Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan Update - July 2022 Draft for Public Comment

I agree with the many comments made by Caroline Haynes and Suzanne Sundberg made above. Of particular concern is the impact of the Missing Middle Housing Study. Staff has said lot tree canopy requirements will be reduced from the 20% currently governing most single-family home lots to 10%-15% due to increased density. This will increase the storm water runoff problem all other things be equal. Also, of concern is RPA protection. We have seen in many key cases the purposes of the RPA undermined through exceptions, grandfathering in, and less than strict enforcement. Sundberg’s comments on RPA’s are right on, particularly in regards to public land with the Bluemont Park tennis courts being a prime example. At a recent meeting of our community association the Bluemont Park tennis court project designers made a presentation. They prefaced it with the acknowledgement that if the project was being started today it would be done differently. Rather than repeating past mistakes and grandfathering in county infrastructure in or close to RPAs when it comes time to renovate them, the projects should be scaled back so they don’t impinge on the RPA. One reason we are in this mess is because of all that unbridled development in the past – why continue doing it?

I may have missed it, but I don't see any mention anywhere in this plan about addressing the issue of lot coverage under current zoning. Please let me know if I overlooked a policy recommendation on addressing lot coverage in an effort to save canopy trees and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. We are losing trees at a rapid rate due to infill development, which is only going to be exacerbated by the Missing Middle Housing plan. The allowable existing lot coverage is excessive, resulting in unsustainable levels of impermeable surfaces that exacerbates stormwater runoff, flooding and the tremendous loss of mature trees across the county. We must address this issue before we pile on the pressure of additional density. Failure to address lot coverage undermines many of the policies in this document.

I concur with the comment that the utility fee structure should encourage, use as an opportunity for education and give credit for property owners that reduce turf grass and convert to native plant gardens. Some form of the StormWater Wise program should be a part of the new utility structure, even if it is just the education piece and there are no matching grants. Eliminating that program was a huge loss at a time when it was just gaining momentum.

This plan, along with the FNRP and other elements of the comprehensive plan as they are updated, should specifically call for the development of biophilic design guidelines. Residents, homeowners and developers should have more specific guidance on what is meant by biophilic design and what is expected. Successful integration of nature into the built environment requires proactively addressing this from all perspectives.

Point source pollution should include concentrated dog waste from dog parks located along Four Mile Run, especially Shirlington Dog Park and Glen Carlyn dog park

As asked earlier, will staff commit to taking in-stream samples of water and stream bank soils to scientifically determine the conditions of the actual stream in Arlington County (rather than relying on out-of-state analogs that aren't really analogous)? According to neighbor and citizen scientist William Gillespie, • Making good, reliable stream bank measurements is inexpensive. Bulk density samples for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous at four locations along a stream costs about $500 to $1,000. • Water quality sampling is also inexpensive. Here are some recent costs from a certified laboratory. o Total Nitrogen: $89 per sample. o Total Phosphorous: $45 per sample. o Total Suspended Sediment: $18 per sample. A very modest investment to ensure that Arlington is using sound science in its decision-making.

What will Arlington County staff DO to reverse this trend? I see few substantive "plans" in this "planning" document that support a reversal of this trend. If water quality (and the Bay's health) is to be improved, we must abandon the current way of doing things. I see little evidence of any substantive, meaningful change in this document or in other documents/plans cited in this update. In other words, "Where's the beef?"

As I noted earlier, these stream "inventories" are at least a decade old. How can they be reliable for decision-making purposes at this late date? A lot of scientific study has occurred in the past decade, and a lot has changed since then.

Given that "raising" and "reconnecting" a streambed to its "floodplain"—even when a stream has never had a floodplain before—slows the water and reduces water volume throughput, where is the language explaining that this slowing down of the water and reducing a stream's throughput can result in an exacerbation of flooding?

