Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJames Rvr Trib Strategy-draftCOMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Tributary Strategy Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River Public Comment Draft COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Tributary Strategy Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River Public Comment Draft January 2000 Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Virginia Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Environmental Quality To ensure that the final document will be as representative as possible, the Commonwealth continues to look for the comments of all Virginians on this draft. The public review and comment period for this draft runs until February 15, 2000. Please send comments to the address below, or contact Mark Bennett at (804) 371- 7485. James River Tributary Strategy Attention: Mark Bennett Dept. of Conservation and Recreation 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, Virginia 23219 e-mail address: mbennett~dcr.state.va.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Completed in July, 1998, the Initial James River Basin Tributary Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategy provided information on water quality and living resource habitat conditions in the James River, described the actions taken to date to reduce pollutants, and provided an overview of the kinds of additional management actions that could be taken to further restore the health and productivity of the river. The Initial Strategy document did not contain restoration goals because key information from the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality ModeI was not yet available. The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model results began to become available toward the end of 1998. In order to provide a forum for stakeholder input to the goal setting process, a James River Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed. The TRC was composed of representatives from public wastewater treatment facilities, private environmental groups, soil and water conservation districts, industry and local governments. The TRC began to meet in October 1998 to consider the results of various Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model runs as well as other pertinent information. Staff from the Chesapeake Bay Program office of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and State Agencies provided technical assistance to the Committee by analyzing and presenting data from model runs, and by synthesizing living resource information. State staff have worked closely with stakeholders and technical experts to examine the effects of different pollutant reduction scenarios, and to develop goals which will improve the water quality and living resources of the River. The level of expected improvements in habitat conditions were analyzed for different combinations of pollutant reduction. Each combination of actions was then evaluated against the critical measures of practicality, cost-effectiveness and equity. A number of key issues regarding water quality and living resource impacts in the James River were identified during the TRC meetings: sediment load is very high in the James River and suspended sediment reduces light penetration and prevents the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV); there is no significant problem with low dissolved oxygen levels in the James estuary; nitrogen reduction in the upper tidal James River could promote SAV growth; and chlorophyll levels throughout the James estuary are elevated. Two special studies on the James River contributed to the discussions on appropriate restoration goals for the James River. The first study, by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), focused on living resources in the James River above the fall line and identified substantially impacted benthic communities primarily due to sediment. The second study, by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), established the existence of SAV beds in the upper tidal James prior to the 1940's. Smaller historic beds were identified in the lower tidal river. The James Technical Review Committee met eight times but failed to reach consensus on appropriate nutrient and sediment goals for the James River. Based on Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model output, state agency staffmade the following goals recommendation: Achieve a 9% sediment reduction from the levels that existed in 1985 for the entire basin by the year 2010. For all areas draining directly to the tidal fresh portion of the James, Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) implementation at point sources and an equivalent reduction in nonpoint sources by 2010. This would result in a 32% nitrogen and 39% phosphorus reduction, based on model simulation, in loading to the tidal fresh from the levels that existed in 1985. The net nutrient loadings to the lower estuary from all areas should not be allowed to increase and should be capped at 1996 levels. Growth in load coming from areas directly adjacent to the lower estuary should not exceed the reduced load coming from the tidal fresh portion of the river. The resulting zero net increase in loading to the lower estuary will prevent any degradation relative to current water quality conditions. The living resource improvements associated with the recommended reduction goals as determined by the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model are: SAV growth in areas of the tidal fresh James previously identified by VIMS as historic SAV beds, and substantial reductions in chlorophyll levels throughout the estuary. The estimated cost for these improvements is $164 million for point sources and $135 million for nonpoint source BMP implementation. Two issues will require that the recommended nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the James River be reevaluated in several years: The current version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model overpredicts sediment loading in the James River. FutUre model revisions are likely to correct this. The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently working on a process to make the goals required under the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program consistent with the living resources based goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program. I Background Table of Contents Page 1 II Existing Conditions 2 IH Model Results 17 IV Technical Issues & Special Studies 21 V Goal Setting 33 VI Long Term Vision & Short Term Objectives 38 VII References 41 Glossary Appendix A Appendix B TRIBUTARY STRATEGY PLANNING REGIONS FOR THE JAMES RIVER BASIN LOUDOUN Upper James Region Piedmont James Region Middle James Region Lower James Region ROCKINGHAM UNTON FAUQUIER CULPEPER ORANGE LOUISA / / CAROLINE DICKEN~ON SCO~T BUCHANAN WASHINGTON TAZEWELL SMYTH BLAND WYTHE CARROLL GRAYSON ~AX FLOYD PATRICK FRANKL~ HENRY ~DFORD' BEDFORD CAMPBELL HALIFAX MECKI~ENBURG DINWIDDIE BRUNSWICK SUSSEX SUFFOLK CHESAP~.KE 29 Dec 99 ODCR Department of Conservation & Recreation CONSERVING VIRGINI.~S NATURALAND R[CRLhTIONAL I~SOURCES N Scale 1' 2000000 KM 0 40 80 DATA SOURCES VDCR Z iurisdiction boundories (1:24000) - roinoge boundories t1:24000) USGS: hydrology (1:2000000 I. Background This document, Goals for Reducing Nutrients and Sediment in the dames River, was developed as the next step in achieving a comprehensive Tributary Strategy for the James River. The Initial James River Basin Tributary_ Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategy, completed in July, 1998, provided information on water quality and living resource habitat conditions, described the actions taken to date to reduce pollutants, and provided an overview of the kinds of additional management actions that could be taken to further restore the health and productivity of the river. The Initial Strategy did not contain restoration goals because key information from the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model was not yet available. The process of developing water quality and living resource goals for the James River has required consideration of a wide range of issues. The goals included in this document were developed to meet the requirements of Virginia Code 3~ 2.1-51.12:2, which specifies the content of tributary plans..Goals have been determined for each of Virginia's lower tributaries in order to meet their individual water qUality and living resource restoration needs. State staff have worked closely with stakeholders and technical experts to examine the effects of different pollutant reduction scenarios, and to develop goals which will improve the water quality and living resources of the River. By examining the sources of nutrients and sediments, the level of expected improvements in habitat conditions were predicted for different combinations of pollutant reduction. Each combination of actions was then evaluated against the critical measures of practicality, cost-effectiveness and equity. In order to provide a forum for stakeholder input to the goal setting process, a James River Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed. The Committee was composed of representatives from public wastewater treatment facilities, private environmental groups, soil and water conservation districts, industry and local governments. A list of representatives attending TRC meetings is included in Appendix A. The TRC met eight times to consider the results of various Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model runs as well as other pertinent information. Staff from the .Chesapeake Bay Program office of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and State Agencies provided technical assistance to the Committee by analyzing and presenting data from model runs, and by synthesizing living resource information. II. Existing Conditions This section describes the baseline and current annual loading estimates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment entering the tidal portion of the James River..Also presented is a summary of living resource and habitat conditions within the James basin, for key parameters and species that serve as indicators of water quality, including dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations, water clarity, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), algae, bottom dwelling (benthic) organisms, fish, and shellfish. Nutrient and Sediment Loads The Chesapeake Bay Program participants established 1985 as the baseline year, making it the reference point for calculating annual differences in the nutrient and sediment loads. The baseline loads are the sum of 1985 point source discharges and the nonpoint nutrient runoff, associated with 1985 land uses in the James River basin, calculated for an average rainfall year. By accounting over time for process changes and physical upgrades at wastewater treatment plants, and implementation of best management practices to control nonpoint source runoff, estimates have been made of the current loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the James River basin. Nutrient loads originate from both point sources (municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities) and nonpoint sources (agricultural crop and pasture land, and developed urban/suburban land). Virtually all of the sediment loading is associated with nonpoint source runoff, as the point sources contribute a negligible amount by comparison. Sediment input to the James River is a significant issue to be considered in formulating restoration and protection goals, for several reasons: the large magnitude of the load (the James has the third highest measured sediment loading of all the Bay tributaries, behind only the Potomac and Susquehanna); the impact it can have on water clarity, blocking sunlight needed for growth and survival of SAV, as well as limiting algae growth; and, the negative effect it can have on critical habitat in the streambed of the non-tidal, free flowing regions of the James River, west of the fall line. The 1985 baseline figures for the loads of nutrients and sediment delivered to the tidal James are shown in Table 2.1. Since 1985, a wide array of nutrient and sediment control actions have been implemented in the James River basin to reduce both the point source and nonpoint source input of these pollutants. The types, locations, and and extent of these control actions were detailed in the Initial ~lames River Basin Tributary Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategy, a document released by the Commonwealth in July 1998. In general, they include upgrades and improvements made at 2 municipal wastewater treatment plants to control nitrogen and phosphorus discharges, pollution prevention actions taken at industrial facilities, greater use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) by farmers and foresters, improved stormwater management and erosion and sediment control by local governments, and other initiatives. Table 2.1 - Nutrient and Sediment Loads James River Basin: 1985 Point Nonpoint Source Source Total Units Phosphorus 3.6 2.5 6.1 million lbs/yr Nitrogen 22.1 19.1 41.2 million lbs/yr Sediment N/A 2.01 2.01 million tons/yr The Chesapeake Bay Program's Watershed Model has been used to calculate the change in controllable nutrient and sediment lOads achieved by these activities. Table 2.2 compares the 1985 baseline loads to estimates for 1996, which is the most recent year with land use coverage data available to reflect the implementation of BMPs2 Table 2.2 - Changes in Controllable Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads James River Basin: 1985-1996 . 1985 Load ·1996 Load (and % change) Point Nonpoint Point Nonpoint Source Source Total Source Source Total Phosphorus 3.6 2.5 6.1 1.5 2.4 3.9 (million lbs/yr) (-58%) (-4%) (-36%) Nitrogen 22.1 19.1 41.2 17.9 18.6 36.5 (million Ibs/yr) (- 19%) (-3%) (- 11%) Sediment N/A 2.01 2.01 .... 1.97 1.97 (million tons/yr) (-2%) (-2%) As shown in Table 2.2, between 1985 and 1996, the estimated annual nitrogen load has been reduced about 4.7 million pounds and the estimated annual phosphorus load has been reduced about 2.2 million pounds. This represents an eleven percent annual load reduction for nitrogen, and a thirty-six percent annual load reduction for phosphorus, relative to the 1985 baseline nutrient load. The gross nutrient reductions achieved between 1985 and 1996 were actually 3 greater, but were partially offset by the nutrient-related impacts of growth and development during that eleven year period. The Chesapeake Bay Program has not yet run the Watershed Model to update the nonpoint source load figures using more recent data on BMP implementation since 1996. This run is expected to be completed by the end of 1999. Recently compiled data for the point source facilities indicates that the annual discharged nutrient loads have been reduced even further since 1996. The 1998 point source nitrogen load was approximately 14.4 million pounds per year (a 40% reduction compared to 1985), and the phosphorus load was about 1.39 million pounds per year (a 61% reduction since the baseline year). The notable actions affecting the point source nutrient loads are: · The phosphate detergent ban went into effect in January 1988. Phosphorus control systems (2.0 mg/l, monthly average) installed and now operating at all plants greater than, or equal to, 1.0 MGD discharging to the tidal portion of the river. Several industrial plants significantly reduced their nitrogen discharge (e.g., BWXT/- 70%, AlliedSignal-Hopewell/-81%, Tyson Foods/-39%). Several publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) installed BNR technology: Moores Creek, Falling Creek, Proctors Creek, Henrico, HRSD-VIP, HRSD-Nansemond. Other POTWs have made physical and/or operational changes (ammonia control, pretreatment, BNR pilots, upgrades/expansion) significantly reducing their nitrogen discharge (e.g., Lynchburg, Hopewell, South Central Wastewater Authority, Richmond, HRSD-Williamsburg). Several significant facilities have gone off-line, with their wastewater now treated at more efficient plants: Smithfield Foods, Smithfield-Gwaltney, Smithfield STP (all now routed to HRSD-Nansemond), and Portsmouth STP (flow diverted to HRSD-VIP). These reductions occured despite a 10% increase in the total flow treated, compared to the 1985 flow. Summary of Living Resource and Habitat Conditions~ A long-term monitoring program for the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries has been.in place since 1984 in order to: 1) track long-term trends in water quality and living resource ~Source for this section: Status and Trends in Water Quali _ty and Living Resources in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay: 1985 -1997, Dauer, et. al., AMRL Technical Report No. 3090, September 1998. conditions over time; 2) assess current water quality and living resource conditions; and 3) establish linkages between water quality and living resources communities. By tracking long- term trends in water quality and living resources, it can be determined if changes in water quality 'and living resource conditions have occurred over time and if those changes are a reflection of management practices. Assessments of current status can aid in identifying regions of concern that could benefit from the implementation of pollution abatement or management strategies. By identifying linkages between water quality and living resources it may be possible to determine the impact of water quality management practices on living resource communities. Monitoring data is collected to characterize water quality in the mainstem James River and its major tributaries (Appomattox, Chickahominy, and Elizabeth Rivers) at a total of 21 stations. The parameters analyzed are total nitrogen, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, chlorophyll a, total suspended solids, secchi depth, and bottom dissolved oxygen. Plankton, zooplankton, and benthos (bottom dwelling organisms) make up the living resource component of the monitoring program, with plankton/zooplankton measured at 4 stations, and benthos sampled at 6 fixed and 25 random stations per year. Findings are reported for regions of the tidal James designated by salinity (Upper = tidal fresh/0-0.5 ppt; Middle = oligohaline/0.5-5 ppt; Lower = mesohaline/5-18 ppt). The "status" of water quality conditions is based on analysis of the most recent 3-year period of record, compared to the poor and good extremes of the first 12 years of the entire water quality data set for each salinity regime throughout the entire Bay. Values in the lowest third of the dataset were classified as poor, those in the middle third were classified as fair, and values in the upper third were classified as good. The "trends" are statistically derived from the entire period of record, indicating long-term changes (positive, negative, or none detected) for each water quality parameter. Characterization of living resource conditions is based on "indices of biological integrity" (e.g., abundance and total biomass) and productivity. From the foregoing descriptions, it can be seen that the status of water quality and living resource indicators in the James basin are relative values, being compared to other regions throughout the Bay with similar salinity. Thus, use of the term good, fair, orpoor is not an absolute evaluation of status but rather a statement relative to other areas of a system that is pervasively stressed by nutrient over-enrichment and high sediment loadings. If these status evaluations compared current nutrient and sediment pollution levels of the James to those found in the James 100 years ago, or to current status of other less impacted estuaries, most statements regarding status