Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all the facts and butthurts that aren't, there
> isn't a great deal of solid information on this
> thread for those of us who aren't following the
> Dyke March debate to know WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON
> HERE. So let's start with a few basic questions
> for those of us who don't want to google it
> ourselves:
>
> 1) Aside from being geographically close, what
> does Belle Haven Marina have to do with Dyke
> Marsh? Is closing the marina currently part of
> the plan for the marsh restoration? Is it an
> additional action under consideration? If so who
> will be making the decision?
Very long story. The shortest version that I can give you is as follows.
The marina is within the same park service property, just upstream and adjacent to the marsh. It's on public land but privately operated under a concession from the NPS. Earlier that was on a long-term basis, more recently operating year-to-year. It's been on shaky ground for a long time due to money issues and those who cite variety of negative effects on the marsh. On the other side, it has lots of public support since there are very few places to launch/store boats on the VA side of the Potomac and it's the only one in that area. Due to the continued controversy and budget issues, repairs have not been made to it over many years. As of last I saw it, estimates were in the range of $2 million needed.
It isn't so much a case of (many at least, there are some) calling for the marina to be removed. At least as I last knew it, the FODM, which is the primary advocacy group for the marsh, has taken the position that the marina should be permitted to operate with as little impact as possible but not be improved/enlarged. Which was a smart strategy on their part since that avoided a lot of what would have been more direct warfare between it and the various marina supporters and they know that they'll likely win through attrition anyway. Boaters don't have anything against the marsh, most are generally supportive I'd say, they just don't have many alternatives otherwise. The NPS has been kind of neither here nor there on it. Generally, it's recognized the reality and supported mixed use but I'd say that it's tended to lean more to the marsh side as a result of that being more within their primary mission versus operating a recreational boating facility and a mandate to preserve/restore it (as below).
What complicates all of this is that the dredging/mining, marina construction, etc., was done legally at the time with approvals pre-dating the NPS acquisition of the property. The area wasn't originally deemed to be anything particularly special. Shortly after it entered the NPS inventory, it then immediately became something special on that basis with proponents citing its natural/ecological value and what they thought that they were getting through the swap versus what happened to it. So, shortly thereafter, a restoration requirement for the area then was mandated (but not funded) by Congress. This now has been going on back and forth for probably +40 years with nothing much happening beyond smaller efforts given other priorities.
Which brings us to today where they've finally come up with a vehicle providing the money to do something more.
>
> 2) Just what is the $27M being spent on? Is it
> simply the cost of acquiring, hauling in and
> placing materials into the river? Does it also
> include measures to re-establish vegetation? Does
> it include additional fluff to pay for people who
> are not actually providing the materials,
> equipment or labor to do the restoration work?
The USGS report is one of the better single sources that describes the area, the problem, and how the approach to fixing it would work.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1269/pdf/ofr20101269.pdf
The EIS and other documents re the plan are here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?projectID=20293
The primary component of the protection plan is the construction of a breakwater and restoration of an original promontory which was mined away at the south end of the area. That's where most of the degradation is happening due to storm-driven wave erosion during major storms which tend to drive winds and water from that direction. There's not a lot of controversy about that part of it beyond just the usual money priority disputes. There's not much there other than a big shallow flat and the planned restoration won't affect navigation or anyone's use of the area otherwise.
Other parts include rebuilding of various areas which were removed during the mining/dredging operations which were permitted (again legally) at the time that the NPS acquired the property through a land swap. (Some of which went to support construction of the runways at National, which is why they're kicking in some money). That's more where the controversy is. In particular, among others, there's a deeper area which was dredged at the time where sailboats now are moored which would be filled in. So the sail boaters aren't happy with that part given that there aren't many places in the area to do so otherwise. Depending how it's done it also may block an area where people launch kayaks and the operate kayak and small sailboat school/rental. Also some rebuilding around some other areas which aren't much challenged.
Beyond those with more direct vested interests, some (like me) would view the effort to try to artificially rebuild something like this as kind of futile given how extensively it's been changed and how it now exists, all of the other development and impacts around it which it can't be isolated from on any practical level, and probably better places to more effectively spend that same money. There's really not much particularly unique about the area other than primarily that it just is where it is. To my understanding, it wasn't originally acquired due to its ecological significance; rather, it was just a desirable swap at the time. Advocates would argue that value, especially now since it's within the NPS, and they've been successful in doing so to push for restoration.
>
> 3) What kind of material are we talking about
> using to restore the marsh? Where is it being
> obtained from? Is it consistent with what is
> there or what would have been there if we had not
> mined the area? Where is the material coming
> from? Would removing the material for the marsh
> have adverse environmental consequences for the
> source area?
It would be from some combination of material removed by on-going dredging operations for the main river channel and material trucked in. Don't know where the latter would come from.
>
> 4) Presumably the flora and fauna have to a
> certain extent adapted to the changes that have
> occurred to the marsh? What steps are being taken
> to minimize damage the restoration may cause to
> what is still there?
You can look at the EIS and comments on the plan which address such things.
>
> 5) Funny thing about erosion is that it does not
> necessarily stop because we dump a bunch of dirt
> and rocks in. What makes us think this would
> provide a permanent fix to the problem rather than
> simply turning the clock back a few years? If it
> is a temporary fix, how long is this money buying
> us?
There's no real new ground being broken here as far as the primary measures to stop the most significant cause of erosion. The breakwater and other structures planned at the lower end of the area are standard procedure and in all likelihood would serve the purpose as designed. There is some long-term maintenance involved but relatively minimal expense in the scheme of things.
What's less certain to my mind is what you end up with from much of the other reclamation efforts, what may arise there, and the relative value. You're not going to do all of that without some unforeseen issues and impacts and it has the potential for an endless cycle of fixes and fixes to fix the fixes.
If it were up to me, I'd build the breakwater, do some partial restoration where it's most needed, and spend the rest of the money elsewhere more effectively. Call it good and fortunate to still have there as it is. They probably could have relocated the marina through some trade-off as part of the bridge reconstruction or to other NPS property nearby which would make both sides happier since the facilities at Belle Haven kind of suck and boaters aren't particularly tied to it other than it's all that's there. But that's not how we do such things and it's not up to me so...