Loading...
CEA 11-19-09 Meeting Agenda4 CEA Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Conservation Easement Authority FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, CEA Secretary 0/ - SUBJECT: November Meeting DATE: November 12, 2009 The Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority will be meeting on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 8.00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisor's Executive Session Meeting Room in the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The Conservation Easement Authority will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1. September 24, 2009 Meeting Minutes 2. Farmland Preservation in the County 3. Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal Period Update 4. Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations 5. Fundraising Discussion 6. Next meeting date December 17, 2009 7. Other Please contact the Planning Department (540-665-5651) if you are unable to attend this meeting. ERL/bad C/© Frederick County Planning Department, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 (540-665-5651) Page 2 CEA November Meeting Agenda November 12, 2009 Farmland Land Preservation in the County This past June, the CEA, Frederick County, and the Potomac Conservancy partnered to acquire a conservation easement on the 89 -acre Snapp property. This was the first conservation easement acquired by the CEA and the County. Since that acquisition, staff has received various inquiries abort how many acres are currently in some form of preservation within the County. Staff has assembled various resources to arrive at an approximation for acres preserved within the County. We considered actual conservation easements held by various organizations (CEA, Potomac Conservancy, Virginia Outdoor Foundation, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Potomac Appalachian Trail Club, etc.), as well as parcels that have no development ability due to it being a Rural Preservation Tract (which results from a County subdivision procedure). In total, we counted close to 7,600 acres. This figure does not account for the United States Forest Service (USFS) property in the Star Tannery area of the County. Maps of these parcels are attached. Agricultural and Forestal Dsitriet Renewal Period The Code of Virginia characterizes the purpose of an Agricultural District Program as a means to "conserve, protect, and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products, and conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for aesthetic purposes". Frederick County currently has three Agricultural and Forestal Districts: South Frederick; Double Church Road; and Red Bud. The South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District is the oldest in the County, having been established in 1980; it currently contains 5,879 acres. The Red Bud District was created more recently (in 2007) and contains 904 acres. The Double Church Road District was created in 1985, and currently contains 1,029 acres. Frederick County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts are renewed every five years; 2010 is the next renewal period. January 29, 2010 has been established as the deadline by which property owners must make application to maintain their participation in the District, or to join the District. While the CEA does not have a direct role in the renewal of the Districts, it was deemed appropriate to update the CEA about the renewal period efforts. Attached is a snippet from the Agricultural and Forestal District webpage for additional information. Page 3 CEA November Meeting Agenda November 12, 2009 Virginia Starmwater Management Regulations At the September CEA meeting, the County's Deputy Director of Public Works, Joe Wilder, updated the CEA on the status of the new stormwater management regulations being developed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. Mr. Wilder offered a detailed description of the draft regulations, and how upon implementation it would indirectly affect growth management within the County. It was conveyed that the new regulations would create additional costs for urban development, which could result in the redirection of the residential developer's attention to the rural areas where the cost of development was less regulated and less costly. Staff has received a copy of a letter from the Save the Bay supporting the state's draft storinwater regulations, Offering an explanation and response to a number of questions about the regulations, it was believed to be appropriate to pass along the letter the CEA. The letter is attached. DRAFT MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY Held in the Executive Session Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 24, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. PRESENT: Diane Kearns, Chairman; Ritchie Wilkins, Vice -Chairman; Jim Lawrence, Treasurer; Robert Solenberger; John Gavitt; Todd Lodge; and Charles Triplett, Planning Commission Liaison. ABSENT: John Marker; and Gene Fisher, Board of Supervisors Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary; and Bev Dellinger, Secretary III. OTHER Joe Wilder, Deputy Director of Public Works Department. PUBLIC MEETING: 1. Minutes. On a motion made by Mr, Solenberger and seconded by Mr. Gavitt, the minutes of the August 27, 2009 meeting were approved. 2. Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations Update. Mr. Wilder explained that this regulation is coming from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. The program set up by the Clean Water Act was regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), but in 2004 the Virginia General Assembly passed House Bill 1177, sponsored by L. Preston Bryant, and that transferred responsibility of permitting stormwater management MS4's from the DEQ to the DCR. Mr. Wilder stated this is being driven by the impacts on the Chesapeake Bay by development and agricultural run-off. The State not only transferred the responsibility of issuing stormwater permits to localities, they decided to change the way that the calculations are done; they are dramatically stiffening the requirements on the development community for reducing nutrients. Mr. Wilder continued that this new program will culminate with Frederick County issuing stormwater permits. Anyone who does development in this county will have to get a stormwater permit and they will have to design to the new standard. Frederick County must create a program, approved by the DCR, which will include issuance of the permit, calculate and charge permit fees, review plans, inspect at the beginning and the end of each job, enforce the standard, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP) in perpetuity. A data base must also be created that allows us to remember who has and where is a BMP. All the while, this information must be turned in to the State because the State will receive 28% of each permit fee. Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -126- Minutes 126 - Minutes of September 24, 2009 The regulation is hinging upon a calculation of phosphorous removal, which is present in water. We are expected to input this calculation into a spreadsheet, by subdivision and/or by each lot, to figure how many pounds of phosphorous will come off the property. We then have to come up with BMPs to reduce it to a small level. For example, if the property is calculated to produce five pounds of phosphorous and it should only be two pounds, we have to treat three pounds. The State is saying if we put in bio -filters and rain gardens and create wetlands, that will remove the phosphorous. Many people have argued that there isn't that much phosphorous in the rain water or the run-off. If you remove phosphorous, you're also removing nitrogen and all the other heavy metals through these BMPs. Mr. Wilder further stated that this regulation is going to impact land use in a big way. You cannot get the numbers to work with curb, gutter and underground storm sewer — we can't get the numbers low enough on a development to get the phosphorous out. And that is in direct conflict with our subdivision ordinance regarding urban development. Everything is based on curb, gutter and underground stormwater because no one wants big drainage ditches and drainage problems. Developers may consider that if it isn't going to help them to be in a subdivision, the easiest thing to do is build in the rural areas. If this regulation gets approved, developers will have a difficult time building in urban areas because the numbers are so restrictive and it will be easier and less expensive to build in rural areas. The impact of the cost of the current regulation on one job, Greenwood Mills Elementary School, is $175,000; the new regulation would cost $575,000. That's just for the initial installation of the amount of BMPs needed and it would cost $20,000 to $30,000 per year to maintain those BMPs. Due to opposition because of urban sprawl, the State made some changes to the regulation, but those changes have not been voted on yet. Another argument against this regulation is that the State has pushed it through; it's been a political situation and if it isn't approved this year under the current administration, it probably won't get approved. Mr. Wilder said that Frederick County, through an approved program, can come up with a methodology that would allow a less restrictive phosphorous removal number in urban development and that's what he's striving for. We need to come up with factors, based on the number of housing units per acre, floor to area (FAR) ratio, and level of imperviousness brown filter mediation mix used, and come up with a methodology that the State will approve so that we will be able to enforce and still encourage urban growth. This will require creating a new subdivision ordinance as well. The only way to get the numbers to meet is to change the way developments Iook. To get the phosphorous removal, we have to start as soon as the water hits the roof or parking lot and run that through what is called a treatment train. Roof water will have to go into a rain barrel or cistern and that water would go into a grass filter strip and a bio - retention area. Part of the challenge is educating the development community as well as the engineers. If an area has already been disturbed, we're going to encourage redevelopment and in -fill. The State realizes that some sites can't reach these standards, so they developed a nutrient offset proposal. The amount of phosphorous is calculated on the job and the State will assign that a value; they've decided that a pound of phosphorous is worth $15,000. So if the developer can't meet the standard, the untreated phosphorous will be assessed the $15,000 per pound fee. The fee will either go to Frederick County where we develop concepts that we use in other places in Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -127- Minutes 127 - Minutes of September 24, 2009 that watershed to do nutrient management. Another option is the development writes a check to the State and it goes into the 'Virginia Stormwater Fund and that money will probably never come back to the locality. In summary, the issues and concerns involved when this regulation is approved are: Probable rural development rather than urban development. Need to regulate stormwater and develop a program in Frederick County. Need to create a new ordinance and get it approved. Need to educate the public, engineers and developers. Develop a nutrient management program. Maintain BMPs annually in perpetuity. Presidential edict requiring states to provide EPA with a program of how each state is going to deal with nutrients. 