TMDL Implementation Planning in Virginia Nicole Sandberg, NPS Implementation Coordinator Ashley Wendt, TMDL IP Technical Reviewer June 8, 2017

Planning Process For Impaired Waters Assessment: Assess monitoring data to identify impaired waters TMDL Development: Determine pollutant loads for impaired waters and quantify necessary pollutant reductions TMDL IP Development: Prescribe BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads TMDL Implementation: Installation and monitoring of BMPs to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution Monitoring: Water Quality Ecosystem Health Fish Tissue Begin here AW - Overall Process: Assessment- determine waters that are impaired TMDL Development Implementation Plan Development Implement the IP Continue Monitoring to verify water quality improvement 2

1033 TMDLs completed 22% 3 68% 7% 1% 2% AW - This map shows all of the TMDLs completed as of October 2016. As you can see there have been 1,033 TMDLS completed, approximately 700 of those address bacteria impairments which are shown by the tan shading. The second highest impairment addressed is sediment and nutrients comprising 22% of the TMDLs completed. 68% bacteria, 12% Sediment, 10% nutrients, 7% toxics, 2% other, 1% organics VA assesses the TMDLs that have been developed (of which they have their own prioritization process) and then we determine which of those to prioritize for IP development. Several years ago, there was a ranking performed on all of the potential IP watersheds based on several criteria We are currently in the process of amending how we prioritize IPs. We are shaping the prioritization to be similar to the 303(d) Vision process and will include a list of various ranking criteria. (one of the largest being willingness by stakeholders to participate and therefore implementation will have a high success rate) 3

What is a TMDL Implementation Plan? A TMDL Implementation Plan (IP) describes how pollution will be reduced to achieve a TMDL An IP includes: types and number of BMPs to be installed sources of funding stakeholders involved in implementation Goal: provide roadmap to restore water quality in impaired watersheds In VA, addresses load allocation (NPS) only; waste load allocations are addressed through permit conditions AW - An IP has 11 different components, but they generally include…three bullets listed. The goal of the IP is to provide a roadmap to restore water quality in impaired watersheds. In VA, IPs address load allocations (NPS) only; waste load allocations are addressed through permit conditions. Implementation plans can also be done without a TMDL, but traditionally that has not been the case here in VA. These plans are commonly referred to as watershed-based plans. We have done one watershed-based plan, Fairview Beach, and are looking into expanding into doing more of these into the future. 4

Implementation Drivers in VA State- Virginia’s Water Quality Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act (WQMIRA) Established 1997 Requires “expeditious development and implementation of total maximum daily loads” Federal- USEPA Clean Water Act Section 319(h) Meet Nine Key Elements Not required, but necessary if desired as funding resource NS - WQMIRA established 1997 (§62.1-44.19:4 through 19:8 Code of Virginia) In 1997, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Water Quality Monitoring, Information, and Restoration Act (WQMIRA) [I-0d.pdf], §62.1-44.19:4 through 19:8 of the Code of Virginia. This statute directs DEQ to develop a list of impaired waters and develop a watershed clean-up plan, such as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or TMDL alternative for each impairment , as well as develop implementation plans for these TMDLs. “expeditious development and implementation of total maximum daily loads” WQMIRA requires IPs include: Date of expected achievement of WQ objectives Measureable goals Necessary corrective actions Associated costs, benefits and environmental impact of addressing the impairment Fulfillment of 1999 Consent Decree and Post-CD TMDL Development: In 1998, the American Canoe Association and the American Littoral Society filed a complaint against EPA for failure to comply with the provisions of §303(d) of the Clean Water Act in Virginia. As a result of this legal action, EPA signed a Consent Decree (CD) with the plaintiffs in 1999 that contained Virginia’s TMDL development schedule through year 2010. The CD greatly increased the number of TMDLs produced by Virginia as result the number of implementation plans produced annually also increased In 2000, the CWA §319 program nationally doubled funding to address restoration of impaired waters. Eligiblity for funding access included having watershed based plan that addressed those impairments. These plans must address a minimum of nine key elements that USEPA determined where essential for addressing water quality improvement needs. VA CHOSE to define their watershed based plans based around TMDLs, and between 2001 and 2016 almost 100% of the plans developed in Virginia were TMDL Implementation Plans. Moving forward, we are looking at doing more plans that are not based on first developing TMDLs. All plans are aimed at meeting the USEPA nine key elements requirements. 5

NS - Graph demonstrates how more expansive the plans are getting over the years, covering over 429 impairments with over 83 plans…we are currently up to 88 plans now.

