Only Rain Should Go Down the Storm Drains

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the discharges into the “waters of the United States,” the rivers, streams, estuary and bays, but in the real, everyday world they don’t really work on the local level. In the case of Virginia (and most other states) they actually do this by delegating to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality the authority to implement the federal Clean Water Act under the Virginia State Water Control Law. While it is the EPA and DEQ who make regulations and inspect for compliance with those regulations, it is the local government, our towns and counties that implements the programs to stop or reduce pollution and encourage compliance with regulations. Prince William County staff translates permits limits and state regulations into action.

The Prince William County department of Public Works implements a series of programs aimed to reduce the release of pollutants into the local stormwater sewer systems to protect our local waterways from pollution to the greatest extent possible. The Prince William County storm water sewer system consists of man-made components (pipes, ditches, and ponds) and natural components (streams, wetlands, and floodplains) that control the flow of storm water to prevent flooding and minimize pollutants entering our waterways. Prince William like much of Virginia, is also engaged in implementing programs to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from the County to not only protect, but to improve the water quality of nearby streams, rivers, wetlands, the Occoquan Bay and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These pollutants are released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater facilities, septic systems, air pollution and other sources that enter the tributaries and are carried to the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA has mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the local waters. The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limit which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the 2011 levels.

The Prince William County Department of Public Works addresses reducing releases from the stormwater sewer system by a series of programs all paid for by the stormwater fee on your property taxes. I spoke with Robert Jocz who is an Environmental Engineer with the County Department of Public Works, Department of Environmental Services in the Watershed Management Branch. Bobby is in charge of the Dry Weather Monitoring Program for the Prince William County stormwater system. He joined the County Staff in 2013 after receiving a master’s degree in Biological Engineering Systems from Virginia Tech. What Bobby and his inspector do is look for illegal discharges (which the U.S. EPA and the County insist on call illicit discharges) into the stormwater sewer system. We talked about the challenges and the new and improved County program and changes that have been made in response to the new stormwater regulation and tighter permit requirements.

Recently, Prince William County set up a demonstration of our stormwater compliance programs for the EPA to use for training state and regional enforcement inspectors. Bobby set up a demonstration of the Dry Weather Monitoring Program at the landfill. There was also a demonstration by Fleet Management Services of their facilities management programs and Fairfax County set up a demonstration of stormwater programs and VDOT. (See EPA Blog for more details.)

​While stormwater itself can be a problem, according to EPA it is a leading cause of pollution in our rivers and streams. When rain falls the stormwater picks up pollution as it flows across roads, parking lots, and open land, picking up oil and grease, litter, dirt and whatever else is on the ground and carrying the water through stormwater sewer systems which have traditionally been only conveyances. They do not treat the water. So any pollution that enters the system get carried right into our rivers, streams, wetlands and bays and this includes any pollution that was intentionally discharged into the stormwater sewer system. All stormwater programs are intended to reduce the flow of pollutants into the stormwater sewer system. Illicit discharges are intentional discharges into the stormwater sewer system; pouring anything down a storm drain is illegal.

Initially, the EPA regulated only the largest industries and city stormwater sewer systems. As the years have passed, EPA has extended regulation down to smaller and smaller entities. In the last few years as regulations have expanded to include stormwater sewer systems outside the urbanized areas, EPA has worked with many municipalities and counties in the region to improve their compliance with stormwater sewer system regulations and permits. Programs have been tightened and expanded to meet the mandated reductions in stormwater volume and pollutants.

As a result, Prince William County and many other local governments have improved their stormwater management programs to further reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges into the system by small businesses and individuals. When small businesses wash their company cars and allow the wash water which contains dirt, grease, gasoline to flow into the storm drain in the parking lot, they are essentially pouring that dirty water directly into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Likewise, small painting contractors washing their brushes or incorrectly disposing of paint containing water down the storm drain, carpet cleaning companies’ disposal of waste water and cleaning solution into the stormwater sewer system, and others who routinely pour small amounts of waste water into the stormwater system are polluting. All these small pollutants add up. The stormwater system only carries water to our waterways, it does not treat it.

Bobby runs the Dry Weather Monitoring Program. A "dry weather condition" is the period at least 48-hours after the most recent rainfall. If it is not raining, there should be limited flow if any in the stormwater sewer system. Dry weather sampling and monitoring is an effort to isolate potential illegal discharges. Occasionally, people knowingly or unknowingly discharge hazardous waste or other non-storm related waste into the stormwater sewer system. When illicit releases are discovered the first step is education. Bobby and his inspector inform the business or individual that what they are doing is illegal, and though the usual reaction is “it’s only a small amount,” small amounts of pollution quickly add up.

from PW County

If the illicit discharge was by and individual, the first step Bobby and his inspector take is to educate and then get them to agree to comply with the regulations. With small businesses or repeat offenders a “Notice of Violation” is issued that gives them 30 days to come into compliance with regulations of face fines up to $1,000 per day. So far there has been no need to issue fines. Bobby and his inspector revisit the sites to verify continued compliance, but in truth they can only spot check. So far, the largest number of violations have been from washing cars.

To clean up the Chesapeake Bay and meet the requirement of the EPA mandated TMDL we all need to change our behavior to reduce small source of pollution to the stormwater sewer system and our waterways. Individuals are still allowed to wash their automobiles in their driveways, but businesses are not. The car wash that was used as a fundraiser for schools has been banned in many communities and is a source of illicit discharge. You can help clean up our rivers, streams, wetlands and the Occoquan and Chesapeake Bays by not dumping any waste, liquid or trash into the stormwater sewer system or onto the ground that drains to the stormwater sewer system. You can also help Bobby and his inspector protect our waterways by reporting any illicit discharges you observe to the Dry Weather Mentoring Program at Prince William County Department of Public Works (703) 792-7070. Remember, only rain should go down the storm drain.

Measuring BMP's Effectiveness

On Tuesday, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) announced a joint project that will study and measure the water quality improvements that are actually achieved from farmers' use of conservation practices. Working together, the NRCS and the USGS will measure and quantify the benefits of voluntary agricultural practices known as best management practices or BMPs.

In Virginia the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts help implement BMPs through the Virginia Cost-Share Programs that are used as an incentive for farmers to implement BMPs. (Full disclosure: I volunteer and am Treasurer at the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District.) The Conservation Districts provide free technical assistance to property owners that include developing conservation plans for agriculture properties, state cost share money to help pay for installing BMPs from 100% for stream exclusion fencing down to $35/acre for cover crops. The majority of BMPs have a 75% of the cost reimbursed by the Conservation Districts and the remaining 25% paid for by the farmer can be claimed as a tax credit. The Conservation Districts help farmers implement and pay for environmentally sound agricultural practices and verify that the BMPs are installed and maintained. There has long been a need for real world measurement of the effectiveness of BMPs on the watershed.

