Prince William Digital Gateway CPA Approved

This morning just before 9 am and after a marathon all night meeting lasting 14 hours the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors voted to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Prince William Digital Gateway. The vote was straight across party lines with the Democrats voting for industrial development in the rural area and Republicans voting against. (Supervisor Candland reclused himself and did not attend.)

This development in the northern portion of the Rural Crescent threatens the health of the Occoquan watershed and the very sustainability and affordability of the drinking water supply for Northern Virginia including 350,000 residents of Prince William County. When an undeveloped or generally open rural area is developed stormwater runoff increases in quantity and velocity washing away stream banks, flooding roads and buildings carrying fertilizers, oil and grease, and road salt to the Occoquan Reservoir.

The total amount of planned data center space exceeds existing data center square footage in Loudoun County (the data center capital of the nation and the world). It took Loudoun County 14 years to build out the existing data centers and Loudoun County still has approved data centers that have not yet been built. The majority of the 2,400 acres in the existing Data Center Overlay district are owned by data center development companies or directly by data center operators. This land has not yet been built.

The one growing sector of electricity demand in Virginia is data centers, and, wow, is that growing. In 2018 power demand for data centers was just over 1 gigawatt of power, by 2022 that had reached 2.6 gigawatt of power this past fall and is projected to double that in the next few years with projects already under way. 

It is clear that there is no limit to the desirability of data centers to county supervisors and landowners. The counties have been blinded by the windfall profits to the landowners and the prospect of increased tax revenue. They will more than double the number of data centers in all of Northern Virginia with this approval and this massive change in use will bring great wealth to the landowners- land that was worth $25,000-$50,000 is now magically be worth almost $1,000,000 an acre to be used for data centers, but these windfall profits come at the cost of degradation of our land and water resources and increased power and water costs for all Virginians. 

I offer my congratulations to Maryanne Gahaban on orchestrating the sale of the 194 parcels and 2,139 acres of rural and rural residential land for $2.1 billion dollars. Well played. Take your money and go.

 

The Occoquan Reservoir and Development in the Rural Crescent

 Last Monday the Prince William Conservation Alliance sponsored Protecting the Occoquan Reservoir: Our Shared Water Source! with special guest Stephen Souza PhD, past president of the North American Lake Management Society, the article below is based on his presentation.  Dr. Souza addressed how development of the Rural Crescent and essential portion of the Occoquan Reservoir watershed will negatively affect the reservoir and drinking water in our region.

The Occoquan Reservoir is 1,400 acres containing 8.5 billion gallons of water that provides 40% of the daily water supply for Fairfax Water which in turn supplies Prince William Service Authority and a significant portion of Loudoun County. The reservoir is a reflection of its watershed.  The Occoquan Watershed is 590 square miles two thirds of which is in Prince William County including the all important headwaters of the Occoquan.

When the Occoquan Reservoir was first built 1957 it was located in a rural and forested area and the water was pristine. The unrelenting growth and development in this region has changed that.  In 1982 to protect the Occoquan from contamination, Fairfax County turned 5,000 acres bordering the reservoir into parkland and down zoned 41,000 acres. Today in Fairfax there are 51 homes on the shore of the Reservoir. In Prince William County there are 450 homes along the shore of the Occoquan Reservoir and Reservoir and watershed are under threat from the development of the Rural Crescent  as development pressures have moved further out with urbanization of the region. 

 Development in the watershed triggers a number of problems that begin with storm water runoff as the primary driver, though waste water point sources and non-point sources also contribute to the deterioration of the water quality. Pollution from runoff, called non-point source pollution is threatening the health of the Occoquan Reservoir and our drinking water supply. As you can see in the diagram below which originally came from the U.S. EPA and Dr. Souza used in his presentation, the hydrology of an area changes with development.

US EPA 2003

One acre of wooded area produces 1,360 gallons of stormwater runoff. While one ace of parking lot and roadways produces 25,800 gallons of stormwater runoff. According to Dr. Souza, the typical suburban lawn is almost as compacted as a parking lot and produces similar runoff. This increased runoff not only reduces groundwater recharge and stream base flow to the region, but also increases flooding, scour and erosion of the stream banks.

Increased runoff reduces water quality and increases the costs to treat the water to meet drinking water standards. Stormwater can also impact groundwater quality. Contaminants are mobilized by runoff and can infiltrate into the surficial groundwater and the fractured rock system that predominates the northwestern portion of the Rural Crescent. This can carry road salt, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals into the groundwater which is the drinking water supply for the Rural Crescent.

Development of the watershed impacts stream flow and health, water quality, the regional ecology and stability of water supply to our region. Prince William County is in the very early stages of studying whether an “Occoquan overlay district” is needed to help protect the reservoir from becoming further polluted, although the County Board of Supervisors is much further along in planning to develop the rural area that is an essential protection and buffer for the Occoquan. 

According to Dr. Souza, development of the rural area of the county could push the Occoquan Reservoir to a water quality tipping point and the next generation will have to address eutrophication of the Occoquan Reservoir. A memorable legacy.  

Saving the Occoquan Reservoir

Prince William County is considering instituting restrictions in an Occoquan Overlay District. How this planning tool is used and implemented will have long term consequences for the Occoquan Reservoir and our drinking water supply. Fairfax Water supplies drinking water to around two million people in Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William County. An essential portion of the Fairfax Water supply especially during times of drought is the Occoquan Reservoir which supplies the source water to the Griffith water treatment plant. The Occoquan Reservoir holds 8.3 billion gallons of water.

