Case study of a Corps of Engineers permit application NABOP-P (Watergate Village, Annapolis, Md.) 73-673

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Chesapeake
Research
Consortium

CASE STUDY OF A CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT APPLICATION:
NABOP-P (WATERGATE VILLAGE, ANNAPOLIS, MD) 73-673

The Johns Hopkins University Smithsonian Institution
Universtiy of Maryland Virginia Insitiute of Marine Science

DRC

Property of Coe Ubmuw

CASE STUDY OF A CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT APPLICATION

NABOP-P (WATERGATE VILLAGE, ANNAPOLIS, MD.) 73-673

MAY 1974

Second Printing

Milt
CENTER

U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

The work presented in this report was undertaken as a part of the
Wetlands/Edges Program of the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.
with funds provided by the Research Applied to National Needs
program of the National Science Foundation.

Chesapeake Research Consortium, Incorporated
100 Whitehead Hall The Johns Hopkins University
The Johns Hopkins University University of Maryland
a= Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Smithsonian Institution
Qy (301) 366-3300 Extension 766 Virginia Institute of Marine Science

PREFACE

With funds provided by the Research Applied to National Needs program of

the National Science Foundation (Grant No. G.I. 38973), investigators associated

with the Wetlands/Edges Program of the Chesapeake Research Consortium initiated

a study during the fall of 1973 addressed to the problem of incremental physical

alterations of the edges of Chesapeake Bay. The goal of this study is:

To develop information, criteria and guidelines which can
be used by public administrators to manage physical altera-
tions of Chesapeake Bay in a manner that will enhance the
uses of the region.

Objectives considered necessary for attainment of the program goal have

also been established. The objectives are:

1. An identification of the nature and extent of present demands
for physical alterations of the edges of the Bay.

2. A determination of the types and characteristics of environ-
mental impacts resulting from various types of physical
alterations.

3. A better understanding of the societal value choices which
ultimately underlie agency decisions relating to utilization
of the edges of Chesapeake Bay.

4. A greater understanding of the decision making process per-
taining to physical alterations of the Bay.

5. Preparation for use by public administrators of criteria
and guidelines for making decisions to avoid or mitigate
the negative impacts of proposed projects.

6. A complete documentation of the results, the case study
process, and the additional priority informational needs
of management relating to physical alterations of the Bay.

The research approach selected to achieve the goal and objectives of the

study involves three distinct but related activities.

(1) Analysis of permit applications for physical alteration
of the edges of Chesapeake Bay (approximately 2,000)
which were submitted to the Corps- of Engineers during
1973.

(2) Detailed case studies (approximately 40) of a
representative set of physical alteration permit
applications.

(3) Specific research projects which will be designed
to provide information needed by regulatory agencies
for permit proposal decisions.

Substantial progress has been made with the analysis of permit applica-

tions which were submitted to the Baltimore and Norfolk Offices of the Corps

of Engineers during 1973. Upon completion of the analysis, a report entitled,

"Pressures on the Edges of Chesapeake Bay - 1973" will be published. The

report is being designed to give local, state, and federal management personnel

of the Chesapeake region a more detailed and useful understanding of the present

pressures for the physical alteration of the edges of Chesapeake Bay, thereby,

enabling Bay managers to better focus their attention on the more significant en-

vironmental problems. An April 15, 1974 publication date has been established

for the "Pressures Report."

Work has also been initiated on the second activity listed above - case

studies. The material presented herein represents the first Qase study report.

Both the study and the report represents the collective efforts of a multi-

disciplinary task force which worked under the general direction of Professor

Garrett Power of the University of Maryland. Task force members are:

Dr, Robert J. Byrne, Geologist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Dr. V. J. Chapman, Biologist, Auckland University, Auckland,
New Zealand
Dr. Lyle E. Craine, Resource Planner, University of Michigan
Dr. Russell C. Eberhart, Engineer, Applied Physics Laboratory,
The Johns Hopkins University
Dr. Robert Ellis, Planning and Analysis Consultant, Hartford, Conn.
Prof. Garrett Power, Lawyer, University of Maryland
Dr. William H. Queen, Biologist, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Land Use Planner, Smithsonian Institution

As other case studies are completed, additional reports will be

released.

The assistance of federal, state and local management agency personnel

of the Chesapeake Bay region in supplying information necessary to this study

is gratefully acknowledged. Information contributed by the Chesapeake Bay

Foundation to this report is appreciated.,

William H. Queen
Program Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3

REGULATORY PROCESS 7

A. Federal 7
B. -State 11
C, Local 12
D. Private Rights 13

EXISTING CONDITIONS 17

A. Description of site 17
B. Description of surrounding locality 21
C. Water quality 22
D. Biota
E. -Land Use 26

1. Existing Use 26
2. Zoning 27
3. Comprehensive Plan 27

F. Water Use 30

ANALYSIS 32

A. Construction Activity 32
B* Resulting Structure 32
C. Facilityas, an Increment to Overall Development
of Back Creek 33
D. Existing Decision Process 35

RECONMENDATIONS 38

A. Watergate Village Application 38
B. Back Creek Region 38
C. General Recommendations 39
D. Research Projects 40

REFERENCES 41

APPENDIX A A PLAN FOR LAND & COASTAL USE IN THE BACK CREEK
AREA OF ANNAPOLIS 43

APPENDIX B APPLICATIONS TO BALTIMORE DISTRICT OFFICE FOR
PHYSICAL ALTERATION TO BACK CREEK DURING 1973 50

APPENDIX C STATE OF MARYLAND WETLAND LICENSE 74-23 WATERGATE
VILLAGE 62

INTRODUCTION

The application by Watergate Village to the Baltimore District Office of

the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for permission to expand its boat docking

facilities was selected for review by the Case Study Group for two reasons.

First, the proposed physical alterations are fairly typical in purpose, size

and design of those for which the Corps receives applications. Second, the

application presents a good cross-section of the issues faced by decision-

makers in determining whether to permit physical alterations of the shoreline.

The applicant, owner of an apartment complexproposes to add 30 addition-

al boat slips to the marina facility which it provides for its tenants. The

plans provide for bulkheads, mooring piles, cat walks and will involve both

dredging and filling. Most applications reviewed by the Corps include structures

of these types and are intended to afford access to the waters.

Public notices issued by the Corps explain that "the decision as to

whether a permit will be issued will be based on an evaluation of the impact of

the proposed work on the public interest." In the review of the Watergate

Village application this evaluation was reduced to a concern with four major

issues: (1) whether the project would obstruct navigation; (2) whether the

project would degrade or destroy a marsh (thereby having a bad effect on water

quality, and fish and wildlife); (3) whether the use of additional boats made

possible by the project would impair recreation by creating congestion; and

(4) whether the increment of sewage discharge associated with the use of these

additional boats would impair water quality. These issues transcend the

Watergate Village application, and decision-makers are recurrently called upon

to resolve them.

The case study which follows, proceeds in five steps. First the facts

involving application (its initial submission, the ensuing objections, the

resulting design changes, and its present status) are developed and presented.

Second, the administrative procedures (a morass of overlapping and interacting

regulations at the federal, state and local levels) which the applicant must

comply with, are outlined. Third, existing conditions (physical, biological,

land use, water use) both at the site and in the region are ascertained. Fourth,

an analysis is conducted wh ich attempts to state the major issues raised by

the application, to resolve these issues to the extent possible, and to measure

the capacity of the existing regulatory process to assure that the ultimate

decision will be in the "public interest." Fifth and finally, recommendations

are made which range from the specific (a recommendation of how the group feels

the Corps should respond to the Watergate Village application) to the general

(suggested decision-making criteria and guidelines, scientific research projects

to supply needed information, and changes in the regulatory structure).

This case study is intended to serve several purposes. It provides the

model of a methodology which if employed by existing regulatory agencies could

improve the quality of their decisions. It discloses deficiences in the exist-

ing information needed by decision-makers and has led the researchers to suggest

research projects which fill some of the gaps. It produces guidelines and

criteria which may be employed in the evaluation of other similar applications.

It suggests ways in which the decision process could be improved. And it iden-

tifies some of the basic societal value choices which inhere in decisions

relating to shoreline utilization, which once identified can then be referred

to appropriate legislative bodies for their consideration.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On @Ilay 7, 1973, Watergate Village, the corporate owner of an apartment

complex on a cove of Back Creek in Annapolis, applied to the Baltimore District

Office of the Army Corps of Engineers for permission to expand its marina f9cil-

ity so as to provide 30 additional boats slips for its tenants. At present it

has 134 boat slips to accommodate the recreational boating demands of tenants

in 608 apartments.

The plans accompanying the application provided for construction of a

bulkhead with projecting boat slips and placement of 30 mooring piles. Six

hundred and twenty-six cu. yds. of sandwere to be dredged and used as fill be-

hind the bulkhead. Much of this fill material was to be placed on a marsh

contained by the bulkhead. Catwalks were also to be constructed over the marsh

area. The work was to extend no more than 135 ft. channelward of mean high

water. These plans are set out in Fig. 1.

The application was circulated to other governmental agencies for their

comments and on July 5, 1973 the Corps issued a public not4ce on the application.

On August 21, 1973 the Environmental Protection Agency commented unfavorably on

the grounds that the project would result in the destruction of a marsh. Vari-

ous private parties responded to the public notice with unfavorable comments

because of the marsh destruction and because of already crowded boating conditions

in the cove. A particular point was made that proposed structure when coupled

with an existing pier on the opposite bank would impede navigation at the entrance

to the cove. (In response to this argument, the applicant pointed out that the

opposite shore pier had been laterally extended without permission and that

there was an outstanding administrative order requiring that this unauthorized

extension be removed.) In addition, Bowie Duckett the owner of land immediately

adjacent to the proposed structure argued that it would encroach on his riparian

Ile

q-o

epcA" OF YARI>.Io

A k6p

6CAL -a I lod
)0

ANNAPOLIS

0 K C T T

Figure 1. Original p@an: for Watergate Village

rights. And on October 5, 1973 the Maryland Water Resources Administration

joined the objectors when it refused a Certification of Water Quality on the

grounds that the marsh destruction would result in degradation of water quality.

On October 18, 1973 Watergate Village submitted a revised application.

The new plans replaced 2/3 of the bulkhead with a stone rip-rap on the existing

shore leaving the marsh untouched either by dredge or fill. The catwalks were

to be constructed in front of the marsh instead of over it, and adjustments were

made at the Bowie Duckett boundary. The limit of extension channelward and the

amount of dredged material remain as in the original proposal but there will

be surplus dredged material to be taken to an off-site disposal area. Assuming

that the unauthorized lateral extension of the pier on the opposite bank is

removed, the minimum navigable channel width will be 90 feet. Figure 2 presents

the revised plans,

There was one quick response to the applicant's revised plans. On October

24, 1973 the Maryland Board of Public Works issued the required state Wetlands

License which in essence approved the project, as revised. Since then there

has been little action. EPA has not yet commented on the project as revised and

the Maryland Water Resources Administration has not yet reconsidered its denial

of a Water Quality Certification. The most recent event occurred at the level

of local government when the Annapolis Planning Zoning Office, on January 31,

1974, requested the Annapolis Port Wardens (which also has licensing authority)

to postpone its decision pending a determination of whether the project is

permissible under the City's zoning ordinance.