In 2021, local scientist Rod Simmons collected riparian soil samples from Donaldson Run Tributary B and sent them to a respected lab that used Mehlich-3 soil tests to confirm the bioavailable phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the stream’s soil samples. Then, the bioavailable test results were compared to the default values Arlington used to justify the Tributary B “restoration” project. The Mehlich-3 tests results proved that the default metric (the one Arlington uses) is flawed, resulting in the project’s justification relying on far higher levels of pollutant removal than is possible, as is the case for Donaldson Run. Mr. Simmons provided this analysis to Arlington County staff, so staff is aware of the discrepancy and yet continues to push scientifically invalid data rather than correct data. The results of his independent sampling, showing very low actual phosphorus and nitrogen levels from the saprolite soils of Donaldson Run’s stream banks, means that most phosphorus and nitrogen pollution is washing into the stream from upland deposits of animal waste or fertilizer applied to lawns and not from streambank erosion. [For reference, see R.H. Simmons, Summer 2021, River Management Systems (RMS) Journal, pp. 30–31: link.] Due to the unreliability of the use of default metrics, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) banned default phosphorus calculations from being used in pollution-reduction crediting for stream restoration projects in late 2019. Since early 2020, DEQ has required local governments to base their pollutant load reduction credits calculation on the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) values in local soil samples collected in the stream to be “restored.” See VA DEQ's improved protocols as outlined in the VA DEQ Guidance Memo No. 20-2003 – Chesapeake Bay TMDL Special Condition Guidance, dated February 6, 2021: link:\TownHall\docroot\GuidanceDocs\440\GDoc_DEQ_6960_v1.pdf. When will staff commit to using in-stream samples of water and stream bank sediment rather than out-of-state analogues to determine nitrogen and phosphorus levels before contemplating the ecologically damaging stream "resilience" (I call it the "nuclear") option?

Comments by stream restoration expert John Field, PhD, PG, on Arlington County’s methods to achieve “stream resilience,” as described in the 2022 update to the county’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan: "... [D]id notice they are now calling their 'restoration' projects 'stream resilience projects.' They are not building resilience with the projects they are doing. Resilience means streams can adjust and accommodate large floods, trees falling in the channel, and other changes. These projects lock things in place and are prone to catastrophic changes when the large rocks they use to freeze things in place are moved - this is the absolute opposite of resilience. They are masking over their problems and even if they succeed in keeping things from unraveling for 100 years, do they really want their legacy to be a big problem in the future? We should be eliminating problems for the future not creating them!"

In this photo, we see Exhibit A of a typical Arlington County riparian chainsaw massacre. Gone are mature tree root mats to hold the soil in place. Lots of new rocks and sediment that is sure to be washed away in the next big deluge. "Trees hold the soil together along creeks, streams and rivers. The web of underground tree roots can be extensive and affect large areas. The roots reach at least the width of the trees' canopies. Once the trees are removed, erosion can become a serious problem. River banks can fail and mud can be introduced into once pristine waters": link. "Removing streamside forests from riparian areas impairs their ability to provide flood control in several ways. Floodwater detention is substantially reduced by removing the natural barriers of live, decaying and dead vegetation from the forest floor. Removing streamside forests will also result in an increase in soil compaction and reduction in soil porosity. All of these impacts combine to cause a significant decrease in infiltration and a subsequent increase in the speed and amount of flood runoff": link;isAllowed=y. As I've noted previously, small trees do NOT function on the same level (from a stormwater management and water quality perspective) as the mature trees they purportedly "replace" and they will not do so within our lifetimes. Looking at the many washed-out trees along the "restored" section of Donaldson Run Tributary A should have been enough proof, but instead staff continues to double down by using similar failed methods that were discredited in scientific studies published back in 2014: link. And here's another in 2015: link. And 2018: link and link. And 2020: link.

When to the "maximum extent practicable" allows a state champion dawn redwood tree to be cut down, then this "protection" is NO protection at all: link. Far from being a "nonnative" species, the dawn redwood was indigenous to North America 50 million years ago: link. In essence, it is a living fossil that was nearly wiped off the face of the planet. If such a living fossil—with all the "protections" afforded to state champions and trees with root zones within an RPA—cannot be saved, then how can any tree in Arlington County be protected? There is a significant positive relationship between mature tree canopy coverage and water quality—and the closer mature trees are to streams, the more important their root zones are to filtering runoff and holding soil in place: link. Yet, Arlington's methods to achieving stream "resilience" is to chainsaw its way through irreplaceable riparian forests, killing the most valuable and useful (from a stormwater management and water quality perspective) mature trees. When it comes to trees and water quality (as well as stormwater management), size matters: link. Replacement trees will NOT offer the same level of benefits as the removed mature trees within our lifetimes. Thus, the greater the mature tree loss, the worse water quality (and runoff volumes) are likely to be. My question is what new elements in this plan's update meaningfully improve the preservation of mature trees, especially in riparian areas, more than the existing plan? If there are no new meaningful improvements in protections, why has the county not sought to find creative ways under existing regulation to better protect its trees? See earlier references to two previous suggestions: Virginia State Code § 62.1-44.15:33. Authorization for more stringent ordinances: link and Virginia Flood Damages Reduction Act (§ 10.1-600 et seq.) as amended in 1989: link. Arlington also could strengthen its lot coverage rules to reduce allowable impervious surface percentage. I'm sure there are other workarounds that the county could exploit, with a side benefit of incentivizing the preservation of existing mature tree canopy. So why does the county exploit loopholes and cut down so many trees on public property and do little or nothing to increase protections on private property—even in RPAs?

Yes, with an 8-fold increase in allowable density in the portion of Arlington County that holds roughly 60% of its tree canopy, this massive land-use change will incentivize tear-downs, counteract any benefit from the minimal changes to LDA regulation, and accelerate the conversion of pervious to impervious surfaces—fueling stormwater runoff volumes at a time when extreme rainfall events are increasing (due to the urban heat island effect and climate change): link. Though CPHD staff claims that imperviousness would not increase more than current single-family home redevelopment, this type of development is already problematic with respect to stormwater runoff generation, with excessive runoff volumes carrying a larger volume of contaminates into our streams, river and the Bay. Staff has chosen not to further restrict lot coverage (for single-family or any other type of residential development), which would otherwise serve to reduce imperviousness (or at least reduce the rate of growth in imperviousness). Moreover, a recent FOIA response clarified that under current lot coverage rules, single-family home development for 6,000–8,000 sq ft lots covered LESS than the currently allowed lot coverage maximums for single-family detached development. See email dated March 24, 2022, from Matthew Ladd to consultant Anita Morrison, "Subject: RE: Updated Lot Sized for Design Alternatives." Almost certainly, the 8-fold increase in allowable would accelerate the conversion of pervious, vegetated land into impervious surface cover, and the added density will almost certainly result in use of the maximum lot coverage allowance. Thus, we will see greater runoff volumes with "missing middle" redevelopment, along with an expansion of heat-trapping, water-shedding surfaces. Greater runoff volumes mean more contaminants will enter our streams at increasing speed, which negates the county's water-quality, "resilience" and flood-mitigation efforts. Missing middle upzoning represents he GREATEST land-use planning change since Arlington implemented its Zoning Ordinance in the 1950s. Where are the planned, proactive measures to offset this increase in environmental insult?

Are there any meaningful constraints on development in Arlington County? There are so many workarounds and loopholes, that it would appear that no scrap of land in Arlington County — public or private — is safe from a backhoe. I call attention to the very steep slope at Upton Hill Regional Park, where excessive new pavement was added at the top of a very steep slope, and an excessive number of trees were removed even within (or just beyond) the RPA boundaries in a public park. The results were predictable, with excessive runoff and erosion flowing downhill into the wetlands at the bottom of the hill: link. Then there is the problem of NO meaningful oversight/inspection and enforcement of the few regulations we have. The results are not pretty and are counterproductive to the stated goals contained in this plan.

It seems that resource protection areas (RPAs) on public land effectively have far less protection against degradation through development than do RPAs on private land, given the increase in impervious surfaces and loss of mature trees and other vegetation resulting from the redevelopment of Jenny Dean Park (adjacent to Four Mile Run and in the floodway) as well as several other park "maintenance capital" projects proximate to streams (projects that circumvent the need for environmental impact analysis). Why would the county intentionally plan to significantly expand tennis courts (impervious surfaces) in the Upper Bluemont Tennis Facility, which lies in and adjacent to a resource protection zone — and which has experienced significant recurrent flooding that has extended well beyond the RPA and designated floodplain boundaries? These projects are counterproductive in reducing impervious surfaces and improving the land's absorptive capacity in areas known to flood, and they conflict with improving water quality and the health of the Bay. How can this constitute responsible, meaningful planning that supports the goals identified in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance or in this updated plan? Even on private land, there are few meaningful protections, and mature trees — including a state champion dawn redwood — are routinely cut down in RPAs and in areas that are prone to flooding.

Though by some measures, air quality in Northern VA has improved somewhat (sometimes when the standards were weakened), Arlington is still in an ozone non attainment zone. The reduction in vehicle miles traveled during the pandemic is over, and we still have Code Orange days here in Arlington: link. And we are building a methane/natural gas production, storage and flaring operation on the Water Pollution Control Plant site, which will definitely increase ozone concentrations in South Arlington near National Landing and the Rt. 1 corridor. Given that the so-called "missing middle" 8-fold upzoning in the portions of Arlington with the most vegetation (aka tree canopy) and least amount of heat-trapping, water-shedding impervious surfaces, we can expect its wholesale conversion to impervious cover. This will result in an exacerbation of the urban heat island effect, which WILL increase toxic ground-level ozone formation and concentrations. This large-scale land-use change will result in more vehicles on the road, hotter temperatures and more air pollution. Where is the mention of these new sources?

