Sharing Our Water in the Potomac Watershed

The May 1st Potomac Basin Drought Monitor indicated that most (96.8%) of the Potomac River Basin was abnormally dry (D0). Stream flows measured at Point of Rocks and Little Falls were below median levels.  Precipitation levels in the Basin were below normal in April by 1.2 inches. Most of the groundwater monitoring wells were normal to low across the Basin.  I was not the only one wondering if this would be the beginning of a drought, and worried about my own water supply. Then the rains came.

For the past two weeks as thunder storms have rolled through the region, I checked the water level in the nearby U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) well 49 V1 almost daily and watched as the water level has risen. For two weeks the regular downpours have kept my 15 new trees well watered while the groundwater level has risen 3 feet in the USGS well 49 V1! My drinking water well is undoubtedly as flush as 49 V1 and I’m relieved. The water level has gone from the 10th percentile to the 90th in two fairly wet and stormy weeks. My garden is beautiful, and I can with a clear conscience plan to fill the “gator bags” on my new trees during the dry days of summer. I’ve seen first-hand how immediately rainfall and its percolation into the ground directly impact groundwater.

The groundwater and rain also feed the river at the bottom of my land. That water flows into Bull Run at Sudley Springs and onto the Occoquan River. The rain also feeds the tributaries to the Potomac River.  The Washington metropolitan area gets nearly 90% of its drinking water from the Potomac River. The remaining 10% of the region’s supply is from the Patuxent and Occoquan rivers, Goose Creek (a Potomac Tributary that runs through Loudoun County), Lake Manassas (which feeds the Occoquan), the Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca Reservoirs and groundwater resources that serve small community supplies and private wells like mine. Though I fixate on the water resources in my little corner of the region which I have no ability to supplement, the Potomac River is truly the lifeblood of the region. The Potomac is the region’s major source of drinking water, accepts the clean effluent from waste treatment plants, cools power generation plants, and with the C&O Canal, Lake Manassas, and the Occoquan Reservoir provides water recreation and breath taking scenery to our communities.

The Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (WAD), the Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA) and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) furnish about 95% of the metropolitan region's water. A number of distribution agencies like Prince William Service Authority purchase some or most all of their water wholesale from the big three and distribute that water in their communities. A number of smaller agencies and self-supply portions of distribution agencies supply the remaining 5% of the water.

For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited so that the region is not hampered and tied by water allocation agreements created centuries ago that bind many areas of the arid west to fixed and rigid allocations. Instead, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, which was authorized by congress in 1940 to address the pollution of the river facilitated the creation of the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement in 1978 in response to the droughts of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Back in the days when the ICPRB was formed, raw sewage flowed directly into Four Mile Run, Hunting Creek, Hooffs Run, and the Potomac River. The river tributaries were putrid and clogged, a foul mix of bubbling, decomposing human waste in brown waters. Shorelines were devoid of wildlife, and tests showed dozens of disease-causing pathogens. Water pollution was so bad that propeller airplane passengers from D.C. (filled with the members of congress) could look down and see the sludge. The extent of the problem was documented in 1949 by the Izaak Walton League, one of the first conservation organizations in the U.S., in a film showing water conditions in Alexandria.

The ICPRB was one of the first organizations with a congressional mandate to consider water resources on a watershed basis, rather than along political boundaries. However, now, the focus of the ICPRB has changed. Sewage is not released into the Potomac (unless the combined sewer systems in Baltimore or Washington overflow).  We have reached the point in population density and development that during times of drought, natural flows on the Potomac are not always sufficient to allow water withdrawals by the utilities (including power generation which takes an awesome amount of water) while still maintaining a minimum flow in the river for sustaining aquatic resources. ICPRB allocates and manages water resources of the river through the management of the jointly owned Jennings Randolph Reservoir (built in 1981), Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement (1978) and the Water Supply Coordination Agreement in 1982 which designated a section of the ICPRB as responsible for allocating water resources during times of low flow. These steps improved reliability of the water supply and ensured maintenance of in-stream flows to meet minimum aquatic habitat requirements as defined by the Maryland Potomac River study in 1981. The section of ICPRB responsible for all this is known as the Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP), and is formally empowered in its duty by the Water Supply Coordination Agreement of 1982.

