The Community Farm at Roundabout Meadows

Roundabout Meadows is the 140-acres of land that is bisected by Howser’s Branch Drive. The triangle of land that became stranded by the installation of the Route 50 traffic circles and the building of Howser’s Branch Drive contains the Community Farm at Roundabout Meadows; the address is 39990 Howsers Branch Dr. Aldie, VA 20105. In June, the Community Farm at Roundabout Meadows welcomed volunteers of all ages back out to the farm in a socially distant manner. They report that with the help of over 300 volunteers as of early September, they have surpassed our goal and donated more than 22,000 pounds of fresh produce to Loudoun Hunger Relief, including tomatoes, tomatillos, melons, and more. There is still lots more to harvest and the weather has turned fine to be outdoors. Everyone is welcome at the farm. You can visit, volunteer or donate.

The Piedmont Environmental Council was given the140-acres at the southeast quadrant of US Route 50 and US Route 15 known around here as Gilberts Corner by a citizen group led by Scott Kasprowicz, a former member of the PEC Board of Directors. The group, Roundabout Partners, raised the funds and purchased the property to prevent a planned development. After purchasing the land they then donated the 140 acres to the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) for conservation purposes. 

Now, the farm is being incorporated into a larger vision at Gilberts Corner that includes the establishment of the 155-acre Gilbert’s Corner Regional Park on the north side of Route 50, and the creation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. In 2016 work began to restore the farm with a controlled or prescribed burn.  For more than a decade, the land had been left fallow and the open pasture was invaded by red cedar and non-native invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and autumn olive.

The Community Farm at Roundabout Meadows launched in early 2019 with Dana Melby as the Farm Manager. Dana is a native of Frederick County and earned a bachelor’s in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Colorado and a Masters in International Agriculture at Oklahoma State University. While at Oklahoma State she worked with a local food bank to develop a garden and production plan to supplement their programs. Dana worked in a variety of roles in agriculture, from greenhouse production to orchard. Most recently she worked for Virginia Tech as a Field Research Specialist where she managed peach, apple, and cherry orchards as well as vineyards. She brings incredible expertise and enthusiasm to the Community Farm.

In its first season, the farm produced almost 5,000 pounds of fresh fruits and veggies including potatoes, tomatoes, squash, and melons. They plan to expand their production. All the food grown is donated with Loudoun Hunger Relief as the primary partner. In addition to growing food the farm hosted a variety of educational programs and events, including Family Day at the Community Farm. Dana says that a big part of their mission is engaging volunteers. Without the help of the volunteers the farm would not have had such a successful first season. Volunteers provide 544 hours of their time to the farm in 2019! You can help make this second year a huge success despite a pandemic!

So what's up with the rest of the land? Approximately 80 acres of the property, on the south side of Howsers Branch, is being managed for livestock grazing. In 2017, livestock exclusion fencing, hardened crossings and alternative drinking water were installed. You can see the cow watering station on the right as you drive from Route 15 down Howser’s Branch Drive to Route 50 (it is best if you are the passenger if you want to see). These improvement will protect the property’s streams and water resources. In addition, some areas are being converted to native warm-season grasses. The PEC reports that there has been a noticeable increases over the past two years in the warm-season grasses. In 2018, the lease for the pastures was modified to encourage rotational grazing.

Another 20 acres in the southeast corner is being managed to demonstrate wildlife habitat restoration. Along with the Old Carolina Road roadbed, this area will be accessible for education and passive recreation by a trail being designed in collaboration with Oak Spring Foundation, the Fauquier Loudoun Garden Club, and NOVAParks. Roundabout Meadows was a gift to the whole community even those of us across the county line in Prince William County. 

Farmers and the Chesapeake Bay

Last fall the US Department of Agriculture released a draft of a report evaluating conservation practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The USDA report stated 81% of farms lacked comprehensive nutrient management plans and practices. The report found that on over 2 million acres of cropland, that conservation practices are not being used at all. According to the current version of the EPA watershed model (to be revised in 2011), cropland accounts for 25% of sediment in the bay, 32% of the nitrogen and 27.5% of the phosphorus while accounting for only 10% of the Chesapeake Bay watershed acreage.