Why isn't this CBPP update waiting for the soon-to-be updated combined Forestry and Natural Resources Plan?

Again, I ask where are specific parcels for land acquisition identified for the purposes of reducing flood risk and converting land from impervious to pervious for the express purpose of improving water quality and/or to reduce runoff volumes or to mitigate flood risk? Where is there funding for this land acquisition? It's not in the new 10-year CIP. Stating that the county is thinking about land acquisition does NOT constitute a "plan." Given the increase in impervious surfaces and loss of mature trees and other vegetation resulting from the redevelopment of Jenny Dean Park as well as several other park "maintenance capital" projects (which circumvent the need for environmental impact analysis), it would seem that resource protection areas (as well as designated floodplains and floodways) have less protection from development than does private land within resource protection areas. Why would the county intentionally plan to significantly expand tennis courts (impervious surfaces) in the Upper Bluemont Tennis Facility, which lies in and adjacent to a resource protection zone — and which has experienced significant recurring floods that has extended well beyond the RPA boundaries? These projects are counterproductive to reducing impervious surfaces and improving the land's absorptive capacity in areas known to flood, and they conflict with improving water quality and the health of the Bay. How can this constitute responsible, meaningful planning?

Why is there so much greater emphasis on "public" waterfront access when it is clear that such projects (like the newly planned Rosslyn boathouse) destroy valuable riverine wetlands and increase imperviousness and runoff — conflicting with the purposed goal of this plan to improve water quality in the Potomac River and thus the Chesapeake Bay? Why is improving water quality and Bay health not the county's top priority?

Where are the mitigation planning and increased regulatory controls and land-use policy changes needed to reverse the trend of increasing imperviousness and runoff volume? I cannot find anything substantive in this plan, which seems odd, given that it is purportedly a planning tool for improving water quality and the Bay's health. It used to be that localities could regulate only water quality but current regulation appears to have empowered localities to regulate runoff volume as well. See Guidance Memo No. 20-2003 – Chesapeake Bay TMDL Special Condition Guidance from Virginia DEQ, Division of Water Permitting, dated Feb. 6, 2021: link. In addition to sediment volume (of erosion) prevented, there is also a BMP in Appendix VII, Table VI.1 for rainwater harvesting (a volume control mechanism). Though I can appreciate that TMDL is handled in a separate document, the control of runoff volume is so central to water quality, it seems quite odd that reducing imperviousness (thus reducing volume) would seem to be a key element of any serious plan to improve water quality. In addition to this memo, see also Virginia State Code § 62.1-44.15:33. Authorization for more stringent ordinances: link. This provision authorizes localities to apply for a waiver in order to enact ordinances more stringent than the State Water Control Board's “minimum regulations” in order to avoid “excessive localized flooding within the watershed.” And the Virginia Flood Damages Reduction Act (§ 10.1-600 et seq.) as amended in 1989. The state sets "minimum standards" — which would seem to indicate that localities are free to set more stringent standards for floodplain zoning and enforcement: link. There is sufficient wiggle room in existing state code to allow Arlington more latitude to enact more stringent land-use and stormwater management regulations to reduce stormwater runoff volumes that would support the county's expressed goals of improved water quality, flood-risk mitigation/resilience and stream resilience. The question is why nothing new or more stringent is proposed in this document or in any other related document?

Where is the planning for the so-called "missing middle" upzoning reflected in this "update" to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Plan? Though CPHD staff claims that imperviousness would not increase more than current single-family home redevelopment, this type of development is already problematic with respect to stormwater runoff generation, with excessive runoff volumes carrying a larger volume of contaminates into our streams, river and the Bay. Staff has chosen not to further restrict lot coverage, which would serve to reduce imperviousness (or at least reduce the rate of growth in imperviousness). Moreover, a recent FOIA response clarified that under current lot coverage rules, single-family home development for 6,000–8,000 sq ft lots covered LESS than what is currently allowed. See email dated March 24, 2022, from Matthew Ladd to consultant Anita Morrison, "Subject: RE: Updated Lot Sized for Design Alternatives." Almost certainly, an 8-fold increase in allowable, by-right density incentivizes tear-downs (thus accelerating the conversion of pervious, vegetated land into impervious surface cover), and the added density will almost certainly result in use of the full lot coverage allowance. Thus, we will see even more runoff volume along with more heat-trapping, water-shedding surfaces. More runoff volume will increase the amount of contaminants entering our streams at increasing speed, which offsets/counteracts "resilience" and flood-mitigation efforts. Why is there no planning in this document to prepare for what will be the GREATEST land-use planning change since Arlington implemented its Zoning Ordinance in the 1950s? Where are the proactive measures to offset this increase in environmental insult?

