The Potomac River May Run Out of Water

 This is a summary of the ICPRB report published September 2020:

The Washington, DC, metropolitan area (WMA) with over three million workers many of whom serve or support the federal government  is also home to almost five million residents. The region’s water suppliers have an important responsibility beyond supplying the needs or the residents: to provide 24/7 water that ensures the federal government, including Congress, the Pentagon, and key agencies can function.  

The water suppliers share the Potomac River as the major regional water resource, and so 35 years ago and came together to form the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) and a cooperative agreement (Co-Op)  of funding and using the water resources available regionally. One of the requirements of the agreement is that every five years a study be conducted to evaluate whether available resources will be able to meet forecasted water demands. The seventh in the series of such studies has just been released.  This time the ICPRB found that if droughts become much more severe as predicted in the climate forecast, even with the addition of the Vulcan Quarry, Milston Quarry, Travilah Quarry and Luck Stone Quarry B as reservoirs (adding over 13 billion gallons of water storage) and using water restrictions and demand management the WMA water supply may be unable to meet combined water supply needs and the environmental flow-by at Little Falls. In other words according to the forecast by 2050 we run out of water for periods under more than one third of the forecast scenarios. It is to be noted that without the addition of the 7.8 billion gallon Travilah Quarry as additional storage the WMA water systems experience failures by 2040 in the forecasts.

The new ICPRB study forecasts of water demands for the WMA through, 2050, taking into account projected demographic and societal changes that may affect future water use,  forecasts of water availability, considering the potential impact of changes in climate and upstream water use on system resources, and  an evaluation of the ability of current and planned system resources to meet the forecasted demands. Using various scenarios the  current study also assesses the effectiveness of several options for enhancing the current regional water supply system that were recommended in a special study conducted in 2017 (Schultz et al., 2017). This special study evaluated and compared the ability of 10 proposed changes and additions to the WMA water supply system to meet the challenges of growing regional demand for water with a supply that does not grow and the potential impacts of climate change when the region expects to have more intense wet years and longer droughts.

The Potomac River supplies, on average, just over three quarters of the WMA’s surface water needs. The rest of the water supply comes from Occoquan River, the Patuxent River and regional groundwater supplies an estimated 27% of end use demand. The Co-Op members provided the funding for three upstream reservoirs: Jennings Randolph, Little Seneca, and Savage. Water in these reservoirs is released during drought to augment natural river flow. In addition, Fairfax Water and WSSC Water rely daily on reservoirs outside of the drainage area of the Potomac River, on the Occoquan River (7.85 billion gallons) and the Patuxent River (10.4 billion gallons), respectively. Two additional reservoirs are planned to be in place within the next 20 years: Loudoun Water’s Milestone Reservoir(1.25 billion gallons)  , scheduled for completion in 2024, and Fairfax Water’s Vulcan Quarry Phase 1 (1.7 billion gallons), planned to be in place by 2040 to augment their Occoquan supply.

Due to continuing improvements in efficiencies of household water fixtures and appliances and consumer behavior, water use in the WMA has remained remarkably steady for almost three decades despite continuing population growth. Water demand averaged 453 million gallons per day (MGD) for the CO-OP suppliers during the most recent period for which data is available (2014-2018). This does not count the water use from groundwater nor the water use by smaller water supply utilities that have their own water supply. Forecasts of average annual water demand were developed using average per person and household use and a forecast that population in the WMA in 2050 will be 6.1 million, a 27% increase from 2018 levels. The ICPRB projects that average annual  water demand will increase to 501 MGD (10%) by 2040 and to 528 MGD (16%) by 2050. The estimated uncertainties (one standard error) in 2040 and 2050 are ±9.7% and ±10.4%, respectively.

While the demand for water increases, the climate projections indicate that the mid-Atlantic states, on average, are becoming and will continue to get “wetter.” Climate scientists also warn; however,  that extreme conditions, that is, floods and droughts, will become more severe.  Our water infrastructure will have to include more water storage to meet a larger demand during longer droughts.

The ICPRB used nine scenarios to represent ranges of uncertainties in the impact of climate change on water availability in the Potomac basin and in future WMA water demand. For each scenario, Potomac Reservoir and River Simulation Model (PRRISM) simulations were done in  four different configurations of the WMA system: a system with current and planned resources, and a system that has been enhanced with  operation controls using water restrictions,  the current system with operating controls and the Travilah Quarry and finally the current system with operation controls the Travilah Quarry and Luck Stone Quarry B added storage.

On average, precipitation in the Potomac River watershed in 2040 and 2050 is projected to increase by 8% and 10%, respectively, and temperature is projected to increase by 2.16 °C (3.9 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F), respectively. There is tremendous uncertainty about how climate change will affect streamflows. This study relies on a simple climate response function, based on a least squares multiple regression analysis, to predict mean annual natural Potomac River flow from mean annual precipitation, mean annual temperature, and the previous year’s mean flow.

