FINDINGS FOR THE
     VIRGINIA COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                      

FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA).  The findings are based on a review of the  Virginia
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Submittal,
September 1995 and supplemental material provided by the
Commonwealth subsequent to the program submittal.  The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed this
information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with the
requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend the Commonwealth on the
substantial amount of time and effort put into developing your
program and we appreciate the commitment the Commonwealth
has shown to complete an ambitious task with limited resources. 
We will continue to work with coastal states and territories to
ensure that these findings represent an accurate assessment of
current state and territory abilities and efforts to address coastal
nonpoint source pollution.  We recognize that there may be further
administrative changes to the coastal nonpoint program that will
impact these findings and we assure you that, once such changes
are finalized, we will review these findings in light of the changes
and make any necessary adjustments. 


APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia
pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, subject to certain
conditions.  

     This document provides the specific findings used by
NOAA and EPA as the basis for the decision to approve the
Commonwealth's program.  It also provides the rationale for the
findings and includes conditions that will need to be met for the
Commonwealth to receive final approval of its program.  We
recognize that the Commonwealth has already proposed some
changes to its program that would, if finalized, ensure
implementation of the management measures in conformity with
the section 6217(g) guidance.  In these cases, the conditions are
based on the Commonwealth's proposed changes. The timeframes
associated with conditions become effective on the date of the
approval letter for these findings.
INTRODUCTION

      This document is organized by the major nonpoint source
categories and subcategories identified in the section 6217(g)
guidance and the administrative elements identified in the program
guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area). 
Where appropriate, NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and
subcategories of management measures into a single finding.  The
structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the
finding is that the state program includes or does not include
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and
includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that
the state has identified a back-up enforceable policy, but has not
yet demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure
implementation.  For further understanding of terms in this
document, the reader is referred to the following:

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:  Program
Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA, January
1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the Virginia
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Submittal,
September 1995 ("program submittal").  NOAA and EPA have
written this document as succinctly as possible.  We have relied
upon, but do not repeat here, the extensive information that the
Commonwealth has included in its program submittal.  Further
information and analysis, including material provided by Virginia
subsequent to the program submittal, is contained in the
administrative record for this approval decision and may be
reviewed by interested parties at the following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact:  Steve Dressing (202/260-7110)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact:  Jim Mills (301/713-3117, x175)

EPA Region III
WPD Office of Watersheds
VA/WV Branch (3WP12)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Contact:  Bill Foster (215/566-5733)
I.   BOUNDARY

FINDING:  Virginia's proposed boundary for the 6217
management area, as shown on page 
1-13 of the program submittal and discussed in Chapter Nine of the
submittal, is sufficient to control the land and water uses that have
or are reasonably expected to have a significant impact on
Virginia's coastal waters.

RATIONALE:  Virginia proposes to implement the coastal
nonpoint program within the Commonwealth's existing coastal
management area.  Virginia's proposed boundary approximates the
NOAA recommendation of coastal watersheds, with the exception
of portions of the James River, Appomattox River, and York River
basins and small portions of Fauquier and Loudoun Counties.

Virginia justifies its boundary proposal based on state-specific
information, including the location of impoundments on the
Appomattox River (Lake Chesdin) and in the York River Basin
(Lake Anna), a more accurate analysis of the head of tide for the
James River, and the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution
Watershed Assessment report.  Based on this information, NOAA
and EPA agree that Virginia's proposed 6217 management area is
sufficient.  However, on page 9-2 of the program submittal,
Virginia recognizes that "there are sources of nonpoint pollution
located outside of Virginia's coastal zone and that these sources of
pollution can have a significant impact on the health of Virginia's
coastal resources" (emphasis added).

The program submittal indicates that the Commonwealth will
continue the development and implementation of its tributary
strategy approach as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 
Tributary strategies are designed to address both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution and will rely on both voluntary and
regulatory controls to meet nutrient reduction goals for the Bay
program.  The tributary strategies for the Rappahannock, York and
James Rivers have not yet been developed.  Virginia may wish to
consider the tributary strategies, including possible refinements to
the 6217 management area, as additional management measures in
cases where implementation of the 6217(g) measures does not
achieve water quality goals.

II.  AGRICULTURE

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for irrigation water
management.  The Commonwealth includes enforceable policies
and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the measures except
for:  (1) areas within Tidewater, Virginia that are not included in
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas; and (2) cases within the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area where an agricultural producer
is not required to implement an approved soil and water quality
conservation plan.  For these exceptions, Virginia has identified a
back-up enforceable authority but has not yet demonstrated the
ability of the authority to ensure  implementation throughout the
6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Virginia will include in its
program a management measure in conformity with the 6217(g)
management measure for irrigation water management.  Within
one year, Virginia will develop a strategy (in accordance with
Section XIV, page 17) to ensure implementation of the agricultural
management measures on those applicable lands which fall within
the two exceptions identified in the Finding above.