would likely use the term poor. Before going into any detail on conditions in the James, there are several summary points that can be made about nutrient and sediment inputs, and the water quality and habitat status. These points framed the goal-setting discussions and decision making undertaken by a Technical Review Committee, which included stakeholder representatives from the basin's four strategy planning regions, in forming their recommendations for consideration by the Secretary of Natural Resources. b) c) The ratio of point source nutrient loads to nonpoint source loads is greater in than James than in other Virginia tributaries. The relative contribution of nutrients from point sources compared to nonpoint sources has been shifting somewhat over the last decade, as control actions and plant improvements have come on-line (i.e., nonpoint sources becoming a larger fraction of the total load, although the total load is being reduced). Sediment inputs are almost exclusively a nonpoint source issue. Fall-line nutrient loads are improving. Algal levels are elevated in many sections of the tidal river, and seasonal peaks are among the highest in entire Bay drainage. Below fall-line improvements in algal levels, total nitrogen and algal growth rates. Potential light limitation of algal growth rate throughout the river. Living resources (phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos) generally improving or in good condition. Improving trends in phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in upper James River (tidal freshwater section from fall line to the Chickahominy). Deteriorating trend in zooplankton community in the lower James River (more saline section near Hampton Roads and river mouth). No trends in the benthic community conditions. Health of the benthos is the best in the Chesapeake Bay region, but this is in relation to other impacted.areas -- not compared to a pristine area. Concern for potential underwater grass recovery due to poor water clarity. prOximity to oceanic water and hydrodynamic mixing prevents dissolved oxygen problems. Lower oxygen conditions only observed in the Elizabeth River system. James River Water Quality_ and Living Resource Status Assessments Nitrogen · Status of surface and bottom total nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen was good in all portions of the James River. · No change in status since 1996. Phosphorus · Status of surface and bottom total phosphorus and dissolved inorganic phosphorus was good in majority of regions in the James River. Status of surface total phosphorus was fair in the Lower James River (JMSMH) and the James River mouth (JMSPH). Status of bottom total phosphorus was fair in the Middle James River (JMSOH), Lower James River (JMSMH) and the James River mouth (JMSPH). Status of surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus was fair in the Lower James River. Status of bottom dissolved inorganic phosphorus was fair in the Upper James River (JMSTF) and the Lower James River (JMSMH). · No change in status since 1996. Chlorophyll a · Status of surface and bottom chlorophyll a was good in all portions of the James 6 e) i) River. No change in status since 1996. Suspended solids · Status of surface and bottom total suspended solids ranged from fair to good in all portions of the James River. · Status of surface total suspended solids in the Appomattox River (APPTF) and Upper James (JMSTF) improved from fair to good since 1996. Water clarity · Status of secchi depth ranged from fair in the upper James River (JMSTF) and the Chickahominy River (CRRMH) to poor in all other regions. · Little change in status of secchi depth except that Chickahominy went from poor to fair since 1996. Dissolved oxygen · Status of bottom dissolved oxygen was good in all portions o£the James River. · No change in status since 1996. Phytoplankton · Status based on the phytoplankton IBI was good at all stations in the James River except TF5.5 where it was fair. · Status of CTM productivity was good at all stations in the James River except LE5.5 where it was fair. · No change in status since 1996. Zooplankton · Status of zooplankton communities at station TF5.5 in the Upper James was below minimal. · Status of zooplankton communities at station RET5.2 in the Middle James was minimal. · Status of zooplankton communities at station LE5.5 in the Lower James was below minimal. · Status changed at station RET5.2 from optimal in 1996 to minimal in 1997. Benthos · Two stations were classified as marginal in status based upon the B-IBI (RET5.2 and LE5.1). · Two stations were classified as meeting goals based upon the B-IBI (LE5.2 and LE5.4). · All B-IBI metrics at all stations had a status that meet goals. · Based upon the random sampling event, the percentage of benthic bottom meeting goals was 54 %, compared to 79% in 1996. 7 The 1997 B-IBI categories were 21% severely degraded (< 2.0),'21% degraded (2.0-2.6), 4% marginal (2.6~3.0) and 54% meeting goals (> 3.0). Compared to the 1994-1996 status, RET5.2 changed from degraded to marginal. The status for the other stations was unchanged. The major difference comparing the percentages of bottom conditions between 1996 and 1997 was an increase from 0% severely degraded bottom (B~IBI < 2.0) to 21% in 1997. 2. James River Water Quality and Living Resource Trend Analyses a) Nitrogen · Improving trends in Surface total nitrogen were detected in all segments in the James River except the River mouth (JMSPH). · Improving trends in bottom total nitrogen were detected in all segments in the James River except the Chickahominy River (CHKOH). · Improving trends in surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF) the Middle James River (JMSOH) and the Lower James River (JMSMH). · Improving trends in bottom dissolved inorganic nitrogen were detected in all segments except the Appomattox River (APPTF) and the Chickahominy River (CHKOH). · There were no degrading trends in any nitrogen parameters in the James River. b) Phosphorus · Improving trends in surface total phosphorus were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF), the Appomattox River (APPTF), the Lower James River (JMSMH) and the river mouth (JMSPH). Through 1996, improving trends in surface total phosphorus were limited to two station-specific decreasing trends in the Upper James River and a seasonal decreasing trend in the Lower James River (JMSMH). · Improving trends in bottom total phosphorus were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF), the Appomattox River (APPTF) and the James River Mouth (JMSPH). · A degrading trend in bottom total phosphorus was detected in the Middle James River (JMSOH). · Improving trends in surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus were detected at three stations in the Upper James River (JMSTF). Through 1996, two station-specific decreasing trends in surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF). 8 d) g) Improving trends in bottom dissolved inorganic phosphorus were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF) and the Appomattox River (APPTF). There were no degrading trends in surface total phosphorus and surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus in data collected through 1997. Degrading trends in surface total phosphorus were detected in the data collected through 1996 in the Middle and Lower James River but these trends disappeared or reversed direction after the addition of the 1997 data. Chlorophyll a · Improving trends in surface chlorophyll a were limited to a decreasing overall trend in the Appomattox River (APPTF) and a single season specific decreasing trend at the river mouth (JMSPH). · Degrading trends in surface chlorophyll a were limited to two season specific trends at the river mouth (JMSPH). Suspendedsolids · There were no improving trends in surface total, suspended solids in the James River data collected through 1997. · Degrading station and season specific trends in surface total suspended solids were detected in the Upper James River (JMSTF) and the Lower James River (JMSMH), respectively, in data collected through 1996. These two trends disappeared after the addition of the 1997 data. · There were no trends in bottom total suspended solids in the James River data collected through 1997. Water Clarity There were no improving trends in secchi depth in the James River. There was a single overall degrading trend in secchi depth at the James River mouth (JMSPH). A station specific improving trend in secchi depth in the Upper James and. a degrading trend in the Middle James detected in the data collected through 1996 disappeared after the addition of the 1997 data. Dissolved oxygen · Improving trends in bottom dissolved oxygen were limited to a station specific increasing trend at the James River mouth (JMSPH) and an overall increasing trend in the Upper James River (JMSTF). · There were no degrading trends in bottom dissolved oxygen in the James River. · In general, there were no changes in trend analysis results between 1996 and 1997 for this parameter. Phytoplankton · Improving trends were detected above the pycnocline at station TF5.5 in the 9 Upper James in total abundance, chlorophyte abundance and biomass, cyanobacteria biomass, and Picoplankton abundance and biomass. Improving trends were detected below the pycnocline at station TF5.5 in the Upper James in total abundance, chlorophyte abundance and biomass, dinoflagellate abundance and biomass (season specific), cyanobacteria biomass, and bloom producer abundance. A degrading trend was detected below the pycnocline at station TF5.5 in the Upper James in Margalef diversity. Degrading trends were detected below the pycnocline at station TF5.5 in the Upper James in dinoflagellate abundance (season specific) and Margalef diversity. Improving trends were detected above the pycnocline at station RET5.2 in the Middle James in total abundance, dinoflagellate abundance, chlorophyte abundance and biomass, cyanobacteria biomass, and picoplankton abundance and biomass. Improving trends were detected below the pycnocline at station RET5.2 in the Middle James in total abundance, diatom biomass, chlorophyte abundance and biomass, cyanobacteria biomass, and picoplankton abundance and biomass. A degrading trend was detected below the pycnocline at station RET5.2 in the Middle James in cyanobacteria abundance. Improving trends were detected above the pycnocline at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in total abundance, diatom abundance (season Specific) and biomass, chlorophyte abundance and biomass, and picoplankton abundance and biomass.. Degrading trends were detected above the pycnocline at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in cyanobacteria abundance (season specific), Margalef diversity, and bloom producer abundance (season specific) and biomass. Improving trends were detected below the pycnocline at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in total abundance, diatom abundance and biomass, chlorophyte abundance and biomass and picoplankton abundance and biomass. Degrading trends were detected below the pycnocline at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in dinoflagellate abundance and biomass, bloom producer abundance and biomass, and toxic species abundance. Zooplankton · Degrading trends were detected at station TF5.5 in the Upper James in all measures of mesozooplankton diversity. ° Degrading trends were detected at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in all measures of mesozooplankton diversity except evenness. · A degrading trend was detected at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in total mesozooplankton abundance largely as a result of reductions in holoplanktonic organisms including but not limited to calanoid copepods and cladocerans. ° A decreasing {rend was detected at station LE5.5 in the Lower James in tintinnid abundance. 10 The trend at station TF5.5 in the Upper James in Margalefs diversity changed from an improving trend in 1996 to a degrading trend in 1997. i) Benthos · There was a single improving trend in the B-IBI at station RET5.2. · There were no deteriorating trends in any of the B-IBI metrics. · There were no trends in the B-IBI through 1996. 3. Elizabeth River Water Quality_ and Living Resource Status Assessments a) Nitrogen · Status of surface and bottom total nitrogen was fair in most regions in the Elizabeth River. · Status of surface and bottom dissolved nitrogen was poor in the Southern Branch (SBEMH), good in the mainstem of the Elizabeth River (ELIMH)and fair in all other segments. b) Phosphorus · Status of surface and bottom phosphorus was fair in all segments of the Elizabeth River except in the Western Branch (WBEMH) where status in surface total phosphorus was poor. · Status of surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus ranged from poor in the Western Branch (WBEMH) to good in the mainstem of the Elizabeth River (ELIMH). · Status of bottom dissolved inorganic phosphorus was poor in the Southem Branch (SBEMH), fair in the Eastern Branch (EBEMH) and mouth of the Elizabeth River (ELIPH), and good in the Western Branch (WBEMH) and mainstem of the Elizabeth River (ELIMH). Chlorophyll a · Status of surface and bottom chlorophyll a was fair to good in all segments of the Elizabeth River. d) Suspended solids · Status of surface and bottom total suspended solids was fair to good in all segments of the Elizabeth River. Water clarity · Status of secchi depth was poor in all segments of the Elizabeth River. Dissolved oxygen · Status of bottom dissolved oxygen was good in the Western Branch (WBEMH) and Eastern Branch (EBEMH) and fair in all other segments. g) Phytoplankton · Status based on the phytoplankton IBI was good. 11 Status of CTM productivity was good. There was no change in status from 1996 to 1997. Zooplankton · Status of zooplankton communities at station SBE5 in the Upper James was poor. · There was no change in status from 1996 to 1997. i) Benthos · Both stations were classified as degraded in status based upon the B-IBI. · B-IBI metrics for community composition generally had a degraded status. · There was no change in status from 1996 to 1997. 4. Elizabeth River Water Quality and Living Resource Trend Analyses a) Nitrogen · Improving trends in surface and bottom total nitrogen were detected in the Western Branch (WBEMH) and Southern Branch (SBEMH) and Elizabeth River Mouth (ELIPH). · Improving trends in surface and bottom dissolved inorganic nitrogen were detected in all segments in the Elizabeth River except surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the Western Branch (WBEMH). b) Phosphorus · Improving trends in surface and bottom total phosphorus were detected in all segments in the Elizabeth River except bottom total phosphorus in the mouth of the Elizabeth River (ELIPH). · Improving trends in surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus were detected in the Eastern Branch (EBEMH) and Southern Branch (SBEMH) and mainstem (ELIMH) of the Elizabeth River. · Improving trends in surface dissolved inorganic phosphorus were detected in the Eastern Branch (EBEMH) and Southern Branch (SBEMH) and the Western Branch (WBEMH) of the Elizabeth River. c) Chlorophyll a · There were no trends in surface or bottom chlorophyll a. d) Suspended solids · There was a' single overall degrading trend in surface total suspended solids in the Eastern Branch (EBEMH) of the Elizabeth River. · Improving trends in bottom total suspended solids were detected Eastern Branch (EBEMH), Southern Branch (SBEMH) and Western Branch (WBEMH) of the Elizabeth River. Water clarity 12 There were no trends in secchi depth. Dissolved oxygen · Improving trends in bottom dissolved oxygen were detected in the Western Branch (WBEMH), Eastern Branch (EBEMH) and Southern Branch (SBEMH) and mainstem (ELIMH) of the Elizabeth River. · There were no degrading trends in'bottom dissolved oxygen in the Elizabeth River. g) Phytoplankton · Improving trends were detected above the pycnocline at station SBE5 in the Southern Branch in diatom abundance and biomass, chlorophyte abundance and biomass and picoplankton abundance and biomass. · Degrading trends were detected above the pycnocline at station SBE5 in the Southern Branch in bloom producer abundance and biomass. · Improving trends were detected below the pycnocline at station SBE5 in the Southern Branch in diatom abundance and biomass, chlorophyte abundance and biomass and picoplankton abundance and biomass. · Degrading trends were detected below the pycnocline at station SBE5 in the Southern Branch in cyanobacteria abundance and biomass (season specific), Margalef diversity, and bloom producer abundance and biomass. Zooplankton · Degrading trends were detected at station SBE5 in the Southem Branch in all measures of mesozooplankton diversity. · A decreasing trend in total microzooplankton abundance due primarily to reductions in oligotrich abundance was detected at station SBE5 in the Southern Branch. i) Benthos · There was an improving trend in the B-IBI at station SBE5. This Same trend occurred through 1996. · There were improving trends in community composition at both stations (increasing amounts of pollution: sensitive taxa and decreasing amounts of pollution indicative taxa). · There was a improving trend in species diversity at SBE5. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation2 2References used for this section are Chesapeake Bay SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis, (Batiuk, et al.; USEPA; 12/92), and Analysis of Hist0rical Distribution of SAV in the James River, (Moore, et al.; VIMS; 4/99). 13 Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), or underwater grass, is an extremely important component of the habitat found in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. One of the major factors contributing to the high productivity of the Bay has been the historical abundance of more than twenty freshwater and marine species of rooted, aquatic plants. SAV provides food for waterfowl and is critical habitat for shellfish and finfish, especially during their early life stages when protection from predators is crucial to their survival. SAV also affects nutrient cycling, sediment stability, and water clarity. Unfortunately, a systemwide decline of all SAV species in the Bay began in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This decline was related to increasing amounts of nutrients and sediments in the Bay, resulting from development of the Bay's shoreline and surrounding watershed. In 1989 the Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive Council adopted a policy for the restoration and protection of SAV. This policy highlighted the importance of developing scientifically based SAV habitat criteria (available light, total suspended solids, chlorophyll a, dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus, growing season), as well as the need for baywide restoration goals in terms of distribution, density, and species diversity. In 1990 a set of tiered goals were established for the distribution of SAV throughout the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Tier I sought restoration to areas currently or previously inhabited by SAV, as mapped through regional and baywide aerial surveys from 1971 to 1990. Tier II called for reestablishment of SAV in shallow water regions with suitable habitat, out to a depth of one meter, and Tier III extended this boundary out to the 2 meter contour. At the time these goals were set, the baywide acreage of SAV was estimated to cover about 53% of the Tier I target, but only 10% of the Tier III goal. In the James River basin (including the small coastal basins near the mouth of the James), survey data from 1997 indicated that, in relation to the Tier I goals, 23% of the goal was covered by SAV in the Lynnhaven area; the acreage in the lower, saline portion of the James reached 477% of its goal; and, 0% of the goal was met for the middle James region (Chickahominy). As impressive as the number appears for the lower James, it is important to note that the Tier I target acreage for the entire tidal portion of the river is extremely low -- only 264 acres. By contrast, the Mobjack Bay region near the mouth of the York River has a Tier I goal of about 11,000 acres. Further, there is no Tier I SAV goal for the tidal freshwater section of the James because the historical (pre- 1971) extent of SAV in that region was unknown when the goals were established. In order to fill in the information gap about the previous existence of SAV in the shallow water regions throughout the James, especially in the tidal freshwater section from Richmond to the Chickahominy, a study was Conducted in 1998 by researchers from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. This study examined the historical distribution of SAV in the James River starting approximately 60 years ago, when aerial photographic surveys first became available. The specific objectives of this study included: 1) To search photoarchives for imagery of the littoral zones in the tidal portions of the 14 James River for evidence of SAV. 2) To delineate and map the changing SAV distributions in these regions at 10 to 20 year intervals, dependent upon image availability. 