The EPA model’s allocation of pollution origination is the basis for the current “green community” anti agriculture stance. The agricultural sector is being viewed as an excessive polluter, though farm management practices have improved over the years. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model is a good tool in understanding how nitrogen, sediment, and phosphorus loads from different sources are delivered to the Bay. On a major tributary basis, real world data has been used to calibrate and validate the watershed portion of the model. Thus, it can provide predictive results of implementing best management practices, a useful tool to help make decisions about tradeoffs to control the loads of nutrients and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Implementing and maintaining best management practices and conservation plans on farms is difficult, because it involves changing often long established practices and the way that farmers manage their land and operations and requires a management plan for each operation no matter the size.

Frightened by the prospects of the economic impact of the federally mandated TMDLs forcing farmers to build fencing to keep livestock out of creeks and drainage areas that flow in the watershed and institute comprehensive nutrient management plans on all crop lands, a coalition of agricultural groups engaged LimnoTech, an Ann Arbor headquartered environmental consulting firm, to mount a challenge to the TMDLs. They compared EPA’s Total Maximum Daily Loads with those in the draft U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report “Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Region,” and produced a report titled, “Comparison of Draft Load Estimates for Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.”

Inconsistencies in data and modeling were found between the EPA and USDA. This is no surprise since there are significant problems with underreporting of nutrient contamination from the urban/suburban sector in the EPA model, while the calibrated and validated totals for the major tributaries are probably reasonably accurate based on the sampling validation. So, if the urban/suburban segment is under counted in its contribution to the nutrient contamination, then some sector or sectors are being assigned that additional load. It is probably true that a significant portion of the nutrient load from the urban/suburban sector has been attributed agriculture, and if you look at the potentially revised urban/suburban load with the septic and the wastewater treatment plants (after all the wastewater is coming from the urban/suburban sector) it becomes clear that the urban/suburban populations are responsible for the lions share of contamination. In addition, the food produced by the agricultural sector feeds the urban and suburban populations.

There is a world food crisis building. Virginia is blessed with a moderate climate and adequate rainfall. Eliminating agriculture from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is short sighted and quite frankly a really bad idea on so many levels. Nonetheless, farm practices and land management need to change. The TMDLs require a reduction in total nutrient loading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. To achieve the TMDLs improvements in wastewater treatment plants, agricultural nutrient management plans, stormwater managements and reductions in population and economic activities are the only sources of these reductions. Agriculture is generally considered the least cost method of reducing sediment nitrogen and phosphorus. Implementing these changes will allow us to feed more people with the same land resources, bringing agriculture to the next level. We will carry this cost in either increased cost of food, or hidden in a nutrient trading program as an overall tax to economic activity. Nutrient contamination is about populations. We need to be very careful not to kill the economic viability of the region to meet the TMDL.

The Revised Watershed Implementation Plan and Farmers

For agricultural operations the revised WIP will require the implementation of resource management plans on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters; stream exclusion of livestock over time; and implementation of nutrient management plans. The Commonwealth intends to provide cost-share funding to achieve implementation of these best practices through the soil and water conservation districts. The WIP calls for farms to implement "resource management plans" to reduce pollution but does not mandate what those plans should include and requires them only if adequate funding is available through the cost share programs. These programs are cost share programs and do require financial participation of the farmers. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation objects to the seemingly soft requirement of this provision stating that 30% of the nutrient and sediment pollution is from agriculture.

I was thinking about justice and regulations as I was trying to straighten out a problem at my Bank. I found myself waiting interminably for the branch manager with another customer with his own problem. We had both driven the 16 miles from our corner of Prince William County to wait at Bank of America on Route 50 and to face seemingly insurmountable regulations. While we were waiting, my neighbor, a fourth generation cow farmer, told me about his concerns with the WIP. His cattle are sustainably and locally raised and for the most part are pasture raised on grass; however, he admitted that the cows are watered by the streams that come together in our area to feed Bull Run. His concern was if he needs to build stream exclusions, and bridges for the cows to move from one pasture to another then create watering systems for the cows in each pasture that the cost would put him out of business even with cost sharing. He also voiced concerns that nutrient contamination coming from upstream sources would prevent him from being able to achieve the targets of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Since he had not read the revised WIP many of these concerns may have not been well founded or researched, but certainly the WIP will have a profound impact on his business and the business of all farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

