Draft Stormwater Proposal Home Builders Association of Virginia Richmond, Virginia June 29, 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

Green Building Ordinance Transportation and Environment Committee
The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.
David K. Paylor Director, Department of Environmental Quality May 27, 2014 VEDP Lunch & Learn Environmental Permitting 101.
Santa Ana Region Stormwater Permit TMDL Requirements and Costs
Redirection of 1991 Realignment Los Angeles County.
Capital Grant Allocation Wind Up By: Financial Analysis and Accountability Branch Date: September 2010.
State Budget Update Scott Cummings Virginia Department of Planning and Budget 1.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Act 38,§5, Nutrient & Odor Management Programs Subchapter G. Facility Odor Management Regulations Discussion.
The coming storm: Managing Roanoke’s Stormwater Infrastructure Challenges Solutions for Roanoke’s future.
Department of Conservation and Recreation 1 Proposed Stormwater Management Requirements for Virginia Rappahannock River Basin Commission June 24, 2009.
Tracie Billington, P.E. Chief Financial Assistance Branch Department of Water Resources.
ACFA Work Plan & the Higher Accommodation Supplement 1.
Economics of Riparian Restoration on Western Washington Farms June 29, 2004 American Water Resource Association Olympic Valley, CA Carolyn J. Henri, PhD.
First Interim Report December 18, Tonight’s Presentation District’s First Interim Report Provides a summary to the Governing Board of the District’s.
Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems: New Regulations & Issues for Localities Potomac Watershed Roundtable January 7, 2011 Thomas E. Crow, Director Division.
Virginia Nutrient Credit Trading: Nonpoint Source Offset Options Kurt Stephenson Dept of Ag & Applied Economics Virginia Tech
Ramona Unified School District First Interim Report December 17, 2009.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
Status Report: Chesapeake Bay TMDL Clean Up Plan Presented to P otomac Roundtable by Jack E. Frye April 9, 2010.
TMDL Overview Kurt Spitzer 850/ Estimates of Cost of Compliance Florida Consumer Fertilizer.
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
SHEEO Prof. Dev. Conference THECB August 13, 2004 Philadelphia 1 Affordability Strategies in the States Moderator: Laura King (Minnesota) Presenter: Deborah.
Department of Public Works NPDES Low Impact Development and Green Streets Resolutions City Council August 17, 2015.
Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee Meeting Bay Program Water Quality Goals: Focus on Funding Presented to COG Board of Directors September 10, 2003.
Chesapeake Bay Executive Council Meeting May 12, 2009 Mount Vernon, Virginia Jeff Corbin, Virginia Assistant Secretary of Natural Resources.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
Urban BMP Incentive Study (HJR 107) And Other Interesting Legislative Items Delegate David Bulova August 10, 2007.
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load –Amount of pollutants that a water body can receive and still support designated uses Drinking,
1 Stormwater Management in Virginia: Proposed Amendments to Parts I, II, III, and XIII of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Regulations Russell.
John K. Woodling CA Department of Water Resources Integrated Regional Water Management Program Update Southern California Water Dialogue May
VI. Developing a VSMP Program General Stormwater Training Workshop.
VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ANNUAL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 2013 Richard Street Tri-county & City SWCD Fredericksburg VA.
Non-point Source Update Marc T. Aveni Regional Manager.
Suzanne Trevena EPA Water Protection Division Chair Milestone Workgroup December 4,
Orange County Board of County Commissioners Update on USEPA Rulemaking for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Utilities Department January 26, 2010 Utilities Department.
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
10/03/021 Stormwater Video-conference Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Videoconference October 3, 2002.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed.
JUNE 27, 2013 ARB INFORMATIONAL UPDATE: ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS’/ METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S DRAFT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY.
September Board Meeting FY08 and FY09 Spending Plan.
VACo Environment and Agriculture Steering Committee VML Environmental Policy Committee June 2, 2010 Charlottesville, VA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Roanoke.
Agenda  Review project scope and goals  Update project status  Review results of public surveys  Identification of capital projects  Draft capital.
Chesapeake Bay Initiatives in The State of the Bay has been in decline over the past 30 years. The major problem is non-point pollution, which cannot.
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Caroline County Pilot Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Katheleen Freeman, AICP, Director Caroline County Department of Planning & Codes Leslie Grunden,
Discussion of Priority Activities for Next Eighteen Months Action Plans.
Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program How Trading Works John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Overview of the Final Report and Findings from the Review of Sampling Methods in Extrapolated New Base-Year Generation Studies May 11-12, 2004.
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011.
Presented by Steven Crawford June 13/15, 2017 OSAC Conference
Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Virginiaforever’s Work for Virginia’s Natural Resources
Current VA Ag Initiatives
Balancing the Operating Budget Ward Forum Presentation
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AB 1600 UPDATE
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OCTOBER 7, 2019
Presentation transcript:

Draft Stormwater Proposal Home Builders Association of Virginia Richmond, Virginia June 29, 2009

Stormwater Regulation Background Regulation began as legislation during the 2004 General Assembly authored by Preston Bryant. Regulation began as legislation during the 2004 General Assembly authored by Preston Bryant. Two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) processes have led to current regulation. Two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) processes have led to current regulation. First Regulation was scrapped by Soil and Water Conservation Board (SWCB) because of improper public notice. First Regulation was scrapped by Soil and Water Conservation Board (SWCB) because of improper public notice. Second TAC was not allowed to address technical components of regulation. Second TAC was not allowed to address technical components of regulation. SWCB approved the current regulation for publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations September 25, SWCB approved the current regulation for publication in the Virginia Register of Regulations September 25, Regulations are currently under review by the Governor, Secretary of Natural Resources, and Department of Planning and Budget. Regulations are currently under review by the Governor, Secretary of Natural Resources, and Department of Planning and Budget. Publication should occur sometime in late April or May of Publication should occur sometime in late April or May of Regulation is scheduled to be final by December of Regulation is scheduled to be final by December of HB1991 introduced during the 2009 General Assembly moved the effective date of the Regulation to July 1, HB1991 introduced during the 2009 General Assembly moved the effective date of the Regulation to July 1, 2010.

Proposed Regulation Outline Regulation contains new structure for local stormwater program permitting and management, new technical regulations for stormwater, and a new fee structure for stormwater permitting. Regulation contains new structure for local stormwater program permitting and management, new technical regulations for stormwater, and a new fee structure for stormwater permitting. Localities will be required to manage independent stormwater programs approved by DCR, or DCR will manage an independent program for the locality. Localities will be required to manage independent stormwater programs approved by DCR, or DCR will manage an independent program for the locality. New technical requirements include designing onsite nutrient reductions to.28 lbs of Phosphorous per acre per year, and changes water quantity requirements from the first half inch of precipitation to the first full inch of precipitation. New technical requirements include designing onsite nutrient reductions to.28 lbs of Phosphorous per acre per year, and changes water quantity requirements from the first half inch of precipitation to the first full inch of precipitation. New fees are increased in anticipation of significant increases in program management at DCR and within the localities. New fees are increased in anticipation of significant increases in program management at DCR and within the localities.

Concerns with the Regulations Drafted DCR has unfairly targeted the Development Industry and all businesses looking to build in Virginia by targeting the smallest contribution of phosphorous with the highest price tag. DCR has unfairly targeted the Development Industry and all businesses looking to build in Virginia by targeting the smallest contribution of phosphorous with the highest price tag. Setting.28 lbs/acre/year of phosphorous as a mandate for all new construction has minimal impact on the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay and other tributaries, and severely limits the ability of Virginia to expand both its commercial and residential bases. Setting.28 lbs/acre/year of phosphorous as a mandate for all new construction has minimal impact on the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay and other tributaries, and severely limits the ability of Virginia to expand both its commercial and residential bases. 75% of all rainfall events in Virginia are ½ an inch or less, meaning that the new water quantity standards are targeting 25% or less of the heaviest storms. 75% of all rainfall events in Virginia are ½ an inch or less, meaning that the new water quantity standards are targeting 25% or less of the heaviest storms. The.28 standard assumes that all undeveloped land in Virginia will be developed in order to meet the Phosphorous allocation from the Chesapeake Bay Program. The.28 standard assumes that all undeveloped land in Virginia will be developed in order to meet the Phosphorous allocation from the Chesapeake Bay Program. DCR is unable to determine actual urban phosphorous loads. DCR is unable to determine actual urban phosphorous loads.

