Save the Anchorage In Washington, DC

[btrayfors]

Thanks, Phil.

This is just one of several solutions which would essentially do what the developer needs to do without destroying the anchorage and mooring area of the Washington Channel, and needlessly denying hundreds of boaters a safe haven for visitors to the Nations Capital.

Maybe the developer -- or his "marine consultant" -- would like to explore these ideas? Lots of willing and very experienced boater who'd be happy to help.

Bill

[Flipper]

Congressman Mica (FL) is holding the House / Senate conference committee from agreeing to the Sennate ammendment made by Joe Lieberman which de-federalizes the Washington Channel. Please let Congressman Mica know that you agree with his efforts to not add the Senate ammendment to bill HR 2297. This is critical to saving the Washington Channel anchorage!

[Flipper]

Vote your opinion for H.R. 2297 which will extend docks an additional 200 feet into the Washington Channel and destroy the existing anchorage. https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr2297

[Bob on OTTER]

just did! tnx for the heads up!

[Flipper]

The congressional bill HR 2297 remains in conference committee with much thanks to Congressman Mica. Please ask your Congressman to exclude the Senate ammendment from the radified HR 2297 bill in conference committee.

On another note, those local to DC,

The Washington DC Zoning Commission will have 4 public hearings, (28 June, 2 July, 12 July and 23 July of 2012) on the Waterfront development Case 11-03A PUD stage 2, phase one. I suggest registering as a witness at the June 28 meeting. Regardless submit your written comments.
For those local to DC, below is information on how to voice your concerns with the DC Zoning Commission.
How to Testify before the Zoning Commission on the SW Waterfront Plan
If you can spare an evening, or four, to come out and shape your neighborhood’s future, it will be time well spent. We know your time is valuable and scarce, and thank you for making the time to testify to support your boating community.
Tips for testifying:
· You don’t need to argue laws and policies with the Commissioners, you just need to tell your story. That’s what they want to hear and what makes an impact.
· Call or write the Zoning Commission to get on the witness list. Witnesses will be heard on a first come first served basis so the sooner you sign on the sooner you will be heard. Contact Dana Hanousek at Donna.Hanousek@DC.gov or 202-727-0789 and provide your name, your desire to testify in support or opposition to the Southwest Waterfront Plan, Case No. 11-03A, your telephone number, and a request for confirmation you are on the list. You can also sign up to testify by arriving prior to 6:30 pm at the Zoning Commission hearing room on the hearing date. However, first come first served so those signing up at the hearing will testify last-which can sometimes be late in the evening. If you call or write in advance you should not sign up again at the hearing.
· Submitting written comments: If you cannot testify in person, you should mail or fax your comments prior to June 17th to the Zoning Commission: fax no. 202-727-6072. You can email comments but only if you sign your comments and send as a PDF of not more than 10 pages. Email your signed PDF to: zcsubmissions@dc.gov.
The DC Zoning Commission is located at the Judiciary Square Metro Station:
Office of Zoning Hearing Room
441 4th Street NW, Suite 220-S
Washington, DC 20001

[Flipper]

US House approves US Senate ammendment which includes the Washington Channel.

Congress approves HR 2297 on to President.

DC Zoning Commission meeting tonight.

SSCA will speak in opposition to development and narrowing of the Washington Channel.

Bill dialog below:


PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHWEST DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATERFRONT -- (House of Representatives - June 26, 2012)
[Page: H4001] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2297) to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
On page 5, after line 10, add the following:
SEC. 4. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON CHANNEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation of the Corps of Engineers at Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, as authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028), and described in subsection (b), is deauthorized.

(b) Description of Project.--The deauthorized portion of the project for navigation is as follows: Beginning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441948.20, East 1303969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the
[Page: H4002] GPO's PDF aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on said outline the following 3 courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 438923.9874, East 1306159.9738, thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of beginning, the area in total containing a computed area of 777,284 square feet or 17.84399 acres of riparian water way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will keep my comments brief. Back in December, the House unanimously approved the base text of the legislation before us today, H.R. 2297. H.R. 2297 was approved in order to update zoning laws to allow the District of Columbia the flexibility to sell or lease real property in the Southwest waterfront to a private sector developer. There is currently a $2 billion redevelopment plan pending to renovate this area, which is only a stone's throw from the U.S. Capitol building.
[Time: 16:10]
On March 29, the Senate unanimously approved this legislation with an amendment, which is what brings us here today.
The Senate amendment also concerns the development of the Southwest waterfront. It deauthorizes a portion of a 77-year-old navigation project in the waterway, essentially transferring jurisdiction from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the District of Columbia in order for the redevelopment project to move forward to help spur economic development in the Southwest waterfront area here in Washington, DC.
The Army Corps of Engineers has reported no concerns with this transfer. In addition, Madam Speaker, the Senate's language is identical to that of a bill the House unanimously approved last Congress.
The last point I will make is, according to the CBO, there is no budgetary cost associated with the bill now before us.
I'd like to thank the ranking member, Ms. Norton, for working with us on this legislation and the Senate for including this important amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa, and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Gowdy, for working closely with our side on this bill so that we could get it to the floor today. I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Davis, the subcommittee ranking member, for their very important consultation.
H.R. 2297, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Norton, will allow development of the waterfront area in Southwest Washington, DC. The bill makes technical changes concerning land owned on the Southwest waterfront by the District of Columbia since the early 1960s. The legislation that transferred the land to the District contained restrictions typical of the pre-Home Rule period.
H.R. 2297 updates that obsolete legislation to allow for the highest and best use of the land. The restrictions serve no Federal purpose. However, the unintended effect was to make a wasted asset of land that could be productive and revenue- and jobs-producing. The relevant Federal agencies have been consulted on H.R. 2297 and have raised no objections. The bill will allow mixed-use development on the waterfront for the first time. It will create jobs and raise local revenue at a time when they are needed most.
The Federal Government has no interest in the Southwest waterfront other than the Maine lobster memorial and the Titanic memorial, which the District and the National Park Service have worked together to preserve.
Madam Speaker, the bill expands the types of goods that can be sold at the fish market on the waterfront in a market well known in the region. This is a noncontroversial bill that removes out-of-date restrictions and involves no cost to the Federal Government.