This ICPRB is intended to coordinate all the political entities, Maryland, Virginia, Fairfax Water, Washington DC, the federal government and counties and cities within and dependent on the watershed to address the basin’s major challenges, including water quality impairments, water supply and restrictions, flooding, groundwater use, nonpoint source pollution and emerging contaminates. The ICPRB role has been somewhat overshadowed by the recent EPA mandated Chesapeake Bay TMDL, but the ICPRB remains primary in coordinating water supply management and spearheading coordination of effluent water quality issues as they impact drinking water supplies. In their most recent water supply update on June 4th ICPRB assures us that “there is sufficient flow in the Potomac River to meet Washington metropolitan area’s water demands without augmentation from upstream reservoirs.”  After the recent rains it appears unlikely that the Washington metropolitan area’s back up water supply- primarily the Jennings Randolph reservoir helped in by the smaller supply at Little Seneca reservoir will be needed during the summer of 2012.  ICPRB also brings you the Potomac River Watch.
Thanks to Curtis Dalpra Communications Manager at CO-OP for his help.

Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan

Virginia's secretary of natural resources, Doug Domenech, submitted Virginia's Watershed Implementation Plan to the Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 3, 2010, two days later than requested. There may be some political message in that action beyond a tendency to procrastinate, who knows, maybe his dog ate it. The plan begins with the simple acknowledgement that:
“The Chesapeake Bay is truly a national treasure and an ecological wonder. As Virginians, we have an obligation to protect this incredible resource, and we are all committed to ensuring a clean and vibrant Chesapeake Bay for future generations to enjoy and cherish.”

In his cover letter, Secretary Domenech said: “Having only received our nitrogen and phosphorous allocations July 1, and sediment allocation August 13, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive plan such as this that may have an impact through 2025.” In addition, to meet reductions in non-point source pollution, pollution from agriculture, urban and suburban run off and septic systems, will require changes in regulations and laws and funding for implementation and enforcement. These changes could have tremendous economic and autonomy impacts on business and individuals in Virginia and need to be addressed by the state legislature and impacted communities.

According to the US EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation suburban and urban spread is the fastest growing land use and that suburban and urban storm water run off and septic waste water are the only major source of pollution in the watershed that continue to increase. The experts believe that this has been caused by the increase in impervious cover (pavement, buildings and roadways) that is associated with development and increased density of septic systems as population increases and lots become smaller.

For the urban and suburban storm water to meet the federal mandated pollution diet, new developments will be subject to storm water management, urban nutrient management and erosion and sediment controls that have recently be implemented. In addition, a nutrient exchange program will be developed to encourage implementation of BMPs (best management practices). However, the new storm water regulations will not address the sediment and nutrient loads associated with existing development and the mandated TMDL (total maximum daily load of pollutants) will require reductions from the existing pollution load. EPA is mandating the acceptable nutrient and sediment reductions, not on a statewide basis but on a segment by segment basis. Virginia is proposing that the Commonwealth meet the goals on a statewide basis. Simply looking at an aerial map of northern Virginia demonstrates the problem. The predominant form of development is existing housing, neighborhoods, and roads. Without having to create storm water management for every existing neighborhood, there are few options. Even with statewide compliance and the new storm water management regulation the WIP talks of restrictions on lawn and turf fertilizers, increasing regulation on both traditional and alternative septic systems.

The preliminary response from the Chesapeake Bay Foundations was: “Upon initial examination, we have serious concerns about the WIPs lack of details. Absent dramatic changes, we ask EPA to consider, now, what actions it must take to ensure Virginia will accomplish its share of needed pollution reductions…While there are some good proposals in the WIP—to offset pollution from future growth, to offer tax incentives to farmers to use conservation practices—the document is stunningly deficient on how the Commonwealth will implement many of these proposals. In particular, the WIP does not specify how Virginia will reduce non-point runoff pollution from farms and urban areas.” The reaction by EPA to these comments and the WIP in general will tell us if the federal regulators intend to regulate down to the suburban backyard or if they will allow the Commonwealth to have the local communities address how to reduce their contributions to pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