When the Occoquan Reservoir was first built 1957 it was located in a rural and forested area and the water was pristine. Now, however; the Occoquan Reservoir is under threat from the urbanization of the region. Pollution from runoff, called non-point source pollution is threatening the health of the Occoquan Reservoir and our drinking water supply.

Non-point source pollution is fertilizer and herbicides from agricultural land and suburban lawns. The largest crop in Virginia is suburban lawns. Pollution form urban and suburban stormwater runoff carrying oil, grease, solvents and tire rubber; septic systems, pet and recreational animal waste bacteria, nutrients and sediment from improperly managed landscaping; and finally, salt.

Development increases impervious surface area. The physical condition of the Watershed's tributaries has been measured to fall with development. Increased stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces flows into streams and creeks at a higher volume and velocity. The result is increased erosion of stream banks that leaves a degraded ecosystem. However, these roads, sidewalks, parking lots all have to be cleared of snow and ice. Over time this has meant an increasing level of salt.

 According to the Virginia Department of the Environment (DEQ) analyses from three different studies at multiple locations have found increasing freshwater salinization in Northern Virginia. According to Fairfax Water, salt contamination in the source water is becoming a generational problem.

from Fairfax Water presentation

While salts are very effective at deicing roads, when the snow or sleet melts the salts are washed off into local waterways or seep through soils into groundwater systems with negative impacts on water quality and the environment. Salts pollute drinking water sources and are very costly to remove. The current water treatment plants cannot remove the salt. The only available technology to remove salt from the source water is reverse osmosis which is cost prohibitive and requires a significant amount of energy to run. This will significantly increase the cost of water in the region.

Planning to protect the Occoquan Reservoir is planning to maintain forested areas, not build more roads, homes or businesses in the Occoquan Reservoir. If we fail to plan for the future and protect the Occoquan Watershed and source water we will have failed the next generation.  To learn more watchthe linked video of Greg Prelewicz and Nicki Bellezza from Fairfax Watertalking about water supply and water protection in the Occoquan Watershed andthe Occoquan Overlay District under consideration in Prince William County.

Sustainable Agriculture Equals a Sustainable Prince William

early summer at Yankey Farms

Since World War II, the world’s agricultural production has almost tripled while cultivated land area has grown only by 12%. This feat is often called the agricultural miracle or “Green Revolution” and was accomplished by doubling the amount of land under irrigation combined with the development of the chemical processes to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides, hybrid crops that more readily absorb nitrogen and mechanized agriculture. In the United States where agricultural production has even exceeded the world growth level, government policies were created that favored maximizing production. These changes allowed fewer farmers to feed more people and significantly reduced the relative cost of food, but favored mono-culture agriculture and have taken a toll on the environment.

For centuries the common practice in agriculture was a diversified farm integrating both crops and livestock in the same farming operation. Then with the advent of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the government policies and economics resulting from those policies farmers were pushed to become more specialized, creating industrial agriculture and confined feeding operations and farms growing a one or two crops and a significant reduction in the diversity of those crops. Food security was vastly improved, but hunger was not eliminated. Today federal, state and local government policies often impede sustainable agriculture and local government seemingly encourages the conversion of agricultural land to suburban/urban uses and the continued consolidation of agriculture. Instead we should look to implementing sustainable agricultural practices. Sustainable agriculture within a community contributes to the quality of life and the overall sustainability of that community.

While post World War II government policies and farming practices increased agricultural yields and reduced the financial risks associated with farming, they also have resulted in the depletion of topsoil and contamination of groundwater and streams, the decline in family farms and rural communities. “In real life” I am the Treasurer of the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District and I care deeply about the survival of our Rural Crescent as a sustainable agricultural community, the conservation of our soils and protection of the streams, rivers and groundwater. Sustainable agriculture is agriculture that does not deplete the soil, but builds it, does not contaminate groundwater or surface water, but uses water sustainable and responsibly, uses pesticides and fertilizers sparingly if at all, uses non-renewable resources responsibly and rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable agriculture is stewardship of the land and natural resources to maintain and enhance these vital resources for the long term, for the future generations. Organic, conservation and conventional agriculture can be practiced sustainably.

For the most part irrigated agriculture is not sustainable over the long run. Unless there is sufficient rain during the year, salinity will ultimately destroy the soil. In arid environments fresh water with very low levels of salt evaporates concentrating the salt over time and ultimately will make the land useless for agriculture. Low volume irrigation can slow this effect as can tile drainage, but over time the land builds up salt. Salinization of the land is a huge problem in California and parts of the southwest. However, large sections of the northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest have adequate rainfall (most years) to support agriculture. Even with supplemental irrigation to assure the success of valuable crops (think berries) these lands can be cultivated indefinitely. Water availability is the major limiting factor in much of agriculture, but mismanagement of pesticide and fertilizer use can contaminate groundwater and surface water with pesticides, nitrates and selenium.

Sustainable agriculture must utilize specific strategies that take into account topography, soil characteristic, climate, pests and water. Chemicals if used at all should be used strategically. Soil is a fragile and living medium that must be protected and nurtured to ensure its long-term productivity and stability. A "healthy" soil is a key component of sustainability; that is, a healthy soil will produce healthy plants that are less susceptible to pests. Properly managed diversity can improve soil. For example crop rotation can be used to suppress weeds and pests; cover crops can stabilize the top soil by holding soil and nutrients in place, conserving soil moisture by using the mowed mulches of the cover crops and by increasing the water infiltration during precipitation because of the root actions. Cover crops can also attract and sustain beneficial arthropods.

