Draft plan for Chesapeake Bay

[Scott T-Bird]

Ross, I agree with you ...

The small 'gentleman' farmers are far better land stewards than the large industrial agriculturalists that you see in many areas of the country, include the east shore of the Chesepeake. Also, the suburbanization of the Chesepeake watershed has led to many restrictive ordinances which you are including as an example. These types of ordinances would not be in place if the watershed remained in widespread agricultural use. The paradox is that the advancement of development brings people who have a greater interest in improving environmental conditions. They will chase the industrialized farmers who have bad practices away. When communities are growing around those industrialized chicken process plants in Delaware and Maryland, they are going to get sick of the obnoxious fumes and we will start to see those plants disappear even if it means a loss of jobs. We will see an improvement in the environmental conditions as well.

Development in the Chesepeake watershed has the impact of chasing away the agriculture industry and encouraging 'gentleman farmers'. This trend will intensify as people begin to pay more for produce and meat that is grown by small local farmers. Besides that, the Chesepeake watershed has been under intense scrutiny by concerned enviromentalists for a longer period of time than most other areas of the country. I am a bit sceptical over those of you who pretend that you grew up in the 1800's with pristine water in the Chesepeake. Although I am not from that area, I grew up in the 60's and 70's when water quality in America in general was about as abysmal as it ever was. There have been vast improvements since then. The Chesepeake was pretty much at the forefront of awareness earlier than just about any place else, except maybe Lake Erie, so I have believe that it wasn't so pretty in those days on the Chesepeake. And I bet agriculture had a much more intense impact in those days than it does now. That and unchecked sewage flow from the urban areas. In my view, the major impacts to the poor water quality were and probably still are, agricultural and urban. Spreading suburban development has probably had the most influence in the cleaning process, due to the cultural impact and regulation on new development.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

If my memory serves me correctly...

and just to be a little argumentative ... the runoff coefficients of mature forests is higher than you might think. It is true that the thick grass of a meadow is about as restrictive to runoff as it gets and pavements and roof tops are absolutely the highest (higher the coefficient, the more runoff), mature forests have a surprisingly high one (don't make me go to my engineering books to look them all up - I have them packed away - although I suppose they are available on line somewhere). First of all, organic litter is less in a mature forest and you will see far less undergrowth and ground cover. Secondly, leaves act like shingles. In the fallow areas that are in transition from agriculture to forest, you will find the lowest coefficients for the reasons you describe.

 

[MoonSailer]

Underground transport!!!! Runoff is very apparent but water also soaks into the aquifer carrying many nutrients and eventually this water moves to the sea directly or more commonly via "springs" into rivers and streams that lead tothe sea. Nitrates and nitrites are very good at moving underground. Many agricultural areas have their aquifers so contaminated with nitrates that you can't drink the well water. ""Blue Babies""

http://va.water.usgs.gov/chesbay/RIMP/waterchem.html

 

[Cpt. Jon]

KandD, I have heard the same thing from many places, give or take a couple of days I guess on the time it would take today, but it is generally an accepted concensous that back before the over harvesting of oysters that they could clear the bay in a day, oyster reefs were clearly visible throughout the bay... to the point where they could be hazardous to boats... no such 'problem' today...

As far as making a major contribution in an election year to a political party or candidate to put pressure on local officials to help your cause goes... if you think this doesn't happen, you are dreaming.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Not dreaming, Jon. I readily acknowledge that contributions are made and influence is bought. I think you are confusing exactly what is being bought. In these days, nobody can buy their way around the regulations. Don't you think there are watchdog groups like the Sierra Club who will go to court and block any approval that doesn't have an airtight case? They go after individual homeowners as readily as they go up against any developer. There is also no court that will expose itself to a ruling that flys in the face of published rules. Any approval will ultimately have to stand up to intense scrutiny of all regulations and zoning rules that are in place. It is an extremely rare circumstance anymore when something slips thru without scrutiny. Anything that doesn't have all approvals locked up tight is just too easily blocked in today's anti-growth environment.

What IS generally bought is exactly who is going to enjoy the priviledge of development among the many would be potential developers. It also helps a developer if a politician can be 'influenced' to be less obstructive. In many cases, obstruction is baseless according to the letter of the law, but it serves a political purpose (voters hate development in general). Local officials can be obstructive right up to the point of being sued ... developers sue towns in many cases to force towns to grant appovals that the town has no legal right to deny. This is an occurance that is more common than you might think. It often comes down to a point where a developer has to make a decision about whether to continue to spend money on developing a 'relationship' with the local pols, or whether the money is better spent in court forcing the pols to do what they have to do. You would be surprised how often it goes into a law suit.

 

[Cpt. Jon]

Or in this case, since the permit was approved administratively. The board of supervisors for the county would have to sue the county... in other words the county would sue the county. It would look bad for them and those they employ and well as cost taxpayer money. Ironically, the only supervisor that opposed it in the end was the one representing the district that was involved... The attorney for the county didn't impress me much, but it would have been fun to see him arguing with himself in court

Anyway, I'm not going to argue this (it's not my personality type).

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Jon, it is an interesting topic ...

and I think the discussion could be in danger of turning political. I'll try to avoid that because it would be a shame to lose it from this page. I also enjoy the oyster, fish and waterfowl topics a great deal, even though I am not knowledgable in those areas.

But I do have a background in land use and it is a critical issue in regard to watershed regulations. From my land use background, I can tell you that all permits are administrative ... at least I can't think of any which have to go before the public in the form of a vote. There are exhaustive public hearings in regard to many permits, especially when it comes to such things as wastewater management plans a(WMPs or WWMPs as they are commonly known). But the actual issuance of permits is the administrative duty of all those bureaucrats that we employ in various local, county, state, and federal agencies. An elected official can't tell any of those guys how to do their job or what to do without a monumental political battle. It would have to be a battle worth fighting before a politician would insert himself in the administrative issuance of a permit.

Local land use approvals are another issue and that is when the public gets to see their politicians in action over development battles. What many people don't understand is that planning boards don't have the power to deny development applications that comply with all zoning rules. This country is founded on property owner's rights and our land use laws reflect this ideal and make sure that citizens are protected from arbitrary rulings of denials by the authority of the government. Board members know this and some of them will take advantage of opportunities to grandstand in front of their constituents. What you may have witnessed was a county supervisor making political hay with his constituents by opposing a permit that would be upheld under any circumstance. There is no reason for the 'county to sue the county'. If the permit isn't valid, it would simply be repealed. The other county supervisors know what leg they have to stand on so they supported the permit because they had no choice and it would be irresponsible to oppose or try to invalidate a permit without due cause. Your one supervisor got to look like a hero in front of his constituents while the rest of them looked like bums because they did what the county would have to do anyway.

I've seen this in action before and it led to a rather amusing circumstance where boardmembers began yelling at the lone dissenter because they were sick of the way he grandstanded to the audience knowing full well that his lone nay vote was meaningless and that all the positive votes were necessary because there was not any cause for denial. If they all had denied the approval, which is what they all knew was what the crowd wanted, they would have opened the township up to a lawsuit, the developer would have won, and cost them a lot of money.

 

[Shooter II]

Jon,
As I said before, I am a Marylander.
The bay is ours from Havre de Grace to Point Lookout. This is completely in the control of Maryland. We have no one to blame for the condition of the bay in that area but us. We have met the enemy and it is us. (pogo)

I believe the answer is to take it one tributary/river at a time. The RiverKeeper projects are effective. We need to police, with an attitude, the limited number waste water treatment plants. We need to groom these waterways as they have never been groomed.
I grewup in the Washington suburbs. The foulest, smelliest river we encountered routinely was the Annacostia. It runs past RFK stadium, past the Navy Yard and into the Potomac at Haines Point, across from Boling AFB. I crossed it again today on New York Ave and was struck again by how clean it is and witnessed crains "fishing" in the shallows. As I said before, nesting pairs of bald eagles are now part of the fauna along the river. A lot of people have worked real hard to get it there. We need similar efforts on many or most or all of the rivers within the central bay. Baltimore Harbor is part of the problem, too. We've talked about too many people. We've got the people, let's put 'em to work. "Adopt a River" or "Adopt a Creek". Don't pump overboard.

 

[Cpt. Jon]

There are a number of regulations and laws regarding building in the Chesapeake Bay. The ones that we were mad about was encroachment of the RPA (riparian protective area? I can't remember if that's right) with impervious surface due to the shear size of the house that was going to be built. After the first hearing at which the board of supervisors said they needed more time to look at all the facts, the landowner did make some changes (improvements). He also changed to have a living roof, a green driveway and some other green technologies, but I don't think there is anything that will make him keep those thing in the future. Say after a few years he wants a hard surface driveway, he will likely be able to put that in since it is a homeowners right, right? But that green technology was a "bargaining chip" so to speak to allow all the other impervious surface in the protected areas to be built. And the County was just SOO happy to approve a green house that they got it all over the paper, they left out all the details about building in the RPA though.

One major thing I was thinking about while driving was that it appears that we were against this homeowner building on his land, which is absolutely not the case, it was a failure on the part of the public servants to do their due diligence to ensure that the laws and regulations put in place to protect our natural resources were not going to be violated by allowing this massive structure to be built in areas that are supposed to be protected by law. I hope that he does build his house, and that he doesn't hold a grudge against all of his new neighbors, I am sure that we cost him a pretty penny in lawyer and architectual costs, but in talking with him afterwards, it did seem that he wasn't mad and actually may have been pleased that the people in our community cared enough to take time out of our lives to fight for something we believed in. I also hope that he raises my property value... though not my taxes :cry:.

Anyway, I know that a lot of people on here are talking about agricultural runoff and other topics being the main cause. I don't speak to that because others that have been speaking to it on here have more knowledge than I certainly do on the subject and I don't dispute what they are saying. My posts about overharvesting shellfish (and fish) and oyster cultivation is something I know about and in the case of the oysters something that I am doing as a hobby at this point because I have the opportunity to do so at low costs.

In our area, sewer was added last year, it's a good addition in place of septic systems for the water quality (though a lot more expensive), however now all the wetlands that weren't able to be built on because the ground didn't "perk" are able to be built on. So the wetlands now become backyards for very large houses, there have been 4 or so built in the last year and there are a lot more lots for sale. These wetlands will probably all be gone in a few years... I hear ya Scott, I could buy all those properties, and if I had the money I might, but I don't.

 

[Cpt. Jon]

Jon,
As I said before, I am a Marylander.

Some reason I thought you were in Norfolk.

I used to work on New York Ave, before we moved here. I know exactly where you are talking about.

 

[Dan Johnson]

Shooter...

about a mile west of the Anacostia on New York Avenue, where you may still see diesel engines parked today, was the coaling station and engine servicing facilities for steam engines working trains in and out of Union Station. Eventually came the diesels with petrochemical pollution to this same area. Nearby were the Pullman shops where sleeping and dining cars were serviced. All the run-off from this area eventually ended up in the Anacostia (not to mention what came down from Beltsville). It was a nasty mess by the 60's.

That it now supports fishing birds and nesting eagles is a tribute to the regulations, their enforcement, and the people that have pitched in to make it possible.

The Anacostia is but a small chunk of real estate. Applying the necessary actions to the Bay's size as a whole makes it almost impossible to achieve. BUT, as you pointed out, taking it on one tributary at a time with activities such as the river keepers we now have in some parts of the Bay may make it possible. Time will tell...

PS: Pogo was right!

 

[Ross]

Re: Shooter...

This is like the question: "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: One bite at a time.

 

[Shooter II]

I try to swallow them head first, if possible.
Dan, did you work in the train yards in NE DC?
How were you able to recall what you did?
Sorry if you already covered this.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Jon, the picture is gradually filling in!

And I can use it to illustrate a point. First of all, nobody is allowed to violate federal wetlands laws. Wetlands have been protected since the 70's under the Clean Water Act. Your state may or may not have jurisdiction for administering permits (in New Jersey, the state has jurisdiction and has propogated even more restrictive rules by expanding the buffer areas around wetlands). Your riparian zone is undoubtedly a separate layer of bureaucracy as it is in our state and most of the Atlantic seaboard. I am guessing that Virginia, like New Jersey and Maryland, has among the most restrictive rules in the east. Nobody can build in wetlands (except for very minor fill permits of less than an acre for a tract of land which are issued only with specific conditions) or the buffers around wetlands.

Under your riparian regulations, the lot owner is required to limit his impervious footprint on the lot. Those features that you think will only be temporary are deed restrictions and they ARE enforceable and the fines for not complying are ridiculously high. So the homeowner can't exactly do as he 'wants'. Nor does it appear that he wants to avoid the rules. You make it seem like he will happily comply because it means he can live on his own slice of heaven on the bay. I would bet that he can't even enjoy his waterfront (if he has access) without constructing a boardwalk with minimal footprint (construction techniques will be regulated, too) so that only passive access to the water can be gained. Of course he won't be filling his riparian buffer as many of the older homes on the water were able to do in the past.

As for the sewer, you make me wonder who paid for it. If the town paid for it, you would surely have been assessed and I can imagine everybody being madder than hornets over that. So I'm guessing the new lot owners paid for it. That may have been a very expensive project! There are also connection fees associated with new sewer construction. Since you didn't complain about that, I'm guessing that they may have also paid your connection fee. You mentioned that your user fee is expensive ... theirs, too. You are right, their lots may have been unbuildable without sewers. This is common. Septic systems require a much greater footprint today than they did in the days when your septic may have been built. Where your home may have had just a percolation tank (maybe a 10 sq ft footprint), the septic regulations of today may require a 2000 sq ft disposal field and a lot size of at least an acre. Many homes were built on tiny lots in the past with just a tiny septic tank. So these few new homes may have helped your town finance a sewer project that is improving an entire community.

Now that you have a new neighbor with an interest in the bay, you will probably get him interested in your oyster project. You never know where this will lead in terms of environmental benefits. These new home owners will often become actively involved promoting regulations which will make it even more restrictive to build on the bay and within the watershed. The last ones in are often the most vocal and active in making sure their 'territory' is protected. It is a snowballing effect. This is what I mean when I say that suburban encroachment will lead toward more restrictive land use laws that will eventually clean-up the bay. Agricultural, commercial and urban degradation will be targeted. There will be more scientists employed to identify the sources of pollution. Specific industries within the watershed will be targeted for increased regulation, urban areas will be targeted for renewal and waterfront 'friendly' projects will be financed.

 

[Cpt. Jon]

The sewer project was expensive, of course that is a relative term, but the connection fee and highering someone to come do the work was expensive for us. The house is a 60's era brick virginia rancher, there was no sewer out here so all the houses were on septic systems, most of which were probably old as you described. I don't mind being on the sewer because I think that it must be better for the water quality given the proximity of the houses to the water here, but it's another monthly bill added on top of everyone else sticking their hands in my wallet...

There are two riparian buffer zones, I think the closest one to the water is considered the riparian buffer zone (maybe within 50 feet of the high water mark?) and the second is between the 50-100 feet of the water (I think) and may be what is called the RPA (riparian protection area?). That is what the gray area is and it's up to the county apperantly to decide what is reasonable. Building a house that takes up nearly all of that 50-100 ft zones surface with now impervious surface because someone has the money to spend ~$2 million on a structure alone to build their 4 story mansion that is in complete contrast with every other house in this area. When I talk about contrast, I don't necessarily mean size as in height, I am talking about the footprint in the RPA. His driveway leading to the house will be completely in the RPA and the percentage of the RPA that he is covering up is so much more than what the other houses (for the most part) take up and all of those houses were built pre-Bay act so it seems to me not to be reasonable, by the way that term "reasonable" was basically all that was being considered and because it is not defined and we wanted it defined (for better or worse). Behind my house, I have some concrete slab patio that is in this 50-100 foot area, it's alread impervious surface so if I was to build something on it, I probably wouldn't have a hard time getting a permit to do so.

Anyway, again, it wasn't personal with the new landowner, his house won't effect my view, although it will some neighbors across the street but it's not their land that the house is being built on. We wanted a definition of what "reasonable" means and basically didn't get one. It basically comes down to politics and how well you schmooz the staff of the county I guess. That they allow this house to be built in this fashion fine, so be it, but define what the laws and regulations are and stick to them... if the use of green technologies are being used to balance out the amount of impervious surface being encroached upon, fine, but so long as the structure is in that area, those same or better green technologies used to mitigate the effect should be required as long as that structure exists (not just until it breaks, or until the homeowner sells the house, etc), currently this is not enforcable as far as I know.