RATIONALE:  Virginia proposes to implement the 6217(g)
agricultural management measures through a mix of voluntary and
regulatory programs focused on the water quality problems of the
Chesapeake Bay.  Virginia's programs include practices to achieve
all of the management measures through the Virginia Agricultural
BMP Handbook and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) practice standards, except that the Commonwealth has not
identified practices for measuring water needed and applied to
achieve the irrigation water management measure.

As described on page 2-1 of the program submittal, Virginia
proposes that an agricultural water quality law would strengthen
Virginia's existing programs and help ensure program compliance
with the agricultural management measures.  On April 6, 1996,
Virginia passed the Agricultural Stewardship Act, creating a
program to address water quality problems caused by agricultural
activities.  Beginning April 1, 1997, any person may submit a
complaint to the Commissioner that an agricultural operation is
causing pollution.  The soil and water conservation district or
Commissioner may investigate the complaint, require the owner or
operator to formulate a plan containing measures which will
prevent or cease the pollution, issue a corrective order, or obtain a
court order.  Based on the brief discussion of the proposed law
(prior to enactment) in the program submittal and subsequent
discussions with the Commonwealth, Virginia will use the
Agricultural Stewardship Act in concert with existing voluntary
programs.  NOAA and EPA applaud Virginia's leadership in
enacting this legislation and encourage the Commonwealth to
apply this new authority to implement the coastal nonpoint
program.  Reporting requirements of the law should provide a
means by which Virginia can demonstrate progress.

Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Sec. 10.1-2100, et
seq. of the Code of Virginia) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area Designation and Management Regulations (VR 173-02-01)
provide the primary authority for Virginia to implement the
agricultural management measures.  Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Areas (CBPAs) are designated by local jurisdictions in accordance
with Part III of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation
and Management Regulations and include approximately 80% of
the land in the 6217 management area.  CBPAs include both
Resource Protection Areas (RPAs), which include tidal wetlands,
nontidal wetlands contiguous to tidal shores and a 100 foot buffer
area landward of these features, and Resource Management Areas
(RMAs), which include additional areas designated by local
governments landward of RPAs.

In accordance with Section 4.2.9 of the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, land
upon which agricultural activities are being conducted in
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas must have a soil and water
quality conservation plan.  Soil and water quality conservation
plans address the erosion, nutrient, pesticide and grazing
management measures. Section 4.3.B.4.b of the Regulations
requires implementation of these plans only in cases where the
agricultural producer seeks to reduce the RPA buffer to 25 feet.  A
reduction of the RPA buffer to 50 feet requires that the adjacent
land be enrolled in a federal, State or locally funded agricultural
conservation program but does not require implementation of the
agricultural management measures. 

For land not required to implement a soil and water quality
conservation plan and land outside of the CBPA, the
Commonwealth will rely on its voluntary programs to achieve
implementation of the agricultural management measures.  These
programs include the agricultural BMP cost-share program,
Virginia income tax credits for purchasers of conservation
equipment, the Virginia Land Use Assessment Law (which
provides a special assessment tax rate for land under soil
conservation practices), and the nutrient management and
integrated pest management programs.  The Nutrient Reduction
Strategies currently under development will also aid in
implementation of the management measures.

Virginia's Permit Regulations (VR 680-14-01) require that owners
register for coverage under a general permit any operation with 300
or more animal units that uses a liquid manure collection system. 
This general permit also requires a nutrient management plan,
storage of the runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour storm and adequate
capacity to accommodate periods when ground is frozen.  These
regulations provide a useful tool to implement the confined animal
facilities management measures, but they are limited to liquid
systems and the applicability is not in conformity with the (g)
management measures.  As a back-up authority, Virginia can also
require any animal feeding operation, regardless of size, to apply
for a permit through case-by-case designation.  NOAA and EPA
encourage the Commonwealth to incorporate additional
information on alternative uses for excess manure in the Nutrient
Management Handbook.  Such information is contained in the
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program Manual 1994
(e.g., composters).

