LOCAL GOVERNING MEMBERS:

Wittman, Robert, Chairman, Westmoreland County Board of Supervisors

Anderson, Robert, Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors

Ball, Walter, Richmond County Board of Supervisors

Crigler, William L., Madison County Board of Supervisors

Davis, Margaret H., Essex County Board of Supervisors

Farmer, R. W., Caroline County Board of Supervisors

Fields, Peter J., Stafford County Board of Supervisors

Grezika, Joseph W., King George County Board of Supervisors

Nixon, Steven, Culpeper County Board of Supervisors

Wilson, Grover, Orange County Board of Supervisors

Yakabouski, Chris, Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors

 

SWCD MEMBERS:

Barber, John, Rappahannock Conservation Council (Alternate)

 

STAFF:

James, Eldon             Ivester, Jean Hamilton         Manster, Stephen     Satterwhite, Jean

 

SPEAKERS:

Mr. Russ Baxter, Assistant Secretary of Natural Resource for the Chesapeake Bay Coordination

Mr. Scott Kudlas, Manager, DEQ Water Supply Planning

 

WAG MEMBERS:

Alan Ramsay, Matt Criblez, Stuart McKenzie, Bruce Boyer, Dudley Pattie, and Paul Howard

   

Call to Order.  Chairman Wittman opened the meeting and after the invocation given by John Barber, the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Crigler.  Determining a quorum was present, Chairman Wittman joined Mr. Farmer in welcoming the group to Caroline County for the meeting.    

 

Approval of Agenda.    The agenda for the meeting was approved as presented upon motion of Mr. Fields, seconded by Mr. Ball and carried unanimously by a voice vote.

 

Adoption of Minutes of December 1, 2004.  Minutes of the December 1, 2004 regular meeting held at the General Assembly Building in Richmond were approved by voice vote upon a motion of Mr. Ball, seconded by Mr. Nixon; Mr. Grezika abstained.

 

Report of Fiscal Agent.    Mr. Manster reviewed the Rappahannock River Basin Cash Statement for FY05.   The statement showed that thru February 28, 2005 revenues collected year to date were $29,808.11 and expenditures totaled $32,286.81, with most localities paying on target.  He noted Middlesex will not be participating in the Commission.  Mr. Manster commented that a report of accounts from the Auditor of Public Accounts will be available for the Commission shortly.   Chairman Wittman requested it be mailed to members for review as soon as it is received.   Upon motion of Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Crigler, the Commission accepted the Fiscal Report as presented unanimously by voice vote.

 

Public Comment.  Chairman Wittman opened the floor for public comment.  There being no speakers, the Public Comment period was closed. 

 

Review of the 2005 General Assembly Session.   Mr. James distributed a list of Rappahannock River & Water Resources Legislation passed during the 2005 General Assembly Session.   He also distributed a copy of legislation passed addressing water quality improvements/cleanup in the Chesapeake Bay.   (Copies of both documents on file in office).  Mr. James presented an overview of actions.  He noted Senator Hanger and Senator Houck had planned to attend today; Senator Houck was unable to come due to illness and Senator Hanger was in Richmond for the Governor’s signing of bills.  Mr. James commented the policy makers, faced with the challenges and costs of cleaning up the Bay to improve water quality, adopted 3 significant bills and one resolution and made additional funds available without creating a new tax as had been proposed.  Passed were HB2777, SB810 and SB1235 which provides funding for biological nutrient removal technology and creates the Water Quality Improvement Restricted Use Fund.  Mr. James pointed out in HB2777, a change in the allocation of money on the nonpoint side to 70% and point side – 30%.   Mr. James also noted HJ640 which was passed, creates a joint subcommittee to study action to provide long term funding for cleanup of the Bay.  This sub committee will identify ways to remove Virginia waters from the dirty water list.  In response to Mr. Ball, Mr. James noted the “flush tax” proposal addressing water quality improvements did not pass.  The budget includes a General Fund appropriation of $50 million for upgrades to point sources

 

Mr. Wilson asked if any information has been collected on how much Pennsylvania adds to the pollution of the Bay.  Mr. James deferred to Mr. Baxter who responded Pennsylvania contributes a lot.   One-half of the fresh water that flows into the Bay comes from the Susquehanna River.  They are in this just like we are, he commented.   They have a loading allocation for nutrients and sediments, they are developing tributary strategies, everything we are doing in Virginia, and they are doing more in Pennsylvania because they have a far greater load to capture.  The difference between Pennsylvania and Virginia is that they are overwhelmingly nonpoint source with more than 90% non point source 10% point source.  In Virginia, the figures are 70% nonpoint, 30% point source.   Mr. Crigler asked what the differences in practices between two states were.  Mr. Baxter said there was not a big difference, that nonpoint source practices are pretty universal, that it is a  matter of scale, in terms of how many more acres are there in order to place those practices on. 

