[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: � Promoted an approach centered on local initiatives. � Contained detailed information on existing local nutrient reduction programs. � Outlined the types of practices that can be implemented for further nutrient reductions. � Described the significant nutrient reductions that have been achieved since 1985 and the programs that were responsible for these reductions. � 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: � Capital costs for controls such as wastewater plant upgrades or conservation tillage equipment. � Annual operation and maintenance outlays for equipment, labor and materials necessary to limit discharge. These costs might be for the use of capital equipment or annually recurring expenses such as soil and manure testing. � 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. � 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. � 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