Four summary statistics are used as key performance metrics are listed in the colored boxes below:

• Percent years with no Potomac flow deficits: the percentage of years in the simulation period in which flow in the Potomac River at Little Falls is above 100 MGD (the Little Falls flow-by) on every day of the year, that is, in which combined WMA Potomac water supply needs and the environmental flow-by at Little Falls is always met.
• Percent years with emergency restrictions: the percentage of years over the simulation period in which emergency water use restrictions are implemented on one or more days of the year. In this study, emergency restrictions are assumed to be implemented when combined water supply storage in Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca reservoirs is below 5% of the combined capacity.
• Maximum 1-day Potomac flow deficit (MGD): the maximum shortfall in meeting combined WMA Potomac water supply needs and the Little Falls environmental flow-by on any single day of the simulation period.
• Minimum Travilah Quarry storage (BG): the minimum storage in Travilah experienced over the course of the simulation period.

The last statistic, minimum Travilah Quarry storage, is of interest because of the dual role that Travilah is expected to play in the WMA water supply system: as a backup supply in case of an emergency spill and as a resource to mitigate drought. Reductions in Travilah storage during drought reduce or eliminate this reservoir’s ability to serve as a backup supply in case of a spill. Results of the study indicate that if droughts become much more severe as climate models forecast, the WMA system may be unable to meet combined water supply needs and the environmental flow-by at Little Falls even if all of the recommended options of the 2017 alternatives study are implemented, including Travilah Quarry and Luck Stone Quarry B. 

The Charts show: Percent years with no Potomac River deficits, Percent years with emergency restrictions, Maximum 1-day Potomac River flow deficit, Minimum Travilah Quarry storage top to bottom in each box.

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.

Plan for the Groundwater Cleanup at Quantico

The Marine Corps Combat Development Command (Base at Quantico) is inviting community residents to a public meeting on June 25, 2014 to discuss the plans for the proposed groundwater cleanup for an area east of Bauer Road within the Mainside of the Base at Quantico along the Potomac River. The area to be cleaned up is designated Solid Waste Management Unit M-13 (SWMU M-13)– Building 2113 Underground Tank Loading/Unloading Area. The public meeting will be held next Wednesday (June 25, 2014) at the Clubs at Quantico, Marine Corps Base Quantico, 3017 Russell Road, Quantico VA from 7-8:30 p.m. to discuss the Proposed Plan for SWMU M-13 – Building 2113 Underground Tank Loading/Unloading Area. The public comment period for this plan began on May 25, 2014 and ends July 8, 2014. The public may comment during the public meeting and/or may send written comments postmarked no later than July 8, 2014.

SWMU M-13 is the former concrete pad, sump, associated underground piping and loading/unloading area that serviced the Building 2113 underground storage tanks. The tanks were part of a fuel supply system for the heating plant located at Building 2113. All tanks have been removed or closed in place. A tank that is closed in place is one where the contents of the tank are removed, the tank cleaned and the wash water removed then the tank is filled with concrete. The area of contaminated groundwater is located approximately 75 feet south of Building 2113. Building 69, a former motor pool, and Building 5108, a flammable materials storage shed, are also located in close proximity to SWMU M-13.

The sight investigation and remediation identified groundwater contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds centered in the vicinity of Building 5108 at concentrations that exceed the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the solvents of concern and requires remediation to reduce future potential risks associated with human exposure to groundwater. The groundwater contamination from chlorinated solvents is believed to be a result of former motor pool repair and maintenance activities and shed chemical storage activities and not the actual SWMU (tank unloading/loading area activities) based on the location of the contamination and shallow depth of the contamination plume. Chlorinate solvents are used for a wide variety of commercial and industrial purposes, including degreasers, cleaning solutions, paint thinners, pesticides, resins, glues, and a host of other mixing and thinning solutions. Their chlorine-containing chemical structure helps them: to efficiently dissolve organic materials like greases.

Several remediation alternatives were evaluated for this site. The alternative proposed by the Navy consists of a combination of in-situ enhanced bioremediation, long-term monitoring of groundwater and land use controls to prevent potential unacceptable exposures to groundwater. Essentially, helping nature breakdown the contamination and making sure that people do not use the contaminated groundwater while the contamination clears up. The Navy has also requested the flexibility to stop groundwater treatment if monitoring data, evaluated through trend and statistical analysis, determines that the time frame for achieving unrestricted use/unrestricted exposure will not be reached within 10 years. If this determination is made, a contingency remedy of groundwater monitoring and land use controls will be implemented as the final remedy and nature will be allowed to take care of the problem.

