Virginia’s Tributary Strategies May 19, 2005 Citizens Advisory Committee

1

Virginia’s Tributary StrategiesVirginia’s Tributary StrategiesMay 19, 2005May 19, 2005

Citizens Advisory CommitteeCitizens Advisory CommitteeRuss Baxter, Asst. Secretary of Natural Russ Baxter, Asst. Secretary of Natural

ResourcesResources

2

Tributary Strategy: Past Tributary Strategy: Past ActionsActions

• March 2003 – Allocations Agreed to by CBP Partners

• April 2003 - Water Quality Criteria Published (EPA)

• June 2003- March 2004 – VA Tributary Team activity

• April 2004 Public Comment Drafts Released for Comment Period

3

Tributary Strategy: Tributary Strategy: Past ActionsPast Actions

• August 27, 2004 Point Source Revisions Announced by Secretary Murphy– James and York allocation awaiting final WQ

standards– Use of Capacity with Stringent Treatment

• January 2005 – Statewide document released

4

Virginia's 2002, Tributary Strategy,and Cap Allocation Nitrogen Loads

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

(mill

ion

s lb

s/yr

) 2002 Load

TS Point

TS Nonpoint

Cap Allocation

Orphan

5

Virginia's 2002, Tributary Strategy, and Cap Allocation Phosphorus Loads

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

(mill

ion

lbs/

yr) 2002 Load

TS Point

TS Nonpoint

Cap Allocation

6

Virginia's Sediment Loadings to the Chesapeake Bay

0

1

1

2

2

3

Potom

ac

Rappah

annock

York

Jam

es

E. Shore

State

wide

(mill

ion

s to

ns/

yr)

2002

Strategy

Cap Allocation

Virginia's Sediment Loadings to the Chesapeake Bay

0

1

1

2

2

3

(mill

ions

tons

/yr) 2002

Strategy

Cap Allocation

7

Virginia's 2002 Relative Nitrogen Loadings by Source

Agriculture29%

Urban16%Mixed Open

7%

Point 33%

Septic4%

Forest10%

Air Dep1%

Agriculture Urban Mixed Open Point Septic Forest Air Dep

8

Virginia's 2002 Relative Phosphorus Loadings by Source

Agriculture41%

Urban19%

Mixed Open13%

Point 24%

Forest2%

Air Dep1%

Agriculture Urban Mixed Open Point Forest Air Dep

9

Regulatory Proposals: Point SourceRegulatory Proposals: Point Source

• Water Quality Standards – updated, site specific use categories– criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity/SAV &

chlorophyll ADOPTED 3/15/2005 except numerical chlorophyll criteria for James River and dissolved oxygen for Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers

• Regulation for Nutrient Dischargers– sets technology-based nutrient concentration limits for

certain discharges Public Comment Period ended on April 25

• Water Quality Planning Regulation– allocates nutrient loads for significant discharges within

each river basin as identified through Tributary Strategies– establishes trading and offsets program Public Comment

Period ended on April 25

10

General Assembly Actions General Assembly Actions Affecting Tributary StrategiesAffecting Tributary Strategies

• Nutrient Credit Trading

• Amendments to the Water Quality Improvement Act

• House Joint Resolution 640

• Amended Biennial Budget

11

Nutrient Credit ExchangeNutrient Credit ExchangeHB 2862 SB 1275HB 2862 SB 1275

- SWCB to develop “Watershed General Permit” that contains “WLA” for each facility

- Point Source Loads Capped- Allows technology limits

- Allows trading within basins for those facilities covered by the permit

- Authorizes Establishment of Nutrient Credit Exchange Association

12

Trading and Other ProvisionsTrading and Other Provisions

• Trading allowed between point sources in a river basin to achieve watershed WLA in accordance with General Permit

• No inter-basin trading• Trading allowed to achieve annual

compliance under certain circumstances• Nonpoint “offsets” for new and expanding

plants

13

WQIA AmendmentsWQIA Amendments HB 2777 SB 1235 SB 810HB 2777 SB 1235 SB 810

• Updates Act (“C2K” and “tributary strategy plans”)

• Statement of Policy “It shall be the be the policy of the General Assembly to provide annual its share of support ….”

• Requires DEQ to sign grant agreements with significant dischargers

• Requires recommendations on “sufficient and predictable” funding by November 2005

14

WQIAWQIA AmendmentsAmendments ( (con’tcon’t))

• “Sliding Scale” for point source grants from 35% to 75% based on a ratio

• Additional “priorities” – Agricultural Practices, Pounds of Reduction

15

WQIF Funding DistributionWQIF Funding Distribution

• Appropriation and Surplus: Appropriation goes to PS, Surplus 70/30 to NPS/PS ( 30 PS for PPEA and “state of the art”)

• Surplus and no appropriation or appropriation less than 40% of surplus: Secretary makes division between PS and NPS (unless budget bill does)

• Surplus and appropriation greater than 40% of surplus: Appropriation to PS and 70/30 NPS

Maximum 60% of nonpoint to Bay WatershedREMEMBER: Budget Bill Trumps AllREMEMBER: Budget Bill Trumps All

16

House Joint Resolution 640House Joint Resolution 640

• “study options to provide a long-term funding source to clean up Virginia's polluted waters, including the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.”

• 8 members = 4 House, 2 Senate (including Money Committee Chairs) plus Secretaries of Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry

17

2005 – 2007 NPS Initiatives2005 – 2007 NPS InitiativesDCR – Lead AgencyDCR – Lead Agency

1. Accelerate agricultural BMP usage2. Expand Nutrient Management Planning and

Implementation3. Expanded Stormwater Management Law4. Strengthen Erosion & Sediment Control

Implementation5. Strengthen Chesapeake Bay Act

Implementation6. Enhance NPS Tracking system7. Target Public Outreach efforts

18

WQIF Funding: How Does it WQIF Funding: How Does it Add Up?Add Up?

