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












      COMMONWEALTH of VIIDM'%ri-INIA

     Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins
      Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy
              Final Comment Draft











    QH
    96.8
    B5
    S54          October 1996
    1996





















                 t







                4 f "i



                                                   COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA


                                       SHENANDOAH AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS


                                     TRIBUTARY NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY



                                                      -- FINAL COMMENT DRAFT







                                                                        October 1996



                                                        Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources
                                               Virginia Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
                                                Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
                                                    Virginia Department of Environmental Quality









                                     This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources
                                     Management Program through Grant # NA570ZO561-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                         MA          Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management
                                     Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the author agencies and do not necessarily
                                     reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.









                                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



                          Water quality degradation caused by nutrient over-enrichment has played a key role in the
                  decline of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. To address this problem
                  the Chesapeake Executive Council signed the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement which included a
                  commitment to reduce the loads of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the Bay by 40% by the year
                  2000. The Council, by signing an amendment to that Agreement in 1992, also agreed to develop and
                  implement tributary-specific strategies for each of the Bay's tributaries. These strategies are
                  designed to meet the main-stem nutrient reduction goals, achieve the water quality requirements
                  necessary to restore living resources in both the main stem of the Bay and its tributaries, incorporate
                  public participation in the strategy process, and advance both cost-effectiveness and equity. This
                  Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy (Strategy) was
                  developed in response to those commitments.

                          Development of the Strategy has been a major initiative of the Commonwealth's natural
                  resource agencies for a number of years. A discussion paper on reducing nutrients from nonpoint
                  sources (runoff from agricultural and urban lands) and point sources (discharges from municipal and
                  industrial wastewater treatment plants) was produced in 1993, and an actions and options document
                  was produced in 1994. Both of these documents were discussed at public meetings and received
                  extensive comment. In August 1995, a draft Potomac Strategy was published in response to the
                  public input received and promoted a strategy approach centered on local initiatives.

                          In order to strengthen the partnership with localities and their citizens in this process, early
                  in 1996 the Secretary of Natural Resources invited the chief elected local government officials
                  throughout the Potomac basin to be personally involved in an assessment process which was
                  conducted in four regions of Virginia's Potomac basin. It was stressed to local officials that
                  participating in the process implied no commitment to implement or fund a nutrient reduction
                  strategy. The purposes of the assessment were to confirm progress to date, quantify local nutrient
                  reduction programs, and ask local officials and stakeholders to identify additional actions appropriate
                  for each region so the basin goal of a 40% reduction could be achieved.

                          As this assessment process was being initiated, action taken by the General Assembly during
                  the 1996 session led to the incorporation of the Commonwealth's tributary strategies program into
                  state law. Chapter 5.1 of Title 2.1 requires development of the Commonwealth's Tributary Strategies
                  by specific dates (the Potomac Strategy is due by January 1, 1997). It also requires that a number
                  of issues be addressed in each tributary plan.

                          The assessment process has produced important information on practical, cost-effective
                  approaches to nutrient reduction that forms the core of this Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins
                  Strategy. The regional assessments describe what actions could be done to achieve significant
                  reductions in nutrients at the local level along with recommendations for how they could be
                  accomplished.








                        The following table presents the percent changes in nutrient loads in comparison with the
                 1985 base load conditions to show how far we have come in nutrient reduction., our projections for
                 the year 2000 under current and planned programs, the expected level of nutrient reductions achieved
                 under the regional assessment recommendations, and what can be achieved under full
                 implementation ofthis Strategy.

                            Total Nutrient Loads for Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac River Basin
                                        Percent Change in Comparison with 1985 Base Load


                                                                             NITROGEN              PHOSPHORUS

                    Progress Through 1994                                          _9%                   -27%

                    Projections for the Year 2000                                  _9%                   -28%
                    (based on current &: planned programs)

                    Reductions from Implementation of Regional                    -36%                   -36%
                    Asses ments

                    Recommended Basin Strategy                                    -40%                   -40%


                        Between 1885 and 1994, a significant amount of progress was achieved in reducing
                 phosphorus. For nitrogen, a slight increase in the point source load offset the gains that were
                 achieved through nonpoint source programs. However, holding the point source nitrogen load to a
                 slight increase was an accomplishment since the total volume of wastewater discharged in the basin
                 increased by about 20% between 1985 and 1994.

                        Through the year 2000, the nutrient loads are projected to remain relatively unchanged in
                 relation to the 19,94 levels. The loading reductions accomplished by the current and planned
                 programs will essentially be offset by increases in loads due to growth.

                        The regional assessments focus on loading reductions that are practical, cost-effective and
                 make sense for the localities in each of the regions. For example, the assessments for the Southern
                 and Northern Shenandoah regions focus almost entirely on reducing agricultural nonpoint source
                 loads. In the Northern Virginia region, most of the reductions result from upgrading the major
                 wastewater treatment plants that serve the large population in that region.

                        As shown in the table above, the sum of the actions recommended in the regional
                 assessments achieves 36% reduction for each nutrient, but does not reach 4051o goal for the basin.
                 Of the four regions, only Northern Virginia!s assessment fails to meet the 40% goal by a significant
                 amount. There are several reasons for this. First, a considerable amount of nutrient reduction,
                 especially for point sources of phosphorus, was achieved prior to the 1985 base year. Second,
                 reducing urban nonpoint source loads to a significant amount, such as the 40% goal, is very difficult
                 and expensive. The estimated cost to install all of the nutrient reduction controls included in the four
                 regional assessments is approximately $125 million.








                         In order to close the remaining nutrient gap and achieve the 40% goal for the entire basin,
                 the strategy looks at several options. An option that is presented in the Strategy is to upgrade the
                 wastewater treatment plants throughout the basin that were not recommended in the assessments.
                 The estimated cost to install nutrient removal systems at those facilities is between $34 and $67
                 million.


                         In addition to the issue of funding the nutrient reduction actions identified in the Strategy,
                 there are also other implementation issues. A vast majority of officials and citizens at the local level
                 stated that the strategy should not impose new regulatory requirements. In response to that concern,
                 the Strategy includes a framework for implementing nutrient reductions at wastewater treatment
                 plants. A point source implementation hierarchy offers three levels of state/local partnership that
                 provides an incentive for participation in the basin Strategy. It allows owners of these treatment
                 plants to decide which approach works best for them. The Strategy makes it clear that the
                 Commonwealth prefers working in a voluntary, cooperative approach, but the choice remains a local
                 decision.


                         Throughout the entire Strategy process, a primary concern was the cost of the nutrient
                 reductions needed to meet the goal. The Strategy document summarizes the financial assistance
                 currently available at the state level for strategy implementation. Specific meetings were held in the
                 regions to solicit recommendations on how to meet the costs of the Strategy. From the local
                 perspective the greatest preference was expressed for intergovernmental transfer of funds --
                 additional cost share funding from the state and federal governments for local governments, farmers
                 and others to implement the identified actions. Cost share has also been formally identified as a key
                 factor for successful implementation of the Strategy by the Washington Council of Governments and
                 by a number of local governing bodies in the Commonwealth through their endorsement of an
                 official position paper of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies. Based on the
                 recommendations of these groups, the Commonwealth's potential obligation to fund the installation
                 of the -recommended strategy controls would be approximately $82 - $99 million.

                         The time needed to fully implement the Strategy is largely dependent on the availability of
                 local and state funding. If a five year funding program were endorsed, and if the Commonwealth
                 were to proceed with a cost share prograin requested by the local governments and stakeholders, the
                 annual financing need would be approximately $16-$20 million for the state and $15-$19 million
                 for local governments and citizens. Due to construction schedules for major wastewater treatment
                 plant projects, the time needed to put into place all of the Strategy's recommended nutrient controls
                 is anticipated to range from five to nine years.









                            VIRGINIA'S SHENANDOAH AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS
                                      TRIBUTARY NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY




                                         Acknowledgments           .................................................................................... i


                                         Preface    ...................................................................................................... ii


                     1.                  House Bill 1411 of 1996           ...........................................................................  I


                     11.                 Background and Introduction                ................................................................    3

                     III.                Benefits of Potomac River Nutrient Reductions                      ...................................         7


                     IV.                 Progress Toward the 40% Nutrient Reduction Goal                          ...........................           13

                     V.                  Process for Developing the Potomac Strategy                     .......................................        21

                     V1.                 Strategy Actions to Achieve the 40% Reduction Goal                         .........................           27

                     VII.                Meeting the Costs of Nutrient Reductions                   ............................................        69

                                         Glossary


                     APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover)

                     A         House Bill 1411 of 1996 and Associated Nutrient Reduction Strategy Elements
                     B         Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program
                     C         Methodology of Nutrient Reduction Calculations
                     D         Description of Water Quality Modeling Scenarios
                     E         Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy - Progress Report
                     F         Progress Report on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Description of
                               Preservation and Protection Programs for Living Resources
                     G         Local Government Partnership Initiative - Progress Report
                     H         Southern Shenandoah Region: Tributary Assessment
                     I         Northern Shenandoah Region: Tributary Assessment
                     i         Northern Virginia Region: Strawman Tributary Assessment
                     K         Lower Potomac Region: Tributary Assessment









                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


                         Since the Commonwealth of Virginia undertook the Potomac River Tributary Strategy
                initiative in 1992, numerous local governments, soil and water conservation districts, citizen groups,
                conservation orgardzations, industry associations, wastewater treatment plant operators, farmers,
                university staff, state agencies, state legislators and others have played valuable roles in bringing the
                Strategy to final completion.

                         First and foremost, local governments and soil and water conservation districts throughout
                Virginia's Potomac: River basin deserve recognition for their participation in the Potomac Strategy
                process and for theix willingness to work in partnership with the Commonwealth to reduce nutrient
                pollution. This effi)rt required substantial foresight and dedication of time andeffort on the part of
                these local officials and staff. It included numerous meetings and involved coordination with a wide
                range of citizens arid stakeholders within each of their respective jurisdictions and districts.

                         Industry associations, including the Virginia Poultry Federation, the Virginia Farm Bureau
                and the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, have provided excellent leadership
                and commitment to, finding voluntary methods for reducing nutrient pollution in. the Potomac basin.
                Their efforts have demonstrated the value of a cooperative approach to conservation and water
                quality protection in Virginia and have inspired other groups and citizens to consider the
                contributions that they could make to this initiative.

                         Citizen groups and conservation organizations deserve mention for their important
                involvement 'in attending Potomac Tributary Strategy meetings and for remaining committed to the
                health and quality of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay..

                         Farmers throughout the Potomac River basin have played a major rolein reducing nutrient
                pollution as a result of their stewardship of soil and water. This stewardship ethic provides an
                important foundation for much of the continued success of the Potomac Strategy.

                         Under the leadership of Secretary Becky Norton Dunlop, Virginia's natural resources
                agencies have provided technical direction, information and assistance for the development of the
                Potomac Strategy.. The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, the Department of
                Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Environmental Quality primarily have served
                in this capacity. Other participating state agencies include the Department of Forestry, the
                Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Marine Resources Commission, the
                Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the Cooperative Extension Service and Department
                of Agricultural and Applied Economics of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.









               PREFACE


                        This document is the Final Comment Draft of Virginia!s Shenandoah and Potomac River
               Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy is to improve water
               quality and help restore living resources in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by reducing the level
               of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) entering the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. The goal is
               to achieve and maintain a 40% reduction of the controllable nutrient loadings into these rivers from
               point and nonpoint sources through measures that are practical, equitable and cost effective.

                        Nutrient reduction in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin has been a major initiative of the
               Commonwealth and its agencies since 1992. This initiative has included substantial technical work
               on the part of these agencies and coordination with citizens, stakeholders and local officials in the
               basin. The 1996 General Assembly passed House Bill 1411 which set forth a timetable for the
               completion of strategies for each of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Appendix A includes
               a copy of House Bill 1411. It also includes a number of reports and information that were required
               of each tributary plan under HB 1411. As set forth in HB 1411, the next step that must be taken is
               submission of the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy to the General Assembly by January 1, 1997.

                        The Strategy began %krith the Chesapeake Bay Program initiative to improve water quality in
               the Bay and its tributaries by reducing nutrients. Virginia's natural resource's agencies next
               developed the background information necessary to better understand nutrient loadings in the
               Potomac basin and to frame possible solutions. The final and most important task was to gather the
               viewpoints and recommendations of Virginia's local elected officials, farmers, conservation groups,
               business interests and citizens from across the Shenandoah-Potomac basin to construct a final
               strategy based on local guidance. This approach ensures that the Strategy is tailored to protect the
               quality of local rivers and streams as well as the Chesapeake Bay.

                        In developing the Strategy, this bottom-up approach was implemented through an assessment
               process that called upon local decision-makers to identify practical solutions for reducing nutrient
               loadings. The process included local government officials and interested parties throughout the
               basin. The result of this assessment process is the core of the Strategy. It sets forth the types and
               costs of nutrient reduction practices that participants in the process determined would be cost-
               effective, practical and equitable to implement under certain conditions, such as availability of cost-
               share funding and expanded technical assistance.

                        These practices include nutrient reductions from point sources (municipal and industrial
               wastewater treatment plants) and nonpoint sources ( runoff from farms, residential land and other
               urban areas). The Strategy sets forth the estimated costs of installing those nutrient controls. It also
               presents information and reflects public input on possible means of financing those actions.

                        Estimates of nutrient loadings, reductions and costs are fundamental to the development of
               the Strategy (Appendix B provides a general description of the Chesapeake Bay Modeling Program


                                                                   ii









                  and Appendix C outlines methodologies used for nutrient reduction calciiiations). As with all
                  estimates, they include varying degrees of accuracy. It is important to note that these estimates are
                  based on state-of-the-art scientific research, water quality monitoring and cornputer modeling. The
                  accuracy of these figures is sufficient to support the conclusions that are drawn from them and the
                  benefits of implementing the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy.

                          The final Strategy submitted to the Virginia General Assembly will be an action document.
                  The Strategy willl provide the General Assembly with information to assist them in weighing the
                  benefits of nutrient reduction practices against their costs.

                          The Strategy describes the process that has led us to this point, the groups who have been
                  involved in this process, the technical basis for data and other background. information. It also
                  outlines certain outstanding issues that will continue to be worked on in the future. In addition,
                  significant background information is contained in the three Potomac Strategy-related documents
                  that have been produced previously by the Commonwealth; and copies of these documents can be
                  obtained by contacting the Department of Environmental Quality, or the Department of Conservation
                  and Recreation, at the addresses or telephone numbers listed below.

                          To ensure that tile final document will be as representative as possible, the Commonwealth
                  continues to look for the comments of all Virginians on this draft. The public review and comment
                  period for this draft runs until December 2, 1996. Please send comments to one of the addresses
                  below, or contact Alan Pollock at (804) 698-4002 or Gary Waugh at (804) 786-5045.

                          Potomac Tributary Strategy                     Potomac Tributary Strategy
                          Attention: Alan Pollock                        Attention: Gary Waugh
                          Dept. of.Enviromnental Quality                 Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
                          P.O. Box. 10009                                203 Governor Street,
                          629 E. Main St.                                Suite 312
                          Richmond, Virginia 23240                       Richmond, Virginia 23:219

                          In addition, four "open-house" style public meetings will be held in the Shenandoah and
                  Potomac River basins, and one in Richmond, to receive direct public input. The meetings will run
                  from the afternoon into the evening and will be an opportunity for interested parties to ask questions
                  in an informal setting, view poster displays on various aspects of the Strate , d leave any written
                                                                                              gy, an
                  comments. Tables will be set aside with response forms for those who wish to make any comments
                  in writing at the -time of the meeting. A brief orientation will be provided at each hour, on the hour
                  and state staff will be available to answer questions. Participants are encouraged to review the
                  Strategy prior to attending the nearest open-house meeting. The meetings are scheduled as follows:

                  Tuesday, November 12, 3-7:30 p.m.                              Monday, November 18, 5-8 p.m.
                  Northern Virginia Community College                            Colonial Beach High School
                  8333 Little River Turnpike                                     100 First Street
                  Annandale, Virginia                                            Colonial Beach, Virginia

                                                                    iii








              Wednesday, November 13, 3-7:30 p.m.                   Wednesday, November 20, 3-7:30 p.m.
              J. Argent Reynold Community College                   Augusta County Government Center
              North Run Corporate Center, 1630 E. Parham Road       4801 Lee Highway
              Richmond, Virginia                                    Verona, Virginia


              Thursday, November 14, 3-7:30 p.m.
              Lord Fairfax Community College
              173 Skirmisher Lane
              Middletown, Virginia






































                                                          iv










                   1.         HOUSE BILL 1411 OF 1996


                              The 1996 General Assembly adopted House Bill 1411 (see Appendix A), which directed the
                   Secretary of Natural Resources to "coordinate the development of tributary plans designed to
                   improve water quality and restore the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. "
                   The resulting Act was placed in Virginia Code, Chapter 5. 1 of Title 2. 1. The legislation focuses
                   primarily on nutrient reductions and establishes the following schedule for the completion of each
                   of the strategies:

                                         Potomac River Basin             ..................... January 1, 1997
                                         Rappahannock River Basin                 ............ January 1, 1998
                                         York River Basin           ........................... January 1, 1998
                                         James River Basin           .......................... January 1, 1998
                                         Eastern and western coastal basins. January 1, 1999

                              The sequential deadlines set forth for the development of the remaining tributary strategies
                   elevate the importance of effective action being taken on the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy. The
                   level of success that is achieved through the Strategy will have a significant impapt on the degree
                   to which citizens, stakeholders, interest groups and local representatives continue their involvement
                   in the tributary strategy process as it moves to the other river basins and coastal basins of Virginia's
                   Chesapeake Bay watershed.









                11. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION



                The Problem: Nutrient Pollution in Virginia Waters

                         The quality of water for human consumption and for aquatic habitat can be seriously affected
                by high levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Excess nutrients coming from point sources
                (wastewater treatment plants and industrial plants) and nonpoint sources (surface runoff from farms,
                residential lands and other urban areas) in the Shenandoah and Potomac River basins have an impact
                on local water quality as well as on the living resources of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake
                Bay. Excessive nitrogen in drinking water (surface or ground water) can cause human health
                concerns. High levels of nutrients lead to increased algae populations, which can cause taste and
                odor problems in drinking water and adversely affect fish, oysters, crabs, underwater grasses and
                other aquatic life. As algae populations increase in local surface waters and fin-ther downstream in
                Bay waters, they block light from reaching underwater grasses. As algae die and sink to the bottom,
                their decay robs the water of oxygen, essential for fish, shellfish and other aquatic animals.

                The Benefits of Reducing Nutrient Loadings

                         There are a number of expected benefits from implementing nutrient controls. The two most
                important of these are increasing the level of dissolved oxygen, essential to the survival of aquatic
                animals, and improving water clarity, important for underwater grasses. As oxygen levels increase,
                a greater volume of water becomes available as habitat to fish and other aquatic animals. Beyond
                the direct benefit of increased habitat, nutrient reductions will lead to substantial benefits as a result
                of improvements across the food web. Improved oxygen levels translate into greater survivability
                for smaller organisms which serve as food for fish. Healthier stands of underwater grasses provide
                habitats for invertebrates and juvenile fish which also offer numerous benefits as a food source.

                         Economic and operational benefits also accrue to farmers who implement practices that keep
                topsoil and nutrients on their farm and to wastewater treatment plants that implement a nutrient
                removal process such as biological nutrient removal (BNR).

                Shenandoah and Potomac Tributary 40% Goal for Nutrient Reduction

                         As a signatory of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Virginia and other Bay Program
                jurisdictions are working to achieve a 40% reduction of the controllable nutrient load to the
                Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000. In response to a 1992 amendment to the Agreement, this Strategy
                is being developed as the means to reach this goal. As opposed to a one-size-fits-all prescription,
                the tributary strategy approach allows nutrient reduction solutions in each basin to be considered and
                developed separately. The mixes of nutrient sources are different in the drainage basin of each of
                Virginia!s Bay tributaries. Each has distinct characteristics and circumstances, and each requires a
                unique combination of practices for meeting its nutrient reduction goal.


                                                                     3









                Impact of Shenandoah and Potomac River Nutrient Loads on the Chesapeake Bay

                        Technical studies leading to the 1992 amendment to the Bay Agreement yielded an important
                finding about Virginia!s tributaries and their impact on Bay water quality. It was determined that
                the nutrient loads ftorn the Potomac River basin and basins to the north had the greatest impact on
                conditions in the Bay, whereas the southerly river basins in Virginia, the Rappahannock, York,
                James and small coastal basins, contributed little, if any, to the low dissolved oxygen problems of
                the Bay. For this reason, Virginia embarked on a two-pronged approach to tributary strategies -- a
                concentrated effort in the Potomac basin to meet the 40% goal, and at the same time expanding
                monitoring and modeling programs in the lower tributaries to determine appropriate nutrient
                reduction goals needed to protect water quality within these tributary rivers themselves.

                Past Success: Nutrient Reductions Achieved in the Shenandoah-Potomac Basin


                        Nutrient reductions and program developments that have occurred in the basin since 1985
                are compiled and quantified in the Strategy. These reductions have made significant progress toward
                meeting the Potomac basin 40% nutrient reduction goal. In the absence of action on this Strategy,
                and simply continuing existing programs, it is projected that nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in
                the Potomac will be reduced by approximately 10% and 3 0%, respectively, as compared to the full
                40% reduction of each, at year 2000. As noted in the Preface, detailed information on many of these
                reductions and programs are contained in the Potomac Strategy-related documents that have been
                previously produced and are available from Virginia's natural resources agencies.

                The Current Process: Locally-Based Identification of Nutrient Reduction Practices

                        Additional nutrient reduction practices that can help Virginia achieve the 40% nutrient
                reduction goal are presented in the Strategy. The selection of these practices was the result of four
                regional assessments that were conducted in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin (details are provided
                in Appendices H-K). The purpose of the assessments was to identify practical solutions for reducing
                nutrient loadings duough local decision-making. The process included representatives of local
                governments, soil and water conservation districts, planning district commissions, wastewater
                treatment plant operators, conservation groups and farmers in order to link the development of the
                Strategy as closely as possible to the interests and concerns of stakeholders in the region. During
                the assessment, it was stressed to local officials that participating in the process implied no com-
                mitment to implement a nutrient reduction strategy nor to fund any part of a Strategy.