 

Delegate Scott commended Mr. James for giving a very good synopsis on actions taken by the General Assembly.  Referring to the session held last summer by the House and Senate Agricultural & Natural Resources Committees, he felt the awareness really got raised to recognize we were at a point to get serious in terms of financial commitment and the reality of being in a position to have some revenue without creating a new tax.  He believed this commitment will go forward. He called the Commission’s attention to HB 2862 which is a nutrient credit exchange program and felt this bill was one of the most significant piece of legislation passed.

 

Implementation of 2005 Legislative and Budget Actions and the Programmatic Implications.  Mr. Russ Baxter, Assistant Secretary for the Chesapeake Bay Coordination, stated he felt this session of the General Assembly will be seen as the most significant ever with respect to water quality issues in the Chesapeake Bay.  He commented he was pleased by the Assembly’s actions -- we can now move ahead with tools we never had before, he stated.  Mr. Baxter reviewed “where we have been, where we are” thru a visual presentation for the Commission.  An outline of Mr. Baxter’s presentation is as follows:

 

Tributary Strategy: Past Actions

March 2003 – Allocations Agreed to by CBP Partners

April 2003 - Water Quality Criteria Published (EPA)

June 2003- March 2004 – VA Tributary Team activity

April 2004 Public Comment Drafts Released for Comment Period

August 27, 2004 Point Source Revisions Announced by Secretary Murphy

• James and York allocation awaiting final WQ standards
• Use of Capacity with Stringent Treatment
• Orphan load “unallocated”

• January 2005 – Statewide document released

 

Regulatory Proposals: Point Source

Water Quality Standards

--updated, site specific use categories

--criteria for dissolved oxygen, water clarity/SAV & chlorophyll    ADOPTED 3/15/2005 except numerical chlorophyll criteria for James River and dissolved oxygen for Mattaponi and Pamunkey

Regulation for Nutrient Dischargers

--sets technology-based nutrient concentration limits for certain discharges.  Public Comment Period ends in April

Water Quality Planning Regulation

--allocates nutrient loads for significant discharges within each river basin as identified through Tributary Strategies

--establishes trading and offsets program.   Public Comment Period ends in April

 

General Assembly Actions Affecting Tributary Strategies

-Nutrient Credit Trading

-Amendments to the Water Quality Improvement Act

-House Joint Resolution 640

-Amended Biennial Budget

 

Nutrient Credit Exchange HB 2862; SB 1275

SWCB to develop “Watershed General Permit” that contains “WLA” for each facility

-Allows trading within basins for those facilities covered by the permit

-Authorizes Establishment of Nutrient Credit Exchange Association

 

Trading Provisions

-Trading allowed between point sources in a river basin to achieve watershed WLA in accordance with General Permit

-No inter-basin trading

-Trading allowed to achieve annual compliance under certain circumstances

 

WQIA Amendments   HB2777; SB1235 and SB810

-Updates Act (“C2K” and “tributary strategy plans”)

-Statement of Policy “It shall be the policy of the General Assembly to provide annual its share of support ….”

-Requires DEQ to sign grant agreements with significant dischargers

-Requires recommendations on “sufficient and predictable” funding by November 2005

-“Sliding Scale” for point source grants from 35% to 75% based on a ratio

-Additional “priorities” – Agricultural Practices, Pounds of Reduction

 

WQIF Funding Distribution

-Appropriation and Surplus:  Appropriation goes to PS, Surplus 70/30 to NPS/PS (30 PS for PPEA and “state of the art”)

-Surplus and no appropriation or appropriation less than 40% of surplus:  Secretary makes division between PS and NPS (unless budget bill does)

-Surplus and appropriation greater than 40% of surplus:  Appropriation to PS and 70/30 NPS

Maximum 60% of nonpoint to Bay Watershed

 

