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















                                                  Commonwealth of Virginia

                           Local Government Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Survey
                                                 Summary of Survey Response

                                                      Drafi Octoher 17, 1994























                                                                 N.











              Prepared by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil & Water Conservation

              "This survey report was funded, in part, by the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources
              Management Program through Grant 9 NA37ozO360-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                      M
              Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone ManaGement Act of
              1972, as amended."











               DEPART7@1ENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcREATioN, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                                                      Executive SummaKy

               The Local Government Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Survey was developed by the
               Division of Soil and Water Conservation to quickly gather information about nonpoint source
               management and was distributed to 65 counties, 36 cities and 23 of the larger towns within
               the Chesapeake Bay drainage. The Division was interested in identifying local nonpoint
               source pollution (NPS) initiatives which exceed current state and federal requirements,
               particularly those not administered or funded through state or federal agencies.

               Survey questions were divi  'ded into three categories: questions related to agriculture, questions
               related to land use planning and development, and questions related to nonpoint source
               pollution management. Questions were designed to encourage a high rate of response.and
               solicit information about all forms of NPS management, including state and federal best
               management practices (BMPs) programs. The survey received a cumulative response rate of
               62%.


               Agriculture (Questions 1-4)
               Typically, localities relied on Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) and the
               Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) to address agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
               Many localities stated that agriculture is currently being regulated by state arid federal
               government. Coastal localities often mentioned agricultural requirements contained in local
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) ordinances. '

               In response to question #1 concerning Soil Conservation, localities reported a number of
               BMPs being implemented through cost share programs, including: Filter Strips or Buffer
               Areas (28%), Conservation Tillage (25%), Cover Cropping (25%), Field Strip Cropping
               (25%), and Wetlands Conservation (25%)..

               In question 92 dealing with Pesticide Management, most localities reported no additional
               restrictions other than CBPA requirements; however, a number of localities mentioned special
               or conditional use permits were requited for siting pesticide and fertilizer. operations. Though
               not considered an agricultural use, two localities required. integrated pest management (IPM)
               for approval of new golf courses.

               Response to question #3 regarding Confined Animal Operations indicates that certain localities
               have taken steps to encourage the proper management of animal waste produced by such
               facilities. Augusta and Rockingham county have both adopted local ordinances to specifically
               address animal waste issues, (#) other localities have incorporated special provisions within
               their existing zoning ordinance to address waste from these facilities. The most frequently
               mentioned BMPs were: Buffer Areas or Setback Requirements (30%), Waste Utilization or
               Nutrient Management Plans (24%), and Waste Storage Structures (22%).



                                                                2











              DEPARTmENT OF CONSERVATIONAND REcREATiON, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              With the exception of farm conservation plans encouraged by the Chesapeake Bay Act,
              USCS-SCS, and SWCD activities, localities reported no additional restrictions on Grazing
              Management (question 94). The following grazing BMPs were implemented by SWCD's:
              Fencing (23%), Planned or Rotational Grazing (19%), and Alternative Drinking Water Supply
              (19%).

              Land Use Planning and Development (Questions 5-8)
              A higher rate of response was received on questions #5 through #8, pres*umably because land
              use planning and development is largely within the purview of all local governments. Despite
              this higher rate of response, most localities have adopted few controls or restrictions directed
              at reducing nonpoint source pollution, other than those encouraged through state or federal
              programs.


              In response to question #5 concerning Watershed Protection, 78% of the localities surveyed
              had adopted Floodplain Management Plans, many of which meet FEMA standards. In
              addition, 62% of the localities reported Land Use Restrictions, and 47% reported Open Space
              Plans and Ordinance Provisions. Many of the local watershed protection initiatives were
              limited to watersheds which provided a common source of drinking water.

              In question #6 dealing with Site Development and Construction, most localities reported using
              the Erosion and Sediment Control Law or CBPA ordinances to regulate site development.
              The most frequently used BMPs were: Phasing or Limiting Areas of Disturbance (43%),
              Preserving Natural Drainage/Storage Features (43%), and Minimizing Impervious Surfaces
              (40%).

              Many of the localities reported some sort of Stormwater Management activities (question #7),
              usually through provisions in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, local
              Chesapeake Bay Act ordinances, or stormwater management plans or ordinances. Most
              stormwater initiatives are limited to managing stormwater quantity, implementing BMPs to
              improve runoff quality are usually too expensive. Several Virginia localities have adopted
              stormwater utilities to provide ftmding to implement BMPs. Planning District Commissions
              are also active in developing and implementing stormwater BMP programs and guidelines to
              address stormwater management.

              In response to question #8, most localities reported using Onsite Disposal System standards
              developed by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH); however, a few counties have
              adopted more stringent standards. Coastal localities usually mentioned provisions and
              standards for such systems required by local CBPA ordinances. To accommodate growth
              some localities are planning to expand sanitary sewer systems, while other localities are
              pursuing alternative systems.