                        The assessment process was made more workable by dividing the basin into four regions:
                Southern Shenandoah, Northern Shenandoah, Northern Virginia, and Lower Potomac (see map, next
                page). This approach allowed state staff to assist local officials and others to explore nutrient
                reduction options within geographic areas that have similar land uses, industries, population densities
                and nutrient sources. The participants in this process identified the types of nutrient reduction
                actions and management practices that are most appropriate within each region, or locality, of the
                basin. The use of regions also reinforced the bottom-up approach of the tributary strategy process.

                                                                   4






                                                                                      Shenandoah & Potomac Basins
                                                                                                 Tributary Strategy Regions


                                                                                                          Northern
                                                                                                     Shenandoah                                   Arderick
                                                                                                           Region                              Kinchaenp             Clarli,                                               Northern Virginia
                                                                                                                                                                                         Lou&un                                        Region


                                                                                                                                                      Warren
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Aall, hurr

                                                                                                                          Shviandoah                                                                               I'd hf4X City           Alexandria
                                                           SoLAhern                                                                                                             I'auquier         anasus           anassasPark
                                                       Shenandoah                                                                                       Rafpahannock                                  plifirs William
                                                              Region                                                                 per
                                                                                                    Pochingham
                                                                                                                                                                        curp'p"
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Stafford
                                                           HighIland                                      L@Harri5onburg
                                                                                                                                       Greene                                                Fredetirksburg                  King GeoV
                                                                                                                                                                     Orange
                                                                                      Augusta                                                                                              Spot5ylvania
                                                                                                     Staunton

                                                                                                                                 Cho I       ill,
                                                Bath                                          Ivoyntiboro                             '5                                                                           rawlint                                    Richm
                                                                                                                                Alb-ade                                1.0034                                                                   &Jex









                         An important added benefit of the assessment process was the identification and, where
                possible, quantification of additional nutrient reduction efforts that were going on at the local level
                so that credit could be given for these local initiatives.

                The Challenge: Decisions on Funding the Costs of Nutrient Reductions

                        The full success of this effort to restore water quality in the Bay and its tributaries depends
                on future actions and ftinding decisions that will determi4e Whether the 40% nuixient reduction goal
                is achieved and maintained. For the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy, these decisions can be distilled
                down to the choice of whether cost-share furiding should be provided to two principal areas:
                implementing agricultural best management practices (BMPs), and installing nutrient control
                systems (such as biological nutrient removal - BNR) at wastewater treatment pLmts. At the crux of
                this decision is the question: "Who is responsible for implementing and paying for these practices?"

                        The probable costs of reducing the nutrient loads to the Potomac River are large. Depending
                on the combination of actions taken, the estimated capital and installation costs of achieving the 40%
                nutrient reduction goal for the Shenandoah-Potomac basin may total $200 million or more.

                        Determining how to meet those costs has been, and will continue to be, a cooperative
                process. State staffs have worked with the participants in each of the four regions to address the
                issue of finding equitable and practical ways to meet those costs. Additionally, representatives of
                other selected interests have been consulted on this issue. The basis for these deliberations was a
                paper produced by Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, entitled Financing Virginia's
                Tribu= Strategies, dated August 15, 1996, that outlined the key aspects of various ways to meet
                the costs of nutrient reductions. The range of opinion and most common responses to these issues
                are reported in Section VIL Meeting the Costs of Nutrient Reduction.

                        Under the most widely supported funding mechanism, a cost-share program, a portion of the
                cost for a given practice is paid for by the fanner or the rate payers of a wastewater treatment plant.
                Other costs are provided through funds derived from a larger segment of the population. Throughout
                the Strategy process, the perspective heard from citizens in the basin was one of mutual
                responsibility. The majority of people believe that to move forward on nutrient reduction will
                require more than placing the full burden for cleanup on any single group, and that equity must be
                a guiding principle: in any implementation scheme.

                        An important example of the need for equity is the funding of agricultural best management
                practices (BMPs). Agricultural BMPs are some of the most cost-effective nutrient reduction
                practices available and they can have economic benefits for agriculture as viell as for fisheries.
                Keeping topsoil and nutrients on farm fields and out of waterways is a benefit to the farmer and also
                to society; and it 'has been suggested that both should share in its responsibility. Through the
                Potomac basin regional assessments, agricultural BMPs were identified as the most cost-effective
                way for society to achieve nutrient reductions. However, none of the assessmenis recommended that
                the burden for paying for these practices should be placed solely on the agricultural sector.

                                                                   6









                 111. BENEFITS OF POTOMAC RIVER NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS



                        The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement committed the signatories to develop "guidelines" for
                 the protection of habitats and water quality conditions necessary to support the living resources of the
                 Bay. Consistent with these guidelines, there are a number of expected water quality benefits that will
                 result from implementing nutrient controls. These include improved levels of dissolved oxygen,
                 reductions in excess algal growth, increased light penetration into the water, and numerous related
                 improvements in the overall health of the Bay and its living resources.

                 Increased Dissolved Oxygen

                        Dissolved oxygen is a major factor affecting the survival, distribution, and productivity of
                 living resources in the Bay. Under normal conditions, the amount of available oxygen is affected by
                 such things as salinity and temperature of the water. It is also affected by nutrients. Excess amounts
                 of nitrogen and phosphorus cause rapid growth of phytoplankton, creating dense populations, or
                 blooms. These blooms block sunlight to the plants living around the shallow fringes of the Bay. As
                 the tiny plankton die and decay, oxygen from the surrounding water is depleted as a result of the
                 process of decomposition. This can lead to dangerously low oxygen levels that harm or even kill other
                 aquatic life and create large areas of the Bay that are unsuitable for anything to live. Many parts of
                 the Bay including the deep waters of the main stem lack any oxygen during the summer months and
                 are, as a result, devoid of animal life. Therefore, benefits of reducing nutrients entering the Bay from
                 its tributaries include controlling excess production of phytoplankton and the resultant reduction in
                 dissolved oxygen and light penetration.

                        Complex state-of-the-art computer models were developed to estimate nutrient loads to the Bay
                 and simulate water quality improvements in the Bay resulting from load reductions. A useful measure
                 to study depressed oxygen levels in the Bay was developed. It is based on the volume of water that
                 becomes dangerously low in oxygen (anoxic). The models track, over time, the total anoxic volume-
                 days that occur throughout the Bay. The percent reductions in total annual anoxic volume-days from
                 the 1985 reference year are then compared for various nutrient reduction scenarios (listed in the key
                 for Figure 3-1).

                        The model was used to address a number of management issues. Several runs were designed
                 to investigate whether nutrient reductions in any regions of the Bay were more effective at improving
                 oxygen levels than nutrient reductions in other regions. The Bay was divided into three geographic
                 regions: upper, middle, and lower. Nutrient reduction at the limit of technology was simulated in each
                 of these regions of the Bay to estimate resultant improvements in dissolved oxygen levels. Runs
                 simulating 40% and 90% controllable nutrient reduction from "agreement" states and runs simulating
                 nitrogen-only and phosphorus-only controls were also examined. Based on both monitoring and
                 modeling results, a 40% reduction target was identified as optimal in terms of reduction in anoxic-
                 volume days for the given scenarios. Results from the 1991-92 modeling studies are provided in
                 Figure 3-1.


                                                                    7








                           Figure 3-1. Reduction in Anoxic Volume-Days by Model Scenario




                                                                                               100
                   100





                    go  ------------------------------------------
                 ICA



                 ICA
                 co

                    60  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --





                    40  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                                                                                              M. 11! Hiiiii
                                               32                                31
                 0                       30
                 1:4
                                 24
                          20                                 21
                                                                                                 jjj
                    20

                                                                    12
                                               5
                                                             .11 Mill!                   IMU!!*

                                                                                 g
                                                                                               ir
                                                                          0.3
                      0
                           I  40%+CA.A         LOT       LOT-Middle-F-LOT-TLOWer     LOT-P Only
                     40% ControUable  40%+CAA+Bwin LOT-Uppcr    LOT-Mid(A)    LOT-14 Only  90% keductim

                                                     Model Scenarios





                                           Figure 3-1 Key   to Model Scenarios
                                          (detailed explanation of scenarios in Appendix D)

                   40% Controllable    .... 40% reduction of controllable nutrients
                   40%+CAA       ......... 40% Controllable plus Clean Air Act reductions
                   405,o'+CAA+Basin    .... 40%+CAA for entire basin (including of DE, NY:, WV)
                   LOT    ..............   Limit of technology reductions in "Bay Agreement" states , including
                                           Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and District of Columbia
                   LOT-Upper     ........  LOT in upper-Bay basins, rest of basins at base loads
                   LOT-Middle    ........  LOT in Potomac & mid-Bay basins, rest of basins at base loads
                   LOT-Mid(A)    ........  LOT-Middle except Potomac basin is at base loads
                   LOT-Lower       ........ LOT in lower-Bay basins, rest of basins at base loads
                   LOT-N Only    ........  LOT for nitrogen control, phosphorus at base loads
                   LOT-P Only    ........  LOT for phosphorus control, nitrogen at base loads


                                                             8









                        Key findings resulting from this comparison of management scenarios were as follows:

                 1)     Nutrient reductions in the basins of the middle region of the Bay showed the largest
                 improvements to main bay oxygen levels (20%) while those to the upper Bay showed an 8%
                 improvement. Nutrient reductions in the lower Bay tributaries contributed little to the improvement
                 of dissolved oxygen levels in the Bay.

                 2)     Nutrient reductions in the Potomac River basin had a significant influence on the Bay's
                 oxygen levels and were responsible for over 40% of the reductions of the mid-Bay region's anoxic
                 conditions. The remaining improvement of mid-Bay oxygen levels was caused by reduction of
                 nutrients from the eastern and western coastal basins in Maryland, immediately adjacent to the Bay.

                 3)     A 40% Controllable load reduction throughout the entire Bay watershed yielded the same
                 20% improvement in oxygen levels as implementing limit of technology in just the middle
                 geographic region of the Bay.

                 4)     Trends in anoxia were tied to trends in nitrogen concentration - reduce nitrogen and oxygen
                 levels improve. This finding was later confirmed by Cerco (1995), Thomann et al. (1994), and
                 Fisher and Butt (1994).

                        In short, 40% reduction in controllable nutrients is expected to result in a 20% improvement
                 in dissolved oxygen levels in the Bay. Such improvements not only reduce the stress on aquatic
                 organisms, but also increase available habitat for aquatic organisms. This translates to more fish
                 food. Such habitat improvements cascade through the ecosystem. Increased availability of fish food
                 is expected to improve the Bay's fisheries. In fact, any measurable improvement in DO should
                 increase the number of animals that could use the Bay as nursery or feeding grounds.

                 Decreased Chlorophyll Production

                        One of the most important habitat considerations in the Bay is the protection of submerged
                 aquatic vegetation (SAV). The importance of this habitat can not be overemphasized, as it provides
                 food and shelter for waterfowl, fish, shellfish, and invertebrates. A number of restoration targets
                 have been established to aid the recovery of an unprecedented bay-wide decline of all SAV species
                 since the 1950's. This decline can be attributed in large part to increasing amounts of nutrients and
                 poor water clarity in the Bay. While nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus occur naturally in
                 water and aid in SAV growth, excess amounts are considered pollutants since, as stated above, they
                 can lead to algal blooms which rob SAV of necessary sunlight. Reducing current levels of nutrients
                 entering the Bay would benefit SAV species and the species that depend on them.

                        The study of chlorophyll, which represents the amount of algae in the water, can be a useful
                 tool in assessing the health of the Bay. Chlorophyll biomass acts as an indirect measure of nutrient
                 levels and resultant phytoplankton production. Using the water quality model, it was determined that
                 surface chlorophyll biomass production was limited in the upper Bay by phosphorus, while middle

                                                                  9









               to lower portions of the Bay were controlled by nitrogen. Therefore, reduction Of both nutrients is
               necessary to control biomass in the Bay as a whole. A comparison of the effect of nutrient reduction
               on reducing chlorophyll biomass shows that nutrient controls, especially in the Potomac (middle)
               region of the Bay'swatershed, were very successful in controlling phytoplankton production. (Figure
               3-2). A 40% nutrient reduction in the Bay tributaries results in a 5-20% reduction in chlorophyll
               biomass of the Bay, a result that could improve light levels in and around SAV beds. This would
               lead to increased SAV growth, a critical food and habitat resource for many species in the Bay.


                      Figure 3.2 Comparison of Surface Chlorophyll Biomass to Nutrient Reductions
                     W   257-           40% Contri              LOT Upper              LOT Middle
                     W
                     cc  20   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -


                     cc                                     Potomac River

                     E
                         15   - ---------- --






                                                         ----------            -- ------------
                         10 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -





                              --------------               ----------------------------




                          01
                           190      150       125       100                70        45        2:5       10

                                             Miles from Mouth of Chesapeake Bay




                       The above figures show that the Shenandoah-Potomac Basin has a significant influence on
               Bay water quality, most notably dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll levels. A comparison of the
               nitrogen loads, by jurisdiction, in the basin is provided in Table 3-1. Based on these findings,
               Virginia is responsible for the reduction of eight million pounds per year followed closely by
               Maryland (SiX Million pounds per year). A comparison of the reduction goals for nitrogen loads for
               each of the Bay's niajor tributaries is provided in Table 3-2.




                                                                10









                Table 3-1. Nitrogen Loads and Reduction Goals, by Jurisdiction, in the Shenandoah-Potomac
                            River Basin (in millions of pounds per year)

                         Jurisdiction                      Total Controllable        40% Reduction Goal

                         District of Columbia                       8                          3
                         Maryland                                  16                          6
                         Pennsylvania                               3                          1
                         Virginia                                  21                          8

                         Basinwide Total                           48                          18



                Table 3-2. Reductions Goals for Nitrogen Loads to Chesapeake Bay by Major Tributary (in
                            millions of pounds per year)

                                 River Basin                                   40% Reduction Goal

                                 Susquehanna River                                       18
                                 Maryland's Coastal Basins                               17
                                 Shenandoah, Potomac Rivers                              18
                                 Rappahannock, York & James Rivers*                      19
                                 Virginia's Coastal Basins*                         Less than 2
                                 Bay Watershed Total                                     74


                              are interim targets until enhanced computer modeling becomes available to allow final
                        targets to be set (projected spring of 1997).

                        Although the complexity of environmental systems makes it difficult to accurately quantify
                the benefits of nutrient reductions, by using computer models we can describe expected
                environmental responses based on current scientific understanding. It is clear that reducing nutrient
                loads in the Bay will result in increased dissolved oxygen levels, decreased phytoplankton blooms,
                increased light penetration, and expanded and improved habitat for fish, shellfish, waterfowl, SAV,
                and invertebrates. According to the model results, with a 40% reduction of nutrients, we could
                expect a 20% reduction of anoxic volume-days (due to increased dissolved oxygen) and a 5-20%
                reduction of chlorophyll biomass (depending on location in the Bay).

                        The benefits of nutrient reductions are far reaching, from increased area and improved quality
                of SAV habitat due to increased light penetration, to increased habitat for fish and shellfish due to
                increased oxygen availability, to increased quality of recreational and fishing opportunities, to
                decreased loss of topsoil and nutrients from farmland due to agricultural BMPs.




















                                                                                                                          a





































                                                                                                                          .1











































                                                                                                                          IW



                                                              12









                 IV. PROGRESS TOWARD THE 40% NUTRIENT REDUCTION GOAL



                        This section describes the progress Virginians have made, and are expected to make, toward
                 the 40% nutrient reduction goal in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin through ongoing activities and
                 programs.


                 The Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Models

                        The numbers provided in the Strategy for nutrient loadings and progress toward the reduction
                 goal are based on a combination of sources. Some loadings data are based upon direct measurements,
                 such as discharge from wastewater treatment plants. Other data are inferred from technical studies of
                 the effectiveness of nutrient reduction practices. Still other data are provided from computer models
                 which are based on measured data and are used to predict loadings and water quality changes resulting
                 from different management actions. The following two paragraphs provide a brief description of the
                 Bay Program's computer models. Additional information on the models, and on calculations for
                 nutrient loads and reductions, is provided in Appendices B and C.

                        The two models used to simulate the input of nutrients to the Bay's tidal waters and predict
                 their impact on water quality are the Watershed Model and the 3-Dimensional Water Quality Model.
                 The Watershed Model uses information on the land use coverage of the 64,000 square mile Bay
                 drainage area to compute nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from the land. It then inputs the loads dis-
                 charged by wastewater treatment plants and "delivers" the total load to the Bay. The Watershed Model
                 relies on weather data, land use data, soil and geophysical data, and point-source load estimates to
                 calculate the total load reaching the Bay.

                        The Watershed Model provides input to the 3-1) Model, a time-variable simulation of the
                 physical, biological, and chemical processes at work in the Bay. The 3-D Model simulates responses
                 in water quality, mainly in terms of dissolved oxygen, resulting from varying nutrient levels in the
                 Bay. It is capable of examining future conditions under a variety of nutrient-control scenarios.


                 Nutrient Reductions Needed to Meet the 40% Goal


                        The Bay Program participants established the 1985 baseline loading level as the starting point
                 for calculating the nutrient reductions that would have to occur to reach the 40% goal. The baseline
                 nutrient load is the sum of 1985 point source discharges and the nonpoint nutrient runoff, associated
                 with 1985 land uses in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin, calculated for an average rainfall year.

                        Not all of the nutrients entering the Bay are considered controllable. Almost eleven million
                 pounds of nutrients would naturally enter the Potomac River each year even if the basin were
                 completely forested. The remaining nutrients, both point and nonpoint in origin, that enter the Bay
                 are considered "controllable" to some degree and are amenable to nutrient reduction practices. The
                 1987 Bay Program commitment is to reduce the controllable baseline nutrient load by 40%.


                                                                  13









                        .As shown in Table 4-1, the 1985 controllable baseline nitrogen load for the Virginia portion
                of the Shenandoah-.Potomac basin is 20.428 million pounds and 40% of that is 8.171 million pounds.
                The baseline phosphorus load is 2.134 million pounds and 40% of that is 0.854 million pounds.




                                   rabIe 4-1 1985 Nutrient Loads and 40% Reduction Goal in
                                           Virginia's Shenandoah -Potomac River Basin
                                                           (Millions lbs/yr)

                                               Point          Nonpoint                          Reduction
                                              Source            Source           Total*            Goal

                           Phosphorus          0.579             1.556            2.134            0.854


                            Nitrogen           10.084           10.343           20.428            8.171

                        LL---


                        *Figures do not add up to the total loads shown due to rounding off.

                Ongoing Nutrient Reduction Programs and Progress Toward the 40% Goal

                        The Strategy effort to reach the 40% nutrient reduction goal in the Potomac-Shenandoah basin
                is not starting at zero. Since Virginia began working toward the 40% goal in the basin, significant
                reductions have been achieved through greater use of best management practices (BMPs) by farmers
                and foresters, enhanced nutrient removal at wastewater treatment plants, improved local stormwater
                management and erosion and sediment control, and other initiatives. Other nutrient reductions have
                been achieved through locally-developed programs. Many of these programs were identified through
                the four regional assessment processes that were carried out.

                        Most of these programs are described in the August, 1995 draft of Yimhiia's Potomac Basin
                Tributary Nutrient Reduction StratpZy, which was distributed to local governments, soil and water
                conservation districts, interest groups and nurnerous citizens in the basin, and to the 1996 General
                Assembly. An outline of these programs is provided below. Under current conditions these programs
                will not achieve the basinwide 40% nutrient reduction goal by the year 2000, particularly with respect
                to nitrogen loadings. However, these programs do provide an excellent foundation for further program
                developments or funding initiatives in the area of nutrient reductions.

                Point Source Prog ams and Reductions


                        Between 1985 and 1994 the annual point source phosphorus load was reduced by 0.24 million
                pounds (a 4 1 % reduction). This reduction was primarily the result of the phosphate detergent ban that
                went into effect in January, 1988, and improved phosphorus removal at wastewater treatment facilities
                subject to Virginia!s Potomac Embayment Standards.

                                                                  14









                         During this period, point-source nitrogen loads increased only 2% (0.218 million pounds per
                  year), despite a 19% increase in the amount of total wastewater flows. The nutrient reductions that
                  offset the increased flow volume include: the activation of biological nutrient removal (BNR) at two
                  municipal wastewater plants, Stafford County Aquia and Dahlgren Sanitary District (although
                  difficulties at this plant have affected the operation of BNR); closure of the Avtex facility near Front
                  Royal; several municipal plants going off-line, with their effluent transferred to plants that provide
                  better treatment; and the installation of a nitrification process at two large northern Virginia plants.

                         A number of treatment plants have installed a process known as nitrification in order to meet
                  water quality standards for ammonia toxicity. This process is not designed to reduce the total nitrogen
                  load in the wastewater flow, however; it converts the ammonia form of nitrogen into the less toxic,
                  oxygenated form called nitrate. Recently, it has been determined that in certain treatment plants using
                  this process, where the wastewater flow is below the design capacity of the plant, significant nitrogen
                  removal is being achieved. Most importantly, the nitrification process is the first, and more costly, step
                  toward achieving a full nitrogen reduction process through the installation of BNR. Where plants have
                  installed this process, they have already realized much, or most, of the costs of BNR.

                         BNR is one of the most promising technologies available for nutrient reduction at municipal
                  and industrial wastewater treatment plants. However, the ease with which this technology can be
                  applied to a given plant varies. as determined by a number of design parameters and the available
                  capacity of the facility. A study is underway to assist a number of treatment plant owners in evaluating
                  these parameters and the feasibility and cost of developing BNR technology at their facilities. This
                  study is being conducted by Dr. Clifford Randall of VPI&SU under funding by the EPA Chesapeake
                  Bay Program. To date, four municipal plants and two industrial plants in the Shenandoah Valley have
                  been evaluated through this study. In addition, other studies are underway to examine the potential
                  for using large scale land treatment systems to process poultry wastes and municipal wastewater.

                  Nonpoint Source Programs and Reductions

                         Based on available information on the implementation of best management practices (BMPs)
                                                                                                C)
                  and their known efficiencies, it is estimated that between 1985 and 1994, nonpoint source phosphorus
                  -was reduced by approximately 0.333 ) million pounds per year (a 2 1% reduction) and nonpoint-source
                  nitrogen was reduced by 2.090 million pounds per year (a 20% reduction).