House Joint Resolution 640

• “Study options to provide a long-term funding source to clean up Virginia's polluted waters, including the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.”
• 8 members = 4 House, 2 Senate (including Money Committee Chairs) plus Secretaries of Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry

 

 2005 Budget Action

-$50 million in next fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 for PS grants ($4 million for CSO).  ---Budget bill adjusts upward funding for NPS grants from end of year (June 30, 2004) surplus -to match 70/30 provisions of HB 2777

-$50 million appropriation in addition to surplus ($32.4 million) and appropriation made last year ($15 million)

-Remember: Budget bill trumps all

 

2005 – 2007 NPS Initiatives - DCR – Lead Agency

• Accelerate agricultural BMP usage
• Expand Nutrient Management Planning and Implementation
• Expanded Stormwater Management Law
• Strengthen Erosion & Sediment Control Implementation
• Strengthen Chesapeake Bay Act Implementation
• Enhance NPS Tracking system
• Target Public Outreach efforts

 

Key Tributary Strategy Practices All Basins

•Point Source Reductions

•Nonpoint Source Practices:

- Nutrient Management Planning (Ag., Urban and Mixed Open)

- Cover Crops

- Conservation Tillage  

- Pasture Grazing BMPs

 

KEY TRIBUTARY STRATEGY PRACTICES - (largest NPS reductions)

•Cover Crops 10% TN and 0% TP

•Conservation Tillage 6% TN and 18%TP

•Pasture Grazing BMPs 9% TN and 14% TP

•Nutrient Management (NM)

–Ag 20% TN and 13% TP

–Urban 2% TN and 2% TP

–Mixed Open 2% TN and 3% TP

–Overall NM 24% TN and 18% TP

 

Point Source and Nonpoint Source Costs and Nutrient Reductions by Source Category

Tributary Strategy Costs -- Why did they change?

1.  Change in practices

2.  Annual costs/household vs. capital costs per practice

3.  Multiple installation costs

4.  Operation and maintenance costs

5.  Technical assistance costs

 

Tributary Strategies:  What’s Next??

-Complete water quality standards adoption

-Establish final allocations for York and James

-Revise WQIF grant guidance

-Act on current point source rulemakings following close of comment period

-Promulgate Watershed General Permit

-On the ground NPS activities in each basin:  Tributary Teams, Building Partnerships with -local governments and others.

 

Comments concerning the presentation followed.  Mr. Baxter gave an example of why/how localities could exchange credits. Delegate Scott asked what was the latest on opportunities for federal funding.  Mr. Baxter stated the Governor has talked with Senator Warner and others and hopes the Federal Government will be able to at least match what state is doing—we are putting up $50 million, and hoping the Federal Government will match it.  The Federal budget is a mess.   The amount of discretionary money left in the budget went to take care of Medicare, the war and there was hardly anything left.  We are struggling to make the case under a very difficult federal budget, he stated.  Mr. Baxter stated he was not optimistic about our ability to tap federal treasury and felt when it comes down to it, we will have to do it ourselves.  Mr. Baxter noted that the idea has been put forward for Virginia to join with the other estuaries like the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay and Pugent Sound in trying to develop sort of a common approach to these so-called national treasurers.  He did not know what would come of this.   

 

In response to a question from Mr. Nixon regarding funding, Mr. Baxter stated DCR is the lead agency for water quality improvement fund nonpoint source grants and Mr. Criblez will be putting out proposals for grants/guidance.

 

Mr. Crigler questioned about the differences in Virginia and Pennsylvania regarding point sources.   Mr. Baxter replied:  we have gone a lot further than Pennsylvania on point sources.  We have established a policy where we will expect high levels of treatment at design capacity.  Pennsylvania is just in process now of putting their strategies out for public comment so they have not made final point source decisions.  The one thing we all have in common is the water quality standards that affect tidal waters and that is the yardstick that you measure your water quality by.  Maryland, Delaware and Virginia are the three states that have tidal waters.  All are adopting water quality standards that are consistent with the EPA criteria.  Pennsylvania is roped into this thing one way or the other because they can’t be discharging to a point that would be violating water quality standards in Maryland.  We are all linked to those water quality standards.  The fact is Pennsylvania still has to meet their loading allocations and they still can’t cause the violation of water quality standards.  

 

Mr. Barber questioned if there was any real enforcement of nonpoint source problems or was it “compliant driven”.  Mr. Baxter stated not all nonpoint source is voluntary; there are regulatory elements in nonpoint source mix; however, no new tools that were created in this regard.