Hence at the date of this writing it remains an open question as to

whether the project will be approved by the Corps and other state and local

regulators.

ILI

q-0

VI -C IN tTY
06

8-0

75.
RiP RAP.

1-4 A

'Nor TO MweC-U.JD@ %0 5
;z
4L OF t*1 H.W. 1@1(qev

Ho Pr..Cr.)C4tNCj OP% F14LLfNC3 O= ArAr
PIAPSK AkLjIN- in, 'PEP'm I rT Li:@-

PL "

Figure 2. Revised plan for I-aitergate Village

REGULATORY PRO CESS

The precedin g section presented a chronology of the major events in the

year history of Watergate Village's application to the Corps. Since the Corps'

regulatory process interacts with decisions by other Federal agencies, and with

decisions by state and local officials, some of these other procedures were re-

ferred to as well. This section will outline the overall regulatory process

faced by the Watergate Village developer at federal, state and local level. It

will discuss the scope of the regulatory power which has been delegated to the

various administrative agencies, the criteria which they employ in the exercise

of this power, and the coordination mechanisms which have developed between them.

A discussion of this regulatory backdrop whould establish the path which the

Watergate Village project will have to follow if it is to be approved, and should

facilitate analysis of the efficacy of the existing decision proces.

A. Federal

Under authority granted to it by the River and Harbors Act of 1899, 33

U.S.C. S401 et seq, the Army Corps of Engineers serves as the lead federal agency

in the evaluation of requests to make physical alteration in navigable waters;

Section 403 precludes construction of any structure, excavation or filling with-

out consent of the Corps.

While the concern of the Corps was originally limited to prevention of

the obstruction of navigation, today the Corps is to evaluate permit applications

by weighing of all benefits and detriments and determining whether the proposed

structure or work is in the "public interest." Such a standard or review is

mandated by S209.123(f) of the proposed regulations of the Corps which are

serving as an interim guide until a final version is adopted (see 38 Federal

In most instances the Baltimore District Corps Office endeavors to

accomplish this broad mandate by serving as a clearing house for objection

rather than by intensive internal review. Permit applications are regularly

circulated for comment to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department

of Interior, and appropriate state and local agencies. This circulation pro-

cedure is in part required by statute and in part is a product of the Corps'

self-imposed rules. EPA's review authority over Corps' applications derives

from its water quality responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, 33 U S.C. S1151 et seq. Section 401 of this Act also requires

state certification that the proposed project will not result in water quality

violations. D.O.I.'s review authority derives from the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. S661-66, which requires that "wildlife

conservation shall receive equal consideration" in any federal decision, and

that the federal agency making a decision consult with the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service of D.O.I.

The proposed policy, practice and procedure rules for the Corps, 33 C.F.R.

part 209 (38 Federal Register 12217), also provide in Section 209.120 F(3) that

permits will not be issued where authorization of the proposed work is required

by state and/or local law, and that authority has been denied. Accordingly,

the District Office of the Corps works out agreements with state and local

authorities which have such legal authority in order to seek their approval or

disapproval. With respect to the Watergate Village application this procedure

in effect gives the Maryland Board of Public Works (wetlands license), the

Annapolis Port Wardens (wharving permit), and the Annapolis City Council (zoning

authorization) a veto power over issuance of the Corps' permit.

In addition, Section 209.120(f)(3)(iii) of the Corps' rules provides

that the Corps should take into consideration the comments of other state,

regional or local agencies which have no direct legal authority concerning the

alteration. This opportuni ty is afforded by placing such agencies on a mailing

list to receive public notices"for..a. given 'region.
The Operations Division of the Baltimore District Office of the Corps

will undertake a limited substantive review of the potential effects of an

application on access to and navigation of the water. Section 209.120(g) of the

Corps' proposed rules establishes the following policy:

"Authorization of work on structures .... does not ....

authorize any injury to property or invasion of other

rights.

This section goes on to implement this policy with the following guidelines:

"A significant probability of requlting damage to nearby

properties can be a basis.for denial of an application."

And:

"A landowner's general right of access to navigable waters is

subject to the similar rights of access held by nearby land-

owners and to the general public's right of.navigatio n on the

water surface. Proposals which create undue interference with

access to, or use of, navigation waters will generally not

receive favorable consideration.

The Operations Division is assisted in spotting the potential adverse effects

of.structures on the riparian rights of neighbors by circulation procedures

which-guarantee that adjacent property owners will receive a public notice

on the application and an opportunity to register a complaint.

The Baltimore District Office of the Corps has also developed some of

its own "rules of thumb" to be used in appraising the navigation effects of

a proposed project:

1. The structure must not exceed 1/3 the width of the waterway.

2.. The applicant must stay away from the deepest portion of the

waterway.

3. The applicant must not build within 15 feet of a dredged channel-

way.

4. The applicant in general must avoid any hazards to navigation.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, pre-

sents the possibility that the Watergate Village proposal might be subject to

additional review by the Corps. Section 102(2)C requires all federal agencies,

with respect to major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of

the human environment to submit to the Council on Environmental Quality a de-

tailed statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action. It is up

to the District Engineer to determine whether such an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) is required in connection with'a permit application.

As seen in the preceding section, the Watergate Village applicant origi-

nally applied for a Corps permit on May 7, 1973. Following adverse comment from

the Environmental Protection Agency and denial of a water quality certification

by the Maryland Water Resources Administration, the.applicant reapplied on

October 18, 1973 with revised plans. The Maryland Board of Public Works

responded on October 24, 1973 with the issuance of wetlands license based on

the revised plans. But EPA has not yet commented on the revised plans; the

Maryland Water Resources Administration's denial of a Certification of Water

Quality has not yet been reversed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not

commented on the revised application. and the Annapolis Port Wardens are post-

poning consideration of issuance of a license pending a determin ation by the

Annapolis City Council of whether to give zoning authorization for the project.

Hence the Corps is presently withholding decision pending further comments at

the Federal level and further decisions at the state and local level. In any

event, based on past practices it appears unlikely that an Environmental Impact

Statement will be prepared in connection with their decision. If EPA, the

'Department of Interior or the State comments unfavorably, the Corps will refuse

the application on that basis without preparation of an EIS; and if there are

favorable comments from these public agencies, the District Engineer will prob-

ably conclude that an EIS is not required since permit issuance would not

significantly affect environmental quality.

B. State

The Watergate Village application will be subject to three basic review

procedures at the state level. Pursuant to Title 9 of the Natural Resources

Article of the Revised Code of Maryland, a license from the Board of Public

Works is required to dredge or fill on state wetlands. State wetlands are

defined to include "any land under the navigable waters of the State below the

mean high tide," NR S9-101(M). The Board is charged with the responsibility of

determining "if issuance of the license is in the best interest of the state,

taking into account the varying ecological, economic, developmental, recreational

and aesthetic values each application presents," NR S9-201(C). The Board issued

a wetlands license for the revised work plans for the Watergate Village proposal

on October 24, 1973 subject to a more or less standard set of ccaditions. A

c
py of this license is set out in Appendix 3.
o Pursuant to Section 401 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.

1151, the state must certify that the proposed construction activities will not

violate either ambient water quality standards or effluent discharge limitation,

prior to the issuance of a Corps permit. In Maryland, the Water Resources

Administration of the Department of Natural Resources is charged with issuance

or denial of such a certificate. The Water Resources Administration initially

refused issuance of such a certificate for the original Watergate Village

application on October 5,1973,.on the grounds that the work would have resulted

in the destruction of a marsh which helps to maintain and improve water quality

in the Creek. To date this refusal has not been reversed even though the re-

vised plan would not effect the marsh.

Pursuant to Title 8 of the Natural Resources Article, a review of the

adequacy of the sediment control techniques to be used in the building and

grading process is also mandated. NR S8-1103 generally requires approval by the

appropriate soil conservation district of a grading and sediment control plan

prior to issuance of any local grading and building permits, and NRS8-1208

specifically provides that the City of Annapolis issue a grading or building

permit within the Severn River watershed only after the developer submits a

plan of development approved by the Soil Conservation District. In order to

obtain such approval, the developer is required to submit a certificate from

a registered professional engineer stating that the developer's plan to control

silt and erosion is adequate to contain the silt and erosion on the property

covered by the plan.

C. Local

The Watergate Village proposal will be subject to a variety of review

procedures under the ordinances of the City of Annapolis. Section 10-14 of the

Annapolis City Code requires a permit to be issued by the City Engineer with

the approval of the Port Wardens of the City as a prerequisite to construction

of any wharf, pier or improvement into the waters within the City. Pursuant

to Section 10-19, the Port Wardens are charged with consideration of "preserva-

tion of free navigation on the waters, theavoidance of undue congestion or

confinement, the rights and welfare of riparian owners and any other matters

affecting the public health, safety and general welfare" in determining whether

a permit should be granted at a parti@ular location. See, Annapolis Charter

#36-40 for the procedures for appointment and review of decisions of the Port

Wardens.

Other provisions of the Annapolis City Code would require the applicant

to obtain both building and grading permits before embarking on construction of

the proposed boat slips. Section 6-9 requires a permit from the Mayor and

Alderm,in prior to building any structure; Section 6-40 requires a permit from

the City Engineer prior to grading or excavation. Sections 6-41 through 6-52

go on to provide for development of sediment control plans and their approval

by the Anne Arundel Soil Conservation District which become a part of such

grading permits.

Finally, Section 22-14 of the Zoning Ordinance in the Annapolis City Code

precludes construction of any structure, pier or marina within the banks of a

watercourse, but then provides for waiver of the prohibition if the structure

or fill is approved by the Corps of Engineers, state and local authorities.

The site of the Watergate Village project is in an R-4 zoning district.

Since, pursuant to Section 22-29 of the Annapolis City Code, mooring slips and/

or docks are conditional uses in R-4 districts, yet another permit procedure is

required. Following review by the Annapolis Planning and Zoning Commission,

such requests are sent to the Annapolis City Council for public hearing and

approval or disapproval. Accordingly, on January 31, 1974, the Annapolis Plan-

ning and Zoning Office sent a memorandum to the Annapolis Port Wardens requesting

that the Port Wardens delay consideration of the Watergate Village proposal

pending completion of this review.

D. Private Rights

The law has long recognized a right of access to navigable waters as an

incident to ownership of riparian land. But there are questions in determining

the specific application of this general proposition. First, what type and

scale of structure may the riparian landowner construct to afford access?