                         The majority of these nonpoint source nutrient reductions have come from the implementation
                  of agricultural BMPs by farmers in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin. These BMPs include a wide range
                  of structural and operational practices. Since 1985, the implementation of BMPs and the resultant
                  reduction in nutrient loadings have been guided by soil and water quality conservation plans (also
                  known as farm plans) and nutrient management plans.

                          First and foremost, farm plans and nutrient management plans offer farmers the best technical
                  information available on applicable conservation practices and on possible ways to improve the
                  efficiency of their fanning operations. These plans provide a comprehensive framework for farmers


                                                                      15








               to evaluate the types; of BMPs that will help conserve topsoil and nutrients and keep them out of the
               streams and rivers. In addition, these plans serve to inform the farmer as to the benefits and cost
               efficiencies that can be realized through the implementation of these practices. Farm plans are
               promoted by various federal and state agencies including USDA Natural Resources Conservation
               Service (NRCS), soil and water conservation districts, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
               Department (CBLAI:)), and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Approximately
               55% of all cropland in the Potomac basin is covered under these plans.

                       Virginia!s Nutrient Management Program has been expanded to reach more farmers. In
               particular, Nutrient Management Training and Certification Regulations have been promulgated to
               govern a voluntary program for training and certifying persons preparing nutrient management plans.
               An important private initiative for nutrient management planning is the Virginia Poultry Federation's
               1995 policy of encouraging all new growers to have a nutrient management plan and all existing
               growers to obtain aPlan as soon as one can be written by state agencies.

                       Virginia!s Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program encourages the voluntary use of BMPs. The
               program is funded with state and federal monies through local soil and water conservation districts.
               Practices eligible for cost sharing include animal waste control facilities, sod waterways, stream
               protection, winter cover crops, buffer strip cropping, and terracing, among others. Between 1985 and
               1994, over 2,685 cost-share BMPs were planned and installed on 1,637 farms in -the Potomac basin.
               These figures do not include BMPs that have been implemented voluntarily outside of the cost-share
               program. The impact of BMPs that did not receive cost-share Rinds was the subject of a recent survey
               of farmers conducted by DCR. The estimated reductions from these BMPs, and any other practices
               identified locally through the assessment process, have been incorporated into the figures for current
               and projected nonpoint source nutrient load reductions.

                       Current funding for cost-share BMPs in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay basin is a little over $1
               million annually, of which approximately $500,000 is allocated to soil and water conservation districts
               in the Potomac basin. Funding is targeted to watersheds having high pollution potential as indicated
               in DCR's periodic Virginia Watershed Assessment Report.

                       Many other programs in the basin have led to the reduction of nonpoint-source nutrient
               loadings. The Virginia Department of Forestry has a voluntary program which encourages the use of
               BMPs during timber harvesting and replanting to minimize the pollutant impacts of these activities.
               Statewide, use of BMPs on forest harvesting operations has increased dramatically since 1985, and this
               implementation may increase ftirther as a result of the 1993 Silviculture Water Quality Bill. This
               legislation gives the Department of Forestry the ability to stop work and levy fines on operators or
               owners who are causing water quality problems through their forestry operations..

                       Since 1994, animal waste from confined animal operations in excess of 300 animals have been
               managed through a Virginia General Pollution Abatement Permit. These operations are required to
               meet a number of conditions that will assist in reducing nutrients from liquid animal waste. These
               conditions include requirements for an approved nutrient management plan andstandards for waste


                                                                 16









                storage and containment. The Commonwealth also regulates liquid poultry wastes and runs a litter
                disposal program whereby waste materials are either reused on farms or disposed of off-site in an
                environmentally sensitive manner.

                        Since 1985, Virginia and its local governments have implemented a wide array of programs
                designed to reduce erosion and nutrient-laden runoff from land development and urban/suburban lands.
                These programs include shoreline erosion control, erosion and sediment control, stormwater
                management, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area programs, and others. However, most of these
                programs serve to limit, or "cap", future increases in nutrient loadings and do not count as reductions
                (i.e., helping to close the "gap") toward the 40% reduction goal.

                Combined Point Source and Nonpoint Source Reductions to 1994

                        Between 1985 and 1994, the estimated annual nitrogen load has been reduced about 1.873
                million pounds and the estimated annual phosphorus load has been reduced about 0.573 million
                pounds. This represents a 9% annual load reduction for nitr    'ogen, and a 27% 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 nine-year period.



                              Table 4-2 Changes in Controllable Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads
                                     Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac River Basin: 1985-1994

                                           1985 Load - million lbs/yr             1994 Load - million lbs/yr
                                                                                        (and % change)

                                         Point     Nonpoint                    Point       Nonpoint
                                        Source       Source       Total        Source         Source       Total

                       Phosphorus        0.579        1.556       2.134       0.339          1.223       1.561
                                                 1             1              (41%)          (-21%)     (-27%)

                        Nitrogen        10.084       10.343       20.428      10-302         8.253       18.555
                                                                           ,  (+2%)           (-20%)     (-9%)




                Projected Progress Toward the 40% Nutrient Reduction Goal by Year 2000

                        To determine how much more nutrient reduction is needed to achieve the 40% reduction goal,
                it is necessary to first estimate the reductions that can be expected from continuation of ongoing state
                and local nutrient control programs and efforts, projected to the year 2000. To that figure are added
                the projected increases in nutrient loadings, from point sources and nonpoint sources, that will result


                                                                   17









               from population growth in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin. The total loading figure for each nutrient
               at the year 2000 can then be compared to the nutrient load level at 40% reduction to determine the
               nutrient gap that remains to be closed in order to achieve the 40% reduction goal..

               Proiected Point-So rce Programs and Reduct'

                       Point source controls currently expected to be put in place between now and 2000 are anticipat-
               ed to make only modest gains towards the goal. As a result of population growth in the basin, there
               will be increased municipal sewage treatment flows and nutrient inputs, particularly nitrogen. For
               example, three Shenandoah basin municipal treatment plants had design capacities below 0.5 million
               gallons per day (MGD) in 1985 but have since expanded their plants above this threshold, and several
               large facilities in the Washington area are considering expansions ranging fronri 25% to 100% of
               current capacity. Expansions in industrial facilities in the Southern Shenandoah region will also
               increase point source nutrient loads.

                       It is estimated that the year 2000 point source nutrient loadings in the Shenandoah-Potomac
               basin, as a result of ongoing programs and anticipated growth, will represent a 10% increase in
               nitrogen loadings, and a 24% reduction in phosphorus loadings, relative to the 1985 baseline loads.

               Proiected Nonl2oint Source Programs and ReLuctions

                       It is estimated that the vear 2000 nonpoint source nutrient loads in the basin, as a result of
               progress achieved through current and anticipated best management programs, will be reduced 28%
               for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. These projections are based on anticipated BMP imple-
               mentation through a number of existing programs, including the Virginia Agricultural Best
               Management Practices Cost-Share Program, the Virginia Nutrient Management Program, the
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the Food Security Act of 1985, the installation of BMPs on all
               forestry harvests and reductions that will result from voluntary implementation ofagricultural BMPs
               and other nutrient reduction practices.

               Combined Point Source and Nonl2oint Source Reductions Projected to Year 2001)

                       The population of Virginia@s Shenandoah-Potomac River basin is expected to grow by nearly
               17% between 1990and the year 2000, bringing about increased nutrient loads that will partially offset
               the reductions that will be achieved. Projecting nutrient reductions and increases to the year 2000, it
               is estimated that annual nutrient loadings will have been reduced by 1.844 million pounds for nitrogen
               and 0.606 million pounds for phosphorus. This represents a 9% annual loading reduction for nitrogen
               and a 28% reduction for phosphorus, compared to the full 40% nutrient reduction goal (see Table 4-3).








                                                                  18










                             Table 4-3. Projected Year 2000 Nutrient Loads and Reduction Gap in
                                           Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac River Basin
                                                   (Million lbs/yr and % Change)

                                              Point          Nonpoint       Total Year 2000        Nutrient
                                             Source            Source            Loading          Reduction
                                                                             (and % change)          Gap

                          Phosphorus          0.437             1.091              1.528              0.247
                                                                                  (-28%)             (12%)

                           Nitrogen           11.093            7.491             18.584              6.327
                       L_                                                         (-9%)              (31%)


                Closing the Gap, Maintaining the Cap

                        The difference between the 40% goal and the actual reductions in Virginia's Shenandoah-
                Potomac basin yields an annual "nutrient loading gap," that will need to be closed, of 6.327 million
                pounds for nitrogen (3 1 % yet to be achieved, compared to the full 40% goal) and 0.247 million pounds
                of phosphorus (12% yet to be achieved). Closing this gap is the task of Virginia's Shenandoah and
                Potomac River Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

                        Once the 40% nutrient reduction goal is achieved, it will be important to maintain the annual
                tinutrient cap" while still accommodating growth and development in the Potomac basin. The cap
                represents the annual amount of nutrients entering the Potomac River at the level of the 40% reduction.
                This annual loading amount must not be exceeded in order to sustain the improvements in water
                quality that are realized through closing the gap. Thus, as growth occurs, programs must be in place
                that ensure that nutrient loads do not increase beyond the cap level.

                        Understanding the difference between programs that help to close the gap toward the 40%
                nutrient reduction goal and programs that will help to maintain the nutrient cap is important. Many
                local government programs are designed to limit nonpoint source pollution, including nutrients, that
                would otherwise result from development or other changes in land use. These local government
                programs must be categorized as cap-maintenance programs because they do not reduce nutrient
                loadings compared to the 1985 baseline level, and therefore they cannot be credited toward the 40%
                reduction goal. However, these programs are no less important than gap-closing programs because
                both serve the valuable purpose of decreasing the total nutrient load that enters the Potomac River and
                the Chesapeake Bay.







                                                                   19

































































































                                                                                                                          k





                                                               20









               V. PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE POTOMAC STRATEGY



               Beginning the Strategy Process: 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 characterized
               the land use, water quality and living resources in the Shenandoah-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 citizens, including farmers, who provided comments on that discussion paper stated their
               viewpoint that the Strategy should plan a more equitable distribution of responsibility for nutrient
               reductions in the basin, even if that would lead to a higher total cost. A more equitable approach was
               included in Virginia!s second Potomac Strategy paper, published in October, 1994, entitled Actions
               and Optionsfor Virginia's Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy.

                        In October of 1994, staff of Virginia!s natural resources agencies held six public meetings in
               the Shenandoah-Potomac basin to provide further information to citizens on the need for nutrient
               reductions and to hear their viewpoints and responses. During March and April of 1995, Virginia's
               Secretary of Natural Resources met with local government officials, soil and water conservation
               disctricts, and local interest groups across the basin. During those meetings, many citizens stated that
               the best way to achieve the Allen administration's goals of cost-effectiveness, practicality and equity
               would be to include citizens, interest groups and stakeholders at the local level in the fundamental
               decision-making and development of the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy.

                        This very important guidance from citizens in the basin was incorporated into the publication
               of the Drafi Virginia Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, in August of 1995. The
               highlights of that 1995 document were:

                        ï¿½       Promoted an approach centered    on local initiatives.
                        ï¿½       Contained detailed information on existing local nutrient reduction programs.
                        ï¿½       Outlined the types of practices that can be implemented for further nutrient reductions.
                        ï¿½       Described the significant nutrient reductions that have been achieved since 1985 and
                                the programs that were responsible for these reductions.
                        ï¿½       Using projections to the year 2000, it described how further progress will be achieved
                                through ongoing programs and estimated the "nutrient gap" that will need to be closed.
                        9       Suggested a regional breakdown of the basin to help facilitate the development and
                                implementation of local strategies.
                                Described ongoing programs offered by the Commonwealth to facilitate continued
                                success.
                        0       Provided a preliminary menu of funding options for financing nutrient reductions.



                                                                   21









                          The 1995 draft strategy was sent to every local government and soil and water conservation
                  district in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin, all General Assembly members, agricultural interests,
                  environmental groups and interested citizens for review and comment. A series Of SiX public meetings
                  were held duringSeptember and October 1995 to receive additional comment. Based on the responses
                  to the draft strategy, which included concerns over public education, financing, and the need for local
                  officials to have a good rationale for promoting additional nutrient reductions, it was concluded that
                  local officials needed to be even more closely involved as partners in the design of a final strategy.

                          Therefore, early this year the Secretary of Natural Resources sent letters to the chief, elected
                  local government officials throughout the basin, inviting them to become personally involved in an
                  assessment process designed to increase the degree of state/local/citizen partnership in the development
                  of the Shenandoah-Potomac Tributary Strategy. It reaffirmed that Governor Allen and the Secretary
                  are committed toworking closely with local elected officials and concerned Citizens to determine how
                  best to achieve the nutrient reduction goals for the Chesapeake Bay.

                  General Assembly Actions in 1996

                          Two actions by the General Assembly in 1996 related directly to the Potomac Strategy. The
                  first, House Bill 1411, set forth deadlines and certain content requirements for the tributary strategies
                  that were under development by the state. The second was an appropriation of'$280,000 to soil and
                  water conservation districts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for the purpose: of tributary strategy
                  development. This money is administered by the Department of Conservationand Recreation and is
                  being allocated on a competitive basis within the tributary basins of the watershed.


                  The Assessment Process


                          At the core of the Strategy are the results of the assessments that were conducted in four
                  regions of the Shenandoah-Potomac basin from March through September of 1996. The purposes of
                  the assessments was to confirm progress to date, quantify local nutrient reduction programs and to
                  identify additional actions appropriate for each region to close the gap and achieve the 40% reduction
                  goal. The participants included representatives of local governments, soil and water conservation
                  districts, wastewater service authorities, planning district commissions, conservation groups, farmers
                  and other citizens in order to link the development of Virginia!s Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins
                  Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy as closely as possible to the interests and concerns of regional
                  stakeholders, who are the eventual implementors of the Strategy.

                          This process was facilitated by subdividing the basin area into four regions, Southern
                  Shenandoah, Northern Shenandoah, Northern Virginia, and Lower Potomac (see Figure 1). The
                  baseline nutrient loadings were calculated for each county in each region, and 40% reduction targets
                  were determined for each of those jurisdictions.

                          State technical assistance teams were assigned to each region. These teams included agency
                  staff from the Departments of Environmental Quality, Conservation and Recreation, and Chesapeake


                                                                     22









                 Bay Local Assistance and from the Cooperative Extension Service. These teams were made up of staff
                 who have expertise in the areas of-
                                stormwater management;
                         0      erosion and sediment control;
                         0      land use planning and development;
                         0      agricultural BMPs;
                         0      nutrient management;
                         0      point-source management; and
                         0      education.


                         In certain regions, staff of regional planning district commissions and/or soil and water
                 conservation districts played roles in assisting or guiding the assessment process. These tributary
                 teams facilitated the development of regional strategies and encouraged close working relationships
                 among local officials and other interested parties.

                         In each region, the assessment process was initiated with a letter from the Virginia Secretary
                 of Natural Resources Dunlop to the chief elected official of each county, city and town in the region
                 and the chairperson of the applicable soil and water conservation district(s). Secretary Dunlop asked
                 these officials to become directly involved in the assessment process, to ensure that it would be guided
                 by local perspectives and benefits, and to attend an initial meeting describing the need for nutrient
                 reductions and the goals and process of the assessment.

                         At these initial meetings, presentations were provided by the state technical assistance teams
                 on the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy effort. In attendance at the four initial regional meetings were
                 180 local officials. including members of boards of supervisors, city councils, town councils and soil
                 and water conservation districts, as well as representatives from wastewater utilities, planning district
                 commissions, conservation groups and others. Local government officials were asked to consult, and
                 ultimately represent, the businesses, industries, farmers and other citizens in their jurisdiction and to
                 help identify practical and cost-effective nutrient reduction measures. They were not asked to commit
                 to implementing or funding the identified measures.

                         Three to five full meetings were held in each region (General Assembly members were invited
                 to meetings affecting their district). In addition, meetings were held with smaller groups on particular
                 issues. The state technical assistance teams were available at these meetings, and various information
                 documents were produced and distributed. The specific elements of the assessment process varied
                 among regions, as determined by the local participants. However, these processes were based on
                 consistent approaches and the same objective, and the resulting assessments were compatible. Each
                 region was provided with a county-by-county breakdown of:
                                 nonpoint source and point source nutrient loads estimated for 1985 and 1994 and
                                 projected to the year 2000;
                                 acreage, and changes in acreage, of agricultural land use;
                                 types and acreages, or numbers, of existing BMPs;
                                 land use changes and increased treatment plant loadings due to population growth;


                                                                    23









                          0       nutrient reductions estimated for 1994 and projected to the year 2000; and
                          0       estimated costs per pound of nutrient reduced for the range ofrionpoint source and
                                  point source reduction opportunities available in the jurisdiction (planning-level costs
                                  and expected reductions for point-source upgrades were specific to the individual
                                  treatment plants).

                          The participants in each regional assessment took those numbers and consulted with
                 agricultural representatives, wastewater treatment plant operators and others in their jurisdictions to
                 determine the best mix of practices that could be available to meet the nutrient reduction target, either
                 on a local or regional basis. This decision-making included estimates of the types and amounts of
                 BMPs that would likely be implemented within each jurisdiction if certain conditions were met, such
                 as the availability of increased cost-share funding.

                          During the assessment process, the participants were told that their local assessments could be
                 conditioned on the availability of additional cost-share funding for the identified practices. And in
                 every assessment, the participating local governments, farmers and others proposed that cost-share
                 money be made available for the implementation of these practices. Very few participants volunteered
                 to undertake nutrient reductions in the absence of some action on funding being taken by the state.
                 However, certain localities made substantial local commitments to nutrient reductions, in partnership
                 with the state, that would be implemented concurrently with increased cost-share funding for BMPs.

                          The final assessments tallied the mix of practices, chosen locally or regionally, and the costs
                 associated with implementation of these practices.

                 Defining the Options for Meeting the Costs, and Gathering Citizen Input

                          Within the general context of a cost-sharing approach to funding the Strategy, specific
                 decisions must be made regarding funding sources. These decisions include assigning funding
                 responsibilities to various portions, or all, of the population, and determining programmatic
                 mechanisms for acquiring these funds.

                          To identit, and review the range of ftmding options that could be available for funding nutrient
                 reductions, the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at VPI&SU produced a report,
                 entitled Financinia Virginia's Tributary Strategies: Methods for Meeting ie Costs of Nutrient
                 Reduction (dated August 15, 1996). This report provides information on dilfferent approaches to
                 sharing the costs 12or nutrient reductions. It also provides information on various funding programs
                 that can be implemented at the state or local level, and evaluates these programs with regard to their
                 revenue generating potential, ease and cost of administration, reliability of revenue stream and
                 incentive effects.


                          In an effort to ensure a broad spectrum of input into the financing issue, and to continue the
                 localized approach to Strategy development, this financing report was mailed to each of the
                 participants in the regional assessment process, and follow-up meetings were held to collect their


                                                                     24









               comments. In addition, consultation meetings were held with various stakeholder groups, as required
               in House Bill 1411 in order to garner their input and response. The results of this input are presented
               in Section VII, Meeting the Costs of Nutrient Reduction.


               Public Review of the Draft Document


                       The public comment period for this draft of the Strategy runs through December 2, 1996.

                       An executive summary of the draft document is available on the Internet at the Department of
               Environmental Quality website (http://www.deq.state.va.us/envprog/potomac.html), at the Department
               of Conservation and Recreation website (http://[email protected]/-dcr/dcr-home.htm) and at the
               Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department website (http://www.state.va.us/cblad/homepg.htm).
               These websites contain directions on how to access and download the entire draft document. Public
               review copies of the draft document have been distributed to regional state depository libraries, soil
               and water conservation district offices, planning district commissions and regional offices of DEQ
               and DCR in the Shenandoah and Potomac River basins. Personal review copies will be sent to:

                       0       all members of city and town councils and the county boards of supervisors in
                               Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac basin;
                       0       all directors of soil and water conservation districts in the basin; and
                       8,      mayors and chairmen of the city and town councils and the boards of supervisors in
                               the rest of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay drainage basin.

                       Because of the legislative requirements to produce a Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy by January
               1, 1997, the time available for final modifications to the Strategy after the public review and comment
               period is extremely limited. Consequently, all comments on this draft document must be received by
               the close of business on December 2, 1996. However, the development and implementation of the
               Strategy is an ongoing process, and state agencies will continue to make every effort to work with local
               officials and others to refine the Strategy and develop consensus on its key elements.

               Review and Action by the General Assembly

                       The final version of the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy will be completed and distributed
               before January 1, 1997. It is expected that the Strategy will be reviewed by the General Assembly
               during the 1997 legislative session.

                       The matter of financing nutrient reductions is the central issue in deliberations on Virginia!s
               Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy. However, a number of other issues are closely related to these
               discussions. Many of these issues are addressed in this Strategy plan; others are relevant to the
               authority and actions of the General Assembly. They include:

                       0       the need to equitably apportion funding responsibility;
                       9       the effective design, authorization and administration of funding and implementation


                                                                  25









                                 programs at the state and local levels;
                         0       the relationship of these programs to existing cost-share programs and regulatory
                                 programs;
                         0       whether it is necessary to prioritize practices and phase implementation;
                         0       the challenges and benefits of establishing a market-based system (nutrient trading);
                                 and
                         0       the relationship between the provision of funding for the 'Shenandoah-Potomac
                                 Strategy and the future success of other tributary strategies.

                 Continuation of ithe Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy Process

                         Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy is built upon a new, cooperative approach to water
                 quality improvement and protection. This approach is one that can only truly be effective through the
                 development of long-term partnerships and continued coordination. Therefore, the Commonwealth
                 is committed to working in partnership with communities and the private sector toward the
                 implementation of the Strategy in the basin. Citizen initiatives and voluntary efforts will continue to
                 be promoted, and methods will continue to be sought that encourage individual stewardship outside
                 of the need for regulation. In addition, continued efforts will be made to provide information to
                 citizens on their role in reducing nutrient loads, and to better educate them on how they can contribute
                 to improving water quality in their local streams and rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.

                         To the extent that specific programs are funded or developed by the! General Assembly,
                 Virginia's state agencies will work with citizens and communities to ensure fair, effective and
                                   C,
                 equitable implementation of these programs. State agencies will work to efficiently integrate any new
                 elements into the existing framework of programs that are currently administered.

