Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Policy Changes Are Coming

Two changes relating to Fairfax County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Policies and Ordinance are in the works. The first is with respect to the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan; the second is potential revisions to the protocol for perennial stream determinations and RPA map amendments.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Fairfax County is proposing a County-wide comprehensive plan amendment to satisfy the comprehensive planning requirements of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. These changes are required by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (CBLAD).

Per Fairfax County's September 10, 2004 News Release:

"the proposed amendment includes modifications to several sections of the County's Policy Plan, including the addition of policies addressing watershed management planning, stormwater management and water quality controls for redevelopment, remediation of contaminated sites; tidal shoreline erosion control measures; boating and other tidal shoreline access structures; and the mitigation or compensation of losses of wetlands. The proposed amendment also includes the addition of a "Chesapeake Bay Supplement" to the Plan. This supplement would include: a map of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas; a discussion of factors affecting water quality; the identification of water pollution sources in Fairfax County; a discussion of water quality conditions in Fairfax County; inventories of shoreline erosion conditions, shoreline erosion control structures and waterfront access sites; the identification of existing water quality policies, regulations and initiatives; and analyses and recommendations for action relating to water pollution sources, infill development, redevelopment, shoreline erosion control and shoreline access."

Copies of the staff report are available online.

Interested parties should attend the next Planning Commission (PC) public hearing on October 7 at 8:15 p.m. and the BOS public hearing on November 15 at 4:00 p.m.

The majority of the proposed policy changes do not appear to significantly affect land development activities. The policy actions recommended that do affect land development activities are primarily issues that are usually being addressed in new rezonings and developments, or relate to studies in process, and include:

Adequate Outfall
  • Review the County’s current approach to adequate outfall and revise if necessary to ensure protection of downstream resources when development occurs. If determined to be appropriate, prepare an amendment to the Public Facilities Manual to revise adequate outfall requirements.
Tree Cover
  • Consider the establishment of an obtainable tree cover goal for Fairfax County and/or some or all watersheds within Fairfax County. Prepare a recommended process to develop such a goal (or goals) for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
On-Site Sewage
  • Explore the feasibility and desirability of establishing a self-supporting authority to provide for the management of on-site sewage disposal systems. Present recommendations regarding such an authority to the Board of Supervisors.
Infill and Redevelopment
  • Continue to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Residential Development Study as accepted by the Board of Supervisors on January 22, 2001.
  • Develop recommendations for amendments to the County Code and/or Public Facilities Manual, as applicable, to consider the establishment of stormwater management requirements for redevelopment that will provide for reduced stormwater runoff peak volumes on developed sites that are currently not adequately served by such measures. Draft these recommendations in a manner that will allow for the consideration of whether to require redevelopment sites to achieve a certain reduction in peak volumes rather than allowing them to achieve the same hydrologic conditions that existed prior to redevelopment. The County already has a BMP requirement for redevelopment (a 10% reduction in phosphorus runoff compared with pre-redevelopment conditions); a requirement that is similar in nature to the BMP requirement could be pursued for stormwater quantity control.
SWM/BMP
  • Amend the Public Facilities Manual to incorporate standards for Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other innovative BMP practices as appropriate.
  • Consider whether changes to County policies regarding the placement of Low Impact Development BMP practices should be revised to allow for a broader application of such practices on individual privately-owned lots. Present recommendations regarding this matter to the Board of Supervisors.
  • Review the County's policies and Code requirements to determine if changes to the Public Facilities Manual, Zoning Ordinance, and/or other Code requirements would be appropriate consistent with Policy k of Objective 2 in the Environment section of the Policy Plan (supporting the application of better site design and low impact development techniques). Prepare appropriate amendments to these requirements for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
  • Contingent on the availability of sufficient funding, retrofit existing stormwater management facilities to enhance their water quality and quantity control functions; continue to retrofit dry stormwater management facilities as wetland BMP facilities.
  • Ensure that appropriate interagency coordination occurs in order to improve the consideration of stormwater management, BMP, and adequate outfall issues during the zoning process.
  • Ensure that appropriate interagency coordination occurs in order to improve the consideration of stormwater management, BMP and adequate outfall issues during the Plan amendment process.
  • Revisit the current policy supporting the use of regional stormwater management facilities in light of the approach recommended in the March, 2003 report entitled “The Role of Regional Ponds in Fairfax County’s Watershed Management.” Prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise County policy as it relates to regional facilities for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Watershed Planning
  • Complete watershed management plans for all 30 of the County’s watersheds.
  • Watershed management plans are currently being developed, and it can be anticipated that some or all of these plans will ultimately be adopted or endorsed by the Board of Supervisors. Develop a mechanism to ensure that zoning and Plan amendment proposals will be reviewed within the context of any adopted watershed management plans; establish standard operating procedures to ensure that the necessary interagency coordination occurs.
  • Implement the recommendations of any adopted watershed management plans as funding allows. Establish a mechanism to prioritize and track actions on recommendations for capital improvement projects. Once a sufficient number of watershed management plans have been completed, establish a work program for the consideration of policy and regulatory changes to address policy actions recommended in adopted watershed management plans.
  • Explore the feasibility and desirability of establishing a self-supporting funding mechanism to provide for the implementation of projects recommended through the watershed management planning process. Present recommendations regarding funding mechanisms to the Board of Supervisors for consideration (i.e., the proposed stormwater utility fee).
If you need further information, contact Mike Rolband, P.E., P.W.S.; Mark Headly, P.W.S.; or Dan Lucey, P.E.