The EPA will be having a series of public meetings and webinars. The Virginia meetings are: October 4th from 6-8 p.m. at the Grafton Theatre, James Madison University, 281 Warren Service Drive, Harrisonburg, VA.
October 5th - from 6-8 p.m. Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale Campus, Ernst Community Cultural Center, 8333 Little River Turnpike, Annandale VA
October 7th from 6-8 p.m. Crowne Plaza Hampton Marina Hotel, 700 Settlers Landing Road, Hampton, VA. There is also a webinar on October 7th from 1-3 pm

Chesapeake Bay Basin Pollution Diet Support Group

Over the past quarter century the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased, but the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded. As a result, US EPA has taken control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nutrients and sediments to restore the local waters. The TMDL (released as a Draft standard in July) allocates a pollution budget among the states and is intended to decrease over time with the goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay to the best conditions observed in the past 70 years. EPA describes the TMDL as a pollution diet and appropriately enough has created a diet support group. EPA has been having a series of webinars to provide the latest news, information, support and guidance for the state regulators and to provide an approach to implementing the new federal standards in the six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia.

In the past 25 years much of the improvement in the Chesapeake Bay water quality has been achieved through regulation and control of point source contamination coming from sewage treatment plants and industrial plants combined with the improved management practices in agriculture. During this period, storm water pollution prevention and management planes were developed and implemented for large scale commercial construction. The largest producers of pollution have been regulated. The new pollution diets mandated by the EPA will require more reductions and a new strategy for achieving these reductions.

Nutrient and sediment contamination from mixed open, urban runoff and septic have all increased with the growing population and expanding suburbs over the past 25 years. So, while agricultural and industrial pollution have reduced their contamination of the Chesapeake Bay basin by a quarter to over half depending on which nutrient and which model is used to measure the pollution, the nutrient pollution form open space, urban runoff and septic have grown. To meet the new TMDLs sediment and nutrient limits that are being mandated by the US EPA the six Chesapeake Bay water shed states and Washington DC are going to have to reduce the nutrient pollution and sediment from urban and suburban residential sources.

The historic regulatory approach will not work with home owners and other small source contributors. Households do not have compliance officers to generate Storm Water Management Plans and implement and maintain best management practices. Many homeowners are not educated on the appropriate steps that should be taken to reduce run off and impact from their properties. Instead they are bombarded with advertisements for lawn care products, services and sprinkler systems and pressured by homeowner associations to maintain the appearance of their properties. Hospitals, libraries, schools, public spaces, parks, and retail locations are all landscaped and watered. The old maximum recommended elapsed time for pumping a septic tank is the one required in sensitive areas within the watershed and it is not monitored and enforced. Many homeowners seem unaware that septic systems require maintenance and care. We wash our cars in driveways instead of utilizing commercial operations with recycled water. There is no easy or obvious way to change this.

The entire state and Federal regulatory structure is geared toward large deep pocket corporate sources of contamination not towards ensuring that septic tanks are pumped with adequate frequency, fertilizer is used sparingly (if at all in ornamental applications) and storm water is adequately controlled in all areas. Many small and older developments were built without addressing the storm water flow and sheet flow of water off streets. This clearly needs to be addressed, but how that is to be accomplished in a non-punitive manner and consistently enforce and implemented is not clear. DC’s idea of requiring every structure of more than 5,000 square feet to have a Storm Water Management Plan does not appear workable in the suburbs where mile of developments were built without urban storm sewers, without storm water management plans, or the plans have proved inadequate over time.

I do not know how to improve homeowner behavior in maintaining a septic systems, lawns, garden care and in managing run off to and from residential properties without creating a regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare for the homeowner and a quagmire for the regulators. I look forward to reviewing the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) when it is released for comment on September 24th 2010 to see how our regulators have chosen to approach the problem if at all in this first iteration of the WIP. I am planning on attending one of the Virginia meetings for a complete list of meetings go to the EPA web page listing. We should all be informed and know what the regulatory community has planned for us.

The schedule for the EPA public comment meetings in all jurisdictions can also be found on the EPA Bay TMDL page at http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/BayTMDL2010PublicMeetingDates.pdf

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Basin Implementation Plans and the Homeowner

EPA has been having a series of webinars to provide the latest news and information on the Chesapeake Bay strict pollution diet, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Over the past quarter century the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased in total, but the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded. As a result, US EPA took control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated TMDL to restore the local waters. The TMDL (released as a Draft standard in July) allocates a pollution budget among the states which will decrease over time. The webinars serve as support and guidance for the state regulators and to provide an approach to implementing the new federal standards in the six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia.