58% (48) of IPs have/had Projects Not including Chesapeake Bay As of June 2016 Virginia has completed 83 IPs, addressing 429 impairments 58% (48) of IPs have/had Projects Not including Chesapeake Bay NS - As of June 2016, Virginia has completed 83 IPs, addressing 429 impairments. Define the difference between plan and project. Point out the one watershed based plan completed. Also, note where there have been Virginia success stories there have also been plans and projects. 7

USEPA Nine Key Elements Identify causes and sources of pollution Estimate load reductions expected Describe management measures and critical areas Estimate technical and financial assistance needed Develop public information and outreach component Develop project schedule Describe interim, measurable milestones Identify indicators to measure progress Develop a monitoring component AW - While VA commonly uses this TMDL IP  Implementation process, all IPs are written to satisfy the USEPA nine key elements as shown here. This is important in that accepted nine element plans open the door for 319 Implementation funding, 50% of which has to go towards implementing accepted plans. These elements all play into the six steps of watershed based planning as laid out in the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters produced by USEPA. In VA, between the science and load allocations provided by the TMDL and the Implementation Plan elements, we can satisfy all nine of these elements. Source: EPA Watershed Handbook 8

Virginia Implementation Plan Development Implementation Plan development led by DEQ with local stakeholder involvement and participation Public Meetings (typically two) Steering Committee Working Groups Agriculture Residential Government AW – Implementation plan development begins with gaining support from local stakeholders (it’s even one of the criteria used for ranking IP watersheds). Even though the IP development process is led by the DEQ, it is done in partnership with watershed stakeholders. This is important from both the plan development and the on the ground implementation perspective. Once a development project begins a public meeting is held to kick off the process. Generally, this is where the watershed issues and strategy for moving forward are presented to the general public. There is also another public meeting that is held at the end of the project to talk about what is included in the draft implementation plan and release it for public comment. A steering committee is formed which acts as the main decision-making body for strategies put into the plan. Typical steering committee members include Soil and Water Conservation Districts, County planning staff, local watershed groups, Planning District Commissions, etc. Several steering committee meetings, which are fed information from the working groups’ meetings, are held over the course of development. These working groups break down the issues by interest groups. The working groups formed through the IP process are typically: agriculture, residential and government. 9

VA Implementation Plan Development Procedures outlined in DEQ “Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans” (2017) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/programs/water/waterqualityinformationtmdls/tmdl/tmdlimplementation/tmdlimplementationplanguidancemanual.aspx AW – In 2003 a Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans was created to provide guidance to local governments, soil and water conservation districts, planning district or regional commissions, community watershed groups, and state and federal agencies on developing Implementation Plans (IPs) for waters where TMDLs have been completed. It was recently updated earlier this year and is posted on our website. We also try to integrate our plans with other regional or statewide efforts such as, but not limited to, the Chesapeake Bay WIP, Watershed Groups/Roundtables, Local Comprehensive Plans, etc. 10

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs Headwaters Tributary to Rappahannock River Located in Northern Piedmont – foothills to Blue Ridge Mountains Subwatersheds ranging from 17,280 acres to 35,580 acres in size Primary land uses across the subwatersheds include: forest and agriculture Minimal residential (~3%) AW – Now we will be presenting an example Implementation Plan while also concurrently describing the general framework and contents of our implementation plans. We chose this particular IP because we ended up gaining a success story in one of the subwatersheds: Carter Run. Any examples of tables or implementation examples given from here forward are from the Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Run IP, particularly the Carter Run Implementation project(s). Thumb Run, Carter Run, Great Run, and Deep Run are part of the Rappahannock River watershed, located in Fauquier and Stafford Counties, Virginia. Thumb Run, Carter Run and Great Run are located west of the Town of Warrenton with Deep Run located to the southeast. The Thumb Run watershed is approximately 21,780 acres of which forested (49%) and agricultural (51%) land uses dominate. The Deep Run watershed is approximately 17,280 acres (78% forested and 21% agricultural land uses). Area of the Great Run watershed is approximately 18,090 acres, with forest as the primary land use (51%) followed by agricultural (46%) and residential (3%) land uses. The Carter Run watershed is approximately 35,580 acres comprised of forest (63%), agricultural (35%), but minimal residential (2%) land uses. 11

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters: 97 miles of perennial streams. Impaired for fecal bacteria (e.coli or fecal coliform; primary contact recreation) TMDLs Developed in 2005 Biological Source Tracking indicators: Human Pet Livestock Wildlife AW – Deep Run was initially placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list based on violations of the fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard. Thumb Run, Carter Run, and Great Run were initially included on the 1998 Section 303(d) list because of violations of the fecal coliform bacteria water quality standard. After these listings, bacteria TMDL studies were comprised for each impairment in 2005. Biological Source Tracking was performed to determine sources of pollution. 12