                                                           3












              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcRFATm, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October,-17 1994 (Draft)


              General Nonpoint Source Management Questions (Questions 9-11)
              Technical assistance Question #9 asked localities to rank types of Technical Assistance, storm
              water management received the highest ranking (1), followed by financing techniques (2), and
              public education (3). -

              Question #10 enquired about Additional Efforts to address nonpoint source pollution. -A list
              of specific and unusual local NPS initiatives is included as an appendix to this document.
              This list summarizes many of the items reported in question #10.

              In response to question #11, lack of funds and staff was one of the most frequently mentioned
              Obstacles to NPS Control, followed by lack of awareness and education, and ineffective
              enforcement mechanisms and poor coordination. Several localities reported difficulties
              obtaining wetland and stream permits to implement stormwater BMPs.































                                                           4











              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              PMose:
              The purpose of the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Local Goverm-nent Nonpoint
              Source Pollution Management Survey is to gather information about nonpoint source pollution
              management techniques being implemented at the local level. The Department recognizes
              that local officials are often aware of nonpoint source pollution problems and through their
              own initiatives may already be effectively addressing these problems. The information
              gathered by this survey will be used to coordinate state and local management activities,
              assess the need for any additional state or federal management efforts, and develop a state-
              wide nonpoint source pollution control strategy.

              The survey results will be used by several programs within the Division of Soil and Water
              Conservation, primarily: Virginia's Watershed Management Program developed pursuant to
              section ' ) 19 of the Clean Water Act; Virginia's. Tributary Strategies being developed to meet
              the goals set forth in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and Virginia's Coast@l Nonpoint Source
              Pollution Control Program, currently being developed pursuant to section 6217 of the Coastal
              Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.



              Distribution:
              The survey was distributed only to Virginia localities located within the Chesapeake Bay
              drainage area, because the Bay drainage and the Coastal Zone have been the focus of
              Virginia's nonpoint source pollution management efforts. Efforts have been targeted within
              this area due to the limited resources available for nonpoint source pollution control.

              The survey was distributed to 65 counties, 36 cities and 23 of the larger towns within the
              above mentioned area. A list of each of these localities and a summary of local NPS
              initiatives is included in an appendix to this document.


              Approach:
              The survey was developed by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation to quickly gather
              information about nonpoint source management at the local level. The survey is not intended
              to be a scientific instrument; and therefore, conclusions derived from the results should be
              considered tentative.


              The survey questions were divided into three categories: questions related to agriculture,
              questions related to land use planning and development, and general questions concerning
              nonpoint source pollution management. Questions related to agriculture were emphasized
              because a large amount of land is devoted to agricultural operations in Virginia, and
              agriculture has been identified as the largest source category of nonpoint source pollution.
              Questions related to land use planning and development were included because urban areas
              within the state are continuing to grow and constitute more difficult nonpoint source problems

                                                            5











               DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


               than other source categories. Rectifying pollution problems in developing areas is also a more
               costly endeavor, because structural solutions are often required and the value of land is
               substantially higher. Several general questions were included in the survey to identify local
               needs and potential obstacles to nonpoint source pollution control.

               Check boxes were used with many of the questions to solicit information about particular best
               management practices and help categorize and simplify the responses. Most of the responses
               indicate that many of the BMPs are being implemented with state and federal assistance. The
               survey also requested names of individuals involved in nonpoint source pollution control.

               Information on local government programs in the upper Potomac River basin was collected
               using interviews with local officials which guaranteed a high rate of response in this portion
               of the Chesapeake Bay drainage. A high response rate was desired, because the Potomac
               basin is a priority for Virginia's Tributary Strategies. DCR-DSWC staff was also aware that
               certain localities in the Shenandoah Valley had adopted ordinances or ordinance provisions
               regulating animal waste management at confined animal operations.

               The interviews with local officials complemented the survey by providing a valuable
               opportunity to discuss nonpoint source pollution issues in greater detail. Though limited in
               number, these interviews allowed improved communications and provided a depth of insight
               regarding local efforts, unmatched by mail-in survey responses. Selected comments from
               these interviews have been incorporated into this survey summary.



               Response:
               Surveys were mailed to 124 localities within the Chesapeake Bay drainage and 75 localities
               responded either by mail or interview. The cumulative response rate was 62%.

               The results of the survey have been summarized based on two distinct management areas
               within the Bay drainage: localities within the coastal zone and localities outside the coastal
               zone. The difference in physiographic conditions between these two areas often affects the
               type of BMPs programs used to manage NPS pollution. The distinction is also useful to
               program managers and policy-makers that must coordinate nonpoint source pollution
               management programs, such as Virginia's existing coastal zone management program and the
               Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, with other NPS
               programs throughout the state.