This site is located within the coastal plain geological province. Natural attenuation of the contamination will probably work eventually as long as the sources of the contamination have been removed. I question the accuracy of modeling of groundwater systems and using statistical analysis. Groundwater models have not been adequately modeled to reliably predict natural attenuation. I believe it is essential to continue monitoring the groundwater after the MCL has been achieved. Confirmation sampling programs are rarely done at Superfund sites and contamination levels can rebound and should be tracked periodically over the coming decades. The proposal is broadly written, but essentially is letting nature dilute and move the contaminants out into the Potomac, doing a risk analysis to ensure that there is not significant risk for human exposure and then confirmation sampling.

The Marine Base at Quantico is located in Quantico, Virginia, 35 miles south of Washington, D.C. along the Potomac River. The base at Quantico is huge covering approximately 56,000 acres in southern Prince William County, northern Stafford County, and eastern Fauquier County.

The Marine Base at Quantico was first established in 1917 on 5,300 acres. During World War II the base was expanded to the west of Route 1 adding another 50,985 acres of land. Like all military bases much of the land was used for training, housing, training, ordnance disposal and vehicle repair, maintenance and fueling operations. Back in 1988 the Navy identified five areas of the base that were potentially contaminated by using historical records. These areas included base landfills, the motor pool and fueling areas, fuel storage areas, and pesticide burial areas.

Ultimately, the Marine Base at Quantico was listed on the National Priority List for Superfund on June 30, 1994. Seven areas or as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, prefers to call them operating units, have been addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. Since the 1990’s the Department of the Navy has been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, VADEQ, to remediate the contamination at the Marine base at Quantico, bring base current operations incompliance with environmental regulations and maintain base operations according to recommended hazardous material storage best practices.
Solid Waste Management Unit M-13, Building 2113 had an underground storage tank used to store hazardous waste. The tank is underground and has a capacity of 100,000 to 200,000 gallons. The environmental study of the unit reported that the tank was used to store/dispose of used oils, strippers, thinners, and other halogenated solvents which are hazardous wastes as defined under the law. The Base at Quantico did not have good records, the start-up date for this tank is unknown, and it might have once been a fuel tank for the heating plant; however it was in operation as a hazardous waste disposal tank in of July 1988. The contents of the tank were removed and properly disposed of and the contamination with chlorinated solvents is above the base of the tank and believe to be from other sources.

Comments can be sent to:
Commander
NREA Branch, B 046
Attn: Donna Heric, Acting Remediation Program Manager
Marine Corps Base
3049 Bordelon St.
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5001
Phone: 703-432-0521
Fax: 703-784-4953
donna.heric@usmc.mil

In case you'd rather honor a hero than hear about hazardous waste, President Obama will award retired Cpl. William “Kyle” Carpenter, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in a White House ceremony today, June 19. 2014. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James F. Amos, is scheduled to present the Medal of Honor flag to Cpl. Kyle Carpenter in a ceremony June 20 at 10 a.m. at Marine Barracks Washington, D.C. 

Don't Frack the Potomac Watershed

The 1.1 million-acre George Washington National Forest sits on the eastern portion of the Marcellus shale formation. Now, as reported in the L.A. Times and Washington Post, the U.S. Forest Service is deciding whether to open up the national forest to oil and gas leases allowing hydraulic fracking at the source of the Potomac River, the lifeblood of our region. The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1993 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on file, describes seven alternatives and the Forest Service has identified Alternative G as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. This alternative as can be seen in the chart below would allow further development of the oil and gas resources in the Forest. This should not happen at this time.

from US Forest Service

The Potomac is the major source of drinking water for more than 4 million people, and the headlands and watershed are within the eastern edge of the forest along the edge of the Marcellus shale formation. The entire Chesapeake Bay region is under a mandated pollution diet from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service is considering allowing activities that could increase sediment runoff and potentially release pollution to the Potomac River.

The Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fairfax County Water Authority and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission furnish about 95% of the metropolitan region's water from the Potomac River. For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited, but regional growth, pollution and drought proved that was not true. Congress created the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to address the pollution of the river, but now their primary job is to manage the allocation of the Potomac’s Waters especially in times of drought. The idea of diverting millions of gallons of water to be used in hydrofracking and even the smallest risk of pollution to the river from spills and leaks is an unacceptable risk to the water supply for the region.

Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydro fracking, using 2-5 million gallons of water mixed with chemicals. For gas to flow out of the shale, all of the water not absorbed by the formation during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals used in fracking represent 15,000 gallons of unknown chemical compostion in the waste water recovered from the typical hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow.

The oil and gas industry has failed to determine proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants. This must be accomplished before even considering expanding fracking into important watersheds. In addition, the impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be monitored and addressed.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently engaged in a review of hydraulic fracking and that should be completed before fracking is further expanded into ecologically sensitive areas.

While geologists and engineers believe that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table, they base this on the “typical” geology where there are thousands of feet between the water table and the fracking location and does not account for any potential impacts from human error or carelessness or on the hydraulic balance in a watershed. The problems seen in drinking water wells near hydro fracking jobs have typically occurred when fracking fluid seeps into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells and from accidental release or improper storage of recovered fracking fluid.

