used in the models for the Bay P,73gram- For


                                                               A-14









                  example, monitoring studies that were offered as evidence of significant load reductions
                  since 1985 might not be accepted as evidence of progress in load controls if the monitoring
                  could not be reconciled with the modeling results or if the practices that were claimed to
                  be implemented could not be evaluated within the modeling framework.

                          In addition to technical studies, each sub-area was provided information on the
                  conditions necessary for the implementation of institutional reforms that would encourage
                  cost effectiveness in meeting the cap. These included possible modifications in delivery
                  of cost-sharing, adoption of nutrient allowance trading and methods of creative program
                  financing. Each region was offered the opportunity to develop plans that included not only
                  a desired seLof practices for discharge control, but also recommendations for financing
                  methods and institutions that could motivate cost effectiveness.


                          The opportunity for extensive and equal stakeholder participation was offered in
                  each region. Astakeholder consensus was sought for any practice or institutional element
                  that might be included in each regional plan. However, the individual assessments were
                  developed with different degrees of stakeholder involvement and in the end, stakeholders
                  had different commitments to, and agreements on, some of -the findings and
                  recommendations.      These differences occurred within all regions, but were more
                  pronounced in some regions than in others.

                  The Potomac River Tributary Strategy: A Summary Characterization

                          A strategy document was developed with the technical information and process
                  described above. In that document possible nutrient discharge control practices for each
                  region are described.     In some regions, the practices and processes suggested for
                  implementation were agreed upon by consensus of the involved groups.                   Those
                  recomniendations for action were conditioned by expectations for cost-sharing dollars for
                  BMPs and financial support for technical assistance staff. . However not all regions
                  achieved consensus about the actions to be taken. Disagreements were based on a variety
                  of consideration,;. These included questions about the additional load reduction needed to
                  meet the 40% goal, questions about the types or practices that would be best suited to
                  reduce loads and questions about who should (and would) pay for a control practice.

                          Some of the regional assessments provide suggestions for financing (e.g., preferred
                  revenue tools), program administration (e.g., cost-share targeting), broader institutional
                  reforms (e.g., nutrient allowance trading), and calls for enhanced technical support for
                  long term plan implementation (e.g, more monitoring, cost studies, effectiveness studies).
                   Unlike the lists of practices for controlling nutrient loads, these topics often are briefly
                  alluded to, and the suggestion is for further study and discussion rather than for immediate
                  implementation.




                                                              A-15









                   Evaluating the Technical Information for Cost Effectiveness

                            Total costs for implementation are computed as the cost per unit of nutrient
                   discharge reduction times the number of units to be reduced. In turn, the cost per unit of
                   reduction is determined by the cost of employing a practice (for example, cost per acre for
                   conservation tillage or the cost for a BNR upgrade at a POTW) divided by the reductions
                   achieved (for example, discharge reduction per acre with, versus without, conservation
                   tillage).   The reduction in nutrient discharges resulting from a practice is called
                   "effectiveness" of the practice.

                            The total costs incurred may not be borne by the discharger. Costs to a discharger
                   may be reduced by cost-share assistance from public or private sources or by the offer of
                   tax advantages for adoption of certain nutrient discharge control practices.                 A
                   redistribution of costs is made for equity reasons, but the total costs to the economy are
                   unaffected.


                   Costs of Practices


                            Implementation of control practices in response to the Potomac River Tributary
                   Strategy will result in five categories of costs. The following costs arise in both the public
                   and private sectors:

                            ï¿½  costs (charges) for capital investments such as BNR upgrades or conservation
                               tillage equipment;
                            ï¿½  annual operation and maintenance outlays for equipment, labor and materials
                               necessary to limit discharge (These costs might be for the use of the capital
                               equipment or might be for such annually recurring expense as soil and manure
                               testing,);
                            ï¿½  effects on profits from practices necessary to limit discharge (For example,
                               there might be a reduction (or increase) in crop yields from a nutrient control
                               pFactice.);
                            ï¿½  discharger's legal and administrative costs to be in compliance with a
                               regulation or incentive program (For example, a farm land owner may have to
                               demonstrate that implementation of a control practice on their land. warrants
                               cost-share funding.); and
                            ï¿½  public agency costs for education and technical assistance to administer
                               financial incentives and to develop and enforce requirements for discharge
                               reduction (These include expenses for staff, data gathering (e.g., water quality
                               monitoring, cost estimation, etc.), technical and modeling analyses, and
                               defining and enforcing program rules.).

                            The costs for practices and for the program, as reported in the Strategy, do not
                   include all the cost categories listed above. For example, only capital costs may be


                                                                A-16









                   included for some practices. Agency staff may account for the significant cost for some
                   practices (for example, nutrient management plans), but staff costs are not included. The
                   regional assessment processes identified the need for increased data, monitoring and
                   modeling in order to better judge the progress, target cost-share funds and support use of
                   nutrient trading. However, modeling and monitoring costs are not part of the cost
                   estimates. In addition, costs for some practices (including BNR) can be site specific and
                   vary over a broad range.

                           The agencies developing the strategy document were well aware of these limitations
                   and point them out in the written materials. Unfortunately there are no* readily available
                   alternative estimates of costs. The absence of alternative estimates fo    r costs of best
                   management practices was confirmed after the DCR asked Virginia Tech to help improve
                   the estimates. Also, the costs of point source controls can only be approximated pending
                   more detailed studies of POTWs. However, no matter how refined the cost estimates they
                   must be seen as best approximations. Experience has shown that actual costs differ from
                   estimated costs, once nutrient control operations begin.

                   Effectiveness md Types of Practices

                           Estimates of the effectiveness of control practices were drawn, initially, from the
                   Bay watershed model for selected non-point source practices and from engineering studies
                   that are not case-specific (e.g, BNR). These effectiveness estimates are recognized as
                   approximati6m; that will be improved upon implementation. This possibility was a matter
                   of significant discussion in the regions where point source controls were expected to be
                   a significant cost. In those areas, the possible effectiveness of BNR control was going to
                   be judged after pending studies by Dr. Clifford Randall at Virginia Tech.

                           A second gap in the strategy's representation of effectiveness was highlighted by
                   a disagreement over the use of monitoring data to document regional progress on load
                   reduction. One jurisdiction wanted to refer to a stream monitoring study to show that they
                   had reduced their loads since 1985. As several considerations enter into establishing the
                   quality of a monitoring study, one of the issues raised in the discussion was that a
                   jurisdiction might only receive reduction credits for practices that are capable of being
                   evaluated by the watershed model. Unfortunately the model does not include a
                   comprehensive list of practices (for example, cluster development can not be assessed).

                   Required Load Reduction

                           Working backwards from the 40% reduction goal, based on 1985 base load, a total
                   cap on P and N discharge was calculated. The gap to be closed is computed as the current
                   load estimatikia3inus; the cap. The gap will be closed whenever loads are reduced from the
                   adoption of best management practices and point source controls. Of course, economic
                   change and population growth has occurred since 1985. increased economic activity and

                                                              A-17









                   changes in the type and location of such activity may increase loads, working in the
                   direction of increasing the gap.

                         The technical assessments in the strategy adjust the gap by acknowledging control
                   practices put in place since 1985 that apply to the 1985 economic activities. Increased
                   population since 1985 was accounted for only as it increased flows to POTW's. Currently,
                   changes in the agricultural economy, in urban settlement patterns and the like have been
                   considered as affecting loads within the Bay Watershed Model.              In the regional
                   assessments developed during the summer of 1996, some adjustments were made to
                   recognize land-use changes. For example, the substitution of housing units for cropland
                   was represented as reducing loads in Virginia assessment. However; because of model
                   limitations and the way in which the data were interpreted the reduction credits associated
                   with urbanization may not be fully realized. Only additional analysis can address that
                   possibility.

                   Cost Implications

                          The analysis that was completed was the best possible given time and model
                   limitations. ' Improved evaluations are possible with modest increases in analytical
                   resources. However, given the discussion above it appears at this time the gap to be
                   closed is uncertain, that the effectiveness of some practices remains to be established, and
                   the costs of the practices that are described are incomplete. Also the costs will depend on
                   the institutional forms for implementation and for the opportunities dischargers have to be
                   creative in their efforts to reduce discharges. The result is that total costs are highly
                   uncertain.


                          Nonetheless, implementation of practices to meet the cap will impose costs on
                   dischargers. While the final public sector cost can not be estimated, the costs are
                   significantly above the amounts currently allocated for nutrient discharge reduction from
                   state appropriations. The strategy anticipates cost-sharing, more monitoring, improved
                   modeling and evaluation, technical assistance, and new institutions that will increase'costs
                   for the public sector.

                   Evaluating the Plans for Cost Effectiveness and Equity

                   Equily of the Strategy.

                          All costs are divided between those who create the discharge (discharger pays) and
                   those who benefit from the improved water quality (beneficiary pays). If a discharger pays
                   all costs, there would be no cost-share (or tax incentive) assistance offered and there would
                   be an assessment made for the public cost of water quality program administration. On
                   the other hand, beneficiaries may offer cash assistance to offset some of a discharger's
                   costs. Beneficiaries may be defined as the directly identifiable individuals and groups

                                                               A-18









                   (e.g., trout anglers) or the society at large. These beneficiaries help to pay whenever
                   special user fees or general tax revenues collected by local, state or federal government
                   fund cost-sharing-, subsidies or offset revenue losses from tax deductions and credits. Cash
                   subsidies  from beneficiaries for certain practices also may be available from non-
                   government org;mizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited or the Nature
                   ConservancX. Also, one discharger may benefit when it is allowed to continue its
                   discharge if it pays other sources to reduce theirs. -

                           Stakeholders often make equity arguments about what they describe as the proper
                   distribution of costs. However, there is no formula for determining a proper distribution
                   of costs. Decisions about cost distribution rest on social judgments about matters such as
                   the priority of private land rights, the nature of the damages caused by the nutrient
                   discharge, and the discharge sources' financial ability to pay. It is not possible to measure
                   the equity of cost distribution among beneficiaries and dischargers against some standard.
                   It is only possible to describe the distribution of costs associated with different policies to
                   facilitate the sccial judgments that must be made when defming the proper cost
                   distribution. The level and allocation of cost share funds is a matter of equity that needs
                   to be addressed if there are no currently existing programs. However, because the
                   strategy is still emerging in terms of acceptance of responsibility and means of financing,
                   it is not possible to provide the descriptive information needed for making equity
                   judgments.

                   Cost Effective ss of the Strategy

                           Efforts to be equitable without cash transfers can lead to cost ineffectiveness.
                   Concems for equity and acceptability have lead to some expectations of equal acceptance
                   of responsibility of 40 % across the regions of the basin, within the regions, and
                   (sometimes) between sources. The result may be higher costs than would be realized by
                   reallocation of control points for non-uniform reduction.. Equity could be addressed by
                   cash transfer payments. Equity issues remain in the form of who should pay and whether
                   localized water quality effects could occur. Cost effectiveness will be advanced by
                   flexi bility on where in the basin nutrient reductions can occur. This flexibility could be
                   provided through implementation of nutrient allowance trading, changes in cost-share
                   incentives, better analytical support, and improved inter-regional cooperation.

                           The combined cost effectiveness of the recommended practices cannot be judged
                   with precision because of the cost estimation uncertainty noted above and the failure to
                   reach a consensus on practices to employ in all the regions. However, where there is
                   consensus among the stakeholders, where there is less than 100% cost-sharing so the
                   stakeholders bear some cost, and where the control costs are modest and the effectiveness
                   is clear, it would be reasonable to conclude that the recommended practices would come
                   to an optimum solution that might be discovered with more complete data and analysis.


                                                                  A-19









                        Where consensus was reached, the practices recommended for implementation.
                 would, in all likelihood, represent a good first step toward the implementation of a cost
                 effective plan. However, a consensus was not reached in all localities about the best or.
                 least-cost way to achieve nutrient reduction. However, it is clear that to close the nutrient
                 gap in a cost effective manner will require additional understanding and information about:
                 a) the linkages between changes in nutrient loads and in-stream water quality, b) the
                 nutrient load consequences from changes in land use patterns, and c) the costs and
                 effectiveness of new nutrient reducing practices.

                         The cost effectiveness of the plan could be improved by development of an
                 overarching program structure that would stimulate the search and discovery of future low
                 cost nutrient control practices. Such a structure would rely less on targeting of specific
                 practices for implementation and more on creating a incentive structure for individuals to
                 decide what is the least-cost way to control nutrient discharges. Examples of such
                 program structures include nutrient allowance trading, reforms to cost share distribution,
                 and targeted fee systems. For example, Maryland implemented a cost-share program to
                 encourage the installation of biological nutrient removal technology at POTWs. An
                 alternative plan, however, would result in significant cost savings by allowing POTWs the
                 flexibility to use private and public (e.g., cost-share) funds to implement alternative
                 nutrient control technologies or to pay others to implement lower cost means. The state
                 should devote energies to studying and developing what administrative program changes
                 can be made to increase cost reducing incentives.




























                                                             A-20

















  @A




  J.


































  v
                                           APPENDIX B


                                  Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program


















  v







         (C"Infla'"SAPEAKE BAY MODELING PROGRAM


         Background

                The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement commits the signatories to develop and implement a
         basin-wide strategy to achieve a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
         mainstern of Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000. The Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program represents
         the tools through which management actions can be tested allowing for a more cost-effective selection
         of appropriate nutrient reduction strategies.

                The objective of the Modeling Program is to determine the relationship between nutrient loads
         from both watershed and airshed and the control of eutrophication and anoxia in the Bay. As a result,
         emphasis is placed on mainstern water quality conditions, particularly dissolved oxygen in the Bay
         trench, with ancillary information about related water quality variables that influence the Bay's living
         resources such as dissolved nutrients and light attenuation.

                Development of the Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program began in 1987. Since then, the models
         that make up the Program have been updated several times to accommodate higher levels of resolution
         and a greater number of parameters. The following text describes the most recent versions of the
         models that make up the Program.

         Modeling Program Structure

                The Program is composed of four separate but linked models (Figure 1). They are as follows:
         1) a Watershed Model that delivers point and nonpoint source nutrient loads from the 64,000 square
         mile watershed of Chesapeake Bay; 2) a Hydrodynamic Model that simulates movement of water via
         tides and currents; 3) a Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) which simulates conditions in the
         Bay airshed and assesses the role of atmospheric nitrogen to the Bay watershed itself-, 4) a Water
         Quality Model that simulates the relationships between nutrients and primary production, as well as
         chemical processes in the water column affecting water quality. The Water Quality Model is built on
         the framework of five modules: a) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), b) sediment, c) ocean
         boundary, and d) benthos.

                The Watershed (3YS) Model includes three interfaced modules: a hydrology component,
         simulating runoff and subsurface flow for varying annual rainfall conditions (dry, average, wet); a
         nonpoint source component, in addition to atmospheric deposition and point source loads; and a
         transport component, simulating the movement and cycling of edge-of-stream loads to the tidal Bay.
         Output from this module includes such useful information as nutrient loads for each land use by model
         segment and river basin. The watershed model output provides the link between Best Management
         Practices (BMPs) and the water quality response of the Bay. More detailed discussion of this model
         follows later in this document.


                The Hydrodynamic Model simulates the advective, dispersive, and tidal movements of water in
         the Bay, providing year round simulation. It has been improved to represent 1,973 cells in the surface layer
         and up to 15 vertical cells depending on depth in the Bay. This represents a substantial improvement over


                                                          B-1







                 Hydrodynamic
                        Model                        Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model
                                                                           (CBWQM)


                                                                    Water Quality Model
                    Watershed
                        Model                                   Sediment                    Benthos


                                                               Submerged                      Ocean
                                                          Aquatic Vegetation                Boundary
                 Regional Acid                                   (S AV)
               Deposition Mlodel
                      (RADM)


            characterizing the Bay's hydrodynamics with the previous Summer Average Water Quality Model that
            used


                    Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program Air - Watershed - Tributary Model

            a total of only 584 cells, and only covered the period from March through October.

                    The Regional Lcid Deposition Model MADhD serves as link to both the Water Quality Model and
            the Watershed Model -to evaluate the impact of atmospheric nitrogen to the Bay watershed. RADM has
            the capability of calculating annual atmospheric nitrogen oxide deposition amounts to 20-kilometer grid
            cells.


                    The Water Quali1y Model is able to simulate the water quality response in the Bay to nutrient
            controls throughout the watershed. It provides detailed simulation of the interactions among nutrients,
            light, algae, benthos, .130AV, plankton, and sediments throughout the Bay and its major tidal tributaries.
            Output from the hydrodynamic submodel is used to simulate the movement of water and transport of.
            material in the water quality submodel. Other inputs to the water quality model include nutrient loads from
            the watershed model, loads from point sources discharging directly to the Bay and tidal tributaries, and
            atmospheric deposition to the water surface, ocean boundary influences and interaction with the bottom
            (benthos).


            Watershed Model


                    Since 1985, the: Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has sponsored a series of projects to develop and
                       @Ltehe(
                             rs
                          odel
                        Ed:la i @c
                              y
                            od


            (
                    e              )id
                  :R               0
                    p Lo @na A c'
                              I
               D e      ition   M   del
                            DM)
























                                                               B-2







          improve a Watershed (WS) Model that could be used effectively to estimate nutrient loadings to the Bay
          and to evaluate the impacts of Best Management Practices (BMPs). A comprehensive work plan
          developed in September 1987 proposed a phased approach in the development and improvement of the WS
          Model. The first phase was designed to improve the nonpoint loading representation, refte and reevaluate
          the data input to the WS Model, and perform a preliminary recalibration to available water quality data for
          the 1984-85 period. This was used as the basis for the 40 percent nutrient loading reduction goal defined
          by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

                  The second phase was designed to focus on a better representation of the effects of BMPs that allow
          a more deterministic, process-oriented approach to BMP analysis and evaluation. In addition, WS Model
          enhancements were done to allow specific consideration of sediment-nutrient and bed interactions within
          the stream channel so that runoff, and subsequent delivery to the Bay, of dissolved and sorbed nutrient
          forms can be more accurately modeled. The second phase WS Model was then applied to the Bay drainage
          area to include sediment erosion, sediment transport, and associated nutrients, in addition to the current
          modeled water quality constituents, to provide input to the CBWQ Model.

                  The WS Model represents the entire drainage area to the Chesapeake Bay as a series of land
          segments each with relatively uniform climatic and soil conditions. Within each model segment a variety
          of land use categories are each modeled with its own parameter values, and each land use provides surface
          and subsurface nonpoint loadings to the stream draining that model segment. Each model segment also
          corresponds to a single channel reach that is then linked sequentially with other channel reaches in other
          segments to represent the major and minor river systems that comprise the Bay drainage. Figure 2 shows
          the model segments that make up the Potomac River Basin portion of the Chesapeake Bay.

                  Additional improvements to the WS Model are currently underway. The simulation period data
          have been updated through 1994. The number of model segments has been increased to improve
          overall resolution, an improved GIS scale has been utilized, and separate models have been developed
          for each land use. In addition, an improved reservoir water quality simulation plus inclusion of
          sediment/river bottom scouring will be included in the updated simulation. Despite these changes, it is
          expected that overall nutrient loading rates generated by the Program will remain relatively the same.


          Land Use Data


                  This section documents the methods used to provide a 1985 base year land use data set for use
          in the WS Model. The 1985 base year was chosen to be consistent with the 1987 Bay Agreement, and
          because it was a recent year that had sufficient land use information coverage from the different
          sources used. The WS Model land uses are forest, conventional till cropland, conservation till
          cropland, cropland in hay, pasture land, animal waste or manure acres, urban and water areas (Table 1).

                  A consistent methodology of determining land use for the entire Bay basin was developed
          which obtained particularly detailed information on agricultural cropland. The principal sources of
          information provided data on land use at a county level throughout the basin. Principal sources were
          the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Forestry Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Also used
          to advantage was the U.S. Geological Survey Land Use and Land Cover data for areas of water (rivers,
          lakes, and reservoirs) and urban land.


                                                             B-3













                      Pda,                                                     L&A*
                  nwMansmLAAWV                                               pwwwC

                                                                                  )AD
                                                 JA









                                                                   Lowsm. RN
                                                                    rw      VA


                          =Fbb
                            nw
                             w         Fiat %A                                          Ftbi
                                          VA



                                    s3Ar*kd
                                  'gwwdMhRW

                                      A










           Figure 2. Watershed Model Segments in the Potomac River Basin.









                                                             B-4







          Table 1. Land-Use Categories Used in the Watershed Model

                                  Land Use                        Percent (%) Of Watershed


                                  Forest                                       59.46
                                  Conventional Tillage                         5.81
                                  Conservation Tillage                         6.14
                                  Hayland                                      8.08
                                  Pasture                                      9.09
                                  Animal Waste                                 0.03
                                  Urban                                        10.11
                                  Water Surface                                1.28




          Cropland Tillage

                  The WS Model has three categories of cropland - conventional tillage, conservation tillage, and
          hayland. Conventional tillage represents fall and/or spring-plowed conventionally tilled cropland.
          Conservation tillage represents those tillage practices that result in a residue cover of at least 30 percent
          at the time of planting.

                  Tillage information on a county level for the 1985 data input base was obtained from the
          Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), West Lafayette, Indiana. The CTIC is a
          clearinghouse for information on soil conservation and, in particular, crQpland tillagc prac;ticc5. Thc CTIC
          conducts an annual survey by county of acres of crops grown under different tillage systems.

                  Hay acres were compiled from the 1982 Census of Agriculture from the category of harvested,
          "hay, alfalfa, and other tame, small grain, wild, grass silage, or green chop." The hay acres were
          transformed to a percentage of the Census of Agriculture total harvested crop acres, and the area of hay
          acres were determined by this proportion applied to total model cropland area.



          Water Acres


                  Water acres are defined as the area in rivers, creeks, streams, canals, lakes, and reservoirs. Only
          non-tidal waters of the basin are considered in this land use category. Tidal waters are included in the
          hydrodynamic and water quality model components of the CBWQ Model.



          Manure Acres


                  Manure acres is a derived land use that represents the production of nutrients from manure
          produced in a segment. These acres do not represent acres of concentrated animals, nor do they represent
          manure piles or manure stacking facilities, rather the manure acres are use to represent the aggregate of


                                                                B-5








             all these activities.


                      Tons of manure produced were estimated from the livestock numbers in the 1982 Census of
             Agriculture. This tonnage was divided by a "composite animal unit" representing the annual production
             of 15 wet tons of manure, per animal unit. An animal unit is defined as 1000 pounds of animal weight.
             Manure in this context is defined as including voided material, spilled feed, soil and bedding material.

                      Animal units of poultry, swine, beef, and dairy were adjusted to account for the predominant
             manure handling practices. The total adjusted animal units were divided by a "composite animal density"
             of 145 animal units per acre, yielding the number of manure acres.



             Urban Land Subcate ories


                      A GIS system was used to differentiate the urban land into five subcategories. These are as
             follows: 1) Residential - ranging in density from very high in urban cores to low density with units on
             more then one acre. (With an average impervious value set at 30% for the WS Model.); 2) Commercial -
             including urban central business districts, shopping centers, commercial strip developments, warehouses,
             etc. (Impervious value set at 75%.); 3) Industrial - including light and heavy manufacturing plus mining
             operations, stockpiles, and spoil areas. (Impervious value set at 80%.); 4) Transportation - roads,
             railroads, airports, sea]':)Orts, and facilities associated with the transportation of water, gas, oil, electricity,
             and communications. (Impervious value set at 10%.); and 5) Institutional - urban parks, cemeteries, open
             land, playgrounds, golf courses, zoos, and undeveloped urban land in an urban setting. (Impervious value
             set at 50%).

                      Urban land imperviousness was determined for each model segment based on the five subcategories
             of urban land. Imperious values were derived from the EPA 1982 report, National Urban Runoff Program
             except for transportation which was provided by Federal Highway Administration. The model simulates
             one urban land use based on the area-weighted parameter of imperviousness of the above five
             subcategories. Using the proportion of the total urban area in the different subcategories and the value of
             imperviousness described above, a single area-weighted imperviousness value was determined for the
             single aggregate urban land use modeled.


             Crop distribution for Conventional and Conservation Tillage

                      Due to computational limitations for modeling at the scale of the Bay drainage, the WS Model
             required the development of a "composite crop" to represent the cropland tillage categories in order to
             evaluate land cover, nutrient application rates, and expected plant uptake rates. To develop a "composite
             crop" for each cropland model segment, the crop distribution was needed. These distributions were
             developed as follows:

                      1. The 1987Agricultural Census information was used to develop the crop distributions (for the
                          cropland total) for the following aggregated crop categories for each model segment: a)
                          soybeans; b) corn-grain, corn-silage, sorghum, and other miscellaneous crops; and c) small


                                                                    B-6







                      grains.

                  2.  Multiplying the total cropland by the crop category percentages in the above step produced the
                      total acreage for each crop category.

                  3.  The CTIC 1985 Survey reports for each state provided statewide values for the percentage of
                      each crop in conservation tillage. These percentages were used to distribute the total acres in
                      each crop into conventional and conservation categories in each model segment. The
                      percentages used in Virginia were 66.0% for soybeans, 67.4% for corn, and 50.0% for small
                      grains.

                  4. The Agricultural Census information was then used to determine the breakdown of com-grain
                      and com-silage acres so that separate parameter values could be used for each, (see later
                      discussion under land surface cover and erodibility parameters).



          Watershed Model Sement Assimment of Land Use

                  The county land-use data were converted to a model segment basis. Consistent with the level of
          spatial detail of the model, it is assumed that all land uses are evenly distributed within a county. Land
          uses by county are proportioned by percent of the county in each model segment. The percent of county
          area in each segment was determined by GIS.



          Atmospheric Sources

                  The WS Model accounts for the atmospheric of nitrogen and phosphorus directly onto water
          surfaces for the 1984-87 period of simulation. Deposition of water surfaces is explicitly modeled.
          Deposition of inorganic nitrogen to land surfaces is explicitly included in the agriculture production land
          uses (conventional cropland, conservation cropland, and hayland) through the inclusion of atmospheric
          loads with nutrient applications of fertilizer and manure. Atmospheric deposition to remaining land uses
          (forest, urban, pasture) is implicitly included by calibration to the annual loads observed in field
          measurements.


                  The ammonia and nitrate loads for each model segment were determined by using annual isopleths:
          produced by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). The nitrate and ammonia loads vary
          spatially by model segment with the highest deposition generally in the northwest areas of the bay basin
          and the lowest deposition in the southeast area of the basin. Orthophosphate, organic nitrogen and organic
          phosphorus are not typically monitored by NADP, therefore annual loads of these constituents were
          developed by EPA. Their data does not show year-to-year or spatial variation of these parameters, so
          constant loads are used for all years. The data was reformatted as a monthly load to the total model
          segment water area. The data is input to the model in the same manner as the point source inputs, i.e., the
          monthly totals are divided evenly over each hour of the month.




                                                              B-7








             Point Sources


                     Point-source input to the WS Model were developed for the 1984-87 period. These data represent
             all loadings from muaicipal wastewater and industrial facilities that discharge to channel reaches in the
             basin. Point sources ddscharging below the Fall Line were considered to be a direct discharge to the tidal
             Bay and were not included as part of the WS Model input data.

                     Municipal dischargers were selected based on a flow of 0.5 million gallons per day (mgd) or
             greater. This criterion captured more than 96 percent of the municipal point source flow. The remaining
             (approximately) 4 percent of point source flow was from numerous small discharges. Industrial
             dischargers were included in the point source data set if the load from the industrial source was equivalent
             to the total nitrogen, total phosphorus, or biological oxygen demand load of a 0.5 mgd municipal point
             source with secondary treatment.

                     Data for all facilities that discharge to streams within a model segment were aggregated to obtain
             a single set of point source loads for the corresponding model reach. The data sets consist of monthly total
             loads for each reach for the 1984-87 period. It was determined that monthly values represented the most
             appropriate resolution. for the available data.

                     Loads and other related parameters for point sources were derived in the following manner. If state
             National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, (NPDES) data were available, they were used
             preferentially. When no state NPDES data were available, data from the 1985 Point Source Atlas were
             used. As a last resort, defaults were calculated for missing data. Defaults for municipal dischargers were
             based on default concentrations applied to the municipal flows.



             Development of Model Segment Nutrient Application Rates

                     The key element in the application of the WS Model to the cropland areas of the model segments
             was the developmentof the nutrient (fertilizer and manure) application rates used as input to the model.
             Development of the model input application rates involved aggregating input from Virginia, Maryland,
             and Pennsylvania, developing assumptions appropriate to the scale of the Bay drainage, and calculating
             rates corresponding to the "composite crop." The major data needs and issues involved in these
             calculations included the following: a) fertilizer and manure application rates, procedures, and timing for
             each major crop, and atmospheric deposition estimates; b) crop distributions for conventional and
             conservation tillage; c) composition (i.e., organic and inorganic fractions) of fertilizer and manure
             nutrients; d) application/volatilization losses of manure nitrogen; and e) model representation of
             application procedures and timing.

                     The initial fertilizer application rates for each major crop category for each model segment were
             developed by each of the individual states. These were then refined in order to clarify how the rates (and
             percentages) would be used and interpreted within the framework of the modeling calculations. Much of
             the information was extracted from county-level SCS or Extension Service data, supplemented by best
             professional judgement estimates when information was not available. Estimates were used when a
             particular crop represented a minor fraction of the cropland in a specific model segment.


                                                                B-8







                  For model segments that crossed state boundaries, a weighting procedure was used to estimate
          application rates when the appropriate information was available from the adjoining states and the areas
          were significant (e.g., more than 10 percent of the model segment). The weighting was done for each crop
          application rate before calculating the model segment composite rate for the composite crop. The
          percentages of croplands receiving fertilizer, manure, and both were usually consistent and values for one
          state were adopted.

          Land Surface Cover and Erodibility Parameters

                  The first parameter of this category represents the fraction of the land surface that is covered by
          canopy, crop residue, leaf litter, etc. and is subsequently protected from raindrop erosion. Cover is one
          of the primary determinates of the generation of sediment fines that can be transported by ranoff as part
          of the erosion process. The twelve monthly values used in the model represent the land cover on the first
          day of the month. Cover is interpolated daily in the model between the monthly cover values. Values for
          conventional cropland and conservation cropland are based on the crop types grown in the segment. Major
          crop types aggregated from harvested acres in the 1987 Agricultural Census was used to obtain unique
          cover values for conventional and conservation cropland in each model segment.

                  The second parameter represents the slope for overland flow. This parameter influences the
          simulation of hydrology and sediment erosion. Land slope data were derived from the National Resources
          Inventory (NRI) data base. The county-based NRI distribution of slopes was combined with the proportion
          of different county land uses to develop an average slope for cropland, woodland and pasture in each
          segment. Urban data were not available from this data set. The slope of the urban land was set equal to
          that of cropland.

                  The third parameter represents a coefficient in the model soil fines detachment equation. This
          parameter in conjunction with the cover parameter controls the amount of fine sediment detached by
          raindrop impact and is then available to be transported by overland flow. It is usually estimated by
          assuming it is equal to the erodibility factor, K, in the Universal Soil Loss Equation.

          Hydrologic, Sediment Loading, Dissolved Oxygen, and Water Temperature Simulation

                  The hydrology, sediment, dissolved oxygen, and runoff water temperature simulations are based
          on the same procedures for all pervious land use categories. The hydrology for impervious land use
          categories (i.e., urban impervious and manure acres) uses a different submodel of the WS Model. Since
          these submodels are common to all the land uses, a brief overview of the simulation approaches is provided
          below.


                  The hydrologic submodel calculates a complete water balance for each land use category within
          the watershed, or model segment, by converting input rainfall and evaporation data into the resulting
          surface runoff, changes in soil moisture storage for various portions of the soil profile, infiltration of water,
          actual evapotranspiration, and subsequent discharge of subsurface flow (both interflow and baseflow) to
          the stream channel. During storm events, rainfall is distributed between surface runoff and soil moisture
          storage compartments based on nominal storage capacitates and adjusted infiltration rates. Between storm
          events, water storage in the soil profile is depleted by evapotranspiration and subsurface recharge, thereby


                                                                 B-9







             freeing up soil moisture capacity for rainfall inputs from the next storm.

                    For impervious land surfaces, the hydrologic simulation includes only the processes of detention
             or retention of incident rainfall, evaporation from retention storage, and overland flow routing of the
             rainfall excess.


                    The sediment loading simulation perforins for all pervious land use categories, i.e., all land uses
             except urban-impervious and manure acres. The sediment processes and fluxes simulated by WS Model
             including detachmentof sediment particles by raindrop impact, net vertical sediment input (or export),
             attachment or aggregation of fine sediment particles and wash-off of detached sediment.

                    Water temperature of runoff and the dissolved oxygen concentration are calculated for the pervious
             land categories. Actually, the WS model calculates soil temperatures for each of the defined soil layers -
             surface, upper zone, lower zone, and groundwater zone - and the flow component originating from that
             zone is assumed to be at the calculated soil temperature, except that the water temperature cannot be less
             than freezing. The surface soil temperature and surface runoff temperature is then used to calculate the
             dissolved oxygen concentration of the overland flow, which is assumed to be at saturation.

                    For impervious surfaces, the procedures for runoff water temperature and dissolved oxygen are
             identical to those used for pervious surfaces; the subrnodel uses a linear regression to calculate impervious
             overland flow temperature, which is then used to calculate the dissolved oxygen concentration.


             Comparison of Expected and Simulated Nonpoint Loading Rates

                    How nonpoint nutrient loading rates change as a function of land use, climate, soil characteristics,
             topography, management practices, and other human activities has been a major topic of envirom-nental
             concern and investigation for more than twenty years. However, in spite of this concern, exact quantitative
             predictions of expected. loading rates for site specific conditions are difficult to derive from available field
             monitoring due to the wide variations observed even within a specific land use under similar soils,
             topographic, and climatic. Nonpoint nutrient loadings are notorious for their large range of potential
             values.


                    The first steps in the nonpoint calibration effort involved a review and evaluation of nonpoint
             loading rates associated with individual land uses and nonpoint parameters used in the WS Model. The
             goal was to define the expected range of loading rates from the available literature, as a basis for evaluating
             and calibrating the model predicted loading rates, and deterniine if any changes or adjustments to the
             original nonpoint parameters could be justified. State representatives on the Chesapeake Bay Program
             Nonpoint Source Workgroup provided data summaries of monitoring projects and studies conducted in
             their respective regions to supplement the efforts of EPA on this task.

                    The rates are quite variable with cropland showing the greatest variability and forest the least
             variation. For urban pervious and impervious areas, the average annual National Urban Runoff Program
             (NURP) loads were used to supplement the information and guide the calibration adjustments. Selected
             parameter values were then adjusted as needed during the calibration process based on the observed data


                                                                 B-10







          and model predictions for the calibration sites throughout the drainage area. Comparing the mean annual
          loading rates with the expected means and ranges suggests the following general conclusions:

                  I . Generally the simulated annual loading rates are within the range of expected values with some
                      deviations. Annual rates for orthophosphorus(P04)from forest and pasture, and ammonium
                      (NH4) from forest occasionally tend to be toward the lower end of the defined range. Annual
                      P04rates from the cropland areas are somewhat higher than the defined range.

                  2.  For non-cropland categories, the total nitrogen and total phosphorus simulated values compare
                      favorably with both the expected means and ranges.

                  3.  For the cropland categories of conventional tillage, conservation tillage, and hay, the total
                      nitrogen and total phosphorus simulated values are generally close to the mean, while the
                      tillage categories are usually greater than the mean but well within the observed range.

                  4.  Comparing conventional and conservation tillage segments, conventional produces higher
                      loading rates for most model segments for all pollutants except nitrate (NOD, where
                      conservation is sometimes the higher rate.

                  5.  The highest rates for total nitrogen and total phosphorus are for the manure segment, followed
                      by conventional tillage, conservation tillage, urban, hay land, pasture, and forest. The order
                      changes slightly for individual pollutants.

                  6.  The manure segment loading rates are the most uncertain since there is very little information
                      on which to assess their validity.

                  7.  For ammonia (NH3) andpo4from cropland, the simulated ranges are generally 0.5 to 4.0 lb/ac
                      and 0.2 to 2.0 lb/ac, respectively; these ranges are generally higher than the limited observed
                      data for these forms, but they are not unrealistic based on the general literature.

                  8.  Urban pervious and impervious areas provide loadings that are comparable to the hay and
                      pasture categories, and for some nutrient species (e.g., NH3) the loadings are similar to the
                      tillage categories. Thus, urban land can be a significant source of total nonpoint loadings in
                      urbanized model segments.

















                                                             B-1 I






































                                             APPENDIX C


                              Methodology of Nutrient Reduction Calculations







          METHODOLOGY OF NUTRIENT REDUCTION CALCULATIONS



          Introduction


                  Developing the nutrient reduction options presented throughout this appendix and its associated
          documents required the use of a broad assortment of data and reference sources. These include discharge
          monitoring and treatment plant performance data, monitoring and research literature, census and land use
          data, and the results of water quality monitoring and watershed modeling efforts. Given the intrinsic
          diversity of nutrient pollution sources and control measures, there is a wide range in the estimates for
          nutrient reduction effectiveness of various best management practices (BMPs). Consequently, the
          reduction efficiencies given for the measures described here and elsewhere are based on best available
          information as it applies to each of the specific nutrient reduction measures. Furthermore, these reduction
          efficiencies have been agreed to by all the signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

          Nutrient Base Loads for Virginia's Potomac River Basin

              Before determining which measures could work toward meeting the 40% reduction in nutrients
          (nitrogen and phosphorus) in Virginia's Potomac Basin by the year 2000, it is necessary to identify the
          base nutrient loads by source, including land-use category or discharge point. (It should be noted that, as
          a result of the issues discussed below, some changes were made to the data that was cited in the August
          1995 document, Virginia's Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy.)

          Nonl2oint Source Nutrient Loads

              To develop the nutrient base loads for each locality, calculations had to start with the full Potomac
          River basin nonpoint source loads by Chesapeake Bay Watershed (WS) Model segment and land use
          category. In developing the Watershed Model, the Chesapeake Bay Program collected land-use
          information on a county level, including any cities and towns that fall within, fully or partially, a county's
          boundary. Specifics of the development of the land use inputs can be found in Appendix B: "Chesapeake
          Bay Modeling Program." Due to computational limitations for modeling at the scale of the Bay drainage,
          the WS Model assumed all land uses are evenly distributed within a county. This land-use cover was
          converted to one based on WS Model segments by the percentage of each county found within each model
          segment. The resulting land-use breakdown by county and model segment permits one to use the
          corresponding nutrient loading rates and transport factors determined in the WS Model by. segment to be
          used within this county-segment land-use breakdown to calculate nutrient loads by locality.

              Nutrient loads from above the fall line are "delivered" to the tidal tributary using transport factors
          derived from the WS Model. Due to in-stream chemical and biological cycling, only part of the load
          coming from above the fall line reaches the tidal portion of the river. These factors vary by river basin,
          and reflect such differences as distance to the fall line and scouring rates. For the Potomac basin, the
          delivery factors that apply in Virginia range from 69% to 91% for nitrogen, and 80% to 91% for
          phosphorus.

              Use of the land is not static in nature and therefore it is susceptible to change over time. As the land


                                                              C-1







            cover changes, so does its nutrient load. The primary land use changes having an impact in. nutrient loads
            in the Potomac River basin are in two significantly different areas. The first'is the shift of type and
            distribution of agricultural activities found in most of the Potomac basin. The second is the large
            population increase seen in portions of the basin and its associated urbanization. The following paragraphs
            discuss the methods used to determine these land use changes and their associated nutrient load changes.

               Shifts in Agricultural Production. The agricultural community within the Potomac River basin has
            undergone significant changes in the extent and type of agricultural activities it engages in throughout the
            basin. Except for a few localized areas, most of the basin has seen a shift from the more nutrient load
            intensive row crop production to hayland or pasture. Land has also been taken out of agricultural use
            altogether and is accounted for in the next section on urbanization. In addition, except for poultry, the
            number of animals fou.1d in the basin has seen a drop over time. Several factors could account for these
            agricultural shifts and determining those causes goes beyond the scope of this discussion. However, this
            shift in agricultural activities has been commented on by numerous knowledgeable sources including
            members of local soil & water conservation districts, Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR)
            staff, Cooperative Exte@nsion staff, various local governmental agencies, etc., and is documented in the last
            several federal agricultural censuses conducted in the state.

               The basic methodology used to calculate this shift in agricultural activities is as follows:

                I .  The Agricultural Censuses of 1982, 1987 and 1992 were used to determine the rate of change
                     over time for land under cultivated crops, hayland, and pasture for each county having any
                     portion of its land area within the Potomac River basin.

                2.   The rate of change was then applied to the number of acres under these land uses by county as
                     found in their 1985 base land use breakdown to determine the land use distribution for 1994.


                3.   The number and type of animals for each county were also reviewed for any change over time
                     in the Agricultural Censuses. By using the same method as used in the WS Model, the number
                     and type of animals were converted to manure acres and the rate of change was determined and
                     applied again3t each county's 1985 manure acres to find its 1994 value.

                4.   To determine the year 2000 land use changes, the rates of change determined above for each
                     county where used in a straight line progression except those counties where agricultural
                     preservation measures are in place or land where an adjustment factor was introduced based on
                     discussion with local and/or state staff having expertise in these activities.


              Population Increases and Urbanization. Increases in population in the Bay watershed and their
            corresponding impact on land cover since 1985 can have significant impacts to nutrient loads. Calculations
            have been completed to determine the magnitude of these changes throughout the Potomac River basin.



              The basic methodology used in these calculations is as follows:


                                                                C-2








             1. Assume the vast majority of population increases since 1985 results in urbanization. Therefore,
                 increase population results in a corresponding increase in urban land area.


             2.  Data sources include U.S. Census Bureau for historic population data and geographic boundaries
                 by census tract and/or similar area; Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (University of
                 Virginia) for recent population estimates by county; and, Virginia Employment Commission for
                 future population projections by county.

             3.  Assign census tract or similar census-based geographic boundaries to its corresponding county and
                 WS Model segment by use of a geographic information system (GIS).

             4.  Relative population changes and annual growth rates since 1985 were determined for 1990, 1994,
                 and 2000.


             5.  Use the population annual growth rates to calculate the increase in urban land by county-segment
                 area. Proportionally adjust areas of remaining land use categories to reflect the reduction of non-
                 urban land use.


          Point Source Nutrient Loads


             Information used to develop the baseline point source nutrient loading estimates include the monthly
          discharge monitoring report (DMR) flow values for 1985, and nutrient concentration data.from a variety
          of sources. Nutrient concentrations for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) were either reported
          values or flow-weighted defaults that were computed using information on typical nutrient levels
          discharged by secondary treatment plants. These defaults are 6.4 mg/I for total phosphorus and 18.7 mg/1
          for total nitrogen. Since implementing the phosphate detergent ban in 1988, the default for phosphorus
          has dropped to 2.5 mg/l.

             Sources of reported values used to develop annual load updates include DMRs, Voluntary Nutrient
          Monitoring Program (VNMP) data, owner-generated data, compliance monitoring, special monitoring, and
          permit files. Industrial nutrient concentrations came only from these reporting sources. No default values
          were developed for the industrial dischargers.

             Owner-farnished discharge data provided during the assessment process have been used in the most
          recent load estimates and projections for future load figures. Work continues to verify sampling and
          analytical methods, and although the period of record may be less than a full year's data, the information
          has been used to characterize the discharge, especially to replace the use of default values. It has been
          generally agreed that monitoring must continue as plant flows increase in order to document whether or
          not current performance levels are maintained.




             Annual discharged loads for each plant were calculated using the equation:


                                                             C-3








                          ANNLD:= AVGFLOW x AVGCONC x 8.34 x 365


                         where: ANNLD is annual load in pounds per year
                                   ALVGFLOW is average of 12 monthly DMR flow values
                                   ALVGCONC is average of reported nutrient concentrations or default value
                                   8.34 is a conversion factor to translate mg/l per MGD into lbs/day
                                   365 is number of days per year

              As with nonpoint source loads, nutrient loads discharged from point sources above the fall line are
           "delivered" to the tidal tributary using transport factors derived from the WS Model. Due to in-stream
           chemical and biological. cycling, only part of the load coming from a plant above the fall line reaches the
           tidal portion of the river. These factors vary by river basin, and reflect such differences as distance to the
           fall line and scouring rates.

           Controllable Load and Nutrient Reduction Tanz


              The first step in developing the controllable nutrient loads for each locality requires determining the
           nutrient loads within each county as if their land use cover was 100% forest. These values were
           determined through specific model runs of the WS Model. As stated previously, these load values were
           calculated and assigned to their respective county -segment combination by analogous methods as used
           for base loads determinations. These forest load values represent the portion of the nutrient load that is
           uncontrollable and would occur no matter what reduction strategy is carried out. The difference between
           this uncontrollable load and the total nutrient load, both nonpoint and point sources, for each county is the
           controllable load that a reduction strategy can act upon to achieve the 40% reduction goal for the Potomac
           River. The last step in developing the reduction target is applying the 40% goal to each county's
           controllable load. The remaining nutrient load is now the reduction target and becomes the nutrient cap
           to be maintained from 1he year 2000 and into the foreseeable future.


           Nutrient Reduction Measures


              The best management practices and their nutrient reduction capabilities presented here are organized
           into four broad categories. The first group focuses on those practices used to reduce point source nutrient
           loads from wastewater treatment facilities. The second two groups describe practices and/or measures
           employed on nonpoint source loads from either developed or agricultural land. The fourth group looks
           at measures to protect land and/or water resources. The following discussion outlines the calculations done
           to quantified the various nutrient reductions taken within the Potomac River basin. Only those reduction
           practices known to be in widespread use and to have the potential for significant reductions are taken into
           consideration in the calculations. Additionally, if a practice is not currently accepted by the Chesapeake
           Bay Program participants as having quantifiable characteristics, it is also not considered in the reductions
           at this time.










                                                                C-4








           Wastewater Treatment Plants


              Point Source Nutrient Reduction. Nutrient reductions from point sources may be achieved by such
           measures as biological nutrient removal, chemical phosphorus precipitation, or wastewater irrigation.
           Virginia, along with the other jurisdictions, is actively exploring the use of biological nutrient removal
           (BNR), especially for those publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants located in the more densely
           populated areas of the watershed. Reductions are calculated based on the difference between nitrogen and
           phosphorus concentrations in the treatment plant discharge before and after implementing the specific
           reduction measure. Preliminary values for probable nutrient reductions and costs to execute have been
           tailored for each individual plant. As systems become operational, nutrient reductions will be better
           refined based on operational data.

              The basis for the cost estimates are fully explained in a report produced for the Bay Program by the
           Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB): Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and
           Nonl2oint Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies in the Chesapeake Bgy Basin (December 1992).
           ICPRB's report compiled information from two other studies on the costs to retrofit plants in Virginia for
           nutrient removal:


              0  POTW Nutrient Removal Retrofit Study, CH2M Hill Engineers (October 1989). Cost opinions in
                 this report were developed for the major POTWs discharging to Nutrient Enriched. Waters, under
                 the seasonal and year-round BNR scenarios.

              o  Assessment of Cost and Effectiveness of BNR Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
                 Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, and J. M. Smith & Associates (October 1988). Unit costs were
                 developed in this report for a variety of plant types and design capacities, at two levels of seasonal
                 nutrient removal - high level (nitrogen = 8 mg/l; phosphorus        2 mg/1), and low level (nitrogen
                 3 mg/l; phosphorus = 0.5 mg/1).

              In addition to the ICPRB Report, a May 1993 report by Engineering-Science, Inc. for the Metropolitan
           Washington Council of Goverrinients, contributed information used in the cost estimates. This report,
           Study of the Cost of Reducing Nitrogen at Metropolitan Washington Wastewater Plants, provided more
           recent data on future design capacities, daily flow projections, and retrofit options for four large Virginia
           Potomac Embayment facilities -- Alexandria STP, Arlington STP, Lower Potomac STP in Fairfax, and
           Mooney STP in Prince William.

              It is important to note that as a result of discussions with the plant owners involved in the study, it was
           decided to exclude the costs associated with operation and maintenance of the phosphorus removal systems
           from the scenario analyses. Therefore, the cost estimates reflect only the expense of the additional
           treatment components needed to achieve nitrogen removal (nitrification and denitrification stages but
           the load reductions depend on the continued operation of the phosphorus removal systems now in 121ace.
           Using information contained in the CH2M Hill report, this procedure was also applied to the other
           Potomac Embayment plants in the nutrient load estimate (Aquia STP, Dale City #1 STP, Dale City #8
           ST?, Quantico STP, and Upper Occoquan ST?) that were not included in the Engineering-Science study.

              Figures are presented in January 1996 dollars, and costs reported earlier were updated using the


                                                                C-5







           appropriate ENR index. Each plant in the Potomac load estimate was evaluated regarding requirements
           to meet Virginia's ammonia water quality standard, and a determination made about the nitrification
           capabilities that have been, or will be, installed to meet that need regardless of the Bay Program goal. A
           major difference between the figures in this strategy and all previous discussion documents and drafts is
           that the capital costs are, only for treatment systems needed above and beyond current (or pending) permit
           requirements. They ireflect the additional, incremental cost associated with the BNR components
           (principally denitrification) necessary to aid in meeting the Bay Program nutrient reduction goal.

