1. Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach

2. Dividing up Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Loads TMDL 40 Segment sheds 1275 ± TMDL Allocations Local Targets 96 Localities (Counties and Cities) 216 Locality-Segments 4890 ± Locality-Segment Source Targets 2

3. Dividing It Up? Loudoun Fairfax Fauquier Stafford PWC

4. Virginia’s WIP II Process Project Organization Steering Committee Inter-Agency Project Team Planning District Commissions (16) Soil and Water Conservation Districts (32) Localities (96) Non- Governmental Organizations Federal Facilities/Lands Stakeholder Advisory Group Project Manager 4

5. Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.) 5 EPA Expectations: Phase II will reference and build upon Phase I management strategies EPA Expectations: Develop “Local” Targets Initially as percent reduction from current loads Upon completion of model revisions, update targets Engage 96 Localities, 32 SWCDs and NGOs Explore the Use of the 16 Planning District Commissions to facilitate local engagement Develop Community Conservation Profile (locality scale)

6. Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.) 6 Community Conservation Profiles Integrates conservation strategies with appropriate local data; DCR convert appropriate components of the strategy to an input deck to include in WIP II; Intended to provide context for local strategy that is more than just an “input deck” including strategies for linking land and water quality, for example: Comprehensive planning Outreach/education Local programs: PDR/TDR, buffer initiatives, green public lands, LEED building initiatives, ect.

7. Virginia’s WIP II Process (cont.) 7 Profile could serve as tracking mechanism for two year milestones. Proposed PDC Role: Manage local data set Developed by PDC with DCR Support Defined by Locality/PDC Land Use/Land cover/BMPs/Bleu-Green Infrastructure Work with localities to identify potential pollution reduction strategy Employ local scenario tool Will require predictive element Question development & time frame Lack of relationship to Bay data

8. Schedule Schedule Remains unchanged as of now June 2011 Draft Phase II WIP to EPA; November 2011 Final Phase II WIP to EPA; Anticipating 3 month slip per CBF letter to EPA; Presently very limited flow of information out of Richmond; Virginia Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources for Chesapeake Bay to present to NVRC Commissioners later next week.

9. How will the Chesapeake Bay TMDL affect local government? Allocations set for local governments/watersheds/regions for nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment; Discretion as to whether the local level identified as municipalities, watershed organization or PDC; Require improvements draws attention to existing regulatory efforts and for increased regulatory efforts; Additional regulatory and administrative burdens on local governments; All new pollutant loadings resulting from growth will need to be offset; Local discretion will exist for how to meet pollutant loads. But, if there is not a local plan, then responsibility for meeting pollutant loads will fall on DCR and ultimately EPA.

10. How is this different from the VA Stormwater Regulations? VA Stormwater Regulations go into effect 280 days following the finalization of Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan or Dec 2012 The stormwater controls are a very important part of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL process The Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is broader and will focus on source sectors beyond stormwater The Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is attempting to reach reduced pollutant levels by 2025 that will lead to restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.

11. Impacts of Having Phase I MS4 WLAs in TMDL MS4 permits must be consistent with WLAs Complicates permit negotiations Phase I localities must track progress toward and achieve three separate sets of targets for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment Reduces flexibility Increases risk of non-compliance Exposes Phase I localities in Virginia to third party lawsuits for failure to achieve required reductions.

12. WIP II Development Issues 12 Bay Model resolution & accuracy at the local scale; Uncertainty around delivery of approved 5.3.2 Model; Individual Waste Load Allocations for Virginia only MS4 Phase I Jurisdictions; Dealing with federal and state lands, accounting for and accountability; Dealing with federal and state lands, accounting for and accountability; Funding for WIP II planning process and implementation; Locality willingness to participate.

13. EPA Ideas for State Strategies to Help Facilitate Local Implementation 1. Document how targets could be built into existing or future local planning documents: Examples could include comprehensive plans, conservation district contracts or work plans, watershed association strategic plans 2. State regulations with local-level requirements tied to TMDL and WIPs: Include numeric goals from WIP or TMDL, specific roles for local partners, or creation/revision of local ordinances Evidence of technical assistance and/or compliance assurance to ensure activities are carried through at the local level 3. State permits with specific provisions tied to TMDL and WIPs Set numeric targets at the local level or require certain actions by local governments Serve as leverage if jurisdictions do not meet sector nutrient and sediment reduction targets. Leverage could include more stringent requirements to protect water quality or expanding the universe of permittees

14. What advantage is there in working together as a region in this process? Collective voice asking for resources for implementation Opportunities to work together to figure out the best methods for reducing loads of pollutants across all sectors Potential for pollutant offsets with other regions or watersheds, but also Opportunity to create regional or watershed ‐ based offset program (appropriate scale for implementation)

15. Comments or Questions Before we get to Discussion!!

16. Input/Discussion What are your primary concerns with the CB TMDL process and potential impacts What do you believe are the primary concerns of local officials? How do you think the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will impact you as a permitted discharger? What do you think your local government needs from the state or federal government to help with implementation of Chesapeake Bay TMDL requirements?

17. Input/Discussion What strategies do you think the region should pursue in the next 6 to 12 months related to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Would a regional or watershed-specific plan help to address any of these concerns? What problems or issues do you think we would face if we attempted a regional or watershed based WIP? How much would guesstimate that it would cost to produce a region wide approach?