Phragmites

By Lynton Land

September seems far away and we are all wondering when the plants will realize that spring is coming! But the Phragmites knows! It is getting ready to escape from its winter dormancy and invade our marshes, shouldering out more desirable marsh grasses. Last year NAPS sprayed about 15 sites, and we are already compiling a list of new sites to treat. We will return to all last year's sites and spray again as necessary. Our goal is to not just get rid of Phragmites (or at least keep it under control), but to replace it with a more diverse and useful marsh flora.

Do you have Phragmites? It is a very tall reed with a very full "head", usually densely concentrated at the landward side of marshes. Do you want it controlled? If you want to know if you have the problem, or want help in controlling it, see the "Stewardship Tip" on Phragmites on our web site, www.geocities.com/northumberlandnaps for more information, and call Lynton Land at 453-6605 (or JandL@rivnet.net) for a free "consultation."

SAIF Water Grants

By Lynton Land

The SAIF Water Committee of the Lancaster/Northumberland Interfaith Service Council has received grants from the Jessie Ball duPont Fund and Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project for a three-year study of shallow bored wells in Lancaster and Northumberland counties. The project will test the adequacy of current construction standards and disinfection methods and explore new methods for securing the safety of drinking water in shallow private wells.

In the first year, 40 wells in four construction categories in Northumberland County will be surveyed for soil type and proximity to potential sources of contamination, including human and animal feces and agricultural practices. Samples will be analyzed for bacteria, sodium, nitrate, phosphate, lead and pesticides. NAPS has contributed $500 to this effort, and additionally, will provide the nitrate and phosphate analyses. In addition to health concerns, nitrate and phosphate in our groundwater are the major source of non-point-source pollution of our local waterways. During the second and third years the study will sample wells in Lancaster County, and continue to evaluate construction and environmental factors and the effectiveness of disinfection methods that impact the safety of shallow water wells.

Several NAPS members, including past board members, are committed to this project. If you would like to help, visit the SAIF Water web site at saif@crosslink.net or contact Rev. Gayl Fowler at 580-2079. Tax-exempt contributions can be mailed by NAPS members, if they so desire, to SAIF Water Committee, PO Box 839, Burgess VA 22432.

Comprehensive Plan

By Lynton Land

The Comprehensive Plan, which sets out a vision for the future development of Northumberland County, is currently being revised by the Planning Commission. Here is a draft of a resolution, which NAPS plans to formally submit to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. We would like the wording to represent the position of the majority of the membership. We solicit your comments. Does this statement reflect your views? Please let us know your opinion!

The Resolution

The Board and membership of NAPS requests that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors strengthen and enforce the “Village” concept in the revised Comprehensive Plan. As stated on pages 3:7 through 3:21 in the existing Comprehensive Plan, the seven villages are “key locations along major highways where commercial, public and residential uses are concentrated.” The seven designated villages are Callao, Lottsburg, Heathsville, Burgess, Reedville, Wicomico Church and North Kilmarnock. Each village is clearly defined by a map, having a “commercial hub” and a surrounding “support area.” It is our belief that villages should serve as the centers of commercial activity for the county, and that virtually all future commercial and public facilities should be concentrated in them. Villages should ultimately develop sewage systems and a sustainable water supply from reservoirs. Most of the land in the county is outside the “support areas” and should be restricted for strict agriculture, forestry and single-family residential use. Although the “support areas” may need to be expanded in the future, such expansion should be a formal process. Present and future governing officials must balance the rights of individuals to develop their land with the goal of retaining the rural character of the county. We do not want our highways turned into “strip malls,” even though existing agricultural zoning laws permit commercial development beyond strict crop production.

