TD 225 .C54 B199 copy 2 • Chesapeake Executive Council 903R88102 Baywide Conventional Pollutants Control Strategy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Information Resource Center (3PM52) 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement Commitment Report July 1988 ------- Baywide Conventional Pollutants Control Strategy An Agreement Commitment Report from the Chesapeake Executive Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency R?2ic;i 111 information Resource Cerior (2P./52) 841 Chestnut Street PiiiisdcSphia, PA 19107 Annapolis, Maryland July 1988 ------- ADOPTION STATEMENT We, the undersigned, adopt the Basinwide Conventional Pollutant Strategy, in fulfillment of Water Quality Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement: "...By July 1988, to develop and adopt, as required by the Water Quality Act of 1987, a basinwide implementation strategy for the management and control of conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and nonpoint sources." This Strategy presents the programs underway and planned by the Bay area jurisdictions (Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Maryland) to address the water quality problems caused by conventional pollutants. The document outlines the conventional pollutant control programs related to point sources for each jurisdiction, under the common topic headings of NPDES Permit Program, Water Quality Standards, Enforcement, National Municipal Policy, and Financial Aid to Localities. For nonpoint source control, the strategy focuses on Erosion and Sedimentation Control in Urban Areas, and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Agricultural and Forested Areas. Finally, the Strategy recognizes the need for continual information exchange among the Bay area jurisdictions to improve the quality of the control programs, and ensure, to the degree appropriate for baywide issues, that these programs are implemented in a coordinated fashion. In order to maintain a viable baywide program, annual Conventional Pollutant Working Conferences shall be held to provide an information exchange forum. Program staff from the jurisdictions shall meet and assist each other in achieving Bay restoration objectives, by discussing new programs or improvements to existing ones. For the Commonwealth of Virginia For the State of Maryland For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania For the United States of America For the District of Columbia For the Chesapeake Bay Commission ------- TABLE OP CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Jurisdiction Strategies Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Virginia District of Columbia State of Maryland III. Basinwide Strategy ------- INTRODUCTION As stated in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the improvement and maintenance of water quality are the single most critical elements in the overall restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay. Commitments in the Agreement focus on reducing and managing three major water quality problems impacting the Bay and its tributaries: nutrient enrichment, toxic pollutants, and conventional pollutants. This document fulfills the commitment to develop a Basinwide Conventional Pollutant Strategy. A. Background Much of the attention concerning the water quality problems of the Chesapeake Bay system has focused primarily on two areas: 1. excessive levels of nutrients entering the Bay and its tributaries; and, 2. contamination of major water bodies within the Chesapeake Bay system by toxic pollutants, consisting of organic pollutants and heavy metals. While the nutrient and toxic problems have received much of the attention it is also vitally important to the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts that the problems caused by conventional pollutants, and the ongoing programs to combat these problems, not be ignored. For the purposes of this Strategy, the term "conventional pollutant" refers to the following: o Oxygen demanding pollutants, which are commonly measured by one of these test methods: BOD (biochemical oxygen demand); COD (chemical oxygen demand); or, TOG (total organic carbon) o Suspended solids o pH o Temperature o Oil and Grease o Bacterial contamination o Sediment erosion from rural and urban areas These conventional pollutants are of concern because they cause many of the same water quality, habitat, and resource problems that are attributed to nutrient enrichment or toxics. Reduced river oxygen levels below wastewater discharges, high turbidity, shellfish ------- bed closures, and preclusion of habitat have been, and continue to be, serious problems within the Bay system. Reducing the impact from conventional pollutants is not a new concern. The focus of federal, state, and local water quality programs for many decades has been directed toward reducing the discharge of these pollutants. The federal Clean Water Act, state water pollution control laws, erosion and sediment control laws and ordinances have each resulted in the expenditure of enormous amounts of public and private funds to combat the conventional pollutant problems. The Chesapeake Bay Program participants recognize that the restoration efforts within the Bay watershed must not only implement nutrient and toxic control programs but must also continue to deal with the problems caused by conventional pollutants. Therefore, the Water Quality section of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains the following commitment: By July 1988, to develop and adopt, as required by the Water Quality Act of 1987, a basin-wide implementation strategy for the management and control of conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and nonpoint sources. In order to develop this basinwide strategy representatives of the point and nonpoint source management agencies from each of the participating jurisdictions agreed to prepare individual strategies that would outline their approach towards managing and controlling conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay system. B. Outline of Basinwide Conventional Pollutant Strategy The strategies of the jurisdictions are structured along the following outline: 1. In the area of point sources, the strategies focus on how the jurisdictions are implementing aggressive programs in the following areas: NPDES Permit Program o Mechanisms to ensure that the NPDES permit system is being managed in the most efficient manner possible. o Mechanisms to ensure that all permits remain current and incorporate limits for conventional pollutants that are appropriate for the receiving stream quality. o Description of how animal waste and no discharge facilites are regulated to ensure pollutants do not reach the Bay or its tributaries. ------- o Description of planned improvements to state regulations that will improve management of the permit program and ensure conformance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act? Water Quality Standards o Planned revisions to current water quality standards that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Enforcement o Mechanisms to ensure that timely and appropriate enforcement actions are taken against violators of discharge permit conditions, state laws, and regulations. o New programs (such as DMR auditing or on-site inspections) that are planned or underway to improve enforcement actions. National Municipal Policy o Status of the NMP program, including the number of facilities affected; the number scheduled to comply by July 1988; the number under court order for schedules extending beyond July 1988. o Description of the jurisdiction's plans to deal with owners who do not comply with their NMP requirements. Financial Aid To Localities o Description of the current financial aid programs for meeting point source control needs. o Actions that are being taken to establish a revolving loan program in the jurisdiction in accordance with the Clean Water Act of 1987. How is the loan fund being capitalized in the jurisdiction? What amount of funding has been provided or is planned for use in the loan program? 2. In the area of non-point source control, the strategies focus on how the jurisdictions are implementing aggressive programs in the following areas: ------- Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas o Description of the current state program for erosion and sediment control, including any new legal, regulatory, administrative, or budgetary initiatives being taken or planned to strengthen the program. Sediment BMPs in Agricultural and Forested Areas o Description of the current state program for sediment control in agricultural and forested areas, including any new legal, regulatory, administrative, or budgetary initiatives being taken or planned to strengthen the programs. ------- II. JURISDICTION STRATEGIES ------- PENNSYLVANIA CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT STRATEGY NPDES Permit Program Pennsylvania operates a "decentralized" water quality management program. NPDES permits are developed and issued in six (6) Regional Offices which receive program direction and over sight by the central office. Engineering staff are involved in issuing/reissuing NPDES permits. Field staff are involved in NPDES compliance monitoring and enforcement. Over the past five years the process of developing and defending NPDES permits has become substantially more complex and time consuming. This is largely due to the requirements which have occurred in the water quality standards implementation process and related factors such as antidegradation, antibacksliding, toxics management, citizen suit intervention, and appeals of NPDES permits. During this same time period, Pennsylvania has been attempting to maintain and increase NPDES permitting productivity. A water quality management permit program strategy has been developed which focuses upon managerial, decision-making, and organizational aspects of the program. Greatest emphasis is placed on issuing new NPDES permits and reissuing permits for "major" municipal and industrial dischargers. Enforcement cases also receive high priority for NPDES permit actions. In Pennsylvania animal manure management encourage reuse and recycling. Nutrient management plans emphasize the land application of manure at the proper times and rates to maximize crop utilization of nutrients and minimize off-site effects. This program consists of extensive education efforts and a series of management practice manuals. These manuals are used to implement the best management practices discussed in the Nutrient Strategy and also help to control conventional pollutants. As a result, manure applications are considered nonpoint source, discharges. Where point source discharges are the only -1- ------- option, they are treated as any other NPOES permit and subject to technology and water quality based effluent limitations. Other activities which present the potential for pollution through leaks, spills, and accidents are managed under Pennsylvania's Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Planning Program. Under this program anyone who generates, transports, or stores materials which could cause water pollution must develop a plan to adequately respond to any release of these materials. This program is under review as a result of a recent oil storage tank failure in western Pennsylvania. An underground storage tank regulation program is also under development to address this growing area of concern. Current state regulations are considered adequate in terms of authority to regulate point source discharges. Statewide pretreatment regulations have recently been adopted. Delegation of the pretreatment element of the NPDES program to Pennsylvania is expected by July, 1988. Water Quality Standards Pennsylvania's water quality standards have been adopted to protect uses of waters within the state. Although interstate standards are incorporated in our regulations, water quality standards have not been.specifically designed to protect uses in neighboring states. The protection provided to waters in the Bay portion of Pennsylvania through our current conventional pollutant and nutrient, water quality standards is assumed to be adequate to protect water quality and uses in Maryland and the Bay. As better information and modeling tools become available for the Bay basin, the assumption will be reevaluated. Enforcement Pennsylvania takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions on significant violations of discharge permit conditions. Dischargers in significant noncompliance are identified on EPA's Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR), and