           Developed Land

              Erosion & Sediment ControL This control measure has been carried out throughout the Chesapeake
           Bay watershed and uses various practices such as silt fences, sediment basins, check dams, diversions, etc.
           to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff during construction activities associated with land development.
           Sediment reductions are based on monitoring data that provided expected sediment yields from
           development activitiesand the performance standards of various erosion and sediment control practices.
           Sediment nutrient content data provided values to determine nutrient reductions. The cost of implementing
           these practices has been accepted and borne completely by the development industry as a cost of doing
           business. The reduction achieved by these various practices is counted in only the year in which the
           construction activity occurs.

              Acreage having the potential for being under erosion and sediment control practices, (i.e., disturbed
           acres), are reported to DCR each year by county and state hydrologic unit. It is assumed that the acreage
           is nearly constant in the short term for each given year. The average sediment erosion rate has been set
           at 45 tons per acre dis=bed with, on average, 0.0005 pounds of nitrogen per pound of soil and 0.0002
           pounds of phosphorus per pound of soil. Full compliance with the current state's erosion and sediment
           control regulations requires holding all sediment onsite during land disturbance activities. On average in
           the basin, effective compliance with the regulations is set at 25% for 1985, 52% for 1994, and 100% for
           the year 2000. Nutrient reductions were then calculated based on these values and delivered per the
           corresponding transport factor derived for each model segment.

              Septic System Management. Septic system management includes three specific practices to reduce
           nutrient losses from septic systems. 'Mey include regular pumping of the system, installation of nitrogen
           removing (i.e., denitrification) components, and bypassing a septic system by connecting to a sanitary
           sewer. Currently, regular pumping of septic systems is the only practice in widespread use. Reductions
           are limited to nitrogen caid are estimated from limited available literature and best professional judgement.
           Additional research is needed to quantify reductions better as that very limited data exist on delivery of
           nitrogen from drain fields to surface waters and on nutrient reductions from regular pumping of septic
           systems.

              The practice of septic pumping is applied, at a minimum, to all jurisdictions that fall within the
           Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) and was initiated, on average, in 1990. A limited number of
           localities outside of the CBPA jurisdictions have expressed a willingness to adopt provisions to require
           periodic pumping of septic systems, and future nutrient reductions have been calculated for those localities.
           The number of septic systems currently in place was taken from the U.S. Census and a 1994 study
           conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It is assumed that septic pumping


                                                                C-6







           prevents septic system failure at a rate of 8% per 25 years. Based on research conducted by others, it is
           estimated that 24 pounds of nitrogen per failed system could enter the natural water system if not prevented
           through some method. Nutrient reduction loads were calculated based on these values and delivered per
           the corresponding transport factor derived for each model segment.

              Urban Nutrient Management. Reductions due to urban nutrient management are dependent on
           efficiency of educational efforts to modify lawn fertilizer use by homeowners and others. Current
           reduction estimates are based on very limited research and survey data and are tentative at best. Urban
           nutrient management is currently being researched under the direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program
           Office. This management measure is critical to prevent and/or reduce nonpoint nutrient runoff in the
           urban/suburban areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to maintain the nutrient cap load after the
           reduction goals are met.

              A preliminary study in 1994 shows minimal consistency in the current application of this practice,
           primarily due to lack of knowledge of the users of lawn fertilizers and other chemicals. Education methods
           are being evaluated and it is assumed that by the year 2000 these efforts will cover a minimum of 10% of
           all urban lands within the Potomac River basin. In addition, a few localities have in recent years
           implemented, through educational or other methods, measures to promote urban nutrient management.
           Therefore, adjustments in the percentage of urban land covered have been made based on discussions with
           technical staff in those localities. Chesapeake Bay Program participants have agreed to a reduction rate
           for urban nutrient management. Nutrient reduction loads were calculated based on these values and
           delivered per the corresponding transport factor derived for each model segment.

              Retrofitsfor Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs). Modifying existing stormwater management
           (S WM) facilities to enhance water quality and/or retrofitting stormwater drainage systems to add water
           quality components in already developed areas can slow runoff, remove sediment and nutrients, and
           provide a basis in restoring eroded stream channels. A review of studies to date indicates that, on average,
           retrofitting is the most expensive reduction option per pound of nutrient removed when looking specifically
           at nutrient removal. The other benefits of these structures, though, such as flood and erosion control, can
           justifiably offset some of these costs. To determine a typical cost/benefit is difficult, as both the cost and
           efficiency of these modifications and retrofits vary greatly due to their site-specific nature.

              The Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) conducted a study in 1994 gauging the
           level of SWM/BMP retrofits, and their corresponding current reduction rates for those jurisdictions that
           fall within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Based on this study, acreage and reduction-rate estimates
           were derived for those localities within the Potomac River basin. Due to current and expected population
           distribution patterns, it was assumed that 95% of the SWM/BMP retrofits in the Potomac River basin are
           and will take place in the Northern Virginia region, with the remainder occurring in the Lower Potomac
           region. Nutrient reduction loads were then calculated based on these values and delivered per the
           corresponding transport factor derived for each model segment.

           Aizricultural Land


              Animal Confinement Runoff Management. The measure includes the use of roof runoff control,
           diversions, grass filters, etc. to reduce nutrient loss from water flowing through animal confinement


                                                                C-7







            operations. These practices are employed on farms throughout Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
            Nutrient reductions achieved by this measure vary greatly and are dependent on various factors, including
            the specific practices employed, the topography of the area, distance to receiving waters, and whether
            combined with other measures such as animal waste management systems. Research is being conducted
            under the direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program to contend for the inconsistencies in applying these
            measures and better refine the nutrient reduction typically achieved. Costs for nutrient reductions vary,
            contingent on the specific practices used and their corresponding installation and maintenance costs.

               Conservation Tillage. This method of crop production can be achieved by either planting crops into
            existing cover without tillage (no-till) or by utilizing tillage implements that leave most crop residue on
            the soil (minimum tillage). Nutrient reductions are calculated based on the difference (found in the
            Chesapeake Bay WS Model) between loading rates for cropland under conventional tillage practices and
            those for conservation tillage practices. Costs associated with implementing conservation tillage on an
            individual farm varies based on numerous factors including equipment costs, topography, types and
            percentage of crops produced, rotation practices used, etc.

               Changes over time in cropland acres under conventional and conservation tillage were derived, in
            general, from a trend analysis of each county's crop practice statistics gathered by the federal Conservation
            Tillage Information Center. Total cropland nutrient loads were then calculated using loading factors,
            efficiencies, and transport factors derived for each model segment. These loads were compared with those
            under the 1985 base year and the differences are the reported reductions for each county.

               Cover Crops. Planting of cover crops, such as rye, wheat, or barley, without fertilizer in the early fall
            traps leftover nitrogen so it will not leach into the soil and groundwater. It also reduces winter time erosion
            of the soil. Reductions of nutrient into receiving waters are derived from research conducted in the Bay
            area that has been corrected for differences in efficiencies associated with operational rather than research
            systems. Efficiency also varies across the watershed based on climatic suitability for cover crops and
            hydrology. Costs to implement this practice includes seed, equipment usage, and other typical planting
            costs except fertilizer application.

               Cover crops and several other agricultural conservation practices, such as grazing land protection,
            stream protection, grasised or wooded buffers and animal waste control facilities, are tracked under the
            State Agricultural Cost-Share Program. Acres, or number of facilities, covered by each of these practices
            are based, at a minimum, on historic reported figures and projected to the year 2000 based on historic
            implementation patterns. Chesapeake Bay Program participants have agreed to accepted reduction rates
            for most of these practices.

               Livestock Waste Management. Through the use of storage structures or lagoons to store animal waste,
            the waste can be used as a fertilizer source in crop production. This process reduces nutrient loads that
            would otherwise enter -the landscape without an opportunity for further and more efficient plant uptake of
            the nutrient source. Nutrient reductions for this management system were determined from animal waste
            scenario model runs of the WS Model. Costs of implementation vary based on the number and type of
            animals on the farm, soil conditions of the storage facility location, nutrient needs of the crop fields, etc.

               Nutrient Management Planning. Nutrient management involves a comprehensive plan to manage the


                                                                 C-8







          amount, placement, timing, and application of animal wastes, fertilizer, sludge, or residual soil nutrients
          to minimize nutrient-loss potential while maintaining farm productivity. Nutrient reductions for this
          management practice were determined from nutrient management scenario model runs of the WS Model.
          (Nutrient management plans are tailored to each individual farm and require analysis of the farm's crop
          production operation by a specialist versed in the development of these types of plans. Currently, one of
          the major limiting factors in increasing the application of nutrient management plans on agricultural lands
          is the shortage of qualified plan writers. In response to this need, Virginia has recently developed a
          program to certify private consultants to write nutrient management plans.) Nutrient load reductions were
          then calculated by applying loading factors derived for each model segment, removal rates as agreed to
          by Chesapeake Bay Program participants, and delivering the reductions per the corresponding transport
          factors derived for each model segment.

             Poultry Waste Management. This measure uses storage sheds to stockpile poultry litter from partial
          cleanouts required after each flock of birds is removed. Based on limited data and best professional
          judgement, nutrient reduction due to poultry waste storage structures is set at 30% of the Chesapeake Bay
          WS Model reduction for livestock waste management systems (see separate heading) for the same number
          of animal equivalent units (i.e., thousands of pounds of live weight). Cost to implement is dependent on
          similar variables as those discussed under Livestock Waste Management.

             Land Retirement. Land retirement of either highly erodible or other sensitive lands is the practice of
          taking agricultural land out of crop production and/or grazing and converting it by planting with a
          permanent vegetative cover such as grasses, shrubs, and/or trees. This practice stabilizes the soil and
          reduces the movement of sediment and nutrients from the land. The nutrient reduction is the difference
          between the previous land-use loading rate and that rate associated with the newly established vegetative
          cover. Costs to implement include the initial cost to plant the new vegetation and the loss of revenue for
          the former crop and/or grazing.

             Land retirement, at a minimum, includes acreage found in WS Model that correspond to the federal
          Conservation Reserve Program and additional acres taken out of farm production since 1985 under the
          State Agricultural Cost-Share Program, (e.g., reforestation and permanent vegetative cover). The acreage
          under the cost-share program are based on historic reported values and projected to the year 2000 based
          on their historic implementation pattern.

             Soil Conservation & Water Quality Planning. These plans, also known as farm plans, are
          comprehensive natural resource management plans, but the focus is typically on the use of erosion and
          sediment control practices to reduce sediment loss from cropland. Nutrient reductions for this measure
          were determined by an inter-jurisdictional workgroup to minimize any possible inconsistencies among the
          Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions and confirmed through conservation planning scenario model runs of the
          WS Model. Costs of implementation are variable and highly dependent on the topography and production
          goals of the farm. However, average cost per acre to implement has been assigned for the areas within the
          Potomac River basin by the same inter-jurisdictional workgroup noted above.

             Percentages of farm land under soil conservation and water quality plans was reported by a survey
          conducted by DCR and VPI in 1994/5. The percentages were applied against the cropland and hayland
          acreage as developed for conservation tillage calculations. For the year 2000, an assumption was made


                                                              C-9







           that; at a minimum, the acreage under these plans would increase to a total of 80% for those jurisdictions
           that fall under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the remaining jurisdictions outside of this area
           would have a 5% increase of the acreage from those in 1994. Nutrient load reductions were then calculated
           by applying loading factors derived for each model segment, removal rates as agreed to by Chesapeake
           Bay Program participants, and delivering the reductions per the corresponding transport factors derived
           for each model segment.

              Stream Protection ftom Livestock This measure requires excluding livestock from streams using
           fencing or other devices and providing remote watering facilities and stream crossings. The magnitude
           of nutrient reductions resulting from the implementation of this measure is still being debated by an inter-
           jurisdictional workgroup due to inconsistencies aniong the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions. Costs of
           implementation are variable and highly dependent on the topography of the farm and grazing fields.

           Resource Protection & Watershed Planninp-


              Forest Harvesting Best Management Practices (BMPs). This measure uses erosion and sediment
           control measures during forest harvesting activities. It is assumed that under proper implementation of this
           measure all eroding sediment is stopped and stabilized before reaching any receiving surface waters.
           Nutrient load reductions are estimated from data on average soil loss during harvesting activities and
           average nutrient content of forest soils. Typical costs of implementing these practices have been accepted
           and borne completely by the silvicultural industry as a cost of doing business.

              It is estimated that in any given year, I% of the state's forest land is undergoing harvesting activities.
           The assumption is that these harvesting activities generate ten times the nutrient loads than those of
           undisturbed forest lands. Furthermore, it has been agreed to by the Bay participates that BMPs for forest
           harvesting can achieve,, on average, a 50% reduction of the nutrient loads generated during harvesting.
           Based on discussions with the state's silvicultural industry representative, it is expected that the industry
           will have 100% compliance in properly implementing BMPs for all forest harvesting acreage in Virginia
           by the year 2000. For 1994, it is estimated that there is 61% compliance. Nutrient reduction loads were
           calculated based on these values and delivered per the corresponding transport factor derived for each
           model segment.

              Grassed or Wooded.Buffers. Vegetative buffers are established, typically 50 to 150 feet wide, adjacent
           to streams and other receiving waters to filter runoff of sediment and nutrients from adjacent land.
           Nutrient reduction estimates, developed in Maryland and applied throughout the Bay, are based on
           available research on buffer efficiency and vary due to physiographic province and hydrology. Further
           research is being conducted under the direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program Forest Buffer Synthesis
           Project to refine: nutrient reduction values. Grassed buffers are estimated to be 75% as efficient as forest
           buffers. Costs to implement vary based on such variables as current condition of the stream corridor and
           the adjacent land uses.

              Shoreline Erosion Control. This control measure uses structural (e.g., riprap, revetments, etc.) and/or
           nonstructural (e.g., marsh grass, vegetative buffers, etc.) components to reduce the direct loss of sediment
           into tidal waters. Reductions are based on research conducted and published by Virginia Institute of
           Marine Sciences in 1992. Cost to implement is dependent on the component(s) used and length of


                                                               C-10







           shoreline protected.

              Based this study, and accepted by the Chesapeake Bay Program participants, the Potomac River
           shoreline experiences an average shore erosion rate of 1.7 cubic yards per foot of shoreline per year. The
           study also established the loading rates of 0.93 pounds of nitrogen per cubic yard of shore and 0.61 pounds
           of phosphorus per cubic yard of shore. Feet of shoreline defended from erosion were determined for 1985
           through 1990. It is assumed that the rate of shoreline protection seen from 1985 to 1990 has and will
           continue at the same rate for the foreseeable Riture though the year 2000. Nutrient reduction loads were
           then calculated based on these values and delivered per the corresponding transport factor derived for each
           model segment.













































                                                              C-1 I

















 f.




 I





















                                             APPENDIX D


                             Description of Water Quality Modeling Scenarios















              Scenario                                 Description
                40%        40% reduction of controllable loads in "Agreement" states only and without
             Controllable  air reductions
             40% + CAA     40% reduction of controllable loads in "Agreement" states with Clean Air Act
                           atmospheric reductions
             40%+CAA+      40% plus Clean Air Act for the entire basin including DE, NY, and WV
               Basin
                LOT        Limit of technology (LOT) for nutrient reductions in the "Agreement" states
                           Loads from the Susquehanna basin and upper Bay coastal basins below the
             LOT-Upper     fall line down to, but not including Back River, were reduced to the Limit of
                           Technology (LOT) and the most comprehensive best management practices
                           for NPS controls. All other areas of the watershed were at base loads.
                           Loads from the Potomac basin and mid-Bay coastal basins below the fall line
             LOT-Middle    from Back River down to, but not including the Rappahannock River, were
                           reduced to the Limit of Technology (LOT) and the most comprehensive best
                           management practices for NPS controls. All other areas of the watershed were
                           at base loads.
                LOT-       Used to investigate Potomac basins impact on Bay dissolved oxygen levels.
               Mid(A)      Same as above except fall line and below fall line PS and NPS loads within
                           Potomac River and basin were left at base case levels as were upper and lower
                           regions of Bay.
                           All basin loads from Rappahannock down to the Bay mouth, were reduced to
              LOT-lower    the Limit of Technology (LOT) and the most comprehensive best management
                           practices for NPS controls. All other areas of the watershed were at base
                           loads.
             LOT-N Only    Limit of technology for nitrogen controls throughout the watershed with PS
                           3.0 mg/I while phosphorus and atmospheric levels were left at Base Case
                           levels
                           Limit of technology for phosphorus controls throughout the watershed with
               LOT-P       PS @ 0.075 mg/l while nitrogen and atmospheric levels were left at Base Case
                           levels
                Only
                90%        90% load reduction of 1985 nitrogen and phosphorus levels to the Bay.
               Reduction   Atmospheric loads to all water surfaces were eliminated.





                                                     D-I








































                                             APPENDIX E


                                    Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics
                            Reduction and Prevention Strategy -Progress Report









              CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE TOXICS REDUCTION AND
              PREVENTION STRATEGY -- PROGRESS REPORT



                      The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy was adopted by the
              Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in 1994. The Strategy addresses topics through four areas of emphasis:
              regional focus, directed assessments and research, regulatory programs, and pollution prevention. This
              report describes how these strategy areas are being implemented in the Potomac River Basin.

              Regional Focus

                      The approach to toxics reduction, unlike the more generally applicable nutrient reduction strategy,
              recognizes that toxics substances are generally more closely associated with urbanized and industrialized
              areas resulting in more localized and regionalized patterns of distribution. As part of this emphasis on a
              regional focus to reduce the impact of toxic chemicals on the Bay, the toxics strategy requires the
              development of regional action plans for watersheds which have been identified as regions of concern. In
              the Potomac River Basin, the Anacostia River has been identified as one such area of concern. The District
              of Columbia's Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program, in conjunction with the interested and affected
              industries, individuals, and organizations, developed the Anacostia River Toxics Management Action Plan.
              This plan, finalized in the summer of 1996, establishes the series of actions designed to address five major
              areas of toxic management: coordination and funding, public awareness, research and monitoring, source
              control and sediment remediation.


                      In order to provide a consistent means of focusing future regional toxic chemical reduction and
              prevention efforts, the Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee developed the Chesapeake Bay
              Chemical Contaminant Geographic Targeting Protocol. This protocol provides a five step approach for
              classit(ing regions into one of four categories: 1) areas with insufficient data for classification, 2) areas with
              low probability for adverse effects, 3) areas of emphasis, and 4) regions of concern. Classification is made
              based upon a review of all evidence which may support the presence or absence of a toxic contaminant
              within an area, in conjunction with two categories of geographic targeting criteria to determine existing or
              potential toxic effects. The evaluation of the data against the criteria is designed to assist in the
              determination of whether there is evidence of a causal relationship between the observed concentrations of
              chemical contaminants and observed adverse effects within a given region. The Tokics Subcommittee
              documents all classification determinations and forwards recommendations for those to be classified as
              regions of concern to the Chesapeake Executive Council for formal designation. As of the date of this report
              no additional areas of concern had been identified, or approved.


              Directed Assessments and Research


                      The data needs of the geographical targeting protocol are being served through DEQ ambient toxics
              monitoring and targeted United States Geological Survey (USGS) contaminant monitoring. The USGS,
              as part of its National Water Quality Assessment Program, has undertaken a water quality characterization


                                                                    E-I








                study of the Potomac River Basin. As part of this effort, the USGS completed a report on the occurrenc-. of
                two selected trace-elements, mercury and lead, as well as three organic contaminants, chlordane, DDT and
                PCB's. These compounds were selected because they tend to collect in, and be transported with, the
                sediments as well as accumulating in biological tissues. The study examined stream bed sediments at 22
                sites throughout the basin for the presence or absence of these compounds. Lead, mercury and DDT viere
                detected at all sites, chlordane and PCB's at most sites, with six sites exhibiting concentrations with the
                potential to cause frequent adverse effects on aquatic organisms. Of these six sites, five are located in the
                Virginia portion of the Potomac Drainage. Mercury contamination occurs at sites on the South River and
                the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, polychlorinated biphenyls at an additional site on the South Fork
                of the Shenandoah River, and chlordane, at Bull Run and Accotink Creek in northern Virginia.

                       DEQ has maintained a statewide ambient monitoring network since 1969. Currently, DEQ maintains
                180 ambient monitoring stations in the Virginia tributaries to the Potomac River. Of these 78 stations are
                monitored for toxic metals in sediments and selected organic chemicals. Raw data developed through this
                monitoring network is maintained in the Environmental Protection Agency's STORET database. Results
                and analysis of DEQ's water quality monitoring network which are required under the Clean Water Act are
                published in the biennial 305(b) Water Quality Inventory and Assessment Report.

                       As part of its overall effort to achieve a greater understanding of the type and amount of toxic
                substances entering'the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem from the surrounding drainages, the Chesapeake'Bay
                Program developed the Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory in March of 1994.
                The Toxics Loading Inventory is divided into three broad categories; 1) Loadings, which includes point
                sources, stormwater, atmospheric deposition and shipping, 2) Fall line Loadings, which includes tributary
                fall line estimates of annual toxic pollutant loads, and 3) Releases, which includes data from agricultural
                pesticide and industrial releases into the air, water and land reported under the Superfund Amendment and
                Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III). Due to the variability of data quality, broad nature of the report, and
                multiple data bases, the use of this reports findings are limited to generalized comparisons within the broader
                Chesapeake Bay.

                       The toxics loading and release inventory has established that 30% (32,000 lbs) of the total copper
                entering the Chesapeake Bay enters via the Potomac River. Lead and copper are toxic metals of concern
                which have a histor'y of introduction through atmospheric deposition. The Potomac River is also identified
                as providing 130 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, and 1,300 pounds of poly aromatic hydrocarbons,
                mostly in the forrn of flouranthene. The Potomac River drainage has a high urban land-use proportion
                compared to that of the overall Bay drainage. The Potomac River represents 22% of the watershed area of
                the Chesapeake Bay and 26% of the urban land-use area. The report also identifies four point source
                discharges as priority discharges within the Virginia Potomac river drainage. Of these, one (AVTEX Fibers)
                no longer discharges but remains an eligible Superfund clean-up site.

                Regulatory Programs

                       Within its Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) regulatory program, DEQ
                operates a toxic redaction initiative which is comprised of two phases. The Toxics Management Program

                                                                     E-2








              (TMP), requires point source discharges to monitor their effluent for toxic constituents. The results are
              compared against two levels of toxicity, acute or chronic, to which six criteria are applied. The standard of
              measurement is dependent upon the type of facility, flow and concentration. Failure to meet these criteria
              results in a facility being placed in the Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Program (TRE).Under the TRE
              program a facility must develop and implement a plan to eliminate the toxic component of its discharge.

                       Of the 85 facilities within the Virginia Potomac drainage 67 are either in the TMP phase, or have
              completed the TMP phase and been adjudged non-toxic discharges. Of the remaining 18 facilities, 4 no
              longer discharge either as the result of past enforcement action or business closure of the facility, 2 have
              approved TRE plans, 3 have completed the TRE process, 7 others are actively involved in the TRE process,
              and 2 should be in TRE based upon the results of the TNIP analysis. A list of these 18 facilities is provided
              in Table 1. The proportion of facilities in the Virginia Potomac Basin by discharge type is shown in Figure




              Table 1.           List of the treatment plants in Virginia' Potomac River Basin that are either 1) not in
                                TMP phase or, 2) have completed the TMP phase and been adjusted non-toxic
                                discharges.





                                                     Involved in TRE      Valley Milk Products
                                                                          Virginia Metal Craftcrs
                                                                          Wampler Longacre - Bradbury
                                                                          Waynetex
                                                                          Leesburg POTW
                                                                          Rocco Quality Foods
                                                                          Shenandoah STP


                                                     TRE Completed        Wampler Longacre - Hinton
                                                                          Wampler Longacre - Alma
                                                                          Lorton Prison


                                                     TRE Approved         Quarles Petroleum - Newington
                                                                          Star Enterprise - Fairfax

                                                     Needs TRE            Crown Central
                                                                          USMC- Combat Dev.


                                                     Discharge ceased     AVTEX
                                                                          Hoechst-Celenese Corp.
                                                                          O'Sullivan Corp.
                                                                          Snyder General Corp, Verona











                                                                          E-3










                                                          Facility Types in Virginia's
                                                             Potomac Tributaries

                                                   Minor Industrial




                                                                 59%






                                                                                       deral Facilities


                                                             7%                      Minor Municipal
                                                                    20%
                                            Major Industrial


                                                               Major Municipal


              Figure 1. Proportion of the 85 Treatment Facilities in Virginia's Potomac Basin by Discharge Type.



              Pollution Prevention


                      DEQ, wherever possible, seeks opportunities to encourage non-regulatory solutions to environmental
              issues. One such non-regulatory approach is Businesses for the Bay, a voluntary effort on the part of
              forward looking industries, commercial establishments and small businesses. The members of 1his
              organization are cornnfitted to implementing pollution prevention measures in their daily business operations
              and reducing chemical releases to the Chesapeake Bay. This initiative has the following goals: 1) achieving
              75% participation ol"businesses in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 2) achieving an aggregate reduction in
              the amount of chernJL'cal releases across the watershed, 3) increasing the number of businesses participating
              in the pollution prevention program, and 4) increasing the number of members involved in pollution
              prevention mentoring. Industries may receive recognition for their achievement through receipt of the
              Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Business for the Bay Excellence Award.
                                                      trial
























































                                                                   E-4







































                                                APPENDIX F


                              Progress Report on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
                 and Description of Preservation. and Protection Programs for Living Resources








               PROGRESS REPORT ON SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION AND
               DESCRIPTION OF PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAMS FOR
               LIVING RESOURCES


               SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION

                      The inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Potomac River is divided into three
               regions: an upper region (extending from Loudon County downstream along Fairfax County and
               Prince William County shorelines), a middle region (extending downstream along the Stafford
               County and most of the King George County shoreline), and a lower region (extending along the
               Westmoreland County and Northumberland County shorelines). The inventory includes the entire
               river and thus incorporates all of the Maryland portion of the river in addition to the Virginia
               embayments. The area of SAV (in hectares) in each river segment since 1991 is shown in Table 1.

                       Also shown are the restoration targets for SAV in the Potomac River. Three target levels of
               restoration have been established. Theyare defined as follows. Tier I Target: Restoration of SAV
               to areas currently or previously inhabited by SAV as mapped through regional and baywide aerial
               surveys from 19.71 through 1990. Tier II Target: Restoration of SAV to all shallow water areas
               delineated as existing or potential SAV habitat down to the one meter depth contour. Tier III Goal:
               Restoration of SAV to all shallow water areas delineated as existing or potential SAV habitat down
               to the two meter depth contour. (Tier I Target and Tier III Goal have been mapped for the Bay. The
               Tier II Target has not yet been mapped, due to incomplete bathymetric survey data.) The Tier I and
               Tier III areas (in hectares) for the Potomac River are shown in Table 1.

               Table 1.        SAV Inventory (hectares, 1991-1995) and Restoration Targets (hectares) for the
                               Potomac River.




                                1991          1992         1993          1994         1995        Tier I      Tier III

                Upper
                Segment         2044          1412         1413          982          644          3098        8304

                Middle
                Segment         1468          1552         1349          1310         1078         1847        7443


                Lower.
                Segment          83           46            58            139         185          1714        9342

                TOTAL           3595          3010         2820         .2431         1907         6659        25089





                                                                  F-I













              DESCRIPTION OF PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAMS FOR LIVING
              RESOURCES


                     Within Virginia, and the Potomac watershed, numerous programs exist to preserve,
              protect, and enhance the living resources and habitats of the Potomac and the Chesapeake Bay.
              These management wid landowner assistance programs, described below, range from the
              protection and enhancement of habitat, such as wetlands, riparian zones, submerged lands, and
              oyster reefs to the management of both freshwater and marine fishery stocks. Furthermore these
              programs help to address Bay Program commitments to achieve the goal of living resource
              restoration and protection. While these programs are essential to this effort, along with nutrient
              reduction strategies, it should be noted that successful restoration of living resources and their
              habitats is dependent on many factors. However, the successful implementation of the tributary
              strategies, and the achievement of its goals, will go a long ways towards the protection and
              enhancement of the Bay's living resources.

              Fisheries Management Program - VMRC

                     The Fisheries Management Program of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission is
              responsible for the conservation and protection of the marine fisheries of the Commonwealth for
              present and future generations. Management measures are based upon the best available
              scientific, biological., social and economic information, and are designed to prevent overfishing
              while achieving an optimum yield from each fishery. Species specific management plans are
              developed and implemented. Each plan contains goals, objectives and strategies which account
              for variations among, and contingencies in fisheries, fishery resource, and catches. Where
              practicable, the plans promote efficiency in the utilization of the resource, minimize regulatory
              burdens which inhibit innovation, expansion, and normal business operations.

                     Fisheries Management Plans (FMP's) are adopted on an as-needed basis, and are
              amended periodically as stock status changes or the information base improves. Currently, there
              are 14 FMP's in place or in preparation which cover 20 species of importance to Virginia's
              commercial and recreational fishermen. Presented below is a brief summary of each plan.


              Shad and River He


                     The Shad and River Herring Fishery Management Plan is designed to protect and restore
              Chesapeake Bay-wide populations of these species to generate the greatest long term ecological,
              economic and social benefits from these resources. The objectives of the plan include reductions
              in fishing effort and. a maintenance of sufficient spawning stock to reduce the probabilities of low
              reproductive potential. The Plan supports the existing bay-wide moratorium on American shad
              harvest and recommends a continuation of current programs to restock these species into areas
              which historically supported natural populations.

                                                              F-2









             Striped Bass

                    Coordinated, inter-jurisdictional management efforts have restored coastal striped bass to
             historic levels (as of January 1, 1995). The spawning stock biomass of mature Chesapeake Bay
             striped bass now exceeds the historical high average set from 1960-1972, and fishing mortality
             rates are below current target levels. Under the FMP, Virginia is committed to allowing harvests
             which maintain the spawning stock in a condition which perpetuates the populations of striped
             bass along the Atlantic Coast. Under the current plan, fishing quotas and seasons have expanded
             significantly and will continue to be modified to meet the needs of the naturally fluctuating
             resource.


             Blue Crab


                    The goal of the 1996 FMP is to manage blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay to conserve the
             stock, protect its ecological value, and optimize the long-term utilization of the resource. The
             plan specifies that the spawning stock must be maintained to minimize poor spawning success
             and allocation among user groups must be fair and equitable. The plan ftirther calls for the
             maintenance of existing regulations to stabilize the fishery, limit access to prevent
             overcapitalization, increase productivity and lower costs.

                    The blue crab stock behaves as one unit throughout Chesapeake Bay and its protection is
             dependent upon a unified, though not necessarily identical, management approach throughout the
             Bay jurisdictions.

                    Virginia will continue its management program initiated in October, 1994 and expanded
             in 1996. These measures included expansion of existing spawning sanctuaries, creation of new
             over-wintering sanctuaries, license caps, gear limits, escape rings in crab pots, and shortened
             crabbing seasons.

             Virginia Oyste

                    The Chesapeake Bay Oyster FNIP promotes the enhancement of oyster production in the
             Chesapeake Bay ecosystem by restoring habitat. controlling fishing mortality, promoting
             aquaculture and continuing replenishment efforts. Management strategies include continued
             monitoring of the prevalence and intensity of the parasitic oyster diseases, MSX and Dermo,
             modification of oyster replenishment efforts to include construction of artificial reefs and to set
             them aside as spawning sanctuaries, and evaluation of the feasibility of utilizing alternative non-
             native oyster species.

             'Weakfish/512eckled Trout

                    The goal of this FNIP is to protect the reproductive capability of the resource while
             providing for its optimal use. Objectives include maintenance of spawning stocks at a size which

                                                            F-3








              minimizes the possibility of recruitment failure. Currently a combination of closed fishing
              seasons, gear mesh restrictionsi quotas and recreational bag limits are utilized.

                     Weakfish stocks are severely overfished along the entire Atlantic Coast. The current plan
              contemplates modification of the present regulation regime over a period of the next three years
              to achieve stock recovery.

              Croaker/Sl2ot

                     Both of these species represent some of the most popular saltwater commercial and
              recreational fishes landed in Virginia. Each species is relatively healthy and'consequently
              management rne@sures are not contemplated by the fishery management plan. The plan instead
              focuses on the research and monitoring needs for both species. Information on recruitment, size
              composition and migratory patterns are needed to assess the impact of fishing activities.

              Summer Flounde


                     Summer flounder is the most valuable commercial finfish landed in Virginia. It is a
              popular recreational species as well. Coast-wide landings have shown a declining trend since
              1980. The current management plan promotes a rebuilding of the stocks over the next five years.
              A combination of commercial quotas, minimum size limits and recreational bag limits is utilized
              to reduce fishing mortality and improve stock biomass.


              Black Drum/Red D urn


                     Popular as trophy sport catches, recreational landings of red and black drum account for
              up to 90 percent of total landings. While trends in landings are not discerriable, catches of large
              mature fish have shown signs of decline. Assessments made during the late 1980's indicate that
              red drum spawningstocks; are overfished despite the adoption of regulations on harvest at that
              time. Currently,.the fishery management plan promotes the use of small daily catch limits of five
              fish for both commercial and recreational fishermen. Additionally, only one fish greater than 27
              inches may be taken. daily.

                     By contrast, black drum, whose stocks are not overfished, are pro-actively managed by a
              commercial quota, limited entry to the commercial fishing and a recreational bag limit of one fish
              per day. Additional management strategies include closure of historically recreational fishing
              areas to mobile commercial fishing gear. Avoidance of conflicts in high use recreational fishing
              areas is a key objective of the current plan.


              Bluefish

                     Bluefish represent one of the most significant species taken by the recreational fishery,
              and in particular by the charter boat and head boat fisheries. Recreational fishermen along the

                                                             F-4









            Atlantic Coast have accounted for up to 90 percent of total landings.

                  Bluefish have experienced declines since the late 1980's partly because of overfishing and
            partly due to changes in the migratory nature of the species. The management plan is currently
            being reviewed fbr potential amendments. The key objective of the current plan is to allocate the
            recreational fishery 80 percent of the total landings. This is achieved by restricting commercial
            landings through a quota based system and controlling recreational harvest through a daily
            possession limit.

            Black Sea Bass


                  The objectives of the Black Sea Bass FMP are to reduce fishing mortality to increase
            spawning stock biomass and to improve yield in the fishery. The recovery strategy calls for
            minimum fish sizes and commercial gear regulations in the first two years of the plan.
            Additional regulations will be added in years three through seven with maximum sustainable
            yield achieved in year eight.

                  Primanily an offshore commercial fishery, the commercial limits focus on minimum
            escape vents for fish pots and minimum mesh sizes for trawl nets. Commercial quotas and
            recreational fishing seasons will likely be needed in the near ftiture to achieve a substantial
            fishery.


            Tautoa


                  The goals of the Tautog FMP are to perpetuate and enhance stocks of tautog so as to
            allow a recreational and commercial harvest consistent with long-term maintenance of self-
            sustaining spawning stocks and to maintain recent (1982-1992) utilization patterns and
            proportions of catch taken by commercial and recreational harvesters. The plan utilizes
            restrictions on fish size and gear to achieve its objectives. Initial regulations must be
            implemented by April 1997 and will be modified through 1999 based upon the response of the
            stock. Biologically safe levels of fishing mortality are to be achieved by the year 2000.


            American Eel


                  The American Eel FMP is designed to manage the fishery so its harvest does not exceed
            the reproductive capacity of the population. A minimum size limit of 6 inches and mesh
            requirements for eel pots, the primary means of harvest, currently are in place to meet these
            objectives.

            Spanish and King Mackerel

                  Recent stock assessments indicate that management measures have been effective in
            rebuilding stocks. Mackerel stocks have been expanding their range and increasing in areas, like

                                                    F-5









              Virginia, where the), historically occurred but had declined or disappeared. Size limits, creel
              limits, and commercial quotas currently provide protection for the stocks. Compatible
              regulations throughout the south Atlantic states are responsible for stock recovery. Future
              measures will be designed to continue stock improvements.



                     Limited data, are currently available to describe the status of the Bay's blue catfish,
              channel catfish, white catfish, flathead catfish, and bullhead populations. These species are both
              harvested recreationally and commercially and are becoming a major component of the Bay's
              ecosystem. The channel, blue, and flathead catfish are all non-native species to the Bay and are
              experiencing range expansions. It is the goal of the Bay states to document the current
              distributions, relative abundance, life history, and ecology of these species prior to establishing
              management recommendations.


              Fisheries Manageinent and Non-Game Programs - VDGIF

                     The Fisheries Management and the Non-Game Sections of the Department of Game and
              Inland Fisheries conduct aquatic community and species specific surveys throughout the Bay
              watershed. The Warmwater Streams Project is an effort to survey existing aquatic resources,
              enhance garnefish populations, improve recreational access and opportunities, and protect critical
              habitat. A part of iffds project involves detailed surveys of the Bay's tidal and freshwater tributary
              resources and provides information to assist the Chesapeake Bay Program in drafting fisheries
              management plans Emd species restoration target documents. The Coldwater Streams Project
              manages Virginia's @coldwater stream habitats, through research, habitat development and
              surveys, and recreational species management. The Non-Game Program researches the life
              history, habitat associations, and current distributions and abundances of our non-game species.
              Information from each of these programs is used to manage Virginia!s fish populations through
              both non-regulatory and when necessary regulatory approaches so as to maintain optimum
              populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.

                     As part of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' aquatic management
              programs, the Department coordinates an American Shad Restoration Program in conjunction
              with various federal and state agencies and Virginia's inland commercial watermen. The current
              focus of the project targets the restoration of the American shad stocks in the James River, and to
              a lesser extent the York River watershed. The production and stocking of millions of fry into
              these systems since 1994 is hoped to lead to the restoration of this species. Similar restoration
              efforts are occurring on the Potomac River via the cooperative efforts of the USFWS and the
              Potomac River Fisheries Commission. Once restored, the American shad fishery will again be a
              valuable component of Virginia!s fishing-related, economy and will provide a valuable resource
              for anglers.


                                                            F-6








                    The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Fish Passage Program has been
             established to identify fish blockages to fish migration and to facilitate the design and
             construction of the fishways. A major component of restoring migratory fish populations to
             historic levels, includes providing passageways allowing fish to reach their historic spawning
             grounds. In addition to providing fish passage this program's staff participates in the trap,
             transport, and stocking of migrating adult blueback herring, the evaluation of potential shad and
             herring habitat through juvenile and adult monitoring, and the development of public relations
             and educational materials.



             HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LAND-USE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS


             Wetlands Management Programs

             Tidal Wetlands Manaaement


                    The use and development of vegetated and non-vegetated tidal wetlands throughout
             Virginia is managed by the Marine Resources Commission (Commission) and Local Wetlands
             Boards. Chapter 13 of Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia provides this authority and authorizes
             the adoption of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance and appointment of a wetlands board by each
             tidewater locality. If the ordinance is not adopted by the locality the Commission retains original
             jurisdiction. In all cases, however, the Commission must review each local decision. In either
             case it is the duty of the Commission to preserve and prevent the despoliation and destruction of
             wetlands while accommodating necessary economic development in a manner consistent with
             wetlands preservation.

                    In order to administer this program and assist tidewater localities, Wetlands Guidelines
             have been promulgated which were last reprinted in 1993. These guidelines have been
             developed with the assistance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). In addition
             VIMS maintains@'and updates an inventory of vegetated wetlands within each Jurisdiction in
             Tidewater Virginia (Table 3).

                    Anyone who wishes to use or develop tidal wetlands in Virginia must submit an
             application to the Commission. Through a Joint Permit review process theapplication is
             forwarded to the local wetlands board for action as well as to other State agencies for comment
             and review. All applications requiring a wetlands permit are considered at a public hearing
             before the local wetlands board or the Commission. For each wetland project VIMS provides an
             assessment of impacts through a Shoreline Permit Application Report. The same application is
             also provided to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for review under the requirements of the
             Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. In addition the application is considered by
             the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the Virginia Water Protection Permit
             Program.


                                                          F-7









              Nontidal Wetland Management

                     Nontidal wet lands in Virginia are managed by the Commonwealth through the Virginia
              Water Protectiorr (VWP) permit program. The VWP permit replaced the former 401
              Certification prograrn which prevented an applicant from receiving any federal permits prior to
              certification by the state that the proposed activities were consistent with state water quality
              objectives. Application for the VWP permit is automatic when an application is submitted to the
              U. S. Army Corps ol"Engineers (either directly or through the Joint Permit program).

                     Some nontidal wetlands are also subject to local regulation under the Chesapeake Bay
              Preservation Act (CBPA). The CBPA requires that riparian nontidal wetlands be included within
              a Resource Protection Area (RPA) designated by each locality within the Virginia coastal zone.
              Local regulations, aclopted pursuant to the CBPA, restrict activities within the RPA usually as
              part of local zoning and sediment/erosion control ordinances.

                     As part of the non-tidal wetland management programs in Virginia, the Virginia
              Department of Game and Inland Fisheries administers a Wetland Technical Assistance Program.
              This voluntary program, targets farm landowners with prior converted wetlands, sportsman's
              clubs, and a few corporate landowners, and offers them technical expertise to restore wetland
              areas for wildlife.


              Waterfowl Management Programs

                     As a member of the Atlantic Flyway Council, the Virginia Department of Game and
              Inland Fisheries manages waterfowl populations in concert with other eastern states in the
              Flyway. A waterfolml survey is conducted by all states during the first two weeks of January to
              provide a mid-winter index to bird numbers in the flyway. From the numbers that are collected
              in each flyway nationwide and annual breeding bird surveys in the prairies, sufficient
              information is available- for the federal government to establish a hunting framework that will not
              jeopardize waterfowl populations. In Virginia, survey results have indicated that over the last ten
              years, waterfowl populations in the Bay have been fairly stable with perhaps modest
              improvements in the last three years. In the Potomac, waterfowl numbers have been up over the
              last five years. This increase may be attributed to increased submerged aquatic vegetation,
              primarily Hydrilla, in this watershed. The species that have responded most to this increase in
              aquatic vegetation have been the canvasback, the scaup. and the ring-neck duck.

                     The Department also offers a technical assistance program to landowners wanting to
              improve waterfowl habitat on their property. These improvements may involve habitat creation
              or enhancement, or the installation of wood duck nest boxes or goose nesting platforms.

              Submerged Lands; Management

                     All submerged lands channelward of the mean low water line in tidal areas and the

                                                            F-8









              ordinary high water line in nontidal areas are considered State-owned pursuant to Chapter 12 of
              Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia. Any encroachment in, on or over these submerged lands is
              regulated by the Marine Resources Commission (Commission). Any activity, not authorized.by
              statute, must be permitted by the Commission. When reviewing any project for permit the
              Commission is guided by Article XI, Section I of the Constitution of Virginia and must consider
              the effect of the project on the following:
                 -   Other reasonable and permissible uses of state waters and state-owned bottomlands;
                 -   Marine and fisheries resources of the Commonwealth;
                 -   Tidal wetlands, except when this has or will be determined under the provisions of
                     Chapter 13 of Title 28.2;
                 -   Adjacent and Nearby properties;
                 -   Water quality; and
                 -   Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV).

                     When considering a project for permit the Commission consults with other state agencies
              and considers any potential project impacts reported by VIMS through their preparation of a
              Shoreline Permit Application Report. Subaqueous Guidelines have also been promulgated by the
              Commission which are considered for each project. These guidelines were last reprinted in 1993.
              Through these review procedures impacts to both living resources themselves and their habitats
              are evaluated.


                     Request for permits are submitted through a Joint Permit review process requiring the
              use of only one application that is submitted to the Commission. The application is forwarded to
              other agencies for review and action. This includes review by the U.S. Army Corps of
              Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. In addition the
              application is considered by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the Virginia
              Water Protection Permit Program.

              Virginia Water Protection Permit Program

                     Any project that requires federal permits for discharge of dredge material or fill in a
              waterway or wetland (U. S. Clean Water Act, Section 404), work or construction in a navigable
              waterway (U. S. Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10), or water withdrawal will be reviewed by
              the Virginia DepXtment of Environmental Quality for issuance of a Virginia Water Protection
              permit. Without the VWP permit (formerly called the.401 Certification) the federal permits will
              not be issued. Application for the VWP permit is accomplished through the Joint Permit review
              process and is thus simultaneous with other required federal and state permits.

              Dunes Manaizement Prop-rams (This may only apply to Coastal Basin strategies.)

                     Use or development of coastal primary dunes is regulated under the Coastal Primary
              Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance. This act is patterned after the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance and
              administered in the same manner. It applies, however, to only eight political subdivisions known

                                                             F-9









              to have coastal dunes along the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline. These
              jurisdictions are: the Counties of Accomack, Lancaster, Mathews, Northampton and
              Northumberland, and the Cities of Hampton, Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

                      As with the )Wetlands Zoning Ordinance the localities are authorized to adopt the model
              ordinance and utilize their wetlands board to evaluate each project. For those localities that have
              not adopted the dunes ordinance the Commission retains original jurisdiction. In all cases,
              however, the Commission must review each local decision.

                      In order to administer the program and assist the local boards in their review of projects
              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/Beaches Guidelines have been promulgated which were last
              reprinted in 1993. These guidelines have been developed with the assistance of VIMS. In
              addition, VIMS prepares a Shoreline Permit Application report for each proposed dune project.

                      Anyone who wishes to build in or encroach on a coastal primary dune must submit an
              application to the jtuisdiction or the Marine Resources Commission. All applications requiring a
              dunes permit are considered at a public hearing before the local board or the Commission.

              Reefs


                      Virginia has been the leader in implementing the Bay Program, Aquatic Reef Habitat
              Plan. Efforts are directed at restoring the historic, 3-dimensional reef habitat which should
              increase the reproductive success and survival of the beleagured oyster. Oysters and other reef
              dwelling species'are filter-feeders that consume large quantities of suspended organic particles
              through biofiltration. Nutrients that are consumed and recycled contribute to the overall nutrient
              reduction strategies. Currently, nine reef projects have been completed in optimal locations in
              the James, York, Piaaikatank, and Great Wicomico Rivers and at Fishermen's Island in the
              Chesapeake Bay. All reefs have been colonized with oysters and other reef dwelling species and
              some have already shown evidence of contributing to an increase in oyster stocks in the local
              area. In addition to -the construction of new reefs, MRC is also restoring natural oyster reefs
              throughout the Bay @md tributaries where oysters still reside, but where the reefs are in critical
              need of habitat renovation. All efforts at reef restoration contribute to an overall strategy of
              increasing the stocics of oysters in Virginia, and'thereby increasing the ecological and
              commercial value of the oyster resource.

              Upland Technical Assistance Program

                      The Upland Technical Assistance Program, administered by the Department of Game and
              Inland Fisheries, provides landowners with information to help enhance wildlife populations on
              their properties. Mzny of the habitat improvements may also serve to stabilize soil and reduce
              nutrient inputs to nearby waterways.

              Forest Stewardship Progm

                                                              F-10









                    The Forest Stewardship Program is a cooperative effort between the Department of Game
             and Inland Fisheries and the Department of Forestry and seeks to incorporate ecologically sound
             wildlife management techniques into forestry management plans and practices. Whenever it is
             appropriate, the activities of this program incorporate the concepts of the Chesapeake Bay
             Program's Riparian Forest Buffers initiative into their plans.
















































                                                           F-I I







































                                              APPENDIX G


                         Local Government Partnership Initiative - Progress Report








              LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE -
              PROGRESS REPORT

                     In an effort to facilitate local involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), the "Local
              Government Partnership Initiative" was adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council in November
              1995. The Initiative directed the CBP partners to create a Local Government Task Force to develop
              recommendations to promote local capacity to manage lind uses and facilitate local participation in
              the CBP. The Task Force focused on three key areas of restoration and enhancement of the Bay:
              land use management, stream corridor management, and infrastructure improvements. The Action
              Plan that resulted from the Task Force's efforts states that the CBP will "work with local
              governments during the next year to seek review and conu'nent on these themes, to request
              commitments to carry out these or revised themes, to solicit local government priorities for their
              achievement, and to report the results of these efforts with local governments to the 1997 meeting
              of the Executive Council."


                      The Task Force's Action Plan, which outlines their recommendations, was signed by the
              Executive Council on October 10, 1996. A copy of this Adoption Statement is attached.





























                                                               G-1





                                                        C H E S A P E A K E                E X E C U T I V E              C 0 U N C I L


                                                                   ADOPTION STATEMENT
                                                                        LOCAL GOVERNMENT
            Chesapeake. Bay Program                           PARTICIPATION ACTION PLAN



                                                  ased on the Local Government Task Force's recommendations in                    *the Participation
            Action Plan and in accordance with the Local Government Partnership Initiative adopted by the Chesapeake Exec-
            utive Council in November of 1995, we reaffirm the Bay Prograrr@s commitment to strengthening its partnership with
            local governments.