Thumb, Deep, Carter and Great Runs Bacteria Load Reductions Exclusion of most/all livestock from streams; Substantial land-based NPS load reductions on pasture and cropland; Correct all straight pipes and failing septic systems; Maintain all properly functioning septic systems; Reduce pet bacteria loads on residential land; Wildlife bacteria load reductions are necessary based on bacterial source tracking data AW – These loading reductions were determined by the TMDLs, but were further refined to be included in the Implementation Plan. Read bullets… 13

Staged Approach Addresses largest impact on water quality first Shows implementation milestones over time Demonstrates cost of full implementation Benefits: Demonstrates incremental water quality improvement through continued monitoring Provides measure of quality control Provides mechanism for gaining public support as progress is achieved Ensures cost effective practices implemented first NS – Staged implementation is an iterative process that first addresses those pollutant sources with the largest impact on water quality. Generally in VA, the first stage of implementation is attaining the delisting goal (meeting WQ standards). The second stage is full implementation of the TMDL, which is typically more stringent (more recent TMDLs equate to not exceeding geometric mean, 126 cfu/100ml). *Note for bacteria this is the single sample maximum criteria of 235 cfu/100 ml not violated 10.5% of the time. 14

Staged Implementation Plan NS – 15

BMPs Identified (Control Measures) Determine BMPs necessary to reach water quality goal(s) Most Common BMPs: Pasture Management and manure incorporation Livestock exclusion Repair/ Replacement of failing septic systems and straight pipes Pet waste stations Riparian Buffers NS – Most Common BMPs: Livestock exclusion (fencing and pasture management) Repair/ Replacement of failing septic systems and straight pipes Pet waste stations Riparian Buffers 16

Stage 1 & 2 BMPs for Carter, Deep, Great and Thumb Run TMDL IP

Carter Run: Stage 1 Implementation Best Management Practice (BMP) Unit BMP Goal Implemented BMP (6/30/16) % Goal Completed Stream Exclusion Fencing Miles 20.6 55.7 270% Stream Exclusion Systems 51 54 105% Pasture Management Acres 5,910 Not tracked n/a Vegetated Riparian Buffer 1,352 320 23.6% Permanent vegetative cover 183 Manure Incorporation 2,164 Not implemented Residential Septic Pump out System 114 Residential Septic Repair 11 19 9 Total=28 31 7 1 Total = 39 282% 44% 11% Total=140% Residential Septic Replacement Alternative Waste Treatment Pet Waste Control Program 100% Confined Canine Unit 0% 218 Total BMPs Installed NS - 18

Implementation Plan Funding Take note of the original full implementation cost of $53 million. 19

Carter Run Project Highlights Project Dates: 7/1/2006-12/31/2016 First BMPs installed: January 2007 Funded from multiple EPA 319 Grant awards Funding 7/2007-6/30/2016 BMPs Section 319 - BMP…..$769,790 Farm Service Agency CREP…..$45,262 State (VACS and CREP)…..$963,020 Landowners…..$199,873 Technical Assistance Section 319…..$223,765 TOTAL…………………..$2.21 million

Water Quality Monitoring Plan Element of a successful IP Continued Monitoring in subwatersheds Verify interim progress NS 21

Water Quality Results- Carter Run 22

BMP Installation: 1/1/2007-Present Result: 65% improvement Project Start: 7/1/2006 BMP Installation: 1/1/2007-Present Result: 65% improvement NS- 23

After completing the implementation plan development process, we end up with both a technical document and a public document. The technical document gets sent to EPA for nine element consistency review and acceptance. The public document purpose is to serve as a shorter, more easily digestible document. The example that we have been discussing was finalized in May 2006. 24

TYPE 2- Water Quality Improvement Through the installation of best management practices, Carter Run was able to demonstrate water quality improvement, but has not yet fully restored the waterbody. This is what USEPA terms a type II success story. 25

26 How many does this total up to across the state? How many are Type I, II, etc. 26

Lessons Learned Consistency amongst IPs Differences between contractors Regional and geographic variability State Agency led vs. Local Initiative Public Participation Funding motivates actions Keeping those key players involved throughout entire process Changing behavior in a voluntary manner takes time Implementation Monitoring IPs and grants interaction 27

Contact Information Ashley Wendt Ashley.wendt@deq.virginia.gov, 804-698-4042 Nicole Sandberg Nicole.sandberg@deq.virginia.gov, 804-698-4043 28