In addition, diversified farms are usually more ecologically (and economically) resilient. While it is more difficult to manage multiple crops, by growing a variety of crops, farmers spread their risks. A strategy that works particularly well with crop diversity is the locally popular community supported agriculture, CSA, model. Properly managed crop diversity can also buffer a farm in a biological and ecological sense. For sustainable agriculture to work consumers must play an important role in creating a sustainable food system. Through their purchases, consumers can send a powerful message to producers and others in the system about what they think is important. Food cost has always been at the top of the list, but buying a farm share or CSA is an important statement and support of farming. Sustainable agriculture providing local food to our community is what the Rural Crescent in Prince William County should be used for- connecting us to the land and the environment. In addition, the costs of conversion of local farmland to suburban/urban uses have to be considered as well as the loss of locally grown food.

Maintaining the rural nature of the Rural Crescent can ensure that Prince William County is sustainable. The Rural Crescent also provides a significant portion of the green infrastructure that connects the still intact habitat areas providing corridors for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Rural Crescent is also about water, groundwater and watershed preservation. Maintaining adequate open ground surface for groundwater and surface recharge are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region. Sustainable agriculture is an important part of a sustainable Prince William County.

The Rural Crescent

The long awaited “Prince William County Rural Preservation Study Report” was posted on the Department of Planning web site. I treasure the quiet and rural character of my home and I am a strong supporter for maintaining the Rural Crescent for ecological and water quality reasons as well as for quality of life for the entire community, so I was anxious to read the report. I attended a couple of the community outreach meeting and was left discouraged by the challenges that we face.

When the County Supervisors created the Rural Crescent in 1998 they slowed the loss of rural land in Prince William County. Limiting development density to one house per 10 acres combined with the limit on sewer extensions, creating one of the most protective zonings in Virginia, was a first step to preserve agricultural land. However, according to the consultants and based on the experience of the past 16 years, unless the zoning is very protective (one home per 30 to 50 acres, zoning alone will not preserve agriculture in the county and we are doomed to see the Rural Crescent cut up into 10 acre lots.

The Prince William County Rural Preservation Study found a broad support among stakeholders (community groups and residents) that it is important to maintain a Rural Area within the County. Another point of general consensus was that current preservation policies (primarily 10-acre zoning) is a one-size fits all approach that is not working very well across the large Rural Crescent area, which varies greatly in character from one end to the other. More tools are needed in the County’s Rural Crescent preservation toolbox to preserve a rural area. Furthermore, the consultants argue that mindful use of a series of tools can advance both Rural Crescent preservation areas and development goals.

According to the consultants, the County has a narrow window of opportunity to develop additional programs to maintain the character of the Rural Crescent. The 20,000 to 30,000-acre pool of farmland is fairly small and has been shrinking. Subdivision of the remaining farmland continues. The Study makes a series of recommendations that the consultants believe if fully adopted would result in a net increase of approximately 1,150 houses in the Rural Crescent and an increase of approximately 10,700 acres of permanently preserved land.

This 10,700 acres is far less than the County’s master plan stated goal of 39% protected open space, but almost 39,000 additional acres would be needed to meet that goal, and the pool of land still available to achieve this is less than 30,000 acres. Without policy changes, the Rural Crescent will likely continue to develop dominated by large lot residential development, with little contiguous open space and significant loss of agricultural lands, losing the open space for the county and the rural character of the area. So, the consultants recommend that the Supervisors adopt within the Comprehensive Plan a vision that describes what the County wants the Rural Area to be and use that vision as the basis for setting policy. They suggest:

“The Rural Area is a landscape dominated by agriculture, woodland, open space and other undeveloped land. The Rural Area allows for low-density residential development that is planned and designed to not dominate the landscape. The Rural Area accommodates a variety of activities and lifestyles associated with rural areas including farming of all types, low density residential living, rural businesses, cultural heritage, recreation, and preservation and enjoyment of the natural environment.”

The more I thought about it, the more I liked that vision for the Rural Crescent (which the consultants always call the “Rural Area.”) The consultants go on to recommend that each development proposal should be reviewed on a case by case basis to consider whether it would further the vision and policies for the Rural Area and limiting maximum gross density of one unit per two to three acres and a minimum 50 % open space requirement.

Tools that the County needs to develop for maintaining the Rural Crescent are adopting a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. A Purchase of Development Rights is a voluntary program in which a landowner agrees to sell his or her development rights to a government (local, state, or federal) in return for a cash payment. A reasonable, though aggressive, goal according to the consultants would be to preserve 8,000 acres through a PDR program. This level of preservation would maintain the largely rural character of the agricultural parts of the Rural Crescent. The consultants recommend that the County appropriate $5 million to begin funding the program using local and non-local revenue sources that are further outlined in the report (see section 4). Five million dollars could preserve at least 1,000 acres using a cap of $5,000 per acre and with additional acreage possible through leveraging state and federal matching funds and partnering with preservation-oriented organizations. There are several existing programs for matching.