               For each survey question, the responses and comments have been summarized and response
               rates are shown both as ratios and as simple percentages. The ratios consists of the number of
               positive responses divided by the total number of responses received.

               Cumulative response rates are shown by type of locality and location in the following table.


                                                              6











              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND PCECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)




                                  Coastal            Non-Coastal        Combined

               Counties           20/28 71%          22/37 60%          42/65    65%

               Cities             14/18 77%          7/18     38%       21/36    58%

               Towns              6/10 60%           8/13     61%       14/23    61%

               Combined           40/56 71%          37/68   54%        77/124   62%



              While agricultural questions (#1 through #4) were  directed primarily toward counties, all
              responses have been summarized collectively. Towns and cities often did not respond to these
              questions or simply commented that the questions did not apply. Questions 5 through 11,
              addressing land use planning and development,, were applicable to all localities and received a
              higher response rate; however, towns and cities seemed to be more actively involved in these
              types of activities. General questions (#9 through #11) allowed local representatives an
              opportunity to prioritize types of assistance needed, provide more detailed information about
              relevant local initiatives, and describe obstacles to local nonpoint source pollution control
              efforts. These questions seemed to be well received, particularly by localities which were
              actively involved in nonpoint source pollution control.

              In the following section, responses to each of the survey questions have been analyzed and
              summarized.




























                                                            7











               DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


               QUESTIONS #1 THROUGH #4 ARE RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL
               1.     Soil Conservation
               Please check any of the following agricultural best management. practices your locality
               requires or promotes through local policies, plans, ordinances, tax incentives, or other means.
               Ifyour locality does not have applicable programs please go to question 92.

               Listed BMPs:                  Coastal Localities     Non-Coastal Localities        Combined
               Conservation Tillage          12/40 30%              8/37 22%                      20/77 25%

               Contour Farming               4/40 , 10%             3/37 8%.                      7/77 9%

               Cover Cropping                12/40 30%              7/37 19%                      19/77 25%

               Critical Area Planting        7/40    17%            6/37   16%                    13/77 17%

               Filter Strips or Buffer Areas 13/40   32%            9/37   24%                    22/77 28%

               Grassed Waterways             6/40    15%            9/37   24%                    17/77 22%

               Field Strip-croppi.ng         13/40   32%            6/37   16%                    19/77 25%

               Terrace                       3/40    7%             2/37   5%                     5/77    10%


               Wetland Conservation          14/40   35%            5/37   13%                    19/77   25%


               Riparian Zone Protection      10/40   25%            5/37   13%                    15/77   19%

               Other
                      Sediment retention structure & reforestation


               Please describe how your locality addresses these practices.
               Typically, Soil and Water Conservation Districts address agricultural soil conservation. The
               local SWCD in cooperation with the USDA's Soil Conservation Service and Virginia's
               Cooperative Extension Service provide technical assistance and cost share funding for
               agricultural best management practices (BMPs). Coordination between localities and SWCDs
               usually involves regular meetings and/or memos of understanding (MOUs).

               Some of the localities commented that agriculture is generally considered to be the subject of
               federal or state government.





                                                               8











                 DEPARTmENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION            October, 17 1994 (Draft)



                 Coastal Localities:
                 Many coastal localities mentioned CBPA ordinances which require the preparation of farm
                 conservation plans. Wetland protection, field strip-cropping, and riparian zone protection
                 were more frequently mentioned by coastal localities. The difference in the type of BMPs
                 used might be attributed to the greater number of wetlands and riparian a                .reas within the
                 coastal area.

















































                                                                          9











              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              2.     Pesticide Management
              Does your locality have plans, ordinance requirements (for example site plan or special use
              provisions), or other mechanisms which place conditions on the use ofpesticides or which
              address the siting of commercial fertilizer and pesticide operations?

                                   Coastal Localities    Non-Coastal Localities      Combined      -


                     Yes            15/40 37%            8/37 22%                    .23/77 30%

                     No             15/40 37%            22/37 65%                   39/77 51%


                     For question #2 only positive responses (checked boxes or written comment) were
                     tabulated.


              Ifyes, please describe any applicable requirements.

              Pesticide management is usually addressed through local SWCDs in cooperation with VCE
              agents. Fertilizer or pesticide production facilities typically are categorized as industrial uses
              and are so regulated by local zoning ordinances. Localities seem to rely on federal and state
              regulations to control the use of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers

              Certain localities require golf courses to implement integrated pest management as a condition
              for approval; however, most localities do not have special requirements governing pesticide
              use, siting of commercial fertilizer and pesticide operations, or the application of pesticides
              and fertilizeis for agricultural use.

              Coastal Localities:
              Many coastal localities mentioned ordinances adopted through the Chesapeake Bay
              Preservation Act and wetlands management by local wetlands boards in response to question
              #2.

