Second, in what geographical area must such be located? Since the second

question'is-more readily resolved, it will be addressed first. The riparian

landowner must exercise his right of access and construct any supporting facil-

ity in frontof his lot. But the divisional line between riparian land is often

difficult to establish. Over the years the Maryland courts have worked out

rules of equitable apportionment in a series of cases. These rules are perhaps

best described in a decision by a federal district court applying Maryland law.

According to that court:

If the shoreline is straight, the riparian lines are to be
extended from the divisional lines of shore into the water,
perpendicular to the shoreline. If on the other hand the
shoreline is concave, converging lines shall run from the
divisional shorelines to the line of navigability. If the
shorelines are convex, the lines will be divergent to the
line of navigability. Mutual Chemical Co. v. Baltimore,
33 F. Supp. 881, 887 (D.Md. 1940), reversed in part, 122 F.
2d 385 Oth Cir. 1941).

The principles enunciated by the court in Mutual Chemical Co. have been cited

with approval a number of times by the Maryland Court of Appeals. See, e.-&.,

Causey v. Gray, 250 Md. 3180, 243 A.2d 575 (1968).

Within the territorial jurisdiction of Annapolis, the power to regulate

access and to determine division lines has been delegated to the Port Wardens.

Annapolis City Code, S10-19. And it has been held that the courts will only

consider a dispute relating to the location of an access structure following a

prior decision by the Port Wardens, and will only reverse their decision upon

a showing of abuse of power. Fenudale v. Sarles, 190 Md. 244, 58 A.2d 248 (1948).

Looking at the design for the structure proposed by the Watergate Village

applicant, it appears to be within the divisional lines for the applicant's

tract which would be established by applying the equitable apportionment rules

stated in the Mutual Chemical Co. case; moreoverif permission from the Port

Wardens is obtained, the applicant should be effectively insulated from an

effort of a neighboring landowner to challenge the legality of the structure's

location.

The substantive extent of the riparian landowner's right to access is

more problematic. Generally, the common law said that riparian landowners were

entitled to natural accretions, but lost their ownership of shorefront land

eroded away. On the other hand, riparian landowners were entitled to reclaim

land lost by avulsion (i.e., a sudden and rapid loss of land to the water).

See, Harrision v. Sterett, 4 H & McH 540 (Md. 1774); Girand v. Hughes, 1 Gill & J.

249 (Md. 1829); Chapman v. Hoskens, 2 Md. Ch. 485 (1851). As to access, the

common law was satisfied to say that the riparian landowner had a reasonable

right of access. See, VanRuymbeke v. Patapsco Ind. Park, 261 Md. 470, 276 A.

2d 61 (1971). This, of course, raises more questions than it answers. In the

Watergate Village instance, for example, does it mean one boat slip, or 608

(one per apartment), or some number in between.

Recent statutory modifications do little to clarify the rights extended

riparian landowners.. Section 9-201 of the new Natural Resource Article of the

Maryland Code Provides:

9-201. ACCRETION TO AND IMPROVEMENT IN FRONT OF LAND ON NAVIGABLE
WATER

A NATURAL PERSON WHO IS THE OWNER OF LAND BOUNDING ON NAVI-
GABLE WATER IS ENTITLED TO ANY NATURAL ACCRETION TO HIS LAND,
TO RECLAIM FAST LAND LOST BY EROSION OR AVULSION DURING HIS
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF PROVABLE EXISTING
BOUNDARIES. HE MAY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE WATER IN FRONT
OF HIS LAND TO PRESERVE HIS ACCESS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATER OR
PROTECT HIS SHORE AGAINST EROSION. AFTER AN IMPROVEMENT HAS
BEEN CONSTRUCTED, IT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND
TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED. A RIGHT COVERED IN THIS SUBTITLE
DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE OWNER FROM DEVELOPING ANY OTHER USE
APPROVED BY THE BOARD. THE RIGHT TO RECLAIM LOST FAST LAND
RELATES ONLY TO FAST LAND LOST AFTER JANUARY 1, 1972, AND
THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE LOSS OCCURRED AFTER THIS DATE IS
ON THE OWNER OF THE LAND.

It should be noted, however, that this section applies to "natural persons"

only, and not to corporations. Hence the rights of the landowner in the Water-

gate case, a corporation,, are governed by the even more amorphous common law.

EXISTING CONDI TTONS

in order to evaluate the Watergate Village Application, it is necessary

to have A good unde. rstanding of existing conditions in the area of the proposed

alteration. This section undertakes the task of developing and synthesizing

information relating to,:. A) physical aspects of the site, B) physical aspects of

the surrounding locality, C) water quality, D) biota, E).land use, and F) water

use.

A. Description of site

The application site (Fig. 3) is near the mouth of a cove which is the

first small arm of Back Creek (Fig. 4 and 5). The northern shore of the cove has

a marina near the mouth with bulkheading. Then there are several private houses,

each with a pier going out from a beach (no bulkheading), and finally a marina.

Towards the head of the cove is one vacant plot and one small area of unfenced

grassland going down to the wooded marsh through which runs a small stream. These

are designated as permanent open space by the Annapolis Planning and Zoning

01fice. The southern shore of the cove has one large wooded property with a

single house (Mr. Bowie Duckett). The woodland goes to the water's edge and

there is no bulkheading. Between the bulkheaded lawn of Watergati Village and

the Duckett property is.the small area of marsh composed of Spartina cynosuroides,

Typha and Phragmites.in front of which is to be the proposed jetty. Watergate

Village has a series of jetties with slips. Three moorings and 40 berths occur

in the cove. Water depths range from 7-9 ft. at the mouth to 2 ft. at the marsh.

At the site the range is 7.5-8.5 ft. There are 4 major street drains into the

cove and three short local run-.offs. The bottom of the cove appears to be a

medium grained sand becoming finer grained.toward the marsh at the head.

M - marina
Plain Arrow - storm drain
Dotted Arrow - local outfall
Number water depth (ft.)
M.%y5 IL

I@4'r.!5@L
S"- M

Dess
F. W4 ere

Figure 3. Back Creek

Action
Program ,k@i
4.

This report has identified a need,
analyzed existing conditions and
noted. a deficit. In order to meet this
deficit of park and recreational land,
Annapolis must have an effective
organization, a rational program and
reliable funding. If organization, pro-
gram and funding are addressed in
a forthright manner, success Is In-
evitable. If any one is neglected,
Annapolis will lose its chance to
retain its special quality.

City-Wide Program
S,

Parks
0 Street-end Parks
1. Truxton Park Addition
2. City Marina
3. Bywater Athletic Field -4-< 5
Existing Community Centers
4. YMCA
5. Salvation Army
6. Recreation Center I
Proposed Community Centers A
7. Stanton Center
8. Recreation Center P@ C-k 5 rre
9. Salvation Army
Parole Center (location to be
determined)
Severn River
Bicycle Trails
First priority
Second priority
Third priority
Note: Some use of streets is
nevitable, separate bikeways to be
provided where possible.
Important Natural Area
<M Designates areas to be
considered for permanent
open space. 15

Figure 4. Annapolis with Back Creek in the
lower portion of the map. Water
quality-sampling sites are desig- Source: Green Annapolis
nated. A - D. (Annapolis Planning and
Zoning Office 1973)

20 _./':J
76*30' 1, 1 ml TO U S 50 6 mc) 2@5 @1. 3 owl 'TO U s 50 37306(31,@ E. 27'30@'
39*00'
Radio Hi,
I T_o, W -er
P
T6 @nni
Severn it'.
ra , r,
M. t 01 Fer
Horseshoe Tayl
OU9.
.X,
oint
Z&-E _EN _SU_k y
Brice 70 A;
Radio '@'-AD
Poin 0
W,ij, dQ e4, les ANN
m Tower
Pilin@,. 30 -:ourse
4317009,.N. Uf 18 P,I,ng"
o
qrpy! US NA Ra,d
-Meadow e,, 6rn River
le Bri e\ Tovier
Pile t ad,
Masi.
Ferry ad@o
Point `\@@Towers
ter
ko
0 -soosal
NSever 14 a
tat 10 '1.,
436 9@pi .ter
Beac
R
Bieman
th etic IZ, T(
Fit i;-,
qeld
(j, N..
q- . 11
colleoe ()if
Rifle and Pistol
N P I
At* Ranges 7
Pile
N,
0 _'0
4 UkA
P I A
14Y R _@arr
T JOHNS 000 Point
5 1, n

Basin

ts 450
Ca

40 qA7
4 5 v eel
Irc P,Oect
U S Coast Guard Radio To%
Sta
Pilin
yCamore
int
VIA,
ile
0
olk cton .1piling
k Cove 0
(L N Horn
U spq
z Poink

Light@
Light
'it' Chinks
q)
a.. oint
CIO M

4h.
.'Se
'Wag
Dispo4l----
Iktonia
f
%

ler Sparrows
57'30" Beach
hts

C:rrs
'Mase
ach
161 Pond

_j_j 1`4
Victor

-Piling
?WJaVeW"
N ` I. -1@ -- D.
0 U
olf Co Swi
0 rse
,0 Pool

n
X Roa

Figure 5

B. Description of surrounding locality

The cove is part of Back Creek, the mouth of which is located at the point

where the Severn River merges into Chesapeake Bay. The channel at the mouth is

narrow (50 ft.) with a depth of 10 ft. This is important in relation to the

number of boats using the creek. The creek is about 1 mile long with an area

of 0.2 sq. miles and a drainage are of 1.0 45 sq. miles (Jarosinski, 1972). The
average depth of the creek is 2.23 m. The mean low water area is 440,000 m2

3
and mean low water volume 981,200 m The normal tidal range of 0.29 m adds
127,600 m3 to the creek (Cronin, 1971). This means only 13% increase in volume

of water during high tide and very small exchange of water due to tidal action.

The run-off from local streets is probably very similar to an adjacent

creek (Spa Creek) for which data is available, and in that case will be about

0.1% of the total volume of water in the creek. Adopting the paving criteria

of Dimsdale (1973) 50% of the shoreline would have 55% paving and 50% would have

98% paving. The extent of paving affects the amount of surface water run-off.

The entire creek is serviced by the municipal sewerage system and on the west

shore there are 11 storm drain (plain arrows, Fig. 3) outfalls plus 7 local

(dotted arrows, Fig. 3) outfalls. Four and two respectively of these drain into

the Watergate Cove (Fig. 3). It is evident that the eastern shore will be

progressively developed and this will cause increased run-off. Behind the very

end of Back Creek a major new village development is nearing completion and this

is symptomatic of what will happen in the future. The storm water from this new

village will probably run into the head of the creek.