The consultants also recommend that the County explore the creation of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. A transfer of development rights (TDR) program creates a market in development credits through the county government. The County would give development credits to landowners in a designated preservation area. A system of TDRs allows ownership of the development rights on a privately owned parcel of land to be separated from ownership of the parcel itself. These rights can then be transferred from that property to another property in a different location that has been designated as a receiving area and that the county will allow higher density development if TDRs are purchased. Having transferred the development rights, the original landowner and all future owners of that property are restricted from developing the land by a conservation easement or deed restriction. The buyer of the development rights uses them to develop another piece of property with more density than allowed by its comprehensive plan zoning.

Protected areas, the sending areas, should be the highest value agricultural, scenic, and culturally significant parts of the Rural Area. Receiving areas would be: appropriate locations in the Comprehensive Plan’s Development Area; what the consultants calls Nokesville Village, Sector Plan Core Area; and areas within the Transitional Ribbon (see diagram below) where higher density development would be more protective of environmental resources and rural character than development of the sending areas.

the proposed Rural Character Areas

Saving What’s Left of the Rural Crescent

The Backyard I want to save

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking back at my house from the creek

The Rural Crescent Workshop

On Saturday, December 7th 2013 Prince William County Office of Planning held an open house and all day series or meetings at George Mason University, Prince William Campus to discuss the results of the County Planning Department study of the County's rural preservation policies, an evaluation of their effectiveness, identifying additional rural preservation tools that may be appropriate and effective, and listen to citizen concerns and recommendations for amendments to the County's land use planning policies. There were four sessions: Rural Character, Land Preservation, The Rural Economy and an Open Discussion session with Chris Price, the Director of the County Office of Planning. Each of the sessions was repeated several times throughout the day to allow maximum access by the public. The Planning Office will be posting the session slides and discussion on the web if you missed the meetings. As anticipated the session presenters were topic experts, but I found many in the audience were very well informed and about the county policies, development, zoning and history. I encourage you to view the material from the sessions when it is posted on-line.

I was particularly interested in hearing the presentation of Dr. Tom Daniels a Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. He had previously run the farmland preservation program in Lancaster County, PA and had studied and worked with several communities that had implemented successful and not so successful Rural Preservation Programs. His presentation focused on what tools exist for rural preservation and how likely they are to succeed. There is in reality a limited tool box for land preservation; most of these tools are based on partitioning land ownership rights. Owning land basically means owning a set of rights- the mineral rights, the use rights, the development rights, depending on what state the property is located, the water rights and the air rights. The development rights are controlled by zoning which we have discovered can be changed by the county supervisors by exception or amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan.

According to Prince William County records the Rural Crescent, established in 1998, encompasses almost 116,000 acres, that includes about 23,000 acres of federal land in the forest and Manassas Battlefield, 55,100 acres that are already developed including Quantico, about 2,600 acres that are permanently protected*(though permanently protected land can be seized for public use by eminent domain), 8,200 acres that have development plans already approved and almost 28,000 acres that are undeveloped and unprotected and could be preserved as open space and farmland. However, there has been continual pressure on the Office of Planning and the County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning (to increase development density) for parcels in the Rural Crescent. The basic zoning in the Rural Crescent is A1- one house per 10 acres. So with the 8,200 acres with approved development plans, and the 28,000 acres undeveloped and unprotected there is a potential for 3,700 additional residences to be built in the Rural Crescent if it were to be entirely carved up into 10 acre parcels. The development rights in the Rural Crescent are the potential 3,600 homes.

The first land preservation option is essentially for the county or private party like the Trust for Public Land or another organization (the Piedmont Environmental Council does not define Prince William as part of their territory) to purchase or receive as a donation of a conservation easement the Development Rights to preserve as open space or farmland in perpetuity. The problem with the purchase of development rights is money. While the Commonwealth of Virginia has a farmland preservation program that provides funding to counties to purchase the development rights, the funding is extremely limited in the state. There is also federal funding under the 2008 farm bill (that will expire on January 1, 2014 and seems to include conservation programs in the latest versions of the Farm Bill that was sent Friday to the Congressional Budget Office to be scored. Even if the funding is maintained it only covers 50% the cost of development rights. Up to 25% can be donated land right value, but the rest must be paid for with cash.

There are several federal programs that have funding available to preserve farmland, forestland and ecologically important lands, but a county must have also have funding and staff expertise available to put together deals an navigate tax deductions and saleable state tax credits and work with organizations like the Department of Defense REPI (Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration) Program and the Trust for Public Land or the Piedmont Environmental Council to structure deals and pull together the funding to create a conservation easement or purchase the development rights. This takes a commitment on the part of the Board of Supervisors to fund and support such a program. I did not see a single member of the Board of Supervisors at the workshop.

The second preservation option is to transfer the development rights (TDR) to developments in other parts of the county that allow the developer to build a higher density than normally allowed. This was a strategy that worked incredibly well in Montgomery County where 7,000 TDR deals totaling $110,000,000 were done. Unfortunately, in Virginia the State does not allow the county to operate a “TDR” Bank and Prince William has only one remaining large development parcel that could have purchased a large number of TDRs, but that parcel is scheduled to have its zoning amended this summer. So essentially, it’s too late for the big deals and Prince William County would have to figure out a way to match development rights with small developments. The good news is that the Virginia legislature did pass the enabling legislation for that.