                         Following action by the General Assembly, the Commonwealth's natural resources agencies
                 will evaluate the status and scheduling of Strategy actions, outstanding issues of implementation, and
                 the need for any alternative measures. This will be done on an ongoing basis in coordination with
                 local representatives and will be described in the future annual reports submitted to the General
                 Assembly under the requirements of House Bill 1411.















                                                                   26









                 VI. STRATEGY ACTIONS TO MEET THE 40% NUTRIENT
                          REDUCTION GOAL



                          This section catalogs the types and costs of nutrient controls that were identified for meeting
                 the 40% reduction goal and is primarily the product of the four regional assessments. However, the
                 sum of the estimated nutrient reductions that would be achieved through implementing the regional
                 assessments still leaves Virginia short of the 40% goal. Therefore, in order to meet the goal,
                 additional options for nutrient reduction are offered at the end of this section.

                 Summary of Regional Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Targets

                          As depicted in Section IV, upon implementation of current nutrient reduction programs and
                 with projected growth in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin, there will still be a nutrient reduction gap
                 of 12% (0.247 million pounds) of phosphorus and 31% (6.327 million pounds) of nitrogen at year
                 2000. Table 6-1 presents the basin-wide estimates for nutrient loadings and projections broken down
                 for each region. This information was the starting point for the regional assessment process.


                           Table 6-1. Total Nutrient Loads for Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Basin
                                            Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Programs


                                                     Year 1994 Pro      ss to ate
                                            1985 Controllable Loads                 Year 1994 Reported Values
                                              (thousands of lbs)                      (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                            Nitro2en    Phosphorus      Nitro2en         Change    Phosphorus     % Change
                Southern Shenandoah         4,083            942           3,082         -25%           639          -32%
                Northern Shenandoah         2,742            419           2,084         -24%           318          -24%
                    Northern Virginia       12,505           658           12,552        0%             536          -19%
                      Lower Potomac         1,098            115           837           -24%           68           -41%
                  VA Potomac Basin          20,428          2,134          18,555        _9%            1,561        -27%


                                                        Year 2000 Projections

                                            1985 Controllable Loads                Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                              (thousands of lbs)                       (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                            Nitro2en    Phosphorus      Nitrogen      % Change     Phosphorus     % Change
                Southern Shenandoah         4,083            942           2,796         -32%           641          -32%
                Northern Shenandoah         2,742            419           2,088         -24%           313          -25%
                    Northern Virginia       12,505           658           12,935        3%             524          -20%
                      Lower Potomac         1,098            115           765           -30%           50           -56%
                   VA Potomac Basin         20,428          2,134          18,584        _9%            1,528        -28%






                                                                           27









                 A.      Results of Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy Assessment Process

                 Locally-Based Processs

                         The purpose of the regional assessment process was to identify practical, cost-effective and
                 equitable solutions for reducing nutrient loadings through a bottom-up approach that included local
                 officials, soil and water conservation districts, wastewater treatment operators, interest groups,
                 farmers and others. The main question to be answered was: "VAiich practices would be appropriate
                 for reducing nut3ient loadings in your region, and what conditions would bring about the
                 implementation ofthese practices?"

                         Summaries and results of the four assessments are provided below. These summaries
                 include an overview of regional issues and nutrient sources, lists of participants, the types and costs
                 of recommended nutrient reduction practices, and certain recommendations for implementation, such
                 as expanded cost-share funding and technical assistance. The four regional assessments are
                 presented, in their entirety, in Appendices H through K.

                 Common Elements Among the Regional Assessment Processes

                         As discussed in Section V, the regional assessments followed a consistent format, guided
                 by the state technical assistance teams. In addition, a number of common viewpoints were expressed
                 by a majority of the participants. These are briefly discussed below as an introduction to the
                 summaries of the ]"Individual regional assessments.


                 No Unfunded Mandates


                         The most consistently voiced opinion by local officials, farmers and others who participated
                 in the assessment process was that they did not support unfunded mandates. The major factor
                 determining the involvement of these parties in the voluntary assessment process was an agreement
                 that the Strategy would not turn into an unfunded mandate.

                 Cost Effectivenes; and Equi1y

                         Cost effectiveness means achieving the highest nutrient reduction per dollar spent. Equity
                 refers to sharing responsibility for nutrient reductions. Participants in the Shenandoah-Potomac
                 Strategy process expressed the need for a balance between equity and cost efliectiveness.

                         The determination of which practices would be recommended through the assessment was
                 primarily based on. cost effectiveness, rather than equity. However, participants wanted to be assured
                 that their neighboring regions, with varying types of nutrient sources, were equitably participating
                 in the process, regardless of who could achieve nutrient reductions less expensively. Equity was also
                 the guiding principle in deliberations on how the costs for these practices should be borne.


                                                                   28









                Monitorin2. Modeliniz and Related Technical Issues


                       The basic tools of the regional assessments were numerical goals, nutrient loading rates,
                reduction efficiencies and costs. All of these numbers are, to a degree, based on estimates or
                projections, such as estimates of acreage of land uses, crop types and management practices, and
                projected changes in these figures; estimates of point-source loadings and projected population
                increases; and projections of costs and nutrient reductions for the implementation of various
                practices.

                       These estimates are based on state-of-the-art research and computer modeling, and one of
                the best water quality monitoring networks in the nation. However, in each region, concerns were
                raised regarding the comprehensiveness of the data and the accuracy of estimates.

                       There are important lessons to be learned from this experience. The first is that water quality
                monitoring and other technical support are important for successful water quality initiatives. The
                second is that public education efforts need to be expanded to ensure a greater understanding of the
                rationale and technical basis for nutrient reduction and the tributary strategy program.






























                                                                  29








                     1.       'Southern Shenandoah Regional Assessment



                     Regional Description

                              The Southern Shenandoah region is approximately one-third of the area of'Virginia's
                     Shenandoah-Potomac basin and includes all of Rockingham and Page Counties, portions of Augusta
                     and Highland Counties, and the cities of Harrisonburg, Staunton and Waynesboro. Nearly all of the
                     South. Fork Shenandoah River, including its major tributaries the North, Middle and South Rivers,
                     is in this region. Based on 1994 data, agriculture and forest are the major land uses, with 59%
                     forested and 371vo in cropland and pasture. Less than 4% of the region is urban or suburban. Ten
                     significant (greater than 0.5 mgd) point-source dischargers are located in the region, including seven
                     municipal wastewater treatment plants and three industries.

                     Summary of Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Targets

                              In 1985, this region contributed 20% (4.083 million lbs) of the basin's controllable nitrogen
                     load, and 44% (0.942 million lbs) of the controllable phosphorus load. In 1985, 77% of the region's
                     controllable nitrogen and 65% of controllable phosphorus came from nonpoint sources. Table 6-2
                     provides regional loadings for 1985, 1994 and projected to the year 2000.


                                     Table 6-2. Total Nutrient Loads for Southern Shenandoah Region
                                                 Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Programs


                                                           Year 1994 Progress to Date
                                               1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                   (thousands of lbs)                        (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitrogen       Phosphorus      Nitrosten      % Change     Pho5l2horus     % Change
                         Augusta County          1,765            416            1,245         -29%             256          -38%
                        Highland County            56              9             46            -19%             9            -5%
                             Page Counni          393              86            293           -26%             68           -21%
                     Rockingham Count),          1,868            431       1    1,499         -20%             307          -29%
                    Southern Shenandoah          4,083            942       1    3,082         -25%             639          -32%

                                                              Year 2000 Projections

                                               1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                   (thousands of lbs)                        (loads in thousands of lb,s)
                                               Nitrogen       Phosphorus      Nitrogen       % Change      Phosphorus     % Change
                         Augusta County          1,765            416            1,160         -34%             242          -42%
                        Highland County            56              9             41            -26%             9            -6%
                             Page County          393              86            257           -35%             62           -29%
                     Rockingham Count),          1,868            431            1,339         -29%             328          -24%
                    Southern Shenandoah          4,083            942            2,796         -32%             641          -32%




                                                                               30









                    Under current programs, by the year 2000 the region is expected to achieve a 1,287,000
              pound reduction in annual nitrogen loadings (32% reduction for the region) and a 302,000 pound
              reduction in annual phosphorus loadings (32% reduction). For nitrogen, this leaves a 346,000 pound
              gap in reaching the 40% reduction goal. For phosphorus, this leaves a 75,000 pound gap in reaching
              the 40% goal.

              Overview of the Southern Shenandoah Regional Assessment Process

                    The Southern Shenandoah assessment included five regional meetings, with representation
              from the four counties, three cities, and a number of the towns in the region; the Soil and Water
              Conservation Districts; the Poultry Federation; the Farm Bureau; several environmental groups; and
              a number of the point sources in the region. In addition to the regional meetings, the Central
              Shenandoah Planning District Corn@rnission (PDQ coordinated numerous meetings with local
              technical staff as part of the strategy development. The role of the Central Shenandoah PDC was
              critical to developing the regional proposal.

                     From the outset, the decision was made to develop a regional strategy that achieved the
              reduction goal, as opposed to individual county and city strategies that each achieved a 40%
              reduction. The first step taken in the assessment process was to make sure that all local activities
              were being accounted for in the nutrient'reduction progress calculations. As the proposal was
              developed, cost-effectiveness was the key factor in determining which additional actions to
              recommend. The end result of the assessment process was the development of the Southern
              Shenand ah Region - Potomac Tributary Strategy which is included in Appendix H. Endorsement
              of the strategy document has been received from the Augusta County, Rockingham County, and
              Highland County Boards of Supervisors; the Harrisonburg City Council; the Bridgewater Town
              Council; the Shenandoah Valley and Headwaters SWCDs; and the Central Shenandoah PDC.

              Summary of Southern Shenandoah Region Assessment Recommendations

                      The following recommended actions are the result of the assessment in the Southern
              Shenandoah region. They rely primarily on additional agricultural measures implemented through
              the state's voluntary cost-share program as the most cost-effective means of achieving the goal.

              1)      Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) would be required by local ordinance on all intensive
                      agricultural operation&
              2)      Additional state staff would be provided to write these NMPs.
              3)      Increased cost-share funding for Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be provided 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 on all animal waste control

                                                                31







                       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 need to be provided to cover this cost without drawing resources from other
                       practices.
               6)      Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) technology would be installed at one basin of
                       Harrisonburg/Rockingham Regional Service Authority's North River -treatment plant.
               7)      'Voluntary monitoring for total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrationsshould 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 ficility upgrades and
                       expansions. Several point source facilities in the Southern Shenandoah region that currently
                       discharge at low nitrogen contentrations might require BNR upgrades to maintain those low
                       concentrations as they increase their flow. volume with growth.

               Nutrient Loadings Under Proposed Southern Shenandoah Assessment

                       Table 6-3 includes a summary of the proposed regional increases in EIMP implementation
               for each type of practice and the associated nitrogen and phosphorus reduction:3. The result of these
               recommended actions is a 50% reduction in the region's nonpoint source nitrogen loading and a 44%
               reduction in nonpoint-source phosphorus loading. The principle reductions are obtained through
               increased nutrient management and the associated construction of animal waste control facilities.
               The plan also includes a substantial amount of stream fencing which, in additon to a nutrient
               reduction benefit, has a substantial impact on the biological integrity of local waters.

                       Overall nutrient reductions through the implementation of the proposed Southern
               Shenandoah regional strategy would be 43% for nitrogen and 40% for phosphorus. The nutrient
               reductions that would be achieved for each local jurisdiction under the proposed strategy are detailed
               in Tables 6-4, 6-5 and 6-6.

               Cost of the Proposed Southern Shenandoah Strategy

                       'The total estimated cost of the proposed strategy for the Southern Shenandoah region is
               $6,700,000. 'Me strategy assumes that outside funding would be made available for BNT
               implementation. The cost also includes additional technical staff that would be required under an
               expanded BMP implementation program. An itemized cost estimate for the proposed Southern
               Shenandoah Strategy is included in Appendix H.








                                                                  32







                                                   Table 6-3. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Southern Shenandoah Region
                                                                                Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                                                    Total Proposed Coverage              Reductions (lbs/year)           Increased Ac Added Reductions Ach'd
                                   BMP Treatment                          unija         Coverage          Percent       Nitrogen        Phosphorus       of Coverage          Nitrogen        Phosphorus
                      Conservation Tillage                                acres            54,599.         67.4%             5,529               690                    0                0               0
                      Farm Plans                                          acres            125,071         55.4%           77,452            26,294               2,558           1,478                528
                      Nutrient Management                                 acres           256,776          83.4%         730,289           117,048             155,164          349,688            55,542
                      Highly Erodible Land Retirement                     acres              6,759            1.4%         49,567            12,058                     0                0               0
                      Grazing Land Protection                             acres            10,852             4.3%         27,092             2,139               2,771           6,943                599
                      Stream Fencing                                   linear feet        387,641             -----        12,301             3,648            112,200            3,597              1,056
                      Stream Protection                                linear feet         32,000             -----        11,235             4,932               8,400           2,803              1,283
                      Cover Crops                                         acres            37,384             -----      142,054             12,960                     0                0               0
                      Grass Filter Strips                                 acres                188                           1,584               214                    0                0               0
                      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                         acres                   36          -----             574              100                    0                0               0
                      Forest Harvesting                                   acres               7,606        100.0%          96,229             3,311                     0                0               0
                      Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                975            -----      445,465             99,751                   76         49,638            11,069
                      Loafing Lot Management                            systems                   59          -----          9,348            2,058                     6            911               210
                      Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres                805         100.0%            7,592            4,410                     0                0               0
                      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                             acres                     0         0.0%                  0                 0                 0                0               0
                      Urban Nutrient Management                           acres                573         10.0%                625                65                   0                0               0
                      Septic Pumping                                    systems                     0                               0                 0                 0                0               0
                      Shoreline Erosion Protection                     linear feet                  0         -----                 0                 0                 0                0               0
                                      Total Pounds Reduced:                                                             1,616,936          289,676                              415,059            70,286
                        Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                   11,973             8,229
                            Adjustment for Poultry Growth:                                                                 47,630            10,681
                                          Adjusted Reduction:                                                           1,557,332          270,766
                            Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                               3,127,339          616,657
                                            Percent Reduction:                                                             49.80%            43.91%






                                                                                                               33








                                                      Table 6.4 Point Source Nutrient Loads Southern Shenandoah Region
                                                                               (in thousand of pounds per year)

                                                        1985 Nutrient Loads              1994 Loads & Percent Change                 Regional Strategy Loads & Percent Change
                  Facilijy           Location          Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen % Change Phosphorus % Change NitroRen % ChanRe Phosj2horus % Chan2e
                  Fisherville        Augusta               31           12           21         -31%          7           -45%          27         -12%          9          -30%
                  Middle River       Augusta               0            0            30         -70%          9           -78%          88         -21%          19         -58%
                  Stuarts Draft      Augusta               20           8            10         -48%          2           -69%          16         -18%          4          -48%
                  Verona             Augusta               11           4            37         236%          6           31%           0          -100%         0          -100%

                  Staunton           Staunton              101          41           0          -100%         0           -100%         0          -100%         0          -100%

                  Dupont             Waynesboro            207          46           65         -68%          4           -91%          74         -64%          5          -90%
                  Waynesboro         Waynesboro            132          39           145        10%           23          -42%          145        10%           23         -42%
                  Luray              Page                  29           12           5          -84%          5           -59%          17         -42%          8          -32%
                  North River        Rockingham            253          102          305        20%           49          -52%          298        18%           50         -51%
                  Merck              Rockingham            161          49           185        15%           54          9%            105        -35%          85         73%
                  Rocco Quality      Rockingham            10           12           2          -77%          16          34%           3          -73%          19         60%

                       Southern Shenandoah Totals          955          325          805        -16%          174         -47%          773        -19%          221        -32%

                  Note: The nutrient loads for Middle      River STP in 1994 are compared to those from Staunton STP in 1985; and the loads for Middle River STP under the
                          Regional Strategy are compared to those from Staunton and Verona STPs in 1985.












                                                                                                   34









                              Table 6-5. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for Southern Shenandoah Region
                                                        Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy



                                                               1985 Nonpoint Loads                           Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                               (thousands of lbs)                                   (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitro2en    Phosphorus          Nitrogen             % Change    Phosphorus        % Change
                                Augusta County                 1,264                 265            936             -26%                  205          -23%
                               Highland County                 56                    9              46              -19%                  9            -5%
                                    Page County                364                   75             288             -21%                  63           -16%
                          Rockingham County                    1,443                 268   1        1,007           -30%                  189          -30%
                          Southern Shenandoah                  3,127                 617            2,277           -27%                  466          -24%


                                                               1985 Nonpoint Loads                          Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                               (thousands of lbs)                                   (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrogen    Phosphorus           Nitrogen            % Change    Phosphorus        % Change
                                Augusta County                 1,264                 265            583             -54%                  143          -46%
                               Highland County                 56                    9              36              -35%                  8            -11%
                                     Page County               364                   75             213             -42%                  49           -35%
                           Rockingham County                   1,443                 268            738             -49%        1         146          -45%
                          Southern Shenandoah                  3,127                 617            1,570           -50%        1         346          -44%



                                       Table 6-6. Total Nutrient Loads for Southern Shenandoah Region
                                                        Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy


                                                               1985 Controllable Loads                       Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrogen     Ehosphorus              Nitrogen        % Change      Phosphorus       % Change
                                 Augusta County                1,765                 416            1,245           -29%                  256          -38%
                                Highland County                56                    9              46              -19%                  9            -5%
                                     Page County               393                   86             293             -26%                  68           -21%
                            Rockingham County                  1,868                 431    1       1,499           -20%        1         307          -29%
                           Southern Shenandoah                 4,083                 942            3,082           -25%        1         639          -32%

                                                               1985 Controllable Loads                        Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitro2en     P-ho--sp_horus          Nitrogen        % Change      Phosphorus       % Change
                                 Augusta County                1,765                 416            934             -47%                  202          -51%
                                Highland County                56                    9              36              -35%                  8            -11%
                                      Page County              393                   86             229             -42%                  57           -34%
                            Rockingham County                  1,868                 431            1,144           -39%        1         301          -30%
                           Southern Shenandoah                 4,083                 942            2,343           -43%                  567          -40%









                       2.       Northern Shenandoah Regional ALsessment



                       Regional Description

                                The Northem Shenandoah region is one quarter of the area of Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac
                       basin and includes all of Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah and Warren Counties and the city of Win-
                       chester. The majority of the North Fork Shenandoah River and all of the main stem of the
                       Shenandoah River are in this region. Based on 1994 data, agriculture and forestry are the major land
                       uses, with 57% forested and 39% in farmland and pasture. Only 4% is urban or suburban.

                       Summary of Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Targets

                                In 1985, this region contributed 13% of the Shenandoah-Potomac basin's total controllable
                       nitrogen load and 20% of the total controllable phosphorus load. In the Northern Shenandoah region
                       in 1985, point sources contributed 33% of the loadings of both nutrients, and nonpoint sources
                       contributed the other 67%. Six municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants in the region
                       are considered significant point sources. Table 6-7 provides regional loadings for 1985, 1994 and
                       projected to the year 2000 under current programs.


                                          Table 6-7. Total Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                       Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Programs


                                                                          Year 1994 Progress to Date
                                                             1985 Controllable Loads                            Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                  (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                             Nitrogen         PhospbQrus         Nitrogen         % Change         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%      1      31              -48%
                            Northern Shenandoah                2,742                419       1      2,084             -24%             :318            -24%

                                                                              Year 2000 Projections
                                                             1985 Controllable Loads                           Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                                  (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                             Nitrop-en        PhosphQrus          Nitro2en        % Change         Phosphorus        % Change
                                     Clarke County              388                 60               317               -18%             53              -11%
                                 Frederick County               834                 164              858               3%               135             -18%
                              Shenandoah County                 796                 136              589               -26%             85              -38%
                                    Warren County               724                 60        1      324               -55%      1      40              -33%
                            Northern Shenandoah                2,742                419              2,088             -24%             313             -25%





                                                                                            36








                      Under current programs, by the year 2000 the region is expected to achieve a 654,000 pound
                reduction in annual nitrogen loadings (24% reduction for the region) and a 106,000 pound reduction
                in annual phosphorus loadings (25% reduction). This leaves a 443,000 pound gap in reaching the
                40% reduction goal for nitrogen and a 62,000 pound gap in reaching the 40% goal for phosphorus.

                Overview of the Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment Process

                      The Northern Shenandoah assessment was cooperatively supervised by the chairperson of the
                Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District (LFSWCD), and the state regional 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 Service 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. At the second meeting, 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. The participants in the assessment determined that the localities would individually
                consider developing local nutrient reduction assessments and the regional group would construct a
                "regional framework' that would be used to guide the development of local nutrient reduction plans.

                      At the third and fourth regional meetings, 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 on
                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 were set forth. First, the region
                will focus on agricultural BMPs as the most cost-effective way to reduce nutrients. Second, each
                local strategy should combine cost effectiveness with shared responsibility. Finally, the region will
                look for economic incentives to encourage citizens to voluntarily implement nutrient reduction.

                      The Framework addresses the different types of nutrient sources: agriculture, municipal,
                industrial, residential and growth and development. The full Regional Framework, adopted June 19,
                1996 by the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, is provided in Appendix 1.

                      The following pages include brief summaries of the Clarke County and Shenandoah County
                local nutrient reduction assessments, as adopted by the two county boards of supervisors. Status
                reports are provided for the counties of Frederick and Warren and the City of Winchester. The full
                regional assessment, inlcuding these local nutrient reduction plans, is also provided in Appendix I.



                                                                 37








                Local Nutrient Reduction Assessments for the Northern Shenandoah Region

                Non-Point Source Nutrient Reduction Strategy for Clarke CoqM

                      The Clarke County Nutrient Reduction Strategy, adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
                includes measures to close the annual nutrient gap of 100,000 lbs. of nitrogen and 57,000 lbs. of
                phosphorus. Nutrient loadings from Clarke County are mostly from non-point agricultural sources.
                Clarke County proposes increased cost-share funding for a range of BMPs. The primary means for
                reducing nutrient loads include farm plans, nutrient management, highly erodible land retirement,
                grazing land protection, animal waste control facilities, and septic pump-out requirements.
                Secondary methods will be erosion and sediment control, forest harvest management and urban
                runoff management. Agricultural BMPs, including farm plans and nutrient management plans,
                appear to be the rnost cost-effective BMP's available. The proposed numbers and/or acreages of
                nonpoint-source B'MPs included in the Clarke County assessment are provided in Appendix 1.
                                                  0

                      Additional 'Soil and Water Conservation personnel are needed to administer any additional
                cost-share funds for BMPs and to assist farmers in preparing and implementing these practices.
                Fully implemented, the proposed Clarke County plan will lead to a 52% reduction in controllable
                nitrogen loads and a 42% reduction in controllable phosphorus loads. The County is currently
                implementing a number of programs that will serve to maintain the nutrient cap.