The western shore of Back Creek is primarily residential or marinas. There

is one oyster dock. There are very few open spaces. The eastern shore is con-

siderably less developed and much of the land is still private property with a

few marinas interspersed. The field station of the Chesapeake Bay Institute is

near the head of the creek. A sewage treatment works is currently being con-

structed on this side but the out-fall will be to the Bay. The shore of the

western bank is over 50% bulkheaded with much less (circa 20%) on the eastern

bank. Salt marsh leading into tree-clad swamp occurs at the heads of all the

small coves with marsh fragments in the bays. These are designated as permanent

open space. These headwater swamps compriae substantial stands of Phragmites

australis with Spartina cynosuroides and Scirpus americanus. Along the shoreline

narrow bands of marsh, particularly on the eastern shore will include,Spartina

alterniflora, Spartina patens and Scirpus americanus,. Along the high edges Iva

frutescens is likely to be present.

C. Water Quality

Back Creek has been classified as Class II (group A) water use by the

Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Water Resources Regulation 4.8. This

means the creek can be used for shellfish harvesting. For this use the number of

coliform organisms must be less than 70 ITN per 100 ml and the D.O. (Dissolved

Oxygen) should not be less than 4 ppt at any one time. For swimming waters the

coliform count must not exceed 240 MPN/100 ml. Using reconmendations for the

Potomac River (Dimsdale, 1973),maximum total phosphorus should not exeed 0.06

mg/l and inorganic nitrogen 0.5 mg/l.

Coliform counts are only available for one sampling station. Between

Oct.,1970 and July 1973, 34 counts were made. On 16 occasions the count exceeded

240 NPN/100 ml (47% of time). On 6 of the 16 occasions the high coliform count

occurred after rain, and the maximum count (4600) took place after flooding rain.

The high coliform count would seem to be mainly attributable to storm water run-

off.

Data for the other parameters were obtained from 5 sampling stations

(Fig. 5,, A-D) (Jarosinski, 1972).

Salinity - Very little variation was recorded between sites sampled and depth,

therefore, only averages are given.

14 Apr. 20 Apr. - 28 Apr. 5 May (all 1973)

0
5.56 0/00 5.65 0/00 3.57 0/00 4.74 /00

There are no autumn figures.

Dissolved Oxygen

April '73 May '73 June '73 July '73
Station Aver. ppm. Aver. ppm. Aver. ppm. Aver. ppm.

a 10.76
b 10.79
c 10.60 Range 7.9 - 12.7 ppm.
d 10.27
e 10.09
Sampling Station [Range 8-20] 15.7 13.0 13.6

These values are significantly higher than those of an adjacent creek (Spa Creek)

and are satisfactory in being well above the minimum safe limit of 4 ppm.

Inorganic nitrogen
April Av. (mg/1) N03 (mg/1)
Station NO,+NO3 Ma Aver. June Aver. Ju_Ly aver. (all 1973)

a .65
b .67
c .65 Range .46 - .77
d .64
e .63
Sampling Station [Range .04 - .55] .32 .057 0.05

Values are high at the end of winter, probably from street run-off and decompos-

ing vegetation, and they decrease during summer with growth of phytoplankton.

The April levels are above the maximum (0.5 mg/1) set for the Potomac River, but

they rapidly fall below.

Ammonia nitrogen - mg/l (average for April)

Station a .127; b = .138; c .,096; d = .105; e = .112.

Range .05 .19. No significant conclusions can be drawn in the absence of data

for other times of the year.

Inor&anic phosphates
Station Apr il Av. W/1 LW Av. (mg/1) June Av. (mg/l July Av. (mg/1)
a .043 (all 1973)
b .054
C .050 Range .025 - .075
d .046
e .040
Sampling Station [Range .01 .17] .06 .02 .025

With the exception of three samples from the sampling station and four from

stations b-d (Fig. 4), all were below the maximum (.06 mg/1) recommended for the

Potomac. Again there is a decrease with rising water temperatures and increasing

phytoplankton.

Temperature ('C)

14 Apr. 20 Apr. 28 Apr. 5 May (all 1973)

Aver. a-e & all depths 11.88 14.16 14.08 14.78

Station a b c d e Sampling station

Apr. Aver. Surf 7.59 8.04 8.03 7.45 7.66 Aver. May 9.0

Apr. Aver. Sub-surf
(3.5-4 ft), 7.4 7.6 7.44 7.92 7.36 Aver. June 8.75

July 8.8

Chlorophyll a

Values are really only available for 28 Apr. and 5 May (Aver. 29.98 and 43.57

mg/l respectively) and are insufficient to justify comment.

Sediment

Appears to be a mediunt-grained sand, probably becoming finer-grained towards

the head of each cove.

D. Biota of region

Based upon reports for this portion of Chesapeake Bay (U.S. Army Corps Report

Appendix C), the following organisms should be present in Back Creek.

Phytoplankton

Dictyocha trIpartita Asterion6lla jap6nica
Bacteriastrum delicatulum Biddulphia.mobiliensis
Cerataula pelagiga var. elon&ata Chaetoceros affinis
Chaetoceros holsaticus C. compressus
C. socialis C. ,subtilis
-Eoscirosira Polvchorda Coscinodiscus marginatus
Cyclotella striata C. perforatus
Ditylum brightwellii Pleurosigma angulatum
Rhizosolenia calcar avis Rhizosolenia fragilissima
Skeletonema costatum Thalassiosira decipiens
Thalassionema nitzchioides T. nordenskioldii
Ceratium fusca Gonyaulax monacantha.
Massartia rotundata G. polyedra
Peredinium triquetrum spinifera

Macroalgae

Ulva lactuca
Enteromorpha spp.

Submerged vascular plants

Vallisreria americana Najas guadeloupe sis
Myriophyllum spicat Ruppia maritima
Potamogeton perfoliatus Zannichellia palustria

Emergent vascular plants

Spartina alterniflora Phragmites phragmites
S. cynosuroides Typha sp.
S- 2atens Scirpus americanus.
Distichlis spicata Iva frutescens

Polychaetes

Should be abundant

Copepods

.Acartia tonsa (c) Eurytemdra affinis (c)
A. clausi (c) Oithona brevicorhis
Scottolana canadensis Podoh po,jXphym61des

Jelly fish

Sea nettle, Winter &'Moon Jelly Fish, Sea Walnut

Molluscs

Soft-shelled clam
American oyster
Melampus bidentalis
Littorina irrorata

Crustacea

Fiddler crabs, Blue crabs

Vertebrates

Herring (young), Eel, White Perch, Yellow Perch, Menhaden, Striped Bass, Blue
Fish (young), Atlantic Silverside, Hogchaker, Bay Anchovey, Duck, Blue Heron,
Snapping Turtle, Raccoon, Muskrat, Otter, Opossum.

Of the species that should be present in Back Creek, none are endangered. Also,

Back Creek does not represent a unique habitat for any of the above listed species.

E. Land Use

1. Existing Use

The Back Creek Watershed is depicted in Fig. 5. The residential population,

number of housing units, and acres of vacant land in this region are summarized

below:

1970 Census Population: 5702

No. of Year-Around Housing Units: 1923

No. of Year-Around Single Family Units: 996

No. of Year-Around Multiple Family
Units 10 or more/building: 568

No. of Year-Around Multiple Family
Units Less than 10, More than 1
per building: 359

Number of Acres of Vacant Lots: 204.44

Number of Acres of Buildable Land 189.50

Maximum Number of Units Permitted on
these vacant buildable acres: 533 Single-Family Units

1673 Multiple-Family Units.

Source: G. Latimer Schmidt, Annapolis Planning Office

ZONING MAP
28
r i,
FOR .1 CITY OF
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
N"_
AUGUST io. 1970 Ile.
RI SINGLE,-FAMILY RESiOE.`,'CLE D;STRI R41
CT

R2 .SINGLE- FAN1111-Y RESIDENCE. DISTRICT

'ERA!
R3 GEN RESIDENCE DISTRICT pu
R4 GENERAL RESIDENCE Df!3rRICT
R 5 GENERAL PESIDENCE D!FTRICT
2 - SECOS[@,
81- CONVENIENCE SHOPPAG DISTRIC
T

B2 FISTRICT
COMMUNITY SHOPPING
B3 GENERAL CONIMER@,':%L UtSTRICT
II INDUSTRIAL SERVICC D@srjfCT
2
12 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL Disr-, CT
Al
Cl CONSFRVATION RESIDENCE DISTRICT
C RE E K
-'!CT
C2 CCNSFL?VA'TiON BUciNCSS c.;'F; v
I E,3-@ 7 @__ Ij.
9P
MARiTINIE SERVICE (.tSfkkCT
M2 MARITIME INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

ASTPORT
PROFEGSI'@@NAL OFFICE DISTRICT
P
132

7.s
Z,

%
eY@

4-@ 4
'A
/_4
.4A

.440
VrA!
-17

77-3,

Figure 6
@13
13

X@,
*L(j,
j:

3 December 1913, the Forest Drive Corridor Plan will include the following:

1. Information collection and graphic presentation. The following infor-
mation, will be collected and presented for visual analysis:

a. Land
1) Vacant land
2) Zoning
3) Land values
4) Parcel ownership patterns
5) Natural environmental features

b. Improvements
1) Existing residential development
2) Residential development proposals
3) Existing commercial and business development
4) Commercial and business development proposals

c. Roads and traffic
1) Existing traffic patterns
2) Existing road capacities
3) Proposed road improvements
4) Potential road capacities

d. Community facilities
1) Existing community facilities
2) School system capacities
3) School plans
4) Existing utilities (water and sewerage)
5) Proposed utilities development

..2. Identification of alternative futures

a. Identify three alternative future development forms for the area:
1) Present trends continued with improved development control
a) Improve Forest Drive
b) Traffic engineering measures at intersection and along
commercial strips
c) Provision of needed community facilities and services
d) Expanded site planning controls
2) Major development measures
a) New sewer interceptor
b) Increased zoning densities
c) Redesign of development parcels
d) Patuxent Freeway
e) Development controls to reserve open space for public
facilities
3) Major control measures
a) Downzoning
b) No new sewer or major infrastructure facilities
c) Development timing controls
d) Development limits and constraints

3. Development of alternatives in terms of:

a. Amount of development of various types to be.allocated
b. Major infrastructure facilities required and general locations
c. Potential allocation of development in the planning area
d. Major political and administrative prerequisites (development
controls, management policies, capital improvements) required.

4. Impacts of alternative futures. Assessment of major impacts of alternative
futures including the following:

a. Population increase and characteristics
b. Community facility requirements
c. Local revenues and expenditures
d. Development trends and patterns elsewhere on the Annapolis
Peninsula
e. Existing residential areas
f. Natural environment
9. Low and moderate income housing
h. Local political and policy efforts and coordination required

5. Conclusions
a. Alternatives will be analyzed and conclusions drawn regarding a
recommended alternative or combination of alternatives
b. Recommend policies and measures regarding site planning, community
development, development controls, infrastructure facilities
which should be adopted in support of recommended alternative.