            T
                   he recommendations encourage local governments                  -  Implement measures to provide public access to the Chesa-
                   throughout the watershed to take or continue to take               peake Bay, its tributaries and streams and other parks and
                   the following actions in three theme areas that repre-             green spaces.
            sent local government initiatives to protect local and regional        -  Operate, enhance, and facilitate recycling, household haz-
            natural resources and contribute to the restoration and sus-              ardous waste collection, small business pollution preven-
            tained health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The              tion and solid waste management programs, in support of
            theme areas and specific actions are:                                     Bay Program pollution prevention objectives.

            Land Use Management                                                                 e commit the Chesapeake Bay Program through
            - Implement measures that reduce resource consumptive and                           the States and the Local Government Advisory
              costly sprawl patterns of development by encouraging the             W            Committee to work with local governments dur-
              revitalization of existing communities and promoting sus-            ing the next year to seek review and comment on these
              tainable development patterns.                                       themes, to request commitments to carry out these or revised
            - Implement and support measures to protect resource lands             themes, to solicit local government priorities for their achieve-
              such as agricultural and forested lands to conserve the              ment, and to report the results of these efforts with local gov-
              countryside and protect water quality and wildlife habitat.          ernments to the 1997 meeting of the Executive Council.

            Stream Corridor Promcdon                                                            e further commit the Chesapeake Bay Program
            ï¿½ Establish protective measures for the preservation and con-                       and its partners to take the following immediate
              servation of stream corridors.                                       W            actions that will assist local governments in
            ï¿½ Implement measures to coordinate and support individuals,            implementing activities that support the protection of the
              community associations, watershed organizations and non-             Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries:
              profit private interests EO protect, enhance, and restore wet-
              lands, forest buffers and stream corridors important to              Broaden Outreach Efforts and Improve Communications
              water quality and plant, fish and wildlife habitat.                     Support efforts by local watershed organizations, civic asso-
                                                                                      ciations, and land conservancies/trusts to build consrituen-
            InfTascrucrure Improvements                                               cies that would support local government decisions or
            ï¿½ Implement measures to upgrade sewage treatment plant                    investments in protecting or restoring the Bay, its rivers and
              facilities to improve water quality through the implementa-             streams.
              tion of nutrient removal technologies.                                  Disseminate regional updates on the progress being made in
            ï¿½ Implement measures to upgrade, maintain and inspect                     protecting and restoring local rivers and streams and
              scormwater management infrastructure to protect water                   actions that can be taken to improve their health to local
              quality.                                                                governments.
            ï¿½ Impt ement measures to encourage the proper use and peri-               Participate in annual local government association meet-
              odic maintenance of septic systems to protect water quality             ings/conferences to inform local governments how local
              and plant, fish and wildlife habitat.                                   actions contribute to the protection and restoration of
                                                                                      streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.







              ï¿½  Utilize existing local government technical and informa-               to further assist local government implementation of
                 tional assistance providers as vehicles to distribute infor-           Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration activities.
                 mation and outreach on issues related to the protection             *  Develop a compendium of Federal, State, non-p'ro'ftt and
                 and restoration of the Bay, its rivers, and streams.                   private assistance programs that provide local governments
              ï¿½  Develop concise informational materials that are tailored              with resources to implement Bay protection activities, as
                 to the local government audience in order to better com-               well as establish a local to local mentoring program.
                 municate and share information with local government                *  Plan for and provide financial assistance for a representa@
                 officials and staff regarding the Chesapeake Bay effort.               tive number of local governments to attend functions of
              ï¿½  Produce Bay Currents quarterly newsletter to share local               the Program, such as conferences, workshops, meetings,
                 11 models" and facilitate the exchange of information                  whenever the main objectives or topics are relevant to
                 between and among loc2l governments in the watershed.                  authorities or interests of local governments.
                 Also, broaden its distribution to both elected officials and           Explore proposals for Clean Water Act authority (through
                 staff persons in each Bay Program jurisdiction, make it                reauthorization of the Act) for a Challenge Grants program
                 accessible on the InEemei:, and announce its availability to           dedicated to small watershed organizations and local gov-
                 local -overnments in non-signatory states.                             ernments to supplement state implementation grants h
                 Broaden the utilization ofthe Internet and facsimile broad-            this area.
                 casts to better corrununicate with local government offi-           -  Seek funding from EPAs Sustainable Development Chal-
                 cials and staff.                                                       lenge Grant program to assist in the implementation of this
                                                                                        Action Plan.
              Recognize Local Government Efforts                                     -  Identify and publicize single points of contact for local gai,
              ï¿½  identify and catalogue restoration and protection success              ernments to obtain "how to" information related to the
                 stories that ran serve as models to assist other local gov-            protection and restoration of natural resources. The singie
                 erriments in their efforts to protect stream corridors,                point of contact should provide local governments wirh
                 improve infrastructure and manage land use.                            technical support, financing options, and a compendiumof
              ï¿½  Initiate the Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities Program                technical and financial assistance programs that are avail-
                 as a mechanism to provide recognition and support to local             able to local government officials and support Bay prote,:-
                 a0vernments protecting the Chesapeake Bay.                             tion efforts.
              ï¿½  Continue to support the Local Government Advisory                      Examine alternative financing solutions that will assist
                 Committee's Community Innovation Awards Program.                       local government efforts to restore stream corridors, imple-
              ï¿½  Utilize Bay Currents newsletter to promote local govern-               ment land use management measures, and improve infia-
                 merit accomplishments.                                                 structure. A compendium of financing options will be
                                                                                        developed by.September 1997 for disaribution by signatoi.-y
              Strengthen the Voice of Local Government                                  states to local governments.
              in the Development of Bay Program Pblicy
              ï¿½  Convene periodic local government roundtable meetings              Provide Scientific Data to Local Governments
                 in each of the jurisdictions.                                          Broaden the scope of the Chesapeake Bay Program Dara
              ï¿½  Create a network of local officials and staff with specific            Center to meet local government informational needs
                 expertise in dealing with resource protection issues.                  through the implementation of Chesapeake Information
              ï¿½  Identify local officials with appropriate expertise to serve           Management System.
                 on Bay Program Eechnic:al subcommittees and workgroups.                Prepare information on the impacts of septic systems on
                                                                                        local resources and the Chesapeake Bay.
              Provide Technical and Finarixial Support to                               Identify models, technologies, and practices that can lie
              Local Govemments                                                          used to assess and minimize the impacts of different devel-
              ï¿½  Chesapeake Bay Program will target Bay Program funding                 opment patterns on water quality.
                 to assist local government Bay restoration efforts.                    Prepare and distribute technical information on the costs
              ï¿½  Investigate the feasibility of developing a "Voluntary Com-            and benefits of implementing environmentally sensitive
                 munity Audits Program!' designed to help communities                   land use management measures, stream corridor protecticn
                 identify sources of polluition entering local streams and              initiatives, and infrastructure improvements.
                 rivers and recommend actions, in the form of tools and                 Provide periodic technical exchanges with local govern-
                 techniques, to reduce and prevent pollution, and protect               menc officials on alternative stormwater management prac-
                 water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.                           tices, Biological Nutrient Removal techniques, and other
                 Investigate the feasibility of establishing a non-profit entity        emerging technologies that help protect water quality.





                                                                                2





           T
                   he Local Government Advisory Committee will monitor and track the progress of the Action Plan recommendations,
                   provide guidance to the implementation process when called upon, and report on its progress'ro the Implementation
                   Commictee and the Principals' Staff Committee.

                      e the undersigned, adopt the Local Government Task Force recommendations directed to the Chesapeake Bay
                      Program, and endorse the Local Government Participation Action Plan to strengthen our partnership with local
           W          governments in the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, its rivers and streams.

                                                                                               DATE



                                                  CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL




           FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA





           FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND




           FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA





           FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA






           FOR TIM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA






           FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION

















 4



























                                            APPENDIX H


                                     Southern Shenandoah Region:
                                        Tributary Assessment














                              POTOMAC TRIBUTARY STRATEGY

                                   Southern Shenandoah Region

                                             Augusta County
                                             Highland County
                                               Page County
                                           Rockingham County
                                           City of Harrisonburg
                                             City of Staunton
                                           City of Waynesboro







                                             August 27, 1996















                                 DRAFT REGIONAL TRIBUTARY STRATEGY


                                    Southern Shenandoah Region - 8/27/96


                    Executive Summary       ...................................           i

             1.     Policy Statements    .....................................            1

             11.    Background     .................................... ......            2
                    A. Process     ..........................................             2
                    B. Agriculture .........................................              3
                    C. Point Sources    ......................................            6
                    D. Urban NPS     ........................................             7


             Ill.   Draft Regional Strategy   .................................           9
                    A. Strategy    .........................................              9
                    B. Expected Results     ...................................           10
                    C. Funding     .........................................              10
                    D. Cost Estimates    .....................................            10
                       Table 1: Strategy Cost Summary      .......................        10a
                       Table 2: Strategy Activities and Estimated Costs by County . .     10b
                       Table 3: Cost Efficiencies of Proposed Activities   ...........    10c
                       Table 4: Projected Results and Costs for Year-Round BNR . .        10d
                    E. Supplemental Reductions for Point Sources     ...............      11



             APPENDICES:
                    A. Agricultural BMPs by County
                    B. Point Source Information Sheets
                    C. Detailed Reduction Charts by County and Region
                           1. Current/Projected Activities
                           2. Current/Projected Activities Plus Proposed Strategy
                    D. List of Participants in Strategy Development









                                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


              Regional Goal:
              As part of its responsibility under the multi-state Chesapeake Bay Agreement to reduce nutrient
              pollution 40% by the year 2000, the Commonwealth is now developing a nutrient reduction
              strategy for the Potomac Basin. The Southern Shenandoah Region is committed to reducing
              nutrient loads by 40%, given appropriate resources. This Draft Regional Strategy lays out the
              ways that the localities in the region feel that this can best be accomplished and how much these
              efforts would cost.


              Non-Point Sources (NPS):
              Approximately 75% of the region's nutrient loads are estimated to come from NPS, with farming
              being the largest component. Urban NPS loads are fairly small. Urban acres make up only a few
              percent of the land area. However, urban pollution control measures will be increasingly critical
              in the future in order to maintain the cap at 40%.
                  The agricultural community has been very active in implementing nutrient management
              practices and additional improvements are projected under current programs and policies.
              Without additional funding, and even accounting for increases in growth in the poultry industry,
              the NPS sector is projected to come close to achieving 40% reductions within the sector.
                  It is important to note, however, the current severe economic crisis in the Valley's top
              agricultural sectors, poultry and beef. These two industries are not in the expansion mode and
              farmers cannot afford costly mandates.

              Point Sources:
              Ten treatment plants in the region are included in the Strategy as meeting the criteria of
              discharging in 1985 at least 0.5 million gallons per day of sewage or, for industries, the equivalent
              nutrient load. Appendix B contains detailed information on each plant.
                  Publicly Owned Treatment Works - The region is fortunate that two of the largest plants,
              Harrisonburg-Rockingham Regional Sewer Authority's (HRRSA) North River plant and the
              Augusta County Service Authoritys (ACSA) Middle River Regional plant were recently redesigned
              and can be adapted to biological nutrient removal (BNR) fairly cost effectively. HRRSA will install
              BNR at one of its basins (20% of its current flow) in fall 1996. ACSA is already showing extremely
              good reduction numbers on its Middle River and Stuarts Draft plants, but it is likely that these
              plants would have to be upgraded to BNR in order to sustain these low concentrations as flows
              increase and the chemistry changes within the oxidation ditches. ACSA's Fishersville plant also
              is achieving significant nitrogen reductions but would be more costly to upgrade than the
              oxidation-ditch designs. For Waynesboro in particular and other smaller, older plants, conversion
              to BNR would be prohibitively expensive at the existing facilities. However, in conjunction with
              expansions or upgrades, and with grant funding, conversion to BNR could be feasible.
                  Industries - Several of the plants in the region are under study; results will not be available
              until late summer 1996 at the earliest. Industries cannot predict future flows and processes.
              However, without exception in the region, the participating industrial plants already have achieved
              reduced nutrient discharges compared to the baselines in the state's August 1995 draft. This is


                                                                i                                  8122196 sshendraft








               due to unique factors in each plant.

               Status Towards the 40% Reduction Goal:
               On the current course (current and planned programs), total projected 2000 reductions for the
               region would be 31.9% for nitrogen and 32.6% for phosphorus.
                   Under this Draft Regional Strategy, the 2000 reductions would be estimated at 43.5% per-cent
               for nitrogen and .40.4% for phosphorus. The total cost is estimated at approximately $6.8 mil lion,
               with $5.4 million proposed to be paid by the state. Local costs are expected to exceed $1.3
               million.


               Summary of Recommended Strategy Actions:
               The Strategy relies primarily on additional agricultural measures implemented through the
               state's voluntar@y cost-share program as the most cost-effective means of achieving the goal.
               The Draft Strategy assumes outside funding and that additional resources would be available
               by the end of 1997.

               1 ) Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) would be required by local ordinance on all intersive
                   agricultural operations.
               2)  Additional state staff would be provided to write these NMPs.
               3)  Increased cost-share funding for Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be provi&d to
                   the Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs).
               4)  Additional staff would be provided to the three SWCDs to overseE, increased BMP activity.
                   It is anticipated that the major additional activities would be in the areas of stream fencing,
                   grazing land protection, stream protection, and animal waste control facilities (poultry litter
                   sheds, dairy pits and loafing lot systems). -
               5)  Seventy-five percent (75%) cost-share funding would be offered orl all animal waste control
                   facilities (removing the cost-share funding cap on these practices). The impact would be
                   greatest on dairy pits, which cost an average of $100,000 each. Additional cost-share funding
                   would have to be provided to cover this extra cost without drawing resources from cther
                   practices.
               6) Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) technology would be installedat one basin of HRRSXs
                   North River treatment plant.

               Additional Recommendations:
               7)  Voluntary monitoring for total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations should be undertaken
                   at all point source plants in the basin with flows of 0.5 mgd or the equivalent.
               8)  The state needs to continue to improve its efforts to verify the loadings from the Southern
                   Shenandoah region; monitoring data and modeling information should be distributed more
                   widely.
               9)  Grant funding for BNR should be included for future point source facility upgrades and
                   expansions.





                                                               ii                                 &22/96 sshendraft









                                          1. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS

              1 ) No Unfunded Mandates - The Southern Shenandoah region supports the state's partnership
                  approach as expressed on p.2 of the August 1995 Draft Potomac Basin Strategy: "To achieve
                  our goal, the Commonwealth will not establish any unfunded mandates nor will any
                  requirements untaiffy place responsibility for nutrient reduction on limited segments of citizens
                  or businesses. "

              2)  Voluntary Methods - Localities in the region support voluntary efforts to achieve the
                  reductions in both point-source and non-point source sectors. Good examples are the
                  recently signed bills that expand tax credits for agricultural BMPs and the Agricultural
                  Stewardship Act, which puts resources towards correcting "bad actors" rather than
                  encumbering all farmers unnecessarily. For the point sources, it is particularly important that
                  the tributary strategy be kept apart from the state's regulatory function and remain a voluntary
                  program with state support.

              3)  Regional Participation -All localities in the region are critically evaluating their programs and
                  policies that affect nutrient pollution and plan to develop strategies toward reaching the 40%
                  reduction levels. However, elected bodies have not had the opportunity to address the issue
                  thoroughly.

              4)  Efficiency - The most cost-effective and achievable options overall should be sought.

              5)  Research - More needs to be known about the transport of nutrients from upland streams to
                  the Bay. Increased understanding of these complex relationships is needed, to be confident
                  that resources are spent on the best actions to improve conditions in the Bay. There should
                  be continual effort to justify costs and prove benefits (i.e., that the millions of dollars spent will
                  have positive effects).

              6)  Expanded Monitoring - Monitoring above the fall line and in this region is needed in order to
                  make a stronger link between efforts and results.

              7)  Point Sources
                  a) Do not target 40% reductions from each plant individually.
                  b) Use annual average performance levels, not monthly permit limits.
                  c) Recognize that existing treatment plants were not designed to remove nutrients. Plant
                     operators have been frustrated in the past by new goals requiring expensive new
                     processes, with little coordination or flexibility.
                  d) Plant operators intend to cooperate and work together within the region.
                  e) Plan must be cost effective; timing is part of cost effectiveness.







                                                                                                        8/22/96 sshendraft









                                                      ILBACKGROUND


               A. PROCESS

                   Participants in the Southern Shenandoah Region (listed in Appendix D) have warked
               throughout the spring and summer of 1996 to review the status of nuthent reduction efforts and
               to identify ways to meet the 40% goal. The Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission
               has coordinated meetings calling together representatives from all localities in the Southem
               Shenandoah (locality staff, soil and water conservation district representatives, extension agents,
               and public and private treatment plant operators). This report is the culmination of discussions
               among these sectors.

                   These meetings within the region have raised the level of understanding and encouraged
               participation among those who can contribute to the strategy. Having all sectors represented has
               resulted in greater awareness as a group of the different perspectives cn what is currently being
               done and the factors involved in undertaking additional efforts.

                   Every attempt was made to gather information to verify the numbers, presented in the state's
               1995 draft. Each locality identified staff to assist with this task, the three SWCDs and extension
               offices provided information, and each point source was contacted individually.

                   The data frorn these local sources are presented in the Appendices. Appendix A shows, the
               agricultural practices in place now, those planned under current programs, and what could be
               achieved with greater resources. Appendix B gives information on each individual treatment
               plant. Together this information from the local sources was put into the state model (Appendix
               C) in order to estimate reductions.

                   More data could always be gained, but this draft does represent the best available local
               review at this time. The most important remaining gaps in information are on the point source
               side.   Researchers are working with a number of the treatment plants in the Southern
               Shenandoah region but study results will not be available until late summer 1996 at the earFest.

                   The participants overwhelmingly support working together as a region. This Draft Strategy
               is therefore expressed not in terms of a local scorecard but as a region.

                   An important caveat to these recommendations is that, given the limited time frame and the
               complexity of this topic, local elected officials have not generally had the opportunity to consider
               the strategy. This general public also is not very aware of these issues.








                                                                2                                   W21,96 sshendraft









             B. AGRICULTURE


             Importance of Agriculture
                 Among the regions in the Potomac Basin, the Southern Shenandoah Region is distinctive for
             its highly productive farms. Rockingham County and Augusta County, two of the largest counties
             in the state geographically, typically rank #1 and #2 in farm income, with Page County also in the
             top five. Farming is a mainstay of the local economy and is central to the cultural identity of the
             region. All of the local comprehensive plans call for maintaining a strong agricultural base, with
             agriculture as the desired predominant land use. Agriculture is intertwined with the overall
             economy, as agriculture drives substantial additional jobs in the processing industry and related
             businesses.


             Recent Trends
                 Most Valley farmers are good stewards of the land and their use of practical and cost-effective
             measures on agricultural acres is projected to bring most of the localities close to their 40%
             reduction goal for non-point source pollution. In terms of reducing agricultural nutrient loadings
             even further, the region has the greatest practical knowledge of appropriate methods and
             associated challenges.
                 Significant progress has come about in the past 10 years in reducing nutrients from
             agricultural activities, in part because of increased public awareness and programs like the
             Chesapeake Bay Program's Agricultural BMP (Best Management Practices) Cost-Share Program.
             Through this program, farmers who volunteer to install BMPs on their farms have been offered
             cost-share funding to offset some of these costs.
                 Recent changes in state law (tax incentives and the Agricultural Stewardship Act), federal
             policy (the new Farm Bill), and private sector actions (such as the move by the poultry industry
             to require nutrient management plans for all growers by 2000) will encourage further progress.

             Type of Farming in the Region
                 The dominant farming sectors in the Southern Shenandoah are livestock (cattle, dairy cows,
             and sheep) and poultry. In 1992, Rockingham County and Augusta County ranked first and
             second in the state for beef cattle, sheep (with Highland County third), and hay production, and
             first and third for dairy cows. Poultry has grown considerably in the last decade, but is not
             projected to grow much more in these counties. The region contains much pasture and crop land.
             Most crop production is for livestock feed, with the main crops being corn, wheat, and barley.

             Current Farming Crisis
                 The two main agricultural sectors in the Valley, poultry and beef, currently are under great
             stress. As a result, neither is in a growth mode. The beef industry is suffering from the double
             blows of skyrocketing grain (feed) costs and plummeting prices received for cattle sold. The
             poultry industry also is squeezed by the price of feed - earlier this year the price of a bushel of
             corn was the highest in history - and by decreased sales projections. Any requirements that
             would increase the cost of doing business would add significant financial stress to farmers.




                                                              3                                  8/22/96 sshendraft










                Potential for Nutrient Pollution
                   Waste from animals is a significant source of nutrient loadings. Tho, main method to prevent
                pollution from agricultural operations is the use of BMPs. Pollution enters a waterway directly
                (from animals having access to a stream or from a stream running through areas where animals
                are concentrated) or is carried into the water in sediment from farmland containing improperly
                handled manures or commercial fertilizers. Nutrient manqgement ensures that manures and
                fertilizers are contained, kept out of the rain, and applied to the land properly. A signifilmilt
                amount of sediment comes from raw streambanks (some estimates put the figure at 50%).
                Therefore, efforts; to stabilize streambanks do a great deal to capture nUtrients before they reach
                the stream.
                   Nutrient management plans specify appropriate steps for controlling nutrients. In many cases,
                additional BMPs, such as animal waste control facilities, are the most practical way to implement
                a plan.

                Effective BMPs for the Valley
                   BMP cost-share funding in the region has never been high enough to serve all of those,,,vho
                express interest in the program. With additional funding, more practices could be achieved, still
                on a voluntary basis. A listing of the practices and levels of use in each county (current and
                projected) is presented in Appendix A.

                1 )Animal Wasto Storage Facilities - A highly effective BMP, storage facilities allow animal waste
                   to be stored safely until time of application, which is generally in the late spring and in the fall
                   as crops are planted. Types of facilities include liquid waste pits for dairies, sheds and dry-
                   stack storage for poultry litter, and loafing lot systems for beef cattle. To demonstrate the
                   importance of the cost-share BMP program, an estimated 90% of tile animal waste facilities
                   now in place in Augusta County were installed over the last 12 years, since the program
                   began.
                       Liquid waste pits are the most expensive (costing between $65,000 and $110,000 each).
                   Current state policies enforce a cap on cost-share of $20,000 ibr these facilities. Few
                   additional pits are expected under the current program because most farmers who can afford
                   to and are willing to pay the up to $90,000 remainder have already installed pits. A critical
                   component of the regional strategy is lifting the cap on state cost-,share funding.

                2) Land BMPs - Practices such as crop rotation, conservation tillage, and cover crops work by
                   slowing water down and helping to keep nutrients on the land. These practices have been
                   familiar for a long time but the Bay program has increased their use.

                3) Fencing Livestock from Streams - This practice includes adding alternative water sources.
                   Fencing has been an increasingly popular and successful practice in some parts of the region.
                   However, the terrain in the Valley makes it impractical in many cases to fence off pastures.
                   Many farms do not have terrain appropriate to fence off their fields. Floods can wash away
                   fences, necessitating repeated expenditure of time and money. In some areas, fencing would
                   result in significant loss of usable acres.



                                                                   4                                   8122196 ssherldraft









             4)  Nutrient Management Plans - Nutrient management plans address the production of nutrients
                 on a farm and the appropriate storage and use of the litter or manure. These nutrients are
                 a valuable source of fertilizer and also a component in feed. As noted earlier, additional
                 BMPs (actual structures) may be called for in order to fully achieve the benefits of a nutrient
                 management plan. Some nutrients are exported off the farm to a nutrient-deficient area (often
                 within the same county, but in the case of Page County typically to counties east of the Blue
                 Ridge Mountains). Litter brokers in Rockingham County have moved approximately 210,000
                 tons of litter in the seven-year period from 1989 to 1995. Eighty percent of this litter has left
                 the county.

             5)  Streambank Protection - Stabilizing the stream bank, (idea I ly with natural vegetation or trees)
                 prevents erosion and the vegetation can take up excess nutrients from adjoining land. Trees
                 are especially effective at taking up nutrients. The degree of work entailed can vary greatly,
                 from regrading the bank and planting vegetation (bioengineering) to merely excluding
                 livestock and allowing woody plants to reestablish on the bank naturally.

             6)  Forested buffers are an important complement to streambank protection. These buffers can
                 work very effectively to absorb nutrients and capture sediment. They can be appropriate
                 adjacent to all land uses, including those in urban settings. There is a federal standard in
                 place in Virginia for forested buffers and the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Natural
                 Resources Conservation Service are willing and knowledgeable cooperators in expanding
                 and maintaining riparian forests.

             Administrative Structure
                 The administrative structure for applying BMPs is already in place through the Soil and Water
             Conservation Districts and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. With
             additional funding, more benefits could be achieved through this structure.
                 One exception is the use of forested buffers. There would need to be a comprehensive effort
             to promote riparian forested buffers. Such an initiative should contain incentives, a strategic plan,
             and attention to standards for the buffers.


             Growth in Agriculture
                 Ironically, agricultural intensification occurs alongside population growth, as farmers have less
             land available on which to farm. However, in a properly implemented nutrient management plan,
             these excess nutrients can be exported to a nutrient-deficient area as noted above.

             Links to Other Issues
             1) Groundwater Pollution - The region has a high reliance on groundwater. Groundwater pollution
             is a local concern, as the Southern Shenandoah Region is underlain by porous limestone
             formations that have a high potential for pollution. Therefore, while the region is trying to
             accommodate the goals of preventing nutrient loads from entering waterways and reaching the
             Bay, it also is very concerned with preventing nutrients from seeping into the groundwater.
             2) Impact on Development Pattern - Land use is a major concern. It is hoped that the Tributary
             Strategy does not inadvertently encourage scattered development on septic systems because of


                                                               5                                   a/22/96 sshendraft








                limits and costs placed on sewage treatment plants. Local governmenis in the region are tr          'jing
                to target development to those areas with public water and sewer Systems. Costly sewage
                treatment plant upgrades to implement Biological Nutrient Removal (BlqR) would likely reSUIt in
                rate increases that would make development on septic tanks seem more cost effective. The
                resulting sprawling development pattern would undermine efforts to retain the agricultural base
                and manage growth. Also, continued reliance on septic systems could lead to pollution not only
                of groundwater but of the surface waters flowing to the Chesapeake Bay.

                Regulation
                   Regulation of farmers is not a realistic approach for this region. Mu& has been accomplished.
                in a fairly short time with volunteer incentives. With increased incentives, additional gains can
                be made. In addition, there is now, through the Agricultural Stewardship Act, which is complaint
                driven, the means to target resources directly to problems.
                   Farming is a livelihood in this region, not an option. Especially given the current downturn in
                the farm economy, increased costs cannot be absorbed without potentially putting people out of
                business. This would be an unfair burden on this sector of the population.
                   Conversion of land out of agriculture would change forever the cultural fabric of the Southern
                Shenandoah Region. It is hoped that policies from the Tributary Strategies will not increase the
                myriad pressure.,; on farming or inadvertently create incentives for sprawl.


                C. POINT SOURCES

                   Ten treatment plants in the region are included in the Strategy as meeting the criteria of
                discharging in 19135 at least 0.5 million gallons daily of sewage or, for industries, the equivalent
                nutrient load. The list has changed since 1985. The Staunton sewage treatment plant is no
                longer in operation. Its flow has been diverted to the new Middle River Regional Wastewater
              .Treatment Plant, which also will absorb the Verona Sewage Treatment Plant flow when that plant
                goes off line. Information is included on ten plants, seven municipal (Fishersville, Luray, Middle
                River Regional, North River Regional, Stuarts Draft, Verona, and Waynesboro; and three
                industrial (DuPont in Waynesboro, Merck in Elkton, and Rocco Farm Foods in Timberville).
                   The point source operators in the region met as a group and discussed at length the options
                for reducing nutrients. They agreed on policy statements and on a possible schedule of
                improvements, dependent on both the availability of outside funding and on the need for fud:her
                reductions.


                Measures of Nutrients
                   Accurate total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are not available for all of the point
                sources. There is no monitoring requirement for (and no regulation of) total nitrogen and
                phosphorus. There also was not a previously communicated need for such monitoring. Many
                plants have only a limited number of recent samples on which to base estimates. Other plants
                have a recent base of data because of participation in a current study sponsored by the
                Chesapeake Ba, Program on the costs and practicality of implementing Biological Nutrient
                Removal (BNR) technology. The default used by the state may be fairly accurate for sewage flow,


                                                                   6                                    8122196 sshendraft









              but not for the variety of processes used by industries. However, all three of the major industries
              (Rocco, Merck, and DuPont) have shown, for a variety of reasons, reduced nutrient discharges
              compared to the original projections in the state's August 1995 draft.

              Flow Projections
                  Most localities in the region are projecting population growth. Therefore increased treatment
              plant flows are expected. Industries, however, cannot predict future flows or concentrations very
              well.


              Potential to Improve Nutrient Reductions
                  A number of plants in the region are part of a multi-state stu,dy on Biological Nutrient Removal
              (BNR) being funded by the Chesapeake Bay Program. In Virginia, the study is being carried out
              by Virginia Tech civil engineering professor Clifford Randall under contract to the Virginia
              Department of Environmental Quality. Included are HRRSA, two of ACSA's plants, and DuPont
              in Waynesboro. Professor Randall also is working independently with the Town of Luray. In
              addition, through a Virginia Environmental Endowment grant to the Virginia Poultry Federation,
              two municipal and two industrial plants (Timberville, Broadway, Rocco, and WLR) are being
              studied for an alternative technology involving land application rather than point source
              discharge.
                  While these studies offer hope for effective and potentially less costly nutrient removal
              designs, there is no certainty that this will be the case. The funding to implement these plans is
              another hurdle.


              Need for Further Information
                1) Monitoring - Some of the plants have only limited sampling information.
                 2)  Costs - The costs of upgrading to BNR are at this point very sketchy.
                3) Unknowns:
                  ACS - Two plants operated by ACSA are showing extremely good reduction levels for both
                  nitrogen and phosphorus at current flows and operating methods (oxidation ditches). These
                  plants are designed to accommodate BNR technology but it is not currently in place. It is
                  expected that increased flows might change the chemistry of the process and make the
                  current low concentration of nutrients unsustainable without moving to BNR. ACSA's
                  Fishersville plant is also showing significant nitrogen reductions.
                  Industries - Industry changes are difficult to project.



              D. URBAN NPS

                  Very little (2%) of the land in the Southern Shenandoah is classified as urban. What land is
              urban is not very densely developed compared to other regions in the watershed. Therefore, there
              is not as great an opportunity to achieve significant pollution reductions from this sector and there
              is not as great a sense of urgency for doing so, considering the cost.

                  However, there is support in the region for looking for measures that can reasonably be taken.


                                                                7                                    a.*22/96 sshendraft








               There also is sentiment, in fairness to the farm community's efforts in nutrient reduction, to
               provide public education and address commercial fertilizer applications. In determining the
               strategy, particularly for cap measures, it is important to recognize that not all non-urban NPS
               pollution is from agricultural operations and to continue exploration of 1'L'he links between various
               land uses and the health of the Bay.


















































                                                                 8                                  &22196 sshendraft









                                        III. DRAFT REGIONAL STRATEGY

                 The participants developing the tributary strategy for the Southern Shenandoah Region
             discussed a variety of actions that could help to achieve the 40% reduction goals. The Draft
             Regional Strategy presented below relies primarily on increased agricultural BMPs. Figures to
             support these recommendations are presented in detail in the attachments.

                 The primary focus thus far has been on reaching the 40% goal in the most cost-effective
             manner possible. Maintaining the cap would be discussed more thoroughly later.


             A. PROPOSED STRATEGY
                 The region's strategy calls for increased state funding of the voluntary incentives program,
             which provides cost-sharing for implementation of agricultural Best Management Practices
             (BMPs). In addition, there would have to be local ordinance changes and state policy changes.
              Under this scenario, soil and water conservation district and local staff believe they could
             encourage even more farmers to implement the kinds of practices that keep nutrients out of
             waterways. The final piece of the strategy is installation of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
             at one basin of Harrisonburg Rockingham Regional Sewer Authority's (HRRSA) North River plant.

                 Additional minor reductions could be achieved at the region's treatment plants, but these do
             not appear necessary at this time in order to achieve the 40% reduction goal. It is important,
             however, for purposes of planning to realize that changes at a limited number of plants may be
             needed in order to maintain current reductions (Middle River and Stuarts Draft) or may be
             desirable based on cost efficiencies. For these reasons, information on installing BNR at specific
             plants is included. (See p. 11 "Supplemental Reductions for Point Sources" and Table 4 on BNR
             Results and Costs.)

                                                Summa[y of Strategy Actions
             1 ) Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) would be required by local ordinance on all intensive
                 agricultural operations.
             2)  Additional state staff would be provided to write these NMPs.
             3)  Increased BMP cost-share funding would be provided to the SWCDs.
             4)  Additional staff would be provided to the three SWCDs to oversee increased BMP activity.
                 It is anticipated that the major additional activities would be in the areas of stream fencing,
                 grazing land protection, stream protection, and animal waste control facilities (poultry litter
                 sheds, dairy pits and loafing lot systems).
             5)  Seventy-five percent (75%) cost-share funding would be offered on all animal waste control
                 facilities (removing the cost-share funding cap on these practices). The impact would be
                 greatest on dairy pits, which cost an average of $100,000 each. Cost-share funding would
                 have to be provided to cover this extra cost without drawing resources from other practices.
             6)  BNR would be installed at one basin of HRRSA`s North River treatment plant.

                                               Additional Recommendations


                                                              9                                  &22/96 sshendraft








              7)  Voluntary monitoring for total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations should be undertaken
                  at all point source plants in the basin with flows of 0.5 rngd or the equivalent.
              8)  The state noeds to continue to improve its efforts to verify the loadings from the Southern
                  Shenandoah Region and to distribute that information.
              9)  Grant funding for BNR should be included for future point source facility upgrades and
                  expansions.

              B. EXPECTED RESULTS

                  The Draft Strategy is projected to achieve a 43.5% reduction ill nitrogen and a 40.4%
              reduction in phosphorus. Of these reductions, all would be achieved through actions in the
              agricultural sector except for minor reductions, primarily in nitrogen, from installing BNR at one
              basin of the North River treatment plant.
                  For specific information, see Appendix C: Detailed Reduction Charts. These charts list
              projected results by activity for each county. One set of charts shows projections at current and
              planned programs and the other set shows projections under the strateoy. Totals also are given
              for point sources as a whole and for the region.


              C. FUNDING

              Source of Fundii2g, - The strategy assumes the availability of outside (non-local) funding.

              Timing of Fundiag - It is assumed that additional resources would be available by the end of
              1997.




              D. ESTIMATED COSTS

                  Estimated costs to implement the strategy are shown in the attachments. Costs are presented
              for activities beyond those planned under current program levels.

                  Table 1: Strategy Cost Summary
                  Table 2: Strategy Activities and Estimated Costs by County
                  Table 3: Cost Efficiencies of Proposed Activities
                  Table 4: Projected Results and Costs for Year-Round BNR









                                                             10                                  &22/96 sshendraft








      TABLE 1: Strategy Cost Summary - S. Shenandoah

                                                    State          Local           Total
              Activity              Total           Cost           Cost            Cost
      Dairy Pits                           48     $3,420,000       $975,000      $4,395,000
       @ $75,000                           39
       (P $55,000                           9

      Poultry Litter Sheds                115      $708,750        $138,750        $847,500
       @ $11,250                           37
       @ $3,750                            78

      Loafing Lot Systems                   6        $30,000       $10,000           $40,000
       @ $5,000

      Stream Fencing                  112,200      $189,338        $63,113         $252,450
       @_ $1.6875/ft

      Stream Protection                 8,400      $126,000        $42,000         $168,000
       @ $15/ft

      Grazing Land Prot.                2,771      $190,437        $63,479         $253,916
       @ $14.50/ac
      Combination Cost


      Additional Staff                      6      $720,000              _$0       $720,000
       0_ $40,000

      BNR Upgrade                           1              $0      $50,000          $50,000
      @ HRRSA 1 basin

      TOTAL                                  -    $5,384,525     $1,342,342      $6,726,866


      NOTES:
       Costs given for agricultural BMPs are for state portion only.
       Cost difference for dairy pits and poultry litter sheds is due to portion of cost for
       some facilities being funded through existing cost-share program. Costs that are
       shown are in addition to current program funding.
       See Table 2 for cost summaries by county.





                                                              10a








                      Table 2: Strategy Activities and Estimated Costs by County

                      Rockingham County                                                       State Cost     Local Cost Total Cost

                      Dairy manure pits - 19 @ $75,000                                        $1,755,000 $475,000           $2,230,000
                                          6 (cb- $55,000

                      Poultry litter facilities - 15 @ $11,250                                  $393,750       $56,250       $450,000
                                           - 60 @ $ 3,750

                      Grazing land protection - 771 Ac
                      Stream fencing - 27,000 ft
                      Altern. Watering systems - 36                                             $207,000       $69,000       $276,000

                      Additional staff
                            2 for NMPs @ $40,000 for 3 years
                             1 for technical support @ $40,000 for 3 years                      $360,000             $0      $360,000

                      BNR Upgrade of one basin at HRRSA                                                  $0    $50,000         $50,000

                      Total                                                                   $2,715,750      $650,250      $3,366,000


                      Augusta CgLnt
                                     y

                      Dairy manure pits - 20 @ $75,000                                        $1,665,000 $500,000           $2,165,000
                                       - 3 @ $55,000

                      Poultry litter facilities - 12 @ $11,250                                  $202,500       $45,000       $247,500
                                           - 18 @ $ 3,750

                      Loafing lot systems - 6 @ $ 5,000                                           $30,000      $10,000         $40,000








                     Table 2: Continued

                     Stream fencing - 79,200 ft @ $1.68751ft                                    $133,650      $44,550       $178,200

                     Stream protection - 6,900 ft @ $15ffl                                      $103,500      $34,500       $138,000

                     Additional staff
                            2 for NMPs @ $40,000 for 3 years
                            1 for technical support @ $40,000 for 3 years                       $360,000             $0     $360,000

                     Total                                                                    $2,494,650     $634,050      $3,128,700


                     Page CouW

                     Poultry litter facilities - 10 @ $11,250                                   $112,500      $37,500       $150,000

                     Stream fencing - 6,000 ft @ $1.68751ft                                       $10,125       $3,375         $13,500
         Cr

                     Stream protection - 1,500 ft @ $151ft                                        $22,500       $7,500         $30,000

                     Total                                                                      $145,125      $48,375       $193,500


                     Highland County

                     Grazing land protection 2000 ac @ $14.501ac                                  $29,000       $9,667         $38,667


                     TOTAL                                                                    $5,384,525    $1,342,342 $6,726,866

                     Note: Costs shown in italics are itemized state portion of cost-share only.








                   Table 3: Cost Efficiencies of Proposed Activities
                                                    N Reduction P Reduction State Cost N Efficiency P Efficiency Total Cost                   N Efficiency P Efficiency
                                                         (lb)            (lb)           $           ($/Ib)         ($/Ib)            $            ($/Ib)         ($/Ib)
                   Animal Waste Control Facilities         51,576          11,228   $4,128,750          80.05         367.73     $5,242,500           101.65        466.92
                        Dairy Manure Pits                  46,960          10,195   $3,420,000          72.83         335.45     $4,395,000           93.59         431.08
                        Poultry Litter Facilities           4,615           1,032    $708,750           153.56        686.52      $847,500            183.63        820.92


                   Nutrient Management                   336,878           55,603    $160,000             0.47           2.88     $160,000              0.47           2.88


                   Grazing Land Protection                  6,911             520    $102,415           14.82         196.95      $136,553            19.76         262.60


                   Stream Fencing                           4,289           1,118    $189,338           44.15         169.31      $252,450            58.86         225.74


                   Stream Protection                        3,405           1,361    $126,000           37.00           92.56     $168,000            49.34         123.41


                   Loafing Lot Systems                         963            209      $30,000          31.15         143.61         $40,000          41.54         191.48

            0
                   Biological Nutrient Removal
                        Average 2000                     442,497              N/A $7,382,500            16.68             N/A   $14,765,000           33.37             N/A
                        Average Buildout                 594,126              N/A $7,382,500            12.43             N/A   $14,765,000           24.85             N/A

                   Note #i: Although the efficiency of animal waste facilities appears to be low, this is somewhat offset by the fact that the presence of these facilities
                   allows the full implementation of a nutrient management plan. Without these facilities, the reduction achieved under nutrient management planning
                   would be reduced because of the reduced efficiency In Implementing a nutrient management plan without a storage facility.

                   Note #2: The N & P efficiencies of stream fencina. stream nintprtinn and nrSl71nn lanti nrnfar4inn rin nn fak In#^            4k-
                   reduction benefit for local waters.

                   Note #3: A 50-50 split has been used In distributing the cost of BNR between state and total cost.

                   Note #4: See Table #4 for Information on Individual treatment plants.






               TABLE 4: Projected Results and Costs for Year-Round BNR

                                                                  Current & Projected            BNR Year-Round
                                                        2000                Reduction                 Reduction               Capacity/     Red.
                                                        Flow       2000       vs 1985       2000      vs 1985       Cost/    Permitted   @ Capac.       Costl
                      Plant               Cost           rngd TN Conc         TN (Ibs)   TN Conc.     TN (lbs)*       l1b.      Flow      vs. 1985       lb.
               Fishersville (ACSA)         $500,000         1.40      9.20       (3,583)       7.00      (34,405)   $14.53         2.00     (49,150)    $1 F1 7
               Luray Municipal         not relevant         1.60      5.00     (12,262)        7.00          NA         NA         2.40          NA          NA
               Middle R. NET (AC        $1,350,000          6.00      7.00     (24,117)        7.00   (147,449)      $9.16         6.00   (147,449)      $9.16
               North River (HRRS        $3,600,000         10.00      14.20      44,918        7.00   (151,231)     $23.80         16.00  (264,822)     $13.59
               Stuarts Draft (ACSA         $315,000         1.10      7.00,      (3,466)       7.00      (27,033)   $11.65         1.40     (34,405)     $9.16
               Waynesboro Munic.        $9,000,000          3.70      17.601     5,041         17.60     (82,379)  $109.25         4.00     (98,300)    $91.56
               DuPont Co.              not relevant         3.69      9.551   (132,730)        9.55          NA         NA           NA          NA          NA
               Merck & Co.              unknown             9.07      5.50     (56,594)        5.50          NA         NA           NA          NA          NA
               Rocco Farm Foods         unknown             0.25      4.40       (7,           4.40          NA         NA           NAI         NAI         N
                                                                                                    I                                   I            I
               TOTAL                   .$14,765,000       36.81,           -                        -1 (442,497)    $33.37              1 (594,126)1    $24.85

                    Because Middle River & Stuarts Draft likely will have to convert to BNR eventually in order to sustain current low levels, all reductions
          0
          CL       in these plants are included under BNR.
                    The sole purpose of this column is to calculate maximum reductions possible (ie, at permitted capacity) for BNR capital expenditure.
                     It cannot be used to show net reductions, because increased loads due to the increased flows also would have to be taken into
                     account.
                    Net results of the former Staunton and Verona plants combined into the new Middle River Regional plant.

                  NOTES:
                  Chart shows only nitrogen reductions because while BNR reduces nitrogen significantly it has only a minor effect on phosphorus.
                  All projected 2000 flows and concentrations are estimates only.
                  Decreases are shown in parentheses. Increases are shown without.
                                                                              M
                                                                                 3466
                                                                                 ,  04  '
                                                                                 32730
                                                                                 565 4
                                                                                      9
                                                                                 7663


                                                                               190  456








               E. SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS FOR POINT SOURCES

                  The major pcint source operators in the Southern Shenandoah Region identified the following
               strategy to attempt to meet nutrient reduction targets. These measures could be used to maintain
               the cap, or to help meet the gap if growth exceeds expectations.

                  Willingness to add BNR -technology depends on the availability of satisfactory funding. The
               availability of funding would have to be timed to the expansion or 'upgrade of facilities. For
               detailed information, see Table 4 and the information sheets in Appendix B on each treatment
               plant.

               Willing to Add Year-Round BNR If Satisfactory Funding, At Any Time:
                    H RRSA - North River - al I basins (16 mgd)

               Willing to Add Year-Round BNR If Satisfactory Funding, At Time of Expansion:
                  ï¿½ ACSA - Fishersville
                  ï¿½ ACSA - Middle River (if needed to maintain results currently being achieved)
                  ï¿½ ACSA - Stuarts Draft (if needed to maintain results currently being achieved)

               No Change in Operation Planned:
                  ï¿½ ACSA - Middle River Regional (as long as current results can be maintained)
                  ï¿½ ACSA - Stuarts Draft (as long as current results can be maintained)
                  ï¿½ Luray
                  ï¿½ Waynesboro POTW
                  ï¿½ DuPont, Waynesboro
                  ï¿½ Merck
                  ï¿½ Rocco, Tirriberville

               Explanation:
               All of the industrial plants (and the Luray plant, which treats 50% industrial flow) have greatly
               reduced concentrations compared to the draft estimates and the 1985 baseline. Therefore, no
               changes are lproposed at any of the industrial plants or at the Luray plant.
                  As for the public plants, the appropriateness of BNR implementation varies greatly. The
               Verona plant is planned to go off line by the year 2000 and so is not included. The Waynesboro
               plant, because of its design, would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit for BNR at the existing
               facility for the simall reductions that would be gained. The two AC%',;A oxidation ditch plants
               (Middle River and Stuarts Draft) have extremely low concentrations currently, but likely would
               have to upgrade to BNR eventually in order to sustain these low figures.

               Costs:
               The ballpark estimate for implementing year-round BNR at the North River, Middle River,
               Fishersville, and] Stuarts Draft treatment plants is $5,765,000. Implementation of BNR at the
               Waynesboro municipal plant would be estimated to add an additional $9,000,000, because of its
               design and site constraints.


                                                              11                                 &22/96 ssherdraff























                                                      APPENDIX A



                                               AGRICULTURAL BIVIPS

                                                     Augusta County
                                                     Highland County
                                                       Page County
                                                   Rockingham County






                 DescriplLon.,
                 Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the primary means for reducing
                 nutrient pollution from farming. The following charts show the level and type of BMPs
                 already in place in each county (1994); the additional practices anticipated to be in place
                 under current and planned programs; and further achievements that could be gained with
                 additional resources.


                 The strategy's primary features are 75% cost-share for all practices, including animal
                 waste control facilities, and the requirement of nutrient management plans on all intensive
                 agricultural operations. More cost-share funding to cover these increases is assumed.

                 The numbers in the chart were used in Appendix C to show the reductions that would be
                 gained and in Tables 1 and 2 to show the activities that would be undertaken and the
                 estimated costs.







