§ 2.2-219. Tributary plan content; development timelines.
A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to § 2.2-218 shall include thefollowing:
1. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation designed to achieve the nutrient goals of the 1987 ChesapeakeBay Agreement and the 1992 amendments to that agreement signed by theGovernors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the Districtof Columbia, the Administrator of the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, collectively knownas the Chesapeake Executive Council.
2. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation to achieve sediment and suspended solids reductions fromnonpoint sources sufficient to achieve living resource goals, particularlythose related to habitat conditions necessary to support submerged aquaticvegetation.
3. A report on progress made pursuant to the "Chesapeake Bay BasinwideToxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy" signed by the Chesapeake ExecutiveCouncil on October 14, 1994, that is applicable to the tributary for whichthe plan is prepared.
4. A report on progress on the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation RestorationGoals" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on September 15, 1993,that is applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared.
5. A report on progress related to the objectives of the "Local GovernmentPartnership Initiative" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council onNovember 30, 1995.
6. Specifically identified recommended state, local and privateresponsibilities and actions, with associated timetables, for implementationof the plan, to include the (i) person, official, governmental unit,organization or other responsible body; (ii) specific programmatic andenvironmental benchmarks and indicators for tracking and evaluatingimplementation and progress; (iii) opportunities, if appropriate, to achievenutrient reduction goals through nutrient trading; (iv) estimated state andlocal benefits derived from implementation of the proposed alternatives inthe plan; (v) state funding commitments and specifically identified sourcesof state funding as well as a method for considering alternative oradditional funding mechanisms; (vi) state incentives for local and privatebodies for assisting with implementation of the plans; and (vii) estimate andschedule of costs for the recommended alternatives in each plan.
7. Scientific documentation to support the recommended actions in a plan andan analysis supporting the documentation if it differs from the conclusionsused by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
8. An analysis and explanation of how and when the plan is expected toachieve the elements of subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
9. A process for and schedule of adjustment of the plan if reevaluationconcludes that the specific nutrient reduction goals will not be met.
10. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and equity of the recommendednutrient reduction alternatives.
11. An opportunity for public comment and a public education and informationprogram that includes but is not limited to information on specificassignments 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, 1999.
3. York River Basin, July 1, 1998.
4. James River Basin, July 1, 1998.
5. Eastern and western coastal basins, January 1, 1999.
C. In developing tributary plans, the Secretary shall consider, among otherfactors: (i) studies relevant to the establishment of nutrient, sediment andsuspended solids reduction goals; (ii) the relative contributions and impactsof point and nonpoint sources of nutrients; (iii) the scientific relationshipbetween nutrient, sediment and suspended solids controls and the attainmentof water quality goals; and (iv) estimates of costs for each publicly ownedtreatment works affected by point source nutrient reduction goals andestimates of costs for nonpoint source nutrient, sediment and suspendedsolids reduction goals.
D. In any tributary plan reevaluation, the Secretary shall consider, amongother factors: (i) whether all publicly owned treatment works in the basinunder consideration have either installed biological nutrient removaltechnology 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 waterquality goals; (iv) a comparison between nutrient reductions achieved bypoint source controls and nonpoint source controls in order to equitablyallocate any additional reductions; and (v) the cost effectiveness, includingnutrient trading options, of any additional nutrient reduction controls.
(1996, c. 1031, § 2.1-51.12:2; 1997, c. 22; 1999, c. 548; 2001, c. 844.)
§ 2.2-219. Tributary plan content; development timelines.
A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to § 2.2-218 shall include thefollowing:
1. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation designed to achieve the nutrient goals of the 1987 ChesapeakeBay Agreement and the 1992 amendments to that agreement signed by theGovernors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the Districtof Columbia, the Administrator of the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, collectively knownas the Chesapeake Executive Council.
2. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation to achieve sediment and suspended solids reductions fromnonpoint sources sufficient to achieve living resource goals, particularlythose related to habitat conditions necessary to support submerged aquaticvegetation.
3. A report on progress made pursuant to the "Chesapeake Bay BasinwideToxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy" signed by the Chesapeake ExecutiveCouncil on October 14, 1994, that is applicable to the tributary for whichthe plan is prepared.
4. A report on progress on the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation RestorationGoals" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on September 15, 1993,that is applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared.
5. A report on progress related to the objectives of the "Local GovernmentPartnership Initiative" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council onNovember 30, 1995.
6. Specifically identified recommended state, local and privateresponsibilities and actions, with associated timetables, for implementationof the plan, to include the (i) person, official, governmental unit,organization or other responsible body; (ii) specific programmatic andenvironmental benchmarks and indicators for tracking and evaluatingimplementation and progress; (iii) opportunities, if appropriate, to achievenutrient reduction goals through nutrient trading; (iv) estimated state andlocal benefits derived from implementation of the proposed alternatives inthe plan; (v) state funding commitments and specifically identified sourcesof state funding as well as a method for considering alternative oradditional funding mechanisms; (vi) state incentives for local and privatebodies for assisting with implementation of the plans; and (vii) estimate andschedule of costs for the recommended alternatives in each plan.
