<<

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Quality Management Supplement

Adopted January 13, 2001

Water Quality Management Water Quality Management CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Executive Summary and Highlights

The – Alexandria’s downstream neighbor – is among the nation’s largest and most productive estuaries. However, carried along with the huge volumes of from the Bay’s 64,000 square mile watershed are sediments, fertilizers, , motor oil, and other pollut- ants generated by various uses and human activities.

In 1988, the General Assembly, recog- nizing that action had to be taken to preserve the Bay for future generations, enacted the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Act. In 1992, the City of Alexandria adopted a Chesapeake Bay Preser- vation Ordinance (CBPO) to manage land devel- opment in a way that was more harmonious with the environment. The seal of the City of Alexandria highlights the City’s historical and However, this was only a first step. While the present day reliance on the Potomac City’s CBPO is the backbone of Alexandria’s wa- . ter protection efforts, the Act also requires locali- ties to incorporate water quality protection into their comprehensive plans. This planning pro- cess is the “vision ” of the Bay Act program and there are no predisposed outcomes. While CHAPTER CONTENTS the City’s CBPO sets out specific water quality ■ Introduction protection criteria, the planning process provides ■ Alexandria’s Water City officials and residents with an opportunity to Environment think strategically about the kind of environment ■ and Other they want to call home. Sources of Water Quality Decline The Water Quality Management Supplement ■ to the City of Alexandria Master Plan is the re- Water Quality sult of this strategic planning effort. To assist the Management Today City in its effort, the Chesapeake Bay Local As- ■ Policy Analysis and sistance Department provided the Northern Vir- Recommendations ginia Regional Commission with funding to serve as a technical .

E-1 Water Quality Management

While the outcomes are flexible, under the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Area Designation and SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Management Regulations, the City is required to investigate the following areas: The following is a summary of the important findings which are explained in more detail in (1) Constraints to Development Section V “Policy Analysis and Action Plan.” (2) Protection of Water Quality Section V also includes a table identifying time (3) Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control frame for completion, cost, and the City agency (4) Public and Private Access to Waterfront responsible for implementation. New actions, Areas and or those which are not ongoing City programs, (5) Redevelopment of Intensely Developed are shown in bold. Areas ■ SMALL AREA PLANS. Most detailed land A major effort in the planning process is to use planning is accomplished through the gather background information to ensure that City’s fourteen Small Area Plans. adequate data is available for making environ- mentally sound decisions. As a result, the bulk To provide a stronger link between each of this Chapter is devoted to pulling together in- SAP and this Supplement, the City will formation from diverse sources in order to paint a incorporate into each SAP: a discus- complete picture of the City’s environment. Sec- sion of the City’s long-range water qual- tions include: ity protection strategies; SAP-specific Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (1) Introduction maps; and, SAP-specific analyses of (2) Alexandria’s Water Environment opportunities to protect and improve (3) Pollution and Other Sources of Water Qual- water quality and the environment ity Decline through planned development and re- (4) Water Quality Management Today development opportunities.

This information then serves as the basis for Sec- ■ EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES. The tion V, “Policy Analysis and Action Plan.” Section City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Or- V takes a strategic look at how Alexandria’s wa- dinance, Erosion and Sediment Control ter quality programs and regulations meet the Ordinance, and Floodplain Overlay District challenges laid out in Sections I through IV. and the Virginia Uniform Building Code al- ready provide a sound foundation for wa- ter quality management in Alexandria.

The City will consider incorporating civil penalties into its CBPO as a way to strengthen local enforcement.

■ TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY URBAN RETROFIT PROGRAM. The Department of Transportation and Environmental Service’s Targets of Opportunity Urban Retrofit Program is an important public-pri- vate partnership which has resulted in sig- nificant water quality benefits by control- ling pollution from already developed ar- Although urban, Alexandria is still an important eas of the City. This program will continue part of the Chesapeake Bay .

E-2 Water Quality Management

to be used to improve water quality and this effort and ensure that citizens un- help the State to meet its derstand the important role that the up- reduction obligations under the federal grade plays in the protection of Chesa- Chesapeake Bay Program. peake Bay water quality. The City will continue to meet and exceed the require- ■ . Wetlands are an important, ments of its permit to operate a combined but disappearing, resource in the City. sewer system. The City will continue its efforts to minimize the number and volume The City will support efforts, similar to of combined sewer overflows. The City will the Targets of Opportunity Urban Ret- continue its sanitary sewer inspection and rofit Program, that promote the resto- maintenance program in an effort to elimi- ration of degraded wetlands and nate sanitary sewer overflows. . In addition, while healthy wet- should generally be left alone, when ■ WATER QUALITY MONITORING. The impacts do occur the City will try to miti- four primary of concern in the gate the impacts through cre- City include , nutri- ation or enhancement, improvements to ents, products (oil), and thermal riparian areas, or through the use of (heat) pollution. Current efforts by the creative Best Management Practices to City to control these pollutants need to treat . The City will investi- be expanded and there is a need to bet- gate opportunities to use wetlands as ter characterize City water quality. an educational tool for both students and adults. Specifically, current water quality monitor- ing efforts are not adequate to detect pol- ■ HABITAT PROTECTION. habitat lution pulses associated with dumping and protection is a major challenge in Alexan- stormwater runoff. The City will initiate a dria. The City will better identify, char- program to expand the scope of exist- acterize, and map remaining significant ing water quality monitoring efforts. The natural habitat areas that will assist the City will also pursue public-private part- City with its effort to preserve and pro- nerships and volunteers to assist in tect these areas. When possible, exist- monitoring water quality in the City. ing valleys need to remain in a natu- ral condition. ■ . Pollution prevention is the most cost-effective way Remaining wildlife habitat areas are frag- to protect water quality. Existing City pro- mented and ways to connect remaining grams include its street sweeping program, habitat areas need to be explored. If cur- leaf collection program, rent efforts by VDOT to reduce the impact and used oil collection program, sanitary of streets on wildlife corridors are success- sewer line inspection and maintenance pro- ful, the City will pursue developing simi- gram, school-age water and environmen- lar standards for new or reconstructed tal education programs, and best manage- City roads. ment practices manual for automotive re- lated industries. ■ WASTEWATER TREATMENT. The Alex- andria Authority’s effort to up- While the City has undertaken important grade Alexandria’s Wastewater Treatment pollution prevention efforts, an expanded Facility is probably the single most impor- and comprehensive approach to pollution tant, and costly, environmental protection prevention is needed. Before the year effort in Alexandria. The City will support 2007, the City will need to demonstrate,

E-3 Water Quality Management

under new federal require- The City’s web page will be used as a ments, that it is minimizing pollution through means of advertising environmental public education and outreach programs. programs and for exchanging envi- ronmental information. Areas specifically identified as requir- ing attention and public outreach by the ■ USED OIL AND ANTIFREEZE RECY- City include the following. CLING. There is a need for additional par- ticipation in used oil and antifreeze pro- – The City will coordinate with fuel oil grams. The City will increase advertis- companies to increase public aware- ing of collection sites as a way to en- ness of the threat of aging above tice businesses to join the program. ground and underground storage tanks. ■ OPEN SPACE AND VEGETATION. An – The City will continue to work with important way to reduce nonpoint source the Virginia Department of Environ- pollution is to increase the amount of open mental Quality to prevent under- space left in vegetation. The City’s open ground storage tank releases. space requirements do not currently con- – The Health Department will continue tain a requirement that a percentage of to require that homes with failing open space must be vegetation. The City septic systems connect to the sani- will investigate setting guidelines for tary sewer. establishing a minimum percentage of – The City will develop a strategic plan vegetated open space to satisfy City for reducing fecal open space requirements. levels in Alexandria’s streams based upon recent DNA test findings. ■ CONTROL AND STREAMBANK – The City will invite the Virginia Ma- EROSION. Most of Alexandria’s water- rine Commission to ad- ways have been hardened or channelized dress City officials and local marina to stabilize eroding stream banks and to operators about ways to prevent increase carrying capacity. Balancing the pollution. need to provide with a desire – The City will encourage methods to to promote wildlife habitat is among the reduce the impacts of thermal pol- most difficult problems faced by the City. lution on streams. Options include working with businesses to promote The City will address erosion problems alternatives to dark impervious sur- on a site-specific basis in recognition faces (light colored roofing materi- of the need for flexibility. A wide range als and asphalt or using “green” of options will be explored by the City roof technologies) and the more ef- in addressing a particular erosion prob- fective use of parking lot trees to lem with the goal balance the need to cool impervious surfaces. The City minimize flooding, reduce erosion, and will invite the Virginia Cooperative protect wildlife habitat. Options include, Extension to assist the City in put- but are not limited to: ting together a strategic plan for re- ducing pollution from lawn and gar- – bioengineering den care practices while maximizing – stream bypass the use of existing resources. – natural stream adjustment and – stream hardening

E-4 Water Quality Management

Management of already hardened dressed by a developer during any streams is also a difficult issue for the City. waterfront redevelopment project. It is Flood control channels must be kept clear anticipated that planned redevelopment in order to prevent flood damage to down- along the shoreline will result in the reha- stream businesses and residents. bilitation of most of the City’s dilapidated bulkheads. The City will, on a site specific basis, consider planting high-canopy vegeta- ■ PUBLIC ACCESS. tion above the 100-year flood level in The City recognizes the value of ensuring order to provide wildlife habitat and that there is adequate public access to the screening while not impacting on the Potomac River shoreline. A subcommit- physical integrity of the flood . tee of the Waterfront Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission con- ■ STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT. tinue to make specific recommendations Most of Alexandria’s streams serve mul- for the few remaining undeveloped or non- tiple functions, including flood control, conforming waterfront parcels. buffering between land uses, and wildlife habitat. Many of these streams are also Planning efforts will continue to take designated Resource Protection Areas. into consideration the need to properly Unfortunately, these functions often come manage and protect sensitive natural in conflict with each other. resources with the goal of achieving increased opportunities for public ac- The City will develop an evaluation pro- cess. cedure for dealing with stream corri- dor management issues when they ■ ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION conflict with Chesapeake Bay preser- AND PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCA- vation and wildlife habitat goals. The TION. New federal Clean Water Act man- Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance dates will require the City to demonstrate Department will be consulted to ensure that it is develop outreach programs to in- that it is compatible with the Chesa- form individuals and households about peake Bay Preservation Area Designa- steps that can be taken to reduce tion and Management Regulations. stormwater pollution. In addition, while many of the City’s departments have taken Most of Alexandria’s lack a veg- on outreach programs to address specific, etative buffer that helps to protect water acute problems, there is a need for over- quality. Because of limited opportunities all coordination of City efforts. for revegetation of denuded stream buff- ers, the City will identify, characterize, To reduce redundancy, and to focus City and map streams that have limited or outreach efforts in a cohesive manner, the no vegetation but have the potential to City will establish an Environmental be restored by public or private means. Coordination Group (ECG) with repre- sentation from the departments of ■ POTOMAC RIVER SHORELINE. A large Transportation and Environmental Ser- majority of the Alexandria Potomac wa- vices, Planning and Zoning, and Rec- terfront is hardened with rip rap and bulk- reation, Parks and Cultural Activities. heads. Some bulkhead areas have been Other departments or organizations will identified as being in poor condition. Di- participate as needed. The Environmen- lapidated bulkheads must be ad- tal Coordination Group will facilitate the co-

E-5 Water Quality Management

ordination of environmental and public education and outreach programs, includ- ing the use of the City’s web page to share environmental information with the pub- lic. This group will also facilitate the re- view of environmental impacts of signifi- cant projects in the City.

■ FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES. While pol- lution prevention is more cost-effective than cleaning up pollution after the fact, it costs more in the short-term. There are a number of funding mechanisms available that can be used to raise revenue to imple- ment State and federal mandates as well as locally identified stormwater manage- ment projects and programs. The City will:

– investigate for adoption a pro rata share stormwater program – monitor the continued implementa- tion of stormwater utility programs in other jurisdictions and – continue to pursue grant funding for specific environmental projects

E-6 Water Quality Management Water Quality Management CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Table of Contents

I Introduction ...... 1 I.1 Purpose and Enabling Authority ...... 2 I.2 Opportunities to Make a Difference ...... 3 I.3 Approach and Organization ...... 4 II Alexandria’s Water Environment ...... 5 II.1 A Brief Water History ...... 6 II.2 Watersheds and ...... 7 Quality...... 7 Stream Bank Erosion and Stream Buffers...... 12 Potomac River Shoreline ...... 15 Wetlands ...... 17 ...... 17 Potable and Water Supply Protection ...... 18 II.3 The Land and Land Forms ...... 19 Topography...... 19 and ...... 19 II.4 Wildlife and Natural Habitats ...... 20 Habitat Fragmentation ...... 24 II.5 Public and Private Access to Waterfront Areas ...... 24 III Pollution and Other Sources of Water Quality Decline ...... 29 The Role of Redevelopment in Water Quality Improvement .. 30 III.1 Point Source Pollution ...... 31 NPDES Discharges ...... 31 Wastewater Treatment...... 31 Combined Sewer System ...... 32 Leaking Sanitary Sewer Lines ...... 33 Above Ground and Underground Storage Tanks ...... 34 Septic Systems ...... 36 III.2 Nonpoint Source Pollution ...... 36 Wildlife, Non-Migratory Waterfowl, and Pet Waste ...... 39 III.3 Erosion of the Land ...... 39

i Water Quality Management

III.4 ...... 39 III.5 Waterfront and Dock Activities ...... 39 III.6 Areas of Special Concern ...... 40 Potomac Yard ...... 40 Cameron Station...... 41 Alexandria Gas Works/Oronoco Site ...... 42 Bogle Chemical Company Site ...... 43 Municipal Land Fill Sites ...... 44 Other Hazardous Sites ...... 44 IV Water Quality Management Today ...... 45 IV.1 City Master Plan ...... 46 Future Plan and Map...... 46 IV.2 City Ordinances and Regulations ...... 46 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance ...... 47 Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance ...... 48 Flood Control and Floodplain Overlay District ...... 48 Regulation of Trees, Shrubs, , and Vegetation ...... 49 Regulation of Dog Waste and the Prohibition of Disposal of Refuse and Debris into Storm Sewers ...... 49 Prohibition of Dumping Hazardous Wastes Including Use Oil ...... 50 Prohibition of Automobile Maintenance on City Streets...... 50 Zoning Ordinance Development Approval Procedures ...... 50 Procedures for the Control of Contaminated Land ...... 51 IV.3 City Programs ...... 51 Street Sweeping/Flushing and Catch Basin Cleaning Program ...... 51 Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program ...... 52 Best Management Practices Manual for Automobile Related Industries ...... 53 Hazardous Waste and Used Oil Collection Programs ...... 54 Leaf Collection Program ...... 54 Sanitary Sewer Line Inspection and Maintenance Program... 55 School-Age Water and Environmental Education Programs .. 55 IV.4 Alexandria Sanitation Authority...... 55 IV.5 State, Federal, and Regional Programs ...... 56 IV.6 Community Programs ...... 57 Alexandria Earth Day...... 57 V Policy Analysis and Action Plan ...... 59 Role of Small Area Plans ...... 59 V.1 Constraints to Development ...... 60 Wetlands...... 60 Topography...... 60 Geology and Soils ...... 60 Wildlife Habitat Corridors ...... 62 Stream-Side Vegetation...... 62

ii Water Quality Management

Floodplains ...... 62 Areas ...... 62 V.2 Protection of Water Quality ...... 63 Need for Regional Coordination ...... 63 Point Source Pollution ...... 63 Nonpoint Source Pollution ...... 64 ...... 66 ...... 66 Erosion of the Land ...... 67 Air Pollution ...... 67 Waterfront and Dock Activities ...... 67 Areas of Special Concern ...... 67 V.3 Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control ...... 67 Stream Bank Erosion Control and Stabilization...... 67 Stream Corridor Management ...... 68 Potomac River Shoreline and Bulkhead Management ...... 68 V.4 Public and Private Access to Waterfront Areas ...... 69 V.5 Redevelopment Areas ...... 69 V.6 Overall Outreach and Coordination ...... 69 V.7 Potential Funding and Enforcement Mechanisms ...... 70 Pro Rata Share Off-Site Drainage Facility Program ...... 70 Stormwater Utility ...... 71 Grant Opportunities ...... 71 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Civil Penalties ...... 72 V.8 Implementation Summary and Time-Line ...... 72 VI Acronyms ...... 81

FIGURES

I.1 Location of the City of Alexandria with Respect to the Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater Virginia ...... 3

II.1 View of from Shuter’s Hill – 1864 ...... 6 II.2 Major Streams and Watersheds of Alexandria ...... 8 II.3 Watersheds at a Regional Perspective...... 9 II.4 Fecal Coliform Trends in and ... 10 II.5 Sources of Fecal Coliform Contamination in Four Mile Run... 10 II.6 Natural, Artificially Hardened, and Severely Eroding Stream Reaches ...... 13 II.7 Inventory and Condition of Potomac River Shoreline Stabilization Structures ...... 16 II.8 Generalized Alexandria Soils Map...... 21 II.9 Alexandria’s Own Threatened Species – The Turtle .... 22 II.10 Wild Celery – A Common Species of Aquatic Vegetation on Alexandria’s Waterfront ...... 23 II.11 Map of Existing and Potential Marina and Boat Docking Areas and Public and Private Waterfront Access Points ...... 27

iii Water Quality Management

III.1 Location of Alexandria’s Combined Sanitary Sewer System .. 32 III.2 Point Source Pollution Map and Special Areas of Concern.... 35 III.3 Alexandria’s Industrial Heritage – 1877 Map Showing City Gas Works and Other Industrial Uses ...... 40

IV.1 “No Dumping” Signs Along a Residential Street ...... 50 IV.2 Alexandria ...... 52 IV.3 Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program Sites .... 53 IV.4 Public Education Help to Provide Information on Alternatives to Dumping...... 54 IV.5 Chesapeake Bay Education Plaque at Oronoco Park ...... 56

V.1 Generalized Constraints to Development Map ...... 61 TABLES

II.1 Options for Addressing Impaired Streams ...... 14 II.2 Alexandria’s Soils and Suitability for Development ...... 20 II.3 Existing and Potential Marina and Boat Docking Areas and Public and Private Waterfront Access Points...... 26

III.1 City Land Uses and Associated Imperviousness...... 37 III.2 Common Urban Pollutants and Their Sources ...... 37 MAPS

City Wetland Map Marine Clays and Steep Slopes Potential Development Sites Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas Floodplain Overlay District

All maps located at the back of the document.

iv Water Quality Management Water Quality Management CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Introduction I

Colonial Alexandria was founded as a link be- tween the land and the water. Today, the linkage between the City and the water has never been stronger as citizens and visitors alike enjoy the natural and man-made beauty of Alexandria’s waterfront. Forested stream valley parks located throughout the City provide passive recreational opportunities for residents and habitat for wild- . All of Alexandria’s waterways, including its creeks, streams, drainage ditches, and culverts, are part of the larger Chesapeake Bay ecosys- tem. However, Alexandria’s two and a half cen- turies of residential, commercial, and industrial development and activity has not occurred with- out cost. Urban development and associated human activities have contributed to the steady decline of local and regional water resources – including the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.

Because of Alexandria’s historic and continuing reliance on the water for trade, , and recre- ation, it is a particular point of pride that Alexan- Citizens and Visitors Enjoy dria has committed itself to the stewardship of its Alexandria’s Waterfront water and other natural resources. The purpose of this Master Plan supplement is to recognize the interdependency between people and their CONTENTS environment and to guide the City as it seeks to ■ Purpose and Enabling protect and restore its own numerous local tribu- Authority taries as well as the natural habitats of the Chesa- peake Bay and the Potomac River that are de- ■ Opportunities to pendent on the water quality in these tributaries. Make a Difference ■ Approach and Organization

1 Water Quality Management

It is the intention of the City, using this supple- commercially valuable species, submerged ment as a tool, to: aquatic vegetation (SAV), which provide food and habitat for many aquatic species, also declined ■ restore impaired streams that are capable sharply during the 1960s and 1970s as a result of supporting diverse aquatic habitats of increased nutrient and sediment pollution from ■ protect streams that currently support development of the surrounding watershed. aquatic life from the effects of improper de- velopment and pollution and Population within the Chesapeake Bay watershed ■ provide residents with a wide-range of is expected to grow by an additional 931,950 opportunities to interact with and become people to 14,532,100 from 1990 to 2000. stewards of their natural environment In 1983, Virginia, , , the Through these efforts, the City anticipates being District of Columbia, and the U.S. Environmental able to continue to make a substantive contribu- Protection Agency signed the Chesapeake Bay tion to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and created the Chesapeake Bay and to the improvement of the overall quality of Program to help find ways to restore the Bay. In life for the residents of the City of Alexandria. Virginia, the most widely recognized result of this agreement is the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988 (Sections 10.1-2100, et seq., of the PURPOSE AND ENABLING Code of Virginia (1950)). The City of Alexandria AUTHORITY implemented the Act in 1992 in the form of its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance which I.1 requires developers to meet pollution reduction and minimization through performance criteria The Chesapeake Bay – Alexandria’s downstream during the development and redevelopment pro- neighbor – is among the nation’s largest and most cesses. productive estuaries. However, carried along with the huge volumes of fresh water from the Bay’s In addition to requiring the development of a 64,000 square mile watershed are sediments, Chesapeake Bay Ordinance, the Act (Section fertilizers, pesticides, motor oil and other pollut- 10.1-2109.B) also states that “Counties, cities, and ants generated by various land uses and human towns in Tidewater Virginia shall incorporate pro- activities. As the population of the Chesapeake tection of the quality of State into each Bay watershed has grown (from 6,353,800 in 1950 locality’s comprehensive plan consistent with the to 13,591,150 in 1990, a 113% increase), so too provisions of this chapter.” The purpose of incor- have the impacts of these pollutants on the health porating water quality protection into local com- of the Bay. prehensive plans is to account for what is already being done to help protect water quality and to Today, many once-plentiful aquatic species, in- provide a framework for expanding these efforts cluding sturgeon, striped bass, oyster, blue crab, in a way that helps all Virginians to meet environ- and many species of waterfowl, have reached mental, social, and economic goals. critically low numbers. According to the Chesa- peake Bay Program, American shad, once the This “Water Quality Management” supplement to most commercially valuable species of the Chesa- the City’s Master Plan constitutes Alexandria’s peake Bay, declined from Bay-wide landings av- long-range vision for a cleaner water environment eraging more than 5 million pounds per year for and sets forth policies, strategies, and time-lines most of the twentieth century to only 47,000 to achieve its identified water quality protection pounds in 1993 and 129,482 pounds in 1994. The goals. 1993 oyster harvest of 592,000 pounds was only one percent of the peak harvests at the end of the 19th century. In addition to the decline of these

2 Water Quality Management

OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE A In general terms, urban pollution can be reduced DIFFERENCE through the application of four principles.

I.2 ■ Impervious surface area necessary to ac- commodate desired land uses should be Urban areas such as Alexandria contribute sig- minimized. nificantly to water quality problems. Not only does ■ Existing vegetation should be preserved and introduce a myriad of new pollutants restored to the maximum extent practicable. into the environment, it significantly alters the ■ Human behavior that results in pollution land’s ability to assimilate these pollutants. As should be challenged and changed through and meadows are converted to parking public education. lots, driveways, roads, roof tops and sidewalks, ■ Pollution that cannot be reduced through the surface of the land becomes increasingly im- changes in human behavior should be con- pervious. This means that any pollutants that trolled by employing technology or by install- collect on these surfaces as a result of human ing stormwater management pollution re- activities are flushed directly into local streams duction facilities (also known as best man- without the cleansing benefit of infiltration into the agement practices, or BMPs). or by vegetation. While Alexandria has been urbanized for some time, there are still many opportunities for the City to actively reduce pollution. In fact, continued growth and economic prosperity provides the prin- ciple means for improving water quality and habi- tat conditions in the City. Between 1990 and 2000, Washington D.C. Falls Church ARLINGTON the City is estimated to have grown by 10% from Fairfax City of Alexandria 111,183 to 123,200 residents. Office space grew FAIRFAX from 13,563,581 to 14,067,111 square feet from PR. WILLIAM 1995 through 1998. Most future residential and

STAFFORD Potomac River KING GEORGE Fredericksburg WESTMORELAND SPOTSYLVANIA

RICHMOND CAROLINE ESSEX NORTHUMBERLAND

KING and QUEEN

Chesapeake Bay HANOVER KING WILLIAM LANCASTER ACCOMACK MIDDLESEX

GLOUCESTER FIGURE I.1 NEW KENT MATHEWS Richmond HENRICO Location of the City of Alexandria JAMES CITY CHESTERFIELD CHARLES CITY with Respect to the Chesapeake Bay Williamsburg Colonial Heights NORTHAMPTON Hopewell YORK and Tidewater Virginia PR. GEORGE Poquoson SURRY Newport News Hampton

ISLE OF Norfolk WIGHT

Portsmouth Virginia Beach Suffolk Chesapeake SUFFOLK

3 Water Quality Management commercial development, with the exception of a few significant parcels, is expected to come in the form of redevelopment. From a resources management perspective, this is particularly sig- nificant because a majority of the City’s residen- tial and commercial areas were developed prior to the implementation of stringent water quality regulations (over 43% of housing units were built prior to 1960 and over 89% were built prior to 1980).

Through a combination of creating new develop- ment that is sensitive to water quality and natural habitats, retrofitting existing development with water quality controls when possible, and pro- viding the tools for residents and businesses to become better stewards of the environment, Al- exandria can and is already making real contri- butions to the protection of local water resources and the Chesapeake Bay.

APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION I.3

This supplement takes the approach that to ar- rive at achievable water quality goals, strategies, and action plans, it is necessary to have a de- tailed understanding of the City’s natural envi- ronment and existing City, State, and federal regulations and programs intended to help pro- tect water quality and the environment. By com- paring identified constraints to development, sen- sitive natural resources, and existing and poten- tial sources of pollution with existing programs, it is possible to visualize areas of the City’s water quality protection programs that may require fur- ther study and analysis.

To help foster this approach, this supplement is divided into the following sections:

I. Introduction II. Alexandria’s Water Environment III. Existing and Potential Sources of IV. Water Quality Management Today V. Policy Analysis and Action Plan

4 Water Quality Management Alexandria’s Water Environment II

Located on the tidal Potomac River approxi- mately six miles south of downtown Wash- ington D.C., Alexandria’s natural and man- made environments are undeniably inter- twined. Having experienced numerous waves of urbanization since its founding in 1749, the City contains very few natural resources that have not been affected by human activities. Remarkably, however, Alexandria is home to a hardy, if limited, natural ecosystem. Pock- ets of wildlife can be found in back yards, stream valleys, and even Alexandria’s street trees and utility line rights-of-ways. More im- portantly, Alexandria serves as part of the larger Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Alexandria’s efforts to promote conservation and environmental stewardship within its boundaries serves as an integral part of larger Chesapeake Bay preservation efforts.

