About Carol J Bova

I used to be The Eclectic Lapidary, and to some extent, I still am. Although I live in a place where stone other than driveway gravel is scarce, that's offset by the fact my entire county is inside the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater. Mathews County is a fascinating place and I love living here. I'll share more about Mathews from Inside the Crater.

MPPDC Part 1– Accuracy Not Guaranteed

Planning District Commissions are supposed “to conduct studies on issues and problems of regional significance” according to the Code of Virginia. The Code fails to mention, though, those studies should contain accurate information.

Perhaps that’s too much to expect, especially when the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission posts a disclaimer on the copyright page of the 2002 report, Water Supply Management on the Middle Peninsula that says,  “No warranty, expressed of implied, is made by the MPPDC as to the accuracy of this report or related materials. Publication and distribution of the material contained in this report does not constitute any such warranty, and the MPPDC assumes no responsibility in connection therewith.” Since this report was an “information review,” MPPDC apparently didn’t want to check the accuracy of the information, but MPPDC expects its member counties’ representatives to take care of those details on its own grant-funded reports.

The MPPDC said that same 2002 water supply document included “significantly outdated” material from a 1977 State Water Control Board report, but the statements again appeared in the 2011 regional water supply plan: “Yorktown Aquifer has low yield potential. Principal and upper artesian aquifers not suitable for potable use (high chlorides).” This was the belief prior to the 1983 discovery of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater, and studies since then have shown that “wedges” of ancient sea water were trapped by the impact debris as it fell back to earth and could contaminate some wells today.

The MPPDC Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy in 2013, again picked up the same 1977 information as an inset in  Figure 10, “Ground Water Zones in the Middle Peninsula,” and doesn’t list the Yorktown/Eastover Aquifer, the only major water source used in Mathews County.

Lewis Lawrence, Executive Director of the MPPDC,  replied to a request for a correction of the aquifer descriptions saying, “I encourage you to review why comprehensive economic development strategy exists and what the Economic Development Administration requires.  A comprehensive economic development strategy (CEDS) is designed to bring together the public and private sectors in the creation of an economic roadmap to diversify and strengthen regional economies….” He went on to say that it was up to the localities “to appoint representatives to make sure local and regional issues are addressed and that the quality and accuracy of the work meets expectations against the requirement of the funder.”

So if a county’s representatives don’t have or don’t communicate specific knowledge about the county’s water source, and MPPDC recycles 1977 information it described as “significantly outdated” in 2002, it absolves MPPDC from responsibility, even if the use of that information in 2013 is detrimental to the local economy by discouraging businesses who might otherwise consider locating in the county.

While the PDCs are funded in part by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in part by the localities, and obtain grants to conduct studies and issue reports, do the counties know it’s up to their county representatives to fact check the PDC report for accuracy and to see if their reports meet the expectations of the funding agency?

Watch for an upcoming post on what happens when citizens do offer comments and corrections to MPPDC flawed reports.

Sharing What We Learned About VDOT Myths and Mathews Drainage

Since the fall of 2011, I’ve been digging into the reasons for flooded land and ditches in Mathews. G.C. Morrow taught me the basics of ditches and we formed The Ditches of Mathews County project in early 2012.  We thought identifying the causes of drainage issues and working out solutions would help VDOT. When VDOT said they needed temporary easements to address outfall maintenance, we tracked owners through tax records and internet resources. G.C. visited local folks and called some who lived in other states. All were glad to help. But apparently, VDOT had other ideas.

Two small outfalls were cleaned on 609, and the water drained a considerable area that had been flooding from road drainage for years. The third project opened the outfall between Canoe Yard Trail and 609, but in the process, the VDOT contractor blocked the outlet to a second outfall. Months passed, and after the District Administrator Quintin Elliott and Resident Engineer Sean Trapani accompanied us on a tour of problem spots, VDOT finally addressed a dead tree preventing the roadside ditch on Canoe Yard Trail from draining to the outfall. But the cleaning of 609 pipes needed to drain the roadside ditches near the tidal marshes didn’t happen. The one time we know the pipe truck arrived–it came at high tide. And never came back to do the job.