The final land preservation option is to cluster development with mandatory preservation of open space within the Rural Crescent. Cluster development is typically part of a low impact development strategy (LID). LID is the latest catch phase in ecologically friendly site development and consists of five elements: preserving open space and minimizing land disturbance; protecting natural drainage ways, soils and sensitive areas; incorporating natural site elements like wetlands, stream corridors, and woodlands as site features; reducing the size of traditional infrastructure; and decentralize and manage storm water at its source. While this is more protective of the environment (if you address the small group need for water and sewage management- clustered houses cannot have septic systems and wells and 5-10 homes may be too small a group to properly operated and manage a clustered on-site sewage treatment. Of the 345 farms in Prince William County (in 2007) 210 of them were 50 acres or less. LID is by its nature a distributed design involving, ongoing maintenance of the plants, replanting after severe winters or prolonged droughts, weeding, and other land and habitat maintenance along with effective water and sewage management. There does not yet exist a method of ensuring that these features are maintained appropriately and that any repairs or replacements are done with LID in mind.

It is a large challenge to preserve the Rural Crescent, but it is an extraordinary valuable resource that we need to maintain for our quality of life, the health of our watershed and the ecological services it provides. Protecting our water supply infrastructure is more than a pipe that runs into your house, more than the Occoquan. If you pave and build over the landscape the water supply will be irreparably damaged. Without water there is no Prince William County.

The Rural Crescent an Extraordinary Valuable Resource

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fate of Our Rural Crescent

On Saturday, December 7th 2013 there will be an open house and all day series or meetings at George Mason University, Prince William Campus in Manassas. This link has the information, agenda and maps if you wish to attend any part of the meeting. If you live in Prince William you should attend. This meeting is to discuss the results of the County Planning Department study of the County's rural preservation policies, an evaluation of their effectiveness, identifying additional rural preservation tools that may be appropriate and effective, and recommendations for amendments to the County's land use planning policies. This meeting will layout the intended fate of our Rural Crescent an extraordinary valuable resource to the county watershed and property owners.

We arrived at this point because of a request made at the regular March 2012 meeting of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors. While considering requests for exceptions to the comprehensive plan, Supervisor Martin Nohe supported by the other county Supervisors felt that it was time to reconsider some of the planning and development decisions that had been made in the past and asked for the Planning Office staff to produce an analysis of the usefulness of the Rural Crescent in achieving the stated goals of protecting rural character and open space, and whether policy adjustments or new policies would do a better job. The request was made by Supervisor Nohe to Prince William County staff and noted in the minutes. Later funds were allocated to hire a consultant and regular reports have been made to the County Supervisors.

Preservation of the rural nature of the county has a long history in Prince William. In 1964, a planning study was conducted for the County and recommended a Comprehensive Plan that identified a significant portion of the County as "Large Estate and Agricultural." The preservation goals for this area became more formalized through designation of the Rural Area in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan that created the 80,000 acre Rural Crescent. Since that time the Rural Crescent has been chipped away at with exception requests every year. Higher density development means money to developers and landowners. There is much passion when money is on the table. The Rural Crescent in Prince William County was originally intended as an urban growth boundary for the county designed to preserve our agricultural heritage and force development along the Route 1 corridor rather than Greenfield development in the remaining rural areas.

Maintaining the emphasis on redevelopment of areas with preexisting infrastructure would allow Prince William County to improve storm water management, achieve nutrient and sediment reductions for the EPA mandated TMDL, revitalize older areas of the county and preserve the Greenfields. The Rural Crescent may have started with different intentions; but today the Rural Crescent is about water, groundwater and ecosystem preservation. However, it is also about where we live and who we are.

I took the time to read the responses to the internet-based survey run by the consultants hired by the county to actually perform the study. Over the summer the consultants had a survey running on SurveyMonkey. Though the participation was low with only 386 self-selected participants, the participants took the time for comments. And though there was diversity in opinion, the comments reminded me that spending a weekend day at Yankey Farms to select a pumpkin for Halloween or picking berries in the warm weather, going to Evergreen Farms to get your Christmas tree, or La Grange Winery for a glass of wine or picnic is part of the charm of living in Prince William County. Engage with your community, attend the meeting.

Public Meeting on the Bi-County Parkway

Monday evening June 3^rd the Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT, held a Public Information meeting from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas, VA. The meeting was held in response to public outcry against the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor and Battlefield Parkway.  For the first hour, VDOT had materials in the lobby outlining the history of the planned roadway, and addressing public concerns that had been raised, collected questions and a list of people who wished to address the meeting. From 7 to 8:15 Charles Kilpatrick who is the Chief Deputy Commissioner for VDOT addressed the crowd.  The meeting was held in a packed auditorium attended by a crowd of over 500 that thinned out considerably after the VDOT presentation and as the evening wore on. VDOT did not answer all the questions submitted (only those selected by staff) nor did they call on everyone who requested two minutes. There were too many questions and Mr. Kilpatrick only addressed the questions that he felt able to address. Someone at his level cannot be expected to know the environmental impact details, details of the section 106 mitigations negotiated, legal aspects of eminent domain or how to pronounce Catharpin and on which corner on route 29 is the Stone House.

The first thing that VDOT settled is the planned road is called the Bi-County Parkway.  Mr. Kilpatrick presented the VDOT plan for all the improvements in northern Virginia and the reason this parkway is planned at all. The basis for the plan is VDOT’s projections of what the traffic and population growth will be in the next 30 years. In addition he showed the current traffic congestion in the north south roads getting from the housing developments in Dominion Valley, Gainesville, the new massive housing construction in Loudoun between the Loudoun county line and the Greenbelt on both sides of route 50 between route 15 and Loudoun County parkway. All those residents need to reach an east-west route to commute and try to avoid the traffic problems that construction in Loudoun and route 50 have created.  VDOT projects that the north south traffic will continue to increase (though mostly north of the Loudoun County line according to the VDOT traffic projections) and that by eliminating route 29 as an east-west corridor through Prince William county that traffic will be alleviated in the north south roadways.