3) To develop a preliminary evaluation of the currently reported SAV distribution relative to the historical distribution using ground surveys. 4) To display and quantify the SAV distributions using a computer-based geographic information system (GIS) and to summarize the results in report form. Analyses of historical photography and ground surveys dating from the 1930s indicate that a total of approximately 4,060 acres of SAV have been historically present in shallow water regions throughout the James River. This compares to 190 acres of vegetation'reported in 1997 and a James River Tier I SAV restoration goal of 264 acres (areas mapped with SAV from 1971- 1991). More specifically, the study determined that the historical distribution of SAV in the freshwater and low salinity regions was about 2,355 acres within the James River and Appomatox River Tidal Fresh (JMSTF and APPTF) Chesapeake Bay Program segments. Table 2.3 presents complete results from the study. Table 2.3. James River SAV abundance. Historical Area (VIMS study); Tier I Goal (Batiuk et al. 1992); 1997 Mapped Distribution (Orth et al. 1998); nd - not determined. CBP Segment Historical Area Tier I Goal 1997 Mapped (1937- 1991) Distribution (acres) (acres) (acres) James River Tidal Fresh (JMSTF) 1,970 0 0 Appomattox Tidal Fresh (APPTF)' 385 0 0 James River Mesohaline (JMSMH) 724 0 3 Chickahominy Oligohaline (CHKOH) I 224 224 nd James River Polyhaline (JMSPH) 758 40 187 Totals 4,061 264 190 Overall, the temporal and spatial patterns of SAV loss in the James River suggest declines occurred first in the tidal freshwater regions of the upper James beginning approximately 50 years ago, and then subsequently in the lower James beginning about 30 years ago. Since then regrowth has been limited to high salinity areas near the river's mouth along the shoreline of Hampton and Newport News, and an apparent increase in the vicinity of the Chickahominy River. In a series of surveys by boat during the summer of 1998, numerous beds of SAV, many too small to map with high altitude aerial photography, were found in a number of the tidal 15 tributary creeks of the James including the Chickahominy River, Wards Creek, Upper Chippokes Creek, Grays Creek, and Lower Chippokes Creek, as well as along the Hampton-Newport News shoreline. These observations suggest that water quality and other habitat conditions in these areas may serve as useful criteria for achieving the goal of restoration of SAV to its historical distribution levels. The SAV currently in the river system was found to be dominated by three species. SAV in the tidal freshwater tributaries of the upper James consists principally of Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) and Najas minor (common naiad). Here the SAV was growing to depths of 0.5-1.5 meters. The SAV in the high salinity region is the saltwater tolerant species Zostera marina (eelgrass). Water depths of the areas currently vegetated with eelgrass were found to be approximately 0.5 to 1.0 meters at mean low water, while historical photographs suggest that vegetation in the lower James formerly grew to depths of nearly 2.0 meters. Approximately 225 acres of SAV were found to be historically present in the Oligohaline Chickahominy segment (CHKOH). This area measurement came primarily from an aerial mapping survey conducted in this region by VIMS in 1978. The ground survey conducted for the current study in 1998 suggests that the SAV may have increased in abundance in the Chickahominy compared to 1978. Preliminary analysis of aerial photography that was taken of this segment by ¥IMS in the summer of 1998 confirms these observation and a four-fold increase in area (506 acres) has been estimated (Orth et al. unpubl.). Finally, because few high salinity SAV beds were present in the James River Polyhaline segment (JMSPH) during the period for which the Tier 1 restoration goals were established (1971-1990), a goal of only 40 acres was selected. Recent regrowth has exceeded this goal. However, it is apparent from the VIMS study's comprehensive analysis of historical SAV distribution in this segment that recovery of SAV is still short of the historical abundance of 758 acres. The VIMS study results are important to the tributary strategy goal-setting process for the James River, because they give insight about the potential for habitat improvement that was not considered when the Bay Program's SAV restoration targets were adopted. The documented presence of SAV in the iow salinity section of the river supports the reasonable expectation that SAV can regrow and survive in larger areas of the tidal freshwater region, given the proper water quality conditions. Further, these reestablished grass beds can provide the stock needed for SAV to propagate throughout the region, and VIMS researchers have observed plant material being transported out of the smaller tributaries into the mainstem James. For these reasons, along with the potential for reductions in chlorophyll concentrations discussed elsewhere in this document, the focus on James River restoration under the tributary strategy should be on SAV reestablishment, with an emphasis on the tidal freshwater region. 16 III Model Results A primary purpose of water quality modeling is scenario analysis. Models are used to develop and test various management options or strategies aimed at improving water quality. This section of the report focuses on what scenarios were run in order to assess anticipated water quality and living resource responses in the James River below the fall line to various loading scenarios. All scenarios are based On a 1 O-year simulation period consisting of the hydrology of the 1985 to 1994 years. Scenario Descriptions The Chesapeake Bay estuary Model Package (CBEMP) framework provided projections of the expected water quality responses in the tidal James River under a variety of management options. Four reference scenarios provided a base for the analysis (Table 3.1). These scenarios were: Table 3.1 Reference Scenarios: SCENARIO DESCRIPTION Base Case 1985 land use, 1985 point source discharge & 1985 BMP levels throughout the entire watershed. 1996 Progress 1996 land use, 1996 point source discharge & 1996 BMP levels throughout the entire watershed. Full Voluntary Full voluntary program implementation throughout the entire watershed. Point Program source concent/ations of 5.5 mg/L TN and 0.5 mg/L TP with flows projected to Implementation 2000. NPS-Ag ~ 75% cropland conservation till, 25% conventional till, 10% (FVPI) forest buffers, BMPs to animal wastes (80°A), streambank protection (15%), nutrient management (75%), & septic connections (50%). Limit of Technology describes the maximUm practical level of implementation given unlimited resources and 100% land application based on "do everything, Limit of everywhere" using current available technologies throughout the entire Technology watershed. Point source conc. of 3.0 mg/L-TN and 0.075 mg/L-TP with flows projected to 2000. NPS-Ag ~ 75% cropland conservation till, full forest buffers, 100% BMPs to animal wastes, streambank protection, nutrient management, & septic connections. This range of scenarios covered the nutrient and sediment loads from a year prior to Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient reductions (1985 Baseline) to an estimate of the recent loads in the lower Virginia tributaries (1996 Progress), to the maximum level of nutrient/sediment control under a voluntary program (FVPI), to the maximum level of control using currently available technologies (Limit of Technology). More specific management actions directed toward the lower Virginia tributaries were conducted through a series of five ranging scenarios (Table 3.2). These scenarios were run by changing load conditions in the lower tributaries while those from the Potomac and basins above were kept at 2000 Bay Agreement Cap loads. Comparing these scenarios with the equivalent Baywide scenarios allowed for changes in the water quality conditions brought about by nutrient and 17 sediment reductions within the lower tributaries as compared to reductions made elsewhere. Table 3.2 Ranging Scenarios SCENARIO DESCRIPTION VA 1996 Progress Virginia's lower tribUtaries at 1996 levels for 'PS & NPS run 10 years using /Trib. Strat Above 1985-94 flows. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in the Potomac and above. Virginiats lower tributaries at BNR for PS everywhere (except the BNR + Equivalent Rappahannock with BNR only applied to >lmgd facilities only) PS /Trib. Strat. Above concentrations of 8.0 mg/L TN and 2.0 mg/L TP with flows projected to 2000; ~ NPS reduction equivalent on a percentage basis. Sediment reduced by amount equal to NPS phosphorus percent reduction. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in the Potomac and above. Midpoint 1996-Full Nutrient reductions midway between 1996 and full voluntary implementation: Vol. Impl. / Trib. Reductions vary by basin (see summary tables). Tributary Strategy nutrient Strat. Above reductions applied in the Potomac and above. VA Interim Bay Virginia's lower tributaries at an interim 40% nutrient reduction run for 10 Agree. / Trib. Strat. years using 1985-94 flows. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in Above the Potomac and above. Virginia's lower tributaries at full voluntary implementation. Point source Full Voluntary concentrations of 5.5 mg/L TN and 0.5 mg/L TP with flows projected to implementation / 2000.NPS-Ag ~ 75% cropland conservation till, 25% conventional till, 10% Trib. Strat. Above forest buffers, BMPs to animal Wastes (80%), streambank protection (I 5%), nutrient management (75%), & septic connections (50%). The program is run 10 years using 1985-94 flows. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in the Potomac and above. ' The final series of scenarios were directed toward refining and underStanding the living resource responses in the James River based on specific loading reductions (Table 3.3). Many of these reduction scenarios were run at the request of the TRC after review of the scenarios previously described. Sediment reduction only scenarios were made to determine the response in the estuary without nutrient reduction. A nitrogen and sediment reductions only scenario was mn to determine if nitrogen or phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the tidal fresh portion of the James. A scenario was also mn to determine if nutrient reductions from the areas directly adjacent to the tidal fresh portion of the river had more significance in terms of water quality response than reductions above the fall line. During theSe runs loads from the Potomac River and tributaries to the north were held constant at agreed upon tributary strategy levels and the Rappahannock and York Rivers, and the Eastern Coastal basins were held at 1996 Progress levels. 18 Table 3.3 Geographic Management Scenarios SCENARIO DESCRIPTION VA LOT Sediment Virginia's lower tributaries at LOT for total suspended Solids (about 33% /Trib. Strat.. Above reduction frOm base), but use 1996 nutrient loads for PS, NPS, and air. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in the Potomac and above. Extreme Sediment Virginia's lower tributaries at 40% reduction of total suspended solids from /Trib. Strat. Above 1985. Note pristine is about 43%. Tributary Strategy nutrient reductions applied in the Potomac and above. James BNR James Above Fall Line at BNR Equivalent NPS / Appomattox, Below Fall +Equiv. - Above Line James and other Lower VA tributaries at 1996 Progress, m~d Potomac Fall Line and above loads to Tributary Strategy levels. James BNR Equiv. James and Appomattox Above Fall Line and Below fall line James -Nitrogen - Tidal discharging to tidal fresh at BNR Equivalent for Nitrogen only / James at 1996 Fresh Only Progress for Phosphorus and sediment; all other lower VA basin loads to 1996 Progress, and Potomac and above loads to Tributary Strategy levels. James and Appomattox Above Fall Line and Below fall line James James BNR Equiv. discharging to tidal fresh at BNR Equivalent; all other below fall line James Tidal Fresh and other Lower VA tributaries at 1996 Progress; Potomac and al3ove loads to Tributary Strategy levels. The results for all of the modeling scenarios are shown in Table 3.4. The table includes nitrogen, phosphorus, and 'sediment reductions for each scenario, in addition to the modeled water quality and living resource response. All percentage reductions and living resource changes are based on the 1985 base case scenario. Estimated costs for implementation are also included. 19 Table 3.4. Tidal James and Western Shore Percent Improvements from 1985 Conditions for Four Key Water and Habitat Quality Measurements and Associated Cost Estimates. Percent Loading Reductions from Percent Improvements of Water Quality and ~ Virginia Cost Estimates 1985 Conditions Living Resource from 1985 ·Conditions (Millions) Scenario "Total Total Total Surface Deep Bay Bay Point Non- Nitrogen Phosph. Sediment Chlorophyll Waters <3 Grass Grass Source Point Total (%) (%) (%) Tidal Fresh mg/! DO Area Density Capital Sources (%) (%) (%) (%) Cost 1996Progress 11 36 2 23 16 210 95 $ 55 $ 3 $ 58 1996 Progress/Trib. Strat. Above I l 36 2 23 23 210 95 55 3 58 Current Limit of Tech. Sediment/Trib. Strat. Above 11 36 17 23 23 277 189 55 380 435 Extreme Sediment Reduction/Trib. Strat. Above 11 36 40 22 23 489 789 55 James AFL BNR Equiv./Trib. Strat. Above 15 38 I 6 25 - 210 108 126 . James AFL, BFL TF & Appo. BNR Equiv./Trib. Strat. 32 36 2 52 - 354 200 - ~ . Above James TF BNR Equiv. For N/Trib. Strat. Above 32 39 7 52 - 354 221 164 - . BNR Equivalent/Trib. Strat. Above 42 40 7 52 44 354 217 383 51 570 Midpoint 1996-Full Volun. Imp 30 47 6 42 N/A 334 227 . Interim Bay Agreement Goai/Trib. Strat. Above 29 35 3 28 41 242 90 197 ' 19 216 Full Voluntary Imp./Trib. Strat. Above 50 58 9 61 51 486 410 1,430 132 1,562 Full Voluntary Implementation 50 58 9 62 61 486 411 1,430' 132 1,562 Current Limit of Technology - 61 69 17 72 68 741 1861 2,342 465 2,806 ,y tpton Roads. 2. Total sediment load does not include bank loads directly to tidal waters. 3. Deep water failing habitat criteria under 1985 conditions was 4% of the total deep hypoxic waters in VA. 4. Grass beds were very sparse. Under maximum nutrient reductions, bay grass density attains only 1.4 g C/m as compared to the Western and Eastern Shore that attain above 50-100 g C/m, respectively. 5. Point source cost calculations include the HRSD-Chesapeake/Elizabeth STP f~om the Western Shore. All point source cost estimates are planning level estimates which are normally expected to be accurate +50% to -30%. 6. Nonpoint soume costs reflect total installation cost for both state portion and stakeholder match but do not reflect the technical assistance and maintanance cost of the best management practice. IV. Technical Issues and Special Studies During the meetings of the TRC a number of technical issues were raised pertaining to the relationship of nutrients and sediment loadings in the James River to water quality and living resources. Two special studies were funded to provide information on living resources in the James: one was designed to document the previously known extent of SAV in the James River, and the other was designed to summarize the status of living resources in the James River above the fall line. This chapter ofthe.'report summarizes some of the key technical issues that were discussed and also includes information on the studies that were conducted. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Despite high nutrient loadings and concentrations and often extremely high chlorophyl levels, the James River does not exhibit the typical signs of eutrophication (nutrient over enrichment) that would be expected. Typically an estuary with high levels of algae and abundant nutrients will exhibit areas of hypoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) or anoxic conditions (extremely Iow levels of dissolved oxygen). While Iow dissolved oxygen levels have been recorded, the James River does not exhibit the acute or chronic conditions reported in other estuaries. Nevertheless, there are indications that the river is overly enriched. In particular, there is very little submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) or underwater grasses in the estuary (tidal portions) of the James River. Recent high level flows of fresh water have brought higher than normal runoff of nutrients and sediments. As a result, underwater grasses decreased bay-wide in 1998. These decreases included declines in SAV in the lower James River estuary. Throughout the bay watershed, SAV covers approximately 63,495 acres (approximately 10% of the area once thought to be covered by SAV). In the James River estuary there were are only approximately 44 acres of SAV in 1997 and the majority of remaining SAV was located in the lower estuary. There is very little SAV evident in the tidal fresh water portion of the river. Despite SAV declines throughout the bay watershed, the lack of SAV in the James River Estuary presents a gtark contrast to other river basins in Virginia. For example, recent surveys indicate that there are 11,384 acres of SAV in the York River estuary, and approximately 267 acres of SAV in the Rappahannock River estuary. SAV is a vital resource that produces oxygen; provides a nursery, food, and protection for a variety of finfish and shellfish; reduces the erosive effect of wave energy; absorb nutrients and other pollutants; and traps sediments. Therefore, the presence of SAV serves as an important indicator of water quality conditions. SAV abundance and biomass are tied to water quality conditions, the characteristics of the substrate, and hydrologic characteristics of the river.. High levels of turbidity and nutrient enrichment can decrease SAV growth and survival. High nutrient and sediment levels decrease water clarity and, therefore, reduce light availability for SAV. In addition, high nutrient concentrations can fuel the growth of algae living on the leaf surfaces of SAV thereby restricting necessary light from reaching the actual plant (SAV) leaf itself. SAV health and restoration efforts are closely tied to water quality and, therefore, serve as crucial 21 indicator of the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Due to the direct relationship between SAV and water quality, trends in the distribution and abundance of SAV are very helpful in understanding trends in water quality. As such, low levels of SAV in the James River estuary raise serious concerns about water quality. While there is not a lot of empirical data available regarding previous levels of SAV in the James River, there is sufficient anecdotal information to suggest that there had previously been substantially more SAV in the river. To provide better information regarding historic SAV levels in the James River, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science was commissioned to conduct and analysis of ground surveys and historical photography. Based on an analysis of 1930s surveys and photogra~r~hy, approximately 1645 hectares of SAV were identified in shallow water areas throughout the James River. Analysis of available photography from subsequent years indicates a temporal and spacial pattern of loss of SAV in the river. SAV declines first occured in the upper estuary approximately 50 years ago and then subsequently in the lower estuary begining approximately 30 years ago. As described in Section III of this document, the Water Quality Model provides an indication of how living resources (SAV) are likely to respond to changes in water quality resulting from. various implementation scenarios. As shown in Table 3.4, the maximum SAV response is predicted at the current limit of technology. Even at this extremely high level of implementation, SAV is only predicted to increase to 274 hectares. With 1996 progress and no further loadings, SAV is predicted to increase to 141 hectares. The model predicts the greatest SAV response in the tidal fresh water portion of the river. This area currently has very little SAV but it is considered critical for finfish populations. Despite.the relatively modest increases in SAV predicted by the model scenarios, there are a number of compelling reasons to be hopeful that significant improvements in water quality and the health of living resources (including SAV) can be achieved through the recommended level of implementation. The fact that the model is showing some SAV response at the recommended level of implementation is significant given the near absence of SAV in the river (particularly in the tidal fresh water section of the river). There are a number of limitations to the model that suggest that an even greater SAV response would likely occur at the recommended level of implementation. In particular, the model does not have a strong feedback mechanism to predict the localized water quality benefits that would result from SAV establishment; the model only estimates SAV growth at the one meter contour level, yet most SAV establishment in the James River could be expected at the half meter level or above; and, the model uses a single species to predict response and that species only responds under fairly favorable conditions. These factors make the model predictions for SAV response very conservative. There has been substantial SAV recovery in similar river systems when nutrient levels have been reduced; consequently, the James River is likely to have a similar response to 22 nutrient and sediment reductions. Sediment Model runs indicate that the delivery of sediment loads to the tidal James River is very .high. Suspended sediment prevents light from reaching down into shallow waters to support the growth of submerged .aquatic vegetation (SAV). Further, model runs indicate that Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation results in a smaller percentage reduction for sediment in the James basin than in other basins. Over seventy percent of the sediment loading to the James River estuary comes from the Piedmont and Upper James regions. This is due to relatively more agricultural land in these regions, steeper slopes, and more highly erodible soils in comparison to the lower areas of the basin. Approximately ninety-five percent of the sediment loading in the basin comes from agricultural land: The loading is fairly evenly split between cropland and pasture. Urban loading has increased slightly from 1985 to 1996 due to increased urbanization, but the overall contribution from urban land in terms of total loading to the estuary is small Sediment Source b.v Re~ion 1985 1996 Upper Piedmont43% ~30% Lower 8% Middle 19% Piedmont~ 41% ~l Middle 20% Upper 9% Sediment Load by Source 1985 1996 Pasture 42% Urban 5% Cropland 53% Pasture 41% Urban 5% 54% James River Basin Sediment Loading Review Workshop A workshop on sediment loading to the James River basin was convened in Fredericksburg, VA on March 23, 1999 to discuss reasons why the sediment loads to the tidal James are so high compared with other Bay tributary basins. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model sediment loading outputs, James and Appomattox fall line, and nontidal James basin water quality stations sediment loading data, and other relevant geological data were also examined. Workshop participants included scientists from regional academic institutions, U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists and analysts, Chesapeake Bay Program modeling experts, and Virginia agency James Tributary Strategy Team Leaders. The workshop was comprised of four major discussion areas that responded to specific questions, summarized below. Recommendations frOm the workshop are provided later in this section. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Calibration and Results Is there something in the watershed model calibration that may be causing excessive sediment loads to the tidal dames? How well do watershed model loads and fall line load compare over time at the Cartersville fall line station? Sediment calibrations for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model are generally good to excellent based on accepted empirical calibration ranges, with the exception of the James basin for which sediment calibration was fair. In comparing model simulated loads and loads derived through monitoring data across the full range of river flow conditions, the watershed model under- simulates suspended solids loads at low flows and over-simulates loads at high flows. The scour function included in the model could be reduced to reduce the over-simulation at high flows and high suspended solids concentrations, but there is no technical basis on which to base that change at this time. How does the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) estimated erosion rate for the dames basin compare with rates from other Bay tributary basins? There are no significant differences in the NRI rates used in the James basin compared with those applied in other Bay tributary basins. How does the Bay watershed model estimated erosion rate compare with NRI estimated erosion rates? Based on a review and comparison for six land uses (forest, high till, Iow till, pasture, pervious urban, and hay) James watershed model erosion rates are generally within the acceptable range or lower than the NRI estimate erosion rates modified using the universal soil loss equation to reflect the erosion rates from the six different land uses. 24 James Basin Nontidal and River Input Monitoring Program Findings What are the patterns in sediment concentration and loads across the nontidal reaches of the James basin and at the fall line? From the upper reaches of the watershed downstream towards Richmond, the sediment yields increase stepwise downstream, with a large jump between Scottsville and Cartersville and then again between Cartersville and Richmond. This is directly opposite the picture in a less disturbed, more natural river system, where sediment yields should actually decrease as one travels downstream. This is because the cumulative sediment load would be normalized against an ever-increasing watershed acreage. These sediment yield findings indicate that there are large sources of sediment loadings in the watershed areas draining into the James River between Scottsville and Richmond. No statistically significant trends were observed in suspended solids loads from the James River basin over the past eleven years (1988-1998) after accounting for variations in flow. How do the James basin fall line loads and sediment yields compare with other Bay tributary basins loads and yields ? The Potomac (156 X 107 kg/yr) has the highest sediment loads, followed by the Susquehanna (124 X 107.kg/yr), the James (66.9 X 107 kg/yr), and then the Rappahannock (44.7 X 107 kg/yr). The Rappahannock (964 (lb/acre)/yr) and the Potomac (463 (lb/acre)/yr) had higher sediment yields compared to the James (368 (lb/acre)/yr). The Appomattox had a mean annual load of (1.79 X 107 kg/yr) and a mean annual yield of (45.8 (lb/acre)/yr). The mean annual sediment loads and yields at the river input monitoring stations were based on 1988-1998 data. Insights from James Watershed Geology. Geography What are the possible causes behind the elevated sediment loadings from the James basin-- natural in origin? Something about the soil~geology of the basin? Sediment bed loads? Man- induced? On large geologic and geographic scales, there are a number of factors/conditions within the James basin that promote higher sediment runoff. The James River is a unique system, particularly in its headwaters. The basin's headwaters are high in elevation; the Piedmont is relatively low elevation, resulting in a relatively steep slope. In the James basin, the relief (the difference between the maximum and minimum elevations within a specified area) is much greater than basins to the north (i.e., Shenandoah) and south (i.e., New River) within the Valley and Ridge region. Along. the length of the river, there is a relatively constant, rather steep slope along the river, a unique profile for a major river like the James. This is could be part of the reason behind the 25 increasing sediment yield as one travels downstream from the river's headwaters towards Richmond. The overall geography of the James basin provides a very effective sediment delivery system given that the mainstem James is much lower in elevation than the directly surrounding plateaus. The smaller tributary creeks which flow directly into the mainstem James River form steep sloped gullies draining the surrounding lands. Over a geological time scale, James is eroding about four times faster than other Chesapeake Bay tributaries, not only delivering more sediment over time, but also strongly influencing the topography of the James basin. Because the deforestation, large scale agriculture, and mining of the Valley and Ridge headwaters of the James basin occurred much later than such activities in the Potomac and Susquehanna River basins, sediment loads from these events contributed more recently to sediment bedload along the James. The James has a much greater proportion of land area in the Piedmont versus the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces compared to the Potomac and Susquehanna basins, which both have low proportions of their land area in the Piedmont. The underlying soils/substrate in the Piedmont have a much higher tendency to erode, leading to significant sediment runoff and re- distribution to the downstream river valleys during the post-settlement period. Historical land use patterns have had a strong influence on the current sediment yields from the James basin. Almost ail the Piedmont within the James basin was deforested and/or farmed since colonial times. This led to erosion and delivery of sediment to the James River valleys, which are the sediments now being eroded by tributary streams and the river itself and delivered downstream. As the tributary streams and river itself meander within their geologic valleys over time, they will continue to erode these sediments deposited within the river valley from times of greater deforestation. Sediment Reductions Under management Scenarios Why are reductions in sediment loads so limited under the full range of management scenarios up to and including Limit of Technology? The watershed model finding that delivered sediment loads are much higher than the edge of stream loads in the James, due to high degree of scour of stream bed sediments, is supported by the review of geologic and geographic factors contributing to high sediment yields from the James basin. The management practices generally modeled under the range of management scenarios including Limit of Technology do not include stream bank stabilization/stream restoration practices (beyond riparian forest buffers, which are modeled to address overland flow, not streambank erosion). The erosion and delivery of post-settlement fluvial deposits of sediment already contained within the river channel are not affected by the modeled management practices as these practices will have not influence on movement of the stream or river, within 'its defined geological channel. 26 In the James basin, the watershed model ratio of delivered sediment load to edge of stream load is higher than the other major Bay basins--Potomac, Susquehanna, Patuxent, York, and Rappahannock, supporting the observation that James River sediment load reductions are less responsive to the range of management actions than in other basins for the reasons cited above. What are the implications for management actions directed towards reducing sediment loads to the tidal ~lames ? The watershed model's over-simulation of the suspended sediment loads at higher concentrations and river flows will have a tendency to dampen or reduce the effectiveness of management practices in reducing sediment loads delivered to the James tidal waters. The James should respond more quickly to the application of management actions given the slope of the basin compared to adjacent tributary basins. Implementation of management actions should, in part, be directed toward restoring riparian forests and stabilizing stream banks within the river valley to the river's edge within the Piedmont region of the James basin. Stream restoration in terms of regrading stream banks decreasing the slope and moving fluvial deposits uplands away from the areas of the stream movement will help prevent erosion of sediments along the river. Action Items The following possible action items were identified at the March, 1999 Sediment Loading Review Workshop in Fredericksburg: In the next scheduled upgrade/refinement of the Bay watershed model, further refinements should be made in the James basin sediment calibration by extending the calibration period beyond 1992 to take full advantage of the enhanced storm event monitoring at the Cartersville station initiated in 1989. The proportion of the sediment loads by the different land Uses should be examined and compared with other basins to determine if there are outlier loading rates. The sources of NRI data, and whether the locations they were collected from would reflect areas of higher erosion rates along the river, should be examined. The state, local, and federal partners need to put into place comparable sample collection schemes at all water quality monitoring stations upstream of the Cartersville river input station. Chlorophyll1 High chlorophyll "a" concentrations have been reported in the tidal fresh portions of the James River. Chlorophyll levels in the tidal portion of the James River often exceed 30 ug/1 at and below Hopewell. Of 40 tidal systems analyzed worldwide, the James River had among the highest chlorophyll "a" levels reported (Monbet 1992). The other two estuaries with similar high levels were the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers, both point source dominated rivers. Despite high 27 chlorophyll levels, the James River does not suffer from the acute periods of depressed oxygen levels in bottom waters that have been documented in the York and Rappahannock Rivers. Although high chlorophyll "a" concentrations have been reported in portions of the James River, the impact of chlorophyll reduction in terms of living resource improvements is not clearly understood. The linkages between chlorophyll concentration, optimal plankton composition, and the overall influence of plankton composition on higher trophic levels need to be more clearly established. Without these linkages, the impact of chlorophyll reduction on fisheries and oysters can not be predicted. Among Virginia's tributaries, algal growth rates (as determined by measuring the rates of primary productivity at phytoplankton monitoring stations) were highest in the James River (Dauer et al. 1998). While these rates may be controlled by either available nutrients or the amount of available light, it has been determined that the tidal fresh James River was light limited (Haas and Webb 1998; Lung 1986). However, if light limitation was improved through the removal of suspended sediment, there is a substantial supply of nutrients (in the form of inorganic nitrogen) to enhance algal growth thereby increasing chlorophyll levels. In fact, dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels in the James were the highest of any of the Virginia tributaries. This suggests that sediment removal without reductions in dissolved inorganic nitrogen could lead to higher chlorophyll concentrations. Oysters At its historic peak, oyster spat production in the James River was ten times as high as production in Maryland. The filtering capabilities of the oyster enable it to remove large quantifies of algae and sediment from the water column, while its shells provide habitat for a variety of benthic organisms and fish species. In fact, some scientists feel that oyster restoration is an important key to improving water quality and the overall health of the bay and its tributaries. Historically, oysters were extremely important economically and ecologically. However, due to over harvesting and the diseases MSX and Dermo harvestable oyster populations in the James River and throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem have dropped to their lowest level in history. Despite severe depletion of oyster populations, spat production in the James River continues to be higher than most other rivers. Favorable dissolved oxygen levels and habitat conditions help oysters survive long enough to spawn in the James River. Because oysters are spawning in the James River, there is a strong potential for restoration. Clearly one of the long term goals of the James River Tributary Strategy should be to restoration of this vital natural resource. An important step in this effort will be the establishment of aquatic reefs. Aquatic reefs provide essential habitat for the Bay's oysters, as well as finfish and crabs. Historically, reefs of densely packed individual oysters grew upward and outward, creating hard surface over many acres of bottom land and three-dimensional habitat for finfish and shellfish. 28 Riverine Living Resources Many of the water quality goals established for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, and by extension, for the tidal portion of the James River, are based on habitat requirements (e.g., dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus levels; light penetration through the water column) for living resources that inhabit the estuarine pOrtion of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Comparatively much less work has been done on habitat requirements and current living resources conditions for the riverine (i.e., freshwater) portiOns of Chesapeake Bay tributaries. The JameS River has been extensively studied during the past fifty years by aquatic ecologists and conservation biologists. The Department of Conservation & Recreation funded a recently completed study by scientists at Virginia CommonWealth University (VCU) to: survey and synthesize relevant literature and data sources on living resources in the non-tidal portion of the James River; · describe the ecological roles of the primary species groups inhabiting this area of the river; · describe the characteristics of the major in-stream and riparian habitats along the river; · link habitat units to the distribution and ecology of riverine species. The results of this work (Garman and Smock, 1999) will be valuable to help target nutrient and sediment reductions, and watershed restoration activities, in the James River Basin from the fall line in Richmond to the headwaters. Important findings from the study are summarized below. 