We kept working on gathering information, and the story that emerged was not a pretty one. Going through the Board of Supervisors’ meetings, month after month for thirty-odd years was a test of endurance. Transcribing key sections and sorting by topic and choosing which statements would illustrate the ongoing saga felt like an impossible task for a time. Eventually, though, the outline emerged showing how three years of VDOT/County revenue sharing projects ran on into the sixteenth year, and how those involved seemed to forget the original reason for the projects.

It’s all laid out now in Drowning a County, and everyone reading it will see what happened and when, and more importantly, what didn’t happen that should have. The pattern of County Supervisors and Administrators forgetting or overlooking details of agreements with VDOT and accepting incorrect statements without challenge cannot be allowed to repeat itself now and in future years. Drowning a County can provide the facts and the history to help our leaders and our citizens avoid being misled even once more by VDOT mythology.

 

Don’t Like the Weather? Wait a Few Minutes.

Winter isn’t letting go of us this St. Patrick’s Day. We’ve had rain, sleet and snow here in Mathews, and it’s down to 27, but the sky is quiet for now. Our writing critique group meets in Williamsburg, and so the question is: how are the roads?3-17-14 blog traffic cam

I dialed 511 for road information. It used to be a pretty straightforward call, if you were in a quiet enough place for the voice-activated computer to understand you. If not, you could pull over and use the keypad. Well, the 511 system has been improved, effective November 20th, some menu options have changed, please listen carefully, as the recording tells us. I asked for 17, and it gave me the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel.

Second try: “Say the name of an interstate, bridge or tunnel.”

U.S. 17  This time I opted for the keypad, and 17# got me a series of options, but nothing familiar. Hampton Roads seemed the most reasonable of the choices. (I used to be good at multiple choice answers, but guess not any more.) I apologized to the human who answered because she couldn’t help me with US Route 17.

Third try: Before I spoke, the system interpreted some sound as a request for tourism information, and I couldn’t get it to start over, go back, (go to) menu, and I ran out of ideas to try while it wanted me to pick a tourism location.

Fourth try: Not sure how it happened, but I got I-81.

Fifth try: It gave me US Route 7.

Sixth try: I got ride share information. (Usually done by hitting 4 on the keypad twice, which I hadn’t pressed.)

Seventh try: I got  U.S. Route 7 again, and tried to use the keypad to go back. No luck. “After many tries, the system has not received a valid response.”  Neither have I.

Just because I’ve invested this much energy already, I want my road information, and I want to know how to get an answer out of this system. Now this isn’t a case of road noise. I’m in the house. I used to be able to get an answer, so what am I doing wrong on this new, improved system? I need to know whether to stay or go.

Eighth try: Got it! It told me, “Select your direction of travel.” Progress! Then a selection from Winchester to Route 66; 66 to Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg to Yorktown… And we get off at my stop!

I hear about tomorrow’s bridge opening. Good to know. Then a report of icy conditions between the Junction of US 1 and US 2.

Huh? I don’t even know where they are, but they’re not in Gloucester. I go online and find 511Virginia.org.

I check the traffic cameras on the Coleman Bridge. Nobody’s skidding, but they seem to be going way too fast for the weather. I click on the scrolling banner, “Get the Latest Road Conditions.” Mathews is clear; Gloucester is clear; York County and the Coleman Bridge have minor icy patches. Don’t know where to look for Williamsburg, but it’s decision time. Leave now or call and cancel. One more look at the bridge cams, and I leave.3-14-14 blog cam 2

Takes a few minutes to get the icy snow off the windshield, but I’m just about to pull out when my phone rings. The group’s off for tonight because others have cancelled, and I can’t be sure I’ll be able to make it either.   (Bless you all!)

Celebrating my relief, I get a rotisserie chicken from the market and settle in front of the computer. The 511virginia.org page is still up on the monitor where conditions on the bridge have gone from minor patches to Icy Conditions with an advisory.  Since I first walked out the door, the Doppler radar weather map has colored the whole area from here to Williamsburg and further in shades of frozen pink.

I don’t know if my guardian angel stepped in to rescue my foolish self, or if I’d have had the sense to know things were bad and cancel out half-way, but I’m home safe. Just have to remind myself next wintry mix time of the Mathews weather slogan: Don’t like the weather? Wait 15 minutes and it’ll change. I forgot that doesn’t always mean for the better.