 

Mr. Boyer stated DEQ published permit guidance that requires wastewater treatment plants to provide a basis for design report; he was not clear where the focus of this was going to be.  Mr. Baxter stated what DEQ did was an interim step between the “old world” and the adoption of these new water quality standards and only applies to the facilities whose permits coming up during these interim period before the water quality standards become effective. 

 

A brief discussion occurred regarding wastewater treatment, capping at design flow capacities, etc.  Mr. Wittman noted several years ago, the Health Department was charged with taking into account groundwater quality when they put together regulations for septic systems.  What you have now is in new construction, when you have soils that have high seasonal water tables and issues of potential contamination from sewage thru a septic system, there now is a requirement for pre-treatment.  What is new in the whole game, too, is that requirement now applies to repairs.  If you repair a septic system, you may be faced with having to put in pretreatment which will treat the effluent before it goes into the ground water.  By statute, thru the years as old septic systems fail, added treatment will come along to provide for improvement in the effluent that goes in the ground. 

 

For clearer understanding on buying/trading credits, Mr. James presented a very simple scenario:  County S is at their design limit for their plant.  But they have the desire for more development activities.  They can go to County W, who is well below their design capacity, to buy that excess capacity from County W.  County W could use some of the money to institute a PDR program so they wouldn’t have as many houses built as planned for because they don’t have any more capacity in their plant.  Mr. Baxter said there are scenarios that we have not imagined, there are equations they are going to have to think about, and that is, how do we stay under our loading cap.  Mr. Baxter said eventually everybody will have to upgrade.  With the trading and offset provision it is going to spread it out a little more evenly.

 

Chairman Wittman thanked Mr. Baxter for his presentation.   He also introduced new member, Mr. Yakabouski, from Spotsylvania.

 

Rappahannock River Basin Website.   Mr. James demonstrated the new website for the River Basin, highlighting the changes and additions made.   Mr. James noted Mr. Baxter’s comments will be published on the RRB website (www.rappriverbasin.org).

 

Report on DEQ’s Water Supply Planning Program.  Mr. Scott Kudlas, Manager, DEQ Water Supply Planning, presented a “Water Supply Planning Update” thru a visual presentation. 

Noting in the Fall of 2002 the State suffered a severe drought; as a result, a large statewide group was formed to help DEQ work on legislation regarding the state’s water supply. The presentation included the following facts regarding the status of water supply planning:

 

Updating regulations, local responsibilities and funding of the

DEQ Water Supply Planning Program.

Background:

            2003 – SB1221 enacted by the General Assembly required DEQ to develop criteria for local and regional planning and a preliminary state water resources plan

 

            2004 (10/1) – WP-TAC (Water Policy Technical Advisory Committee which Mr. James served on) completed the draft regulation.

 

Issues Discussed by the WP-TAC:

            Roles of state and local government and water authorities; interbasin transfer; incentives for regional approaches and alternative sources; funding and technical assistance needs; cumulative impacts to beneficial uses; state “advocacy” of local projects; opportunities to improve permit process and impacts on existing water rights.

 

Summary of Draft Regulations:

·        All counties, cities and towns will submit a plan to the board, individually or as part of a region;

·        Local governments and community water systems will coordinate and cooperate with each other in the development of the plan;

·        The regulation does not change existing water rights;

·        The regulation establishes a planning process and criteria that local governments will use in the development of the local and regional plans;

·        Local governments are required to submit their plan to the board with 3-6 years according to a staggered schedule based on population; 

·        Regional groups have 6 years to submit a plan;

·        DEQ will review all local and regional plans to determine compliance with this regulation and consistency with the State Water Resources Plan;

·        Localities to review their plans every 5 years to assess adequacy;

·        Significant changes require board review;

·        Required elements include:

v     a description of existing water sources;

v     a description of existing water use;

v     a description of existing water resource conditions;

v     an assessment of protected water demands;

v     a description of water management actions;

v     a statement of future demand

v     an analysis that identifies potential alternatives to address projected deficits in supplies;

v     a copy of the adopted documents; e.g. plans, ordinances, etc:

§         a resolution approving the plan from each local government that is party to the plan; and

§         a record of the local public hearing, a copy of all written comments and the submitter’s response to all written comments received.