In addition to the above authorities, Virginia has a general back-up
authority in the State Water Control Law (62.1-44.5) which
prohibits discharge of wastes into State waters.  Other laws which
partially implement the management measures include Water
Withdrawal Reporting (VR 680-15-01), Surface Water
Management Area Regulations (VR 680-15-03), Groundwater
Withdrawal Regulations (VR 680-13-07), and the Pesticide
Control Act.  In discussions with the Commonwealth regarding
irrigation, the State has indicated that it plans to pursue the
development of additional guidance and educational materials for
irrigation management.

In developing a strategy to ensure implementation of agricultural
management measures (particularly with respect to supporting
local, voluntary implementation), NOAA and EPA recommend
that Virginia utilize milestones and measures of effectiveness
developed in conjunction with the nonpoint source elements of its
Chesapeake Bay tributary strategies.  In light of its high priority in
the Commonwealth's water quality programs, Virginia should
further consider the potential for near term co-development of the
coastal nonpoint program strategy for agricultural management
measures with the Potomac River tributary strategy.

III. FORESTRY

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Virginia has identified
backup enforceable policies and mechanisms for implementing the
forestry measures, but has not yet demonstrated the ability of these
authorities to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will demonstrate its
ability to achieve  implementation of the forestry management
measures using the approach described in its coastal nonpoint
program.  Within one year, the Commonwealth will identify
measurable results to be achieved during this three year timeframe.

RATIONALE:  The Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) is the
lead State agency for implementing forestry nonpoint source
programs in Virginia and has published a BMP manual entitled
Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality in
Virginia.  Practices in this BMP manual are in conformity with the
6217(g) management measures for forestry.

For its statewide forestry nonpoint source program, Virginia uses a
variety of voluntary and educational forestry programs to ensure
that forestry management measures are implemented, backed by
the Commonwealth's recently enacted Silvicultural Water Quality
Law.  Under section 10.1-1181.2(B) of this law, the State Forester
has the authority to issue special orders (e.g., stop-work orders,
corrective actions, and assessment of civil penalties for non-
compliance) against any owner or operator conducting or allowing
the conduct of any silvicultural activity in a manner which is
causing or likely to cause pollution.

In Virginia's response to threshold review comments from NOAA
and EPA (Appendix A of the program submittal), Virginia
describes two case histories of how the Silvicultural Water Quality
Law has been used to ensure implementation of forestry BMPs. 
Virginia has also included information in the program submittal on
compliance rates for forestry BMPs.  In order to meet the condition
above, Virginia needs to relate existing compliance survey
information on forestry BMPs to implementation of the 6217(g)
management measures for forestry.

In accordance with Section 4.2.10 of the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations,
"Silvicultural activities in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas are
exempt from the regulations provided that silvicultural operations
adhere to water quality protection procedures prescribed by the
Department of Forestry in its 'Best Management Practices
Handbook for Forestry Operations'."  Forestry operations that fail
to adhere to the Forestry BMP manual are subject to the provisions
of the local CBPA ordinance requirements.  However, as described
in the program submittal, the only local ordinance requirement that
can be applied to forestry operations is the requirement for a 100
foot vegetative buffer along all tidal wetlands, tidal shores,
tributary streams, and nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow
and contiguous to RPAs.  This limits the ability of this authority to
ensure implementation of the forestry management measures.

Virginia identifies other authorities, including Virginia's Seed Tree
Law (Sec. 10.1-1163, et seq.), Debris in Streams Law (Sec. 62.1-
194.2, et seq.), Oil Spill Statute (Art. 11, Sec. 62.1-44.34) and
Pesticide Control Act (Sec. 3.1-249.27, et seq.) that implement
specific elements of the forestry management measures.

IV.  URBAN

A.   NEW DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except Virginia's program
does not include management measures to reduce total suspended
solids in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance outside of
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.  Virginia's program includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation,
except for total suspended solids outside of Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures and enforceable policies and
mechanisms to reduce total suspended solids in conformity with
the 6217(g) guidance outside of Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Areas but within the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Section 4.2.8 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area Designation and Management Regulations establishes
stormwater management criteria for any use, development or
redevelopment within CBPAs.  For development, post-
development nonpoint source pollution runoff load shall not
exceed the pre-development load based upon average land cover
conditions.  For redevelopment, the regulations require a reduction
of 10% for nonpoint source pollution in runoff compared to the
existing load unless the site is already served by water quality
BMPs, in which case the post-development runoff may not exceed
existing conditions.  These requirements are in conformity with the
first element of the new development management measure for
areas within CBPAs.  The Virginia Stormwater Management
Regulations (VR 215-02-00) include both water quality and water
quantity criteria, but these regulations are required to be
implemented only for State agency projects and in localities that
have enacted local stormwater management programs.  Virginia
estimates that between 9 and 14 localities have established local
stormwater management programs and the Commonwealth will be
working both to further assess these programs and encourage
development of other local stormwater ordinances.  Virginia may
also wish to assess the potential for local participation in the
development of tributary strategies as a means to encourage
additional local governments to develop formal stormwater
management programs.