For approval by NAPS

We urge all NAPS members, and all citizens, to express their opinions to the Planning Commission at the monthly meeting (third Thursday of each month in the “old” Court House in Heathsville), at special meetings that may be convened, and especially in writing (to Mr. Al. Fisher, Jr., c/o Luttrell Tadlock, County Court House, Heathsville VA 22473). A copy of the existing Comprehensive Plan is available for in-house use at the Northumberland Library. Mr. Fisher has requested that citizens supply him with specific suggestions as to how the Comprehensive Plan should be changed. If a large number of individuals take the time to make specific suggestions, and numerous people target the same agenda (the Village concept, the need for reservoirs, the need for zoning revision, etc.) we can have an impact on the future development of the county. We also urge citizens to participate actively in upcoming elections of Supervisors and ensure that we all know their positions on matters of importance to us.

Change in Publicity

Sloane Kane has done an admirable job as Publicity Chair. She has a way with words that has proved very effective. However, now is the time for change. She introduced me to Tom Ryals who will be our new Publicity Co-Chair. I am sure he will be as effective as Sloane was. His initial efforts were very effective. Lets welcome Tom Ryals and his spouse Janet, the CO-Chairs to contact for any publicity (453 5818.)

NAPS Annual Meeting

Speaker Remarks: Planning Commissioner

Al Fisher

By Mike Harwood

Mr. Fisher opened by stating that his primary focus would be on the Northumberland County Comprehensive Plan (Plan). He said the Plan is a guide that is used by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, private citizens and companies planning to do business in Northumberland County. He said the Planning Commission conducted a top to bottom review and updating of the Plan approximately five years ago with the assistance of the Northern Neck Planning Commission, the public (NAPS played a major role), and a professional public policy/planning consultant.

Mr. Fisher gave an example of what can be accomplished. He said the last Plan revision highlighted the need for improved public access to the water for recreation. He said that as a result, work began to plan and find outside funding for the public fishing pier now located at the foot of Tipers Bridge at Bluff Point.

Mr. Fisher invited the attendees to attend Planning Commission meetings on the third Thursday of each month, when it works on a number of county issues. He asked for public input, especially in regard to the five-year Plan review, which is currently under way.

Mr. Fisher quoted from Section 15.2-2223 of the Virginia Code as follows:

“Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted: scope and purpose.

The local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.

In the preparation of a comprehensive plan the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants.

The plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.

The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the locality’s long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to:

1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, business, industrial, agricultural, mineral resources, conservation, recreation, public service, flood plain and drainage, and other areas;

2. The designation of a system of transportation facilities such as streets, roads, highways, parkways, railways, bridges, viaducts, waterways, airports, ports, terminals, and other like facilities;

3. The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like;

4. The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment;

5. The designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection measures;

6. An official map, a capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestall district maps, where applicable;

7. The location of existing or proposed recycling centers; and

8. The designation of areas and implementation of measures to promote the construction of affordable housing, sufficient to meet the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.”

New factors to be considered during this review:

The proposed ferry boat system between Reedville and Chrisfield, Maryland. He said this privately funded project is very much on track and should have a positive influence on life and the economy of our County. The landing here will be somewhere near the entrance to Cockrell’s Creek.
The population here is changing, and that now 35% of the County lives on retirement income. Facilities and services for retirees must be addressed further in the Plan.
That latest population figures show that Northumberland County has grown to 12,800, a 2,000 increase since the last Plan update. During the same period, population in Lancaster and Westmorland Counties dropped and Richmond remained about the same. There is considerable amount of sharing of information between neighboring counties.
The Planning Commission will be holding one or more town meetings in order to obtain citizen input. He strongly encouraged NAPS member participation in the review process, and in all other matters that come before the Planning Commission. People need to let their thoughts be known. On numerous occasions, NAPS has surfaced very helpful information.

Mr. Fisher reviewed how the Planning Commission operates. He said the Commission recommends actions and alternatives to the Board of Supervisors. Most of the time the Board of Supervisors accepts these recommendations, but not always. The Supervisors recommend candidates to fill vacancies in their districts, and then the Board of Supervisors votes on the appointments. Each district is allowed two appointees. A candidate is needed now from District 2, the Lottsburg area.

He said the Planning Commission wants to update the plan so that it will be good for all of the people over the next five years. The last update focused on the “village concept” in business an residential planning; the concept is beginning to fill in.