      AGRICULTURAL BMPs - LOCALITY: Augusta Co                                                     My
                                                                   Planned & Pr ected                     Proposed Strategy                      Scenario 2
                Practice                           1995*      Annual        2000        2000        Annual        2000        2000       Annual         2000       2000
      CROPS/PT\STURE                  Units      Covered        Rate      (xSyrs)**    TOTAL"        Rate     2ss+3yrs)l TOTAL            Rate 12ss+3yrs)          TOTAL
      Conservation Tillage            acres        28,542            0             0    28 ' 542          0             0     28,542           0              0    28,542
      Farm Plans                      acres                     3000         15.000     70,935                     18,000     73,935       4,000        181000     73,935
      Nutrient Mgmt Plans             farms                                  23,865     47,215       21,000        72,546     95,896      21,000        72,546     95896
      HEL Retirement                  acres         3,176            0 1         360      3,536           0           360       3,536          0            360      3,536
      Cover Crops                     acres        14, 71            0             0    14,271            0             0     14,271           0              0    14,271
      Woodland Buffer Filter          If                 0                                    26                        0            0                                  26
      Grass Filter                    if                 0           0             0           0          0             0            0         0              0           0
      Grazing Land Protection         acres         1,589                                 3,205                                 3,205                                3,205

      LIVESTOCK/STREAMS
        Altern. Water Sources         fa               40           10           50           90          16           68         108          16           68          108
        Stream Fencing - 78'          If           75,281      26,400       132,000     207,281      52,800      211,200     286,481      521800       211,200     286,481

      ANIMAL WASTE CONTR
        Poultry Litter                fac              107           6           30          137          10           42         149          15           57          164
        Dairy - Wet Pits-             fac              69            1             5          74            -          25         94                        37          106
                            TOTAL fac                  176            7.           35        211          10           67         243          15             94        270
        Beef - Loafing Lot Syst       fac              14            2           10           24          4            16         30           4            16          30
      Dead Bird Composters            fac              30            6           30           60          10           42         72           12           48          78
      OTHER
        Stream Prot. + Bioengr.       If str.       4,600   1   2,300        11,500  1  16,100   1 4,600           18,400     23000        5,600        21,400     26000
                                               @
                                                    8  542           0                                    O@
                                                   55  935      3 0  0
                                                         0
                                               [!2 @35      F470703




        Forest Harvestin              acres         1,483                            1   2,432_1            - I            1@4@32]@n                              -2:432
        Some include part of 1996. ** Total of '96-'00.         Total of '95 plus '96-'00. (2ss + 3yrs) = 2 x ann. rate "planned" + 3 x ann. rate each scenario.
      Scenarios assume additional resources would be available in 1998 ('96 and '97 at current rates and '98, '99 and '00 with additional resources).
      Strategy: NMPs required on all int. ag; 2 add'I NMP writers; add'I cost-share; 1 add'I SWCD staff; 75% pd on dairy pits w/ separate funding.
      Scen 1: NMPs required on all int. ag; 2 add'I NIVIP writers; add'I cost-share; 1 add'I SWCD staff; 100% pd on dairy pits w/ separate funding.
      Sources: Bobby Whitescarver, Winston Phillips, Becky Earhart







         AGRICULTURAL BMPs - LOCALITY: Highland Co nty
                                                                       Planned and Pro. ected                  Prop sed Strategy                             Scenario 2
                   Practice                             1995*      Annual         2000           2000      Annual         2000           2000      Annual          2000          2000
         tROPS/PASTURE                    Units       Covered       Rate                      TOTAL**        Rate      (2ss+3yrs) TOTAL              Rate       I ss+4yrs) TOTA
         Conservation Tillage             acres            120                                      120                                     1 @-o
         Farm Plans                       acres           5,500                                   8,800                                   8,800
         Nutrient Mgmt Plans              acres            667                                    1,322                                    1,322
               Retirement                 acres            373                                      424                                     424
         Cover Crops                      acres            120                                      100                                     100
         Woodland Buffer Filter           If                  0                                       10                                      10
         Grass Filter                     if                  0                                       8                                         8
         Grazing Land Protection          acres            500                                      500                      2,000        2500

         LIVESTOCKISTREAMS
          Altem. Water Sources            fac
          Stream Fencing - 78'            If                  0                                       0                                         0

         ANIMAL WASTE CONTR
          Poultry Litter                  fac                                                         1                           3             4
          Dairy - Wet Pits                fac           not rel.                                not rel.                                 not rel.
          Beef - Loafing Lot Syst         fac           not rel.                                not rel.                                 not rel.
                                TOTAL                         0                                       0                                         0
         Dead Bird Composters                                                                         1
         OTHER
          Stream Prot. + Bioengr.         If str,
          Forest Harvesting               acres            298                                      489                                     489

          ^urrai-A AaA                                                  -1                         -11                 -1 7--   1 .--1 ------ - A
                       ta                                             jilly 4 1A
                   L U    kPOVVY V LVIIIO%,&JOQIIIIS5G5IIIa1Nk              If-? %JI %.VU]ILY) OIIM Oil 1011110 O%AVUIIL1VU IUI. %JOWU %.;UIICllt allivullta iluill IVI. Dalillutt* ulzo IdA.
           annual rates not applicable for such limited scale                 *** "2000 Total" = sum of additional plus 1994/current.
         NMPs: 1,322 acres estimated to cover all intensive operations.
         Proposed Strategy - NMPs required on all int. ag. (& structures); double cost-share; add'I funding to ensure current staffing; eliminate cutoff date.
         (to pick up 2 existing poultry without storage facilities, would need to relax cutoff date; no other intensive farms so dairy, etc. irrelevant)
         Source of Information: Rodney Leech, Roger Canfield




                            d



       AGRICULTURAL 13MPs - LOCALITY: Page County
                                                                    Add'I Planned'9       00                 Prop sed Strategy                 Scenario 2 - Not Applic.
                 Practice                          1995*        Annual           2000       TOTAL       Annual          2000        TOTAL       Annual           2000
                                      Units       Covered         Rate        (x 5 yrs)                  Rate       (2ss+3yrs)                   Rate        (2ss+3yrs)
       CROPS/PASTURE
       Conservation Tillage           acres           9,062                                   9,062                                   9,062
       Farm Plans                     acres          11,945                          581     12,526                                  12,526
       Nutrient Mgmt Plans            acres           6,151                       12,150.    18,301                     29,600       351751
       HEL Retirement                 acres             788                                     788                                     788
       Cover Crops                    acres               0                                        0                                       0
       Woodland Buffer Filter         if                  0                                        0                                       0
       Grass Filter                   if                  0                                        0                                       0
       Grazing Land Protection        acres             432                          351        783                                     783

       LIVESTOCK/STREAMS
        Altem. Water Sources          fac       no change
        Stream Fencing - 78'          If             10,560         9,000        4-510-0-0-  55,560       11,000        51,000       61,560
                                                                                                   0                                       0
       ANIMAL WASTE CONTR                                                                          0                                       0
        Poultry Litter                fac                 61                                      61                                      61
        Dairy -Wet Pits               fac                 3                                        3 ,                                     3
        Beef - Loafing Lot Syst       fac                                                          0
        Brokered Litter"              tons           10,000       20,000        100,000.    110-10-0-0-   20,000       1001000 110,000
                             TOTAL                        64        -                  40       104        -                  50        114
       OTHER                                                                                       0
        Stream Prot. + Bioengr.       If st .             0         1,500          7,500      7,500        2,000         9,000        9,000
        Forest Harvesting             acres             794                          507,     1,301                                   1,301

        to date; includes first part of 1996; Scenarios assume add'I resources available in '98 = '96 &'97 at steady state +'98, '99, &'00 at add'I resources
       Strat: NMPs required on poultry; NMP writer on staff in '96; $200,000 cost-share; 1 SWCD staff (joint with R-ham); (dairy pits irrelevant). Scen. 2
       NMPs: total intensive acres estimated at 35,751 (6,151 with NMPs plus 29,600 acres needing plans),
       (estimated 160 farms without NMPs - 135 poultry + 25 beef & sheep: average farm size - 185 acres = 29,600)
       NMPs - 6,151 a covered now (DCR and SWCD plans, which are compatible); additional 30 plans pending covering 5,500 acres (average 185 actfa
       Brokered litter now mostly from farms without NMPs; however, since these farms will acquire NIVIPs by 2000, reductions will be credited through N
       Per DCR, changed scenarios to 2 yrs current & 3 yrs add'I resources. This led to a slight reduction in fencing and stream prot. projections.
       Cost-share: per B. Whittle, $200,000/year would enable staff to implement add'I BM Ps; No dairy farms so payment on pits irrelevant.
       Sources: Bill Whittle, David Knicely, Bill Patterson







        AGRICULTURAL BMPs - LOCALITY: Rockingham County
                                                                 Planned & Projec ed -'95-00          Proposed Strategy 75% c-sh                  Scenario 2 - 100% c-sh
                  Practice                                     Annual         2000         2000        Annual     2000             2000        Annual         2000        2000
                                       Units                     Rate      (x 6 yrs) TOTAL**            Rate                     TOTAL           Rate                    TOTAL
        MOPSMASTURE                                                     I                           I                                                                  I
        .Conservation Tillaae                      30.000                                  30,000   11                              30,000                                30.000
        Farm Plans                     acres       46,116         3,000       18,000       64,116                                   64,116                                64,116
        Nutrient Mgmt Plans            acres       15,806                                  34,772                                  123,806       18,000       54,000      69,806
        HEL Retirement                 acres         1,878          23           138        2,016                                     2,016                                 2,016-
        Cover Crops                    acres                                         0     23,000                                   231000                                23,000
        Woodland Buffer Filter         if                 0                          0            0                                        0             1                       0
        Grass Filter                   if                 0         30           180            180                                      180                                  180
        Grazing Land Protection        acres                        171         1,026       31594          428         1,797          4,365         685         2,567       5,135

        LIVESTOCKISTREAMS
          Altem. Water Sources         fac               116          8           48            164          20           84            200          32           120         236
          Stream Fencing - 78'         if            91000          600         3,600      121600        1,500         61300        15,300       -2,400         9,000     18,000

        ANIMAL WASTE CONTR
          Poultry Litter               fac               256        20           120            376          25          135            391          20,          120         376
          Dairy - Wet Pits             fac               195          2           12            207                       31            226                        50         245
                             TOTAL fac                   451          22          132           583          25           166           617          20            170         621
          Beef - Loafing Lot Syst      fac               17           2           12            29            2           12              29           2           12          29
        Dead Bird Composters                             45         20           120            165          20          120            165          20           120         165
        OTHER                                                                                                                                                          I
          Stream Prot. + Bioengr. If str.                 0                          0            0                                        0                                     0
          Forest Harvesting            acres         2,024          216         1,294       3,318                                     3,318                                 3,318

          F:       G.-S 11.@GL;gl 4011A,                 a -4,43.=!         #kr o,^k   )nnn ** )nnn #-4fti    I 00A liatz-Fin
           Igures       tip    up 116016F-l' 111@14 1@."Vv@ -    - Y__                          ____ -_1      I --- -
            Annual rate applies to the 3 years with add'l resources = 3 yrs at annual rate "planned" + 3 years at this rate = amount by 2000.
        Scenarios assume resources would be available in 1998 ('95,'96 V97 at current rates and'98,'99, and'OO with additional resources).
        NMPs - figure of 123,806 in 2000 includes 93,000 a. (575 plans) having NMPs not recognized by DCR and therefore not included in 1994 data. Howe
        as these are revalidated over the next 5 years, they will be recognized by DCR. An additional 15,000 ac. will be covered by NMPs
        if the county requires NMPs on all intensive ag operations.
        Stat: NMPs on all int. ag.; 2 add'l NMP writers; add'l cost-share funding; 1 add'l SWCD staff (with Page?); 75% pd on dairy pits w/sep. funding
                                                     5
                                                     1
                                                     3
                                                         116
                                                         806
                                                         178
                                                   2
                                                          0
                                                     3000
                                                         00
                                                          0
                                                          0
                                                F2568




        Scen. 2: NMPs on all int. ag.; 2 add'l NMP writers; add'l cost-share funding; I add'l SWCD staff (with Page?); 100% pd on dairy pits w/sep. funding
        Sources: Rhonda Henderson, James Shiflet, Harold Roller












                                                   APPENDIX B




                                 POINT SOURCE INFORMATION SHEETS



                                         Publicly Owned Treatment Works:
                                                 Fishersville (ACSA)
                                                         Luray
                                           Middle River Regional (ACSA)
                                           North River Regional (HRRSA)
                                                 Stuarts Draft (ACSA)
                                                    Verona (ACSA)
                                                     Waynesboro


                                                      Industries:
                                                        DuPont
                                                   Merck & Co, Inc.
                                               Rocco Farm Foods, Inc.




                     Description:
                     Ten point source treatment plants in the region were identified in the 1995
                     state draft as meeting the criteria of discharging in 1985 at least 0.5 million
                     gallons per day of sewage or the equivalent. Since then, the Staunton city
                     plant has been closed and its flow diverted to the new Middle River
                     Treatment plant, which also will take Verona's flow when that plant is moved
                     off line.


                     The information in these sheets was provided by each treatment plant operator.
                     Much of the data included in the 1995 draft is updated. This new information is
                     reflected in the reduction charts (Appendix C).









             INFORMATION SHEET
             Southern Shen. Region Wastewater Treatment Plants

             I      Plant Description

                    Name:         Fishersville STP
                    Location:     Fishersville (Augusta County)

                    Contact:      R.P. Moring, Augusta County Service Authority
                    Phone:        (540) 245-5670
                    Fax:          (540) 245-5684

                    Type of design:      Activated Sludge

                    Permitted capacity: 2.0 mgd

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): domestic/industrial

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount): projected c. 2007

                    Issues/factors:


             2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                      Flow              Concentration (mg/1)             Permitted
                                     (mgd)           Nitrogen         Phosphorus          Capacity
               1985 base           0.78            18.7 (default)    6.4 (default)      2.0

               1994 current        1.09             9.2*             2.49               2.0
               2000 pr2i2cted      1.40            9.2*              2.49               2.0
                                    BNR study data - March-May 1996
                                    average of 61 samples from 3/93 - 5/96

             3)     Cost Estimates (for year-round BNR):
                    $250,000/mgd (if done with expansion) - estimate; DEQNa Tech will provide better
                    information
                    (2.0 mgd capacity x $250,000 = $500,000+)
                    O&M-?


                                                                                     psinfolab 8196-cspdc








                INFORMATION SHEET
                Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants


                I       Plant Description

                        Name:                  Luray Municipal
                        Location:              Luray
                        Contact:               Charles Hoke
                        Phone:                 (540) 743-4817
                        Fax:                   (540) 743-1486 (via Ronald Good, Town Manager)

                        Type of diesign:              oxidation ditch

                        Permitted capacity:           2.4 mgd (by 1997)

                        Type of flows (industrial, etc): approximately 50/50% industria I & domestic

                        Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):
                               Any increase would be driven by industrial needs (unknown).

                        Issues/factors: Because of industry's process, flow is actually, nutrient deficient;
                        operator feeds ammonia 90% of the time and phosphorus 60% of the time to
                        maintain levels of 1.0-2.0 and 0.5-2.0, respectively. Normally, ammonia is below
                        technical limits, although it can spike up to 5 mg/l if industry is of f line. Nitrates are
                        typically 1.0-2.0. The N figures below leave out organic nitrogen. Dr. Clifford
                        Randall vvill supply information that in this form it is tied uplunavailable. The
                        industrial flow to the plant is much greater now than in 1985 but the concentrations
                        are much, lower; this is reflected below.

                2)      Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                            Flow              Concentration (mg/1)                Permitted
                                           (mgd)           Nitrogen          Phosphorus           Capacity

                   1985 base            0.74            18.7                6.4                 -

                   1994 current         1.6 mgd          c. 1.0-2.0         c. 0. 5-2. 0        2.4 mgd
                11 2000 projected 1     1.6 mgd       1  5.0                2.0

                3)      Cost Estimates
                               Not available (or relevant, since plant is nutrient deficient).
                                                                                              psinfolab &96 - cspdc









             INFORMATION SHEET
             Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants

             I      Plant Description
                    Name:        Middle River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
                    Location:    Verona VA (Augusta County)
                                 (replaced Staunton STP 11/95 and will replace Verona STP)


                    Contact:     R.P. Moring, Augusta County Service Authority
                    Phone:       (540) 245-5670
                    Fax:         (540) 245-5684

                    Type of design: Oxidation Ditch (Staunton was trickling filter & Verona RBC)

                    Permitted capacity: 5.3 mgd

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): domestic/industrial

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount): needs expansion near future - 1997-8

                    Issues/factors: combined Verona and Staunton permits

             2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)

                                     Flow              Concentration mg/1)            Permitted
                                    (mgd)           Nitrogen       Phosphorus          Capacity

               1985 base          2.86            18.7 (def.)      6.4 (def.)         5.3

               1994 current       3.4 **          6.29             1. 56 ***          5.3
               2000 pEpj@         6.0*            7.0 o::i-t1.5 oe                    6.00
                                                        0
                      combined figures for former Staunton & Verona STPs
                       does not include Verona STP flow (c. 1.2 mgd)
                       BNR study 2/96-5/96 (30 or so samples each of TKN, TN & P - edited out
                    specific incidents from start up mode that would not be representative).
                    e Conservative estimate - DEQ/Virginia Tech study will give improved information
                    ee Current data suggests higher removals possible but data set is very small,
                    results not planned & facility lightly loaded; concentrations may increase as load
                    increases in future.


             3)     Cost Estimates (for year-round BNR)
                    $225,000/mgd (est.); may not be necessary as long as current concentrationshold.
                    (6.0 mgd cap. x $225,000 = $1,350,000+)
                    O&M-?








              INFORMATION SHEET
              Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants


              1)    Plant Description

                    Name:         North River Wastewater Treatment Facility
                                  (Harrisonburg-Rocki ng ham Regional Sewer Authority)
                    Location:     Mt. Crawford, VA

                    Contact:      Curtis L. Poe, HRRSA
                    Phone:        (540) 434-1053
                    Fax:          (540) 434-5160

                    Type of design:      activated sludge with nitrification & filtration

                    Permitted capacity:         16 mgd

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): industrial and domestic

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):
                           Expansion/upgrade completed September 1995

                    Issues/factors:
                           Will convert aeration-basin #7 to BNR (2 mgd) by OctobE.,r 1996

              2)    Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                           Flow            Concentr tion (mg/1)          Permitted
                                          (mgd)          Nitrogen      Phosphorus        Capacity
                1985 base               6.45           18.7          -6.4               8.0

                1994 current            9.07           16.0            2.17             8.0

                2000 BNR 1 basin        10.0           14.2            2.04             16.0

                2000 BNR all            10.0           7.0             1.5              16.0
                basins


              3)    Cost Estimates

                    For BNR 1 basin: $50,000 plus ?
                    For BNR all 8 basins: $3.6 million
                    O&M increases: ?








             INFORMATION SHEET
             Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants

             1      Plant Description

                    Name:          Stuarts Draft STP
                    Location:      Stuarts Draft (Augusta County)

                    Contact:       R.P. Moring, Augusta County Service Authority
                    Phone:         (540) 245-5670
                    Fax:           (540) 245-5684

                    Type of design:       Oxidation Ditch

                    Permitted capacity: 1.40 mgd

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): domestic/industrial

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount): not planned

                    Issuestfactors: rapid growth area

             2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                       Flow              Concentration (mg/1)             Permitted
                                      (mgd)           Nitrogen         Phosphorus          Capacity
                1985 base            0.50           18.7 (default)    6.4 (default)      0.71

                1994 current         0.71           6.87              1.42               1.40

                2000 projected       1.10           7.0*              1.5*               1.40

                      5/96 TKN samples & MRRWWTP N03 Conc.
                       average of 29 samples taken from 9/93 through 5/96
                       Current data suggests higher removals possible but data set is very small and
                    results not planned; also facility lightly loaded; concentrations may increase as load
                    increases in future.


             3)     Cost Estimates (for year-round BNR):
                    $225,000/mgd estimate - DEQNirginia Tech study will provide better information;
                    upgrade not necessary until current concentrations can no longer be        maintained.
                                                                                             El










                    (1.4 mgd capacity x $225,000 = $315,000+)
                    O&M-?
                                                                                       psinfolab "6 - cspdc









               INFORMATION SHEET
               Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants

               1      Plant Description

                      Name:         Verona STP
                      Location:     Verona VA (Augusta County)

                      Contact:      R.P. Moring, Augusta County Service Authority
                      Phone:        (540) 245-5670
                      Fax:          (540) 245-5684

                      Type of design:      RBC

                      Permitted capacity: 0.8 mgd

                      Type of flows (industrial, etc): domestic/industrial

                      Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount): divert to MRRSTP

                      Issuestfactors:


               2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                        Flow             Concent tion (mg/1)              Permitted
                                       (mgd)          Nitrogen         Phosphorus         Capacity
                 1985 base           0.28            18.7 (def.)      6.4 (def.)         0.80
                 1994 current        0.80            18.7 (def.)      2.5 (def.)         0.80
               11 2000 pr2j@tcted 1  0            1  DIVERTED TO Middle River W/VTP               ----Jl

               3)     Cost Estimates
                      N/A - plant will be removed from service









                                                                                       psinfolab 8196 - cspdc









             INFORMATION SHEET
             Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants


             I      Plant Description

                    Name:         Waynesboro Municipal
                    Location:     Waynesboro

                    Contact:      Jax Bowman
                    Phone:        (540) 942-6626
                    Fax:          (540) 942-6671

                    Type of design:      RBC

                    Permitted capacity: 4.0 mgd

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): municipal

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):
                                         upgraded 1989
                    Issues/factors:      RBC addition, sand filters

             2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                      Flow             Concentration (mg1l)             Permitted
                                     (mgd)           Nitrogen        Phosphorus         Capacity

               1985 base           3.2              19.6             4.96              -

               1994 current        3.6              17.6             1.6 *         -  4.0 mgd
               2000 projected 1    3.7              17.6             1.75 **        I          ---Jl

                      results of one sample in 6/96; second sample in same range.
                      estimate based on limited 6/96 sampling.

             3)     Cost Estimates
                                  $8-10 million


                                                                                     psinfo. tab 8196 - cspdc








               INFORMATION SHEET
               Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants


               I      Plant Description

                      Name:           DuPont
                      Location:       Waynesboro VA

                      Contact:        Brenda Kennell
                      Phone:          (540) 946-1320
                      Fax:            (540) 946-1101

                      Type of design:       Activated sludge with nitrification

                      Permitted capacity: available capacity in WTP - est. 1.4 mgd

                      Type of flows (industrial, etc):      industrial, non-contact cooling

                      Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):

                      Issues/factors:       Have more than met the 40% reductior from base year
                                            (estimated 64.2 % N and 90.1 % P) due to reduction of load to
                                            WTP in 1990; very difficult to justify further expenditures.


               2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                         Flow               Concentration (mg/1)              Permitted
                                        (mgd)           Nitrogen          Phosphorus          Capacity

                 1985 base            4.34            22.68               4.33

                 1994 current         3.54              9.55              0.5

                 2000 U212cte(L       3.69-        1    9.55              0.5
                                best estimate
                                 accepted state number, assuming they have done sample

               3)     Cost Estimates (upgrade to BNR)
                      capital: $870,000; 0 & M - $6,000 (based on Hazen and Sawyer Engineers study
                      and 0.65 rngd flow, which is the treatment flow only, not total flow). Clifford Randall
                      says $500,000 to reduce nitrogen by another 50-80%.

                                                                                          psinfo. tab "6 - cspdc









             INFORMATION SHEET
             Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants


             I      Plant Description

                    Name:         Merck & Co., Inc.
                    Location:     Elkton, VA (Rockingham County)

                    Contact:      Ted H. Jett, Manager, Environmental Engineering
                    Phone:        (540) 298-4869
                    Fax:          (540) 298-4882

                    Type of design: Activated Sludge

                    Permitted capacity:         N/A

                    Type of flows (industrial, etc): industrial

                    Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):
                           none planned for biological portion of the system

                    Issues/factors:
                           Changes in production mix since 1994 have significantly reduced nitrogen
                           loadings (the treatment system is in transition from a nutrient-rich feed to a
                           nutrient-deficient feed). 2000 projections are based on '95 data.


             2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                      Flow              Concentration (mg/1)             Permitted
                                     (mgd)           Nitrogen        Phosphorus          Capacity

               1985 base           6.44            11.93             6.44               NA

               1994 current        9.07            9.7               2.4                NA

             11 2000 projected 1   9.07            5.5               3.8                NA

             3)     Cost Estimates

                    Not available.



                                                                                      psinfolab "6 - cspdc








               INFORMATION SHEET
               Southern Shenandoah Region Wastewater Treatment Plants

               1      Plant Description

                      Name:          Rocco Farm Foods, Inc. (formerly Rocco Further Processing)
                      Location:      Co-op Drive Timberville VA (Rockingham County)

                      Contact:       Bob Wolfe
                      Phone:         (540) 984-6805
                      Fax:           (540) 984-8360

                      Type of design: anaerobic - aerobic digestion

                      Permitted capacity: no limit - typical flow is 0. 18 - 0.23 mgd

                      Type of flows (industrial, etc): industrial - further processed poultry (cooking, not
                      slaughter)

                      Expansion or upgrade plans (date, amount):
                             to meet new ammonia permit limits by March 1998

                      Issuestfactors:
                      System and process haven't changed and aren't projected too, except maybe slight
                      flow reduction. Numbers for 1994 are based on one grab sample only, in June '96.

               2)     Flow and Load Data (review Blue Book)


                                        Flow              Concentration Lmg/1)             Permitted
                                       (mgd)            Nitrogen        Phosphorus          Capacity

                 1985 base           0.08            51.3              60.0

                 1994 current        0.20             4.4               30.7
                 2000 E!piecteL      0.25             4.4               30.7
                       -from the Blue Book; industry doubts they were correct.


               3)     Cost Estimates

                      In an upgrade, could include nutrient reductions as a factor in the design.

                                                                                        psinfo. tab "6 - cspdc















                                                 APPENDIX C



                           REDUCTION CHARTS BY COUNTY AND REGION



                                          1. Current/Projected Programs
                                              Augusta County - NPS
                                              Highland County - NPS
                                                Page County - NPS
                                            Rockingham County - NPS
                                           Region - Point Source - NPS
                                            Region - Total PS and NPS


                             2. Current/Projected Programs Plus Proposed Strategy
                                              Augusta County - NPS
                                              Highland County - NPS
                                                Page County - NPS
                                            Rockingham County - NPS
                                           Region - Point Source - NPS
                                            Region - Total PS and NPS



                Descrip!Lon:
                The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation used the numbers generated by
                local representatives (Appendices A & 13) in its model to predict the reductions that would
                be gained.

                The first set of charts shows the reductions projected under current and planned
                programs. The second set of charts adds the increased reductions estimated if the
                proposed activities under the Draft Regional Strategy are enacted.







                                                                   Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Augusta County
                                                                             Based on Implementation of Current & Projected P ograms
                                                                                   Year 1994 Progress             Reductions (lbs/year)            Year 2000 Projection             Reductions (lbs/year)
                                  BMP Treatment                         units        Coverane        Percent       Nitrogen Phosphoru                Coverage         Percent        Nitrogen      Phosphorus
                       Conservation Tillage                             acres           28,542         72.9%                  0                0        28,542          72.9%                  0                 0
                       Farm Plans                                       acres           55,935         54.3%          33,723           11,970           70,935          57.0%           42,766           15,180
                       Nutrient Management                              acres           23,350         22.7%          97,581           15,976           47,215          45,9%          197,311           32,304
                       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres            3,176           1.6%         23,103              5.658           3,536           1.8%          26,713             6,268
                       Grazing Land Protection                          acres            1,589           1.6%           3,789               299           3,205           3.3%           7,641                603
                       Stream Fencing                               linear feet         75,281           -----          2,878               752        207.281            -----          7,925             2,071
                       Stream Protection                            linear feet          4,600           .....          1,865               746         16,100            -----          6,527             2,610
                       Cover Crops                                      acres           14,271           -----        50,063              4,924         14,271            -----         50,063             4,924
                       Grass Filter Strips                              acres                  0                              0                0               0          -----                0                 0
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                      acres                  0                              0                0              26          -----              410                69
                       Forest Harvesting                                acres            1,483         61.0%          19,501                770           2,432        100.0%           31,969             1,262
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities               systems                 176         -----        89,289           19,498                211          -----         97,049           21,214
                       Loafing Lot Sysyems                           systems                  14         -----          2,247               488               24          -----          3,852                836
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres                203       52.0%            1,311               771              391       100.0%            3,642             2,140
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acres                  0         0.0%                 0                0               0          0.0%                 0                 0
                       Urban Nutrient Management                        acres                  0         0.0%                 0                0             347        10.0%                370                39
                       Septic Pumping                                systems                   0         ----                 0                0               0          -----                0                 0
                       Shoreline Erosion Protection                 linear feet                0         -----                0                0               0          -----                0                 0
                                  Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              325,349           61,850                                          476,238           89,520
                          Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                  4,429              (894)                                         4,443              (897)
                          Adustment, for Poultry Growth:                                                                4,946             1,164                                          4,946             1,164
                                       Adjusted Reduction:                                                           315,973           61,581                                          466.849           89,253
                         Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                             1,263,895          264,709                                        1,263,895          264,709
                                        Percent Reduction:                                                            25.00%           23.26%                                           36.94%           33.72%







                                                       Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Highland County
                                                                Based on Implementation of Current & Projected P grams
                                                                       Year 1994 Progress        Reductions (lbs/year)      Year 2000 Projection       Reductions (lbs/year)
                              BMP Treatment                  units      Coveracie     Percent     'Nitrogen  Phosi3horus     Covera-ge      Percent     Nitrogen   Phosphorus
                    Conservation Tillage                     acres            120      44.9%             0              0          120      "@7-5 0/.          0              0
                    Farm Plans                               acres           5,500     33.3%         2,731         1,249          8,800      35.0%        4,370          1,998
                    Nutrient Management                      acres            667      18.9%         1,168            121         1,322      37.4%        2,304            240
                    Highly Erodible Land R e tirement        acres            127q       2,0%        4,QA 4           anc          A 13A       12.o)o/-   13,12 7 C        nAn
                                                                              lot @                    W-T I          -                        @ S. r.    @ @1@            OV%7
                    Grazing Land Protection                  acres            500        0.0%        1,192             94          500         0.0%       1,192              94
                    Stream Protection                        acres               0       .....           0              0             0        -----           0              0
                    Cover Crops                              acres            120        -----          382            36          100         -----         318             30
                    Grass Filter Strips                      acres               0       -----           0              0             8        -----           42             9
                    Woodland Buffer Filter Area              acres               0       .....           0              0             10       -----         158             27
                    Forest Harvesting                        acres            298      61.0%         4,227             65          489       100.0%       6,930            107
                    Animal Waste Control Facilities systems                      0       -----           0              0             1        -----         121             28
                    Erosion & Sediment Control               acres               1     52.0%             4              3             1      100.0%            12             8
                    Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                  acres               0       0.0%            0              0             0        0.0%            0              0
                    Urban Nutrient Management                acres               0       0.0%            0              0             2      10.0%             2              0
                    Septic Pumping                         systems               0       -----           0              0             0                        0              0
                    Shoreline Erosion Protection          linear feet            0       .....           0              0             0        -----           0              0
                             Total Pounds Reduced:                                                 11,547          2,372                                 17,826          3,450
                      Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                       5              1                                      15             4
                      Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                     121            33                                    121             33
                                 Adjusted Reduction:                                               11,420          2,338                                 17,690          3,413
                     Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                 56,028          9,066                                 56,028          9,066
                                  Percent Reduction:                                               20.38%         25.79%                                 31.57%         37.65%







                                                                     Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Page County
                                                                            Based on Implementation of Current & Projected P grams
                                                                                     Year 1994 Progress            Reductions (lbs/year)           Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)
                                   BMP Treatment                         units        Coveracie       Percent       'Nitrogen    Phosr)horus         Covera-ge       Percent        Nitrogen      Phosphorus
                       Conservation Tillage                              acres             9,062        76.6%                0                 0          9,062         76.6%                 0                0
                       Farm Plans                                        acres            11,945        38.5%           6,944            2,437          12,526          40.4%           7,282            2,556
                       Nutrient Management                               acres             5,018        16.2%         21J62              1,820          18,301          29.7%         44,233             3,803
                       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                   acres                788         1.3%          5,482            1,395             788            1.3%          5,482            1,395
                       Grazing Land Protection                           acres                432         1.5%          1,030                 81           783            2.8%          1,866               147
                       Stream Fencing                                linear feet          10,560          -----            404               106        55,560            -----         2,126               558
                       Stream Protection                             linear feet                0         -----              0                 0          7,500           -----         3,041            1,216
                       Cover Crops                                       acres                  0         .....              0                 0               0          -----               0                0
                       Grass Filter Strips                               acres                  0         -----              0                 0               0          -----               0                0
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                       acres                  0         -----              0                 0               0          -----               0                0
                       Forest Harvesting                                 acres                794       61.0%         10,158                 393          1,301        100.0%         16,653                644
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities                 systems                 64         -----       11,020             2,507             104            -----       15,956             3,655
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                        acres                 21       52.0%              136                80              41       100.0%              378              222
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                           acres                  0         0.0%               0                 0               0          0.0%                0                0
                       Urban Nutrient Management                         acres                  0         0.0%               0                 0           104          10.0%              112                12
                       Septic Pumping                                  systems                  0         -----              0                 0               0          -----               0                0
                       Shoreline Erosion Protection                  linear feet                0         ----               0                 0               0          -----               0                0
                                   Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              56,335             8,819                                        97,128           14,209
                           Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                 1,748                182                                        2,155               225
                           Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                              13,766             3,203                                        13,766             3,203
                                        Adjusted Reduction:                                                           40,821             5,433                                        81,206           10,780
                         Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                               364,289            74,936                                       364,289           74,936
                                         Percent Reduction:                                                           11.21%             7.25%                                        22.29%           14.39%







                                                                Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Rockingham County
                                                                             Based on Implementation of Current                   Proje ed        rograms
                                                                                  Year 1994 Progress              Reductions (lbs/year)            Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)
                                  BMP Treatment                        un-its      Covera-ge       Percent         Nitrogen      Phos horus         Covera-ge        Percent        Nitro-gen      Phosphorus
                        Conservation Tillage                           acres          30,000         59.1%                   0                  0      30,000          59.1%                   0                0
                        Farm Plans                                     acres          46,116         54.0%            31,501           10,021          64,115          56.7%           43,797            12,611
                        Nutrient Management                            acres          15,806         18.4%            71.976           10,620          34,772          72.8%         124,089             18,307
                        Highiy Erodible Land Retireme                  acres            "8-8            .^ni          Ai 3, LU41 9      ft "I'm 4       1,114 e          11,110,*      4 C'nl A           'I, A 11
                                                                                                            /0                                  1          V I V         W V 10        Ili %JJ-f          1.
                                                                                              I         U V
                        Grazing Land Protection                        acres            2,568           0.3%            7,139              480            3,594          0.7%            9,992                671
                        Stream Fencing                             linear feet          9.000                              344                90       12,600            .....              482               126
                        Cover Crops                                    acres          23,000                          65,780             5,693         23,000            -----         65,780             5,693
                        Grass Filter Strips                            acres                  0         -----                0                  0          180           -----           2,037                237
                        Woodland Buffer Filter Area                    acres                  0         -----                0                  0             0                                0                0
                        Forest Harvesting                              acres            2,024        61.0%            24,813               791           3,318        100.0%           40,677             1,297
                        Animal Waste Control Facilitie systems                             451          -----        275,518           59,819              583           -----       309,054             67,101
                        Loafing Lot Systems                         systems                   17                        2,729              592                29         -----           4,655            1,010
                        Erosion & Sediment Control                     acres               120       52.0%                 805             454             231        100.0%             2,235            1,260
                        Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                        acres                  0         0.0%                 0                  0             0          0.0%                  0                0
                        Urban Nutrient Management                      acres                  0         0.0%                 0                  0          121         10.0%                141                 14
                        Septic Pumping                              systems                   0         -----                0                  0             0          -----                 0                0
                        Shoreline Erosion Protection               linear feet                0         -----                0                                0          -----                 0                0
                                 Total Pounds Reduced:                                                               494,124                                                         617,971            111,821
                        Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                        74                                                                78                (2)
                        Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                              - 28,311              6,148                                         28,311             6
                                                                                                                                                                                                         _,148
                                     Adjusted Reduction:                                                             465,739           85  '674                                      589,582            105,675
                        Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                             1,443,127           267,945                                       1,443,127           267,945
                                       Percent Reduction:                                                             32.27%           31.97%                                          40.85%            39-44%








         Southern Shenandoah Region - Point Sources:                 Current and Projected Programs

                                        Year 1994 Progress to Date
                            1985 Point Load (lbs)           Year 1994 Rep         a ues     s
                            Nitro-gen  Phosphorus    Nitroc                                        - e
                                                           ien   % Chanae    Phosphorus   % Chang
                 Augusta     501,098      150,990     328,702      -34.4%         52,351     -65.3%
                Highland            0            0           0     0.0%                0     0.0%
                    Page       29,066       11,692      59,310     104.1%          9,319     -20.3%
             Rockingham      425,186      162,800     491,852      15.7%        148,664      -8.7%
          S.Shenandoah       955,350      325,482  1  879,864      -7.9%        210,335      -35.4%

                                           Year 2000 Projections
                            1985 Point Load (lbs)              Year 2000 E imates (lbs)
                            Nitrogen   Phosphorus     Nitrogen   % Change Phosphorus      % Change
                 Augusta     501,098      150,990     350,792      -30.0%         62,387     -58.7%
                Highland            0            0           0     0.0%                0     0.0%
                    Page       29,066       11,692      16,803     -42.2%          7,980     -31.7%
             Rockingham      425,186      162,800     443,094      4.2%         157,401      -3.3%
          S.Shenandoah       955,350      325,482     810,689      -15.1%       227,768      -30.0%










































                                                                   C-1.5








           Southern Shenandoah Region - Total Reductions:                         Current and Projected Programs

                                       Nitrogen Load (lbs)             Year 1994 Progress     Year 2000 Projections
                              1985 Load   Controllable  Reduc Goal    lbs Reduc  % Change lbs Reduc       % Change
                    Augusta   3,283,199     1,764,993      705,997     488,369     -27.7%       617,155     -35.0%
                   Highland     252,836        56,028        22,411      11,420    -20.4%         17,690    -31.6%
                       Page     984,113      386,656       154,662       10,577    -2.7%          93,469    -24.2%
               Rockingham     3,548,588     1,868,313      747,325     399,073     -21.4%       571,674     -30.6%
           S. Shenandoah      8,068,736     4,075,990     1,630,396    909,440     -22.3%     1,299,988     -31.9%


                                     Phosphorus Load (lbs)             Year 1994 Progress     Year 20C10 Projections
                              1985 Load   Controllable  Reduc Goal   lbs Reduc   % Chance     lbs Reduc   % Chan-ge
                   Augusta      512,942      415,699       166,280     160,219     -38.5%       177,8fr6    -42.8%
                   Highland       15,118         9,066         3,626      2,338    -25.8%          3,413    -37.7%
                       Page     120,361        86,314        34,526       7,806    -9.0%          14AG12    -16.8%
               Rockingham       526,450      430,745       172,298       99,809    -23.2%       111,074     -25.8%
           S. Shenandoah      1,174,870      941,825       376,730     270,173     -28.7%       306,811,5   -32.6%










































                                                                        C-1.6







                                                                Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Augusta County
                                                     Based on Implementation of Current , Planned, & Proposed Activities under Draft Strategy
                                                                                  Year 1994 Progress             Reductions (lbs/year)           Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)
                                 BMP Treatment                        units        Coverage        Percent       Nitrogen       Phosphoru         Coverage         Percent        Nitrogen      Phosr)horus
                                                                      acres           28,542                                                  0                                             0
                      Conservation Tillage                                                           72.9%                   0                       28,542            2.9%                                  0
                      Farm Plans                                      acres           55,935         54.3%          33,723           11,970          73,935           57.0%         44,575           15,822
                      Nutrient Management                             acres           23,350         22.7%          97,581           15,976          95,896           45.9%        400,753           65,613
                      Highly Erodible Land Retirement                 acres             3,176          1.6%         23,103              5,658           3,536          1.8%         26,713             6,268
                      Grazing Land Protection                         acres             1,589          1.6%          3,789               299            3,205          3.3%           7,641               603
                      Stream Fencing                               linear feet        75,281           -----         2,878               752        286,481            -----        10,954             2,862
                      Stream Protection                            linear feet          4,600                        1,865               746         23,000            .....          9,324            3,728
                      Cover Crops                                     acres           14,271           -----        50,063              4,924        14,271            -----        50,063             4,924
                      Grass Filter Strips                             acres                  0         -----                 0                0             0          -----                0                0
                      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                     acres                  0         -----                 0                0             26         -----             410                69
                      Forest Harvesting                               acres             1,483        61.0%          19,501               770            2,432       100.0%          31,969             1,262
                      Animal Waste Control Facilities               systems                176         -----        89,289           19,498               243          -----       121,827           26,606
                      Loafing Lot Sysyems                           systems                  14                      2,247               488                30         -----          4,815            1,045
                      Erosion & Sediment Control                      acres                203       52.0%           1,311               771              391       100.0%            3,642            2,140
                      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                         acres                  0         0.0%                  0                0             0          0.0%                 0                0
                      Urban Nutrient Management                       acres                  0         0.0%                  0                0           347         10.0%               370               39
               0      Septic Pumping                                systems                  0         ----                  0                0             0          -----                0                0
               k
               L31    Shoreline Erosion Protection                 linear feet               0                               0                              0          -----                0                0
                                 Total Pounds Reduced:                                                             325,349                                                         713,055           130,981
                        Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                 4,429                                                            4,443             (897)
                         Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                               4,946              1,164                                         4,946            1,164
                                     Adjusted Reduction:                                                           315,973           61                                            703,666           130,713
                       Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                             1,263,895          264:709                                      1,263,895           264,709
                                                                                                                    25.00%           23.26%                                         55.67%           49.38%
                                       Percent Reduction:                                                                                58,







                                                                 Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Highland County
                                                       Based on Implementation of Current, Planned, & Proposed Activities under Draft Strategy
                                                                                    Year 1994 Progress            Reductions (lbs/year)           Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)
                                   BMP Treatment                        units        Coverage        Percent       Nitrogen      Phosphorus         Covera-ge        Percent       Nitro-cien     Phosphorus
                       Conservation Tillage                             acres               120        44.9%                 0                0            120         47.5%                 0                   0
                       Farm Plans                                       acres             5,500        33.3%           2,731            1,249            8,800         35.0%           4,370             1,998
                       Nutrient Management                              acres               667        18.9%           1,168                121          1,322         37.4%           2,304               240
                       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres               373          2.8%          1,841               805   1         424           3.2%          2.3                 VUW
                       Grazing Land Protection                          acres               500          0.0%          1,192                94           2,500           0.0%          5,960               470
                       Stream Protection                                acres                  0         -----               0                0               0          .....               0                   0
                       Cover Crops                                      acres               120          .....            382               36             100           -----           318                 30
                       Grass Filter Strips                              acres                  0         -----               0                0               8          -----             42                    9
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                      acres                  0         -----               0                0              10          .....           158                 27
                       Forest Harvesting                                acres               298        61.0%           4.227                65             489        100.0%           6,930'              107
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities systems                                 0         -----               0                0               1          -----           121                 28
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres                  1       52.0%                 4                3               1       100.0%               12                    8
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acres                  0         0.0%                0                0               0          0.0%                0                   0
                       Urban Nutrient Management                        acres                  0         0.0%                0                0               2        10.0%                 2                   0
                       Septic Pumping                                 systems                  0         -----               0                0               0          -----               0                   0
                       Shoreline Erosion Protection                  linear feet               0         -----               0                0               0          -----               0                   0
                 0                 Total Pounds Reduced:                                                             11,547             2,372                                        22,594              3,826
                          Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                       5                1                                            15                    4
                          Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                                   121               33                                           121                 33
                                       Adjusted Reduction:                                                           11,420             2,338                                        22,458              3,789
                         Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                               56,028             9,066                                        56,028              9,066
                                         Percent Reduction:                                                          20.38%           25.79%1                                        40.08%            41.80%







                                                               Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Page County
                                                  Based on Implementation of Current , Planned, & Proposed Activit s under Draft Strategy
                                                                            Year 1994 Progress          Reductions (lbs/year)         Year 2000 Projection         Reductions (lbs/year)
                               BMP Treatment                      units       Coverage      Percent      Nitrogen    Phosphorus        Coverage       Percent      Nitrogen     Phosphorus
                     Conservation Tillage                         acres           9,062       76.6%               0               0         9,062       76.6%               0                 0
                     Farm Plans                                   acres          11,945       38.5%          6,944          2,437         12,526        40.4%          7,282           2,556
                     Nutrient Management                          acres           5,018       16.2%        21,162           1,820         31,751        29,7%        74,543            6,410
                     Highly Erodible Land Retirement              acres              788        1.3%         5,482          1,395            788          1.3%         5,482           1,395
                     Grazing Land Protection                      acres              432        1.5%         1,030               81          783          2.8%         1,866             147
                     Stream Fencing                            linear feet       10,560         -----           404             106       61,560          -----        2,354             615
                     Stream Protection                         linear feet             0        -----             0               0         9,000         -----        3,649           1,459
                     Cover Crops                                  acres                0        .....             0               0             0         -----             0                 0
                     Grass Filter Strips                          acres                0        -----             0               0             0         .....             0                 0
                     Woodland Buffer Filter Area                  acres                0        -----             0               0             0         -----             0                 0
                     Forest Harvesting                            acres              794      61.0%        10,158               393         1,301       100.0%       16,653              644
                     Animal Waste Control Facilities systems                          64        -----      11,020           2,507            114          -----      17,490            4,006
                     Erosion & Sediment Control                   acres               21      52.0%             136              80             41      100.0%            378            222
                     Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                      acres                0        0.0%              0               0             0         0.0%              0                 0
                     Urban Nutrient Management                    acres                0        0.0%              0               0          104        10.0%             112               12
                     Septic Pumping                             systems                0        -----             0               0             0         ----              0                 0
              0      Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear feet             0        -----             0               0             0         -----             0                 0
              K)               Total Pounds Reduced:                                                       56,335           8,819                                    129,808         17,466
                       Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                          1.748              182                                    2,155             225
                        Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                      13,766           3,203                                    13,766            3,203
                                   Adjusted Reduction:                                                     40,821           5433                                     113.887         14,037
                      Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                       364,289          74:936                                   364,289          74,936
                                     Percent Reduction:                                                    11.21%           7.25%                                    31.26%          18.73%







                                                               Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Rockingham County
                                                        Based on Implementation of Current, Planned, & Proposed Activities under Draft Strategy
                                                                                    Year 1994 Progress             Reductions (lbs/year)            Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)
                                   BMP Treatment                        -units        Coveracie      Per-cent       Nitronen      Phosphorus         Coverage         Percent        Nitrogen       Phosphorus
                       Conservation Tillage                             acres           30,000         59.1%                    0                0      30,000          59.1%                    0               0
                       Farm Plans                                       acres           46,116         54.0%           31,501           10,021          64,115          56.7%           43,797           12,611
                       Nutrient Management                              acres           15,806         18.4%           71,976           10,620         123,806          72.8%         257,525            37,996
                                                                                                                                          12 'M 4         1) n4a            A   -       4 c n'2A           12 AnC
                                                                                                           .901        412,549
                       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres             I to           V 10          1%) 1                                                .00/
                                                                                                                                                                            %' @'v
                                                                                                                                                                            0.7%        12,135                 815
                       Grazing Land Protection                          acres             2,568          0.3%            7,139              48;           4365
                       Stream Fencing                                linear feet          9,000           -----             344                90       39,600              -----         1,514                396
                       Cover Crops                                      acres           23,000            -----        65,780              5,693        23.000              -----       65,780             5,693
                       Grass Filter Strips                              acres                   0                               0                0          180             -----         2,037                237
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                      acres                   0                               0                0             0            -----                0               0
                       Forest Harvesting                                acres             2,024        61.0%           24,813               791            3,318       100.0%           40,677             1,297
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities                systems                451          -----       275.518           59,819              617             -----     334,317            72,586
                       Loafing Lot Systems                            systems                  17         ---            2,729              592                29           -----         4,655            1,010
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres                 120      52.0%                805             454             231        100.0%             2,235            1,260
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acres                   0        0.0%                   0                0             0            0.0%                 0               0
                       Urban Nutrient Management                        acres                   0        0.0%                   0                0          121         10.0%                141                14
                       Septic Pumping                                 systems                   0         -----                 0                0             0            -----                0               0
                 0     Shoreline Erosion Protection                  linear feet                0                               0                              0            -----                0               0
                                   Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              494,124                                                         779,847            137,409
                          Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                        74                                                               78               (2)
                          Adustment for Poultry Growth:                                                                28,311              6,148                                        28,311             6,148
                                        Adjusted Reduction:                                                           465,739           85,674                                        751,457            131,263
                         Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                             1,443,127           267,945                                       1,443,127          267,945
                                         Percent Reduction:                                                            32.27%           31.97%1                                         52.07%           48.99%








           Southern Shenandoah Region - Point Sources:               Current, Planned, & Proposed Activities

                                             Year 1994 Progress to Date
                               1985 Point Load (lbs)              Year 1994 Rep ed Values (lbs)
                               Nitrocien   Phosr)horus      Nitrogen   % Chanae Phosphorus % Chancie
                   Augusta       501,098      150,990       328,702       -34.4%          52,351     -65.3%
                   Highland             0              0             0    0.0%                  0    0.0%
                       Page        29,066        11,692        59,310     104.1%           9,319     -20.3%
               Rockingham        425,186      162,800       491,852       15.7%        148,664       -8.7%
            S.Shenandoah         955,350      325,482       879,864       -7.9%        210,335       -35.4%

                                                Year 2000 Projections
                               1985 Point Load (lbs)                  Year 2000 Estimates (lbs)
                               Nitro-gen    Phosphoru       Nitrogen   % Change Phosphoru         % Change
                   Augusta       501,098      150,990       350,792       -30.0%         62,387      -58.7%
                   Highland             0              0             0    0.0%                 0     0.0%
                       Page        29,066        11,692        16,803     -42.2%           7,890     -32.5%
               Rockingham        425,186      162,800       405,286       -4.7%        154,196       -5.3%
            S.Shenandoah         955,350      325,482       772,881       -19.1%       224,473       -31.0%








































                                                                          C-2.5








           Southern Shenandoah Re-gion - Total Reductions:                 Current, Planned, & Proposed Activities

                                       Nitrogen Load (lbs)            Year 1994 Progress     Year 20CO Projections
                              1985 Load   Controllable Reduc Goll    lbs Reduc  % Change lbs Reduc        % Change
                    Augusta   3,283,1199    1,764,993     705,997     488,369     -27.7%        853,972     -48.4%
                   Highland     252,836        56,028       22,411     11,420     -20.4%          22,458    -40.1%
                       Page     984,1113     386,656      154,662      10,577     -2.7%         126,150     -32.6%
               Rockingham     3,548,588     1,868,313     747,325     399,073     -21.4%        771,367     -41.3%
           S. Shenandoah      8,068, 736    4,075,990    1,630,396    909,440     -22.3%       1,773,936    -43.5%



                                     Phosphorus Load (lbs)            Year 1994 Progress     Year 200 0 Projections
                              1985 Load   Controllable Reduc Goal   lbs Reduc   % Change     lbs Reduc    % Chang-e
                    Augusta     512,942      415,699      166,280     160,219     -38.5%        219,316     -52.8%
                   Highland       15,118        9,066         3,626      2,338    -25.8%          3,7f 19   -41.8%
                       Page     120,' 361      86,314       34,526       7,806    -9.0%           17,839    -20.7%
               Rockingham       526, 60      430,745      172,298      99,809     -23.2%        139,867     -32.5%
           S. Shenandoah      1,174,870      941,825      376,730     270,173     -28.7%        380,812     -40.4%









































                                                                       C-2.6






















                                                      APPENDIX D



                                              LIST OF PARTICIPANTS




                 Description:
                 The Draft Regional Strategy is based on local input. Many meetings were held throughout
                 the spring and summer of 1996, with coordination provided by the Central Shenandoah
                 Planning District Commmission. Mark Bennett of the Virginia Department of Conservation
                 and Recreation, served as the state team leader for the effort and will be responsible for
                 fitting this region's strategy into the overall state Potomac Basin strategy.
                 The "committee" consisted of local staff (each locality assigned a representative); staff from
                 the three soil and water conservation districts and the four extension offices; and operators
                 of the participating treatment plants. Other resource people were contacted as necessary.