The oil and gas industry has outpaced regulators and knowledge of the consequences from forcing oil and gas from the earth. It is essential to determine the vertical and horizontal separation that is necessary to protect the drinking water aquifers and watersheds from the environmental impacts from fracking before watersheds are damaged or destroyed or the U. S. Forest Service allows vastly expanded development of oil and gas resources in the National Forests. The oil and gas will still be in the ground when we have more knowledge, then fracking can be expanded with increased oversight to ensure that this separation is maintained, improved well-design requirements are developed and ensure their consistent implementation and require the appropriate handling, treatment and recycling of drilling waste water.

The deep well injection commonly used in Texas to dispose of fracking water may have consequences beyond small earthquakes and is not appropriate in all geologies. Sewage treatment plants are designed to separate solids and use bacteria to treat biological waste. They are not equipped to remove or neutralize the contaminants in used hydro fracking fluid. In 2009 and 2010, public sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania directly upstream from drinking-water intake facilities accepted wastewater that contained radionuclides at levels hundred even thousands of times the drinking-water standard despite the fact that these plants (and most sewage plants) were exempt from monitoring for radiation. Local regulators and gas producers believed the waste was not a threat because it would be diluted by treatment in the sewage treatment plants or the river itself, without sampling to verify this. They guessed at the environmental impact and safety of the public drinking water supply. Water resources are primary to life, energy resources are secondary.

Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the equipment, machinery and operation of the oil and gas industry as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads changing the runoff quantity, velocity and quality while exposing the watershed to potential sources of hydrocarbon contamination. The watersheds that supply the water that is the life of our region must be protected first and foremost. Over the years there have been reports from several states noting contamination of drinking water wells in association with fracking, though no definitive proof because of lack of adequate testing and difficulties in understanding groundwater, the full extent to which hydro fracking fluids have contaminated or might in the future contaminate groundwater is unknown. However, many cases of associated contamination have been confirmed.

The Potomac River is an irreplaceable source of drinking water for millions of people and should be protected. All of the Potomac River watershed needs to be designated by Congress as withdrawn from availability for oil and gas leasing until such time that we know how to ensure with certainty the availability and purity of the Potomac.

The Potomac River Flow

At the last meeting of the Potomac Watershed Roundtable, Curtis Dalpra, Communications Manager for the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) presented the results of a study to examine what the impacts of various senarios on the flow of the Potomac River which supplies much of the drinking water in the Washington Metropolitan Area. At one point in his presentation he stated that the flow of the Potomac has fallen, but did not have the data on hand to specify over what period. The region had only recently emerged from an extended drought and so I went back to the study that the ICPRB performed to examine adequacy of the Potomac River flow with projected land use and population growth without climate change to see if I could find the data. What I found did not indicate a reduction so much as a change in flow to the river.

Both Images from ICPRB

As shown in the two charts above taken from the ICPRB, there appears to be an increase in both precipitation and runoff (surface flow to the rivers) over the past century rather than a decrease. Mr. Dalpra might have been referring to the recent drought and changes in flow patterns. Low flows have been lower, and high flows higher, in the past than they are now. These flow changes are the result of some combination of changes in land use, consumptive water use, augmentation of low flows using reservoir water and possibly changes in the climate or to the extensive drought that hit this region several years ago and expanded to a multi-year drought.

The region seems to have recovered from that drought according to the Drought Monitor. However, in reviewing the data I did discover that about 70% of the Potomac is used in power generation, though it is not clear what proportion of that use is consumptive. In the United States over 90% of all power is generated by using the power source (coal, gas, nuclear and even solar) to heat water to create steam that drives the turbines and generates electricity. Nationally, less than half of the fresh water is used in power generation, but that is because irrigation water usage is much lower in the Potomac River basin where agriculture is much less dependent on irrigation.

The Potomac is the fourth largest river along the Atlantic seaboard. The Potomac River starts life as a spring at the Fairfax Stone in West Virginia. The river flows approximately 385 miles to the Chesapeake Bay increasing in size and flow from its tributary streams and rivers in West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Potomac River grows to become the Chesapeake Bay's second largest Tributary. The River provides more than 500 million gallons of freshwater daily to those living in its watershed, as well as irrigation water , and the more than 2 billion gallons of water a day for power plants.

The Potomac River is one of the least dammed large river systems in the Eastern United States. The combined storage capacity of all major reservoirs upstream of Washington, DC makes up less than 7% of median flow. Nonetheless, the Potomac River’s flow needs to be managed to assure the 500 million gallons per day the river supplies for drinking water to the region and the essential environmental services. The ICPRB was born out of the severe and extended drought in the 1960's when water withdrawls to supply drinking water to the region from the River reduced flows to such an extent that the River practically ran dry, leaving only mud between Great Falls and the tidal river.

