RE: Comments on Establishment of new Resource Management Plan Regulations (4VAC50-70-10 et seq.)
Dear Mr. Dowling,
Please accept the following comments from the Shenandoah Riverkeeper regarding Virginia’s draft Establishment of new Resource Management Plan Regulations (RMP) (4VAC50-70-10 et seq.)
Shenandoah Riverkeeper is a program of the Potomac Riverkeeper Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s mission is to use citizen action and enforcement to protect and restore water quality in the Shenandoah River Watershed for people, fish, and aquatic life. Shenandoah Riverkeeper and Potomac Riverkeeper are grass-roots organizations with over 2,000 combined members. These members use the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers to swim, fish, boat, and recreate. Some are landowners along the river, and many use the river for business uses and as drinking water.
Most of the Shenandoah system currently suffers from significant algae blooms through much of the year. These blooms, by themselves, violate Virginia’s water quality standards general criteria and cause a loss of use by recreational users. Much of the pollution that fuels these algae blooms comes from agricultural sources. The practices prescribed in the Draft Resource Management Plan, if implemented on a majority of farms, would go a long way to correct the nutrient and sediment problems in the Shenandoah River System.
The majority of streams that feed the Shenandoah River have already been deemed impaired by Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) due to high bacteria, pollution laden sediment and sedimentation and algae blooms and are listed on Virginia’s 303D/305B list. Additionally, many of these streams have had official TMDL studies where the impairments identify agricultural sources as the source of pollutants, and prescribe high levels of implementation of BMP’s in order to decrease pollutants enough to remove the streams from the 303D/305B lists. These are the types of pollutants that farms discharge when Best Management Practices have NOT been installed. So Shenandoah Riverkeeper applauds the intentions of the Draft RMP and feel that a very good set of BMP’s have been prescribed in the RMP in order for landowners to receive safe harbor status. We also feel that if a large percentage of landowners participate then there will be a significant improvement in water quality.
However Shenandoah Riverkeeper would like to submit several specific comments on the weaknesses of the draft RMP which are significant enough that they will mean that Virginia will neither meet it’s commitments to pollution reduction submitted in their Phase I and Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans.
1)Implementation of the BMP’s is entirely voluntary. The Safe Harbor “carrot” of nine years is unlikely to be enough of an incentive to drive overwhelming participation in the full RMP process which is what would be required to meet Bay reduction goals and commitments made in Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plans. For example, Virginia committed to 95% cattle exclusion which seems to imply that 95% of landowners would need to participate in at least this portion of the RMP process. In the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia’s current incentive programs have garnered less than 10% participation in cattle exclusion after nearly two decades of implementation. It’s farcical to believe that without drastically changing the incentives or the requirements to exclude cattle, that we’re magically going to reach 95% in just over another decade’s time.
2)Protecting local water quality is critical to Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s mission. One of the greatest concerns of Shenandoah Riverkeeper is that no attempt has been made by Virginia agencies or by EPA to mathematically determine whether or not the provisions prescribed in the RMP process are guaranteed to remove local streams from the Impaired Waters List (303D/305B) This RMP process, by granting safe harbor for nine years could specifically undermine the ability of those local plans to adopt new measures during their five year renewal cycle.
3)That brings us to the discussion of the Safe Harbor provision. Shenandoah Riverkeeper is completely opposed to the idea that any pollution source could receive a safe harbor without guarantees that their reductions would guarantee water quality standards are met. I see no calculations, scientific evidence or even any reasoning in the record that would indicate water quality standards will be met.
4)The RMP specifically prevents the public from verifying that provisions of the RMP are being met by landowners. One of the bedrock principles of the Federal Clean Water Act is that information be made available so citizens can take an active roll in ensuring their local streams are protected. This provision destroys accountability and undermines this citizen involvement.
In conclusion, unless the underlying assumptions in the RMP can be proven in advance of adoption of these regulations then they should not be approved by the board. Specifically, it must be shown that the RMP process will cause enough BMP’s to be installed on enough farms so that it will guarantee that both local water quality standards are met on local streams and that enough reductions are made to satisfy the allocations in Virginia’s WIP as it relates to the Bay TMDL.
Thank you for considering Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s comments.
