Saving What’s Left of the Rural Crescent

The Backyard I want to save

If developers have their way, soon the entire Rural Crescent will look like the "Villages of Piedmont at Leopold's Preserve" over 400 homes and townhomes clustered in the center of 490 acres. Farming will disappear from the area. According to Prince William County official records the Rural Crescent, established in 1998, encompasses almost 116,000 acres, but little of that total is still agricultural land. The Rural Crescent includes about 23,000 acres of federal land in the forest and Manassas Battlefield, 55,100 acres that are already developed including Quantico and existing developments (including all the homes built on 10 acres allowed under the A-1 zoning during the last housing boom), about 2,600 acres that are permanently protected*(though permanently protected land can be seized for public use by eminent domain), 8,200 acres that have development plans already approved and almost 28,000 acres that are undeveloped and unprotected and could be preserved as open space and farmland. Preserving the 28,000 acres as farmland and possibly preventing the development of the 8,200 acres that have approved development plans in place could preserve the rural nature and feel of the county and is the goal of the proposed program.

There has been continual pressure on the Office of Planning, the Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors by developers and landowners interested in maximizing the value of property to amend the zoning to increase development density for parcels in the Rural Crescent. However, increased density development in the Rural Crescent is inconsistent with the social objectives of maintaining a wildlife habitat, preservation of farmland, preservation of groundwater and surface water supplies and the Occoquan Reservoir, protection of historically significant areas and scenic views, and prevention of development on fractured rock systems highly susceptible to contamination. The basic zoning that exists now in the Rural Crescent is A1- one house per 10 acres, much more money could be made by building at an increased density, but more dense suburban developments would not improve the quality of life of county residents, and would damage the ecology or the region and quality of life of all county residents.

Combining the 8,200 acres within the Rural Crescent with approved development plans and the 28,000 acres undeveloped and unprotected land, under the current A1 zoning there is a potential for 3,700 additional residences to be built in the Rural Crescent if it were to be entirely carved up into 10 acre parcels. Carving up the Rural Crescent in this way would destroy the rural nature of the area and negatively impact the local ecology. In the survey that hundreds of Prince William residents took, there was strong support for maintaining the open rural nature of the Rural Crescent. The challenge that faces the county is how to preserve what is left of the Rural Crescent as truly rural land.

It is often believed that when you own land you can do what you want with the land, but that is not true. We have zoning and the county has a comprehensive plan to guide land use and development decisions that are made by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Supervisors. It is not in the public interest to allow anyone to put a hazardous waste dump in their backyard, build a manufacturing plant along the Occoquan, mine uranium next to the water supply for the county or other publically undesirable activities. As a matter of fact, Virginia law requires every governing body to adopt a comprehensive plan for the development of the lands within its jurisdiction. So each county and city has a comprehensive plan. These plans are reviewed every five years, to ensure that they continue to be responsive to current circumstances and that the citizens of the county continue to support the goals of the plan. Exceptions to the existing plan are granted based on politics, influence or other reasons.

Within the framework of the comprehensive plan, land ownership is a series of rights and the ability to use those rights. For example there are mineral rights, there are water rights, and there are air rights. If all these right are still attached to the surface rights it is called fee simple ownership. It is common to separate these rights. In regions where mining and drilling have taken place, the mineral rights for land were often sold separately from the surface rights. In cities, air rights are often bought and sold to maintain views and sunlight. Water rights have been sold for generations in the arid west. In addition, zoning and other restrictions may hinder the ways in which land can be used or developed. So, it should come as no surprise that the right to develop land have also been bought and sold.

A system of transferable development rights, TDRs, allows ownership of the development rights on a privately owned parcel of land to be separated from ownership of the parcel itself. These rights can then be transferred from that property to another property in a different location that has been designated as a receiving area. Having transferred the development rights, the landowner is restricted from developing his land by a conservation easement or deed restriction. The buyer of the development rights uses them to develop another piece of property with more density than allowed by its comprehensive plan zoning.

In the past twenty years Montgomery County, Maryland and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (to name just two successful programs) have had county programs to give landowners in areas that the county wanted to preserve development rights that could be transferred. There already exists in Virginia enabling legislation for a county program to transfer development rights from the Rural Crescent to areas of the county that the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department would want to see more densely developed.

Plans for TDR programs sound very straightforward; development is transferred from one location to another. However, in practice they have often been difficult to implement and have languished. It was reported by a Cornell University study in 2007 that there were 140 TDR programs in the United States. Program designs and results have spanned the entire spectrum from virtually no transfers at all (and thus no land protected from development to preservation of 49,000 acres in Montgomery County. Prince William County is coming late to the game. Most of the TDRs in Montgomery County were sold in the 1980s, and there has been less demand recently. In 1980, the county downzoned this entire area to a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres, to discourage residential development. It can be argued that the preservation that did occur is a result of the downzoning and not the TDR program. The TDR program granted the landowners transferable development rights for building at the previous zoning of one unit on 5 acres to compensate them for the lost development value.

