ISSUE: Extending tax credits and cost share programs now
available under the Virginia Agricultural BMP program to Urban BMPs.
WHY IMPORTANT: Such tools are already being employed very
effectively in Virginia's agricultural BMP program to encourage
voluntary, non-regulatory enforced actions. The urban areas of the
Commonwealth need to be able to use them as well. Extending tax
credits and cost share programs to urban BMPs will create financial
incentives to stimulate greater application of BMPs. These incentives
should include a tax credit program for established urban BMPs as well
as a BMP cost-share program for innovative urban BMPs.
RATIONALE: Cost-sharing opportunities provide a strong
incentive for the implementation of BMP's regardless of whether the
source of pollution is agricultural or urban.
1. The rapid urban growth we have been experiencing and will
continue to experience has resulted in a substantial increase in
impervious surfaces throughout the Commonwealth. This is putting
tremendous stress on our stormwater management systems and by
extension, the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. For Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, urban growth creates additional
challenges that are not currently addressed through existing erosion
and sediment control, and nutrient and stormwater management programs.
2· Continuing Virginia's tradition of voluntary approaches to
meeting legal and regulatory nutrient reduction requirements will
become far more difficult, if not impossible, without a good toolbox
of incentives to encourage changes in public behavior in the urban
arena.
3· National surveys of urban stormwater have detected in runoff
more than half of the U.S. EPA's list of 126 priority pollutants that
are either acutely toxic or known suspected carcinogens. About
one-half dozen of these pollutants exceed safe levels for aquatic life
in some of the samples taken. Heavy metals such as copper, lead and
zinc are the most prevalent priority pollutant constituents found in
urban runoff. Oil and grease, which contain a variety of hydrocarbon
compounds, are also commonly found.
4. Home lawns now spread across more than 500,000 acres of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and vast amounts of fertilizers and
pesticides are being applied by homeowners with no training in proper
application techniques. The result is that substantially increased
levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals are being found in
stormwater run-off and ending up in Virginia waterways.
5· Without financial incentives to demonstrate urban BMPs, the
cost of installing and maintaining an urban BMP becomes a major
disincentive to someone considering doing so on a voluntary basis.
Financial examples
BMP maintenance costs can be divided into two categories: routine and
non-routine. Routine costs usually range from four percent of original
capital costs per year for a dry pond to nine percent of original
capital costs per year for an infiltration trench. A general rule of
thumb is that annual maintenance will run from $100 per acre for
minimal maintenance including mowing to $500 per acre for more
intensive maintenance including mowing, weed control, fertilization,
debris removal and the like.
The primary non-routine BMP maintenance costs are for
sediment/pollutant removal and BMP renovation or reconstruction. One
of the larger fixed costs in dredging a BMP facility is mobilization
and demobilization of the machinery. Large wet ponds will often
require a waterborne operation costing about $10,000. For smaller
ponds or large ponds that can be drained or dredged from the shore,
the cost will range between $1,000 and $7,000. Dredging, assuming a
sediment accumulation of six inches, will run between $12,000 -
$16,000 per one-acre surface area. Disposal costs, depending on what
is being disposed of, run from about $4000 per one-acre surface area
to as much as $38,000 per one-acre surface area.
6. Non-conventional and innovative BMPs, which include porous
pavement, underground detention tanks and water quality inlets; and
nonstructural BMPs including ideas such as grassed swales, street
cleaning, and fertilizer application control education programs have
the potential to contribute significantly to the goal of meeting and
maintaining Virginia nutrient reduction goals.
7. In addition, we regularly use a state-adopted manual of
Agricultural Best Management Practices yet no similar document exists
as a reference for Urban Best Management Practices. There are several
good manuals being used on a regional basis already that could serve
as models for a state manual; or they could be endorsed by the
Commonwealth as reference material.
8. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement has, as one of its charges, a
requirement by 2002 to work with local governments to encourage the
development and implementation of urban stormwater retrofit practices
to improve their water quantity and quality function.
9. By 2010, the Virginia goal is to correct the nutrient and
sediment related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries sufficiently to remove the Bay and the tidal portions of
its tributaries from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water
Act.
10. Providing financial incentives for Urban BMPs will continue
Virginia's tradition of a voluntary vs. regulatory approach and will
help us significantly in our efforts to meet and maintain the
Chesapeake 2000 goals and state-wide goals.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION PENDING:
During the last session of the General Assembly, Senate Joint
Resolution 217 sponsored by Senator Hanger was passed requiring the
Virginia Commission on Environmental Stewardship to look at the issue
of incentives for urban BMPs. Senator Bolling, the new Chair of the
Commission, referred the matter to the Chesapeake 2000 subcommittee
for consideration. Members of that Committee are: Senator Bolling
(Chair) Delegate Moss, Secretary of Natural Resources Woodley, Mr.
John Daniel II, Ms. Mary Bruce Glaise, and Mr. L. Clifford Schroeder,
Sr. The Committee met October 17, but did not discuss the issue. A
second meeting has been scheduled for November 29 and VASWCD is slated
to brief the panel on our position at that time.
VASWCD POINT OF CONTACT:
Greg Evans, Northern Virginia Soil & Water Conservation District,
(703) 644-1227. Click below for Legislative Papers ...
|
