Approved September 19, 2023

A hybrid Meeting held in-person at the Park Authority Board Room - Suite 941 of the Herrity Building - and virtually via Microsoft Teams                                                                           

August 2023 Technical Review Committee Meeting Summary

August Technical Review Committee (TRC) Meeting Summary

A hybrid Meeting held in-person at the Park Authority Board Room - Suite 921 of the Herrity Building - and virtually via Microsoft Teams                                                                                                              August 22, 2023

Ms. Bordas called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Those present included:

• Adria Bordas, Director & Committee Chair, NVSWCD
• Chris Koerner, Director, NVSWCD
• Scott Baron, NVSWCD (virtual)
• Meghan Cunha, NVSWCD
• Judy Fraser, NVSWCD
• Heather Hunter-Nickels, NVSWCD
• Don Lacquement, NVSWCD
• Dan Schwartz, NVSWCD
• Willie Woode, Executive Director, NVSWCD
• Linda Barfield, Fairfax County Stormwater Planning (virtual)
• Asad Rouhi

The meeting called to order by Ms. Bordas at 10:05. She notes that Conservation Plans and CAP/VCAP applications and reimbursements approved today will move forward under delegated authority since there is no August NVSWCD Board of Directors meeting. The Board will officially approve these items at their meeting in September.
 

JUNE MINUTES

Mr. Schwartz noted that he fixed a few errors before the meeting. A motion (Fraser-Koerner) to approve the minutes from the July meeting passed unanimously.

 

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PLANS

Ms. Hunter-Nickels presented two items for review by the Committee.

 

Lombardozzi Cost-Share Project
The Conservation Plan for this property was presented at the previous meeting. The property owner is now in the process of applying for cost-share funding for a livestock stream exclusion and crossing. Ms. Hunter-Nickels visited the property again with an engineer to take survey measurements and prepare final designs for the project.

 

The project is still in process. The landowner needs to confirm to Ms. Hunter-Nickels that the design is acceptable. At that point, the project will be brought back to the TRC for formal review. No Committee action is needed now.

 

Mr. Rouhi asks if the design includes a culvert. Ms. Hunter-Nickels says it does not because of the low flow of the stream. Ms. Bordas asks if the cost estimate include the 25% increase for Northern Virginia. Ms. Hunter-Nickels confirms that it does.

 

The cost is estimated at $17,300 based on NRCS 2023 payment rates. The cost-share covers 70% and the landowner would be responsible for $5,190. This amount may be reduced because the project may also be eligible for a 25% agricultural BMP tax credit. The project includes a minimum 25-ft vegetated buffer around the fencing.

 

 

Molleda Farm A&F District Renewal

The property has 7-acres in pasture and 9 forested acres and houses 7 horses and 24 chickens. RPA is on the property and covers part of one field and the sacrifice area. The Conservation Plan renewal includes BMPs for erosion control, manure management, and integrated pest management.
 

Currently, manure management consists of a two-bin composter by the stables. The owners have added the second bin and a cover to the composter since the last plan renewal. The new plan recommends the addition of boards around the edges of the bins to prevent flow-out of manure. Manure is partially hauled out and partially spread over the fields. The plan also recommends spreading composted manure, except in the RPA, and supplementing it with commercial fertilizer.

 

Trapa is present in the pond and has been since 2015. The plan recommends the continuation of manual removal, which the owners have been doing, and further recommends contacting VDACS for assistance with hiring contractors.

 

Weeds present in the pastures include a mix of invasives and some natives that are toxic to horses, like Dogbane. The plan recommends a mowing regime along with aerating and seeding.

 

After discussion, the Committee makes a motion (Fraser-Schwartz) to recommend approval of the Maleda Conservation Plan.

 

CAP-VCAP PROGRAM

Sign Template

Ms. Fraser and Ms. Cunha presented a template for permanent metal signs to be displayed at completed CAP-VCAP projects. Display of the signs is voluntary. The template is general, but a different wording will be displayed for different project types. The cost is $17/sign when ordered in bulk. Ms. Fraser suggests that NVSWCD pay for the signs, rather than the landowner.

 

Mr. Rouhi asks if the other program partners, other than NVSWCD, should be recognized on the sign. Ms. Fraser says that funding does come from the state and the county. Mr. Schwartz wonders how to recognize them since CAP projects receive county funds and VCAP projects receive state funds. Mr. Woode mentions that some of these signs will be going to Alexandria and Fairfax City, so the county logo would not be on those signs. Ms. Cunha thinks adding different logos on different signs would be difficult.