Under the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Sec. 10.1-560, et.
seq., Code of Virginia), Virginia requires an erosion and sediment
control plan for land disturbing activities of 10,000 square feet or
more.  As described on page 5-8 of the program submittal, the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (VR 625-02-
00) further require that properties and waterways downstream from
development sites shall be protected from increases in volume,
velocity and peak flow rate of stormwater for the designated
frequency storm. Within Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, the
erosion and sediment control provisions described above are
required for disturbed sites greater than 2,500 square feet.  This
requirement meets the second element of the new development
management measure.

     B.   WATERSHED PROTECTION AND EXISTING
     DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for identifying
priority watershed pollutant reduction opportunities and a schedule
for implementing appropriate controls, and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for existing development by identifying priority
watershed pollutant reduction opportunities and a schedule for
implementing appropriate controls.

RATIONALE:   The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management
Regulations require that localities within Tidewater, Virginia
designate Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management
Areas.  The designation of these land types serves to avoid
conversion of areas susceptible to erosion and preserves areas that
provide important water quality benefits.  Section 5.6.A of the
Regulations further requires that local governments review and
revise their comprehensive plans to ensure that development is
sited to protect the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural
drainage systems.

Virginia's program addresses the elements of the existing
development management measures for limiting destruction of
natural conveyance systems and buffers along water bodies and
their tributaries.  The Stormwater Management Act encourages
watershed planning, but it does not provide a schedule or
watershed planning criteria.  CBPA regulations specify nonpoint
source pollutant removal and reduction requirements for
redevelopment activities subject to the development planning
process, but it does not establish a program to reduce nonpoint
source pollution from existing development.  As described in
Virginia's response to threshold review comments from NOAA
and EPA (Appendix A of the program submittal), the Chesapeake
Bay Local Assistance Board review process requires localities to
identify specific strategies and timeframes for implementation of
comprehensive plans.  Virginia may be able to use this process to
identify opportunities for pollutant reduction and a schedule for
implementation.  NOAA and EPA also suggest that Virginia assess
the potential for using the nonpoint source pollution reduction
priorities and schedules established for the tributary strategies as a
means to address existing development.

     C.   SITE DEVELOPMENT and CONSTRUCTION SITE
     EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management
Regulations require that localities within Tidewater Virginia
designate Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management
Areas.  Localities must further adopt specific performance criteria
that apply to these areas, including restrictions on development
within sensitive areas and preparation of water quality impact
assessments for all proposed development within RPAs.  Section
4.2.5 of the Regulations requires that impervious cover from new
development be minimized and that redevelopment achieve
pollutant reduction, which can be achieved by restoring previously
impervious portions of the site to vegetative cover.

Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Act requires preparation
of an erosion control plan for land disturbing activities throughout
the 6217 management area.  Within CBPAs, erosion and sediment
control plans are required for any land disturbance in excess of
2,500 square feet. Regulations covering pre-development activities
require that (1) cut and fill slopes be designed and constructed to
minimize erosion and (2) properties and waterways downstream
from development sites be protected from sediment deposition,
erosion and damage caused by increases in runoff flows.



     D.   CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL CONTROL

FINDING:  Virginia's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Virginia's
program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for construction site chemical control.

RATIONALE:  Virginia's Solid Waste Management Act provides
authority for the management of solid wastes, including elements
for waste reduction, recycling and reuse, storage, treatment, and
disposal.  Under the Act, permits are required for the transport,
storage and treatment of hazardous wastes.  Virginia's
Occupational Safety and Health Standards for the Construction
Industry establish a strong program for the management of
flammable materials.  The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook includes nutrient management planning considerations
and seeding specifications for grasses, but does not directly address
the application, generation, migration, storage and disposal of
construction site chemicals.  In supplemental material provided by
the Commonwealth, Virginia suggests the development and
distribution of informational material regarding the proper
handling, storage and disposal of construction chemicals.  Such
materials could be the used to meet the management measure.

     E.   NEW and OPERATING ONSITE DISPOSAL
     SYSTEMS (OSDS)

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except it does not include
measures to establish adequate separation distance between new
OSDS and ground water closely hydrologically connected to
surface and limit nitrogen loadings from new and operating OSDS
near nitrogen limited surface waters.  Virginia's program includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures for adequate separation distance
between new OSDS and ground water closely hydrologically
connected to surface water and limiting nitrogen loadings from
new and operating OSDS near nitrogen limited surface waters in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance new and operating OSDS
management measures.