Nutrient runoff, nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, carried by rainwater and snowmelt impacts many of our nation’s waterways including the Mississippi Delta and the Chesapeake Bay. These pollutants, released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, septic systems and other sources, cause algae blooms that consume oxygen and create dead zones where fish and shellfish cannot survive. In Virginia and the other Chesapeake Bay states BMPs are an extremely important component of the plans for restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Measuring the water quality benefits of BMPs will allow the proper allocation of time and money to the most effective conservation practices.

Nutrient and sediment pollutants that do not come out of a stormwater pipe or waste water treatment plant pipe are washed into the rivers and streams by rain and snowmelt, and the accepted way to reduce this kind of pollution is to implement agriculture and urban best management practices. Agricultural BMPs minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides to achieve a desired level of performance and quality of crops and pastures while protecting the environment. BMPs are also designed to reduce runoff and soil erosion and benefit water quality while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production.

Now, the USGS will use the Natural Resources Conservation Service database generated and maintained by the state programs on conservation practices and installed BMPs at private farms combined with water monitoring to understand how well these BMPs perform overtime on a watershed scale. Ultimately the USGS will incorporate this information into its surface water quality models, which track how rivers receive and transport nutrients from natural and human sources to downstream reservoirs and estuaries. This will provide crucial information for funding and operating voluntary nutrient management strategies and programs, and provide information for watershed planning.

The partnership between USGS and NRCS was announced at the Mississippi River Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force Meeting. The NRCS stated that they will protect the privacy of individual farmers and only plan to use the data to evaluate the effectiveness of the installed BMPs. The data can be used for designing better nutrient management plans, which are likely to be required when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency extends their reach to the next level either directly or indirectly.

When hundreds of farms take action in one watershed, it can make a significant difference reducing nutrient pollution and hopefully helping to prevent algae blooms downstream. “This agreement will allow NRCS and USGS to combine resource management capabilities with science, and will give us the information we need to prioritize the most effective conservation strategies so that we can improve the quality of streams throughout the Mississippi River Basin,” said Lori Caramanian, deputy assistant secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior the home of the USGS.

The NRCS and USGS will develop conservation intensity data sets that reflect the value of BMPs in terms of improved water quality, but do not reveal private information about individual farms, ranches or forests. The private information of farmers participating in these conservation programs is protected by law and maintaining the trust among the NRCS, the Conservation Districts and the farmers is vital to the continued success of voluntary conservation on private lands. Models that the USGS will develop will allow our Conservation District to have accurate information on the effectiveness of the BPMs and enable us to use our funding to obtain the biggest improvements in water quality.

Nutrient runoff from many different sources, including urban areas and industry, impacts our nation’s waterways. By providing science-based information, NRCS and USGS can help farmers decrease nutrient runoff and improve water quality for their own communities and downstream communities and environments. Close to one-quarter of land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is devoted to agricultural production. According the Chesapeake Bay Foundation the largest source of pollution to the Bay comes from agricultural runoff, which contributes roughly 40% of the nitrogen and 50% of the phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay. So to meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia and the other states will have to implement BMPs on the majority of agricultural lands and the data from USGS/NRCS program can help us implement the most cost effective strategies as widely as possible.

Farmers Appeal TMDL Decision – Right to Determine Land Use Belongs to the States

It is an old story now that the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters have been impaired by the release of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These pollutants are released from waste water treatment plants, agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater facilities, septic systems, air pollution and other sources that enter the tributaries and Chesapeake Bay from the 16 million people living within its vast 64,000 square mile watershed.

There are six Chesapeake Bay states, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York-and Washington DC. For decades these states have been attempting to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, and in fact, have made tremendous progress. Nonetheless, a “clean” Chesapeake Bay has alluded them; the cleanup plans hindered by growth in population and the region’s economies and difficulty in controlling the diverse sources of contamination.

In December 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, mandated a contamination limit called the TMDL (total maximum daily load for nutrient contamination and sediment) to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL sets an overall limit for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the 2011 levels. The pollution limits were then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. At this time the TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

Population growth and less than consistent remedial actions on the non-point source contamination has challenged efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Non-point source pollution is pollution that does not come out of a pipe, but are carried to rivers and streams by runoff from rain and snowmelt. The way to reduce impact of this non-point source pollution on the environment is to implement what has been called “best management practices” and stormwater management. BMPs minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and that slow stormwater flow to prevent erosion and achieve a desired level of performance and quality while protecting the environment.

Pollution form urban and suburban stormwater runoff and septic systems is the only category of pollution in the region that has been growing in the 21st Century. In order to reduce the stormwater runoff carrying nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and other pollutants from existing suburban residential areas, stormwater best management practices will also have to be implemented in the suburban communities. Counties, towns and cities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed are going to have to implement non-point source nutrient management throughout the watershed not only to stop growth in pollution, but reduce the amount of pollution. Homeowner Associations and individual homeowners will need to individually and as a group reduce the nutrients and sediment run off from their properties. EPA did not allow the states to “grandfather” the nutrient levels from existing homes. Suburban and semi-rural BMPs have the potential to significantly reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, but state regulators and various health departments have struggled to reach, educate and motivate the public to implement, let alone maintain mitigation strategies. States have struggled with something as simple as trying to increase compliance with septic regulations by the public.

Nutrient management and soil and water conservation districts play a pivotal role in preventing such runoff in the agricultural community. In fact, conservation districts have been in the business of fighting erosion (which prevents nutrient and sediment pollution) since the mid-1930s, but conservation districts have met with varying degrees of success from state to state. Agricultural operations are businesses that can see the direct result of maintaining their top soil and that have learned over the years to deal with various regulations, still there are challenges. When dealing with the individual homeowner and the disperse sources of non-point source contamination; septic systems, poor drainage, impervious ground cover, lawn and plant fertilization, and household behaviors the challenges are much greater.

Nonetheless, it was the farmers who challenged the TMDL. In January 2011 American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint in federal court against the EPA to throw out the TMDL. The two Farm Bureaus were joined by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Turkey Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association. This group known collectively as “the Farm Bureau Group” made three complaints: (1) that the pollution limits or TMDL exceeded EPA’s authority, (2) that they were based on faulty science, and (3) that the plaintiff did not have adequate time to participate in the comment process and filed a motion for summary judgment against the EPA.

The EPA was joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Jefferson County (WV) Public Service District, Midshore River Keeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. Several municipal waste water treatment groups were also allowed to intervene on behalf of EPA. The EPA group filed a counter motion for summary judgment against the Farm Bureau Group’s motion for summary judgment and oral arguments were made in October 2012.

Last September the District Court affirmed that the pollution limits that EPA established for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are within the purview of the Clean Water Act and are based on sound science. The Court also found that the Farm Bureau and Homebuilders had ample time to review and comment on the proposed limits. Summary judgment was granted to the EPA.

The Farm Bureau Group is appealing that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and have now been joined by a group of 21 of the nation’s 50 attorneys general who in February filed a friend of the court brief expressing concern that the Bay TMDL would set a precedent for other water bodies, including the Mississippi River basin. This month Thirty-nine members of Congress joined the Farm Bureau Group in their challenge to the EPA mandated TMDL and oversight of the Watershed Implementation Plans, saying the EPA went “far beyond” its authority when it set the TMDL limits and required states to develop the prescribed plans acceptable to the EPA showing how they would meet those limits on the timeline mandated by the EPA. This same structure of overall pollutant reduction with a mandated and supervised plan for implementation is also being used by the EPA to mandate reduction in carbon dioxide from power generation across the United States under the Clean Air Act.

This past spring when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC) issued their report reviewing the results of the 2012-13 pollution reduction milestones against the states’ approved plans they found that pollution is being reduced in every state and Washington DC. However, they report that Pennsylvania and Delaware fell short in meeting their overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen in Pennsylvania. The wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington DC and Virginia. Non-point source pollution control on agricultural operations and control of the individual homeowner in urban and suburban areas is proving challenging everywhere, but Maryland. However the CBF and CCWC voiced their concerns about the underlying data for Maryland's calculations on retrofitting stormwater management saying: “There is a lack of transparency concerning both the numbers being reported to the state, as well as how the reductions are calculated.” In addition, while Maryland is tracking dead on target in meeting its pollution reduction milestones they have a long way to go to meet the 2017 and 2025 goals.

Now the Chesapeake Research Consortium and Bay Journal are planning a conference to discuss what they believe is the real policy solution to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. These organizations are looking to discuss and the possibility of and implementation of growth limits on population and the economy to achieve a sustainable Chesapeake Bay. The TMDL stated goal is to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its ecological condition in 1950. The targets of the TMDL are estimates of what those pollution levels were at that time. In 1950 there were approximately 8 million people living and working in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Today there are approximately 16 million people living and working in the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Research Consortium and the Bay Journal are questioning if a restored Chesapeake Bay can be achieved if the population an economy is “allowed” to continue to grow. It is a valid and realistic concern; however, these groups do not seem to question if EPA is can use the Watershed Implementation Plans for the Chesapeake Bay states to control land use, growth and water quality policy decisions. Congress did not grant to EPA the authority to control land use under the Clean Water Act. Growth and sustainability are issues that need to be addressed on the local level.

Conservation Districts Change their Position

At the just recently ended annual meeting in Williamsburg, VA, the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD) passed a resolution reversing its previous stance on a possible transfer of oversight for the districts to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).  The motion to rescind the action of last year’s annual membership meeting and to instead support staying with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) passed easily after passionate discussion.   The VASCWD had previously passed a resolution supporting a move to DEQ at its annual meeting in Roanoke in 2012.

However, over the course of the last year, seven area meetings were held in various parts of the state to discuss the possible changes and get feedback from directors, employees, and most importantly the farmers who participate in the cost sharing programs.  I attended the public meeting in Culpeper to discuss these changes and allow the various community members and stakeholders to express their concerns and support.

The soil and water conservation districts (Districts) were born out of the dust bowl days to prevent erosion and preserve the soil and manage the network of small damns that were built throughout the nation. Over the years their mission evolved as the connection to water quality, soil and conservation were more fully understood. Today the districts provide technical assistance to help farmers and landowners adopt conservation management practices. The districts also promote and encourage voluntary adoption of the approved storm water management, water protection strategies and soil protection and conservation measures that are known as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs. Part of the promotion of the adoption of the BMPs are various financial incentives known collectively as cost share programs that help farmers and landowners pay for the necessary improvements. Finally the Districts run a series of educational programs for both children and adults to further understanding of our watersheds, water quality and the seemingly small actions that can provide big solutions to our water quality if they are adopted by most people.

The Culpeper meeting which I attended was really characteristic of the state as a whole, a mix of opinions with all the farmers who spoke opposed to the transfer. Throughout the Commonwealth,  there continues to be mixed opinions; however, a majority of the districts, and more importantly a vast majority of the farmers were leery of moving an all-volunteer cost share program to a regulatory agency.  In order to achieve their goals the Districts depend on the cooperation and willingness of community partners and volunteers to work with them. The relationships and trust that the Districts have with their communities is their greatest strength. The Districts encourage participation using established relationships, technical help and financial incentives and now have 100% funding available for their livestock exclusion program to expand the reach of their voluntary conservation activities.

Over the last seven decades districts across the state have built relationships based on trust with farmers across the Commonwealth of Virginia.   Despite the changes over time with agricultural and livestock trends, the districts have been able to maintain their relevance and support the mission of assisting farmers with best practices because of the trust based relationships.  One of the greatest concerns expressed by directors and producers alike was the possibility that a move to DEQ, a regulatory agency, would damage the long standing relationships and result in a decline participation in the cost sharing programs.

According to Neil Zahradka of the DEQ Office of Land Application Programs, the consolidation of the Districts under DEQ is intended to improved oversight and implementation of Virginia’s plan to comply with the EPA mandated pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay. The pollution diet is to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that reaches the Chesapeake Bay carried by rainfall from farm lands, suburban yards, roads and released by sewage treatment plants and septic systems.  Virginia and the other states and the District of the Columbia whose rain fall and snowmelt ultimately drain into the Chesapeake Bay are all under a mandated pollution diet.

Virginia produced a plan to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that reaches the Chesapeake Bay that ultimately satisfied EPA that required virtually all farmers to implement resource management plans and BMPs on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and streams; building fences to keep livestock (and their feces) away from streams; and implement plans to limit and carefully manage the use of fertilizers.

According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 30% of the pollution in the Chesapeake Bay are from farming practices, the best money spent could be to implement agricultural nutrient management plans. The need to coordinate all the water pollution programs in the state to meet the EPA mandated pollution diet was the reason behind the DEQ consolidating the water programs under their regulatory control. However, it is DEQ’s view of programs as regulatory that concerned the Conservation Districts. Virginia needs virtually all the farmers in the state to implement BMPs and the Conservation Districts feel the regulatory culture of DEQ will impede their effectiveness and possibly sully their mission and effectiveness.   Though, how all these activities to reduce pollution will be paid for is still unknown. The state had cut the budget for the conservation districts over the past several years and the EPA has never had a budget for implementation of these programs that are estimated to cost billions of dollars. 

The Rural Crescent an Extraordinary Valuable Resource

The Rural Crescent may have started with different intentions; but today the Rural Crescent is about water, groundwater and watershed preservation. I strongly support redevelopment of areas with preexisting infrastructure which would allow Prince William County to improve storm water management in the existing developed areas (and reduce nutrient contamination under the EPA mandated TMDL) as well as revitalize older areas of the county and preserve the Greenfields areas in general support of sustainable development and maintaining the Rural Crescent to preserve and protect our groundwater resources.

The Rural Crescent in Prince William aligns roughly with the Culpeper groundwater basin, one of the more important watersheds in Virginia. Much of the Prince William County Rural Crescent is located within the northeast quadrant and eastern quadrant of the Culpeper basin and consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic rocks formed about 200 million years ago. These volcanic rocks are intersected by diabase intrusives and thermally metamorphosed rocks. The rocks of the Culpeper basin are highly fractured and overlain by a thin cover of overburden. The lack of overburden is a challenge to gardeners, but more importantly limits natural protection to the aquifer. These sedimentary rocks are productive aquifers and feed not only the groundwater wells that provide drinking water to Evergreen and other communities, but also feeds the tributaries to Bull Run and the Potomac.