·        DEQ will give public notice on its website for every tentative and final decision to determine local program compliance.  (It was anticipated this will help all others understand what is going on downstream and to track what is happening in other localities).

·        Commenters may request a public meeting.

·         The anticipated next steps for this regulation include

o             60-day public comment period begins April 4, 2005 (ending June 3;see Virginia Register);

o             8 public hearing scheduled from May 4-17, 2005 (one in each DEQ region and one in South Hill);

o             Final regulation to SWCB in June or September 2005; and

o             Regulation enacted by December 2005.

 

2005 General Assembly Action

·        Approved $350,000 in FY06 for local and regional technical assistance grants (continued financial assistance will be needed each year thereafter for local and regional grants); and

·        Approved $351,000 in FY06 for 2 FTE’s to provide ground water technical assistance and for development of ground water data for use in local and regional planning efforts.

(This includes some matching monies with USGS to develop groundwater availability budgets for localities that rely primarily on groundwater.  Mr. James noted localities would have to notify WCB of their decision within the first 3 years.  Request for funds from a regional approach could get priority.)

 

VWP Permit Regulation

·        The WP-TAC identified the potential need to address a number of permit issues, including:

o             The need for implementing a formal pre-application Scoping Process for water supply projects;

o             The need to clarify the requirement for Cumulative Impact Assessment for water supply projects;

o             The need to clarify requirements for Alternatives Analysis for water supply projects; and

o             The need to investigate ways to streamline the permit process for water supply projects.

 

·        The anticipated schedule for this process is:

1.      NOIRA published on January 24, 2005;

2.      Work group established in January 2005;

3.      Work group meetings began February 28, 2005

4.      Present the SWCB with a draft of any changes by October 2005;

5.      Public comment period during Spring 2006;

6.      Final regulation to SWCB in June 2006; and

7.      Regulation enacted by December 2006.

 

Mr. Kudlas noted Mr. Bos and James are participating in the newly formed work group.  He also stated there are nine items listed in the NOIRA and one was looking at what the Supreme Court decision means for localities.  It is hoped these efforts will simplify things and help give an understanding of how much water is going to be needed in the future, he stated.  Mr. James commented  that all Commission members should be considering this process, your localities will have to face what it is going to mean regarding your utilities, how do you want to prepare your water supply plans.  

 

Mr. Kudlas noted discussions with Maryland have occurred regarding groundwater issues.  Mr. James stated one of the things that WAG recommended was the need to establish a set protocols, tools, and procedures that localities should use when going thru their ground water plan.  He asked if that was included in the groundwater “budget”.   Mr. Kudlas thinks there are a couple different approaches to water budgets that are currently being applied.  One led by USGS is the model that we are using in the upper Shenandoah.   

 

Mr. James stated that another issue the Commission has discussed is the need for the State to take the leadership on the old groundwater well construction reports (GW2) and establishing a protocol for prioritizing and entering this historical data.  Mr. Kudlas was not aware of any discussions going on to this effect.  Mr. Kudlas thinks this should be a very good tool, but thought gathering historical data to be a problem.  Chairman Wittman stated the big issue is some localities are willing to put up resources to get the historical data into a format that can be put into a data base, but don’t want to expend the effort if the data base is not uniform statewide.  He suggested that DEQ consider sitting down with the Health Department to develop a format for data entry and the sharing of same.  Mr. Kudlas offered to help in this regard.

 

Concluding, Mr. James saw the question as “How can this Commission or your Planning District help in dealing with this   regional question; it makes a lot more sense to deal with a regional approach than try to have 15 different water supply plans in the  Rappahannock Basin.”  Mr. Kudlas said folks need to realize the current climate – there was a lot of planning done in the 1970-80’s under the assumption that each locality would have their own impoundment for storage and that is no longer a valid assumption; he suggested looking at other options and ways to share costs.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr. Kudlas for his presentation.  Mr. Kudlas informed Commission members there will be seven DEQ technical assistance people to help with the planning in the regional offices in addition to two ground water specialists.   