                Shenanadoah Cou i1y Nutrient Reduction Plan

                      The Shenandoah County Nutrient Reduction Plan was prepared by the County's Water
                Resources Steering Committee and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Committee
                determined that implementing nutrient controls at the wastewater treatment plants in the County (all
                of which are relatively small) would be very expensive. The committee developed a plan that chose
                the most cost-effective methods of nutrient reduction but spread the costs over the entire population.
                In general, agricultural BMPs were found to be the most cost-effective methods.. The plan includes
                proposed measures, to maintain year 2000 nutrient levels once the nutrient gap is closed.

                      Currently, Shenandoah County is projected to achieve a 29% reduction in nitrogen and a 40%
                reduction in phosphonis by the year 2000. The progress made so far by Shenandoah County is due
                in large part to the: implementation of nutrient management planning and BNIPs by the county's
                farmers. With a modest increase in the implementation of farm and forest plars, conservation
                tillage, and nutrient management, Shenandoah County can meet the nitrogen reduction goal. This
                reduction can be achieved by requiring all farmers and forest harvesters to have farm and/or forest
                plans prepared that would include soil and water conservation and nutrient management
                recommendations. To aid in implementation of these plans, the county requests additional state cost-
                share funds for BIVPs. The county would contribute the cost of one part-time position at the
                LFSWCD to admirdster the cost-share program and assist in the preparation of farm and forest plans.

                      The county asks that the State Legislature enable counties to adopt an ordinance that requires
                that farm and forest owners have prepared, and file with the County, a farm and/or forest plan,

                                                                 38









                 including soil conservation and nutrient management measures. The county intends for this
                 ordinance to require only that the plans be prepared. Implementation shall remain voluntary.

                 Warren Co= Nutrient Reduction Status Report

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

                        Warren County staff developed a Nutrient Reduction Plan that included further nutrient
                 reductions, particularly with regard to improved septic systems and opportunities for agricultural
                 cost-share practices in the County. Two meetings were held with the Board of Supervisors on this
                 plan and the Board determined that the septic system issue raised in the Plan warranted further
                 consideration by a County Committee, which was then 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 Committee will consider additional actions to be taken to reduce nutrient loadings in the
                 County, while avoiding any mandates on Warren County citizens.

                        The agricultural BMPs, which were determined during the assessment to be potentially
                 available for implementation under a cost-share scenario in Warren County, are included in the
                 Northern Shenandoah Assessment in Appendix L Implementation of these practices would place
                 Warren County over the 40% reduction goal in both nitrogen and phosphorus loadings by year 2000.

                 Frederick Coun1y Nutrient Reduction Status Report

                        The Frederick County Board of Supervisors went on record as not supporting the language of
                 the Regional Framework. A meeting was then held between the local and state co-coordinators of
                 the Northern Shenandoah assessment and the Frederick County Board. At that meeting, the Board
                 members expressed their concern that there had been insufficient involvement with the County's
                 farming community. The Board also expressed concern over the effect that the nutrient cap would
                 have on future growth and development in the County.

                        The Board agreed that the state technical assistance team could put together a "strawman" 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. The list of agricultural BMPs that could
                 potentially be available for implementation in the County under a cost-share scenario is included in
                 the Northern Shenandoah Assessment in Appendix 1.




                                                                   39








               Ci1y of Winchester and the Frederick-Wincheger Service Authorily

                     The City of Winchester and the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) participated
               in the.Slienandoah-.Potomae Strategy assessment process. Concurrently, the FWSA voluntarily
               participated in a BNR feasibility study sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and
               conducted by VPI&-.SU. The VPI&SU investigator evaluated 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 efforts, the FWSA Board held a meeting on September 16, 1996
               to hear presentation,; by the state technical 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 ftmding 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 funding and BNR upgrade through the Potomac Strategy.

               Nutrient Loadings Under Proposed Northern Shenandoah Regional Assessment

                     Table 6-8 includes a summary of the proposed increases in BMP implementation by BMP
               practice with the associated added nitrogen and phosphorus reductions. The result of these
               recommended actioias 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 nutrient reductions that would be achieved for each local
               jurisdiction under flae proposed strategy are detailed in Tables 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11.

               Costs for the Proposed Northern Shenandoah Assessment

                     The total cost for proposed nonpoint source nutrient reduction practices identified through the
               Northern Shenandoah Assessment is $2,436,000, which includes $80,000 for two additional staff
               at the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. Although two of the four counties (Clarke
               and Shenandoah) stated that they would help fund these positions, it is not yet known whether a full
               50% of the $80,000 would be provided through local ftinding. If the FWSA chooses to upgrade the
               Opequon facility for BNR and to request state cost-sharing, the cost of that upgrade could range
               between $570,000 and $2,850,000 (or possibly higher). This brings the total cost for implementation
               of identified practices in the region to between $3,086,000 and $5,366,000.

                                                                40







                                                    Table 6-8. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                                                Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                                                    Total Proposed Coverage              Reductions (    lbs/year)       Increased Ac Added Reductions Ach'd
                                   BMP Treatment                          unill        Coveral;          Percent         Nitrogen        Phosphorus      of Coverage          Nitrogen        Phosphorus
                      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           -----         99,264            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                 15
                      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%







                                                                                                                 41








                                                          Table 6.9 Point Source Nutrient Loads Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                                                     (in thousand of pounds per year)

                                                            1985 Nutrient Loads                1994 Loads & Percent Change                   Regional Strategy Loads & Percent Change
                    Facilijy              Location         Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen % Change Phosphorus % Change Nitrogen % Change Phosphorus % Change

                    Abrams Creek          Frederick            16            5            0           -100%          0           -100%          0         -100%            0           -100%

                    FW9A Onequon          Frederick            0             0            258         42%            34          -45%           107        -41%            23          -63%

                    Parkins Mill          Frederick            0             0            29           ---           4            ---           95          ---            12           ---

                    Winchester            Winchester           167           57           0           -100%          0           -100%          0         -100%            0           -100%

                    Aileen Inc.           Shenandoah           13            to           17          30%            9           -15%           0         -100%            0           -100%

                    Rocco Farm            Shenandoah           123           15           206         67%            26          67%            206        67%             26          67%

                    Strasburg             Shenandoah           35            12           26          -27%           3           -71%           47         32%             6           -48%
                    Woodstock             Shenandoah           22            7            48          115%           6           -16%           38         70%             5           -34%

                    Avtex Fibers          Warren               432           3            0           -100%          0           -100%          0         -100%            0           -100%

                    Front Royal           Warren               94            31           104         10%            13          -57%           191        103%            25          -21%

                         Northern Shenandoah Totals            902           140          688         -24%           95          -32%           684        -24%            96          -32%

                    Note: The nutrient loads for FWSA Opequon STP in 1994 and under the Regional Strategy are compared to those from Abrams Creek and Winchester STPs
                             in 1985. The Parkins Mill STP is a recent addition to the load totals and no comparison to 1985 is possible.















                                                                                                         42





                           A        4








                                Table 6-10. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                           Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy


                                                               1985 Nonpoint Loads                               Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrop-en       Phosphorus          Nitrop-en        % Change         Phosphorus       % Change
                                      Clarke County               388                 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%       1      18              -32%
                             Northern Shenandoah                  1,839               278              1,396            -24%       1      223             -20%

                                                               1985 Nonpoint Loads                              Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrogen        Phosphorus          Nitro2en         % Change         Phosphorus       % Change
                                      Clarke County               388                 60               163              -58%              35              -41%
                                  Frederick County                651                 102              408              -37%              76              -25%
                               Shenandoah County                  602                 91               214              -64%              37              -60%
                                     Warren County                198                 26               62               -69%       1      9               -63%
                             Northern Shenandoah                  1,839               278              847              -54%       1      157             -44%



                                          Table 6-11. Total Nutrient Loads for Northern Shenandoah Region
                                                            Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strateg y


                                                               1985 Controllable Loads                            Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrozen         Phosphorus         Nitroizen        % Change          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               249              -66%       1      31              -48%
                              Northern Shenandoah                 2,742               419              2,084            -24%       1      318             -24%

                                                               1985 Controllable Loads                           Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                                    (thousands of lbs)                               (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrogen         Phosphorua         Nitrop-en        % Change          Phosphorus       % Change
                                       Clarke County              388                 60               163              -58%              35              -41%
                                   Frederick County               834                 164              610              -27%              111             -32%
                                Shenandoah County                 796                 136              505              -37%              73              -46%
                                      Warren County               724                 60               253              -65%              34              -43%
                              Northern Shenandoah                 2,742               419              1,531            -44%              253             -40%







                                                                                             43








              3.     Northern Virg_inia Regional Assessmtnt

              Regional Description

                     The Northern 'Virginia (NoVa) region includes the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier,
              Loudoun, Prince Wiffiam and Stafford and the towns and cities within those borders. It encompasses
              about 32% of the land area of Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac basin, and includes several irnportant
              tributaries to the Potomac River. Approximately 1. 7 million people reside in the ( NoVA) Region,
              nearly one-third of the state's population. Based on 1994 data, the land cover is about 39% forested,
              31% farmland and pasture, and 30% urban/suburban land. This region contributed 61% (12,505,000
              lbs) of the total 19,85 controllable nitrogen load and 31% (658,000 lbs) of' the controllable
              phosphorus load in Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac basin. Loadings from point sources and
              nonpoint sources were contributed on a percentage basis as follows:



                         Table 6-12. NoVA Region Baseline Nutrient Loads by Source Category


                                                                              Nonpoint Source
                                                   Point Source
                                                                       Agricultural          Urban

                            Nitrogen Load                 66%                23%                11%

                          Phosphorus Load                 16%                60%                ' 24%



              Summary of Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Targets

                     This region contributed 61% (12,505,000 lbs) of the total 1985 controllable nitrogen load, and
              31% (658,000 lbs) of the controllable phosphorus load in Virginia!s Shenandoah-Potomac basin.
              Within the region. 66% of the nitrogen is contributed from point sources while 85% of the
              phosphor-us is contributed from nonpoint sources.

                     Under current programs, by the year 2000 the region is expected to experience a 430,000
              pound per year increase in nitrogen (3%) and achieve a 134,000 pound per year decrease in
              phosphorus (20%). A key reason for the increasing nitrogen load is the expected population increase
              in the region. 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.

                     For nitrogen, this leaves a 5,432,000 lb/yr gap in reaching the 40% reduction goal. For
              phosphorus, this leaves a 129,000 lb/yr gap in reaching the 40% nutrient reduction goal. Table 6-13
                                                1


















              provides regional loadings for 1985, 1994 and projected to the year 2000 under current programs.




                                                                44








                                  Table 6-13. Total Nutrient Loads for Northern Virginia Region
                                           Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Programs



                                                                Year 1994 Pro         to Date
                                                    1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                         (thousands of lbs)                       (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                    Nitrogen       Phosphorus      Nitro2en      % Change      Phosphorus     % Change
                              Arlington County        1,733             56            978            -44%           13           -76%
                                Fairfax County        5,703             136           6,511          14%            113          -17%
                              Fauquier County          981              133           896            _9%            122          -8%
                              Loudoun County          1,240             191           1,056          -15%           169          -12%
                        Prince William County         1,678             104           1,677          _0%            83           -20%
                               Stafford County         356              31            293            -18%           23           -27%
                         Blue Plains STP (VA)          814              7             1,142          40%            13           91%
                             Northern Virginia        12,505            658           12,552         0%             536          -19%


                                                                   Year 2000 P ojections
                                                    1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                         (thousands of lbs)                       (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                     Nitrogen      PhosPborus      Nitro2en      % Change      Phosphorus     % Chang
                              Arlington County        1,733             56            1,101          -36%           14           -76%
                                Fairfax County        5,703             136           6,867          20%            106          -22%
                              Fauquier County          981              133           854            -13%           116          -13%
                              Loudoun County          1,240             191           1,125          _9%            178          -7%
                        Prince William County         1,678             104           1,697          1%             76           -27%
                               Stafford County         356              31            353            _1%            16           -48%
                         Blue Plains STP (VA)          814              7             936            15%            19           173%
                             Northern Virginia        12,505            658           12,935         3%             524          -20%



                 Overview of the Northern Virginia Regional Assessment Process

                        The Commonwealth has attempted to establish a strong local/state government partnership to
                 carry out the tributary strategy development process. Using basic data provided by the state on the
                 sources and magnitude of nutrient loads, and efficiencies and costs of control options, it was planned
                 that local governments would set the direction for future nutrient reduction efforts by selecting the
                 options most appropriate for the NoVA Region.

                        However, the assessment process as originally envisioned for the NoVA Region was
                 complicated by several factors that prevented a comprehensive discussion of the options for closing
                 the nutrient reduction gap. As a result, the assessment which follows is essentially a state-developed
                 "strawman" that attempts to integrate updated information provided by the localities while
                 suggesting nutrient control actions that appear to be practical, cost-effective and equitable.
                 Therefore, it is important to note that given the limited time frame and complexity of this topic, local
                 elected officials have not yet fully reviewed and concurred with the "strawman" assessment. It is


                                                                           45








                 hoped that continued discussions will result in agreement on the practices set forth in this strawman
                 or on some other form of regional assessment.

                        One key factor that influenced the assessment process was the need for a better local
                 understanding of the tools used by the federal/interstate Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) to estimate
                 nutrient loads and predict water quality improvements resulting from load reductions. Knowledge
                 and acceptance of these monitoring and modeling programs was necessary before any meaningful
                 discussion on nutrient control options could take place. At the request of NoVA localities operating
                 large wastewater plants in the metro Washington area, three workshops were conducted by the EPA
                 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) in March-April 1996, where information was exchanged about
                 monitoring results, and model construction, capabilities, output, and validit, . This information
                                                                                                  Y
                 formed the basis of the CBP's 1991-92 reevaluation of the nutrient reduction goal. These technical
                 sessions were beneficial to the local representatives, but apparently the available information did not
                 fully answer questions about the quantifiable habitat and living resource benefits that the reduction
                 goal will achieve.. A fourth workshop is being planned for the fall of 1996 to discuss the policy
                 implications raised at the earlier meetings. Also, the CBP's 1997 Reevaluation of its Nutrient
                 Reduction Strategy program will provide additional opportunities to further document the benefits
                 resulting from nutrient reductionso

                        The end result of this process was the development of the Northern Virginia Regional
                 Strawman Assessment which is provided in Appendix J.

                 Summary of NoVA Region Assessment Recommendations (State Strawman)

                 I      Increase use and coverage of nonpoint source BMPs as shown in Table 6-14.

                 2)     Retrofit all wastewater treatment plants in the Region, with a design ca- acity of 0.5 million
                                                                                                  P
                        gallons per (lay (MGD) or greater, with year-round BNR, or an equivalent. technology. Capital
                        cost  $112.8 million (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.

                 3)     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 accepted sampling protocols and analytical
                        methods.


                 4)     Review and confirm cost figures for BNR 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.

                 5)     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. The

                                                                   46








                      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.

               6)     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 provided to address funding needs
                      identified for each plant; 2) plant retrofits proceed under defined criteria for pilot testing,
                      certain operational issues, and progress toward full implementation of nitrogen removal, as
                      laid out in the RPP.


               7)     The Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies (VAMWA) has produced an
                      official position paper on Virginia's nutrient reduction goals. It has received strong support
                      from the VAMWA membership at all levels (Boards, Commissions, Councils, Executives, and
                      staff). Therefore, the VAMWA position should be considered as a primary implementation
                      mechanism for point source nutrient reductions. VAMWA's position supports installation of
                      BNR technology at plants within the Shenandoah-Potomac basin conditioned on several
                      commitments by the Commonwealth, principally:

                      0        Grant ftiriding of at least 50% for construction of nutrient removal systems. It is
                               proposed that the General Assembly create a joint study committee to identify new
                               sources of funding for this cost-share program.
                      0        Implementation through agreement, not by permit. This is consistent with the
                               Commonwealth's voluntary, cooperative tributary strategy program approach.
                               Future "cap" controls based on equity and sound science.

               Nutrient Loadings Under the Proposed Northern Virginia Regional Assessment

                      Under this "strawman" assessment, the projected reductions for the NoVA Region are
               estimated at 32% for nitrogen and 25% for phosphorus. Both figures are short of the 40% reduction
               goal. Discussions with the NoVA local governments have been initiated to identify possible
               measures, even beyond the expanded BMP coverage and point source retrofits suggested by the
               "strawman," that could close this gap. Table 6-13 provides a summary of the proposed increases in
               BMP implementation, by BMP practice, and the associated nitrogen and phosphorus reductions.
               Nutrient reductions for each local jurisdiction under the proposed strawman assessment are fully
               detailed in Tables 6-14, 6-15, 6-16 and 6-17.

                      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

                                                                 47








                 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 "strawman" are accepted as
                 the Region's contribution to the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy, then additional cost effective
                 reductions may lie achieved in other regions via trading mechanisms, if such a system were
                 developed.

                 Cost of the Proposed Northern Virginia Strawman Assessment

                       The total cost of the proposed Northern Virginia strawman assessment is approximately
                 $114.3 million, with about $112.8 million for upgrading wastewater treatment plants and the
                 remaining for agricultural and urban BMPs.































                                                                   48







                                                      Table 6-14. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Northern Virginia Region
                                                                                 Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                                                     Total Proposed Coverage              Reductions (lbs/year)           Increased Ac. Added Reductions Ach'd
                                   BMP Treatment                          mita           Coveraec          Percent        Nitrogen        Phosphorus       of Coverage          Nitrogen        Phosphorus
                      Conservation Tillage                                acres             65,738          85.9%                     0                0                  0                0                  0
                      Farm Plans                                          acres            150,104          76.5%           69,368            18,450              13,840            6,752             1,724
                      Nutrient Management                                 acres             56,352          28.7%           66,017              5,930             32,120           38,409             3,528
                      Highly Erodible Land Retirement                     acres              8,420             2.3%         92,072            13,539               2,646           34,027             4,873
                      Grazing Land Protection                             acres             11,838             7.2%         37,726              2,588              5,163           .16,423            1,100
                      Stream Protection                                   acres              2,204             -----           3,426               249               754            1,176                  85
                      Cover Crops                                         acres                 931            -----           5,431               558               318            2,343                180
                      Grass Filter Strips                                 acres                 505            -----           5,442               669               467            5,013                616
                      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                         acres                 710            -----        15,434              2,191                699           15,232             2,163
                      Forest Harvesting                                   acres              4,678          100.0%          67,038              1,136                     0                0                  0
                      Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                   27           -----        40,602              7,927                     0                0                  0
                      Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres              6,396          100.0%          83,810            41,867                      0                0                  0
                      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                             acres              4,240             1.5%         10,165              1,110              1,156            2,772                303
                      Urban Nutrient Management                           acres              7,327          12.5%           11,117                 999             3,621            5,532                497
                      Septic Pumping                                    systems                 127            -----        29,427                     0                  0                0                  0
                      Shoreline Erosion Protection                     linear feet          11,475             -----        17,947            11,686                      0                0                  0
                                      Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                555,022          108,900                               127,678            15,068
                       Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                   (308,969)         (31,889)
                                          Adjusted Reduction:                                                              863,990          140,789
                           Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                 4,306,736          555,591
                                            Percent Reduction:                                                              20.06%            25.34%









                                                                                                                 49







                                                              Table 6.15 Point Source Nutrient Loads Northern Virginia Region
                                                                                    (in thousand of pounds per year)
                                                              1985 Nutrient Loads              1994 Loads & Percent Change                     Regional Strategy Loads & Percent Change
                    Facilijy               Location        Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen % Chang Phos2horua % Change Nitrogen 2Lo-QbAn-ge- Uhuonsp-horus % Change
                    Blue Plains (VA)       DC                 814             7          1,142        40%             13        91%            936        15%              19        173%
                    Arlington              Arlington          1,642           47          887         -46%            5         -90%           724        -56%             5         -89%
                    Lower Potomac          Fairfax            1,906           14         1,842        -16%            10        -41%           1,002      -54%             11        -30%
                    Little Hunting Ck      Fairfax            279             2            0          -100%           0         -100%          0          -100%            0         -100%
                    UOSA                   Fairfax            597             1          1,216        103%            3         266%           712        19%              5         494%
                    Alexandria             Alexandria         1,994           16        2,546         28%             6         -66%           921        -54%             7         -60%
                    Leesburg               Loudoun            65              2          136          108%            18        676%           97         48%              21        787%
                    Purcellville           Loudoun            14              5           19          33%             2         -48%           10         -31%             2         -57%
                    Dale City #1           Pr.William         91              1           97          6%              1         -27%           85         -7%              1         9%
                    Dale City #8           Pr.William         38              1           99          159%            <1        -62%           43         11%              <1        -53%
                    Mooney                 Pr.William         609             4          665          9%              4         -5%            320        -48%             5         35%
                    Quantico               Pr.William         83              1          84           1%              <1        -54%           34         -59%             <1        -50%
                    Aquia                  Stafford           65              2          39           -40%            1         -49%           122        87%              2         2%
                            Northern Virginia Tota)s          8,198        103         8,771          7%              63        -39%        5,004         -39%             79        -23%
                    Note: The nutrient loads for Lower Potomac STP in 1994 and under the Regional Strategy are compared to those from Lower Potomac and Little Hunting Creek
                           STPs in 1985.