RATIONALE:  Virginia's Sewage Handling and Disposal
Regulations require that no person or owner shall construct,
operate, expand or modify a sewage disposal or handling system
without a permit.  Permits for new OSDS are issued by the State
Department of Health.  Permits are denied if the State determines
that the proposed system design is inadequate or that the soil,
geological or other conditions preclude the safe and proper
operation of the system.  Minimum separation distance from the
absorption trench bottom to the seasonal high water table for
various soil percolation rates may be as small as two inches.  This
can present a serious risk to ground water and hydrologically
connected surface water.  Within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area, section 4.2.7 of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Designation and Management Regulations requires that all existing
OSDS be pumped out at least once every five years.  Based on
supplemental information provided by Virginia subsequent to the
program submittal, the Commonwealth also manages existing
onsite disposal systems according to risk and potential impact of
failure.  All high maintenance systems (typically aerobic treatment
units and sand filter systems) are inspected four times per year.  All
OSDS located adjacent to shellfish growing waters are inspected
every three years and failures are reported to local health
department offices for repairs.  The Commonwealth does not have
measures to limit nitrogen loadings from new and operating OSDS
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

     F.   POLLUTION PREVENTION

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  As described on pages 5-42 to 5-45 of the
program, Virginia has a number of programs and activities that
address this management measure.  Examples include publications
on lawn and garden activities, the Waste Reduction Assistance
Program, field days, and literature on proper operation and
maintenance of septic systems.

G.   ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for road, highway
and bridge runoff systems, and includes enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation, except for local roads that
are not within Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures for road, highway and bridge
runoff systems in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and
enforceable policies and mechanisms for roads that are not within
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.

RATIONALE:  Virginia's program includes a statewide erosion
and sediment control law and construction standards that provide
consistency with the construction site management measures and
provide enforceable policies and mechanisms, including provision
for inspections and penalties.  With respect to other measures for
roads, highways, and bridges, the Commonwealth provides partial
geographic and programmatic coverage.

In Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, Virginia implements all of
the roads, highways and bridges management measures except the
measure for runoff systems.  Similarly, for State roads under the
jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
Virginia implements all of the roads, highways and bridges
measures except the measure for runoff systems.  VDOT uses its
Roadside Development Manual and Maintenance Division Manual
in implementing its highway projects.  In accordance with section
10.1-603.5 and section 10.1-564(A) of the Code of Virginia,
VDOT submits annual standards and specifications for stormwater
management and erosion and sediment control to the Department
of Conservation and Recreation for review and approval, thereby
ensuring that VDOT complies with State laws and regulations
related to construction and operation of roads, highways and
bridges.

However, for local roads that are neither within Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas nor within VDOT's jurisdiction, Virginia's
program does not include management measures or enforceable
policies and mechanisms.  For these roads, local governments may,
but are not required to, adopt storm water management programs. 
Similarly, in all cases, implementation of the runoff systems
management measure is optional.  Virginia may wish to assess the
potential for using the tributary strategies as a means to identify
priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities for
existing roads and establish schedules for implementing
appropriate controls.  Alternatively, as described in supplemental
information, the Commonwealth has suggested that it may further
examine the extent to which roads that are not subject to existing
programs have or are reasonably anticipated to have a significant
impact on the coastal waters of Virginia.

V.   MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance except for the stormwater
runoff, fish waste, and boat operation measures, and includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for stormwater runoff, fish waste, and boat operation.

RATIONALE:  The combination of the Department of
Environmental Quality's Virginia Water Protection Permit
program, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
submerged lands and tidal wetlands permit program, Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act, and Virginia Department of Health sanitary
facility permit programs for marinas and boat moorings meet the
siting and design management measures, except for storm water
runoff from hull maintenance areas.  State permit requirements
include protection of water quality and habitat and identification of
specific methods used for shoreline stabilization.  The Department
of Health and VMRC have published excellent guidance with
criteria to be followed in developing site plans, sanitary facilities
and pumpouts, and permit applications.  Although these criteria
include plans for efficient removal of sand blasting material, paint
chips, and other by-products of maintenance operations, in addition
to BMPs to control runoff for new and expanding marinas, no
similar program elements are described for hull maintenance from
existing marinas.