But spring will be here in a couple of days. I saw fat daffodil buds ready to prove it when I drove in tonight, and that’s one change I’ll be happy to wait for.

Springing Forward

Inside the Crater went silent a year ago, but life kept on moving ahead, dragging and pushing me along too. With the time change this morning to move ahead an hour for Daylight Savings Time, I thought this would be a good time to reactivate Inside the Crater.

VDOT finished a part of the Canoe Yard Trail outfall and roadside ditch last year, so the rainfall runs crystal clear to the marsh now.

1545092_571497736259832_880957770_n

This is our one shining success story for the Ditches of Mathews County Project, even if it’s incomplete, but we’ll accept it with thanks. It proves what we’ve said all along: if the roadside and outfall ditches are cleaned, have the proper grade and the pipes are open–Mathews has no trouble draining its stormwater, even in Onemo with its low elevation.

The EPA approved our TMDL Implementation Plan to improve the water quality in the Piankatank/Milford Haven/Gwynn’s Island watershed, but the Ditch Maintenance Task Force recommendation still needs to be organized. It’s on my list, after I finish my book, Drowning a County.

Drowning a County traces the history of highway drainage in Mathews County and the institutional myths the Virginia Department of Transportation’s used to explain away their failure to maintain their systems for decades. The book debunks those myths with published mainstream scientific information, translated into normal English.

To do this, I tracked down Army Corps of Engineers hurricane surveys from the 1950’s and 60’s and a 1980 drainage study of the Garden Creek watershed. I learned a lot about Mathews County in reading through 34 years of Board of Supervisors minutes about ditches and VDOT and the revenue-sharing for ditches saga from 1993 to 2008.

Wetlands ecology wasn’t on my reading list, but turned out to be an essential element, aided by the Mathews Memorial Library’s acquisition of an excellent textbook.

GC Morrow taught me how to find overgrown outfall ditches and probe for pipes under the road that could no longer be seen and how to use topo maps to track the streams channelized as outfalls.

Blue dashed lines were drainage structures and streams in 1965–some of which are now totally obstructed. Image courtesy of USGS from Mathews topo map

Can’t count how many wonderful Mathews residents stopped to see if I needed help while photographing ditches from the roadside. And that is probably the biggest factor in why I kept going on this project: the people of Mathews. They are good people with a long history here. They’ve kept the environment in such good condition that if the ditches could drain to the appropriate creeks and rivers and carry fresh rainwater, nature could solve a lot of the E. coli problem the TMDL plan addresses.

But VDOT mythology turned highway ditches into retention ponds filled with muck and algae and stagnant water.

Algae in flooded ditch with blocked pipe

This spring, VDOT just might realize their mythology has kept the roadbeds saturated and caused more freeze damage  to the roads this winter than they ever imagined.

For me, I’ve made it through the winter and over the despair of feeling I’d taken on an impossible task. Spring is on the way, and Drowning a County is on the way to completion too.

Check out Carol’s Ditches of Mathews County columns at http://ChesapeakeStyle.com.

 

Public Meeting for Piankatank – Milford Haven TMDL Implementation Plan Feb 27, 2013, 6-8 PM

Mathews High School 9889 Buckley Hall Rd. (Route 198 near 14)

As a result of the the Clean Water Act, we have to show how we’re going to deal with the problem of waters condemned for excessive E. coli bacteria levels in a Piankatank/Milford Haven TMDL Implementation Plan. TMDL (total maximum daily load), is the maximum amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment or bacteria a waterway can handle without exceeding acceptable levels.

We are fortunate here that those before us kept the waters clean, and the only factor we need to address for 16 specific areas* in Mathews, Gloucester and Middlesex is the bacteria in the water. Currently, the recreational standards are met, but not those for shellfish.  While shellfish water standards are much stricter than recreational standards, we don’t have the regulatory option to downgrade the use of our bays, creeks or rivers. Commonwealth policy states “the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.”

The first TMDL public meeting last May in Hartfield brought up a lot of questions and concerns. There were two work group (residential and business) meetings and a steering committee meeting and many emails since then to cover each point and to challenge the numbers and statistics first presented last year. I am very pleased to say that the state agency people from DCR and DEQ took our concerns input to heart and have updated the numbers and facts based on actual counts where available, and best estimates provided by local citizens where exact numbers were impossible. They have also affirmed there is no intention to force us into any HRSD expansions.