                                                                                                      50








                          Table 6-16. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for Northern Virginia Region
                                              Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                1985 Nonpoint Loads                       Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                      (thousands of lbs)                     (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitrop-en      Phosphorus      Nitroeen      % Change       Phosphorus    % Change
                        Arlington County          92               9              91            -1%            9             -2%
                           Fairfax County         926              103            907           -2%            95            -8%
                         Fauquier County          981              133            896           -9%            122           -8%
                         Loudoun County           1,161            184            901           -22%           148           -19%
                   Prince William County          857              98             732           -15%           78            -20%
                          Stafford County         291              29             254           -13%           22            -25%
                    Blue Plains ST? (VA)              0            0              0             0%             0             0%
                        Northern Virginia        4,307             556            3,781         -12%           474           -15%


                                                1985 Nonpoint Loads                       Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                      (thousands of lbs)                     (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitrop-en      Phosphorus      Nitrogen      % Change       Phosphorus    % Change
                        Arlington County          92               9              87            -6%            8             -10%
                           Fairfax County         926              103            855           -8%            82            -20%
                         Fauquier County          981              133            821           -16%           112           -16%
                         Loudoun County           1,161            184            783           -33%           132           -i 1%
                   Prince William County          857              98             678           -21%           67            -31%
                          Stafford County         291              29             220           -24%           13            -55%
                    Blue Plains STP (VA)              0            0              0             0%             0             0%
                        Northern Virginia         4,307            556            3,443         -20%           415           -25%





























                                                                          51








                                  Table 6-17. Total Nutrient Loads for Northern Virginia Region
                                              Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                               1985 Controllable Loads                 Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                   (thousands of lbs)                    (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitroeen     Phosphorus      Nitrogen    % Change       Phosphorus   % Change
                          Arlington County      1,733            56           978           -44%          13           -76%
                            Fairfax County      5,703            136          6,511         14%           .113         -17%
                          Fauquier County        981             133          896           -9%           .122         -8%
                          Loudoun County        1,240            191          1,056         -15%          .169         -12%
                    Prince William County       1,678            104          1,677         -0%           83           -20%
                           Stafford County       356             31           293           -18%          23           -27%
                     Blue Plains STP (VA)        814             7            1,142         40%           13           91%
                          Northern Virginia     12,505           658          12,552        0%            :536         -19%


                                               1985 Controllable Loads                Proposed Regional Strategy
                                                   (thousands of lbs)                    (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                               Nitrogen     Phosl2hQrus     Nitrogen     % Change      Phosphorus   % Change
                          Arlington County      1,733            56           811           -53%          13           -76%
                            Fairfax County      5,703            136          3,489         -39%          105          -23%
                          Fauquier County        981             133          821           -16%          112          -16%
                          Loudoun County        1,240            191          889           -28%          155          -19%
                    Prince William County       1,678            104          1,159         -31%          74           -29%
                           Stafford County       356             31           342           4%            15           -51%
                     Blue Plains STP (VA)        814             7            936           15%           19           173%
                          Northern Virginia     12,505           658          8,447         -32%          494          -25%




























                                                                        52








                  4.      Lower Potomac Regional Assessment

                  Regional Description

                          The Lower Potomac region encompasses approximately 7% of the land area in Virginia's
                  Shenandoah-Potomac basin and includes portions of King George, Westmoreland, and
                  Northumberland Counties and the Town of Colonial Beach. It includes several significant tributaries
                  to the Potomac River, including Upper Machodoc Creek, Mattox Creek, Nomini Creek, Lower
                  Machodoc Creek, Yeocomico River, Coan River and Little Wicomico River. Approximately 54%
                  of the area of tb@is region is forested, and 18% is farmland and pasture. Two significant point sources
                  of nutrients are located in this region, one in King George County and the other in the Town of
                  Colonial Beach.


                  Summary of Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Targets

                          The Lower Potomac region contributed 5% (1.098 million lbs) of the total 1985 controllable
                  nitrogen load and 5% (0.115 million lbs) of the controllable phosphorus load in Virginia's
                  Shenandoah-Potomac basin. In 1985, nonpoint sources contributed 97% of the region's nitrogen
                  load and 3% of the region's phosphorus load. Table 6-18 provides regional loadings for 1985, 1994
                  and projected to the year 2000 under current programs.



                                      Table 6-18. Total Nutrient Loads for Lower Potomac Region
                                              Based on Implementation of Current & Planned State Programs



                                                               Year 1994 Pro ess to ate

                                                    1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                        (thousands of lbs)                        (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                    Nitroeen       Phosphorus      Nitroaen      % Change       Phosphorus      % Change
                          King George County           249              26            214           -14%             16           -37%
                     Northumberland County             304              30            213           -30%             15           -50%
                        Westmoreland County            545              60            409           -25%             37           -39%
                              Lower Potomac           1,098             115           837           -24%             68           -41%


                                                                  Year 2000 P    ojections

                                                    1985 Controllable Loads                    Year 2000 Estimated Values
                                                        (thousands of lbs)                        (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                    Nitroizen      Phosphorus      Nitrogen       % Change      Phosphorus      % Change
                          King George County           249              26            206           -17%             12           -53%
                     Northumberland County             304              30            192           -37%             9            -69%
                        Westmoreland County            545              60            367           -33%             29           -51%
                              Lower Potomac           1,098             115           765           -30%             50           -56%





                                                                             53









                         Under current programs, by the year 2000 the region is expected to achieve a 0.333 million
                   pound reduction in annual nitrogen loads (30% regional reduction) and a 65,000 pound reduction
                   in annual phosphorus loads (56% reduction). For nitrogen, this leaves a 0. 106 million pound gap
                   in reaching the 40% goal. The region is projected to surpass the 40% phosphorus reduction goal by
                   the year 2000.

                   Overview of the! Lower Potomac Regional Assessment Process

                         Each of ffie 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. These management measures provided a
                   strong framework for the regional assessment that was conducted and for continued efforts to reduce
                   nutrient loadings.

                         A series ofineetings took place between March and September 1996 among local government
                   elected officials and staff, PDC 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 to reach the 40%
                   nutrient reduction goal.

                         Steps taken in the Lower Potomac region were to review loading estimates and suggest
                   refinements to state agency staff. A strawman regional assessment was prepared for review and
                   discussion among the regional participants. The end result of the assessment process was the
                   development of the Lower Potomac Regional Assessment which is included in Appendix K.

                   Summary of Lower Potomac Region Assessment Recommendations

                         The nutrient reduction scenario crafted by the Lower Potomac regional participants relies on
                   increased activity in a number of different areas; however, nutrient reductions resulting from
                   increased use of agricultural BMPs are paramount. This is appropriate sincemore than ninety-five
                   percent of the 19:95 controllable nutrient loads within the Lower Potomac region can be traced back
                   to nonpoint sources. Of that figure, 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 agricultural activities other than crop production.

                         In this scenario, all reductions beyond those projected under current ftinding levels of state and
                   federal programs will be achieved through expansion of nonpoint source BMPs. Expansion of these
                   practices results in a 39.4% decrease in the annual controllable nitrogen load and a 63.2% decrease
                   in the annual controllable phosphorus load by the year 2000 from point and nonpoint sources
                   combined. Therefore, any reductions that may be attributable to potential changes at the wastewater
                   treatment plants (WWTPs), in this region, Colonial Beach and Dahlgren plants, could be used to
                   augment and/or offset those nonpoint source reduction measures shown under the regional scenario.
                   It is possible that with further upgrades or other modifications at the WVVTPs, the region could meet

                                                                     54








               or exceed 40%. In any case, future population growth and the associated increased loads from the
               wastewater treatment plants will require continual upgrades to maintain the cap.

                      Under the interstate Chesapeake Bay Program, Virginia has been involved in a federally
               funded technical support study on the use of biological nutrient removal (BNR) at wastewater
               treatment plants in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin. Regional participants recommended that the two
               municipal wastewater treatment plants, Colonial Beach and Dahlgren, take part in the study.
               Colonial Beach has formally requested inclusion in the study.

                      The regional participants agreed that an increase is feasible in the number of acres employing
               conservation versus conventional tillage methods from the 1994 figure of 51% (of all potential
               treatment coverage that could occur for the BMP) to a figure of 70.6% in the year 2000. They also
               agreed 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 70.6% 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 long term, significant shifts in type of crop production could also 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.

                      The regional participants agreed that an increase in the number of acres employing nutrient
               management measures from a 1994 figure 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 BMPs 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 Virgimia
               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 recommended that a grant or other
               fiinding source be found to refine the Voluntary BMP Survey to focus on this region. Participants

                                                                  55








                also agreed there was a need to develop a database, in a forniat which would be useful to the public,
                of information obtained from water quality monitoring efforts.

                       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 conservation fanning 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 acheive (among other objectives) more water quality protection practices.

                       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
                Fisheries' 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 bordering 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.

                       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 participants expressed
                concern that the recent decision by the State Cost Share Board to eliminate the small grain cover
                crop practices from the BMP cost-share program, beginning in 1998, may reduce the practice below

                                                                    56








             existing levels of usage. Participants agreed that cost-share funding for small grain cover crop
             practices should be retained.

                    Additional recommendations are described in the complete Lower Potomac regional
             assessment, provided in Appendix K.

             Nutrient Reductions Under the Proposed Lower Potomac Regional Assessment

                    Under this assessment, the load reductions in the Lower Potomac region are projected to be
             39% for nitrogen and 63% for phosphorus. Table 6-19 provides a summary of the proposed
             increases in BMP implementation for each type of practice and the associated nitrogen and
             phosphorus reductions. The nutrient reductions for each local jurisdiction under the proposed
             assessment are detailed in Tables 6-20, 6-21 and 6-22.

             Cost of the Proposed Lower Potomac Regional Assessment

                    The estimated cost for implementation of the proposed Lower Potomac regional assessment
             is about $500,000.
































                                                             57







                                                         Table 6-19. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reductions for Lower Potomac Region
                                                                                  Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy

                                                                                     Total Proposed Coverage              Reductions (lbs/year)             Increased Ac        Added Reductions Ach'd
                                  BMP Treatment                           mila           Coverage          Percen         Nitrogen         Phosphorus        of Coverage          Nitrogen         Ph=horus
                      Conservation Tillage                                acres             38,765          70.6%           135,492            12,143                8,457           47,237              4,245
                      rarn-i Plans                                        acres             52,866          80.7%           47,548              8@320                       0       (10,065)            (1,771)
                      Nutrient Management                                 acres             35,734          54.5%           102,336             4,684               12,168           31,542              1,501
                      Highly Erodible Land Retirement                     acres               3,515            4.8%         44,045              5,505                1,150            16,710             2,403
                      Grazing Land Protection                             acres                 416            5.6%           1,438                  97                     0                 0                 0
                      Stream Protection                                   acres                      0         -----                  0                  0                  0                 0                 0
                      Cover Crops                                         acres               4,372            -----        36,725              2,842                       0                 0                 0
                      Grass Filter Strips                                 acres                 770            -----          8,698             1,071                  330             3,729               459
                      Woodland Buffer Filter Area                         acres                 240            -----          5,484                 780                240             5,484               780
                      Forest Harvesting                                   acres               1,492         100.0%          18,811                  227                     0                 0                 0
                      Animal Waste Control Facilities                   systems                      5         -----          8,250             1,615                       0                 0                 0
                      Erosion & Sediment Control                          acres                 167         100.0%            2,253             1,127                       0                 0                 0
                      Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                             acres                 115            0.9%              284                 31                     0                 0                 0
                      Urban Nutrient Management                           acres                 139         10.0%                215                 19                     0                 0                 0
                      Septic Pumping                                    systems                   40           -----          9,497                      0                  0                 0                 0
                      Shoreline Erosion Protection                    linear feet           33,132             -----        53,102             34,605                       0                 0                 0
                                     Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                 474,177             73,066                                94,637             7,618
                      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%









                                                                                                                 58







                                                       Table 6.20 Point Source Nutrient Loads Lower Potomac Region
                                                                           (in thousand of pounds per year)

                                                     1985 Nutrient Loads            1994 Loads & Percent Change              Regional Strategy Loads & Percent Change
                 Facilijy          Location         Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen %Change Phosphorus %Change Nitrogen %Change Phosphorus %Change
                 Baybeny           King George          I           <1          0        -100%          0        -100%          0       -100%         0          -100%
                 Dahigren          King George          5           2           11       100%           1        -52%          28       400%          2          -22%

                 Colonial Beach    Westmoreland        23           8           26        15%           6        -21%          26        15%          6          -21%

                            Lower Potomac Totals       28           10          38        32%           7        -27%          55        92%          8          -21%

                 Note: The nutrient loads for Dahlgren STP in 1994 and under the Regional Strategy are compared to those from Dahlgren and Bayberry STPs in 1985.




























                                                                                           59








                                      Table 6-21. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads for Lower Potomac Region
                                                            Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strate-



                                                                 1985 Nonpoint Loads                              Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                                (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitrogen          Phosphorus        Nitro2en         % Cham@e           Phosphorus       % Chan2e
                             King George County                  244                 24                203              -17%                15             -36%
                         Northumberland County                   304                 30                213              -30%                15             -50%
                           Westmoreland County                   522                 52                383              -27%                30             -41%
                                    Lower Potomac                1,070               106               799              -25%                61             -43%


                                                                 1985 Nonpoint Loads                              Proposed Regional Stratec,
                                                                                                                                 ZD              Zy
                                                                   (thousands of lbs)                                (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                               Nitro2en          Phosphorus        Nitro2en         % Chan2e           Phosphorus       % Change
                             King George County                  244                 24                156              -36%                8              -65%
                         Northumberland County                   304                 30                159              -48%                7              -78%
                           Westmoreland County                   522                 52                297              -43%                20             -62%
                                    Lower Potomac                1,070               106               611              -43%                35             -67%





                                               Table 6-22. Total Nutrient Loads for Lower Potomac Region
                                                            Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategy



                                                                 1985 Controllable Loads                            Year 1994 Reported Values
                                                                      (thousands of lbs)                                (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                                 Nitroizen        Phosphorus           Nitroaen         % Chan2e         Phosphorus        % Change
                               Southern Shenandoah                 249                   26              214              -14%                 16             -37%
                               Northern Shenandoah                 304                   30              213              -30%                 15             -50%
                                    Northern Virginia              545                   60              409              -25%                 37             -39%
                                  VA Potomac Basin                 1,098                 115             837              -24%                 68             41%


                                                                 1985 Controllable Loads                            Proposed Regional Strateg
                                                                                                                                                    gy
                                                                      (thousands of lbs)                                (loads in thousands of lbs)
                                                                 Nitroeen         Phosphorus           Nitrop-en        % Change         Phosphorus        % Change
                               Southern Shenandoah                 249                   26              184              -26%                 10             -61%
                               Northern Shenandoah                 304                   30              159              -48%                 7              -78%
                                    Northern Virginia              545                   60              323              -41%                 26             -57%
                                  VA Potomac Basin                 1,098                 115             666              -39%                 42             -63%









                                                                                              60








                     -Summaa of Regional Assessment Nutrient Reductions


                     If the full suite of nutrient reduction practices identified in the four regional assessments are
               implemented, Virginia's Shenandoah and Potomac River basins will have achieved a 36% reduction
               in the 1985 controllable annual loadings of both nitrogen and phosphorus (Table 6-23). This will
               leave Virginia short of the 40% reduction goal by an annual loading of 0.730 million pounds of
               nitrogen and 75,000 pounds of phosphorus. Table 6-23 presents these loading and reduction figures
               for each Potomac basin region and the basin as a whole.



                       Table 6-23. Total Nutrient Loads for Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Basin
                                         Based on Implementation of Proposed Regional Strategies
                                                     (thousands of pounds per year)

                                                               Nitrogen                     Phosphorus
                                                     Loadin2        % Chanize        Loadiniz       % Change

                    Southern Shenandoah               2,343            -43%            567            -40%

                    Northern Shenandoah                1,531           -44%            253            -40%
                    Northern Virginia                 8,447            -32%            494            -25%

                    Lower Potomac                      666             -39%             42            -63%

                    Virginia's Potomac Basin          12,987           -36%           1,357           -36%



                     As shown in the table above, the sum of nutrient reductions outlined in the Shenandoah and
               Potomac basins regional assessments achieves a 36% loading reduction for each nutrient, but does
               not reach the 40% reduction goal for the basin. As a result, additional options are presented for
               closing the remaining 4% nutrient gaps, for both nitrogen and phosphorus, below in Section B.

















                                                                  61








                   B.      Optionsfor Closing the Remaining Nutrient Gap

                   Basin-Wide Upgrades to Biological Nutrient Removal

                           Throughout the Strategy process, the Commonwealth has worked with citizens and
                   stakeholders to identify all practical, equitable and cost-effective options for meeting the full 40%
                   nutrient reduction. goal.         One clear way to sufficiently reduce point-source nutrients into the
                   Potomac River would be for all "significant"treatment plants (discharge at least 500,000 gallons per
                   day) in the basin to upgrade their facilities to BNR technology and operate it throughout the year.

                           A review of the Shenandoah-Potomac regional assessments indicates that not all of the point
                   source discharges were slated for upgrading with BNR or technologies achieving similar nutrient
                   reductions. Therefore, the remaining nutrient gap could be closed if the discharges listed in Table
                   6-24, that were not identified through the assessment process for upgrading with BNR, also upgrade
                   to BNR or take alternative steps resulting in an equivalent reduction in nutrients.


                                  Table 6-24. Point Source Nutrient Loadings Under Basin-Wide BNR
                                                    Based on Implementation of Proposed Basin Strategy
                                                      (nutrient loads in thousands of pounds per year)

                      Re2ion                 Facilijy                      Nitrop-en       Phosphorus                  Capital Cost*
                      S.Shenandoah           Fisherville STP                   20.6                 5.2              $0.5 - $6.565 M

                      S.Shenandoah           North River STP                  147.0               37.0          53.614 - $14.289 M
                                                                                                                                                     4
                      S.Shenandoah           Middle River STP                  88.2               22.2                 $0 - $3.312 M

                      S.Shenandoah           Stuarts Draft STP                 16.2                 4.1                $0 - $1.883 M
                      S.Shenandoah           Waynesboro STP                    54.4               13.7             $9.0 - $20.338 M
                      N.Shenandoah           Front Royal STP                   71.4               14.7                       $9.678 M
                      N.Shenandoah           Parkins Mill STP                  35.7                 7.4                      $2.365 M

                      N.Shenandoah           Rocco Farm Foods                  29.1                 3.5                      $2.022 M
                      N.Shenandoah           Strasburg STP                     17.4                 3.6                      $1.586 M
                      N.Shenandoah           Woodstock STP                     14.3                 2.9                      $1.444 M

                      Lower Potomac          Colonial Beach STP                16.0                 3.4                      $2.230 M
                      Lower Potomac          Dahlgren STP                      10.7                 2.3                      $1.154 M
                                                              Totals:         521.0               120.0         S33.593 - 66.866 M

                      *A range of capital costs is shown in some cases due to a lower estimate available from BNR Retrofit Study being
                      conducted by Dr. Clifford Randall of VPI&SU. in addition, some facilities are currently acheiving nitrogen loads
                      equal to, or better than, BNR treatment levels and may not be candidates for retrofit if diis performance can be
                      maintained.



                                                                             62








                     This option for meeting the 40% nutrient goal would substantially increase the cost of the
               Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy beyond the sum of the practices identified through the four regional
               assessment processes. However, this option would improve the current balance of equity in the
               Strategy with regard to the level of implementation among regions, and between nonpoint-source
               and point source nutrient controls.

               Additional Nonpoint-Source Reductions

                     In the nonpoint source arena, there are a wider variety of options for achieving additional
               nutrient reductions in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin. It is expected that the "demonstration effect"
               of Virginia's agricultural BMP cost-share program will continue under a scenario of increased
               availability of cost-share ftmds. This demonstration effect was identified through a survey
               conducted by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation which showed that a much
               greater number of Virginia farmers implement some form of BMP, as compared to the the number
               who receive cost-share ftmding for BMP practices (estimated ratio of 2: 1, respectively). These data
               appear to indicate that farmers see the operational and economic benefits of these practices, as
               demonstrated by their neighbors who implement the practice through the cost-share program, and
               decide to implement the practice themselves even if they don't participate in the cost-share program.

                     The ratio of non-cost-share BMPs to cost-share BMPs would likely decrease under a vastly
               upgraded cost-share system. However, the demonstration effect would still occur and would lead
               to the implementation of agricultural BMPs outside of the cost-share program.

               Potential Nutrient Reductions Under Virginia's A2ricultural Stewardshi Act
                                                                                           12

                     Virginia's Agricultural Stewardship Act (ASA - Virginia Code, Section 10. 1-559. 1.) is the
               product of the joint efforts of the agricultural community, environmental groups, state agencies, and
               the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. These groups are currently
               working with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to flesh out the ASA
               program, which is slated to be implemented on April 1, 1997.

                     The purpose of the ASA is to alert agricultural producers, who are not subject to a permit from
               the State Water Control Board, to aspects of their operations that are causing, or will cause, water
               pollution. Investigations under the ASA are initiated through complaints to the Commissioner of
               Agriculture and Consumer Services. Upon receipt of a complaint, either the Commissioner or the
               local soil and water conservation district will investigate to determine whether the activity in
               question is causing or will cause sediment, nutrient or toxin pollution in the water.

                     Upon a determination that the agricultural activity is causing or will cause water pollution, the
               producer will be asked to develop a plan to correct the problem and then to implement the plan over
               a period of time. These plans are to contain BMPs or other measures that will eliminate the
               pollution. If the producer does not develop a plan, or if the producer develops a plan, but fails to
               implement it, then enforcement action can be taken against the producer.


                                                                 63








                       As with any new program, there are no means of predicting the size of the contribution that
                 the ASA may make to reducing nutrient loadings. From the experience of the other states with
                 similar programs, approximately 200 to 300 complaints per year can be expected for the entire state.
                 These other states have found that the complaints usually involve erosion problems and animal waste
                 practices, so the ASA will potentially play a role in reducing nutrient loadings. The ASA requires
                 that the Commissioner prepare an annual report, summarizing actions taken under the ASA, which
                 may provide a basis for estimating the nutrient reduction impacts in the future.

                 Urban and Subur )an Nonpoint-Source Nutrient Reductions

                       Throughout the Strategy process, many participants expressed the view-point that major
                 nutrient loading to the Potomac River occurs as a result of urban runoff and, in particular, runoff
                 from fertilized lawns in residential areas. These participants stated that this nutrient source must be
                 addressed effectively before nutrient loads in the basin can be truly minimized.

                       The problem of managing nonpoint-source runoff from developing lands and urban landscapes
                 is addressed in Virginia through a number of programs, including Erosion and Sediment Control,
                 Storrmvater Management, the Chespeake Bay Preservation Act, and related technical assistance. The
                 problem of managing nutrient-laden nonpoint source runoff from fertilized lawns in residential areas
                 is addressed through voluntary technical assistance programs of the Virginia Department of
                 Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service.,

                       These programs have had an effect on reducing nutrient loads in the Shenandoah-Potomac
                 basin. However, in order to achieve equity with the substantial efforts that will be undertaken by
                 Virginia's farmers in the basin, it is recommended that an evaluation be conducted, in cooperation
                 with local governments in the basin, to look at the variety of nutrient-reduction techniques or
                 programs that may, be available, particularly @Arith respect to managing residential nutrient loadings.
                 This evaluation could be initiated through a study commission or other type of ad hoe body.

