Lessening impact of construction
on our fragile waterways
February 3, 2003
by Bill Killinger. (Killinger is a volunteer water quality monitor for the Maryland Coastal Bays Program.)
When contemplating mitigation requirements for taking away
wildlife habitat and water quality protection, officials should
look at applicants' ability to leave nature as is in the first
place.
All of those who own homes are allowed the privilege of building
upon what used to be a home for other living things and on land
which formerly filtered nutrients and other pollutants. To that extent, it is
our moral obligation to lessen our impact on the land we are consuming
to the best of our ability.
This obligation is magnified as we approach shorelines which by
nature have the greatest biological diversity and the biggest
impact on water quality. Prior to fees-in-lieu or mitigation programs
for encroachment into tidal buffers, property owners should be
given incentives to keep structures and other impervious surfaces
as far from the water as possible.
The closer to the water homeowners want to be, the more it should
cost. Asthe owner of three lots in Ocean Pines and Beachamp Road
I make this assertion with principle. Those who compromise something
that affects whole communities, should have to pay for it. In
this case it is the health of the coastal bays which is at stake.
As the concept pertains to the Buffer Management Areas, every
effort should be made to keep areas closest to waterways forested.
In the county, prior to the passage of the Critical Areas Law we had a 50-foot setback
with a 25 natural vegetation buffer required. Ocean Pines was
exempted from that because it was platted more than 20 years ago. We are already
living high off the hog.
The more we want to take, the more we should pay. All of us building
should make every effort to keep our structures away from the
waters' edge. If our appetite is too large, then we should plant at a rate of 3-1 to
replace native vegetation on land 15-25 feet from shore--not 2-1
as is proposed. A 2-1 ratio for the 25-100 feet from the shore
is fine but if that rate is the same as the 15-25 feet then there
is no incentive for staying away from the most sensitive areas.
The science keeps telling us that the more wetlands, forests and
buffer we retain, the more we protect water quality. The University
of Florida Low Impact Development Research Center has been showing that how watersheds
are developed can determine whether their adjacent water bodies
survive. All the science points to natural features as the keys
to this determination.
This is why our first goal should be to keep our property's natural
assets. Mitigation should ensue only when we must build close
to the water and the last resort should be a fees-in-lieu program which can help replace
elsewhere the things that we've taken. If property owners don't
like the 3-1 replacement then they can do a combination with fees-in-lieu.
Perhaps most telling about all of this is that natural plants
and features around our homes enhances our property values. If
no trees or shrubbery were there when we moved in, we should plant them not just for our
bays but for our wallets too.
Right now farmers are bearing the burden of nutrient management
laws, most septic system owners will soon be required to add nutrient
removal to their systems and commercial fishermen are adhering to strict size and
creel laws. Meanwhile we bayside homeowners, who have the largest
impact, have had cart blanche on the coastal bays.
I don't mind doing my part. Do you?
Part of the National Estuary Program, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program is a cooperative effort between Worcester County, Berlin, and Ocean City which have come together to produce the first ever management plan for their bays.
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site Directory Copyright 2003 - Maryland Coastal Bays Program Questions? Email: mcbp@mdcoastalbays.org |