To an extent I am sorry I brought this up... so many things in this country are so screwed up, there are so many wackjobs out there it scares me. Everyone seems to be a ripoff artist trying to charge rediculous amounts for products, driving costs through the roof. The political system is split to both extremes and both parties seem to care more about filling their coffers than acting in the best interests of the people that they elected to serve. It's emarrasing... I digress...

 

[Dan Johnson]

Shooter...

I was born at Walter Reed. My folks and grandfolks lived right off Michigan and North Capitol. Gramps was a night foreman at the Anacostia gun tube shops during the war. On weekends and after he retired, he ran a charter fishing deadrise out of Deale. My summers were spent mostly on Herring Bay.

As a little kid my grandpa would take me over to the train yards to watch the steam engines shuttle about (but stopped with the demise of steam). I'm somewhat of a train buff as a result (today my granddaughters have Thomas to thank for their interest in the "real thing"). Frequent train and car trips between Philly and DC up through adulthood helped me recall these details and see the changes that have taken place. Don't go there any- more so reports of positive change are encouraging.

Ross said succinctly what needs to be done with this "elephant" of a problem.

 

[Ron20324]

Dan, in the early 50's we lived on 1st St, NE, a couple blocks off New Hampshire at North Capital. My fond memory of grandpa was he would walk us 4 boys over to the gas station at Kennedy St to get a BOTTLE of Coke- right out of the machine, no less!.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Sewers & cr*p

I don't mind being on the sewer because I think that it must be better for the water quality given the proximity of the houses to the water here...

Hmm, seems to me, at least out here on San Francisco Bay, that we get WAY MORE spills from our local municipalities' REGULAR, almost on SCHEDULE, like EVERY YEAR when it rains, spills than anything coming out of septic tanks regardless of how big or when built (the septic tanks, that is).

The "argument" the sewage bast*ards put out goes like this: "The overflow is caused by rain water getting into the sewage system."

What utter and complete nonsense. When they built the sewage treatment plants (and we're talkin' about at least two if not four regular polluters), the storm drain pipes were NOT different than the sewage system pipes, so OF COURSE, that's where the storm water went, right to the STP (sewage treatment plant). They undersized the plants knowing that the amount of water they'd get when it rained (oh, gosh, it's raining?!? who would have thought it would rain???) was three times the capacity of the plant. Geez.

Why were these idiots SURPRISED??? Why?

And now, of course, there's no $$ to fix, to say nothing of the benign neglect of deferred maintenance for the past forty years since they built them.

You talk about politicians screwing us? The bureaucrats who built and designed these things and then let them rot and pollute far more than would the individual homeowners have done, make me gag. Sometimes literally if I have to sail through their crap. And they get fined! What are they thinking: shuffleboard with our money? We pay taxes and fees to the water companies. The sewage/water companies get fined by our governments. Then they raise our fees to pay off the fines. Again all OUR $$$! I'm mad as hell...

Add to that the stupidly restrictive "boaters are the source of pollution" laws, and the advertisements I keep seeing in my boating magazines and on TV about how we're the source of all of that water pollution!!!

That $$ could be better spent fixing up the real source of pollution: the STPs!

 

[Shooter II]

Ron and Dan, I was born in '50 and the first ten years, we lived in the 300 block of Oneida St NE. Between 3rd and 6th streets. Went to Archbishop Carroll High on Harewood Rd NE at North Cap. I remember going to Mayo and Beverly and Shady Side in the summer. Learned to swim, at Shady Side.
Later we moved to PG county and I remember the Annacostia, from Bladensburg to Haines Point was always the ugliest river. Trash and a sheen and smell. Would go to RFK and be disgusted by the river nearby. Shopping carts, tires, trash bags.
I ought to post pictures of how the River Keepers and all the volunteers have made the river quite nice, even as you cross it on New York Ave or East Capitol.
It's a shame that the success is hardly noticed. Maybe I will shoot some and post.

 

[Shooter II]

River Keep web sites

Hey guys,
here are links to some of the River Keepers in the bay area
http://www.potomacriverkeeper.org
http://www.westrhoderiverkeeper.org/
http://www.anacostia-riverkeeper.org/wordpress/

these people are doin' it.

great pix of dolphins on the West River!!!