Buried streams are still streams. Past mistakes should not be viewed as set in stone. Rather, redevelopment should be viewed as an opportunity to reverse old harms and to daylight, where appropriate, underground streams to improve Arlington's overall ecological health. Streams are not supposed to be used as de facto stormwater ditches in this day and age. Are there any plans for land acquisition (beyond the brief mention on p. 14) for the purposes of daylighting streams, increasing resource protection areas and further removing development from recurrent flood zones? Reducing impervious surface cover and increasing pervious/permeable land acreage, preserving existing canopy and planting more trees, and increasing pervious/permeable land acreage are all excellent strategies for reducing rainfall runoff, mitigating flood impact, reconnecting the water cycle and recharging groundwater assets (to prevent dangerous and damaging land subsidence): link. “But as urbanization levels increase or as storms become larger—or both—flows intercepted by impervious surfaces may overwhelm the capacity of the pervious areas that remain.[62] A common consequence is flooding, and most cities therefore build networks of storm drains that convey surface flows directly into waterways, bypassing the aquifers through which much of the stormwater would otherwise pass.[63] These stormwater flows create major pollution problems, for urban stormwater gathers cocktails of pollutants as it passes over the ground surface.[64] The interruption of infiltration also can reduce aquifer recharge, sometimes significantly.[65]”: Law, Land Use, and Groundwater Recharge (2021) link;context=faculty_scholarship.

These 2011–2012 stream assessments are now more than a decade old. How can they still serve as a reliable basis for making decisions regarding stream condition? A lot has changed since 2011–2012, including the science regarding the least damaging and most successful in terms of the long-term sustainability of the stream and in improving water quality in the Bay. When will Arlington begin modernizing not just its plan materials but also its outdated methods, policies and regulations to pursue improved outcomes that would benefit not just the Bay's water quality but also would reduce flooding (locally and downstream) and improve local stream ecology and wildlife/aquatic habitat?

The county's Stormwater Master Plan (2014) is now 8 years old. In choosing to update the tax system for stormwater management to a utility-fee model, the SWMP is already out of date and will need to be updated in the near future. Likewise, the county's stormwater ordinance (Chapter 60) also will need to be updated. It would seem to make better sense to wait until those two documents have been updated before updating the CBPP so that the most current policies, regulations and practices are incorporated into the CBPP document.

The tributary of Donaldson Run that begins behind the 26th Street N. mulch pile has iron-colored water in its upper-most reaches. This is of concern and may indicate the presence of harmful amounts of salt in the water coming from the "temporary" salt storage facility nearby on Old Dominion Drive. This warrants investigation.

Something else to consider is that, while the typical manicured green lawn of many Arlington homes is technically not an impervious surface, the runoffs and high water usage of these lawns should be considered detrimental to our efforts to make Arlington more environmentally friendly. Perhaps a credit for homeowners who choose to use more water-friendly plantings in their lawns or make other changes to be more environmentally friendly could incentivize people to move away from environmentally unfriendly lawns.

With a short review period, the TMDL Action Plan was updated last spring. In this CBPP, or at least in the annual workplan of the program, Arlington should commit to monitoring the salt content of our streams and stormwater effluent. Depending on the results of regular testing, there may be a need to add a TMDL line for salt contamination. This intention could be mentioned in this plan without presuming the results or further commitment. But it is important because the causes of high salt levels are a potential threat to water quality, natural resources and the storm system itself. This would be a commendable, pro-active step.

Should also include data included in the draft FNRMP for 2021, indicating that more trees were cut down then planted, and if reflective of trends since 2016, indicates further decline of the tree canopy, especially since replacement trees, assuming they survive, could take up to 20 years to replace the tree canopy lost.

In Bluemont Park, along the W&OD trail near the informal ball field and sand volleyball court, is a pond/wetland that has emerged over the past 5 years as a permanent natural feature. This is fed by sewer conduits from the neighborhood streets to the east, and also occasionally by high water volume in Four Mile Run itself, into which the feature was apparently intended to drain. This pond is now a naturalized habitat and wildlife magnet, with dozens of species of birds, herps, insects and mammals. This area needs official attention, recognition and conservation. Currently it is not in the RPA map, being slightly too far from 4MR, and has no official name or status. This area should be designated as a wildlife viewing area (see the recent Wildlife Viewing Plan for the state of Virginia), protection as part of the RPA, official recognition, and some minor conservation improvements. It is already a significant natural asset, but is officially unknown.

Homeowners within RPAs should be compensated, or have property taxes, for having restricted use of their property.

Click in the document to add a comment!