We still need to review the Implementation Plan at this public meeting in February, but I believe we can accept and live with the plan.  Please make every effort to attend. This is something that affects all of us in one way or another. If you or a neighbor cannot attend, there is a 30-day comment period after the meeting. At that point, after any changes made as a result of the meeting or comments, the plan is ours to follow for the next 10 years.

*The areas to be covered by this IP, in addition to parts of the Piankatank River, are:
Mathews: Edward and Barn Creeks on Gwynn’s Island; Cobbs, Queen/Winder, Lanes, Stutts, Morris, Hudgins, and Billups Creeks
Gloucester: Harper, Dancing (Dancer), Ferry, French’s Creeks
Middlesex: Wilton, Healy Creeks

 

MAIN STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT

DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING

DECEMBER 12, 2012

5-7 PM THOMAS HUNTER MIDDLE SCHOOL

Public Meeting notice in Gazette Journal 11/15/12

The meeting will only cover Main Street drainage from Hyco Corner to Kingston Parish Hall, and comments will be limited to that area.

Wondering why now? Why no mention at the October board meeting? Why no documents are available for inspection in Mathews?

The Ditches of Mathews County

Route 611/Church Street in Mathews looking towards Rt. 14

The latest picture story on Facebook by The Ditches of Mathews County shows a small section of Church St/Route 611 going from Mathews Courthouse towards Rt. 14. Wish I could say this level of vegetation is an unusual situation, but it’s becoming the norm with the reduction in VDOT mowing cycles as a cost-saving measure. The question then becomes: How much is this going to cost in the long run when so many cross pipes are blocked?  Each blocked ditch section becomes a mini-lake and young trees and marsh grasses and weeds in general are flourishing undisturbed.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm… Gov. McDonnell on Virginia’s Oyster Harvests

How does this glowing report connect with the US Army Corps of Engineers Native Oyster Restoration Plan? Will the USACE Plan change the outlook for Virginia?  Read the Governor’s announcement below, then take a look at the Executive Summary of the USACE Master Plan: http://insidethecrater.com/?p=295

Virginia’s Oyster Harvests Boom
– 2011 Harvest was the Best Since 1989; 2012 Harvest May be Largest in 25 Years  –

Over Past Decade Harvest Increases Ten-Fold: from 23,000 bushels in 2001 to 236,000 bushels in 2011; Dockside Value of Harvest Increased from $575,000 to $8.26 million

February 07, 2012

NEWPORT NEWS – Governor Bob McDonnell announced today that Virginia’s oyster harvest has skyrocketed over the past decade, a boom fueled through the Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s use of a rotational harvest system, sanctuaries and targeted shell plantings on public oyster grounds. Over the past decade, the oyster harvest in Virginia has increased ten-fold, from 23,000 bushels in 2001 to 236,000 bushels in 2011. In that time, the dockside value of the oyster harvest increased from $575,000 to $8.26 million. In fact, last year’s oyster harvest in Virginia was the largest since 1989.

Speaking about the growth in the harvest, the Governor noted, “Virginia oysters are not only delicious, they are also profitable. Our oysters are hitting tables all across the nation and the world, on the half-shell, fried, steamed, roasted and in stew. Whether they be Stingrays, Chincoteagues, Lynnhavens, or any kind of Virginia oyster, they are in demand. The incredible growth in our oyster harvests is bringing in new revenue to the state, and creating new jobs for our citizens. I applaud the actions of previous gubernatorial Administrations which have helped Virginia oysters to make such a vigorous comeback, and we are committed to furthering the growth of this local industry in the years ahead. And, I would also note, nothing goes better with a half-dozen Virginia oysters on the half-shell than a glass of Virginia Viognier, the signature white wine of the Commonwealth.”

“The strides made have been remarkable, and indications are this year’s harvest may be the best we’ve seen in 25 years,” said VMRC Commissioner Steven G. Bowman. “It can get even better if we stay the course and continue to spend the funds necessary to maintain our current level of productivity.”