In addition in addressing concerns that the limited access Bi-County Parkway will be a toll road, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that while I-66 will get HOT toll lanes, the four lane portion of the Bi-County Parkway made HOT lanes impractical. This seems to be a change in position for VDOT, though Mr. Kilpatrick did not frame this as being a response to public concern and the efforts of Delegates Marshall and Hugo.

There had been a significant negative community response to the plan for the Bi-County Parkway in the past two months since VDOT released the “Northern Virginia North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance –Corridor Master Plan” on April 8, 2013. In that document VDOT stated “the Northern Virginia North-South CoSS (Corridor of Statewide Concern) will be an integrated, multimodal network of transportation facilities that connect major centers of activity within and through the Commonwealth and promote the movement of people and goods essential to the economic prosperity of the State.”

The key elements of the Bi-County Parkway outlined in that publication were:

• “Construction of a continuous high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility between I-95 and the area west of Washington Dulles International Airport, which would operate during peak periods in the morning and evening.”
• “Establishment of a high-occupancy toll (HOT) system for the Corridor between the intersection of VA 234 and Country Club Drive and the Washington Dulles International Airport area. Vehicles carrying three or more persons (HOV 3+) would be able to access the system at no cost, and other vehicles would pay a toll to access the HOV/HOT lanes during peak periods.”
• “Construction of a new roadway connection between the North-South Corridor and the Washington Dulles International Airport area, providing connections to VA 606 and improving regional and statewide access to the airport, surrounding freight facilities, and the Metrorail Silver Line.”
• “Provision of new and expanded transit services operating throughout the Corridor... They will provide north-south mobility as well as connections for individuals destined toward the east and west via transfers at convenient locations such as park-and-rides and rail stations. Construction of a continuous multi use trail along the Corridor for the use of bicyclists and pedestrians, allowing them to access activity centers throughout the north-south corridor seamlessly.”
• “Improvements to transportation demand management programs (TDM) within the Corridor, focused on marketing and promotion of the expanded transit services and the HOV network.”

During the meeting on Monday Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Rural Crescent will not be opened up to development by this multi-lane highway because the road will be limited access through Prince William county. The only access points in Prince William County will be I-66, Route 29, and existing Route 234 west of the Battlefield. The environmental study is being completed. There is only $12,000,000 available for design in the current 6 year plan, though money has been allocated for “traffic calming” on route 29 through the park ahead of the development of any other roadway.  Mr. Kilpatrick did not explain what kinds of traffic calming measures would be used. In addition, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Battlefield will be enhanced, Sudley Methodist Church will maintain an access route and be eligible for signage, though their road will be closed to the public. Finally, Pageland Road will remain open.

Delegate Bob Marshall followed Mr. Kilpatrick. He said the VDOT presentation was three years too late, and there had been a lack of candor or transparency in the process. Delegate Marshall said that there has never been a corridor of significance in absence of an existing road, and designation of this corridor as CoSS had not followed VDOT’s own procedures. He said that this was road was being built for political purposes or was a developer’s road to a round of applause. Delegate Marshall was followed by a legislative aid for Delegate Hugo who read his statement. The Delegate had met with the Governor on Monday and could not attend the meeting.

Prince William County community objections to this planned parkway have focused on several issues that are still of concern to the community.

1. The Bi-County Parkway will drive all the east-west traffic from route 29 which will be effectively closed to through traffic by "traffic calming measures" to I-66 increasing traffic on that road.
2. The Bi-County Parkway is intended to be a 4 lane and 6 lane highway that will provide direct access to Dulles Airport, but have limited access to the Prince William community, yet will utilize a section of the Rural Crescent for the road essentially destroying the intent of the Rural Crescent.
3. The planned road will require that Virginia invoke eminent domain to take more than a dozen homes.
4.   Route 234 through the Battlefield that provides road access to several businesses and Sudley Methodist Church (that predates the Civil War) will be eliminated. As the Reverend Mitchell explained the Church believes that closing the road to through traffic will remove the Church from everyday lives of its members and potential members in the community, and effectively land lock and isolate the Church within the park to a slow death. This has happened to other churches.
5.  Closing route 234 through the park and route 29 through the park to through traffic essentially isolates northwestern Prince William County from the rest of the county and Manassas. There is no route from Heathcote Health Center to Prince William Hospital without going on I-66. The only route from Dominion Valley, Regency and all the development on route 15 to Manassas or anywhere will be I-66 which will be the only way to cross from western Prince William County to Eastern Prince William County.
6.   The Bi-County Parkway does nothing to improve east-west traffic, instead it provides connectivity to the airport that Prince William residents do not want, divides the county and eliminates connections within our county and only benefits the Loudoun County developments.
7.  The route through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damages our watershed  and water resources. The Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community.  Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has called the corridor one of three priority conservation area for the region.