• Adopted biennial budget appropriate $15 million in each year of the biennium to the WQIF (½ Point, ½ Nonpoint)

• Governor’s Budget Amendments - $32.4 from the surplus that existed on June 30, 2004

• Final Budget: $50 million for point source – adjustment to surplus ($32.4) to 70% nonpoint 30% point

19

How Does It Add Up?How Does It Add Up?

$15,000,000

$32,000,000

$50,000,000

$97,000,000*

*in the second year of the beinnium, beginning July 1, 2005

20

Point/Nonpoint SplitPoint/Nonpoint Split

Point Source: $50 + $9.7 + $7.5 less reserve = $65.7

(+ $4 million for CSO)

Nonpoint: $22.7 + $7.5 less reserve = $26.4

21

Key Tributary Strategy PracticesKey Tributary Strategy Practices All BasinsAll Basins

• Point Source Reductions

• Nonpoint Source Practices:

- Nutrient Management Planning (Ag., Urban and Mixed Open)

- Cover Crops

- Conservation Tillage

- Pasture Grazing BMPs

22

KEY TRIBUTARY STRATEGY KEY TRIBUTARY STRATEGY PRACTICESPRACTICES

(NPS reductions)(NPS reductions)• Cover Crops 10% TN • Conservation Tillage 6% TN 18%TP• Pasture Grazing BMPs 9% TN 14% TP• Nutrient Management (NM)

– Ag 20% TN 13% TP– Urban 2% TN 2% TP– Mixed Open 2% TN 3% TP– Overall NM 24% TN 18% TP

23

Point Source and Nonpoint Source Point Source and Nonpoint Source Costs and Nutrient Reductions by Costs and Nutrient Reductions by

Source CategorySource CategorySourceCategory

Capital Cost[$ Millions]

O&M Cost[$ Millions/yr]

Total Nitrogen Reduction

[Million lbs/yr]

Total PhosphorusReduction

[Million lbs/yr]

Agriculture 740 45 13.9 2.03

Urban 5,874 528 4.1 0.81

Mixed Open 323 7 1.6 0.35

Septic 74 0 0.1 0

Forest 2 0 0.1 0.02

Point Source 1,099 42 8.9 0.87

Total 8,112 622 28.7 4.08

NOTE: 1. Nonpoint source costs do not include technical assistance, outreach, and administration costs – amount to ~ 10% to 20% of capital cost2. Point source figures are planning level, order-of-magnitude cost opinions, accurate from -30% to +50%

24

Tributary Strategy CostsTributary Strategy CostsWhy did they change?Why did they change?

1. Change in practices

2. Annual costs/household vs. capital costs per practice

3. Multiple installation costs

4. Operation and maintenance costs

5. Technical assistance costs

25

26

““Evolution” of Cost Evolution” of Cost EstimatesEstimates

• Initial cost estimates developed for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). These estimates served as the basis for the initial Virginia estimate of $3.2 billion and Blue Ribbon Panel.

• Point Source Cost estimates remain the same

• Nonpoint estimates used CBP as a starting point adjusted estimates using program experience and best professional judgement by DCR

27

““Evolution” of Costs Evolution” of Costs Estimates (con’t)Estimates (con’t)

• The Blue Ribbon Panel aggregated costs prior to the completion of our analysis and used a best guess.

• The numbers we have developed are the last estimates we will do. We will focus now on actual costs and budgets.

• The estimates presented here will change as program implementation continues.

28

““State Costs” vs “Other State Costs” vs “Other Costs”Costs”

• “State Costs” are those cost that would be reasonably borne by the Commonwealth based on existing programs and past practice.

• “Other Costs” include private/local share of state cost share programs, regulatory requirements, voluntary efforts, etc.

29

Estimated Estimated NPS CostsNPS Costs

$8,857M $7,557 M$1,300 MTotal

$82 M$78 M$4 MSeptic

$2.3 M$2.3 M$0Forest

$394 M$13 M$381 MMixed Open

$7,519 M$7,229M$290 MUrban

$859 M$235 M$624 MAgriculture

TotalOther $ Costs*State $ Costs

* Includes regulatory requirements, local government and landowner costs.

30

Estimated Estimated TMDL and Ches TMDL and Ches Bay TS CostsBay TS Costs

TMDL (Bay non TS) = $4.2 billion

TMDL (Non Bay) = $1 billion

TS $8.8 billion x .07* = $6.2 billion

TS Point Source = $1.1 billionTotal $12.5 billion*** Estimated 30% cost efficiency** Total cost, we have not yet done “state cost “ analysis for

non TS components

31

EstimatedEstimated Virginia State Virginia State Government Tributary Government Tributary

Strategy Cost Strategy Cost

“Bottom Line”“Bottom Line”Calculated for point and nonpoint

Tributary Strategy Implementation by 2010:

$1.8 BILLION

32

Tributary Strategies:Tributary Strategies:What’s Next??What’s Next??

• Complete water quality standards adoption• Establish final allocations for York and James• Revise WQIF grant guidance• Act on current point source rulemakings

following close of comment period• Promulgate Watershed General Permit• On the ground NPS activities in each basin:

Tributary Teams, Building Partnerships with local governments and others.

33

See the Tributary Strategies See the Tributary Strategies PagePage at:at:

www.naturalresources.virginia.govwww.naturalresources.virginia.gov