Mr. Fisher took the following questions from the attendees:

Q. Regarding the ferry concept, wouldn’t it be wise to upgrade access roads prior to opening up the ferry service? Also, while the ferry service is to be privately funded, who will pay for the road upgrades?

A. These factors will be addressed. Mr. Fisher mentioned that we would soon see a traffic light in Callao. (There were audible groans from the audience. Later on someone asked how the light can be stopped. Mr. Fisher said those in opposition should so inform their supervisors.)

Comment. Porter Kier commended Mr. Fisher for his leadership in working with the Commission.

Q. There was a question about population statistics.

A. Data will be obtained from state agencies for the Plan update.

Q. Implementation of the village concept was questioned, since it appears that new development seems to be continuing laterally along the roads.

A. Good planning is just one factor to be considered. Another is the inalienable right of citizens to use their property as they so choose. He said these factors do not always go hand in hand.

He said that there is emphasis right now at the Planning Commission to plan ahead for the County’s slowly declining potable water supply. He said land may need to be purchased and set aside for reservoirs, but that property rights and funding will be problems.

Q. What can citizens do to see to it that the good features of the Plan are implemented through changes in county ordinances?

A. Petition the Board of Supervisors and tell them what needs to be changed. But keep in mind that property rights must be honored and funding considered.

Q. How can the County assure that housing is available at all economic levels?

A. The County does not have sufficient funding for these types of projects. Outside funding sources need to be found.

Q. Are biking trails along Rte 360 being considered for the Plan?

A. No, not at this time.

Q. Has a traffic impact study for the new ferry operation been conducted?

A. Yes, two studies have been done, and traffic is being discussed.

Q. Won’t the ferry also impact the village concept? Will we be seeing wall-to-wall commercial strips and lots of traffic lights? Will open space be provided for?

A. These factors are being considered.

Q. Ordinance enforcement in the County is weak. Unsightly abandoned cars, trailers and firetrap homes are all over the County. What can be done?

A. Due to staff and funding restrictions, the only follow up that is possible is in response to complaints.

Q. (By Mr. Fisher to the audience) How many would be willing to pay increased real estate taxes in order to provide the money the County needs for these kind of cleanup projects?

A. There was a good show of hands. One condition was mentioned, “As long as we are assured that the funding is used for these purposes.”

Mr. Fisher concluded by encouraging citizens to become involved in the review of the Plan.

Sludge Presentation

Annual NAPS Board Meeting

By Mike Harwood

Sewage sludge (renamed “biosolids” to make it more socially acceptable) is the residue following the treatment of human waste and other materials flowing into wastewater treatment plants where water is separated and returned to the waterways. The residue is then treated to remove bacteria to a prescribed standard, stored and trucked out to either farmlands (50%), landfills (30%) or incinerators (20%).

NAPS first became aware that sludge was being applied to Northumberland County farmlands about 8 years ago when we were asked to help block the creation of two huge temporary storage lagoons in the vicinity of Northumberland High School. So far, it appears that the lagoon project has been derailed.

During the lagoon resistance process, we became active in helping the planning commission and board of supervisors develop a sludge ordinance designed to make land application as safe as possible to public health and the environment. This ordinance is still being used.

Our Board of Supervisors is opposed to land application in principle, and especially when the State permits the practice in the vicinity of homes and waterways. During the 2002 board elections, one of the incumbents, a promoter of land application, was defeated, primarily over this issue.

There have been several lawsuits over the past few years where the sludge trucking industry has challenged local government ordinances that ban land application, or are so restrictive that they are de facto bans. The Virginia Supreme Court heard one of these cases on appeal in late 2000. The Court’s opinion states that while outright bans at the local level are contrary to Virginia law under the Dillon Rule, there is some room for local governments to impose restrictions that are more onerous than in State regulations, as long as they are not “conflicting” with State regulations. This, of course, left local governments in a quandary as to what restrictions they can impose, and has led to further law suites.