                                                           10



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









                    DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION                      October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                    3.        Confined Animal Operations
                    Please check any of the following confined animal siting and management practices your
                    locality requires orpromotes through localpolicies, plans, ordinances, or other means. If
                    your locality does not have applicable requirements please go to the,next question.

                    Listed BWs:                            Coastal Localities            Non-Coastal Localities                  Combined
                    Constructed Wetlands                             6/40 15%                      1/37 3%                       7/77 7%


                    Waste Storage Structures                         9/40 22%                      8/37. 22%                     17n7 22%

                    Waste Treatment Lagoons                          8/40      20%                 5/37      13%                 133/77 17%

                    Buffer 4reas or Setback                          131 A 0   32%                 10/37     27%                 23177 30%
                    Requirements

                    Animal Density Restrictions                      2/40      5%                  1/37      31 %                3/76 4%

                    Site Restrictions                                8/40      20%                 4/37      11%                 12/76 15%


                    Loafing Lots                                     6/40      15%                 2 /'3 7   5%                  8/77      10%

                    Application of Waste                             9/40      22%                 7 /33 7   19%                 16/77     21%
                    andlor Runoff to Crop Land

                    Waste Utilization or Nutrient                    12/40 30%                     10/37 27%                     22/77 24%
                    Management Plans

                    Please describe how your localities plans, ordinances, or other mechanisms apply to any of
                    the practices checked above. In addition, if your locality requires that a nutrient
                    management plan be prepared for confined animal operations, please indicate if this plan
                    addresses commercial fertilizer and animal waste use, timing, and rates of application.

                    SWCDs are involved with nutrient management planning and sludge application. Buffer areas
                    or setback requirements were the most often mentioned BNIP in both management areas.
                    Confined animal operations are sometimes restricted by special use or conditional use permits
                    incorporated into local zoning requirements. Two counties, Augusta and Rockingham, have
                    developed local ordinances to address confined animal feeding operations and nutrient
                    management associated with animal wastes.

                    Coastal Localities:
                    Farm conservation plans encourage nutrient management and are required by the Chesapeake
                    Bay Preservation Act (CBPA). None of the coastal localities reported having an ordinance











                 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcRF-AnoN, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION        October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                 specifically dealing with animal waste from confined animal feeding operations; however,
                 CBPA requirements may already be adequately controlling NPS pollution from confined
                 animal operations.










































                                                                       12












              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcREATIoN, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              4.      Grazing Management
              Please check any of the following best management practices for grazing livestock your
              locality requires or encourages through land use plans, ordinance provisions, or other means.
                Ifyour locality does not address grazing management, please go to the next question.

              Listed BMPs:                   Coastal Localities    Non-Coastal Localities        Combined
              Planned or Rotational Grazing         9/40 22%               6/37 16%              15/77 19%
              Systems

              Alternative Drinking Water            9/40 22%               6/37 16%              15/77 19%
              Supply (pipeline, pond or
              well construction)

              Fencing                               10/40 25%              8/37 22%              18/77 23%

              Livestock Exclusions           5140   12%            5/37    13%            10/77  13%


              Hardened Stream Crossings             7/40    17%            5/37   13%            12/77 16%

              Hardened Watering Access              8/40    20%            5/37   13%            13/77 17%

              Pasture and Hayland Planting          9/40    22%            5/37 13%              14/77 18%

              Critical Area Planting                9/40    22%            4/37   11%            13/77 17%

              Brush & Weed Management               5/40    12%            4/37   11%            13/77 17%

              Prescribed Burning                    7/40    17%            3/37   8%             10/77 13%


              Other



              If you checked any of these practices, please describe.

              The items listed above are typically handled by local SWCDs and CBPA ordinances. Grazing
              management is one component of the farm conservation plans encouraged by local CBPA
              ordinances and the USCS-SCS. No other local grazing management initiatives were reported.







                                                               13












               DEPARTmENT OF CONSERVATION AND RiEcREAnON, Divism OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


               QUESTIONS #5 THROUGH #11 ARE RELATED TO LAND USE PLANNING AND
               DEVELOPMENT


               5.     Watershed Protection


               Please check any of the following watershed protection efforts your locality is currently
               involved in.


               Listed BMPs:                  Coastal Localities     Non-Coastal Localities        Combined


               Resource Inventory            21/40 52%              2/37 5%                       23/77 30%
               and Analysis

               Regional Stormwater           8/40 20%               13/37 35%                     21/77 27%
               Management

               Designation of                7/40 17%               6/37 6%                       13/77 17%
               Critical Watersheds


               Flood Plain Management        311/40 77%             29/317 78%                    60/77 78%

               Land Use Restrictions         29/40 72%              19/37  51%                    48n7 62%


               Overlay Zones                 15/40 37%              9/37   24%                    24n7 31%

               Riparian Area Protection      17/40 42%              1/37   03%                    18/77 23%

               Watershed Management          17/40 42%              6/37   16%                    23/77 30%

               Fee Simple Acquisition        2/40 5%                0/37   0%                     2/77 2%

               Conservation Easements        5/40 12%               4/37   11%                    9/77    12%


               Open Space Plans and          21/40 52%              15/37  40%                    36/77   47%
               Ordinance Provisions


               Ground Water Protection       15/40 37%              8/37   22%                    23/77   30%
               Plans and Ordinances


               Other





                                                               14











              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                        I
              Ifyou checked any of these practices, please describe.