A preview of the park and recreation1eatures likely to be included in

the Comprehensive Plan for 1975 may be obtained by looking back to Fig. 4 which

is taken from a report of the Annapolis Planning and Zoning Office. It will be

noted that it designates the headwaters of the tributaries leadin& into Back

Creek (including an area adjacent to the Watergate Village site) as "areas to be

considered for permanent open space." Also of significance is its proposal of

a city marina o n the eastern shore of Back Creek at the site of the existing

sewage plant.

F. Water Use

Back Creek is presently used as a boat "driveway" a way to get out onto

the Bay. Very little use is made of the creek itself for swimming, fishing, or

boating. There are about 1,350 boats kept on Back Creek during the warm months

at the present time. Many of these boats are removed in the winter months. A

large percentage of these boats are kept in slips (perhaps 90 percent); the

rest are at moorings.@ Most of the boats are sail boats (perhaps 2/3); the rest

are power boats. Almost all of the sail boats have some form of engine power

available for auxiliary use. On a peak summer weekend day, only about 50 percent

of the boats are in use. During the peak usage days there are presently some

problems with crowding. The crowding effect is felt most acutely at the mouth

of the Creek, where traffic is maximum and the channel is most narrow. The

narrowness of the channel at the mouth makes it very difficult to maneuver.

In addition to the Watergate Village proposal, eight other applications in-

volving Back Creek are pending in the Baltimore Office of the Corps. Pertinent

information relating to these applications appear in Appendix B. The most exten-

sive project is for 1 450 feet of pier, 472 piles, 1,118 feet of bulkhead, 200

cubic yards of dredge, and 200 cubic yards of fill. If all of the permits were

granted as applied for, approximately 600 additional boats would be permitted

to berth on back Creek, bringing the total to about 2,100 and exacerbating the

boat congestion problem.

There are no public access points on Back Creek. However, small boats

may be launched for a fee from a ramp at one private site but one has to know

the owner and make prior@arrangements. I

Interviews with several residents of the Back Creek area suggest that

existing traffic does not present an unduly hazardous situation. But it was

pointed out that they occasionally felt it necessary to avoid leaving or enter-

ing Back Creek during peak traffic periods. The Marine Police also recognize

the problem of congestion. While concerned about the problem, they feel that

they can only tangentially respond by establishing and enforcing speed limits.

ANALYSIS

For discussion purposes, the analysis will look at three aspects of the

Watergate Village application. Attention first will be addressed to the con-

struction activity necessary to carry out the project. Next, the effects of

the resulting structure will be reviewed. Finally, the facility will be con-

sidered in relation to the overall development of the Back Creek waterway.

A. Construction Activity

The construction activities necessary to build the proposed 30 additional

boat slips will not result in any significant environmental degradations. Assum-

ing that all upland grading and excavation work is done pursuant to an approved

sediment control plan (as is legally required), it will not damage water quality,

nor will the construction incident to the revised proposal have any long term,,,

deleterious effect on the marsh. The proposed dredging will result in some

temporary disturbance while it is being conducted, but any impacts should be

transient and the bottom fauna should gradually return to its present status.

B. Resulting Structure

Pursuant to the revised plans, no marshlands would be dredged or filled;

access over the marsh would be by piering. Nor does it appear that the exis-

tence of the 30 new slips would result in the erosion or silting in of the marsh.

Hence the structure does not appear harmful to the marsh.

The structure is well within the Corps' guidelines relating to obstruc-

tions to navigation: it does not exceed 1/3 the width of the waterway;,it stays

away from the deepest portion of the waterway; it is not built within 15 feet

of a dredged channel. Whatever encroachments exist to navigation result from

the pier on the other side of the mouth of the cove. This pier was constructe d

without obtaining the requisite permits and the owner has been ordered to re-

duce its length. The Watergate Village facility does not constitute an

obstruction to navigation.

The proposed facility seems aesthetically acceptable and structurally

sound. The profile of the structure is low and will not impair the waterscape;
its design seems compatible with' adjoining landscape and should withstand the

impact of storm tides.

Water quality at the site of the proposed structure is presently good,

and the structure would not have any direct deleterious effects. The indirect

effects are more troublesome. The structure would result in the mooring of

additional boats. If persons living on these boats were required to use land

toilets and not discharge waste or oil into the Creek, then no new water quality

problems would be created. But these are big "ifs." There are not presently

effective laws requiring boats to have holding tanks or sanitary waste treat-

ment systems; there are presently laws prohibiting the discharge of oil, but

such prohibitions are obviously difficult to monitor and police. Hence dis-

charges from additional boats might combine with the discharges from boats pres-

ently moored at the site to create a "hot spot" of pollution, particularly at

times of peak usage when a number of persons might be living on these boats.

C. Facility as an Increment to Overall Development of Back Creek

The preceding discussion has focused on the proposed facility, in and of

itself, and it has been determined that it would have but negligible direct

adverse effects on the Back Creek region. It is when the facility is viewed as

an increment to the overall demands for development of the region that the

portents of environmental degradation become significant.

The east shore of Back Creek (Chinks Point) is the last major undeveloped

land area in Annapolis.and according to existing zoning density limitations,

up to 533 single family units and 1,673. 1multiple family units could be construc-

ted on vacant but buildable lots in the region. Hence pressures already exist,

and undoubtedly will become greater, for large scale land development.

Likewise, there are acute pressures for development in Back Creek itself.

During the calendar year 1973 alone-, the Corps received applications for estab-

lishment of ar,additions to,five,marinds, four on the west shore and one on the

east. The total number of additional slips involved is 670; bulkheading asso-

ciated with these applications covers 555 ft. on the west shore and 1,430 ft.

on the east shore.

Viewe d in this context, the Watergate Village facility would contribute

to a variety of problems. Most immediate is boat traffic congestion on Back

Creek. There are presently 1,350 boats on Back Creek during the

warm months. If all of the applications currently pending before the Corps

were to be issued, the boat population would increase to about 2,000. This

would exacerbate existing congestion during peak usage periods. Complicating

the problem is the fact that there are presently no public access facilities

for Back Creek, which is, of course, a public waterway. Planning attention is

being directed to the creation of a city marina on the east shore, but if appro-

val of private facilities continues unabated, the proposed public facility might

effectively be foreclosed. The traffic capacity of Back Creek for boats may be

exceeded before the city marina could be constructed.

Overall development demands for the region also pose a real threat to

the water quality in Back Creek. There is evidence that storm water run-off is

a major contribution to deterioration of water quality. The west shore is prob-

ably as fully developed as it should be in view of its contribution to water

pollution from storm drains; any increase in paved areas on the east shore will

lead to increased pollution unless alternative provision is made for disposal

of storm run-off.

The growing boat population also poses a threat to water quality. At

the present time approximately 1,350 boats occupy and move about in a water area

of 440,000 m2 or 326 M2/boats. if 1,000 boats wet e added, the water area
per boat would be reduced to 189 m2 per boat. Although it is true that boating

does not necessarily result in discharge of any waste into the water, in fact

it does. There are no effective prohibitions on the discharge of human wastes,

and oil spills, although prohibited,regularly occur. Intensive boating on Spa

Creek in Annapolis has contributed to persistent violations of the water quality

criteria set bythe State during the late spring and summer (Dimsdale, 1973)

and there is every indication that more intensive boat usage, when combined with

storm water run off, would have a similar impact on Back Creek.

Hence, when viewed as one increment to the overall development of Back

Creek, the Watergate Village project would contribute to two problems. First,

if the number of boats moored in Back Creek continues to proliferate, the Creek

will be overcrowded. Lost time costs will be imposed on the boaters, safety

hazards will increase and, in general, the quality of their recreational experi-

ence will be diminished. Moreover, if private mooring slips are permitted to

proliferate, this will work at cross purposes to provision of "public access"

to Back Creek. Annapolis has tentative plans for construction of a city marina

on the east shore. But it appears likely that capacity of the Creek to tarry

boat traffic will be exceeded by boats moored at private slips (before that

facility could be constructed) unless constraints on further development are

immediately imposed.

Second, the increase in boat traffic, which the Watergate Village facility

would occasion, would contribute to a readily foreseeable degradation of water

quality in Back Creek. Existing controls on the discha rge'of wastes are

ineffective.

D. Existing Decision Process

Regulatory agencies have ample powers to review the Watergate Village

proposal and to determine whether i t is in the "public interest." Indeed in

the abstract the regulatory structure seems a labyrinth of duplicative and

.redundant decision-making. At the federal level,the Corps of Engineers is

charged with overall review of the project's propriety and EPA and the Depart-

ment of Inter ior have an effective veto on project approval. The State has

authority to foreclose projects if it will have a deleterious effect on wetlands

or water quality. At the local level the City Engineer is empowered to assure

that sediment resulting from the construction process is controlled and that

the facility will be st ructurally sound; the Port Wardens are to preserve navi-

gation and prevent boat traffic congestion; and the City Council of Annapolis

is to assure that the stru cture is compatible with the zoning plan for the City.

Notwithstanding the profusion of regulatory activity, the existing

decision process seems inadequate to effectively evaluate the Watergate Village

proposal. Present procedures are not well designed to permit analysis of the

project as an increment to the overall development of Back Creek.

The Corps of Engineers has the power, in a sterile legal sense, to eval-

uate the effects of the proposal on the overall "public interest," but it lacks

the capacity. The Baltimore District of the Corps received approximately 1,400

applications during 1973. The Watergate Village proposal is but one of these.

With its limited staff, the most the Corps can do is process the applications,

circulate them for comment and approve the applications which raise no substan-

tial objections from other government agencies. It will, of course, make its

own-appraisal of the project's effect on navigation --- its traditional area of

expertise. Hence the Corps acts more as a clearing house for objections than

as a lead review agency.

Even if the Corps had the staff and the budget to embark on an overall,

in-house, substantive review of each permit application, it would be hard pressed

to calculate the "Public interest." Major societal decisions, which are a

prerequisite to its calculation, have not been made, The City of Annapolis has

not yet crystallized a land u se plan for the development of Chinks Point. Until

decisions are made as to the density of development which will be allowed., and

to the siting and construction of public facilities such as sewers, major infra-

structures or public marinas, it is impossible to make rationalized decisions

as to assimilative capacity of Back Creek for either additional wastes or

additional boats. Likewise, a rigorous inquiry has not yet been made into opti-

mum recreational boating usage of Back Creek (even assuming that wastes could

be effectively controlled). The Annapolis Port Wardens have a mandate to make

such an inquiry, but they are a lay group without staff or budget to undertake

such an endeavor.

Hence, the present decision process consists, for the most part, of a

series of narrow-focus, ad hoc, disjointed licensing determinations made without

benefit of any clear notion of the plan for overall development of the region.