                 Shenandoah-Potomac Basin Loadings: Assessments Plus Closing the Gal)

                       This section identifies possible point and nonpoint source options to close the remaining
                 nutrient gap, beyond the reductions achieved through the four Shenandoah-Potomac regional
                 assessments, and reach the 40% reduction target. Implementation of the nutrient reduction actions
                 identified in the four assessments, plus the reductions resulting from the upgrades to the treatment
                 facilities identified in Table 6-24, will achieve a 40% reduction in both nitrogen and phosphorus.

                       Table 6-25 presents the nonpoint source nutrient reduction practices identified for the
                 Shenandoah-Potomac basin. This list contains no additional practices beyond the sum of the four
                 regional assessments until such time as any additional nutrient reductions achieved through the
                 Agricultural Stewardship Act or other programs can be quantified.

                       'Fable 6-26 presents the figures for full implementation of all identified point source and
                 nonpoint source nutrient-reduction practices for the Shenandoah aand Potomac River basins.

                                                                   64







                                                Table 6-25. Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduction for Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Basin
                                                                                       Based on Implementation of Proposed Basin Strategy


                                                                                        Total Proposed Coverage                 Reductions (lbs/year)             Increased Ac        Added Reductions Ach'd
                                     BMP Treatment                           MAa             Coverage          Percent         Nitrogen          Phosphorus        of Coverage           Nitrogen        Phosphorus
                       Conservation Tillage                                  acres            195,933           73.5%           172,449              15,805               14,171           72,951              6,630
                       Fan-n Plans                                           acres            423,276           66.8%           249,764              69,337              52,399            14,979              5,399
                       Nutrient Management                                   acres            429,187           59.9%          1,207,809           168,799             243,950            570,293             81,131
                       Highly Erodible Land Retirement                       acres             27,445              2.2%         282,530              45,165               7,786            98,766             13,967
                       Grazing Land Protection                               acres             65,964           10.8%           190,187              12,821              48,196           139,878              9,213
                       Stream Protection                                     acres               3,998             -----             5,934                434             1,679             2,533                181
                       Stream Fencing                                     linear feet         387,641              -----          12,301               3,648            112,200             3,597              1,056
                       Stream Protection                                  linear feet          32,000              -----          11,235-              4,932              8,400             2,803              1,283
                       Cover Crops                                           acres             45,699              -----        205,411              17,934                   818           5,862                442
                       Grass Filter Strips                                   acres               2,013             -----          20,932               2,571              1,347            13,950              1,692
                       Woodland Buffer Filter Area                           acres               1,586             -----          32,981               4,641              1,539            32,205              4,512
                       Forest Harvesting                                     acres             18,607           100.0%          242,543                5,841                      0                0                   0
                       Animal Waste Control Facilities                     systems               1,141                          593,582            129,264                     77          49,738             11,092
                       Loafing Lot Management                              systems                    59           -----            9,348              2,058                      6             911              210
                       Erosion & Sediment Control                            acres               8,059         100.0%           100,984              51,146                       0                0                   0
                       Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits                               acres               4,356             1.5%           10,449               1,141              1,156             2,772                303
                       Urban Nutrient Management                             acres               8,553          12.3%             12,605               1,141              3,754             5,698                512
                       Septic Pumping                                      systems                  167            -----          38,923                      0                   0                0                   0
                       Shoreline Erosion Protection                       linear feet          44,607              -----          71,049             46,291                       0                0                   0
                                        Total Pounds Reduced:                                                                 3,470,018            580,968                             1,016,936            137,612
                         Adjustment for Land Use Changes:                                                                      (449,858)           (33,345)
                             Adjustment for Poultry Growth:                                                                       47,630             10,681
                                            Adjusted Reduction:                                                               3,872,245            603,631
                             Nonpoint Controllable Amount:                                                                   10,343,159          1,556,300
                                             Percent Reduction:                                                                   37.44%             38.79%






                                                                                                                     65







                                   Table 6-26. Total Nutrient Loads for Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Basin by Source Catagory
                                                                      Based on implementation of Proposed Basin Strategy
                                                                                   (thousand pounds per year)


                                                  Point Source                                  Nonpoint Source                                          Total

                                              n.,
                                  Nitrop-en /0 Chanee Phosphoms % Change Nitrogen                Chanee Phosnhorus % Chanae Nitrogen % Change               Phosphorus % Change
             S.Shenandoah           531          -44%         199        -39%        1,570       -50%          346        -44%        2,101        -49%         545         -42%
             N.Shenandoah           273          -70%          55        -61%         847        -54%          157        -44%        1,120        -59%         212         -49%
             N.Virginia             5,004        -39%          79        -23%        3,443       -20%          415        -25%        8,447        -32%         494         -25%
             Lower Potomac           28          -2%          6          -39%        611         -43%          35         -67%         639         -42%         41          -65%
             VA Potomac             5,837        -42%         338        -41%        6,471       -37%          953        -39%        12,308       -40%        1,291        -40%



















                                                                                                66









              C      Implementing Virginia's Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins Tributary Strategy

              Implementing Increased Agricultural Cost-Share Program

                     The principal program enhancement recommended in the regional assessments to achieve the
              Potomac River 40% nutrient-reduction goal is a substantial increase in the level of cost-share funds
              available to farmers in the Shenandoah-Potomac basin. The implementation of increased cost-share
              funding can occur through the mechanism that currently exists at the Department of Conservation
              and Recreation and the soil and water conservation districts in the basin. Full implementation may
              require additional staff at DCR who are targeted to this program or additional staff at the local level,
              as preferred by Shenandoah County and the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District. In
              each of the districts, staff will be needed to administer these new funds, and these staff needs are
              addressed in each of the regional assessments.

              Implementing Point Source Upgrades


              Point Source Hierarchv for Nutrient Reduction in the Potomac Basin


                     Background and Description. Virginia's Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy is based on the
              Commonwealth's commitment to work in partnership with citizens, farmers, businesses, wastewater
              treatment plant owners and local governments in the basin to achieve voluntary nutrient reductions.

                     Although many citizens voiced their support for a non-regulatory approach to nutrient
              reduction, the majority of these citizens stated that a purely voluntary program will likely not reach
              the full 40% nutrient reduction goal for the Potomac River. These citizens believe that the voluntary
              approach should be enhanced so that parties who voluntarily participate in nutrient reductions can
              be assured that their neighbors and competitors in the basin are also doing their fair share. In
              particular, as local governments and wastewater treatment plant owners spend money on nutrient
              reductions, they need to be able to tell their constituents and rate payers that others in the basin are
              also doing their part to achieve the goal.

                     The proposed "Point Source Hierarchy" offers three levels of state/local partnership that
              provide an incentive for participation in the program. It is designed to promote the voluntary,
              cooperative approach for nutrient reduction and to allow substantial local latitude in achieving
              nutrient reduction.     Level I of the hierarchy, the voluntary, cooperative approach, is the
              Commonwealth's preferred method.










                                                                 67









                                                      Point Source Hierarchy


                    LE17EL             APPROACH                                 DESCRIPTION

                                                             Enlist treatment plant owners in a voluntary,
                                         Voluntary           cooperative nutrient reduction program including
                                        Cooperative          an owner-generatedplan for selecting and
                                                             operating a nutrient reduction systemfor their
                                                             plant.

                                                             Direct participation through a special condition in
                                                             the discharge permit. This special condition would
                                          Directed           callfor an owner-generatedplanfor selecting and
                                        Cooperative          operating a nutrient reduction systemfor their
                                                             plant. The special condition would not specify
                                                             nutrient limits in the discharge permit.

                       III               Regulatory          Set nutrient limits in the discharge permit using as
                                                             muchflexibility as regulatory process allows.



                      Proposed Implementation Steps. A letter from the Secretary of Natural Resources will be
                sent to the chief elected governing official in each locality (copy to chief executive), or to the chief
                official of the private business, outlining the importance of local initiative in the Commonwealth's
                Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy and offering state technical assistance. The letter would convey our
                expectations for local involvement, including participation in the Point Source Partnership
                Hierarchy.

                      Dischargers would be invited to select their level of participation in the Strategy. The letter
                would state that Virginia prefers to work at the Level I approach with local governments and
                businesses. However, the choice of approach remains a local decision and the Commonwealth will
                work with the discharger through the approach selected. In the case of local governments, the local
                decision should beendorsed by, and communicated from, the local governing body to ensure a clear,
                public understanding of the locality's commitment to participate in the Strategy.

                        Dischargers that request Levels Il or III in the hierarchy would be asking the Commonwealth
                to set forth a special condition in their discharge permit that requires development of a plan for
                nutrient reductionOr to set specific nutrient effluent limits.

                      No response to the invitation places the discharger into Level II by default. During
                implementation of the Strategy, if participation at Level I or 11 is determined to not be succeeding,
                the discharger would be moved down to a lower level in the hierarchy. Criteria will need to be
                established, in consultation with stakeholders, describing an acceptable level of cooperation and
                compliance with appropriate timelines by which these determinations would be made.


                                                                   68









                VIL MEETING THE COSTS OF NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS


                Review of Costs


                        Implementing the Shenandoah-Potomac Tributary Strategy will result in five categories of
                costs, that arise in both the public and private sectors:

                        ï¿½  Capital costs for controls such as wastewater plant upgrades or conservation tillage
                           equipment.
                        ï¿½  Annual operation and maintenance outlays for equipment, labor and materials necessary
                           to limit discharge. These costs might be for the use of capital equipment or annually
                           recurring expenses such as soil and manure testing.
                        ï¿½  Effects on profits from practices necessary to limit discharge. For example, there may
                           be a reduction (or increase) in crop yields due to a nutrient control practice.
                        ï¿½  Administrative and legal costs for dischargers to comply with a regulation or incentive
                           program. For example, a farm land owner may have to demonstrate that implementation
                           of a control practice on his land warrants cost-share funding.
                        ï¿½  Public agency costs for education and technical assistance, to administer financial
                           incentives and to develop and enforce requirements for discharge reduction. These
                           include expenses for staff, data gathering (water quality monitoring, cost estimation,
                           etc.), technical and modeling analyses, and defining and enforcing program rules.

                        The costs for practices, as reported in the assessments, may not fully detail all the cost
                categories listed above. For example, only capital costs may be included for some practices. The
                regional assessment process identified the need for increased data, monitoring and modeling in order
                to better judge progress, target cost-share funds and support use of nutrient trading. However,
                modeling and monitoring costs are not part of the cost estimates. Also, costs for some practices
                (including BNR) can be site-specific and can vary over a wide range.

                        The agencies developing the Strategy were well aware of these limitations and pointed them
                out in the written materials. Unfortunately there are no readily available alternative estimates of
                some costs. Also, the costs of point source controls can only be presented at the planning level
                (accurate to within -30% to +50%), pending more detailed studies of the facilities. However, no
                matter how refined the cost estimates are, they must be seen as best approximations. Experience has
                shown that actual costs can differ significantly from estimates once nutrient control operations begin,
                and the "cost reducing discovery process" starts.

                Costs of the Shenandoah-Potomac Nutrient Reduction Strategy

                        The following cost figures came from the regional assessment process. In addition, costs for
                measures suggested by the state to achieve the full 40% reduction goal are shown in Table 7-1.



                                                                  69









                   Table 7-1. Cost to Install Recommended Controls Beyond Current/Planned Programs


                                                                                Installation Cost for Controls
                                  Region                 Nonpoint                 Point                            Total
                                                          Source                 Source
                      Southern Shenandoah                $5,960,000                           $50,000                       $6,010,000
                      Northern Shenandoah                $2,440,000            $570,000 - $2,850,000         $3,010,000 - $5,290,000
                      Northern Virginia                  $1,530,000                      $112,800,000                    $114,330,000
                      Lower Potomac                         $490,000                                $0                        $490,000
                      "Gap Closers" (all 4 regions) 1            $01       $ 3,600,000 - $66,870,000,      $33,600,000 - $66,870,000
                      Total                           1 $10,420,0001    $147,020,000 - $182,570,0001     $157,440,000 -$192,990,0001

                            NOTE: * The figures for wastewater plant modifications are sure to be revised, and in some cases a range
                   is shown, because of the potential for lower estimates coming out of plant-specific BNR retrofit analyses and owner-
                   generated updates being prepared under the VAMWA proposal (detailed later in this section). Also, the point source
                   costs are dependent on the type of nutrient control technology installed, particularly when using a system designed
                   for seasonal operation (spring and summer) versus one intended to operate year-round. Many of the VAMWA owners
                   are promoting the use of seasonal BNR, at lower capital cost, anticipating that it can function throughout the year and
                   yield a 40% reduction of current nitrogen loads. The state has assumed that seasonal BNR would achieve a 12 mg/l
                   annual average nitrogen level, and to reduce the 1985 point source nitrogen load by 40% would necessitate the use
                   of year-round BNR or its equivalent (7 mg/l annual average nitrogen). The cost figures developed by the state reflect
                   the use of year-round BNR.

                            The estimated additional administrative costs for the agencies that would manage the
                   proposed nonpoint source control programs totals $320,000 per year. These costs are related
                   primarily to staffing needs for technical assistance and grants administration. The regional
                   assessments identified the need for eight additional staff, working at the local level, to ftinction as
                   nutrient management specialists (agricultural and urban), farm plan writers and BMP implementation
                   specialists. Dispersement of ftinds and contract management for point source retrofit projects would
                   be accomplished through the existing Revolving Loan Fund program structure. Therefore, no
                   additional administrative costs are foreseen for this component of the Strategy.

                   Financial Assistance Available for Strategy Implementation

                            There are many ongoing programs within the Commonwealth that provide financial support
                   for nutrient reduction efforts, and the Strategy assumes their continued availability at currentfitriding
                   levels. These programs include:

                   Agricultural Best Management Practice (BMP) Cost-Share Program - Vir inia!s Agricultural
                   BMP Cost-Share P'rograrn is administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)
                   to improve water quality in the state's streams and rivers and the Chesapeake Bwy. The program goal
                   is to encourage voluntary installation of agricultural BMPs that will address nonpoint source
                   pollution water quality objectives. These include reducing the input of nitrogen and phosphorus to


                                                                             70









                nutrient enriched waters, including a 40% reduction of nutrient loadings to the Bay. The cost-share
                program currently supports funding for 22 separate conservation practices. Some practices are paid
                at a per-acre rate for utilization while others are cost-shared on a percentage basis up to 75%, with
                upper limits on the total amount a grantee can receive under the program for certain BMPs. The
                program is currently funded at an annual rate of $1,048,000 and is implemented by the DCR through
                Virginia's local Soil and Water Conservation Districts within the Bay watershed.

                Local Tributary Strategy Support by Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) - In each
                year of the current biennium, the General Assembly has allocated $280,000 for Tributary Strategy
                coordination and implementation activities conducted by SWCDs across the entire Chesapeake Bay
                watershed in Virginia. Of these ftirids, projects in the Potomac Basin are slated to receive $95,000
                this year, and $40,000 next year. The SWCDs in each Tributary basin are working together to
                develop, demonstrate and promote land management techniques that are suitable for widespread
                adoption.

                Tax Crediffor Installing Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) - The 1996 General
                Assembly passed legislation (Virginia Code sections 58. 1 -3 )39.3 and -439.5) that provides tax credit
                for BMP installation costs. The allowance goes into effect January 1, 1998, and permits an
                individual or corporation involved in agricultural production for market, who has a soil conservation
                plan approved by the local SWCD, to take a tax credit equal to 25% of the first $70,000 that they
                spend for BMPs. Eligible practices are listed in the DCR publication, "Agricultural BMP
                Implementation Manual," and include livestock and poultry waste management, soil erosion control,
                nutrient and sediment filtration and detention, and nutrient management.

                Chesapeake Bay License Plate Funds - The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Advisory Committee,
                established by statute in 1995, is responsible for recommending projects to the General Assembly
                that should receive grants for the support of specific Chesapeake Bay environmental education and
                restoration projects. Funds accumulate annually from the sale of Chesapeake Bay license plates.
                Sales of these plates have generated in excess of $300,000 annually. The 1996 grant awards
                provided $305,917 to 32 recipients. Approximately $335,000 will be awarded to successful
                applicants by the 1997 General Assembly, presumably in May 1997.

                Virginia Revolving Loan Fund - Over the past 8 years, the Commonwealth has made an efficient
                and effective transition from offering grants for the construction of publicly owned wastewater
                treatment and conveyance systems to providing loans for these local wastewater treatment
                improvements needs. Virginia has invested over $60 million, coupled with over $325 million in
                federal funds, to help capitalize the Virginia "Wastewater" Revolving Loan Fund (VRLF). In its first
                eight years, the VRLF program has closed 100 loans with Virginia's localities ($412.5 million), with
                loans to 20 more localities currently awating approval ($62.3 million). Localities receive financial
                benefits from this program in several ways, since the State's wastewater loan program: 1) absorbs
                the typical up-front costs to secure and close the loan, such as the loan origination fees and service
                charges; and, 2) provides the loan at low-interest rates. The VRLF's ceiling interest rate is reviewed
                and maintained at one percent (I%) below the current municipal market interest rate for a 20-year

                                                                  71








               AA rate revenue bond issue. The program also provides lower interest loans, decreasing to zero
               percent (0%) based -on project type and the financial impact of borrowing money on the residential
               users of the system. Congress is expected to continue the revolving loan capitalization process,
               providing an estimated $30 million of federal funds per year through 2002, to further capitalize the
               VRLF program. The state is obligated to provide a 20% match for the federal funds received. With
               approximately $25 -$30 million per year in revenue from repaymentscoming back to the VRLF
               from existing loans, about $60 - 65 million per year should be available to support the sewer related
               needs of Virginia localities through the year 2002. Once the program is fully capitalized, in 2002,
               the VRLF's repayment stream to perpetuate its financing programs should continue in the
               neighborhood of $4.5 - $50 million per year.

               Virginia CoastalResources Management Program (VCRMP) - Protection and enhancement of
               coastal resources is accomplished under the VCRMP, which received federal approval from the
               National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1986. Virginia receives federal funds to
               implement the program within the coastal zone (tidewater cities, counties, and towns and all waters
               therein, out to the 3-mile territorial sea boundary) and to require that federal actions within the
               coastal zone be consistent with the state's program. The VCRMP is an effective intergovernmental
               partnership between state agencies and local governments, and relies on a network of state and local
               laws, regulations, zmd policies. Support for tributary strategy development has been a VCRMP
               component since 1995, when it was made a top priority for use of the program's competitive
               implementation grant fands. Early in each calendar year a request for proposals is distributed to state
               agencies and coastal area local governments. In 1996 the state received near@y $2.63 million in
               federal funds for the VCRMP. About 30% of this amount ($677,400) was awarded under 50/50
               cost-share grants to local governments and Planning District Commissions for tasks under the core
               program elements, which included several projects directly related to tributary strategy development.
               This funding level is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act - The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD)
               provides assistance to 84 Tidewater local governments for implementing the Chesapeake Bay
               Preservation Act of 1988. Financial support is also extended to the Tidewater planning districts and
               local soil and water conservation districts. CBLAD's Competitive Grants Program is the primary
               basis of the agency's financial assistance program. State grant fands are disti-ibuted to counties,
               cities, towns, and planning district commissions involved with implementation of the Preservation
               Act and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. CBLAD
               has strived to establish a grants program that is equitable and cost-effective while meeting local
               needs directly. The grants program is designed to promote regional cooperation and broadly
               applicable, innovative local approaches to protecting water quality, thereby deriving economies of
               scale. Grant recipients are required to provide a 50% match. The annual funding available for the
               grants program is approximately $725,000, and the average number of projects supported is about
               40. The grants - rogram emphasizes local projects that assist in program development or
                                   P
               implementation. While there has been consistent funding since the beginning of the program, local
               funding was reduced by $20,000 last year by the General Assembly and continued support at current
               levels is uncertain as localities complete adoption of local Bay Act programs.

                                                                  72









               A second element of CBLAD's financial assistance program is Agricultural Water Quality Planning,
               which supports local government implementation of the program's regulatory requirements for farm
               land. In the 1994-96 biennium, $375,000 per year in state funds was appropriated to Tidewater soil
               and water conservation districts to develop conservation plans for agricultural activities in
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. Typically, 10 to 12 district staff are supported by these funds.
               This funding has remained constant and appears likely to continue at current levels.

               A portion of CBLAD's annual funding to aid localities is discretionary, and supports Technical
               Assistance to Localities. These ftmds are used for the development and distribution of educational
               materials and for special projects, typically computer hardware, software, and applications. On
               average, three to four projects are funded per year in this manner.

               Federal 1996 Farm Bill - In addition to these state-administered programs, the 1996 Farm Bill has
               provisions for funding assistance to build on the conservation gains made by landowners over the
               past decade. The Bill simplifies existing programs and creates some new ones to address high
               priority environmental protection goals. The new Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
               consolidates four programs into one and focuses assistance on locally-identified prionity areas where
               agricultural improvements will help meet water quality goals. Virginia may receive up to $1.6
               million under EQIP, and it is likely that half will be dedicated to conservation associated with
               livestock operations. Other elements of the Farm Bill that may offer financial relief include the
               Wetlands and Conservation Reserve Programs, Farmland Protection Program, Swampbuster and
               wetlands provisions modifications, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives.

               The Range of Methods for Meeting the Costs

                       A number of funding options are available to state and local governments. These can be
                                             rn
               broken into four main categories:

                               general revenues, funds drawn from the general tax revenues of the jurisdiction,
                               dedicated fees and charges, which establish a link between the revenue source and
                               those whose actions create the need for the expenditure or those who benefit fTom the
                               expenditure,
                               voluntary programs, undertaken by individuals and groups that provide funding
                               on their own initiative, and
                               intergovernmental transfers, where one level of government uses transfers from
                               another level of government to f1md its program.

