2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options

Steve BieberWater Resources Program

Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy CommitteeJuly 14, 2004

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 2

Purpose of this presentation Review COG role in helping to develop

implementation options. Review funding and budget implications. Discuss emerging Chesapeake Bay policy

and program issues.

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 3

Challenges Strategies not complete

VA still draft MD basin summaries emerging DC not yet issued

Focus shifting to “implementation plans” Responsibility & accountability Costs & funding Only one response (so far) to COG’s letter

Potomac Basin Cap Load Allocations by Jurisdiction

JurisdictionNitrogen (million lbs/yr)

Phosphorus (million lbs/yr)

2000 Progress

2010 Cap 2000 Progress

2010 Cap

PA 6.43 4.02 0.45 0.33

MD 18.69 11.81 1.20 1.04

VA 24.35 12.84 1.96 1.40

DC 4.95 2.40 0.14 0.34

WV 7.46 4.71 0.54 0.36

Total 61.88 35.78 4.29 3.47

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 5

Role of COG’s Local Governments in Defining Implementation Options

Wastewater treatment options Urban stormwater management options Land use planning and regulation options Air quality planning options Transportation planning options

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 6

Key COG Concerns Cost implications

Wastewater & stormwater rates, fees Growth implications

How do we accommodate population increase Local water quality

How do we integrate Bay goals with goals such as stream restoration

Timing Is 2010 a realistic goal? NO! Can implementation be phased to achieve greater

water quality benefits at a lower cost?

Estimated Costs to 2010 to Attain Water Quality GoalsReference Document

MD VA PA

Maryland Tributary Strategy

13.6B

Virginia Tributary

Strategy 3.2B

Pennsylvania

Tributary Strategy

Cost estimate under development

CBC Cost of a Clean Bay

3.4B 4.4B 3.1B

CBP Technical Support Document

(UAA)

3.4B 4.8B 3.2B

Due to revised unit cost estimates for septic systems, the total cost is expected to be reduced. Enhanced septic denitrification currently represents $6.5 B of the total cost.

Estimated Total Agricultural Sector CostsREFERENCE

DOCUMENT MD VA PA

MD Tributary

Strategy651M

VA Tributary

Strategy 357M

PA Tributary

Strategy Cost estimate

under development

CBC Cost of a Clean Bay

1.2B 900M 1.2B

Note: Inclusion of O&M costs for individual practices varies among reference documents. All sources generally include O&M costs for cost share practices.

Cost Comparison of selected BMPs ($/acre)

Practice MD

VA PA CBP

Cover crops ($ annual) 40

19

-- 27

Conservation tillage ($ annual) 17

3

-- 3

Yield Reserve ($ annual) n/a

30

-- 7

Nutrient Mgmt. Plans

($ annual)

4

7

-- 7

Forest buffers ($ total) * 1,000

545

-- 1,517

Grass Buffers ($ total) * 140

175

-- 132

Wetland Restoration ($ total) * 3,500

889

-- 1,258

*Estimated lifetime of practices varies among sources-- Cost estimate under development

Sources: Maryland Tributary Strategy, Virginia Tributary Strategy, Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Support

Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and

Attainability

Cost Comparison of BMPs (continued)

Practice Cost per pound

Total annual Cost

20-year cost Annual nitrogen reduction potential (lbs)

Cover crops $2.44

$1.8M $36.5M 866,000

Conservation tillage $2.0

$0.6M $12.0M 382,500

Nutrient Mgmt. Plans $1.50 $1.1M $22.4M 715,000

Forest buffers $5.05 $8.5M $172M 2,000,000

Septic denitrification $35.49 $21M $419M 598,000

Point Source BNR/ENR $2.53 $56M $1.1B 15,000,000Sources: Maryland Tributary Strategy, Virginia Tributary Strategy,

Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Support Document for

Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability, Maryland 2001 Joint Chairman’s Report

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 11

We’re all in this together, but….

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 12

Current Policy Issues Timing and schedule. Regulatory permit implications. What can be accomplished with available

resources? How do we become more selective and

target implementation?

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 13

Fundamental Questions What practices will be necessary to achieve

goals? “Limit of Technology” at wastewater plants? Improved urban stormwater controls? New land use regulations/growth controls?

What will practices cost? Use attainability analysis How will local governments balance competing

priorities (budget, land use)?

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 14

Metropolitan Washington Major Wastewater Treatment Plants

0

5

10

15

20

25

To

ta

l N

(m

illi

on

lb

s)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Mil

lio

n G

all

on

s/D

ay

BNR/ENR BNR only Flow

40% Goal

Cap Load

July 14, 2004 Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee 15

Summary – Take Home Points New pollution reduction goals are based on the

“best available” science, and are very ambitious. Cost data vary substantially – we are working with

other partners to get more reliable estimates. Funding will not be sufficient to meet the C2K

water quality goals by 2010, so spending must be targeted at the most effective management actions.

Since most implementation happens at the local level, COG’s members can influence the Tributary Strategy process and push for common sense solutions to the region’s water quality problems.