How Hole in the Wall Became Hole in the Wallet

By Carol J. Bova

After the septic system of the former Seabreeze Restaurant failed in June 2016, the Board of Supervisors voted to postpone signing a new lease with the Hole in the Wall Waterfront Grill until repairs on the failed 1998 system were completed. Former county officials and the local health department influenced the Board of Supervisors to sign the lease in December 2016, but the septic repairs were not completed until a year later.

The county owns the .927-acre parcel which has a public boat ramp in addition to the restaurant. At less than one acre, it is too small to subdivide. Twice in 2017, in 2019, and again last year, the issue of selling surplus land, including this site, was raised and died in Board of Supervisors meetings. If the land were sold, there would be no way to guarantee the boat ramp would remain public.

As of March this year, the County has paid over $127,000 in septic pump and haul bills for Hole in the Wall Waterfront Grill. Many now recognize the Board should never have agreed to the lease until the septic system issues were resolved. Board minutes and FOIA requests eventually filled in the backstory of how former Mathews County Administrator, Mindy Conner, and former Building Official, Jamie Wilks misled the Board.

This was not the first time Conner acted against the County’s best interest. Conner and two other former county employees are involved in a lawsuit filed by Mark Eubank that went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court. The details were in “A Malicious Prosecution” published in Bacon’s Rebellion in September 2021. The case was sent back to the lower court and is scheduled to be heard later this year.

On September 27, 2016, Wilks told the Board that the issues with the restaurant’s septic system were in the process of being resolved, and repairs would begin after an inspection in the coming week. Although the lease was still being negotiated, Wilks reported he had already given Mac Casale a permit to begin interior demolition of the former Seabreeze Restaurant. The Board voted to delay signing the lease until the septic repairs were complete.

On October 25, Wilks told the board he had received a preliminary report from the septic contractor, soil scientist and septic engineer, and he had to work with the Health Department on their recommendations. He said the Health Department already told him they would approve the repairs, and the process was “just the technicalities.” He did not inform the board that the scientists had no viable solution to return the system to normal function.

At the November board meeting, Conner said, “We have a path to getting the approval…an agreement on the scope of work they want us to do.” She urged the supervisors to go ahead and authorize her to execute the lease on their behalf because it wouldn’t take effect until the Health Department approved the septic system for use. The board gave her the authorization, and the lease was signed on December 1.

The supervisors were still not told the October inspection by the septic system experts showed the septic system was discharging into the groundwater which was at the depth of the drainfield chambers. (The drainfield is under the parking lot.) There is also no record that the board knew the local health department representative, Patricia Duttry, had written an email to Conner and Wilks on November 7 saying “Because of the shallow seasonal water table and depth of the drainlines, the design would have to meet the Regulations for Alternative Onsite Systems related to direct disposal to ground water.” She offered to support a variance from the required treatment levels which could only be granted by the State Health Commissioner.

It is a mystery why Duttry would go along with direct discharge at a waterfront location at Milford Haven which connects to the Chesapeake Bay instead of saying she would have to pull the septic system operating permit if the county could not meet the health department’s septic system standards.

On December 5, 2016, Wilks confirmed to Duttry the septic system drainlines were not damaged or blocked and asked to begin repairs immediately. He added, “We would include the missing items that were never installed.” In spite of FOIA requests, the last line of this email has never been explained: What items for the septic system had been missing from the original 1998 installation?

On December 7, Duttry told Conner and Wilks they could still use the 1998 septic permit “for 45 seats/380 gallons per day (and using a 1000 gallon Multi-flo unit for treatment to reduce biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids) so there would be no room for expansion.”

The septic contractor wrote to Conner and Wilks on January 7, 2017 and included the findings and recommendations from the October inspections and testing. The soil scientist’s report said, “The three drainlines are completely in the water table. It is amazing it has worked as long as it has….I really have no viable solution for repair.” He then discussed creating an elevated mound which would eliminate the parking lot, or consider trying to obtain a permit for direct discharge into the ground water. (Note that Duttry was already aware of this recommendation the previous month.) The soil scientist also said, “Maybe the permanent pump and haul is the best option, but this will be costly, especially during peak season.” He noted, “Health Department Regulations generally prohibit permanent pump & haul.”

This information was not shared with the supervisors, and Conner hired two companies to do work on the system, then chose one to complete all the repairs. The company submitted a report to the health department at the end of December 2017 that with the maintenance and repairs that were done, the system should return to normal function. It turned out that even more work was needed, and again in May 2018, a second report to the Health Department repeated that the system was functioning as designed.

