The Evolution of Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution: a by bZxSQd5


									 Advancing Nonpoint Source
     Pollution Control:
a presentation to the Rappahannock River
            Basin Commission
           September 12, 2007

                By Jack E. Frye
                Department of Conservation & Recreation
                Soil & Water Conservation Division Director

         Asked to Address
1. Changes to Virginia's Stormwater
   Management Program and their

2. Provide background for your “Summit
   2007” Issues: Nutrient Loading Caps and
   TMDL Implementation

  1. Changes to VA’s Stormwater
• Good local Erosion & Sediment Control Program
  is foundation for Stormwater Program
• VA Soil & Water Conservation Board is working
  to achieve statewide E&SC compliance of 90%
  of 165 local programs by July 1, 2010
• Localities in Bay Act area and all MS4s are
  required to adopt program within 18 months
  after final stormwater regulation

    Changes to VA’s Stormwater
• Consolidation of SW programs to DCR on Jan.
  29, 2005
• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
• Construction General Permit (>1 ac) for land
  disturbing activities
• From 3 agencies and 4 boards to one
• Blending of voluntary state SW program with
  federal mandated SW requirements (CWA)
  What is being considered in the
  “pre-draft proposed” regulation
Three areas are under consideration:
1. Water Quality and Water Quantity
2. Local Program Administration
3. Permit Fee Schedule
        (some definition changes made too)

     1. Water Quality and Water
            Quantity Criteria
• Setting loading limits for nitrogen and
  phosphorus (historically P only)
• Achievable on-site under most situations
• Regional & “off-site” options
• “Technology” approach - Identify specific
  BMPs and give LID credits
• Allow “performance” approach
• Riparian buffers on perennial streams
     2. Local Program Administration
• MS4 & Bay Act localities must adopt program (within 18
  months of final regulation)
• All other localities can choose to adopt program
• VA Soil & Water Conservation Board approves
• Provide administration, plan review, inspection &
  enforcement (similar to ESC components)
• Authorized to issue “construction general permit” for
  management of stormwater
• Locality retains at least 70% of permit fee; state gets up
  to 30%; Permit fee funded program
• Maintenance agreements for permanent SW BMPs

          3. Permit Fee Schedule

• Fee schedule established in regulation
• Based on actual time to review plans, inspect
  sites, etc.
• Graduated schedule that increases as project
  acreage increases
• Fee due prior to permit issuance
• Annual permit maintenance fee for extended

              Next Steps
• draft proposed regulation approval by VA
  Soil & Water Conservation Board (SWCB)
• Administrative review & approval
• EPA review and approval
• Public comment period
• Respond to comments
• Final regulation to SWCB for approval
 2. “Summit 2007” Issues: Nutrient Loading
        Caps and TMDL Implementation

What is a “Cap”. It is a limit or goal; if under
   then stay at or under; if above then try to
   reach or go below. Nutrients are
   good…much of anything is not so good!
“TMDL Implementation”. State water quality
   standards are violated, public health
   threatened, water uses threatened;
   TMDL sets the pollution limit (cap)
 Evolution Theory: There are successes
          and failures over time

• Federal Clean Water Act (1972)
• Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies- first 40%
  reductions then specific target goals (1990’s to today)
• MS4 permits; small and large (1990’s)
• Stormwater programs (1990’s – today)
• Impaired waters – TMDLs (1990’s)
• Nutrient Credit Exchange – trading and offsets (2005)
• Chesapeake Bay & VA Waters Clean-up Plan (2006)
             All these are still evolving!
  What does all this mean for local
• You control land use and changes in land use
• Some control of land management for pollution
• Growing interest in securing water quantity for
  drinking and commercial development
• Growing interest in water quality for drinking and
  commercial development
    Q. Is water quality and quantity security
          improving or degrading in your

 The Point Source vs Nonpoint Bay
        Clean-up Dilemma
• Limits are set in permits for larger individual point source
  dischargers (about 120 in Bay)
• All other pollution sources are considered to be a part of
  nonpoint pollution
• Nonpoint sources collectively have a basin level goal to
  achieve; no “limits” for any sources have been set
• Many varied NPS sources and means to control those
• Majority of reductions are achieved “voluntarily”
• No ability to account for increases vs decreases in NPS
• No assignment of responsibility to responsible parties

       Trade/Offset Dilemma
• PS has assigned “loadings” by facility
• NPS is not assigned; many contributors
  and many ways to reduce or prevent
• No collective status for NPS loading; only
  site by site
• No control over changing status of NPS
  loadings and how that affects overall NPS
           Working Concept:
• develop and evaluate NPS loadings at the
  county/city level
• determine current loading status relative to Bay
  clean-up goal
• Identify opportunities to meet goals and manage
  overall loadings
• build/create a framework within which trading
  and offsetting can occur which achieves state
  and local water quality (and quantity?) goals

     Jurisdictional NPS “Goals”
• Start with Bay model data and then fine tune
• DCR correct land use data with local officials
• Based on land uses
• Based on land management
• Evaluate nutrient loadings by tract
• Determines NPS loading situation
• Identify lands where reduced loadings by improved land
  management are possible
• Identifies threats to water supply and enables evaluation
  of land management options
• Creates “value” for environmental services

     TMDL Implementation
1. Establish TMDL for WQ impairment
2. Develop TMDL Implementation Plan (IP)
3. Carry out the IP
4. Causes, Sources, Reductions, Means,
   Time Frame
5. Ag & rural impairments – voluntary
6. Urban impairments – voluntary or may
   become part of MS4 requirements
   TMDL Implementation

No one knows what will change or
happen differently when the
Chesapeake Bay becomes “officially”
a TMDL in 2011. However, there are
numerous questions we need to be
asking ourselves.

       TMDL Implementation
What is the proper role for local government in cleaning up
    impaired waters?
Do impaired waters threaten the health of citizens in your
Do impaired waters threatened your drinking water sources
    or drive up the cost of water treatment?
Impairment by NPS sources require clean-up by voluntary
    actions, often with state cost-share. Voluntary action
    levels may not be great enough to eliminate the
    impairment. What then?
If impairments are corrected, do localities have any vested
    interest to help then keep them clean?


To top