January 28, 2008. The Inland Bays' pollution control regulation issue has been discussed since 1998 but NEVER ADOPTED.
Struggle over Inland Bays affects economy. Environmentalist discusses what the public can do By CRIS BARRISH, The News Journal
Woods hug much of the shoreline on the three waterways --
Great blue herons, ospreys and cormorants soar overhead. Horseshoe crabs nest on banks and extensive clam beds rest on its floor. For many, a trip to the shore is not complete without fishing or boating on the bays.
Because they are shallow, though, the bays are poorly flushed by tidal movement and sensitive to environmental changes, frustrating more than three decades of efforts by state and federal officials to improve water quality.
The main contaminants are nitrogen and phosphorous -- found in farm and lawn fertilizers, and human and animal wastes. They contribute to the rapid growth of aquatic plants, which grow, die and decompose, creating foul odors. The cycle uses up oxygen in the water, causing fish kills in tributaries.
Today, as environmentalists work to nurture the bays back to health, dozens of new developments along banks threaten their rebirth. In addition, builders, real estate agents and other development interests are protesting new proposed state regulations to limit runoff.
The state's goal is twofold: eliminate all direct pollution, such as effluent from water and wastewater treatment plants, and limit pollution from farm fields, lawns and failing septic systems.
Why are the bays important?
"The Inland Bays are the backbone of the coastal resort area stretching along the 25 miles of coastline from
Are the bays healthy waters?
"The bays are listed by the state as 'impaired waters.' They are plagued by the rapid and abundant growth of phytoplankton, including harmful algal blooms, dense accumulations of macro algae and periodic fish kills. Recent national coastal assessments characterized
Are subdivisions harmful?
"The development of residential land typically requires the development of additional land for commercial, industrial, transportation and utilities uses. This may result in reduced groundwater recharge from increased impervious areas, along with higher storm water runoff due to channeling and collection from paved areas and roofs."
What can the public do?
"Everyone has a role in nutrient reduction. Residential nutrient runoff can be reduced by carefully following dosage and application recommendations when applying fertilizers to lawns and gardens. Routine inspections and pump-outs for septic systems can help reduce nutrients by ensuring that the systems are functioning properly."
Contact senior reporter Cris Barrish at
Sussex County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update
CAC [Center for the Inland Bays Citizens Advisory Committee] Management Committee –
Review, Comment & Recommendations
This document presents the CAC Management Committee's review, comments & recommendations about the Future Land Use Element Draft dated
This review is a follow-up to the Recommendations1 made by the CAC Ad Hoc Subcommittee tasked with evaluating Land Use requirements for the SCCP 2007 Update, & subsequently adopted by the CIB Board of Directors. This review is based on these CIB Recommendations.
The CAC Management Committee reviewed the following documents to perform this analysis:
- The SCCP 2007
- The Sussex County 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update (SCCP 2003) - Land Use Element
- Delaware Inland Bays Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) [of the Center for the Inland Bays.]
- [The Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control {DNREC}
[1] We first present comments regarding the general nature of the DRAFT including its incorporation of CIB Recommendations & its effectiveness for implementing ordinances & enforceable code. [2] We then present a statement of concerns regarding the Inland Bays current environmental health status. [3] Third, we present the further actions that we believe must be taken by the Sussex County Council in the Future Land Use Element of the SCCP 2007 to ensure the survivability of the Inland Bays environmental health, water quality, & Sussex County quality of life. CIB, other
General Comments
In the July 31 draft of the Future Land Use Element, the County indicates that it continues to subscribe to land use goals consistent with CCMP goals. On page 13, goals such as "protect critical natural resources... by guarding against over-development & permanently preserving selected lands" & "ensure that new developments incorporate preserved usable open space & other best practices in subdivision design" demonstrate that. However, it is only by enactment of ordinances & enforceable code that implementation of these goals by the County will be achieved.
Much of the DRAFT references or generally describes potential changes to the SCCP 2007 that are directly or indirectly related to the CIB Recommendations. These references are as follows:
- Restatement of Growth Management Districts with permitted uses density, & infrastructure requirements (p. 14-24)
- Potential special protection of tidal wetlands where the County "may also consider” a "net" tract size reduction resulting in a reduced density for new developments within the Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area (ESDA) (p. 20)
- The potential conversion of the underlying ESDA zoning districts into "regular zoning districts" to legally implement the Density Bonus Program for the purpose of permanent preservation of a "substantial percentage of the tract" (p. 20)
- Retention of the rural environment in Low Density Areas (AR-1zoning) through the use of "plant landscaped buffers", additional incentives such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR'S), & "significant open space" (p. 22)
- Potential establishment of an Agricultural zoning district (p. 24)
- "Special interest' topics such as TDR use in Density Bonus Incentives & consideration of State Resource Areas/Natural Areas (SRA’S) maps in protection of open space & permanent land preservation (p. 26-29)
- Community Design criteria for cluster development planning that includes the identification of lands to be preserved through mapping of wetlands, flood-prone areas, etc. prior to drawing lot lines (p. 33)
- "Interest" in establishing eligible open space. This section describes valid purposes for open space & some criteria that may be used for assessing its value in a development. The main criterion for defining open space requirements is still based on area (p. 33)
The Committee regrets that the County did not address the following CIB Recommendations in the DRAFT:
- Establishment of buffer specifications for non-tidal wetlands.