Ground water flows under ambient pressure from Bull Run Mountain towards Bull Run generally west to east with a slight southern slant in the northeast quadrant. The soils in this area are described by the USGS as Balls Bluff Siltstone with a gravel, sand and clay type bedding plane. (That would be those 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 depth in a north south pattern. Contaminants can enter the groundwater at these fractures and zigzag through the aquifer, but these fractures also serve as recharge areas creating the vast water resource our county enjoys. Groundwater is usually cleaner than surface water and is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer, but there is inadequate overburden in much of the Rural Crescent. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and often after removal of contaminated plumes only long term abandonment of use to allow for natural attenuation is the only possible course of action.

The fractured rock system that is so rich in water is also our weakness; there is no natural attenuation in a fractured system so that the groundwater as a drinking water resource can be easily destroyed without any real ability to recover. Any malfunctioning septic system, underground fuel storage tank, improper disposal, a leaking pipe, or surface hazardous spill on any property within this area has the potential to impact the drinking water wells to the south, southeast or east. Development of the Rural Crescent would introduce potential sources of contamination that could never (in our lifetimes) be remediated. In addition, development of the Rural Crescent threatens the water supply itself.

Generally, groundwater in the Culpeper Basin is renewed each year through precipitation. The water stored in the watershed can supply adequate water in wet years and droughts provided that there is adequate replenishment, the withdrawal of water is within the average recharge rate and that the source is protected from pollution. Properly managed and protected groundwater can be abstracted indefinitely. Groundwater recharge through precipitation requires adequate area for infiltration; control of sheet flow created by roads and paved areas, as well as protecting the most geologically favorable infiltration points. Precipitation flows over the ground as surface runoff. Not all runoff flows into rivers, much of it soaks into the ground as infiltration. Some water infiltrates deep into the ground and replenishes aquifers, which store huge amounts of freshwater for long periods of time. Some infiltration stays close to the land surface and can seep back into rivers, creeks, and ponds (and the ocean) as ground-water discharge, and some ground water finds openings in the land surface and emerges as freshwater springs.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, impervious cover levels of 10% can significantly impact watershed health increasing stormwater runoff. When runoff volume increases, runoff velocity increases, and peak storm flows causes flooding and erosion. Increased stormwater velocity increase soil erosion, increases nutrient contamination and reduces water infiltration into groundwater. The groundwater is essential as the base flow to the streams and rivers that feed the Occoquan Reservoir during the dry months. The groundwater stored in the watershed can supply adequate water to maintain river flow during droughts. Maintaining open areas provides areas of groundwater recharge and controls runoff. Decisions about the fate and management of the Rural Crescent will impact groundwater quantity and quality and in turn will impact water flows to the Occoquan Reservoir during dry periods. Flow to the Occoquan Reservoir is essential in managing the drinking water withdrawals from the Potomac River. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, manages the Potomac River drinking water allocations for the entire region by “suggesting” the quantity that Fairfax Water draw from the Occoquan and Potomac daily. Prince William County’s decision on the fate of the Rural Crescent could impact drinking water supplies in Fairfax, Maryland, and DC as well as our own county.

Rural Crescent also provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our Northern Virginia community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. Maintaining a tree canopy and controlling runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintaining adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has developed a Conservation Corridor Planning Project which is a regional effort to identify essential green infrastructure and help area governments to avoid the mistakes of the past and maintain the few remaining green corridors along the rivers and reservoirs that boarder Fairfax and integrate green infrastructure planning into the future development planning of Prince William and Loudoun counties.

According to NVRC there are three priority regional conservation corridors in Prince William County. Bull Run Mountain and Catoctin Mountain corridor is a north-south corridor connecting the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Northern Virginia. The corridor provides significant intact habitat for Northern Virginia wildlife. North of Leesburg, the corridor is the karst terrain of Loudoun underlain by limestone, and highly susceptible to pollution and sinkhole creation. South of Route 50 the Bull Run Mountain ridge is within the Rural Crescent and is the location of a significant area of recharge for the groundwater that ultimately maintains and feeds Bull Run and the Occoquan River. This area is fractured rock system with limited overburden and no natural attenuation. A polluted plume could be carried for miles without dilution.

The second priority conservation area is begins at the Bull Run Mountains and heads east across Route 15 to Manassas covering the land between Route 50 and 29 (the northwest portion of the Rural Crescent) to the confluence of the Occoquan River with Belmont Bay. This corridor is rich in water and environmental resources that ultimately deliver drinking water to over one million Northern Virginia residents. The Occoquan Reservoir, one of the country’s first water reclamation facilities where sewage treatment water is returned to provide water recreation. The western portion of the area is part of the Culpeper Basin Important Birding Area and the Culpeper Basin Groundwater Aquifer. Preventing water contamination and ensuring adequate groundwater recharge are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, recreation opportunities and the ecological integrity of the region.

The third priority conservation area is the Potomac Gorge and Quantico Corridor, the greenbelt that connects Prince William National Forest Park with Manassas Battlefield. This area includes large tracks of undeveloped private land. The Culpeper basin is part of a much larger Piedmont Geologic Province and has only begun to be studied thanks to the careful groundwater measurements taken by Loudoun County as excessive development of the western part of the county began to impact water supplies. Groundwater quantity and quality in our region impacts not only groundwater wells, but stream flow and recharge to the surface water. In short all the drinking water in Prince William County. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration. The recharge is not spread evenly across the land. Pave over the land, change surface flow and infiltration and groundwater recharge are reduced.

Important regional waterways, such as Goose Creek, Bull Run, the Potomac River and Occoquan Reservoir thrive because they are shaded by trees and vegetation that filter stormwater, prevent erosion, and facilitate ground water recharge and moderate temperatures. Green infrastructure maintenance ensures the forested buffers are maintained and enhanced over time, protecting public health and water quality. Maintaining and enhancing forested buffers near Northern Virginia’s waterways requires focus on how to maintain and protect these ecological resources. The EPA has identified nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment as the three primary pollutants that must be reduced to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. They have mandated to Virginia and the other Chesapeake Bay Watershed states and Washington DC an approximate 25% reduction in these pollutants. A wide range of approaches can address these impairments, including reducing runoff and restoring stream banks and buffer areas. The Rural Crescent is an extraordinary valuable resource that we cannot just throw away by building highways such as the Bi-County Parkway, roadways and buildings. Protecting our water supply infrastructure is more than a pipe that runs into your house, more than the Occoquan. If you pave and build over the landscape the water supply will be irreparably damaged. Without water there is no Prince William. On Saturday, December 7th 2013 there will be an open house and all day series or meetings at George Mason University, Prince William Campus in Manassas.