That harvest level remains a far cry from the 1960s, when annual harvests of more than 1 million were commonplace. That was before two diseases, Dermo and MSX, spread throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The diseases do not harm humans, but kill oysters when they reach market size, around three years of age.

Over the decades, VMRC tried numerous approaches to combat the affect of those diseases on the oyster harvest and oyster stocks, with little to no success. But a new management scheme enacted four years ago has shown some impressive results.

Some harvest areas have been put on rotational management plans. They work like this: Harvest areas are opened on a staggered basis for one harvest season then closed for one or two years in order to give oysters a chance in those areas to grow to market size. Individual harvest area openings are staggered on a two or three year rotational basis. This allows harvests in some areas while others remain closed so the oyster stocks can regenerate and be reopened later, in time to harvest the market-sized stocks before the diseases kill them.

Combined with annual pre-season stock surveys, permanent oyster sanctuaries to act as broodstock, mid-season monitoring with stock updates as necessary, and planting oyster shells on public oyster grounds with available state funds, this proactive oyster management regime is paying off.

VMRC’s Dr. Jim Wesson estimates every $1 spent by the state to plant oyster shell yields $7 in economic benefits in the form of larger harvests, and increased jobs for oyster shuckers and oyster packing houses.

Over the past four years of rotational harvests, the harvest off public oyster grounds has almost tripled, from 36,000 bushels to 99,000 bushels last year.

In that time, the total oyster harvest – including privately leased oyster grounds and oyster farming operations – has grown from 95,000 bushels in 2008 to 236,000 bushels in 2011. That’s an increase in dockside value from $3.5 million to $8.26 million in just the past four years.

The ripple effects through the economy from last year’s harvest resulted in roughly $22 million in economic value, using a multiplier of 2.63 on a dockside value of $8.26 million, a formula established by Virginia Institute of Marine Science seafood industry economist Dr. James Kirkley.

“This oyster management plan is working,” said Kim Huskey, Executive Director of the Virginia Seafood Council. “This shows the fantastic results that can be achieved with VMRC and the seafood industry working together. For every $1 the state allocates to shell planting on public oyster grounds, $7 in economic benefits accrue. Last year’s harvest resulted in an economic impact of $22 million. This means jobs and economic benefits for Virginia. And it can get even better in the years to come.”

A chart of Virginia oyster ground production since 1957 is available here: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/utility/docs/Virginia%20Oyster%20Ground%20Production%20History%20as%20of%202011.PDF

Will the USACE Plan make things better for Virginia? http://insidethecrater.com/?p=295

 

Important Reading: Executive Summary Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Master Plan March 2012 Draft

After you read this summary, take a look at Gov. McDonnell’s Feb 7 press release:  http://insidethecrater.com/?p=316

Virginia’s Oyster Harvests Boom
– 2011 Harvest was the Best Since 1989; 2012 Harvest May be Largest in 25 Years  – Over Past Decade Harvest Increases Ten-Fold: from 23,000 bushels in 2001 to 236,000 bushels in 2011; Dockside Value of Harvest Increased from $575,000 to $8.26 million

 How would the USACE Oyster Restoration Master Plan really affect Virginia?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

DRAFT 

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery:
Native Oyster Restoration Master Plan

March 2012

Forward 

The State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia are the local sponsors for this study. As such, the native oyster restoration master plan (master plan) was prepared in close partnership with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC), and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) are collaborating agencies for the project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, helped shape the Chesapeake Bay and the people that have settled on its shores. The demise of the oyster in the 20th century culminated from a combination of overharvesting, loss of habitat, disease, and poor water quality. The problems faced by the oyster in the Chesapeake Bay are not uncommon along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States (Jackson et al. 2001; Beck et al. 2011). However, oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay has proven challenging. Past restoration efforts have been scattered throughout the Bay and have been too small in scale to make a system-wide impact (ORET 2009). Broodstocks and reef habitat are below levels that can support Bay-wide restoration, and critical aspects of oyster biology, such as larval transport, are only beginning to be understood. However, even in their current state, oysters remain an important resource to the ecosystem, the economy, and the culture of the Chesapeake Bay region that warrant further restoration efforts. Comprehensive oyster restoration is paramount to a restored Chesapeake Bay. This native oyster restoration master plan (master plan) presents the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) plan for large-scale, concentrated oyster restoration throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

