Conservation Districts Change their Position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes at the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts

During the past legislative session the water programs of the state were all consolidated and transferred to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by HB 2048 and SB 1279. Though there have been no changes in statutes or regulatory oversight, this was still a really big move to consolidate management and oversight of all water programs within the state under DEQ control. DEQ now manages; the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, erosion and sediment control, point source and non-point source contamination, and the execution of all parts of the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Virginia developed to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates. With these changes the 47 Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Districts were moved under the oversight of the DEQ.

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

According to Neil Zahradka of the DEQ Office of Land Application Programs, the consolidation of the Districts under DEQ is intended to improved oversight and implementation of Virginia’s WIP. The WIP is the plan created to comply with the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment mandated by the EPA to Virginia and the other Chesapeake Bay Watershed states and the District of the Columbia. EPA has legal authority to regulate only point source releases of contaminants and pollutants- wastewater, industrial, and municipal separate stormwater systems (MS4), and concentrated animal feeding operation permits as well as set total maximum daily load (TMDL) of those contaminants in rivers and surface waters. Under threat of EPA reducing these point source release levels to incredibly expensive to achieve or perhaps unachievable levels, Virginia produced a WIP that ultimately satisfied EPA. Though how these activities will be paid for is still unknown. EPA has never had a budget for implementation of these programs that are estimated to cost billions of dollars.

The revised and accepted WIP requires that Virginia’s Stormwater Management Regulations require redevelopments to meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads, and to prevent nutrient pollution and sediment load increases from new development. In the future all new development appears to be required to be almost sediment and nutrient pollution free or to “pay” for their developments by reducing runoff from existing developments. The Commonwealth will reduce pollution from stormwater running off urban streets and parking lots by mandating reductions in state permits for large city stormwater systems. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stormwater runoff remains the only source of water pollution in Virginia that continues to increase. It is likely that the increase in nutrient pollution and sediment pollution from stormwater systems is partially a reflection of the expansion of suburban development out into Loudoun, Prince William and Fauquier counties and the increasing population and road traffic in these areas.

For agricultural operations the revised WIP requires the implementation of resource management plans and BMPs on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters; stream exclusion of livestock; and implemented nutrient management plans. Virginia plans to continue to provide cost-share funding to achieve these goals through the Districts and has even expanded stream exclusion funding to 100%. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 30% of the pollution loads in the Chesapeake Bay are from farming practices, the best money spent could be to implement agricultural nutrient management plans. That is why the DEQ has consolidated the water programs, Virginia need virtually all the farmers in the state to implement BMPs.

The Districts depend on the cooperation and willingness of community partners and volunteers to work with them in order to achieve their goals. The relationships and trust that the Districts have with their communities is their greatest strength. The Districts encourage participation using established relationships, technical help and financial incentives and now have 100% funding available for their livestock exclusion program to expand the reach of their voluntary conservation activities. In the idiom of the carrot and the stick, the Districts are strictly a carrot organization. This cannot be said about the DEQ. As the representative of the Virginia’s Cattlemen’s Association pointed out the Districts has been very effective in getting BMPs on the ground and the deadlines under Chesapeake Bay TMDL leaves no time for Virginia to step back and accept the change.

The Districts that objected to the consolidation under DEQ seemed to object primarily for concern for the cultural clash between the culture that has evolved at DEQ in dealing with regulatory mandates for large businesses that have compliance officers rather than smaller and moderate sized farmers who read their paperwork in the evening. The Districts need by-in from the farmers and cattlemen (and women) to make the progress that the EPA requires under the WIP. The Districts that supported the consolidation thought that the agency responsible for implementation for the WIP and Chesapeake Bay TMDL should house the soil and water conservation districts. This was especially true for districts that had significant urban and suburban storm water and non-point source involvement. Increased funding could help the Districts.

PWSWCD 2012 River Cleanup

Prince William Allows Backyard Chickens with Limitations

On April 19th 2011 the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, voted to approve the latest staff proposal for a zoning change to allow backyard chickens in Prince William County. The approved amendment incorporated some of the less stringent requirements of the Planning Commission recommendations with the earlier staff recommendations. The amendment changes the zoning and land use regulations within the county. The full text, comments and history of the amendment can be read at this link.The new zoning regulations allow the keeping of chickens, pigeons, doves and other domestic fowl on any A-1 (agricultural) zoned property of at least one acre located within a Domestic Fowl Overlay District to be created by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, on properties zoned SR-1, SR-3 and SR-5 (semirural) with a minimum of one acre by Special Use Permit within the Domestic Fowl Overlay District. The keeping of domestic fowl is not permitted outside of the Domestic Fowl Overlay District, except on A-1 zoned lots of ten acres or larger. A Domestic Fowl Overlay District was created by ordinance upon resolution of the Board of County Supervisors and aligns roughly with the Rural Crescent.
 The maximum number of fowl allowed is proportional to the lot size. One bird unit per acre is allowed for properties of 1 to less than 5 acres, three bird units per acre for properties of 5 to less than 10 acres. There is no limit on the number of bird units allowed on properties greater than 10 acres. A bird unit is:
10 chickens (though only one rooster per acre) or
6 ducks or
4 turkeys, geese or pea fowl or
1 ostrich or emu
20 pigeons, doves, or quail