Following the Supreme Court decision, NAPS put together a Sewage Sludge Study Group to review this issue. We were very fortunate to identify a medical doctor, a toxicologist, two geologists, a couple of engineers, an experienced legislative liaison person and others to serve on the study group. We studied tons of literature from all across the U. S., Canada and Europe and concluded that land application is unsafe in most of Northumberland County because of the large numbers of homes with shallow wells along our country roads, the risk of runoff to our many waterways, and based on our knowledge of the many untested for contaminants such as industrial chemicals, viruses, pharmaceuticals, and other pollutants harmful to public health and the environment. To make matters worse, sludge is being transported in from wastewater treatment plants all over the eastern seaboard, and there are just two State of Virginia employees responsible for issuing the permits and compliance with existing State ordinances. And the EPA, given responsibility for the program by the Congress, is doing no monitoring.

Since the Supreme Court had opined that local governments have limited authority under State law to control where sludge may be land applied, and under what conditions, our Study Group raised its sights to the State level. We met with both candidates for our 2002 State delegate seat and convinced them to include a campaign plank in favor of local government control of sludge land application, and to go public on this issue. Both of them did.

Following the 2002 election, Delegate Albert Pollard was able to convince his friend Senator (former Delegate) Criegh Deeds to sponsor SB 618 that would have given local government authority to control, including banning, sludge land application. The Bill was taken under consideration by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources during the 2002 session. Our study group made presentations to the committee, but we found powerful opposition from the farm, wastewater treatment and particularly the sludge trucking industries. We found that these people had very strong influence with the General Assembly and the Virginia Department of Health, who had been given responsibility for the program by the General Assembly, and would be formidable opponents in the debate. But we, along with limited support from the CBF, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and a few local governments, registered a major victory when the Senate Committee decided to carry the Bill forward to 2003 and to refer it to the Commission of the Future of Virginia’s environment to study the issue and return to the General Assembly in 2003 with its recommendations.

The Commission met throughout this past summer. For its first meeting we presented a thick volume of reference materials supporting our case, and several pages of legislative language. Luckily, much of that language was written into the first drat of a major change to Virginia’s sludge legislation, and most of it stuck. But, unfortunately, from the “get go” the Commission refused to even consider delegating authority for sludge land application to local governments. This seems to stem from a basic mistrust of local governments and strong pressures from our opponents that such provisions would kill the bill. Our opponents have sold the case that having to deal with the some 90 local governments would make their work too difficult to continue in operation, completely disregarding the threats to human health and environment with control at the State level.

We worked with the Commission at each of its meetings, and took a position of supporting the seven provisions in the new bill they introduced, SB 1088, while holding out that it lacks four important elements. These are:

In SB 1088:

1. Requires sight specific nutrient management plans for all sights where sludge is spread.

2. Requires a searchable complaint database at VDH along with actions taken.

3. Authorizes VDH in special cases to go beyond basic regulatory requirements in the Biosolids Regulation.

4. Requires written evidence of financial responsibility by the sludge truckers.

5. Requires the Board of Health to develop a certification program for all land appliers and that a certified person be present at all land applications.

6. Authorizes local governments to enforce State regulations in the place of VDH.

7. Requires the VDH to “continue” to review the recent report of the National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) and the actions taken by the EPA in response, and report back to the General Assembly not later than June 30, 2004, with needed revision to statutory or regulatory requirements.

We asked both the Senate and House committees to add the following to SB 1088:

1. Authorize local boards of supervisors to participate in the permit application process, and not just in enforcement of State regulations.

2. Require nutrient management plans for both nitrogen and phosphorus.

3. Provide protections for citizens with immune compromised conditions living near the application sites.

4. Prohibit State employees from promoting sludge land application.

SB 1088A, which contains a rather minor House amendment, has passed both the Senate and House ( as of yesterday) and will now return to the Senate floor for acceptance of the House amendment. We anticipate that Governor Warner will sign the bill.

We are also working with the Virginia Board of Health in hopes of getting more sludge reform into the State regulations.

