CHAPTER 22
An Act to amend and reenact § 2.1-51.12:2 of the Code of Virginia and to repeal the second enactment of Chapter 1031 of the Acts of Assembly of 1996, relating to tributary strategy development and implementation.
Approved February 21, 1997
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 2.1-51.12:2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 2.1-51.12:2. Tributary plan content; development timelines.
A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to § 2.1-51.12:1 shall include the following:
1. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods of implementation designed to achieve the nutrient goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the 1992 amendments to that agreement signed by the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, collectively known as the Chesapeake Executive Council.
2. A report on progress made pursuant to the "Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on October 14, 1994, that is applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared.
3. A report on progress on the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration Goals" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on September 15, 1993, that is applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared.
4. A report on progress related to the objectives of the "Local Government Partnership Initiative" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on November 30, 1995.
5. Specifically identified recommended state, local and private responsibilities and actions, with associated timetables, for implementation of the plan, to include the (i) person, official, governmental unit, organization or other responsible body; (ii) specific programmatic and environmental benchmarks and indicators for tracking and evaluating implementation and progress; (iii) opportunities, if appropriate, to achieve nutrient reduction goals through nutrient trading; (iv) estimated state and local benefits derived from implementation of the proposed alternatives in the plan; (v) state funding commitments and specifically identified sources of state funding as well as a method for considering alternative or additional funding mechanisms; (vi) state incentives for local and private bodies for assisting with implementation of the plans; and (vii) estimate and schedule of costs for the recommended alternatives in each plan.
6. Scientific documentation to support the recommended actions in a plan and an analysis supporting the documentation if it differs from the conclusions used by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
7. An analysis and explanation of how and when the plan is expected to achieve the elements of subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of this subsection.
8. A process for and schedule of adjustment of the plan if reevaluation concludes that the specific nutrient reduction goals will not be met.
9. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and equity of the recommended nutrient reduction alternatives.
10. An opportunity for public comment and a public education and information program that includes but is not limited to information on specific assignments of responsibility needed to execute the plan.
B. Tributary plans shall be developed by the following dates for the:
1. Potomac River Basin, January 1, 1997.
2. Rappahannock River Basin, January 1, 1998 1999.
3. York River Basin, January July 1, 1998.
4. James River Basin, January July 1, 1998.
5. Eastern and western coastal basins, January 1, 1999.
C. In developing tributary plans, the Secretary shall consider, among other factors: (i) studies relevant to the establishment of nutrient reduction goals; (ii) the relative contributions and impacts of point and nonpoint sources of nutrients; (iii) the scientific relationship between nutrient controls and the attainment of water quality goals; and (iv) estimates of costs for each publicly owned treatment works affected by point source nutrient reduction goals and estimates of costs for nonpoint source nutrient reduction goals.
D. In any tributary plan reevaluation, the Secretary shall consider, among other factors: (i) whether all publicly owned treatment works in the basin under consideration have either installed biological nutrient removal technology or achieved equivalent nutrient reduction by other means; (ii) total nutrient reductions achieved by nonpoint sources to the tributary; (iii) the need for additional nutrient controls for the attainment of water quality goals; (iv) a comparison between nutrient reductions achieved by point source controls and nonpoint source controls in order to equitably allocate any additional reductions; and (v) the cost effectiveness, including nutrient trading options, of any additional nutrient reduction controls.
2. That the second enactment of Chapter 1031 of the Acts of Assembly of 1996 is repealed.