                 The governing bodies and the general public have not yet had the opportunity to review the
                 recommendations.









                                                APPENDIX D


                                         LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
                          Southern Shenandoah Draft Tributary Strategy


             Team Leader:
             Mark Bennett
             Virginia Department of                         City of Staunton
              Conservation and Recreation                   Sharon E. Angle
                                                            Planning Director
             PDC Coordinator:
             Sara Hollberg                                  City of Waynesboro
             Senior Planner                                 Jax Bowman
             Central Shenandoah Planning                    Director of Public Works
              District Commission
                                                            Point Sources:
             Locality Representatives:*                     Richard Moring, Executive Director
             Augusta County                                 Augusta County Service Authority
             Becky L. Earhart
             Senior Planner                                 Curtis Poe, Executive Director
                                                            Harrisonburg-Rockingham
             Highland County                                Regional Sewer Authority
             Rodney Leech
             Extension Agent                                Charles Hoke
                                                            Luray Municipal Treatment Plant
             Page County
             Ron Wilson                                     Brenda Kennell
             Page County Administrator                      Environmental Engineer
                                                            DuPont
             Rockingham County
             William L. Vaughn                              Ted Jett
             GIS Coord./Planning Director                   Manager, Environmental Engineering
                                                            Merck & Co., Inc.
             Rhonda Henderson
             Planner                                        Robert Wolfe
                                                            Rocco Farm Foods
             City of Harrisonburg
             Mike Collins                                   Soil and Water Conservation Districts
             Director of Water and Sewer                    Bobby Whitescarver
                                                            District Conservationist
             Rajat Sarkar                                   Headwaters SWCD
             City Planner
                                                            Roger Canfield









             District Conservationist
             Mountain SWCE)


             James Shifiet
             Conservation Technician
             Shenandoah Valley SWCD

             David Knicely
             Conservation Specialist
             Shenandoah Valley SWCD



             Extension
             Rick D. Heidel
             Augusta County Extension Agent

             Rodney Leech
             Highland County, Extension Agent
             (also locality representative)

             Bill Whiffle
             Page County Extension Agent

             Harold Roller
             Rockingham County Extension Agent

             also consulted:
             John Johnson
             Virginia Poultry Federation

             Winston Phillips
             Nutrient Management Specialist
             VDCR Valley Office

             Mark Hollberg
             Augusta Area Forester
             Virginia Dept. of Forestry

             Ron Harrison
             WLR Foods



              Town representatives also were involved in initial meetings; however only Luray has a
             treatment plant large enough to be included in the Strategy.








                                                                              Potomac Basins Tributarv Strateplies Trackinq
                                                                                               Southern Shenandoah Meetings
                        En v:1                    Aff Illation                                  Name                                   Title                      20-Mar       15-May_      27-Jun     -29-Aug
                        Local Governments
                             Lugusia ounty                                           Charles W. Cur                 Chairman, Board of Supervisors                    x                                      x
                             Augusta County                                          LDonald Haqqer                 Boa!d of Supervisors                              x            x                         x
                             Augusta County                                          Richard P. Moring              Public Works/Utilities Director                   x            x            x            x
                             A@@@y                                                                                                                                    x            x            x
                        x    Lriqgewater, Town of                                    Roland Z. Arey                 Mayor                                                                                    x
                        _ Bridgewater. Town of                                       Jerry Oakes                    Public Works/Utilities Director                   x            x
                        x    Broadw y. Town of                                       Wanda Wilt                     Mayor
                             Cit of Harrisonburg                                     John Neff                      Mayor
                             _qjily_i@l Harrisonburg                                 Ralat Sarkar                   City Engineer's Office                                   _x            _x          _x
                        -City of Hard onburg                                         X. Mike-Collins                @u_bllc 60-ities Director                                _x                 x      _X_
                        x    City of Staunton                                        G. John Avoll                  Mayor
                             Cl o Staunton                                           Douglas C. Wine                Vlc_e Mayor                                       x                                _x
                             City of Staunton                                        Sharon E. Angle                Planning Director
                                                                                                                                                    __x                      __x                x            x
                             City of Staunton                                        R. Douglas M@   @n_ City Council Member                            __x
                        x    Pj!y__ql Waynesboro                                     Louis A. Brooks                Mayor
                        - Pjty ofMa esboro                                           S. B. Klqer                    City Council Member                               x
                                       In
                        - City of Waynesboro                                         fflchaeC -Hamp                 Assistant Manager                                 x
                             City of Waynesboro                                      Steve Yancey                   Public Works Office                                            x
                             CI!y of Waynesboro                                      H. Jax Bowman                  Public Works/Utilities Director                                             x            x
                        x    Dajqon, Town of                                         Edgar H. Bart ey               Mayor
                        x    Elkton. Town of                                         Charles Dean                   Mayor
                             Grottoes, Town of                                       Doug Shifflett                 Mayor
                        x    Grottoes, Town of                                       Carter Miller                  Manager                                           x                         x
                             Harrisonburg-Rockingham Regional Sewer Authority Curtis Poe                                                                                           x            x            x
                        x    Highland County                                         Ronald T. Malcolm              Chairman, Board of Supervisors
                             Highland County                                         D. 'Robin" Sullenberqer        ViceChairman,
                                                                                                                                           q_q @Su ervisors
                        x    Luray, Town of                                          a@!Eh 11. Dean                                                                   x
                             Luray, Town of                                          Ronald W. Good                 Manager
                        x    Mount Crawford, Town of                                 Roscoe A. Bishop               Mqor
                        x    @aqe County                                             Nora Belle Comer- C6alfman, Board of Supervisors
                             Page County                                             iion Wilson                    A&m_lnistrator                                    x            x                         x
                        x    Rockingham County                                       J. R. Correa                   Chairman, Board of S@parvlsors__                         _x
                             Rockingham Count                                        William Vaughn                 PlanningRIrector                                                            x
                             PLc @InqaaCqv ly                                        Rhonda Henderson               Planning Office                                   x      _x            _x__
                                                                                                                                                                                                             x
                        X_ _.enandoah, Town of                                       Clinton 0. Lucas               @@a @qr
                        x    ï¿½"y, Town f                                             Douglas L. Purdham             Mayor
                             @Ian ey, Town of                                        Ter    Pettit                  Public Wo(ks/Ulilitles Director                   x
                                 L __    _
                              __Ly
                                                                                                                                                                                                             x
                                                                                                                                                                                                             X



























                        County_Soil and Water Conservation Dis


                                                                                                            Prepared by IDEQ 10/2/96                                                                                      Page







                                                                                      Potomac Basin-s-TrIbut                     "ary Strateqles
                                                                                                        Southern Shenandoah Meetings
                            Inv                        Aff illation                                                                                                           -20Ma-r-      -15-M y,- -2-7-J-u-n         -29-A
                            x   Headwaters SWCD                                              Charles E. Horn                  dh-airman                                                                                        Uq_
                                Headwaters SWCD                                              Richard Coon
                                Headwaters SWCD                                              li-Chn K Y-lor
                                22-d-uwalels "Y!Y-:u                                         C. S. Patterson                                                                        x
                                Lord Fairfax SWCD                                            Jeffrey Slack                                                                          x
                            x   Mountain Castles SWCD                                        Fred B. Givens                   Chairman
                                Mountain SWCD                                                J. fFrink Shepherd               Chairman                                              x
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       --x
                            x   Shenandoah Valley SWCD                                       E. S. Lonq                       Chairman                                         -x
                                Shenandoah Valley SWCD                                       Pavid R. Knicel                  Conservation Specialist                                              x            x
                                Shenandoah Valley S CD                                       C. G. Luebben                    WS-Soc. lifi-ector                                                   x            x              x
                                Shenandoah Valley SWCD                                       Randy Me pin                                                                                          x
                                Shenandoah Valley SWCD                                       James Shifflett                  Conservation Technician-                                             x
                            PDCs and Other Regional Groups
                                Central Shenandoah PDC                                       Sara Hollberg                    Regional Planner                                      x              x                           x
                                Candtal Shenandoah PDC                                       James Shaw                                                                                                                        x
                                Central Shenandoah PDC                                       William Strider                  Executive Director

                            Legislators
                            X   Virginia House of Delegates                                  Steve Landes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -x
                                    Delegate Steve Landes'Office                             Lngela T lor                     Aide
                            x   Y!!q!n@a House of D@ Ueates                                  R. Crelgh Deeds                                                                                       x
                            x      r n a State Senate                                        tm-meli!Ianger
                                    Senator Emmett Hanger's Office                           Holly Wyatt                      Aide                                                                              x
                            State and Federal Agencies
                                VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Dep!.                     Shawn Smith                                                                            x              x            x              x
                                VA Cooperative Extension                                     Harold W. Roller                                                                                                                  x
                                VA Cooperative Extension                                     Randy Shank                                                                            x              x                           x
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           Tony Pane
                                VA u pi. C nservation & Hecreation                           Charles Wade                                                                                                 -x           -x
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           _40:Eerf@C@on@elly
                                VA Dept. Cons rvation & Recreation                           John MlInarcik
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           Winston Phillips
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           Kathleen W.-Lawrence,            b-irector---- ----x
                                      ept. Conservation & Recreation                         Jack Frye                                                                              x
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           Morla Cro-9han                                                                         x
                                VA Dept. Conservation & Recreation                           Mark Bennett                     S. Shenandoah Team L i-a-der --X- --x                                       -x           -x
                                VA Dept. Environmental Quality                               Rod Bodkin                                                                             x              x            x              x


                                                                                                                      Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                                              Page 2








                                                                                Potomac Basins Tributar Strateciies Tracking
                                                                                                 Southern Shenandoah Meetings

                          Inv                       Aff Illation                                  Name                                  Title                      20-Mar       15-May       27-Jun       29-Aug
                              VA Dept. Environmental Quality                           -A-lanE. Pollock                                                                x            x
                              US Natural Resource Conservation Service                 Wade Biddix                                                                     x            x            x            x
                              US Natural Resource Conservation Service                 Bobby Whitescarver                                                              x            x
                              US Natural Resource Conservation Service                 Chuck Cummings                                                                                            x            x
                         Citizen and Business Groups
                              Virginia Farm Bureau                                     Witmer Stoneman                                                                 x                                      x
                              Virginia Poultry Federation                              John Johnson                                                                    x                         x
                              Chesapeake Bay Foundation                                Jean Watts                    Staff Scientist                                   x            x
                              Earth Technology                                         James Heyen                                                                                                            x
                              FORVA                                                    Corbin Dixon                                                                    x            x                         x
                              Friends of the Shenandoah River                          John Gibson                                                                     x            x
                              Valley Conservation Council                              Faye Cooper                                                                     x
                              lValley Conservation Council                             Va; Ande@son                                                                                 x            x            x
                              IWILR Foods                                              David Frackelton                                                                                                       x
                         Media
                                ally News Record                                       Eric Gorton                   Reporter                                                   -x
                              News-Virginian W ynesboro                                [Don McCauly.                 Repqq@r
                              News Leader                                              I Paul Bergen                 lReporter                                                                                x















                                                                                                              Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                                       Page 3






































                                             APPENDIX I


                                     Northern Shenandoah Region:
                                         Tributary Assessment


















 I
























             POTOMAC/SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN TRIBUTARY STRATEGY


                                       REGIONAL ASSESSMENT






                                                 Assessment of


                           Practices and Costs for Achieving 40% Nutrient Reduction

                                   In Virginia's Northern Shenandoah Region









                                             Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment


                                      Summary of the Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment                           ................     i

                  1.                  Background and Introduction             ..................................................................I

                  II.                 Process and Development of Virginia!s Potomac Tributary Strategy                          .....       3

                  III.                Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment Process                        .............................  4

                  IV.                 Regional Framework For The Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                Potomac River Strategies          .............................................................6

                  V.                  Local Assessments and Status Reports                ....................................................9
                                                Clarke County       .............................................................................. I I
                                                Shenandoah County           ..................................................................... 14
                                                Warren County        ............................................................................. 24
                                                Frederick County        ......................................................................... 26
                                                City of Winchester        ....................................................................... 28

                  V1.                 Nutrient Loadings Under Proposed Northern Shenandoah
                                                Regional Assessment          ................................................................... 29
                                                Assessment Reduction Tables             ..................................................... 30


                  Vil.                Costs for the Proposed Regional Assessment                  .......................................... 33

                  VIII.               Regional Assessment Summary                ............................................................... 33








                   Summary of the Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment

                   This document is part of Virginia!s Potomac River Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction
              Strategy. It presents a listing (or "assessment") of the kinds of practices that could be effective,
              practical and publicly supported in the Northern Shenandoah region for reducing nutrient loadings
              into the Shenandoah and Potomac.Rivers, and thus the Chesapeake Bay.

                    To meet Virginia!s goal of reducing nutrient loadings into the Chesapeake Bay by 40% and
              restore the health of its fisheries, the Commonwealth has been working on an assessment process
              with local governments, interest groups, farmers and others in the Potomac basin to identify practical
              and cost-effective methods for reducing nutrient loadings into the Potomac River. For this process,
              the localities in the basin were grouped into four regions, based on similarities of land uses,
              industries, population densities and niarient sources. This document is the result of an assessment
              process conducted in the Northern Shenandoah region, consisting of the Counties of Clarke,
              Frederick, Shenandoah and Warren and the City of Winchester.

                    The Northern Shenandoah assessment was cooperatively supervised by the chairperson of
              the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District (LFSWCD), and the state technical assistance
              team leader from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The assessment included five
              regional meetings and additional meetings With various groups, including the board of supervisors
              of each county, Farm Bureau representatives, and the Frederick Winchester Sewer Authority Board.

                     The meetings included representatives of each of the four counties, the City of Winchester,
              the towns of Berryville, Strasburg and Woodstock, LFSWCD, the Friends of the Shenandoah River
              and the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.


                     In the assessment process, local governments were asked to involve and represent the
              interests of citizens and stakeholders in their jurisdiction. Technical information was provided to
              these participants on nutrient loads and reductions targets, the Bay Program's computer models, and
              options for Biological Nutrient Removal at wastewater treatment plants in the region. Discussions
              were held regarding the approach of the regional assessment process; and the participants decided
              to construct a "regional framework' that would be used to guide the development of local nutrient
              reduction plans.

                     The regional, participants constructed a Regional Framework to guide local nutrient
              reduction plans. The Framework was adopted by the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission
              and was then sent to local governments for final review. The only dissent of the Regional
              Framework was from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.

                     The full Regional Framework includes a list of the benefits that would accrue to citizens in
              the region as a result of nutrient reduction. Several common goals are then set forth. First, the
              region will focus on agricultural BNIPs as the most cost-effective way to reduce nutrients. Second,
              each local strategy will combine cost effectiveness with shared responsibility. Finally, the region
              will look for economic incentives to encourage citizens to voluntarily implement nutrient reduction.







                       The Framework also presents recommended approaches and actions for addressing the
                differe nt types of nutrient sources: agriculture, municipal, industrial, residential and growth and
                development. The participants cited agricultural BNIPs as the most cost-effective method for
                reducing nutrients and recommended that localities request additional state cost-share funds for BNT
                implementation. T'he full Regional Framework, adopted June 19, 1996 by the Lord Fairfax Planning
                District Commission.


                       The participants in the Northern Shenandoah assessment determined that the localities would
                individually consider developing local nutrient reduction plans. For this effort, Clarke and
                Shenandoah developed and adopted comprehensive local nutrient reduction plans. Officials from
                Clarke and Shenandoah Counties cited the close relationship that exists among the health of their
                economies, their natural resources, their farming communities and the productivity of agrictiltural
                land as a major reason for their development of nutrient reduction assessments. The principal
                element of these two local assessments is a request for additional cost-share fuiding frotil the state
                for their farmers to expand implementation of best management practices. Inaddition, both of the
                assessments address other types of nutrient sources to ensure a balanced approach to nutrient
                reduction. Both localities included specific local commitments in their assessments in order to do
                their part to achieve the 40% nutrient reduction goal.

                       Warren County has mostly already achieved its local nutrient reduction goal as a result of
                the closure of the Avtex industrial facility and also as a result of conversions ia cropland that have
                taken place since the baseline year 1985. County staff participated in the assessment and developed
                a draft local nutrient reduction plan which was reviewed by the County Board of Supervisors at two
                meetings. The plan described the types of management measures which could be available for
                further nutrient reductions in the County including enhanced cost-share ftm6ng for a number of
                agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and addressing failing septic systems.

                       In response, the Warren County Board adopted a resolution is support cof nutrient reductions
                and for continued efforts, particularly in the areas of citizen education and finwicial assistance. The
                Board determined that fin-ther study of the issue of septic system management was warTanted and
                established a Potomac Strategy Committee to consider this, and other, options which would continue
                to reduce nutrient loadings from Warren County.

                       The Frederick County Board of Supervisors went on record as not supporting the language
                of the Regional Framework. The Board expressed their concern that there had been insufficient
                coordination between the assessment process and the County's fanning community. The Board also
                expressed concern over the effect that the nutrient cap would have on future growth and development
                in the County. However, the Frederick County Board agreed that the state tecluncal assistance team
                could put together a "strawman7' list of agricultural practices that could potentially be available for
                implementation in the County. After that list was created, the state assistance team leader
                coordinated efforts with the County's agricultural community through the Virginia Farm Bureau
                (state and local) to ensure that their interests were represented in the regional assessment.


                                                                   ii








                    The City of Winchester and the Frederick-Winchester Sewer Authority (FWSA) participated
             in the Potomac Strategy assessment process.The FWSA is currently considering whether they it will
             propose the Opequon for cost-share funding and BNR upgrade through the final Potomac Strategy.

                    This document is not a full "Nutrient Reduction Strategy" for the Northern Shenandoah
             region. A Strategy would present a.complete regional plan for reaching the 40% nutrient reduction
             goal and would include funding sources, parties responsible for implementing the identified
             practices, and specific plans for achieving implementation. Rather, this assessment document sets
             forth the types (and costs) of nutrient reduction practices that would make sense in the region under
             certain conditions, such as availability of cost-shareftinding and expanded technical assistance.

                    In the effort to achieve nutrient reductions across the Potomac basin, a final Potomac Nutrient
             Reduction Strategy will be develop6d which will address point sources of pollution (primarily
             wastewater treatment plants) and nonpoint sources of pollution (primarily runoff from farms and
             residential areas). The final Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy will be submitted to the 1997
             Virginia General Assembly. The Strategy will provide the General Assembly with the information
             necessary to make decisions on allocations of cost-share funds for nutrient reductions in the Potomac
             basin and to weigh the costs of these practices against their benefits.

                     In the Northern Shenandoah region, nonpoint sources are the major source of nutrient
             pollution; and reducing these nutrient loads makes practical sense for the quality of local waters, the
             fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay and also for the farmer. Keeping topsoil and nutrients on farm
             fields and out of waterways is a benefit to both. The agricultural cost-share proposals that will make
             up a major component of the Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy can be viewed as a choice of
             whether or not the state should invest additional cost-share funding into the two most important
             renewable-resource sectors of Virginia!s economy - agriculture and fisheries - in order to conserve
             them both over the long run.








                       Background and Introduction



               Regional Goal for 4utrient Reduction


                       As a signatory of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Virginia is working toward 'a 40%
               reduction of the controllable nutrient load to the Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000. Individual
               Tributary Strategies are being developed as the means to reach this goal, and ia Virginia!s portion
               of the Potomac basin this has been facilitated by subdividing the drainage area into four regions
               (Northern and Southern Shenandoah, Northern Virginia, and Lower Potomac). A 40% reduction
               target was determined for each region, with the ultimate intent of improving the quality of local
               waters and of fulfilling the Bay Program commitment when the four regional plans are combined.

               Assessment of Locally-Based Solutions for Nutrient Reduction

                       An "assessment process" was conducted in the Northern Shenandoah region from March
               through September of 1996 to identify practical solutions for reducing nutrient loadings in the region
               through local decision-making. The process included representatives of local governments, soil and
               water conservation districts, planning district commissions, conservation groups and farmers and
               citizens in order to link the development of Virginds Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy as
               closely as possible -to the interests and concerns of stakeholders in the region.

                       This assessment process is the heart of Virginia!s Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy. It
               identifies selected practices for reducing nutrient loadings into the Shenandoah @md Potomac Rivers
               and sets forth how the Northern Shenandoah region!s 40% nutrient reduction gc)al could be met. It
               also provides an esi:imate of the costs that would be associated with these practices.

               A New Approach W Water Quali1y Protection

                       This assessment, and Virginia!s Potomac Tributary Strategy, is an attempt to return important
               decisions on water quality protection to citizens and state and local elected officials. Ile decisions
               and recommendations that comprise this assessment arose from the professional judgement and
               creative thinking oftitizens, stakeholders, interest groups and local representalives in the Northern
               Shenandoah region. The role of agency staff in this assessment has been to provide information,
               technical assistance and a format for this effort. Final decisions on the recommendations contained
               in this document -will be made by state elected officials in the Virginia General Assembly.

               Not a Commitme t to Final Implementation

                       This document does not impose any commitments to implement nutrient reduction practices
               on individuals who were involved in the assessment process, nor on any third. party, except where
               such commitments have been voluntarily assumed. The assessment is riot an effort by the
               Commonwealth of Virginia to require the development and operation of these practices by citizens,








              farmers, businesses or local governments. Rather, the assessment is an effort to identify the types
              of practices that would be cost-effective, practical and equitable in reducing nutrient loadings from
              the Northern Shenandoah region. The document then provides a summary of the costs that would
              be associated with the implementation of these practices at a level that would reach ihe 40% nutrient
              reduction goal.


              11.   Process and Development of Virginia's Potomac Tributary Strategy



              Progress to Date Toward Meetin2 40% Nutrient Reduction Goal


                    Since Virginia began working toward the 40% goal in the Potomac River basin, nutrient
              loadings have been reduced through increased use of agricultural best management practices
              (BMP)s, enhanced nutrient removal at wastewater treatment plants, improved local erosion and
              sediment control, and other initiatives. Between 1985 and 1994, the annual nitrogen load was
              reduced by an estimated 1.346 million pounds, and the annual phosphorus load was reduced by an
              estimated 0.526 million pounds. This represents a 6.5% annual load reduction for nitrogen, and a
              25.6% annual load reduction for phosphorus, relative to the 1985 baseline nutrient load. The gross
              nutrient reductions achieved between 1985 and 1994 were actually greater, but were partially offset
              by the nutrient-related impacts of growth and development during that period.

              Projected Gap in Meeting 40% Goal

                     That progress leaves us with an annual loading "nutrient gap" that will need to be closed of
              6.79 million pounds for nitrogen (32.8% yet to be achieved, compared to the full 40% goal) and 0. 16
              million pounds of phosphorus (7.7% yet to be achieved). Closing this gap is the task of Virginia!s
              Potomac River Basin Tributary Strategy.

              Previous Publications and Guidance from Virginia Citizens

                     In August of 1993, Virginia produced a discussion paper, Reducing Nutrients in Virginia's
              Tidal Tributaries: the Potomac Basin, that explained the need for nutrient reductions and character-
              ized the land use, water quality and living resources in the Potomac basin. The paper discussed
              opportunities for nutrient reduction, focusing primarily on those that are most cost-effective (i.e.,
              lowest cost per pound of nutrient reduced), particularly agricultural BMPs.

                     Many farmers who provided comments on that discussion paper stated their viewpoint that
              the Strategy should portray a more equitable distribution of responsibility for nutrient reductions in
              the basin, even if that will lead to a higher total cost. A more equitabe approach was included in
              Virginia!s second Potomac Strategy paper, published in October, 1994, entitled Actions and Options
              for Virginia's Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy.


                                                                2








                      In October, '1994, staff of Virginia!s Natural Resources agencies held six public meetings in
              the Potomac basin to ffirther inform citizens of the Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy and to hear
              their viewpoints and responses. During March and April of 1995, agency staff met with local
              government officials and local interest groups across the Potomac basin. During those meetings,
              many citizens stated that the best way to achieve cost-effectiveness, practicalily and equity would
              be to include citizens, interest groups and stakeholders at the local level into the fimdamental
              decision-making and development of the Potomac Tributary Strategy.

                      This very important guidance from citizens in the basin was incorporated into the publication
              of the Draft Virginia Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, in August of 1995, and
              led to the locally-based assessment process that is documented herein. As noted above, this process
              began with the division of the basin into four regions and the determination of nutrient 16ading
              figures and 40% nutrient reduction targets for each region.


































                                                                  3









              111.  The Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment Process



              Regional Description

                     The Northern Shenandoah re                         of the area of Virginia's Potomac basin and
                                                  . gion is one quarter
              includes all of Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah and Warren Counties and the city of Winchester. The
              majority of the North Fork Shenandoah River and all of the main stem of the Shenandoah River are
              in this region. Agriculture and forestry are the predominate land uses, with 53% forested and 39%
              in farmland and pasture. Only 7% is urban or suburban.

                     In 1985, this region contributed 13% of the total controllable nitrogen load and 20% of the
              total controllable phosphorus load of Virginia's Potomac basin. In 1985, point sources contributed
              33% of both nutrients and nonpoint sources contributed the other 67%. Six municipal and industrial
              wastewater treatment plants in the region are considered "major" point sources.

              The P=ose of the Assessment Process .

                     The assessment process separated the question of "Which practices are most appropriate to
              reduce nutrient loadings in the region?" from the question of. "Who will implement and pay for
              those practices?". The purpose of this approach was to focus the deliberations on the single task of
              identifying the most cost-effective, practical and equitable options for nutrient reduction.

              Initial MeetinQs and Consensus


                      The assessment was initiated with a letter from the Secretary of Natural Resources to the
              chief elected official of each county, city, town, in the region, and to the Chairperson of the Lord
              Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. Secretary Dunlop asked these officials to become
              directly involved in the assessment to ensure that it would be guided by local perspectives and
              benefits. She invited these officials to attend the first assessment meeting on March 11, 1996.

                      That meeting was run by Natural Resources agency staff assigned to serve on a Northern
              Shenandoah technical assistance team. Presentations were given on the history of the Potomac
              Tributary Strategy and on the goal of the assessment. In attendance at that meeting were
              representatives of the four counties - Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah and Warren - and the towns of
              Berryville, Strasburg and Woodstock. The City of Winchester was not represented.

                      At that meeting, it was decided that the regional nutrient-loading data provided by the state
              shotid be subdivided to the county level to allow local officials to deterniine their individual nutrient
              reduction targets. The participants agreed that a regional working group, steered by the Lord Fairfax
              Soil and Water Conservation District and the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, should
              be formed to review the nutrient loading data and to consider available nutrient reduction options.
              The participants also agreed that a successful nutrient reduction effort in the region would have to

                                                                   4








               include improved education and information to the public.

                      Representation at the second regional meeting, held April 18, 1996, bicluded the City of
               Winchester. Natural Resources agency staff presented a paper that set forth baseline nutrient loading
               figures, 40% reduction targets and year 2000 projected loading figures for each of the four counties.
               Agency staff also provided a paper describing the Bay ProgranYs watershed modell, and water quality
               model, used to arrive at those figures. A paper was presented that discussed Biological Nutrient
               Removal options and costs for wastewater treatment plants in the region. At this meeting local
               representatives decided that a "regional framework" would be developed but 6at localities would
               put together their own nutrient reduction assessments.

               Building a Region I Framework


                       At the third. and fourth regional meetings, held June 5 and 18, 1996, mrticipanis worked
               toward constructing-, a regional fi-amework that would outline areas of consensus achieved during the
               assessment and could serve as a reference guide for the development of local nutrient reduction
               strategies. The final Regional Framework was adopted by the Lord Fairfax Planning District
               Commission on June 19, 1996 and was then sent to the individual local governments for their final
               review. At a meeting on July 10, 1996, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors went on record
               as not supporting the language in the Regional Framework.

                       The adopted Regional Framework is provided in its entirety in the following pages.























                                                                  5








            IV.    Regional Framework For The Northern Shenandoah Region Potomac River Strategies

                   Adopted June 19, 1996 - Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission

            The Northern Shenandoah Region of the Potomac River Strategy area consists of Frederick County,
            Clarke County, Warren County, Shenandoah County, and the City of Winchester. The same
            boundary lines encompass the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. These local
            jurisdictions have met and prepared a regional strategy to serve as the framework to guide each
            locality in accomplishing its own nutrient reduction strategy. Although the impetus for nutrient
            reduction comes from the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, all jurisdictions recognize that the immediate
            beneficiaries of their efforts will be the citizens they represent.

                   A few of the benefits to localities are:
                            Elimination of algae blooms in public waters
                            Promotion of the Tourist Industry by preserving our natural and cultural heritage
                            Enhancement of Recreational opportunities such as fishing and boating
                            Clean water for citizens, businesses (including agri-business) and industry
                            Protection of wildlife
                            General health and safety of the populace

            'Me following goals were developed with several common elements in mind. First, the region will
            focus on agricultural BMP's as the most effective way to reduce nutrient pollution. Secondly, each
            strategy will be developed to combine cost effectiveness with shared responsibility. Finally, the
            region will look for ways to develop economic incentives to encourage citizens to voluntarily
            implement nutrient reduction.



            AGRICULTURE


                    Nutrient Management Emphasized

                            Each locality will fund 115 of an employee to be hired by the Conservation District
                            to work with BMP cost share projects, erosion and sedimentation control, and
                            education.


                    Best Management Practices

                            Funds will be requested from the state to fund additional District personnel to
                            administer increased numbers of BMP projects. The localities will also request
                            additional state funding in the amount necessary to accomplish nutrient reduction
                            goals.




                                                             6








                       Economic incentives should be explored to provide new sources of income for farmers.
                             Example: Fee fishing for native trout

                       Explore possibilities for stream protection from high density      livestock populations.

                       Manure sliming program - move manure waste from localities that havesurplus to areas that
                       need it.
                       Explore corriposting manure to package and sell to the public.



              MUNICIPAL


                       Monitor all sewage treatment plants to determine actual rates of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
                       .in effluent.


                       Explore zero discharge treatment at smaller plants.

                       Determine if Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) is practical and cost effective in our area.
                       Dr. Randall from VPI&SU is currently conducting a study to deteimine the economic
                       feasibility of BNR technology.

                       The state should provide technical and financial assistance to treatment plants to implement
                       improved nutrient removal while maintaining capacity.

                       Look at additional nutrient removal options when upgrades are planned.

                       Enforce compliance of existing water quality regulations.

                       Explore nutrient trading, but only when it can be accomplished without detriment to
                       individual water bodies.


                       DEQ shou][d cooperate with local volunteer water monitoring groups to develop standard
                       criteria that can be used statewide and incorporate volunteer monitoring data into the
                       decision-making process.



               INDUSTRIAL


                       Monitor effluent at treatment sites.


                       Explore use of new technology to better treat and/or dispose of effluent.
                               Example: Composting organic waste


                                                                 7








             Explore ways to assist all treatment plants in the region to improve nutrient removal
             efficiencies.



        RESIDENTIAL


             Public education to reduce home use of fertilizers and other chemicals. Existing programs
             which are available:
                  Home Assist - NRCS
                  Farm Assist - NRCS
                  Bayscaping - Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
                  Virginia Cooperative Extension programs

             Target audiences with public seminars.

             Educate homeowners on installation, use and maintenance of septic tanks.

             Recycling waste community-wide.



        GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT


             Stormwater management.
                  Explore ways to eliminate stormwater infiltration into sewer lines to prevent
                  combined sewage overflows.

             Increase treatment capacity and encourage new development in treatment plant service areas.

             Explore regional opportunities to prevent pollution at its source.

             Form public/private partnerships to handle waste.
                  Example: Joint municipal/ industry waste treatment and land application of effluent.

             Land use planning to minimize sprawl and encourage healthy agribusiness.

             Minimize impervious surfaces and maintain open space.









                                         8







                 V.      Local Nutrient Reduction Assessments for the Northern Shenandeah Region


                 Local Prerop-ative


                          The assessment process was initiated on a regional scale. However, during that process local
                 governments in the Northern Shenandoah region agreed that each participating jurisdiction would
                 develop its own local nutrient reduction assessment. To assist this effort, Natural Resource agency
                 staff then subdivided the regional data on baseline nutrient loadings, projected nutrient loadings and
                 40% nutrient reductions and applied them to the county level.

                 Local Nutrient Reduction Tareets


                          The following table presents a series of numbers which lead to the calculation of the nitrogen
                                                                                                                     16
                 reduction goals and phosphorus reduction goals for each county in the Northern Shenand;ah region.
                 These figures begin with the 1985 baseline nutrient loadings, from whch are derived the
                 "controllable load" and the 40% reduction goal (40% of the controllable load). Based on current
                 understanding of nutrient reductions forn current programs and increased nutrient loadings from
                 existing sources, or growth, estimated and projected loadings are provided for 1994 and 2000,
                 leading to the gap that must be closed to reach the 40% reduction goal.

                                          Estimated Nutrient Loads & Reductions by County
                   Based on Projected Growth and Current and Projected Implementation of Nutrient Reduction Programs


                                      Nitrogen Load (lbs)                  Year 1994 Progress            Near 2000 Projections

                       1985 Load        Controllable     Reduc Goal        Lbs Reduc          % Chanee        Lbs Reduc.       % Change

          Clarke        764,000           388,000         155,200            61,200           -15.8%            71,000           -18.3%
       Frederick     1,743,500            833,600         333,400            24,600           -3.0%           (24,900)            3.0%
      henandoah      1,720,200            7%,300          318,500            76,000           -9.6%           195,400            -24.5%
         Warren      1,098,800            724,000         289,600           474,600           -65.6%          400,200            -55.3%


       N. Shen.      5,326,500          2,741,800        1,096,700          636,400           -23.2%          641,600            -23.4%



                                Phosphorus Load (lbs)                   Year 1994 Progress             Year 2000 Projections

                     1985 Load       _Qintrollable    Reduc Goal        Lbs Reduc         % Chanae         Lbs Reduc         % Chanee

           Clarke        79,700            59,700           23,900            6,300           -10.5%             6,800           -11.3%
        Frederick       200,500           163,600           65,400           35,200           -21.5%            28,700           -17.5%
       henandoah        174,700           136,200           54,500           26,700           -19.6%            48,700           -35.8%
          Warren          77,100           59,500           23,800           28,700           -48.2%            19,400           -32.5%


        N. Shen.        532,000           419,000           167,600          %,900            -23.1%           103,600           -24.7%


                                                                          9










            Local Nutrient Reduction Assessments


                    In the following pages are provided fully adopted local nutrient reduction assessments from
            two counties (Clarke and Shenandoah), of the four counties in the Northern Shenandoah region, and
            status reports from the counties of Frederick and Warren and the City of Winchester.

                    The Warren and Frederick County status reports include a "strawman" table of potential
            practices and acreages that may be available for increased cost-share funding and implementation.

                    The City of Winchester Report includes references to possible participation in the Strategy
            by the Frederick-Winchester Sewer Authority.

            Clarke and Shenandoah Counties


                    The efforts of the locally elected officials in Clarke and Shenandoah Counties to actively
            represent the interests of their farmers, businesses and other citizens in the Northern Shenandoah
            assessment process deserves special mention. During the regional assessment meetings held
            between April and June of 1996, these officials stated that their local economies and future growth
            potentials were integrally linked to clean water, productive agricultural land and a healthy
            environment. These officials stated that maintaining the quality of their waters both protected their
            citizens and also created attractive conditions for businesses and continued economic development.
            In particular, the availability of clean water removed one more variable from the uncertainties that
            businesses and industries face in their decisions to locate or expand.

                    In adopting their local assessments, representatives from both of these counties stated that
            there will need to be increased information and education provided to farmers to ensure that they
            know the availability of increased cost-share monies for best management practices, and the value
            that these practices offer to their own farming operations.

















                                                              10








                      1.      Non.-Point Source Reduction Strategy for Clarke Counly

                Introduction
                      The VirginiaL Potomac Tributary Strategy is a program designed to meet the 1987 Chesapeake
                Bay Agreements 401% nutrient reduction goal by the year 2000. The primary purpose for initiating
                a reduction strategy is to improve water quality in the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay so as to
                reverse the decline of living resources caused by water quality degradation.

                      In order to meet the overall goal, each locality must reduce the controllable load of nutrients
                entering the Potomac River from point source s (e.g., waste water treatment plants) and non-point
                (runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas) by 40% relative to the establi.shed 1985 baseline
                nutrient load. The Virginia Natural Resource Agencies including the Department of Environmental
                Quality (DEQ), Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Chcsapeake Bay Local
                Assistance Department (CBLAD), and the Division of Soil and Water Conservatiori (DSWC)
                working cooperatively under direction from the Secretary of Natural Resources, have req"u-ested each
                locality to develop a preliminary plan which outlines specific reduction strategies. These plans will
                serve to provide the State with a cost estimate for implementing the tributary strategy.

                Resource Description
                       Clarke County is located in the northern Shenandoah Valley and consists of approximately
                114,000 acres. The eastern third of the County consists of the western slope of the Blue Ridge
                Mountains. This region is primarily forested and contains roughly 9 perennial tributaries of the
                Shenandoah River. The river divides the mountain from the valley portion of the County.
                Approximately 22 miles of the main stem of the Shenandoah River runs through the County. The
                western two thirds of the County is the northern Shenandoah Valley and is primarily open land in
                agricultural use. Nine perennial streams flow eastward through the valley to the Shenandoah River.
                Three tributaries flow into the Opequon Creek drainage which forms the western boundary between
                Clarke and Frederick County, Virginia. In all, six hydrologic units, as designated by the State
                Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), are either wholly or partially within Clarke
                County.

                       Primary nutrient loading to Clarke County is from non-point agricultural sources.
                Approximately 281YO of agricultural land is currently in crop production, 39% pasture, 27% forest,
                and 6% in urban land use according to DSWC. The point sources within the County include the
                Berryville and Boyce Sewage Treatment Plants.

                Reduction Strategy
                        Two basic strategies for Clarke County need to be implemented. The first addresses closing
                the'gap'or reaching the goal of reducing our 1985 nutrient loads by 40% by the year 2000. DEQ
                has estimated that Clarke County needs to reduce its controllable nutrient load by 100,000 lbs. of
                nitrogen and 57,0010 lbs. of phosphorous annually. Secondly, the County must maintain this reduced
                level or 'cap' through long term practices such as flood plain management and strict requirements
                for septic installation.








                Gap Requirements
                          DEQ has provided tables, detailing potential Best Management Practices (BMP's), pounds
                of nutrients reduced by these practices and cost estimates for implementation. Table I outlines
                BMP's which will serve as the framework for meeting our reduction goal.

    Table 1:          Non-point source nutrient reduction for Clarke County - Scenario one. Based on increased
                      coverage beyond current and planned State programs.



    BMP Treatment                    Coveraze            % Nitrogen              Phosphorus          Acre Treated               Incr. Coverage

    Conservation Tillage                 9,662              so        740                60               $17.30                     $14,068
    Farm Plans                         26,622               90  . 9,924              2,606                 17.90                     291,899
    Nutrient Management                 15,996              90     55,186            7,278                   2.40                     38,630
    Highly Erodible Land Retrmt.         2,979               5     21,835            3,720                103.00                     240,183

    Grazing Land Protection             22,132              60     77,460            6,577                 38.00                     852,067
    Stream Protection                    1,000                      1,186                88                16.20                      13,348
    Cover Crops                           500                       4,090               316                20.20                      10,112
    Grass Filter Strips                   500                       5,655               697               232.00                     116,399
    Woodland Buffer Filter Area           500                       8,825            .1,450               141.00                      70,600
    Forest Harvesting                     376               100     4,600                 87                    -                              0
    ,Animal Waste Control Facility            8              -     11,006            2,076                                                     0
    Erosion & Sediment Control               37             100       413               198                                                    0
    Urban SWM BMP Retrofits                   0              -            0                0                    -                              0
    Urban Nutrient Management                 0              -            0                                                                    0
    Septic Pumping                       2,250              75      1,687               N/A                28.50                      64,125
    Shoreline Protection                      -              -            -                -



                  Total Pounds Reduced                             202,607           25,153                                        $1,711,431
                  Adjustment for Urban Growth                         (24)             (140)
                  Nonpoint controllable Amount                     387,984           59,672
                  Percent Reduction                                   52%               42%



                           Most practices outlined, with the exception of forest harvesting, urban runoff management and septic pumping
                  impact the agricultural community. Primary means for reducing the current nutrient loading include requiring
                  protection, encouraging conservation tillage, and instigating septic pump-out requirements. Secondary methods will
                  be erosion and sediment control and forest harvest management. Requiring farm plans and nutrient management plans
                  appear to be the most cost effective BMP's available.


                            The overall goal is to produce a strategy which is most cost effective, equitable and
                  practical. Strategies to reduce nutrient loading from point sources such as upgrading waste water
                  treatment plants, may be effective, however are perhaps the most expensive means of reducing
                  nutrient loading. Costs associated with agricultural BMP implementation have been shown to
                  produce the highest benefit for the lowest cost to communities overall.


                                                                               12








                       A regional approach to reducing nutrient loads includes requiring farm plans for all
                agricultural operations and funding additional extension agents or Soil and Water Conservation
                personnel to assist farmers in preparing and implementing these plans. In addition, using poultry
                manure, abundant in the southern portions of the basin for fertilizer in the northern portions serves
                needs of both areas and is a cost effective approach to nutrient management.

                Cap Requirements
                     . The County is currently implementing many strategies which will serve to maintain the
                nutrient cap. These include previously adopted County Septic, Well, Sinkhole, Erosion and
                Sediment (E&S) Control ordinances. The County septic ordinance requires increased siting
                requirements which exceed current state requirements, installation of a 100% reserve area, and sets
                forth provisions for mandatory septic pump-out. The well ordinance increases standards for grbuting
                and casing, and establishes setbacks from known sources of pollution. The sinkhole ordinance
                serves to increase awareness of the potential to contaminate groundwater through sinkholes and
                imposes penalties for illegal dumping. The E&S ordinance establishes a minimum disturbance area
                of 2500 square feet which may require an E&S plan approved by the division of Soil & Water
                Conservation.


                       The County has added sections to the zoning Ordinance which require a minimum 100 foot
                building setback to perennial streams, 50 feet to intermittent streams and minimal clearing within
                these setback area:3. Beginning September 1, 1994, anyone harvesting timber for commercial
                purposes must have a pre-harvest plan approved by the Department of Forestry, which ensures
                installation of BMP's for timer harvest practices.

                       In 1995, the County applied for and recently received an EPA 319 grant of $100,000 to
                conduct a watershed study which specifically looks at practical approaches of BMP installation to
                improve water quality.. The main objective of this project is to determine the most cost effective
                means to improve surface and ground water quality in karst areas. In addition, 1he project will serve
                as a demonstration project to encourage other riparian land owners throughout the County to
                implement appropriate management practices.

                        In addition, the County has been aggressively seeking approval from the State Health
                Department to install two zero discharge waste water treatment facilities in the County to dispose
                of County septage and town sewage. A considerable volume (approximately 3 8,700 gallons/day in
                NE11wood and 25,000 gallons/day in Waterloo) will be processed by these facilities and the effluent
                will be used as irrigation water rather than being discharged into area tributaries. Over time this will.
                have a considerable impact in the reduction of nutrients entering the Shenandoah River Basin.


                Conclusion
                        Clarke Coimty is well aware of the need for and has initiated many programs which serve
                to improve both ground and surface water quality. Solutions to water quality issues which involve
                localities throughout the Shenandoah River Basin region are the most practical and provide a
                framework for discussion for many regional water issues.

                                                                    13








                   2.      Shenandoah CounIX Nutrient geduction Plan

                   Shenandoah County is pleased to respond to the request from the Virginia Secretary of
             Natural Resources to develop a Nutrient Reduction Plan in support of the Potomac Tributary
             Strategy. This plan was prepared by the County's Water Resources Steering Committee and was
             approved by the Board of Supervi   'sors on September 10, 1996. A primary goal of the plan is to
             reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Shenandoah River, and therefore to the Potomac River
             and Chesapeake Bay, by 40% from 1985 to 2000. A second, but no less important goal, is to prevent
             any future increases in pollutant loads beyond the year 2000.

             Progress in Nutrient Reduction
                    According to page 33 for the Summary ofNonpoint & Point Source Calculations, Northern
             Shenandoah Region, April 18, 1996,prepared by the Department of Conservation and Recreation
             (DCR), Shenandoah County, if it continues its current nutrient reduction activities, is projected to
             achieve a 29.3% reduction in nitrogen load from 1985 to the Year 2000. The reduction in phosphorus
             load is projected to be 40.4%. Table A shows these projected reductions. Therefore, the County is
             expected to meet the 40% reduction goal for phosphorus, though it must find ways to reduce
             nitrogen loads by an additional 10.7% or 82,512 pounds. The country must also find ways to cap
             nutrient growth beyond the year 2000 by maintaining these nutrient levels.

                    The DCR report shows that the excellent progress made so far by Shenandoah County is due
             in great part to the implementation of many agricultural best management practices and nutrient
             management plans by the County's farmers. This is demonstrated by Table B. Less success has
             been achieved in reducing nutrient loads by the point sources of pollution in the County, the
             municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants as shown in Table C. Current discharge
             standards for treatment plants in the County do not set nitrogen or phosphorus limits.

             Process for Developing a Plan
                     The Water Resources Steering Committee met on May 23, 1996, to discuss the information
             provided above and to begin developing a nutrient reduction plan focusing on nitrogen. Mr. Collin
             Powers of DEQ provided technical support in the meeting. While the Committee acknowledged that
             the wastewater treatment plants in the County provide a significant source of nitrogen, it was
             determined in the meeting that the implementation of nutrient reduction techniques at such plants
             is a very expensive proposition. Small treatment plants, such as those we have in the County, are
             especially expensive to retrofit with biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology. A preliminary
             calculation for the Woodstock treatment plant showed that BNR would raise water rates in the town
             by more than 33%.

                     The committee decided that it would be unfair to make the town citizens bear all the costs
             of nutrient reduction since there are many sources of nutrient pollution in the County: industry,
             agriculture, mal-functioning septic systems, over-fertilization of lawns and gardens by homeowners,
             for example. Since we all contribute to the problem, the committee decided to develop a plan that
             chose the most cost-effective methods of nutrient reduction but spread the costs over the entire

                                                               14







               population. In general, agricultural best management practices (BMPs) were found to be the most
               cost-effective methods.


               The Year 2000 Plan: Closing the Gap
                     Working with DEQ staff and the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District(
               LFSWCD), County staff tested the effectiveness of implementation of various agricultural BNIPs.
               It was determined that with a modest increase in the implementation of farm and forest plans,
               conservation tillage, and nutrient management, Shenandoah County could meet the nitrogen
               reduction goal.

                      This reduction can be achieved by requiring all farmers and forest owners to have farm
               and/or forest plans prepared that would include soil and water conservation and nutrient management
               recommendations. (Such plans are now prepared at no cost by the Natural Resources Conservation
               Service and the Virginia Division of Forestry.) Preparation of farm and forest plans alonie will not
               solve the problem; they must be implemented. The educational process involved in wo;king with
               the farmer on the plan will increase the implementation of BNTs, because often BNTs save farmers
               money in the long run. However, an impediment to implementation is a lack of ftmds for
               improvements. Only $ 100, 000 per year is now available to farmers throughout the Soil and Water
               Conservation District ( four counties) and this amount does not meet the demand. Tberefore, a key
               element of Shenandoah County's nutrient reduction plan is a request to State government to provide
               $100,000 per year fbr the next five years to Shenandoah County alone for agricultural B MP cost-
               share funds through the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. Shenandoah County
               would contribute the cost of one part-time position at the LFSWCD to administer the cost share
               program and assistin the preparation of farm and forest plans.