PERENNIAL STREAM DETERMINATIONS AND RPA MAP AMENDMENTS

Fairfax County's Environmental Quality Advisory Council (EQAC) – a group appointed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (BOS) - is discussing changes to the process of defining Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) that will remove any vestige of certainty currently granted to landowners by the BOS in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance (CBPO). If you are concerned, you should contact your Board Member.

At EQAC's June 9, 2004 meeting, a resolution to revise the procedures to amend the County’s RPA Maps and the protocol used to determine stream perenniality was introduced. The resolution addresses two main items: 1) changing the process for adding and protecting perennial streams not identified as such on Fairfax County’s current Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area map and 2) amending the definition of a “water body with perennial flow” and the stream classification protocol to include key biological indicators of perennial flow. At EQAC’s request, representatives of the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services (DPWES) attended the August 11, 2004 EQAC meeting to discuss issues raised in the EQAC resolution.

As defined in Section 118.1.6 of the County’s amended CBPO, a “water body with perennial flow” (i.e., a perennial stream) is “any stream that is both perennial and so depicted on the map of Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas adopted by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 118 1 9(a).” Under this definition, a stream with demonstrated perennial flow but not shown as perennial on the County’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area maps is not a “water body with perennial flow” subject to regulation under the County’s CBPO and thus does not have an associated 100 foot RPA buffer. Because the definition of a perennial stream requires that the stream be both perennial and depicted as perennial on the adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area map, streams may only be reclassified as perennial through a BOS action to amend the map. This would require hearings by the Planning Commission and the BOS -- as was done when the maps were adopted.

Currently, the process for amending the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area map to change a stream previously depicted as intermittent to perennial would be initiated by County staff in response to a request to re-evaluate a stream classification. A request for staff to review a stream classification could come from a citizen, a Planning Commissioner, or BOS member. Current plans are for all potential map amendments to be processed as a group on an annual basis.

The resolution currently before EQAC proposes that a site-specific stream flow determination be required for ALL development sites, whether they involve rezoning, special exception or by-right plans such as subdivisions, single lot grading or building permit. As noted above, the definition of a perennial stream requires that the stream be both perennial and depicted as perennial on the adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area map. Therefore, identifying and mapping perennial streams not currently depicted as perennial on the adopted map on a case-by-case basis during the land development process would not be possible without amending the existing definition of a “water body with perennial flow.”

