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

2. 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

3. 1033 TMDLs completed 22% 3 68% 7% 1% 2% AW -
This map shows all of the TMDLs completed as of October 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

4. 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

5. 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 (§ :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], § :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 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. VA Implementation Plan Development
Procedures outlined in DEQ “Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans” (2017)
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

11. 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

12. 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 Biological Source Tracking was performed to determine sources of pollution. 12

13. 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

14. 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

15. Staged Implementation Plan
NS – 15

16. 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

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

18. 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

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

20. Carter Run Project Highlights
Project Dates: 7/1/ /31/2016
First BMPs installed: January 2007
Funded from multiple EPA 319 Grant awards
Funding 7/2007-6/30/2016
BMPs
Section 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

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

22. Water Quality Results- Carter Run22

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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. 26 How many does this total up to across the state?
How many are Type I, II, etc. 26

27. 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

28. Contact Information
Ashley Wendt Nicole Sandberg 28