all high priority violations are addressed prior to their appearance on the next QNCR. Those which are not resolved in a timely manner are reviewed with EPA and a strategy developed for either State or EPA enforcement action to resolve the violations. The primary enforcement action to resolve -2- ------- violations is the Consent Order and Agreement, which is a document that is enforceable in court and includes a compliance schedule and penalties. An extensive review and revision of Pennsylvania's enforcement procedures is underway in an effort to improve enforcement response. Revisions should be in place in 1989. National Municipal Policy (NMP) Pennsylvania's NMP Program includes 107 POTWs located in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin in violation of permit limits. Many of these discharges are small and many are long distances from the Bay. Of these 33 are major discharges (greater than 1 mgd). At the time the NMP program was initiated in 1985, all of these plants were violating the final limits in their NPDES permits. The violations ranged from discharging raw sewage to violating a single parameter. Of the 33 major cases that were originally included in the NMP program in 1985, 17 are currently in compliance. The remaining 16 cases are under formal enforcement schedules which are included in a number of different legal actions (consent orders, consent decrees, orders, etc.), Federal or State Court Order and NPDES permits schedules. All major cases are expected to be in compliance prior to 1991. The remaining 74 minor NMP cases which represent 10% to 15% of the flow are being addressed through enforcement actions on a priority basis. Those with the most significant water quality and public health impacts are addressed first. Nineteen minor cases have achieved compliance. All minors with significant water quality and public health impacts have been addressed by enforcement actions and are expected to be in compliance prior to 1991. Many of the remaining discharges are moving toward compliance without formal enforcement actions. Financial Aid to Municipalities There are currently six funding programs that provide some means of financial assistance to municipal sewage projects for meeting point source control requirements in Pennsylvania. They are described as follows: -3- ------- 1. The Federal Sewerage Construction Grant Program, which is administered by the Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants, Bureau of Water Quality Management, has provided approximately $96 million in grants annually to municipal governments for sewerage facilities construction. This program is being phased out by Congress by 1990. 2. The Act 339 reimbursement and Subsidy Program, which is administered by the Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants, Bureau of Water Quality Management provides approximately $20 million annually under Act 339 to help defray operation and maintenance cost of publicly-owned sewage treatment plants. The annual subsidy amounts to 2% of the local share of facility construction costs. These subsidies total over $20 million each year. 3. The Farmers Home Administration Loan and Grant Programs provide financial help to rural communities with low median household incomes to construct needed sewerage facilities. Generally, municipalities in which the annual median income is less than $12,918 and debt service exceeds 1% of the annual median income qualify for grants, and those with populations of less than 10,000 may qualify for reduced interest loans. 4. The Department of Community Affairs Grant Program provides financial assistance to small communities with low household incomes. Generally, funds are intended for use in communities which are listed as financially distressed communities. The Bureau of Housing and Development, Small Communities Program Division, is responsible for administering the Pennsylvania Community Development Block Grant Program. This program provides approximately $6 million annually to help local municipalities meet sewerage needs. 5. The Department of Commerce Loan and Grant Program provides financial assistance to small communities with low median income. The $190 million Business Infrastructure Development Program, which is administered by the Bureau of Appalachian Development and State Grants, provides grants and loans up to a maximum amount of $1.5 million to local communities to help install infrastructure (drinking water and sewerage) improvements. The Communities Facilities and Site -4- ------- Development Grant Programs also provide approximately $7.5 million annually to communities for sewage collection line construction. 6. Under Act 537 the Department of Environmental Resources provides 50% grants for development of municipal plans to provide adequate sewage facilities. Under this Act all municipalities are required to develop and maintain Official Sewage Facilities Plans. Amendments and revisions of these plans are also grant eligible. On March 1, 1988, Governor Casey signed into law an Environmental Infrastructure Investment Program (PENNVEST) designed to make state funding available to repair, rehabilitate, improve, and construct drinking water and sewer systems in Pennsylvania. This new legislation establishes an authority known as the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority which will make funds available to local sponsors for water and sewer infrastructure projects. The Authority will be managed by a 13-member Board of Directors chaired by the Governor. Funding for the Authority will come from several sources including a General Obligation Bond authorized by a 1981 referendum and a new $300 million referendum, revenue based bonds, capitalization grants under the Federal Clean Water Act, State General Fund appropriations, and repayments of principal and interest on issued loans. The Board is authorized to approve loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance, including loan guarantees. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control (E & SPC) Program is adminstered by the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation through rules and regulations contained at 25 PA Code, Chapter 102, Erosion Control. The purpose of these regulations is to minimize erosion and to prevent sediment pollution to the waters of the Commonwealth caused by all earth disturbance activities regardless of size or type. Although the overall program goal is protection of all water resources, the major program emphasis has been and will remain the protection of surface water resources. -5- ------- In order to achieve program goals, all earth disturbance activities must be conducted in such a way as to minimize erosion and to prevent resulting sediment pollution. Any landowner, person, or municipality engaged in earth disturbance activities must develop, implement and maintain erosion and sediment pollution control measures and facilities. The measures and facilities must be set forth in a plan which must be available at the site of the activity. The required erosion and sediment pollution control plans are site specific but must adhere to standards and criteria contained within the Chapter 102 regulations. Requirements for control measures and facilities are written to utilize best management practices, primarily by establishing maximum and/or minimum design and performance standards. In this regard, the quality, not type, of best management practices is mandated to the extent that the overall plan is effective in minimizing erosion and preventing sediment pollution. Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program is implemented through a delegation of authority from DER to county conservation districts. Although the actual level of participation may vary among districts, the processing of earth disturbance permits, review of erosion and sediment pollution control plans, and site compliance inspections are performed by districts in all but a few counties. Enforcement actions concerning violations of the regulations and/or the Clean Streams Law are performed by the Department in all but four counties where the districts have elected to also accept this responsibility. Although not required by the Chapter 102 regulations, conservation districts also perform erosion and sediment pollution control plan reviews under the agreement with local municipalities (primarily in conjunction with issuance of building permits) and other state and/or federal agencies. In 1980, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) assumed the responsibility for administering the E & SPC Program without allocation of any additional staff. Without sufficient staff resources, the BSWC has been limited in its ability to develop program administrative and engineering manuals, develop training programs for county conservation districts, provide adequate engineering reviews for both permitted and nonpermitted erosion and sediment pollution control plans, and to conduct the necessary enforcement actions to prevent accelerated erosion and sediment pollution to the waters of the Commonwealth. -6- ------- Steps to alleviate these problems have been difficult to complete because of the present staff shortages. Revisions to the Chapter 102 rules and regulations were adopted by the Environmental Quality Board for proposed rulemaking in December, 1987, and were the subject of public review and comments in the Spring of 1988. Following are the major substantive changes to the existing regulations contained in Chapter 102. All sections listed are numbered under the new format. 1. The organizational format has been arranged to match that of other DER Rules and Regulations. The title has been revised to read Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control. 2. Section 102.4(b) establishes a "buffer zone" of seventy-five (75) feet on each side of streams designated by Section 93.9 of Title 25, as High Quality or Exceptional Value waters where, except in limited circumstances, no earth disturbance shall occur. 3. Section 102.5(c) - Authorizes the Department, in certain circumstances, to require submission and approval of an erosion and sediment pollution control plan for earth disturbance activities involving less than 25 acres. 4. Section 102.5(d) - Requires that an erosion and sediment pollution control plan be submitted to the Department 10 days in advance of the start of earth disturbance for all projects of 5 or more acres in size located in High Quality and Exceptional Value watersheds as designated in Section 93.9 of Title 25. It also provides the Department with authority to disapprove any plan which does not meet the requirements of Chapter 102. 5. Secton 102.11(a)(2) - Deletes the need to secure a separate earth disturbance permit where other DER permits are issued requiring compliance with the standards of Chapter 102. -7- ------- 6. Section 102.11(a)(4) - Provides a permit waiver for all logging operations less than 250 acres if an erosion and sediment pollution control plan is submitted to the Department five days prior to the start of operations. It also provides the Department with authority to disapprove any plan which does not meet the requirements of Chapter 102. 7. Secton 102.11(b)(4) - Authorizes the Department, after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, to reduce the acreage limitation for securing a permit for any activities which pose a serious threat of sediment pollution or where similar activities have caused pollution in the past. 8. Section 102.23 - The entire "control facilities" section has been rewritten to eliminate obsolete engineering standards. 