VDOT Public Hearing

From Piedmont Environmental Council

Last evening the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) held a public hearing at the VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center in Fairfax to hear comments about the “essential” projects identified in the state's working draft of the Fiscal Years 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvement Program. The program allocates $15.4 billion, a $4 billion increase, in funding to transportation improvements over the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013. The draft report was released by VDOT on May 15th 2013 and suddenly projects that had just been talked about for the future became real with the list of projects selected by the CTB for Transportation Alternatives Program funding, including the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor. The meeting was held in a packed meeting room attended by about 160. The CTB said that public comments will be considered before the CTB adopts its final program in June, but this narrow window was the only opportunity to have input in Northern Virginia, though Deputy Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick kindly invited anyone who was interested to drive down to Roanoke and Hampton Roads with him for the next two meetings.

The meeting was well attended by our supervisors, delegates, NGO representatives and about 150 regular folk. Our elected officials talked about the concerns and needs of their communities. I intend to only focus on some of the comments about the North-South Corridor/ Bi-County Parkway which represented about two thirds of the comments made last night. The planned crescent shaped North South Corridor, limited access cargo and truck highway, (or Bi-County Parkway) is approximately 45 miles in length, and is essentially described by VDOT as a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. The North South section is reported to cost over $1,000,000,000, run through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damaging our watershed and impacting our groundwater resources, eliminates one of three corridors in our green infrastructure and once the segment of the Tri-County Parkway between I-66 and VA 234 is complete, U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park are planned to be closed. As Delegate Hugo stated in his Bull Run news conference “this road will destroy the Rural Crescent, land that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has pledged to protect.”

Why the Rural Crescent was formed is less important than understanding that the Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. These green corridors maintain a tree canopy and control runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintain adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge. These green corridors are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region. In building out the county and highway system Fairfax County overdeveloped eliminating much of the county’s green corridors and is now dependent to a large extent on the regional green infrastructure from neighboring Loudoun and Prince William Counties. It’s important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Delegate Tim Hugo was the first to speak after Deputy Commissioner Kilpatrick’s introductory comments. Delegate Hugo was succinct in making his main points: The North-South Corridor is a misallocation of resources. The planned highway closes 234 and “traffic calms 29” through the park driving all the east/west traffic onto route 66 increasing congestion.

The Loudoun County Board in the person of Chairman York voiced their support for the North-South Corridor and the importance of such a route to their National Conference Center at its northern end. Mayor Kristen Umstattd of Leesburg voiced the town’s support for the many projects in her community and her support for the North South Corridor (which those in Loudoun apparently call the Battlefield Parkway).

Marty Nohe, the Coles District Supervisor for Prince William County and Chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) apparently made his specific comments in writing, but when I grabbed him on his way out the door and asked him if he supported the current planned route for the North-South Corridor through the Rural Crescent and trough the Green Infrastructure Corridor of Significance as designated by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission, he replied that he supports the connectivity that it represents, but will not support any particular route until after the June 3, 2013 VDOT public meeting to discuss the project to be held at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas.

Delegate Bob Marshall talked only about the North-South corridor. He stated that in both his research and Congressman Wolf’s, the planned road is not supported by the freight shippers who were described as being the beneficiaries of the road and its advocates. Delegate Marshall reiterated his point that alternatives to building the road had not been fully examined and that the main beneficiaries would be developers. Many large parcels of land bordering the planned route of the North-South Parkway have recently been acquired.

When the members of the public were allowed to speak the majority of speakers spoke about the North-South Corridor. Kenn Knarr from Catharpin spoke in favor of public transit strategies that would improve and increase public transit options in Prince William County instead of building the North-South Corridor. Page Snyder of Gainesville (and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway”) pointed out that Northern Virginia already has too many toll roads and the North-South Corridor will be a limited access/ HOT lane access/ toll road. That will do nothing to alleviate traffic in Prince William County. Philomena Hefter of Gainesville and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway” spoke in support of east/west traffic solutions that would alleviate the traffic congestion problems for commuters. Ms. Hefter also pointed out that over 100 property owners would be impacted and that the North-South Corridor Parkway is not consistent with the Prince William County Master Plan. Others spoke in defense of the Rural Crescent, and some spoke of concern for the environmental impact.

Then several people spoke out against the North-South Corridor in support of Sudley Methodist Church. This church is located on route 234 in the park and would lose their road front and access. Deb Angerman, the program director for the Church, spoke passionately about the church that was founded in 1822 and used as a military hospital during the Battles of Manassas. Sudley Methodist Church is a living church that serves it community and has a vibrant congregation. The church is not a historic relic. Ms. Angerman pointed out the lack of transparency and engagement with the community and stakeholders, and asked that this project be withdrawn until its full impact on the community and environment can be evaluated.

Many more Prince William County residents spoke out against the planned parkway. The President of the Western Prince William County Homeowners Alliance that represents 5,000 families living in their member HOAs stated that none of the Alliance’s priorities included a route north from route 66 to route 50. The Alliance’s concern is east-west movement which is the main commuter traffic patterns. The Alliance also had concerns about what the impact of the plan will be on local traffic. The Sierra Club voiced their opposition to the North-South Corridor and then moved on to other topics.

Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority spoke in support of the Bi-County Parkway which he described as a very important road with flawed communication. He also thanked the CBT and the commissioners present for their hard work (something we should all remember to do). It seems apparent that NVTA is in support of the North-South Corridor Parkway.

If you did not attend the meeting, there will be a Public Information Meeting Monday, June 3, 2013, from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center 10960 George Mason Circle, Manassas, VA 20110. Comments can also be sent by mail or email. For VDOT projects, the mailing address is Programming Director, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 or email six-yearprogram@vdot.virginia.gov.

