The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
Environmentalists filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday that seeks to overturn a permit issued last year by the Army Corps of Engineers for a proposed 76-slip marina on Back Bay.
The complaint, to be heard in U.S. District Court in Washington, argues that the corps should not have granted the permit because the project would cause too much ecological harm to Back Bay, a shallow, sensitive and sprawling water body in Virginia Beach next to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville filed the suit on behalf of two local advocacy groups, Friends of Back Bay and the Back Bay Restoration Foundation. They say the permit violates the national Clean Water Act and should be revoked and returned to the corps so its analysts could do a more thorough study of the proposed project and better weigh its potential risks and benefits.
"We were pretty amazed the corps issued the permit in the first place," said Todd Barnes, president of the Back Bay Restoration Foundation, noting how numerous agencies, groups and citizens had urged the project be rejected.
"We're all about water quality," Barnes added, "and just feel this is not a good way to go. Especially when Back Bay is finally coming back after struggling for so many years."
The developer, Doug Wilkins, has been trying to obtain local, state and federal permits for the proposed marina since 2005. His representatives have argued that the corps permit includes numerous safeguards to protect the environment, including a no-wake zone and horsepower limits on boats, and that little harm would result.
An attorney for Wilkins, Ann Crenshaw, said Wednesday that she had not seen the lawsuit yet and could not comment.
A spokesman for the Norfolk district of the corps, which issued the permit, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
One longtime resident near Back Bay, Bill Sinclair, a retired engineer, said the proposed marina is not a big deal and should be allowed to be built. Suing to block the project on environmental grounds, Sinclair said, "is a waste of time."
"There's lots of boats on Back Bay, and they haven't done any harm," Sinclair said. "You can't run too close to the marshes" - where environmental harm is feared - "because it's too shallow in there anyway."
The marina would be built about one-sixth of a mile from the entrance to the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a sanctuary created for migratory waterfowl and birds.
It would require some dredging to establish deep water and would provide anchorage for 76 boats belonging exclusively to local residents. The corps permit would not allow any new personal watercraft, either.
Marirose Pratt, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the permit might include a no-wake zone, but the corps has conceded that it lacks the money and resources to enforce any such restriction.
Pratt also said the corps should have conducted an "environmental impact statement," a detailed study that looks closely at all potential consequences of a major project. But the corps chose not to do one in this case.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Ahoy There Mate
Having lived on an access to the Back Bay at the 'Bridge, tranquility of life was present with each view from the windows. Cannot imagine that beauty and peace of mind shattered by roaring packs of jet skis and outboards racing around for no apparent purpose, just because they can. If realized, there are conditions under which eco-liabilities can be reduced, but not eliminated. Hull coatings-only allow silicone and teflon based coatings (super-slicks) on the hulls-no copper for fouling, zincs for metal preservation or tributyltin on aluminum bits and pieces. Toxic metals and compounds accumulate in uderlying sediments due to intentional leaching. Fueling-the USCG will sqeeze the owner, but fueling must be rigidly controlled and only performed by trained and accountable marina staff. Vessel maintenance-none at all in water and only interior work otherwise. Sanitary-no such systems onboard any vessel with a potential for discharge. Jet skis must be restricted to emergency personnel only as they are the most hideous assault on mankind known to exist.
To play both sides of this,
To play both sides of this, newer jet skis are 4 stroke and emit far less pollution than most boats now. However, one hots the sand bar and we have a spinal cord injury for junior.
The majority of things mentioned like the repair/maint out of the water and discharge are voluntary and woulf need to be enforced. Anyone who spends time on the water has seen these ignored. It's kinda' like pot is illegal...you know? Doesn't really matter does it?
Zoom, Zoom
Many communities on isolated lakes and poorly flushed waterbodies have banned outright all two-cycle propulsion units for pleasure craft, including putrid jet skis. Petroleum products are never fully combusted and a good amount of BETX coumpounds are spewed into the water column with every stroke of the pistons. So your point on which engines to promote at the facilitiy is golden, but 4-cycle engines are more expensive. Maintenance - every marina has a haul-out-will this one also? When boats are hauled, they are rinsed and if the owner is a ninny, the hull will be scrubbed clean also. With that cleaning comes the dumping of debris, incidental fouling, and the potential to remove part of the vessel's potentially toxic biocidal coating(s). The slip-lease agreement for the marina, if realized, must be iron-clad and repleat with restrictions to ensure the waterbody and surrounding eco-community are well protected. Jet skis should be banned from Back Bay altogether - heck, they ALL should be ground up and made into concrete blocks - Junk Boy Toys!
Marina??
I am trying to imagine the need for a Marina on Back Bay?
I used to fish out of Bayhaven Farms in the 70's and early 80's and
unless the water has some how become deeper, you could sometimes barely
navigate with a bass boat without running aground. I can't imagine a marina with a bunch of slips in 3 feet of water unless it is all bass boats?
I have to say though that Back Bay had the best Bass fishing then just about anywhere in the US at that time.
My vote is in
On this issue I will vote the same way Obama would "Present"
We don't need another polluter on back bay
This marina is not needed.
There are plenty of other facilities in the area for boaters.
Another polluter on Back Bay?
I am neither for nor against the marina as yet, having not seen the environmental studies myself. However, I'm not sure what polluters you are referring to on Back Bay. Would you please enlighten me?
How about
all the polluters, from all sources, that destroyed the bay. It's nothing but a big mud hole from what it once was.
Possible Polluters
I can help on that.
1) Boats using two stroke engines(highly polluting)
2) Unburnt oil/fuel being expelled/spilled
3) Large wake being created 75 feet beyond marina but not wetlands
4) Trash thrown overboard(possible now but more so with more boats)
5) Noise caused by loud motors (wildlife would consider this pollution)
That is just a quick list. Does that help?
Wizardry vs. Science
I was thinking more in terms of real polluters, not theoretical ones. How many point-source polluters are there in Back Bay watershed? Could you list them by name? How many boaters (the only type of theoretical polluter you have listed) are currently using Back Bay watershed? Actual numbers (a scientific approach) would help.