 

Discussion of FY06 Work Plan and Budget.  For the first time in three years, Mr. James reported the General Assembly appropriated funds for the Commission; $5,000 of the $30,000 requested and noted the budget and work plan will be revised to reflect this.   He felt the Commission was at a point where any reserves on hand will pretty much be gone at the end of this fiscal year.  Mr. James noted the submittal of an unsolicited proposal to DCR and that staff was working with Mr. Criblez to define the work program for a potential grant.   At the next Commission meeting Mr. James stated items in the work program will be prioritized as well as defining the grant with DCR if successful.  Mr. Criblez stated he was planning to visit the 15 counties in Rappahannock and York Basins over the next 6 months presenting an implementation component regarding stormwater management and erosion control, hoping to obtain an informal agreement.   He will discuss with each locality how they can identify some agricultural practices that they can start on immediately, with the goal to eventually developing a regional concept.  Funding would be included in that component. 

 

Chairman Wittman questioned Mr. Criblez about the tributary strategy; are you at a point where that load has been disaggregated so that each county knows roughly what share of the load they have?  Mr. Crigler replied yes and no –   the model that we are currently using is a basin-wide model and really does not break down very well because you can’t see land use by county very well.  So when you start to disaggregate it, it might throw a lot more agriculture in Stafford than it really is, a lot more urban in Madison that it really is.  To the Yes part of that is we have been able to break that down, so what I will do is come back and say, this is what I have, this is as good as I can get with the model.   There is not a way we can do that much storm water management, erosion sediment control, that sort of thing in Madison County.  What can be done and where do we have to bump up ag practices?  So, I will come out with a straw man and then we will negotiate how that will work. There is no way I have anything available at this point that is truly accurate with land use.  We have a new watershed model which will refine that a little bit, but that still won’t be perfect and that won’t come out until 2007. 

 

Chairman Wittman stated as localities go forward with this, they are going to need something objective to hold on to.   You are going to have to get the public to buy into this and it is going to need some resources there so, we want to stay away from “this is our best guess” but instead present something more concrete. 

 

Mr. James expressed concern about the funding on the nonpoint source side; on the point source side all that infrastructure of planning and manpower exists at the locality and utility agency level.   We don’t currently have the agency infrastructure in place at the local or PDC level for nonpoint issues.  Delegate Scott stated this past year, looking at the big picture, the effort was to put money into the kind of one time (capital) things that we did not set ourselves up for ongoing costs.   

 

Chairman Wittman solicited comments from the group on how this commission can work with DCR in an effective way to make sure localities can understand what is coming down the road and how we can best achieve this.  The best real world ideas come at the local level, where the services and programs are implemented, not from DCR and not from this Commission.  Let us know what you think works.  Once we get this we can design a program that will be acceptable and workable, he stated.

 

In response to a question from Mr. Ball, Mr. Criblez stated when visiting localities, he will be addressing two groups -- Board of Supervisors and their (planning) staffs.  Ms. Davis suggested work thru PDC as well as localities.

 

Mr. Grezika felt to make this work, getting the right people at table was important; i.e., WAG, regulatory groups and especially the stakeholders.  It was suggested that a WAG-type effort be considered.  Delegate Scott felt the Soil &Water districts participation was crucial to make it work, include cooperative extension officers and farm agents.  Mr. Boyer commented on two things necessary  to make real progress –  to let the counties and jurisdictions know ahead of time so that we know were to put our efforts – what their base allocation might look like, what ground rules the state has for selected for negotiation so that they will be uniform among counties and jurisdictions.

 

Mr. Ball questioned if towns like Warsaw be involved to which Chairman Wittman replied yes, he thought they would have to be.    Should future questions arise, the Chairman told members to contact him, Mr. Criblez or Mr. James. 

 

Chairman Wittman noted he and Mr. James would bring a revamped work plan and budget based on the happenings of the General Assembly at the June meeting.

 

Public Comment Period.    There were no speakers.

 

Old and/or New Business.  No one spoke in this regard.

 

Future Meeting Dates.  The members were reminded of the 2005 meeting schedule:   June 22, 2005, Lower Basin;   September 21, 2005, Upper Basin; December 7, 2005 Richmond at the General Assembly Building, and March 29, 2006 in the Middle Basin.  The Chairman and Mr. Ball will recommend a location in Richmond County for the next meeting.  

 

Adjourned.  There being no further comment, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. upon motion of Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Barber and carried unanimously by a voice vote.

 

 

 

 

Attachments (on file in office):

      Fiscal Agent Report           

      Rappahannock River – Water Resources Legislation Passed During the 2005 General Assembly Session

      Chesapeake Bay & Water quality Cleanup Action in the 2005 General Assembly Session