                      Other elements of the plan include the continued implementation of erosion and sediment
               control plans and implementation of educational programs for homeowners to reduce over-use of
               fertilizers and promote home conservation techniques.

               Beyond Year 20001: Maintaining the Cap
                      The County must not only close the gap on nutrient reduction, it must maintain nutrient
               production levels at the Year 2000 level despite growth and development. T@is will be achieved
               through adoption of a stream buffer ordinance for new development, requiring applicants for County
               permits for new sewage treatment plants and plant expansions to consider nutrient reduction
               technologies, and Possibly requiring the pump-out of septic systems. The latter plan is more
               tentative due to concerns over the funding of a septage handling facility. The County will be looking
               to the State for assistance in funding such a facility.








                                                                 15








             The following outlines the elements of the County's Nutrient Reduction Plan:

             1.     Current Nutrient Reduction Activities


             Activities that Close the Gap_

             A.     Nutrient management plans are required of all intensive facilities by Section 516.4 of the
                    Zoning Ordinance. According to our ordinance, this will be completely implemented by July
                    9,1996.

             B.     The Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District offers cost-sharing funds and
                    technical assistance to farmers in the County to implement agricultural Best Management
                    Practices.


             C.     Shenandoah County has an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, which it will continue
                    to implement as effectively as possible.

             Activities that Maintain the CU

             D.     Regulations in the County's Floodplain Ordinance include water quality protection
                    performance standards for new septic drainfields in the I 00-year floodplain.

             E.     The County has published a brochure on sinkhole protection that is distributed in all Town
                    and County offices and has been used in school science classes as a resource material.

             F.     The Shenandoah County Zoning Ordinance allows cluster development in its'High Density
                    Residential (R-3) Zone. The County is considering expanding the cluster option to other
                    zoning districts.

             G.     The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Valley Conservation
                    Council, a regional conservation group, are active in securing conservation easements on
                    riparian and steep mountain land in the County. In the last two years, approximately 133
                    acres have been placed in conservation easements.

             H.     The Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, a local conservation group, has
                    implemented on-going water quality monitoring programs for the Shenandoah River, several
                    County streams, and a selection of private wells.








                                                             16









               H.      Planned New Nutrient Activities


              Activities- that Clos : the Gap

               A.      The County asks that the State Legislature enable all counties to adopt ordinances to require
                       farm and forest owners have prepared and to file with the County a farm and/or forest plan,
                       including soil and water conservation and nutrient management measures. If such enabling
                       legislation is adopted, Shenandoah County will adopt the farm/forest plan requirement by
                       local ordinance. The County intends for this ordinance to require only that the plans be
                       prepared. Implementation of the plans by farmers shall remain voluntary. -

               B.      The County also asks the State Legislature to provide Shenandoah County $ 100,000 per year
                       for five years for agricultural DNT cost-sharing through the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water
                       Conservation District. This extra five-year funding will ensure that the County'meets the
                       nutrient reduction goal.

                       After five years, the County asks that the State Legislature continue iffie agricultural cost-
                       share program at current (1996) levels to help maintain the goal nutrient levels.

               C.      The County plans to fund a part-time position at the Lord Fair&x Soil and Water
                       Conservation District to administer the extra cost-sharing flinds and help prepare farm and
                       forest plans.

               D.      The County asks the State to develop appropriate educational materials to show farmers and
                       homeowners how to reduce nutrient pollution. These materials should emphasize local water
                       quality and health benefits to be achieved.

               E.      The County plans to develop a Farm* A* Syst/Home*A* Syst Program as outlined in the
                       attached brochures. This voluntary program enables farmers and homeowners to analyze
                       pollution threats to their wells and to develop plans to reduce those threats. The program
                       was develoi ed in Wisconsin; however, Virginia Tech is now in the process of developing
                                  'P
                       a program for Virginia. Once Virginia Tech has completed its materials, the County will
                       initiate a program through the County Extension Office.

                F.     The Counv@ has endorsed and agreed to act as fiscal agent for a Section 319 grant for the
                       Holmans Creek/North Fork Shenandoah River Watershed Study. The grant has been
                       awarded and a person hired to carry out stream and well monitoring to assess the extent and
                       sources of tion-point source pollution in the watershed. In 1993, an assessment conducted
                       by the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation indicated that this watershed has
                       a high potential for non-point source pollution. Results of the study will be used to develop
                       nutrient reduction strategies and carry out community education projects.

               G.      Shenandoah County has joined with three Soil and Water Conservation Districts to request

                                                                  17






                    the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service to prepare a Shenandoah River Basin
                    Study.

          Activities that Maintain the.Cap

           H.       The County is considering adopting a stream buffer protection ordinance so as to reduce non-
                    point source pollution of county streams caused by development.

           I .      The County is considering adopting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would
                    require applications by the private sector for special use permits for sewage treatment
                    facilities to include a feasibility study addressing nutrient reduction technologies. Such a
                    feasibility study would be prepared by the County when it decides to construct a new plant
                    or expand an existing one. Towns will be asked to do the same thing for their sewage
                    treatment plants. State assistance in this effort is requested as follows:

                           Provision of technical assistance in the development and evaluation of innovative
                           nutrient reduction technologies, such as deep cell aeration.

                           Provision of funding to cover the incremental cost, if any, of incorporating nutrient
                           nutrient reduction technologies into sewage treatment plant design.

            J.      The County will explore whether to implement a program to either encourage or require
                    regular pump-out of septic systems in the County. To that end the County has initiated two
                    studies at its current septage treatment facility: (1) a study of plant operations to determine
                    the level of septage that can be handled and improvements needed to handle additional
                    septage, and (2) a sludge management plan. These will be completed within one year.
                    Current obstacles that must be overcome:


                             Securing funding for septage handling facilities. State grants will be sought.

                             Restrictions on the County regarding requiring septic system pump-out in light of a
                             recent Attorney General Opinion stating that local governments do not have authority
                             to adopt ordinances that would be inconsistent with or more stringent than
                             regulations adopted by the State Water Control Board. Specific enabling legislation
                             is requested.

             K.      Rocco Farm Foods, Inc., of Edinburg, VA has offered to participate in an EPA pilot program
                     run by Virginia Tech to study implementation of biological nutrient removal at its sewage
                     treatment plant.


             Table Mqimmari s how this draft nutrient reduction plan meets the 40% nutrient reduction goal.


                                                                18



















                                                                TABLE D


                Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Shenandoah County - Scenario One
                              Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs

                                            Year 2000 Projection      Reductions (lbs/year)     Cost per Added      Total Cost for
               BMP Treatment                Coverage      Percent    NiMQaen      Phost)horus    Acre Treated      Incr, Coveraw
      Conservation Tillage                        8,598      56.1%        18,090         1,941            S129.26          S270,272
      Farm Plans                                 27@203      67.4%        19,145         5,076             S17.14          S172,413
      Nutrient Management                        36,505      90.5%       179,459        23,085              S3.25           S34,24-5
      Highly Erodible Land Retirement             1,806         1.7%      19,611         2,926            S133.93          S139,292
      Grazing Land Protection                     1,633         2.6%        4,727          305             S72.38           S46,106
      Stream Protection                                11                       16              1          S16.13                S16
      Cover Crops                                     50        -             352           26             S17.25               S862
      Grass Filter Strips                              50       -             473)          -; 6          S189.3s             S9,469
      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                     100       -            1,915         261            S1533S            S15,318
      Forest Harvesting                           2,125      100.0%       24,567           515                                       so
      Animal Waste Control Facilities                  90       -         124,440        23,387                                      so
      Erosion & Sediment Control                       86    100.0%           972          467                                       so
      Urban SWNVBMP Retrofits                            0      0.0%              0             0                                    so
      Urban Nutrient Manaaement                       127       11.0%          164              14                                   so
      Septic Pumping                                     0      -                 0             0                                    so
      Shoreline Erosion Protection                       0                        0             0                                    so
                  Total Pounds Reduced:                                   393,932        38,060                             S687,994
          Adjustrnent for Urban Growth:                                      3,961          380
                      Adjusted Reduction:                                 13 8 9,9 r-    57,680
         Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                    601,783        91,306
                       Percent Reduction:                                  64.80%        63.17%












                                                                             19








                                                 Virginia Farm * A * Syst
                                            Groundwater Protection Program

             Newsletter No. 1.
             March 1994



             A farmstead is more than a home and a center for farming operations- it is also the wellhead for
             household water supplies. On a typical farmstead, several million gallons of groundwater are stored
             within 100 feet below farmstead facilities, such as fuel tanks, chemical and fertilizer storage tanks,
             and livestock holding areas. A great majority of farmers use this groundwater for drinking and other
             domestic uses. In some cases, the farmstead drinking water may be polluted due to above the ground
             activities and found not in complian;Se with drinking water standards.

             Now a program to help agricultural producers and rural residents maintain and improve the quality
             of their drinking water is rapidly becoming available nationwide. The Farmstead (Pollution)
             Assessment System (Farm * A* Syst) is a national educational/technical program with the
             objective of helping farmstead and rural residents voluntarily assess water pollution risks to their
             household water supplies. The program is designed to increase a participant's knowledge and
             understanding of pollution risks in fannstead environments. The Farm * A * Syst package consists
             of worksheets and supporting fact sheets which guide a farmer in step-by-step analysis of potential
             sources of groundwater contamination. Fact sheets provide information on factors that influence
             pollution risks, health and/or legal concerns, and sources of additional information or assistance.
             Worksheets provide a numerical ranking system to evaluate pollution risks to an individual water
             supply. Upon completion of risk assessment, the farmer is encouraged to voluntarily take
             recommended actions that could reduce or eliminate identified pollution risk of water supplies and
             the general environment.

             The Farm * A * Syst program was originally developed and pilot tested in Wisconsin and
             Minnesota. In a cooperative arrangement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
             USDA-Cooperative Extension Service, and USDA-Soil Conservation Service, support is provided
             to expand Farm * A * Syst to other states. 'Me nationwide effort is coordinated by the national Farm
             * A * Syst Program located in Madison, Wisconsin. A network of state coordinators continuously
             interact by means of workshops and teleconferences to develop Farm * A * Syst material for their
             states and discuss implementation procedures. More than 30 stateshave either completed adaptation
             of the program materials or are in the process of doing so.

             In late 1993, a multi-agency effort was initiated to develop a Farm * A * Syst Program for Virginia.
             This statewide effort is coordinated by the Biological Systems Engineering Department at Virginia
             Tech (formerly Agricultural Engineering) with active participation by the Virginia Division of Soil
             and Water Conservation and Virginia Cooperative Extension. Other cooperators include USDA-Soil
             Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Virginia Farm
             Bureau Federation, and Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

                                                               20








               The primary objective of the Virginia project is to adopt and modify where necessary, national Farm
               * A * Syst program materials to Virginia conditions to result in a package that will compliment and
               enhance the effectiveness of ongoing water quality programs. The package,when completed, can
               be used by technii1cal. and educational agency personnel, or by individual, farmstead owners
               themselves, with the ultimate goal of preventing and/or'correcting groundwater, and related surface
               water, contamination problems. A multi-agency advisory committee (see list below) has been
               established to oversee the development of the Virginia Farm * A * Syst program. To date, the
               project investigators (see list below) have reviewed the national Farm * A * Syst program package
               and those developed in several states and have field tested the material at five farmstead sites (three
               counties in Virginia). Based on review of material and field testing, guidelines have been established
               for developing the Virginia Farm * A * Syst program which is currently underway. Components
               of the Virginia program will be introduced in the next newsletter which will be printed in Aine of
               1994.

               For additional information, call Blake Ross or Tamirri Younos at Virginia Tech, Charri; Lunsford
               at VDSWC or other project investigators and advisory committee members. For national
               information, you may contact the National Staff at (608) 262-0024.






























                                                                   21








                                             Project Investigators:

          Blake Ross
                   Biological Systems Engineering Department, (Project Director)
                   Virginia Tech
                   (540) 231-4702

          Eldridge Collins
                   Biological Systems Engineering Department,
                   Virginia Tech
                   (540) 231-7600

           Joe Hunnings
                   Montgomery County, Virginia
                   Cooperative Extension
                   (540) 382-5790

           Eugene Daniel
                   Gloucester and Mathews Counties, Virginia
                   Cooperative Extension
                   (804) 693-2602


           Tarnim. Younus
                   Biological Systems Engineering Department, (Project Coordinator)
                   Virginia Tech
                   (540) 231-4385

                                              Advisory Committee


           Ken Carter
                   Soil Conservation Service
                   (804) 287-1663

           Kathy Dictor
                   VA Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Service
                   (804) 371-0152


           Pat Eaton


                   VA Assoc. of Soil & Water Conservation Districts
                   (804) 371-4918



                                                        22









            John Johnson
                   Virginia Farm Bureau
                   (804) 225-7535


            Charlie Lunsford
                   Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, (Project Liason)
                   (804) 371-8984


                                                 Editorial Assistant


            Dana Reeder
                   Biological S- stems Engineering Dept.
                               Y
                   Virginia Tech.
                   (703) 951-259-11


































                                                          23








                   3.      Warren Coun1y Nutrient Reduction Status RMort

                    In Warren County, a major point-source reduction occurred in 1989 when the Avtex Rayon
            Plant ceased operation. The plant closing reduced nitrogen by 422,198 pounds and phosphorus by
            20,564 pounds. Total county point and non-point nitrogen was reduced by 62.6% and phosphorus
            by 44.7% Other than the closing of Avtex, shifts from row crop to pasture use of farm land have
            reduced nutrient loadings. As a consequence, it is projected that at the year 2000 Warren County
            will exceed the 40% reduction goal for nitrogen and have a phosphorus nutrient gap of 4,000 pounds.

                    The Warren County Board of Supervisors assigned a County staff member to participate in
            the regional assessment. This staff member developed a County Nutrient Reduction Plan that
            included ffirther nutrient reduction, particularly with regard to improved septic systems and available
            opportunities for agricultural cost-shaie practices in the County. Two meetings were held with the
            Board of Supervisors on this plan and the Board determined that the specific issues of septic system
            management and other reduction proposals warranted the consideration of a County Committee
            which was formed by the Board for that purpose.

                    The Board adopted a resolution that supported nutrient and sediment reduction into
            tributaries and noted the County's past success in achieving nutrient reductions. The resolution also
            stated that the newly formed Committeevill consider additional actions to be taken to reduce
            nutrient loadings in the County, while avoiding any mandates on Warren County citizens.

                    The agricultural BNIPs which were determined during the assessment to be potentially
            available for implementation under a cost-share scenario in Warren County are included as an
            element of the Northern Shenandoah Assessment and are shown in the table on the following page.
            Implementation of these practices would place Warren County over 40% reduction in'both nitrogen
            and phosphorus loadings at year 2000.


















                                                                24







                                                                    Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Warren County
                                                                    Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                     Year 2000 Projection           Reductions (lbs/year)          Increased Ac Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
                   BMP Trealmen                          Wlila        Qo@              Percent       Nitrogen      Phosphorus      of Coverage          Nitrogen      Phosphorus       Acre Treated        Incr Coverage
        Conservation Tillage                             acres               507          71.8%                 0               0                  0               0               0           $21.00                     $0
        Farm Plans                                       acres              2,547         37.1%             867              302                   0               0               0           $14.50                     $0
        Njitrient ManaLyement                            acres              6,185         90.0%         15,909            2,897             5,302          13,637            2,484                $1.75              $9,278
        Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres               155          0.3%           1,061              250                    0               0               0           $125.00                    $0
        Grazing Land Protection                          acres            19,874          50.0%         57,477            3,710            19,750          57,181            3,686             $22.50             $444,375
        Stream Protection                                acres               783          -----          1,025                81               100             147                 10          $70.00                $7,000
        Cover Crops                                      acres                    0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0           $15.00                     $0
        Grass Filter Strips                              acres                    0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0          $185.00                     $0
        Woodland Buffer Filter Area                      acres                    0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0          $230.00                     $0
        Forest Harvesting                                acres               828        100.0%           9,934              283                    0               0               0                                      $0
        Animal Waste Control Facilities               systems                     0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0                                      $0
        Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres               186        100.0%           1,779            1,019                    0               0               0                                      $0
        Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acres                    0       0.0%                  0               0                  0               0               0                                      $0
        Urban Nutrient Management                        acres               105          12.0%             127               12                18              21                 2            TBD                    TBD
        Septic Pumping                                systems                     0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0                                      $0
        Shoreline Erosion Protection                 linear feet                  0       -----                 0               0                  0               0               0                                      $0
                    Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              88,179            8,554                            70,985            6,182                                $460,653
      Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                (48,108)              645)
                        Adjusted Reduction:                                                           136,287           16,199
          Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                               198,221           25,652
                          Percent Reduction:                                                           68.76%          63.15%

















                                                                                                                25








                    4.      Frederick Coun1y Nutrient Reduction Status Report

                    The Frederick County Board of Supervisors went on record as not supporting the language
            of the Regional Framework adopted by the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission. A meeting
            was then held between the local and state co-coordinators of the Northern Shenandoah Assessment
            and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.

                    At that meeting, the County Board members expressed their concern that there had been
            insufficient coordination between the assessment process and the agricultural County's agricultural
            community. In addition, the members expressed concern over the effect that the nutrient cap would
            have on future growth and development in the County.

                    The Board did agree that the siate technical assistance team could put together a "strawmaif
            list of agricultural practices that could potentially be available for implementation in the County.
            After that list was created, the state technical team coordinated efforts with the County's agricultural
            community through the Virginia Farm Bureau (state and local) to ensure that their interests were
            represented in the regional assessment. The agricultural BMPs that could potentially be available for
            implementation in the County under a cost-share scenario are included as an element of the Northern
            Shenandoah Assessment and are shown in the table on the following page.


























                                                                26






                                                                      Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Frederick County
                                                                        Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                         Year 2000 Projection             Reductions (lbs/year)            Increased Ac       Added Reductions Ach'd            Cost per Added Total Cost for
                    BMP Treatn=                             uniM          Coverm.-          Permit         Nitrogen      Phosphorus        of Coverage          Nitrogen        Phosphorus        Acre Treated         Incr Cover=
        Conservation Tillage                                acres              18,532         68.4%           10,801               803              2,719           10,801                803              $21.00               $57,105
        Farm Plans                                          acres             34,120          53.3%           19,280             5,522              6,921             2,362               799              $14.50             $100,350
        Nutrient Management                                 acres              19,901         31.1%           52,456             6,356             16,241           42,672             5,193                 $1.75              $28,421
                                                                                                                                 Mr@                I Inc               I AC           1 Q7 A              1,),q An          It I An A) 1;
        Highly Erodible Land Retirement                     acres               4,311           3.8%          47,985               0.:)0            1, 1 /-J                           JLIUI-r
        Grazing Land Protection                             acres                  579          1.2%            1,609              107                 475            1,320                88              $22.50               $10,688
        Stream Protection                                   acres                     0         -----                 0               0                  0                  0               0              $70.00                     $0
        Cover Crops                                         acres                     0         -----                 0               0                  0                  0               0              $15.00                     $0
        Grass Filter Strips                                 acres                     0         -----                 0               0                  0                  0               0             $185.00                     $0
        Woodland Buffer Filter Area                         acres                     0         -----                 0               0                  0                  0               0             $230.00                     $0
        Forest Harvesting                                   acres                1,490       100.0%           21,304               281                   0                  0               0                                         $0
        Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                     6         -----           8,296            1,559                   0                  0               0                                         $0
        Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres                  383       100.0%             4,165            2,059                   0                  0               0                                         $0
        Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                             acres                     0         0.0%                  0               0                  0                  0               0                                         $0
        Urban Nutrient Management                           acres                  207        20.0%                261                23               103               130                12               TBD                    TBD
        Septic Pumping                                    systems                     0         -----                 0               0                  0                  0               0                                         $0
        Shoreline Erosion Protection                     linear feet                  0         ----- -               0               0                  0                  0               0                                         $0
                       Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                166,157             23,566                              70,431             8,769                                  $337,189
        Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                    (77,635)            (2,225)
                          Adjusted Reduction:                                                               243,792             25,791
           Nonpoint, Controllable Amount:                                                                   651,399            101,798
                             Percent Reduction:                                                               37.43%            25.34%









                                                                                                                        27








                    5.      QjX of Winchester and the Frederick-Winchester Sewer Authorhy Nutrient
                            Reduction Status Rep&rt

                    The City of Winchester and the Frederick-Winchester Sewer Authority (FWSA) participated
             in the Potomac Strategy assessment process through a representative of the City public utilities
             department. Concurrently, the FWSA voluntarily participated in the BNR study that was sponsored
             by the Environmental Protection Agency and conducted by VPI&SU. The VPI&SU investigator
             conducted a BNR feasibility evaluation on the Opequon wastewater treatment plant, which already
             has a nitrification process installed. The FWSA has also undertaken a needs and capacity study at
             the Opequon facility to prepare for future expansions or upgrades.

                    As a result of these parallel issues, the FWSA Board held a meeting on September 16, 1996
             to hear presentations by the state techfiical assistance team leader, the VPI&SU investigator and the
             engineering consultant who is conducting the needs and capacity study. At this meeting, the Board
             heard that the Opequon facility is efficiently designed for upgrade to BNR technology and that they
             could request cost-share funding for such an upgrade through the Strategy assessment process.

                    The nutrient reductions that would be achieved through the operation of BNR at the Opequon
             facility have been included in the Northern Shenandoah Assessment process. The estimated costs
             for such an upgrade span a wide range, and this range has been included in the cost figures for the
             Potomac Strategy. However, the FWSA Board has not yet reached a final decision on whether they
             will propose the Opequon for cost-share ftmding and BNR upgrade through the Potomac Strategy.
























                                                               28








             VI.     Nutrient Loadings Under Proposed Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment

                     T he followin table includes a summary of the proposed increases in BMP implementation
             by BUT practice with the associated added nitrogen and phosphorus reductions. Tbe result of these
             recommended actions is a 54% reduction in nonpoint-source nitrogen loading and a 44% reduction
             in nonpoint-source phosphorus loading. The principle reductions are obtained through increased
             farm plans, nutrient management and grazing land protection.

                     Full implementation of the Northern Shenandoah Regional Strategy would achieve a 44%
             reduction in the total 1985 controllable nitrogen load and a 40% reduction in the total 1985
             controllable phosphorus load. The nonpoint-source nutrient reductions that would be achieved, by
             BNT practice, for the: region are provided in the following table. The nutrient reductions that Would
             be achieved for each local jurisdiction under the proposed strategy are detailed in the three following
             tables.










































                                                                 29





                                                                                                                                                                                             A


                                                           Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                                                Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                                                      Year 2000 Projection               Reductions (lbs/year)             Increased Ac Added Reductions Ach'd
                                 BMP Treatment                           itaila        Covera            Percen         Nitrop-e           Phosphorus        QLCoyu=             Nitrogen         Phosphor
                    Conservation Tillage                                 acres            36,833            67.8%           31,428               2,972              5,714           25,714             2,385
                    Farm Plans                                           acres            95,236            65.1%           54,396             15,274              35,990           16,815             4,909
                    Nutrient Management                                  acres            80,326            54.9%          309,168             41,137              44,497          150,654            20,560
                    Highly Erodible Land Retirement                      acres              8,751           2.6%            96,846             14,063               3,990           48,029             6,691
                    Grazing Land Protection                              acres            42,857            23.3%          123,932               7,998             40,262          116,512             7,514
                    Stream Protection                                    acres              1,794      -----                   2,508                185               925             1,356                 95
                    Cover Crops                                          acres              3,012      -----                21,202               1,575                500             3,520               261
                    Grass Filter Strips                                  acres                 550     -----                   5,208                616               550             5,208               616
                    Woodland Buffer Filter Area                          acres                 600     -----                11,489               1,569                600           11,489             1,569
                    Forest Harvesting                                    acres              4,830         100.0%            60,464               1,166                     0                0                 0
                    Animal Waste Control Facilities                    systems                 134     -----                90,264             18,971                      1             100                23
                    Erosion & Sediment Control                           acres                 691        100.0%               7,330             3,743                     0                0                 0
                    Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                              acres                     0        0.0%                     0                  0                  0                0                 0
                    Urban Nutrient Management                            acres                 514          13.0%                648                 57               132                167                is
                    Septic Pumping                                     systems                     0                                 0                  0                  0                0                 0
                    Shoreline Erosion Protection                     linear feet                   0   -----                         0                  0                  0                0                 0
                                     Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                 823,883           109,326                               379,562            44,639
                      Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                    (168,766)          (11,877)
                                        Adjusted Reduction:                                                                992,649           121,203
                          Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                  1,839,388           278,428
                                          Percent Reduction:                                                                53.97%,            43.53%







                                                                                                                 30








                                     Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                       Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy


                                                                        Year 1994 Progress to Date
                                                                    1985 Nonpoint Loads                       Year 1994 ReportedValues
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                            (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                                    Nitrogen Phosphorus                   Nitro2en % Change EbpU)horus % Change
                                  Clarke County                     389                60                 327        -16%                    53            -10%
                              Frederick County                      651                102                521        -20%                    90            -11%
                           Shenandoah County                        602                91                 403        -33%                    62            -33%
                                 Warren County                      198                26   1             146        -26%                    18            -32%
                         Northern Shenandoah                        1,839              278                1,396      -24%                    Z3            -20%


                                                                            Year 2000 Projections
                                                                    1985 Nonpoint Loads                       Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                            (loads in thousands oflbs)
                                                                    Nitro2en Phosphorus                   Nitro2en % Change       Phosphorus         % Chang-e
                                  Clarke County                     388                60                 163        -58%                    35            -41%
                              Frederick County                      651                102                408        -37%                    '76           -25%
                           Shenandoah County                        602                91                 214        -64%                    3 7           -60%
                                 Warren County                      198                26    1            62         -69%       1            9             -63%
                         Northern Shenandoah                        1,839              278                847        -54%                    157           -44%



                                         Point Source Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                       Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy


                                                                         Year 1994 Pro ess to ate
                                                                    1985 Point Loads                            Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                             (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                                    Nitrogen Phosphorus                   Nitrogen % Change Phwphorus % Changg
                                   Clarke County                    0                  0                  0             0%                   0             0%
                               Frederick County                     182                62                 287          58%                   38            738%
                            Shenandoah County                       195                45                 297          53%                   44            -2%
                                  Warren County                     526                34     1           104         -80%                   13            -61%
                          Northern Shenandoah                       902                140                688         -24%                   95            -32%


                                                                             Year 2000 P ections

                                                                    1985 Point Loads                            Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                              (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                                    Nitrogen  Pboaphorus                  Nitrop-en % Change Eluispborus % Changg
                                   Clarke County                    0                  0                  0             0%                   0             00/0
                                Frederick County                    182                62                 202           11%                  35            -43%
                             Shenandoah County                      195                45                 291          49%                   37            -18%
                                   Warren County                    526                34                 191          -64%                  25            -28%
                           Northern Shenandoah                      902                140                684          -24%                  96            -32%


                                                                                          31









                                     Total Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                            Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy


                                                         Year 1994 Pro       s to Date
                                              1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                  (thousands of lbs)                       (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                              Nitrop-en      Phosphorus      Nitrogen      % Cbange Phosphorus % Change
                          Clarke County          388              60            327           -16%           53           -10%
                       Frederick County          834              164           808           -3%            128          -22%
                     Shenandoah County           796              136           700           -12%           106          -22%
                          Warren County          724              60       1    249           -66%           31           -48%
                   Northern Shenandoah           2,742            419           2,084         -24%           318          -24%


                                                             Year 2000 Projections
                                              1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                   (thousands of lbs)                       (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitroizen     Phosphorus      Nitrogen      %-Change      Phosphorus     % Change
                           Clarke County         388              60            163           -58%           35           -41%
                        Frederick County         834              164           610           -27%           111          -32%
                     Shenandoah County           796              1.36          505           -37%           73           -46%
                          Warren County          724              60       1    253           -65%     1     34           -43%
                    Northern Shenandoah          2,742            419           1,531         -44%           253          -40%
































                                                                         32








              VH.     Costs for the Proposed Northern Shenandoah Assessment

                      The total regional cost for proposed nonpoint-source nutrient reduction practices identified
              through the Northern Shenandoah Assessment is $2,436,000. The standard government cost-share
              percentage for these practices is 75%. Therefore, the request for state cost-share would be
              $1,827,000. In addition, it has been estimated that the administration of these cost-share fimds, and
              the need for increased! farm plans and nutrient management plans, would necessitate two additional
              staff at the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District at a cost of approximately $80,000.
              Although two of the fbur counties stated that they be help fand these positions, it is not yet known
              whether a fall 50% of the $80,000 would be provided through local funding.

                      If the FWSA chooses to request state cost-sharing for a BNR upgrade at Opequon, the dosts
              of that upgrade could range between $570,000 and $2,850,000 (or possibly higher). The cost-share
              percentage that has been discussed during these deliberations, and others across t]@e basin,: i's a 50%
              cost-share.


                      This brings the total cost for implementation of identified practices in the region to between
              $3,086,000 and $5,36)6,000.



              VIH. Regional Assessment Summary


              Unresolved Issues


                      As of this dr@ of the Potomac Strategy, there are issues and decisions relative to the
              Northern Shenandoah Assessment which are unresolved.


                      The first is the uncertainty that exists with regard to nutrient loadings at wastewater treatment
              plants in the region. Much of this uncertainty is a result of a lack of data on the incidental
              denitrification that may take place at plants that have installed a nitrification process. To address
              this uncertainty, the state technical assistance team leader will continue to work with treatment plant
              operators to attempt to obtain better nutrient loading data. This will also help to determine the
              benefits that can be expected through the implementation of any further nutrient reduction options.

                      The second unresolved issue is the degree to which the Warren County Board of Supervisors
              will adopt any fin-ther nutrient reduction measures as a result of investigations; undertaken by the
              local Potomac Strategy Committee that they recently formed.

                      The third issue is the extent to which Frederick County will become more involved in the
              Potomac Strategy process as a result of encouragements by their Farm Bureau members, who have
              stated that they desire to be represented in the process through their local governing body.



                                                                  33








                  The fourth unresolved issue is whether the FWSA will commit to working with the state
           toward a BNR upgrade through the cost-sharing approach of the Potomac Strategy.

           Total Reductions Under the Northern Shenandoah Assessment


                   Full implementation would. achieve a 44% reduction in the 1985 controllable nitrogen load
           and a 40% reduction in the 1985 controllable phosphorus load.







































                                                          34








                                                                           Potomac Basins Trl4utary t a e                                         S
                                                                                                                                                    Trackinq____
                                                                                             Northern Shenandoah Meetings--------
                       -Fn-v                Aff Ifiation                               Nam-e                                    Title                        11 -Mar       18-Apr         5-Jun         17-Jun 12-Sep
                       Local Governments
                       x     Berryville, Town of                           Richard G. Sponseller
                       x     @er               n of                        R. John Hogan                    Manager                                               x                           x              x
                       - Berryville, Town of                               Glenn Tillman                    Public Utilities Dir.                                 x             x
                       x     Boyce, Town of                                John S. Fullerton                Mayor
                       x     Boyce, Town of                                Patricia J. Kadel                Administrator
                       x     Clarke County                                 A. R. Dunning                    Ch rman, Board of Supervisors
                             Clarke County                               -Gary Konkel                       Member, Board of Supervisors-                         X_
                       x     Clarke County                                 David L. Ash        -_           Administrator
                             Clarke County                                 Bud Nagelvoort                   Clarke County Citizen's County                                 _x                 x                             X_
                             Clarke County                                 Allison Teefer                   Planning Di ector's Office                                          x             x              x              x
                       x     Edinburg, Town of                             Daniel J. Harshman               Mayor
                       x     Frederick County                              James J. Longerbeam              Chairman, Board of Supervisors
                       x     Frederick Counl@                              John R.Riley         __ _AdmIn-ls`trator______
                             Frederick County                              Robert W. Watkins                Planning Director                                     x
                             Frederick County              -Mike Ruddy                                                                                            x             x             x              x              x
                             Frederick County                              Kris Tlerny                      Planning and Development Office                                     x                                           x
                       x     Front Royal, Town of                          Stanley W. Brooks                Mayor
                       x     Front Royal, Town of                          M. Lyle Lacy                     Manager                                                                                                         x
                             Front Royal, Town of                          Eugene R. Tewalt                 Public Works Director                                                             x
                             Fron@Royal, Town of                           Charles Pomeroy                  Public Utilities Director                                                    _x
                             Front Royal, Town of                          Tim Frisloe                                                                                                                                      x
                             Front Royal, Town of                          Kimberly Fogle                   Plannin Office
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            x
                             Lord Fairfax SCS                              Henry Sta dinger                                                                                _x
                       x     Middletown, Town of                           John A. Copeland--- Mayor
                       x     Mount Jackson, Town of                        Dewey W. Jordan                  Mayor
                       x     Mount Jackson, Town of                        Gene Bodkin                      Planning Commission Chairman
                       x     New Market, Town of                           Thomas F. Constable              Mayor
                       x     New Market, Town of                           S. Bradley Corcoran              Manager
                       x     Shenandoah County                             Beverley H. Fleming              Chairman, Board of Supe visors
                                                                     7-
                             Shenandoah County                             David A. Nelson                  Supervisor                                            x             x                                           x
                       x     Shenandoah County                             Phoebe Kilby                     AssL Adminlstrat@r-/Pla-nn-i@g-bi7r-ec-@o-r--                                   _X_              x


                                                                                                            Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                                         Page I








                                                                  Potomac Basins Tributary Strategies Trackin
                                                                                  Northern Shenandoah Meetin-qs
                                                                                                                                      --j-1-Mar _18-Ap!@ 5-Jun                17-Jun 12-Sep
                      Inv              Aff illation                         Name                                Title
                      H
                      X    Stephens.Cily, To n of                 Ray E. Ewing
                           Stephens City, To n of                 @ilchael Ke@oe               Manager, Public Works/Utilities Director
                      x    Strasburg                              Harry Applegate              Mayor                                          X                                   X
                      x    Strasburg                              Kevin M. Fauber              Manager
                      x    Toms Brook, Town of                    William A. Minton            Mayor
                      x:   Warren County                          James L. McManaway           Chairman, Board of Supervisors
                      x    Warren Count@                          J. Ronald George             Administrator
                           Warren County                          David E. Clark               Assistant County Administrator                                                                   X
                           Warren County                          Doug Stanley                 Zoning Administrator                                                               X
                           Warren County                          Meryl Christiansen                                                          x                                   X             x
                      x    Winchester, City of                    Ga!y W. Chrisman             Mayor
                      x    Winchester, City of                  -Ed Daley                      Manager
                           Winchester. City of                    Tim Youmans                  Planning Office                                                                                  x
                           Winchester, City of                    Jesse Moffett                City Engineer                                                         X                          X
                      x    Woodstock, Town of                     William C. Moyers            i@@yor
                      x    Woodstock, Town of                  -Larry D. Bradford              Manager
                               dstock, Town of                    James Didawick               Public Works Office                                                   X                          X
                      Le   islators
                      x    VA House of Delegates                  Hon. Jay Kalzen              Delegate
                           VA House of Delegates                  Ms. Michelle LeQa            Aide                                                                               X
                      x    VA House of Delegates                  Hon. Raymond R. Guest        Delegate
                      x    VA House of Delegates                  Hon. Joe T, May              Delegate
                      _X Vk House of Delegates                    Hon. Glenn M. Weatherholl; Delegate
                      X    VA House of Delegates                  @i_on. Beveqyl. Sherwood     Relepte
                      x    VA Slate Senate                          on. H. Ru s s a 11 P 0 1, t sn
                                                                                               Oenator
                      x       state Senate                        Hon. Kevin G. Miller         Senator

                      Soil and Water Conservation Districts
                                                                  -6 ryl L. Crowell
                      X         Fairfax SWCID                       he                         Chairman                                       x          X                        X             x
                           Lord-Fairfax SWCD                      Edward Ward                                                                 X          X                                      X
                           Lord Fairfax SWCD                      Gary DeOms                                                                             X                                      X
                                                                                                                                              x
                                                                                                                                              X
                                                                  I@cb Amer                                                                                          X                          x
                           Lord Fairfax SWCD



                                                                                               Prepared by DEQ 110/2/96                                                                         Page 2




                                                                                                                                                                                                   t



                                                                     Potomac Basins Tributarv Strategies Tracking
                                                                                       Northern -S henand.oah Meetings
                     Inv                Aff Itiation                            Name                                 Title                      11-Mar 18-Ap                  -Jun      17-Jun 12-SeD
                                                                                                                                                                            5
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          Ben Rezba                                                                                                                             X-
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          Jim Hepner
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          Garland Hud Ins
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          Mike Berry                                                                                                                            X
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          Amanda Campbell
                          Lord Fairfax SWCD                          'Frank Sherwood                                                                                                                       x-
                     PDCs and Other Re-qional
                          Lord Fairfax P6c----                       Thomas J. Christof-fel         Executive Direct-or                         -X
                          Lord Fairfax PDC                           Jeffrey Stack
                          Lord Fairfax PDC                           Kimberly Boyd                                                                                X            X             X
                          Lord Fairfax PDC                           Rob Kinsley
                                                                                                                                                                                                     -X-
                          Icentral Shenandoah PDC                    Sara Hollberg                  Regional Planner                                              X
                     State and Federal Agencies
                          VA Chesapeak Bay Local Assistance          Margie Reynolds                Lower Potomac Team Leader                        x
                          VA Cooperative Extension                   Corey Childs                                                                    X                                       X
                          VA De                              reation Kathleen W. Lawrence           Director                                         X
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       Bill Browning                  Assistant Dlrector-.-g-&-W- --x--
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       Jay Marshall                                                                                 X
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       Charles Wade                                                                                 X-                                       X
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       John Mlinarcik                                                                  X
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       Diane McCarthy                                                                               X-
                          VA Dept of Conservation & Recreation       Robert Connelly                                                                 x            X
                          YA Dept of Environmental Quality           Alan E. Pollock                                                                 X
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality           Collin Powers                  Northern Shenandoah Team Leader                  X            X            X            X              X
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality           B ri an Keith FoWle-r -Har-rison-bu rg- -Re-gio na-10--1 -fi-ce-----
                          VA - JLARC                                 Bob Rotz                                                                                                                              x-
                                                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                   echnic Institute                  Kurt Stephenson                                                                 X

                     Citizen and Business Grou
                        jCitizan - Winchester, VA                    Louis M. Costello                                                                                                                     x


                                                                                                    Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                                Page 3







                                                                      Potomac Basins TributarvStrategies Tracking____
                                                                                      Northern Shenandoah Meetings
                       Inv                Aff Illation                          Name                                 Title                                                @-Jun       17-Jun 12-Sep_
                            Citizen/Farmer-Berryville, VA             John Hardesty                                                                                                                    x
                            Citizanfrree Farmer-Woodstock             Paul Harris
                            Frederick County Farm Bureau              Paul Anderson                                                                                                                    x
                            Friends of the North Fork                 Roberta Hinkins                                                               x           x                         x
                            Friends of the North Fork                 Garland Hudgins                                                                                                     x
                            Friends of the Shenandoah                 John Gibson                                                                   x           x
                                                                      Tr-a
                            River Rental Outfitters                      ce Noel                                                                    x           x
                            State Scenic River Advisory Board         Frances C. Endicott                                                           x           x            x            x            x
                                                                                                                                                          L
                                                                                                                                                                X
                                                                                                                                                           EEXE












                                                                                                  Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                              Page 4







































                                             APPENDIX J


                                       Northern Virginia Region:
                                    Strawman Tributary Assessment










                 POTOMAC TRIBUTARY NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY


                                            Strawman Assessment of
               Current Load Reductions, Future Nutrient Control Options, and Costs
                                                        for the


                                           Northern Virginia Region

                                                     Arlington County
                                                     Fairfax County
                                                     Fauquier County
                                                     Loudoun County
                                                 Prince William County
                                                     Stafford County
                                                     City of Alexandria
                                                     City of Fairfax
                                                     City of Falls Church
                                                     City of Manassas
                                                 City of Manassas Park
                                                     Town of Clifton
                                                     Town of Dumfries
                                                     Town of Han-iilton
                                                     Town of Haymarket
                                                     Town of Herndon
                                                     Town of Hillsboro
                                                     Town of Leesburg
                                                     Town of Lovettsville
                                                     Town of Middleburg
                                                     Town of Occoquan
                                                     Town of Purcellville
                                                     Town of Quantico
                                                     Town of Round Hill
                                                     Town of The Plains
                                                     Town of Vienna
                                            Alexandria Sanitation Authority
                                                Dale City Service Corp.
                                         Loudoun County Sanitation Authority
                                        Prince William County Service Authority
                                           Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority




                                                     October 1996







              NORTHERN VIRGINIA (NOVA) REGION NUTRIENT
              REDUCTION STRAWMAN ASSESSMENT


              Regional Goal

                     As a signatory of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Commonwealth is working
              towards a 40% reduction of the controllable nutrient load (nitrogen and phosphorus) to the Bay by
              the year 2000. Individual Tributary Strategies are being developed as the means to reach this goal,
              and in Virginia!s portion of the Potomac basin this has been facilitated by subdividing the drainage
              area into four regions (Northern and Southern Shenandoah, Northern Virginia, and Lower Potomac).
              A 40% reduction target was determined for each region, with the ultimate intent of fWfilling the Bay
              Program commitment when the four regional plans are combined.

                     The NoVA Region includes the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince
              William, and Stafford, along with the Cities and Towns within those borders. In addition to these
              jurisdictions, the assessment process involved 5 wastewater treatment service authorities, 3 planning
              district commissions, and 5 soil and water conservation districts. Approximately 1.7 million people
              reside in the NoVA Region, nearly one-third of the state's population. The land cover is about 42%
              forested, 34% farmland and pasture, and 24% urban/suburban land. The baseline nutrient load to
              be reduced has been established using 1985 point source discharges, along with runoff values from
              an average rainfall year applied to 1985 land use cover. The baseline controllable nutrient loads
              from the NoVA Region are 12.5 million lbs/year nitrogen; 660,000 lbs/year phosphorus. These
              loads come from agricultural and developed land, with point sources and nonpoint sources
              contributing on a percentage basis as follows:

              Table 1. NoVA Region Baseline Nutrient Loads by Source Category


                                                                                Nonpoint Source
                                                    Point Source
                                                                        Agricultural           Urban

                            Nitrogen Load                 66%                 23%                 11%

                          Phosphorus Load                  16%                 60%                24%

              The NoVA Region's targets are to reduce the nitrogen load by 5 million lbs/year, and decrease the
              phosphorus load by 263,000 lbs/year.


              Assessment Process


                      It has been determined that the nutrient reduction goal is unlikely to be reached using existing
              resources, accounting for ongoing and planned nutrient reduction activities. It is estimated that on
              the current course, by the year 2000 the NoVA Region's nitrogen load will approximately 3% higher

                                                                J-1









                     In general, the assessment shows that accounting for the above cropland shifts, combined
             with implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and urban stormwater
             controls, as of 1994 the Region had reduced the baseline NPS loads by about 12% for nitrogen, and
             15% for phosphorus. The cropland shift results in a sizeable nutrient load reduction, but is not
             considered a BMP in the same sense that crop production on that land may have continued along
             with the use of conservation tillage, nutrient management, farm planning, etc. Where BMPs have
             been used, the Region has been successful in essentially "holding the line" on NPS loads, despite
             rapid population growth and development in the area. Based on 1990 census data and Virginia
             Employment Commission figures, the NoVA Region's 2000 population is projected to be nearly
             26% greater than the 1985 figure. This is one of the Region's (and the entire basin's) greatest
             challenges -- to reduce the baseline load while accommodating growth.

                     The assessment suggests that expanding BMP coverage even further for agricultural land
             will aid in closing the gap. There will be continued installation of urban stormwater management
             controls, and these will help offset loads that would result from new development and land use
             changes. However, unless structures are retrofitted to address a load that existed in 1985, the urban
             BMPs do not reduce the baseline. Due to the high cost of these urban retrofits, and the relatively low
             efficiency in terms of nutrient reduction, the assessment has not favored significant increases in the
             use of this control. Information was sparse for the Region regarding retrofits in-place or planned,
             and the assessment would benefit from an increase in this type of data.


             Point Sources


                     The Region's nutrient loads are greatly influenced by 12 significant point sources,
             discharging nearly two-thirds of the Region!s controllable nitrogen load. Only one plant in the
             Region is operating in a Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) mode, one is achieving significant
             incidental nitrogen reduction while only attempting to nitrify, and several are planning upgrades to
             add nitrification. In 1994, the facilities collectively discharged 7% more nitrogen -than in the
             baseline year, but this nominal load increase accompanied a 26% rise in the volume of wastewater
             treated. This indicates that improvements at the plants have prevented the nitrogen load from
             increasing at the same rate as the volume of flow.

                     For phosphorus, the situation is much different because the majority of these plants operate
             phosphorus removal systems near the limit of technology. Plants discharging under the stringent
             requirements of the Dulles Area Watershed Policy, the Occoquan Policy, and the Potomac
             Embayment Standards have made notable improvements in their capability to remove phosphorus.
             The Region's point source phosphorus load was reduced by about 39%, and the level of treatment
             now being achieved is expected to continue.

                     The assessment suggests that all the plants in the NoVA Region with a design capacity of
             0.5 million gallons/day (MGD) be retrofitted with BNR or an equivalent technology. However, the
             Upper Occoquan facility merits further review regarding this control option due to concerns over
             adverse water quality impacts in Occoquan Reservoir, and harmful in-plant consequences, if their

                                                              J-3








                effluent is denitrified. Achieving BNR treatment levels (annual averages of 7 mg/I nitrogen; 1.5
                mg/I phosphorus, or lower if required by permit) is estimated to reduce the Region! s point source
                nitrogen load by 39%, and the phosphorus load by 23%.



                Status Towards the 40% Reduction Goal


                        Under this "strawman" assessment, the 2000 reductions for the NoVA Region are estimated
                at 32% for nitrogen and 25% for phosphorus. Both figures are short of the 4.0% reduction goal.
                Discussions with the NoVA local governments have been initiated to identify possible measures that
                could close this gal), even beyond the expanded BMP coverage and point source retrofits suggested
                by the "stravvman."

                        Information is being exchanged regarding conservation easements, agricultural land
                conversions from cropland to pasture/hayland, installation of animal waste control structures,
                implementation of BMPs outside the state cost-share program, and some urban localities are
                reviewing data availability on stormwater retrofits. If these measures can be quantified in terms of
                load reduction, they will contribute to the assessment, but are not expected to provide all the
                reduction needed to meet the regional goal. Many options have the potential to "close the gap", but
                involve use of costly practices with diminishing returns in terms of pounds removed per dollar spent.

                        Point source retrofits for nitrogen removal could approach the limits of technology at a subset
                of plants where it is most cost effective to do so, but this is not considered equitable in-light of the
                level of effort sought throughout the basin. If the practical limits of the "strawnian" are accepted as
                the Region's contribution to the Potomac Strategy, then additional cost effective reductions may be
                achieved in other regions via trading mechanisms, if such a system were formed.


                Summary of NoVA Region Assessment Recommendations:

                1)      Increase use of Farm Plans, from a projected 70% coverage on agricultural land up to 77%.
                        Additional cost = $200,700 (BMP service life is 4-5 years).

                2)      Expand Nutrient Management coverage, from a projected 12% value up, to 29%. Additional
                        cost = $56,200/year (practice renewed annually).

                3)      Encourage retirement of highly erodible agricultural land, from a projected 5,800 acres to
                        8,400 acres. Additional cost = $330,800 (land idled for 10 years).

                4)      Provide grazing land protection on 7% of pasture, up from a projected figure of 4%.
                        Additional cost = $43 8,900 (BMP service life is 7- 10 years).

                5)      Expand stream protection programs to cover 2,200 acres, up from a projected 1,450 acres.

                                                                  J-4









                      Additional cost = S 15,800 (BMP service life is 7- 10 years).

              6)      Utilize winter cover crops on 930 acres of cropland, up          from a projected 600 acres.
                      Additional cost = $4,800/year (practice renewed annually).

              7)      Install grass filter strips on 500 acres, up from a projected value of 38 acres. Additional cost
                      = $86,400 (BMP service life is 7- 10 years).

              8)      Establish woodland buffer filter areas on 710 acres, up from a projected level of I I acres.
                      Additional cost = $160,800 (BMP service life is 7-10 years).

              9)      Attain 100% utilization of forest harvesting BMPs on all silviculture, and achieve 100%
                      compliance with state Erosion & Sediment Control Law.

              10)     Determine additional number of animal waste control structures needed, as well as number
                      of dairy operations going out of production and associated herd sizes.

              11)     Increase use of urban stormwater management/BMP retrofits to control runoff from 4,240
                      acres, up from a figure of 3,085 acres. Additional cost = =$236,900 (BMP service life is 15-
                      20 years).

              12)     Promote urban nutrient management to achieve coverage on 7,300 acres, up from a projected
                      ),700 acres. Cost to be determined.

              13)     Carry out planned septic pumping programs, to prevent failure of an estimated 127 units.

              14)     Retrofit all wastewater treatment plants with a design capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater with
                      year-round BNR, or an equivalent technology. Capital cost = $112.8 rni1lion (figure is only
                      for treatment needed beyond current or pending permit requirements, in January 1996
                      dollars; service life of systems is 20 years). Determine applicability to the Upper Occoquan
                      wastewater reclamation plant.