The states and DC have already received their draft nutrient allocation and the sixth and most recent webinar reviewed the sediment allocations to the states and D.C. and had the District. highlight their strategy for their implementation plan. Since my home has a considerable portion of the yard in resource protected area under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act, I view myself as a steward of the watershed and I wanted to get an update on the program. So I “attended” the webinar. Anyone is welcome to attend the webinars or review past presentations. Just go to this page on the EPA web site. Draft Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) from each of the six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia are due at EPA on September 1st and so time is running out to develop plans acceptable to the EPA and the consultant developed watershed models as meeting the mandated goals. These plans have probably already been developed and are now being finalized in the individual jurisdictions.

There will be a public comment period on the Bay TMDL and WIPs set to begin on September 24, 2010 and end on November 8th 2010. You should get involved. Though I strongly support protection of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, I question whether state regulators and their consultants can develop a WIP that will consider the interests of homeowners. My experience with the AOSS regulations in Virginia show that the homeowner has no representation and thus no voice in regulatory development and there is no rational limitation on regulatory overreach and cost impacts to the homeowner of their various regulatory schemes. (With the AOSS Emergency Regulations they included the requirements to sample septic systems along with the more reasonable requirements to maintain and inspect these systems. The intended purpose of the sampling was to gather data. The Virginia Department of Health believes that they are somehow going to obtain this data without any standard and appropriate sampling protocol and somehow use it. All they will achieve with this requirement is spending several hundred dollars of the homeowner’s money to the profit of the licensed operators who were well represented in the regulatory process.) Make no mistake the WIPs will ultimately impact homeowners who have had no representation on the process.

Based on the presentation by the EPA and the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) about their WIP, these plans will impact homeowners. In discussing the Storm Water Management and MS4 permit process in the D.C., Hamid Karimi, the Deputy Director of the DDOE mentioned that Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs?... Swamps?) are required for all building over 5,000 square feet. He was asked if that included residential which it does and he went on to say that there had not been a push back on that. I dare say that most large homeowners in the district are unaware of that particular regulation. However, if the other states mimic that requirement and include basements in the square foot calculation, then a insignificant portion of the newer homes developed in recent years would be required to have Storm Water Management Plans. There is only one standard for Storm Water Management Plans, the cost of having each homeowner with a house that exceeds the threshold square foot limit produce the same Storm Water Management Plan as a suburban Walmart is ridiculous. (Such a requirement will be very profitable to an enterprising group of consultants without producing any improvement in the Chesapeake Bay basin.) Furthermore, EPA will be modifying their watershed model in relation to low density development in the coming year. So that suburban development will be fully incorporated into the WIPs in the future. Currently, Virginia exempts single family homes from the requirement for Stormwater Management Plans.

Sediment allocations are going to be controlled by submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) population and water clarity acreage goals. Excessive sediment clouds the water blocking sunlight from reaching underwater grasses which are need for shelter and survival or young fish and blue crabs. More than 16 species of underwater bay grasses, also called submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are found in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Bay grasses are used as a measure of the Bay's overall condition because they are not harvested and their health is closely linked to the overall health of the Bay. EPA has apparently used historical records and photographs to generate SAV acreage goals for the 92 geographic segments that they have divided the Chesapeake Bay basin into. These goals are to achieve the best level of SAV that they have a record or picture of. Currently, 66 of those 92 segments (representing 185,000 acres) are not in compliance with the SAV/ clarity goals. I say SAV/ clarity goals because apparently each jurisdiction is allowed to count each clarity acre as 2/5th of an acre in meeting their SAV acreage goals.

EPA determines all these allocations based on models of the Chesapeake basin. These models are evolving and improving, but still are only approximations of the ecology of the watershed. EPA has found the model results tend to show more attainment from implementation than the monitored results. Thus, the allocation made reflect an arbitrarily applied margin of safety across the board. So, EPA is setting the basin wide total sediment allocation at 6.1-6.7 billion pound per year to achieve the desired 8 billion pound per year goal. Then based on the draft WIPs and draft TMDL will allocate sediment for each EPA designated segment in the basin.