9. Section 102.32(a) - Requires local, municipal, or county planning commissions which review subdivision or land development plans with five or more acres of earth disturbance to provide the Department with a copy of the preliminary development plan within five days of its receipt. When finalized, the revised regulations will strengthen the program's overall effectiveness. In a similar development, the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (BSWC) has revised its procedures for delegating program authority to county conservation districts. These revisions and other reporting and administrative changes have been incorporated into a program administrative manual which was issued to the conservation districts in March, 1988. Although procedural and administrative components of the program's enforcement section have been strengthened by the administrative manual, overall improvements are limited by the availability of only one-half a man-year of permanent staff to enforcement activities. The BSWC conducts evaluations of conservation districts' performance in administering their delegated E & SPC program responsibilities. Twelve evaluations are conducted annually on a rotating basis. An effort is currently underway to develop a computerized system for the -8- ------- conservation districts to report on their E & SPC program activities, as required in the delegation agreements. Chesapeake Bay program funds have been used to hire five conservation district engineers, and an engineering supervisor and trainer has been assigned under an intergovernmental personnel agreement with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The BSWC remains extremely limited in its ability to provide direct engineering support and technical training to the conservation districts. An engineering design manual is planned, based on the revised Chapter 102 rules and regulations. This effort and technical training have been delayed due to the limited staffing problem. Additional program improvements under development include the creation of a certification program for erosion and sediment pollution control technicians, sponsored by the National Institute for Certifications in Engineering Technologies (NICET). The test and certification criteria have been developed by the Department of Environmental Resources and SCS engineers. A pilot examination was given in Pennsylvania in June, 1988. This certification program is intended to improve the quality and effectiveness of technical competency in the program. The State Conservation Commission provides $1.2 million in cost share money to conservation districts for administrative and technical personnel expenses. This Conservation District Fund Allocation Program is being revised. The cost share rates for technicians will be based on the districts' acceptance of the delegated E & SPC program responsibilities, and on the NICET certification of district technicians. Current Funding Sources Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program is funded under the Commonwealth's General Fund budget. Despite existing adequate regulatory capacity and scope to effectively control erosion and sedimentation, limited financial resources and manpower have seriously hampered program implementation and effectiveness throughout its history. Serious shortages in the state level management system and field level -9- ------- supervision of conservation districts have continually minimized the program's overall effectiveness and limited development of district capabilities due to the lack of training and assistance. A large portion of the conservation districts' financial resources under this program is also obtained from the Commonwealth's General Fund. Despite increases in the past few years, the current level of funding continues to lag behind actual staff and material resource needs by the districts. Section 205(j)(5) funds will be sought from EPA for demonstration projects to obtain research and/or performance data on control measures and control facilities specified in the Department's E <5c SPC Program regulations. The more critical need, though, is for Section 319 funds to be allocated for technical and enforcement positions within the Department to implement the existing E & SPC Program. Establishing and maintaining these positions over a long term commitment will allow for the immediate implementation of a more serious nonpoint source control program of both region and national significance. Current standards and criteria would be extensively evaluated and allow for any necessary changes to improve and/or streamline the program. Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control In addition to the regulatory Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program described above, agricultural sediment sources are treated through a variety of voluntary program including the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Commonwealth, through the State Conservation Commission and the DER Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, provides technical, administrative, and financial assistance to the conservation districts in each of the Bay basin counties. Agricultural sediment reduction will be accompanied in conjunction with the efforts to achieve nutrient reduction goals. Since nutrients, particularly phosphorus, adsorb to soil particles, erosion and sediment control BMP's will be used to reduce nutrient loads. While the Chesapeake Bay program includes erosion and sediment control BMP's, much of the expected sediment reduction will be achieved through USDA programs, especially the Food Security Act mandate to control erosion on all highly erodible cropland by 1995. -10- ------- There were 1.4 million acres of cropland eroding at greater than tolerable soil loss rates in 1985. It is estimated that all available voluntary programs will reduce crop land erosion to tolerable levels on about 1.0 million acres by 2000. This will result in a reduction of about 5.8 million tons of sediment per year. These estimates are based on extrapolation from current rates of treatment, and do not account for the dynamics of land ownership, changes in farm enterprises, fluctuations in farm commodity prices, or the life span of conservation practices, all of which can alter conditions. Current Funding Sources Funding and personnel considerations for agricultural erosion and sediment control in the Chesapeake Bay Program are included in the nutrient reduction strategy narrative. Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Program Acid mine drainage (AMD) is considered a major nonpoint source of pollution to streams flowing through Pennsylvania's coal regions including the Susquehanna Basin. The primary source of this AMD is abandoned coal mines. Some of the major affects of AMD from abandoned coal mines include: 1. The virtual elimination of aquatic life in effected streams which limits the recreational uses of the streams. 2. The degradation in the quality of public and private water supplies; mine drainage can affect both surface and ground water supplies. 3. The decreased value of property surrounding affected streams. 4. Intensifying corrosion of bridges, locks, and dams, and other structures constructed in affected streams. -11- ------- In 1967, a $500 million Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Fund was created by voter referendum, with $120 million earmarked for prevention, control, and elimination of stream pollution from abandoned mining areas. Approximately $4 million remain in this fund for acid mine drainage abatement. In addition, the Commonwealth is spending $5 million per year to reclaim abandoned strip mines that have had their bonds forfeited; many of these strip mines were a source of acid mine drainage or sedimentation. The Commonwealth is currently receiving funds from the Federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to correct abandoned mine problems in Pennsylvania. These funds, by law, must initially be used to correct problems that pose a threat to health and safety. The Commonwealth is not permitted to spend OSM funds for AMD abatement work until after most of the health and safety problems are corrected. We do not anticipate this will happen within the life of the program. -12- ------- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT STRATEGY The Commonwealth has a number of ongoing programs to reduce the introduction of conventional pollutants into the waters of the state from either point or nonpoint sources. The following summarizes the major ongoing and planned program activities in these areas. A. Point Sources 1. NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM The Commonwealth was delegated the authority to administer the NPDES permit program in 1975. The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) has issued permits to 3800 regulated facilities (NPDES and No-Discharge); 2700 of these are in the Bay drainage area. Through the NPDES permit system, appropriate effluent limits for conventional pollutants (such as biodegradable organics, suspended solids, and pH), toxics, and nutrients are specified in the discharge permits. The VWCB will continue to manage this permit system in the most efficient manner possible, to ensure that all permits remain current and incorporate limits that are appropriate for the receiving stream quality. In order to efficiently manage the Permit Program the VWCB annually updates the NPDES Procedural Manual. This manual details permitting procedures for determining effluent limitations which meet all Federal and State requirements. It also standardizes procedures to ensure that EPA, other Virginia agencies, and adjacent States review permit applications. The VWCB ensures that permits are current and contain appropriate limitations to protect water quality through a number of activities within the Permit Section of the Agency: 1) Permits for significant discharges are reviewed by both the Regional and Headquarters' staff. The headquarters' review ensures the proper technical evaluation has been conducted and statewide consistency is maintained. 2) Permits which are issued through the Regional Offices without headquarters involvement are reviewed as part of a QA/QC audit. These audits evaluate both procedural and technical aspects of the permitting process. 3) Facilities with compliance problems may be issued short term permits (less than 5 years), so the staff may reevaluate the situation more frequently to ensure appropriate limitations are established and met. ------- 4) Through the VWCB Inspection Strategy's routine technical, laboratory, and sampling inspection programs, the staff note any changes in the facility operation or production which require further investigation. If changes at the facility have occurred which affect permit limitations permit modification procedures are initiated. The VWCB regulates No-Discharge facilities to ensure that pollutants do not reach the Bay or its tributaries. Certain design and operational conditions are required to preclude any point source discharge of pollutants to State waters except under prescribed severe rainfall conditions (25 year - 24 hour storm intensity). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are also included for land application of waste as conditions of the permits. These conditions may include restrictions on wastewater application rates, requirements for buffer zones from ditches and receiving streams, maximum slopes used for land application, and restriction from application during inclement weather. Inspections are conducted according to the VWCB Inspection Strategy. High priority facilities are inspected annually to determine if permit conditions are being met. Low priority facilities are inspected once every five years. The VWCB has recently revised Regulation No. 6, under which the NPDES permit program is administered. The amendments ensure that Virginia's permit program conforms with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The most important change in these amendments is the inclusion of the Virginia Pollutant Abatement (VPA) Permit. The new VPA permit will replace the state No-Discharge Certificate thereby clarifying procedures and requirements for the regulation of facilities and operations which have the potential to discharge to state waters. The regulation will also require application for VPA permits for "concentrated animal feeding operations" (maximum permit life of 5 years) and "intensified animal feeding operations" (maximum permit life of 10 years). 2. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS The VWCB completed the most recent triennial review of its water quality standards in 1987. Significant amendments to the standards included the following: 1. procedures for site specific temperature requirements; 2. prohibition on the use of chlorine for disinfection of discharges larger than 20,000 gpd into waters containing endangered, threatened, or rare species or trout populations; 3. application of the chlorine standard to intermittent dischargers; 4. modification of the fecal coliform bacteria standard to include an instantaneous maximum and specified sampling frequencies; 5. specifically establishing the State's authority to utilize water quality criteria in establishing permit limitations; and, 6. incorporating reference to EPA's regulation governing recommended analytical procedures. ------- The VWCB plans to initiate the process for the next triennial review during FY 89. However, the Water Control Board has directed its staff to initiate the process of incorporating EPA toxics criteria as required by the Clean Water Act of 1987 when national guidance is received from EPA. In addition to the above the VWCB adopted at its March 28-29, 1988 meeting regulations for nutrient enriched waters which will become effective in June of 1988. Other activities in the standards area that will impact VWCB programs within the Chesapeake Bay are as follows: 1. Dissolved Oxygen - The Environmental Protection Agency has published separate cold water and warm water dissolved oxygen criteria for early life stages and other life stages. Current VWCB dissolved oxygen standards recognize the differences in warm water and cold water criteria for dissolved oxygen, but do not incorporate the concept of separate dissolved oxygen standards for early life stages and other life stages. Consideration is being given to retaining the single standard for all life stages, but modifying the dissolved oxygen standards to insure protection of the early life stages. 