The new fowl regulations require coops or cages and runs on any lot with less than five acres and specifies construction standards and humane areas for each bird, distance from Resource Protected Areas (RPA) under the Chesapeake Bay Act, distance from well heads. In addition, waste management for surface and groundwater protection must be established using the new Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District guidelines. These guidelines should prevent (or at least significantly reduce) contamination of the groundwater, a major drinking water supply for the area, and prevent the backyard chickens from adding contaminated runoff to the Chesapeake Bay.

As our area has become more suburban, density has increased, along with the utilization of groundwater for domestic purposes and the density of septic systems. This suburban development has increased the suburban runoff and nutrient contamination to our groundwater and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Virginia is under a federal mandate to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment contamination to the Chesapeake Bay. The federal pollution diet requires that Virginia reduce our non-point source pollution of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. The only responsible way the County Supervisors could allow property owners the right to have backyard chickens was to control the waste in a way that would not add to the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. It was appropriate and necessary for them to leverage the resource of the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District to develop guidelines for low impact backyard chickens.
The proposed zoning change to allow backyard chickens contain limited regulations of the micro poultry “farms” to manage the waste and location of coops according to the protective separation requirements of the septic regulations. This hopefully will ensure that best management practices will be adopted by the backyard micro farmers without being unduly burdensom.

You may also want to read a later article https://greenrisks.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-rules-for-backyard-chickens-in.html

Non-Point Source Pollution and Best Management Practices

Non-point source (NPS) pollution is a major factor impacting the quality of the water supply. The rate at which diffuse sources of pollution are generated and delivered to water resources is greatly affected by human activities and natural processes. These pollutants are transported to surface water bodies by runoff, which results from precipitation or snowmelt (Leeds et al., 1993). Storm water is part of the natural hydrologic process; however, human activities, especially urban development and agriculture, cause significant changes in patterns of storm water flow and infiltration and the type and quantity of contaminants carried from land into receiving waters.

Urban storm water runoff includes all flows discharged from urban land uses into the storm water systems and receiving waters. Urban runoff includes runoff from landscape irrigation, dewatering, and water line and hydrant flushing as well as the wet-weather storm water runoff. Water quality can also be affected when runoff carries sediment and other pollutants such as oil and grease, pesticides, paints, cleaners and other products associated with modern life into streams, wetlands, lakes, estuarine and marine waters, or groundwater.

Agricultural activities that cause NPS pollution include confined animal facilities, grazing, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing, planting, and harvesting. The major agricultural NPS pollutants that result from these activities are sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts. Agricultural activities also can damage habitat and stream channels. Agricultural impacts on surface water and ground water can be minimized by properly managing activities that can cause NPS pollution, by utilizing good environmental stewardship.

Good environmental stewardship means using land and animals in a way that protects and improves the environment. Environmental stewardship begins by evaluating the farm to identify likely pollution sources and their possible effect on the surrounding environment. Overgrazing pastures; applying too much manure; giving animals free access to streams, ponds, wetlands, or marshes; mismanaging manure; and allowing excessive erosion can reduce water quality. The type, size, and numbers of animals affect the amount of management required for your farm. Kate Norris of Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District has put together a series of articles outlining the basic techniques to use to minimize environmental impact from a horse property. Many of these techniques can be used with any small scale livestock farm or hobby horse farm.

Overstocking causes most of the water quality damage on small-scale livestock farms and hobby horsefarms. It occurs when too many animals are kept on too few acres. Overstocking can strip areas of pasture, increasing polluted runoff. On farms where animals are confined and manure is collected, overstocking often leads to large amounts of manure that must be managed. So called Best Management Practices, BMPs, range from making simple changes to building structures that hold manure, but they in total add up to less run-off of pollution. They can be comprehensive and consider how the parts of the farm are related. BMPs are meant to be practical and easy to implement. They are intended to be modified to fit the type of operation, and the environmental and geological factors specific to the site. Unbelievably enough, the Soil and Conservation Districts throughout the nation are there to help you manage your properties for free.
BMPs minimize inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, labor, etc. to achieve a desired level of course performance and quality while protecting the environment. BMPs are designed to benefit water quality while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production.Agricultural BMPs are practical, cost-effective actions that agricultural producers can take to reduce the amount of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other pollutants entering our water resources. The most recent National Water Quality Inventory reports that agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading source of water quality impacts to surveyed rivers and lakes, the third largest source of impairments to surveyed estuaries, and also a major contributor to ground water contamination and wetlands degradation. Good environmental stewardship of these properties can go a long way in making agriculture sustainable.