The idea that a TDR program would, by itself, protect open space, and preserve farming while helping to create appealing village centers in other parts of the county by simply offering a mechanism for moving development around is not realistic. According to the Lincoln Land Institute TDR programs work only when they are part of a comprehensive plan that has the commitment and political will of the community behind it. This commitment to the larger goals of the comprehensive plan and to the particular resources being protected is essential to overcome other challenges. TDR programs must be tailored to the specific political, economic and geographic circumstances of their location.

TDR markets work as a land preservation tool when landowners are willing and able to sell development rights, and developers are interested in buying those rights. The relative strength of the supply and demand sides of the market will determine the prices at which TDRs are sold. The willingness of suppliers to provide TDRs and of developers to buy those rights depends on the design features of the TDR program, local zoning rules, and the underlying housing and land market conditions in the region.

In addition to economic factors other program rules can affect the success or failure of the TDR market. The Cornell study reports that for a program to be successful a TDR use needs to be “by right” for developers. In addition, it is important that higher density not be given away “for free,” by the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission outside the TDR program. Finally, how the market actually functions is important. The Cornell study found that local government needs facilitate making the market work by providing information, providing a clearinghouse or registry for the market, and collecting and analyzing data from the program.

Looking back at my house from the creek

EPA approves DC Water’s Green Infrastructure Plan

Image from DC Water: GI= green infrastructure, CSO= combined sewer overflow

On Friday, December 14, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency officially announced its support for District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, DC Water's, proposal to extend the deadlines in the Consent Decree with the United States in order for them to test green infrastructure (GI) alternatives to its Clean River Project, its long term plan to control overflows for the District’s combined sewer system. Currently, the Clean Rivers Project is a $2.6 billion system of tunnels and diversion sewers for the capture of stormwater to prevent overflows to Rock Creek and the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and storage for later treatment at DC Water’s Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The EPA has announced its support of the modification of the consent decree so that DC Water may construct Green Infrastructure Demonstration projects. These projects will be used to evaluate (over the next 8 years) the effectiveness of green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff using techniques that mimic natural control measures to meet water quality goals under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit . If successful, these techniques could be used to help address the combined sewer overflow problems in the District, potentially reducing costs and/or improving control of stormwater overflows. As part of the agreement with EPA, DC Water will proceed with preparation of the Environmental Impact Statements required for the Potomac Storage Tunnel while the GI Demonstration Project and Alternatives Analysis are underway and as indicated above the Anacostia Tunnel projects will proceed on schedule.

District of Columbia's sewage system is one of the oldest in the United States and the combined storm water and waste water flows in the oldest section of the system have created a pollution problem whenever it rains. The combined volume of rainwater and sewage is too much for the Blue Plaines Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant to process, so DC Water releases the excess rainwater mixed with untreated sewage to the Anacostia River, Potomac River and Rock Creek to prevent the sewage from backing up in homes and businesses and the Capitol. The sewage flow released in this way has violated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit which is how EPA regulates sewage treatment plants. The history of Washington DC’s NPDES permit and allowed outflows can be read here.

The BluePlains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the southernmost tip of Washington DC, across the river from Alexandria. Blue Plains sits on 150 acres of land and has 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 a larger 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 rain storms. DC Water is under a consent order from the EPA and the Department of Justice to meet new effluent limits for total nitrogen released and better control of the system during storms. To comply with the consent order DC Water developed the $2.6 billion Clean Rivers Project.

The Clean Rivers project was amended in 2007 to include the construction of Enhanced nitrogen removal, ENR, facilities for additional $950 million. 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. When all the Clean River Project and ENR facilities components were completed, the Blue Plains Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant is projected to be able to meet the nitrogen release standard under the NPDES operating permit, reduce the number of uncontrolled storm related releases of waste, but still not meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.  Buried in Appendix B of the Watershed Implementation Plan II, WIP II, for Washington DC is the fact that they cannot meet the EPA mandated TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay for the combined sewer system and Blue Plains Waste Water Treatment plant with the existing programs. More needs to be done.