Thanks to the Study Group: Dr. Sheri Hummel, MD; Dr. Lynton Land, PhD (geoscientist); Dr. Dick Steelman, PhD (toxicologist); Reverend Gayl Fowler, SAIF Water Committee Director; Dr. Hoyt Wheeland, PhD (economist); Lee Allain (engineer); Cary Caton, legislative assistant); Paul and Tippie Dealeo (Paul is an engineer and Tippie is a registered nurse); and Randolph Neal (past NAPS President), plus the other members of the Study Group who have been so supportive.

And thanks to the NAPS Board for your financial support for our legislative consultant in Richmond and your encouragement during the past year and one-half.

NAPS Social

The NAPS social will be held at the home of Sheri Lynn Hummel, MD in September. That is the house which I saw as it barged into position. Since no one has accepted the full responsibility as Chair of the event, we are still looking for that volunteer. There are some who have volunteered their help; so that whoever will take the chairmanship will have many items taken care of already. If you would like to take this position, please call a Board member. There will, of course, be more information in the next newsletter. But, don’t hold your breath; the next Newsletter is scheduled for August.

Bug zappers

From Arthur V. Evans

I liken the snap and crackle of a bug zapper to the shrill scraping of nails on a chalkboard. Researchers estimate that 71 to 350 billion beneficial insects, pollinators and insect predators among them, are killed annually by bug zappers. One study showed that 250 mosquito predators were killed for every mosquito dispatched.

New Board Member

Myrtle Phillips was elected to the NAPS Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting in February. She is married to Don Phillips, COL, U. S. Army(Ret) and they have four children and seven grandchildren.

Myrtle graduated from San Jose State University, San Jose, California, with a BS in Science. She majored in Occupational Therapy and minored in education. She later qualified to teach gifted and retarded children.

Myrtle had extensive experience teaching at Palo Alto School District, San Jose Unified School District, a Parish school, Mission Elementary School, and San Luis Obispo. She was a teacher (substitute) in Fairfax County, Virginia teaching regular, gifted and retarded students throughout Fairfax County.

From 1991 to 1996 Myrtle was an Account Coordinator at Hallmark Cards, Inc. working as a Sales Representative. She managed a 3.5 million-dollar account with responsibility to recruit, hire, train and supervise 42 employees at 80 business locations. She received outstanding performance awards for 1992 - 1994. She also won the 1992 R. B. Hall award for Field Marketing Excellence

In her words:

‘I use my talents and skills to help others. As a military-wife I participated in programs to improve the quality of life for soldiers and their families. I advised senior military commanders and recommended actions to improve and increase support for military families. I helped form National Military Families, a world-wide Department of Defense organization, that has the mission to manage programs which support military families.

After retirement we moved to Northumberland County in 1998. I began tutoring at the Northumberland Elementary School in l998. In 1999 we developed a tutoring program and received permission from the Northumberland School Board to provided tutors in each Public School in the County. I was appointed to the Northumberland School Board in 2000. In 2001, I became one of the first School Board members to be elected to represent District Three. Currently, I serve as an appointed member of the Northern Neck-Middle Peninsula Public Education Consortium. My community activities include participation in church activities; volunteer work with the Northern Neck District of Boy Scouts of America; work as Board member at the Mary Ball Washington Museum and Library, Court Appointed Special Advocate [CASA] which supports Lancaster and Northumberland Counties, and the Extension Leadership Council

I am a fiber artist. That is my hobby. I am a knitter and spinner. I use my skills to teach my craft to as many people as I can.’

CBF - Save the Bay

From CBF

There may soon be a great opportunity for the Chesapeake Bay! The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has been working with Bay legislators on a federal bill to partially fund sewage treatment plant upgrades. This is CBF's number one priority to Save the Bay. That bill could be introduced shortly, and we need your help. Similar bills have been introduced in the past, but we've lacked the Bay-wide political muscle to win this crucial funding. This time, we're asking you to help us recruit supporters, so when the funding bill is debated in the halls of Congress, we'll be able to flood legislators with your support and convince them to fund sewage treatment plant upgrades. Upgrading sewage treatment plants is the first and easiest step in getting the Bay back on the road to recovery. Here's how you can help us build our Action Network. Please sign our Chesapeake Clean Water pledge, if you haven't done so already.