This master plan represents the culmination of a highly intensive, transparent, and exhaustive effort to bring together state-of-the-art science, on the ground experience, and collaborative planning focusing on native oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay into one comprehensive and coordinated document. This effort, which builds on USACE’s Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oyster Restoration Including Use of Native and/or Non-Native Oyster in 2009 (http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/OysterEIS/FINAL_PEIS/homepage.asp), is unprecedented in that it lays out the first comprehensive Bay-wide strategy for large-scale oyster restoration. Development of the document and the approaches laid out herein were accomplished painstakingly and with a thoroughness of purpose that this complex restoration challenge deserves. The authors and collaborators sought out the most up-to-date and credible sources of information to inform decision-making and plan formulation, including peer reviewed publications, and scientific and technical work accomplished by Bay experts, state partners, Federal collaborating agencies, non-government agencies, numerous stakeholders, and others with interest or expertise in native oyster restoration. Critical and controversial topics were isolated by the project team and analyzed through a series of Technical White Papers that were vetted among USACE, the project sponsors, and collaborating agencies. Intensive agency technical review of this document was accomplished by USACE with complementary reviews by other Federal and state partners to ensure technical quality and to address the full spectrum of technical and institutional concerns. Further public review of this document will complement the sound technical and institutional foundation on which this document has been built.

USACE, Baltimore and Norfolk Districts, have the authority under Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (as amended by Section 505 of WRDA 1996, Section 342 of WRDA 2000, Section 113 of the FY02 Appropriations Act, Section 126 of the FY06 Appropriations Act, and Section 5021 of WRDA 2007) to construct oyster reef habitat in the Chesapeake Bay and have been designated as co-leads with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to achieve oyster restoration goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order (E.O. 13508) (May 15, 2009).

USACE restoration efforts have been ongoing in Maryland since 1995 and in Virginia since 2000. In recognition that a more coordinated Bay-wide approach is needed to guide USACE’s future Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration efforts and the investment of federal funding, USACE’s Baltimore and Norfolk Districts partnered with multiple agencies to create a joint Bay-wide master plan for oyster restoration efforts. Federal involvement is warranted due to the magnitude at which oyster populations have been lost in the Bay; the significant role oysters play in the ecological function of the Bay, as well as the socio-economics, culture, and history of the region; and the challenges confronting successful restoration. The purpose of this master plan is to provide a long-term strategy for USACE’s role in restoring large-scale native oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay to achieve ecological success. It is conceivable that the master plan will serve as a foundation, along with plans developed by other federal agencies, to work towards achieving the oyster restoration goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order (E.O. 13508).

The master plan is a programmatic document that: (1) examines and evaluates the problems and opportunities related to oyster restoration; (2) formulates plans to restore sustainable oyster populations throughout the Chesapeake Bay; and (3) recommends plans for implementing large-scale Bay-wide restoration. The document does not identify specifically implementable projects.

The long-term goal or vision of the master plan is as follows:

Throughout the Chesapeake Bay, restore an abundant, self-sustaining oyster population that performs important ecological functions such as providing reef community habitat, nutrient cycling, spatial connectivity, and water filtration, among others, and contributes to an oyster fishery.

USACE recognizes that self-sustainability is a lofty goal. It will require focused and dedicated funding and strong political and public support over an extended period, likely decades. It will require the use of sanctuaries and the observance of sanctuary regulations. In addition to the long-term goal, the master plan defines near-term ecological restoration and fisheries management objectives. The ecological restoration objectives cover habitat for oysters and the reef community as well as ecosystem services.

The master plan lays out a large-scale approach to oyster restoration on a tributary basis and proposes that 20 percent to 40 percent of historic habitat (equivalent to 8 percent to 16 percent of Yates/Baylor Grounds) be restored and protected as oyster sanctuary. The concentrated restoration efforts are necessary to have an impact on depleted oyster populations within a tributary. To accomplish tributary-level restoration, the master plan includes salinity-based strategies to address disease and jumpstart reproduction.