According to the National Association of Conservation Districts, NACD, there are 4.3 million acres of farmland within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that will be impacted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL for the bay. A USDA draft report reportedly shows that farmers and ranchers are making good progress in the Bay, but that is not enough to meet the stricter demands of the TMDL. Of the actively-cropped 4.3 million acres, farmers are actively implementing erosion control and nutrient management practices on more than 4.1 million acres. The NACD states that these actions have reduced sediment pollution on rivers and streams within the Chesapeake Bay watershed 64%, cut nitrogen pollution 36% and reduced phosphorus pollution 43%. Nonetheless, the Chesapeake Bay foundation states that 30% of the nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is from agriculture operations and is pressing strongly for tighter regulations and enforcement against agricultural operations. .

I had no answer as to whether sustainable, humane, local agriculture should be encouraged, or if the world is better with a few high intensity concentrated animal feed lots that have a combined smaller land footprint and are not in sensitive watersheds. Though, I am not at all certain that there are any locations not in some sensitive watershed. In the west (home of many agri-industrial operations) water diversions are having severe impact on the environment. The agricultures economy is manipulated by farm subsidies that distort the market and agricultural practices. To pay for the increase costs of complying with the higher costs of sustainable agriculture, instituting nutrient management and best practices and enforcement of those steps the cost of food will have to rise either directly or indirectly. I only know I would prefer to continue to buy my meat locally from an operation where I can see the cows are grass fed and pastured. Then there are the hobby farm operations, lots zoned to allow horses and the current push for a zoning to allow backyard chickens in the much of Prince William County. It is impossible reconcile the requirements necessary to comply with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL with the personal freedom, small scale local food and population growth.

The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Agreement

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

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

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

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

Greening Wal-Mart’s Supply Chain

The Environmental Defense Fund is partnering with Wal-Mart to improve the environmental performance of its supply chain. Using Wal-Mart’s leverage to reduce carbon pollution throughout the life cycle of products and the supply chain for those products is a powerful way to change farm practices and other manufacturing behavior. Wal-Mart recently committed to reduce the carbon footprint from the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s products and supply chain by 20 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent from calendar year 2010 to 2015. In part this will be accomplished by having Wal-Mart use their leverage with their supply chain to influence the environmental practices, transportation, and storage of their supplying manufacturer. Part of this reduction will be accomplished by Wal-Mart’s customers who will be educated in more sustainable use of a product. A typical example of customer education is recommending that customers use cold water to wash laundry instead of hot. The Environmental Defense Fund team working on this project has developed a detailed guidance document about what can count towards Wal-Mart's goal, as well as how reductions should be quantified and confirmed if at all possible. That of course is the sticking point with CO2 reductions.

Part of all of this is bureaucracy and public image, but if somehow out of this study comes a set of tools to quickly help business people and consumers make good and informed decisions about their environmental behavior it would be great. The environmental Defense Fund is not just focusing on carbon contained in the supply chain and life cycle of the products. They say that they are looking to identify the most serious environmental and social "hot spots" in the life cycle of Wal-Mart’s private brand food and grocery categories and working with designers and suppliers to improve overall product sustainability including water and pesticide usage. Encouraging and educating farmers and even the industrial farm complex on farming “best practices” is a proven way to reduce pesticide runoff and environmental impact at very little dollar cost.

In a pilot study performed on dairy suppliers, the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed the costs and emissions associated with a gallon of milk, from dairy farm to distribution center. By gathering and looking at the data, the Environmental Defense Fund identified the easily achieved improvements that “best practices” farm management can have in energy used to produce milk. Simple changes in fertilizer and manure management, at dairy processing facilities can achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency and even in the product itself, such as making milk shelf-stable. Soil and Conservation Districts nationwide have been aware of the improvements in environmental stewardship that can be achieved though simple improvements in farm practices; however, these organizations have not had any leverage to encourage farmers and dairy operations to implement these practices or adequate budget to develop farm plans. Wal-Mart’s involvement in this area could really encourage the adoption of these programs. It is important that these efforts be couched in more than CO2 reduction, because carbon reduction is such a limited concept and this is truly environmental stewardship and sustainability improvement project.