7. Scientific documentation to support the recommended actions in a plan andan analysis supporting the documentation if it differs from the conclusionsused by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
8. An analysis and explanation of how and when the plan is expected toachieve the elements of subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
9. A process for and schedule of adjustment of the plan if reevaluationconcludes that the specific nutrient reduction goals will not be met.
10. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and equity of the recommendednutrient reduction alternatives.
11. An opportunity for public comment and a public education and informationprogram that includes but is not limited to information on specificassignments 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, 1999.
3. York River Basin, July 1, 1998.
4. James River Basin, July 1, 1998.
5. Eastern and western coastal basins, January 1, 1999.
C. In developing tributary plans, the Secretary shall consider, among otherfactors: (i) studies relevant to the establishment of nutrient, sediment andsuspended solids reduction goals; (ii) the relative contributions and impactsof point and nonpoint sources of nutrients; (iii) the scientific relationshipbetween nutrient, sediment and suspended solids controls and the attainmentof water quality goals; and (iv) estimates of costs for each publicly ownedtreatment works affected by point source nutrient reduction goals andestimates of costs for nonpoint source nutrient, sediment and suspendedsolids reduction goals.
D. In any tributary plan reevaluation, the Secretary shall consider, amongother factors: (i) whether all publicly owned treatment works in the basinunder consideration have either installed biological nutrient removaltechnology 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 waterquality goals; (iv) a comparison between nutrient reductions achieved bypoint source controls and nonpoint source controls in order to equitablyallocate any additional reductions; and (v) the cost effectiveness, includingnutrient trading options, of any additional nutrient reduction controls.
(1996, c. 1031, § 2.1-51.12:2; 1997, c. 22; 1999, c. 548; 2001, c. 844.)
§ 2.2-219. Tributary plan content; development timelines.
A. Each tributary plan developed pursuant to § 2.2-218 shall include thefollowing:
1. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation designed to achieve the nutrient goals of the 1987 ChesapeakeBay Agreement and the 1992 amendments to that agreement signed by theGovernors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the Districtof Columbia, the Administrator of the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, collectively knownas the Chesapeake Executive Council.
2. Recommended specific strategies, goals, commitments and methods ofimplementation to achieve sediment and suspended solids reductions fromnonpoint sources sufficient to achieve living resource goals, particularlythose related to habitat conditions necessary to support submerged aquaticvegetation.
3. A report on progress made pursuant to the "Chesapeake Bay BasinwideToxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy" signed by the Chesapeake ExecutiveCouncil on October 14, 1994, that is applicable to the tributary for whichthe plan is prepared.
4. A report on progress on the "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation RestorationGoals" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council on September 15, 1993,that is applicable to the tributary for which the plan is prepared.
5. A report on progress related to the objectives of the "Local GovernmentPartnership Initiative" signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council onNovember 30, 1995.
6. Specifically identified recommended state, local and privateresponsibilities and actions, with associated timetables, for implementationof the plan, to include the (i) person, official, governmental unit,organization or other responsible body; (ii) specific programmatic andenvironmental benchmarks and indicators for tracking and evaluatingimplementation and progress; (iii) opportunities, if appropriate, to achievenutrient reduction goals through nutrient trading; (iv) estimated state andlocal benefits derived from implementation of the proposed alternatives inthe plan; (v) state funding commitments and specifically identified sourcesof state funding as well as a method for considering alternative oradditional funding mechanisms; (vi) state incentives for local and privatebodies for assisting with implementation of the plans; and (vii) estimate andschedule of costs for the recommended alternatives in each plan.
7. Scientific documentation to support the recommended actions in a plan andan analysis supporting the documentation if it differs from the conclusionsused by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
8. An analysis and explanation of how and when the plan is expected toachieve the elements of subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
9. A process for and schedule of adjustment of the plan if reevaluationconcludes that the specific nutrient reduction goals will not be met.
10. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and equity of the recommendednutrient reduction alternatives.
11. An opportunity for public comment and a public education and informationprogram that includes but is not limited to information on specificassignments 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, 1999.
3. York River Basin, July 1, 1998.
4. James River Basin, July 1, 1998.
5. Eastern and western coastal basins, January 1, 1999.
C. In developing tributary plans, the Secretary shall consider, among otherfactors: (i) studies relevant to the establishment of nutrient, sediment andsuspended solids reduction goals; (ii) the relative contributions and impactsof point and nonpoint sources of nutrients; (iii) the scientific relationshipbetween nutrient, sediment and suspended solids controls and the attainmentof water quality goals; and (iv) estimates of costs for each publicly ownedtreatment works affected by point source nutrient reduction goals andestimates of costs for nonpoint source nutrient, sediment and suspendedsolids reduction goals.
D. In any tributary plan reevaluation, the Secretary shall consider, amongother factors: (i) whether all publicly owned treatment works in the basinunder consideration have either installed biological nutrient removaltechnology 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 waterquality goals; (iv) a comparison between nutrient reductions achieved bypoint source controls and nonpoint source controls in order to equitablyallocate any additional reductions; and (v) the cost effectiveness, includingnutrient trading options, of any additional nutrient reduction controls.
(1996, c. 1031, § 2.1-51.12:2; 1997, c. 22; 1999, c. 548; 2001, c. 844.)