The Virginia Water Protection Permit program, solid waste
management program, and sanitary regulatory inspection program
provide conformity with the operation and maintenance
management measures, except for the fish waste and boat operation
measures.  Requirements in permits include proper waste disposal,
spill prevention, containment, and countermeasure plans; bilge
pumping conditions, automatic shutoff valves on fueling facilities,
and in-water maintenance conditions.  As described on page 49 of
Virginia's response to threshold review comments (Appendix A of
the program submittal) boat moorings (including marina slips) are
inspected each year by the Department of Health to determine if
onshore facilities and pumpouts are available and in proper
working order.  Virginia also encourages marinas and boaters to
dispose of waste properly through marina and boater education
programs.  

The proper disposal of fish wastes, however, is not specifically
identified in the joint permit application, the solid waste program,
or in boater education.  The boat operation measure no-wake zones
are established for safety, not habitat protection.  In supplemental
information provided subsequent to the program submittal,
Virginia has suggested that fish waste may not present significant
adverse effects to coastal waters, though practices for proper fish
waste management may be included in a Marina BMP manual to
be developed.  There is also recently passed legislation regarding
boat wakes and potential for streambank erosion.  The
Commonwealth may be able to provide further details on these two
issues in order to address the condition.

Virginia ensures implementation of the measures through Virginia
Water Protection Permits for construction and operation of marinas
in navigable waters (VR. 680-15-02); Tidal Wetlands Permits
(Code Sections 28.2-1300); sanitary facility permits (Code
Sec.32.1-246); and related compliance inspections, provisions for
penalties and fines, and general authority such as solid waste
management rules which make casting of any garbage or waste into
waters illegal.  No-wake zones are enforced by marine police with
citations.

     VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION

FINDINGS:  Virginia's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the
management measures; except, Virginia's program does not
include:  (1) a process to improve surface water quality and restore
instream and riparian habitat through the operation and
maintenance of existing modified channels; (2) management
measures to manage the operation of dams to protect surface water
quality and instream and riparian habitat and to assess nonpoint
source problems resulting from excessive surface water
withdrawals; (3) management measures for chemical control at
dams; and (4) a process to identify and develop strategies to solve
existing nonpoint source problems caused by streambank or
shoreline erosion that do not come up for review under existing
permit authorities.  For protection of surface water quality and
instream and riparian habitat from the effects of dams, Virginia has
identified back-up enforceable policies and mechanisms, but has
not yet demonstrated the ability of these authorities to ensure 
implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITIONS:  Within three years, Virginia will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat
(through operation and maintenance of existing modified
channels), the operation of dams, chemical control at dams, and
streambank or shoreline erosion.  Within one year, Virginia will
develop a strategy (in accordance with Section XIV, page 17) to
ensure implementation of the management measures to protect
surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat from the
effects of dams.

RATIONALE:  Under the Virginia Water Protection Permit Act
(Sec. 62.1-44.15.5 of the Code of Virginia), Virginia requires
permits for channelization projects, and permit applications are
reviewed on a case-by-case basis for impacts on water quality and
habitat.  Virginia's program does not contain a process to identify
opportunities to improve surface water quality and instream and
riparian habitat through operation and maintenance of existing
modified channels.  In discussions with Virginia subsequent to the
program submittal, the Commonwealth described a Riparian
Restoration Initiative that is underway.  This activity may be
applicable to the instream and riparian habitat restoration
management measure and we encourage Virginia to provide
additional details on the initiative.

Virginia's program implements management measures for erosion
and sediment control at dams through the Erosion and Sediment
Control Law, which requires approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan prior to land disturbing activities.  As described above,
the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook includes
nutrient management planning considerations and seeding
specifications for grasses, but does not directly address the
application, generation, migration, storage and disposal of
construction site chemicals.  Virginia can ensure implementation of
the management measures for chemical and pollutant control at
dams through several laws regulating the handling and disposal of
solid waste, hazardous waste, pesticides, discharge of oil and other
contaminants into Virginia's waters; and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Law, which applies vegetative best management practices
to disturbed areas.

Virginia adds conditions to Virginia Water Protection Permits to
protect surface water quality and instream habitat during dam
construction.   However, Virginia's program does not include
management measures to protect surface water quality and
instream and riparian habitat from the effects of existing dams, or
to identify and develop strategies for significant nonpoint source
problems from excessive surface water withdrawals.  Virginia
Water Protection Permits issued for impoundments or withdrawals
can, but are not required to, contain conditions to maintain
instream flows, and protect fish and wildlife habitat, and Virginia
needs to demonstrate the ability of this authority to ensure 
implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

To implement management measures for eroding shorelines and
streambanks, Virginia generally requires Virginia Water Protection
Permits for projects involving shoreline or streambank
stabilization, and gives preference to vegetative solutions and
proper design of engineering structures.  Setbacks are established
in sensitive areas to help protect shoreline features with nonpoint
source functions, and buffer zones for infiltration of surface runoff 
help protect shorelines from uses of the adjacent shorelands.  But
Virginia program does not have a process to identify and develop
strategies to solve existing nonpoint problems caused by
streambank or shoreline erosion that do not come up for review
under existing permit authorities.