There will be a series of 18 public meetings held across the watershed basin mostly in October and November. The First meeting is in Washington DC on September 29th followed by Virginia on October 5th 2010 in Annandale; October 6th 2010 in Richmond; and October 7th in Hampton. There will also be a webinar on October 7th. I encourage you to attend. While various interest groups like builders, regulators and “NGOs” have been fully represented in the process of developing the WIPs, no one has represented the interests of the home owners. The WIPs will evolve over time as TMDLs decrease. There is no organization monitoring the development of these regulations and ensuring rational regulatory standards for homeowners. There is no one to look out for your interests but you. While homeowners should be one of the largest stakeholder groups they are absent from the table.

Backyard Chickens and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Comparing the small scale backyard raising of chickens to full scale agricultural operations as I did is not an appropriate or fair comparison because scale and density are important elements of their environmental impact. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients of the growth of living organisms in our yards and in the Chesapeake Bay. However, excessive nitrogen and phosphorus degrade the water quality of our groundwater, surface water and the Chesapeake Bay-the entire water shed. As population density has increased in the watershed, the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the bay has increased tremendously.

Each year, approaching 300 million pounds of nitrogen reaches the Chesapeake Bay. The majority of nitrogen pollution comes from sewage treatment plants, large-scale animal operations, agriculture, and air pollution from vehicle exhaust and power plants and other industrial sources. Other sources of nitrogen pollution include septic systems, runoff from roadways, development, residential and commercial lawn fertilizers, and small scale animal and agricultural sources (the keeping of horses, poultry, and other animals and growing vegetables in predominately suburban or exurban locations. Solutions to nitrogen pollution include upgrading sewage treatment plants, proper operation of septic systems, using nitrogen removal technologies on septic systems, and decreasing fertilizer applications to lawns and controlling suburban and exurban animal waste.

Over the past quarter century the excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has decreased in total, but the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded and considerably short of attaining the 2010 water quality goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. As a result US EPA is developing a new federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to establish and apportion an allowable pollution budget among the states.

Over the past 25 years, nitrogen released to the Chesapeake Bay has fallen about 33% from agriculture, fallen about 40% from waste treatment plants, but increased about 15% from septic and mixed open use. During that same period of time phosphorus released into the Chesapeake Bay has fallen about 29% from agriculture, fallen about 65% from waste treatment plants and increased about 14% from septic and mixed open use. The population in the region has increased by more than 20% (including the urban core) during this time period.

According to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the typical household generates 10-15 pounds of nitrogen per year and 1-2 pounds of phosphorus per year. According to a Maryland state study, each chicken generates approximately 0.41 lbs of Nitrogen per year and around 0.35 pounds of phosphorus per year. Thus, each household with 10 chickens would generate 4.1 pounds of nitrogen and 3.5 pounds of phosphorus per year. This is a significant increase in the nutrient load of a typical house hold, a more than three fold increase in phosphorus load and an increase of nitrogen load by more than 30%. This additional waste is delivered in an uncontrolled manner. The poor location of a chicken coop could potentially impact ground water and well heads both on and off site and should be subject to the same off sets as septic systems. In addition the nutrient load has to be addressed.

Dutchess County New York did a study to monitor the effectiveness of septic set backs and studied nitrate concentrations. They chose to use nitrate concentrations at half the drinking water level as a proxy for adequate dilution and natural attenuation of all contaminants. Historically, horizontal and vertical setbacks were developed without consideration of the dilution for wastewater components like nitrate and phosphorus. The NY Department of Health separation distances were assumed (and these are almost identical to the Virginia setbacks), but the overall regional density of septic systems was examined to ensure that groundwater resources would not be overwhelmed by the total load of contaminants. The density recommendations were developed based on the nitrate concentrations. Nitrate was used as a proxy because all humans produce nitrate, it does not easily break down and there is a drinking water standard. The target concentration was half the drinking water level to ensure all outcomes are safely below the standard since household size can vary tremendously. The Dutchess County study found that overall average density of on-site waste disposal should not exceed one unit per 2-3 acres for an average size household to ensure water quality.

Adequate dilution, soil filtration and time are necessary to ensure sustainable water quality. Unfortunately, by adding 10 chickens to a yard you have increased the nutrient load significantly, tripling the phosphorus and increasing the nitrogen by 30%. The geology of this area consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic rocks. The rocks of the Culpeper basin are highly fractured and overlain by a thin cover of overburden. The lack of overburden limits natural protection to the aquifer. The sedimentary rocks create a productive aquifers, but allow contaminate to easily wash into the groundwater basin. Allowing backyard chickens represent a significant threat to the groundwater basin.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Backyard Chickens

On July 8th 2010 the Prince William Planning Commission held public hearings on a proposed change to the zoning and land use regulations within the county. Currently chickens and other farm animals are allowed on 2 acres or more of agricultural land, but only if there's no house on the land. If there's a house, the property is considered residential and chickens are not allowed. Though probably not intended this regulation serves to protect the groundwater of the county. The proposed change to the zoning law would allow up to 10 chickens, pigeons or doves, or 5 ducks, or 3 turkeys, geese or pea fowl, or one emu or ostrich, or some combination of those on 2 acres. The law would also require the birds to be kept in a fenced area, coop or cage at least 10 feet from the house on the property, and at least 15 feet from the property line. The Planning Commission has tabled the matter.

According to Rodale's All-New Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening, poultry manure (chicken in particular) is the richest animal manure in nitrogen (N), phosphoric acid (P) and potash (K). Chicken manure is considered "hot" and must be composted before adding it to the garden. Otherwise, it will burn any plants it comes in contact with. However, there is an even darker side to poultry manure. The main cause of the Chesapeake Bay's poor water quality and aquatic habitat loss is elevated levels of two of those nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous. According to the Chesapeake Bay foundation, runoff from animal manure accounts for about one-quarter of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that feed "dead zones" downstream.

According to the Virginia Cooperative Extension, poultry yards, and enclosed holding areas are areas of concentrated and accumulated animal wastes. These areas can be a source of nitrate and bacteria contamination to groundwater. The impacts can be mitigated by utilization of farm best management practices (BMPs); however, backyard farmers are not often versed in appropriate waste management techniques. The potential for livestock and poultry operations to affect groundwater is greatest if located on Karst terrain or over sandy-textured permeable soils, or other susceptible groundwater basins.
According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), much of Prince William County, especially the northeastern portion is located within the Culpeper basin which is highly susceptible to contamination. This is the source of drinking water for all the private wells in the area and feeds the tributaries to Bull Run.

The geology of this area consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic rocks. The rocks of the Culpeper basin are highly fractured and overlain by a thin cover of overburden (that would be soil). The lack of overburden is a challenge to gardens and limits natural protection to the aquifer. The sedimentary rocks create a productive aquifers, but allow contaminate to easily wash into the groundwater basin. Ground water flows under ambient pressure from Bull Run Mountain towards Bull Run, the river. The soils in this area are described by the USGS as Balls Bluff Siltstone with a gravel, sand and clay type bedding plane. (That is the technical name for the flat plane, edged orange red rocks that are everywhere you put a shovel.) In the siltstone bedding plane, the fractures within the rock run predominately north south. Thus while ground water flows generally speaking west to east, water or a contaminant that catches a fracture will carry the contaminant to drinking water depth in a north south pattern. Contaminants can enter the groundwater at these fractures and zigzag through the adjacent neighborhoods.

There are two risks that should be carefully considered by the Planning Commission when making this decision, potential contamination of the drinking water supply for the area and potential for contaminated runoff to impact the Chesapeake Bay. Runoff from animal manure accounts for about one-quarter of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that feed "dead zones" downstream. Over the past few years, as I have monitored my groundwater quality, I have watched the nitrogen levels in my neighborhood rise. Groundwater protection should be a major consideration in whether to allow poultry on all residential properties. As our area has become more suburban, density has increased, along with the utilization of groundwater for domestic purposes and the density of septic systems. Unless, they intend to regulate the micro poultry farms and require the implementation of and maintenance of BMPs to manage the waste the county Planning Commission should deny the request.

The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Agreement

The Chesapeake Bay Commission was created in 1980 to coordinate Bay-related policy across state lines and to develop shared solutions for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The catalyst for their creation was the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) seven-year study (1976-1983) on the decline of the Chesapeake Bay. The six Bay watershed states are Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware and the District of Columbia and are all parties to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

Despite more than 25 years of effort, the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded as measured by the agreed upon criteria and considerably short of attaining the 2010 water quality goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. As a result US EPA was under a court order to draft a new Bay-wide cleanup plan by May 2011. Because of the region’s failure to meet the 2010 deadline for water quality in the Bay, EPA is now developing a new federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to establish and apportion an allowable pollution budget among the states.

On Tuesday, May 11th 2010 the EPA announced that it will mandate that the six states and the District of Columbia who are parties to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement limit their nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment flow into the bay in compliance with an overall daily maximum being formulated by the federal agency. On Wednesday, the administration laid out their initiative to purify (as measured by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) 60 percent of the Chesapeake Bay's waters within 15 years, combining federal resources with a mandate that requires the six Bay watershed states (Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware) and the District of Columbia to develop the regulatory blueprint.

The plan is to develop a top down regulation model. EPA will dictate numeric pollution values for every surface water of the regions and force the states to develop an acceptable (to the federal government) regulatory framework to achieve those goals. This will avoid direct federal regulation of rural, urban and suburban runoff only in the most technical sense, eliminate local control of decisions on land use and water supply. Each state will be required to propose its own regulations for developers, farmers, homeowners, and other sources of non-point source pollution to be approved by the federal government. The EPA is trying to determine how much reduction is necessary to meet the targets. Then, under the agreement it signed this week, it will require the six watershed states and the District to come up with pollutant reductions that bring them into compliance with those goals. Some of the ideas being tossed about are the imposition of a ban on pesticides for ornamental use in at least some areas of the watershed, limitations on farming, developing incentives or requirements for farmers to utilize best practices.

Chesapeake Bay Water Shed-How is it Doing?

Recent articles in the Washington Post have talked about the failure to meet effluent goals for the Chesapeake Bay Water Shed, an area spanning six states, a 64,000 square-mile watershed, and 180,000 miles of tributaries and coastline. This begged the question of what do the release numbers look like. The numbers above were supplied by the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis. The contaminants of concern are nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission was created in 1980 to coordinate Bay-related policy across state lines and to develop shared solutions. The catalyst for their creation was the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) seven-year study (1976-1983) on the decline of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Commission was established by Maryland and Virginia to assist the states in cooperatively managing the Chesapeake Bay. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania became a member in 1985. The legislative mandated goals of the commission were:

• assist the legislatures in evaluating and responding to mutual Bay concerns
• promote intergovernmental cooperation and coordination for resource planning
• promote uniformity of legislation where appropriate
• enhance the functions and powers of existing offices and agencies, and
• recommend improvements in the management of Bay resources.

Despite more than 25 years of effort, the Bay’s waters remain seriously degraded and considerably short of attaining the 2010 water quality goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. As a result, the US EPA is under a court order to draft a new Bay-wide cleanup plan by May 2011. Because of the region’s failure to meet the 2010 deadline for water quality in the Bay, a new federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan is being written to establish and apportion an allowable pollution budget among the states. With input from the six Bay watershed states (Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware) and the District of Columbia, the EPA will set nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment limits for each impaired tributary and the Bay, together with maximum allowable point source and non-point source loading.

The Federal Clean Water Act gives regulatory authority to the states to restrict pollutants discharged into the waters of the Bay from point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants. In contrast, that authority does not extend to non-point sources, such as farms and septic systems. Will the Federal mandate provide the necessary teeth for the states to committee the funds, and other state resources. The states need to address these non-point sources using other regulatory schemes. Reductions in discharge of contaminants can be achieved through the implementation of “agricultural best management practices” operations. Mandated implementation of these practices will have to be accomplished under state regulations. With state budget constraints where will the funding for these programs come from? What programs will be reduced to pay for achieving Federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals? Will this directly impact the cost of food or will that cost be burred in state taxes? Saving the Chesapeake Bay is important, it has been easy in the past to avoid tough choices of spending and resource reductions in other areas by pushing those decisions into the future with each change in the the effluent goal time line.

In addition, Federal action and funding is necessary for reduction of the largest point source of nitrogen remaining in the watershed, the Blue Plain Wastewater Treatment plant in Washington, DC. Congressional action is needed for funding for enhanced nutrient removal technology. This investment at Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant would significantly reduce nitrogen flows from the largest single source of nutrient pollution in the watershed removing almost four million pounds of nitrogen or 7.7% of the point source total each year.