              15)     Review and confirm future daily flow projections and design capacities at NoVA Region
                      treatment plants. At plants not already doing so. institute effluent monitoring for total
                      nitrogen and total phosphorus, using standard sampling protocols and analytical methods.

              16)     Review and confirm cost figures for BNLR retrofits. Owners and their consultants should
                      develop pre-design engineering cost estimates for unit processes essential for.BNR level
                      treatment. Report costs only for retrofits needed to go beyond current or pending mandatory
                      treatment requirements.

              17)     For regional acceptance of model results, the federal/interstate Chesapeake Bay Program
                      (CBP) must continue to be responsive to the information needs of the local governments.

                                                                 J-5








                         The CBP's 1997 Reevaluation of its Nutrient Reduction Strategy program should be
                         structured to produce results that further explain the habitat and living resource
                         benefits that the nutrient reduction goal will achieve, as well as further demonstrate
                         the validity and credibility of the predictive modeling tools used.

                 18)     State and local representatives should continue the effort to further develop the
                         Regional Pilot Program (RPP) adopted by the Washington Council of Governments
                         (COG) Board in June 1994, and reaffirmed October 9, 1996, Consistent with any
                         schedule and content determined by the COG Board and any action of the General
                         Assembly. The RPP has recommended conditions under which it should be
                         implemented, and these would be elements of a two-part Memorandum of
                         Understanding: 1) cost share grants are provided to address funding needs identified
                         for each plant; 2) plant retrofits proceed, and the MOU would define criteria for
                         successful pilot testing, address specific operational issues, and address full-scale
                         implementation of nitrogen removal, as laid out in the RPP.

                 19)     The Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies' (VAMWA) Nutrient
                         Position Pgper has received overwhelming support from the VAMWA membership
                         at all levells (Boards, Commissions, Councils, Executives, and staff). Therefore, the
                         VAMWA position should be considered by state officials as the primary
                         implementation mechanism for point source nutrient reductions. VAMWA's Position
                         PQer offers support for installation of BNR technology at plantswithin the Potomac
                         basin conditioned on several commitments by the Commonwealth, principally:

                         A)     At least 50% grant funding of for construction of nutrient removal systems.
                                        The General Assembly is asked to create a joint study committee to
                                        identify new sources of funding for this cost-share         rograrn.
                         B)     Implementation through agreement, not by permit.. This is consistent with
                                        Virginia's voluntary, cooperative tributary strategy program approach.
                         Q      Future "cap" controls based on equity and sound science.

                 Details associated with these recommendations appear in the following tables:

                 Table 2. Total Nutrient Loads under Current and Planned State Programs

                 Table 3. Total Nutrient Loads Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current and Planned State Programs with
                 Year-Round BNR al: All Wastewater Plants

                 Table 4a. NPS Nutrient Reductions, based on increased coverage beyond current and planned state progr s.

                 Tables 4b-4g. NPS Nutrient Reductions by County, based on inc. coverage beyond current/planned state
                 programs.

                 Tables 5a & 5b. Point Source Nutrient Loading Estimates with Year-Round BNR Operating

                 Table 6a & 6b. Cost Figures for Point Source BNR Retrofits

                                                                  J-6






                Table 2.
                NoVA Region Total Nutrient Loads under Current and Planned State Programs (by
                County: 1985 baseline, 1994 Progress, Year 2000 Projection).

                                                  Nitrogen Load (lbs)                           Year 1994 Progress     Year 2000 Projections
                                          1985 Load    Cgntrollable      Reduc Goal             lbs Reduc % Change     lbs Reduc     % Change
                         Arlington        1,769,930       1,732,965        693,186              754,904  -43.6%           631,500        -36.4%
                            Fairfax       6,405,687       5,702,554      2,281,021              (807,958) 14.20/6      (1,164,912)       20.40/6
                           Fauquier       1,653,869           980,782      392,313              84,949   -8.7%            126,447        -12.9%
                          Loudoun         2,393,461       1,240,317        496,127              183,943  -14.8%           115,096        -9.3%
                  Prince William          2,205,279        1,678,224       671,289              1,593    -0.1%            (18,729)       1.1%
                            Stafford          685,647         355,930      142,372              62,763   -17.6%             2,857        -0.8%
                Blue Plains (VA)              814,169         814,169      325,668              (327,675) 40.2%          (121,892)       15.0%
               Northern Virginia          15,928,042     12,504,940      5,001,976              (47,482) 0.4%            (429,633)       3.4%


                                                 Phosphorus Load (lbs)                          Year 1994 Progress     Year 2000 Projections
                                          1985 Load      Controllable    Reduc GQaI             lbs Redug % Change     lbs Reduc         % Change
                          Arlington           56,823          55,899         22,360             42,582   -76.2%             42,368       -75.8%
                             Fairfax          156,090         136,316        54,526             23,032   -16.9%             30,116       -22.1%
                           Fauquier           160,115         133,034        53,214             11,116   -8.4%              17,042       -12.8%
                           Loudoun            257,504         190,943        76,377             22,326   -11.7%             13,355       -7.0%
                   Prince William             115,356         104,351        41,740             21,152   -20.3%             28,561       -27.4%
                            Stafford          36,590          31,001         12,401             8,218    -26.5%             14,735       -47.5%
                Blue Plains (VA)                6,846           6,846          2,738            (6,209)  90.7%              (11,875)     173.5%
                Northern Virginia             789,324         658,389      263,356              122,218  -18.6%             134,302      -20.4%




                 Table 3.
                 Total Nutrient Loads Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current and Planned State
                 Proarams with Year-Round BNR at All Wastewater Plants (by County: 1985 baseline, 1994
                 Progress, Year 2000 Projection).
                                                  Nitrogen Load (lbs)                           Year 1994 Progress          Year 2000 Projections
                                          1985 Load      Controllable    Reduc Coal             lbs Reduc % Change          lbs Reduc      % Change
                         Arlington        1,769,930           1,732,965      693,186            754,904       -43.6%          921,842            -53.20/6
                            Fairfax       6,405,687           5,702,554    2,281,021            (807,958)     14.2%         2,213,891      '     -38.8%
                          Fauquier        1,653,869           980,782        392,313            84,949        -8.7%            160,201           -16.3%
                          Loudoun         2,393,461           1,240,317      496,127            183,943       -14.8%           350,831           -28.3%
                  Prince William          2,205,279           1,678,224      671,t89            1,593         -0.1%            519,034           -30.9%
                           Stafford           685,647         355,930        142,372            62,763        -17.6%               13,946        -3.9%
               Blue Plains (VA)               814,169         814,169        325,668            1(327,675)    40.20/6         (121,931)          15.0%
              Northern Virginia           15,928,042       12,504,940      5,001,976            (47,482)      0.40K         4,057,814            -32.4%


                                                  Phosphorus Load (Ibs)                         Year 1994 Progress          Year 2000 Projections
                                          1985 Load       Controllahle     Reduc Gnal           ibs Reduc % Changa          lbs Reduc            % Chang
                          Arlington           56,823            55,899          22,360.         42,582        -76.2%               42,579        -76.20/a
                             Fairfax          156,090         136,316           54,526          23,032        -16.9%               31,360        -23.0%
                           Fauquier           160,115         133,034           53,214          11,116        -8.4%                20,841        -15.7%
                           Loudoun            257,504         190,943           76,377          22,326        -11.7%               35,926        -18.8%
                  Prince William              115,356         104,351           41,740          21,152        -20.3%               29,968        -28.7%
                            Stafford          36,590            31,001           12,401           8,218       -26.5%               15,846        -51.1%
                Blue Plains (VA)                6,846             6,846           2,738         (6,209)       90.7%                (11,854)      173.20/6
               Northern Virginia              789,324         658,389          263,356          122,218       - 18.6%              164,666       -25.0%


                                                                                     J-7





                                 Table 4a.                Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northern Virginia Region
                                                                  Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned Stale Programs
                                                                  Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)          Increased Ac      Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
                                                      w1ils         C&ycua          Percen        HilEuM         Ehophum         of Coverage          Nittu=         phoWhQw          Acre rrealed         hwLCM011"
      Conservation Tillage                            acres             65,738         85.9%                 0                0                0                0               0             $21.00                     $0
      Farm Plans                                      acres            150,104         76.5%          69,368          18,450             13,840            6,752           1,724              $14.50             $200,674
      Nutrient Management                             acres             56,352         28.7%          66,017            5,930            32,120          38,409            3,528                $1.75              $56,210
      Highly Erodible La,-.A Defir mpni               arr q              8.420           2.3%         92,072          13.539              2,646          34,027            4,873             $125.00             $330,750
                                                                                                                                                                                              aloe an            CAIR Q<r,
      Grazing Land Protection                         acres             11,838           7.2%         37,726            2,526             5,163          1(),qzj                              .00.).Uv           v-,-
      Stream Protection                               acres              2,204           -----          3,426             249               754            1,176                85            $21.00               $15,834
      Cover Crops                                     acres                931           -----          7,230             558               318            2,343              180             $15.00                 $4,770
      Orass Filler Strips                             acres                505           -----          5,442             669               467            5,013              616            $185.00               $86,395
      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                     acres                710           -----        15,434            2,191               699          15,232            2,163             $230.00             $160,770
      Forest Harvesting                               acres              4,678        100.0%          67,038            1,136                  0                0               0               $0.00                    $0
      Animal Waste Control Facilities               systems                   29         -----        43,902            8,573                  0                .0              0         $18,500.00                     $0
      Erosion & Sediment Control                      acres              6,396        100.0%          83,810          41,867                   0                0               0               $0.00                    $0
      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                         acres              4,240           1.5%         10,165            1,110             1,156            2,772              303            $205.00             $236,923
      Urban Nutrient Management                       acres              7,327         12.5%          11,117              999             3,621            5,532              497               TBD                   TBD
      Septic Pumping                                systems                127           -----        29,427                  0                0                0               0               $0.00                    $0
      Shoreline Erosion Protection                 linear feet           9,614           -----        14,744            9,593                  0                0               0               $0.00                    $0
                  Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              556,917         107,392                            127,678           15,068                               $1,531,181
         Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                              (308,969)         (31,889)
                      Adjusted Reduction:                                                            865,886         139,281
        Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                             4,306,736          555,591
                        Percent Reduction:                                                            20.11%          25.07%








                                                                                                              J-8






                                               Table 4b.          Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Arlington County
                                                                   Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned Slate Programs
                                                                   Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)         Increased Ac     Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added                 Total Cost for
                  BMP Treatment                        U&IS          CQyt[a"         psirM         Nitroge       fhosphclim      of Coverag          hliwo=        PhosphoM          Aac-Tfcaid         I ncr COVerd"
       Conservation Tillage                            acres                    0        0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0            $21.00                     $0
       Farm Plans                                      acres                    0        0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0            $14.50                     $0
       Nutrient Management                             acres                    0        0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0              $1.75                    $0
       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                 acres                    0        0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0           $125.00                     $0
       Grazing Land Protection                         acres                    0   .    0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0            $85.00                     $0
       Stream Protection                               acres                    0                             0                0                0               0              0            $21.00                     $0
       Cover Crops                                     acres                    0        -----                0                0                0               0              0            $15.00                     $0
       Grass Filter Strips                             acres                    0        -----                0                0                0               0              0           $185.00                     so
       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                     acres                    0        -----                0                0                0               0              0           $230.00                     $0
       Forest Harvesting                               acres                    0        0.0%                 0                0                0               0              0              $0.00                    $0
       Animal Waste Control Facilities               systems                    0        -----                0                0                0               0              0        $18,500.00                     so
       Erosion & Sediment Control                      acres                  87      100.0%           1,177             588                    0               0              0              $0.00                    $0
       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                         acres                166          1.0%             410               45                28              69               8           $205.00                $5,759
       Urban Nutrient Management                       acres              1,811        20.0%           2,803             252              1,645           2,546             229               TBD                   TBD
       Septic Pumping                                systems                    3                         668                  0                0               0              0              $0.00                    so
       Shoreline Erosion Protection                linear feet                  0        -----                0                0                0               0              0              $0.00                    $0
                   Total Pounds Reduced:                                                               5,057             885                              2,615             236                                   $5,759
          Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                        0                0
                   .   Adjusted Reduction:                                                             5,057             885
        Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                 91,684           9,005
                         Percent Reduction:                                                            5.52%           9.83%











                                                                                                              J-9






                                           Table 4c.         Nonpoin( Source Nutrient Reductions for Fairfax County
                                                            Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                             Year 2000 Projection          Reductions (lbs/year)        Increased Ac     Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
             13MP Treatment                      Unim         CvycrW         Percen        NiUoM         Phospham        uff&yc[ac          Nitrogen     Phosphoru        Ar,@@             Ing Coverage
   Conservation Tillage                          acres                   0       0.0%                 0               0              0                0             0            $21.00                   $0
   Farm Plans                                    acres             1,681        80.0%             511            122              420              128              30           $14.50               $6,093
   Nutrient Management                           acres             1,810        86.1%                 0               0              0                0             0              $1.75                  $0
   N-1.1., Prntlihip I -and Retirement           acres               210         2.7%          2,295             307                50            727            105            $125.00               $6,250
    air
      .1945.1           -                                                                                                                                           A
   Grazing Land Protection                       acres                58         1.0%              193              13               0                V                            8 an
                                                                                                                                                                    V            .51 F ww
   Stream Protection                             acres                40         -----              64                5              0                0             0            $21.00                   $0
   Cover Crops                                   acres                79         -----            607              47                0                0             0            $15.00                   so
   Grass Filter Strips                           acres                95         -----         1,074             132                95          1,074            132            $185.00             $17,575
   Woodland Buffer Filter Area                   acres                175        -----         3,999             569              175           3,999            569            $230.00              $40,250
   Forest Harvesting                             acres               709       100.0%          12,022            200                 0                0             0              $0.00                  $0
   Animal Waste Control Facilities             systems                  2        ,---          3,156             617                 0                0             0        $18,500.00                   $0
   Erosion & Sediment Control                    acres             2,398       100.0%          31,114        15,539                  0                0             0              $0.00                  so
   Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                       acres             2,544         1.6%          6,094             665              948           2,270            248            $205.00            $194,262
   Urban Nutrient Management                     acres             2,876        15.0%          4,332             389              959           1,444            130               TBD                  TBD
   Septic Pumping                              systems                39         -----         9,103                  0              0                0             0              $0.00                  $0
   Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear feet           3,205         -----         4,915           3,198                 0                0             0              $0.00                  so
              Total Pounds Reduced:                                                            79,478        21,803                             9,641           1,214                              $264,430
     Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                              8,802             738
                  Adjusted Reduction:                                                          70,677        21,065
    Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                            925,593         102,946
                   Percent Reduction:                                                          7.64%         20.46%














                                                                                                        J-10





                                            Table 4d. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Fauquier County
                                                                Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                 Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)          Increased Ac      Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
               LIMP Trcalment                       w1ils         Can=             Eaf&W         NWQM           PhOPhQM          dl==                Nitrogcn       EhQ5phaw         AMIB"                hXLE&MM
   Conservation Tillage                             acres             22,682         81.3%                   0              0                 0                 0              0             $21-00                     $0
   Farm Plans                                       acres             47,686         70.0%          25,736             6,236              8,517           4,596            1,114             $14.50             $123,492
   Nutrient Management                              acres              17,031        25.0%          19,660             1,766            10,693           12,344            1,109               $1.75             $18,713
   Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres              .  660          0.6%           6,515            1,038                160           2,224             319            $125.00               $20,000
   Grazing Land Protection                          acres              7#675         15.0%          25,175             1,749              3,049          10,076             676              $85.00             $259,165
   Stream Protection                                acres                 240                           411                30                 72             121               9             $21.00                $1,512
   Cover Crops                                      acres                  80                           650                50                 60             482               37            $15.00                   $900
   Grass Filter Strips                              acres                 105          -----          1,138              140                  99          1,070             132            $185.00               $18,315
   Woodland Buffer Filter Area                      acres                 130          -----          2,841              404                130           2,841             404            $230-00               $29,900
   Forest Harvesting                                acres              1,065         100.0%         14,408               278                  0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
   Animal Waste Control Facilities                systems                  12                       18,544             3,628                  0                 0              0        $18,500.00                      $0
   Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres                  81        100.0%           1,074              537                  0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
   Urban SWMIBMP Retrofits                          acres                  78          1. 1%            185                20                 0                 0              0           $205.00                      $0
   Urban Nutrient Management                        acres                  93        10.0%              140                13                 0                 0              0               TBD                   TBD
   Septic Pumping                                 systems                  12          -----          2,803                 0                 0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
   Shoreline Erosion Protection                  linear feet                 0         -----                 0              0                 0                 0              0               $0.00    - so
                Total Pounds Reduced:                                                              119,282           15,888                              33,754            3,799                                $471,997
      Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                 (40,919)          (4,9531_
                   Adjusted Reduction:                                                             160,201           20,841
     Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                 980,782          133,034
                     Percent Reduction:                                                             16.33%           15.67%












                                                                                                                 J-11






                                        Table 4e.          Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Loudoun County
                                                            Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                            Year 2000 Projection          Reductions (lbs/year)        Increased Ac     Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
             OMP Treatment                      WliM          Ciffff=       Percen         Nifroge       Phosphoru       QLCayc=           Nitrogen      Phosphoru      Ac[c Treate         incr 'Coverage
  Conservation     Ti'Ilage                     acres            30,728        93.2%                 0               0              0                0             0            $21.00                    $0
  Farm Plans                                    acres            74,794        80.0%         26,066           8,789             3,623          1,263             426            $14.50             $52,531
  Nutrient Management                           acres            23,373        25.0%         25,270           2,975            14,298          15,459           1,820             $1.75            $25,022
  Highly Erodible Land Retirement               acres             6,560          3.5%        72,189           10,732            2,102         26,224           3,751           $125.00            $262,750
  Grazing Land Protection                       acres             3,675          4.0%        1 VO, 0071 4        7 21 6w                       r%,R 11           389            $85.00            $166,515
  Stream Protection                             acres             1,800                        2,732             198              557             837              61           $21.00             $11,697
  Cover Crops                                   acres               540          -----         4,023             310              258          1,861             143            $15.00                $3,870
  Grass Filter Strips                           acres               135          -----         1,310             160              135          1,310             160           $185.00             $24,975
  Woodland Buffer Filter Area                   acres               200          -----         3,910             553              189          3,708             524           $230.00             $43,470
  Forest Harvesting                             acres             1,077       100.0%         15,935              312                0                0             0              $0.00                   $0
  Animal Waste Control Facilities             systems                   9        -----       12,301           2,390                 0                0             0        $18,500.00                    $0
  Erosion & Sediment Control                    acres             1,119       100.0%         13,852           6,907                 0                0             0              $0.00                   so
  Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                       acres               382          1.3%            841               92               42             93              10          $205.00               $8,699
  Urban Nutrient Management                     acres               612        15.0%             847               76             204             282              25             TBD                  TBD
  Septic Pumping                              systems                 26         -----         5,379                 0              0                0             0              $0.00                   so
  Shoreline Erosion Protection               linear feet               0         -----               0               0              0                0             0              $0.00                   so
              Total Pounds Reduced;                                                         195,530          34,220                           56,848           7,308                              $599,529
     Adjustment for Urban Growth.                                                          (182,743)        (17,407)
                 Adjusted Reduction:                                                        378,274          51,627
   Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                          1,160,799         183,817
                   Percent Reduction:                                                        32.59%          28.09%














                                                                                                     J- 12






                                         Tab  le 4f.      Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Prince William County
                                                               Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned Slate Programs
                                                               Year 2000 Projection           Reductions (lbs/year)        Increased Ac     Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
                 RME Treatment                      w1iM         CmycL=          Percent      Nitrogen      Phosphorus      QJ_CDyuac         Nilroge      p1loWhom          ALIt3loW           I ncr Cover=
      Conservation Tillage                          acres            7,636        87.5%                  0               0              0                0              0           $21.00                   $0
      Farm Plans                                    acres            18.663       80.0%           10,637          2,178             1,166            665            136             $14.50             $16,909
      Nutrient Management                           acres            10,498       45.0%           11,519            753             5,311          5,827            381               $1.75              $9,294
      Highly Erodible Land Retirement               acres               260         0.7%          2,571             337                65            944            136           $125.00                $8,125
      Grazing Land Protection                       acres               330         2.5%          1,139               77             143             494                33          $85.00             $12,155
      Stream Protection                             acres                 80        -----             140              10              80            140                10          $21.00               $1,680
      Cover Crops                                   acres                  0        -----                0               0              0                0              0           $15.00                   $0
      Grass Filter Strips                           acres               115                       1,300             160                83            938            116           $185.00              $15,355
      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                   acres               135         -----         3,085             439              135           3,085            439           $230.00              $31,050
      Forest Harvesting                             acres            1,014        100.0%          13,264            208                 0                0              0             $0.00                  $0
      Animal Waste Control Facilities             systems                  4        ------        6,600           1,292                 0                0              0       $18,500.00                   $0
      Erosion & Sediment Control                    acres            1,426        100.0%          19,246          9,623                 0                0              0             $0.00                  so
      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                       acres               815         1.3%          2,006             219              138             339                37        $205.00              $28,203
      Urban Nutrient Management                     acres            1,627        20.0%           2,519             227              814           1,259            113               TBD                 TBD
      Septic Pumping                              systems                27         -----         6,514                  0              0                0              0             $0.00                  $0
      Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear feet          3,205          -----         4,915           3,198                 0                0              0             $0.00                  $0
                  Total Pounds Reduced:                                                           85,454        18,720                           13,69 1           1,401                              $122,770
        Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                            (93,776)        (11,770)
                     Adjusted Reduction:                                                        179,230         30,491
      .Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                           856,843          97,836
                       Percent Reduction:                                                         20.92%        31.17%













                                                                                                     J-13






                                         Table 4g.            Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Stafford County
                                                              Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                              Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (lbs/year)          Increased Ac Added Reductions Ach'd Cost per Added Total Cost for
            LIME TreaftnW                         w1ju          Cpy&wgc         Percen         Nilw=          Plwsphuim        ofCDyc=            Nilroge       Phosphorus        Acre Treated        Incr CDys=
 Conservation Tillage                             acres             4,692         67.6%                    0               0               0                 0              0             $21-00                     $0
 Farm Plans                                       acres             7,280         80.0%             6,418           1,125                114              100               18            $14.50                $1,649
 Nutrient Management                              acres             3,640         40.0%             9,567             436              1,918           4,779              218               $1.75               $3,182
 Highly Erodible Land Retirement                  acres                730          5.9%            8,501           1,126                269           3,909              562           $125.00              $33,625
                                                                                                                                                                                                               S 1A^
 Grazing Land Protection                          acres                100          3.0%              344              23                 12                 41             3             $85.00                    ULU
 Stream Protection                                acres                 45          -----               79                 6              45                 79             6             $21.00                  $945
 Cover Crops                                      acres                232          -----             151             151                  0                 0              0             $15.00                     $0
 Grass Filler Strips                              acres                 55          -----             622              77                 5S             622                77          $185.00              $10,17S
 @Voodland Buffer Filler Area                     acres                 70          -----           1,600             228                 70           1,600              228           $230.00              $16,100
 Forest Harvesting                                acres                812       100.0   %        11,409              138                  0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
 Animal Waste Control Facilities                systems                    0        -----                  0               0               0                 0              0        $18,500-00                      $0
 Erosion & Sediment Control                       acres             1,285         100.0%          17,348            8,674                  0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
 Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acres                256          2.5%              630              69                  0                 0              0           $205.00                      $0
 Urban Nutrient Management                        acres                307        10.0%               476              43                  0                 0              0               TBD                   TBD
 Septic Pumping                                 systems                 21          -----           4,959                  0               0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0
 Shoreline Erosion Protection                 linear feel           5,065           -----           8,118           5,291-                 0                 0              0               $0.00                    $0-
              Total Pounds Reduced:                                                               70,220          17,384                             11,129             1,110                                $66,696
    Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                    (331)           1,504
                 Adjusted Reduction:                                                              70,552          15,881
   Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                291,036           28,954
                   Percent Reduction:                                                             24.24%          54.85%












                                                                                                           J-14









                Table 5a. Point Source Nitrogen Loading Estimate
                                                                        1985        1985 TN           2000    2000 TN Load
                                                                        Flow)       Baseload          Flow        w/BNR
                                             Plant                      (MGD        (lbs/yr)          (MGD)      (lbs/year)
                               Leesburg STP                             1.26          71,700          5.00         106,500-
                               Purcellville STP                         0.27          15,400          0.50            10,700
                               Blue Plains (VA Flow)                    17.30       816,300           41.00        936,100
                               Alexandria STP                           35.60       1,994,000         43.20        920,500
                               Aquia STP                                1.14          64,900          5.70         121,500
                               Arlington STP                            26.56       1,641,300         34.00        724,500
                               Dale City 91 STP                         2.00  1       91,300          4.00            85,200
                               Dale City #8 STP                         0.84          38,400          2.00            42,600
                               Lower Potomac STP                        32.96       1,906,300         47..00    --1,001.500
                               L. Hunting Creek STP                     3.82        279,100--         0.00                   0
                               Mooney STP                               7.58        609,200           15.00        319,600
                             -Quantico STP                              1.45          82,500          1.60            34,100
                               UOSA STP                                 9.41        597,500           33.40        711,700
                                                          Total         140.19      8,207,900         232.40      5,014,500
                                                                                                                      (-39%)

                 Table 5b. Point Source Phosphorus Loading Estimate
                                                                        1985        1985 TP           2000     2000 TP Load
                                                                        Flow        Baseload          Flow        w/BNR
                                             Plant                      (MGD)       (lbs/yr)          (MGD)      (lbs/year)
                               Leesburg STP                             1.26            2,600         5.00            22,800
                               Purcellville STP                         0.27            5,300         0.50             2,300
                               Blue Plains (VA Flow)                    17.30           6.800         41.00           18,700
                               Alexandria STP                           35.60         16,300          43.20            6,600
                               Aquia STP                                1.14            2.000         5.70             2,100
                               Arlington STP                            26.56         46.900          34.00            5,200
                               Dale City #1 STP                         2.00            1.100         4.00             1,200
                               Dale City 48 STP                         0.84   1           800        2.00                400
                               Lower Potomac STP                        32.96         14.000          47.00           11,400
                               L. Hunting Crk. STP                      3.82            2.200         0.00   1                 0*
                               Mooney STP                               7.58            3.700         15.00            5,000
                               Quantico STP                             1.45               900        1.60                 400
                               UOSA STP                                 9.41               900        33.40            5,100
                                                          Total         140.19        103.500         232.40          81,200
                                                                                                                      (-23%)


                                                                             J-15









                 Table 6a. Point Source Cost Figures for Year-Round BNR Retrofit (in S 1,000)

                                                      Plant'                  Capital O&M               EAC2
                                          Leesburg STP                           $3,446       $231          $636
                                          Purcellville STP                       $1,988         $61         $295
                                          Blue Plains (VA Flow)                     .3242     $797       $1,177
                                          Alexandria STp3                       $20,000       $757       $3,106
                                          Aquia STP                              $4,275       $189          $691.
                                          AxIington STP                          $7,8471      $406       $1,328
                                          ]Dale City #1 STP                      $5,740       $211          $885
                                          ',Dale City #8 STP                     $4,030       $140          $613
                                          Lower Potomac STP                     $26,533       $375       $3,491
                                          Mooney STP                             $7,115       $509       $1,345
                                          Quantico STP                                  $0    $157          $371
                                          UOSA STP                         11    $28,576    $1,2611      $4,618
                                                                    Total lr$112,7901       $5,094[ $18,5561

                 Notes:    1) Several localities are served by regional plants (e.g., Fairfax flows treated at Lower Potomac STP/39.63 MGD
                           in 1995, Blue Plains STP/20.57 MGD, Arlington STP/2.18 MGD, Alexandria STP/19.35 MGD, and Upper
                           Occoquan STP/9.72 MGD). Decisions to retrofit many of these plants would affect users outside the boundaries of
                           the locality where the plant is situated.

                           2) EAC = equivalent annual cost; the annual expenditure to cover operation & maintenance, plus the debt for
                           financing the capital cost over a 20 year design life at an interest rate of 10%.

                           3) Capital cost figure given by Alexandria Sanitation Authority; revises information in -the April 26, 1996 load
                           estimation document.




























                                                                             J-16










            Table 6b. Point Source Unit Costs for Year-Round BNR Retrofit


                                                                               EAC/lb
                                              Plant              EAC/MGD         TN
                                    Leesburg STP                   $127,200         $4
                                    Purcellville STP               $589,900       $171
                                    Blue Plains (VA Flow)           $28,700         $2
                                    Alexandria STP                  $57,500         $2_
                                    Aquia STP                      $115,100         $8
                                    Arlington STP                   $33,200         $2
                                    Dale City# I STP               $221,200        $15
                                    Dale City #8 STP               S' ) 06,600      $9
                                    Lower Potomac STP               S52,100         $21
                                    Mooney STP                      S56,000         $2
                                    Quantico STP                   S185,600        $12
                                    UOSA STP                        $85,500         $2




































                                                            J-17







                                                       Potomac Basins Tributary_qtra!egies-Tracking__-
                                                                            Northern Virginia eetings

                               inyl               Affiliation                           Name                           TlIle            ___"A r 30.May 17-Sep
                               Local Governments
                               x    Alexandria, City of            -Kerry J. D nley                      !@ayor
                               x    Alexandria, City of                      Warren Bell                 City Engineer                         x                    x
                                    Alexandria, City of                      Larry Gavan                                                       x        x           x
                               x    Alexandria Sanitation Authority          James Canada                Director                                                   X
                               X    Alexandria Sanitation Authority          Glenn B. Harvey                                                   x        X           X
                               X    Arlington County                         James B. Hunter             Chairman, County Board
                                    Arlington County                         Lisa Grandle                Parks & Recreation Office          _x
                               x    Arlington County                         Jeff Ham                                                                   x           x
                                    Arlington County                         Jill Neuville               Director, Env. Services               x
                                    Wi-I-Ini-Ioncounty                       Dennis Wisler
                                                                                                                                                                    x
                                    Arlington County                         William Frost               Public Works Department               x        x           X
                               X    Clifton, Town of                         James C. Chesley            Mayor
                               x    Dale City Service Corporation            Norris Sisson               President                                                  X
                                    Dale City Service Corporation            Scott Ahern                                                       x
                               x    Dale City Service Corporation            Phillip A. Lewis                                                  x        x           x
                               x    Dumfries, Town of                        Samuel W. Bauckman          Mayor
                               x    Dumfri)s, Town of                        D         otecki            Public Works Director                 x        x
                                    Fairfax County                           Tony Griff in                                                                          x
                               x    Fairfax Count                            Katherine K. Hanley         Chairman, Board of Supervison _x                           x
                                                   Y
                                    Fairfax County                           William J. Leldinger        County Executive                      x
                                    Fairfax County                           John W. diZerega            Public Works Director-                x                    x
                               x    Fairfax County                                  a Jenkins            Public Works Dept.                    X    ___X _X
                                    _@a-lrfax County                         40-h-n Koenig                      works Deot,                                         x
                               - Fairfax County                              Valerie Tucker              Public Works Dept.                    x
                                    Fairfax County                           Bill Henry                  Public Works Dept.                                      _X
                               - Fa-Irf       ounly                          -le-o -RaGh-fold                                                           x
                               x    Fairfax, City of                         John Mason                  M-ayor
                               x    Fairfax, City of                         Joe Lerch                   Planning Office                       x     _X        -x
                               X    _@_allsChurch, City of                   Alan Branghman              Mayor (current)
                               x    Falls Church, City of                    4effrq 'l7arbert__ Mayor ( ormer)
                               x    Fauquier Cou ty                          David C. Mangum             Chairman, Board of Supervisor,        X
                                    Fauquier County                          Linda Unkefer               County Enaineer                       x        x           x
                                    Fauquier County                          Danny Hatch             __ï¿½oil _S@Ienllft_                        x
                               X    Hamilton, Town of                           yd E. Matthews           May-or
                               lx   Haymarket, Town of                       lJohn A. Kapp               IMayor                                x
                                                                                                                                                                           ------------


                                                                                                  Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                              Page I







                                                        Potomac Basins Tributary _qtr@tegies Trackin
                                                                              Northern Virginia Meetings

                                                                                                                                           i4pr
                                 Inv              Affillation                           Name                          Title                                    17-Sep
                                 x  Hemdon, Town of                           Thomas Davis Ruit
                                 -x Re-indon, Town of                         Ed Moore                  Public Works/Utilities Director        X
                                                                                                          a
                                 X  Hilsboro, Town of                         Kenneth W. Rousseau       M-Pr-
                                 X  Leesburg, Town of                         James E. Clem -!@ayor
                                    Leesburg, Town of                         Tom Mason                 Public Works/Utilities Director     -x
                                 x  Leesburg, Town of                         Fi-.-W. Shoemaker         Public W-orks/Urilities Director    -x                 -x
                                 x  Loudoun County                            Dale Polen Myn            ChWirman, Board of Supervisor,
                                    Loudoun County                            James G. B@aon            Member, Board of Supervisors           x                    x
                                    Lo@doun County                            Memory Porter             Administrative Assistant
                                    Loudoun County                            Irish Grandfield          Vl@-nner                                                    x
                                    Loudoun County Sanitation Authorit        Tim Coughlin-
                                                                           L                                                                                        x
                                    Loudoun County Sanitation Authority       Dale Hammes                                                           -x
                                 x  Loudoun County Sanitation Authority       Ken Shelton               General Manager                        x
                                 -  Loudoun County Sanitation Authority       Tom Broderick                                                            x      -x
                                 x  Lovettsville, Town of                     Elaine Walker             Mayor
                                 x  Manassas Park, City of                    Ernest L. Evans           Malqr__
                                 L  Manassas Park, City of                    William Weakley           Public Works Director                                       x
                                 x  Manassas, City of                         Robert L. Browne          Mayor
                                 x- Manassas, City of                         Michael-Moon - Public Works Director                             x       x
                                 x  Middleburg, Town of                       Caroline Bowersock        Mayor
                                 x  Occoquan, Town of                         Larry Casperson           Mayor
                                    Upper Occo uan Service Authority          Laura Conrad                                                     x       x
                                    Upper Occoquan Service Authorit           Millard Robbins           Executive Director
                                 x  The Plains, Town of                       Blake Gallagher           Mayor
                                 x  Prince William County                     Kathleen K. Seefeldt      Chairman, Board of Supervis r!
                                    -Ki-ncewilliam county                     Madan Mohan                                                      x                    x
                                    Prince William County                     Raj Bideri                Public Works Dept.                             X-
                                    ,Prince William County                    Jim Chao                  Piihfir- WnrkQ r)ant
                                                                                                               - - - - --If I.                 A       A
                                 x  Prince William County                     5scar -Guzman                                                    x   -- ------
                                 x  Prince William Co Sanitatio               jo -hn                    General Manager                                             X--
                                    Prince William Co. Sanitation Authorib Rick Thoesen                                                                             x
                                 x  Prince William Co Sanitation Authority Steve Bennett                                                       x                    x
                                 x  Purcellville, Town of                     John Marsh                Mayor
                                 x  Purcellville, Town of                     Karin McKnighF- Public Works DirectoF-                           x
                                 x  Quanlicojown of                           Howard Bolognese          Mayor                                  x
                                 -du-anticojown of                            Mitchel Raftelis - Vice Mayor


                                                                                                 Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                             Page 2







                                                    Potomac Basins Tributary Strategies Tracking____
                                                                        Northern Virginia eetings

                             Inv               Affiliation                         Name                           Title              A-Ap ----May 1-7-Sep
                             x    Round Hill, Town of                     JeffFey H. Wolford       Mayor                                   @ 30
                             x    Stafford County                         Linda V. Musselman       Chairman, Board of S pervison
                             x    Stafford County                         Robert E. Bos            Public Works/Utilities Director      x        x          x
                                  Stafford County                         Barry @ Fitz-James                                                     x
                                  Stafford County                         b-a-nSchardein
                             x    Upper Occoquan Sanitation Authority     Millard Robbins          Executive Director
                             x    Upper Occoquan Sanitation Authority     Laura Conrad                                                                      x
                                  Upper Occoquan Sanitation Authority     James Bannwart                                                                    x
                             x    Vienna, Town of                         Charles A. Robinson                                           x
                                  Vienna,    wn of                        Jennifer Steingasser     Senior Planner                       x                   x

                             Soil and Water Conservation Districts
                                  John Marshall SWCD                      Dana R. Bayless          Conservation Specialist              x        x
                                  John Marshall SWCD                      Nicolaas A. Kortlandt    Chairman                             x
                             x    Loudoun SWdD                            James J. Boland          Chairman
                                  G_udoun SWCD                            John R. Boyd             Associate Director                   x
                                  Loudoun SWCD                            Peter R. Holden          Environmentalist                     x        x          x
                                  Loudoun SWCD                                  th Lowery                                               x
                                  Loudoun SWCD                            Joseph M. Rogers         Dir. Secfrr                          x
                             x    Northern VA SWCD                        A. Dewey Bond            Chairman                                                 x
                                  Northern VA SWCD                        Diane Hoffman                                                                     x
                             x    Prince William SWCD                     f_hor@as R. House        -Chairman
                                  Prince William SWCD                     James Bonar              Conservation Specialist              x        x
                                  Prince William SWCD                     k_e@76 -mart-in Wd/Ur-bin Cons. Specialist                  _X_     _x
                                  Prince William SWCD            -.Ralph W. McDowell               Vkc_eCfia_Ii_man____ __X__                           _x
                             x    Tri-County/Cily SWCD                    George F. Beals          Chairman                             x
                                  Tri-Counly/City SWCD                    Bobby Crisp              Vice Chairman                                            x
                                  Tri-County/City SWCD                    Ruth A. Carlone                                               x        x
                                  Trl-County/City SWCD                    L. Gordon Linkous        District Manager                     x


                             PDCs and Other Regional Groups
                             x    Metro WashCOG                           David Shepp                                                         _x
                                  Metro WashCOG                           Tanya pano                                                                                                  x
                             x    Northern Virginia PDC                   Kimberly Davis           jEnv. Programs Dir                   x                   x
                             Lqx


                                                                                             Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                          Page 3







                                                       Potomac Basins Tributary Stra-.egies Tracking___________
                                                                           Northern Virginia eetings

                                Inv               Affiliation                         Name                                               A:-Ap@ @@[email protected]
                                    Northern Virginia PDC                    David Bulova              Coastal Program Manager              x        x            x
                                    Kindharn Virninin
                                                      PDC                                                                                            x            x
                                    Northern Virginia PDC                    JoAnn Spevacek                                                                       x
                                x   Rappahannock Area PDC                    Stephen H. Manster        ExecutWe -Director
                                    Rappahannock Area PDC                    Amy Garber                                                                           x
                                    Rappahannock-Rapidan PDC                 Gary Christie             ExecuGe -Utrector*

                                Legislators
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              David B. Albo
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              James F. Almand
                                -      Delegate Almand's Office     _ Amy Appelbaum                    Aide                                 x
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              David G. Brickley
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Vincent F. Callahan
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Julia A. ConnML
                                x   Virginia House of DelegW@-te-s@ Karen L. Darner
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              James H. Dillard
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Richard L. Fisher
                                x   )qjnia House of Delegates                Robert E. Harris
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Robert D. Hull
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Jay Katzen
                                       Delegate Katzen's Office_ Marge Van Deman                       Aide                                 x
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Gladys B. Keating
                                X   Virginia House of Delegates              Robert G. Marshall
                                       Delegate Marshall's Office            Gall Mockallis            Aide                                                       x
                                    Virginia House of Delegates              Joe T. May
                                    Virginia House of Delegates              Roger J. McClure
                                x   IVirginia House of.Delegates             William C. Mims
                                x   -Virginia House of Delegates             Brian J. Moran
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              James K. O'Brien
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Harry J. Parrish
                                       Delegate Parrish's OffIC!A            Diana Dutton              Aide                                 x
                                x   Virginia House of Delegates              Kenneth R. Plum
                                         etegate Plum's Office-              Be bara Shearer           Aide                                                       x
                                    Virginia House of Dele ates            --Linda T. Puller                                                x
                                       Delegate Puller's Office              Kate Morosolf             JAIde                                                      x


                                                                                                Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                           Page 4







                                                      Potomac Basins Tributar Strateqies Tracking
                                                                           Northern Virginia eetings

                               Inv               Affiliation                           Name                          Title                4-Apr 30-May :f7:::-S-ep-
                               x   Virginia House of Delegates              John A. Rollison
                               x   Virginia House of Delegates              James M. Scott
                               x   Vir-g-inia Rouse of Delegates            Marian Van Landingham
                               x   Virginia House of Delegates              Vivian E. Watts

                               x            State Senate                    Patricia S. Ticer
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Warren E. Barry
                               x   Virginia Slate Senate                    John H. Chichester
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Charles J. Colgan                                                x
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Joseph V. Gartlan
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Janet D. Howell
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Kevin G. Miller
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    H. Russell Polls
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Richard L. Saslaw
                               x     irgin a State Senate                   Charles L. Waddell
                               x   Virginia State Senate                                                                                                          x
                               x   Virginia State Senate                    Jane H. Woods
                                                                                                                                                                  x

                               State and Federal Agencies
                                   Prince William Extension Service         Marc Avenl                 Tech Assist Team Member               x         x
                                   VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Danielle K. Deemer                                                     x                    x
                                   VA Ches4eake Bay Local Assistance Keith While                                                             x         x      -x
                                   VA Dept of Conservation & Recreatior Mark Bennett                   S. Shenandoah Team Leader                       x
                                   VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreatio Deborah B. Cross               Field Operations Manager                                   x
                                   VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreatio Diane McCarth
                                                                                    -         y                                                        x          x
                                   VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreatio E. J. Fanning                                                        x         x
                                   VADept.ofC nservation&Recreatio Douglas Carter                                                            x         x          x
                                   VA Dept. of Environmental Quality        Gregory_L. Clayton         Regional Director                     X-
                                   VA Dept. of E vironmental Quality        Alan Laubscher                                                   x
                                   VA Dept. of Environmental Quality        Mike McKenna                                                     x
                                   VA Dept. of Environmental Quality        Thomas A. Faha             Env. Engineer Consultant              X         x          x
                                   VA Dept. of Environmental Quality        John M. Kennedy            Northern VA Team Leader               x         x          x
                                   VA Dept. of Environmental Quality        Alan E. Pollock
                                                                                                                                             x
                                                                                                                                                                  x
                                   VA-JLARC;                                Eric Messick                                                                          x
                               I   IVA-JLARC                                William Murray                                                                        x


                                                                                                Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                              Page 5







                                            Potomac Basins Tributary Strategies Tracking-
                                                            Northern Virginia Meetings

                        Inv            Affillatlon                  Name                     Title                 r -30-Mayl -17-Sep
                            VA Tech                          Kurt ï¿½Iephonson                                                     x-
                                                   e-
                            VA Tech & SU-STAC Renr Rentative -Leonard Shabman
                            VA Tech                          Waldon Kems                                        x


                        Citizen and Business Groups

                            Friends of the Rappahannock      John Tippelt         Executive Director            x
                            _Chesapeake Bay Commission     lussell W. Baxter      [V-irginia Director           x















                                                                             Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                        Page 6







































                                           APPENDIX K


                                          Lower Potomac:
                                         Tributary Strategy

















 I



















                      POTOMAC TRIBUTARY STRATEGY


                         LOWER POTOMAC REGION







 v
                              Town of Colonial Beach
 I                             King George County
                              Northumberland County
                               Westmoreland County





                                     Draft
                                September 27, 1996







 P









                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS




               I.      Background     ..........................................................                 I
                         Table 1: Lower Potomac Region Total Nutrient Reductions       ....................      I
               11.     Options for Nutrient Control    .............................................             2
                         Table 2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Lower Potomac Region         ........  3
                         Table 3: Lower Potomac Region Total Nutrient Reductions       ....................      3

               III.    Consensus Assessment Results     ...........................................              4

               rV.     Point Sources   ..........................................................

               V.      Preferred Funding Options    ...............................................              7
                       Table 4: Funding Mechanisms Survey Results for Lower Potomac Region          .........  @8
                       Table 5: Ranking Order of Funding Mechanisms by Lower Potomac Region          .........   9


               Appendix A: Nutrient Load Reductions by County
                       Table Al: Lower Potomac Region Point Sources         ...........................       A- I
                       Table A2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for King George County         ........  A-2
                       Table A3: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northumberland County           ..... A-3)
                       Table A4- Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Westmoreland County         .......  A-4
                       Table A5: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Redutions for Lower Potomac Region         .......  A-5
               Appendix B: Comparable Level of Effort Nutrient Load Reductions by County
                       Table B 1: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for King George County        ........  B-1
                       Table B2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northumberland County         ...... B-2
                       Table B3: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Westmoreland County         ........ B-3
               Appendix C: Funding Mechanisms Survey Comments           ......    ......................      C-1
               Appendix D: List of Participants     .............................................             D-1







                 Background

                 At the request of the Secretary of Natural Resources, and ui anticipation of the requirements of the recent!%,
                 enacted HB 1411, a series of meetings took place in the Potomac River watershed over a six-month period
                 from March to September 1996 with state staff, local government elected officials and stail, Planning
                 District Commission staff, representatives of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and other
                 representatives of various citizen groups. The purpose of the meetings was to forge a consensus on the
                 most practical and cost-effective combination of measures which will result in a 40% reduction in nutrients,
                 nitrogen and phosphorus, in Virginia's Potomac Basin by the year 2000, and to determine the Funding
                 mechanisms preferred by the meeting participants. To faciEtate this process, the Basin was divided into four
                 regions. The Lower Potomac Region is composed of the counties of King George, Northumberland and
                 Westmoreland and the town of Colonial Beach.


                 Steps taken in the Lower Potomac region were a review of the 1985 baseline, 1994 progress and projected
                 year 2000 nutrient load estimates prepared by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and
                 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); identification of any further programs or actions, including
                 voluntary efforts, which were not accounted for in these estimates; determination of the additional actions
                 necessary in this region to close the basin-wide 40% "gap" and maintain the "cap"on nutrients into the
                 future; and determination of the preferred funding mechanisms. Based upon information provided by the
                 meeting participants, state staff were able to refine the nutrient load estimate figures. Specifically, vaiues
                 for cover. crops, shoreline protection measures and farm plans, also known as soil and water qualln,
                 conservation plans, were adjusted based on feedback from the regional participants.

                 Estimated nutrient load calculations project over 30% reduction in this region from the year 1985 to t,he
                 year 2000 in the annual controllable nitrogen loads, and nearly 571/o reduction in controllable phosphorus
                 from point and nonpoint sources combined (see Table 1). While phosphorus reductions are projected :o
                 have exceeded the basin-wide 40% goal, nitrogen loadings still must be reduced. The tables in appendix
                 A provide a county-by-county breakdown of the nutrient reductions for point and nonpoint sources.


                                            Table 1: Lower Potomac Region Total Nutrient Reductions
                                                    Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Pro
                                                    Nitrogen LA)ad* Obs/yr)                   Year 1994 Progress          Year 2000 Projections
                                             1985 Load      Controllabl     Reduc Goal      lbs Reduc      % Charize      lbs Reduc       !/,) Chanize
                            King George.         443,673         249,423          99,-69         35,041      -14.0%            43,262       -17.3%
                         Northumberland          465,468         304,227          121,691  1     91,366      -30.0%           112,166       -36.9%
                           Westmoreland          822,082         544.509          217.304       137.081      -25.2%     1     177,562       - 32. 6 9 /o
                         Lower Potomac         1,73 1,224       1,098,158         439.263       263,489      -24.0%           332,990       -30.3%


                                                   Phosphorus Lead* (lbs/yr)                  Year 1994 Progress           Year 2000 Projections
                                             1985 Load      Controllable Reduc Goal         lbs Reduc      % Chana        lbs Reduc'      % Chanize
                            King George            29,046          25,721         10.288   1       9,466     .36.8%            13,680       -53.211a
                         Northumberland            32,631          29,962         11,985         15,104      .50.4%            20,788       -69.4%
                           Westnioreland           64,238          59.683         23.873         23,558      -39.5%     1      30,461       -51.0%
                         Lower Potomac           125,915         115,366          46, 1 .16      -is, 129    -41.7%            64,929       -56.3%


                       Nutrient loads for 1985 noted in this document differ from those in the August 1995 draft Potomac Basin document
                     due to recalculation with more county specific land use information.






              The regional nutrient reduction scenario crafted by the Lower Potomac regional participants r           'elies on
              increased activity in a number of different'areas; however, reductions from increased use of agriculturil
              BNEPs are paramount. This is appropriate since approximately ninety-five percent of the 1985 nutrient
              controllable loads within the Lower Potomac region can be traced back to nonpoint sources. Of that
              5gure, over eighty percent of the total controllable nutrient loads are from cropland. The remaining nutrient
              loads are split nearly evenly across the other land use categories of non-rural, point source, and the other
              agricultural activities beside crop production.