29 Critical Habitat Characteristics Garman and Smock (1999) identified four habitat zones along the James River upstream from Richmond. The Valley zone lies between the origin of the mainstem James (confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers) downstream to the zone of influence of the impoundments above Lynchburg. The zone is distinguished by a well-developed sequence of riffles, runs and pools occurring along its entire length. Water velocity is overall faster here than elsewhere along the river. There is a diversity of depth and water velocity regimes, including all combinations of shallow and deep areas with fast and slower flow, providing a wide variety of habitats for riverine biota. The sediment of the Valley zone consists predominately of large particles, primarily boulders and cobble. This zone also has the greatest amount of large woody debris (i.e., snags) in the channel. The wood occurs primarily along near-bank areas, falling in directly.from the riparian area or being deposited there after having been transported from upriver. This wood, ranging in size from limbs and branches to entire mature trees, is an important component of the physical structure of the river for many organisms, many fish often aggregating around the wood and many species of macroinvertebrates and algae living on the wood. The water chemistry of the zone also is distinct from other regions. The conductivity, pH, alkalinity and hardness of the water is higher here than farther downstream, reflecting inputs from tributaries that flow over areas of limestone in the Valley and Ridge physiOgraphic province. The ImpoUnded zone above Lynchburg lies immediately downstream. Three dams regulate flow from the Balcony Falls Dam at Glasgow to Scotts Mill Dam at Lynchburg. The naturally occurring morphology of riffles and pools is drowned by the impoundments, producing an area with overall greatly increased water depth and much reduced water velocity. The river's sediment though this zone consists primarily of bedrock and large particles that are highly embedded with sand, reflecting the low scouring and increased deposition of sediment that occurs in impoUnded areas. Overall, the habitat in this zone is far less diverse and conducive to supporting riverine species than in the other zones of the river, although this area does increase the overall habitat diversity occurring along the mainstem of the river. Garman and Smock termed the reach of river from Lynchburg to Richmond the Piedmont zone. Riffles in this reach generally are not nearly as well-developed or extensive as in the Valley zone. Water velocity through this zone is variable but overall far lower than in the higher gradient areas. A variety of all sizes of sediments are present, including some extensive areas of exposed bedrock. The water chemistry of this' zone clearly shows the influence of inputs from tributaries draining areas with predominately crystalline rock. Conductivity, pH, alkalinity and hardness all are lower than in upstream areas. Increases of both point and non-point source inputs to this section of the river also are evident, as indicated by generally higher fecal coliform concentrations and nutrient loading to the river. The water also is not nearly as clear here, transporting a suspended solids load during base flow that on average is double that occurring upriver. Particularly within the Piedmont zone, submergent/emergent aquatic vegetation (SAV), including water willow (Justica americana), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), and PolygonUm sPP., may form extensive beds in areas with low to moderate flow, gravel and cobble 30 substrate, and water 1-2 m in depth. The physical structure represented by beds of freshwater macrophytes is probably an important component of fishery habitat, particularly as a refugium from predation. At Richmond the river begins its rapid descent through the Fall-line zone to the more sluggish waters of the Coastal Plain. This is an area about 15 km in length where the river drops at a rate of about 2 m/km. Fast flowing water, extensive outcroppings of bedrock, and riffles of well- sorted boulders and cobble characterize the zone. A number of low-head dams cross the channel, with all but Boshers Dam at the head of the Fall-line zonehaving been recently breached. Deep pools and accumulations of large woody debris are scattered through the area. Together, these characteristics make this the most heterogeneous section of the river, providing a variety of distinct riverine habitats. The water chemistry and quality also differ here from other zones. Chemically, the water has the lowest pH, alkalinity and hardness of any of the sections along the upper mainstem, reflecting continuing inputs from Piedmont tributaries. The effects of urbanization also are evident, water quality being lower here than elsewhere along the upper mainstem. Fecal coliform concentrations, resulting primarily from a large number of combined sewer outfalls that discharge directly to the river during storm events, are more than an order of magnitude higher here than anywhere upriver. Suspended solids concentrations also are high, the water being far more turbid here than upstream. Several low- to moderate-head dams impound sections of the James River within the Fall-line. The most significant of these - Manchester, Brown's Island, Belle Island and William's dams - are interrupted by natural or constructed breaches. The construction of a vertical slot fish passage at Bosher's dam was completed in Spring, 1999. Fish At least 72 fish species have been documented as occurring in the nontidal James River (Garman and Smock, 1999). Several freshwater fish families (minnows, sunfishes, suckers, and darters) contribute greater than 70 percent to the overall species richness (i.e., the total number of species present) in the nontidal James River. Fish species richness tends to be highest in the Piedmont zone, followed by the Valley zone. Certain groups of fish species are characteristic of each of the four river habitat zones. Several fish species are considered to be native to the James River drainage, but only one (stripeback darter) regularly inhabits the mainstem, particularly the Valley zone. Over one-third of the fishes documented in the nontidal James River may be classified as either introduced or possibly introduced. Of the 25 non-native species, many were probably introduced by state and federal fisheries management agencies, according to Garman and Smock. Smallmouth bass, flathead catfish, and blue catfish are well-known species in this group. Four species of anadromous fish (American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, and alewife) annually migrate from ocean waters to spawn in freshwater tributaries including the James River. The recent completion and operation of the fish passage facility at Bosher's Dam at Richmond's upstream end is intended to allow these species access to spawning areas in the river all the way upstream to Lynchburg. 31 Algae Algae, one-celled plants that are common in rivers, are widely represented along the nontidal James River. Algae serve as an important food source for some macroinvertebrates and fish. Macroinvertebrates Benthic macroinvertebrates are an important component of the living resources of rivers. They consume benthic algae and, in turn, serve as food for other macroinvertebrates and higher trophic level organisms such as fish. Macroinvertebrates are good indicators of water quality and habitat conditions because they integrate effect of both short- and long-term environmental changes into responses that can be easily measured. The James River supports a highly diverse macroinvertebrate community, with at least 132 species having been identified in the mainstem. Common groups that inhabit the river include leeches and aquatic worms, crayfish, aquatic insects (e.g., mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies), and mollusks (e.g., freshwater clams, mussels, and snails). Only five macroinvertebrate species are abundant along the entire length of the mainstem. There are distinct differences in the macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting each of the four habitat zones. Differences in'habitat characteristics, particularly the nature of the bottom substrates, among the zones is the key factor behind the community differences. Only two crayfish species are regularly reported as occurring in the mainstem James River. Macroinvertebrates vary considerably in their tolerance to pollution and habitat degradation. Analyses of macroinvertebrate abundance and pollution tolerance data by Garman and Smock (1999) suggest that the community in the Valley zone indicates the least degraded conditions, followed by the Piedmont and Impounded zones. The Fall-line zone showed the most degraded conditions in terms of the macroinvertebrate community: Garman and Smock concluded that sediment deposition within the river is degrading bottom habitat and affecting the macroinvertebrate community. 32 V. Goal Setting The James River TRC met eight times but failed to reach consensus on appropriate nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the river. Fundamental differences could not be resolved on many of the technical issues previously discussed in this document. Among them: The high cost of nutrient and sediment reduction versus the benefit of relatively small gains in SAV predicted in the model as compared to other basins. Arguments can be made both that the model is likely to overpredict and underpredict actual SAV recovery. The level of achievable sediment reduction in the James basin through Best Management Practice implementation. Sediment reduction in the James basin is critical to improving light penetration for SAV growth and yet the watershed model shows that very high levels of implementation are required for even small percentage reductions of sediment in the James. The living resource benefit due to algae reduction. The acute dissolved oxygen problems that exist in other estuaries dueto elevated algae levels do not exist in the James River. · The ability to improve water quality in the James River without restoration of the oyster to previous population levels. The full positions of various TRC members in regards to nutrient and sediment reduction goals are included in Appendix B. Staff Recommended Goals Based on Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Model output, state agency staff have developed recommended goals for nutrient and sediment reduction in the James River to be achieved by'the year 2010. For this discussion, the tidal fresh James refers to the portion of the river from Richmond to the Chickahominy River and the lower tidal portion of the river is from the Chickahominy to the mouth of the James. .N...utrient Goals Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) implementation at point sources and an equivalent reduction in nonpoint sources for all areas draining directly into the tidal fresh portion of the James River. Model scenarios show that above fall line nutrient reductions have minimal impact on SAV improvement and chlorophyll reduction. The same is tree of nutrient reduction in the lower tidal portion of the river. The model also shows that SAV response is optimized with both sediment and nutrient reductions, as opposed to one or 33 the. other. Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) implementation at point sources and an equivalent reduction in nonpoint sources for all areas draining directly into the tidal fresh would result in a 32% nitrogen reduction and a 39% reduction in phosphorus loading to the tidal fresh portion of the river. The net nutrient loadings to the lower estuary from all areas should not be allowed to increase and should be capped at 1996 levels. Growth in load coming from areas directly adjacent to the lower estuary should not exceed the reduced load coming from the tidal fresh portion of the river. The resulting zero net increase in loading to the lower estuary will prevent any degradation relative to current water quality conditions. Sediment Go.a..ls In order to assist with choosing a level of sediment reduction in the basin that would be difficult to reach and yet still possible in a ten year period, a number of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the James basin were asked to project levels of BMP implementation provided that funding and technical assistance were not the limiting factors. The results of that process projected over the entire basin indicate that a 9% sediment reduction from levels that existed in 1985 could be achieved. A detailed summary of this projection by BMP is included in Table 5.1. The planning process that resulted in Table 5.1 focused primarily on agricultural BMPs. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model estimates that approximately 95% of the sediment reaching the James estuary is from agricultural sources. However, the Watershed Model is not capable of accurately predicting streambank and shoreline erosion losses. It is possible that streambank and shoreline erosion are also significant sources of sediment to the James estuary, but it is not known to what extent this is a naturally occurring process and to what extent it may be reduced through BMP implementation. The potential for sediment reduction from these sources needs further investigation, but should not be discounted in the development of a final implementation plan for the tributary strategy. Living Resource Response The associated living resource response to the recommended reduction goals include SAV growth in areas of the tidal fresh James previously identified by VIMS as previously sustaining SAV beds, substantial reductions in chlorophyll levels throughout the estuary, and improvements in non-tidal freshwater stream habitats. The water quality improvements associated with the recommended goals as predicted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Model .would be between the James Tidal Fresh BNR Equivalent forNitrogen.Scenario and the Full Voluntary Scenario shown in Table 3.4. The reduction in algae, nutrients, and sediment in the tidal fresh portion of the river will allow enough light to reach into shallow waters to support the return of underwater grasses. Restoration of grass beds to the upper tidal river will greatly expand existing recreational fishing opportunities for largemouth bass and other tidal fresh sport fish. 34 BMP Treatment units Farm Plans acres Nutrient Management acres Agricultural Land Retirement acres Grazing Land Protection acres Stream Fencing linear feet Stream Stabilization linear feet Cover Crops acres Grass Filter Strips acres Woodland Buffer Filter Area acres Forest Harvesting acres Animal Waste Control Facilities systems Poultry Waste Control Facilities systems Loafing Lot Management systems Erosion & Sediment Control acres Urban SWM/BMP Retrofits acres Urban Nutrient Management acres Septic Pumping systems Buffers (acres) implemented under CREP: Wetland restoration (acres) under CREP: Table 5.1 Nonpoint Source BMPs for. James River Basin (James & Western Coastal) Based on Implementation of Scenario Options Developed via Tributary Teams Year 1996 Status Sediment Year 1998 Status Sediment Year 2000 Projection Coverage percent Reduction Coverage percent Reduction Coverage Percent 254,871 21.1% 26,573 285,035 23.6% 30,034 315,199 26.1% 92,035 15.5% .......... 12,104 1.0% 4,702 15,646 1.3% 6,251 19,187 1.6% 7,879 1.3% ..... 12,382 2.0% ..... 16,885 2.7% 634,715 ..... 301 683,398 ..... 326 732,082 ..... 36,024 ..... 93 42,235 ..... 102 48,446 ..... 8,429 2.8% 854 12,316 4.0% 1,424 16,204 5.3% 997 ..... 429 1,037 ..... 537 1,078 ..... 34 ..... 59 144 ..... 321 254 ..... 45,363 70.0% 37,796 45,363 70.0% 37,796 45,363 70.0% 32 .......... 38 .......... 42 ..... 37 .......... 54 .......... 73 ..... 4 .......... 8 .......... 12 ..... 9,330 51.6% 10,424 9,330 51.6% 10,424 9,330 51.6% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% .......... Subtotal Tons Reduced: 81,233 87,215 8,848 Reduces: .......... 1,071 Reduces: .......... Total Tons Reduced: 81,233 87,215 Adjustment for Land Use Changes: 11,814 11,814 Adjusted Reduction: 69;419 Total Nonpoint Reference Load: 2,076,515 Percent Reduction: 3.3% 75,401 2,076,515 3.6% Sediment High Scenario Reduction Coverage Percen~ 33,495 719,942 59.7% 7,800 70,179 5.8% ..... 90,742 14.8% 350 10,596,096 ..... 110 605,720 ..... 1,993 99,874 32.8% 646 10,814 ..... 583 7,547 ..... 37,796 45,363 70.0% 10,424 9,330 51.6% 0 0 93,197 93,197 11,814 81,384 2,076,515 3.9% Sediment Reduction 84,784 32,283 4,518 1,382 10,413 9,578 12,083 37,796 10,424 0 203,261 15,389 537 219,186 11,814 191,448 2,076,515 9.2% 11/19/99 Once grass beds gain a foothold, they will also begin to improve water quality themselves by stabilizing shorelines, minimizing resuspension of sediments into the water due to wind and waves, and filtering nutrients out of the water. The reduction in nutrients to reduce the overabundance of algae in the water that exists today in the James River should also support the remm of algae species more desirable to fish such as menhaden. This in turn should improve the food available for rockfish and blue fish. Costs The estimated costs for these improvements is $164 million for point source BNR implementation and $135 million for nonpoint source BMP implementation. Current cost-share funding available through the Water Quality Improvement Fund will provide 75% of the cost for agricultural BMP implementation and 50% of the cost for BNR implementation and non-agricultural nonpoint source BMPs. Implementation Plan Development The adoption of nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the James River will lead to the development of a James River Implementation Plan. The development of an implementation plan will be a locally based process that will involve all of the stakeholders in each region. The purpose of the implementation plan is to build on the work that has been done up to this point and to identify specific BMPs that when implemented will attain the reduction goals. Implementation plan development will consider the full range of available BMPs and will be based on practicality, implementability, and cost effectiveness. Reevaluation of Goals Two issues will require that the recommended goals for the James River be reevaluated in several years. Model Overprediction of Sediment The current version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model overpredicts sediment loading to the fall line of the James River. A version of the model that will correct this problem is under development. It is difficult to predict the consequences a more accurate prediction of sediment loading will have on water quality response in the estuary. More accurate delivery of sediment to the fall line may require that additional shoreline erosion within the estuary be included in the model in order to match monitoring data in the estuary for total suspended solids. It is likely that the changes to the Watershed Model model will result in the need to also recalibrate the Water Quality Model. A timeline for completing this work has not yet been established by the Chesapeake Bay Program. Adoption of Water Quality_ Endpoints In May 1999, EPA-Region III included Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay and portions of several tidal tributaries on the 1998 Federal Section 303(d) list of impaired 36 waters. All listed impaired waters are scheduled to have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) developed. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently working on developing nutrient criteria nationwide to meet the objectives of the Federal Clean water Action Plan. It is recognized that appropriate water quality goals for the Bay and estuaries need to be established through a consistent, unified approach. The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently working on a process to coordinate the existing cooperative Bay Program approach with the regulatory approach required under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. A key component of the process that is envisioned is the adoption of consistent environmental endpoints for water quality parameters, such as, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids and chlorophyll concentration. The timeline for reaching agreement on the environmental endpoints for the Chesapeake Bay and tidal tributaries is 2001. Once those endpoints have been adopted, they will need to be checked against the water quality improvements that are projected with the current recommended reduction goals to make sure that they are met. The current schedule calls for the re-evaluation of all tributary strategies to reflect new environmental endpoints and nutrient reduction goals in 2002, Additional detail on this topic can be found in the 1999 Annual Report on the Development and Implementation of Nutrient Reduction Strategies for Virginia's Tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Although the ultimate reduction goals for the James River may change in the near future, implementation of BMPs to reduce nutrient'and sediment loadings to the James River should begin now. High sediment loading levels, lack of SAV, and high algae concentrations in the estuary are known water quality problems that will only worsen with delay. Given the high level of implementation that is required to substantially improve water quality, implementation today will only move us closer to the ultimate goal. 37 VI. Long Term Vision & Short Term Objectives The James River TRC, in addition to discussing appropriate nutrient and sediment reduction goals, made broader suggestions for a long term "vision" for the James River and identified shorter term objectives to bring this vision about. It is the hope, that the interaction of many improvements in water quality (increased SAV, nutrient reductions, sediment reductions, oyster replenishments, etc.) will complement each other, resulting in a James River even more rejuvenated than predicted by the mathematical models. James River "Vision" An ecologically, aesthetically and economically vibrant river, characterized by: · All waters meeting the Federal Clean Water Act goals of "fishable and swimmable" with no waters impaired as the result of biological, chemical or physical deterioration as a result of human activities. · Restoration of critical shelter and spawning habitat to provide for resurgence and maintenance of numerous ecologically and economically important species of finfish and shellfish [shad, herring, menhaden, oysters, crabs, rockfish, among others] Improvements in water quality that will allow for: · Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation to the maximum extent allowable, and at a mirfimum, to all historically documented areas. · Sufficient dissolved oxygen levels to support healthy populations of all indigenous aquatic species. · Ecologically balanced and sustainable trophic leVels throughout the entire food web from primary producers to tertiary consumers. · Sufficient quality and quantity [flow] of water to meet all designated uses of the river. · Protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Achievement of these goals will require support and action from citizens, state agencies and various economic sectors, including: · Increased public awareness of watershed protection and individual actions that impact the quality of the river. · Integration of watershed planning into appropriate programs within the state agencies. · Implementation of more sustainable approaches within the .agriculture, forestry and commercial and residential development sectors. Although we have compiled a wealth of information throughout the development of this Tributary Strategy, continuing work is necessary to improve our scientific understanding in several key areas, including: · Refining the relationship between nutrient and sediment loadings and their combined affects on algae.production and living resources health and habitat. · Improving our understanding of the large-scale ecological relationships throughout the entire watershed. 38 Short Term Objectives The following is a list of objectives designed to move towards the long term James River "vision". Included as bulleted items are some of the possible actions that could be used to meet the objectives. Restore SAV to the maximum extent allowable, and at a minimum, to all historically documented areas by: · Identifying areas that could support SAV with improved light penetration; · Establish test areas to plant SAV; · Focus nutrient and sediment reduction efforts in areas that historically supported SAV; · Implement slow-no wake zones in areas that have been identified as likely SAV habitat. Restore populations of ecologically important species of finfish and shellfish by: · Removing impediments to anadromous fish migrating upstream to historic spawning grounds; · Restocking juvenile species until populations are restored; · Reduce pollution from nutrients, sediment, and toxic chemicals to improve habitat for aquatic resources. ReStore critical populations of living resources in the non-tidal James by: · Conducting chemical and biological monitoring to identify habitat areas for threatened and endangered species of fish and shellfish; · Focusing sediment, nutrient, and toxics reduction into those areas identified as critical habitat; · Ensuring local and state enforcement of erosion and sediment control law and ordinances to reduce sediment loading; · Increase sediment monitoring on major tributaries to the James to aid in identifying contributing sources and land areas from which the sediment loading is originating. Improve the understanding of the relationship between water quality and living resources by: · Initiating research to refine the relationship between sediment and nutrient loads and effects on algae, light penetration and SAV growth; · Increasing water quality monitoring in the James River to support research into the interrelationship between nutrient and sediment loading, and living resources. · Studying the historical influence of filter feeding populations on water quality; · Improving the understanding of sediment transport and re-suspension within the James River. Meet the Federal Clean Water Act goals of "fishable and swimmable" with no waters 39 impaired as the result of biological, chemical or physical deterioration by: · Expediting development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired stream segments; · Implementing strategies to improve.impaired streams and remove them from the 303(d) list; · Increasing monitoring to identify impaired stream segments; Identifying and declaring outstanding national resource waters (Tier III) within the James River watershed to protect them from degradation. Increase community awareness on a watershed level by: · Conducting public meetings to inform citizens of the importance of the James River Tributary Strategies and the Chesapeake Bay Program; · Developing a website for the tributary strategies program; · Promoting activities such as Adopt-A-Stream, stream bank restoration, and citizen monitoring; · Focusing educational activities on high priority watersheds with the greatest potential to reduce pollution; · Educating urban and suburban residents in order to prevent runoffof sediment and fertilizer; · Encouraging local planning efforts to reduce impervious surfaces, and maintain natural buffers; · Providing incentives to communities to conduct watershed planning and to implement strategies to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. Enhance nutrient and sediment reduction programs in urban areas by: · Providing funding for new and innovative management options; · Developing certification programs for: erosion and sediment control for conU:actors; urban nutrient management for homeowners; and pesticide and fertilizer use for landscape contractors. · Funding for local governments that enhance existing programs over state or federal requirements; · Evaluating the impacts of alternative growth patterns on nutrient and sediment loads, and subsequently on living resources. Maintain adequate in-stream flow for beneficial uses by: · Restricting water withdrawals from the James River and its tributaries to maintain flows above the minimum necessary to support aquatic life, recreational uses, and other beneficial uses. · Avoiding or reducing wetland losses to provide habitat improvements and flood control. 40 VII. References Batiuk, R., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, W.C. Dennison, J.C. Stevenson, L. Straver, V. Carter, N. Rybicki, W. Hickman, S. Kollar, and S. Bieber. 1992. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration targets. A Technical Synthesis CBP/TRS 83/92. Annapolis, MD. Garman, G. and L. Smock. 1999. Critical Habitat Requirements for Living Resources of the Nontidal James River. Virginia. Department of Biology and Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Prepared for Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA. Moore, K., D. Wilcox, and R. Orth. 1999. Analysis and abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation communities in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries (submitted). 41 Glossary of Terms Anadromous - Fish that spend most of their life in salt water but migrate into freshwater tributaries to spawn (i.e. shad, sturgeon) Anoxic - A condition where no oxygen is present. Much of the "anoxic zone" is anaerobic, with absolutely no oxygen, a condition in which toxic hydrogen sulfide gas is emitted in the decomposition process. Benthos - A group of organisms, most often invertebrates, that live in or on the bottom in aquatic habitats (such as dams that live in the sediments) which are typically immobile or of limited mobility or range. Best Management Practices (BMP) - A practice or combination of practices that provides the most effective and practicable means of controlling point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with environmental goals. Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) - A temperature dependent process in which ammonia nitrogen present in raw wastewater is converted by bacteria first to nitrate nitrogen and then to nitrogen gas.. Brackish - Somewhat salty water, as in an estuary. Diatoms - Tiny, single-celled or colonial algae with skeletons made of silica that either drift with the motion of the water or are attached to surfaces. DisSolved Oxygen - Microscopic bubbles of oxygen that are mixed in the water and occur between water molecules. Dissolved oxygen is necessary for healthy lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Most aquatic plants and animals need oxygen to survive. Fish will drown in water when the dissolved oxygen levels get too low. Epiphyte - A plant which grows upon another plant. The epiphyte does not "eat" the plant on which it grows, but merely uses the plant for structural support, or as a way to get off the ground. Erosion - The disruption and movement of soil particles by wind, water, or ice, either occurring naturally or as a result of land use. Estuary - A semi-enclosed body of water that has a free connection with the open sea and within which seawater (from the ocean) is diluted measurably with freshwater that is derived from land drainage. Brackish' estuarine waters are decreasingly salty in the upstream direction and vice versa. The ocean tides are projected upstream to the fall lines. Fall Line - A line joining the waterfalls on several rivers that mark the point where each river descends from the upland to the lowland and marks the limit of navigability of each river. Hypoxic - A condition where only very low levels of oxygen are present. Littoral Zone - The area of shore located between high and low tides. Macrophyte - An individual alga large enough to be seen easily with the unaided eye. Macroplankton - Plankton organisms that are 200 - 2,000 micrometers in size. Mesohaline- Pertaining to moderately brackish water with low range salinities (from 5 to 18 parts per thousand). Nonpoint Source - A diffuse source of pollution that cannot be attributed to' a clearly identifiable, specific physical location or a defined discharge channel. Oligohaline - Pertaining to moderately brackish water with low range salinities (from 0.5 to 5 parts per thousand) Phytoplankton - Tiny, free-floating, photosynthetic organisms in aquatic systems, usually suspended in the water column. They include diatoms, desmids, and donoflagellates. Piedmont - Uplands or hill country above the "fall line" of coastal rivers where rapids or cataracts tumble down to the level topography where tidal influence begins. Plankton - Small or microscopic algae and organisms associated with surface water and the water column. Primary Producers - Organisms, such as algae, that convert solar energy to organic substances by using chlorophyll. Primary producers serve as a food source for higher organisms. Point Source - A source of pollution that can be attributed to a specific physical location, as in a waste water treatment effluent pipe. Polyhaline - Pertaining to waters with salinities of 18 to 30 parts.per thousand. Riparian area - Riparian refers to the area of land adjacent to a body of water, stream, river, marsh, or shoreline. Riparian areas form the transition between the aquatic and the terrestrial environment. Siltation - The process by which sedimentary material, or silt, is suspended and deposited in a body of water. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) - Rooted vegetation that grows under water in shallow zones where light penetrates. Trophic Level - Layer in the food chain where one group of organisms serves as the source of nutrition of another group of animals. Turbidity - The decreased clarity in a body of water due to the suspension of silt or sedimentary material. Watershed - A region bounded at the periphery by physical barriers that cause water to ultimately drain to a particular body of water. Zooplankton - A community of floating, often microscopic animals that inhabit aquatic environments. Unlike phytoplankton, zooplankton cannot produce their own food. Appendix A James River Technical Review Committee Clayton Bernick City of Virginia Beach Ken Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science Daniel Bowman James Watershed Conservation Committee Brian Noyes Colonial SWCD John M. Carlock Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Terry Reid City of Lynchburg Jeff Corbin Chesapeake Bay Foundation Philip D. Schroeder Virginia Cooperative Extension Alecia M. Daves Piedmont SWCD John Giles Central Shenandoah PDC Andrew Gantt James Watershed Conservation Committee Helen Smythers Fifth PDC Greg Garman Virginia Commonwealth University Bob Steidel Hopewell Regional Wastewater Facility Greg Goetz City of Hampton John Storton BWX Technologios, Inc. Mark. A. Haley Crater Planning District Commission Cynthia Taylor City of Suffolk David Hirschman Albemarle County Wayne S. Teel Iza_ak Walton League Patficia Jackson James River Association Marise L. Textor Allied Signal, Inc. William I. Leary Crater Planning District Commission Babette Thorpe Piedmont Environmental Cotincil Norm LeBlanc Hampton Roads Sanitation District Bob Wichser City of Richmond Appendix B James River Technical Review Committee Comment Letters Virginia Association of MUniciPal Wastewater Agencies :Proposal 'For James River Tributary Strategy Goals April 27, 1999 Introduction VAMWA appreciates the opporttmity to be involved in the Commonwealth of Virginia's James River Tributary Strategy process. VAMWA's participation as a stakeholder will provide the means to include the concerns of its POTW members into the goals of the James River Tributary Strategy. Our objective as a stakeholder is to help identify and promote goals for the Tn'butary Strategy that are both beneficial and responsible to all of the many interests and uses of the James River. Based on its interpretation of the modeling results, EPA has suggested segmenting the James River into three segments to address specific concerns: · Non-Tidal James River (above Richmond). EPA says this segment is the source of non=point source sediments that affect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) production through light attenuation in the upper tid~l and tidal James River. EPA has determined that nutrients produced in this segment do not have a substantial impact on the water quality inthe upper tidal and tidal segments of the fiver. · Upper Tidal James River (Richmond to above the Chickahominy, including the entire Appomattox watershed). EPA says this se~t, ment is the source of nutrients causing elevated chlorophyll levels that affect light attenuation, and thereby inhibit SAV production. · Lower Tidal James River and Western Coastal Basins (Chiekahominy to the River mouth along with Back River, Little Creek, and Lynuhaven Bay). Concerns identified by EPA for this segment are the lack of SAV, reduced aquatic habitats, and the presence of potentially toxin-forming dinoflagetlates. Background We agree with EPA's segmentation of the ~vatershed for purposes of establishing goals and ultimately achieving reasonable and attainable living resource objectiyes. However, there are a number of concerns and technical issues that must be addressed before final goals and an implementation strategy can be developed. Many of the POTWs in the upper tidal and lower tidal segments have addressed both nitrogen and phosphorus control in their discharges and have long range plans to continue to do so in the future when construction for additional capacity occurs. The POTWs'in the upper tidal and lower tidal segments are currently meeting VPDES permit phosphorus limitations of 2 mg/1. Phosphorus reductions between 1985 and 1998 total 71 percent in the upper tidal James River and 67 percent in the lower tidal James River. Because phosphorus is currently regulated and because modeling has shown that water quality in the James River is not phosphorus limited, VAMWA believes no finther controls on point sources of phosphorus are necessary. From 1985 to 1998, VAMWA members, in the upper tidal segment have voluntarily achieved a 41 percent reduction in total annual nitrogen loaalngs. These reductions are the result of a number of voluntary initiatives, including installation of biological nutrient removal (BNR) facilities in Henfieo and Chesterfield, operatiotml modifications by South Central Wastewater Authority, and substantial ammonia reductions in Hopewell. Likewise, from 1985 to 1998, HR,SD voluntarily installed BNR facilities at some flits treatment plants, which, when combined with the diversion of indusl3ial and municipal' sources into HRSD's collection system~ has resulted in a 39 Percent reduction in total auroral point source nitrogen loadings to the lower tidal segment. These reductions are comparable with the Chesapeake Bay Program's interim nutrient reduction goal of 40 percent of the controllable load, which equates to 29 percent of the total load. The VMWA James River Tributary Team members have serious concerns with EPA's proposal that POTWs in the James River be capped at their current nitrogen loads or that they achieve further nitrogen reductions. Our concerns, are based upon the following: First, there have been no measured or modeled living resource responses to the reductions already achieved. Second, this lack of response and tm~ddressed issues from the work completed to date, call into question the need for further expenditures by POTWs for nutrient control. Third, the work completed to date suggests that any benefit to be derived from nutrient reduction is directly related to a corresponding reduction in sediment. There has been no showing that meaningful sediment reductions have or will be achieved. .... Fourth basic principles of equity require that other sources achieve meaningful reductions in nitrogen before the POTWs are capped at their present, reduced loads or asked to achieve further reductions. The POTWs are compelled to say that they feel penalized for their voluntary reductions when they are asked to do more while others have done so little. Fifth, it is premature to seriously consider the imposition of a nitrogen cap in the James River when the concept of caps and issues related to their implementation (e.g., trading) are still under consideration throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed: .