Tri-County Parkway Public Hearing

If you have strong feelings about the Tri-County Parkway or you simply care about road development you need to attend the VDOT public hearing in Northern Virginia on May 29, 2013, 6 PM. The meeting will be held at the VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center 4975 Alliance Drive, Suite 1N201 in Fairfax, VA 22030.

The hearing is intended to solicit public comments on the draft Six-Year Improvement Program that is being released by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) ) on May 15, 2013 in in VDOT’s Central Office Auditorium located at 1201 E Broad St., Richmond, VA, and will be available online at www.Virginiadot.org on May 15th after the meeting.

As a result of the transportation funding plan passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor McDonnell this year, funding is available for highway, road and bridge projects as well as rail, transit, bicycle, pedestrian and other transportation projects. The projects planned for the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013 will be finalized in the next 45 days.

CTB will hold four public hearings to solicit comments about these “essential” projects identified in the draft report. In addition, the tentative list of projects selected by the CTB for Transportation Alternatives Program funding will be available on May 15th . The CTB states that public comments will be considered before the CTB adopts its final program in June.

If you cannot attend the meeting , comments can be sent by mail or email. For VDOT projects, the mailing address is Programming Director, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 or email six-yearprogram@vdot.virginia.gov.

Opposition to the planned route of the Tri-County Parkway is building on the county level. On May 2nd Delegate Hugo, Delegate Marshall and Supervisor Candland participated in a well attended community meeting organized by “Say No to the Tri-County Parkway” at Bull Run Middle School. Then during Citizen’s Time at the Prince William County Board of Supervisors regular meeting on May 7th  several people associated with "Say No to the Tri-County Parkway” spoke out against the planned route of the Tri-County Parkway and the closing of U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park and asked the supervisors to support the community group in their quest to stop the parkway.

Chairman Stewart while affirming the need for an outer beltway, pointed out that in 2005 the PWC Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of locating the Tri-County Parkway east of the Battlefield which would move it out of the Rural Crescent and away from the direct watershed of Bull Run. He stated that closing VA 234 and U.S. 29 through the park would be very disruptive of traffic and that the Board of Supervisors did not in any way support that plan.

On May 14th Congressman Frank Wolf sent a letter to the Governor that can be read at this link.

Tri-County Parkway to Destroy the Rural Crescent

From VDOT final report 2013

When the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, David Tyeryar, presented the scope of the planned crescent shaped North South Corridor, limited access cargo and truck highway, (the Tri-County Parkway) he glossed over a few key essential points. The Deputy Secretary pointed out the highway corridor is approximately 45 miles in length, and is essentially a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. What he forgot to mention is that the North South Corridor portion alone will cost over $1,000,000,000, run through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damaging our watershed and impacting our groundwater resources, eliminates one of three corridors in our green infrastructure and once the segment of the Tri-County Parkway between I-66 and VA 234 is complete, U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park are planned to be closed.
                             

red is 6 lands and blue 4 lanes

As Supervisor Candland (whose Gainesville District will be bisected by the six lane highway) pointed out this plan is troubling on many levels. Supervisor Candland has concerns about the effect of the planned Tri-County Parkway and greater crescent shaped roadway will have on commuters, the environment and our community, but the Tri-County roadway was approved by the Prince William County Board of Supervisors two years ago. So, on the county level, it has been approved. Supervisor Candland was not in office at the time, but the Gainesville Supervisor at the time (John Stirrup) was one of two votes against the plan.

Last Monday, April 29, 2013, Delegate Tim Hugo (R-40th), along with State Senators Dick Black (R-13th), Richard Stuart (R-28th), Jill Vogel (R-27th), and Delegates Bob Marshall (R-13th) and Michael Webert (R-18th), have all come out against the planned Bi-County Parkway (the North-South Corridor). Delegate Hugo will be attending a community meeting tonight at Bull Run Middle School at 7 pm in the cafeteria. The meeting was organized by "Say No to the Tri-County Parkway." There is still an opportunity to impact the VDOT plans through our state legislature and also through allocation of Federal Transportation funds so also contact Congressman Frank Wolf, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner with your concerns. You can go to the Piedmont Environmental Council action center to help you express your concerns to our elected officials.

As Delegate Hugo stated “this road will destroy the Rural Crescent, land that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has pledged to protect.” This project threatens our water resources and green infrastructure. The Rural Crescent is located within the northeast quadrant and eastern quadrant of the Culpeper groundwater basin and consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic that is highly fractured and overlain by a thin cover of overburden. Groundwater is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer, but there is inadequate overburden in much of the Rural Crescent. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and there is limited if any natural attenuation in this type of geology and the aquifer could be polluted beyond our ability to remediate.

Why the Rural Crescent was formed is less important than understanding that the Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia.

In building out the county and highway system Fairfax County overdeveloped eliminating much of the county’s green corridors and is now dependent to a large extent on the regional green infrastructure from neighboring Loudoun and Prince William Counties. These green corridors maintain a tree canopy and control runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintain adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge. These green corridors are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region.

The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has developed a Conservation Corridor Planning Project which is a regional effort to identify essential green infrastructure and help area governments to avoid the mistakes of the past and maintain the few remaining green corridors along the rivers and reservoirs in Fairfax and integrate green infrastructure planning into the future development planning of Prince William and Loudoun counties.

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

Read more about happenings with the Parkway If you want to protect Prince William County, go to Say No to the Tri-County Parkway's  meeting speak to Delegate Hugo and write to Congressman Frank Wolf, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner.