Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up Plan

1. Chesapeake Bayand Virginia WatersClean-Up Plan From: Secretary of Natural Resources To: House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources House Appropriations Committee Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Senate Finance Committee

2. Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up and Oversight Act (HB 1150) Clear legislative intent: • Describe the magnitude of water-quality challenges • Identify what we are doing to address these challenges • Identify costs • Define accountability measures • Establish a continuous planning process

3. Tracking Implementation Of The Clean-Up Plan Secretary of Natural Resources will: update the content of the plan every spring and report on the status of implementation in the fall of each year.

4. Straightforward butComprehensive!

5. Guiding Themes of the Plan • “Measurable” • “Attainable” • “Phased” • “Prioritized” • “Accountable”

6. Key Elements of the Clean-Up Plan • Pollution Control and BMP Implementation • Pollution Reduction (All Sources) • Pollution Prevention (Healthy Waters) • Tracking and Monitoring • TMDLs Developed/Implemented • Compliance with Local Programs (ESC, SWM, CBPA) • Coordination: State-Local Government • Alternative Funding Mechanisms • Legislative Recommendations

7. What’s New on the Point Source Side?

8. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Point Source Regulations • Water Quality Management Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-720): effective 1/11/06 • Sets nutrient waste load allocations for 125 significant discharges • Regulation for Nutrient Enriched Waters and Dischargers Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (9 VAC 25-40): effective 11/16/05 • Sets technology-based nutrient concentration limits for dischargers • General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-820-10): effective 11/01/06 • Implements the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program

9. Nutrient Trading/Offsets • 125 “significant” dischargers • WSGP Permit effective date: Jan. 1, 2007 • Compliance Plans due date: August 1, 2007 • Compliance dates of January 1, 2011 for each river basin • Estimated savings of 23 – 33% in capital costs

10. Nonpoint Source Implementation

11. Reality Check • Tributary Strategies is one way to meet NPS nutrient goals • Need to build strong NPS Programs • Limited Funds • Service Delivery capacity

12. 1. Aggressive Implementation of “Priority Ag Practices” • 5 Priority Practices: Cover crops, nutrient management, livestock exclusion, conservation tillage, riparian buffers (applicable to farming operation) • Estimated $267 million for 5 priority Ag. practices in Bay watershed: Achieves 60% of NPS nutrient reduction goal – 9 million pound nitrogen reduction • Dedicated funds for Priority Practices (WQIF, BMP C-S) • Multi-year (3 year) contracts • Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) are key implementers: 36 new local SWCD staff • Ag BMP/conservation marketing study & outreach programs based on research

13. 2. Animal Waste Management • Decrease phosphorus levels in poultry litter & swine manure • Dairy diet & feed management • Nutrient mgmt planning for poultry litter end users-Regulatory TAC underway now • Poultry litter transport program

14. 3. Southern Rivers TMDLs • Use WQIF for TMDL BMPs • Target SWCDs with staff • Initial Ag practice focus • Use NRCS technical support • Add straight pipes, septics when possible

15. 4. Increase Compliance of Erosion and Sediment Control Programs Statewide • 166 locally implemented ESC Programs • DCR conducts Program Compliance Reviews and sets Corrective Action Agreements • Program reviews now brought before SWCB • Civil Enforcement Tool (Since 7/1/05) • Substantial progress: increased compliance from 25% compliant with the plan was produced to 78% currently • Goal : 90% Compliance by 2010

16. 5. Improve Local State Coordination • Update local land use info • Determine local “loadings” from NPS • Seek grant funds • Pilot with local jurisdiction pollution reduction implementation

17. 6. Improved Implementation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act • Focus on Septic Pump-out; BMP maintenance and inspection • CBPA “Phase III” Incorporate Water Quality Protection into local zoning and subdivision ordinances; focus on reduction of impervious surfaces: Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) principles. • Assist with similar approaches outside of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act area but within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

18. 7. Implement “new” Stormwater Management Program • Consolidated into DCR, January 05 • Regulatory action underway: • set water quality & quantity criteria: contracting with Center for Watershed Protection to look at loading based standards. • define the framework for local program adoption • establish fee schedule. • Statewide stormwater program

19. Clean-Up Plan Update In June the Clean-Up Plan was revised and updated to incorporate address key issues including the following: • Locality technical assistance and capacity building such as development of a Networked Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Program • Development of a “Healthy Lands and Healthy Waters” Initiative to address water quality protection and conservation • Reporting may change to incorporate a more graphical approach-”Dashboard” design

20. Existing NPS Funding Overview • Recent Statewide BMP cost-share ramp-up: • FY05 $6 million • FY06 $10 million • FY07 $14 million • FY08 $16 million • TMDL Impaired Stream Clean-up • FY07 $2.65 million • FY08 $ 3.05 million (+ federal “319” funds >$2 million) • Significant program and staffing needs remain

21. Unanswered Questions • Is there a TMDL “end game”? • Could or should “enforceable” nutrient goals be established for NPS? • What will be the impact of the nutrient credit trading program on nonpoint sources? • What about septic tanks? • How do we keep healthy water healthy?

22. Questions? J. Michael Foreman, DCR-SWC Jeff Corbin, Asst. Secretary of Natural Resources www.naturalresources.virginia.gov