Ultimately (after more than a decade) the ICPRB was created to manage the water withdrawls from the Potomac to ensure that essential services like wastewater assimilation and habitat maintenance. The ICPRB monitors river flows and withdrawls to ensure the 100 million gallons per day minimum flow- at Little Falls and the 300 million gallons per day from Great Falls to Little Falls. These minimum flow levels have been observed since the early 1980's, but during that time flows have rarely been that low.

It is possible that River median flows at the measuring points of Little Falls and Great Falls is changing and may be decreasing due to population growth and associated land use changes that have taken place in the past 15 years. Population growth accelerates loss of forest and farmland, hardens surfaces, increases demand for water. Urbanization can significantly alter a river’s flow. Impervious surfaces of roadways, sidewalks, parking lots and building foundations increase stormflow peaks, frequency, and duration, impart greater erosive power to the water by increasing velocity, and reshaping stream contours. Rivers are sustained by groundwater between in drier periods, but urban and suburban development reduces recharge of the groundwater. Deforestation increases the proportions of rainfall running off the landscape instead of seeping into the ground where it can be taken up by plants or enter the groundwater.

The original old growth forests of the region were largely destroyed by slash-and-burn agriculture and by logging to build the region. After destroying 60%-70% of the original forest cover by the 1890’s the trend reversed. Marginal agricultural lands were abandoned and young forest began to reestablish. The new forests that grew up in the 20th century helped restore ecological and hydrological functions. Increases in forest acreage continued until the late 1900s, when expanding urbanization began to reverse that trend and the wooded lands at the suburban edge began to be developed in increasing numbers.

Increased development reduces groundwater infiltration, increases the demand for drinking water and the demand for power. Even without climate change impact, human uses of land and water can interrupt or break many of the natural connections between river flow and precipitation. Analysis by the ICPRB found that land use change is a greater source of hydrologic alteration than dams, impoundments or water withdrawals.

Potomac Watershed Roundtable- Reliability of Drinking Water Supply

On Friday, October 4th 2013 the Potomac Watershed Roundtable met at the offices of Loudoun Water in Ashburn, Virginia. Curtis Dalpra, Communications Manager for the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) presented the results of a study to examine what the impacts of Climate Change might be on Drinking Water Supplies in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Let’s back up to understand why and how this study was done.

Turn a tap in most places of the Washington Metropolitan region, and water, primarily from the Potomac River, flows. The system that today provides ample water to the area does not provide unlimited water. The water supply for the region will become less reliable in coming decades, especially during droughts, as the population continues to grow and as surface flow to the Potomac River decreases by changes in the land use of the watershed and changes in climate impact the river.

The Washington Metropolitan region population and development has reached the point 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. The section of ICPRB responsible for all this is known as the Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP.

An important aspect of the Water Supply Coordination Agreement of 1982 is periodically forecasting the region’s future needs for water and assessing the current water supply system’s ability to meet those needs. This analysis is conducted every five years to look 30 years in the future to incorporate new data and ideas and allow time for the water utilities to develop new supply or operating parameters in time to meet demand. Careful future planning has ensured and uninterrupted water supply though several significant droughts.

The 2010 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Reliability Study -Demand and Resource Availability for the Year 2040 was done as two studies. The 2010 study estimates that water demand in the Washington Metropolitan region will rise from its current level of approximately 500 million gallons per day to between 610 and 665 million gallons a day by the year 2040. Over this same period, population in this area is projected to increase from 4.2 million to 5.3 million.

According to that portion of the study, the Washington Metropolitan Area’s current water supply system will likely meet demands through the year 2030, under a range of hydrologic conditions similar to those experienced during the past 78-year period of historical record. However by the year 2040, the current system may have difficulty meeting the region’s demands during periods of severe drought without emergency water use restrictions, and/or the development of additional supply resources.

The key assumption for that report was that the future flow of the Potomac River will mirror the hydraulic conditions for the past 78 years. If hydraulic conditions are changing or a 78 year period is inadequate to predict the possible extent of droughts, this could impact the availability of water. So the ICPRB engaged a study for various climate scenarios of water supply availability from Potomac Watershed to determine if the water supply would be adequate to serve the population. The National Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) actually performed the study using six of the global climate models and three atmospheric CO2 scenarios to create 18 separate possible scenarios. The USGS then “downscaled” the 18 global climate predictions to the Potomac River basin and to other areas as part of a separate project on climate change being conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the USGS’s Virginia Water Science Center (your tax dollars at work). In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Phase 5 Watershed Model was used to estimate the impact of changing temperatures and precipitation on Potomac basin stream flows.

There is tremendous uncertainty in projecting the future climate of the earth, especially at the regional scale. Though global climate models are continually being refined and improved, they do not capture complexity of the interrelations of earth’s land, water, and atmospheric systems that we do not yet fully understand. Local nuisances can be lost in the broad sweeps of mathematical modeling of a living system. Scientific confidence in global model projections is higher for temperature than for precipitation, higher for global scales rather than small regional scales, and higher for longer time frames than shorter ones.

Though the modelers have always claimed greater accuracy for temperature forecasts than precipitation, they have not done a good job of forecasting surface temperature for the past decade. The average surface temperature of earth has actually not increased in the past decade and none of the climate models have been able to adequately explain that anomaly. For the period of 1970 to 2000 the median surface temperature as recorded by measurements increased 0.3 ± 0.04°F per year. However, there has been little further warming of the surface of the planet, particularly over the oceans in the most recent 10 to 15 years. Nonetheless, with all those disclaimers, the USGS did get some predictions out of their 18 scenarios.

Results for the 18 climate scenarios fell into three categories: minor impact, moderate impact, and major impact. The biggest impact is the ability of the regional water utilities to continue to supply water on demand during droughts as the climate changes (or not). Six of the scenarios are predicted to have little impact on the system during a moderate drought and the projected population of the region can be supplied with drinking water from the Potomac River and current systems and operations. Six of the climate change scenarios fall into the “moderate impact” category. Under these scenarios the region is predicted to experience more frequent and stricter water use restrictions, but no water supply shortages during a moderate drought. Reservoir levels are predicted to fall to significantly lower levels during a drought than would occur in the absence of climate change with the projected and assumed increase in population.

Prince William County the Retirement Mecca that will Survive Climate Change

The climate of the earth is constantly changing. Scientific studies have indicated that over the past century the earth has warmed 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit. This warming is not particularly alarming in itself given our planetary history, but the speed of this temperature increase and the fact that the warming is projected to continue at an accelerated pace is worrisome. The planetary warming is forecast to cause sea levels to rise due to melting of sea ice in parts of the world, and changes in weather and patterns and precipitation. If carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are the driving force in earth’s temperature that many scientists believe, then these trends are likely to continue. On a whole earth basis the climate models show at this point there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming and climate change.

As the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, the warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect is strengthened. Computer modeling of the climate predicts that there will be feedbacks that significantly increase the impact from the increasing CO2. Even if the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were to stabilize at this level, the changes in the climate of the earth in response to the atmospheric CO2 levels would continue for hundreds of years. In reality, the global emissions of CO2 will not stabilize or decrease any time soon and will continue to rise for at least a generation. What is going to happen will happen, so we need to plan for change and make decisions for the next 30-50 years based on likely outcomes.

It is my plan to live for another 40 years. My relatives do pretty well and I am an optimist and a “real food” and exercise devotee. So when it came time to select a place to live in retirement, climate change was one of the factors taken into consideration- water availability, distance from the coast, elevation, along with proximity to family, medical service and an airport and several other factors. Now, I find myself in northwest Prince William County a place that the Washington Post recently described as becoming “a regional retirement mecca, a small-scale version of Florida on the outskirts of Washington.” I made my choices based to a large extent on general projections of climate released by various groups, not having the tools or resources to do much more.

Now, however, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) has completed a study in water supply availability and the health of the Potomac Watershed for various climate scenarios. The focus of their study was the Potomac River, which supplies water to the Washington Aqueduct, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Fairfax Water who all funded the study. The Potomac River supplies 78% of the regions drinking water and the water utilities of the region must plan for the future. In addition, there must be adequate flow of the Potomac below Little Falls to ensure that the balance of saline and fresh water for the health of the Chesapeake Bay estuary. So, on the water rate payer’s nickel I get to see what the future might look like here in in Prince William County.

The National Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) actually performed the study using six of the global climate models and three atmospheric CO2 scenarios to create 18 separate possible scenarios. The USGS then “downscaled” the 18 global climate predictions to the Potomac River basin and to other areas as part of a separate project on climate change being conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the USGS’s Virginia Water Science Center (your tax dollars at work). In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Phase 5 Watershed Model was used to estimate the impact of changing temperatures and precipitation on Potomac basin stream flows.

The most advanced types of models currently being used to project future global climate are general circulation models (GCMs). A GCM is a numerical model which represents the important physical, chemical, and biological processes on the Earth’s surface, in the atmosphere, and/or in oceanic systems that affect climate. The USGS used models from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (USA), Norway, Australia, Russia and Japan as listed in the chart below.

From ICPRB publication

In addition, the three CO2 emissions scenarios were based on IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007c). The USGS used relatively low emissions (B1), medium emissions (A1B), and high emissions (A2) temperature forecasts for each model to create the 18 scenarios.

IPCC Climate Change 2007

There is tremendous uncertainty in projecting the future climate of the earth, especially at the regional scale. Though global climate models are continually being refined and improved, they do not capture complexity of the interrelations of earth’s land, water, and atmospheric systems that we do not yet fully understand. Local nuisances can be lost in the broad sweeps of mathematical modeling of a living system. Scientific confidence in global model projections is higher for temperature than for precipitation, higher for global scales rather than small regional scales, and higher for longer time frames than shorter ones. Nonetheless, with all those disclaimers, the USGS did get some predictions out of their 18 scenarios.

Though it is predicted by the climate models that precipitation will increase on a global scale, when dealing with only the Potomac River basin, the models differed on whether precipitation will increase or decrease. The models project that the total annual precipitation varies from plus 9% to minus 9% or that the rainfall/ snowmelt that averaged 42.2 inches during the reference period (1988-1999) may stay within 4 inches of that average. Though, it is to be noted, that year to year weather variations in rainfall in the region are large, precipitation has varied from over 80 inches to below 20 inches in the past. Also, in the 18 climate scenarios, the increase in annual average temperature by 2040 increases for the area from 1.3 to 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit when compared with the reference period of 1988 to 1999. The average increase, over all scenarios is 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. (These temperature predictions were the basis of the energy savings and water savings projects for my home that were geared for a slightly warmer, drier climate, though I am still hoping for wetter.)

Though annual rainfall increases in half of the climate change scenarios, flow in the Potomac River falls in most scenarios. Changes in both temperature and precipitation affect stream flows. Changes in rain or snow affect the amount of water that runs off the land surface and enters streams during rainfall. Precipitation also affects the amount of water recharging groundwater aquifers, which are the primary source of stream flow during dry weather periods. Increasing temperatures will cause more rain to be lost to evaporation from the soil, streams, and will increase transpiration, the water released to the atmosphere by plants. These increases in evaporation and transpiration will tend to reduce flow in streams which in turn reduces flow in the Potomac. With rising population, this could require changes in water use and supply for the area and reduce groundwater availability for private well owners like me.

Average annual basin-wide evaporation and transpiration is predicted to increase by 6-8%. Groundwater recharge decreases under all but three of the climate scenarios, and as I watch the statistically low water level in the monitoring well up the road, I worry about my well water supply. According to study results, the seasonal pattern of groundwater recharge does not change significantly under climate change, with January, February, and March remaining the months of greatest recharge. However, the average annual amount of groundwater that provides base flow to streams and the water in my well, is predicted to decrease in 16 out of the 18 scenarios by as much as 34% in one case.

Results for the 18 climate scenarios fell into three categories: minor impact, moderate impact, and major impact. The biggest impact is the ability of the regional water utilities to continue to supply water on demand during droughts as the climate changes. Six of the scenarios are predicted to have little impact on the system during a moderate drought and the projected population of the region can be supplied with drinking water from the Potomac River and current systems and operations. Six of the climate change scenarios fall into the “moderate impact” category. Under these scenarios the region is predicted to experience more frequent and stricter water use restrictions, but no water supply shortages during a moderate drought. Reservoir levels are predicted to fall to significantly lower levels during a drought than would occur in the absence of climate change with the projected and assumed increase in population.

However, the remaining six climate change scenarios are scary. Under these dreadful six scenarios, unless we make changes in the water supply systems we run out of water. These scenarios predict that both mandatory and emergency water use restrictions would be imposed and most system reservoirs would become empty or close to empty during a moderate drought. In addition, these six scenarios predict on some days of the drought the Potomac River would fail to provide sufficient water to meet demand and environmental needs. Our regional water utilities: The Washington Aqueduct, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and Fairfax Water working together with the ICPRB can make changes to the structure and operation of the water supply system to make it more robust. The Potomac River will continue to supply water to the region, we will have to use it more wisely to ensure adequate water supply in the future, but there will be water.  Clearly though, development in the groundwater recharge zones (mostly the Rural Crescent in Prince William County) and open areas needs to be limited to protect the groundwater and stream base flow that supplies our water.

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.

Endocrine Disruption and What’s in the Potomac River Watershed

Recently in the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, smallmouth bass have been found with benign skin tumors. Two skin samples of lesions from fish removed from the river were sent to Dr. Vicki Blazer a mairine biologistand researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. Dr. Blazer who 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,  found that one of the samples  tested positive for a type of benign skin tumor. These samples were sent to the USGS because an ongoing collaborative effort between the USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies in West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, and the Potomac Riverkeeper has been studying the impacts of trace contaminants on fish health. Areas of study have been endocrine disruption, immune system impact, cancer/neoplasia promotion, secondary sex characteristics, oxidative damage and behavior. I follow Dr. Blazer’s talks at conferences.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife. Research evidence suggests that these chemicals, can mimic hormones or interfere with the function of the body’s own hormones. Endocrine disruptors are found in many of the everyday products we use, including some plastic bottles and containers, food can liners, detergents, flame retardants, toys, cosmetics, and pesticides. These hormones and hormone like substances are typically highly soluble in water and are easily transported in the blood. These compounds are of particular concern because they can alter the critical hormonal balances required for proper health and development. The glands that make up the endocrine system are: pituitary gland, thyroid glands, adrenal glands pancreas, ovaries, testies, pineal gland and the thymus.

The marine life work in this area began with the studies of fish kills more than 15 years ago. Preliminary analysis at that time did not find any chemicals or pesticides in concentrations that were sufficient to stress fish and be a cause of the fish kills. Yet there were fish kills. As Dr.Blazer pointed out in a recent conference almost all of our knowledge about concentrations likely to cause a health impact are based on acute toxicity or gross impact such as size. In most cases there are no criteria for sub-lethal effects such as immune modulation or endocrine disruption. Dr. Blazer and others believe that methodology used to detect these chemicals in recent studies may not have been sensitive enough, and may indeed be above the concentration thought to impact these fish. Two examples given by Dr. Blazer at a recent conference were that based on research studies in more than 25 fish species, scientists have suggested that 1 ng/L (parts per trillion) may be the “no effects level” for natural estrogen concentrations on fish. Unfortunately, all the river studies performed in the Potomac River and Shenandoah River passive sampler studies use 1.3 ng/L as the lower detection limit. The detection limit for Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers studies for ethynylesradiol is almost twice the level recently set as the aquatic “no effects” level. Studies along the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers have only studied smallmouth bass that were found to be intersexed and have measurable amounts of vitellogenin (a protein that is a precursor to egg yoke) in their blood. Vitellogenin is normally only found in the blood of sexually matures egg-laying females, though males typically carry an inactive gene that is “turned on” by the presence of estrogen. Further research is necessary to not only determine if the problem is more widespread geographically and among species, but to identify the mode and mechanism of impact.

Fish health turns out to be a way to track ecosystem health. The smallmouth bass population has been presenting a variety of skin lesions, bacterial, viral and fungil infections, high parasite loads and intersex in normally gonochorist fish ( where embryonic gonad subsequently divides into ovaries or testes). The findings are not at all consistent, but show wide spread biological impact. Scientists like Dr. Blazer are looking to determine if these impacts to fish are being caused by something being put in or released from wastewater treatment plants, farms, or storm water runoff. Until the cause is identified, nothing can be done to stop them and prevent impact to animal and human populations.

Slide taken from Dr. Viki Blazer of USGS presentation

The Potomac fish kills studied by Dr. Blazer and others suggest that there are stressed populations of fish that at some point are overwhelmed by environmental stressors such as increased water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, excess nutrients, high pH, or chemicals that cause immuno-supression leading to a wide variety of opportunistic infections and the large fish kills. There is increasing evidence that estrogenic chemicals and other endocrine disrupting substance modulate the immune response and disease resistance. In a study of female bass from the Shenandoah River south fork scientists found the BDE (a flame retardant), triclosan (an antibacterial and antifungal agent used in a wide variety of consumer products including toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant and cleaning supplies) and pesticides had accumulated selectively within the endocrine system with lower concentrations in the brain, skin, kidneys. In talking about the bass, it is reported by Marcia Moore of the Daily Item that Dr. Blazer said, “The good news, for people anyway, is the muscle has the lowest concentration,” indicating that the fish could be eaten. “It’s not such good news for the fish because we’re finding it in the brain, ovaries, kidneys and skin.” The location of the increased concentrations seen in Dr. Blazer’s slide and potential sources of contaminants raises questions about potential human exposure.  

All water on earth is part of the hydraulic cycle and is reused over the course of time. These traces of chemicals have managed to slip through the earth’s natural filtration and some of them through treatment systems to be released into rivers and consumed by humans. Finished and source water (as well as food and beverages) have been found to have low levels of these emerging chemicals, but whether this low level of exposure is bio-accumulating in humans and can cause any health or developments effects is yet unknown. Endocrine disruptors can sometimes affect reproduction, development, and behavior, certainly these impacts on fish is being studied. These potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals come from a variety of sources and have diverse molecular structures. If these chemicals are introduced into water systems from human waste and food, then it is possible that human tissues might also contain detectable levels of contaminants. We might be experiencing subtle population impacts from chemical exposure during fetal and newborn development. Potential human effects from chemical contaminants in tissues of the endocrine system are cancer (particularly breast cancer and testicular cancer), infertility, disorders of sex development, asthma and other immune related syndromes, autism, ADHD, learning and behavioral disorders, diabetes, thyroid disorders, and testicular dysgenesis syndrome (poor semen quality, testis cancer, undescended testis and hypospadias).

The endocrine system of fish bears some similarity to the human endocrine system, but we do not live our lives in the waters of the Potomac. Two million people rely on the Washington Aqueduct for their drinking water and millions of people in other parts of the country drink source water with similar observed occurrences of endocrine disruption. The impact on human life and the ecosystem of these 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.  

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.