DCR Basis for New Regulation is False False: DCR has repeatedly claimed that the Urban Phosphorous load is the only load that has increased. False: DCR has repeatedly claimed that the Urban Phosphorous load is the only load that has increased. True: While the Urban Phosphorous load has increased, so has the total urban acreage. Therefore the per acre urban phosphorous load has declined. True: While the Urban Phosphorous load has increased, so has the total urban acreage. Therefore the per acre urban phosphorous load has declined.

DCR Basis for New Regulation is False False: Agriculture’s contribution has been addressed and the Agricultural Phosphorous load is declining at a much sharper rate than Urban Loads. False: Agriculture’s contribution has been addressed and the Agricultural Phosphorous load is declining at a much sharper rate than Urban Loads. True: While Agriculture enjoys a voluntary program with state cost-sharing, the state has not had the money in the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) necessary to fully fund agricultural BMPs. In fact, on a per acre basis Agricultural and Urban loads have performed similarly. True: While Agriculture enjoys a voluntary program with state cost-sharing, the state has not had the money in the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) necessary to fully fund agricultural BMPs. In fact, on a per acre basis Agricultural and Urban loads have performed similarly.

Actual Stormwater Trends

Since 2000: Since 2000: –Agricultural Reduction per Acre3.1% –Urban Reduction per Acre2.99% Since 1985: Since 1985: –Agricultural Reduction per Acre9.29% –Urban Reduction per Acre Actual Stormwater Trends 34.87%

What’s the Solution HBAV proposes a simple plan that attacks nutrient pollution from a global position. HBAV proposes a simple plan that attacks nutrient pollution from a global position. Rather than divide and conquer, we must look at the pollution as the problem not each individual source. Rather than divide and conquer, we must look at the pollution as the problem not each individual source. HBAV proposes a plan that is both more effective and more efficient. HBAV proposes a plan that is both more effective and more efficient.

The HBAV Alternative The Better Way consists of 5 key components. The Better Way consists of 5 key components. 1.Maintain the current Chesapeake Bay Act standard of.45 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year for new development, and expand that requirement to the rest of Virginia. 2.Allow for acceptance of on-site mitigation designs at.60 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year. 3.Require a payment of $15,000 per pound of phosphorous to the Water Quality Improvement Fund for the difference between the on-site mitigation of.60 and the requisite.45 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year. 4.Use the approximately $170 million generated by development in the fund as grants to assist in the construction of agricultural stormwater management facilities and the retro-fitting of point-source facilities. 5.Return to quantity control measures for the first ½ inch of rain in the one-year, 24 hour storm.

How Does This Compare? A Few Assumptions: A Few Assumptions: –The model assumes a $15,000 per pound price for phosphorous, which represents average up front costs across a variety of projects including those used in the Virginia Tech Economic Analysis. –We also assume that land development trends over the last 30 years will continue. –And that all funds in the WQIF will be used to their highest potential.

Option 1 Simply apply the.45 lbs/ac/year to all development applied to both Urban and Mixed Open Space. Simply apply the.45 lbs/ac/year to all development applied to both Urban and Mixed Open Space. Current Development Patterns Continue Current Development Patterns Continue No Additional Financial Aid is provided to Agricultural or Point-Source loads. No Additional Financial Aid is provided to Agricultural or Point-Source loads. Historic reductions in phosphorous from agriculture and point sources are continued. Historic reductions in phosphorous from agriculture and point sources are continued.