To promote future development and redevel- opment that complements the remaining natu- ral resources of the City, improves habitat Alexandria’s Resilient Wildlife conditions where possible, and enhances the Habitat at Route One Interchange overall quality of life for City residents, it is first necessary to identify and understand ex- CONTENTS isting natural environment and the potential ■ A Brief Water History constraints to human activities that they rep- ■ resent. The following section provides a sum- Watersheds and Water mary of natural resources and environmental Resources features affecting water quality that are unique ■ The Land and Land to Alexandria as well as those which are Forms shared with its neighbors – Fairfax County and ■ Wildlife and Natural Arlington County. Habitats ■ Public and Private Access to Waterfront Areas

5 Water Quality Management

A BRIEF WATER HISTORY century, the lower portions of each watershed could no longer handle the increased volume and II.1 velocity of contributing stormwater runoff. Four Mile Run was especially affected. During the late The Cameron Run and Four Mile Run watersheds 1960s and early 1970s, frequent flash flooding of that drain Alexandria have been developed longer residential and commercial areas located between and more extensively than almost any others in the Potomac River and Shirley Highway resulted Virginia. Human alteration of the natural envi- in over $40 million in damage (in 1968 dollars). ronment began with the arrival of the American In March of 1974, Congress authorized the U.S. Indians who cleared forests for corn planting and Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct hunted what one early colonial explorer, Henry a flood control channel for Four Mile Run. The Fleet, described in 1631 as “swarms” of deer, bear, project was completed and dedicated in August, buffalo, and turkey. Fish, including sturgeon, were 1980. In order to protect the new channel’s abil- trapped and speared extensively, and fresh wa- ity to control flooding, Alexandria, Arlington, ter mussels were collected in great numbers (Hunting Creek was called Mussel Creek until FIGURE II.1 1695). Nonetheless, evidence suggests that wild- View of Hunting Creek from Shuter’s Hill (Site of life populations easily supported these American Today’s Masonic Temple) – 1864 Indians.

With the arrival of Europeans, the stress on the environment increased dramatically. Demand for meat and hides, in addition to extensive clearing for agriculture, led to the early disappearance of many larger . Tobacco farming soon be- came an economic mainstay in the region and a major tobacco warehouse was constructed on the north bank of Hunting Creek in 1732. By about 1800, the soil of was described as completely exhausted. Erosion caused by poor farming practices claimed Alexandria’s early com- mercial rival, Dumfries, whose port completely silted in by 1805.

In 1850, the first of several railroad tracks was The Civil War witnessed the clear-cutting of large constructed up the valley of Hunting Creek, areas of for heat and battlements. This re- Cameron Run, and Backlick Run. During the Civil sulted in large quantities of sediment entering the War, the between Alexandria and Potomac River and its tributaries. Above, the Forty- Fourth New York Infantry. Fairfax was stripped bare of vegetation for heat and battlements. Barcroft Dam was built across in the early part of the century by Fairfax, Falls Church, and the Northern Virginia the City to provide a clean water supply. Finally, Planning District Commission (now the Northern beginning after , the expansion of Virginia Regional Commission) signed the Four Washington D.C. as an employment center led to Mile Run Agreement in 1977. The Agreement, the boom in residential development and infra- which is considered to be a model of regional structure that continues today. stormwater cooperation, established a process to ensure that future land uses would not result in As the Cameron Run and Four Mile Run water- an increase in flood levels. Cameron Run, Lower sheds developed, natural stream channels were Backlick Run, and Lower Holmes Run, which ex- replaced by an intricate network of storm sewers perienced similar flooding problems, are also and culverts. By the middle part of the twentieth channelized and maintained as flood control struc-

6 Water Quality Management tures. Lower Backlick Run (from Indian Run east) ultimately, a shared responsibility. This fact high- was first channelized around 1850. The Cameron lights the need for local, regional, and State coor- Run channel was completely reconstructed dur- dination in the water quality planning process. ing the early 1980s, in conjunction with the wid- ening of the . Alexandria is divided by three watersheds as de- fined by the Virginia Division of Soil and Water A 1974 report entitled The Fauna of the Cameron Conservation. These are the Four Mile Run Run Watershed, Fairfax County Virginia describes (#A12), the Cameron Run (#A13), and the an extensively altered watershed in which most Potomac River (#A14). In practical terms, Four open space and forest was confined to floodplain Mile Run drains the northern and eastern portions areas. While deer, fox, beavers, and otters had of the City while Cameron Run drains the remain- largely disappeared, some muskrat still called the der of the City except for areas of Old Town which watershed home and raccoon could be found in drain directly to the Potomac River. abundance. A survey of aquatic species found that many of the more pollution intolerant spe- In addition to these larger streams, a myriad of cies had disappeared, especially when compared smaller tributaries, some of which are still largely to the then relatively undeveloped natural and some of which have been significantly watershed to the west. However, even in 1974, altered or undergrounded (piped), drain the City’s none of the twenty sam- landscape. Significant named tributaries include pling sites was so polluted as to have a complete Holmes Run, Backlick Run, Hooffs Run, Taylor absence of pollution intolerant aquatic species. Run, Timber Branch, Strawberry Run, and Lucky Pollution observed in 1974 included large quanti- Run. Figure II.2 provides a map of the major ties of trash and junk (including beer cans, tires, watersheds and the location of creeks, branches, and even automobiles), pipe cement, and an un- runs, and licks of Alexandria. Figure II.3 provides known black liquid in lower Backlick Run. a map of Alexandria’s watersheds from a regional perspective. Since the mid-1970s, the City’s water quality pro- tection efforts have included a vigorous For the purpose of analysis, this section is divided stormwater detention program, the adoption of a into relatively distinct components that together Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance in 1992, provide an overall picture of the health of the implementation of a number of pollution pre- Alexandria’s watersheds. These include surface vention programs, and the development of an in- water quality, streambank erosion and stream novative pollution control and urban stormwater buffers, Potomac River shoreline, wetlands, and management retrofit program that has attracted groundwater resources. In addition, this section national attention. includes a discussion of the source and protec- tion of Alexandria’s potable water supply.

WATERSHEDS AND WATER Surface Water Quality RESOURCES Among the most important indicators of the health II.2 of a watershed is the quality of the water running in local and streams. Protecting the quality To set the stage for discussing modern water and of surface water is a major challenge for many environmental resources protection efforts, it urban jurisdictions, including Alexandria. In addi- makes sense to think in terms of watersheds tion to dumping and other overtly illegal acts, pol- rather than neighborhoods or political jurisdictions. lution that collects on parking lots, roof tops, and Watersheds provide a natural division for resource driveways, is often flushed directly to local streams management. Water pollution is dynamic, as riv- during storm events. This is particularly true for ers, streams, and groundwater pollution Alexandria, which was largely built-out before from higher to lower elevations. As a result, wa- regulations affecting water quality became ter pollution becomes a shared problem – and adopted.

7 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.2 Major Streams and Watersheds of Alexandria

Lake Barcroft

Four Mi le R un Four Mile Run/ Lucky Run Potomac River A12

T i m b e r B H r o an lm Cameron Run ch e S s tr R a un w b A13 e r r

y

R

u T n a

y r

l

o

r e

R v u i

n

Tu R rk e y c c Cook o Backlick Run H c a k o R o f u f s n m Camer R

u on o n

R t un

o

Potomac River P LEGEND City Boundary A14 Major Watershed Boundary G re Stream at Hun ting Creek

Source: NVPDC. 1998.

Water quality standards are set under the federal taries within the City (Class III, non-tidal Coastal Clean Water Act (CWA), which is administered and zones). The only difference be- by the Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- tween the two standards is that there is no estab- ity (VADEQ). All State waters are expected to be lished maximum for Class II waters. maintained to support recreational use and the propagation and growth of all aquatic life reason- Fecal coliform levels are the most important from ably expected to inhabit them. These are known a human health standpoint. These indicator or- as the CWA “swimmable and fishable goals.” The ganisms, while not necessarily harmful in them- parameters used to measure these goals include selves, are found in the intestinal tracts of warm- dissolved content (DO), pH (/ blooded animals, including humans, and there- acidity), maximum temperature, and fecal coliform fore can be indicative of fecal contamination and bacteria count. Standards for these parameters the possible presence of pathogenic organisms. are different for the tidal portions of Cameron Run and Four Mile Run (classified as Class II, tidal Temperature, DO, and pH are the primary indica- Coastal zone) and the remaining non-tidal tribu- tors of the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The

8 Water Quality Management presence of DO in water is essential for aquatic Strategy program. The primary focus of these life and the type of aquatic community is depen- efforts are to reduce the flow of nutrients entering dent to a large extent on the of DO the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. present. Strongly related to pH are biological pro- While essential to healthy and ductivity, stream diversity, and the toxicity of cer- growth, an overabundance of nutrients results in tain chemicals, as well as important chemical and algae blooms which block and consume biological activity. Temperature affects feeding, oxygen when they decay. Phosphorus is the pri- reproduction, and the metabolism of aquatic ani- mary nutrient of concern for fresh water systems mals. A week of high each year such as the Potomac River while nitrogen is the may make a stream unsuitable for sensitive nutrient of concern for brackish water systems aquatic organisms, even though temperatures are such as the Chesapeake Bay. tolerable throughout the rest of the year. Systematic water quality monitoring data for City streams is limited, and consistent data is avail- FIGURE II.3 able only for Four Mile Run and Cameron Run. Watersheds at a Regional Perspective Water quality in the lower Cameron Run is tested by the Fairfax County Health Department at Fenwick Drive where Cameron Run enters Fairfax County near Telegraph Road. Water quality in the lower Four Mile Run is tested primarily by the Unit A12 Department of Environmental Quality – although additional water quality data is available from other sources. Four Mile Run monitoring stations are located at its intersection with Columbia Pike Arlington County (approximately one and a half miles upstream Four Mile Run of the City limits) and Unit A13 Parkway. This provides a good means of City of Falls Church assessing how the City may impact wa- Tripps Run Unit A12 Holmes Run P ter quality in Four Mile Run. o

t o

m

a Water quality in Cameron Run and Four c

Lake Barcroft R Mile Run generally meet the CWA fish- i

Holmes Run v able and swimmable goals with the e

r notable exception of fecal coliform Fairfax County City of Alexandria counts. While DO levels in Four Mile Run drop markedly from Columbia Pike to the George Washington Parkway Cameron Run (10.9 mg/l to 7.7 mg/l), they are still well Unit A13 within acceptable limits and consistently Backlick Run test above the minimum standard of 4.0 mg/l. The primary reason for this decline in DO is the slowing down of water as a Alexandria’s location at the base of two major result of tidal influences and reductions in watersheds highlights the importance of topography. interjurisdictional cooperation on water quality. While temperature measurements are within CWA In addition to the CWA swimmable and fishable goals, this information should be interpreted with goals, many of the City’s water quality programs caution. During the summer months, stormwater are driven by the interstate Chesapeake Bay runoff may become significantly warmer as it ab- Agreement and the resultant Virginia Chesapeake sorbs heat from impervious surfaces such as park- Bay Preservation Act and the Potomac Tributary ing lots, streets, and roof tops. The resultant pulse

9 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.4 Fecal Coliform Trends in Cameron Run

CAMERON RUN ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN 1992 TO 1999

2500 2225

2000 Desirable Maximum Instantaneous

1500 Count (1000 cells/100ml)

958 916 950 1000 805 784 671 559 500 Desirable Maximum Geometric Mean (200 cells/100ml)

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

FIGURE II.5 Sources of Fecal Coliform Contamination in Four Mile Run

Inconclusive 5% Unusable Other 9% 12% Canine 9% False Waterfowl Positives 37% Deer 10% Acceptable Matches 10% 51% Unknown 25% Raccoon Human 15% 17%

Success of Matching Bacteria With Potential Distribution of Acceptable Sources (N=539) Matches by Animal Group (N=278)

Source: Simmons, et al., Septamber, 2000, Estimating Nonpoint Fecal Coliform Sources in Northern Virginia’s Four Mile Run Watershed.

10 Water Quality Management of warm water can cause thermal shock to many below EPA contamination standards. The aver- aquatic species. Because these pulses are typi- age nitrogen level in Cameron Run for 1996 cally short in duration, they are often not detected was 0.8 mg/l, which is well below the maximum during monitoring. However, their impacts can unhealthful level of 10 mg/l. However, levels have be devastating. Volunteer monitoring in Four Mile been rising, albeit slowly, from 0.6 mg/l in 1992. Run has measured temperatures to rise as quickly Average total phosphorus levels have remained as 10°F in an hour. Thermal shock can occur stable at an acceptable 0.1 mg/l. with changes of 3 or 4° in an hour. The “1998 Virginia Water Quality Assessment,” Fecal coliform contamination continues to be a which reports monitoring by VADEQ on a water- problem for Four Mile Run and Cameron Run. shed-wide basis, found that all samples in that Alexandria’s situation is by no means unique, as year for Cameron Run were “good” for total phos- most of Northern Virginia’s streams show elevated phorus. In the Four Mile Run, 94% of samples levels of these contaminants. At the Cameron were found to be in the good range, 4% in the fair Run monitoring site, 57% of samples tested in range, and 2% in the severe range. Four Mile the “unhealthful” range (greater than 1,000 fc/ Run is the only watershed in the middle Potomac 100ml) for fecal coliform in 1999. Monitoring in River basin to report severe conditions. VADEQ’s the Four Mile Run reveals similarly high levels of findings for nitrogen were less positive. Cameron fecal coliform contamination. Results of testing Run had 36% of samples in the good range and at Columbia Pike for the period from 1995 to 1999 64% in the fair range. Four Mile Run reported show that 21% of samples tested above the “un- 24% of samples in the fair range, 61% in the poor healthful” level. Fecal contamination was slightly range, and 15% in the severe range, which is the worse at the George Washington Parkway moni- second worse in the entire Virginia portion of the toring site where 28% of samples tested in the Potomac River watershed. Overall, both water- “unhealthful” range. sheds are considered high priorities by the Com- monwealth for nonpoint source pollution. Long term monitoring results (see Figure II.4) show that levels are consistently elevated but fluc- Current water quality monitoring efforts, because tuate according to year and rainfall. they only occur at certain intervals and test for a few specific parameters, often leave undetected The sources of bacteria contamination have been acute toxic pulses that occur when an uninformed debated for a number of years. In 2000, a joint or uncaring individual dumps a toxic substance effort between the Northern Virginia Regional down a stormdrain or directly into a stream. It is Commission and Virginia Tech shed light on the these incidences of dumping that most often re- subject by applying DNA analysis to bacteria sult in fish kills and can devastate an otherwise strains in Four Mile Run. The study revealed that healthy ecosystem in moments. Actual examples waterfowl account for over a third of all bacteria reported to the City Fire Marshall include drain- matches (37%), followed by humans (17%), rac- ing oil from an automobile directly into a coon (15%), and canine (9%) (see Figure II.5). stormdrain and washing paint brushes, cans, and Equally of significance, the study found that the solvent containers into a stormdrain culvert. bacteria appears to regrow, through cloning, within storm drains and stream sediments – therefore In Alexandria, responding to these incidences is perpetuating the problem. Having such informa- a cooperative effort among the VADEQ, the Alex- tion is critical to eventually managing the prob- andria Department of Transportation and Environ- lem of bacteria in Alexandria’s streams. mental Services, and the Fire Department, de- pending on the nature of the problem. According The Fairfax County Health Department also tests to VADEQ records for the Alexandria area (includ- for nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, and a vari- ing portions of Fairfax County in the Alexandria ety of heavy . The log average for Cameron zip code), there were four reported incidences in Run for , barium, cadmium, chromium, 1996, 29 reported incidences in 1995, 33 reported , , selenium, and silver is consistently incidences in 1994, 14 reported incidences in

11 Water Quality Management

1993, 14 reported incidences in 1992, seven re- egy goal (a 40% reduction in nutrients from a 1985 ported incidences in 1991, and nine reported in- baseline) include upgrades to the Alexandria cidences in 1990. Many incidences likely are not Wastewater Treatment Facility and continued ret- reported and go unmitigated. rofit of urban areas with water quality manage- ment facilities. The most common contaminants include fuel oil, gasoline, foam, diesel fuel, and antifreeze. Other Stream Bank Erosion and toxic substances found in City streams include Stream Buffers paint, , car wash waste, run- off from roads, transmission fluid, floor cleaner, The physical integrity of a stream – including its chlorinated pool water, freon, , creosote, banks and areas buffering the stream – has a di- oil, mineral spirits, hydrazine, and vari- rect impact on stream habitat and water quality. ous unidentifiable white, black, green, and yellow Degraded physical integrity of a stream is typi- substances. Few waterbodies have been un- cally a symptom of too much water volume for a touched by these incidences since most of them stream’s capacity. As impervious surface area are connected to streets, parking lots, and yards increases, stormwater tends to enter local streams through culverts and stormdrains. all at once, rather than infiltrate slowly into the soil where it enters a stream at a much reduced Despite the obvious challenges, watershed-wide volume and rate. Urban streams seek to find new management efforts to date have resulted in equilibrium by expanding their capacity, resulting cleaner water, and Alexandria, through its public in undercutting and widening of banks, deepen- education, street sweeping, and urban retrofit pro- ing of channels, and gullying. The impact on water grams, as well as upgrades to the Alexandria quality and habitat can be devastating. Soil sedi- Wastewater Treatment Facility, has contributed ments, which also contain nutrients, are washed significantly to this success. Trend data collected downstream where they eventually settle and by the VADEQ indicates that the Potomac River smother aquatic communities. In addition, aquatic continues to improve in many areas, although in habitats are destroyed because water levels in some areas past gains are being slowly eroded streams fluctuate from torrential, during storm as a result of population . Nitrogen lev- events, to a trickle during periods of extended els in the Potomac River are fair but improving. dryness. Dissolved oxygen levels are good and improv- ing. However, chlorophyll levels (high levels of While the impacts on water and habitat quality which indicate excessive algae growth as a re- can be devastating, flooding as a result of a sult of an oversaturation of nutrients) are good stream’s inability to handle increased stormwater but degrading. The VADEQ also measures volume and velocity can seriously impact the whether the Potomac River is meeting certain welfare of local residents and businesses. aquatic habitat objectives including available light, the health of phytoplankton communities (the Most of Alexandria’s major waterways have been more the better), suspended solids (the fewer the hardened and/or channelized over time to stabi- better), and phosphorus. The upper Potomac lize eroding stream banks and to increase River (including Alexandria’s waterfront), fails the stormwater volume carrying capacity. The larg- test for available light and suspended solids and est of these projects is the lower Four Mile Run is borderline for phytoplankton communities and flood control channel from Shirley Highway to its phosphorus. with the Potomac River. By the middle part of the twentieth century, the cumulative im- As noted earlier, Virginia has embarked on an pacts of development in the Four Mile Run wa- extensive and vigorous effort to reduce nutrients tershed resulted in frequent flash flooding of the in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay Arlandria section of Alexandria and Arlington. In known as the Tributary Strategy program. Fu- 1974, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps ture planned improvements in Alexandria that will of Engineers to design and construct a flood con- help Virginia meet and maintain its Tributary Strat- trol channel for Four Mile Run that would contain

12 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.6 Natural, Artificially Hardened, and Severely Eroding Stream Reaches

233

Lake Barcroft

Four M 1 il e R un

yy

395

yy

T i m

Quaker Lane Quaker b e r B H r o an lm ch e S King Street s tr R a Landmark un w b Shopping e r Center r

y

R u T

n a r y

l o e r

R v u i

n

R Tu Duke Street rk e y Lake Cook c c Backlick Run o c H a k o R o f u f n s m Camer R on u o n R t un

o P LEGEND Hardened Stream City Boundary Major Road Severe Erosion Area

yyy G re Tributary Stream Potential Bioengineering at Hun Demonstration Site ting Creek

Source: Alexandria Department of Transportation and Environmental Services. 1997. the increased surface water flow. The total ex- Cameron Run and Backlick Run, which have ex- pense of this channelization and bridge replace- perienced similar flooding problems, are also ment project was $63 million. The project was channelized and maintained as flood control struc- completed and dedicated in August, 1980. In or- tures. The Cameron Run channel was completely der to protect the new channel’s ability to control reconstructed during the early 1980s, in conjunc- flooding, Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Falls tion with the widening of I-495. Portions of Straw- Church, and the Northern Virginia Planning Dis- berry Run, Taylor Run, Timber Branch, and Lucky trict Commission signed the Four Mile Run Agree- Run have also been hardened or channelized. ment in 1977. The Agreement, which is consid- ered to be a model of regional stormwater coop- Because these channels are designed to contain eration, established a Technical Review Commit- the 100-year flood without spill-over, they must tee to ensure that future land uses would not re- be managed to prevent any decrease in carrying sult in an increase in flood levels. capacity.

13 Water Quality Management

TABLE II.1 Options for Addressing Impaired Streams

Stream is Already Channelized – Most of Alexandria’s channelized streams are designed to control a specific flood volume. In the case of Four Mile Run, Alexandria is legally bound to clear of any vegeta- tion and silt that may reduce the channel’s capacity. Likewise, allowing extensive growth of vegetation or silt build-up in stormwater conveyance channels, in many cases, will result in flooding and possibly property and environmental damage. The vegetation that typically grows on the banks or silts of these channels are fast growing, hardy, low lying edge-of-the-forest species. Due to their low lying nature and vigorous growth, these types of vegetation are precisely what needs to be avoided in these areas.

An option, in these cases, includes the purposeful planting of high-canopy native vegetation far enough back from the channel to protect its physical integrity. The high-canopy will provide and some habitat. Native, moisture-loving vegetation that may be appropriate include sycamore, beech, etc. Ar- eas immediately around the channel may be maintained as a native wildflower meadow, low-lying native vegetation, or as a grassy area (if a manicured look is desired).

A Natural Stream is Experiencing Erosion Problem – If the stream channel is in natural condition, but experiencing moderate or sever erosion problems, the following options may be considered.

■ Bioengineering. Bioengineering refers to a host of techniques that utilize fast growing, hardy plants and other natural materials to stabilize a streambank. When performed correctly, and in the right context, bioengineering can increase habitat value, stabilize stream banks, and add nutrient uptake by vegetation. Bioengineering is usually accompanied with the regrading or grading back of the affected banks. Otherwise, vegetation may be lost or damaged through additional undercutting. Therefore, bioengineering is only feasible in situations where erosive volumes are moderate, where stream banks can be regraded, and where the maintenance of bioengineering once in place is possible. It is very important that sites are properly screened to ensure the maxi- mum probability of success. Stream reaches that have been field identified as potential bioengi- neering demonstration sites include a small tributary traversing Four Mile Run Park, lower Straw- berry Branch along Fort Williams Drive, and a small tributary of Holmes Run located in Dora Kelly Park. The locations of these sites are provided in Figure II.6.

■ Stream By-Pass. An innovative means of protecting a stream from erosion, or as an alternative to hardening, is to construct a floodwater bypass system. While normal flows stay within the natural stream bed, floodwaters above a set level are directed to an adjacent, underground storm sewer which can relay the extra volume downstream. The benefit of this alternative is that the stream can be maintained in a natural state and that future damage can be avoided. This technique may not work well in areas that have already experienced severe erosion problems or where limited space is available. A further consideration is that an area adjacent to the stream must be disturbed in order for the of the diversion, which may require easements or limited removal of trees.

■ Let the Stream Adjust. In some cases, where erosion is not severe and the floodplain adjacent to the stream is wide enough, it is best to let the stream adjust naturally to its new carrying capacity. Eventually, the new channel will widen or deepen, or form meanders, to handle increased stormwa- ter flows.

■ Window Dressing. There are times when stream hardening is the only solution to an erosion problem. Even so, stream channelization projects can often be designed in a manner that is more aesthetically pleasing. While not always fiscally feasible, areas with the most visibility can be con- structed in this manner. A vegetation management plan that promotes the use of native vegetation that does not interfere with flood capacity may also be a part of the channelization effort.

14 Water Quality Management

An important outgrowth of the flooding problems Many of Alexandria’s tributaries lack stream-side of the 1960s and 1970s, and as a requirement of vegetation, and specifically, mature tree canopy. federal funding of the Four Mile Run flood control In some highly urbanized areas of the City, or project, was the implementation of on-site where streams have been hardened for flood con- stormwater detention requirements for develop- trol purposes, establishment of an area of stream- ment and redevelopment in the City. Instead of side vegetation may not be practical or feasible. allowing stormwater to enter the local stream net- To compensate, the City has and must continue work all at once, the City requires that it be de- to be proactive in identifying denuded buffer ar- tained and released slowly to mimic the land’s eas and habitat that can be restored. ability to hold large volumes of water over time. Since the 1970s, Alexandria has invested heavily Potomac River Shoreline in its system of stormwater conveyance and de- tention. As of 1992, there were over 135 Alexandria’s Potomac River shoreline stretches stormwater control structures located within Al- for 7.8 miles from Hunting Creek on the south to exandria. As a result, the need for future Four Mile Run on the north. As with the City’s channelization and hardening projects has been smaller streams, the physical integrity of the reduced, although by no means eliminated, and Potomac River shoreline is important to minimize the opportunity to stabilize remaining natural erosion and to protect wildlife habitats. Most of stream segments by other means has been in- the Potomac River shoreline from Daingerfield creased. Island south is hardened with various combina- tions of rip rap and concrete, and wood and steel While stream hardening will continue to be nec- bulkheads. In some areas, hardening has allowed essary under some circumstances, depending on public access to the Potomac River, while in oth- the specific problem, a number of additional habi- ers it has been necessary to prevent harmful ero- tat-friendly stabilization options now exist. How sion. Overall, approximately 58% of the shore- to address remaining natural, but physically de- line is artificially stabilized, of which 75% is rip graded streams should be viewed in the context rap, 20% is bulkhead, and 5% is channel gabion. of the options presented in Table II.1. Daingerfield Island, which is maintained by the National Park Service, represents the largest natu- Figure II.6 shows major natural and man-made ral area along the Alexandria waterfront. stream channels in Alexandria. Areas identified by the Department of Transportation and Envi- The vast majority of the bulkheads and hardened ronmental Services as experiencing moderate to areas along the Potomac range from fair to good severe streambank erosion and areas identified condition – although pockets of debilitated struc- as possible bioengineering demonstration sites tures dot the shoreline. As development has con- are also shown. tinued along the Alexandria waterfront, remain- ing less stable bulkheads are slowly disappear- A natural, undisturbed, mature vegetated forest ing. Figure II.7 provides an inventory of Potomac buffer is among the most effective means of pro- River shoreline stabilization efforts, based on an tecting water quality and aquatic habitats from the October, 1998 field survey, and highlights the con- impacts of land use development. Not only does dition of bulkhead and stabilization structures. a vegetative buffer protect streams from runoff and activities from adjacent land uses, the tree While the Daingerfield Island shoreline has been canopy also serves to cool and moderate stream left in a largely natural condition, other pockets of temperatures. The City’s Chesapeake Bay Pres- “natural” shoreline can be found along the Alex- ervation Ordinance requires the preservation of andria waterfront. Cobbles, washed from a 100-foot buffer area landward and adjacent to Alexandria’s colonial streets and natural land all Resource Protection Area components and forms, and banks with high clay content have pre- tributary streams during development. vented the development of significant areas of shoreline erosion.