In only one respect does there appear to be an absence of sufficient

regulation. Presently no constraints limit the discharge of human waste from

boats. Although Section 312(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

(33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) provides:

"After the effective date of standards and regulations
promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful...
for a vessel ... to operate on navigable waters of the
United States, if such vessel is not equipped with an
operable marine sanitation device certified pursuant to
this section."

The Coast Guard has not, to date, been able to produce the regulations which

trigger the provision's effectiveness. A first attempt at such regulations

(38 Federal Register 15918) provoked a hostile response and the Coast Guard is

now attempting to revise the proposed regulations. Until such regulations-are

promulgated, human waste will continue to pour untreated into Back Creek.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations which follow are divided into four groups. First,

Case Study Group recommendations concerning the Watergate Village application

are presented. Second, a series of proposals for the Back Creek region are

made. Third, general recommendations which have been developed as a result of

the case study exercise are stated. Fourth, research which would fill infor-

mation gaps which the exercise has disclosed is discussed.

A. Watergate Village Application

A moratorium should be imposed on the approval of permit applications

for new structures on Back Creek and Watergate Village should be notified that

their application will not be acted upon until the termination of the moratorium

period. The moratorium should extend until January 1, 1975, the scheduled

completion date of a new Comprehensive Plan for the city of Annapolis. The City

should include in this Plan "coastal considerations" which are described in the

next subsection. Once the Comprehensive Plan is completed, the Watergate

Village proposal should be considered. A permit should be issued only upon a

finding that it is consistent with the Plan.

B. Back Creek Region

1. A comprehensive Plan for Annapolis with adequate "coastal considerations"

was judged to be essential for management decisions on both the Watergate

Village proposal and other applications now pending for Back Creek. Accordingly,

a "Plan for Back Creek" (emphasizing coastal considerations) was drafted and is

included in this report as Appendix A.

2. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources should prohibit by regulation

all discharges" from boats in Back Creek. The Coast Guard has to date been

unable to develop procedures for certification of marine sanitation devices and

until it'does so there will be@no effective federal regulation of the dumping

of human waste into navigable waters. The Maryland Department of Natural

ResIources presently has the authority to prohibit "all discharges." It should

do so for Back Creek since water quality problems in the spring and summer are

in part a product of the discharge of raw sewage from boats. Because Back Creek

is used primarily as a docking area and as a "driveway" into the Bay, a require-

ment that land toilets be used by persons on boats without holding tanks while

in these waters seems feasible and reasonable.

3. The Annapolis City engineer shoul d use his existing regulatory powers over

excavation and construction to require that all new storm water outfalls into

Back Creek, whether City or private, either go into a landward edge of marsh

belt or irrigate into a belt of trees or shrubs forming a frontal zone to the

Creek. The City also should alter its present outfalls to conform with this

practice. Storm water run-off is the primary pollutant in Back Creek. This

practice would permit the soil to act as a filter for bacteria before the water

reaches the Creek.

C. General Recommendations

1. Administrative procedures should be developed to assure that decision-makers

evaluating a specific application will be aware of and familar with other

pending applications which mgy. result iti cumulative impacts; for example, there

are obvious advantages in having a single Corps official review the eight appli-

cations that are presently pending for alterations on Back Creek.

2. The Corps should investigate the possibility of strenghtening working

relationships with state and local authorities which have closely related licens-

ing power; for example, there would seem to be demonstrable advantages to both

the applicant and the regulators if the Corps, the Maryland Board of Public Works

and the Annapolis Port Wardens could agree on a common application form, and set

of instructions, for their respective licensing functions.

3. In the consideration of applications for access structures, decision-makers

should employ the following "guidelines",-

a. piers or off-shore mooring are preferred to bulkheads or channels;

b. in congested areas individual docks should be discouraged and

multiple-user facilities encouraged;

C. land toilets should be required for every 25 berths.

4. In the consideration of applications for bulkheads, decision-makers should

employ the following guidelines:

a. the application will ordinarily be disallowed if the bulkhead is

located at the leading edge of a marsh;

b. the application will be disallowed if the bulkhead is for purely

11cosmetic" purposes;

C. the application will ordinarily be allowed if it is to control shore

erosion but it should be located as close to the existing shoreline as is

practicable;

d- bulkheads designed to give a pier a landward connection should be of

the minimum length practicable.

D. Research Needed

Surprisingly little research has been done on the level of boat traffic-

which optimizes the recreational utilization of a water body. Thus, research

to develop a model to be used in makin g this important determination was judged

to be the most urgent and usefu I to management agencies in relation to the

Watergate Village application.

'FEFERENCES

Annapoli's Planning and Zoning Office, 1973. Green Annapolis.

Cronin, W. B. 1971. Volumetric, Areal, and Tidal Statistics of the

Chesapeake Bay Estuary and its Tributaries. Special Rept. 20. The

Johns Hopkins University.

Dimsdale, N. 1973. Spa Creek Water Quality Study. Final Report Chesapeake

Bay Foundation.

Jarosinski, M. 1972. The Ecology of Back Creek. Rept.

Lippson, A. J. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland - An Atlas of Natural

Resources.

U.S. Army Corps Engineers. Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report.

Appendices A, B, and C.

APPENDICES

A. A PLAN FOR LAND & COASTAL USE IN THE BACK CREEK AREA OF ANNAPOLIS 43

B* PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR BACK CREEK 50

C. Board of Public Works, Annapolis, Maryland, LICENSE 74-23,
Watergate Village 62

APPENDIX A

A PLAN FOR LAND & COASTAL USE

IN THE BACK CREEK AREA

OF ANNAPOLIS

Origin and Purpos

Analysis of the decision process associated with permit application
NABOP-P (Watergate Village) 73-673 leads to the conclusion that a primary
obstacle to the Corps of Engineer's (C. E. ) efforts to make a "decision in the
public interest" stems from the expectation of unilateral action on specific
permit applications. The present decision-structure provides neither oppor-
tunity nor informational capacity to consider the specific application of
Watergate Village as it may be related to other actions and to a wider range
of factors.
The foregoing report makes several recommendations bearing on
improvements in the situation. Those of primary relevance to this Appendix
may be surnmarized as follows:
1. It is recommended that the C. E. declare a one-year moratorium on
approving applications for construction of projects that would provide
additional boat slips in Back Creek. Accordingly, it is recommended
that C. E. defer action on the Watergate Village application at this time.
2. It is recommended that the City of Annapolis direct its Planning and
Zoning Office to prepare a comprehensive plan for land and coastal use
in the Back Creek area of Annapolis.
3. It is recommended that, when the C. E. again activates consideration of
applications for coastal construction in this area, it (a) consider all
applications as a unit, and (b) approve only those which individually
and as a group are consistent with the land and coastal use plan for
the Back Creek area.
A land and coastal use plan is necessary because the Watergate Village
proposal raises basic issues regarding growth vs environmental preservation.
This area possesses some of the best possibilities for further coastal develop-
ment and at the same time some of the greatest potential for rational environ-
mental protection of any area in the jurisdiction of the City of Annapolis.

However, there is little understanding of future development alternatives,
or the types of environmental impacts associated with each, and of what
development policies are necessary to implement each future policy. The
planning process in the community is the only vehicle that can deal directly
and effectively with these kinds of interactions associated with the use and
control of the land and water in the Back Creek area of the city. The choice
of basic goals of development and protection, of density limitations and of
criteria for directing development are basically the prerogative and responsi-
bility of the city, and the planning process is the method by which the community
can arbitrate the various value conflicts inherent in pursuing growth and
environmental quality. .
A land and coastal use plan is the keystone to a responsible exercise of
C. E. authority to issue construction permits affecting the waters of Back
Creek. Accordingly, this appendix undertakes to outline the critical issues
and the planning questions which should be addressed if the plan is to serve
adequately the national decision making requirements.

The Decision Issues

In the final analysis, the decision to approve or disapprove the Water-
gate Village proposal, primarily hinges upon two basic questions: (1) what
affect will the project have upon water quality, and (2) what affect will the
project have upon recreation?
Although it appears that no serious physical or biological degradation
of the water presently exists, two trends signal danger for the near future.
First, the growth of boating on the Back Bay estuary, with accompanying
increases in human waste discharged to the waters, makes likely significant
degradation of water quality. Watergate Village project would provide for
30 new boat slips and other similar applications now pending for Back Creek
would add another 700 boat slips.
No effective practical means has been found to control waste discharges
from recreation boats. Thus, regulation of facilities which provide boat
access to the water becomes an important pollution control measure in such
situations.
The second threat to water quality comes from any significant increase
in storm water run-off such as is normally associated with development.

This suggests the importance of considering rates and patterns of develop-
ment in the Bay Creek area as well as ways of mitigating the impact of
run-off on the natural waters of the estuary.
Although its basic purpose is to provide more recreation boating
opportunities, the Watergate Village proposal raises the question of the
point at which boat congestion on Back Creek may in fact depreciate the
enjoyment from boating more than the benefits gained by additional boats.
Again, like pollution, this is a question which is not serious now but will
be in the near future. Even though the 30 additional boats made possible
by the Watergate Village proposal might not be the "straw that breaks the
camels back, " what about the 700 associated with other pending applications,
and what about future applications that will be associated with potential
developments on the east shore. of the creek?
The number of boats to allow on Back Creek becomes a primary issue
for the future of water quality and recreation quality. No one knows the
optimum number of boats on Back Creek. What is optimum depends upon
the choice of trade-offs between more boats and the greater chance of
water and recreation degradation, and fewer boats and greater restrictions
on the use of shore lands.

The number of boats on Back Creek is one of many variables in making
local choices regarding the development of the area. Hopefully these choices
will be made in the process of preparing a comprehensive plan for land and
coastal use of the Back Creek area.

The Planni ng Questions
The remainder of this appendix will outline the primary planning questions
underlying coastal use decisions such as those associated with the Watergate
Village application for a construction permit. The questions will be developed
under three major subjects: (1) carrying capacity of the water, (2) open
space and scenic reserves, and (3) development character and control. Con-
comitant discussion will identify some of the major interactions, principal
informational inputs and recommendations or guidelines for plan preparation.