Option 1 Result Total Phosphorous Load reduced to 7.9 million pounds. Total Phosphorous Load reduced to 7.9 million pounds. Urban Phosphorous Load increases by 78,000, but a per acre reduction of.096 lbs/acre (1.116 in 2007 vs in 2030). Urban Phosphorous Load increases by 78,000, but a per acre reduction of.096 lbs/acre (1.116 in 2007 vs in 2030). Agricultural Load reduction of 1.3 million pounds, but a per acre reduction of only.13 lbs/acre. Agricultural Load reduction of 1.3 million pounds, but a per acre reduction of only.13 lbs/acre. Still at 1.9 million pounds over allocation. Still at 1.9 million pounds over allocation.

Option 2 Take DCR’s recommendation of.28 lbs/acre/year applied to both Urban and Mixed Open Space. Take DCR’s recommendation of.28 lbs/acre/year applied to both Urban and Mixed Open Space. Current Development Patterns Continue Current Development Patterns Continue No Additional Financial Aid is provided to Agricultural or Point-Source loads. No Additional Financial Aid is provided to Agricultural or Point-Source loads. Historic reductions in phosphorous from agriculture and point sources are continued. Historic reductions in phosphorous from agriculture and point sources are continued.

Option 2 Result Total Phosphorous Load reduced to 7.8 million pounds. Total Phosphorous Load reduced to 7.8 million pounds. Urban Phosphorous Load INCREASES by 39,000 pounds, but sees a per acre decrease of only.116. Urban Phosphorous Load INCREASES by 39,000 pounds, but sees a per acre decrease of only.116. Agricultural Load Reduction is comparable to Option 1. Agricultural Load Reduction is comparable to Option 1. Still at 1.8 million pounds over allocation. Still at 1.8 million pounds over allocation. Total additional cost $2 billion. Total additional cost $2 billion.

Option 3 HBAV Alternative Onsite design at.60 lbs/ac/yr. Onsite design at.60 lbs/ac/yr. $15,000 payment into WQIF per pound difference between.45 and.60 $15,000 payment into WQIF per pound difference between.45 and.60 $170 million generated annually for WQIF. $170 million generated annually for WQIF. WQIF allocated at 60% agriculture; 20% point-source; 10% mixed open space BMP upgrades; 10% urban BMP upgrades. WQIF allocated at 60% agriculture; 20% point-source; 10% mixed open space BMP upgrades; 10% urban BMP upgrades.

How Do I Calculate My Payment to WQIF? Option 3 Option 3 –On a ten acre parcel, construction of a BMP to remove phosphorous and reach the.60 requirement will cost approximately $240,000. –A payment will be due to the WQIF in the amount of $22,500. Calculated at 10 acres x.15 lbs phosphorous removed per acre x $15,000 per pound. Total Phosphorous Removed: 19 to 31 pounds Total Phosphorous Removed: 19 to 31 pounds –On-site: 16 pounds –Off-site: From 3 pounds to 15 pounds

HBAV Alternative Result Total Phosphorous Load Reduced to 6 million pounds. Total Phosphorous Load Reduced to 6 million pounds. Total Urban Load increase by 80,000 pounds. Total Urban Load increase by 80,000 pounds. Total Agricultural Load Reduced by over 2.4 million pounds. Total Agricultural Load Reduced by over 2.4 million pounds. Phosphorous allocation is met and exceeded in 20 years. Phosphorous allocation is met and exceeded in 20 years.

DCR’s Response Industry is proposing to pollute more. Industry is proposing to pollute more. Proposal takes us beyond limits of technology. Proposal takes us beyond limits of technology. More stringent and mandatory farm runoff regulations are forthcoming that are not taken into account in the model. More stringent and mandatory farm runoff regulations are forthcoming that are not taken into account in the model.

Questions? Barrett Hardiman Home Builders Association of Virginia 707 East Franklin Street Richmond, Virginia (804)