USACE and its partners evaluated 63 tributaries and sub-regions for their potential to support large-scale oyster restoration using salinity, dissolved oxygen, water depth, and hydrodynamic criteria. Salinity largely controls disease, predation, and many other aspects of the oyster life cycle and by its consideration, the master plan indirectly addresses these other factors. The evaluation was largely performed using geographic information system (GIS) analyses. The master plan identifies that 19 (Tier 1) tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay are currently suitable for large-scale oyster restoration (Table ES-1). These tributaries are distributed throughout the Bay with 11 sites in Maryland and eight sites in Virginia, as shown in Figure ES-1. Tier 1 tributaries are the highest priority tributaries that demonstrate the historical, physical, and biological attributes necessary to provide the highest potential to develop self-sustaining populations of oysters. The remainder of the tributaries and mainstem Bay segments are classified as Tier 2 tributaries, or those tributaries that have identified physical or biological constraints that either restrict the scale of the project required or affect its predicted long-term sustainability. The master plan also discusses additional criteria that should be investigated during the development of specific tributary plans such as mapping of current bottom substrate, sedimentation rates, and larval transport and provides a framework for developing specific tributary plans.

The restoration targets provided in Table ES-1 are estimates of the number of functioning acres of oyster habitat needed within a tributary to affect a system-wide change and ultimately provide for a self-sustaining population. The targets are not meant to be interpreted strictly as the number of new acres to construct. Any existing functioning habitat identified by bottom surveys would count towards achieving the restoration goal, but would not be counted toward new restoration benefits. Similarly, there may be acreage identified that only requires some rehabilitation or enhancement. Work done on that acreage would also count toward achieving the restoration target. The accounting of the presence and condition of existing habitat is recommended as an initial step when developing specific tributary plans. Once that information is obtained, restoration actions will be tailored to the habitat conditions and projected restoration costs (Table ES-2) revised.

The master plan includes planning level restoration costs that incorporate construction of high relief (12 inches) hard reef habitat (using shell and/or alternate substrates), seeding with spat (baby oysters), and adaptive management actions. Estimates are provided for the full construction of the low and high restoration targets. The summary of these costs for all Tier 1 tributaries is provided in Table ES-2. Estimates are conservatively high in that the assumption was made to develop the cost estimates that each acre would require construction of new hard habitat; however, it is anticipated that restoration will not require new habitat construction for every targeted acre. Although Table ES-2 concisely shows the costs for restoring all Tier 1 tributaries, one should not assume that all tributaries need to be restored before benefits are achieved. Further, USACE is not recommending an investment of this magnitude at any one time. Restoration should progress tributary by tributary. Benefits are achieved with each reef and each tributary that is restored. The master plan provides a further breakdown of costs by tributary and separate costs for substrate placement and seeding.

The ecosystem services provided by oysters are numerous (Grabowski and Peterson 2007), but largely difficult to quantify at this stage of restoration. These services include:

(1) production of oysters,
(2) water filtration, removal of nitrogen and phosphorus, and concentration of biodeposits (water quality benefits),
(3) provision of habitat for epibenthic fishes (and other vertebrates and invertebrates),
(4) sequestration of carbon ,
(5) augmentation of fishery resources,
(6) stabilization of benthic or intertidal habitat (e.g. marsh), and
(7) increase in landscape diversity.

Given the vast resources required to complete restoration in all Tier 1 tributaries and the fact that large-scale restoration techniques are in the early stages of development, USACE recommends choosing a tributary or two in each state for initial large-scale restoration efforts following completion of the master plan. This would facilitate the concentration of resources to enact a system-wide change on oyster populations in the tributary and achieve restoration goals, as well as provide for monitoring and refinement of restoration techniques. Monitoring will be guided by the report of the multi-agency Oyster Metrics Workgroup convened by the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team of the Chesapeake Bay Program (OMW 2011).

Implementation of large-scale oyster restoration should begin with the selection of Tier 1 tributary(ies) for restoration by restoration partners. Specific tributary plans should be developed for the chosen tributary(ies) and should include a refinement of the restoration target, originally developed in the master plan. (NOAA has initiated development of a draft Tributary Plan Framework that is attached to the master plan in Appendix D.) Restoration partners should work together to acquire and evaluate mapping of current bottom substrates to initiate plan development and scale refinement. The master plan describes many other implementation factors that need to be considered during tributary plan development. Appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation would accompany each tributary plan. Once a tributary plan is complete, construction would proceed in a selected tributary by restoring a portion of the target (e.g., 25, 50, or 100 acres) per year given available resources until goals and objectives are met.