A. The carrying capacity of Back Creek Water
As indicated above, in a general way carrying capacity becomes the
basic specific issue in the Watergate Village case. In this case,. the. carrying

capacity will concern the capacity of the water for recreation boats. It
is clear that a major planning task is to determine an optimum carrying
capacity for Back Creek, a task that clearly requires balancing conflicting
values held by the community and must be a dependent variable in the
determination of community goals for development and environmental
protection. Not only must the planning process: 1) arrive at a determination
of carrying capacity, it 2) should determine excess capacity remaining',
3) provide criteria for its allocation, and 4) recommend institutional
processes for making allocations.
It appears that the control of access structures is the most effective
means of controlling boating impacts upon the water. Several kinds of
consideration in regulating access structures are suggested:
(1) It may be possible to increase boat capacity by encouraging the
design, installation and operation of multi-user dockages and
ramps. Concentration of access at locations on the water that
can tolerate high boat capacity may be preferable to a pattern
of every water front owner providing dockage in his own front
yard.
(2) Such multi-user facilities may well serve a large "regional" need,
or conversely boat owners in the Back Creek area may better be
served with regional dockage provided in larger estuaries. If
Bembe Beach were converted to a town house development and a
marina similar to that contemplated at Watergate were sought,
channel congestion may increase many fold and a marina location
elsewhere than at the residents door steps may have to be
considered.
(3) In a given area like Back Creek, it is generally desirable to provide
some balance between public and private access facilities. There
is evidence of increasing concern of society to assure a wider
distribution of benefits from the use of a natural resource than is
likely to happen from full dependence on a laissez-faire land owner-
ship and use policy. The goals of both multi-user and regional
access facilities may be more effectively realized through public
ownership and operation; however, that is not to rule out private
facilities serving these needs under proper conditions.

(4) What ever the scale or ownership of access facilities, land toilet
installations for every twenty-five berths should be provided at
a reasonable distance from the berths.
(5) In permitting individual access, piers or off shore moorings are
preferred to bulkheads. Often natural shorelines providing scenic
and pollution abatement benefits may be preserved by avoiding
bulkheading in this manner.
(6) Bulkheading should be: (i) prohibited if on the leading edge of a
marsh, (ii) discouraged if on fastland but serves only cosmetic
purposes, (iii) justified if it helps control erosion or sedimentation.

B. Open space and scenic reserves
Early determination of open space and scenic reserves may be a major
tool in assuring a modulated development of the undeveloped lands in the
area. 1 Modulated development, indirectly as well as directly, may have
significant influences on the use and protection of the water of Back Creek.
Open space and scenic reserves may profitably be designated in both land
and water situations, especially as shoreline buffers and natural marsh
areas. Not only can properly chosen reservations provide recreational
and scenic benefits, but as a buffer zone between land and water they may
serve as a pollution abatement measure for excessive run off by detaining
suspended solids, by filtering out bacteria and by the utilization of nutrients
in woodlands and grasslands of the buffer zone. 2 Some consideration of
this purpose in determining the amount and distribution of shoreland reserves
may go a long ways to preserving the water quality of Back Creek in the
face of more development and use.
The wooded or undeveloped portions of the shore are a major asset to
the scenic quality of Back Creek as compared to other more fully developed

Proposals already made in Green Annapolis demonstrate the validity of
open space to modulate density and outdoor recreation areas.

Consideration should be given to making approval of sed *iment control
plans in the area contingent upon an established vegetative strip at the
mouth of the drainage.

are as, such as Spa Greek, for example. If these scenic portions are to
be preserved the time is now. Applications are now pending for bulkheading
1400 ft. on the eastern shore and 530 ft. on the western shore (consider
guidelines for use of -bulkheads, Item A(6), above). The land and coastal
use plan should designate segments possessing aesthetic value to Back
Creek and its multiple users, and should evaluate these areas as pollution
buffer zones and recreation areas as well. The coastal use plan should be
able to establish a community benefit in shoreland reserves which avoid
unnecessary bulkheads without inflicting reduction in boating access. Hope-
fully, Annapolis would take steps to assure that these shoreline areas be
preserved before development pressures are irresistible. Measures short
of buying fee simple may be adequate for purposes of shoreline reserves.
The experience on Spa Creek with easements which give the city management
control of the shorelands should be explored for its applicability on Back
Creek.

C. Development character and control

A matter of major concern to planning and directing coastal use is the
development that may take place in the Chinks Point sector of the Forest
Drive Corridor. Determination of the scale, pace and character of this
development will be a major determinant of many of the questions about
carrying capacity raised in Section A above, and will play a reciprocal
role in the questions of open space and shoreland reserves, Section B.
The planning and zoning process of the city is centrally concerned with
the character and distribution of residential, commercial and industrial
development, and collaterally concerned with the adequacy and distribution
of such infra-structure facilities as highways, sewerage systems, public
schools and recreation areas. Decisions made in the planning process
regarding density, distribution and types of residences and commercial
facilities (and conditions attached to their construction and use) in the
Back Creek area will have direct implications upon the longer run concerns
about recreation boating and water quality. Likewise, location, scale and
conditions attached to the construction of highways, sewers, schools and
recreation facilities may have important influence on use and protection of

the waters of the estuary. Specifically three types of interaction among
these development parameters and coastal planning are of major concern.
(1) The amount of domestic sewage, the location and quality of
treatment and the location of outfalls and probable consequences
for water quality in Back Creek.
(2) The demand for boating access to Back Creek and the extent that
demand can be satisfied by multiple user docks with adequate
toilet facilities, thus minimizing marring water surfaces and
shorelines with slips and moorings.
(3) The amount and distribution of storm water run-off and the extent
that it can be filtered through buffer strips of appropriate size
and character before it is discharged into Back Creek.
(4) The extent to which state or federal laws can effect some regulation
of human waste discharges from boats moored or operating in the
Back Creek estuary.

..zMPENDIX I

PENDING APPLICATIONS FORBACK CREEK

@Information concerning applications pending in the Baltimore Office

of the.Corps of Engineers for physical alterations of Back Creek appear on

pages 54 61. Codes for the'various informati-40AI-categories are listed

below (pages 50 - 53).
The following computer codes have. been es-ablished for use in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Baltimore District) perinit application
data' bank.

STRUCT URE (STRTIC)

STRUCTURE TYPE

New Structure RepaLij oiLl4aintenance
Aerial cross---'.ng AECR VAL
Bouy BOUY RPBO
Building BUIL RPBL

Bulkliead BULK RPEU

Cbt@nnelization M&N RPCR

Dolphin DOLP RPDO
Dredge DRED RPDR

Duck blinO DUBL RFDU

Fill FILL RPFT

Intake structure INTK RPIN

Jetty or groin JETT RPJF

Marine railroad HARR RM-k

Pier PIER Rr-PR

Pile PITE RPPE
Pipe, discharge PIPD Rl?PD
Pipe, intake PTPI RPPI
Pipeline PIPL RPPL
Raiap, boat RAMP RPRA
Rip Ctkp RRAP RPRR
spoils dinpoaal SPD1 RFSP
subiwirine, cable S1lCB lip SU

Coding Instructions cont.

STRUCTURE EXTENT
Aerial crossing Length (Feet).
Bouy - Number (Units).
Building - Area (Square feet).
Bulkhead - Length (Feet). Extent channelward (Feet)
Channelization - Volume (Cubic yards). Area (Acres)
Dolphin Number (Units).
Dredge Volume (Cubic yards). Area (Acres)
'Duck blind - Length (Feet).
Fill - Volume (Cubic yards). Area (Acres)
Intake structure - Length (Feet).
Jetty or groin Length (Feet).
Marine railroad Length (Feet) .
Pier - Total length new structure (Feet) . Extent channelward (Feet)
Pile - Number (Units) .

Pipe, discharge - Length (Feet).
Pipe, intake - Length (Feet).
Pipeline - Length (Feet).
Ramp boat - Length (Feet)
Rip rap- Length (Feet).
Spoils disposal - Volume (Cubic yards). Area (Acres)
Submarine cable - Length (Feet).

COORDINATES
Latitude and longitude are coded in the same format. Each is coded in
degrees, minutes, and tenths of minutes. Two examples of coding follow:

If latitude is 38 degrees 54.5' it is coded as 3854.5

2) If longitude is 76 degrees 11.2' it is coded as 7611.2

Coding Insturctions-cont.
OWNERSHIP (OWNER)
Federal government-GFD
State of Maryland-GSM
State of Virginia-GSV
State of West Virginia-GSW
Local government jurisdiction (City)-GLO
County government-GCY
Private - PRI
Corporation-COR
Public Utility-PUU
State of Pennsylvania-GSP
State of Delaware-GSD
Unincorporated groups-UIG

SHORELINE TYPE (SHORE)
FASTLAND
Low Shore-LO
Moderately Low Shore-MI
Moderately High Shore-MH
High Shore-HI
Dune-DU
SHORE ZONE
Beach-BE
Fringing Marsh-MF
Extensive Marsh-MX
Embayed Marsh-MM
NEAR SHORE
Less than 300 feet-XN
300-600 feet-NA
600-1200 feet-IN
More than 1200 feet-WY

The shoreline type is coded in the order of fastland, then shore zone, then near
shore. Two examples of coding follow:

Coding Instructions cont.

1) If the fastland is a low shore, the shore zone is a
fringing marsh, and the near shore distance to a
depth of six feet is about 900 feet, the coding is

2) If the fastland is a cliff (high shore), the shore
zone is a beach, and the near shore distance to a
depth of six feet is about 200 feet, the coding is
"HIBEXN".

PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE (USE)

Residential - RES

Private - PRI

Commercial-COM
Industrial-IND
Recreational - REC

GOVERNMENTAL

Federal - GFD

State - GST

County - GCY

Local - GLO

Agriculture - AGR
Public Unility-PUU
Maritime"MAR

? LI***LIST (730055)
-NABOP-P* MEARS JOHN H. JR.
-NUMBER* 730055
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LST* 14
-MANAGER* JMB
-ADDRI* SIXTH STREET
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS MD. 21403
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.8
-LATITUDE* 3858.1
-PRIM LINE* LOBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* COR

-REVIEW DISP* COMPLETE
-RENTIEW DATE* 03/08/1973
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE*
-RECEIV DATE* 01/17/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 01/05/1973

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 03/24/1973
-EXPIRATION* 04/23/1973

-STRUCTURE* BULK
-MAX EXT* 312.8

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 103

-STRUCTURE* PIER
-MAX EXT* 690.350

-AGENCY NAME* EPA
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

-AGENCY NAME* ANNAP
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

-AGENCY NAME* MD
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 07/20/1973

-AGENCY NAME* DOI
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 07/12/1973

-USE* COM

-USE* RES

? *LIST (730026)
-NABOP-P* JABIN BERT
-NUMBER* 730026
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LIST* -NULL-
-MANAGER* ESG -
-ADDRI* ROUTE 3 BOX 35
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS, MD. 21401
-TOWN* ANNAPOLIS
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
@ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628-8
-LATITUDE* 3857.7
-PRIM LINE* MLBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWTERSHIP* COR

REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* 1
-RECEIV DATE* 01/08/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 01/05/1973

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 06/27/1973
-EXPIRATION* 07/27/1973

-STRUCTURE* PIER
-MAX EXT* 1450.381

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 472

-STRUCTURE* BULK
-MAX EXT* 1118.6

-STRUCTURE* DRED
-MAX EXT* 200.0

.STRUCTURE* FILL
MAX EXT* 200.0

USE* COM

USE* MAR

? *LIST (730904)