3. Fundraising Discussion. Ms. Kearns stated she has talked to Mr. John Truban, Attorney, concerning the voluntary $1 donation she spoke of at the August 27, 2009 meeting. Mr. Truban doesn't see any legal problem with this and Mr. Rod Williams, Frederick County Attorney, sees it as a tax deductible donation to Frederick County. Mr. Eric Lawrence suggested the CEA put together a proposal for the Board of Supervisor's information and review. Ms. Kearns asked for help in drafting a concept -- Mr. Gavitt, Mr. Jim Lawrence and Mr. Eric Lawrence volunteered. Ms. Kearns mentioned roll -back taxes as potential funding and she will be talking with some of the Supervisors to get their input. Ms. Kearns said the Opequon Village Fair is scheduled for October 17th, and Nve're going to get an article in the Winchester Star about it. The Committee decided to again apply for the State grant money in hopes of being able to come up with federal matching money. Ms. Kearns will meet with the Chairman of the Board to assess appropriateness of returning to the Board at this time for a grant application. 4. Other The next meeting is scheduled for October 22, 2009 at 8:00 am. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Kearns, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority -128- Minutes 128 - Minutes of September 24, 2009 Frederick County, VA -- Planning and Development The Department Of PRanwing & Development Agricultural and Forestal Districts Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester,VA 22601 540-665-5651 Email Us If you don't know which district your in Click here. Land in an AFD may NOT be subdivided. 2010 is an Agricultural and Forestal District membership renewal and enrollment year Apply to join an Agricultural & Forestal District by the January 29, 2010 deadline. [Click here to Download the Red Bud District Application] rClick here to Download the Double Church District Application] [Click here to Download the South Frederick District Application] The State Code of Virginia characterizes the purpose of an Agricultural District Program as a means to Page 1 of 3 "Conserve, Protect, and Encourage the development and improvement of agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products, and conserve and protect agricultural and forestal Iands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for aesthetic purposes." Frederick County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts are renewed every five years. 2010 is the next renewal period. Frederick County established its first Agricultural and Forestal District in 1980 Additional Districts were created in years after: Agricultural and Forestal District Year Created Current Acreage (as of 2009) South Frederick 1980 5879 (apprx) Double Church 1985 1029 (apprx) Red Bud 2007 904 (apprx) Frederick County supports the Agricultural and Forestal District program, and is committed to working with district landowners to preserve the rural and agricultural character of the County. For more information regarding the Ag District Program call 540-665-5651. http://www.co.frederick.va.us/planning/agfd/agfd.aspx 11/12/2009 Frederick County, VA -- Planning and Development Page 2 of 3 The Agricultural District Advisory Committee is charged with recommending applicants for membership into an Ag District. The Committee reviews all applications based on the following criteria, established by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC)and Board of Supervisors. • Applications for geographically eligible parcels of less than 20 acres meet the requirements for inclusion in an Ag District by filing a forest management and/or land management plan. The management plan is an agreement to achieve agricultural, forestal or environmental stewardship use. • Applications for geographically eligible parcels greater than 20 acres must include a description, prepared by the landowner, of the activities that constitute agricultural, forestal or environmental stewardship use to meet the requirements for inclusion in an Ag District. Questions and Answers.... What is an Agricultural and Forestal District? An Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD) is a voluntary aggregation of land holdings that totals at least 200 acres in one parcel or several contiguous parcels that will be used as rural conservation zones reserved for the production of agricultural products, timber, and the maintenance of open space land as important economic and environmental resource. What is the legal basis for these Districts? The Agricultural and Forestal District program is a result of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act of 1977 (AFDA). It is found in Title 15. 