At this time, I'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for such time as she may consume.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I have only brief remarks because I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Missouri and to thank them for bringing this bill forward. Special thanks are due to Chairman DARREL ISSA and Ranking Member Cummings for their considerable assistance on this bill, and for two other good friends, Representative Gowdy, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Representative Davis, ranking member of the subcommittee.
The bill essentially incorporates technical changes for land that has been owned for almost 50 years by the District of Columbia, but land transferred in bills during the so-called pre-Home Rule period often contained language that is obsolete today and prevents the highest and best use.

Last Congress, the smaller part of this bill, the Washington Channel bill, was passed unanimously in committee and on the House floor. The channel part of the bill had to be updated because the channel was established in the 1800s, when the District of Columbia was a major port. This section allows the District now to use the waterfront for today's boating and other water activities.
All the relevant agencies--and I appreciate the work of the Coast Guard and the Navy--have signed off on this bill. I particularly appreciate the work of the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Missouri in bringing this bill forward, and Chairman ISSA and ranking member CUMMINGS of the Oversight and Government Reform bill, once again, and its subcommittee leadership as well.
Mr. CLAY. I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues in urging support of this bipartisan economic growth and jobs bill. It will create a vital new area in what is developing as a vibrant part of the District of Columbia.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2297, and I yield back the balance of my time.
• [Begin Insert]
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman JOHN MICA of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and myself on the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297.
• [End Insert]
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2012.
Hon. DARRELL ISSA,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In order to expedite the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the future.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding, and would request that you include our exchange
[Page: H4003] GPO's PDF of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.
--
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2012.
Hon. JOHN L. MICA,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297, ``To promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,'' and your willingness to forego consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297 by your committee.
I agree that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297, and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision to forego consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297.
Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2297.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[Flipper]

SSCA and Cruisers in opposition to development (pier extensions into the Washington Channel) dominated the DC Zoning meets on June 28th and July 2nd. While the developer continues to spend most of his time discussing the building faces and street views, his lack of knowlege and understanding of the Washington Harbor, harbor traffic and recreation use has been flagged by the DC Zoning Commissioners. There are three more meetings July 12th, July 23rd and July 30. We must continue to highlight the developmenters shortfalls including lack of workable anchoring area, moorings area, accomidations for day use sailing and kayaking and safe channels and docks for water taxi and tour boats.

[JonathanSail]

Thanks for the update. It is encouraging. The bill dialogue, as I understood it after a quick review, was very one-sided in favor of this development. I didn't see any acknowledgment of the downsides to this development or of compromises that were going to be made to allow for this development. That was surprising to me and made the chance of slowing or limiting the development in any way seem very low.

Hopefully the response at the zoning meeting will be effective in leading to a more balanced development plan that saves some room for us cruisers there.

Thanks again,

Jonathan

[Flipper]