                       A variety of funding mechanisms are associated with each of these four categories. Each
               funding mechanism has its own characteristics, benefits and shortcomings which must be considered
               in choosing which method or methods to adopt. These include revenue generating potential, ease
  of           and cost of administration, reliability of the source, incentive effects, the equity of who pays and the
               level of the administration. Additional details on the funding options are contained in the discussion
               document entitled, Financing Virginia!s Tributga Strategies (VPI&SU Dept. of Agricultural and

                                                                  73








               Applied Economics, August 1996). This document was used as the starting p         Ioint for a series of
               regional meetings held in the Shenandoah and Potomac basins to elicit opinions, preferences, and
               dislikes about the options from the local government representatives and stakeholder groups.

                       In these meetings there was broad agreement that the state must consider whether to increase
               its financial contributions to tributary strategy implementation. Frequent comments were made
               about other Bay Agreement signatory states' financial commitments. Mention was also made of the
               need, in some cases, for the General Assembly to grant new authorities to localities. It must be noted
               that the level of participation ranged widely at the meetings, and in some cases the participants were
               less willing to discuss, or rate the the merits of, the different revenue generating; options.

                       Based on meeting discussions and results from an informal survey form, some inferences can
               be made about the acceptability of revenue sources. Voluntary funding schemes and dedicated
               revenues were usually favored over general revenue sources. A prevalent opinion was that the
               funding sources should be selected primarily due to their relationship to the impact or beneficiary,
               or the ability to create an incentive to control (or disincentive to release) nutrients. It was
               acknowledged that two concerns are addressed through the use of general funds: 1) "everyone pays,
               everyone benefits"; and, 2) the magnitude of the costs necessitates a financing option that has a high
               revenue generating potential.

                       On the issue of funding sources, discussions were characterized by the following concerns:

                               Stakeholders had different perceptions about the equity of dit"ferent tax and fee
                               systems. Many were more inclined to have the beneficiary pay while others felt the
                               dischargers should pay the most. For those favoring a discharger-pays approach, no
                               consensus emerged on which dischargers should pay. Still others; felt that the whole
                               population benefits and that equity demanded a broad based revenue source or the
                               corribination of many sources, with each imposing a limited burden.

                               Some stakeholders expressed uncertainty about the benefits to be achieved with the
                               new ftmds. They were not willing to commit to a funding strategy until it was more
                               clear what the water quality benefits would be.

                               The practicality of gaining political support for different revenue generating efforts
                               was, noted and was offered as a consideration in selecting a source.

                       Perhaps the overriding concern expressed was that it was not possible to select a funding
               source without having a better idea of how the funds could be spent and who would make spending
               decisions. As one. participant expressed: to ask stakeholders how to raise farids without their
               knowing how the funds would be used was "putting the cart before the horse". Specifically, there
               were concerns about inadequate answers to the following questions:

                               What are the allowable uses for the funds in implementing the Strategy (i.e., who

                                                                 74









                              would get the funds, what uses would be eligible, etc.)?

                              What assurances were there that the funds collected would be used for water quality
   r                          programs (i.e., would there be a trust ftmd or some similar institution)?

                              Who (what institutions) would administer the trust fund and what rules would be
                              applied to set funding priorities?

               Financing Recommendations from Local Officials and Stakeholders

                       In the final analysis of meeting discussions and survey responses, the greatest preference
               was expressed for intergovernmental transfer of funds, earmarked for specific purposes such as
               point source retrofits or BMP installation. The assessments done in the predominantly rural or
               agricultural regions identified nonpoint source controls that could be enhanced and expanded, but
               the load reductions to be achieved are dependent on increased BMP cost-share support (i.e., total
               amount available, percentage awarded, and raising or eliminating caps). In the urbanized regions,
               and areas with significant point source discharges, a financing option frequently mentioned was the
               July 1996 draft position paper from the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies
               (VAMWA). This paper is now an official VAMWA position (dated October 3, 1996), and through
               this position, VAMWA seeks several commitments from the Commonwealth, most notably:

                       At least 50% grant fimding for systems that remove nutrients. The paper recommends that
                       the General Assembly create a joint study committee to identify new sources of funding for
                       the grant program.
                       Implementation through agreement, not by permit.
                       Future "cap" controls (to maintain the cap nutrient level after the 40% reduction goal is
                       reached) based on equity and sound science.

                       Under the VAMWA proposal, the Commonwealth's potential obligation to fund the
               installation of the recommended strategy controls is approximately $82 - $99 million, based on a
               cost-share allowance as requested by local officials of 50% for point source retrofits ($74-$91
               million) and 75% for nonpoint source controls ($8 million). The local share to finance the strategy
               recommendations is about $76 - $94 million. Ranges are shown because estimates for the capital
               cost of individual point source retrofits are being revised by facility owners, and could possibly
               lower the total figure.

               Schedule of Implementation

                       The time needed to fully implement the recommended nutrient reduction controls is largely
               dependent on the timing and availability of local and state financing. The schedule will also be
               influenced by the time needed to plan, design, and construct point source retrofits.

                       For example, assuming a five year funding program, and assuming the Commonwealth

                                                               75









              proceeds with a cost-share prograrn as requested by the local governments and stakeholders, the
              annual financing need is as follows:

                              State funding: about $16 - $20 million/year

                              Local' fariding: about $15 - $19 million/year.

                      Under this firiancing schedule, some point source owners may not receive funding until the
              fifth year.
                        , and once their projects are initiated a construction term of about four years is common.
              This aspect of the schedule might be shortened if allowances are made under any cost-share program
              to reimburse eligible expenditures made prior to the award of a grant, thus allowing plant owners
              to begin their retrofitting projects sooner.

                      Based upon the funding approach outlined above, the time needed to put ffito place all of the
              strategy's recommended nutrient controls is anticipated to range from 5 to 9 years.

              Continued Consideration of Cost Saving Measures

              Nutrient Allowance Trading

                      The regional approach to assessing available nutrient reduction options assisted participants
              in the process to focus on local issues and needs in the detennination of appropriate practices.
              However, the practices identified regionally were not necessarily the most cost effective suite of
              practices for meeting the 40% nutrient reduction goal across the entire basin. A nutrient trading
              system could be an effective way to maintain the integrity of the regional approach, while allowing
              certain nutrient sources to consider cost saving approaches in other regions, or from other types of
              nutrient sources. In four meetings held in the Shenandoah and Potomac basins, many participants
              felt that establishment of a nutrient allowance trading program would be a way to strengthen and
              reinforce incentives and also create a way to manage future loads under a cap.

                      A nutrient allowance trading system creates pollution reduction incentives by granting
              nutrient dischargers the flexibility to search for lower cost options to achieve required levels of
              nutrient reductions. Through this type of system, nutrient dischargers (for which nutrient controls
              would be more expensive) can avoid higher costs of installing on-site nutrient controls. These
              dischargers would purchase credits, or allowances, from other nutrient sources that can achieve
              nutrient reductions less expensively. These allowances specify the quantity of nutrients that the
              46sellee' source (for which nutrient controls would be cheaper) has to achieve; and these reductions
              are then credited against the level of nutrient reductions required of the "buyee' source. The decision
              to trade is voluntary and sources engage in trade only if both are better off following the trade.

                      Nutrient trading has been tested in North Carolina, where a nutrient allowence trading system
              was established as part of a plan to improve water quality in the Tar-Pamlico Basin. In 1.991, an
              association of 12 WWTP (wastewater treatment plants) and I industrial firm accepted a cap on their

                                                                 76








               total, joint discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus. Between 1991 and 1996, the size of the cap was
               reduced to the current level of 405,000 kg/yr. The association allocates responsibility for meeting
               the cap by assigning nutrient credits to its members. One credit allows the holder to emit one
               kilogram of nutrients. In event that the total cap is exceeded, the association agreed to pay a $29
               discharge fee for every excess kg. To date the program has been successful. While the North
               Carolina Department of Environmental Management oversees program implementation, the program
               is administered by the association of dischargers outside the conventional permitting system.
               Association members are taking advantage of the flexibility that allows them to channel dollars to
               the source that can achieve greatest nutrient reduction for the least cost. Consequently, total nutrient
               control costs are less than half of the original estimates.

                       A type of water quality trading is already occurring in Virginia. Recently, CBLAD approved
               a phosphorus trading system developed by the City of Williamsburg. Developers face a requirement
               to manage stormwater runoff from a development site. Williamsburg plans to construct regional
               stormwater management facilities in developing areas in order to control phosphorus runoff. The
               phosphorus reduction "credits" from these facilities will then be offered for sale to developers. The
               developer has the option of either purchasing the required removal requirements from the city's
               regional bank or providing equivalent control on-site. The plan is expected to generate the greatest
               cost-savings for small developments where on-site treatment tends to be very expensive.

                       These two examples demonstrate how a trading system can be tailored to meet unique local
               water quality and policy circumstances. Progress toward nutrient allowance trading implementation,
               however, require certain basic elements, including the establishment of a cap or limitation on
               discharges, and a system in which sources can trade nutrient discharge responsibility. Appendix A
               includes a more detailed description of the conditions for establishing a nutrient allowance trading
               system.


               Innovations and Future Technology Advances

                       As implementation of the Shenandoah-Potomac Strategy proceeds as a result of any action
               taken by the General Assembly, future advances in technology or innovations in program design may
               provide improved efficiencies and/or lower costs for nutrient controls. During this implementation
               period, the Commonwealth's agencies will consider any and all such advances and innovations to
               ensure that the 40% nutrient reduction goal is achieved as cost effectively as possible. Citizens,
               stakeholders and local officials throughout the Shenandoah and Potomac River basins are
               encouraged to continue searching for improved ways to reduce nutrient loads and to revise the types
               of practices that have been identified through the assessment process.







                                                                  77









                                                       GLOSSARY



               Animal Confinement Runoff Management: This best management practice includes the use of
               roof runoff control, diversions, grass filters, etc. to reduce nutrient loss from water flowing
               through animal confinement operations.

               Anoxia: The absense of oxygen within an ecosystem. Within the context of the Chesapeake
               Bay Program, it is when oxygen is measured at a concentration level of zero miligrams per liter
               (0 mg/1).

               Benthic Communities: Organisms such as worms, insects, and some shellfish that live within
               and at the surface of the sediment at the bottom of the river. The ecological role of these
               organisms is complex and important. It includes controlling the degradation and processing of
               living and dead organic material in the sediment and serving as an essential link in the "food
               web" which supports higher levels of life.

               Best Management Practice (BMP): A practice or combination of practices that are determined
               to be the most effective and practical (including technological, economic, and institutional
               considerations) means of controlling point and nonpoint pollutant levels compatible with
               environmental quality goals.

               Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR): A modified form of activated sludge wastewater
               treatment that enhances phosphorus and nitrogen removal by microbial organisms instead of
               traditional chemical addition systems. For the purpose of this discussion paper, BNR is
               described as a "3-stage system," using a sequence of anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic reactor basins.
               Increased phosphorus removal is accomplished by creating environmental conditions that
               encourage the biomass to accumulate increased quantities of phosphorus, which are then settled
               and removed in the waste sludge. Nitrogen removal occurs because nitrate-nitrogen contained in
               the recycle stream is converted to nitrogen gas in this process and released to the atmosphere.

               Biomass: The total mass of living matter within a given volume of an environment.

               Chlorophyll: A compound present in all green plants used for the conversion of sunlight into
               useful biochemical energy. Chlorophyll is often used to measure the amount of phytoplankton
               biomass in water. Excess amounts of chlorophyll indicate high amounts of phytoplankton.

               Conservation Tillage: Any tillage or planting system that leaves at least 30% of the soil surface
               covered with crop residue after planting. Examples are no-till, ridge tillage, strip tillage, etc.

               Controllable Nutrient Load: It represents the portion of the total nutrient loads caused by
               human activities rather than those loads attributable to natural processes.


                                                          Glossary- I








               Conventional Tillage: Complete inversion of the soil incorporating all residues with a
               moldboard plow, or any practice that leaves less than 30% residue on the soil surface.

               Cover Crops: Crops, such as rye, wheat or barley, that are planted without fertilizer in the early
               fall in order to trap leftover nitrogen so it will not leach into the soil and groundwater. These
               crops also reduces winter time erosion of the soil.

               Dissolved Oxygen: An essential nutrient for the growth of living organisms. 0xygen becomes
               dissolved into water through diffusion from the atmosphere or surface agitation (i.e., waves). In
               bottom waters farthest away from the surface, dissolved oxygen can be consumed by aquatic
               organisms at a faster rate than it is supplied. This can lead to hypoxia (oxygen concentration
               levels less than 2 mg/1) or anoxia (0 mg/1). Hypoxic or anoxic conditions lead to the death of
               aquatic organisms and/or the loss of useful habitat.

               Erosion & Sediment Control Measures: The use of various best management practices such as
               silt fences, sediment basins, check dams, diversions, etc. to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff
               during construction activities associated with land development.

               Eutrophication: A natural process of "aging" of water bodies caused by increasing nutrient
               availability and cycling. This process is greatly accelerated by anthropogenic (i.e., human
               caused) imputs of nutrients. When abnormally accelerated, negative ecological impacts such as
               anoxia and instabiLities in biological communities occur. Ecological measurements to track
               impacts of eutrophication include measurements of nutrient concentrations, water clarity,
               dissolved oxygen and those biological communities most directly linked to nuixient enrichment
               impacts (e.g., benthic, phytoplankton, zooplankton).

               Farm Plans (also ]known as Soil and Water Quality Conservation Plans): For the purposes
               of the Chesapeake Bay watershed model, a resource management system for a farm consisting of
               soil conservation erosion controls for cropland. These controls may include contour farming,
               strip-cropping, terraces, cover crops, grassed waterways, filter strips, diversions, and sediment-
               retention or water-control structures. Farm plans do not include conservation tillage or nutrient
               management which are covered in other Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model BMP categories.

               Fertilizer: Any organic or inorganic material, natural or synthetic in origin, that is added to a
               soil to supply elements essential to plant growth. This includes commercial compounds, manure,
               and sewage sludge.

               Forested and/or Grassed Buffers: Vegetative buffers, typically 50 to 150 feet wide, that are
               established adjacent to streams and other receiving waters to filter runoff of sediment and
               nutrients from adjacent land uses.

               Forest Harvesting BMPs: The use of erosion & sediment control measures to prevent sediment
               and nutrient runofYfrom leaving the immediate area of a forest harvesting activity.

                                                            Glossary-2










              Highly Erodible Land: For the purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, all cropland
              having an erosion index of greater than eight as reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office
              by the Soil Conservation Service.

              Livestock Waste Management: Through the use of storage structures or lagoons to store
              animal waste, the waste can later be used as a fertilizer source in crop production. This process
              reduces nutrient loads that would otherwise enter the landscape without an opportunity for
              ftu-ther and more efficient plant uptake of the nutrient source.

              Limiting Nutrient: The specific nutrient (usually nitrogen or phosphorous in aquatic systems)
              which controls the rate of phytoplankton growth due to a decreased concentration relative to
              plant needs and in reference to other nutrients present.

              Limits of Technology (LOT): Regarding point source phosphorus removal, LOT usually
              consists of very elaborate chemical addition and filtering systems placed after secondary
              wastewater treatment. For point source nitrogen removal, LOT may consist of breakpoint
              chlorination or a "5-stage" BNR system, using a sequence of anaerobic-dual anoxic-dual aerobic
              reactor basins. LOT systems are expensive to construct, operate, and maintain. LOT is capable
              of achieving very low levels of nutrients in effluent, with monthly averages on the order of 3
              mg/l total nitrogen, and 0.075 mg/I total phosphorus. In terms of nonpoint sources, LOT
              consists of 100% implementation of BMP practices on agricultural, urban and forest lands.

              Nitrification*- The biochemical oxidation of, or any other natural or artificial process of
              converting, the ammonium form of nitrogen to its nitrate form.

              Nitrogen: An essential nutrient for the growth of living organisms. It is found throughout the
              environment in particulate and dissolved forms in both living and non-living compounds. It will
              readily remain in a dissolved form, and, therefore, anthropogenic inputs of this nutrient often
              occur through groundwater pathways as a result of excess nutrient application. Its main
              biochemical function is in the formation of amino acids which are the main building blocks for
              the formation of living biomass.

              Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution: Diffused pollutants that are washed off the land during the
              natural process of rainwater flowing accross the land to rivers, lakes, oceans and other water
              bodies.


              Nutrients: Elements or compounds, such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, essential as raw
              material for the growth and development of plants and animals.

              Nutrient Enriched Waters: Surface waters of the Commonwealth, identified by the Water
              Quality Standards (VR 680-21-07.3), that exhibit the undesirable impacts of excessive inputs of
              phosphorus and nitrogen. Designations are made by the State Water Control Board based upon

                                                          Glossary-3









                an evaluation of historical water quality data for one or more of the following indicators of
                nutrient enrichment: chlorophyll levels; dissolved oxygen fluctuations; and concentrations of
                total phosphorus. [n Virginia, the main Bay and all its tidal tributaries are "nuixient enriched
                waters."


                Nutrient Management: A management practice which provides recommendations on optimum
                nutrient application rates, nutrient application times, and nutrient application methods based on
                soil and manure analysis results and expected crop yields.

                Nutrient Management.Plans: A written, site-specific plan indicating how the major plant
                nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium) are to be managed annually J."or expected crop
                production. Nutrient management plans also account for desired crop yields, existing nutrient
                levels in the soil, application of additional nutrients to maintain optimum soillevels of any
                particular nutrient, farming practices, and impacts to surface and ground waters.

                Pasture: Grazing lands planted primarily with introduced or domesticated native forage species
                that receive periodic renovation and/or cultural treatments such as tillage, fertilization, mowing,
                weed control, and irrigation. These lands are not in rotation with crops.

                Phosphorus: An essential nutrient for the growth of living organisms. It is found throughout
                the environment in particulate and dissolved forms in both living and non-living compounds. It
                will readily adsorb to sediments, and therefore anthropogenic input of this nutrient often occurs              14
                though sediment runoff from agricultural activities or bank erosion. Its main biochemical
                fimction is in the formation of ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate), a form of energy storage for                     Y
                cellular metabolism.


                Phytoplankton Communities: Small plants, often called "algae," growing within the water
                column. Phytoplankton produce much of the organic material for the "food web" of the
                Chesapeake Bay. Changes in the structure and productivity of the phytoplankton community can
                be caused by eutrophication and can create imbalances in the ecology of aquatic ecosystems.

                Point Source (PS) Pollution: Discharges of treated or untreated effluent from industries,
                wastewater treatment plants and other sources that can traced back to a single point of discharge.

                Point Source Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters (Point Source Policy): This policy (VR
                680-14-02: effective 5/25/88) adopted by the State Water Control Board, provides for the control
                of discharges of nutrients from point sources affecting designated "nutrient enriched waters." It
                imposes a monthl, average total phosphorus effluent limitation, on plants permitted to discharge
                I million gallons per day or more, of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/1). New source dischargers of
                50,000 gallons per day or greater (including expansion of existing plants) are required to meet
                the same limitation.




                                                             Glossary-4









               Potomac Embayment Standards: The monthly average standards of quality for all sewage
               treatment plant effluents discharging into Virginia!s Potomac Embayments from Jones Point
               (Hunting Creek) to the Route 301 bridge, and for expansions of existing plants discharging into
               the non-tidal tributaries of these embayments. These standards are as follows: BOD < 3 mg/l;
               unoxidized nitrogen < I mg/I from April I - October 3 1; total phosphorus - 0.2 mg/l; total
               nitrogen < I mg/1 (when technology is available). These standards are undergoing review by
               the State as a result of enhanced modeling in the area and a petition made to the State Water
               Control Board by several of the affected localities.

               Poultry Waste Management: This measure uses storage sheds in a poultry production
               operation to stockpile poultry litter from partial cleanouts; required after each flock of birds is
               removed.


               Retirement of Highly Erodible Land: Highly erodible lands are taken out of crop production
               and/or grazing and planted 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.


               Septic System Management: Septic system management includes three specific practices to
               reduce nutrient losses from septic systems. These are 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.

               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.


               Significant Point Sources: Refers to the plants included in the 1985 baseline point source
               nutrient loading estimate. These are publicly owned treatment works above the fall line with a
               design capacity of 0.5 million gallons per day (MGD) or greater and all publicly owned treatment
               facilities below the fall line, regardless of design capacity. Industrial plants with either nitrogen
               or phosphorus loads equal to or greater than the load from a 0.5 MGD treatment facility are also
               included in the loading estimate.

               Stream Protection from Livestock: This measure requires excluding livestock from streams
               using fencing or other devices and providing remote watering facilities and stream crossings.

               Soil and Water Quality Conservation Plans: See definition under Farm Plans.

               Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV): Large aquatic plants that grow permanently
               underwater or are exposed only at low tide. They provide food for waterfowl, sediment
               stabilization and shoreline erosion control, and serve as critical habitat areas for both juvenile

                                                             Glossary-5








               and adult forms of many aquatic animals. A baywide reduction in SAV during Ithe 1970s was.
               one of the major indicators of degradation which spurred implementation of the interstate
                                                                                         p
               Chesapeake Bay Program.

               Urban Nutrient Management: Reductions under urban nutrient management are dependent on
               efficiency of educational efforts to modify lawn fertilizer use by homeowners and others.

               Urban BMP Retrofits: Modifying existing stormwater management facilities to enhance water
               quality and/or retrofitting stormwater drainage systems to add water quality components in
               already developed areas to slow runoff, remove sediment and nutrients, and provide a basis for
               restoring eroded stream channels.

               Water Clarity: An ecological measure of the health of aquatic ecosystems, wetter clarity is a
               measure of light availability in the water column. Reduced water clarity can be caused by
               increases in phytoplankton or suspended sediments. Water clarity is the primary ecological
               factor controlling the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Chesapeake Bay and
               its tributaries.


               Watershed: A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain or flow toward a
               central collector such as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.

               Zooplankton Communities: Small (generally < I min in size) animals growing within the water
               column. Most rem'ain as small organisms throughout their whole life cycle, whille others
               represent very young stages of organisms which grow into much larger adults (e.g., fish eggs and
               crab larvae). A maj or ecological ftinction of zooplankton is in linking the production of
               phytoplankton andbacteria into higher levels of the food web. The zooplankton community
               forms the bulk of the diet for most larval andjuvenile fishes, crabs and shellfish. Because of the
               short life cycle of these animals, they respond quickly to environmental conditions and are good
               indicators of both short term and long term conditions.

















                                                           Glossary-6

















                                                                                               i



                                                                                               I
































                                                                                                -k





                                                                                                 I






























                                                                           3 6668 14108 6035
                                                                                          -    r