At the August 11 EQAC meeting, County staff noted that they are currently undertaking a QA/QC process to re-evaluate their initial stream classification mapping. During the summer of 2004, County staff re-evaluated a percentage of streams evaluated during the initial stream mapping effort as well as streams whose stream classifications had been called into question. County staff anticipates completing their QA/QC process this fall and presenting proposed map revisions to the BOS for authorization by the end of the year. EQAC has requested that County staff present the results of the stream classification QA/QC process at EQAC’s November 2004 meeting, prior to submission to the BOS so that EQAC can evaluate the effectiveness of the QA/QC and the map revision process and decide what recommendations (if any) they should make to the BOS regarding the map revision process.

The resolution currently before EQAC calls for Fairfax County’s stream classification protocol, which is used to determine if stream flows are perennial or intermittent, to be modified as follows:

A stream channel is defined as perennial when any of the following criteria are met:
  • Key biological indicator species (Appendix A) such as fish, certain amphibians, bivalve mollusks, certain snails, triclad flatworms, sponges, or hydroids – i.e., animals which lack “resting” stages resistant to desiccation and temperature extremes – are present; OR
  • Benthic macroinvertebrate larvae (Appendix B) such as Ephmeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Trichoptera (caddisflies) that require continuous immersion in water for extended development cycles are present; OR
  • Key botanical indicator species (aquatic plants)(Appendix C); OR
  • A numerical value of greater than 19-24 points as determined from the most recent version of the Fairfax County Stream Classification form (Appendix D).
Consideration of key biological indicator species, benthic macroinvertebrate larvae (including mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies), and key botanical indicator species is included in the existing stream classification protocol, which considers geomorphologic and hydrologic characteristics as well as biological indicators. (The Fairfax County Perennial Stream Classification Protocol can be found on-line.) Using the existing Fairfax County stream classification protocol, streams with a score of 25 or greater are generally considered perennial. According to the Fairfax County protocol's "Overall Score Interpretation", streams containing flow during the dry season (from July through September) in a year of normal rainfall or during periods of drought, or streams containing aquatic organisms whose life cycle requires residency in flowing water for extended periods (especially one year or greater) may also be considered perennial. Discussions with DPWES suggest that streams with a score of 25 ± 3 points should be re-examined during the late summer low flow period (in a non-drought year) before making a conclusive intermittent vs. perennial flow determination.

Recognizing that small perennial headwater streams immediately below springs or seeps may receive stream evaluation scores below 25 and that some intermittent streams (particularly those that exhibit strong geomorphologic characteristics due to the frequent input of large volumes of stormwater runoff) may receive scores greater than 25, the existing stream classification protocol allows for the application of professional judgment in making stream flow characterizations. The existing stream classification protocol recommends that all possible factors (including geomorphologic, hydrologic, and biological indicators) be considered and a preponderance of evidence should exist for a stream to be characterized as perennial. By contrast, the proposed revision to the stream classification protocol would allow a stream to be considered perennial if any ONE of the listed criteria were present.

The lists of organisms considered “key biological indicators” in the proposed protocol revisions (Appendices A and B, which are not included here) are extensive and include some organisms, including three genera of fingernail clams (Sphaerium, Musculium, and Pisidium), which according to available scientific literature, may occur in intermittent or even ephemeral habitats. Additionally, use of the proposed lists of key biological indicators would require identifying organisms to the genus level. Identification of the organisms to that taxonomic level would be very time consuming and expensive, requiring that samples be preserved in the field and transported to the laboratory for microscopic analysis. At their August 11 meeting, EQAC formed a committee to review the proposed list of biological indicators, and a report from the committee is expected at EQAC’s October meeting.

For further information, contact Craig Tumer, P.W.S.; Sean Sipple; Mike Rolband, P.E., P.W.S.; or Mark Headly, P.W.S.