Heated opposition to Chesapeake Bay ordinance in Loudoun

In response to waves of outspoken opposition from residents at a public input session, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors delayed its decision on a water quality measure that would make Loudoun the first jurisdiction in Virginia to voluntarily adopt the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, including strict water protection rules.

The board's decision followed a forum Monday evening at which more than 100 Loudoun residents signed up to address the supervisors before a standing-room-only crowd. The vast majority of speakers -- including farmers, business owners, local government leaders, developers and homeowners -- spoke out strongly against adoption of the ordinance.

At the session, Purcellville Mayor Robert Lazaro Jr. read from a letter submitted to the board on behalf of the towns of Hamilton, Purcellville and Round Hill.

"The ordinance will have a negative impact on the already weakened economy, especially the county's rural economy," he said. "It's an unfunded mandate that we cannot afford, and we urge you to step back."

Joe Coleman, president of the Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy, was one of the few in attendance who spoke in favor of the ordinance.

"It will not only protect the Chesapeake Bay but also our local streams and local water quality," Coleman said. Voluntary efforts that merely encourage protection of waterways do not work, he added: "We need strong, unambiguous laws that will fully protect and encourage buffers."

The Bay Act requires 84 tidewater localities -- defined as areas subject to tidal influence, including Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties -- to implement strict water protection rules to protect the health of the bay. The act also allows non-tidewater localities to voluntarily adopt the water protection criteria to improve the quality of local waterways and bay tributaries. While Loudoun is not subject to tidal influence, the county is bordered by the Potomac River, which drains into the bay.

Margi Wallo, Sterling district chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, was terse in her assessment that the ordinance was created for political reasons rather than environmental ones.

"We all know that this regulation has nothing to do with the Chesapeake Bay," she said. "What I don't know is how you can live with yourself if you vote for this, and how you can sleep at night."

The board's close vote Tuesday came after more than two hours of debate over the heated nature of the issue, the uncertainty surrounding the impact that the ordinance might have on county residents and the possibility of adding greater flexibility to the measure's regulations.

Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg) said she was encouraged by the tone of the previous evening's public input session.

"Most of the people who spoke made the comment that there need to be changes," she said. "They didn't say kill this, don't do it ... many people talked about being flexible, making some changes. And that was a real change from what has been previously been spoken."

But Waters had a less optimistic take on the feedback presented to the board. "There is still a lot of anger," she said. "I think there would have to be some pretty drastic changes for people to buy in to this being a good thing for the county. I don't feel we've done a good job in identifying what the problem is and how this specifically will solve that problem."

York stated his view simply: "We've blown it," he said. "This is a critical issue and unfortunately we have our community completely divided."

It would be better, he said, to start over with a new plan specific to Loudoun's needs, rather than attempting to adopt the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

"In hindsight I think it was a huge mistake to go with the Chesapeake Bay," he said.

2010

09

21

17

52

By Caitlin Gibson  | September 21, 2010; 5:52 PM ET
Categories:  Loudoun County  

University of Maryland: Riparian Buffers

An Introduction to the Riparian Forest Buffer
by Bob Tjaden & Glenda M. Weber
The word riparian refers to anything connected with or immediately adjacent to the banks of a stream or other body of water. Streamside forests are riparian forests. Riparian areas, which encompass the flood-plain and a portion of the adjacent upslope area, are complex ecosystems, connecting a stream system and a people-based system such as agriculture, housing, or industry. The ability of these areas to function naturally is crucial to the protection of the water resources of the United States. A buffer is an area managed to reduce the impact of adjacent land use. A riparian forest buffer, therefore, encompasses the area from the streambank in the floodplain to, and including, an area of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation located upslope from the body of water. Buffers are established and managed to reduce the impact of adjacent land use. The design of a buffer serves several important functions: it preserves the stream's natural characteristics, protects water quality, and improves habitat for plants and animals on land and in the water. The riparian buffer traps and filters sediments, nutrients, and chemicals from surface runoff and shallow groundwater. A framework of tree roots stabilizes the streambank. Microbes in organic forest soils convert nitrate into nitrogen gas through denitrification. Shade keeps the water cooler and moderates temperature fluctuation, increasing the water's ability to hold oxygen and support life. The stream flow slows around fallen trees and branches in the stream or riverbed, creating favorable areas for fish. Plant stems slow water velocity and root systems keep the soil porous, so excess water is absorbed into the ground and flooding potential is reduced. The buffer's capacity to hold large amounts of water allows percolation to deeper water aquifers, replenishing groundwater supplies. A riparian forest buffer improves the biological diversity of surrounding areas. Birds, mammals, and other animals find the food, cover, water, and nesting sites they need as well as corridors and pathways for movement between areas. Beginning at water's edge and moving away or upslope, the riparian area can be pictured in segments or zones. (See Figure 1) Figure 1. The Width of a Riparian Buffer is site specific and dependant on the landowners objectives This "Three-zone Buffer Concept" provides a framework for thinking about the establishment and maintenance of a long-term riparian forest buffer. The width of the buffer depends on the landowner's objectives, specific site conditions, and the condition of the waterway. The important structural component in Zone 1 (next to the water's edge) is a mixture of fast-and slow-growing native trees. If the stream is narrow, at maturity the tree canopy from both sides of the stream will meet or nearly meet. Zone 2 is designed for uses such as timber harvest (pulpwood or sawtimber), outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, or alternative forestry products (ginseng, mushrooms, nuts, etc.). Livestock should be excluded from this zone. Dense grasses and/ or forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants and wildflowers) compose Zone 3. The vegetation must be managed to promote nutrient uptake and sediment filtering. Used along with other conservation or best management practices, a riparian forest buffer offers a range of environmental benefits to everyone living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. References U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1966. Riparian Forest Buffers. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay White Paper: Riparian Forest Buffers, Jan. 1996
FS724	P97/R98
An Introduction to the Riparian Forest Buffer by Robert L. Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Natural Resources Wye Research and Education Center Glenda M. Weber Faculty Extension Assistant Natural Resource Management Wye Research and Education Center