              Most local watershed planning consists of floodplain and storm water management programs.
              Other localities are using provisions of the Erosion and Sediment Control Law to manage
              stormwater. Local watershed protection efforts are typically used to protect sources of
              drinking water, or are funded by state or federal programs.

              Certain localities have implemented groundwater and well head protection programs or water
              resource protection plans.

              Coastal Localities:
              Many of the localities mentioned watershed protection activities required by CBPA
              ordinances. Watershed management issues are often addressed in local comprehensive p     lans.
              Regional groundwater protection plans have been done for Eastern Shore localities; and the
              Hampton Roads PDC is presently updating groundwater plans for localities within its district.





























                                                            15



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









               DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


               6.     Site Development and Construction
               In addition to erosion and sediment control, are any of the following practices required or
               encouraged to protect areas susceptible to erosion and sediment loss, limit disturbance of
               natural drainage features and vegetation, or limit increases of impervious area?

               Listed BMPs:          Coastal Localities    Non-Coastal Localities               Combined


               Phasing and Limiting          21/40 52%             12/37 32%                    33/77 43%
               Areas of Disturbance


               Minimum Disturbance           19/40 47%             7/37 19%                     26/77 34%
               Requirements

               Open Space Requirements       14/40 35%             15/37 40%                    29/77 38%

               Clustering                    10/40 25%             12/37 32%                    22/77 29%

               Performance Criteria          22/40 55%             6/37   16%                   28/77   36%


               Site Fingerprinting           3/40 7%               0/36   0%                    3/77    4%

               Preserving Natural            22/40 55%             11/37  33 0 %                33/77   43%
               Drainage/Storage Features

               Minimizing Impervious         26/40 65%             5/37   13%                   31/77   40%
               Surfaces


               Reducing Hydraulic            5/40 12%              2/37   5%                    7/77    9%
               Connectivity of Impervious
               Surfaces


               Tree Protection Requirements 17/40 42%              10/37 27%                    27/77 35%

               Ifyou checked any of these practices, please describe.

               Some of the localities are encouraging clustered development and many site development
               issues are addressed through local comprehensive plans. Erosion and sediment control
               ordinances are used locally to regulate site development practices, minimum standards for
               such programs have been established by the state. The erosion and sediment control law has
               been used by some localities to regulate activities which are normally exempt from the law,
               such as logging road construction and management, and access roads to residential properties.


                                                             16



                     ........ ..










                 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION        October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                 Many localities complained that VDOT is frequently violates E&S requirements.

                 Coastal Localities:
                 Site development in coastal areas is further restricted by local CBPA ordinances.








































                                                                      17












              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              7.     Stormwater, Management

              Please describe how your locality addresses the quantity and quality ofpost construction
              storm water runoff. Ifyour locality does not address storm water runoff, please go to the
              next question.

              Many of the localities reported stormwater management activities addressing quantity rather
              than quality. If the locality had not already adopted a stormwater management plan, often
              they planned to pursue such a plan, or used provisions of the Erosion and Sediment Control
              Law to address stormwater management.

              Two management strategies seemed apparent, addressing stormwater management on-site
              and/or adopting regional stormwater management facilities. Eight localities have adopted
              stormwater utility taxes to pay for stormwater improvements, other localities are presently
              considering such taxes. Localities within the Occoquon Watershed have adopted stringent
              stormwater management programs and policies which include phosphorous reduction goals.
              The City of Alexandria, which lies within the Occoquon watershed, has pioneered the use of
              intermittent sand filters. Storinwater management BMPs are defined and encouraged through
              PDCs (see the BMP Handbook developed by the Northern Virginia PDC).



              Coastal Localities:
              Locally adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ordinances include provisions which
              prohibit increases in post development runoff and reduce runoff from redevelopment projects
              by 10%. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission works with localities to address
              stormwater management and have published the HRPDC BMP Handbook.


















                                                           18












               DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcRFATiora, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


               8.     Onsite Disposal Systems

               Please describe any plans or ordinances your locality has which address the installation,
               operation, or maintenance of onsite septic systems. If your locality does not address onsite
               disposal systems please go to the next question.

               A number of localities are faced with problems related to on site sewage disposal systems,
               some localities are limited by soil and geology and are allowing. the use'of alternative
               systems. Others are trying to provide adequate public treatment facilities. Many localities
               with public systems have prohibited or limited the use of OSDSs. Failure of both traditional
               and alternative OSDS is usually related to inadequate maintenance, though the design and
               applicability of some types of alternative systems has been questioned. Some localities have
               prohibited the use of alternative systems or applied conditions to their use.

               A number of localities within the state have adopted more stringent standards than those
               required by VDH for drainfield separation distances and have required reserve drainfield sites.
               Other localities rely solely upon VDH guidelines for OSDS standards.

               Coastal Localities:
               Local CBPA ordinance usually require reserve drainfields and five year pump-out. Often
               drain fields are not allowed in resource management areas (RMAs).























                                                            19













                DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION   October, 17 1994 (Draft)


                GENERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT:


                9.      Technical Assistance


                Please rank the following types of technical assistance in the order which would be most
                helpful in your efforts to manage nonpoint source pollution?

                The items below have been reordered based on the survey score results-..

                1,(.17)                 Stormwater Management
                2 (15)                  Techniques for Financing Local NPS Pollution Management
                3 (133)                 Public Educational Material Regarding NPS Pollution
                4(.11)                  Managing NPS Pollution from Agriculture
                5  (.10)                Information Regarding the Environmental Effects of NPS Pollution
                6 (.09)                 Lawn care and NPS Pollution Management
                7 (.08)                 Managing NPS Pollution from Septic Systems
                8 (.08)         -       Managing NPS Pollution from Boats and Marinas
                9 (.07)         -       Floodplain Management

                Stormwater management, financing techniques, and public education received the highest
                combined scores. Floodplain management was ranked second for localities outside the
                existing coastal zone, but was ranked last by coastal localities. This was the only significant
                disparity between these management areas.

                Four items were listed in the category "Other:" control of silvicultural sources, cost/benefit
                analysis of NPS controls, assistance targeting available resources, and grant aid programs.



















                                                                  20












              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)




              10.    Additional Information Regarding Local N-PS Management Efforts

              In the space below, please describe any additional or innovative efforts your locality has
              undertaken to manage nonpoint source pollution.

              Generally, rural localities seemed to be addressing NPS management through the E&S law,
              stormwater management, zoning and land use planning, and through the  'CBPA within the
              coastal zone. More restrictive watershed and water quality protection was initiated in
              developing communities and specifically to protect important sources of drinking water.

              Aside from local ordinances addressing nutrient management and animal waste from CAFOs,
              few localities had adopted special restrictions on agricultural uses.

              See appendix for a detailed summary of initiatives from each locality.





























                                                          21











                 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION            October, 17 1994 (Draft)



                 11.      Obstacles to Local Efforts to Control NPS Pollution


                 In the space below, please identify what you see as the most significant obstacles in local
                 implementation of effective NPS pollution management programs. Also, please provide any
                 suggestions you may have for overcoming these obstacles

                          The most frequently mentioned obstacles were:
                          I )      lack of Funding(cost)/Staff,
                          2)       lack of Awareness/Education, and
                          3)       ineffective enforcement mechanisms.

                          Other comments included:
                                   lack of authority to enforce farm plans,
                                   difficulties obtaining wetland/stream permits for stormwater BMPs, and
                                   too many agencies and organizations involved in implementation of regulations.






























                                                                         22












             DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcREATioN, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)



             APPENDIX:


             The following list includes information about local initiatives, programs and ordinances in
             addition to minimum federal and state programs requirements. Localities in boldface type
             responded to the survey; however, some had no additional or unusual activities.

             Accomack County - Poultry houses and swine operations require nutrient management plans
             to address waste disposal and must be located at least 300 feet from "public" wells. The
             county is developing a Waterfront Overlay District. A Groundwater Management Plan has
             been completed by the USGS for the Eastern Shore.

             Albemarle County - The county's Water Resources Protection Area Ordinance requires
             buffer areas and encourages nutrient and pesticide management. The county also has:
             numerous watershed management plans, a groundwater protection study, regional stormwater
             facilities, performance criteria for stormwater quantity and quality, development clustering,
             open space requirements, 100% reserve drainfield requirement, a streambank restoration and
             citizen monitoring programs.

             Alleghany County -

             Amelia County - A watershed project on Flat Creek requires farm management plans.

             Amherst County
             Appomattox County

             Arlington County - Phasing disturbance and open space requirements are routinely handled
             through the conditional zoning process. The county has a Storm Water Detention Ordinance.
             Development in the Four Mile Run Watershed must reduce 100 year storm runoff to
             "undisturbed" levels, within the remainder of the County, similar levels of detention are
             required for the ten year storm. The county also has a citizen water quality monitoring
             program.

             Augusta County - The county has a CAFO and nutrient management ordinance. A 100%
             reserve drainfield required is required for on site disposal systems.

             Bath County -

             Bedford County - The county has a Roanoke River Overlay Zone which includes a 25'
             setback from the river. There is also an open space requirements for planned unit
             developments (PUDs).

             Botetourt County - All exposed soils must be seeded. The county a "Fincastle" Groundwater

                                                         2












              DEPARTmENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              Protection Area. Development clustering is encouraged.

              Buckingham County

              Caroline County - Land application of sludge or animal waste is prohibited. The land
              disturbance threshold county-wide is 2,500 sq. ft. BMPs are required for developments with
              16% or more impervious surface.

              Charles County

              Chesterfield County - There are three critical watersheds designated, which are managed by
              a county watershed management committee. CBLAD is supporting a local BW monitoring
              program. The county has initiated an education program regarding lawn management.

              Clarke County - A preharvest plan is required for forestry activity. IPM is required only for
              golf courses. CAMS are subject to a special use permit. The county has developed a
              Mountainside Plan, a Water Resources Plan, and a Groundwater Protection Plan. The county
              has implemented sliding-scale zoning and a well and septic ordinance.

              Craig County -

              Culpeper County - The county has a setback requirement of 150' for CAFOs, a Watershed
              Protection Area, an open space provision, and encourages development clustering.

              Chamberland County
              Dinwiddie County

              Essex County - The county has open space requirements for new subdivisions and has
              initiated a groundwater and well head protection program.

              Fairfax County - Fairfax county: has a Master Drainage Plan, an Environmental Quality
              Council, a Regional Stormwater Management Plan, a Water Supply Protection Overlay
              District for the Occoquon Reservoir, a Floodplain Management Program, an Environmental
              Quality Corridor Policy, an open space requirement, a Hazardous Materials Response Team,
              Tree protection requirements, Stormwater Quality requirement (50% reduction in phosphorous
              within the Occoquon Watershed and 40% reduction in phosphorous throughout the remainder
              of the county) and is presently pursuing a stormwater utility fee.

              Fauquier County - The county has an Occoquon Watershed Management Plan, a
              Groundwater Protection Plan, an Open Space Plan and Ordinance, and encourages
              development clustering.


                                                         24












              DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND REcREATiON, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              Fluvanna County -

              Fredrick County - The county has setback requirements for CAFOs.

              Gloucester County - All of Gloucester County has been designated a CBPA.

              Goochland County - The county has animal density requirements for CAFOS., open spaces
              requirements, and encourages development clustering.

              Greene County

              Hanover County -
              Henrico County -

              Highland County

              Isle of Wight County - Isle of Wight has a Highway Corridor Overlay District which
              protects trees, and is implementing a "model" Stormwater Utility Ordinance for small
              communities prepared by HRPDC.

              James City County - The entire county is designated a CBPA, nutrient management is
              required for all animal waste facilities, and there are open space requirements for several
              zoning classifications. The county also has a Reservoir Protection Overlay District.

              King and Queen County
              King George County

              King William County -

              Lancaster County - Lancaster County has open space requirements for new subdivisions, has
              initiated a groundwater and well-head protection program, and limits the use of mound OSD
              systems, (see also NNPDC).

              Loudoun County - The county has increased the minimum required separation distance for
              OSDSs, has implemented a sliding scale zoning scheme, requires conservation plans of
              properties enrolled in the land use program, has provisions in its zoning ordinance to
              encourage,open space and protect trees. The county also has a mountain side overlay district.

              Louisa County - Animal waste storage structures require a conditional use permit, and all
              OSDSs must have a 100% reserve drain field site.


              Madison County


                                                         25











             DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DivISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Octobcr, 17 1994 (Draft)


             Mathews County
             Middlesex County

             Nelson County -

             New Kent County

             Northampton County - A Groundwater Protection and Management Plan has been prepared
             for the Eastern Shore.


             Northumberland County - (See NNPDQ

             Nottoway County
             Orange County
             Page County

             Powhatan County - The zoning ordinance contains provisions for stream side buffers for
             subdivisions.


             Prince Edward County - Buffer areas and setbacks for CAFOs will soon be required, and
             the County is participating in a regional study of Nottoway and Appomattox River basins.

             Prince George County

             Prince William County - The county has a regional stormwater management plan, requires
             open space for some development, encourages development clustering and tree protection, and
             is implementing BMPs as listed in the NVPDC BMP Handbook - Occoquon method and has
             adopted a stormwater utility (tax).

             Rappahannock County -

             Richmond County - Open space, development clustering, and tree protec tion are encouraged.
             All new development must meet CBLADs 16% storm water quality standard. (see also
             NNPDC).

             Roanoke County - The county has a Roanoke River Overlay District, CAFOs require special
             use permits, a regional stormwater management plan, a well-head overlay district has been
             proposed, and the county is pursuing a stormwater utility tax.