2. Bacteria - For over a year a multi agency committee (State Health Department, Virginia Water Control Board, and Division of Consolidated Laboratories) has explored the possibility of switching the bacterial indicator standards from fecal coliform (E. coli) to enterococci. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science has experienced some difficulties with the analytical procedure for saltwater analysis of enterococci which has caused the committee to act cautiously on this matter. Consideration is being given to using both E. coli and enterococci standards and possibly going to just enterococci standards if possible. 3. ENFORCEMENT Timely and appropriate enforcement actions will be taken against violators of discharge permit conditions, state laws, and regulations. Returning violators to compliance, mitigating the adverse impacts on water quality, and providing a deterrent to future violators has always had statewide emphasis. The VWCB enforcement system has recently been expanded to provide improved response by the agency to noncompliance by owners and operators with State Water Pollution Control laws, regulations ------- and policies. The new Compliance Auditing program is designed to establish compliance and enforcement procedures which will achieve timely and consistent enforcement actions against all violators. The enforcement process catalogues different violations by subjecting them to point assessment criteria. The point assessment criteria are uniformly applied with higher values given to violations of greater environmental consequence. Chronic violations will also receive higher point assessments. The Compliance Auditing program presently focuses on NPDES permit violations reported to the agency through the permittee self monitoring system. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) are submitted to the VWCB and under the new Compliance Auditing process the DMRs are subjected to a rigorous computer analysis to detect violations. An automated program called the Compliance Auditing System (CAS) scans reported DMR data and assesses violation points for all reported infractions. In recognition of the fact that the new enforcement system will likely bring more violations to the threshold of formal administrative or judicial enforcement action, a new enforcement tool, the issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV), has been incorporated into the process. This action is essentially a warning device which informs the violator of noncompliance problems and requires action to correct the violations to avoid a potentially higher level of enforcement action which could include court action and penalties. As a further deterrent and to better document violations, all issued NOVs are hand delivered to the violating facility by an VWCB inspector who also conducts a site compliance inspection. Additional violations are often found upon conducting these inspections which can lead to the assessment of additional violation points. At present, the agency is issuing over 100 NOVs per month which also results in a like number of compliance inspections being conducted. By virtue of General Assembly action during the 1988 session, the VWCB will have certain administrative penalty authorities. The agency will be able to exact penalties for violation liabilities if the owner agrees to pay as part of an administrative settlement action. The proposed 88-90 biennium budget includes funding for an enhanced compliance auditing and inspection program. Under this initiative, additional enforcement staff will be assigned to specifically address compliance problems. It will also allow for closer scrutiny of compliance in other program areas, such as toxics, pretreatment, underground storage tanks, and spill incidents. ------- 4. NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY In cases where final effluent limits are not currently achieved, the VWCB has implemented the National Municipal Policy (NMP), which requires all municipal dischargers to meet secondary (or more stringent) limits by July 1, 1988 unless an extension has been given by the appropriate court of law. The NMP currently affects 75 plants in Virginia's portion of the Bay drainage area. Needed upgrades must be accomplished even if federal grant funds are unavailable. All NMP facilities were required to submit compliance plans to the VWCB. The VWCB has placed virtually all municipalities that came under the National Municipal Policy on enforceable schedules. Out of the 75 Bay community plants affected by the Policy only five hardship cases are not yet under a court imposed schedule. These are all minor facilities as the major dischargers have been completely addressed with enforceable schedules. The remaining cases have either returned to compliance (37), are under an Administrative Order to comply by July 1, 1988 (29) or are under a court imposed schedule to comply beyond July 1, 1988 (5). Violations of these schedules will be referred to the VWCB Office of Enforcement for action if deemed significant. Penalties, sewer moratoriums and other punitive actions will be considered as appropriate. 5. FINANCIAL AID TO LOCALITIES To meet the financial obligations resulting from requirements to protect water quality, several financial aid programs have been developed. The Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) was created by the 1984 General Assembly to facilitate self sufficiency for wastewater financing at the state and local levels and to provide a long term, renewable funding source. On June 10, 1988 EPA awarded Virginia a Phase I Revolving Loan Capitalization Grant of $29.6 million. Virginia became the fifth state in the nation to receive EPA approval, and the first state in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The state will apply $10 million in state funds to the RLF for a total of $39.6 million. Under Phase I Virginia is limited to funding National Municipal Policy projects. Virginia is getting ready to solicit applications from communities for Phase II funding which will be open to all types of projects, such as, nutrient removal or toxics control. Phase II funds will include $12 million from EPA and initially $10 million from the state. ------- By the time the Fund is fully capitalized, the Board anticipates the availability of approximately $250 million in federal money and $50 million in state matching funds. Another funding source is the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA). In addition to serving as the financial manager of the RLF, the VRA has been authorized to issue bonds up to $300 million for wastewater treatment needs. ------- B. NONPOINT SOURCES 1. Erosion and Sediment Control in Agricultural Areas The Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) administers an ongoing program to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The voluntary program relies upon educational activities, technical assistance and financial incentives promote the installation of best management practices (BMPs) to control nonpoint sources from agricultural lands. Three main strategies guide the program as follows: 1. Pollutant source contribution identification from cropland, pasture land, etc. throughout the Bay basin. 2. Development of appropriate management strategies or BMPs for identified problems. 3. Targeted implementation of these strategies and practices in the most critical areas. The agricultural nonpoint source control program consists of six primary elements to address these strategies: Agricultural Pollution Source Identification Data Base Agricultural Demonstration/Research Projects Nutrient Management Program Agricultural Best Management Practice Cost Sharing Technical/Administrative Assistance to SWCDs Agricultural Education Program Each of these program elements has been refined annually to better target the efforts needed to achieve the overall program goal of improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay basin by reducing the influx of nonpoint pollutants. The program elements being utilized to meet these goals are discussed below. Agricultural Pollution Source Identification Data Base One of the greatest challenges of implementing a large scale agricultural nonpoint source pollution control program is to identify areas of greatest pollution potential. The Virginia Geographic Information System (VirGIS) project was initiated in the fall of 1985 through a contract with VPI&SU to create a cost effective database ------- designed to identify and prioritize areas with the greatest relative potential to be nonpoint source pollution problems. A secondary use intended for the VirGIS database is to supply base line information for computer based mathematical models. These models can be used to assess the relative effectiveness and accomplishments of BMPs to reduce sediment delivery and nutrient losses. The VirGIS database consists of six basic computerized data layers that are spatially referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. The six basic layers include elevation, soil types, water bodies, land use, watershed boundaries and county boundaries. These basic layers can be manipulated and combined to generate additional working data layers or maps such as Erodibility Index (El), Water Quality Index (WQI) and many other maps that can be used as technical management tools. Potential sediment loadings (PSL) were calculated during phase I (85-86) of the project for 19 counties in the York and Rappahannock drainage area. The PSLs were grouped into categories representing high, moderate and low NPS pollution potential. Maps displayed on clear mylar overlays and sized to fit USGS 7 1/2 minute quadrangles were generated and distributed to the SWCDs for use in prioritizing critical NPS pollution areas. Phase II (86-87) and phase III (87-88) of the VirGIS project have continued the development of the database beyond the York and Rappahannock drainage basins. A total of 38 counties covering approximately 8 million acres in the Bay area are scheduled to be in the database by the end of phase III. Methods of prioritizing potential nonpoint source pollution areas have been refined to include the Erodibility Index (El) and the Water Quality Index (WQI) maps. The maps have also been found very useful in identifying land areas eligible for the USDA conservation reserve program. Work is continuing on refining and improving VirGIS capabilities. Databases for soil type, elevation, land use, waterbodies, watersheds and counties will be developed for 6 additional counties during phase III of the project. Routines will be developed to access soils interpretation data from which suitability maps can be generated for a variety of scenarios that relate to soils (i.e., septic drain fields, specific crop yields, etc.). A user friendly database management system is also under development to enable the DSWC to address both in-house and remote user needs. Work is being conducted to interface VirGIS with SCS CAMPS and farm plan algorithms for incorporating water quality goals in farm plans. An investigation will also be initiated to assist the DSWC in evaluating alternative nonpoint in-stream nutrient control strategies using VirGIS, existing W.Q. data and models. ------- Agricultural Demonstration/Research Projects The nonpoint source pollution control strategy has since its inception included the support and funding of demonstration and research projects aimed at better understanding NFS problems and methods of controlling NFS pollution. During 1985-1986 twenty- six innovative BMP methods were funded statewide to research and field test new BMP technologies. These research efforts provided