The master plan is proposing a sanctuary approach to fulfill USACE’s ecosystem restoration mission and the E.O. goals. In developing the master plan, USACE views oysters as “an ecosystem engineer that should be managed as a provider of a multitude of goods and services” (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). The recommendation for large-scale restoration in sanctuaries has been developed to concentrate resources, provide for a critical mass of oysters and habitat, and promote the development of disease resistance; this strategy is expected to be a significant improvement over past restoration efforts. Establishment of long-term, permanent sanctuaries is consistent with recommendations of the Chesapeake Research Council (CRC 1999), the Virginia Blue Ribbon Oyster Panel (Virginia Blue Ribbon Oyster Panel 2007), and the Maryland Oyster Advisory Commission (OAC 2008). Sanctuaries are necessary to enable the long-term growth of oysters, develop the associated benefits that increase with size, and develop disease resistance. Carnegie and Burreson (2011) also have proposed that sanctuaries may be a mechanism by which to slow shell loss rates.

Although limited, current information suggests that greater economic and ecological benefits are achieved through the use of sanctuaries (Grabowski and Peterson 2007; Santopietro 2008; USACE 2003, 2005). USACE is undertaking additional investigations into the costs and benefits of sanctuaries and harvest reserves. Future tributary plan development which will include applicable NEPA analyses and documentation will incorporate the findings of these investigations. Inclusion of management approaches other than sanctuaries will be considered in specific tributary plans, if justified. On the basis of current science and policy, USACE does support the efforts of others in establishing harvest reserves within proximity of sanctuaries to provide near-term support to the seafood industry and establish a diverse network of oyster resources.

There are a number of issues that may jeopardize the success of any large-scale oyster restoration program. Illegal harvests pose a major risk. Illegal harvests are suspected to have impacted nearly all past Maryland restoration projects as well as the Great Wicomico restoration efforts. Recent estimates are that 33 percent of oysters placed in Maryland sanctuaries between 2008 and 2010 have been removed by illegal harvests; a potentially greater percentage have been illegally harvested since the beginning of restoration efforts in 1994 (Davis 2011). Significant investments are lost and project benefits compromised when reef habitat is impacted by illegal harvests. The expansion of designated sanctuaries in Maryland and enforcement efforts by both Maryland and Virginia should help with reducing illegal harvests.

A second critical factor is the availability of hard substrate for reef construction. Oyster reef is the principal hard habitat in the Bay and significant amounts of reef habitat will need to be restored to meet restoration goals. However, a sufficient supply of oyster shell is currently not available for oyster restoration. Alternate substrates will need to be a part of large-scale habitat restoration. Alternate substrates such as concrete and stone are significantly more expensive and may not be publicly acceptable on such a large-scale; however, these materials greatly eliminate the risk of poaching because the materials can damage traditional harvest equipment. A third issue impacting the success of large-scale oyster restoration is water quality. A restored oyster population has the potential to return filtering functionality to shallow water habitat in the Bay. However, poor land management and further degradation of water quality will jeopardize any gains. Ultimately, water quality benefits provided by oyster restoration will rely on sustainable land management and development. Efforts being undertaken to support the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Executive Order and the nutrient reduction goals established in the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) will help address water quality issues. The Executive Order goals targeting water quality, habitat, and fish and wildlife are directly related to achieving the goals presented in the master plan. Opportunities to match oyster restoration efforts, spatially and temporally, with land management projects should be implemented to the greatest extent.

Although USACE and its partners have developed this master plan to guide USACE’s long-term oyster restoration activities, large-scale oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay will only succeed with the cooperation of all agencies and organizations involved. VMRC and USACE-Norfolk are working together towards some common ground activities including oyster benefits modeling, a fossil shell survey, monitoring, and rehabilitation of existing sanctuary reefs; and these efforts should continue in the future. Resources and skills must be leveraged to achieve the most from restoration dollars. The greatest achievements will be made by joining the capabilities of each agency in a collaborative manner to pursue restoration activities.

Link to the full report:

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/News/CB_OysterMasterPlan_March2012_LOW-RES.pdf