- Utilization of Public water & sewer in all ESDA zoning districts The creation of a Wetlands/Critical Habitat Protection Element
- Restriction of growth in areas where there is no planned infrastructure or services
- The creation of an overall Sussex County Growth Plan through the analysis of land/environmental capacity versus development demand. The Growth Plan must evaluate population (current & future) & define infrastructure, nutrients, natural resources, sensitive areas, preservation areas, EMS, fire, police, public education, & Open Space requirements for the entirety of
- Enforcement
Effectiveness of
The CAC Management Committee notes that the County's intent is commendable & is pleased to see references to TDR'S [Transfer of Development Rights], SRA’S [State Resource Areas] preservation, & a listing of valid purposes for Eligible Open Space.
However, the Committee is concerned that most of the DRAFT is nonbinding & unenforceable as currently written.
While the County's goals are in line with the CCMP goals, the above references to the CIB Recommendations are just that – references & descriptions. In fact, the Committee finds that the DRAFT regresses from the 2003 SCCP2.
There are simply no requirements included in the DRAFT to implement through enforceable ordinances the goals set out in the 2003 update. For example, the section on future growth in ESDA [Environmentally Sensitive Growth Areas] contains only suggestions such as:
"The following major guidelines should apply to future growth in ESDA"...
"It may be advisable for legal reasons to convert this overlay into regular zoning districts"...
"The County may also consider an additional layer of protection in the ESDA"...
“Tidal wetland area could be subtracted from the total tract size...”
Another example is the section on TDR which is described as
"a voluntary program" with a listing of "generalized guidelines".
Therefore, because of the extensive unmanaged & unregulated growth that has occurred in the Inland Bays causing significant damage to the ESDA watershed since the SCCP 2003, the CAC Management Committee believes that major revisions set forth below must be made to the 2007 SCCP.
Statements of Concern3 Regarding Inland Bay Environmental Health & Actions Required
- Whereas, the
- Whereas, there exist numerous instances of government inconsistencies & lapses in application & enforcement of policies, laws, & regulations;
- Whereas, improving water quality in the Inland Bays is vital to maintaining the tourism & recreation of eastern
- Whereas, in the Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, the Inland Bays were designated ''waters of exceptional ecological & recreational significance";
- Whereas, only29% of the streams feeding the Inland Bays fully support aquatic life designated use;
- Whereas, the waters of the Inland Bays are highly enriched with nitrogen & phosphorous;
- Whereas DNREC warns visitors to various State Parks that "Waters of the Inland Bays may contain organisms that could be harmful to your health. Swimming could result in an increase risk of rashes, infections or gastrointestinal distress. Especially during & after rainfall.,,4;
- Whereas, the primary activities maintaining a eutrophic condition in the Inland Bays are agriculture & urbanization;
- Whereas, aquatic life & primary contact recreation uses are not supported in each of the Inland Bays;
- Whereas, the
- Whereas, most of that growth has been concentrated near already congested communities
- Whereas, growth will put people & buildings closer to sensitive natural areas, increasing the potential for their degradation;
- Whereas, urban areas with high relevant percentages of impervious surface contributed to significant pollution loads in waterways;
- Whereas
- Whereas, promulgation of a Pollution Control Strategy for the Inland Bays has repeatedly been delayed;
- Whereas; the Sussex County2007 Comprehensive Plan Update makes no reference to achieving TMDL's & does not include the SCCP 2003 requirement of identifying & mitigating the impact of a proposed ESDA development on TMDL's5;
- Whereas, the Sussex County Council signed the CCMP & in doing so, promised to enact policy that meets its goals, objectives, & tactics, including the Land Use Action Plan, which requires Inland Bays reduction of nutrients & habitat protection;
NOW THEREFORE,
It is the recommendation of the CAC Management Committee that the CIB Board approves & forwards the following recommendations to the Sussex County Council for implementation:
A resolution that The County must temporarily halt development approval of any new residential units or subdivisions in all zoning districts within the Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area6, at a minimum, but desirably the entire Inland Bays watershed,
Furthermore, that no new development (business, office, commercial, or industrial) be approved within the ESDA under the jurisdiction of Sussex County, except for schools, hospitals, emergency buildings, infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, & sewer) or as allowed by an incorporated municipality comprehensive plan,
Until such time that:
1. That
a. Requires a minimum of 100' effective buffers for tidal wetlands within the ESDA
b. Requires functional, effective7buffers for ESDA non-tidal wetlands
c. Utilizes Public sewer & water for all land uses in all ESDA zoning districts
d. Mandates implementation of the State Pollution Control Strategy (PCS) when legislated, & achieves established TMDL's utilizing DNREC's Nutrient Loading Protocol as part of the approval process
e. Creates & codifies an overlay of the State Resource Area/Natural Areas Maps that delineates protection areas, requires Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA's) & supporting mitigation for those critical areas impacted within and/or adjacent to ESDA
f. Codifies "Open Space" definition; categorizes types of Open Space by the habitat quality, sensitivity, & protective value; requires the calculation of housing density & Open Space for all development on the protective value of the Open Space, not just area; & codifies & enforces recommended wetland & other critical habitat removal from density calculation
g. Codifies a TDR program in conjunction with Density Ordinance #1920 & Open Space acquisition that creates interconnecting habitat corridors, restores/protects contiguous habitat, & requires the limit for sending tracts & receiving tracts in ESDA to be within the Inland Bays Watershed
OR
2. The Inland Bays are removed from the State 303D list of impaired waters, & are deemed "fishable & swim able".
_____________________________________________
1 Recommendations entitled "Requirements for the 2007 SC Comprehensive Plan Update", adopted
2 See SCCP 2007 - SCCP 2003 Comparison in Supplemental List
3 Sources: Pollution Control Strategy (Draft April 2007); SCCP 2007
4 Source: DNREC,
5 See SCCP 2007 - SCCP 2003 Comparison in Supplemental List
6 AKA: Environmentally Sensitive Developing District Overlay Zone;
7 As specified and/or endorsed by the CIS Science & Technical Advisory Committee (STAC)