SSCA LETTER to the DC Zoning Commission
July 30, 2012
Comments of the Seven Seas Cruising Association
On the Proposed Zoning action on the District of Columbia’s Southwest Waterfront
The SSCA was founded in 1952 and is incorporated as a 501 (c) 7 not for profit organization. The focus of our organization is to encourage cruising by boat both locally and worldwide, and to share cruising information with the membership. Our “Leave a Clean Wake” motto emphasizes good seamanship, courtesy to fellow boaters, and a respect for local customs and environment so that those who follow in our wake will be warmly received. As the largest such organization in the Country, with many of our members actually out cruising the world, the SSCA is recognized as a major voice across the globe for the cruising community.
Many of our members and other cruisers from around the world visit the District of Columbia every year. During the boating season, visiting boaters have a positive impact on DC’s economy because they take tours, shop, visit the national museums, dine in local restaurants and attend artistic events and celebrations.
SSCA was disheartened when, during the course of four hearings in June and July of this year, DC Zoning Commissioners repeatedly denied SSCA party status. At each hearing, SSCA provided compelling reasons why the association should be allowed party status. SSCA provided exhibits which showed that 25 of its members have the District of Columbia as their mailing address. SSCA officials also provided sworn testimony, with names and vessel names of seven members whose vessels were currently within the proposed project’s impacted area. SSCA believes our association has a responsibility to actively participate in DC’s efforts to develop a waterfront which will continue to be used by national and international cruisers. The purpose of SSCA’s participation in the zoning meetings was to try to ensure a good harbor capable of providing safe anchoring and mooring for our members and those of the national and international cruising community.
The following are SSCA’s observations and concerns regarding the applicant’s proposed Southwest Waterfront and Washington Channel development.
1. It is apparent that the applicant and district planning officials did not reach out to national and international cruising communities for input on the harbor design. As a city, the District of Columbia was originally designed as a national capital located on a navigable waterway. Past maritime redesigns updated and improve the city’s harbor. The current “from the water” design seems to turn its back on the mariners and those cruising boats who would like to visit the nation’s capital by water. SSCA suggests a more broadly experienced panel of national and international maritime experts, independent of the applicant or the planners, review the current design and propose possible changes.
2. The proposed harbor design places many varied types of users in close proximity. Water taxis, dragon boats, youth sailboat instruction, increased day use kayaks, increased traffic entering and exiting marinas, increased visiting small boats, mega yachts, tall ships, paddle wheel and other tourist cruise boats, boats at anchor, emergency marine services are all known to utilize the current harbor. Narrowing the harbor by almost half and increasing traffic will change the character of the Washington Channel harbor. A detailed harbor traffic study of present, proposed and future use and an independent certified professional review is warranted.
3. Operating a world-class harbor, by no means denigrates the services currently provided by the DC harbor patrol who have done a fine job with the resources provided. SSCA recommends that the District of Columbia harbor officials codify maritime operating procedures in ordnances and other documented regulations. Operating harbor management under memos written over 20 years ago is not appropriate for a world class city. The DC Harbor Master’s position should be occupied by a person who is familiar with all of the harbor’s resources including commerce, recreation, transportation, security, customs and immigration. The DC Harbor Master needs a board of advisors to help him understand and develop consensus on harbor needs. The Harbor Master also needs to be an active spokesperson for the harbor.
4. The proposed 200 foot pier extensions into the Washington Harbor will consume over half of the harbor’s surface waters. The proposed moorings’ swing circles are only 5 feet from the National Park Service (NPS) East Potomac Park. These moorings are not only too close the stone walls which surround the park, but also interfere with fishing from the park edge and the buffers which afford the park both water vistas and some serenity from the city. SSCA suggests the NPS take a more proactive role in protecting the park and quiet spaces within the District and solicit public input about this encroachment to public spaces.
5. SSCA believes nationally recognized standards should be applied when determining the channel width. That said, the Washington channel is more than a passage for vessel traffic. The Washington Channel is a HARBOR, and it has operated as a harbor since it’s dredging and placement of east Potomac Park since the 1880’s. Placing 4 additional piers on the waterfront and maintaining the existing boat slips, will result in public piers that extend out to an alleyway for boats. The water vistas will be lost.
6. SSCA believes the proposed moorings are not viable as currently engineered and are not accurately represented in the applicant’s drawings. The initially designed two-point mooring system is too difficult for transient boaters. The moorings are too small and are not designed to service the typical cruising vessel of 40 to 60 feet. Proposed swing circles are simply too small and too close to fixed maritime infrastructure.
7. SSCA has researched the developer’s FAA applications and while the upland (shore structures) heights are addressed, the visiting docked and moored vessels mast heights are not. This is a particular concern given the pier encroachment into helicopter corridor H1 which has a vertical ceiling of 200 feet and a horizontal width of 500 feet.
8. SSCA encourages the District of Columbia to establish clearly defined “special anchorages” and codify such anchorages in CFR 110 regulations.
9. SSCA recommends the implementation of a national and international communication plan regarding the changes to the Washington Channel harbor. The communication plan should provide information sufficiently in advance of proposed changes to permit comment from interested parties and be updated to provide current and scheduled availability of services. Appropriate maritime signage should be included in the applicant’s plan.
The above list is not all-inclusive as there were many good discussions which were hopefully captured in the minutes of the five zoning hearings.
SSCA appreciates all the efforts involved in developing good zoning actions. We stand ready to work with the District of Columbia and the applicant to produce a safe and useful harbor that will encourage maritime recreation, and future visits by national and international cruisers.

Philip Johnson
Chairman, Concerned Cruisers Committee

[btrayfors]

Good letter, Phil.

It's distressing to me that the DC Zoning Commission (DCZC) has refused to allow the SSCA "party status". I can't believe that they don't see a clear connection of the SSCA to the issue at hand.

Further, in their several meetings they denied that they had any jurisdiction over the matter -- a clear misrepresentation on their part. If they were indeed ruling on the overall project as submitted -- including the Washington Channel narrowing portion -- then how could they NOT "have jurisdiction"? Do you get the feeling that all the players are maybe not playing by the same rules?

I feel that we're caught up in a scenario from hell....or, maybe, more like Bluto's exclamation in the classic movie, Animal House: "What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Maybe it would help if the ZC members would read a bit of history :-)

Bill