-NABPO-P* BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC
-NUMBER* 730904
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LST* 14
-MANAGER* ESG
-ADDR1* GAS & ELECTRIC BUILDING
-ADDR2* BALTIMORE MD 21203
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.3
-LATITUDE* 3857.9
-PRIM LINE* LOBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* PUU

-REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* I
-RECEIV DATE* 07/27/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 07/20/1973

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 09/06/1973
-EXPIRATION* 10/08/1973

-STRUCTURE* SUCB
-MAX EXT* 600

-AGENCY NAME* MD
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

-AGENCY NAME* AA CO
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

-AGENCY NAME* DOI
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 10/04/1973

-AGENCY NAME* EPA
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 09 /19/1973

-OBJECTOR* C E WRIGHT
-OBJECT DATE* 10/16/1973

-USE* PUU

? *LIST.(730270)

-NABPO-P* BERNSTEIN JOHN A.
-NUMBER* 730270
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
MAILING LIST* -NULL-
-MANAGER* JEK
-ADDR1* 700 WARREN DRIVE
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS MD. 21403
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEKENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* ISSUED
-ACTION DATE* 06/28/1973
C73* 03/12/1973
C74* 05/04/1973
C75* -NULL-
C76* -NULL-
C77* 03/30/1973
C78* 05/14/1973
C79* 06/28/1973
C90* -NULL-
C91* -NULL-
C92* 03/05/1973
-LONGITUDE* 7629.2
-LATITUDE* 3857.4
-PRIM LINE* -NULL-
-SEC LINE* - NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* PRI
C98* 03/05/1973

-USE* PRI

-USE* RES

-USE*REC

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 03/30/1973
-EXPIRATION* 04/30/1973

-STRUCTURE* PIER
-MAX EXT* 30.30

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 4

-REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-DATE RETURNED* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE*
-DATE RCVD* 03/05/1973
-DATE EFFECTIVE* 03/01/1973

58
*LIST (730673)
-NABOP-P* WATERGATE VILLAGE
-NUMBER* 730673
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LST* 14
-MANAGER* ESG
-ADDRI*,660 AMERICANA DRIVE
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS MD 21403
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.9
-LATITUDE* 3858.0
-PRIM LINE* MLBENA
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* COR

-REVIEW DISP* COMPLETE
-REVIEW DATE* 06/27/1973
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE*
-RECEIV DATE* 05/25/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 05/07/1973

-REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* 2
-RECEIV DATE* 10/16/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 10/12/1973

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 07/05/1973
-EXPIRATION* 08/06/1973

-STRUCTURE* BULK
-MAX EXT* 480.35

-STRUCTURE* PIER
-MAX EXT* 340

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 33

-STRUCTURE* DRED
-MAX EXT* 626.0

-STRUCTURE* FILL
-MAX EXT* 626.0

-AGENCY NAME* DOI
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NUL L-

-AGENCY NAME* MD WQ
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

58a

-AGENCY NAME* EPA
-AGENCY DISP* DENIED
-AGENCY DATE* 08/21/1973

-OBJECTOR* 0 B DUCKETT & 8 OTHERS
-OBJECT DATE* 08/04/1973

-USE* COM

-USE* REC

? *LIST (730379)
-NABOP-P* MEARS JOHN H JR
-NUMBER* 730379
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LST* -NULL-
-MANAGER* JMB
-ADDR1* SIXTH STREET
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS MD 21403
-TOWN* EASTPOINT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.8
-LATITUDE* 3858.2
-PRIM LINE* MLBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* COR

-REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* I
-RECEIV DATE* 03/21/1973
-EFFECT DATE* -NULL-

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 04/16/1973
-EXPIRATION* 05/15/1973

-STRUCTURE* PIER
-MAX EXT* 270.3

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 36

-USE* MAR

-USE* COM

? *LIST (730405)

-NABOP-P* THOMPSON HENRY H
-NUMBER* 730405
-WATERWAY* BACK CRFEK
-MAIL LST* -NULL-
-MANAGER* JN1
-ADDR1* 409 CHESTER AVENUE
-ADDR2* ANNAPOLIS MD 21403
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.9
LATITUDE* 3858.2
-PRIM LINE* LOBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* COR

-REVIEW DISP* -NULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE*
-RECEIV DATE* 04/02/1973
-EFFECT DATE* -NULL-

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 04/26/1973
-EXPIRATION* 05/25/1973

-STRUCTURE* RPPR
-MAX EXT* 206.160

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 26

-USE* MAR

-USE* Com

61
? *LIST 0730664)
-NABOP-P*
-NUMBER*
-WATERWAY* BACK CREEK
-MAIL LST* 14
-MANAGER*
-ADDR1*
-ADDR2*
-TOWN* EASTPORT
-COUNTY* ANNE ARUNDEL
-STATE* MARYLAND
-ENFORCEMENT* -NULL-
-FINAL ACTION* -NULL-
-ACTION DATE* -NULL-
-LONGITUDE* 7628.9
-LATITUDE* 3858.0
-PRIM LINE* LOBEXN
-SEC LINE* -NULL-
-OWNERSHIP* PRI

-REVIEW DISP* COMPLETE
-REVIEW DATE* 06/27/1973
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* I
-RECEIV DATE* 05/24/1973
-EFFECT DATE* 05/02/1973

-REVIEW DISP* -N ULL-
-REVIEW DATE* -NULL-
.-RETURN DATE* -NULL-
-APPL CYCLE* 2
-RECEIV DATE* -NULL-
-EFFECT DATE* -NULL-

-PUBLIC NOTICE* 07/05/1973
-EXPIRATION* 08/06/1973

-STRUCTURE* BULK
-MAX EXT* 75.5

-STRUCTURE* PILE
-MAX EXT* 2

-STRUCTURE* DRED
-MAX EXT* 48.0

-STRUCTURE* FILL
-MAX EXT* 48.0

-AGENCY NAME* DOI
-AGENCY DISP* -NULL-
-AGENCY DATE* -NULL-

-AGENCY NAME* MD WQ
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 10/10/1973

-AGENCY NAME* EPA
-AGENCY DISP* OK
-AGENCY DATE* 11/07/1973

-I 61a

-OBJECTOR* E A YANIGA
I -OBJECT DATE* 08/01/1973
I -USE* PRT
-USE* RES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I t
v; It r
TO h
Aw

$,in fl-my C
LICENSE 74-23
Watergate Village APPENDIX C

This refers to applications for "Wetlands License," dated the

25th of May 1973. Upon the recommendation of the

Wetlands Hearing Examiner of the Board of Public Works, and pursuant

to the provisions of Article 66C, Section 718-721 (1970), entitled,

"Wetlands" enacted to provide a State policy for the perservation of

wetlands in the State and to regulate the filling and dredging of

wetlands, and for other purposes, you are hereby authorized by the

Board of Public Works for the State of Maryland to construct a bulkhead

at or above mean high water line and another section of bulkhead within 10 ft.

of mean high water, both depicted on the attached plans so revised; and to

dredge in front of said bulkhead to the limits indicated on said plans to 4 ft. depth

at mean low water and to deposit the spoil behind the bulkheads, Back Creek

at Annapolis, Maryland, Anne Arundel County,

in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto as part of the

application for wetlands license.

This license is issued subject to the conditions listed seriatiz

below and revocable or subject to modification prior to the completion of

the subject project described above when such action is deemed to be in

the State's interest.

A judgment as to whether or not a suspension, modification or

revocation is in the best interests of the State involves a considera-

tion of the impact that any such action or the absence of any such

action may have on factors affecting the public interest- Such factors

include, but are not limited to ecological, developmental, water

quality, economic, aesthetic, recreational values.

Conditions

a. That this instrument does not authorize any injury to private

property or invasion of private rights, or any infringement of Federal,

State of local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the necessity

of obtaining assent from other State or local agencies required by law

for the structure or work authorized.

b. That the structure or work authorized herein shall be in

accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto and construction

shall be subject to the supervision and approval of the Water Resources

Administration of the Department of Natural Resources.

c. T he licensee shall comply promptly with any lawful regulations,

conditions, or instructions affecting the structure or work author-

ized herein if and when issued by the State Water Resources Admin-

istration, which has jurisdiction to abate or prevent water pollution.

Such regulations, conditions or instruction in effect or hereafter

prescribed by the State Water Resources Administration are hereby made

a condition of this license.

d. That a copy of this license and the plans and drawings attached

hereto shall be available at the construction site.

e. The licensee will maintain the work authorized herein in good

condition in accordance with the approved plans.

f. That this license may at any time be modified by the authority of

the Board of Public Works, acting on its own or upon the reconmen dation

of the Department of Natural Resources if it is determined that, under

existing circumstances, modification is in the best interest of the

State. The licensee, upon receipt of a notice of modification, shall

comply therewith as directed by the Board of Public Works or its

authorized representative.

g. That this license may be suspended or revoked by the authority of

the Board of Public Works if the licensee fails to comply with any of its

provisions or if the Board of Public Works, upon recommendation of the Depart-

ment of Natural Resources, determines thati under the existing circumstances,

such action is required in the best interest of the State.

h. That any modification, suspension or revocation of this license

shall not be the basis for a claim for damages against the State of

Maryland or any arm or agency of the State.

i. That the State of Maryland shall in no way be liable for any

damage to any structure or work authorized herein which may be caused

by or result from future operations undertaken by the State in furthering

the interests of its citizens.

J.- That no attempt shall be made by the licensee to forbid the

full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent

to the structure or work authorized by this license.

shed Control Section, Water Resources Administration at least ten (10) days

in advance of the time the constm-Uon or work will be commented, and shall

furnish written notification of the date of its completion.

1. That if the structure or work herein authorized is not completed on

or before the day of 19 , this license,

if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall cease and be null

and void.

m. That the legal requirements of all State, Federal and County

agencies be met.

n. That all the provisions of this license shall be binding on any

assignee or successor in interest of the licensee.

o.. That the licensee agrees to make every reasonable effort to

prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to

minimize any adverse impact of the construction or work on fish, wildlife

and natural environmental values.

p. That the licensee agrees that it will prosecute the construction

of work authorized herein in a ma nner so as to minimize any degradation of

water quality.

q. That the bulkhead alignment be changed so as to be at or above the

mean high water as shown on the attached plan, except for the,area behind

Building 705 which could be up to 10 feet seaward of the mean high waterline.

r. No marshland be dredged or filled; that access over the marsh be by

piering.

S. That such work be completed in accordance with the Certification of

Water Quality.

t. No marshland is to be dredged or filled.

By the authority of the Board of Public Works:

Issued for and in behalf of
the Members of the Board r) I
Andrew Heubeck, Jr.
Secretary

The terms and conditions of this license are hereby accepted.

Date '77J A el
Licensee

-,By

5A @v
CENTER

3 6668 00001 2270