1, Chapter 36, Sections 15.1-1506 through 15.1-1513 of the Code of Virginia. (http:; Ie; l.statc.va.us/000/src.htrri) Why was it created? The General Assembly created the Act to encourage local governments and landowners to unite in protecting and enhancing agricultural and forestal land as environmental and economic resources. How do I join a District? Any interested landowner carr obtain an Application for the creation of or addition to an Agricultural and Forestal District from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The Districts are renewed every five years; 2010 is the next renewal period. Applicants for the 2010 renewal must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development by January 29, 2010. Is acceptance into an Agricultural and Forestal District automatic once an application is submitted? No. All applications are reviewed for eligibility. To be eligible, a parcel must be within 1 mite of a 200 -acre "Core" of a District, or immediately adjacent to a parcel in the District. The applications are then reviewed by the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) in accordance with criteria listed in the State Code (15.2-4306). The ADAC gives its recommendation to the Planning Commission. After holding a public hearing on the application, the Planning Commission forwards its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors holds a final public bearing, and makes the decision to accept or deny the application. The Agricultural and Forestal District Act specifies that the process from the completed landowner application to the final decision must not exceed I80 days. The process typically takes about 90 days in Frederick County and involves the three meetings outlined above. Targeted adoption date for the District renewal period we're in today is April 2010. Do I have to be in an Agricultural. and Forestal District in order to farm my land, have livestock, etc? No. The Zoning Ordinance governs the uses of your property. Enrollment in an Agricultural and Forestal District provides some additional right -to -faun protections beyond what the Zoning may permit. If I sell my property do I need to advise the new owner that the property is in the District? Yes. Agricultural and Forestal Districts encumber the land. Selling or transferring ownership does not remove tire encumbrance. It is very important that the new owner understand they are bound to the same restrictions and will receive the same benefits of all property in the District. Many new buyers think they can subdivide and then learn they cannot due to restrictions imposed by inclusion in the District. They may incur expensive subdivision costs with no chance of completing the division until the District term expires. What restrictions are our my property in an Agricultural and Forestal District? The Agricultural and Forestal District Program is a voluntary program that landowners join, agreeing not to develop their land for the term of the District. If you are considering subdividing your land (including clustered development), or are considering a boundary line adjustment that would result in parcel acreage below the subdivision minimum of the district, http://www.co.frederick.va.us/planning/agfd/agfd.aspx 11/12/2009 Frederick County, VA -- Planning and Development Page 3 of 3 you are advised not to join a District until after your subdivision or adjustment has been recorded. If your property is in a District now please check the minimum lot size allowed for a subdivision. Those landowners seeking to subdivide or move a boundary line which will result in parcels below the minimum acreage must file an official request to withdraw from the District. Approval of a withdrawal request is not guaranteed. Does being in an Agricultural District reduce my taxes? No. Frederick County has a Land Use Assessment Program that provides for the deferral of real estate taxes on properties that qualify for agricultural, horticultural, forestry or open space uses. Any status change to a parcel enrolled in the Land Use Assessment Program is subject to rollback taxes, penalties, and interest. Contact the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue at 540-665-5680 for further information on the Land Use Program. Do I need to be in an Agricultural and Forestal District to qualify for agricultural, horticultural, or forestry land use? No. The Land Use Assessment Program is a separate program from the Agricultural and Forestal District Program. A landowner must apply for the Land Use Assessment Program and must meet certain qualifying criteria that can be explained by the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue at 540-665-5680. Besides ensuring deferred real estate taxes for those who meet Land Use eligibility requirements, what other benefits come from being in an Agricultural and Forestal District? Additional benefits of being enrolled in an Agricultural and Forestal District include. Protection against local laws unreasonably restricting or prohibiting farm structures and farming practices during the term of the district; and Protection against eminent domain, such as for roadways, where a public review process is required if a minimum of 10 acres is to be taken from a District, or one acre from one parcel in a District. In addition, should the County ever rescind its Land Use Assessment Program, those enrolled in an AFD would be eligible for Land Use under the State's program, provided land eligibility requirements are met. What if I change my mind and -want to withdraw from an Agricultural and Forestal District? Property owners may remove their land from an Ag District at the point at which the District is up for renewal. Between renewal periods, land may be removed from an Ag District based on death of a landowner or good and reasonable cause. Please contact the Department of Planning and Development for withdrawal inquiries. 