1. 2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee July 14, 2004

2. Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 2 Purpose of this presentation Review COG role in helping to develop implementation options. Review funding and budget implications. Discuss emerging Chesapeake Bay policy and program issues.

3. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 3 Challenges Strategies not complete VA still draft MD basin summaries emerging DC not yet issued Focus shifting to “implementation plans” Responsibility & accountability Costs & funding Only one response (so far) to COG’s letter

4. Potomac Basin Cap Load Allocations by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Nitrogen (million lbs/yr) Phosphorus (million lbs/yr) 2000 Progress 2010 Cap2000 Progress 2010 Cap PA6.434.020.450.33 MD18.6911.811.201.04 VA24.3512.841.961.40 DC4.952.400.140.34 WV7.464.710.540.36 Total61.8835.784.293.47

5. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 5 Role of COG’s Local Governments in Defining Implementation Options Wastewater treatment options Urban stormwater management options Land use planning and regulation options Air quality planning options Transportation planning options

6. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 6 Key COG Concerns Cost implications Wastewater & stormwater rates, fees Growth implications How do we accommodate population increase Local water quality How do we integrate Bay goals with goals such as stream restoration Timing Is 2010 a realistic goal? NO! Can implementation be phased to achieve greater water quality benefits at a lower cost?

7. Estimated Costs to 2010 to Attain Water Quality Goals Reference Document MD VA PA Maryland Tributary Strategy 13.6B Virginia Tributary Strategy 3.2B Pennsylvania Tributary Strategy Cost estimate under development CBC Cost of a Clean Bay 3.4B 4.4B 3.1B CBP Technical Support Document (UAA) 3.4B 4.8B 3.2B Due to revised unit cost estimates for septic systems, the total cost is expected to be reduced. Enhanced septic denitrification currently represents $6.5 B of the total cost.

8. Estimated Total Agricultural Sector Costs REFERENCE DOCUMENT MD VAPA MD Tributary Strategy 651M VA Tributary Strategy 357M PA Tributary Strategy Cost estimate under development CBC Cost of a Clean Bay 1.2B900M1.2B Note: Inclusion of O&M costs for individual practices varies among reference documents. All sources generally include O&M costs for cost share practices.

9. Cost Comparison of selected BMPs ($/acre) Practice MD VAPA CBP Cover crops ($ annual) 40 19 -- 27 Conservation tillage ($ annual) 17 3 -- 3 Yield Reserve ($ annual) n/a 30 -- 7 Nutrient Mgmt. Plans ($ annual) 4 7 -- 7 Forest buffers ($ total) * 1,000 545 -- 1,517 Grass Buffers ($ total) * 140 175 -- 132 Wetland Restoration ($ total) * 3,500 889 -- 1,258 *Estimated lifetime of practices varies among sources -- Cost estimate under development Sources: Maryland Tributary Strategy, Virginia Tributary Strategy, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability

10. Cost Comparison of BMPs (continued) Practice Cost per pound Total annual Cost 20-year costAnnual nitrogen reduction potential (lbs) Cover crops $2.44$1.8M$36.5M866,000 Conservation tillage $2.0$0.6M$12.0M382,500 Nutrient Mgmt. Plans$1.50$1.1M$22.4M715,000 Forest buffers$5.05$8.5M$172M2,000,000 Septic denitrification$35.49$21M$419M598,000 Point Source BNR/ENR$2.53$56M$1.1B15,000,000 Sources: Maryland Tributary Strategy, Virginia Tributary Strategy, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability, Maryland 2001 Joint Chairman’s Report

11. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 11 We’re all in this together, but….

12. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 12 Current Policy Issues Timing and schedule. Regulatory permit implications. What can be accomplished with available resources? How do we become more selective and target implementation?

13. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 13 Fundamental Questions What practices will be necessary to achieve goals? “Limit of Technology” at wastewater plants? Improved urban stormwater controls? New land use regulations/growth controls? What will practices cost? Use attainability analysis How will local governments balance competing priorities (budget, land use)?

14. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 14 Metropolitan Washington Major Wastewater Treatment Plants 40% Goal Cap Load

15. July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 15 Summary – Take Home Points New pollution reduction goals are based on the “best available” science, and are very ambitious. Cost data vary substantially – we are working with other partners to get more reliable estimates. Funding will not be sufficient to meet the C2K water quality goals by 2010, so spending must be targeted at the most effective management actions. Since most implementation happens at the local level, COG’s members can influence the Tributary Strategy process and push for common sense solutions to the region’s water quality problems.