Toxic Chemicals in Chesapeake Bay -Expanding the Pollution Diet

from EPA report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program just released a report that outlines the extent and severity of toxic contamination in the Chesapeake Bay and the Watershed. This report by Scott Phillips (USGS) and Greg Allen (EPA) is based on a review and compiling of water-quality reports from the various Chesapeake Bay watershed states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) and Washington, D.C., and scientific work performed by the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who have been doing extensive studies on contaminants in surface and groundwater and also the cause of observed impact on fish, plants and wildlife.  The authors of the EPA  report focused on summarizing studies conducted after 2000 with an emphasis on the 2010 water-quality assessment reports from the states to define the extent and severity of occurrence of: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); dioxins and furans; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); petroleum hydrocarbons; pesticides; pharmaceuticals; household and personal care products; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); biogenic hormones; and heavy metals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and ultimately in the source drinking water for millions of people.

This report was issued under the “Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” released in May 2010 and is first in a series of actions to control pollution, restore habitat and wildlife, conserve land, and increase public awareness and accountability in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The federal ‘Strategy” for the Chesapeake Bay region of the 64,000-square-mile watershed includes using federal regulations to restore clean water, implement new conservation practices on four-million acres of farms, conserve an additional two-million acres of undeveloped land, and restore the habitat for key species such as oysters, black ducks, and brook trout. Under the “Strategy” the states will be held accountable to achieve specific milestones every two years to ensure measurable progress.

While there is overlap between the so called “settlement agreement” and “Strategy,” they are not the same. The settlement agreement resolved the lawsuit brought by former Maryland State Senator Bernard Fowler, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland and Virginia watermen’s associations, and others filed against the EPA in January 2009 alleging the Agency failed to fulfill its duties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA settled the lawsuit with the “settlement agreement,” which required EPA to:  “Establish and implement a Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, TMDL, for nutrients and sediments.”  The TMDL required the creation of watershed implementation plans (WIPs) approved by EPA under threat of  “back step measures” by all of the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to ensure they achieve the nutrient and sediment allocations under the TMDL.

The TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. The TMDL does not address toxic, carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors that may be present in the watershed. The excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay cause algae blooms that consume oxygen and create “dead zones” where fish and shellfish cannot survive, block sunlight that is needed for underwater Bay grasses, and smother aquatic life on the bottom. The result is fish kills and murky water that threaten the aquatic industry and recreational use of the bay. 

The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limit for the six states and Washington DC of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 %t reduction in sediment from the current levels. The pollution limits are then partitioned to the various states, DC and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay modeling tools and monitoring data. The estimated cost of implementing the WIPs in Virginia and Maryland were $13.6-$15.7 billion and $14.8 billion respectively. Now EPA is preparing to address the toxic pollutants.

This new report addresses toxic pollutants in the watershed and is the first step in a new round of regulations and requirements for the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and Washington DC. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, both largemouth and smallmouth bass show signs of feminization (testicular oocytes and vitellogenin in males), skin lesions and impaired immune systems. The scientists of the USGS and Fish and Wildlife discovered that the smallmouth bass have the most impacted with a higher incidence of intersex (male fish with eggs)occurrence and a high incidence of skin lesions and large fish kills in the Potomac and James Rivers. Smallmouth bass may be the most sensitive indicator of environmental health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The smallmouth bass have been a warning, but the pollution problems they represent remain beyond our understanding at this time. The USGS and Fish and Wildlife have not succeeded in identifying the cause or causes of the feminization, skin lesions and impaired immune systems.

from EPA report

The EPA report found that PCBs, PAHs, herbicides (primarily atrazine, simazine, metolachlor, and their degradation products), and mercury were widespread throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Other contaminants like dioxins/furans, petroleum, hydrocarbons, some chlorinated insecticides (aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT/DDE, heptachlor epoxide, mirex), and some metals (aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, zinc) were known in localized occurrences. Finally, for atrazine, some pharmaceuticals, some household and personal-care products, some PBDEs, and biogenic hormones, the extent and amount of contamination could not be assessed based on the information available.

The Chesapeake Bay Program intends to develop toxic contaminant reduction strategies to be added to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL by 2015, but first more data needs to be gathered to identify the extent of contamination for many of the chemicals. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these and other emerging contaminants is not understood. As the EPA report and previous work done by the USGS point out we need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals, upgrading waste water treatment systems and other actions. 

Update on Endocrine Disruption in Water Supplies

From USGS paper cited below

Earlier this month Vicki Blazer of the U.S. Geological Survey published a new paper, “Indicators of Reproductive Edocrine Distruption in Fish in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.” Dr. Vicki Blazer is a mairine biologist and researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. Dr. Blazer received the American Fisheries Society 2010 Publications Award for her article investigating the mortality of fish in the Potomac River basin and is a fish biologist at the West Virginia Science Center studying the impact of contaminants of emerging concern in rivers and streams of the lifecycle and health of fish on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This paper is a summary of the most recent research (previously published) by the USGS and others on endocrine disruption in fish in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the implications to our lives.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed feed the Chesapeake Bay, the largest and most productive estuary in the United States. It serves as a nursery ground for the fish and shellfish industry and protects the coast from storm surges and filters pollution. The estuary filters water that is carrying nutrients and contaminants from the surrounding watershed. The nutrients in proper balance bring fertility, but excess nutrient contamination to the Chesapeake Bay has caused degradation in the habitat and impact to fish and other animals. As a result, US EPA has taken control of the situation and has developed a new federally mandated TMDL (total maximum daily load) to try to restore the natural balance in the estuary by controlling nutrients in the local waters. The TMDL addresses pollution from phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment and allocates a pollution budget among the states which will decrease over time. However, according to Dr. Blazer, the fish (and other aquatic organisms) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are being exposed to a complex mixture of chemicals that may have additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects.

In the Potomac River watershed, largemouth bass show signs of feminization (testicular oocytes and vitellogenin in males) but appear to be less sensitive than smallmouth bass to the effects of estrogenic compounds. The scientists discovered that the smallmouth bass have both a higher incidence of intersex (male fish with eggs) occurrence and a high incidence of skin lesions and large fish kills in the Potomac and James Rivers. Smallmouth bass may be the most sensitive indicator of environmental health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The smallmouth bass is a warning that should not be ignored, but the pollution problem they represent are beyond our understanding at this time. More work needs to be done.

Although feminization of male fish has most commonly been associated with exposure to human wastewater-treatment-plant effluent, the prevalence of male smallmouth bass with intersex characteristics is not consistently higher downstream from these point sources than upstream in the areas of the Potomac River watershed that were studied. It is not simply the residue of birth control pills in human waste. However, some additional biomarkers, such as the ratio of gonad weight to body weight and plasma vitellogenin concentrations in female bass, do appear to be adversely affected by the presence of wastewater-treatment plants upstream from the study site, but more is going on.