540-665-5651 http://www.co.frederick.va.us/planning/agfd/agfd.aspx 11/12/2009 \ Frede ck County, VA - Rural reservation Trac 311 5 acres 4Q apprx) gar) 127 ?.�✓� NSPR�RG� tie P _ r - '"•�� ��,�.,� r� 'kin.. �' f 1 � ' _ f (/`�.j , 4 �� (' i ' _ Ly .—`- � �•�. 259 / `,ff /•��r Y�J 1 Rp.: '�./"J _ � �7"',��;,�,,� f � f / r1 •i';S . ? '` Ry� !'-'r•� ate.{ a : J � '� .ir- ��li.'•}r %� ! PINERY, - C J/ 5.0 ' C- !'�• J{.V ^�,' r i� �� . eJQP� � �� � W PARKINS MILL RD ARMEL RD.. •G �' T 277 �Qo R' �_ Via! - try - � Note: 4r Preservadon Data Current as of November 3, - _ Map Created by ' Frederick County Dept of Planning & Deve entO .._ 0 1 2 4 Miles ;� 107 N Kent St, Suite 202 " Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 'A" TME r Jj f Response to Common Concerns about... Proposed Amendments to Virginia's Stormwater Regulations Cleanup of Virginia's rivers and the Chesapeake Bay is being overwhelmed by stormwater pollution—the pollution that runs off the rooftops, lawns, parking lots, and streets to waterways when it rains. In June 2009 the Commonwealth took decisive action to halt this problem by proposing new stormwater regulations that will help ensure a "no -net impact" on water quality as new development takes place. These regulations represent an innovative and equitable means for Virginia to better accommodate both future development and healthy waters. Below are responses to ten common concerns about these new regulations.. 1) New regulations are unnecessary since existing stormwater regulations are sufficient. The existing stormwater regulations were approved 20 years ago. Scientists tell us that progress decreasing pollution from other sources (such as sewage treatment plants and agriculture) is being offset by increasing pollution from urban and suburban landscapes. These developed lands are now responsible for roughly 25% of the nutrient and sediment pollution in the Bay. Outdated regulations and the sheer pace of development have allowed this source of pollution to continue to grow—by 16% between 1985 and 2005. The new regulations integrate the most up-to-date and innovative science, technology, and policy on how to successfully reduce stormwater pollution in 2009 and will help Virginia to meet its commitments to restore the Bay and polluted rivers statewide. 2) individual development sites have improved their performance over the last 20 years so they should not be subject to more regulation. It is true that the majority of pollution sources are doing better than they did 20 years ago. However, despite marked improvement on individual development sites, the rate at which farms and forests are being converted to development has caused the total pollution load from developed lands to increase. It is the pollution load that continues to help fuel degradation of the Bay and our local streams. If land development continues to outpace population growth—as it did by five times from 1990 to 20001—this problem will surely get worse without action. 3) Virginia should focus on larger sources of pollution since new development is only a small part of the problem. Programs are also in place to address the other main sources of pollution. Virginia has passed tough regulations and committed nearly $1 billion to support sewage plant upgrades. The state recently proposed regulations to better control runoff from the land application of poultry litter as fertilizer by farmers. Cost -share programs are also in place to support installation of pollution -reducing best management practices (BMPs) on farms. Municipalities are subject to more stringent requirements for the runoff from existing development that flows into their municipal sewer systems that drain city streets. Air -derived sources of water pollution, such as coal- fired power plants and cars and trucks are required to meet enhanced performance standards. Local requirements are also in place, such as septic tank pump -out rules and no -discharge zones for boats. Since this water pollution is caused by everyone, the solution must include everyone. Every business, every home, every person must do his or her part if we are to restore the health of our waterways. 4) The new regulations were developed without input from interests groups and the public. Development of these new regulations over the last three years represents perhaps the most open and publicly - vetted environmental regulatory action in Virginia's history. The Department of Conservation Et Recreation (DCR) engaged in an unprecedented level of stakeholder outreach and involvement, including over 50 technical advisory committee and public meetings, a series of meetings during which over 400 stormwater practitioners were able to evaluate the regulations, and direct interaction with development, municipal, environmental, private, and other interests. 