15 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.7 Inventory and Condition of Potomac River Shoreline Stabilization Structures KEY

(G) Washington Sailing Marina. (P) Poor Condition Bulkheads (F) Fair Condition (G) Good Condition Rip Rap

Source: October, 1998 NVPDC Field Survey.

(G/F) Daingerfield Island: largely natural with some rip rap.

(G/F) PEPCO Facility: treed bluffs in a largely natural state. Some rip rap poured in vulnerable areas. Several reinforced wastewater outfalls present.

(G) Rowing Facility to PEPCO Facility: rip rap backed by grassed buffer. Walkway abuts water/wooden bulkheads in some areas.

(G/F) Alexandria Rowing Facility: rip rap and concrete bulkheads. Areas of extensive native wetland vegetation. (G) Oronoco Bay Park: rip rap backed by grassed/vegetated buffer and gravel walkways. Areas planted with wetland plant species. (G) Robinson Terminal: concrete bulkheads with wooden pilings and reinforced concrete docks. (G) Founders Park: rip rap backed by grassed/vegetated buffer and gravel walkways. (G) City Marina: wooden piers, concrete bulkheads. (G) Old Dominion Boat Club: steel bulkheads. (G) Foot of King Street: steel bulkheads. (F) ODBC Parking Lot: poured concrete/concrete slab bulkheads. (G/F) Waterfront Park: wood and steel bulkheads with concrete backing. Mild slumping in areas. (G) Foot of Prince Street: rip rap backed by concrete sidewalk. (Fminus) Dandy Docking/Parking Facility: poured concrete/concrete slabs with cobble beach. Parking area flows directly to Potomac. (G) Alexandria Marine/Alexandria Yacht: wood and steel bulkheads. (G/F) Point Lumley Park: steel bulkheads (good shape), poured concrete bulkheads show some signs of undercutting and erosion. (G) Robinson Terminal: high steel bulkheads.

(F) Lighthouse (G) Roberdeau Park: steel bulkheads. (G) Ship Yard Park: new treated wood bulkheads. (P) Old rip rap, old wooded bulkheads, old poured concrete, remains of boat ramp. Some active undercutting of poured concrete. (P) Old Town Yacht Basin: extensive decaying pilings, rotted wooden bulkheads exposing combination of poured concrete/concrete block, and brick. Fenced. (F) Pommander Walk Park: semi-natural mud flat, extensive cobbles and off-shore rip rap keep erosion at a minimum. (G) Fords Landing: new rip rap with steel and wood base, poured concrete walkways.

(F) Old chunks of concrete and rotting pilings, some newer rip rap. Cobbles stabilize beach area. (G/P) Jones Point: high poured concrete bulkhead. Northern end in poor shape. (P) Bridge: poured concrete bulkhead failing in areas, active erosion.

(G/P) Jones Point: rip rap, some localized moderate erosion at high tide.

(G/P) Jones Point: rip rap, some localized moderate erosion at high tide.

16 Water Quality Management

Wetlands tinue to be explored. If wetlands are impacted by development or projects, to the extent possible Wetlands serve as habitat for a wide range of the impact or loss should be mitigated through plants and animals and are important as a means wetland creation or enhancement, improvements of buffering and protecting local streams from the to riparian areas, or through the use of creative adverse impacts of development. Wetlands are Best Management Practices to treat stormwater. especially important areas for nutrient uptake by vegetation and for pollutants and other materials Groundwater to be filtered and settled out before reaching lo- cal streams and rivers. While Alexandria has for During its earlier years, the City relied heavily on most of its history treated wetlands as areas to groundwater for its supply of potable water - as is be reclaimed (lower King Street from Lee Street evidenced by the multitude of wells, most of which east was once open water) there still remains sig- are now closed, that dot the older parts of the nificant wetland areas within the City. City. While no longer relying on groundwater for , groundwater protection is still im- The City has delineated and mapped its wetlands portant. Many streams are fed by groundwater, in accordance with the federal “Manual for Delin- especially during periods of extended dryness. eating Jurisdictional Wetlands.” Most of the City’s Groundwater is extremely dynamic, and ground- wetlands are located adjacent to the Potomac water contamination can spread rapidly. Once River, Four Mile Run, Cameron Run, and other contamination has occurred, mitigation is very major tributaries. City wetlands are generally clas- expensive and time consuming. sified as palustrine (tidal wetlands along the Potomac River and the lower Four Mile Run and The groundwater of the City consists pri- Cameron Run), riverine (adjacent to free flowing marily of the unconsolidated sediments of the tributaries), and lacustrine (open water, usually a Coastal Plain. Baring the introduction of man- pond or lake). Map II.1 shows the City’s delin- made contaminants, natural groundwater char- eated wetlands. acteristics are fairly stable over time because they are largely dictated by the chemical and struc- Wetlands must be identified for individual devel- tural characteristics of the local aquifer. An analy- opment sites according to all applicable federal, sis of the City’s aquifer performed in 1985 indi- State, and City wetlands regulations, including the cates that groundwater in Alexandria is generally City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. suitable for a variety of domestic, commercial, and Wetlands are protected under section 404 of the industrial purposes. federal Clean Water Act, which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Well yield potential in the City ranges from low in the northwestern portions of the City (less than While remaining healthy wetlands should gener- 100 gal./min.), to moderate in the central portions ally remain undisturbed, it is possible to use wet- of the City (100 to 200 gal./min.), to moderately lands as open space and for education purposes. high in the eastern portions of the City (200 to An example of this is Huntley Meadows Park in 800 gal./min.). Groundwater quality is generally Fairfax County. A specially engineered raised excellent in the eastern portions of the City and boardwalk through part of the park allows resi- good in the remainder of the City. The exception dents to see first hand how a wetland functions, is an area of naturally occurring poor groundwa- resulting in a greater appreciation for these re- ter quality located in portions of the City west of I- sources. Smaller-scale, local examples include 395. Groundwater in this area may locally con- wetland areas of Dora Kelly Nature Park, the Wild- tain high of , iron, life Sanctuary in Four Mile Run Park and the pri- and . Groundwater within vately owned Winkler Botanical Preserve. the City is generally soft (hardness < 60 mg/l) and total dissolved solids (ranging from 91 mg/l to 174 In addition, opportunities to restore degraded mg/l) are far below the recommended maximum wetlands or to create new wetlands should con- of 500 mg/l.

17 Water Quality Management

Limiting factors associated with groundwater that one on the Potomac River in Loudoun County should be considered during the development and (Corbalis intake) and one on the Occoquan Res- redevelopment processes include the presence ervoir. The VAWC is set up to conduct of two groundwater recharge areas. While most and ammonia treatment as needed, and from Coastal Plain areas serve as local recharge ar- time-to-time, may post-treat water from the FCWA eas, regional recharge areas have been identi- if chlorine levels drop appreciably. fied as the area near Cameron Station north to I- 395 and west to the City limits and the larger North Alexandria’s water supply is among the best pro- Ridge area (including Beverly Hills and Park tected in the Commonwealth. By cooperative Fairfax). These areas are depicted in Figure V.1. agreement under the Occoquan Basin Nonpoint Since these areas are already developed, the Pollution Management Program (established in most appropriate means of protecting these re- 1978), the entire Occoquan Reservoir watershed charge areas is to minimize impervious surface has been subject to Best Management Practices area during the redevelopment process to allow to control nonpoint source pollution since the early for infiltration of rainwater into the soil. 1980s. Alexandria is an active participant in this program through the Virginia-American Water Large areas of eastern and central Alexandria Company and City staff. In addition, large areas have also been identified by the U.S. Geological of the Occoquan Reservoir watershed have been Survey as having high potential for groundwater downzoned to protect the watershed from large contamination due to a combination of natural and areas of impervious surfaces. Water quality moni- man-made factors. The remaining portions of the toring for a wide array of parameters is conducted City are considered to have moderate potential on a routine basis by the Occoquan Watershed for groundwater contamination. Protecting these Monitoring Lab to ensure that the water remains areas from contamination requires the prevention safe as a drinking water supply. or mitigation of common sources of . While these sources of pollution are The City’s potable water supply is more than ad- discussed in further detail in Section III, they may equate to meet future needs. However, the City include leaking underground storage tanks, failed also recognizes the importance of water conser- septic fields, leaking sanitary sewer lines, and vation as a way to protect the environment and to abandoned industrial/ sites. Of these protect the region’s natural resources in the long sources, the VADEQ has sited underground stor- term. The City currently uses 15.38 million gal- age tanks as the greatest threat to groundwater lons per day (MGD). The Virginia-American Wa- supplies. ter Company has conducted an extensive analy- sis of anticipated water needs for the City within Potable Water Supply and Water a 15-year projection. The VAWC projects that by Supply Protection the year 2010, average use will rise to 17 MGD and peak use will rise to 25.4 MGD. The approxi- Alexandria relies on surface water withdrawals mate allotment from the Fairfax County Water outside its boundaries for its municipal water sup- Authority is 25 MGD, which is sufficient to meet ply. While there are currently a small number of expected growth demands. operational wells within the City that are main- tained for industrial purposes, all existing devel- The VAWC’s program for maintaining its drinking opment is connected to the municipal water sys- water lines includes regular analysis of water, tem. All new development is required to be con- comprehensive plan studies, and annual system- nected to the municipal water system. wide flushing. The VAWC does not have a for- mal water conservation program, and instead, The City’s supplier/distributor of potable water is relies on public service announcements calling the Virginia-American Water Company (VAWC). for reduced usage (i.e., watering lawns or wash- Virginia-American, in turn, purchases treated ing cars) during exceedingly long dry spells. Ac- water from the Fairfax County Water Authority cording to the VAWC, the public is usually respon- (FCWA). The FCWA maintains two water intakes, sive, and there has been no need for additional conservation efforts.

18 Water Quality Management

THE LAND AND LAND FORMS Geology and Soils

II.3 While topography is a manifestation of underly- ing characteristics, the characteristics of the ge- Land is the foundation of most human activities. ology and soil also have an important impact on Local geology and soil features, and the result- development. ant topography, more than any other features will often dictate what type of activity is appropriate The City is situated almost entirely within the or feasible for a particular site. For instance, im- Coastal Plain physiographic province of Virginia. proper development on sensitive soils or steep The Coastal Plain consists of intermixed layers slopes can easily result in which con- of sands, pebbles, mud, and silts that were de- tributes to downstream nutrient problems and cre- posited as a result of erosion from areas to the ates long-term difficulties for structures built upon west when water levels were higher than they are these soils. now. Geologically speaking, the City is fairly simple. The dominant geologic feature is the The following is a description of the topography, Potomac Formation, deposited in a deltaic-type geology, and soils of the City and the potential environment (much like the present day Missis- constraints that these features represent. Map sippi Delta) during the Cretaceous Period (144 to II.2 illustrates the extent of these constraints, in- 65 million years ago, or mya). The Potomac For- cluding marine clay soils and steep slopes. mation occupies the western two-thirds of the City and is characterized by light-gray to pinkish and Topography greenish-gray sand and pebbles. The remaining eastern third of the City is underlain by the Shirley The City of Alexandria has an exceptionally di- Formation, which was deposited much later, dur- verse topography. Elevations range from almost ing the middle Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 to 0.1 mya). sea level along the Potomac River shoreline and The Shirley formation consists of light to dark gray, lower Four Mile Run and Cameron Run to 280 bluish gray, and brown sand, gravel, silt, clay, and feet above sea level near Alexandria Hospital. peat and is the result of surficial deposits of the Physiographically, the area of Alexandria can be Potomac River and relict baymouth barriers and described as a plain that has been dissected by bay-floor plains. A small outcrop of the Bacons numerous streams which have cut narrow, shal- Castle Formation (deposited during the upper low valleys into the landscape. While most of the Pliocene Epoch, 5.8 to 1.8 mya) is found in the is gently rolling, numerous tributaries have Beverly Hills area and is characterized by gray, cut steeper valleys. In general, Four Mile Run yellowish-orange, and reddish brown sand, gravel, and Cameron Run form two well defined valleys silt and clay. Centered around T.C. Williams H.S. which frame the City while a series of hills divide and the Northern Virginia Community College are the spine. Most of the steepest slopes in the City two outcrops of the Yorktown Formation which are associated with the smaller tributaries that consists of bluish-gray, and brownish yellow fine have cut through the central plain. In general, to course grained sands with interbedded sandy the further west into the City, the higher and more and silty blue-gray clays. These beds are com- rolling the terrain. monly very shelly. The oldest rocks in the City, which are part of the Occoquan Formation, occur Slopes greater than 15% require particular con- near where Holmes Run enters the City. The sideration during the development or redevelop- Occoquan Formation, which consists of light gray, ment processes due to the risk of erosion and medium to coarse grained granites, is actually part slump. While most of the City is considered roll- of the Piedmont Province and was formed over ing terrain, there are significant areas where 560 million years ago. slopes are greater than 15%, particularly adja- cent to dissecting stream channels. Differences in erosion rates between underlying rock formations have shaped modern drainage patterns and the contours of the landscape.

19 Water Quality Management

Soils serve as the lifeblood of the as well Ochlockonee (Oi), Huntington Loam (H), Keyport as the most basic of building for road- Silt Loam (K); Susquehanna Loam (So); ways, embankments, and building foundations. Sassafrass Gravelly Loam (Sf); and Leonardtown As a result, they are very important to take into Silt Loam (L) and Loam (Lo).

Figure II.8 provides a map of major soil TABLE II.2 groups while Table II.2 provides a brief Alexandria’s Soils and Suitability for description of each of these soils. The Development only soils of genuine concern in the City are those which contain marine clay (or Development shrink-swell) soils, those which are lo- Soil Name General Occurrence Topography Drainage Limitations Ochlocknee Occupies a few strips along Relatively flat, typically 4 Poorly drained Unsuitable for most cated on steep slopes, and those which small streams. In Alexandria, to 6 feet above normal and subject to development. associated with Cameron Run, flood stage. occasional experience prolonged wetness or inun- Holmes Run, and Backlick Run. overflows and wetness. dation due to flooding or low depth to Huntington Occupies narrow strips along Relatively flat. Typically 4 Good drainage. Unsuitable for most, but Loam the Potomac. In Alexandria, to 10 feet above sea Subject to not all, development. groundwater. While areas experienc- limited to Jones Point and level. periodic wetness Daingerfield Island. from flooding. ing flooding or prolonged wetness Keyport Silt Occurs on the low, smooth Gently undulating to level, Drainage is fairly Few unfavorable features, Loam terraces along the Potomac and in places slight well established some areas may should not be developed, areas with [Matapeake/Ma River. All of Old Town and depressions occur. A few except for small experience high water marine clays may be built upon (and to ttapex] much of the surrounding area is of the slopes are rather depressions. table, therefore limiting underlain by this soil. steep, and the margins the use of basements. are often distinguished by Clay material of the a large extent, have been built upon) if bluffs. Typically 20 to 30 substratum is well suited feet above sea level. for the manufacture of proper precautions are taken. Risks brick and tile. associated with marine clay include ex- Susquehanna Occurs upland of Ochlocknee Gently rolling to Fair. Few unfavorable features. cessive shrinking and swelling, which Loam and occupies large areas of undulating, although there Alexandria including are occasional steep Eisenhower Valley and the slopes. can crack building foundations, and Duke Street corridor. land slides and slumping during peri- Sassafras Occurs in narrow strips along Steep to gently sloping Drainage is good. Few unfavorable features. Gravely Loam the slopes of the plateau like Some areas of marine ods of prolonged wetness. Marine clay areas of Leonardtown loam and clay and steep slopes. silt loam, in West Alexandria is Contains large areas of layers that are only a few inches to a the largest area. heavy, waxy clay. few feet thick may be overcome if build- Leonardtown Occupies the highest areas of Surface is gently Surface drainage Few unfavorable features. Silt Loam the City from Shuters Hill undulating to nearly level, is generally poor. ing footings are extended to the next [Beltsville Silt extending northwest. with occasional Internal drainage Loam] depressions. is also slow in layer. Thicker occurrences have been areas, causing periodic wetness documented and may require addi- after . tional precautions or preclude some types of development. consideration during the development process. Not surprisingly, because Alexandria has long It is difficult to predict marine clay presence by been an urban rather than an agricultural center, soil type since most soils in Alexandria have ar- the last soil survey was conducted in 1915 by the eas of marine clay. However, Susquehanna loam, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Sassafrass gravelly loam, and Keyport are par- Because most soils in the City have been devel- ticularly prone to areas of marine clay. Map II.2 oped and redeveloped since that time, therefore shows areas which are underlain by marine clays. permanently altering soil structure, the study, en- titled Soil Survey of Fairfax and Alexandria Coun- ties, Virginia is useful only to demonstrate gen- WILDLIFE AND NATURAL eral soil characteristics. For most development HABITATS purposes, an onsite soil test should be conducted to determine exact soil properties. II.4

Because the underlaying parent materials are A healthy and diverse habitat is the end goal of relatively flat, soils in Alexandria generally change an effective plan. A pe- in accordance with elevation and relation to riodic inventory of Alexandria’s existing natural streams and rivers. The soils of Alexandria in- habitats is useful, if not necessary, to bench mark clude, from lowest to highest elevation: the success of water quality management efforts

20 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.8 Generalized Alexandria Soils Map

KEY TO SOILS

Co City Boundary L Co

So Sf Major Road So Sf Sl Sf Tidal

L L Ol Ochlocknee

Kl Hl Sf Lo Hl Huntington Loam L

Co Congaree L

So LSo Kl Keyport Silt Loam

Sf Ol Sf So Susquehanna Loam

Sf Lo Sf

So Sl Sassafras Loam Ol

Ol Ol So Sf Sassafras Gravely Loam So Kl So Lo Leonardtown Loam

Sf

Sl Leonardtown Silt Loam So L Sf Hl L Sf L

L Hl

Source: Digitized by NVPDC from U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Fairfax and Alexandria Counties, Virginia. 1915.

over time. Much of Alexandria’s natural landscape resulted in a limited, yet remarkably resilient wild- has experienced radical change since the first life habitat known to ecologists as “typical subur- European settlers took root in the area during the ban.” While many species have taken up resi- early 18th century. Even before Alexandria be- dence in lawn trees or wooded back yards, the gan to experience its most recent surge in growth bulk of the City’s wildlife habitat can be found after World War II, areas outside of Alexandria’s along natural areas of the Potomac River and the urban core were subject to clearing for agricul- City’s stream valley parks. tural and industrial purposes. During the Civil War, the area between Alexandria and Fairfax was Wildlife habitat in Alexandria is diverse, but can described as “totally denuded by trees“ as for- be roughly divided into tidal and nontidal. Nontidal ests were cut down to build defenses and to pro- habitats include free flowing streams and forests vide fuel for heat. of Alexandria’s uplands while tidal habitats include the estuarine portions of Four Mile Run and Hunt- Despite the odds, regrowth of vegetation, scat- ing Creek as well as their associated wetlands tered parcels of open and undeveloped land, util- and marshes. Differences in vegetation that oc- ity rights-of-ways, and stream valleys, in combi- cupies these two areas should be considered nation with suitable forms of development, have when restoring or reforesting habitat areas.

21 Water Quality Management

Records maintained by the Virginia Department Vegetation that is native to the City includes as- of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natu- sociations of poplar, elm, sycamore, beech, red ral Heritage (DNH), reveal the extent to which and water oak, and ironwood near major streams, many species still call Alexandria’s stream val- white, red, and water oak, pin oak, pine, hickory, leys home. In the Cameron Run watershed are poplar, sweetgum on side slopes, and pine, chest- thirty-seven different species of fish, seventeen nut, white, red, and black oak, and hickory types of frogs, salamanders, and toads, five spe- throughout the higher elevations on terraces. cies of turtle, and over twenty species and sub- Throughout the years, many species have been species of snake (including the poisonous cop- introduced to Alexandria’s landscape, some of perhead). In the Four Mile Run watershed are which have assimilated well and others which over fifty-seven different species of fish, eighteen have become nuisances. types of frogs, salamanders, and toads, five spe- cies of turtle, and over twenty-two species and subspecies of snake. Over 110 birds have been FIGURE II.9 confirmed as breeding or courting within both Alexandria’s Own Threatened watersheds. “Edge” species of mammals such Species – The Wood Turtle as squirrel, beaver, and muskrat also inhabit the area.

The DNH also maintains for planning purposes records on the general location and occurrence of of wildlife or vegetation in the Northern Virginia region. According to the DNH, only one State threatened species, the Wood Turtle (clemmys insculpta) is officially listed as likely located within the City. The wood turtle is terrestrial during warm weather and hibernates, typically under mud, sand, or submerged roots, during cool weather. Wood Turtles can be found near clear brooks and streams in deciduous wood- lands, although they have also been found in woodland bogs and marshy fields. Contributing factors to the species’ decline in Alexandria in- clude degraded habitats as a result of loss of wetlands, fragmentation of habitats, urbanization, and vehicular traffic. While most people recognize the benefits of veg- Other significant resources exist etation on the land to help prevent erosion, re- on the Potomac shoreline to the immediate south duce surface temperatures, provide habitat for of the City and within the larger Cameron Run wildlife, and beautify the landscape, few recog- and Four Mile Run watersheds. Some threatened nize the equal importance of water-based veg- and endangered species in the watersheds sur- etation to the environment. Submerged aquatic rounding Alexandria include the Bald Eagle (fed- vegetation, or SAV, serves as a primary food erally endangered), Cerulean Warbler (federal source and habitat for aquatic life in the Potomac species of concern), Bridle Shiner (State species River and the Chesapeake Bay, filters pollutants of concern), Brown Creeper (State species of from the water, and stores nutrients until the win- concern), Great Egret (State species of concern), ter when there is a relative scarcity. The pres- Little Blue Heron (State species of concern), and ence of healthy SAV beds is considered a valu- Common Moorhen (State species of concern). able, although not definitive, overall indicator of water quality conditions.

22 Water Quality Management

The dramatic Bay-wide decline of all SAV spe- the upper Potomac are mirrored across the cies in the late 1960s and early 1970s was corre- Chesapeake Bay and recent declines can be at- lated with increasing nutrient and sediment inputs tributed to, in part, by higher than normal river from development of the surrounding watershed. flows. This situation galvanized diverse groups into for- mulating a policy and implementation plan that A 1996 survey of Alexandria’s waterfront placed would ensure the future of SAV in the Chesapeake major SAV beds at mouth of Four Mile Run and Bay and eventually lead to the establishment of areas north and south of Daingerfield Island. Al- the interstate Chesapeake Bay Program. though not within Alexandria’s corporate limits, there is a large SAV bed under the Woodrow Wil- son Bridge that extends up the middle of the Potomac River to just north of Oronoco Bay Park. FIGURE II.10 SAV has at times been plentiful at the mouth of Wild Celery – A Common Species of Hunting Creek (a 1990 survey revealed a large, Aquatic Vegetation on Alexandria’s but sparse, 295 acre SAV bed); however, there Waterfront was no SAV reported in 1996. Surveys of Jones Point, Founders Park, the Torpedo Factory, and Oronoco Bay Park reveal only sparse amounts of SAV, most of which was the often troublesome Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata).

Hydrilla, which was accidentally introduced to this area in the early 1980s, is the dominant SAV in the upper Potomac. Hydrilla is considered a nui- sance because of its rapid growth and tendency to form thick mats that are impenetrable by wa- tercraft. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments maintains a hydrilla harvesting program; however, Alexandria has not found re- cent problems to be persistent enough to partici- pate in this program.