The sources of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals associated with intersex smallmouth bass appears to be BOTH effluent from wastewater-treatment plants and runoff from agricultural land, animal feeding operations, and urban/suburban land. All impacts of mankind. Other factors, including wastewater-treatment-plant effluent flow, number of animal feeding operations, and number of poultry houses were also associated with an increased intersex severity. Within the Potomac River basin the data showed that the higher the human population density the higher the incidence of intersex in the smallmouth bass. Also, the higher the percentage of agricultural land use density the higher incidence of intersex in smallmouth bass. The data appears to suggest beyond a certain density of agricultural land and/ or human population, the smallmouth bass population is impacted.

The USGS plans to work with the Chesapeake Bay Program to identify the chemicals that are causing the intersex, skin lesions and fish kills. The Chesapeake Bay Program intends to develop toxic contaminant reduction strategies to be added to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL by 2015. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these and other emerging contaminants is not known, but now is the time to find out the impact from the substance we’ve been allowing to enter the waters of the earth. We need to determine the impact and fate of these micro pollutants before we implement the watershed cleanup plans to make sure we are implementing the right strategies for the health of the entire ecosystem which may include eliminating the use of certain chemicals and other actions.

Blue Plaines From the Past to the Future

AECOM Picture

The District of Columbia's sewage system, one of the oldest in the United States, began its story around 1810, when the first sewers and culverts were constructed to drain storm and ground water from the streets of Washington D.C. In 1815 the canal system was built and included the Washington Canal that ran down what is now Constitution Avenue. The canal system provided a convenient way to transport goods, provide access to water and also dispose of waste. Residents drew their water from a series of city owned springs. In the first half of the 1800’s streets in Washington began piping in spring or well water for residents' use, and sewage was discharged into the nearest body of water- often the canals.

The Washington Aqueduct bringing river water for potable use citywide was built in the 1859 when population growth required a dedicated clean drinking water supply. Lieutenant Montgomery C. Meigs, is credited with planning and building the Washington Aqueduct. The surge in population during the Civil War, quickly created a human waste problem in the city and there were epidemics of smallpox, typhoid and malaria, which took many thousands of lives during the war years. From 1871 to 1874, the city’s Board of Public Works built an estimated 80 miles of sewers to remove the human waste from the city. Although the amount of construction was impressive, sewer engineering and hydrology were in their infancy and much of the work was poorly planned, structurally unsound and hydraulically inadequate, but the vitrified clay and brick sewers remain part of the sewer system to this day. In the early 1880s when the Washington City Canal was covered over because it had become nothing more than a stagnant open sewer, the problem of open sewage was transferred to the marshes along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.

Up to this time, the sewer canals and pipes that served DC were a combined system that merely carried and discharged (without treatment) both sanitary sewage and stormwater into local creeks and rivers. In the 1890s, it was decided that the existing combined system should be retained (due to the costs of rebuilding the sewers as separate systems), but that any extensions of the system would be built using the more expensive system of separate lines to carry stormwater and sewage flows. In order to protect the health of city residents, who were drinking the river water provided by the Washington Aqueduct, all the sewage discharges would be extended away from the city to a point far enough down the Potomac River to prevent being taken up in the Aqueduct for drinking water. The discharge point selected was Blue Plains, the southernmost tip of the District of Columbia. Pumping raw sewage into rivers was state of the art in the 1800’s. Washington DC did not start treating the sewage waste until 1937 when the Blue Plaines sewage treatment plant was built.

Today, sitting on the southernmost tip of Washington DC, across the river from Alexandria is the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. While there are larger sewer treatment plants, that remove the solids and bacteria, the modern day Blue Plains also has Tertiary Treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorus making Blue Plains the largest advance treatment plant in the United States at 150 acres and with a rated annual average day capacity if 370 million gallons per day (mgd) and a peak wet weather capacity of 1,076 mgd. The system needs such a large storm rated capacity to accommodate the old central city section which accounts for one third the area of the District and still has the old combined sewer system that overflows with predictable regularity during large storms. The system has released excess storm flows averaging 54 million gallons per year to the Anacostia River. In addition, Blue Plains is under a consent order from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to meet new effluent limits for total nitrogen released and better control of the system during storms.

Being an advanced waste water treatment plant is not as modern as it sounds. At Blue Plains and other sewer treatment plants primary treatment screens wastewater, and performs some rudimentary treatment to remove crude solids of human waste and skim off grease, oil and fat. Wastewater sits in settling tanks, which are designed to hold the wastewater for several hours. During that time, most of the heavy solids fall to the bottom of the tank, where they become a thick slurry known as primary sludge. The material that floats is also skimmed from the surface of the tanks. Secondary (or biological) treatment involves feeding oxygen to bio-organisms that break down any organic matter still in the wastewater.

Tertiary treatment further treats the effluent water to remove nitrogen, phosphorus, fine suspended particles and microbes, and to kill or slowdown disease-causing organisms and viruses. It is the tertiary treatment that makes Blue Plains an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. At this time, Blue Plains cannot remove enough nitrogen (on average over the year including storm periods) from the waste stream to meet the EPA mandated limit for nitrogen of 4.689 million pounds of nitrogen per year. In addition, when it rains and the Blue Plains AWWT plant tries to provide complete sewage treatment to flows of 600-740 million gallons a day the performance of the clarification units deteriorates because of the large flow of water, turbulence and not enough time to settle the solids and scum. The deterioration in performance cascades from the primary treatment to the secondary and onto the advanced treatment. This results in a reduced treatment for the sewage that lasts not only during the rain, but can last for several weeks. Blue Plans is currently engaged in a $7.8 billion 20 year improvement program called the Clean Rivers Project that will meet the reduced total nitrogen released requirements of their operating permits and increase the control of the system during rain storms in addition sludge treatment will be improved and sewer piping improved in many areas.

The sludge is separated from the wastewater during the primary treatment is further screened and allowed to gravity thicken in a tank. Then the sludge is mixed with the solids collected from the secondary and denitrification units. The combined solids are pumped to tanks where they are heated to destroy pathogens and further reduce the volume of solids. With treatment sludge is transformed (at least in name) to biosolids. Blue Plaines biosolids are Class B; however, after the completion of the improvement project in 2014 utilizing thermal hydrolysis (heating to over 160 degrees under high pressure) followed by anaerobic digestors, the biosolids produced by the plant will be Class A and the methane captured will provide 20% of the power for Blue Plains. To ensure that biosolids applied to the land as fertilizer do not threaten public health, the EPA created the 40 CFR Part 503 Rule in 1989 that is still in effect today. It categorizes biosolids as Class A or B, depending on the level of fecal coliform and salmonella bacteria in the material and restricts the use based on classification. The biosolids are tested for fecal coliform and salmonella and composite sampling is done for metals and hydrocarbons; the presence of other emerging contaminants in the biosolids is not tracked.