important field performance data and also became important educational tools for all parties concerned. One ongoing research/demonstration project is a rainfall simulator which is utilized statewide to educate farmers and others concerned as to the relative importance and success of BMPs in reducing erosion and related problems caused by rainfall events. Six sites were demonstrated during the summer of 1987 to coincide with existing tours and field days to maximize public exposure to the demonstrations. Two other major ongoing research projects involve the monitoring of two small watersheds over a 10 year study period to address the issue of the effects of BMP usage on downstream water quality. One watershed was selected for study since it was representative of a watershed dominated by cropland land use and the absence of point source discharges which could affect water quality. A second watershed was chosen because it contained a large percentage of livestock operations representative of a watershed where livestock management BMPs could be utilized. Information from these projects will be critically important in verifying water quality changes due to BMP implementation. Nutrient Management Program The nutrient management program basically evolved out of educational and research programs as a necessary program area requiring greater emphasis. The program is based upon a concentrated educational effort combined with the provision of technical services to farmers to ensure the proper utilization and application of animal wastes and commercial fertilizers. This program is considered to have the greatest potential impact on the reduction of nitrogen from nonpoint sources. The program consists of an ongoing educational program primarily through county extension agents and other extension personnel under contract to the DSWC to promote the development and use of fertilizer and animal waste plans for farms throughout the state. Demonstration plots have also been established yearly to demonstrate comparable yields grown on cropland receiving optimized and normally reduced levels of fertilizer and animal waste applied at optimum periods for plant growth. These demonstration plots have been widely advertised and been very effective in demonstrating the benefits of optimum fertilizer and animal waste application. ------- Technical services are provided through this program through free animal waste nutrient analyses, plant tissue testing for nutrient levels and soil testing, as well as in the development of fertilizer and animal waste management plans. A computer program has been developed to assist county extension agents in the development of animal waste plans. All county agents have been trained in its usage. This program is projected for significant expansion in the future. Greater staff reso\irces are projected to provide more intensive assistance statewide to better ensure the proper utilization of fertilizer and animal wastes. Such assistance will include but not be limited to more staff time devoted to development of fertilizer and animal waste utilization plans, more demonstration and research efforts, greater one to one contact with farmers to include hands-on technical assistance in proper fertilizer and animal waste utilization and in tissue, soil and animal waste sampling working with the ag-chemical industry and greater training and educational efforts for all concerned parties. Agricultural Best Management Practice Cost Sharing The agricultural best management practice cost-sharing program is a DSWC project to improve water quality in the State's streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay through the provision of financial cost-share assistance for the installation of agricultural BMPs. The program is funded with state and federal monies through local soil and water conservation districts. The districts, in turn, administer a cost-share and incentive program to encourage farmers and landowners to apply needed BMPs to their land to better control sediment and nutrient loss and transportation into our waters from excessive surface flow, erosion and inadequate animal waste management. The districts receive their funding allocation based on need as determined from an analysis of major agricultural factors that influence water quality such as intensive cropland cultivation, erosive soil conditions and animal unit numbers. The district then distributes assistance to voluntary applicants whose requests have been evaluated to have the highest cost effectiveness potential for water quality improvement. This targeting of funds based on the cost-effectiveness of water quality improvement is utilized rather than a first-served payment or other distribution method to achieve the maximum benefits per dollar spent. Although resource based problems affecting water quality occur on all land uses, this program emphasizes efforts for corrective action on agricultural and forested lands only, and offers cost-share assistance as an incentive to carry out construction or implementation of selected BMPs. Beginning in 1983, state cost-share 10 ------- funds were available for the Chowan basin. The program was expanded in 1984 to include the Chesapeake Bay Basin through funds provided under the EPA Chesapeake Bay program. Since 1986 the General Assembly has provided funds for cost-sharing BMP installation statewide. Technical/Administrative Assistance to Soil and Water Conservation Districts The DSWC provides extensive technical and administrative assistance to soil and water conservation districts within the Bay basin and statewide. This assistance includes, as an example, guidance and training in operating the BMP cost-share programs within the Bay basin. This assistance included the funding assistance for computer systems for Bay districts for cost-share tracking and management, other assistance is provided in the form of financial management assistance, information and guidance on other DSWC programs such as the erosion and sedimentation control program and keeping the districts up-to-date on ongoing federal and state programs affecting local soil and water conservation activities. Primary assistance to the soil and water conservation districts is provided by six field specialists serving various portions of the state supervised by a district operations chief in Richmond. In addition to the assistance provided by the DSWC, the extent of the nonpoint source programs, particularly within the Bay basin has resulted in the need for additional technical and administrative assistance within the soil and water conservation districts. All 25 districts in the Bay basin receive some personnel assistance support through the DSWC. In 1986 this support amounted to a total of 34 manyears for the basin. Of the 34 manyears, 27 manyears were for technical positions with the remainder providing administrative assistance. The majority of the technical positions provide assistance in agricultural programs. Several of the technical positions, however are specifically designated for assistance in urban programs. Agricultural Education Program The state BMP cost-share program by itself will probably not result in sufficient implementation of BMPs to reduce agricultural pollutant loads to desired levels because there is no guarantee that farmers would implement the estimated $170 million needed in BMPs under a voluntary program even if cost- sharing were available. With only limited cost-share funding of approximately $1.2 million a year, the critical nature of education is evident to the success of the agricultural BMP program. The education program is vital not only to sell the benefits of BMP implementation to farmers to encourage their 11 ------- participation in the cost-share program but also to encourage their voluntary implementation of BMPs. Many of the BMPs that are being promoted for their water quality benefits are also economically beneficial to the farmer. The challenge is to convince farmers to try BMPs so that they can evaluate their performance for themselves. It is hoped that a substantial number of farmers can be convinced to implement BMPs through education, thus reducing reliance upon a cost-share program. A primary objective of the education program is to reach farmers who normally do not participate in local conservation programs. The DSWC is working closely through a contract with the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to conduct an intensive educational program in the Chesapeake Bay basin. This program coordinates the educational activities of county extension agents to promote the NPS control programs at the local level through farm visits, educational meetings, news articles, radio programs and similar methods. Many other educational activities are ongoing to promote BMP usage and NPS controls statewide including the prevention of shoreline erosion. These include promotion of the cost-share program, a clean water farm farmer recognition program, promotion of research activities, promotion of BMP usage related activities through talks and speeches to interested groups, displays at fairs, publication of promotional literature, distribution of news releases and many similar activities, Future Activities Recent actions by the 1988 General Assembly have provided support for the continuation and expansion of the above listed programs. The legislature authorized the addition of 22 new staff personnel for the DSWC to specifically work in the Chesapeake Bay basin on the control of agricultural sources of nonpoint source pollution. In budgetary terms over the biennium this equates to $1,450,405 in additional state funding for fiscal year 1988-1989 and $1,691,925 for fiscal year 1989-1990. The additional personnel will provide support in all the above program areas. Particularly strengthened will be the nutrient management program where at least ten additional personnel will be distributed throughout the Bay basin to assist in this program area described above. Additional staff will also provide greater technical assistance to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, improved and expanded educational programs and continued development and improvement of the VirGIS system throughout the Bay basin. 12 ------- 2. Erosion and Sediment Control From Forested Areas The Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) is the lead state management agency for the implementation and management of the forestry water quality management plan which includes the forestry BMP handbook containing measures to minimize nonpoint source pollution due to silvicultural activities. The DOF oversees or provides technical assistance for several state and federal programs which relate to the control of forestry nonpoint pollution sources. These are discussed individually below. The Federal Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) The program provides cost-share funds to landowners to carry out forestry projects. These projects can include practices such as logging road stabilization and tree planting which reduce nonpoint source pollution from forested land. The funds for the program are administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) county committees which also determine the cost-share rates. Technical assistance and determination of eligibility for the funds are provided by the Department of Forestry. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) This program provides cost-share funds to landowners to carry out conservation practices. These practices help reduce nonpoint pollution from agriculture and forested lands primarily through reducing erosion and sedimentation occurring on the land. The ACP is administered by the ASCS and provides funds directly to landowners for practices that conserve soil, water and woodland resources. There may also be special ACP funds available in any given year that can be used to help control forestry nonpoint source pollution. The Department of Forestry provides technical assistance for the forestry related ACP programs. The Reforestation of Timberlands Act (RT) This program is a State cost-share program available to landowners for the purpose of planting an area in pine trees. The landowner can receive up to 50 percent of the cost of a project (up to $60/acre) through the RT program which is administered by the Department of Forestry. The program is funded equally by the pine-using forestry industry and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Reforestation can reduce nonpoint source pollution originating from forest lands by stabilization of an area that is eroding and degrading a watercourse. Log roads and other critical areas are often stabilized in conjunction with the reforestation project utilizing proper BMPs. 13 ------- The Cooperative Forest Management Program (CFM) This is a cooperative federal/state program which recognizes the need for management practices and logging methods. In cooperation with the Virginia Department of Forestry which receives partial funding from the U.S. Forest Service Cooperative Forest Management Program provides assistance to the landowner in the management of his timber resources. Emphasis is placed on erosion control where timber harvesting is recommended by providing recommendations concerning logging road layout and maintenance. Specific reforestation recommendations are then provided each landowner. Stabilization is encouraged through on-the-ground logging road and gully stabilization demonstrations. Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share Program Under this program administered by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation cost-share funds may be provided for the planting of permanent vegetative cover on critical land areas, where critical land areas include logging roads, skid trails and other lands where tree planting is the recommended vegetative cover, the DOF provides technical assistance in the development of proper plans and for inspection of completed projects. The DOF is also involved in educational activities to promote good forestry practices and the utilization of best management practices. They also provide general technical assistance to landowners and commercial loggers in forestry practices, logging road layout and the specifications for BMP implementation. The DOF has recently drafted an updated version of the Forestry BMP handbook incorporating updated specifications for forestry BMP practices. The DOF reports annually on its progress in implementation of forestry BMP practices and ongoing efforts in forestry NPS pollution control. The USDA Forest Service administers the National Forest System. In Virginia this involves the management of 1,631,686 acres of land contained in the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests. The Service is also involved in research to find better ways to manage timber and forest lands. The participation of the U.S. Forest Service in the Virginia nonpoint source voluntary program of BMP implementation is primarily through its management of the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests. Only the George Washington National Forest is in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. The Forest Service encourages the use of BMPs on all forestry activities conducted on National Forest land. The agency also encourages the use of BMPs in conjunction with any agricultural or hydrologic modification work permitted on 14 ------- National Forest land. Monitoring and surveillance of forestry BMPs utilized on National Forest land for compliance and effectiveness is conducted by the Forest Service. The Virginia Forestry Association (VFA) is also involved in nonpoint source control activities. The logging committee of the VFA is currently developing a program to increase the application of BMPs on forested land. 3. Erosion and Sediment Control In Urban Areas Virginia has had an Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Law since 1973 (Section 21-89 et. seq., Code of Virginia). The administrative program operates under standards and regulations promulgated by the Board of Soil and Water Conservation. The law and regulations are implemented and enforced primarily by 171 local governments who are required under the law to adopt erosion and sediment control programs consistent with guidelines established by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). State agency and some jurisdictional projects are regulated by the DSWC. The law is an extension of the State's police power, in this case to protect the rights and properties of citizens neighboring land development projects as well as the quality of state waters. It regulates new "land disturbing activities" as defined in the statute, but includes several exemptions for certain types of activities. The law basically requires that no person may commence a land disturbing activity without first obtaining approval of a plan for controlling erosion and containing sediment on the project site. The regulations include control of stormwater runoff to protect the integrity of receiving stream channels. Furthermore, localities are not allowed to issue any permits for a project until the required control plan is approved. Local governments are required to conduct periodic inspections of the projects to ensure compliance with the law, the approved control plan and the regulations. Failure to comply results in a sequence of notification and alternative enforcement procedures. Technical assistance for the program is provided by DSWC. The 1988 General Assembly enacted six separate bills that amended the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and provided for significant improvement of the program. The following is a summary of legislative actions which affected the program: * Removed or further qualified problem exemptions under the law. Exemptions for projects on federal lands, telephone and electric utility lines and railroad construction were removed. Exemptions for single family homes, agricultural engineering and gas and oil well feeder lines were clarified. 15 ------- * Added provision requiring periodic review of local programs by the DSWC was added to the law, further establishing clear authority for state oversight. * Increased DSWC's staff for the erosion and sediment control program by twenty positions. * The limit on local plan review/permit fees for erosion and sediment control projects was raised from $300 per project to a maximum of $1,000 per project. * Authorized a certification program for local erosion and sediment control inspectors. * Added authority to the law to allow regulation of "erosion impact areas" that are not related to current land disturbing activities. * Added provisions to strengthen performance guarantees and boundary requirements. * Added provisions to allow for civil penalties and civil fines as enforcement options. The above actions will greatly strengthen the State's overall erosion and sediment control program. Of particular importance is the additional state oversight responsibilities which should improve local implementation and the uniformity of implementation statewide. Other provisions significantly strengthen the law and provide greater enforcement and performance guarantees. While the erosion and sediment control program operates statewide significant activity occurs in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area which includes the majority of the State's urbanized areas. Under budgetary provisions passed by the legislature, 12 new erosion and sediment control personnel will be added to the DSWC staff to work on erosion and sediment control within the Bay drainage area. In dollars over the next biennium, this equates to $555,910 for fiscal year 1988-1989 and $455,750 for fiscal year 1989-1990 for urban nonpoint source control activities for the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. 16 ------- D.C. Conventional Pollutants Strategy In 1985 Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant achieved average effluent concentrations of 1.1 mg/1 TKN, 1.9 mg/1 BOD and 1.7 mg/1 TSS. While there are a few other point sources of conventional pollutants in the District they are of small quantity loadings and general meet secondary treatment levels. With the phase out of the construction grant program the District has drafted legislation to establish a revolving loan program. It is anticipated that the program will be in place in 1989. At the $2.4 billion national level the District Would receive about $12 million in capitalization grants and contribute $3.0 million in matching funds. The two major uncontrolled Scources of conventional pollutants are combined sewer overflows and urban runoff. The 1985 CSO loads were 1.4 million pound of BOD and 6.9 million pounds of TSS. The urban runoff loads were 4.3 million pounds of BOD and 21.7 million pounds of TSS. Implementation of Phase I of the CSO abatement Program will provide a 55% reduction in BOD and TSS. Because the primary impact of CSO's in the District is the low D.O. of the Anacostia, after Phase I is operational the District will conduct additional studies to determine the resulting water quality improvements and ------- -2- effectiveness of the controls used in Phase I. Phase II will be implemented as needed. The District promulgated in January 1988 Stormwater Control Regulations requiring permanent BKP's for all new development and redevelopment. Previously, the District had only required temporary BMP's during the actual construction of the development. It is projected that by the year 2000 approximately 6% of the District area will be under BMP control. ------- Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Conventional Pollutant Load Reduction Strategy Department of the Environment Water Management Administration I. Water Quality Standards Maryland's water quality standards (criteria) are embodied in State regulations (COMAR 10.50.01). The regulations define four different "use classes", then designate all Maryland surface waters as belonging to one of these four classes. The regulations establish in-stream standards for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, bacteria, turbidity and six toxic substances, standards which differ in one respect or another for the four "use classes". The standards for D.O., turbidity and bacteria in receiving waters provide the basis for the effluent limits set for BOD, suspended solids and bacteria in the discharge permits given to public and private sewerage plants and to industrial point sources. Maryland currently plans no revisions to its water quality standards which will involve either conventional pollutants (such as BOD, suspended solids or bacteria) or nutrients. IL Discharge Permit Program The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit program which covers all discharges to surface waters from publicly owned (sewage) treatment works (POTWs), private sewage treatment plants, businesses and industries. Since 1974, Maryland has operated a combined federal (NPDES)/State discharge permit program under a specific "delegation agreement" with the EPA. There are about 350 permits in effect for public and private sewage plants in Maryland, and about 590 active industrial discharge permits. State law establishes a discharge permit requirement for discharges to groundwater, a function not called for under the federal CWA. This would include infiltration ponds, spray irrigation and subsurface injection of treated (or partially treated) wastewaters. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) develops, issues and enforces all of the discharge permits issued in the state, including all federal facilities. The Water Management Administration (WMA) handles all sewage plants, both public and private. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration (HSWMA) handles all discharges from industries and other activities discharging wastewaters of non-sewage origin. The EPA (Region III) reviews every draft major discharge permit before it is adopted by the State. Discharge permits to surface waters (NPDES/State permits) are developed by several different means, depending on whether the discharger is a sewage plant ("municipal discharger") or an industry, and depending on the properties of the receiving waters. ------- For "municipal" (including private) dischargers, consistent with the CWA, all permits are written to require secondary treatment or more. MDE/WMA does a preliminary "water quality impact analysis" for every municipal discharge permit application, which involves site-specific calculations to determine if secondary treatment is sufficient to allow the receiving water to meet State water quality standards; if not, more stringent discharge limits are set. Generally, the smaller the stream or the more poorly flushed the estuary, the more stringent the concentrations of pollutants (especially those pollutants affecting oxygen demand, a "conventional pollutant") that will be required. All sewage discharge permits include limits for dissolved oxygen, pH, biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, chlorine residual, and coliform bacteria. Some municipal permits will also address phosphorus, nitrogen forms, and toxics which may be present because of local industries. For industrial dischargers, the requirements of the CWA again set the overall framework for the NPDES program. Several different "levels" of treatment (or approaches) are specified in the law. "Best available technology" is required for all nonconventional pollutants, and "best conventional technology" (BCT) is required for conventional pollutants. EPA has developed industry-wide "effluent limitation guidelines" (ELGs) for many major industrial categories. HSWMA uses the ELGs whenever possible for setting permit limits for individual discharges; in the absence of ELGs or where BCT may be insufficient, further technical analyses or "best professional judgement" may dictate the effluent limits. All permits are issued for a five-year period, at the end of which the discharger must apply for a renewal permit. Plant performance, new plant processes, new State and EPA policies, and new information about water quality conditions are factored into the decision whether or not to change the permit requirements. In recent years, a backlog of municipal permit renewals and amendments developed at WMA. Principal causes of the problem included the time needed to develop and run a computer model for each permit, the competing demands of developing draft permit limits for use in 201 facilities planning, and reliance on time-consuming procedures for internal review and public hearings on each permit (regardless of the level of local interest). In the past six months, WMA has conducted a detailed internal review of the problem, has acted to accelerate the final public review of half of the pending permits, and has instituted changes in the municipal permits process. These changes will involve more selective use of site-specific models in developing permit limits; careful screening of new requests for draft permit conditions for facilities planning; and changes in the public hearing procedures to allow more efficient scheduling of hearings without compromising the public's "right to know". The last of these changes will require an amendment to the present State regulations governing the issuance of municipal permits. Fortunately, similar problems have not developed with the issuance and renewal of industrial NPDES permits. No major changes in tht program are expected. Facilities lacking a surface water discharge — i.e., discharging to groundwaters — are required to obtain a State groundwater discharge permit from MDE. Effluent quality requirements are set, just as with surface discharges; prevention of soil clogging and of groundwater contamination are principal concerns in the permitting process. ------- There presently is an informal "approval letter" process for proposed large farm animal waste facilities which involves a review of the facility construction plans by HSWMA. However, it is certain that not all Maryland facilities have come under this voluntary program, and there have been several incidents in recent years in which major failures of waste storage structures have caused locally catastrophic water pollution. HSWMA is therefore proposing a more formal permit program to regulate such facilities, in cases where the manure is managed with a "wet system" involving spray irrigation of waste waters. The principal benefit of this new program would be the establishment of regular State inspection of each structure, to verify structural safety and compliance with the operating conditions specified in the State permit. Presently there is no routine State inspection program for large manure storage structures. IILPermit Enforcement The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is responsible for the enforcement of all the permits which it issues. The enforcement program involves self- monitoring/reporting by permittees, compliance sampling by MDE personnel, compliance inspections by MDE, technical evaluation, operator training and licensing, and formal enforcement actions as necessary. By late 1987, of the 183 municipal (publicly owned) sewage plants in Maryland, about 125 were in compliance with the final effluent limits in their discharge permits. This rate of compliance (68% of the public plants) represents a significant gain from the 37% rate documented for 1983. MDE expects the compliance rate to increase to 90% by the end of 1988, as a result of plant construction underway and operating improvements at various facilities. (See discussion of National Municipal Policy, below.) Both the Water Management Administration (WMA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration (HSWMA) have permanent divisions or programs committed to inspection and enforcement. WMA conducts some 1,600 sewage plant inspections a year, with the larger plants receiving more attention. Inspectors offer operators assistance in diagnosing plant performance problems. If significant permit violations occur, the agency will issue a notice of violation or a directive requiring corrective action. If those fail to bring results, legal Consent Orders, Administrative Orders or court action may be used. Fines and hookup moratoria may be associated with the orders, and court action may include assessment of civil penalities. Review of compliance status is a continuous effort, with WMA updating its report on the status of compliance on a quarterly basis. Once a year, a statewide list of allowable "hookup capacity" at POTW's is developed, which denies capacity to plants which have consistently violated their permits or are overloaded. Present efforts to enhance this program include the establishment of a computerized Permit Compliance System which will handle all self-reported municipal compliance data. MDE is also conducting performance audit inspections in order to evaluate and certify each plant's lab procedures and to increase the reliability of the self-monitoring data. Since 1985, WMA has maintained a program to respond to all reports of sewage conveyance system spills and overflows; this includes pumping station failures and interceptor blockages. For public sewerage systems with industrial contributors, WMA is presently intensifying its efforts to help municipalities to properly manage their industrial "pretreatment" programs. In some cases, this will have a direct beneficial effect on the sewage plant's performance. ------- Sometimes noncompliance results from operator inexperience or the operational complexities of the particular sewage plant. Since 1985, MDE has increased its support for the Maryland Center for Environmental Training, which provides certification training for plant operators and which comes in as a consultant (at MDE's request) to provide intensive diagnosis and assistance for plants with persistent operating problems. IV. Maryland Compliance With National Municipal Policy EPA's National Municipal Policy establishes a nationwide program to bring all public sewage plants (POTWs) into compliance with the final effluent limitations in their NPDES permits by July 1, 1988. In October 1987, there were 58 of Maryland's 183 POTWs not in compliance; MDE expects that this number will be reduced to around 20 plants by July 1. Of these, eight have received grant funding that will allow them to meet their permit requirements at a later date, and the balance (mostly State-owned STPs for which capital funds have not yet been budgeted) have not yet adopted compliance schedules. Some of these latter have received funding to begin design work. Four POTWs (Back River, Mattawoman, Oakland and Berlin) are under court orders to meet compliance schedules which extend beyond July 1988. (Oakland and Berlin are not in the Bay drainage basin.) MDE's Water Management Administration is handling each POTW that will miss the July deadline on a case-by-case basis. In a number of instances, the fund source for the needed improvements has not been identified or awaits inclusion in the State capital budget. In other cases, there are other problems, such as finding an acceptable site for land disposal of treated effluent. WMA staff are working closely with the owners of these plants in order to identify and (wherever possible) overcome the obstacles to compliance. Because there are valid reasons for the delays, there seems to be no need to take punitive action against any of these POTWs at this time. V. Financial Aid to Municipalities for Point Source Control Needs Title n of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) enacted in 1972 established a massive nationwide grant program to assist communities and states in meeting the expense of improving sewage conveyance and treatment. Initially, federal "201" funds were authorized to cover up to 75% of the eligible project costs, a share which dropped to 55% after 1981. Maryland legislation established a State "matching grant" program that covered 12-1/2% of eligible project costs. When the federal share decreased to 55%, new State legislation increased the state grant share to 32-1/2%. Hence, the local government's share of the cost of a project remained at 12-1/2%. The State share was funded through bonds authorized by a series of Water Quality Loan Acts, the first of which was enacted in the 1960's and which are still enacted (as needed) today. Since Maryland began operation of the federal/State construction grants program under Title II, about $1.3 billion in federal funds, $460 million in State funds and a like amount in local funds have been spent for eligible sewerage projects. Because a significant portion of these funds have supported the upgrading of our publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to meet the CWA requirement of secondary treatment or better, the grants program has been a powerful tool for reducing the discharge of conventional pollutants to Maryland waters. Recently, Maryland's annual allotment from EPA for Title II grants has been about $59 Million. ------- In addition to State funds used as "match" for EPA grants, there are monies earmarked for special sewage projects which are a priority under Maryland law or policy. These include funds earmarked for dechlorination, nitrogen removal, and projects meeting special water quality needs. Under the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the sewerage construction grants program will be phased out after FY 1990 and will be replaced beginning in FY 1989 by a State revolving loan fund. In order for a State to be eligible for the federal "seed money", called a capitalization grant, it must have the legal authority and mechanism in place to operate a self-sustaining loan fund. Starting in FY 1989, EPA grant funds will be replaced by "seed money" funds which will gradually decrease to a modest level ($15 million) by FY 1994. Beginning in FY 1995, no further federal funds will be available to finance improvements at POTWs. Thereafter, the State and its political subdivisions will bear the full cost of POTW improvements and expansions — and for meeting the wastewater treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. (This includes removal of conventional pollutants to the secondary treatment level or better.) The creation of the Maryland Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund will allow the State to establish a perpetual source of capital for the construction of sewerage projects and some other types of pollution control measures. Legislation has been enacted by the 1988 Maryland General Assembly (SB 393, HB 622) which establishes the Maryland Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund (the Fund) and which creates a Water Quality Financing Administration within the Department of the Environment. The provisions of the legislation comply with the requirements of Title VI of the 1987 Clean Water Act. The Fund will be a continuous, non-lapsing fund, and the new Administration will be responsible for maintaining and administering the Fund. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Environment and the Board of Public Works, the Administration may issue revenue bonds for the purpose of establishing and operating the Fund. The Fund will be capitalized by (1) annual federal (EPA) capitalization grants to the State through FY 1994, (2) 20% matching funds provided by the State, (3) interest on investing the Fund (4) interest on loans to municipalities/countries as they are repaid to the Fund, and (5) the proceeds of bonds that are issued by the Administration (subject to approval of the Secretary of the Environment and the Board of Public Works). Under the federal law, the Fund may not be used for grants. Loans will be made to local governments from the Fund at rates below current market rates. (A variety of financing techniques will be used to reduce the interest rates at which the loans will be made.) Each loan must be repaid to the Fund in less than 20 years. Interest and principal payments will help perpetuate the Fund and amortize the State bond funds underwriting the program. It is projected that the new Water Quality Financing Administration will be able to loan between $60 and $70 million per year to local governments at interest rates ranging from 0% to 5%. In addition, the State will continue to operate a portion of its present, State-funded construction grant program. ------- VI. Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas Sediment washed off farmland, surface mines and construction sites is the most prevalent pollutant in Maryland waters, in terms of sheer mass and volume. Not only is sediment a "conventional pollutant", but it often serves as the delivery mechanism for other pollutants, such as phosphates, heavy metals and pesticides. In 1970, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Sediment Control Law, the first such state-level legislation in the country, and one of the State's first nonpoint source control programs. The Sediment Control Law states that erosion and sediment deposits entering Maryland's waters are resulting in these waters "being polluted and despoiled to such a degree that fish, marine life, and recreational and domestic uses of the waters are being affected adversely." The law requires local governments (counties and municipalities) to adopt building and grading ordinances that contain sediment and erosion control provisions. Local governments must have their ongoing programs for sediment control reviewed and approved by the Department of the Environment on a triennial basis. Under the statewide program, each county or municipality, with the assistance of the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) and the appropriate local soil conservation district, implements its own ordinance to carry out the sediment control program. The following activities are exempt from the erosion and sediment control plan approval requirement: agricultural land management practices; the construction of agricultural structures, except in Montgomery or Calvert Counties; the construction of single-family homes on lots of 2 or more acres; and minor projects of limited volume, area and duration, as specified by local ordinance. Hence, almost all construction sites, highway construction projects, commercial forestry and surface mining activities are subject to the State and local laws. Under the local ordinances, a person must receive a grading or building permit from the county (or municipality) before clearing, construction, or development may begin. A grading or a building permit may not be issued until the developer: (1) submits a grading and sediment control plan approved by the soil conservation district, and (2) certifies that all land clearing, construction, and development will be done according to the plan and the written recommendations; of the soil conservation district. Failure to adhere to the plan approved by the soil conservation district or to comply with the State's sediment and erosion control law and the local ordinance may result in the issuance of "stop work" orders and the assessment of civil and/or criminal penalties. Originally, enforcement (except on State or federal projects) was the responsibility of each county or municipality. However, the level of local commitment to effective enforcement varied greatly across the state, and concerns arose that the local sediment control efforts were falling far short of the statewide requirements. As a result, Maryland's 1984 Chesapeake Bay Initiatives included a major modification to the sediment control law. The revision took primary responsibility for enforcement away from the local governments and gave it to the State (then Department of Natural Resources, now MDE). Under the original 1970 law, the burden of proof was on the State to show that the local program was inadequate, and the sanctions in the law were never fully applied. After the enactment of the Bay initiative, the State had the ------- primacy, and each local government had to seek and qualify for the authority to enforce its local program and to do so on a biennial basis. In order to put this into effect, DNR was given 17 new State positions for inspection at the local level (these positions now fall within MDE). The annual cost of this enhancement amounted to about $540,000 in FY 1985, and remains a permanent part of the State budget. The response of the local jurisdictions to the change has varied across the state. Some counties gladly turned over the enforcement function to DNR, while others actually added local resources to their programs to reach the point where they would qualify for "delegation" of enforcement authority from the State. In FY 1988, 11 counties, 5 municipalities, and WSSC run their own enforcement programs, while MDE performs enforcement in the remaining jurisdictions. (Throughout the life of the Maryland law, the State agency has performed plan review and enforcement for State and federal projects.) VII. Sediment Control of Sediment from Agriculture Sediment washed off the land and scoured from streambeds and streambanks contributes to suspended solid levels downstream. In Maryland, agricultural lands contribute significant levels of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In the past seven years, Maryland has greatly intensified its program for addressing agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The 1987 Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Management Program was prepared by the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC). The program is composed of an interrelated set of programs and actions to control water pollution arising from agriculture. The document presents the history behind the current program, defines agency roles, and enumerates these goals for the program: — Within five years (1991), every farm within the State's priority watersheds will have a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (SCWQP). By definition, the areas affected by this five-year goal are the watersheds identified by the SSCC (1984) as having the greatest potential to deliver nutrients to Chesapeake Bay; and those areas within the 1000-ft. Critical Area established around the Bay by the Critical Area Commission. — Within ten years (1996), every farm in the State will have a SCWQP. — Best management practices identified through the on-site planning process will be recommended in each SCWQP to correct existing and potential water quality problems. — Information and education programs to promote farm conservation planning will be expanded. The Maryland agricultural program consists of five elements designed to achieve these goals statewide. Starting in 1984, these State-funded initiatives were phased in, with all components in place by 1987. ------- — Outreach and technical assistance to farmers is primarily provided by the local soil conservation districts (with assistance from the federal Soil Conservation Service, the State Department of Agriculture and the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service). State support of the SCDs (personnel/operating costs) has increased three-fold since 1983; there are now 100 State-funded positions working on soil conservation efforts. — Cost-share funding intended to help farmers pay for the installation of best management practices is provided through the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program (MACS). To date, $22 million in State funds and $3 million in EPA Bay Funds have been committed to the MACS program. — State-funded agricultural research intended to help answer questions about nutrient sources, pathways and effects of best management practices will be carried out by the University of Maryland and other qualified institutions. — Information and education efforts will be continued by all the above agencies (both individually and collectively through the State Soil Conservation Committee). — Enforcement will be accomplished via a cooperative effort between the local conservation districts, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. In order to effectively allocate the manpower and the funds available for cost- sharing, outreach and technical assistance, the State has selected priority watersheds (State Soil Conservation Committee, 1984). Greater resource levels are being concentrated in the priority watersheds, where the potential release and delivery of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay is the greatest. Since potential sediment delivery figured significantly in the development of the "phosphorus" watershed ranking, sediment control is also being affected by targeting of resources. Maryland's current strategy is to continue all these efforts at their present levels of funding and manpower. Under the MACS program, some 3,500 best management practices have been committed to, of which 2,320 would involve practices controlling or reducing sediment loss. One initiative being considered as part of Maryland's Bay nutrient reduction strategy is the use of forested buffer strips between croplands and streams, which will provide for improved interception of sediment from farmland. There is no new funding initiative under consideration at this time, because the increases in the State agricultural non-point source program since 1984 have been considerable, and they all have become part of the State's annual budget. The requirements for soil conservation practices within the lOOO-ft.-wide Chesapeake Bay Critical Area are expected to reduce sediment and nutrient losses from farmland into the Bay. New legislation enacted in 1988 will allow us to "piggyback" Maryland funds on top of the USDA payments to retire "highly credible" cropland under the Conservation Reserve Program. It is hoped that this will serve to increase participation in the USDA program by Maryland farmers. If successful, these initiatives also will reduce sediment inputs from farming to Maryland's waterways. ------- III. Basinwide Strategy The individual strategies presented in Section II, taken together, will comprise the basinwide strategy called for by the conventional pollutant commitment contained in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The jurisdictions recognize the need to sustain aggressive programs in these areas while increased attention is focused on nutrients and toxics. Since the environmental and resource issues and problems are unique in many respects to each jurisdiction they also recognized that these programs have evolved differently through the years and implementation has progressed at different rates. In addition, each jurisdiction administers these programs under various legislative, regulatory, and budgetary requirements. The jurisdictions agree that periodic exchanges of information will provide a means of improving the quality of these programs and ensure, to the degree appropriate for baywide issues, that these programs are implemented in a coordinated fashion. To this end the jurisdictions agree to hold Annual Conventional Pollutant Working Conferences at the program staff level designed to exchange information on any new program developments in order to cooperatively assist each other in achieving Chesapeake Bay restoration objectives. The major comments received during the public comment period on the first draft of this Strategy suggested the following: 1. The jurisdictions should give consideration to a baywide anti-degradation policy. This would be implemented by placing a "cap" on the existing total load (in pounds per day) of oxygen demanding wastes and suspended solids discharged by point sources operating under NPDES permits. 2. The feasibility of land application of wastewater effluent in lieu of direct discharge to surface waters should be evaluated. This evaluation should focus on smaller treatment facilities (less that 0.5 MGD). 3. A cooperative effort by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bay jurisdictions should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive baywide permit compliance project covering municipal and industrial discharges. In order to give proper consideration to these suggestions the signatories to the Agreement agree that a detailed review of these issues should be conducted that would identify the benefits to the Bay cleanup program, the feasibility of implementation, and the costs. The Chesapeake Bay Program will schedule these reviews for consideration at the 1989 and 1990 Annual Working Conferences. ------- |