 

Ms. Barfield requests copies of the signs be sent to her so that she can get SWPD staff opinion on whether or not the county logo or mention of the county should be on the signs. Ms. Barfield asks who does the installation. Ms. Fraser responds that the landowner is responsible for installation.

 

Mr. Koerner asks what types of practices we will include on the signs. Ms. Fraser suspects that conservation landscaping, rain gardens, and porous paving will account for the bulk of the signs.

 

Opinion of the committee is that we will keep the sign as-is unless SWPD has a strong desire to include the county logo or other reference to the county. The Committee recommends that NVSWCD will pay for signs, not the homeowner.

 

Applications and Reimbursements

Ms. Fraser, Ms. Cunha and Mr. Schwartz presented six new CAP-VCAP applications, one CAP Energy application,  and one VCAP reimbursement request.

Applications:

Allen Rain Garden – Hunter Mill District, Pimmit Run Watershed

• Property is very near I-66
• Homeowners observe lots of water coming through property’s swale. Interested in converting all of their landscaping. The rain garden will be first step in the conversion.
• Mr. Lacquement visited the property and recommended taking spot elevations to figure out where water flows. Homeowners declined and would prefer to put in a small rain garden in backyard corner. Will not eliminate most runoff, but will reduce it.
• Rain garden designed to capture runoff from 2,300 SF pervious surface – 150 cubic feet of stormwater capture. The entire drainage area is 7-acres. In effect, they are building the largest rain garden they can afford
• Discussion:
  • Mr. Rouhi asks if there are any easements. There are not.
  • Mr. Rouhi suggests that there be no berm, that the ponding depth be below the surface and that the rain garden be just outside the main flow path so that it only captures runoff during larger storms. This would mean that it is more of a flood control structure than a typical rain garden. Mr. Lacquement says that having the rain garden in the flow path ensures it captures the first flush for every storm.
  • Ms. Fraser mentions that a catch basin will be installed in the runoff channel. Mr. Rouhi thinks that could lead to clogging and that it forces the rain garden to be lower in elevation.
    Mr. Rouhi suggests putting a weir into the channel instead. Mr. Woode suggests that making a conservation landscaping project in a shallow depression behind the weir might be a better project.
  • Mr. Lacquement suggests calling this a conservation landscaping project but not changing the design, so in effect it would be a highly constructed sponge garden. The cost-share is the same.
  • Mr. Koerner strongly prefers that some elevation measurements be taken in the backyard.
• Committee Recommendation: Recommend approval of the design as-is and consider it a very robust conservation landscaping practice. If the applications want to do more, they can add a check dam around the catch basin to provide hydraulic head and increase the amount of water into the rain garden, but survey elevations must be taken first.
• Size –  131 ft²; Total Cost -  $8,930; Cost-Share Request -  $7,000

 

 

Fiduccia Conservation Landscaping and Rain Garden – Hunter Mill District, Difficult Run Watershed

• Small, sloping lot in Vienna receives significant runoff from uphill neighbors. On the downhill side of the property, the soil slopes steeply away from the foundation. Very little vegetation grows here and the soil is bare and eroded.
• Mr. Fiduccia proposes two projects: a rain garden in the backyard to capture runoff from his garage and the neighboring property, and conservation landscaping with terraces to vegetate the slope on the downhill-side of the foundation.
• Discussion:
  • Mr. Lacquement suggests that the layer of fabric between the soil and gravel layers in the rain garden be removed and replaced with a layer of choker stone.
  • Ms. Fraser agrees but states that VCAP can’t require the inclusion of choker stone since it is not in the design manual.
• Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommends approval of both projects and recommends that the fabric layer in the rain garden be removed. At his discretion, Mr. Fiduccia can replace the fabric with a layer of pea gravel choker stone.
• Rain Garden: Size – 98 ft²; Cost - $4,592; Cost-Share Request - $3,673.60
• Conservation Landscaping: Size – 350 ft²; Cost - $6,306; Cost-Share Request - $5,044.80