As part of the lease, the tenant was to raise the building out of the floodplain.

HITW raised off the ground

The restaurant opened in July 2019, but a year later, Duttry told the Mathews Gloucester Gazette Journal about more problems. “The high water table is one of those problems, she said, but the issue that has been causing eruptions of effluent onto the ground has to do with the aeration and filtration systems in the engineered septic system. There seems to be an excessive buildup of fats, oils and greases in the aeration tanks, she said, and thus far no one has been able to pinpoint the cause.”

Imagine that. A buildup of fats, oils and greases in a restaurant septic system, and no one could pinpoint the cause.

Because of the sewage eruptions through potholes in the parking lot, the county arranged for pump and haul of the waste beginning in July 2019.

Casale worked with former county administrator Mindy Conner to solicit a proposal for an ozone disinfection system from NextGen Septic Solutions in Ohio to be used with the existing Multi-Flo septic system. In November 2019, Casale corresponded with Pat Duttry and David Fridley from the Virginia Health Department (VDH) on how to get approval to install the system which was not approved for use in Virginia. He was told to arrange a preliminary engineering conference to review the proposal and that final plans would need to be prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in Virginia. A copy of the VDH reply was sent to Conner.

Almost a year later, on September 1, 2020, NextGen sent Conner their technical proposal. The Board of Supervisors wasn’t officially informed of the proposal until their September 22, 2020 meeting packet was distributed. Although the board voted “to authorize staff to move forward with the pilot program as offered by the Health Department,” the next day, Casale sent the proposal to VDH.

Ten months later, according to Board minutes, Conner told the Board on May 24, 2021, the permit fee was “between $200 and $250 for the Hole in the Wall septic repair. She noted that the proposed system would be a NextGen system.”

Four days later, May 28, 2021, without using public purchase policy and without a bid process, without a formal contract or board approval of the original invoice, Conner approved the first payment of $50,000. The invoice of $72,800 did not include shipping, site preparation, on-site installation, taxes and permit fees. The check dated July1, 2021 was voided and reissued on July 27, 2021 under the ARPA account as a capital outlay. There was no record posted to the board or public until the August 23, 2021 meeting packet.

On July 23, 2021, a week before she retired for medical reasons, Conner wrote, “Accepted by Melinda Conner 7/23/21” on a NextGen Scope of Work with no amounts shown.

On November 5, 2021, interim county administrator Sandy Wanner approved a second payment of $18,000.

The county received a third NextGen invoice dated January 28, 2022 to upgrade the system to 544 gallons per day at a cost of $128,900 with $60,900 still due, plus all the additional charges for shipping and installation.

It should be noted Duttry’s 2016 statement was that the VDH septic system permit did not allow for any expansion, and that the lease on page 8 said capital improvements were the responsibility of the tenant.

In regard to the last point, Casale provided NextGen an inaccurate sewage usage number of 384 gallons per day (gpd). (The street number is 384, 380 gpd is the permit amount.) The NextGen proposal addressed to Casale said, “It is assumed that all of the above treatment units are working, as designed.” But they were not, and the site was on pump and haul because of effluent eruptions onto the ground. The system was certified to the health department as functioning in May 2018 before the lease began on June 1, 2018.

No new design or engineering report was submitted to VDH showing the system could meet the current standards, not the 1998 standards the restaurant permit used. But even the proposed  new upgraded system’s maximum capacity of 544 gallons a day will not resolve the problem because the restaurant water meter readings show they used more than that daily average for every day in both July and August 2022, and that does not consider melted ice and other discarded liquids.

The NextGen proposal states the air temperature requirements are 32 to 95 degrees F and the dryer unit for the ozone generator is used up to 75% relative humidity. This makes its use as an outdoor system questionable for Gwynn’s Island. The site cannot support a new drainfield that can handle the Hole in the Wall Grill’s volume of effluent, so that rules out a number of other options.

The pumping expenses are over $127,000 from July 2019 through March 8, 2023. The daily average of water meter readings generally ran between 500 and 833 gallons in the warm weather season from July 1, 2022 through September 19, 2022. Only two weeks showed an average per day at or below the permitted 380 gallons a day going to the septic system. (These averages include days when the restaurant was closed.)

Adding the pumping cost and the amounts paid to NextGen adds up to just over $195,000. Paid by taxpayers  Now, the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing March 28 to see what taxpayers think about spending another $307,000 to correct the problems caused by the tenants’ raising of the building and improper foundation work that created a safety issue. (See Unsafe Structure Notice including lease and structural engineeer’s report here for details.)