~ Until these concerns and issues are addressed, it will be difficult to persuade our ratepayers that additional expenditures (and corresponding rate increases) for nitrogen controls are necessary. Our mission is water quality. In fulfilling that mission, however, we have a responsibility to the citizens we serve to ensure, to the extent possible, that their hard-earned dollars are spent wisely. At this point, we cannot tell our ratepayers that additional investment in nitrogen control would be a wise expenditure. VAMWA believes our concerns and the issues in the attachment to this paper can be addressed within five years if the needed resounges are promptly committed to the effort. Once these concerns and issues are addressed, decisions xx,~'garding the need for expenditures for additional nitrogen reduction by POTWs can be made ,/~ith the expectation that they will have a reasonable scientific basis. VAMWA members in the upper and lower tidal James River are prepared to contribute resources to help address these issues, and we would welcome the oppommity to work with the State, EPA, ami other stakeholders to develop scopes of work and identify sources of funding for these initiatives. V.4dVIWA's Proposed Approach Based on the above, VAMWA suggests the following interim approach (until 2004) to achieve the living resource objectives: Implement nitrogen and sediment reductions from the non-point sources in all segments of the James River. (We believe that with the point source reductions already achieved,, non- point sources are now equal to point source contributions of nitrogen to the river.) Altho '_ugh there is not yet consensus on the need for further nutrient reduction, equity requires that non- point sources bear a similar burden of nitrogen reduction. 2. By December 31, 2004, EPA and the State.should complete the additional<dam collection,. modeling, and analysis needed to address the issues identified in the attachment to this paper. 3. In 2005, EPA and the State should use the results of No. 2. above and all other available, relevant information to establish final goals and implementation strate~es. Until the final goals and implementation strate_~es are established, VAMWA members in the upper tidal and tidal s~ents a~ee to install BNR when construction for additional capacity. occurs. Allow individual POTWs access to the Water Quality. Improvement Fund for.voluntary operational enhancements to reduce nitrogen or to install nitrogen reduction technology when construction for additional capacity, oecd. By December 3 I, 2004, VAMWA will assist in the development of a nutrient trading program between all contributing sourc~ that. could be used as a tool in addressing furore ~owth versus ecosystem impacts and in mitigating or offsetting increases in nutrient contributions in the furore. 7. Continue with combined sewer overflow control. 3 ATTACHMENT TO VAMWA PROPOSAL FOR JAMES RIVER TRIBUTARY STRATEGY GOALS Although VAMWA members are committed to installing BNR when co~ction of additional capacity occurs, the following technical issues need to be addressed in order to provide justification that major capital expenditures for nutrient control are necessary at this time. Upper-tidal Jmes River The Water Quality Model (WQIVO simulates reduced chlorophyll a concentrations and restoration of SAV in the upper tidal James River as a result of nutrient and sediment reduction. These represent the major technical end points offered to support nutrient and sediment reductions as part of the strategy. Chlorophyll: The impact of further reductions in chlorophyll has not been related to the living resources important to the public. Linkages need to be established between chlorophyll concentrations, optimal plankton composition, and the overall influence of plankton composition upon upper trophic levels..These linkages to publicly important living resources should show the expected increases in fisheries, oysters and other benefits. It is imperative that significant clear benefit be demonstrated to the public. Submer~ed Aquatic Ve~etation.(SAV): Issues related to SAV fall into four categories (1) the small level of response simulated, (2) the practical feasibility of sediment reduction, (3) influence of local sediment re-suspension, and (4) physical factors/substrate characteristics. Small level of response: The WQM has simulated a very small response of SAV to the management scenarios. More data is needed to understand whether this Iow level of simulated response can be sustained in spite of periodic storms and associated spikes in sediment load / light attenuation. The source(s) of seed for new SAV and the process of re- establishment need dialogue and explanation. It is possible that the Bay grasses re- established during the summer low flow condition could be eradicated by pulsed high flow / high turbidity events. To justify public expenditures, additional data is needed to determine whether these beds would survive or perish over the long term under these anticipated conditions. Studies need to show a significant increase in SAV thht'the public will see as a substantial benefit. These benefits must be adequate to show a response the public could observe and appreciate. Feasibility of sediment reduction: The scenarios and other diagnostic information indicate that very large sediment reductions are needed to significantly improve light availability. Additional analysis is needed to determine whether the necessary levels of sediment reduction are achievable and practical. Similarly, additional research into sources and sinks of sediment in different segments of the James River basin are needed to accurately predict the benefits of BMPs in the upper basin to downstream segments. Unless the needed levels of sediment reduction are achieved, the effort to re-establish SAV with nutrient reduction alone will fail. Influence of local sediment re-suspension: Studies by thc Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility ("HR~'~ indicate that the influence of localized sediment re- suspension is si?ificant. Tidal current and wind-induced re-suspension might cause turbidity to be significantly higher in shallow areas (where SAV is more like to grow) than the'mid-channel locations where the model calibration &~ are derived. Moreover, the WQM does not accurately simulate sediment re-suspension and deposition. Therefore, the simulated responses may not reflect the actual in-sim conditions, which SAV would experience in the field. physical factors: In addition to high turbidity, there are other factors, which may preclude SAV survival in this se~m~ent ofthg River. These include physical disturbance, grazing, and poor substrate characteristics (e.g., high organic content). The role of these factors needs to be better understood. Lower-tidal Jmes River and Western Coastal'Basins The WQM indicated a lack of significant living resource responses in this segment of the River to nutrient and sediment reduction. Monitoring data indicates that dissolved oxygen conditions were also considered suitable for livin~ resources. Indications of increasing dinoflagelI~o- blooms were presented as the major technical basis for nutrient reduction. The environmental conditions associated with dinoflagellate blooms are very complex and poorly understood. The quantitative relationships between nutrient loading / condition and production of dinoflagellate bloom-~ needs to be fin/her cvabmt,-d. The reported trend of increasing blooms of dinoflageHatgs in the face ofdecreasi~ nitrogen levels in the James River strongly indicates factors other than nitrogem It is imperative that the cause(s) of these blooms be identified in order to accomplish dinoflagellate reduction. The present risk is that point source nutrient loads could have little or no discernable influence on these blooms as evidenced by the increase in dlnoflagellates in spite of the decrease in nitrogen Additional plankton monitoring should be conducted at thc mouth of the Sames River near Newport News Point (LES.4) to obtain greater resolution in the data. "Lower James" plankton monitoring is now conducted at station LES.5, located at. the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. At the bridge turmel location it is difficult to separate the influence of the lower games from the Hampton Roads Harbor, Elizabeth River, and Lower Bay proper on plankton composition. Due to the importance of plank/on monitoring to ul6mate management decisions, thc additional monitoring is considered well justified. The relationships between water q~ality variables including chlorophyll a, plankton composition (including dinoflagellates), and the influence of plankton composition on upper trophic levels needs further research. Additional research is also needed to guide future SAV restoration policies in the lower tidal James River. The influence ofhi~orical filter feeder populations (oysters and menhaden) on water quality should be incorporated into the WQM. S~cant improvements in water clarity and SAV restoration may not be possible until a sufficient standing crop of these species are established in this estuary. Various ~ter feeder scenarios Should be evaluated to explore these hypotheses and their potential in management strategies. The importance of bringing these issues into water quality management consideration cannot be overstated. The interrelatio~.,~hlp between nutrients and fish and shellfish .produc~on has not been adequately established. In fact current dmn suggests that factors such as disease in oysters and insufficient numbers ofprimary grazei~, e.g., menhaden (a prlmsry source of food for several desirable ~m6sh species) are the faciors primarily imp~ attainment of this goal. It is imperative that the strategy includes the effects that reduced living resources have on water quality in order to know what is nt~.~vahle given current living resources. The roles of sediment re-suspension in this River segment needs to be better understood. Available data and visual observation-~ indi(mIe that m-suspension effects in the lower tidal James River may be very significant. Further research is needed to quantify these effects, in relation to vo__ter quality management and potential SAV restoration efforts. An improved umtersmnding is needed regarding the site-specific causes of light attenuation from suspended solids, chlorophyll, and epiphytic material in this segment. Present data on this issue is sketchy and partially extrapolated from other river basins, such as the York. Therefore, existing data may not accurately represent the James or be a representative basis- for WQM cah'bration. Similar to the upper tidal James, the roles of sediment characteristics and physical disturbance should also be eval~. Non-tidal James River To predict local water quality improvements associated with sediment and nitrogen reductions and other pollution prevention activities, critical habitat requirement studies for living resoumes and expanded water quality modeling is needed in the non-tidal James River. Vi~dertt Proiea Coordinatoc. Daniel Bowman JAWACC James Watershed Conservation Committee c/o Daniel Bowman 5006 Boonsboro Road, Suite 5, Box 233 Lynchburg, Virginia 24503 Co,,mit~Mmbers 804-3'84-3710 P~ui~i, ~. ~a~,soa c, mm~c~t ~,~d W. Brian Noyes Cmflsmt ~anderson May 1, 1999 Mark Bennett James Tributary Team Leader Department of Conservation andRecreation Commonwealth of Virginia 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, Virginia 23219-2094 Dear Mark: The James Watershed Conservation Committee (JAWACC) has served as a coordinating body for the 19 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in the James.River Watershed for the administration of the Special SWCD Tributary Strategy Planning and Implementation Grant Program and the development and implementation ora Tributary Strategy for the James River. JAWACC provided input to the state's Initial James River Basin Tributary Nutrient and Sedhnent Reduction Strategy, dated July 1, 1998, and made detailed comments on that document. Several members of JAWACC were participants on the James River Technical Review Committee (TRC) during the past year. SWCDs deal primarily with non-point source pollution. The most significant potential contributions that SWCDs are likely to make toward improving water quality in the James will be through helping landowners' and others to implement local, state and federal pro_roams to reduce sediment loads. Those efforts will also result in linked reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus. JAWACC also recognizes, however, that achieving our vision of river waters that are fishable and swimmable, and have water quality sufficiently high to support other beneficial uses, will require reductions in point source pollution. The full water quality benefits of sedimem reduction will only be realized if nutrient loads from point sources are reduced as well. Based on its discussions and review of materials provided to the TRC, the James Watershed Conservation Committee makes the following recommendations for tributary strut _egy goals: 1. Sediment reduction of 17 percent from 1996 levels to be achieved in equal yearly amounts of 1.7 percent per year through 2009. As a minimum, that sediment monitoring stations be set up and observed at the mouth of each substantial tributary to the James, such.as Blackwater Creek and the Rockfish, Tye, and Rivanna Rivers. 3. Full implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control plans to be monitored by DCR. 4. A listing of habitat requirements of major living resources of the tributary and periodic monitoring and reporting fOr all major segments of the watershed. Focused effort to fund watershed efforts in non-point source pollution reduction efforts through JAWACC, including: full-time project coordinator, riparian protection specialist, three area coordinators (two non-tidal, one tidal), public relations development specialist (to develop joint projects, programs for education of SWCDs and citizen groups, etc.). For SWCDs: a. CREP should be treated as a funded mandate; b. joint projects with PDCS, boards of supervisors, and citizen groups should be ~cournged; c. funds for m'butary strategy projects provided in a separate funding "kit" from other BMPs; d. urban/suburban committees should focus on stormwater management efforts. Stormwater management efforts should be treated as a distinct organizational effort within DCK This section of DCR should include E&S, dam maintenance, the development of Innovative storm water management projects, interaction with VDOT, etc. 8. TMDL efforts should be included as part of the tributary strategy. 9. A cap should be set on Total N discharge fi.om point sources at 1999 levels. Thank you for the opportunity for participation in the James River Tributary Strategy Technical Review Committee. We feel that this has provided a unique oppommity for various stakeholders to meet, to gain and share information on the state of the James, and to understand each other's views on these important matters. Sincerely yours, Andrew H. Gantt II President cc: John Paul Woodley, Secretary of Natural Resources David Brickley, Director, Department of Conservation and Recreation Dennis H. Treacy, Director, Department of Environmental Quality FROM : JRMES RIVER R$$OCIATION PHONE NO. ' ~? MaW. 20 l~ 10:21AM Pi JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 110 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 232180110 (804) 730-2898 (80a) 730-8297 Fax Jam~ F,, Cuddihy, Jr. B. Randolph Boyd Pr~sideat Dr. `iohn Bernard W. McCray. Vlc~-i~idem Russoll C. ~ Vice-Pre~id~l Edward D. Mitohell Al~tair S. Macdm~d Treamrer William W. Archer, rn ayron B. Bail~/ John Dr. Mitchell A, Byrd Jay B. Call m W. Bates Chappell Judi~ S, Dresser Admiral Philip Deify Mrs. ¥it~iaia F.,ley John T. Alexancba' M. Fisher, Jr. Frederick S. Fisher, IB Mrs. lngr. bo~ lC FLsher CoL Elsey Harris. Jr. L Robe~ Hicks,.Ir. Mrs. Ann IC Leal~ Ms. Carolyn F. Dr, $ohn V. Ronald H. Pack Andre Tr~nper William B. Tyler Ch,aries v. ware Advisory Comn~ Carkon ~ Richard C. F, tic~son Dr. Gregory G~rman Ca~heriru: M. Harold Richard D. Harrison John ~. ~ Ir. Roger H. W. Kirby William I. Le, ary Wailer S. Robinson. Ir. Ho~: L. Douglas Wilder Pauicia A. Sackson Ex~:utiv~ Dir~tor May 18, 1999 Mr. Marx Bezmett Team Load~, James River Tributary Strategy Department of Conservation and Recreation 203 Governor Street Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mark: : The James River Association has been participating in the developmem of Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategie~ for the ~Iames River arid has a~tively supported adequate funding for implementation of such stratcgi~s. We have worked diligently for the improvement of water quality throughout the River Watershed for twenty-three y~. We appreciate the oppogunity to participate in the James River Technical Keview Committee (JRTRC), although we must note that thc Committee was strongly wei~ted with point source representatives. There was inadequate representation by the non-point source sector, local governments, farmers, the conservation C,01'nmsm~, a~ acadev/l~a. A,]cly con1~1.1~oTi of this committee should be more fairly balanced. We would like.to offer the following recommendati, ons for inclusion inthe James River T~bn~W Strategy Docur~cnt, based on the extendve data and modeling re, sult~ present~l to the IRTP, C, as well a~ commitments madC in the Chesat~eake Bay Agreemcmt. .- SHOKT-TERlVl GOAL (to be achieved by 200~): ' Nutrients: Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)/BNR Equivalent in the entire James Rive:to achieve a 30%.reduction in total nitrogen and a 39% reduction in total phosphorus fi'om 1985 levels. Sediment: Bh'R/BNK F_.qu/valent in the entire ~Iames River to achieve a 7% reduction in sediment from thc 1985 level. 