              In recent vears, this region has been in the forefront of efforts to combat nonpoint source pollution and to
              protect the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Each of the three counties and the one
              incorporated town, Colonial Beach, has adopted a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act program in which the
              entire jurisdiction is subject to the performance criteria of the Preservation Act Regulations. Therefore,
              these localities each have in place management measures which require periodic septic pumpout, no-net
              increase in stormwater pollutant loadings from new development and a 10% reduction in pollutant loading
              from redevelopment sites, and requirements for minimum disturbance during development. The Chesapeake
              Bay Preservation Act Regulations also require land within preservation areas and upon which agricultural
              actiV"Ities are being conducted to have a soil and water conservation plan. In addition, the state fully expects
              1001/6 coverage and enforcement of erosion and sediment control measures during land development
              activities and 100% appUcation of forest harvesting BNTs by the year 2000. These management measures,
              if fully implemented, va provide a sound framework for maintenance of the cap on nutrient loadings once
              the 40% goal has been reached for the Potomac River basin.

              Options for Nutrient Control

              To determine which additional nonpoint source measures will offer the most nutrient reduction in the future,
              meeting participants considered both the relative impact each measure or BNIP will have in the region, and
              the feasibility of meeting a percentage figure which represents a "comparable level of effort", defined as
              approximately 73% ofthe limit of technology, among the four regions in the Potomac watershed. Tables
              2 and 3, and shown by county breakdown in Appendix B, outline one possible combination of reduction
              measures to reach this level of effort for nonpoint source contributors only. It should be noted that all
              reductions shown under this comparable level of effort scenario beyond those projected under current
                                                   programs wil be achieved through expansion of nonpoint source best
              funding levels of state and federal
              management practices and/or measures. Expansion of these practices or measures results in a 39.4%
              chanize in the annual controllable nitrogen load and a 63.2% change in the annual controllable phosphorus
              load from point and nonpoint sources combined. Therefore, any reductions that may be attributable to
              potential changes at the WWTPs in this region, Colonial Beach and Dahlgren. plants, could be used to
              augment and/or offset those nonpoint source reduction measures shown under this level of effort scenario.
              It is possible that with further upgrades or other modifications at the WWTPs, the region could meet or
              exceed 40%. Further discussion of the region's WWTPs is contained later in this document.

              Dollar cost values noted in Table 2 and in appendix B consider all currently known costs to implement the
              BNTs listed without consideration of possible benefits beyond nutrient reduction, monetary or otherwise,
              in @nplementing these measures. Additional resources'beyond implementation costs listed may be needed
              and could include personnel and technical assistance beyond current levels to develop, review, and/or
              update plans or BNT designs, "ocate funds; and verify implementation of plans or installation of BNTs.


                                                                     2








                                Table 2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Redu                     'ctions for Lower Potomac Region
                                              Based on increased Coverage Bevond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                  Year 2000 Projection           Reductions (lbs/year)    Cost per Added       Total Cos-, ',,r
                     BN2 Treatment                                Coverage        Percent        Nitrogen  Phoaphorus       Acre Treate        Incr COVe7:Zt
          Conservation Tillage                         acres         38,765        70'.6%        135,492        12,143             S21.00             S177.;z:;
          Farm Plans                                   acres         52,866        80.7%         47,548          8,320             S14.50                   so
          Nutrient Management                          acres         35,734        54.5%         102,336         4,684               SI.75            S 2 1, .-',z -;
          Highly Erodible Land Retirement              acres            3,515        4.8%        44,045          5,505           S160.00             S184.1-a)
          Grazing Land Protection                      acres              416        5.6%         1,438              97            S22.50                   so
          Stream Protection                            acres                 0       -----               0           0             S70.00                   S3
          Cover Crops                                  acres            4,372                    36,7.25         2,842             S15.00                   S
          Grass Filter Strips                          acres              770                     8,698          1,071           S185.00              S6 I.:
          Woodland Buffer Filter Area                  acres              240        -----        5,484            780           S230-00
          Forest Harvesting                            acres            1,492     100.0%         18,811            227
          Arumal Waste Control Facilities            systems                 5       -----        8,250          1,615                                      so
          Erosion & Sediment Control                   acres              167     100.0%          2,253          1,127                                      'ZO
          Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                      acres              115        0.9%            284             31                                     sr@
          Urban Nutnent Management                     acres.             139      10.0%             215             19                                     so
          Septic Pumping                             systems              40                      9,497              0                                      SC.
          Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear fee       33,132                      53,102         34.605                                      so
                        Total Pounds Reduced:                                                    474,177        73.066                               S499, i   9
           Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                      15,904          2,193
                           Adjusted Reduction:                                                   458,273        70,872
              Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                      1,069,696     105,624
                             Percent Reduction:                                                  42.84%         67.10%



                                            Table 3: Lower Potomac Region Total Nutrient Reductions
                                              Based on 1ncreased Coverage Beyond Current &. Planned State Programs


                                                       Nitrogen Load (lbs)                       Year 1994 Progress      Year 2000 Projections
                                             1985 Load Controllabi RzWc Coal               lbs Reduc     % Change        lbs Reduc       % Change
                           King George            443,673         249,423         99,769         35,041    -14.0%             65,032       -26.1%
                        Northumberland.           465,468         304,227       121,691          91,366    -30.0%           145,380        -47.8%
                          Westrnoreiand           822,082         544,509       217,8041         137.081   -251%            221.724        -40.7%
                        Lower Potomac           1,731,224       1,098,158       439,2631         263,489   .24.0%           432,136        -39.4%

                                                    Phosphorus Load (lbs)                        Year 1994 Progress      Year 2000 Projections
                                             1985 Load ' Controllable Redu_c Goal          lbs Reduc      % Chan&s       lbs Reduc       % Chang2
                           King George            29,046          25,721          10,288         9,466     -36.8%             15,801       -61.4%
                        Northumberland            32,631          29,962          11,985         15,104    -50.4%             23,325       -77.8%
                          West:moreland           .64,238         59,683          23,8731        23,558    .39.5%             33,802       -56.6%
                        Lower Potomac             125,915         115,366         46,1461        48,129    -41.7%      1      72,928       -63.2%




                                                                                      3








             Consensus Assessment Results


             After determination of the relative impact and feasibility of increase in various BMPs, the participants then
             determined the conditions necessary for the desired increase in activity to occur. The results of this group
             process constitute the, regional assessment, and are discussed in the following paragraphs.

             Conservation tillage is the practice of either planting crops into the previous existing land cover without
             tdlage (no-tW) or by using tillage implements that leave most crop residue on the soil along with the newly
             seeded crop (minimum. tillage). The regional participants agreed that an increase is feasible in the number
             of acres employing cc riservation versus conventional tillage methods from the 1994 figure of 5 1 % (of all
             potential treatment coverage that could occur for the BW) to a figure of 70.60/6 in the year 2000. They
             also aareed that an increase in this practice would have a high impact in the region, relative to other possible
             nutrient reduction measures that could be taken. The group went on to note that this goal of 70.60//0 is
             feasible on average over the long term, - although there could be an occasional growing season when market
             forces could disrupt the typical two-year, three-crop rotation practices commonly in use in this region. In
             these years, this level of implementation would not occur.

             In addition, over the Icng term, significant shifts in type of crop production could adso impact crop rotation
             practices. However, group participants believe that recent agricultural indicators point to continued
             promotion of conservation tillage for the crop production and rotation practices expected for the next
             several years in this region. Participants expect vegetable farming to increase in the! region, and they agreed
             that promotion and demonstration of no-till methods of vegetable farming would yield significant benefits
             in nutrient reduction.


             Nutrient management -is a comprehensive plan that manages the amount, placement, timing and application
             of animal wastes, fertilizer, sludge and/or residual soil nutrients to minimize nutrient loss potential while
             maintaining farm productivity. The regional participants agreed that an increase in the number of acres
             employing nutrient management measures from a 1994 6gure of 21% to a figure of 54.5% in the year 2000
             is feasible, given certain conditions. Those conditions are that cost-share funds, 50% or better, be provided
             for nutrient management BNTs such as, but not limited to: tissue testing, split applications of nitrogen
             (especially on leachable soils), soil testing, cover crops, and use of banding equipment for fertilizer.

             In addition, tissue testing requires laboratory analysis methods taking, on average, three days to complete.
             Therefore, this and the costs associated with testing are viewed as barriers to more wide-spread use of the
             practice. Research is on-going to develop an inexpensive in-field tissue test, although some experts believe
             that a practical and relatively accurate field test applicable to Virginia crop production is still a decade away.
             Meeting participants suggested that the state could provide resources to help promote development of an
             in-field tissue testing procedure that was accurate for more than one crop.
             The regional participants also recommended that methods be devised to more accurately document the
             number of acres under both voluntary nutrient management and conservation tillage which are not now
             completely accounted for. They estimated that there may be significant acres in -this region 'which fall into
             this voluntary' category. It. was suggested that a grant or other funding source be found to refine the
             Voluntary BNT Survey to focus on this region. Participants also agreed there was a need to develop a
             database, in a format which would be useful to the public, of information obtained from water quality
             monitoring. efforts.


                                                                      4







             The regional participants agreed that since much of the land farmed in the region is rented, there is a need
             to determine how to better target the farm manager or land user, in addition to the farm owner, for
             education in nutrient management and other conservatiodfarming techniques. They agreed there is a need
             to increase the communication and involvement between local governments and the agricultural water
             quality specialists who develop farm plans in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.

             In* general, the group believed that the existing use of state and federal resources should be studied to
             eliminate overlap and to increase productivity and efficiency of delivery to end-users. While there may be
             a need for increased staffing in this region, two factors make it difficult to say with certainty that additional
             staff resources will in fact be needed-.      First, the Nutrient Certification Program established by the
             Department of Conservation and Recreation is in its infancy, and the effect that private nutrient management
             consultants may have on nutrient reductions in the region has not yet been established. Second, the
             Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board has given Notice of Intent to consider amending the Chesapeake
             Bay Preservation Act Designation and Management Regulations.to accomplish (among other objectives)
             more water quality protection practices on the land.

             Woodland buffer filter areas, also known as forest buffers, requires creating or restoring a vegetative stril   ')
             of primarily trees and associated plant material adjacent to a stream or other receiving waters, typically 550
             to 150 feet wide, that will filter stormwater runoff of sediment and nutrients before the runoff reaches a
             receiving water body. The regional participants agreed that establishment of woodland buffer filter areas
             would have a high impact on nutrient reduction. The group suggested the Department of Game and Inland
             Fishen*es' wildlife management plans and/or other similar programs within the framework of the state's
             agricultural tax incentive program include establishment of suitable food patches in the buffers to attract
             deer and other wildlife. Hunters would then pay fees to hunt in these wildlife management zones borderin.-
             waterways. The group agreed that provision of cost-share funds or other financial incentive measures
             would encourage farmers to plant marshlands in millet or other grains attractive to water fowl. The
             scenario proposes the acreage devoted to woodland buffer filter areas be increased from the zero currently
             designated as such in 1994 to 240 acres by the year 2000.

             The regional participants also agreed that urban nutrient management, modification of lawn fertilizer use
             by homeowners and others, was a critical component of an effective nutrient reduction strategy in this
             region, since residential development (particularly waterfront residential) is expected to continue. The
             group believes that educational efforts such as workshops, recycling efforts, and the master gardener
             program are valuable approaches, and should be encouraged and funded. The group also supports the idea
             of requiring, or aggressively promoting, soil testing by commercial lawn care companies before they apply
             fertilizer to their customers' properties. The group agreed that the media should be used aggressively to
             educate the public on conservation practices.

             Measures which the regional participants judged to have less potential impact include highly erodible land
             retirement and grass filter strips. Highly erodible land retirement requires taking land out of crop
             production and/or grazing and planting it with a permanent vegetative cover such as grasses,. shrubs and/or
             trees. The scenario proposes an increase in acreage under the highly erodible land retirement program ffom
             3% in 1994 to 4.8% in the yeu 2000. Participants stated that the range of 4% to 5% for land retirement
             would be the maximum possible. Several participants suggested that even where land is already under
             contract for land retirement, if market crop prices rise enough, some farmers will opt to retire their
             contracts early to take advantage of the high market prices.


                                                                     5






              Grass filter strips, also known as grassed buffers, are similar to woodland buffer filter areas except thit
              grasses and/or shrubs are planted rather than trees. Grass filter strips would increase from 332 acres"in
              1994 to 770 acres by the year 2000 in this scenario. Meeting participants agreed that this increase was
              possible, but the impact of this measure is low relative to other nutrient reduction, measures for this region.

              The regional participants agreed that agricultural ponds may function to control stormwater runoff, and that
              the restoration of funding for their construction should be studied.

              Urban stormwater management (SWM/BNT) retrofits require modification of existing stormwater
              management facilities and/or drainage systems in already developed areas to add or enhance water quality
              components of the retrofitted facility. The regional participants did not believe a significant increase was
              feasible in urban SVi7vVBNIP retrofits because of the scarcity of highly urbanized land in the region and the
              high costs associated with these retrofits.

              Planting of cover crops, such as rve, wheat or barley, without fertilizer in the early fall traps leftover
              nitrogen so   it will not runoff or ieach into receiving waters. Regional participants do not expect a
              significant increase in the use of cover crops beyond what is expected under current programs and practices
              in. this region, therefore the scenario assumes no increased nutrient reduction from this practice.
              Furthermore, some panicipants expressed concern that the recent decision by the State Cost Share Board
              to elin-driate the small grain cover crop practices from the BNIP cost-share program, beginning in 1998, may
              reduce the practice below existing levels of usage. Participants agreed that cost-share funding for small
              grain cover crop practices should be retained.

              Point Sources


              As stated earlier in this document, all reductions shown under this comparable level of effort scena         no,
              beyond those projected under current funding levels of state and federal programs., will be achieved through
              expansion of nonpoint source best management practices or measures. Therefore, any reductions that rnav
              be attributable to potential changes at the WWTPs in this region-Colonial Beach and Dahlgren-could be
              used to augment those nonpoint source reduction measures shown under this scenario. In any case, future
              population growth and the associated'increased loads from the wastewater treatment plants will require
              continual upgrades to maintain the cap.

              King George County, in accordance with a consent Order from the State Water Control Board, is planning
              an upgrade and expansion of the Dahlgren wastewater treatment plant. The expansion wiH be from an
              existing design flow of 0.325 mgd to 0.5 mgd. The upgrade and expansion wilI improve current operations
              and effluent quality. It wiH also enable the County to accommodate several development projects without
              the addition of new small treatment plants. The V?DES permit requirements for the expanded facility
              include a total phosphorus limit of 2.0 mg/l and an ammonia nitrogen limit of 1.35 mg/l.

              Presently, the design and plans for the expanded facility are extended aeration mode using concentric rings.
              Ms is an enlargement of the current design and operation. DEQ has recommended that the expansion be
              made such that some denitrification can be achieved. The extended aeration mode should accommodate
              some denitrificatiori, particularly when the flows are well below the design capacity.




                                                                     6







             The Dah1gren Naval Surface Warfare Center (DNSWC) STP discharges to Upper Machodoc Creek in King
             George County. The VPDES permit for the STP was reissued on November 2, 1994. The reissued perm@r
             allowed the Navy to continue to operate the existing STP at a design flow of 0.4 mgd and to expand the
             STP to 0.72 mgd. The new upgraded faciEty is currently under construction and the expansion is scheduled
             to be completed by September 1998. The design is for an activated sludge operation with two constructed
             wetlands acting as polishing units. The upgraded facility should be able to achieve nitrification and some
             denitrification. The pern-dt requires a monthly average ammonia limit of 6.2 mg/l, no total nitrogen and
             phosphorus monitoring. The level of denitrification achieved and the extent of total nitrogen loadings will
             be monitored when the new expanded facility goes on-line.

             In Januarv 1995, Colonial Beach upgraded its wastewater facilities by replacing a trickling filter with a 2.0
                                                                                            .9
             mgd extended aeration activated sludge system. The new sewage treatment plant must meet lin-Lits for
             ammonia from April through September. Additionally, the treatment plant's current performance indicates
             that from the standpoint of concentrations and current flow levels, approximately the same treatment level;
             is being achieved as would be achieved with seasonal biological nutrient removal (BNR).

             Under the interstate Chesapeake Bay Program, Virginia has been involved in a federally funded tech@cai
             support study on the use of biological nutrient removal (BNR) at wastewater treatment plants in the
             Potomac basin. The purpose of the study is to assess the suitability of retrofitting the larger wastewater
             treatment plants in the basin with BNR. The evaluations will be keyed to maximizing the use of existing
             plant components rather than relying on substantial new construction and radical process changes. Regional
             participants agreed it would be desirable for the two municipal wastewater treatment plants, Colonial Beach
             and Dahlgren, to take part in the study. A Colonial Beach representative has stated that the Town will take
             part in the study.

             .Preferred Funding Options

             In August, regional participants met with staff from Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) to discuss methods
             for meeting the costs of nutrient reduction. The discussion was based on a paper, "Financing Virginia's
             Tributary Strategies, Methods for Meeting the Costs of Nutrient Reduction," under the lead of Dr
             Leonard Shabman and as contracted by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

             Regional participants were then surveyed to determine the financing methods they believe are the most
             equitable, cost efficient and practical ways to pay for the nutrient reduction actions to be set forth in the
             basin-wide Potomac Tributary Strategy. The results of the survey are depicted in Table 4 and respondents*
             comments are included in Appendix C. In Table 5, the funding mechanisms are ranked in ascending order
             according to the degree of support or opposition they received from the regional participants. Where two
             funding mechanisms received support in equal measure, the funding mechanism which more participants
             c6strongly favored" was ranked higher than the one participants simply "favored."

             The ranking indicates that regional participants favor a voluntary funding measure, the sale of dedicated
             license plates, above all other measures. However, all survey respondents favored multiple measures, which
             indicates an understanding that basin-wide nutrient reduction involves significant costs, not easily funded
             through one or two methods alone.




                                                                   7






            The category of dedicated fees and charges received strong support, with sewer and septic system fees,
            stormwater fees, and irripact fees receiving the next highest levels of support after dedicated license plates.
            The use of a real estate transfer tax was the next most favored mechan       'ism among the participants. All
            mechanisms listed as options on the survey form received some measure of support, with the exception of
            a property tax surchar e and the use of income tax receipts. These measures were opposed by a majority
            of participants., This order of ranking is consistent with the view expressed by many regional participants
            that the amount of funding contribution should be in proportion to usage, with some contribution from all

            sources.



                          Table 4: Funding Mechanisms Survey Results for Lower Potomac Region

            Funding Mechaniint                                                   Ranking
            General Rgvenues                         Stron&IY Eavo         E&v-Qr      Oppose       Strongly Opvose
            Income Tax Receipts                               0                5            5                 3
            Sales Tax Receipts                                4                5            4                 0
            Property Tax Surcharge                            0                3            5                 5
            Real Estate Transfer Tax                          3                8            3                 0

            Dedicated Fee-, and harges,              Strongly Favor        Ea=         Oppose       Stcongly Oppose
            Nutrient Discharge Fees                           7                2            3                 1
            Stormwater Fees                                   5                6            1                 1                   0
            Impact Fee                                        4                7            2                 0
            Water Use Charges                                 2                5            5                 1
            .Sewer & Septic System Fees                       4                9            2                 0
            Fertilizer Fees                                   4                6            2                 0
            Output Fees                                       3                3            5                 1
            Selective Corporate Tax                           2                7            2                 0
            Recreational LicenseFees                          4                6            3
            Recreational Equipment Taxes                      3                6            3
            Voluntary Funding, :he                   Strongly Favor        E=          Opposr,       Strongly Op
            Dedicated License Plate                           5                7            1                 0
            Lottery                                           4                5            2                 2
            Income Tax Checkoff                               4                6            3









                                                                    8







                      Table 5: Ranking Order of Funding Mechanisms by Lower Potomac Region
                              Mechanisms ranked in ascending order of support and opposition

           Funding Mechanism                                               Rankin

           General Revenues                          Mechanisms Supported          Mechanisms Opposed
           Income Tax Receipts                                                               2
           Sales Tax Receipts                                   .8
           Property Tax Surcharge                                                            I
           Real Estate Transfer Tax                             5


           Dedicated Fees and Charges                Mechanisms Supported          Mechanisms Opposed
           Nutrient Discharge Fees                              7
           Stormwater Fees                                      3
           Impact Fee                                           4
           Water Use Charges                                    11
           Sewer & Septic System Fees                           2
           Fertilizer Fees                                      6
           Output Fees                          Equal number support and oppose
           Selective Corporate Tax                              10
           Recreational License Fees                            6
           Recreational Equipment Taxes                         9

           Voluntaa Funding Schemes                  Mechanisms Supported          Mechanisms Opposed

           Dedicated License Plate
           Lottery
           Income Tax Checkoff                                  6























                                                             9






                                              Appendix A - Nutrient Load Reductions by Couniry
                                                Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Prograrns


                                                Table Al: Lower Potomac Region Point Sources
                                                          Year 1994 Progress to Date
                                           1985 Point Load Obs)                 Year 1994 R    rted Values (lbs)
                                           Nitrozen    Phosphorus      Nitrogen    % ChAO&C       Phog2horus    % ChiC
                          King George          5,692        1,949        11,385       100.0%             931     -52.2%
                       Northumberland              0            0               .0     0.0%                0      0.0%
                         Westmoreland        22,70            ,793       24.201        6.3%           5,707      -26.8%
                       Lower Potomac         28,462         9,742        57,494       25.0%           6,638      -31.9%


                                                            Year 2000 Projections
                                           1985 Point Load Obs)                    Year 2000 Estimates (lbs)
                                           Nitrogen    PhoMhorus       Nitrogen    % Change       Pholphorus   % Changg
                          King George          5,692        1,949        28,462      400.0%           1,522      -21.9%
                       Northumberland              0            0               0      0.0%                0      0.0%
                         Westmoreland        22,770         7,-93        26,137       14.8%           6,165      -20.9%
                       Lower Potomac         28,462         9,7-42       54,599       91.8%           7,687      -21.1%







































                                                                             A-I








                                                      Table A2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for King George County
                                                                         Dased on Implementation of Current & mamed state Iiograins
                                                                                  Year 1994 Progress              Reductions (lbstyear)            Year 2000 Projection            Reductions (Ibstyear)
                              130"L(Salment                         w@W            Coveragg        Paixal         Nittoun Phosphorm                 Coycruc          Percent      N Irogen        PhosVhonis
                  Conservation Tillage                              acres                6,955         57.1%            3,370             304             7.243         58.9%           5,130               462
                  Farm Plans                                        acres               10,399         71.4%           11,074           1,939            11,730         80.0%          12,249             2,145
                  Nutrient Management                               &CFCs                 3,194        21.96/a          9,531             429             6,815         46.5%          20.263               914
                  High! y Erodible Land Retirement                  acres                  396           2.0%           4.000             465                400         2.0%           4,051               473
                  Grazing Land Protection                           acres                  11*1          2.1%              383              26               111         2.2%               383               26
                  Stream Protection                                 acres                     0          -----                 0               0               0         -----                  0              0
                  Cover Crops                                       acres                  784           .....          6,588             510             1,217          -----         10,225               791
                  Grass Fill" Strips                                acres                    56                            633              78                56         -----              633               78
                  Woodland Buffer Filter Area                       acres                     0          -----                 0               0               0         -----                  0              0
                  Forest Harvesting                                 acres                  296         61.0%            3.745               45               486       100.0%           6,140                 74
                  Animal Waste Control Facilities                  systems                    0          -----                 0               0               0         -----                  0              0
                  Erosion & Sediment Control                        acres                    20        52.0%                184             92                3H      100 @ 0%              512             256
                  Uf ban SWM/BMP Retrofits                          acf es                   13          0.3%                33                4              39         1.0%                96               11
                  Urban Nutriew Maiiagenicul                        Wes                       0          0.0%                  0               0              47        10.0%                73                7
                  Septic Pumping                                   systems                   12          .....          1.175                  0              12                        2,937                  0
                  Shoreline Erosion Protection                   linear feet              5.378                         8,620           5.617             8,964          -----         14.367             9,362
                                 Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                 49.336           9.510                                          77,058           14,598
                   Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                     8,601           1,062                                          11,026              1.346
                                     Adjusted Reduction:                                                               40,735           8,448                                          66,032           13.252
                       Nonpolut Controllable Amount:                                                                 243,731           23,772                                         243,731           23,772
                                       Percent Reduction:                                                              16.71%         35.54%                                           27.09%           55.75%














                                                                                                                        A-2







                                                       Table AI Nonpoint Source Nufrient Wduclions for Norlhumberland Counly
                                                                                 I lased on                                    & Planned Stale Piogianis
                                                                                         Year 1994 Progiess              keductions Obstyear)             Year 2(W fliojection             Reductions (lbs/yeai)
                                   BMP Treatment                           HaiLs         Coverage         Vel ccill     N Ifogco Phosvilow                  Coverage        Puccal        Ngrogen J!JhLsI)JLoLiis
                       Conservation Tillage                                acres                8,169         51.1%           24,583            2,198            9,278          56.7%          31,368              2.808
                       Farm Plans                                          acres               14,700         79.3%           17.121            2.998            15,588         83.3%          17,223              3,015
                       Nutrient Management                                 acres                5,198         28.0%           16,305              729            6,138          32.8%          19,182                863
                       I lighly Erodible Land Retirement                   acres                   561          2.8%           6,541              743                565          2.8%           6,592               751
                       Grazing Land Protection                             acres                       28       1.9%                97               6                   56       4.3%              193               13
                       stream Protection                                   acres                       0        -----                0               0                   0        -----                                   0
                       Cover Crops                                         acres                1,483                         12,457              964            2,079            -----        17,467              1,352
                       Grass Filter Suips                                  acres                       17       -----              192              24                   27       -----             307               3H
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                         acres                       0        -----                0               0                   0                             0
                       Forest Harvesting                                   acres                   223        61.0%            2,815                34               366       100.0%            4,615                56
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                       I        -----          1.650              323                    1        -----          1,650               323
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres                       27     52.0%               253             126                    52    100.0%               702              351
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                             acres                       9        0.3%                23               3                   28       0.9%                69                  7
                       Urban Nutrient Management                           acres                       0        0.0%                 0               0                   33     10.0%                 52                  5
                       Septic Pumping -                                  systems                       10       -----             966     -          0                   10       -----          2,415                    0
                       Shoreline; Erosion Protection                   linear feel              6,869           -----         11,009-           7,174            11,448           -----        18,348            11.957
                                       Total Pounds Reduced.                                                                  94,013          15,323                                           120,184           21.538
                        Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                       2,646              219                                            8.0ill              750
                                           Adjusted Reduction:                                                                91.367          15.104                                           112,166           20.788
                            Nonpoint Controllable, Amount:                                                                   304,227          29.%2                                           304.227            29.962
                                              Percent Reduction:                                                              30.03%          50.41%                                           36.87%            69.38%














                                                                                                                               A-3


                                                                                                                           CO








                                                        Table A4: Nonpoint Source Nu(rient Reductions for Westmoreland County
                                                                                 Based on Implementation of'Curreril & Plamed Slate Progranis
                                                                                         Year 1994 Progress               Reductions (lbs/yeaf)             Ycu 2000 Projection              Reductions (Ibs/year)
                                  BMP Trealflient                         w1ju           Coverage         Pcfccill       Nitrotca Phosoliorm                 Coverage        Nrceni         N   trogen       11hos0ioni
                     Coriservation Tillage                                &CFCs               12,2 1 H        47.3%           42,156             3,765            13.787         52.6%           51,756              4.628
                     Farm Plans                                           acres               24,016          75.7%           27.926             4,895            25,548         79.5%           28,141              4.931
                     Nutrient Management                                  acres                 5,398         17.0%           16,172               720            10,612         33.0%     .     31,348              1,405
                     Highly Erodible Land Retirement                      acres                  1.397          4.2%          16,642             1,871              1,400          4.2%          16,692              1.879
                     Grazing Land Protection                              acres                      72         5@0%               247                17              249        24.8%                861                    58
                     Stream Protection                                    acres                      0                                  0                0               0         -----                 0                   0
                     Cover Crops                                          acres                    237          -----           1,993              154              1.075          -----           9,033               699
                     Grass Filter Strips                                  acres                    259          -----           2,930              361                357          -----           4,029               496
                     Woodland Buffer Filter Area                          acres                      0          -----                   0                0               0         -----                 0                   0
                     Forest I-larvesting                                  acres                    391        61.0%             4,914                59               640        100.0%            8.056                     97
                     Animal Waste Control Facilities                     Systems                     4          -----           6,600            1.292                   4         -----           6,600              1,292
                     Erosion & SeAiment Control                           acres                      40       52.00/6              374             187                   77      100.0%            1.040               520
                     Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                              acres                      16         0.3%                 41                  4               48        0.9%                119                   13
                     1 Jrban Nutrient Management                          acres                      0          0.00/0                  0                0               58      10.011/0               90                   8
                     Septic Pumping                                      systems                     17         -----           1,658                    0               17        -----           4,145                     0
                     Shoreline Erosion Protection                      linear feet              7,632           -----         12,232             7,971   -         12,720          -----         20.387             13.286
                                      Total Pounds Reducedi                                                                   133.885         21,297                                            182,297             29,311
                       Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                       (4.626)            (175)                                             1,368               478
                                          Adjusted Reduction:                                                                 138.511         21,472                                            IHO,929             28,833
                           Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                     521.739          51.8'X)                                           521,739             51,890
                                            Percent Reduction:                                                                26.55%          41.38%                                             34.68%            55-57%














                                                                                                                                A - 4







                                                          Table A5: 'Nonpoint Source Nufriceil Itc(hiclioits for I,ower I'moinac Itegloa
                                                                                   flased on Impleinewalion ol'Cusienl & I'laimed Siate hogiams
                                                                                           Year 1994 hogiess                Reductions (Ibstyeai)            Yew 2000 hojecuon                Redticilons (Ibs),eai)
                                     DMI"ficallnent                          w@i Ls        Coverag,         Peicent        Niliogen Phosphoril                Coveiag          Percent        Niflogell      I'llosollol tis
                        Conservation Tillage                                 acres              27,343          50.7%           70,109            6,267            30,308          55.2%           88,255             7,898
                        Farm Plans                                           acres              49,115          758%            56,121            9,833            52,8()6         80.7%           57,613           10,091
                        Nutrient Manaptement                                 atres              13,789          21.3%           42.008            1,879            23,565          36.0%           70,793             3,182
                        I fighly Erodible Land Retirement                    acres                                3.2%          27.183            3,080              2,365          3.2%           27,335             3,102
                        Grazing Land Protection                              acres                   210          2.6%               727               49              416          5.6%            1,438                    97
                        stream Protection                                    acres                     0          -----                   0               0                0        -----                                    0
                        Cover Crops                                          acres                2,505           -----         21.039            1,628              4,372          -----          36,725             2,842
                        Gross Filler Strips                                  acres                   332          -----           3,755              463               440          -----           4,969                612
                        Woodland Buffer Filler Area                          acres                     0          -----                   0               0                0        -----                  0                 0
                        Forest "arveshng                                     acres                   910        61.0%,          11,475                138            1,492        100.0%           18.811                227
                        Animal Waste Control Facilities                    systems                     5          -----           8.250           1,615                    5        -----           8,250             1,615
                        Frosion & Sediment Control                           acres                    87        52.0%                811             406               167        100.0%            2,253             1,127
                        Urban SVftA/BNHI Retfofils                           acres                    39          0.3%                 97              11              115          0.9%               284                   31
                        Urban Nuffient Managetneid                           acics                     0          0.0%                    0               0            139         10.0%               215                   19
                        Septic Pumping                                     systerns                   40          -----           3,799                   0              40         -----           9,497                    0
                        Shoreline Erosion Prolection                      lincair fixi          19,879            -----         31,861          20,763             33,132           -----          53.102           34,605
                                         Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                 277,233          46.131                                            379.539           65.448
                         Adjus(mcnl for Land Use Changes:                                                                         6,621           1,105                                            20,412             2,574
                                             Adjusted Reduction:                                                               270,612          45.026                                            359,127           62,874
                              Nonpoini Controllable Amount.                                                                  1,069.696          105,624                                        1,069.696           105,624
                                               Percent Reduction:                                                               25.30%          42.63%                                             33.57%           59.53%















                                                                                                                                  A-5


                                                                                                                           (0          QII*







                                Appendix B - Comparable Level of Effort Nutrient Load Reductions by County
                                                    Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs



                                    Table B 1: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for King George County
  e                                                Based on increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                          Year 2000 Projection             Reductions (lbs/year)           Cost per Added           Total Cost ifor
                       BMP Treatment                          _uD11a       Coverage          Percent      Nitrogen         Pho=horus         Acre Treated          Ing Coverage
          Conservation Tillage                                acres              8,966         73.0%           13,189            1,186                $21.00                S36, i 8,
          Farm Plans                                          acres             11,730         80.0%           10,212            1,787                S14.50                       so
          Nutrient Management                                 acres              8,431         57.5%           23,918            1,098                  S 1.7 5               $2.K"
          Highly Erodible Land Retirement                     acres                850           4.3%          10,590            .1,413               $160.00                  2, C', C 0
          Grazing Land Protection                             acres                111           2.2%              383                26              $22.50                       so
          Stream Protection                                   acres                     0        -----                0                  0            $70.00
          Cover Crops                                         acres              1,217           -----         10,225              791                $15.00
          Grass Filter Strips                                 acres                166           -----          1.876              231                $185.00               S 2 0. 3 5;]
          Woodland Bu&r Filter Area                           acres                  80                         1,828              260                S230.00               S 18,  0 C
          Forest Harvesting                                   acres                486        100.0%            6,140.                74                                           so
          Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                     0        -----                0                  0
          Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres                  38       100.0%               512             256
          Urban SWM/BNV Retrofits                             acres                  39          1.0%                96               11                                           so
          Urban Nutrient Management                           acres                  47        10.0%                 73                  7                                         so
          Septic Pumping                                    SvsteffLs                12          --             2,937                    0                                         so
          Shoreline Erosion Protection                     linear feet           8,964                         14,367            9,362                                             53
                          Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                96,345            16,501
                 Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                                   8.542            1.127
                              Adjusted Reduction:                                                              87,902            15,37/4
               Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                  243,731            23,772
                                Percent Reduction:                                                             36.02%            64.67%

























                                                                                                 B-1







                             Table.B2: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for North u m berland County
                                             Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Current & Planned State Programs
                                                                 Year 2000 Projection        Reductions (lbs/year)       Cost per Added        Total Cost for
                    BNT Treatment                     qaitj       Coverage      Percen      Nitrogen       Pho,%horus      Acre Treat         Incr Coverage
         Conservation Tillage                         acres          11,455       70.0%         42,209          3,782              S21.00             S45,719
         rarm Plans                                   acres          15,588       83.3%         14,546          2,544              $14.50                   so
         NuErient Management                          acres          11,234       60.0%         33,596          1,536                S1.75              S8.919
         F@zhlv Erodible Land Retirement              acres              915        4.6%        11,677          1,482              S160.00            S56,000
         Grazing Land Protection                      acres               56        4.3%             193             13            S22.50                   so
         Stream Protection                            acres                 0       -----              0             0             S70.00                   so
         Cover Crops                                  acres            Z,079                    17,467          1,352              S15.00                   so
         Grass Filter Strips                          acres               137                    1,550            191              S185.00            $20,350
         Woodland Buffer Filter Area                  acres               80                     1,828            260             $230.00             $18,400
         Forest Harvesting                            acres              366      100.0%         4,615               56                                     so
         Animal Waste Control Facilities            systems                 1                    1,650            323                                       so
         Erosion & Sediment Control                   acres               52      100.0%            702           351                                       so
         Urban SW",%VBNT Retrofits                    acres               28        0.9%             69              7                                      so
         Urban Nutrient Management                    acres               33      10.0%               52             5                                      so
         Septic Pumping                             systems               10                     2,415               0                                      so
         Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear feet       11,448                     18,348         11.957                                       so
                       Total Pounds Reduced:                                                   150,918         23,858                                S149,388
              Adjustment for Urban Growth:                                                       5.538            534
                          Adjusted Reduction:                                                  145,380         23,325
             Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                     304,227         29,962
                           Percent Reduction:                                                   47. 79%        77.85%







                               Table 133: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Westmoreland County
                                             Based on Increased Coverage Beyond Cur,rent & Planned State Programs
                                                                 Year 2000 Projection        Reductions (lbs/year)        Cost per Added       Total Cost fcr
                     BMP Treatment                    Will       Coveragg        Percent     Nitrogen      Phomhorus       Acre Treated       Incr Coverage
         Conservation Tillage                         acres          18,343        70.0%        80,094           7,175             $21.00             S95,691
         Farm Plans                                   acres          25,548        79.5%        22.790           3,989             S14.50                   so
         Nutrient Management                          acres          16,069        50.0%        44,822           2,050                SI.75             $9,549
         Highly Erodible Land R     'etirement        acres             1,750       5.3%        21,778           2,610             S160.00            S56,000
         Grazing Land Protection                      acres              249       24.8%            861              58            S22.50                   so
         Stream Protection                            acres                 0       -----              0              0            $70.00                   so
         Cover Crops                                  acres             1,075                     9,033            699  .          S15.00                   so
         Grass Filter Strips                          acres              467                      5,272            649-            $185.00            S 20,3 50
         Woodland Buffer Filter Area                  acres               80                      1,828            260             S230-00            S 18,4 00
         Forest Harvesting                            acres              640      100.0%          8,056              97                                     so
         Animal Waste Control Facilities             systems                4                     6,600          1,292                                      so
         Erosion & Sediment Control                   acres               77      100.0%                           520                                      so
         Urban SV;,%BNT Retrofits                     acres               48        0.9%             119             13                                     so
         Urban Nutrient Management                    acres               58       10.0%              90              8                                     so
         Septic Pumping                              systems              17        -----         4,145              .0                                     so
         Shoreline Erosion Protection              linear feet       12,720         .....       20.387         13,286                                       so
                        Total Pounds Reduced:                                                   226,914        32,706                                S199,990
               Adjustrnent for Urban Growth:                                                      1,824            532
                           Adjusted Reduction:                                                  225,091        32,173
              Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                     521,739        51,890
                            Percent Reduction:                                                  43.14%         62.00%





























                                                                                    B-3






                      Appendix C- Funding Mechanisms Survey Comments by Lower Potomac Region


              &=ondent ;@ I

              a  Rather see funding come from voluntary and especially dedicated fees and charges-These general
                 revenues would be high in generating funds but would it also mean added taxes to the general public;
                 or reallocate what we're already paying now? Then this would be more favorable.

              0  This (Dedicated Fees and Charges) is where the money should come from to apply BNQs.

              0  (Voluntary Funding Schemes) Specifically new monies, not dumped into general, fund and then
                 reallocated, so we're not getting new money added to what-was previously designated.

              Respondent 42.

                 The income tax is very unfair because it punishes the salaried worker. I strongly recommend the lottery
                 or an increase in -the sales tax!


              Respondent ;@3

                 (Dedicated license plate) already being done.

              Respondent @44

                 Nutrient discharge fees will be nearly impossible to administer. Fertilizer fees should also include
                 homeowner-grades through the companies that sell it.

              Respondent *5

              0  Because Potomac is first phase of overall tributaries reduction-these taxes would/could continue to
                 increase as each tributaxy is brought into program-watershed tax zones could, be created but would be
                 difficult to administer. Therefore, without knowing cost of full program-and we won't for years--It
                 will be hard to say how (much) final taxes the program will need and people will be required to pay.

              0  (Dedicated Fees and Charges) These types of taxes seem to be more easily directed at those who are
                 impacting quality of water.
              0  (Recreational License Fees and Recreational Equipment Taxes) Why tax those that enjoy the resource
                 versus those who impact water quality.

              0  (Voluntary Funding Schemes) Any more of these'


              Respondent 96

                 You must tax users first; all Virginians same (some      locals advising on committee.


                                                                 C-I









           Respondent 47

               Keep it simple. These resources are part of the common wealth and everyone has some level of
               responsibility to contribute.

               (Sewer and Septic System Fees and Fertilizer Fees) Put a segment of the responsibility on the major
               users of the resource.


               (Nutrient Discharge Fees) Costly monitoring?

               (Dedicated License Plate) Could make the best use of these funds from a voluntary basis to address the
               major basin problems. I have a Bay plate and this is where I would like my contribution to go.

           Respondent *8

           0   Funding should be in proportion to usage with some contribution from all sources.

           Respondent ;@9

           0   (Real Estate Transfer Tax) Have an exception for up to one transfer every 8 or 10 years--average length
               of home ownership.

           0   (Fertilizer Fees) May be high generally but relax on farmers.

























                                                               C-2







                                              Appendix D - List of Participants


            Local Governments                                       Tri-County/City
            Town of Colonial Beach                                  George F. Beals, Chairman
            Martin Long, Town Manager                               Bobby B. Crisp, Vice-Chairman
            Wendy Lytle, Lab Technician                             Jean Fraysse, Director
            Cal Taylor, WV@TP Operator                              L. James Gibbs, Director
            King George County                                      Legislators
            Mary Ann Cameron, Planning Commission                   W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., House of Delegates
            Jack Green, Land Use Administrator
            Charles Sakowicz,
            Director of Community Development                       Citizens Groups
            Northumberland County                                   Chesape2ke Bay Commission
            John E. Burton, County Administrator                    Russell W. Baxter, Executive Director
            Kenneth Eades, Assistant County Administrator           Chesapeake. Bay Foundation
            Daniel W. Pritchard,                                    Kim Coble, Virginia Seruior Scientist
            Chairman, Board of Supervisors                          Estie Thomas, Natural Resources Planner
            A. Joseph Self, Board of Supervisors
            Westmoreland County                                     Federal Agencies
            Steven C. Gunnells, Planning Director                   Ron Wisniewski,
            W.W. Hynson,                                            Natural Resources Conservation Service
            Vice-Chairman, Board of Supervisors
            William 0. Sydnor,                                      State Ag
            Chairman, Board of Supervisors                          Team Leader
            Charles Thomas, Planning Commission                     Margaret H. Reynolds,
            Robert J. Wittman, Board of Supervisors                 Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
            Planning District Commissions                           Resource Team
            Northern Neck PDC                                       J.R. Bell,
            Joyce Bradford, Executive Director                      Department of Environmental Quality
            Stuart McKenzie, EnvironmenW Planner                    Wayne Davis,
            Josie Wold, Wetlands Engineer                           Department of Conservation and Recreation
                                                                    Tom Faha,
            RADCO PDC                                               Department of Environmental Quality
            Sandra Rives, Planner                                   Darryl Glover,
                                                                    Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
            Soil and Water Conservation Districts                   Ken Harper,
            Northern Neck                                           Department of Conservation and Recreation
            Nicholas P. Ptucha, District Director                   Sam Johnson,
            Wellington H. Shirley, Jr., District Manager            Virginia Cooperative Extension Office



                                                              D-i







            Resource Team (continued)
            John A Kennedy,
            Department of Environmental Quality
            Kathleen W. Lawrence,
            Department of Conservation and Recreation
            Diane M. McCarthy,
            Department of Conservation and Recreation
            Terry Moss,
            Department of Conservation and Recreation
            Michael P. Murphy,
            Department of Environmental Quality
            Alan E. Pollock,
            Department of Environmental Quality
            Leonard A. Shabman,
            Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University





































                                                         D-2



                               CA



                                                                              Potomac Basins Tribu-tary Strategies Tracking___-------
                                                                                                    Lower Potom.ac- Meetings
                     I @nv                                                                       Name                                     Title________i_8-Mar :0-Cay-j-7-jun
                                               Aff illation                                                                                                                                                _26-Aun
                     Local Governments
                     x b-o-lonial Beach. -Town of                                    C. Wayne Kennedy                 Mayor
                          dolonlal -Beach, Town of                                   Martin Long                      T-o-w- n- Manager                                                 X
                          -do-lorfial Beach WWTP                                     Wendy Lytle                                                                                        X
                          i6o_lonial Beach WWTP                                      Cal Taylor                       Operator                                                          X           X             X
                          King George County                                                Ann Cameron               Planning Com@@Ission/R@ADCO@@_ x                                  X
                          King George County                                         Pa_ckGreen                       Land Use Administrator                                            X           X             X
                     x    King George County                                         Joseph W. Grzelka                Chairman, Board of Supervisors
                                                                                     t_h-ariI_es_A_. 6_irecfor@ -Community Development
                          King George County                                                      Sakowicz                                                                 X            X           X
                          Northumberland County                                      John E. 6u-rton Wd-ministrator                                                        X            X           X
                          Northumberland County                                      Kenneth Eades                    Zoning Ad                                     -i--                X           X             X
                     x    Northumberland County                                      Daniel W. Pritchard              Chairman, Board of Supervisors                       X
                          Northu iib-orland County                                   K Joseph -Self                   Board of Supervisors                                 X
                          W-estmoreland County                                       Steven C. Gunnells               -Planning Director                                                X           X             X
                     _X W-estmoreland County                                         William 0. Sydnor                Chairman, Board of Supervd-sors-                _X
                          Westmoreland County                                        Robert J. Wittman                  em er, Board of Supervisors                                     X           X
                          Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors                   W. W. Hynson                     Vi_ceCtii"-Irman                                                              X
                                                                                                                                                                                 --i-                     __ X
                          Westmoieland Couni@ Planning Commission                    C h ar I -es fh_o iiia _s           m -be r                                                        X           X             X
                     Soh and Water Conservation Dlit-ricts
                     X    Northern Neck SWCD                                         W. H. Dawson                     Chairman
                          Northern Neck SWCD                                         Nicholas P. Ptucha                                                                                 X                         X
                          Ro-rthern Neck SWCD                                        Wellington H. Shirle             District Manager
                                                                                                      - y                                                                               X
                     x    Trl-Counly/Cily SWCD                                       George F. Beals                  Chairman                                             X            X           x
                          Tri-County/Cily SWCD                                       Bobby B. Crisp                   Vice Chairman                                        x            X           X             X
                          Tri-County/City SWCD                                       Jean Fraysse                                                                    _X           _X                       _X
                          Tri-County/Chy SWCD                                        L. James Gibbs                                                                        x
                     PDCs and Other Regional
                          Northern Neck PDC                                          Joyce Bradford                   Executive Director                                   x            x
                          Northern Neck PDC                                          ï¿½-t`u`arIMc@_en_zle                                                                                            x             X
                          Northern Neck PDC                                          So-si-e -Wold f6g_fn__ee-r                                                            X            X_          X
                          RADCO                                                      ISandra Rives-Swope              Planner                                              X            X           X


                                                                                                     Prepared by DEQ 10/2/96                                                                                   Page I







                                                                          Potomac Basins Tributar Strateqies Tracking
                                                                                                Lower Potomac Meetings

                                                                                                                                                        - - ----- : @B-Mar @.a@       @7-Jun 26-Aug
                     Inly                     Affiliation                                    Name                                  Title
                     Legislators
                     x    Va House of Delegates                                   W. Tayloe Murphy               Delegate                                     -x
                     x    Va House of Delegates                                   William J. Howell              Delegate
                     x    Va Senate                                               John Chichester                Senator
                     x    Va Senate                                               Kevin Miller                   Senator

                     State and Federal Agencies
                          VA Cooperative Extension Office                         Sam Johnson                                                                                 x           x            x
                          VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Dept.                Darryl M. Glover                                                                            x           x            x
                          VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Dept.                Margie Reynolds                Lower Potomac Team Leader                    -x              x           x            x
                          VA Dept.of Conservation & Recreation                    Kathleen W. Lawrence           -Director                                        x
                          VA Dept.of Conservation & Recreation                    Wayne Davis                    Field Operations Manager                         x           x           x            x
                          VA Dept.of Conservation & Recreation                    Ken Harper                                                                      x
                          VA Dept.o Conservation & Recreation                     Terry Moss                                                                      x                       x            X-
                          VA Dept.of Conservation & Recreation                    Diane McCarthy                                                                              x           x            x
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality                        John M. Kennedy                                                                                         x
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality                        Alan E. Pollock                                                                 x
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality                        J. R. Bell                                                                      x           x           x            x
                          VA Dept of Environmental Quality                        Thomas A. Faha                 Env. Engineer Consultant                                     x                        x
                          VA JLARC                                                Mr. Steve Ford                                                                                                       x
                          NACS - Fredericksburg                                   Ron Wisniewski-                                                                 x           x                        x
                     Citizen and Business Groups
                          Chesapeake Bay Commission                               Russell W. Baxter_ Virginia Director                                            x           x                        x
                          Chesapeake Bay Foundation                               Kim Coble                                                                       x      I
                          Chesapeake Bay Foundation                               Estle Thomas                                                                           E    Ix                       x
                          I Recycling Markets Development Council                 Michael P. MurVhy
                          ISTAC                                                   IProl. Leonard Shabman         Representative                                                                        x






                                                                                                 Prepared by DEQ 110/2/96                                                                             Page 2

                                                                                                         I       M                                                                i:,


















                                                                                                                                                                                                 f



                                                                                                                                                                                                 f,


































                                                                                                                                                                                                  ,10 -



                                                                                                                                                                                                   v






































                                                                                                                                                                                                     v





                                                                                                                                           -1 3 6668 14108 6043