             Rockbridge County

             Rockingham County - The county has,an ordinance for confined animal feeding operations

                                                       26












              DEPARTmENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


              which requires nutrient management plans.

              Shenandoah County - The county zoning ordinance contains regulations for siting CAFOs
              and requires nutrient management for land application of animal waste. Septic systems are
              prohibited in floodplains and aerobic treatment units are temporarily banned. Development
              clustering is encouraged.

              Spotslyvania County

              Stafford County - The county has a regional stormwater management program, open space
              requirements in its zoning ordinance, and encourages development clustering.

              Surry County - Conditional use permit are required for Confined Animal
              Operations.

              Warren County

              Westmoreland County - The county has open space requirement for large subdivisions, and
              sludge application requires a water quality conservation plan (see also NNPDC).

              York County - (See HRPDC)

              City of Alexandria - The city zoning ordinance is comprehensive. It includes tree
              preservation, and prohibits OSDSs. The city has pioneered the use of intermittent sand filters
              for treating stormwater runoff (see Alexandria supplement to the NV BNT Handbook).

              City of Bedford - Bedford needs to separate combined sewer system.

              City of Buena Vista
              City of Charlottesville

              City of Chesapeake - (See HRPDC)

              City of Clifton Forge - The city has provisions for tree protection and open space.

              City of Colonial Heights
              City of Covington

              City of Fairfax - The city has open space requirements and is.pursuing 4 stormwater utility
              tax.


              City of Falls Church


                                                          27











             DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


             City of Fredricksburg

             City of Hampton - Special use permits are required for stables

             City of Harrisburg - The city has provisions for tree protection and the sewer authority is
             addressing infiltration problems

             City of Hopewell

             City of Lexington - The city encourages development clustering and the preservation of
             natural drainage.

             City of Lynchburg
             City of Manassas

             City of Manassas Park -

             City of Newport News - (See HRPDC)

             City of Norfolk - Water quality management is implemented for drinking water reservoirs
             and CBPA stormwater criteria is.applied city-wide. The city has a tree protection ordinance
             and new OSI)Ss are prohibited. The city is developing an urban nutrient management
             program and is using an innovative approach to update the E&S program.

             City of Petersburg

             City of Poquoson - (See HRPDC)

             City of Portsmouth - (See HRPDC)

             City of Richmond - Combined Sewer Overflow Plan have been approved by DEQ and EPA.

             City of Staunton - The city may develop a stormwater management plan. The city has a
             North River Watershed Management Initiative, open space provisions, and a lawn care
             education program.

             City of Suffolk - (See HRPDC)

             City of Virginia Beach - (See HRPDC)

             City of Waynesboro - Waynesboro has a stormwater management ordinance, and tree
             protection provisions.

                                                        28











             DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND P.EcREATioN, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)


             City of Winchester

             City of Williamsburg - (See HRPDC)

             Town of Ashland


             Town of Berryville - The town has a Stormwater Management Plan, open space
             requirements, and encourages development clustering.

             Town of Blackstone


             Town of Bridgewater - The town has a Master Drainage Plan, whereby developers contribute
             to stormwater costs'within their basin.


             Town of Cape Charles - OSDSs are prohibited.

             Town of Craigsville

             Town of Culpeper - The town has a Watershed Protection Overlay District for the town
             reservoir, a 200' setback for CAFOs within that district, and environmental assessments
             required for large developments within the WPA. The town may initiate a stormwater
             management plan.

             Town of Dayton


             Town of Dendron -


             Town of Dumfries - Stormwater managem  ent is addressed through the Northern Virginia
             BMP Handbook


             Town of Farmville -


             Town of Glade Spting

             Town of Haymarket - Has adopted an Occoquon Policy.

             Town of Herndon
             Town of Occoquon
             Town of Scottsville
             Town of Stephens City
             Town of Surry
             Town of Tappahannock

                                                       29











             DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION, DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION October, 17 1994 (Draft)



             Town of Vienna -


             Town of Warrenton - Has a Master Drainage Plan (see PD-8 BMP Handbook) and a
             regional stormwater management plan.

             Town of West Point - The town recently developed a Stormwater Management Plan and the
             zoning ordinances includes open space provisions.

             Town of Woodstock - No increase in runoff to sinkholes is allowed and new OSDSs are
             prohibited.

             Hampton Roads PDC - HRPDC assist localities with NPS related issues (i.e. Groundwater
             Protection Handbook for Southeastern Virginia, Vegetative Practices Guide for Nonpoint
             Source Pollution management , BMP Design Guidance for Hampton Roads).

             Northern Neck PDC - Animal waste facilities require nutrient management plans within the
             PDC and localities are participating in the Rappahannock River Valley Planning Project





























                                                        30









                                                                                                                NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                3 6668 14112868 8