[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 [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(i)] .............................. Chapter V Programmatic and Environmental Benchmarks and Indicators [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(ii)] ..................................... A-3 Opportunities for Nutrient Trading [� 2.1-1.12:2.A.5.(iii)] ... A-5 State and Local Benefits [� 2.1-1.12:2.A.5.(iv)] .................... A-12, Chapter III State Funding Commitments and Funding Sources [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(v)] .............................................................. Chapter VII State Incentives [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(vi)] .................................. Chapter VII Estimate and Schedule of Costs [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.5.(vii)] ........ Chapter VII Scientific Documentation and Analysis as Necessary [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.6] ................................................................... Chapter IV, Appendices B & C How and When Subdivisions 1-3 are to be Achieved [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.7] ................................................................... Chapter VI Process and Schedule if 40% Goal Not Met by 2000 [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.8] ................................................................... Chapter VI Cost Effectiveness and Equity of Proposed Actions [� 2.1-5.12:2.A.9] ................................................................... A-14, Chapter VII Opportunity for Public Comment, Public Education and Information Program [� 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. � 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. � 2.1-51.12:2. Tributary plan content; development timeliness. A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to � 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. � 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: � voluntary acceptance by discharge sources of the reduction practices needed to meet the cap; � implementation of discharge reduction practices motivated by education, technical assistance, tax write-offs and cost-share incentives; � selection of practices and recommended cost responsibility governed by local preferences guided by state technical support; � 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 � 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: � costs (charges) for capital investments such as BNR upgrades or conservation tillage equipment; � 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,); � 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.); � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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 � 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, � 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 � 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. � 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- � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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- � 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 � 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: � ACSA - Fishersville � ACSA - Middle River (if needed to maintain results currently being achieved) � ACSA - Stuarts Draft (if needed to maintain results currently being achieved) No Change in Operation Planned: � ACSA - Middle River Regional (as long as current results can be maintained) � ACSA - Stuarts Draft (as long as current results can be maintained) � Luray � Waynesboro POTW � DuPont, Waynesboro � Merck � 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 �"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 __�oil _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 �Iephonson 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 �-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