Editorial

Do you want to learn more about marsh grass planting? NAPS has something for you. First is the Bayscaping Class that will be taught by Master Gardeners, followed by a free hands-on session of actual grass planting on a shore. Read Lee Allain’s article for details.

Help straighten out NAPS! Nominate someone for the NAPS Distinguished Citizen Award.

How is your love/hate relationship with Phragmites? See one of Lynton’s articles. It may help you!

SAIF Water has received some grants to study shallow wells. The information that will be forthcoming will be of great interest to NAPS. Consequently, NAPS is giving $500 to SAIF Water to help. You can add to this with your own tax-exempt contribution!

The Planning Commission is a subject in the minds of NAPS Members. There is a long rehash of the comments of Al Fisher, Planniing Commission chair, on the new Comprehensive Plan. There are good remarks about the help NAPS has done in the past and requests for more input to the process. On (mostly) Lynton’s page is a resolution for the Planning Commission on the Village concept. If you agree or disagree, please respond!

All you can understand about the work on sludge is in a discussion by Mike Harwood. I can only reiterate what he says about ‘thanks to others for their contributions.’ I have been fortunate to have received the email that has passed from Mike to ‘the gang’ during this period and have not responded.

There are always changes in NAPS. At the annual meeting Myrtle Phillips was elected to the Board of Directors. Her biography appears in this issue. Another change is that Tom & Janet Ryals are now our Co-chairs of the Publicity committee. Tom has had some successful entries to the local newspapers. Further, Cary Caton has resigned from the Board of Directors and President of the organization. Cary has instituted some changes in the operation of the Board of Directors that will make the group more effective in the long run. We thank her for her actions and wish her good luck in future endeavors.

Walks

Membership Application

My check for $___________ is enclosed

made out to NAPS

Check membership category desired*

______ $15 Individual

______ $25 Family

______ $100 Sustaining

______ $250 Patron

______ $50 (or more) Business

______ $1 Student

Name(s) _________________________

_________________________________

Address __________________________

____________________Zip__________

Phone (_______) __________________

EMail ___________________________

FAX (_______)___________________

Please check activities in which you would like to participate:

______ Adopt-A-Highway

______ Environmental Education

______ Finance

______ Fund Raising

______ Grass Planting

______ Monitoring County Boards

______ Membership

______ NAPS Exhibits

______ Phragmites Problems

______ Publicity and Newsletter

______ Special Events Coordination

______ Any Project Assignments

______ Other _____________________

*The Internal Revenue Service has determined that NAPS qualifies as a tax exempt organization under section 501 (c) (3) of the code. As such, dues and contributions to NAPS may be deductible by donor for tax purposes.

NAPS 2003 Calendar

The NAPS board meets at the Northern Neck State Bank in Burgess at 9:00 A.M. each month on the Wednesdays immediately preceding Northumberland Board of Supervisors meetings (second Thursday). NAPS members and prospective members are always welcome. Join the group and find out about all NAPS accomplishes. In fact, we will trip over our own shoelaces to make sure you are comfortably seated.

April

9 NAPS Board Meeting

26 NAPS Grass Planting

May

7 NAPS Board Meeting

June

11 NAPS Board Meeting

July

9 NAPS Board Meeting

August

13 NAPS Board Meeting

September

10 NAPS Board Meeting

NAPS Annual Social

NAPS Phragmites Plan

October

8 NAPS Board Meeting

November

12 NAPS Board Meeting

December

10 NAPS Board Meeting

Northumberland Association for Progressive Stewardship

NAPS NEWS

Spring 2003 Volume12,Issue2

Speaker Remarks: Planning Commissioner

Al Fisher

By Mike Harwood

NAPS Social

Membership Application