To the Editor:

I was pleased to read Mr. Spiegel’s independent invention of recommended Action C1-2 in Chapter IV of the Little Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan of 2004. (Available at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/watersheds/littlehuntingcreek.htm) The plan was adopted by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in February 2005. This recommendation was not acted upon.

The Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District cautions that ... “the sand and salt we use to keep our roads safe in snowy and icy conditions can also be very dangerous for stream ecosystems. Sand can cover stream habitat, and rapid changes in salinity can be fatal to microorganisms. Residents are encouraged to sweep up and store sand, salt, and debris from storm drains to use again in the future.” But a more centralized recycling effort by an agency of local government would probably require careful study of several issues before implementation.

Those might include:

How is the sand currently scattered on the streets and roads of Fairfax County dealt with? Who sweeps it up and what do they do with it?

What is the responsibility of the agency which applies the sand on roadways? Most of it is applied by VDOT or its contractors. Fairfax County applies sand to the parking lots of schools and other facilities, but very few miles of road.

Is recycling the sand from roadways from one year to the next ecologically sound? In addition to salt and other chemicals, sand swept from the streets may contain contaminants (e.g., motor oil, cigarette butts) which could on balance, be more harmful than helpful when re-applied or used in your garden. And does the environmental degradation avoided justify the expense? (For example, is sand mentioned in the county’s current MS4 requirements?)

Is recycling road sand economically viable, with or without considering the environmental costs of current practices? Mr. Spiegel offers to donate the 13 gallons of sand he collected last year to the county. Clearly the cost of sending a truck to pick up Mr. Spiegel’s collection far outweighs the benefit, but there might be some net benefit were a neighborhood or a community to undertake its own concerted collection.

These questions ought to be taken seriously by those concerned about the environment and the watershed they inhabit. I welcome Mr. Spiegel dedicating his not inconsiderable energy and ingenuity to this problem.

Paul Siegel

Alexandria