If the County repairs the building, the total from taxpayers would be over half a million dollars. All because former county staff did not disclose facts that would have prevented the Board from going ahead with the lease, a tenant who would not abide by the VDH permit limitations, and the failure of the former building official to properly inspect the construction involved in raising the restaurant.

No other business in the county receives a subsidy from taxpayers for their business expenses. This one shouldn’t either.

Update: At the March 28 Board meeting, the county administrator provided a Powerpoint presentation with a timeline of events and the options, along with the budget impacts. Click here for that slide show.

Virginia Department of Education Absenteeism Reports Under Learning Climate Are Misleading!

By Carol J. Bova  Posted October 19, 2022

On October 18, I posted Mathews County Chronic Absenteeism Rates from the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) School Quality reports broken out as one part of Learning Climate for each of our schools. The numbers were alarming for some subgroups, particularly economically disadvantaged high school students at 42.9% and Black high school students at 45%.  What the Learning Climate reports do not show is the total numbers the percentages are based on because the number of the absent Black or economically disadvantaged high school students were too small to show on a report. Another set of VDOE reports under School Climate – Chronic Absenteeism tells a different story.

Of 224 chronically absent students in all three of our schools, only 17 were Black students. Now 224 out of 903 students is still too many to be absent more than 10% of the school  year, but 17 is 7.6% of all chronically absent students in all grades–a far cry from 45%. With rounding off, the real number could be as low as two or three students, but could not be more than eight! The following chart shows the numbers of absent students are spread out through all grades, but are the worst in ninth, tenth and eleventh grade.

It will take continuing efforts to get all our students back in school on a regular basis, and it must be done if our children are going to have the best possible future.

Grade Number of Chronically Absent Students Percent Chronically Absent
KG 12 19.4%
1 17 27.9%
2 10 18.5%
3 15 22.7%
4 11 18.6%
5 16 23.9%
6 15 22.7%
7 17 21.5%
8 13 15.7%
9 27 31.4%
10 28 38.4%
11 27 38.6%
12 16 26.7%
All Students 224 25.30%

I regret any undue concern caused by using the VDOE Learning Climate percentages in the October 18 post. We must, as a community, insist that VDOE reports be constructed in a way that doesn’t mislead a user and require sorting through 21,103 lines of information to extract real numbers for our local schools.

Source of School Quality/Learning Climate reports: https://schoolquality.virginia.gov/divisions/mathews-county-public-schools#desktopTabs-6

Source of School Climate/Chronic Abenteeism Reports: https://doe.virginia.gov/statistics_reports/school_climate/index.shtml

April 2020 Chesapeake Style

April 2020 Chesapeake Style

From main page, click the orange link to open.

When you can see the cover photo, to download,  click >> in the upper right hand corner of the black frame at the top of the magazine image.

I apologize if your Safari browser won’t open the file and show the >> symbols to download.! To read online, go to Safari Preferences, Page Zoom and enlarge to size you prefer.

 

Code of Virginia § 18.2-172. Forging, uttering, etc., other writings.

Miriam Webster definition:

Forgery an act of forging  especially : the crime of falsely and fraudulently making or altering a document

Uttering  specifically : to circulate (something, such as a forged or counterfeit note) as if legal or genuine

§ 18.2-172. Forging, uttering, etc., other writings.

If any person forge any writing, other than such as is mentioned in §§ 18.2-168 and 18.2-170, to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. …

Code 1950, § 18.1-96; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.

 

More to Mathews Than Tourism — A Bit of Fishing History

By Carol J. Bova

A recent Facebook post from Mathews fell into the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” category. It showed an area on Lane’s Creek displaying the markers required by the Code of Virginia 4 VAC20-290-30 to safeguard boat navigation. The comment was, “Hard to imagine how views like this will become ‘tourist attractions’!!!” What the poster overlooked, is the reason for the signs–not the safety aspect, but why they are there at all. It’s for business, not recreation, and tourism is not the focus.

This signage isn’t impairing the view of the New Point Comfort Lighthouse, or interfering with the function of the Bethel Beach Nature Preserve, or preventing kayakers from launching at New Point or Put-In Creek. In spite of the County Administrator’s emphasis on tourism, and the Planning Commission’s misleading statistics in the comprehensive plan, there is more to the economy of Mathews County than visitors to our county.