Other common SAV found in the upper Potomac River near Alexandria include wild celery (Vallisneria americana), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum). Wild celery is a pre- ferred food for many waterfowl including mallards, SAV coverage in the Potomac River off of canvasbacks, and goldeneyes. Wild celery is also Alexandria’s waterfront is monitored by the Met- excellent habitat for fish and . Eur- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments, asian watermilfoil, which is also an introduced the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Virginia In- species, provides cover and spawning habitat for stitute of Marine Science. fish and invertebrates and is consumed by wa- terfowl. However, this species has a tendency to SAV cover in the upper Potomac River (from crowd out other species. Coontail provides good Quantico to Great Falls) rose appreciably from habitat for fish and small invertebrates and its fo- 1984 to 1991, but then slowly declined until 1995. liage is consumed by waterfowl and other animals. 1996 witnessed a slight increase in SAV cover- age, which was measured at 1,834 acres. Over- all, the upper Potomac has only achieved 25% of its SAV coverage goal. However, the trends in

23 Water Quality Management

Habitat Fragmentation recognizes that waterfront access and use can affect water quality and that sensitive shoreline One of the greatest challenges facing wildlife in features may constrain where access is appro- Alexandria is not so much a lack of space, but priate. The City’s public access and design imple- habitat fragmentation. Roads and urban land mentation plan for the waterfront is outlined in its uses fragment and isolate wildlife habitats, cut- 1983 “Alexandria Waterfront Design Plan.” The ting wildlife off from food sources and traditional Design Plan provides a generalized plan of de- migrating patterns. velopment for the City’s waterfront and includes policy guidance for improved pedestrian access Stream crossings at roadways are often the great- to the waterfront and the design of public and pri- est physical hinderance to the successful estab- vate spaces. The Design Plan is purposely open- lishment and propagation of aquatic and terres- ended in nature in order to allow flexibility and trial life. Most crossings consist of no more than creatively during waterfront development. While an earthen embankment with a corrugated specific elements of the Design Plan have been pipe allowing water to flow through. This con- updated as development has taken place or as figuration forms a physical barrier to the travel of design components have been implemented, the fish and animal wildlife up and down a stream general schema of the plan remains the same. corridor. According to the Virginia Department of and Inland , this type of habitat One of the most important actions called for in dissection is among the greatest threats to wild- the Design Plan is a continuous Waterfront Prom- life as they are cut off from outside populations enade along the Potomac River’s edge to pro- and food sources. vide pedestrians with a variety of experiences reflecting the current and historical diversity of the Recognizing the need for these stream crossings City’s Potomac shoreline. The Design Plan in- to facilitate transportation in the City, crossings cludes an “Urban Waterfront Core” comprising the can be constructed to better allow for the free Torpedo Factory and the waterfront plaza at the travel of aquatic and terrestrial species. The Vir- end of King Street that serves as a link to the ginia Department of Transportation is currently King Street urban experience. To the north and exploring opportunities for improving stream val- south, the pedestrian passes through the green ley corridors for wildlife. Recently, VDOT has open space of parks, formally designed by less modified culverts to include a raised concrete area urban than the Waterfront Core, interspersed with for small animals to traverse the culvert. In addi- commercial development. Daingerfield Island to tion, a fence is added to channel the animals into the north and Jones Point to the south form natu- the culvert and away from the road. This option, ral “book ends” for the Alexandria waterfront. according to VDOT, is practical, has merit from a wildlife standpoint, and can be easily incorporated. Since 1983, significant progress has been made The City should identify major stream crossings towards the establishment of the Waterfront Prom- and identify areas that, when reconstructed in the enade. Much of this progress has resulted from future, may incorporate these or other practices. joint planning efforts between the City and the National Park Service. These joint planning ef- forts were sparked in 1973 when the U.S. De- PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACCESS TO partment of Justice asserted that the had claim to all waterfront land east of the 1791 WATERFRONT AREAS high water mark. At that time, the U.S. National Park Service was concerned with protecting II.5 Alexandria’s Potomac shoreline as a gateway to the Nation’s Capitol, as part of the National His- The City recognizes the value and importance of toric Landmark (the Old and Historic Alexandria its waterfront and ensuring that there is adequate District), and as a segment of the Potomac Heri- public and private access to these areas has long tage Trail proposed by the Secretary of Interior in been a high priority of the City. Similarly, the City 1965. The Justice Department and the City

24 Water Quality Management reached a settlement on the issue in October, ■ Bridge Replacement – The 1981. proposed replacement of the Woodrow Wil- son Bridge includes funding for the restora- The settlement deeded to the City five parks of tion of the historic bulkheads and for increased almost 12 acres and set land use criteria for these community access to the waterfront. The areas. Perhaps even more significantly, the Jus- project also includes the natural and artificial tice Department approved major settlements for stabilization of shoreline areas from the Jones several private property owners including the Point lighthouse to the historic bulkhead. Marina Towers, PEPCO, Bryant, Andrew, Norton, ■ Old Town Yacht Basin (now part of Windmill Robinson Terminal, Kiriakow, and VEPCO prop- Hill Park) – Planning for the rehabilitation of erties. Each of these settlements included provi- this area is underway. Title to fastlands is sions for public open space and pedestrian ac- being transferred to Alexandria from the Dis- cess where none would have been required oth- trict of Columbia. Old pilings will be removed erwise. The Justice Department’s settlement with and the dilapidated bulkhead will be restored Marina Towers and PEPCO allowed the construc- and extended to link pedestrian access to the tion of a 3,000 foot-long bike trail linking north and the south. Daingerfield Island with the rest of the Alexandria waterfront. The City is also developing, or is planning to de- velop, reuse plans for the Old Dominion Boat Club In 1996, the City’s Waterfront Committee estab- and waterfront properties located along The lished a subcommittee composed of members Strand as well as the Robinson Terminal North from the Waterfront Committee and the Parks and property. Table II.3 contains information on exist- Recreation Commission to evaluate current uses ing and potential public and private boat docking and needs along Alexandria’s waterfront – includ- areas and marinas as well as public and private ing additional access and the need for boating access points on Alexandria’s waterfront. Figure and docking facilities. Using the 1983 plan as a II.11 provides a map of the information presented reference, the goals of the subcommittee are to in Table II.3. update the Plan to reflect development which has occurred since 1983 and to make specific rec- Additional policies regarding future land uses on ommendations for the few remaining undeveloped Alexandria’s waterfront are contained in the Old waterfront parcels. As part of its deliberations, Town Small Area Plan. These include provisions the subcommittee investigates the presence of for open space and public access, encourage- sensitive natural resources, the disturbance of ment of water-oriented activities and mixed-use which may exacerbate erosion or cause harm to development, and architectural design. wildlife or water quality. Constraints to access and the development of boating facilities identi- fied in the 1983 plan include areas that experi- ence heavy siltation and/or debris collection, un- stable edge conditions, and the fact that much of the waterfront is within the 100 year floodplain (which dictates certain aspects of building design).

Major projects that have been identified by the City as having the potential to increase Potomac River access and/or to improve water quality in- clude the following.

■ Ford’s Landing – This development project is nearing completion and includes new bulk- heads and enhanced public access.

25 Water Quality Management

TABLE II.3 Existing and Potential Marina and Boat Docking Areas and Public and Private Waterfront Access Points

FACILITY NAME LOCATION NOTES Map Reference #

Existing Marina and Boat Docking Facilities Harborside at Old 400 S. Union Street PR Private docking facility 1 Town (condominium slips) with public access to river. Strand Properties 200 Strand PR Includes Alexandria Yacht 2 Company and Potomac Party Cruises, Inc. Old Dominion Boat Strand and King Street PR 65 X Private facility and boat 3 Club launch. Some public uses allowed by agreement (i.e., police boats, etc.). Torpedo Factory Docks 1 Cameron Street PU 28 X X 4 Alexandria City Marina End of Cameron Street PU 36 X X Public monthly/transient 5 docking facilities. Alexandria Rowing End of Madison Street PU For use by Alexandria 6 Facility Public Schools. Limited use of boat launch (canoes, kayaks, etc.). Washington Sailing Daingerfield Island PU 685 X X X X Public docking facility 7 Marina and public boat launch. Potential Marina and Boat Docking Facilities Ford’s Landing (Old 700 S. Union Street PR Proposed private docking 8 Ford Plant) facility (condominium slips) in addition to existing public access. Additional Public and Private Waterfront Access Points Old Town Yacht 500 S. Union Street PU 9 Basin* Jones Point Park 1 South Lee Street PU X Upgrades scheduled as 10 part of Wilson Bridge reconstruction. Windmill Hill Park** 600 S. Union Street PU P X Athletic courts and fields. 11 Roberdeau Park End of Wolfe Street PU X 12 Point Lumley Park End of Duke Street PU X 13 Waterfront Park 1 Prince Street PU X 14 King Street End of King Street PU 15 Founders Park 300 N. Union Street PU X 16 Oronoco Bay Park N. Lee Street from PU X Special activities by 17 Madison to Pendleton permit. West’s Point End of Oronoco Street PU X 18

*Part of Windmill Hill Park. **Consolidated Old Town Yacht Basin Site/Pomander Walk Park/Wilkes Street and Gibbon Street Ends.

26 Water Quality Management

FIGURE II.11 Map of Existing and Potential Marina and Boat Docking Areas and Public and Private Waterfront Access Points

CITY OF

ALEXANDRIA

Mt. Vernon Ave.

Cora Four M Kelley ile Run School

Reed Ave. 21 East Glebe R POTOMAC YARD d. 120

7 KEY

DAINGERFIELD Numbers refer to Table II.3 Randolph Ave. ISLAND 20 Existing Marina and Boat

Commonwealth Ave VernonMt. Ave. Docking Facilities

Howell Ave. Potential Marina and Boat

Eugene Simpson Docking Facilities Stadium

R F & P Railrod Additional Public Waterfront Access Points

George 2nd St. Braddock Rd. Washington 19 Middle Private Access Points School

Montgomery St. Open to Public ve

Wythe St. Pendleton St. 6 Public Park or Public Use

. Oronoco St. t S 18 t

s omnelhA Commonwealth e W 17 Jefferson Queen St. George Houston Washington School 16 Memorial Temple 5 King St. 4

Union St. 3 15 Duke St. Jefferson St. 14 2 13 Royal St. 12 WASHINGTON. D.C. Wilkes St. 1 PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD

Henry St. 9 Patrick St. Franklin St.

Capital Washington St. 11 Belt way Green St. 8

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA FAIRFAX COUNTY Woodrow Wilson

JONES POINT Memorial Bridge PARK 10

27 Water Quality Management

28 Water Quality Management Pollution and Other Sources of Water Quality Decline III

Understanding what and where pollution is gen- erated is the first step towards preventing and controlling pollution before it damages water qual- ity and the environment. This section outlines existing and potential sources of pollution faced by the City.

Pollution problems faced by Alexandria are far more complicated than most Northern Virginia localities. Alexandria is one of the few localities in the region that has experienced a degree of heavy industrialization. As a result, long forgot- ten contaminated industrial sites are often redis- covered as they are converted to residential and commercial uses. Since its founding, industry in Alexandria has included glass making, iron works, ship building, railroad yards, lumber, power (coal and gas works), petroleum storage (including the entire block bounded by Lee, Gibbon, Wolfe, and Union streets), shoes (Potomac Shoe Company, 1880), munitions production, and other ventures including mills (flour and cotton) and breweries. In addition, Alexandria has some of the largest Storm Drains Often Serve as a Direct concentrations of commercial activity, which are Conduit for Pollution to Enter Local associated with large areas of impervious sur- Streams faces, in Virginia. CONTENTS Alexandria is also among the few remaining ur- ■ Point Source Pollution ban localities in which portions of the citizenry are ■ Nonpoint Source served by a combined sewer system (CSS). In most localities, stormwater and wastewater are Pollution carried separately – with the stormwater being ■ Erosion of the Land channeled to a local stream and the wastewater ■ being piped to a local wastewater treatment facil- Air Pollution ity. A CSS combines both stormwater and waste- ■ Waterfront and Dock water in one system for treatment. The disad- Activities vantage to this arrangement, which only affects ■ portions of Old Town, is that during very wet Areas of Special weather, the system becomes overwhelmed and Concern

29 Water Quality Management minimally treated wastewater is discharged di- The Role of Redevelopment in Water rectly to the Potomac River. The advantage to Quality Improvement the system, however, is that during normal peri- ods of rain, polluted runoff is treated to a high With only a few exceptions, Alexandria is consid- degree, resulting in significant water quality ben- ered to be “built-out.” That is, additional growth efits. Alexandria has developed a program to in the City will largely come as a result of the re- minimize the negative aspects of the CSS while development of previously developed land. While maximizing its positive aspects. redevelopment has its own challenges, it is also the City’s best opportunity to systematically im- Some level of pollution resulting from human ac- prove local and regional water quality. Most resi- tivities is almost inevitable. However, it is within dential, commercial, and industrial development the power of human beings to manage pollution within the City built before the early 1990s did not in a way that can be assimilated into the environ- take water quality protection into consideration. ment. Unmanaged pollution can result in surface Sources of pollution range from nonpoint source and groundwater contamination, poor air quality, pollution from uncontrolled residential and com- aesthetic degradation of the landscape, and the mercial parking areas to long forgotten contami- destruction of important ecological habitats, all of nated industrial sites. Sources of pollution are which detract from the City’s basic character. detailed in Section III.1 through Section III.6. As these areas are redeveloped, it is the City’s con- The most cost-effective approach to the problem viction that the opportunity should be used to im- of pollution is to prevent it at its source. A num- prove water quality and to restore damaged habi- ber of tools are available to the City to aid in pol- tats, including stream-side buffer areas. The fact lution prevention including public education and that almost all developed land is directly con- awareness programs, water conservation pro- nected to natural streams via the stormdrain sys- grams, lawn care programs, and recycling efforts, tem makes this a City-wide issue. Because Alex- to name a few. The cost to the City once environ- andria is situated along the banks of the Potomac mental damage has been done includes not only River, redevelopment along the City’s major short term clean-up costs, but long term costs streams and waterfronts deserves special con- including decreased property values and loss of sideration. tax base. There are several ways to improve water quality The City also recognizes that the best way to pro- during redevelopment including, but not limited tect local and regional water quality is through the to, the installation of on-site stormwater quality use of an integrated watershed management plan. management practices, the reclamation and An integrated watershed management plan in- revegetation of unnecessary impervious surfaces, volves strategic use of structural and nonstructural the use of pervious materials in place of impervi- BMPs to address all sources and types of pollut- ous materials, the removal of substandard above ants in order to optimize water quality and re- and underground storage tanks, and the clean- source protection. up of industrial contamination. The City’s primary regulatory tool for improving water quality during The following section describes the City’s exist- redevelopment is its Chesapeake Bay Preserva- ing sources of pollution as well as potential tion Ordinance, discussed in detail in Section IV.2. sources of pollution that the City may face. This However, the City also provides incentives for inventory, along with various tools afforded by the developers to voluntarily improve water quality State and the federal governments, should be from surrounding development as part of its Tar- used by the City to minimize and eliminate the gets of Opportunity Urban Retrofit Program. This impacts of pollution on the environment of Alex- program, discussed in Section IV.3, has resulted andria. in over 1,000 acres of urban development served by regional stormwater management facilities.

30 Water Quality Management

To help promote potential redevelopment areas NPDES Discharges in the City, the Alexandria Economic Development Program and the Alexandria Department of Plan- Industries and municipalities, under the Clean ning and Community Development have pub- Water Act (CWA), National Discharge lished an “Alexandria Build to Suit Opportunities” Elimination System (NPDES), are required to re- map (Map III.1). Areas identified on the map rep- port wastewater discharges to State waters, and resent major targeted redevelopment (and a few to the maximum extent practicable, mitigate the new development) opportunities in the City. The effects of the pollution on the environment. The primary intent of this map is to promote economic Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, development in the City by highlighting major re- (VADEQ) administers Virginia’s program and is development opportunities and by providing spe- charged with ensuring that environmental regu- cific information on site potential, including size, lations are enforced. VADEQ issues VPDES per- zoning, and maximum build-out. However, be- mits (Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys- cause the City has adopted a jurisdiction-wide tem) to control point source discharges within the Resource Management Area under its Chesa- state. peake Bay Preservation Ordinance, and because many of these areas are former industrial sites According to State records, there are five VPDES located near the City’s major waterways, a sig- permits in Alexandria. However, since Cameron nificant secondary benefit to the redevelopment Station has closed, only four of these are pres- of these areas is water quality improvement. ently active. There are eight additional VPDES permits operating within the Four Mile Run and Information on specific redevelopment opportu- Cameron Run watersheds in neighboring Arling- nities is also found in the City’s Small Area Plans. ton and Fairfax counties. VPDES permits in Al- In order to link these Small Area Plans to the goals exandria include the Alexandria Sanitation and policies contained within this Supplement, the Authority’s discharge to Cameron Run (located City has established as a goal to include in each immediately upstream from Route I), the City’s SAP an analysis of opportunities to protect and Combined Sewer System Permit (discussed in improve water quality during redevelopment. greater detail in the following section), Potomac Electric and Power Company’s holding tanks on the Potomac River, and Virginia Concrete’s dis- POINT SOURCE POLLUTION charge to Hooffs Run. Discharges from these sources are strictly controlled and currently meet III.1 all State and federal environmental standards.

Point sources of pollution are those that can be Wastewater Treatment tracked to a specific point or outfall. While pollu- tion from point sources is often in large volume, Wastewater from the City is treated by the Alex- point sources are the easiest to manage because andria Sanitation Authority (Authority). The Au- they are confined and often there is a single per- thority is a special purpose body created by the son responsible for clean-up. Point sources of City and chartered by the State. The Authority pollution within the City include National Pollut- owns and operates an advanced wastewater ant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dis- treatment facility located on South Payne Street. charge points, combined sewer overflow (CSO) In addition to the City’s wastewater, the Authority points, underground and above ground storage treats wastewater from a part of Fairfax County. tanks, and septic systems. In each case, there is Wastewater from Fairfax County is treated under a specific person/organization responsible for an agreement established when the Authority was maintenance, and, with the exception of above originally created. The treatment plant has an ground storage tanks, all are monitored by the annual average design capacity of 54 million gal- City, State, and/or federal government. lons per day (mgd) and 60 percent of that capac- ity (32.4 mgd) is allocated to the County with the

31 Water Quality Management remaining 40 percent (21.5 mgd) allocated to the standards for Potomac River embayments. Ad- City. ditionally, the plant is being equipped to remove nitrogen under Virginia’s strategy for meeting The Authority also owns and operates the princi- Chesapeake Bay goals for nutrient control. pal intercepting services pumping stations in the City. One sewer, the Holmes Run Trunk Sewer is The treatment plant discharge is the largest of used jointly by the City and the County. the City’s point sources. When the upgrade is completed, the treatment process will comprise Treated effluent from the Authority’s plant is regu- primary treatment biological nutrient removal lated by a VPDES permit and is discharged to (BNR) and advanced treatment. The treatment Hunting Creek, an embayment of the Potomac effluent is disinfected to kill any leftover bacteria River. Currently the plant is undergoing a signifi- prior to discharge to Hunting Creek. Disinfection cant upgrade to meet new Virginia water quality is accomplished by ultraviolet radiation and efflu- ent testing is performed daily to assure that the treatment process FIGURE III.1 is performing to VPDES permit Location of Alexandria’s Combined limits. Bio-solids removed from Sanitary Sewer System the process are treated to EPA and State standards for pathogen removal and the resulting prod- uct is land applied on in Virginia where it makes an excel- lent fertilizer. LEGEND u1 Shoreline SLATERS LANE CSO Sub-Boundary Areas In 1987, the Clean Water Act was

RD L ANE expanded to include not only Combined Sewer Area BASHFO point source pollution coming CSO Outfall Points from industrial and wastewater treatment sources, but also to in- clude discharges from storm

COMMONWEALTH AVE. II sewer systems that drain urban Pendleton Street PENDLETON STREET CSO areas. These requirements are discussed further under Section III.2. I yRiver Clean-Up Area

KING ROYAL STREET

WEST STREETWEST

STREET WASHINGTON STREET Combined Sewer System R

E

y

V I

DUKE STREET R

C Most urban areas are served by UNION STREET

A

n M

y separate stormwater and waste- u O

R Hooffs Run T

s O f CSOs water conveyance systems. The

f P

o o primary purpose of this separa- Alexandria Wastewater H III Treatment Plant tion is to ensure that the local wastewater treatment facility is not overwhelmed by large vol- i95 umes of water during periods of Cam eron Run heavy or prolonged rainfall. How- Royal Street ever, many older urban areas, CSO including Alexandria, have areas Hunting C ek u1 re where wastewater and

32 Water Quality Management stormwater are combined in one system. This is The nine minimum controls which the City has known as a Combined Sewer System (CSS). In implemented for controlling CSO discharges com- a combined sewer system, dry weather flow is prise the following: conveyed to treatment plants. However, during rainfall events the capacity of the conveyance and ■ Proper operation and regular maintenance treatment facilities can be exceeded because of programs for the sewer system and the com- the large stormwater flow. When this occurs, the bined sewer overflows. excess flow is discharged directly to a waterbody. ■ Maximum use of the collection system for The excess flow, a mixture of stormwater and storage. wastewater, is called a combined sewer overflow ■ Review and modification of the pretreatment (CSO). program to assure CSO impacts are mini- mized. The City’s CSO includes areas east of the rail- ■ Maximization of flow to the POTW for treat- road corridor (mostly Old Town) and comprises ment. about 560 acres. CSO outfalls (emergency dis- ■ Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather. charge points) are located at the foot of Pendleton ■ Control of solid and floatable materials in Street and Royal Street and under Duke Street CSOs. at Hooffs Run (see Figure 111.1). ■ Pollution prevention programs that focus on contaminant reduction activities. The City initially proceeded to control overflows ■ Public notification to ensure that the public from the combined sewer systems by separating receives adequate notification of CSO oc- the sewers. This control approach became in- currences and CSO impacts. creasingly expensive and the last separation ■ Monitoring and reporting to effectively char- project was completed in 1990. Estimates to com- acterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of plete separation exceed $90 million. The City CSO controls. began studies in the early 1990’s to seek alterna- tive approaches to control combined sewer over- The City’s program uses a host of measures to flows and in 1995 submitted a long term control meet these requirements. The CSS is adminis- plan (LTCP) to the Virginia Department of Envi- tered by the City’s Department of Transportation ronmental Quality. The VADEQ issued the City a and Environmental Services. VPDES Permit for the CSS in 1995 and based on the City’s studies, the permit calls for the City Leaking Sanitary Sewer Lines to operate and maintain the CSS according to the USEPA’s technology-based best management In many urban areas, and particularly in well es- practices. The practices are known as the Nine tablished areas such as Alexandria, a significant Minimum Controls and from part of EPA’s national potential source of pollution is leaking sanitary CSO control policy. However, the VPDES permit sewer lines. Leaking sanitary sewer lines may also requires the City to continue to monitor the cause elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels in CSS and report annually. The monitoring includes local streams as well as number of other health metering overflows and sampling the overflows and problems. and receiving waters. Additionally, the City may be required to improve solids and floatables con- The City’s sanitary sewer system dates back to trol in the discharges from the four CSO outfalls. the early 1930s. The materials first used were Based on the results of the monitoring and re- terra cotta and cement. Today, the City’s system porting, VADEQ will determine the need and ex- is composed of PVC, concrete, and ductile iron tent of additional control As new end of pipe tech- pipe. The system contains over 200 miles of sani- nology becomes available for solids and floatables tary sewer, 137 miles of storm sewer, and 6.2 control, VADEQ is expected to impose and re- miles of combined sewer. The system is main- quire that the existing controls be upgraded. tained by the City’s Department of Transporta- tion and Environmental Services, Maintenance

33 Water Quality Management and Solid Waste Divisions, with the use of sewer Above Ground and Underground jet cleaners, catch-basin cleaners, and rodders. Storage Tanks

The sewer system is monitored by the use of TV Above ground and underground storage tanks can equipment to determine when repair or replace- contribute to water quality problems as a result of ment of sanitary sewer is required. Today, the spillage, leakage, and in the case of above ground City installs liners through the existing sewer pipe storage tanks, toppling. The Virginia Department rather than open cut and install new sewer mains. of Environmental Quality is responsible for per- Actual replacement of sewer main is seldom re- mitting and tracking both above ground and un- quired. derground storage tanks. The installation and removal of above ground and underground tanks The City of Alexandria contracts out stormsewer is regulated by local building and fire codes and and sanitary sewer cleaning. The contract con- requires that permits also be issued by Alexan- sists of one combination batch-basin cleaner and dria Code Enforcement. one sewer jet. The City’s fleet consists of one rodder truck, two sewer jet trucks, and one TV Above ground storage tanks are regulated by the van. The rodder truck and sewer jets are used federal government through the Clean Water Act. on a daily basis for cleaning the sanitary sewers 40 CFR Part 112 requires owners of single tanks while the combination catch-basin cleaner and with a capacity greater than 660 gallons or mul- sewer jet is primarily used for cleaning storm sew- tiple tanks with an aggregate capacity greater than ers and storm sewer structures. The City cur- 1,320 galls to register and formulate a “Spill Pre- rently has the sewer system set up in a preventa- vention Control and Countermeasure Plan.” Vir- tive maintenance program and surveys the entire ginia has adopted requirements for tank owners system on daily, weekly, and monthly programs. to present an “Oil Discharge Contingency Plan” (ODCP) before a storage tank may be registered. The separate sanitary sewer systems in the Four The purpose of an ODCP is to have a plan of Mile Run, Commonwealth and Holmes Run Sewer action in the event of a catastrophic release of oil Service areas are experiencing excessive flows from the largest tank. The plan must also identify during wet weather conditions. The excessive what the impact of such a discharge will be on flows are caused by stormwater entering the sani- the environmental receptors and what will be done tary sewers. The stormwater reduces the capac- to mitigate those impacts in the event of a spill. ity of the sewers to carry and results in sanitary sewer oveflows (SSOs) and basement However, individual tanks with a capacity of less backups. The overflows are prohibited by Fed- than 660 gallons or multiple tanks with an aggre- eral law and new rules being promulgated by gate capacity of less than 1,320 gallons are not USEPA will bring basement backups under the currently regulated by the State or the federal law. government. Most home fuel oil tanks are typi- cally only 200 to 660 gallons and are not regu- The City has initiated field surveys and inspec- lated. According to 1990 federal census data tion to determine the degree and source of the 4,580 households (8.6%) rely on fuel oil or kero- stormwater infiltration and inflow (I&I). Based on sene for their primary source of heat. This is the results of the field work and engineering stud- slightly more than Fairfax County (7.8%) and less ies, a remediation program will be developed. than Arlington County (12.6%). While the per- Remediation includes such measures are relin- centage is relatively low, the aggregate of tanks ing old sewers, jointly sealing, rerouting connec- may pose a serious threat if small problems are tions and manhole repairs. not taken seriously. It is therefore the responsi- bility of the individual owner to ensure that leaks and spills do not occur. According to the VADEQ, approximately 90 percent of releases from indi- vidual tanks are a result of overfill or the tipping

34 Water Quality Management

FIGURE III.2 Point Source Pollution Map and Special Areas of Concern

1

7

395 Quaker Lane Quaker

King Street

Landmark Shopping Center

5 1 4 6 Duke Street

2 3

KEY Leaking Underground Storage Tank (Open Case) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (Closed Case) 1. Cameron Station Area of Special Concern 2. Closed Municipal Landfill Site 3. Closed Municipal Landfill Site Source of Air Pollution 4. Closed Municipal Landfill Site 5. Bogle Chemical Company Site 6. Alexandria Gas Works/Oronoco Site Groundwater Contamination 7. Closed Municipal Landfill Site Industrial/Recreational Water Well

over of the tank. Overfill can occur if the driver/ Underground storage facilities pose a much filler is not paying attention or if the capacity of greater risk to water resources in Alexandria, in the tank is not known. To reduce the risk of an part because spillage is often not detected until accidental spill, the homeowner or fuel oil com- long after it begins. According to the VADEQ, pany should inspect a tank before filling to en- underground storage tanks are the primary source sure that it is sturdy and does not exhibit signs of of groundwater contamination in Virginia. In ad- corrosion. An owner should also have the capac- dition, many streams are fed by groundwater and ity of the tank clearly marked on the tank and spe- therefore a spill may also adversely impact sur- cifically indicate the filling cap location. face water quality. In addition to gasoline, under- ground tanks are used for storing benzene, kero- sene, diesel fuel, used motor oil, and fuel oil.