The Clean Rivers project will maintain the peak flow rate of 1,076 mgd from the collection system to Blue Plains. Peak flow rates to Complete Treatment would be reduced to 555 mgd for the first 4 hours, 511 mgd for the next 24 hours and 450 mgd thereafter. A tunnel would be constructed between Poplar Point and Blue Plains, and flows exceeding the complete treatment capacity would be diverted to the tunnel and that tunnel connected to the other tunnel storage. The storage provided by the new tunnel would be an additional 31 million gallons for a total storage in the system of 157 million gallons spread over the Anacostia River tunnels system and the new Blue Plains Tunnel. This facility will allow flow from the collection system that exceeds the complete treatment capacity of the plant to overflow to the tunnel. Flow captured in the tunnels would be dewatered through a new enhanced clarification facility, ECF, with a capacity of 225 mgd. Operating provisions would include arrangements to dewater the tunnels during and following rain and to convey ECF effluent to a direct outfall (after disinfection) and/or through the complete treatment facilities depending on the capacity available at the time.

The Clean Rivers project will also include the construction of Enhanced nitrogen removal, ENR, facilities. The new ENR facilities will have the capacity to provide complete treatment for flow rates up 555 million gallons per day for the first 4 hours, 511 million gallons per day for the next 24 hours and at a rate of 450 mgd thereafter to meet the new total nitrogen effluent limit mandated by the EPA. When completed, the Blue Plains Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant will be able to meet the nitrogen release standard under the operating permit, reduce the number of uncontrolled storm related releases of waste.

Less Rain Means a Cleaner Bay

Rainfall has been below normal. In the Washington Metropolitan area Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are dependent on the flows of the Potomac River and the Occoquan for their water supply. Potomac River basin has been abnormally dry this year with the eastern shore of Maryland in a moderate drought and river flows below normal. Although the recent rainfall has eased drought in some areas, not enough rain has fallen to raise watershed stream flow to normal levels. Temperatures have been abnormally high and there appears little chance for precipitation in the near term.  But for now, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, reports that from a water supply perspective, there is sufficient flow in the Potomac River to meet both the Washington metropolitan area’s water needs and the environmental water flow needs without augmenting river flows by releasing water from the upstream reservoirs. So we can enjoy the clearer flows of the river with little worry or need to conserve water for now.

The ICPRB allocates and manages the water resources of the Potomac River through the management of the jointly owned Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca reservoirs, the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement and the Water Supply Coordination Agreement adopted in 1982 which designated the ICPRB as responsible for allocating water resources during times of low flow and assist in managing water withdrawals at other times. The ICPRB limits water withdrawals by the local water utilities coordinating Fairfax Water’s utilization of the Occoquan and Potomac and limiting total withdrawals from the Potomac if necessary. In the event that the Potomac River flow at Little Falls is below 700‐million gallons per day the ICPRB releases water from Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca reservoirs to make up the flow and ensure that the saline and freshwater balance necessary to maintain the oxygen levels for oysters, clams and crab populations is maintained. The reservoirs ensure in-stream flows to meet minimum aquatic habitat requirements and the drinking water needs of the region.  

The July 5th Water Supply Outlook from the ICPRB reports that both groundwater and stream flow remain adequate for the short term, but are below normal as rainfall has been below normal for much of the early spring and June. Jennings Randolph (the big reservoir) is full and we are not going to run out of water this year. The good news is that nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in the Chesapeake Bay could fall to the lowest levels since the droughts of a decade ago. The nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in the Bay is correlated with rainfall as seen below and we can enjoy this little preview of what a cleaner Bay might look like.

From the Chesapeake Bay Program 2012

Since the 1970’s large algae blooms have formed in both the Potomac and Upper Bay portions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed each summer. Larger than normal blooms occurred in the upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries during August and September 2000 and 2011. These blooms were probably the result of greater than normal amounts of freshwater and nutrients entering the Bay in those years, but there are still factors that need to be studied.  The dead zones form in summers when higher temperatures reduce the oxygen holding capacity of the water, the air is still and especially in years of heavy rains that carry excess nutrient pollution from cities and farms. The excess nutrient pollution combined with mild weather encourages the explosive growth of phytoplankton, which is a group of single-celled algae. While the phytoplankton produces oxygen during photosynthesis, when there is excessive growth of algae the light is chocked out and the algae die and fall below the interface between the warmer fresh water and fall into the colder sea water. The phytoplankton is decomposed by bacteria, which consumes the already depleted oxygen in the lower salt level, leaving dead oysters, clams, fish and crabs in their wake. Thus, the name- dead zone.

In a wedge estuary such as Chesapeake Bay the layers of fresh and salt water are not typically well mixed, there are still several sources of dissolved oxygen. The most important is the atmosphere. At sea level, air contains about 21% oxygen, while the Bay’s waters contain only a small fraction of a percent. This large difference between the amount of oxygen results in oxygen naturally dissolving into the water. This process is further enhanced by the wind, which mixes the surface of the water. Recent heavy wind storms may have increased oxygen levels in various water layers. ICPRB staff scientists will be working with Maryland and West Virginia natural resources scientists to survey algae blooms in the upper Potomac watershed. Researchers will visit numerous sites along the Potomac, its South Branch up to Moorefield, W.Va., the Cacapon River, and the lower Shenandoah River. The summer-long assessment will document the types and extent of algal blooms in this section of the watershed.

While the recent storm brought much damage, the powerful winds that took down trees also served to mix the waters of the Potomac. The waters of the Bay appear clearer than they have in recent years. While drought does improve nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment levels in the Bay in the short run, the cost of drought can be high (agricultural losses and water restrictions) and ultimately droughts end and the rains will come.  The Chesapeake Bay Foundation still judges the Bay to be “dangerously out of balance” despite progress made in the health of the Bay in the past 30 years and this year’s clear waters and healthy shad run. As the Washington Post Reported recently, the District’s 45 miles of Potomac watershed streams and rivers is so tainted with bacteria from the combined sewer overflows that the city prohibits swimming. The waters of the Potomac are the primary drinking water supply for the region they should be clean enough to be safe for swimming and recreation.  The Watershed Implementation Plans from the six states and Washington DC and the $2.6 billion sewage treatment plant upgrade for Washington DC under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will further improve the waters of the Potomac and the Bay in the next decades. The Maryland, Virginia and the District estimates that it will cost more than $30 billion for them to meet the mandates of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL pollution diet over the next 13 years. Water is not free, it’s just we do not often see many of the costs associated with it. We need to see and understand all the cost of guaranteeing 24/7 access to clean abundant water.  

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.

Maryland Gets an A from the EPA-But it Costs $15 Billion

I decided to take a look at the Maryland Watershed Implementation Plan Phase II, WIP, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, felt did a better job of meeting their expectations than the Virginia Phase II WIP to see how a state gets an A- from the EPA. According to the EPA, Maryland’s Phase II WIP was very targeted and met EPA’s goals, especially in the breadth and depth of local engagement. Maryland used a top down model of compliance management favored by the EPA while engaging local communities. What Maryland did was develop the Maryland Assessment Scenario Tool (MAST) for the local officials to use to develop local implementation plans and meet their assigned target.  The MAST is a simplified version of the Chesapeake Bay Model that let Maryland run different scenarios to meet the TMDL goals for Maryland utilizing public comment and local conditions.