     VII. WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED
     TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  The Chesapeake Bay Protection Act requires local
governments to designate Resource Protection Areas, including
tidal wetlands, nontidal wetlands contiguous to tidal shores, other
lands deemed to be significant to the protection of State waters,
and a 100 foot buffer area landward of these features.  In addition,
the VMRC, through the Coastal Primary Sand Dunes Management
Program (Sec. 28.2-1400 through 28.2-1420 Code of Virginia);
Submerged Lands Management Program (Sec. 28.2-1200 through
28.2-1213 Code of Virginia); and Wetlands Management Program
(Sec. 28.2-1300 through 28.2-1320 Code of Virginia) reviews the
tidal wetland and sand dune permitting decisions of local wetlands
boards charged with administering local wetlands program.
 
The Virginia Water Protection Permit Program promotes
restoration of wetlands and riparian areas by requiring restoration
for mitigation of wetlands loss or degradation.  The Shoreline
Erosion Advisory Service also promotes techniques involving
marsh creation.  Virginia's agricultural cost-share program, the
stormwater program and the Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service,
all provide technical assistance on the proper design and
installation of vegetative treatment systems.

          VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING:  Virginia's program identifies mechanisms to improve
coordination among Commonwealth agencies and between
Commonwealth and local officials.

RATIONALE:  The program submittal describes a number of
administrative coordination mechanisms, including committees,
memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and joint program
administration.  The Department of Conservation and Recreation
(DCR) is the lead agency for nonpoint source pollution control
under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act of 1987 and Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990.  The Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) is responsible for the enforcement of water quality
standards and monitoring.  The Commonwealth submitted a 1990
MOU in which DCR and DEQ agreed to cooperate in the
management of nonpoint source pollution control programs.  The
Commonwealth also submitted copies of five additional
administrative coordination mechanisms currently being used by
DCR to facilitate cooperative efforts in managing nonpoint source
pollution.  

The program submittal outlines activities being fostered by the
Commonwealth's participation in the multi-jurisdictional
Chesapeake Bay Program.  These include the development of
strategies to restore the living resources of each of the Bay's
tributaries.  The program submittal also identifies two interagency
committees:  one established by DCR to help coordinate ongoing
and planned nonpoint source activities; and the other established
by DEQ to help coordinate implementation of the Virginia Coastal
Resources Management Program.

     IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING:  Virginia's program provides opportunities for public
participation in the development and implementation of the coastal
nonpoint program. 

RATIONALE:  The program submittal describes a variety of
activities that provide opportunities for public participation in the
development of the program and afford the opportunity for
continued involvement during implementation.  The DCR
established an ad hoc advisory committee to help ensure that public
and private interests had the opportunity to participate in the
program's development.  The advisory committee had over sixty
members that represented State, regional, and local interests.  

The DCR also utilized five working groups during the
development of the nonpoint program.  These groups addressed the
five major source categories (Agriculture, Forestry, Urban Areas,
Marina and Boat Operation, and Hydromodification and Wetlands,
Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems).  As was the
case of the ad hoc advisory committee, the working groups had
representation from a diverse set of local, regional, and statewide
interests that included both private and governmental
organizations.  The Commonwealth sponsored a series of public
meetings during the program's development.  Three of these
meetings focused specifically on the Agriculture source category
while others addressed the entire scope of the nonpoint source
program.  

The DEQ developed and published information designed to
educate the public in the area of nonpoint source pollution and the
Commonwealth's response to problems associated with nonpoint
source pollution.  Educational articles were published in
newsletters and other publications, included among these were the
Coastal Newsletter, Water News, and Grassroots.  

     X.   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FINDING:  Virginia has included programs that will provide
technical assistance to local governments and the public for
implementing additional management measures except that the
Commonwealth does not currently provide sufficient technical
assistance for marina development and operation.

CONDITION:  Within two years, the Commonwealth will include
in its program technical assistance activities to address marina
development and operation.