35 Water Quality Management

As of December 12, 1997, there were 301 regis- significant redevelopment is required by Code to tered underground storage tanks within the City hook into the City’s system. limits, some of which have been removed. All regulated underground tanks still in use were re- The locations of remaining septic systems within quired to be upgraded or replaced by December the City are not well documented, and many are 1998. Residential underground tanks were ex- within areas of the City that have been annexed. empted by the state. As a result, the existence of septic systems gen- There were also 219 recorded leaking under- erally is only found out when a homeowner or ground storage tanks (LUSTs) since 1981. Of business reports a problem to the City Health those, 164 have been mitigated and closed, while Department. The Health Department works with there are currently 55 open cases. Other open these individuals to either correct the problem, or cases exist immediately outside the City in neigh- in most instances, to hook into the City system. boring Fairfax and Arlington counties. Because groundwater movement follows topography and geology rather than jurisdictional boundaries, the NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION issue of leaking underground storage tanks is a regional one requiring regional communication III.2 and coordination. Nonpoint source pollution is pollution which origi- The City’s Division of Environmental Quality nates from small, diverse sources. Nonpoint (T&ES Department) and the Fire Department’s source pollution may originate as atmospheric Code Enforcement Bureau and Fire Marshall work deposition, leaking automobiles, pet waste, and with the VADEQ-Water Division (WD) to prevent misapplied lawn fertilizers and pesticides as well leakage and to ensure that any leakage into the as a host of other sources. When these pollut- environment is remedied. Figure III.2 provides ants get swept up into stormwater runoff, their information on the location of underground stor- exact source is lost and they become nonpoint age tanks in the City and the location of under- source pollution. ground storage tank spills currently under remediation. Most commonly, nonpoint source pollution is a result of pollutants accumulating on impervious In many instances, the presence of contaminated surfaces which are subsequently flushed into lo- groundwater as a result of leaking underground cal waterways by stormwater runoff. However, storage tanks does not present itself until vacant direct dumping of pollution into stormdrains or commercial and industrial properties are redevel- creeks is also a very common, and documented, oped. Sometimes these contaminants surface way for nonpoint source pollution to enter the near residential areas in the storm sewer system water. On a per acre basis, urban land use in or in natural streams, causing public health and general, including residential development, pro- safety problems and producing undesirable . duces higher annual nonpoint source pollutant These issues are addressed by the City’s Depart- loadings of nutrients, , and oxygen ment of Transportation and Environmental Ser- depleting substances than do rural agricultural vices and Fire Department. uses. Oil contamination, sediments, pesticides, metals, and other toxic substances found in ur- Septic Systems ban runoff are often found at sufficient levels to kill and destroy aquatic life. Among the most de- Improperly maintained septic systems can fail, structive, yet inconspicuous pollutants are excess therefore posing a local health and water quality nutrients. Excess nutrients can result in a phe- risk. With the exception of a handful of proper- nomenon known as . Eutrophica- ties, all households, commercial establishments, tion results in algal blooms, which block sunlight and industrial sites are connected to the City’s and deplete dissolved oxygen content during de- sanitary sewer system. All new development and cay. Eutrophication also destroys the recreational

36 Water Quality Management use of the water resource and results in strong stormwater outfalls in Alexandria. Of these, 123 odor and undesirable . major outfalls were identified. A 1992 survey of each of these major outfalls provides a clear pic- As noted previously, the greater the level of im- ture of the City’s nonpoint source pollution prob- pervious surface area, the greater the risk that lem. At numerous sites, field observations re- water resources will be impacted by nonpoint vealed cloudy water, colored water (gray, brown, source pollution. Because Alexandria is heavily and yellow), various stains on concrete (brown developed and largely built-out, the City has an impervious surface area of approximately 41%, which is among the highest in Virginia. As a re- TABLE III.2 sult, the City recognizes that the control of Common Urban Pollutants and Their nonpoint source pollution must be a key compo- Sources nent of water quality management efforts.

POLLUTANTS SOURCES Land uses in the City are associated with differ- Nutrients ■ Soil particles from erosion. ent degrees of impervious surface area. This ■ Overapplication or misapplication means that each land use will also affect water of fertilizers. quality differently. This is discussed later in this ■ Fecal matter from pets. section. Table III.1 shows impervious surface area ■ Vegetative matter (e.g., dumping by land use type and percent impervious cover. clippings into streams). ■ Power plant and automobile These figures were tabulated from City zoning emissions. records in 1991 to provide baseline impervious- Sediments ■ Construction activities. ness data for use in complying with the provisions ■ Urban streambank erosion. of the City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordi- ■ Poor landscape management nance. The percent imperviousness is extrapo- techniques (including building on poor soils and steep slopes). lated for each land use category from information Bacteria ■ Antiquated sanitary sewer lines. provided in the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance ■ Fecal matter from domestic Manual. animals. ■ Malfunctioning septic systems. Heavy Metals ■ Soil particles from erosion. ■ TABLE III.1 Wear of vehicle parts including brake, clutch, and tires. City Land Uses and Associated ■ Leakage of vehicular fluids. Imperviousness ■ Atmospheric deposition of automobile emissions. Land Use Acreage Percent Impervious Toxic Chemicals ■ Overapplication or misapplication of home/lawn pesticides.

Residential 3,752.4 25% (low density) ■ Dumping household/industrial 37.5% (medium) chemicals including paints. 52.5% (high) ■ Abandoned industrial sites. Commercial 727.0 70% ■ Illegal dumping or flushing of Industrial 1,143.8 70% automotive fluids such as antifreeze. Institutional 867.8 70% (Metro) Petroleum ■ Leakage from automobile crank 10% (waterfront) Hydrocarbons cases on impervious surfaces. Varied (other) ■ Illegal dumping of used oil by Parks 537.5 <10% (variable) home auto maintenance. ■ Vacant 466.9 0% Underground and above ground storage tank malfunction. ■ Dumping and littering. ■ Roadway deicing chemicals. These land uses are drained to the City’s natural Thermal ■ Heated impervious surfaces. streams via culverts and stormdrains. As of 1992, ■ Lack of stream-side tree canopy the City identified over 302 known municipal cover.

37 Water Quality Management and black), and the presence of many floatables ample is parking lot sweeping, which reduces including oily sheen, soapy subs, , paper pollution and results in a more aesthetic land- cups, etc. Odors ranged from none to musty, scape. sewage, disinfectant, asphaltic, rotten egg, and petroleum. Industrial Uses – Industrial uses are character- ized by highly imperious surface areas and may While it is true that nonpoint source pollution po- be subject to the use or storage of heavy equip- tential increases as impervious surface area in- ment or chemicals. Management of nonpoint creases, one must not conclude from the above source pollution in these areas includes the use table that residential areas are not significant of structural BMPs, measures to reduce impervi- sources of nonpoint source pollution. Indeed, in- ous surface coverage, and measures to ensure dustrial areas tend to be the most stringently that industrial effluent or waste is minimized and managed areas while residential areas are often disposed of properly. The Virginia Office of Pol- the worse offenders because of the vast number lution Prevention is the lead agency that provides of amateurs performing car repairs or applying guidance to industries on waste minimization. fertilizers and pesticides. Public and Private Institutional and Recre- In general, nonpoint source pollution from urban ational Uses – This category includes public uses areas can be reduced by minimizing the amount such as schools, libraries, and playing fields, and of impervious surface area as a result of devel- private uses such as golf courses and marinas opment, utilizing open space and preserving in- that may have extensive grounds that require digenous vegetation, restoring denuded vegeta- maintenance. In addition to structural BMPs and tive stream buffers, preventing pollution through minimizing impervious surfaces, techniques such public education, and by employing the use of as managed fertilizer applications, water-wise structural stormwater management facilities which landscape management, and the wise use of operate by trapping runoff and detaining it until chemical pesticides (known as Integrated Pest unwanted pollutants settle out. Management) can be used to minimize the intro- duction of pollution into the environment. The City However, different land uses and activities are should take every opportunity to serve as a posi- associated with different types of pollution. In tive example to City residents. order to facilitate the efficient and effective tar- geting of nonpoint source management efforts, Residential Uses – In addition to structural BMPs the City should be viewed in terms of four man- and minimizing impervious surface areas during agement areas. development, public education plays an impor- tant role in the control of residentially generated High Density Commercial and Mixed Use Cor- nonpoint source pollution. Yards and automobiles ridors – Impervious surface area within commer- are major sources of nonpoint source pollution. cial and mixed use corridors generally constitutes Nonpoint source pollution enters the environment upwards of 70% of the landscape. Nonpoint through dumping in stormdrains, runoff from the source pollution in these areas is best managed yard, or erosion of bare spots. Public education through the use of structural BMPs, measures that is most effective in these areas; however, differ- reduce impervious surface coverage, and mea- ences between high density (condominium and sures that reduce the introduction of litter and apartment) and medium/low density residential other pollutants such as automobile leakage onto uses should be considered. For instance, those impervious surfaces. While public education may living in high density areas will not benefit from be effective in some instances, consumer tran- public education on lawn care techniques. How- siency makes these efforts difficult to sustain. ever, directing this information at the management Rather, the City should work with businesses to company or landscape management contractor identify cost-effective ways to control pollution may have significant benefits. while benefiting the business owner. One ex-

38 Water Quality Management

A number of resources are available that provide AIR POLLUTION guidance on the prevention of nonpoint source pollution through sensitive site design and through III.4 public education. The City should promote nonpoint source pollution reduction through its What goes up must come down. What is air pol- own public education programs and by encour- lution today will be water pollution tomorrow. The aging the use of sensitive site design during the federal Chesapeake Bay Program estimates that plan review process. 27% of nitrogen reaching the Bay originates from air pollution. The difficulty in managing air pollu- Wildlife, Non-Migratory tion is that 60% comes from sources beyond the Waterfowl, and Pet Waste Bay region, mostly from the industrial states to the west. The federal Clean Air Act, last amended Non-migratory waterfowl, wildlife, and pet waste in 1990, is the primary regulation governing air take on particular significance as sources of quality. The Washington metropolitan area is in nonpoint pollution because they are primary noncompliance for standards and there- sources of fecal coliform bacteria (see Figure II.5). fore has had to implement a host of new emis- Fecal coliform contamination is the single reason sions standards to ensure that automobiles and why most Alexandria streams are unsafe for rec- stationary sources (such as power plants or other reation. While some sources of fecal coliform large ) are operating within their design lim- pollution are preventable through public educa- its. Because air quality is a regional issue, the tion (pet waste, for instance), other sources will Washington area’s program is coordinated by the require significantly more effort and planning in Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee order to achieve significant reductions. (MWAQC), of which Alexandria is a member. Al- exandria maintains an air quality monitoring sta- tion at the Health Department on North St. Asaph EROSION OF THE LAND Street.

III.3 Air pollution point sources in the City include the Alexandria-Arlington Waste-To- Facility (lo- Soil erosion is one of the most pressing pollution cated at 5301 Eisenhower Avenue), the Potomac problems faced by the City. Suspended sedi- River Station (coal fired power plant operated by ments choke and muddy local waterways mak- Potomac Electric and Power Company), and the ing them uninhabitable by desirable species of Newton Asphalt plant. These facilities meet or aquatic life. In addition, nutrients and other pol- exceed all U.S. EPA emission standards. Other lutants attach themselves to sediment particles significant air pollution sources include mobile and contribute to eutrophic conditions in the sources, such as automobiles and trucks and area Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. sources, such as lawn and garden equipment,

Soil erosion is most often the result of streambank erosion, improperly managed land uses, and land WATERFRONT AND DOCK development. The City has identified several ar- ACTIVITIES eas which are experiencing erosion problems (see Figure II.6). The City’s Erosion and Sediment III.5 Control Ordinance addresses soil erosion prob- lems during the site development process. Because of their proximity to the water, waterfront and dock activities have a very high potential to degrade water quality if they are not properly managed. Dock related pollution may result from improper use of cleaning agents on boats, im- proper disposal of toilet waste, improper disposal

39 Water Quality Management of hazardous materials (including gasoline and • The housing of proper spill containment used oil), leakage from engines, improper disposal equipment onsite. of fish wastes (gutting or cleaning), improper use • The posting of signs in conspicuous loca- of mollusk repellant copper paints, etc. Water- tions which state that discharge of any ma- front activities may also contribute litter and trash terial, including sewerage, directly into State to the water. waters is strictly prohibited. The signs should also indicate where the nearest Waterfront activities within the City are varied but out station is located. include docking and pedestrian activities along the Old Town waterfront and at the Washington Sailing Marina, commercial activities along Wa- AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN terfront Plaza, and recreational activities at Founders Park and Oronoco Bay Park. The City’s III.6 public access and design implementation plan for the waterfront is outlined in its 1982 “Alexandria Other areas of special concern are due to past Waterfront Design Plan.” industrial activities and contamination and include Potomac Yard, Cameron Station, the Alexandria Management of marinas and docking facilities for Gas Works/Oronoco Site, and the Bogle Chemi- water quality purposes is a joint responsibility of cal Company Site. The locations of these sites the Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- are found in Figure III.2. While Potomac Yard ity, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, and Cameron Station are for the most part closed and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Vir- issues, the Alexandria Gas Works/Oronoco Site ginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) has and the Bogle Chemical Company Site are ongo- established Criteria for the Siting of Marinas or ing issues. In addition to these areas, special Community Facilities for Boat Mooring (VR 450- areas of concern include closed landfill sites and 01-0047) which outlines proper best management other industrially contaminated sites. practices to ensure a marina’s compatibility with the environment. Potomac Yard

While all spills or accidental discharges to State The Potomac Yard is a recently decommissioned, waters must be reported to the VADEQ for 342-acre railyard straddling the City of Alexan- remediation, most marinas, including Alexandria’s, dria and Arlington County. Because of its rede- are not required to monitor water quality as part velopment potential (approximately 25% of the of their ongoing operations. Although the VADEQ site has already been redeveloped for commer- has the authority to require such monitoring, ac- cial uses) the site has been the subject of intense cording to the VADEQ, permits are very rarely investigations to determine the nature of chemi- required. Components of a marina permit, if re- cal contamination and risk to human health and quired, would include: the environment. This caution has been war- ranted for both human health and environmental • Periodic water quality monitoring for oil and reasons since some proposed redevelopment will grease, pH, temperature, organic carbon, be residential in nature and because stormwater and dissolved oxygen. runoff from the site enters lower Four Mile Run • Bottom sediment monitoring including ar- and the Potomac River. Stormwater enters Four senic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mer- Mile Run and the Potomac River via open ditches cury, nickel, zinc, lead, selenium, organic and underground culverts. The Potomac River carbon, and tributylin. discharge from the Yard is mixed with piped • An action plan to identify and remediate the stormwater from the City at its eastern boundary. source of any violation of water quality stan- dards. In 1997, the owners of the property, Common- wealth Atlantic Land Inc., submitted an “Off-Site

40 Water Quality Management

Ecological Assessment for the Potomac Yard Site” educate local residents on the proper use of pes- to the U.S. EPA to determine the extent that con- ticides in the home landscape. The drainage tamination has and will continue to impact on the ditches were cleaned up and contaminated ma- ecology of Four Mile Run and the Potomac River. terials were disposed of off-site. The report, while acknowledging the extent of contamination that has existed at the site, found The U.S. EPA considers the status of Potomac that “Sediments in the Four Mile Run and the Yard to be closed. Ongoing oversight of the con- Potomac River contain chemicals at levels that taminated sites, such as Potomac Yard is the re- are unlikely to be toxic to the species that are sponsibility of the Department of Transportation currently resident in the Potomac River and its and Environmental Services, Division of Environ- tributaries in the vicinity of the site.” Further, the mental Quality which is also responsible for en- report found that “Regional data and data col- suring that stormwater runoff from the site is lected near the site indicate that any contribution treated to meet requirements of the City’s Chesa- from the site is indistinguishable from regional peake Bay Preservation Ordinance. background concentrations.” Cameron Station The principal chemical sources at the Potomac Yard site are believed to be the coal cinder-based Cameron Station is a former 164-acre military in- ballast that was used as fill across most of the stallation, which is bordered on the south and east site, and past chemical releases that occurred by Backlick Run and Holmes Run. While some during rail yard operations. Cinder-based ballast contamination of the site resulted from day-to-day is a potential source of metals and possibly a trace operations (Cameron Station was not used for source of certain organic compounds that are weapons manufacture or heavy industrial activ- natural constituents of coal. Past surface releases ity), the contamination has been remediated and as a result of tank car spills or leaks, and day-to- redevelopment of the site is underway. day yard activities (e.g. fueling locomotives, oil changes) are additional sources of organic and Most contamination on the site, which was va- inorganic compounds. Extensive sampling con- cated in 1995, resulted from day-to-day activities ducted on the site prior to remedial activity veri- and were identified in six of twelve operational fied that metals (in particular arsenic) and units. Sources of contamination included the use, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the prin- storage, and past spill of PCB transformers, a cipal chemicals of concern at the site. These small landfill, use and storage areas, chemicals were relatively widespread across the sludge and grease traps associated with the site’s site and were present at elevated concentrations sewer system, petroleum contamination of in certain localized areas. These chemicals also pits, and leaking underground storage tanks. were detected in Four Mile Run and Potomac Remedial actions taken include excavation and River drainages at concentrations excess of disposal of soils in an off-site hazardous materi- ecotoxicological screening guidance values. It als landfill, soil capping and monitoring of the was this finding that resulted in the publication of onsite landfill, groundwater collection followed by the off-site ecological risk assessment. Chemi- air-stripping and in-situ , and ex- cals and metals detected in drainage ditches on cavation of contaminated soils and off-site dis- the site (at varying levels) include aluminum, ar- posal. senic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, chlo- rdane, endosulphan , endrin, endrin ketone, This site is currently undergoing redevelopment heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, PCB (1260), an- which will include commercial and residential thracene, benzanthracene, dibenzanthracene, uses. and flourene. The report found that at least some of the pesticides found in these drainage ditches was not from the site, but from stormwater runoff coming from neighboring communities and com- mercial areas. This indicates a need to better

41 Water Quality Management

Alexandria Gas Works/Oronoco Site saturated with the creosote material and the soil became discolored. A long-standing and difficult to address industrial contamination problem faced by the City is the Since that time, the City has attempted a number presence of a creosote discharge and contami- of other remedial actions and has worked with nation at the foot of Oronoco Street at Founders the Department of Environmental Quality/Waste Park. Creosote is a mixture of over 200 chemical Management and the U.S. EPA on how to best compounds and is obtained by fractional distilla- address the problem. A preliminary assessment tion of coal tar, which is a by-product of high tem- of the site was conducted by the Department of perature coking of bituminous coal. Creosote has Environmental Quality/ in been commercially used as a wood preservative 1992 which included extensive sampling of local on railroad ties, utility poles, lumber and timber, and posts and pilings for docks and foundations. FIGURE III.3 In September, 1975, an oil-like discharge was first Alexandria’s Industrial Heritage – 1877 Map observed at the storm sewer outfall at the east Showing City Gas Works and Other Industrial Uses end of Oronoco Street. Upon investigation, the City found that a strong solvent had dissolved the asphalt paving in the sewer pipeline between Lee Street and Union Street, and that the oil-like ma- terial was into the pipeline. The pipe- line, which was installed in 1974, was repaired with gunite, which prevented further infiltration of the material. However, in the fall of 1975, a dis- charge was again observed, this time from be- neath the pipe. In November, 1975, the end wall and outfall were made water tight, and again, the discharge stopped. In September 1976, the prob- lem reoccurred and the City constructed a grout curtain perpendicular to the pipeline and pumped grout around the pile and into the gravel bed. However, the discharge resumed in March, 1977. At this time, a pollution boom was installed at the outfall in order to capture creosote discharges. Creosote was then skimmed off the water on a daily basis.

In June, 1977, exploratory holes were drilled in the area of the former Alexandria Gas Works, at soils, water, and sediments. The report found that Lee Street and Oronoco Street and the soil was creosote continues to seep from shoreline soils found to be saturated with a coal-tar derivative. around the stormwater outfall. In addition, hy- As was discovered, the source of the discharge drologic pressure from nearby docking and un- was the creosote saturated soils of the old gas docking activities results in the resuspension of works, which operated on that site for 60 or 70 contaminated bottom sediments. In summary, the years prior to being closed in the 1930s. At the 1992 report found that “… contamination from the time, it was determined that there was nothing in coal gasification plant by-products has been ob- the City Code that would allow the City to compel served seeping into the Potomac River via the property owner to correct the source and that Oronoco Outfall. The major pathways of concern action (legal or otherwise) would be required on include the surface water migration pathway, soil the part of State or federal agencies. By this time, exposure pathway, and the air migration pathway. much of the riverbank near the outfall became Migration of contaminants through the surface

42 Water Quality Management water pathway has been observed. Contamina- few pesticides other than arsenic; however, sev- tion of the actual soil/sediment has also been eral including 2,4,5-T and Silvex were observed. A noticeable odor of creosote is present present in some samples. Site contamination, at the site. As the site is located on a large river according to the VSWCB, may have been caused where recreational fishing and sports are likely to by spillage or by an alleged daily practice of wash- occur, further source and surface water/sediment ing pesticide residues from railroad cars and drain- sampling is warranted.” ing the rinsate onto the ground.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that ex- ists in many forms and is commonly used as a In an effort to address the contamination at the pesticide. Arsenic is widely distributed in low con- Oronoco Outfall, the City applied and was ac- centrations in water as a result of natural sources cepted in the spring of 2000 into the Virginia Vol- and as a result of contamination through its manu- untary Remediation Program administered by the facture and application. In large amounts, Arsenic Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. can cause skin cancer, and if inhaled, lung can- The City’s objective is to determine the location cer. It can also affect the gastrointestinal tract and source of the contamination, how to prevent and liver. Acute poisoning (ala murder-mystery further discharges to the Potomac River and to style) causes death through heart failure. protect the public and the local environment. In 1975, the Bogle Company was issued an or- Bogle Chemical Company Site der to develop a short and long term solution to contaminated surface water runoff problems. The The R.H. Bogle Company site, although not an Bogle Company hired a contractor to perform a immediate threat to water quality, represents an groundwater study of the area and to develop a ongoing and long term management obligation. plan to control the potential harmful effects of the The R.H. Bogle Company was an for- contamination. The contractor concluded that: mulating facility located on approximately 5 acres in the area roughly bounded by Oronoco Street, • The majority of the arsenic contamination Union Street, Pendleton Street, and Lee Street. occurs within 15 feet of the surface. The facility handled several types of herbicides • Artesian pressure in a deeper aquifer will between the years 1924 and 1976. Arsenic triox- preclude downward movement of contami- ide and sodium arsenite were handled during the nants. period of 1924 to 1969. 2,4,5-T and Silvex were • The only significant movement of arsenic handled from the 1950s to the 1970s. These from the site is due to soil erosion and sur- herbicides arrived by rail, were stored in tanks face water runoff. on-site, formulated, and were loaded into railroad • Most of the arsenic remaining in the soil has spray cars for application to railroad right-of-ways. probably become insoluble due to chemi- cal reactions with soil constituents. In 1974, the Virginia State Water Control Board • The problem could be alleviated by devel- (VSWCB) discovered high concentrations of ar- oping the property using strict guidelines for senic in the soil at the Bogle site. Soil samples architectural design and disturbance of soil taken by the VSWCB showed arsenic concentra- during construction. tions ranging from 25 parts per million (ppm) up to 29,000 ppm over the 5 acre area. Arsenic con- These recommendations were accepted by both centrations in some of the sediment samples from City and State authorities and in 1978 the site Oronoco Bay, adjacent to the site, were greater was sold to Development Resources, Inc. The than 1,000 ppm. Samples taken during the most heavily contaminated areas of the site was VSWCB investigation were analyzed for only a capped with 18 inches of iron-rich clay to prevent arsenic migration. The clay cap extends from the south curb of Pendleton Street to the north curb

43 Water Quality Management of Oronoco Street. In the east-west direction, the been partially remediated as a result of the Carlyle cap extends from the western side of the development project. Other are located Robinson Terminal facility to the Dalton’s Warf on the east side of Hooffs Run at the Alexandria Townhouses. Dalton’s Warf was constructed in Wastewater Treatment Facility, in North Old Town 1980 and an office building and parking lot were (centered around Montgomery Street, First Street, constructed 1981. Restrictions placed on devel- Pitt Street, and Royal Street) and the northeast opment of the site (and incorporated into prop- corner of the City bordered by Commonwealth erty titles) included no basements or swimming Avenue, Four Mile Run and Route 1. These sites pools, strict dust control during construction, and are protected by a 1,000-foot potentially hazard- placement of polyethylene around buried utility ous area management area and are monitored lines. by the Department of Transportation and Envi- ronmental Services. The site is currently subject to a Consent Agree- ment from the U.S. EPA arising out of the investi- Other Hazardous Contamination gation of arsenic contamination. The Consent Sites Agreement states that “no construction of ground disturbance shall be undertaken on the property As Alexandria continues to develop and rede- prior to receipt by the Company (Development velop, it is likely that vestiges of Alexandria’s Resources, Inc.) or its successor interest of a industrial past will continue to be discovered. written authorization from the City Manager… and The Department of Transportation and Environ- … shall be conducted in accordance with any law- mental Services has the primary responsibility ful procedures established by the City Manager…” for addressing problem sites through the devel- The Consent Agreement also regulates the dis- opment process. posal of waste materials resulting from construc- tion or ground disturbance on the property.

In November, 1989, staff from the Virginia De- partment of Waste Management’s Pre-remedial Superfund Program conducted a Screening Site Inspection (SSI) to determine whether the site had the potential for off-site releases of compounds regulated by the Comprehensive Response Com- pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The re- sults of inorganic analyses of samples indicated significant levels (greater than or equal to five times background levels) primarily in the areas near the intersection of Pendleton Street and Union Street. No significant levels of inorganics were detected in any of the surface water samples. As a result, it was determined that cur- rent management practices were sufficient to pro- tect health and the environment.

Municipal Land Fill Sites

Closed municipal landfill sites are areas of po- tential concern only if improperly disturbed. Four abandoned municipal landfill sites are located within the City boundaries. One site, located on the west side of Hooffs Run near the Beltway, has

44 Water Quality Management Water Quality Management Today IV

Alexandria has adopted a sophisticated array of ordinances, regulations, and programs to address constraints to development, the preservation and management of water and natural resources, and the prevention and control of pollution. The City has worked diligently with State and federal agen- cies to bring its environmental and water quality protection programs into compliance with State and federal laws and regulations and has worked to implement its own programs to address locally identified environmental and water quality needs and concerns.