Yasin and Falah Permeable Pavement – Mason District, Cameron Run Watershed

• Two neighbors with adjacent driveways wish to expand their driveways in order to connect them. The connected driveway will be built with permeable pavers.
• VCAP can only provide cost-share for the 1,298 ft² of existing paved surface. Any increase in driveway footprint beyond that is a cost borne by the owners.
• While an unusual design, the new connected driveways should be safer for the owners.
• Discussion:
  • Ms. Bordas and Mr. Rouhi ask if this is allowable by the county (e.g. Zoning Ordinance) and if this will cause issues if one owner wishes to sell. Mr. Rouhi thinks that any structure requires a 2-ft setback from the property line, but is not sure if a driveway counts as a structure. Ms. Fraser will look into the zoning questions.
  • Mr. Rouhi asks if other permits are needed. Ms. Fraser says that its not the District’s responsibility to determine this, but we can hold approval until we have the property owner’s confirmation that LDS permits are not needed to increase the driveway footrprint.
  • Mr. Lacquement suggests that a formal agreement about use of the driveway, or having some sort of menial physical separation at the property line, would be useful in case of any future disputes.
• Committee Recommendations: The Committee recommends approval if the homeowner’s certify that no permits or exceptions needed. The Committee strongly recommends the owners create a formal use agreement or install a physical separation at the property line.
• Yasin: Size – 1,486 ft²; Cost – $26,730; Cost-Share Request – $20,000
• Falah: Size – 1,298 ft²; Cost – $23,346; Cost-Share Request – $18,172

 

Douglass Rain Garden – Springfield District, Pohick Creek Watershed

• Addition on back of house sends roof water to the rear lawn and causes sogginess.
• The rain garden will capture the roof’s addition and a small area of the lawn: about 50 ft³ of water.
• The homeowner is designing the project herself, with input and guidance from Ms. Cunha.
• Size – 140 ft²; Cost - $1,423.05; Cost-Share Request - $1,138.44
   

CAP Energy Application:  Church of the Holy Comforter, Hunter Mill District

• The church has bigger energy efficiency plans. This project is a small part of their overall plan: the replacement of an HVAC system with heat pump.
• The system will have CO2 sensor so it only turns on when the building is occupied.
• Cost-share requested by the church is only for the money spent in excess of what a straight like-for-like replacement of the old system would cost. The church considers this excess cost to be the price of the energy efficiency upgrade.
• The Committee recommends approval. All CAP-E projects get sent to OEEC for their approval.
• Total cost - $27,113.75; Energy Efficiency upgrades -  $5,017.90; Cost-Share - $2,508.95

 

 

Reimbursements

 

Stonegate Manor HOA Conservation Landscaping – City of Alexandria, Four Mile Run Watershed

• Dense townhouse community planted an eroded hillside and a strip of land along their walkway with native species. The hillside used straw matting to control erosion while the plants grow.
• Size –  568 ft²; Cost - $10,424; Cost-share - $7,000

 

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:19 pm. The next meeting of the TRC will be September 19, 2023.

Applicant	Program	Location	Supervisor District	Watershed	Type	Size	Cost 1. Total Estimated 2.   Reimbursement
Allen	CAP	Falls Church	Dranesville	Pimmit Run	RG	131 SF	$8,930 $7,000
Fiduccia	CAP	Vienna	Hunter Mill	Difficult Run	CL	350 SF	$6,306 $5,044.80
Fiduccia	CAP	Vienna	Hunter Mill	Difficult Run	RG	98 SF	$4,592 $3,673.60
Yasin	VCAP	Falls Church	Mason	Cameron Run	PP	1,486 SF	$26,730 $20,000
Falah	VCAP	Falls Church	Mason	Cameron Run	PP	1,298 SF	$23,346 $18,172
Douglass	VCAP	Springfield	Springfield	Pohick Creek	RG	140 SF	$1,423.05 $1,138.44

August 2023 CAP Energy Applications

Applicant	Location	Supervisor District	Type	Cost Total Estimated  Reimbursement
Church of the Holy Comforter	Vienna	Hunter Mill	HVAC Upgrade	$5,017.90 $2,508.95

 

 

August 2023 CAP/VCAP Reimbursement Requests

Applicant	Program	Location	Supervisor District	Watershed	Type	Size	Cost Total Cost (estimate, if diff)  Reimbursement
Stonegate Manors HOA	VCAP	Alexandria	City of Alexandria	Four Mile Run	CL	568 SF	$10,424 $7,000