In addition, seven years into the Clean Rivers Project, DC Water is facing the reality of the rate increases necessary to support the combined costs of the projects that will still not meet the TMDL. Building the 13-mile network of 23-foot-diameter tunnels to carry combined storm runoff and sanitary sewage to the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment rather than releasing untreated sewage and stormwater runoff to the rivers and creeks during heavy rainstorms is incredibly expensive and still may not be enough to solve the problem. So far the more than $600 million that has been spent for the Clean Rivers Project for in engineering preliminary work address mostly the Anacostia River Tunnel (which is really an interconnected series of three tunnels). According to Alan Hayman of DC Water, the Anacostia Tunnels will cost about $1.6 billion when completed and will have the greatest reduction in overflow releases. DC water is hopeful that the green infrastructure will allow downsizing of Potomac and Rock Creek tunnels (delay sewer rate increases) and ensure that DC Water ends up compliant with the NPDES permit, consent decree and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Green Infrastructure, if successful, can continue to grow and expand in effectiveness as these practices become commonplace and accepted.  

from DC Water 

Low Impact Development and Oaks III Project

The Oaks III project was approved by the Prince William County Board of Supervisors after a public hearing on January 10th 2012. This proposal to rezone almost 18 acres of land adjacent to the Oaks II development and near the Town of Occoquan is an example of how Prince William County is attempting to continue to grow under the demands of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandated by the EPA. Prince William County finds itself along with a large portion of Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC and portions of several other states needing to reduce the amount of run off and better manage existing storm water to meet the goals of the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the TMDL mandated by the EPA.

Excessively high levels of 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 fishing and shellfish industries and recreational use of the bay. The high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment enter the water from a variety of sources, including agricultural operations, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater treatment facilities, septic systems, air pollution, and minor contribution from natural processes. However, the largest share of nutrient and sediment pollution results from man: suburban development, cars and roadways, agricultural activities to feed man and human and animal waste.

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 % reduction in sediment from the current levels. The pollution limits are then partitioned to the various states and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. The TMDL addresses only pollution from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and does not address toxic, carcinogenic or endocrine disruptors that may be present in the Watershed.

The Virginia Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Phase I and II lay out a series of pollution control measures called best management practices, BMPs that need to be put in place by 2025, with 60% of the BMPs completed by 2017. While it will take years after 2025 for the Bay and its tributaries to fully heal, EPA expects that once the required BMPs are in place there will be gradual and continued improvement in water quality as the BMPs reduce the nutrient and sediment run off and better control storm water so that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem can heal itself.

About 37% of Prince William County is served by the HL Mooney Waste Water Treatment Plant which after its recent expansion and upgrade is state of the art in waste water treatment with monthly discharge averages are less than 0.1 for phosphorus, TSS 1 mg/l, BOD non- detect and nitrogen is currently 3 mg/l. Nonetheless, Prince William County needs to reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment released to the Chesapeake Bay each year to meet the demands of the Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan because the cost to upgrade every waste water treatment plant and every municipal storm sewer system in the state was estimated at three times the cost of implementing best management practices throughout the state.

So, Prince William County finds itself needing to reduce existing runoff from the remaining agricultural operations within the county, urban runoff from towns, suburban runoff, septic systems, and air pollution (if possible) and still be a vibrant community. The Oaks III is the first example of the steps that Prince William County is taking to implement low impact development, LID, features with new growth and use the opportunity of new development to implement BMPs on older projects. LID is the latest catch phase in ecologically friendly site development and consists of five elements: preserving open space and minimizing land disturbance; protecting natural drainage ways, soils and sensitive areas; incorporating natural site elements like wetlands, stream corridors, and woodlands as site features; reducing the size of traditional infrastructure; and decentralize and manage storm water at its source.

The almost 18 acre parcel will be divided into four areas, the largest, 13.6 acres, will be a conservation area. Though public access to the area was not outlined in the proposal, this will serve to preserve open space and limit land disturbance on site. The reduced size of the development planned for the site will result in 8.5% of the site to be covered with impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots and sidewalks). The developer intends to use LID techniques to manage storm water and runoff on-site including methods to slow storm water flow rates. Instead designing the storm water management system so that it rapidly drains the site, low-impact development relies on design tools and control practices to preserve the natural hydrologic functions of the site. The specifics of the design will be addressed during site plan review in consultation with the developer’s engineer. In addition, the developer will use BMPs to restore 400 feet of the stream channel of the existing on-site intermittent stream. Then, the developer will be required to go back and improve the storm water management on the Oaks II development by installing a new stilling basin in the conservation area where the Oaks II storm water outfall is located. This is planned to slow the storm water flow during large storm events to allow water to infiltrate the soil. The Department of Watershed Management will approve the design to make sure that these BMPs improve the existing storm water management and generate “credit” under the TMDL.

Together the development of Oaks III should result in additional commercial space, additional housing and a reduction in storm water peak flow by using on-site infiltration, on-site bio-retention ponds, grass swales, rain water cisterns and French drains-all tools in the LID technique to mimic natural drainage through distributed control of storm water throughout the entire site. The challenging soils and slope at the Oaks III project should test the effectiveness of implementing these strategies.