Responsibility for environmental protection in the City is a cooperative effort among four agencies including the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services, the Department of Plan- ning and Zoning, , the Department of Parks, Rec- reation, and Cultural Activities, and the Code En- forcement Bureau of the Fire Department. In addition, the City’s Environmental Policy Commis- sion provides citizen input and guidance into the development of Alexandria’s environmental poli- Alexandria has Spearheaded cies, programs, and regulations. Many City resi- Innovative Ways to Reduce Water dents and staff have gone above and beyond Pollution Such as this Rain Garden in compliance with regulations or participation in City West End programs and have taken active roles in promot- ing environmental stewardship. CONTENTS ■ The following is an overview of existing plans, City Master Plan regulations, ordinances, and programs related to ■ City Ordinances and water quality protection and management in the Regulations City. The purpose of this exercise is to provide a ■ foundation on which to assess the effectiveness City Programs of the City’s overall environmental efforts in light ■ State and Regional of the needs identified in previous sections. Sec- Programs tion V will compare identified needs with existing ■ programs as a means of identifying areas where Community Based Programs

45 Water Quality Management the City may need to increase or modify its pro- mum extent practicable. For these reasons, the tection efforts. City chose to implement a jurisdiction-wide Re- source Management Area (RMA) under its Chesa- CITY MASTER PLAN peake Bay Preservation Ordinance (see discus- sion in Section IV.2). It is also the intent of the IV.1 City that designated future land uses are com- patible with an area’s natural constraints (see The Master Plan is the principal guiding document Section II). that identifies the City’s priorities and provides a vision of how the City will grow both physically The Land Use Plan contains general policy state- and as a community. The Master Plan contains ments regarding the need to balance growth and background information, guidance, and policy in development with water quality and environmen- the areas of land use, housing, transportation, tal protection. However, it is also a goal of the community facilities, economics and finance, and City that each SAP is analyzed for opportunities urban design. In addition to these general poli- to protect and restore water quality during devel- cies, the Master Plan consists of several specific opment and redevelopment. “Area Plans” that provide for the detailed on-the- ground implementation of goals and policies. CITY ORDINANCES AND Goals and objectives relating to the protection of REGULATIONS the environment and water quality are found throughout the City’s Master Plan. This supple- IV.2 ment serves to wrap these goals and objectives into a cohesive water quality management and The City has enacted a number of ordinances and protection plan. regulations to protect the environment and water quality from the impacts of development and hu- Future Land Use Plan and Map man activity. In many instances, these ordinances and regulations implement State and/or federal Because what happens on the land directly af- requirements and mandates. For instance, the fects water quality, the City’s Land Use Plan and City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance Future Land Use Maps are integral components implements the State’s Chesapeake Bay Preser- of Alexandria’s water quality protection efforts. vation Act while the City’s Erosion and Sediment The goal of the Land Use Plan is to guide devel- Control Ordinance implements the State’s Sedi- opment in the City in a way that balances eco- ment and Erosion Control Law. The Floodplain nomic and community needs while protecting Overlay District of the City’s Zoning Ordinance is natural resources. The City has chosen to use required by the Federal Emergency Management Small Area Plans (SAPs) as an integral part of Agency (FEMA) in order for City residents to qual- the planning process to guide the City’s future ity for flood insurance. Other City ordinances re- development. The fourteen SAPs provide the lating to water quality and the environment include analytical base for detailed land use recommen- regulations affecting the preservation and main- dations affecting each of the City’s neighborhoods tenance of trees, shrubs, plants, and vegetation, and development areas. regulations prohibiting the improper disposal of pet waste, used oil, automotive fluids, and other The City intends that redevelopment in each of hazardous materials that may find their way to a the City’s SAPs will result in an incremental im- local stream through a storm drain, and pertinent provement in water quality. Furthermore, new sections of the Zoning Ordinance relating to de- development must be designed in a way that is velopment approvals and procedures. Additional sensitive to potential impacts on water quality and procedures relating to the water quality and the natural resources and steps must be taken to environment include Procedures for the Control avoid and minimize these impacts to the maxi- of Contaminated Land.

46 Water Quality Management

Collectively, these ordinances and regulations oped incorrectly, lead to reductions in water qual- provide the means by which the City protects its ity in the Chesapeake Bay and local streams, water quality and, in some unfortunate situations, , and rivers. In accordance with the guide- prosecute those who persist in abusing the City’s lines established by the Chesapeake Bay Pres- natural resources. ervation Area Designation and Management Regulations, the City mapped Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay Preservation Preservation Areas (CBPAs) and Alexandria Ordinance adopted a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District in 1992. The mapping of these Alexandria’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Or- areas, which include Resource Protection Areas dinance (Section 13-100 of the City Code) is one (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas of the City’s most visible and comprehensive wa- (RMAs), was based on a survey of existing natu- ter quality protection tools. This Ordinance imple- ral resources documentation and field surveys. ments the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Chapter 25, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia) Resource Protection Areas – RPAs are lands which was enacted in recognition that the Chesa- at or near the shoreline containing components peake Bay was on the verge of becoming an eco- which are especially sensitive because of (1) the logical disaster area in part because of uncon- intrinsic value of the ecological and biological pro- trolled nonpoint source pollution from urban and cesses they perform which benefit water quality, agricultural areas. However, the Chesapeake Bay or (2) the potential for impacts that may cause was only the most visible manifestation of a larger significant degradation to the quality of State wa- problem. In addition to the Chesapeake Bay, lo- ters. cal streams and watersheds were also suffering the effects of pollution and many could no longer The RPA designation within the City includes tidal support aquatic life. wetlands, nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or tributary The primary purpose of the Chesapeake Bay streams, tidal shores, tributary streambeds not Preservation Ordinance is to prevent any increase owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a in nonpoint source pollution from new develop- 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent ment and to reduce nonpoint source pollution by to and landward of all previously listed compo- at least 10% as a result of redevelopment. In nents and all tributary streams. The only uses addition, the City of Alexandria has committed to: permitted by right in the RPA are redevelopment and water dependent facilities. As a result, these ■ Protect existing high quality state waters and lands are excluded from new development in most restore all other State waters to a condition or instances. quality that will permit all reasonable public uses, and will support the propagation and Resource Management Areas – RMAs include growth of all aquatic life which might reason- land types that, if improperly developed, have the ably be expected to inhabit them; potential for causing significant water quality deg- ■ Safeguard the clean waters of the Common- radation or for diminishing the functional value of wealth from pollution; the RPA. All lands in the City, not included in an ■ Prevent any increase in pollution; RPA, constitute the RMA since all such land drains ■ Reduce existing pollution; and through natural or man-made channels to the ■ Conserve water resources in order to provide Potomac River. for the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future citizens of the Common- Development and redevelopment within the RMA wealth. must meet several performance criteria to mini- mize impacts on water quality. Performance cri- To accomplish these goals, the Ordinance estab- teria include preventing an increase in nonpoint lishes a program to protect environmentally sen- source pollution as a result of new development sitive features which, when disturbed or devel- based on a City-wide average, decreasing

47 Water Quality Management nonpoint source pollution by 10% during redevel- ity of greater than 2,500 square feet (reduced from opment, minimizing land disturbance during de- 10,000 square feet under the City’s Chesapeake velopment, maximizing the preservation of native Bay Preservation Ordinance) must first submit an vegetative cover, and minimizing impervious sur- erosion and sediment control plan to the City faces for the desired land use. In addition, the Department of Transportation and Environmen- Ordinance requires that a 100 foot vegetated tal Services. buffer area must be preserved along all RPA fea- tures and tributary streams and in some cases, The following is an abbreviated list of the basic reestablished if one does not presently exist or is principles of the City’s E&S Ordinance. The de- in poor condition. veloper must refer to the City Code for a com- plete description of requirements. The criteria are intended to establish rules that local governments can use in granting, denying ■ Measures must be taken to stabilize denuded or modifying requests to rezone, subdivide, or to areas and soil stockpiles. use and develop land in the RMAs and RPAs. ■ Permanent vegetative cover must be estab- Implementation of the criteria is achieved through lished on denuded areas not otherwise per- use of performance standards, structural pollu- manently stabilized. tion management facilities (also known as BMPs, ■ Adjacent properties must be protected from or best management practices), and various plan- sediment deposition. ning and zoning concepts. ■ Measures intended to trap sediment on-site must be constructed as a first step in grading Map IV.1 presents the City’s Chesapeake Bay and be made functional before upslope land Preservation Area Map. It should be noted that it disturbance takes place. is the designation criteria identified in the Chesa- ■ Stormwater runoff from drainage areas greater peake Bay Preservation Ordinance which is bind- than three acres must be controlled by a sedi- ing, and when conflicts between the Chesapeake ment basin. Bay Preservation Area Map and the designation ■ Cut and fill slopes must be designed and con- criteria arise, the designation criteria prevail. structed in a manner than minimizes erosion. ■ Downstream properties and waterways must Erosion and Sediment Control be protected from sediment deposition, ero- Ordinance sion and damage due to increases in the vol- ume and velocity of stormwater runoff as a The purpose of the City’s Erosion and Sediment result of site disturbance. Control Ordinance (Section 5-4-1 et seq) is to ■ Onsite waterways must be designed and con- prevent the degradation of local soil and water structed to withstand expected velocity and resources as a result of land-disturbing activities volume of flow. by ensuring that the owner of the property on ■ Disturbance of natural waterways be construc- which land disturbing activities are being carried tion vehicles and activities must be minimized. out provides adequate controls of erosion and ■ Conservation practices for erosion and sedi- sedimentation. The City’s E&SC Ordinance also ment control must be equal to or exceed the requires the land owner to take necessary mea- specifications of those contained in the most sures to preserve and protect trees and other recent edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sedi- vegetation during all phases of any land-disturb- ment Control Handbook. ing activity. The E&SC Ordinance implements the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§§ Flood Control and Floodplain 21-89.1 et seq., Code of Virginia (1950)) as well Overlay District as the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The purpose of the City’s Floodplain Overlay Dis- Under the E&S Ordinance, land owners propos- trict (Section 6-300 of the City Code) is to prevent ing a nonexempt regulated land disturbing activ- the loss of life and property, the creation of health

48 Water Quality Management and safety hazards, the disruption of commerce Run, Backlick Run, Holmes Run, and Hooffs Run. and governmental services, and unnecessary The largest channel, Four Mile Run, is inspected expenditure of public funds for flood protection by City personnel at least quarterly, and before as a result of improper development within the periods of expected heavy rainfall. As needed floodplain. The floodplain districts throughout the the City removes silt and debris from ditches, City are shown on Map IV.2 entitled “Floodplain swales, and open channels in the City. On aver- Map, The City of Alexandria, Virginia” adopted age, the City removes over 1,750 cubic yards of May 15, 1991. The City’s floodplain management silt a year from the Four Mile Run channel alone. regulations are in compliance with the floodplain management criteria set forth in regulations pro- Since the early 1970s, the City has also required mulgated by the Federal Insurance Administra- new development to provide on-site stormwater tion of the Federal Emergency Management Ad- detention in order to prevent downstream flood- ministration. ing, protect remaining natural stream channels, and in some cases, to reduce the need for further The floodplain within the City is defined as the channelization. As of 1992, there were 135 100-year flood level. In general, buildings or struc- stormwater control structures located within the tures and their extension and accessory buildings City. may be constructed or substantially improved only in accordance with specific requirements. Among Regulation of Trees, Shrubs, Plants, these requirements is that new structures or ad- and Vegetation ditions must be appropriately flood proofed and any alteration (including development or fill) may In order to protect and maintain vegetation planted not increase flood levels by more than one-half on private property as a result of the site plan or foot. subdivision processes, and in order to promote and protect trees and vegetation on public spaces, Floodprone areas of the City are associated with the City has adopted regulations governing the Four Mile Run, Cameron Run, Holmes Run, removal and maintenance of trees, shrubs, plants, Backlick Run, Lucky Run, Strawberry Branch, and vegetation (Section 6-2-1 et seq). Implemen- Hooffs Run, Timber Branch, Taylor Run, and low tation of these regulations is the responsibility of lying areas along the Potomac River. the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cul- tural Activities and the City Arborist. In general, Although primarily meant as a means to protect the regulations restrict the removal or destruction life and property from the devastating effects of of trees on properties subject to site plans or ap- flooding, the Floodplain Overlay District, in com- proval of a subdivision plat. bination with designated Chesapeake Bay Pres- ervation Areas, serves to protect wildlife habitat Regulation of Dog Waste and the corridors and sensitive soils in the City’s remain- Prohibition of Disposal of Refuse and ing natural stream reaches from improper or in- Debris into Storm Sewers tensive development. Storm sewers serve as direct conduits from streets In addition to floodplain regulations, the City man- and parking lots to neighborhood streams and ages several stream channelization projects which eventually the Potomac River and Chesapeake help to minimize the potential for flooding in ex- Bay. The Alexandria City Code (Section 5-6-31) isting neighborhoods and commercial areas. The prohibits the placement of any kind of material in City has invested considerable resources into catchbasins or manholes of any public sewer, in- these projects to prevent the type of flooding that cluding but not limited to common pollutants such devastated Arlandria and other areas of Alexan- as trash, paint, antifreeze, and used oil. Specifi- dria during the 1960s and 1970s. Major cally relating to the control of animal feces, which channelization projects are located in the follow- is a primary source of fecal coliform bacteria in ing receiving bodies: Four Mile Run, Cameron City streams, Section 5-7-42(3) prohibits know-

49 Water Quality Management

ingly or willingly allowing an animal to defecate be charged under the state code with fines of up on public property unless the owner of the dog to one million dollars. immediately removes the material and disposes of it in a safe manner. A civil penalty of $50 can Prohibition of Automobile be assessed for violating this provision. Maintenance on City Streets

Prohibition of Dumping Hazardous Even in the absence of malice, maintenance of Wastes Including Used Oil automobiles is one of the primary sources of toxic pulses in urban streams and creeks. Even for Hazardous wastes, including used motor oil, those who exercise caution, it is difficult to pre- present an immediate risk not only to the envi- vent some spillage of used oil, antifreeze, or other ronment, but to human health as well. In addition automobile fluid during major repairs or mainte- to Section 5-6-31 of the City Code (discussed nance. Frequently, individuals will choose to above), the dumping of hazardous and flammable maintain vehicles on a City street because it rep- materials is regulated under the Virginia State- resents a convenient way to dispose of used flu- wide Fire Prevention Code. The Fire Prevention ids or so that small “drips” do not mar the owner’s Code is incorporated by reference into the City driveway or garage. Section 10-4-13 “Stopping Code under Section 4-2-12. In instances where for Purpose of Sale, Repairs, etc.” specifically used oil or other hazardous materials have been prohibits any vehicular repair in any public park, dumped, the City’s Fire Department may issue wildlife sanctuary, or public parking lot. The pro- citations and impose a fine of up to $2,500 or one vision also prohibits any activity that results in the year imprisonment. Significant violators may also drainage of a any fluid other than water from a motor vehicle. Violators are subject to a traffic infraction punished by a fine not to exceed $100. FIGURE IV.1 “No Dumping” Signs Along a Residential Street Zoning Ordinance Development Approval Procedures

The City’s development approval procedures un- der its Zoning Ordinance (Section 11-100) pro- vide for a number of actions that must be observed during the development process in order to mini- mize environmental impacts, ensure compliance with environmental regulations, and remedy en- vironmental problems. Pertinent sections of the development approval procedures include, but may not be limited to the following.

■ Preliminary site plans must show the gen- eral location of slopes, terraces, and re- taining walls, major trees and shrubs, natural and artificial watercourses and bodies of water and wetlands, limit of floodplain, limit of designated Resource Protection Areas, significant geological features, areas that can reasonable be expected to or which do contain soils or materials contaminated with but not lim- “No Dumping” Signs Alert Residents to the Legal ited to heavy metals, petroleum products, and Environmental Ramifications of Dumping Oil PCBs, pesticides, flyash, or other toxic or

50 Water Quality Management

hazardous materials, underground stor- ■ The Office of the City manager has over- age tanks, areas located within 1,000 feet all responsibility for the effective imple- of a former sanitary landfill, dump, or dis- mentation of procedures. posal area, areas with the potential of ■ The Department of Transportation and generating combustible gasses. Environmental Services, in cooperation ■ Plans for collecting and depositing with the Department of Planning and Zon- stormwater and the method used of treat- ing, is responsible for identification of con- ment of natural and artificial watercourses, taminated areas and technical coordina- including a delineation of proposed limits tion with other City departments and the of floodplains. Planning Commission regarding any pro- ■ Plans to remediate, remove, or control any posed land use control measures. contaminated soils, materials, under- ■ The Department of Transportation and ground storage tanks, combustible cases, Environmental Services in consultation or old landfills, dumps, or disposal areas. with the Health Department, is responsible ■ Plans for minimizing the impact on exist- for formulating the necessary public health ing or developing wetland or for the cre- and safety requirements needed in each ation of new wetlands. particular case and for coordinating with appropriate federal and State agencies. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with these ■ The Department of Transportation and procedures rests with the Planing Commission, Environmental Services is also respon- the Department of Planning and Zoning, the sible for ensuring that all public works in Health Department, and the Department of Trans- the area conform to public health and portation and Environmental Services. safety requirements. ■ The Code Enforcement Bureau is respon- Procedures for the Control of sible for informing all appropriate depart- Contaminated Land ments of all applications for construction permits of any type and for demolition During the 1970s, it became apparent that many permits related to a contaminated site and areas of Alexandria had become contaminated assure that buildings are designed and to a point where development and redevelopment constructed in a manner that contamina- would pose a safety hazard without proper tion will not affect health or safety. remediation. As a result, the City has set out pub- lic actions regarding the use, development, and control of land which has become contaminated CITY PROGRAMS with substances posing a danger to public health or to marine life. Contaminants of specific con- IV.3 cern include levels of methane gas that may be considered unsafe for conventional construction In addition to City regulations and ordinances, and levels of arsenic and/or creosote that war- Alexandria has implemented several programs rant special precautionary measures or controls. that are aimed at reducing environmental and Other contaminants may include petroleum hy- water pollution. These programs have been drocarbons, heavy metals, PCBs, etc. adopted to meet specific needs that have been identified by the City, and collectively, address a The City acknowledges that each situation is wide range of pollutants and provide significant unique and requires individual attention through benefits to the environment. appropriate technical reviews depending on the type of contaminant, the degree and extent of Street Sweeping/Flushing and Catch contamination, and location. In general, the fol- Basin Cleaning Program lowing offices and departments are responsible for procedures for the control of contaminated A significant portion of pollutants entering local land. streams come from runoff from street surfaces.

51 Water Quality Management

Many of these pollutants, in addition to affecting sweeper and flushes remaining pollutants that are water quality, are also an aesthetic nuisance. Al- not picked up by the sweeper into stormdrains exandria has a long tradition of using street with a high powered hose. Because the CSS area sweepers for aesthetic purposes and first estab- drains to the Alexandria Wastewater Treatment lished its program in the 1900s. More recently, Facility, the flushed water is treated to a very high street sweeping has been recognized for its wa- degree – resulting in significant water quality ben- ter quality benefits. Although less effective at trap- efits. It should be noted that this program can ping fine particles (which often have nutrients at- only work in the CSS area since other areas of tached), sweeping is very effective at removing the City do not drain to a treatment facility. litter, larger sediments, and sands. According to various sources, street sweepers can remove up Catch basins, which often trap litter and other to 50% of all street surface pollutants. Today, large debris, are also cleaned with a frequency of water quality is a primary reason for the continu- once per week to three times per year, depend- ance of the City’s street sweeping program. ing on the observed rate of accumulation.

Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program FIGURE IV.2 Alexandria Street Sweeper One of the most effective ways to reduce pol- lutants in urban areas is to retrofit existing de- velopment with stormwater quality facilities (or best management practices, BMPs). Since the City of Alexandria adopted a stormwater qual- ity management program in 1992 as part of its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, over 1,000 acres of urban BMP retrofits have been installed within the City under its Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program.

The objective of this program is to enhance the mandatory requirements of the Chesa- peake Bay Program with additional treatment of stormwater runoff from built up areas that would otherwise not be required to implement water quality protection measures.

Street Sweeping Results in Significant Upon adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Pres- Water Quality and Aesthetic Benefits ervation Ordinance, Alexandria staff made a survey of the City to identify opportunities for future urban BMP retrofitting. Staff members Alexandria’s mechanical and vacuum street who review development proposals were directed sweepers, which are operated by the Department to discuss with developers the possibility for in- of Transportation and Environmental Services, cluding the retrofit of neighboring preexisting de- serve over 600 lane miles at a frequency of once velopment. Particular attention was paid to al- a week to once a month, depending on need. ready existing ponds and basins, which might be adapted in the future for service as regional In addition to sweeping, the City runs a “street stormwater detention basins. flushing” program in areas served by the City’s combined sewer system (CSS). In these areas A substantial part of Alexandria’s retrofit program (primarily Old Town), a street flusher follows the has been fully and voluntarily paid for by devel-

52 Water Quality Management

FIGURE IV.3 Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program Sites

Park Center Regional Stormwater ED Facility 245.0 Acre Watershed 1 236.9 Acres Urban Retrofit

Winkler Run Regional Stormwater Retention Facility Episcopal Seminary Regional Stormwater Retention Facility 221 Acre Watershed Slator's Village Regional 51 Acre Watershed 126.7 Acres Urban Retrofit Stormwater ED Facility 51 Acres Urban Retrofit 58.1 Acre Watershed (Under Construction) 38.0 Acres Urban Retrofit

395 Quaker Lane Quaker

King Street

Landmark Shopping Center

Duke Street

Lake Cook Regional Stormwater Retention Facility 385 Acre Watershed Cameron Lakes Regional 385 Acres Urban Retrofit Stormwater Retention Facility 246.8 Acre Watershed 149.3 Acres Urban Retrofit

Source: Department of Transportation and Environmental Services, 1998. opers of adjacent downhill properties. Specific This program won a Community Innovation Award projects include Winkler Run Pond, Lake Cook from the Chesapeake Bay Program in 1997 out Retrofit, Cameron Lakes Retrofit, Park Center of recognition of the City’s efforts. Basin Retrofit, and Potomac Yards South Retro- fit. Figure IV.3 provides a map of areas of the Best Management Practices Manual City retrofitted as a result of the program. for Automotive Related Industries

The result is that Alexandria has been able to ret- Service stations and other automotive related in- rofit a total of 1,007 acres since 1992 (23% of dustries present a specific risk to water quality State goals under Virginia’s Tributary Strategy because hazardous fluids are handled in an open nutrient reduction program). Total annual phos- area by many different people. To help these phorus removal from these projects is estimated businesses understand the implications of their at 2,832 pound a year while total annual total ni- actions and determine preventative measures, the trogen removal is estimated at 11,514 pounds. City of Alexandria has produced a “Best Manage- Alexandria continues to seek partnerships with ment Practices Manual for Automotive Related developers in order to accomplish even more ret- Industries.” rofit within the City.

53 Water Quality Management

The practices described in the manual help an FIGURE IV.4 automotive shop to keep heavy metals, oil, Public Education Materials Help to Provide grease, and other pollutants out of local streams. Information on Alternatives to Dumping The practices are outlined to help assist busi- nesses in complying with the environmental re- quirements of the City, as well as State and fed- eral agencies.

Fourteen recommended practices are keyed to specific shop activities and four advanced man- agement practices are suggested to control pol- lution from more severe problems. Many of the practices are straightforward and should already be in place at the shop. Key components of the manual include running a dry shop, being a zero discharger, closing of the loop (that is, reusing or recycling hazardous materials), properly training employees, and keeping customers informed. Over 35 manuals have been distributed to auto- motive businesses in the City as of 1998.

Hazardous Waste and Used Oil Collection Programs

In order to encourage City residents to dispose of hazardous waste and used oil in an environ- mentally sound manner, and to provide an alter- native to dumping, the Recycling Division hosts a Household Waste Collection Day for City residents twice a year. A flyer (see Figure IV.4) is distrib- uted to all residents announcing the date and lo- cation of hazardous waste pick ups. By making it easy to dispose of these substances, it is more likely that residents will not be tempted to dump of recycling stations, there is currently no means these substances into stormdrains or wooded of informing the general public of their locations. areas. The highly successful program, which is free of charge to City residents, has been in ex- istence since 1987. Leaf Collection Program

In addition to Hazardous Household Waste Days, Although leaf particles (called detritus) provide the Recycling Division works with City service sta- excellent food for aquatic species, an overabun- tions to collect used oil on a day-to-day basis as dance of detritus can represent a significant a public service. Participation by City service sta- source of local nutrient pollution. Since 1965, the tions in this program is voluntary. As of 1998, City has run a leaf vacuuming program to ensure four stations accepted used motor oil. The num- that the City’s streams are not overwhelmed and ber of stations accepting motor oil has decreased choked by large quantities of leaf debris. significantly from prior years. While the Depart- ment of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities Every spring, the City hires a contractor to grind has created and distributed a pamphlet to address the leaves that were collected the previous fall dumping “hot spots,” which includes the locations and turn them into mulch. This mulch is an effec-

54 Water Quality Management tive natural substitute for commercial fertilizers ALEXANDRIA SANITATION and is available free for self-hauling at the City’s AUTHORITY mulching site. IV.4 Sanitary Sewer Line Inspection and Maintenance Program One of the most significant, yet least celebrated of Alexandria’s contributions to the health of the Although the City performs routine maintenance Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River is the and inspection of its sewer lines, Alexandria has planned upgrade of the Alexandria Wastewater embarked on a multi-year effort to detect elicit Treatment Facility (AWTF) by the Alexandria Sani- connections to sewer lines and to locate areas of tation Authority (ASA). The ASA is a public body groundwater inflow (into the system) and sewage organized under the provisions of the Virginia infiltration (into the surrounding soils) in the Four Water and Sewer Authorities Act that was char- Mile Run sewershed. Inflow of surface water and tered in 1953 for the purpose of “acquiring, con- groundwater during wet weather can overwhelm structing, improving, extending, operating, and the system. At the same time, leakage from sani- maintaining a sewage disposal system.” The ASA tary sewer lines into the environment can pollute serves almost all of Alexandria as well as the local streams. The Department of Transportation Fairfax County portion of the Cameron Run wa- and Environmental Services is the lead agency tershed. Located on South Payne Street, the for this effort. The results of the initial study, will AWTF was upgraded in 1984 to treat 54 million be used to develop a plan for mitigating signifi- gallons a day, or approximately 5 billion gallons cant problems. of waste water per year.