5) The new regulations are not supported by sufficient science or technical guidance. The regulations are based in the science of the Chesapeake Bay watershed cleanup, which represents one of the most extensive and sophisticated water quality data collection and analysis efforts in the world. Required pollution reductions are pegged to those called for in Bay and tidal rivers cleanup strategies released in 2005. August 2009 Further, DCR retained nationally recognized stormwater experts to create a range of supporting tools for the new regulations before they take effect, including a new spreadsheet compliance tool, up-to-date design specifications for urban BMPs, and a grant -sponsored training program to educate developers and localities. 6) Complying with the new regulations will be too costly for developers. The cost to comply with the new regulations is very site-specific. Independent analysis showed that developers with sufficient training, creativity, and willingness to employ the full range of urban BMPs and consider different site "configurations" (e.g., alter the locations/size of buildings, parking) can comply without a significant increase in costs on most sites. Redevelopment projects were shown to have the greatest potential for increased costs because of space and other site constraints frequently present in urban areas. Economic analyses by Virginia Tech and private consultants concluded that the flexibility to acquire "offsets" (cheaper pollution reductions on nearby properties or farmlands) was a critical tool to further lower costs on sites where costs remain high even after on-site options have been pursued. Offsets are available via a market-based program established by legislation passed in 2009 (HB2168) or through localities that offer offsets via a regional stormwater plan. 7) The new regulations will halt development, cause job loss, or slow recovery of the economy. Such claims are unfounded exaggerations that have no merit. Similar claims regarding the phosphate detergent ban in the 1980s and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in the 1990s, and Stafford County's passage of more stringent stormwater regulations in the 2000s, have proven false. Virginia has continued to be rated the best state in the nation to do business, most recently by CNBC in 2009. Keep in mind that the new regulations will not go into effect for as long as three years, providing considerable time for the current economic downturn to soften. Remember, the pollution that these regulations and other new water quality programs intend to prevent has for years contributed to job loss and economic ruin in waterman and other communities that rely upon clean water for their way of life. 8) The new regulations will cause urban sprawl. There is no evidence that stormwater regulations alone cause urban sprawl. Yet, a wide variety of provisions are available to help ensure that the cost of compliance with the new regulations is not a disincentive for redevelopment. The pollution reduction requirements for redevelopment in the new regulations are less than that called for by EPA, specifically to ensure that they do not create an incentive for sprawl. Next, several other requirements are completely or partially waived for redevelopment projects. Further, redevelopment sites may purchase offsets to mitigate costs as described in item #6 above. There are also existing state and federal programs and incentives that can help ease stormwater and other costs associated with redevelopment, revitalization of blighted or polluted neighborhoods, creating affordable housing, and other projects that benefit both urban communities and water quality. 9) Implementing the new regulations will be too costly for localities. It is recognized that the new regulations will increase costs for some localities. However, the authorizing legislation for Virginia's stormwater program specifically requires creation of a statewide permit fee schedule for regulated development activities that will cover the staffing and budgetary needs for a locality to implement the new regulations. In other words, the program must be "self -funding." Localities are free to supplement their revenue using existing authorities in the Virginia Code (such as creation of a stormwater utility, or collection of proffers) to help cover long-term costs, such as BMP maintenance. Further, the regulations can help reduce costs by preventing new development pollution from flowing into drinking water supplies, municipal sewer systems, or urban streams, adding to water treatment, maintenance, and restoration costs that are already borne by the locality (and often, local taxpayers). For example, restoration of Little Hunting Creek, a creek that flows through a watershed that is 92% developed in Fairfax County, will cost $29 million. 10) Changes to the new regulations and/or delays for further study are necessary. Wholesale changes or any further study of the new regulations is not necessary—it would be completely appropriate to finalize them as proposed. However, stakeholders have suggested minor revisions to address some outstanding concerns that arose after proposal, including allowances for projects approved prior to the effective date of the regulations ("grandfathering") suggested by developers and adding a provision to further encourage redevelopment recommended by the conservation community. Enhancements to the tools supporting the regulation will likely also continue over the next few years before the new regulation takes effect. DCR has indicated it will fully consider all public comments and determine what changes are necessary and appropriate before the new regulations are finalized this fall. August 2009