RATIONALE:  Virginia has identified 27 programs which may
provide technical and financial assistance to local governments and
the public.  The programs, offered by a number of governmental
agencies, are described in Chapter 12 of the program submittal. 
The DEQ provides thirteen technical and financial assistance
programs that address issues such as: cost-share for agricultural
best management practices, erosion and sediment control
ordinances, flood prevention and protection, and shoreline erosion
advisory services.  The Department of Environmental Quality
offers three technical and financial assistance programs as does the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.  The remaining eight
programs are housed in the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department, Forestry, Game and Inland Fisheries, the Marine
Resources Commission, and the Taxation Department.

The program submittal identifies a gap in Virginia's technical
assistance network.  The network does not provide technical
assistance for marina development and operation.  The Virginia
Marine Resources Commission is developing a technical assistance
program to address the issue and plans to begin implementation
during FY 96.

     XI.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

FINDING:  Virginia's program provides for the identification of
additional management measures and continuing revision of
management measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases
where (g) measures are fully implemented but water quality threats
or impairments persist.

RATIONALE: In the discussion of monitoring and tracking
(Chapter 11 of the program submittal) Virginia describes several
programs that could be used in the identification of need for and
prescription of additional management measures.  These programs
range from those based on individual watersheds, such as the
Polecat Creek Water Quality Monitoring Project and Blackwater
River Demonstration Project to the statewide Virginia Geographic
Information System.

     XII. CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS

FINDING:  Virginia's program includes a process for the
continuing identification of critical coastal areas adjacent to
impaired and threatened coastal waters.

RATIONALE:  The Commonwealth, through the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, has
required that local jurisdictions identify Resource Management
Areas and Resource Protection Areas.  The regulations require that
local governments designate features which, if improperly used,
could result in the degradation of Resource Protection Areas. 
Additionally Virginia utilizes its Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report (March, 1993) to evaluate and identify
priorities within its 47 hydrologic units.  The Report, which
examined 491 watersheds, identified 98 that exhibited a high
potential for nonpoint source pollution.

          XIII.     MONITORING

FINDING:  Virginia's program does not include a plan to assess
over time the success of the management measures in reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Virginia will include in its
program a plan that enables the Commonwealth to assess over time
the extent to which implementation of management measures is
reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

RATIONALE:  Virginia describes several monitoring programs
but has not yet demonstrated how they could be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's coastal nonpoint
program.  These efforts are only partially described (pages 11-1 to
11-12) and include:  the Polecat Creek, Nomini Creek, and Owl
Run watershed projects; the Department of Forestry monitoring
program; Chesapeake Bay monitoring; the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program; citizen monitoring efforts; and BMP tracking
efforts.  It appears that Virginia could use these or a subset of these
efforts to meet section 6217 monitoring needs, but the
Commonwealth has not yet described in adequate detail how these
monitoring programs and techniques will be applied to assess over
time whether the management measures are reducing pollution
loads and improving water quality.  For example, while the Polecat
Creek project appears to have potential for evaluating the
effectiveness of the new development and watershed protection
management measures, the Commonwealth does not specify that
these or other 6217(g) management measures will be evaluated as
part of this effort.  Similarly, there is no link made between the
6217(g) management measures and the agricultural BMPs in the
Nomini Creek project.  This lack of linkage to the 6217(g)
management measures, either alone or in combination, is a
significant gap in the Commonwealth's proposed monitoring
program for its coastal nonpoint program.

Virginia should include in its plan information regarding the
number and location of monitoring stations, the types and
frequency of water quality data being collected, and the analytic
approaches that will be employed in conjunction with existing
monitoring efforts to assess the success of management measures
in achieving water quality objectives.  The Commonwealth should
include some inexpensive tracking of management measure
implementation in conjunction with water quality monitoring, as
such information is needed to assess the success of management
measures in achieving water quality objectives.

     XIV. STRATEGY AND EVALUATION FOR BACK-UP
     AUTHORITIES

Within one year, Virginia will develop a strategy to implement the
management measures for agriculture and the protection of surface
water quality and instream and riparian habitat throughout the 6217
management area.  This strategy will include a description and
schedule for the specific steps the Commonwealth will take to
ensure implementation of the management measures; describe how
existing or new authorities can be used to ensure implementation
where voluntary efforts are unsuccessful; and identify measurable
results which, if achieved, will demonstrate the Commonwealth's
ability to achieve  implementation of the management measures
using the described approach.

     Virginia will also develop and apply credible survey tools
to demonstrate the ability of the Commonwealth's approach to
achieve  implementation for these management measures.  The use
of credible assessment techniques is necessary in order for NOAA
and EPA to evaluate, at the end of the three year period described
in the March 16, 1995 guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the
Commonwealth's approach has been successful or whether new,
more specific authorities will be needed.