School-Age Water and Environmental During 1997, two events resulted in a decision by Education Programs the ASA to upgrade its facilities to meet more strin- gent water quality requirements as well as volun- Educating the City’s youth to respect their natu- tary water quality goals. First, Virginia began to ral environment is the most effective way to pro- aggressively pursue its nutrient reduction com- tect water quality in the future. The Park Plan- mitments (a 40% reduction in phosphorus and ning Division of the City’s Department of Parks, nitrogen from a 1985 baseline) under the inter- Recreation, and Cultural Activities has developed state Chesapeake Bay Agreements. Since much several programs aimed at increasing environ- of the reduction would require upgrades to the mental awareness among the City’s elementary, region’s wastewater treatment facilities, the ASA junior, and high school students. One such pro- staff assisted the Virginia Association of Munici- gram, called the “Stream Team” involved students pal Wastewater Agencies (VAMWA) in preparing from Hammond Junior High School who adopted workable nutrient control legislation that was and monitored a stretch of Holmes Run from the adopted by the State legislature and signed by Dora Kelly Nature Park to Shirley Highway. The the Governor. This legislation is significant in its project not only inspired many students to recog- voluntary approach to water quality improve- nize Holmes Run as more than a ribbon of dirty ments, as opposed to the traditional command water, but also resulted in the collection of valu- and control approach. Significantly, the resultant able information on the health of the stream and legislation, named the Water Quality Improvement sources of pollutants. The Park Planning Division Act, included a funding mechanism to help pay also routinely works with Boy Scouts and other up to 50% of the capital costs of upgrades. groups on small erosion control and litter clean up projects. Second, the State Water Control Board approved the Potomac Embayment Policy in April, 1997, which changed the level of overall treatment needed by the ASA plant and other plants which discharge into the Potomac River. With the adop-

55 Water Quality Management tion of the Potomac Embayment Policy, and in expanded to allow for watershed-wide water qual- consideration of the Water Quality Improvement ity programs. Act and the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, the With regard to already contaminated sites in the ASA is now required to design and install up- City, Alexandria is working with property owners graded facilities to meet more stringent water and the VADEQ under the relatively new Virginia quality requirements. In May of 1997, the ASA Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). The City Board authorized a notice to proceed to its engi- neering consulting firm to begin the design work necessary to upgrade the ASA’s facilities. The FIGURE IV.5 primary upgrade is a process known as biologi- Chesapeake Bay Education Plaque at Oronoco Park cal nutrient removal, or BNR. The BNR upgrade is expected to become operational in April of 2002 and construction is anticipated to be completed by the end 2005. Estimates place the total costs of the upgrade at $200-to 240 million, much of which will be paid by Alexandria and Fairfax County citizens who use the facility.

Despite the cost, the environmental benefits of the AWTF upgrade will be far reaching. Total ni- trogen flow to the Potomac River will be reduced by 53% from 1985 base-year levels (1,994,000 lbs/yr to 920,500 lbs/yr) while total phosphorus flow to the Potomac will be reduced by 59% (16,300 lbs/yr to 6,600 lbs/yr).

This Chesapeake Bay Education Plaque was presented to STATE, FEDERAL, AND REGIONAL the City by the Chesapeake Bay Commission in recogni- PROGRAMS tion of Alexandria’s contributions to urban water quality.

IV.5 has entered into the VRP for the Alexandria Gas Works / Oronoco Outfall site. The VRP provides Many water quality management and environmen- a mechanism for willing owners of contaminated tal programs and regulations are implemented at land to clean up their sites under minimal gov- the State, federal, and regional levels. The City ernment oversight in exchange for State approval works together with these agencies in order to of the clean up. Under the VRP, parties negoti- reduce duplication of efforts and to pool collec- ate a Site Characterization/Remedial Action tive resources. Workplan with the VADEQ. Upon successful completion of the plan, the State issues a Certifi- The Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- cation of Satisfactory Completion which provides ity (VADEQ) monitors and enforces State regula- that the VADEQ cannot pursue further enforce- tions concerning underground storage tanks, in- ment action against past, present, or future own- dustrial and wastewater treatment facility outfalls, ers of the property for the contamination. This wetlands protection, and air quality. Alexandria State “seal of approval” is likely to be important to participates in the Northern Virginia Regional potential purchasers, lenders, and developers Commission’s Four Mile Run flood control pro- Alexandria is an active participant in the Metro- gram which requires new development and rede- politan Washington Air Quality Committee velopment to provide onsite detention. The pro- (MWAQC). Airborne deposition from automobiles gram, with Alexandria’s support, has recently been and power plants is a major contributor to water

56 Water Quality Management quality problems. MWAQC provides the frame- tour, are all representative of the diversity of ac- work for how the region will come into compli- tivities and opportunities. ance with federal Clean Air Act standards for ozone. Alexandria maintains one ambient air Held each year in the spring at various parks quality monitoring station on North St. Asaph within the City, Alexandria Earth Day is evi- Street in Old Town. dence of the power of public-private partner- ships. Finally, City staff actively participate on the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Government’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Subcommittee and monitor the activities of the federal Chesapeake Bay Program. In 1997, Alexandria was presented with an “Award for Community Innovation” from the Chesapeake Bay Program for its Targets of Opportunity Urban Retrofit Program.

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS IV.6 Alexandria Earth Day

Alexandria Earth Day is the premier community- based environmental awareness festival that of- fers a host of events and activities to further edu- cate the citizens of Alexandria about the impor- tance of protecting the City’s natural heritage.

Alexandria Earth Day was first established in 1994, and the most recent event (1997) had over 65 exhibitors, two stages of entertainment, a 4-H Expo and talent show, a school project competi- tion (with over 150 student entries), and a cel- ebration of Arbor Day. The Alexandria Earth Day Committee also produces a widely distributed Al- exandria Earth Day Environmental Almanac that features articles by Alexandrians about the envi- ronment and its affects on the quality of life in Alexandria.

Alexandria Earth Day is officially co-sponsored by the Alexandria Environmental Policy Commis- sion, the Office of Special Events of the Depart- ment of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Activities, the Virginia Cooperative Extension, and the Al- exandria Volunteer Bureau. The school project competition (remanded the Youth in Action Envi- ronmental Project Competition), the petting zoo, Arbor Day, the Archaeology dig, recycling, the bike

57 Water Quality Management

58 Water Quality Management Policy Analysis and Action Plan V

The purpose of this section is to examine the City’s environmental and water quality protection ordi- nances described in Section IV in light of the City’s desire to protect its sensitive natural resources, avoid improper land uses on areas with con- straints to development, and reduce or eliminate existing and potential sources of pollution. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the strengths of the City’s environmental and water quality pro- tection programs and to develop a strategic wa- ter quality protection plan to address issues and concerns that are not adequately accounted for by existing City programs. The results of this analysis are used as the basis of specific goals and action statements.

This section, much like the rest of the document, is organized along the lines of meeting the Chesa- peake Bay Local Assistance Department’s four critical areas including: 1998 Earth Day Celebration (1) Constraints to Development; Alexandria Environmental Almanac (2) Protection of Water Quality; (3) Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control; CONTENTS (4) Public and Private Access to Waterfront I Constraints to Areas; and, Development (5) Redevelopment of Intensely Developed I Protection of Water Areas. Quality I Shoreline Protection In addition, this section addresses issues relating and Erosion Control to the overall coordination of City environmental I Public and Private and water quality goals, policies and outreach pro- Access to Waterfront grams as well as alternative financing strategies. Areas I Role of Small Area Plans Redevelopment Areas I Overall Outreach and Since most detailed land use planning is accom- Coordination plished through the City’s fourteen Small Area I Potential Funding Plans (SAPs), it is the City’s intent that this Water Mechanisms

59 Water Quality Management

Quality Management supplement serve as an Management Practices to treat stormwater. overlay to the planning and development process It may be possible to use some wetland ar- and should be referenced accordingly. However, eas as open space and for environmental to provide a stronger link between each SAP and education purposes. A local example in- this supplement, as part of the five year review of cludes wetland areas of Dora Kelly Nature the master plan, the City will work to incorporate Park and the privately owned Winkler Bo- into each SAP: a discussion of the City’s long- tanical Preserve. Additional opportunities range water quality protection policies and strat- for using wetlands as educational tools will egies, SAP-specific Chesapeake Bay Preserva- be investigated. tion Area maps, and an SAP-specific analysis of opportunities to protect and improve water qual- (3) There are several degraded wetlands in Al- ity and the environment through planned devel- exandria that may have the potential to be opment and redevelopment opportunities. restored for wildlife habitat or stormwater quality management purposes. Opportuni- CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT ties to restore degraded wetlands or to cre- ate new wetlands will continue to be ex- V.1 plored in conjunction with the City’s Targets of Opportunity Stormwater Retrofit Program Constraints to development within the City include and should be explored as part of any large topography, geology and soils, wetlands, wildlife project, including the reconstruction of the habitat corridors, and groundwater recharge ar- . eas (see Figure V.1 for a generalized constraints to development map). Many of these areas are Topography well identified since Alexandria has been substan- tially built-out for a number of years. In addition, (1) Areas of steep topography outside of the many sensitive areas have already been built City’s stream valleys and designated Re- upon, making constraints to development more source Protection Areas are limited. Steep of a reactive management issue except in the slopes outside of these areas are managed cases of large scale redevelopment. by the Resource Management Area require- ments of the City’s Chesapeake Bay Pres- Wetlands ervation Ordinance and the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. (1) The City has mapped its wetlands accord- ing to the Federal Manual for Delineating Geology and Soils Jurisdictional Wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (in cooperation with the (1) The primary constraints posed by geology U.S. EPA, the Virginia Department of Envi- and soils in the City are areas subject to ronmental Quality, and the City) has primary flooding, high water table, and marine clays responsibility for enforcing wetland regula- (shrink-swell). These areas have been iden- tions. Developers must certify to the City, tified and mapped by the City. The City will under its Chesapeake Bay Preservation continue to protect these areas from inap- Ordinance, that all wetland permits have propriate development to prevent loss of life been obtained prior to land disturbance. and property and water quality degradation through the Virginia Uniform Building Code (2) While remaining healthy wetlands should and the City’s Floodplain Overlay District. generally be left alone or protected , when impacts do occur the City will try to mitigate (2) The City recognizes the utility of having an the impacts through wetland creation or up-to-date soils map for the purpose of iden- enhancement, improvements to riparian ar- tifying potential constraints to development. eas, or through the use of creative Best The last soil survey for the City was con-

60 Water Quality Management

FIGURE V.1 Generalized Constraints to Development Map

61 Water Quality Management

ducted in 1915 by the U.S. Department of revegetation of denuded stream buffers in Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Since that time, the City, Alexandria must be proactive in development and redevelopment, as well as identifying denuded buffer areas and habi- changes in soil classifications, has reduced tat that can be restored. The City will iden- the usefulness of this survey. A long range tify, characterize, and map stream-side ar- goal of the City is to work with the National eas which have limited or no vegetation but Resource Conservation Service to produce have the potential to be restored (in con- an updated soils map of Alexandria. junction with Action 2 under Wildlife Habitat Corridors). The City will identify areas which Wildlife Habitat Corridors can be revegetated through the redevelop- ment process (see Action 2 under Redevel- (1) Except for where flood control or utility main- opment Areas) or through coordination with tenance is a consideration, existing publicly citizen volunteers and not-for-profit groups owned stream valley habitat corridors will (primarily projects on publicly-owned land) remain in a natural state with provisions and prioritize areas which will most benefit made for passive recreational opportunities. water quality and wildlife habitat. Likewise, stream valley corridors on private property will continue to be managed in ac- Floodplains cordance with the provisions of the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Ordinance. (1) The City will protect residences and busi- nesses from the potentially devastating ef- (2) The City will identify, characterize, and map fects of flooding by prohibiting inappropri- remaining significant natural habitat areas ate development within floodplains as des- (including streams and stream valleys as ignated by the Federal Emergency Manage- well as isolated groves). ment Agency. Floodplains are protected in the City through vigorous enforcement of the (3) Habitat fragmentation is a significant chal- City’s Floodplain Overlay District, which, lenge to maintaining a healthy ecosystem among other requirements, states that new in Alexandria. Streets that criss-cross the structures must be appropriately flood landscape cut off wildlife populations from proofed and that new structures and/or al- food sources and result in a danger to driv- terations to existing structures may not in- ers as animals attempt to cross roadways. crease flood levels by more than one-half In response to habitat fragmentation con- foot. The City’s floodplain map is up-to-date cerns, the Virginia Department of Transpor- (last revised in 1991). tation has recently approved a culvert de- sign that includes a raised concrete area for Groundwater Recharge Areas small animals to traverse the culvert. This design alternative is significantly more cost- (1) Since Alexandria’s primary groundwater re- effective than other mitigation options. If charge areas are already built upon, the current efforts by VDOT to improve stream City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordi- valley corridors for wildlife are successful, nance provision to minimize impervious sur- Alexandria will examine the feasibility of face area during development and redevel- developing similar standards for new or re- opment is the most effective means of pro- constructed City roads. moting overall groundwater recharge. Groundwater recharge is also promoted by Stream-Side Vegetation a provision in the CBPO that allows a de- veloper to meet performance criteria require- (1) Many of Alexandria’s tributaries lack the ments by reducing existing impervious sur- stream-side vegetation that helps to filter face cover by 20% during redevelopment. pollutants and moderate water tempera- tures. Because of limited opportunities for

62 Water Quality Management

(2) In many areas of the City, extensive ground- Need for Regional Coordination water recharge is not possible or desirable due to the prevalence of marine clays and Because watersheds and very seldom shallow hardpans and the close proximity match political boundaries, regional coordination of foundations and basements. Where site- of environmental and water quality protection ef- specific groundwater recharge is appropri- forts is essential. For instance, the of the ate, the City will continue to encourage the Chesapeake Bay is over nine times the size of its use of infiltration BMPs for pollution mitiga- watershed – stretching to Ohio, Kentucky, and tion, including infiltration trenches and Indiana. Alexandria participates in a variety of bioretention facilities. The City is recognized regional efforts including the Metropolitan Wash- as a leader in these BMP technologies. ington Council of Governments and the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. An example in- cludes Alexandria’s funding of, and participation PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY in, the Northern Virginia Regional Commission’s Four Mile Run Program. This program, which had V.2 previously served to address interjurisdictional flooding issues, has recently been expanded to Pollution problems faced by the City are far more include water quality issues. In addition, the City complex than most Northern Virginia localities. participates in the activities of the federal Chesa- Alexandria is one of the few localities in the re- peake Bay Program. gion that has experienced a degree of heavy in- dustrialization. In addition, Alexandria has some Point Source Pollution of the largest concentrations of commercial ac- tivity, which are associated with large areas of (1) Of all of the City’s programs, the Alexandria impervious surfaces, in Virginia. Alexandria is also Sanitation Authority’s upgrades to the Alex- one of the few remaining urban localities in the andria Wastewater Treatment Facility will nation in which portions of the citizenry are served have the most significant impact on water by a combined sewer system (CSS). quality. The City will continue to support the ASA’s efforts to meet new environmental The complexity of urban water quality issues in goals and standards. Alexandria requires that the City commit to an integrated approach to watershed management. (2) The City’s combined sewer system (CSS) Integrated watershed management involves the currently operates under a Virginia Pollut- strategic use of structural (urban BMPs, etc.) and ant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) nonstructural (public education, reestablishment permit granted by the Department of Envi- of stream buffers, etc.) water quality management ronmental Quality. To maintain its VPDES techniques to address a range of sources and permit, the City must meet, document, and types of pollution. It also involves a recognition report on “Nine Minimum CSO Controls.” that water quality protection requires not only in- The City, through the Department of Trans- terdepartmental coordination, but planning among portation and Environmental Services, will Alexandria’s neighboring jurisdictions, specifically continue to meet and exceed the require- Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the City of ments of the City’s VPDES permit. Falls Church. By taking this approach, water qual- ity protection and habitat restoration efforts can (3) An aging stock of above ground storage be maximized. Actions discussed in this section tanks is a significant potential threat to wa- should be thought of in terms of this integrated ter quality. The City will work with the area’s approach and not as divorced or separated from fuel oil companies (several of which are lo- one another. cated within the City) to have them distrib- ute above ground and underground storage tank safety educational materials to own- ers and fillers of above ground storage

63 Water Quality Management

tanks. The City will look to the Virginia De- total of 1 million gallons. These tanks are partment of Environmental Quality for as- designed to intercept sanitary sewer over- sistance. flows that would otherwise be released into Four Mile Run, significantly reducing the fre- (4) Underground storage tanks are a significant quency and volume of sanitary sewer over- source of groundwater contamination in the flows into Four Mile Run. City. Enforcement of UST regulations is the responsibility of the Virginia Department of As part of long term strategy, an Inflow and Environmental Quality. The City, through the Infiltration (I&I) reduction program has been Department of Transportation & Environ- initiated by the City. The I&I sewer survey mental Services and Code Enforcement, will started in Four Mile Run Sewer Service area continue to work with the VADEQ to address in November 2000 after an extensive public the continuing problem of failing under- information effort. This will be a multi-phase, ground storage tanks. Chapter 795 of the multi-year effort to identify sources of infil- Code of Virginia (enacted in 1998), now re- tration and inflow in the collection system quires the VADEQ to compile a list of the and develop and implement a program to locations of oil releases which are serious repair the deficiencies. enough to have site characterizations per- formed and to send the list to local Health Also the developers of Potomac Yard are Departments (through the State Health De- required to build Potomac Yard Trunk Sewer partment). This new regulation should at their cost to convey the wastewater from greatly enhance communication between the yard to treatment plant. This system will VADEQ and Alexandria on the subject of not only convey the wastewater from future UST remediation and management. developments in the yard, but additionally will provide for flexibility of pump over dur- (5) Only a handful of septic systems remain ing wet weather from Four Mile Run Pump within the City limits. Since the location of station to the new trunk sewer. It will also these septic systems in the City is for the eliminate the River Road pump station and most part unknown (records were lost in its service area will be served by the new various boundary adjustments with Fairfax trunk sewer. These measures give opera- and Arlington counties), septic failures tional flexibility at the Four Mile Run Pump should be dealt with on a problem-specific Station and relieves the Commonwealth In- basis. The City will continue its policy of terceptor. converting homes with failed septic systems to public sewer. The combination of efforts listed above will result in a reduction of SSO incidents at Four (6) The City has initiated several short term and Mile Run Pump Station in short term and long term steps to minimize the Sanitary eliminate the SSOs in the long term. Sewer Overflows (SSO) to Four Mile Run from the Four Mile Run Pump Station which Nonpoint Source Pollution is owned and operated by Alexandria Sani- tation Authority. (1) The City will protect its tributary streams and the Chesapeake Bay from nonpoint source A 650,000 gallon storage tank was put in pollution through the continued application service in 1998 as a result of the proffer by of its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordi- the developer of Potomac Yard Retail Cen- nance and Erosion and Sediment Control ter. An additional tank is to be installed by Ordinance. the developer of Lincoln Properties that is scheduled to be completed by June 2001. (2) The City will continue to be a leader in the This will increase the storage capacity to a field of innovative BMP technologies and will

64 Water Quality Management

continue to vigorously pursue its Targets of (5) The City will continue to reduce the threat Opportunity Retrofit Program. BMPs used of fecal contamination of local streams from in the City of Alexandria include: sanitary sewer lines. Ongoing inspection and maintenance, coupled with recent ef- • Sand Filtration Systems forts to reduce inflow and infiltration of • Compound Aggregate Filters stormwater and groundwater into sewer • Bioretention and Bioretention Filters lines into the sewershed, will help minimize • Rock-Plant Filters human sources of fecal contamination. • Stormwater Wet and Dry Ponds • Infiltration Trenches/Basins (6) Major City outreach programs aimed at help- ing businesses and residents to prevent (3) The City will assure the long-term viability pollution include its Household Hazardous of private BMPs through regular site inspec- Waste Collection Day program, the Alexan- tions and the continued enforcement of BMP dria Earth Day program, and the Best Man- maintenance provisions. agement Practices Manual for Automotive Related Industries. There is a need for ad- (4) A pollutant of great concern from a human ditional coordinated and ongoing programs health standpoint is fecal coliform bacteria to prevent pollution from a wider array of which is generally attributed to over popu- sources. This is particularly true of pollu- lations of certain wildlife, resident wildfowl, tion resulting from the residential and com- leaking sanitary sewer lines, and pet waste. mercial use of lawn and garden care prod- Fecal coliforms, while not necessarily harm- ucts, including fertilizers and pesticides. ful in themselves, are indicative of fecal con- Overall efforts by the City are hampered tamination and the possible presence of because there is no dedicated staff for these pathogenic organisms. Four Mile Run and types of outreach efforts. Hunting Creek are both classified as “im- paired” streams by the VADEQ because of (7) The City will invite representatives from the fecal coliform contamination. A 2000 study Virginia Cooperative Extension to inform the conducted by the Northern Virginia Regional City of available resources to help residents Commission and Virginia Tech in coopera- and businesses reduce pollution resulting tion with affected localities used DNA fin- from the use of lawn and garden care prod- gerprinting to identify the primary sources ucts and to help the City put together a pol- of bacteria. The results show that bacteria lution prevention strategic plan that maxi- come primarily from waterfowl, with signifi- mizes the use of existing resources. cant contributions also coming from hu- mans, raccoons, and dogs. The effort will (8) Limited water quality monitoring within the allow Alexandria and its neighbors to target City is insufficient to help staff locate and prevention efforts. manage nonpoint sources of pollution. Ex- isting stations are located at the lower As a means of addressing the portion of reaches of the City’s two major waterbodies. bacteria from pet waste, the City adopted a Pollution that is detected at these stations Master Plan for Dog Exercise Areas in the could have come from anywhere within the fall of 2000 which includes requirements for Four Mile Run or Cameron Run watersheds, providing plastic bags at dog runs or along which are 19.7 and 44.5 square miles, re- major dog exercise areas and the strategic spectively. As a result, it is difficult to focus placement of waste receptacles to encour- pollution prevention efforts in a timely and age the proper disposal of dog waste. The meaningful manner. The City has, and will Plan also requires that new dog exercise continue to seek grant funding to implement areas be located more than 75 feet from a system of continuous monitoring stations bodies of water. that will enable the City to develop a strong and effective public outreach program based

65 Water Quality Management

on actual data and allow the City to reduce Thermal Pollution pollution by providing a tool to locate actual pollution sources. The City will also pursue (1) While thermal pollution does not have the public-private partnerships and volunteers visual impact that most pollution has on the to assist in water quality monitoring in the casual observer, the impact to aquatic spe- City. The City will work with the Alexandria cies can be devastating. Thermal pollution Sanitation Authority that has a water quality is caused by the removal of tree canopy testing and has expressed a will- cover during development and its replace- ingness to participate in the City’s pollution ment with impervious surface area (and prevention efforts. especially blacktop, which absorbs heat at very high rates). As a result, stormwater (9) The City will pursue adding to its web page runoff from a typical summer storm causes a means of advertising environmental pro- a thermal pulse to occur in the local stream. grams (including City manuals and publica- Thermal shock to aquatic species can oc- tions) and exchanging environmental infor- cur when the temperature of a stream mation. changes more than 3 to 4° in 24 hours or less. In the Four Mile Run, stream tempera- (10) The City’s Household Hazardous Waste tures have been measured to rise as quickly Collection Days program and the Best Man- as 10°F in a single hour during the agement Practices Manual for Automotive of a summer squall. The City will continue Related Industries program will be contin- to address the affects of thermal pollution ued. However, there is a need to recruit through provisions of the Zoning Ordinance more facilities to collect used antifreeze and that require tree canopy for parking lots and used oil on a consistent basis. Voluntary other large areas of heat-generating imper- participation and the City’s special use per- vious cover. It is important that parking lot mit system will be used to increase the num- trees are recognized as serving more than ber of service stations participating in the just an aesthetic function in the landscape. program. While the Department of Parks The City will consider ways of encouraging and Recreation has provided public infor- the use of other heat-reducing techniques mation to pollution “hot spots” on recycling – including the use of concrete, the mixing center locations, there is not a way to dis- of light colored sands into asphalt, and the seminate this information on a more con- use of lighter colored roofing materials – sistent basis. The City will investigate ways especially where tree canopy is not a viable to increase the advertising of collection sites alternative. The City will also encourage the as a way to entice businesses to join the use of “green roof” techniques as an alter- program. native to conventional roofs. The City will investigate incentives to retrofit existing (11) The City will continue its street sweeping parking areas with heat-reducing measures. program and consider the purchase of Best The City will provide increased guidance on Available Technology that will capture which trees are suited for harsh parking lot smaller pollution particles as older equip- conditions and will continue to ensure that ment is retired. parking lot trees are adequately maintained.

(12) The City will examine the feasibility of es- Water Conservation tablishing a minimum percentage of veg- etated space to satisfy the City’s current (1) The City will encourage the Virginia-Ameri- open space requirements. This will help to can Water Company to distribute with local promote infiltration of stormwater into the soil water bills a water conservation brochure and reduce stormwater runoff. that is currently under development by the Fairfax County Water Authority.

66 Water Quality Management

(2) The City will encourage the use of water Areas of Special Concern from BMPs to be recycled as wa- ter, which will also reduce the requirement (1) The Department of Transportation and En- for fertilizers, since BMP water is typically vironmental Services’ Division of Environ- nutrient rich. Any such efforts should be mental Quality will continue to work with the coordinated with the Health Department. VADEQ’ s Voluntary Remediation Program and federal authorities to identify and miti- Erosion of the Land gate areas of special concern including the creosote problem at the Alexandria Gas (1) The primary means for controlling erosion Works/Oronoco site and continue to moni- of the land is the City’s Erosion and Sedi- tor the Potomac Yards site and the Bogle ment Control Ordinance as well as its re- Chemical Company site for any signs of con- quirements to implement on-site stormwater tinuing contamination or adverse affects on detention for development and redevelop- human health, water quality, and aquatic ment in the City. There are now over 135 of resources. these detention structures located in the City. This program will continue to be imple- SHORELINE PROTECTION AND mented vigorously in order to protect re- EROSION CONTROL maining natural streams from high volumes and velocities of stormwater runoff. V.3

Air Pollution Stream Bank Erosion Control and Stabilization (1) Airborne deposition of pollutants accounts for up to a quarter of pollution entering the Most of Alexandria’s waterways have been hard- Chesapeake Bay. The City has been at the ened or channelized to stabilize eroding stream forefront of air quality monitoring in the re- banks and to increase carrying capacity. While gion and will continue to work through the stream hardening will continue to be necessary, Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Com- depending on the specific problem, a number of mittee to reduce mobile and stationary alternative options may exist. The City will ad- sources of airborne pollution. dress erosion problems associated with remain- ing natural, but physically degraded streams on Waterfront and Dock Activities a site-specific basis and recognizes the need for flexibility in the remediation process. (1) The City will work with the Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Ma- (1) Channelized Streams: Most of Alexandria’s rine Resources Commission to develop a channelized streams are designed to con- pollution prevention program for the City’s trol a specific flood volume and in some docks. The City will periodically invite the cases the City is legally bound to clear veg- Virginia Marine Resources Commission to etation and silt that may reduce a stream’s address local marina operators about how carrying capacity. To help increase public to prevent nonpoint source pollution. understanding of the need for managing flood control channels, the City will develop (2) In lieu of a stringent water quality monitor- a map identifying flood control channels that ing program, the City will work to implement require periodic clearing. To mitigate the signage at the City’s public marinas and loss of vegetation, the City will investigate boardwalk areas informing users that pol- the purposeful planting and maintenance of luting the water is a violation of federal Clean high-canopy native vegetation above the Water Act with a number to call to report 100-year flood level (or above any flood suspected violations. Adequate provisions control structures which extend beyond the for the deposit of waste will continue to be 100-year flood level). made.