05/20/99 THU 09:08 [TX/PX NO 84081 FROM ': JAMES RIVER ASSOCIATION PHON~ NO. : 88~-~'J08297 Mag. 20 1999 10:21AM P2 LONG-TERM GOAL. (to be achieved by 2009): Nutrients: Full Voluntary Implementation in tho entire James River to achieve a 50% reduction in total nitrogen and a 58% reduction in total phosphorus from 1985 levels. Sediment: Limk o£Technology (LOT) in the entire James Rivea' to achieve a 17% reduction in sediment l~om tho 1985 l~,'vel. These actions are projected by the Cb~eake Bay Model to achieve significant improvemertts in the wat~ quality condilions and living resom-ces. The projected improvements are: Short-te~m Benefits: 52% reduction in chlorophyll concontratio~ 354 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation ($AV) 217% knprovement in SAV density Long-term Benefits: 61% reduction in chlorophyll conc~nt~t/ons 486 acres of SAV 410% improvemen~ in SAV density These actions will result in si~o~nificant improvements in the health of the James River and the habitat for living resources. We believe that the model underestimates the potential for improvement in living resom'oes, so even greater benefits arc expected. We recognize the results achieved ~ I985 by installation of Biological Nutrient Removal at several sewage treatment plan~ and by impleane, ntafion of Best Management Practices for non-point-som-c~ pollution. However, therCis still much to be done to hnl~rove the water qualily of the James River, so that tivillg resources can be re-established and enhanced_ As the population of the James River Wat~ah~ continues to increase, the input of nutrients and sediment must be capped to prevent further degradation and to assure continued improvements. Efforts by both point sources and non-point-sources must continue and be accelerated in the James River Basi~. The scientists have confirmed that both sediment and nutrients must be reduced significantly to achieve improvements in water quality and establishment of SAV, as well as enhanced living resources. We recommend that efforts to reduce both sediment and nuirients be conducted to achieve the short-term and the long-term results. The James River is an important part of the Bay Watershed and its improvement is vital to Virgin/a's economy and enviro,,,,,ent. The population oft.he watershed is committed to its improvement, and the financial resources are in place to accomplish the strategies recommended. 05/20/99 THU 09:08 [TX/RX NO 8408] FROM : JAMES RIVF_R ASSOCIATION PHONI~ NO~ : 8047-JE~8297 Ma~. 20 1999 10:2~_AMp~ We also recommend t~at the impacm og land uses, shoreline erosion, and dredging operziionz in the v~tew~led bc recognized ~ contributors to thc pollution of ~ne Ja~es River. Str~gie~ ~hould be recommended to reduce their impacts. An improved YP. TRC should be conlinued to periodically review the re,sulm of implementation of the tributary strategies and to assess the nccd for additional actions. It should have more balanced repr~sentat/on. The public p~dcipation process is very important in the development and implemcnta~ion phases of the Sames River Tributary Strategies. We urge thc Team to conduct an extensive public pax'dcipasion program throughout tMs process. Th~nk you f~r the opportun/ty to p~icipate on the ~R.T~C and to comment on the Sh'ate~/Doc-ment. Plcsse lct me know if you have any questions, or if you need any additional informat/om Sincerely, Patricia A. Jackson Executive Director Thc Honorable ~ohn PauI Woodley David Brickley, Director, DCR Denn/s Treacy, Director, DBQ 05/20/99 THU 09:08 [TX/RX NO 8408] CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION May 21, 1999 Resource Protection Environmental Education OFHCERS Wayne A. Mills T. Gay[o~ Layfielck fi! ¥iee Chain'aaa But~ La,ham L~u~ea~ J. Hmde~on William C. Baker M/chad F. HbshfiekL I~D. Vi~e President TRUSTEES Donalkt F. Boesda ~ W. Bto~n~ Ph.D. Louisa C. Duemiimt J. Caner Fox Caren E. Olotfelv/ Aha R. C,n'iffith Su.nan Taylor Hamen Edward M. Holland G. R. Kl/nefelm' H. ~, (Gem~) t.~iest ,. lanloe L Marshall H. Tumey McKn/ght PhiUp Mm.a~ Blaine T. Phillips -- G. Stede Phillips Robert M. Pinkard Marie ',At. Ridder Willcox Ruffin. Jr. M.D. Truman T. Seanans Dolores IL Sp~es. Ph.D. Edmund A. Stanicy, Sr. Thomas H. Star. et Aileen Bowdoin Train Michad Wagon James C. Wheat. [II HONORARY TRUSTEES T. Marshall Duet. J'r. C. ~= Po~er ~[opkins Goct~ A, Rockefeller Russell C. Sco~ C. Trowbddge Strong William W. Warner .. The'Honorable John Paul Woodley, Secretary of Natural Resources P.O. Box 1475 ..... Richmond, Virginia 23212 .... ~, RE: James River Tdbutary. Strate.av ....... ~xomclor~us,~ Dear Secretary Woodley: Go,~mor lames n. O,'lmo~. Governor Panis N. Olendening ' - ~ - Governor Thonm J. Ridge M,~A,~o~ w~,~ AS you know, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has been actively HalC B. Ctagett ~ Cla&e~ Tms~e~ · A.. ] . . -- . _~__~ s. ~-~. ~,y c~ c~-;~ .~..:_mvolved m the discusmons surrounding the development of the James River-.- Ma'/lyn 9/. Layer - York C~Ixer Tributary Strategy. The Technical Review Committee (TRC), on which we serve, is nearing the end of its work, and the Tributary Team leaders are be~nning to prepare a draft Strategy. We would like to take' this oppommity to present to you what we believe to be the nutrient and sediment reductions necessary to substantially improve'water quality and living resources in the James River and express our concerns regarding other proposals. Joseph II. Maraca ¥ir~inin Exe~tive Oirecter According to EPA data, efforts to date to reduce nutrient loading in the tidal portion of the James River have resulted in an 11% decrease in n/trogen and a 36% decrease in phosphorus compared to 1985 conditions. These reductions are the result of considerable effort on the part of State and local government, municipalities, private industries and citizens. Sediment reduction efforts have also shown progress, but to a much lesser degree (2% reduction from 1985 levels). These results are commendable. However, further reductions are necessary to achieve significant and sustainable improvements in water quality and living resources in the lames River. At the last meeting of the TRC, representatives of the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Authorities (VAMWA) summarized their position with regards to additional needs for nutrient and sediment reductions. Although VAMWA supports substantial reductions in sediment loads, they do not support either further reductions in nutrients or a cap of nutrient loads in the tidal portion of the River. VAMWA's position does not appear to fully consider the legislamre and the Administration's significant monetary contributions to the Water Quality Improvement Fund nor does it adequately consider continued financial support for municipalities through future appropriations. Their position is also very disheartening in light of the abundant modeling data illustrating significant improvements in water quality and living resources if additional nutrient Vieginia Offices Richmond, t001 East ~&nin S~'eet, Suite 710, Richmond. VA 23219 · 804.-780-139~ fax ~4-648-a011 / Han~on Roads, 142 West Yofl~ Sue~ ~ ~ll~. N~rf~i~. VA 23510 o 757-622-1964, fax 7~7-6~-7~! I ~ VA 703.68~$92.t Headquarters Offiea: 162 Ptim~Ca, ans~ Sixee~ Annapol/s. Maryland 21401 · 410.26K8816, fax 410.268.6687 Matylami Offiee~ 111 Ann~o[ls Street,.a .--'T,,a~. ,Mil 21401 · 410-268-8855, fax 410-280-35131 ,~3mhem .MD 410-3n~6951 PmmTlvania Oflke: The Old Water Wod~ ~ &i4 ~ Front $tre~ ~ O, Han/sburg, PA 17101 - 717-~&.~$$0, fax 717-22~1-9632 The Honorable $ohn P. Woodley, Ir.' May 21, 1999 Page 2 reduction~ occur. Moreover, the consen.qus of scientific experts at a technical workshop held at the Virgirda Institute of Marine Science in March 1998 is that reducin-,4 sediments while allowin~ nutrients to remain at their presently elevated levels would adversely impact water quality. Increased light penetration resulting from the reduced sediment loads would allow algae to utilize the excessive nutrients, resulting in massive algae growth. In essence, the VA_MWA proposal to reduce sediment (which is largely a nonpoint source problem) without concurrent nutrient reductions would not' achieve .the desired _water quality and living resources goals for the James and wouId, instead, prove to be detrimental to the health of the River. CBF favors the two-phased strategy outlined.below to reduce both nutrients and sediments consistent with the Bay Agreement. Based on the results of the Water Quality Model, this appr6aeh~'wili result in dramati¢im!~?vements in water qmality and living resources wh~¢ .... distributing equity for the reductions among point and non-point sources. Less aggressive scenarios than these will si~ificantty reduce the potential for improvements in the James River. The phased approach (with 5 and 10 year time frames) will lessen the associated monetary impacts by allowing for: 1) more efficient' use of future legislative appropriations; 2) periodic evaluation of the success ofreductionefforts over time; and 3) incorporation of future technologies. Therefore, we stron~y urge the Commonwealth to adopt the following approach for the James River Tributary Strategy:. .~,. Nutrients - Sediment - Cap- Nutrients - Sediment - Cap- Short-Term Goal (2005) BNR/BNR Equivalent for all sections of the James River [results in a 21% reduction in total nitrogen, 3% reduction in total phosphorus] BNRdBN'R Equivalent for all sections of the James River [results in a 5% reduction in sediment from 1996 Ioadings] Both nutrient and sediment loadS must be capped at the reduced levels. Long-Term Goal (2010) Full Voluntary Implementation for all sections of the James River [results in a 39% reduction in total mtrogen and 22% reduction in total phosphorus from 1996 loadings] Limit of Technolo~o-v for all sections of the James River [results in a 15% reduction from 1996 loadings] Both nutrient and sediment loads must be capped at the reduced levels. The Honorable John P. Woodley, .Ir. May 21, 1999 Page 3 Data generated by the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program's water quality model indicates that the reduction scenarios we propose will result in significant environmental improvements in chlorophyll concentrations (29% decrease by 2005 and 38% decrease by 2010), Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) acreage (144% increase by 2005 and 276% increase by 2010) and SAV density (122% increase by 2005 and 315% increase by 2010). In fact, the improvements in SAV may be considerably greater than indicated here as the Bay Program models are known to underestimate the effects ofrexluced nutrient and sediments on SAV. The combined effects of SAV restoration, chlorophyll red~tions, sediment reductions and increased Ii~t penetration will have untold resource benefits beyond those demonstrated by the model. As you know, SAV is a critical component oft. he ecological health of the James River and other tributaries to the Bay. SAV provides shelter and nursery habitat for numerous species of fin and shellfish, produces life-sustaining oxygen and efficiently traps sediment. Although presently the James River has only limited areas supporting SAV, historical surveys and photographs (as recent as the 1960s) reveal that SAV abundance was once considerably higher. Improvements in SAV resulting from our proposed reduction scenarios are crucial to restoring the health of the River. Although SAV is the primary living resources indicator chosen as a monitoring tool for evaluating improvements in water quality, further nutrient reductions will also have additional benefits that are much harder to quantify. For instance, the TRC has heard from experts that decreased nutrient loads (and associated decreases in chlorophyll levels) should result in less occun'ences of harmful algal blooms and a more balanced phytoplankton population and improvements to the entire aquatic food web. In conclusion, we appreciate the State's efforts to develop a Tributary Strateg3r for the James River and respectfully request that the Commonwealth adopt a fully effective Tributary Strategy for the James River that is comprehensive and will successfully achieve the necessary reductions outlined in this letter. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this important matter with you in person in the very near future. Sincerely, CC: Dennis Treacy, Director, DEQ David Brickley, Director, DCR Mark Bennett, DCR Allan Pollock, DEQ CO MM O NWF. ALTH o[ VIR( INIA COlONIAl. SOIL, & WATER CON~ATION DISTRICT USDA QUINTON SERVtC~ P, o. Box 1~ QUINTON, VIRGiN~ ~t41~l~ (804) ~mgdum To: Mark Bennett, James River Team Leader- DCR. ,--~ ~ From: Brian Noyes, Comserv~ion Specialist.~~ Subject: lames Tributary Stratetly Goals Date: June 10, 1999 TMs memo is to ~o~'m the position of the CSWCD resarding the Tributm'~ Strategics Coals for the James Watershed. Thc District believes thst the Full VolunIary Implementation Whole Bay - sediment redu~ion ot'geA combined with BlqK + Equivalent / Trib. Strat. Above for Nutrien~ is a pra~cal goal. The District supports the position that a simulfaneo~ reduction of nutrients and sediments is the only way to expect a beneficial ecolo~cal response over thc nex~ ten years. Combined monkorin$ of Point Source .and Non Point Source loadin~ reductions will bener insure tha~ the limiting factors are addressed, lquuient and se~ime_~_ reductions should be prioritized on a cost effective and equity bes/s. The ~rovah management issue mus~ also be incorporaIed if the goal is expected to be reached and accura~ pro~ress is to be tracked. Thc model information and Tribmary Stratel~y inkiaIivc bas resulted in a bct~r understanding ofwhai is needed to improve ~ ccolo~ of the lames. The CSWCD looks forward to the chatlen~es described by the model aad the Trib~ Teams as we attempt to meet our goals. Please feel free to contact the Dim'ict it'you have any questions. cc: CSWCD Board Members All progra~m and sewices of the CokmlM 8oll an~ Water Gon~ [:~strk:t are offere~ on a Ilmtl~.cr~inatoq~ basis without regard to moe. ~mior. national origin, religion. ~x. age. marital staVds, or handic,p. 06/11/99 FRI 12:48 ['~l~ NO 86261 · HAMPTON ROar,s pLA,~NI.NG DISTRICT COblbil$$ION ROBERT C. CLAUD. SR.. CHAIRMAN - JACK O. EDWARDS. VICE-CHAIRMAN - MYLES E. STANDISH. TREASURER ARTHUR I. COUJNS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY CHESAPEAKE Oe~e ~,ffer. ~ ~ August 18, 1999 FRANKLIN klan< S. Cement. ~ GLO~ ~U~ ~M~N Jo5~ ~ ~. G~ E. w~. ~ The Honorable John Paul Woodley Secretary of Natural Resoumes Commonwealth of Virginia 607 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: Tributary Strategy Goals (POW:TRIBUTARIES) tSLE OF WlGtlT COUNTY W. Doug:as Cas,,ev R~n C. C~ ~.. ~ ~ J~ ~ COU~ C~ C A~. V~ ~ C. ~. M.D.. C~ ~ O~S.~. ~~ R~na V.K. W~. ~QU~N C~ W. J. ~ SO~M~QN COU~ SU~ ~RRY W.W. ~.~. ~~ H~ H~. C~ J~n C. ~ ~. Ma~ YORK ~U~ Dear Secretary Woodley: Over the last four years, the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and its member local governments have participated actively in the State's Tdbu.tary strategy process. The HRPDC staff, in cooperation with the Hampton Roads Tn'butary Strategy Project Steering Committee, has completed technical studies, conducted public information and education programs and materials, completed policy analyses and provided input to the State's Tributary Strategy process. As you are aware, a Technical Review Committee process has been conducted by the state to advise you on the development of nutrient and sediment reduction goals. That process resulted in a general agreement on a qualitative goal that the James River would be a healthy river, expressed in terms of living resources, like undenNater grasses. The 'iRC believed that was reasonable, based on the results of water quality model analyses. The next step in the process was to have been the development of a mix of management options to achieve that goal, i.e., an implementation plan. It was our understanding that together, the goal and management options comprised the strategy. Although the goals document has not yet been made ava~able for public review, a number of groups have recommended the establishment of goals, which represent a mix of management options. This is especially true for the York River Basin, where the goals themselves are couched specifically in option implementation terms. These recommendations have been presented to you without the views of local governments for comparison. AU6 1 8 1999 HRP ; HEAI~TERS * THE REGIONAL BUll. DING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE * CHESAPEAKE. VIRGINIA __~1~_ _~_ . (757) 420.8300 PE~ ~ - HARSOUR CENTRE. 2 EATON .~TREET · SUITE 502 * HAJ~ ~ 23669 - (757) 728-2067 The Honorable John Paul Woodley August 18, 1999 Page 2 At its Executive Committee .Meeting of August 18, 1999, the HRPDC, after considering the recommendations of the Hampton Roads Tributary Strategy Project Steedng Committee, authorized me to advise you of its concerns about the program. In the context of trying resource (underwater grasses) objectives, the qualitative goals generally agreed upon for the James River Basin appear to be reasonable. However, it has not yet bccrt demonstrated that these goals are achievable with current technolog~ inca cost-effective manner. The reasonableness of the York River goals are not quite as clear, given that the goals have been couched in terms of implementation targets, e.g. percentage of land area covered by erosion and sediment control, rather than living resources. Goals should not be selected based solely on input from a limited number of the participants in the process. Based on review ofthe input to date from the vadous interest groups, it is not clear to the localities of Hampton Roads that the mix of management options, which they are recommending, will be achievable in i'~ht of fiscal and/or technical' constraints. Based on the model analyses, it is not clear that even if all potential management options, ignoring factors of cost, are implemented quantifiable living resource goals are achievable. o Following establishment of the living resource goals for submerged aquatic vegetation in the rivers, an appropriate mix of management options should be selected for inclusion in the final strategy, based on cost-effectiveness, environmental' soundness, and a balancing of the fiscal and environmental realities of the watersheds, the local governments and other stakeholders within those watersheds. The mix of management options that are selected should not be determined solely on the basis of equity, expressed as an across the board percentage reduction in pollutants from all sources, e.g. agriculture, urban stormwater and wastewater treatment. The mix of options should be selected on the basis of cost-effectiveness and achievability, given current technology. The issue of voluntary implementation of nutrient and sediment reduction strategies is further complicated by recent indications that the federal government intends to pursue a more vigorous regulatory approach through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process under the Clean Water Act. That issue must be seriously evaluated especially by holders of National (Virginia) Pollutant Discharge Erm~ination System Permits, including municipalities with municipal separate storm sewer systems. The Honorable JOhn Paul Woodley August 18, 1999 Page 3 The Hampton Roads Planning Distdct Commission and its member local governments remain committed to developing the local government portion of the Tributary Strategies (implementation plan) for the waters in the Hampton Roads region within six months following formal establishment of the living resource goals. The enclosed HRPDC report, Develo0m.ent of NutTient Management Options for Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies - Hamoton Roads Plannino District - James and York Rivers and Small Coastal Basins, provides an indication of the range of management options that this region is willing to consider and evaluate in developing the impi.e, me_ntation plan necessary to achieve the goals. The Commission requests that you consider this good faith effort in the strategy development process as you weigh alternatives for establishing the goals for these waterbodies. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to continuing to work with you and the members of the State Tributary Teams on this important initiative. If you have any specific questions on these issues, please contact John M. Cadock, HRPDC Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning, at (757)320-8300. Sincerely, RCC/lw Enclosure Robert C. Claud, Sr. Chairman