Maryland allocated the 58 Chesapeake Bay TMDL segment targets to the 24 counties and the City of Baltimore and each jurisdiction essentially developed a WIP for their jurisdiction. (Extra credit given for having 25 mini WIPs.)  There was a minor amount of massaging of the statewide target loads for nutrients and sediment provided by EPA to comply with the slightly lower goals of Maryland’s point source cap policy that was adopted as part of the 2004 Tributary Strategy. The Statewide Phase II WIP was essentially a rollup of the local WIPs for all Maryland Counties and the City of Baltimore with local implementation targets for wastewater, urban stormwater and on-site sewer systems, as well as analysis of local implementation capacity, capacity gaps, and implementation strategies for those source sectors and incorporating the nutrient and sediment goals above. Maryland plans to submit final local jurisdiction plans to the Maryland Department of the Environment, MDE, by July 1, 2012. Utilizing the MAST Maryland demonstrated to EPA that the near term milestones and the 2017 and 2025 WIP model input decks meet and exceed planning targets for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment statewide. Wow.

EPA requires that the “Interim Target” strategies, the first steps planed in the WIP should be designed to meet 60% of the Final Target TMDL reductions for nutrients and sediment. Maryland’s WIP and Interim Target strategy is projected by the MAST to achieve 91% of the nitrogen final target, 117% of the phosphorus final target and 401% of the sediment final target. Clearly nitrogen is the controlling factor in the Maryland WIP and mini-WIPs. The nitrogen load reductions planned for 2017 are planned to come from all the major sectors including air pollution.

Municipal waste water treatment plants (with some minor contribution from small industrial sites) will reduce their nitrogen release by 5.5 million pound per year. Maryland estimates that it will cost $2.37 billion to upgrade municipal waste water treatment plants with the costs incurred between 2009 and 2017 to finish upgrading the 42 major municipal plants and 5 minor municipal plants. No additional costs for upgrades or expansions are planned after 2017. These cost estimates do not include operations and maintenance costs. They also do not count costs incurred for private and federal plants that are also required to upgrade to ENR. Maryland’s execution on sewer upgrade plans has historically been slow; the sewer system in Baltimore still overflows with frightening regularity despite a consent order with the EPA signed in 2002.  In 10 years Baltimore has failed to upgrade their combined sewer system. The Baltimore public works department is in the 9th year of a $1 billion rehabilitation of the city’s aging, leaky sewer system, but now is apparently on a trajectory to complete system upgrades by 2017. Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff and domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe.

Maryland plans to reissue and implement Phase I and II MS4 permits to include the key requirements to implement WIP strategies in 2012. The stormwater sector is planned to reduce about 875,000 pounds per year of nitrogen by primarily requiring the retrofitting of 20% of currently developed land to modern stormwater management standards. This strategy will use the stormwater permit reductions to achieve this goal. Maryland estimates that between now and 2017 that will cost property owners $2.52 billion dollars and by 2025 will have cost $7.77 billion dollars. These costs address only the system upgrades, maintenance and operation costs are not addressed in this figure.

The agricultural sector will reduce their nitrogen load by 3.9 million pound a year by 2017. The vast majority of the reduction (3.2 million pounds) is from cropland, the remainder is from nurseries, pastures and AFOs (agricultural feeding operations). There is a slight increase in forest lands over the period reflecting a conversion to forest land cover, but it is unclear what land is converted to forest cover. The cost for to meet the 2017 load reduction strategy is $498 million with a total planned cost of $928 million to meet the 2025 goals. This does not include the cost associated with maintaining and verifying farm BMPs. Also, Maryland seems to have dropped the mandatory cover crop requirement that appeared in the first version of the WIP. EPA wants that requirement added to the Phase II WIP or an explanation why that is no longer necessary.

The WIP strategy will reduce nitrogen loads from septic systems by 396,000 pounds per year by 2017. This is accomplished by targeting septic systems within 1,000 feet of the “critical area” (which is within 1,000 feet of a tidally influenced water body) for either upgrading to nitrogen removal technology or connection to an advanced waste water treatment plant (one that has been upgraded to meet the higher standards). By 2017 this results in 14,754 new septic connections using nitrogen removal technology, 32,908 systems upgraded to nitrogen removal technology, 24,501 system pump outs and an unspecified number of connections to the sewer system. The cost was estimated to be $896 million by 2017 with the full strategy implementation by 2025 costing $3.72 billion.

According to the state budget, included in the WIP to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL goals for nutrient and sediment, but not accounted for in the stated costs are:  Doubling Transit Ridership by the end of 2020. Reducing Per Capita Electricity Consumption in Maryland by 15% by 2015. Increasing Maryland’s Renewable Energy Portfolio by 20% by 2022. Finally, reducing Maryland’s Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 25% by 2020. These goals are an essential part of the comprehensive WIP to achieve nutrient and sediment clean-up goals for the Chesapeake Bay by 2025. Many of those steps are designed to reduce atmospheric nitrogen (NOx) that would help Maryland meet Clean Air Act Requirements and reduce air deposition of atmospheric nitrogen in the watershed. Part of the NOx problem will be addressed by federal rules like the Cross State Air Pollution Rule and the Tier 3 Vehicle/Low Sulfur rule.

Maryland also plans legislation to increase the Bay Restoration Fund for enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) upgrades at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPS), on-site septic upgrades and hookups, and stormwater retrofits; Nutrient management regulation revisions; and local or state legislation to establish stormwater financing mechanisms. Maryland General Assembly, SB 614/HB 987, would require each local jurisdiction to collect a stormwater utility fee. The implementation plan seems extensive and complete even without the ability to review the input deck for the model and will more than meet EPA mandated TMDL goals. How Maryland intends to finance the entirety of this plan over the next 13 years is not clear.

By 2025 the Maryland plan will have implementation cost that are estimated to be $14.8 billion in 2011 dollars. Of that total $2.37 billion for waste water treatment upgrades, $7.8 billion in stormwater management costs is planned to be financed 81% from local fees and taxes the rest assumedly from property owners direct capital costs, and $3.7 billion in septic system upgrades, homeowner connections to the sanitary sewer system and increased septic tank pump outs that will predominately be borne by the homeowners. In taxes, fees or direct payments the 5.8 million residents of Maryland will pay in addition to their current taxes, and fees $14.8 billion over the next 13 years to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Total revenue for the state was projected to be $14.4 billion for 2013 with a budget gap of $1 billion that the state needed to close by transferring the responsibility to pay the social security tax and half the retirement cost for the teachers to the local level and have eliminated more than 5,500 positions from State government.

Meanwhile the Maryland FY 2013 state budget included only $5 million to make progress on WIP goals, $4.2 million for State Highway Administration (SHA) stormwater management projects and $750,000 for WIP-related staff, equipment, and operating expenses in the Departments of Agriculture and Environment. The FY 2013 budget also includes $25 million for the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund to support urban and storm water projects, agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs), and targeted innovative practices within watersheds.

Taken from the Maryland Phase II WIP