67 Water Quality Management

The vegetation that typically grows on the City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. banks or silts of flood control channels are Unfortunately, these functions often come into fast growing, hardy, low-lying edge-of-the- conflict with one another. For instance, manage- forest species. Due to their low lying na- ment for flood control purposes may require clear- ture and vigorous growth, these types of ing of vegetation while management for wildlife vegetation are precisely what needs to be habitat purposes would suggest that vegetation avoided. For areas where the clearing of should be encouraged. Similarly, management low-lying vegetation has been determined for erosion control will require different ap- to be necessary for flood control purposes, proaches depending on site-specific goals and the City will minimize the use of herbicides constraints. for clearing vegetation. In order to reduce the conflicts that arise over the Any replacement vegetation must be placed management of the City’s remaining stream cor- in a way that will not impact the physical ridors, and to provide increased communication integrity of the flood control channel. High- on issues and options, the City will develop an canopy vegetation will provide shade and evaluation procedure for dealing with stream ero- some habitat while avoiding potential im- sion and flood control management issues when pacts to flood carrying capacity and the they conflict with Chesapeake Bay preservation structural stability of the flood control struc- and wildlife habitat goals. The City will develop ture. Native, high canopy, moisture loving stream specific maintenance plans that try to mini- vegetation that may be appropriate include mize the impact on the environment and wildlife sycamore and beech. Areas immediately habitat including minimizing the use of herbicides around the channel may be maintained as for clearing vegetation. The Chesapeake Bay a native wildflower meadow, low-lying na- Local Assistance Department will be consulted tive vegetation, or as a grassy area if a during the development of this procedure to en- manicured look is desired. sure that it is compatible with the Chesapeake Bay preservation Area Designation and Manage- (2) Natural Streams: Natural streams which are ment Regulations. experiencing moderate to severe erosion problems will be addressed on a site-spe- Potomac River Shoreline and cific basis. Depending on specific site and Bulkhead Management fiscal constrains, the City may consider a range of techniques including, but not lim- In addition to eroding streambanks, several bulk- ited to, bioengineering, stream by-pass, heads along the Potomac River shoreline have natural stream adjustment, and stream hard- been identified as being in poor condition. In some ening. cases, active undercutting and erosion are tak- ing place (see Figure II.7). Examples include The City will actively seek to establish a bioengi- bulkheads near the Wilson Bridge, the Old Town neering demonstration site as an example of the Yacht Basin, areas along Jones Point, and the circumstances under which the technique is ap- Dandy docking/parking facility. Dilapidated bulk- propriate. heads must be addressed by the developer dur- ing any waterfront redevelopment project. It is Stream Corridor Management anticipated that spot redevelopment along the Potomac River, planned redevelopment of the Old Management of the City’s remaining stream cor- Town Yacht Basin, and the reconstruction of the ridors is made difficult by the fact that these Woodrow Wilson Bridge will result in the rehabili- streams can, and often do, serve multiple func- tation of a significant majority of the City’s dilapi- tions including natural open space, buffering be- dated bulkheads. tween land uses, wildlife habitat, and flood con- trol. Many of these stream corridors are also des- ignated Resource Protection Areas under the

68 Water Quality Management

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACCESS TO 10% from existing site conditions or to re- WATERFRONT AREAS duce the imperviousness of a site by 20%.

V.4 (2) The City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance will be used to reestablish, when The City recognizes the value and importance of possible, Resource Protection Areas and its waterfront and ensuring that there is adequate buffers adjacent to water bodies, including public access to these areas has long been a vegetation within the RPA buffer areas. high priority of the City. Conversely, the City rec- When impacts are unavoidable, the City will ognizes that waterfront access and use can af- work to minimize the impacts and require fect water quality and that sensitive shoreline fea- mitigation either on site or offsite. tures may constrain where access and develop- ment is appropriate. Constraints include flood- (3) The City will continue to promote its Targets plain areas, areas that experience siltation and of Opportunity Urban Retrofit Program by debris accumulation, and unstable edge condi- working with private developers to voluntar- tions. ily retrofit existing urban development in addition to controlling runoff from the actual The 1983 “Alexandria Waterfront Design Plan” development/redevelopment site. and other joint planning efforts with the National Park Service serve as the basis for current ef- (4) The City will continue to use the redevelop- forts to increase public access to the Potomac ment process as a catalyst for remediating River. While most of the elements of the Design areas which have experienced contamina- Plan have already been implemented, the City’s tion as a result of industrial activity, leaking Waterfront Committee and Parks and Recreation underground storage tanks, dumping, or Commission continue to make specific recom- waste disposal activities. mendations for the few remaining undeveloped or nonconforming waterfront parcels. (5) When redevelopment of an area is large enough to consolidate significant parcels, These planning efforts will take into consideration the City will work with the developer to iden- the need to properly manage and protect sensi- tify remaining sensitive natural resources tive natural resources and to protect water qual- and consider using cluster development to ity while seeking to achieve increased opportu- avoid or minimize further impact to these nities for public access to the waterfront. resources. REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OVERALL COORDINATION AND OUTREACH V.5 V.6 Most development within the City, with the ex- ception of a few remaining parcels, will take place Water quality management is primarily the respon- in the form of redevelopment. The City of Alex- sibility of the Department of Transportation and andria will use the redevelopment process as an Environmental Services, with support from the opportunity to improve water quality to its local Department of Planning and Zoning, the Depart- tributaries and the Potomac River and the Chesa- ment of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Activities peake Bay. The City will achieve water quality and the Code Enforcement Bureau. improvement through the redevelopment process in the following manners. There is a need to provide a more focused ap- proach to water quality management and coordi- (1) The City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation nate among the City departments on environmen- Ordinance will be used to reduce nonpoint tal issues that impact water quality within the City. source pollution from redevelopment by There is also a need for increased coordinated

69 Water Quality Management outreach to citizens and businesses on how to sanitary and storm sewers and stream mainte- prevent pollution from entering the water in the nance, which have significant impacts on water first place. Many of the City’s departments have quality. taken on outreach programs to address specific, acute problems. While public outreach and coor- Finally, T&ES will continue to work with regional dination are largely voluntary components of the and State partners responsible for water quality City’s water quality protection efforts, new federal programs, regulations, and initiatives including the Clean Water Act regulations (40 CFR Parts 122 Northern Virginia Regional Commission, the and 123) will require the City to demonstrate that Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern- it is taking actions to provide materials or develop ments, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance outreach programs to inform individuals and Department, the Virginia Department of Environ- households about steps that can be taken to re- mental Quality, and the Virginia Department of duce stormwater pollution. This new mandate will Conservation and Recreation. require that the City submit a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit POTENTIAL FUNDING AND around the year 2002 and demonstrate full com- ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS pliance by mid-2007. V.7 In an effort to address these concerns the City will establish an Environmental Coordination While water quality and environmental manage- Group (ECG) with representation from the depart- ment can result in cost savings by reducing the ments of Transportation and Environmental Ser- need for cleaning up pollution, the upfront costs vices, Planning and Zoning, and Parks, Recre- can be discouraging. There are, however, sev- ation, and Cultural Activities. Other departments eral means by which the City can raise the nec- or organizations will participate as needed. The essary revenue to implement State and federal Environmental Coordination Group will facilitate mandates as well as locally identified stormwater the coordination of environmental issues with a management projects and programs. Funding for focus on water quality management and public the programs, capital projects and activities dis- education and outreach programs for the City. cussed in this supplement will require a varying Responsibilities will include using the City’s web degree of continuing or new City funding. As is site as a means of sharing environmental infor- the case with all City funding, this funding is de- mation with the public and among City agencies. termined in the City’s annual operating budget and This group will also facilitate the review of envi- capital improvement program development pro- ronmental impacts of significant projects in the cess (in competition with other City needs) and is City. subject to appropriation by City Council. Non-tax sources are one area to consider. Some of these In addition, the City consolidated many of its en- options are discussed below. vironmental programs under the Department of Transportation and Environmental Services and Pro Rata Share Off-Site Drainage within that department created a new Division of Facility Program Environmental Quality (AlexDEQ). AlexDEQ re- sponsibilities include watershed management, The purpose of a pro rata share program is to including stormwater quality management and require land developers to pay their share of the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preser- cost of providing off-site drainage improvements vation Ordinance, reviewing soil and erosion made necessary, or required at least in part, by plans, coordinating contaminated land issues, and the development of land. The ultimate objective administering the air and pro- of the pro rata share program is to provide a grams. The AlexDEQ will also work closely with supplemental funding source to implement ad- other sections within T&ES such as Engineering equate drainage facilities and to minimize dam- and Maintenance whose responsibilities include age to the drainage network. Section 15.2-2243

70 Water Quality Management of the Code of Virginia allows a locality to “pro- Stormwater Utility vide in its subdivision ordinance for the payment by a subdivider or developer of land of the pro The purpose of a stormwater utility (or stormwater rata share cost of providing reasonable and nec- tax/service charge) is to provide an ongoing essary sewerage, water, and drainage facilities, source of revenue to offset the costs of stormwater located outside of the land owned or controlled management. Under Section 15.2-2114 of the by the subdivider or developer…” Code of Virginia, income derived from these charges may be used to pay or recover costs for The maximum amount of revenue that can be the following: collected through this program is limited to the increased cost of drainage facilities that are re- • The acquisition of real and personal property, quired to accommodate increased development and interest therein, necessary to construct, from new development or redevelopment. Items operate, and maintain stormwater control fa- that may be included are and acquisition, design, cilities; utility relocation, construction, and administrative • The cost of administration of such programs; costs. The proportionate share is calculated by • Engineering and design, debt retirement, con- determining the increase in imperviousness as a struction costs for new facilities, and enlarge- result of the development and comparing it to the ment or improvement of existing facilities; difference between existing watershed impervi- • Facility maintenance; ousness conditions and future build out condi- • Monitoring of stormwater control devices; tions. • Pollution control and abatement, consistent with State and federal regulations; and, A hypothetical example of how to calculate pro • Planning, design, land acquisition, construc- rata share is as follows. tion, operation, and maintenance activities.

• The locality anticipates that future stormwater Charges may be assessed to property owners or management efforts will cost $4,000,000. occupants, including condominium unit owners or • The current rate of watershed imperviousness tenants, and should be based upon their contri- is 41%, or 1,102 acres, and the anticipated butions to stormwater runoff. Waivers are man- build out rate of imperviousness is 50%, or dated for federal, State, and local agencies, roads 1,344 acres. This means an anticipated in- and public rights-of-ways, and anyone who owns crease in imperviousness of 242 acres. and maintains a private storm drainage facility. • The rate is determined by taking the cost of the proposed projects and multiplying it by the Jurisdictions in Virginia which have implemented ratio of the increase in impervious area to the stormwater utility fee programs include Virginia total impervious area at build out (242/1,344). Beach, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, The result, $720,238, is the maximum amount Hampton, and Prince William County. After much that can be assessed of developers in the consideration, Fairfax County tabled the idea of watershed. implementing a stormwater utility. Utility fees • For a dollar amount per acre, $720,238 is di- range from $1.50 per month per residential unit vided by the total increase in impervious area in Prince William County to $4.50 per month per (242). The result is $2,976.19 per impervi- residential unit in Norfolk. ous acre. The City should monitor the continued implemen- Most other Northern Virginia localities have tation of stormwater utility in other jurisdictions adopted a form of pro rata share program. The and, if fiscal need warrants, investigate the feasi- City’s Department of Transportation and Environ- bility of an Alexandria stormwater utility. mental Services should investigate the benefits of implementing a pro rata share program.

71 Water Quality Management

Grant Opportunities IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY AND TIME-LINE There are a number of federal and State grant programs that can help defray the costs of plan- V.8 ning and implementing stormwater management programs. Common sources include: This section outlines the responsibilities and time- lines for implementing the actions identified in • Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Fund Section V. For each action item, information is • Virginia Coastal Resources Management provided on Time Frame, Potential Cost, and Fund Implementing Agency. Each action statement is • Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund also cross-referenced with the action-item expla- • Watershed Restoration Grants nation in Section V. • Water Quality Management Planning Grants • Small Watershed Grant Program To track progress and monitor the implementa- • Virginia Environmental Endowment tion and effectiveness of the proposed action • Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund items, City staff will provide regular updates to the City’s Environmental Policy Commission The City will continue to apply for these grants as (EPC). In addition, the EPC’s annual report to a way of stretching public funding for water qual- City Council will include a water quality section ity improvement measures. that evaluates progress on implementation of the action items and makes recommendations on Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act policy and priorities. Civil Penalties Each action item is scheduled to be achieved on The 1998 General Assembly enacted legislation an ongoing basis or within a time frame that is that provides localities with a new tool to enforce short – defined as within 24 months of adoption – local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinances. or long – defined as within 5 to 6 years. Costs The revised Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act take into account only those required by new ac- allows localities to amend their local ordinance to tivities. Acronyms for Implementing Agency are: impose a penalty of $1,000 per day per penalty up to $10,000. Currently, to stop a violation of • Transportation and Environmental Services the CBPO a localities must obtain a stop-work (T&ES) order from a judge. Local incorporation is con- • Planning and Zoning (P&Z) sidered a minor program amendment and is sub- • Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Activities ject to Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board (PR&CA) review.

The City should investigate the benefits of incor- porating language provided in Section 10.1- 2109.E of the Code of Virginia. Timing should be coordinated with expected changes to the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations.

72 Water Quality Management NEW INITIATIVES

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will incorporate into each Concurrent No P&Z, T&ES Role of Small Small Area Plan a discussion of long with Five Additional Area Plans range water quality protection Year Planning Cost strategies, SAP-specific Cycle Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area maps, and an SAP-specific analysis of opportunities to protect and improve water quality through development and redevelopment opportunities. The City will work with the National Long Term Yes/Variable T&ES Geology and Resource Conservation Service to Soils (2) produce an updated soils map of Alexandria. When redevelopment of an area is Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Redevelopment large enough to consolidate Additional Areas (5) significant parcels, the City will work Cost with the developer to identify remaining sensitive natural resources and consider a cluster development to avoid or minimize impacts to these resources. Opportunities to restore degraded Ongoing Yes/Variable T&ES Wetlands(3) wetlands will be explored, and should be explored as part of any large project, including the reconstruction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Additional opportunities for using Long Term Yes/Low T&ES/ Wetlands(2) wetlands as educational tools will be /PR&CA investigated. The City will identify, characterize, Short Term Yes PR&CA Wildlife Habitat and map remaining significant Corridors(2) natural habitat areas including streams and stream valleys as well as isolated groves.

73 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will identify, characterize, Long Term Yes PR&CA/T&ES Stream-Side and map stream-side areas which Vegetation (1) have limited or no vegetation but have the potential to be restored and prioritize areas for targeted revegetation efforts. If current VDOT efforts to improve Long Term Yes/Mod. T&ES Wildlife Habitat stream valley corridors for wildlife Corridors(3) are successful, the City will examine the feasibility of developing similar standards for new or reconstructed City roads. The City will work with the area’s fuel Short Term Yes/Low T&ES/ Code Point Source oil companies to distribute above Enforcement, Pollution(3) ground and underground storage Fire Marshall tank safety education materials. The City will develop a strategic plan Short Term Yes T&ES Nonpoint Source for reducing fecal coliform bacteria Pollution(4) in Alexandria’s streams based on the findings of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission’s 2000 DNA fingerprinting study. The City will develop ways to better Short Term Yes/Low T&ES/PR&CA Nonpoint Source enforce animal waste control laws Pollution(4) and to encourage proper disposal of pet waste The City will continue its sanitary Ongoing No T&ES Nonpoint Source sewer system inspection and Additional Pollution(5) maintenance program to reduce the Cost threat of fecal contamination of local streams from leaking sewer lines.

74 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will invite the Virginia Short Term No T&ES/Health Nonpoint Source Cooperative Extension to help Additional Pollution (7) formulate a pollution prevention Cost strategic plan that focuses on the use of lawn and garden care products and maximizes the use of existing resources. Continue to seek grant funding to Short Term Yes/Low T&ES/Health Nonpoint Source implement a comprehensive water Pollution(8) quality monitoring system. Establish a multi-departmental Short Term Yes T&ES/P&Z/P Overall Outreach Environmental Coordination Group R&CA and Coordination (ECG) to coordinate the City’s environmental policies and public outreach on environmental issues. The City will add to its web page a Short Term Yes/Low Nonpoint Source means of advertising environmental Pollution(9) programs (including City manuals and publications) and exchanging environmental information. The City will increase the advertising Short Term Yes/Low T&ES Nonpoint Source of used oil collection sites as a way Pollution(10) to entice business to join the program. The City will examine the feasibility Short Term No T&ES/P&Z Nonpoint Source of establishing a minimum Additional Pollution(12) percentage of vegetated space to Cost satisfy the City’s current open space requirements. The City will encourage heat Short Term Yes/Low T&ES/P&Z Thermal reducing techniques including the Pollution(1) use of street/parking lot trees, light colored asphalt/roofing materials, and the use of "green" building techniques such as "green" roofs.

75 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will investigate incentives Long Term Yes/Low T&ES/P&Z Thermal to retrofit existing parking areas with Pollution(1) heat-reducing measures. The City will provide increased Short Term Yes/Low T&ES/P&Z Thermal guidance on which trees are suited Pollution(1) for harsh parking lot conditions and will continue to ensure that parking lot trees are adequately maintained. Encourage the Virginia-American Short Term No T&ES Water Water Company to distribute water Additional Conservation(1) conservation information with utility Cost bills. Work with the Virginia Marine Short Term Yes/Low T&ES Waterfront and Resources Commission to develop a Dock pollution prevention program for the Activities(1) City’s docks. Implement signage at public marinas Short Term Yes/Low T&ES Waterfront and that informs users that dumping is a Dock violation of the Clean Water Act and Activities(2) a provides a number to call to report violations. Continue to work with Virginia DEQ Ongoing Yes T&ES Areas of Special to identify and mitigate areas of Concern(1) special concern including the creosote problem at the Alexandria Gas Works/Oronoco Site. Develop a map of City flood control Short Term Yes/Low T&ES Streambank channels for public education Erosion Control purposes. and Stabilization (1) Plant flood control channels with Short Term Yes/Mod. T&ES/PR&CA Streambank high-canopy vegetation to reduce Erosion Control the impacts of needing to remove and Stabilization low-lying vegetation. (1)

76 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

Address natural streams that are Ongoing Yes/Variable T&ES/PR&CA Streambank Erosion experiencing erosion problems on a Control and site specific basis. Consider a Stabilization (2) range of techniques including bioengineering, stream by-pass, natural stream adjustment, and stream hardening. Actively seek a location for a Long Term Yes/Mod. T&ES/PR&CA Streambank Erosion bioengineering demonstration site. Control and Stabilization (2) The City will develop in consultation Short Term No T&ES/PR&CA Stream Corridor with CBLAD an evaluation procedure Additional Management for dealing with conflicts between Cost erosion and flood control management and Chesapeake Bay preservation and wildlife habitat management. The City will use the redevelopment Long Term No T&ES/P&Z/P Potomac River process to rehabilitate dilapidated Additional R&CA Shoreline and Potomac River bulkheads. Cost Bulkhead Management Investigate the benefits of Short Term Yes T&ES Potential Funding implementing a pro rata share and Enforcement stormwater program to help offset Mechanisms the costs of stormwater management. Monitor continued implementation of Long Term No T&ES Potential Funding stormwater utility in other Additional and Enforcement jurisdictions for potential future Cost Mechanisms implementation. Continue to pursue grant funding for Ongoing Yes/Variable T&ES/P&Z//P Potential Funding water quality improvement projects. R&CA and Enforcement Mechanisms Investigate the benefits of Short Term No T&ES/P&Z Potential Funding incorporating civil penalties into the Additional and Enforcement Chesapeake Bay Preservation Cost Mechanisms Ordinance.

77 Water Quality Management

CONTINUED INITIATIVES

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will continue enforcement of Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Wetlands(1), its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Additional Nonpoint Source Ordinance. Cost Pollution(1), Redevelopment Areas(1)(2) The City will continue enforcement of Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Topography(1), its Erosion and Sediment Control Additional Nonpoint Source Ordinance. Cost Pollution(1), Erosion of the Lane(1) The City will continue enforcement of Ongoing No T&ES Geology and the Virginia Uniform Building Code. Additional Soils(1) Cost The City will continue enforcement of Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Geology and its Floodplain Overlay District. Additional Soils(1), Cost Floodplains(1) The City will continue to coordinate Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Need for regionally on water quality Additional Regional management issues. Cost Coordination(1) Except for where flood control or Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Wildlife Habitat utility maintenance is a Additional Corridors(1) consideration, existing stream valley Cost habitat corridors will remain in a natural state with provisions made for passive recreational opportunities. Continue to use the redevelopment Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Redevelopment process as a catalyst for identifying Additional Areas(4) and remediating contaminated sites. Cost The City will continue to promote its Ongoing Yes/Variable T&ES Redevelopment Targets of Opportunity Urban Areas(3) Retrofit Program.

78 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will use its Chesapeake Ongoing No T&ES Redevelopment Bay Preservation Ordinance to Additional Areas (2) protect and reestablish, where Cost possible, vegetation within the buffer area of the City’s Resource Protection Areas. Where appropriate, the City will Ongoing No T&ES/P&Z Groundwater promote groundwater recharge Additional Recharge through minimization of impervious Cost Areas(1)(2) surfaces and by encouraging the use of infiltration BMPs for pollution management. The City will continue to meet and Ongoing No T&ES Point Source exceed the requirements of its Additional Pollution(2) permit to operate a combined sewer Cost system (CSS). The City will act to minimize the number and volume of CSO overflows and continue to work towards eliminating sanitary sewer overflows. The City will continue to support the Short Term No T&ES Point Source Alexandria Sanitation Authority’s Additional Pollution(1) efforts to upgrade the Alexandria Cost Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City will continue to work with Ongoing No Health Point Source the Department of Environmental Additional Pollution(4) Quality to minimize environmental Cost threats from underground storage tanks. The City will continue its policy of Ongoing No Health/T&ES Point Source converting homes with failed septic Additional Pollution(5) systems to public sewer. Cost The City will continue to be a leader Ongoing No T&ES Nonpoint Source in innovative BMP technologies. Additional Pollution(2) Cost

79 Water Quality Management

ACTION STATEMENT TIME COST AGENCY REFERENCE FRAME RESPONSIBILITY

The City will assure the long-term Ongoing No T&ES Nonpoint Source viability of private BMPs through Additional Pollution(3) regular site inspections and Cost enforcement of BMP maintenance agreements. The City will continue its street Ongoing No T&ES Nonpoint Source sweeping program. Additional Pollution(11) Cost Encourage the use of water from Ongoing No T&ES/ Water BMPs to be recycled as irrigation Additional Conservation(2) water. Cost Continue to protect streams from Ongoing No T&ES Erosion of the high volumes and velocities of Additional Land(1) stormwater runoff through the City’s Cost stormwater detention program. Continue to work with Metropolitan Ongoing No Air Pollution(1) Washington Air Quality Committee to Additional reduce mobile and stationary Cost sources of airborne pollution. Continue to monitor the Potomac Ongoing Yes T&ES Areas of Special Yard site and Bogle Chemical Concern(2) Company site for any signs of continuing contamination.

80 Water Quality Management Water Quality Management CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Acronyms

Acronyms used in the Water Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Management Supplement, City of Alexandria Response Compensation and Master Plan: Liability Act (Superfund Law)

Alex DEQ Division of Environmental Qual- CSS Combined Sewer System ity, Department of Transportation and Environmental Services CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

ASA Alexandria Sanitation Authority – CWA Clean Water Act – regulations at organized under Virginia Water 40 CFR parts 122-123 & Sewer Authorities Act DNH Division of Natural Heritage – VA AWTF Alexandria Wastewater Treat- Dept. of Conservation & Recre- ment Facility ation

BMP Best Management Practice DO Dissolved Oxygen Content

BNR Biological Nutrient Removal EI Erodibility Index – RKLS/T [K=soils susceptibility to water CBA Chesapeake Bay Agreement – erosion of surface layer. VA, PA, MD, DC & US EPA R=Rainfall & Runoff. LS=combined slope & Steep- CBLAD Chesapeake Bay Local Assis- ness./ T=Soil Loss Tolerence] tance Department E&SCO Erosion & Sediment Control CBP Chesapeake Bay Program Ordinance – {under VA Erosion & Sediment Control Law CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Section 21-89.1 et seq.} Area – (under the act of 1988 Sect. 10.1-210 et seq VA FCWA Fairfax County Water Authority Code of 2950 Chpt. 25) FMRPS Four Mile Run Pumping Station CBPO Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance – City of Alexandria FOD Floodplain Overlay District – 1992 Article XIII [FEMA (Federal Emergency Sec. 13-100 et seq. Management Agency) require- ment. Sect. 6-300 city code]

81 Water Quality Management

II Inflow & Infiltration (reduction) VADEQ Virginia Department of Environ- mental Quality LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank VADEQ-WD Virginia Department of Environ- mental Quality – Water Division MWAQC Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee VAMWA VA Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System WQIA Water Quality Improvement Act

NVRC Northern VA Regional Commis- VAWC Virginia American Water Com- sion pany

NVPDC Northern VA Planing District VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission (now the Northern Commission VA Regional Commission) VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge ODCP Oil Discharge Contingency Plan Elimination System [permit] – Clean Water Act 40 CFR part 112 VRP Voluntary Remediation Program pH Alkalinity / acidity VSWCB Virginia State Water Control Board POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works VUBC Virginia Uniform Building Code ppm parts per million

PTS Potomac Tributary Strategy

RMA Resource Management Area – Alexandria less RPA’s

RPA Resource Protection Area – wetlands, tidal shores, stream- beds 100 ft. buffer

SAP Small Area Plan

SAVSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation

SSI Screening Site Inspection

SSO Sanitary Sewer Outflow

T&ES Department of Transportation and Environmental Services

UST Underground Storage Tank

82 Water Quality Management

83

Water Quality Management

84