Long before tourism became a national pastime, the water provided Mathews with transportation, food and income. The National Park Service describes fishing by Native Americans in the 1580s:

For the most part, the Indians caught their fish in net-like obstructions called weirs, which they placed across streams or channels in much the same way as modern pound-netters catch the seasonal runs of striped bass or shad. The weirs were made of reeds, woven or tied together, and anchored to the bottom by poles stuck into the sand. With their tops extending above the surface of the water the weirs looked very much like fences, and were arranged in varied patterns designed to catch the fish, and then impound them.

Watermen in 1904 used 242 pound nets worth $54,150 ($1.49 million in today’s dollars), 1,101 boats and 505 oyster tongs.

Pound nets are a series of nets anchored to the bottom perpendicular to shore and are set in nearshore areas. Courtesy of NOAA Fisheries.

While tourists do bring in income through retail purchases and sales tax, meals and meals tax and the lodging tax, water-related businesses bring in annual income on real estate they own, business tax on their earnings, machine and tools tax on their equipment, and business tangible personal property tax on boats and vehicles.

Times have changed since 1904, but that shouldn’t mean preventing the sight of working businesses on the water that help support the County year-round. If the crabbing and oyster industries had never declined, and those activities had remained highly visible, it wouldn’t have eliminated tourism. Businesses change to meet the times, and a change in aquaculture now isn’t going to end tourism in Mathews.

Feelings Aren’t Facts

Sometimes, facts don’t matter when feelings are involved. At this point, I don’t expect any information will make a difference to those opposed to the Milford Haven oyster aquaculture project, but perhaps folks who are less intensely involved will be interested in a few more facts.

The essence of the conflict that’s led owners from the Gwynn’s Island Condominiums and a few others to wage an intense campaign of objections are the three perceived personal impacts of the project: the impact on their view, a potential reduction in property values and some negative effect on their quality of life.

The exact number of households involved in the protests to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) is unknown because addresses are not required with comments. Some husbands and wives filed separate protests saying the same things, and a few filed duplicates. One couple filed five protests between them. This is an indication of how distressed these individuals feel about the project.

The 83 couples or individuals who filed 98 protests with 295 objections. Of those, 221 were based on misinformation, lack of information, or incorrect assumptions about the nature of the project and how VMRC permit applications are reviewed. (A quick review: If the project is approved, there will be no new processing, tumbling or pressure washing, so no new noise. No odors, no large trucks. Water access won’t be blocked and navigation will not be impacted. The only environmental impacts will be improvement in water clarity, filtering of algae and sediment. No eelgrass beds are under the proposed area.)

The remaining 74 statements are the personal ones.

Quality of life is subjective, and if the incorrect assumptions are set aside, there are no details to explain how the protestors would be affected.

To support claims of how the change in the view would affect negatively affect their lives, the protesters used photographs found online to show what they called “floating coffins.” These photos did not show the same cages proposed for the Milford Haven project or show what the view might be from the shore to the proposed site.

This photo has been used as an example, but it’s not the same kind or size of cages.

This detail of the photo above shows what appear to be wood slats. There is nothing on the planned cages like this.






This is a view of the actual type of 3′ x 4′ x 1′ cage with two prism shaped floats, 3 ft x 9 inches wide x 1 ft high. Note the size from only 20 feet away. There are no residences within 500 feet of the planned site. See close up below.

Close up of planned Island Seafood cage. Note floats are shorter than length of cage.


Rezoning Issue


Having cages on the dock was another impact on view that the protesters cited. Ironically, the protesters have lobbied against a Mathews County zoning change that would allow Island Seafood to put a storage building on an adjacent vacant lot they own to the north. It would require a change from R-2 to B-1 as a complement to the existing business. The company would retain a wooded buffer from other properties, which are also vacant at present. The irony is in the fact if the lot cannot be rezoned to allow cage storage, they will be stored on the dock. [Note: Corrected current zoning to R-2. Picked R-1 up in error from the newspaper account.]


Property Values


One protest included a statement from a real estate professional saying a study found property values would be reduced was neither a study nor about aquaculture.

I am sure that you are aware of the study that has been done in Surry County. According to the findings, some of the properties have seen their values drop as much as 30%, as much of the value of waterfront property is tied to its view!” (VMRC Protest #21.)

There are no records of any such study in Virginia, however, a broader search found the origin of this story. It was not in Virginia, and there were no findings from a study. The situation involved one property in the Town of Surry, Maine. A homeowner requested a 30% reduction in his real estate tax assessment based on truck traffic and long term parking at a waterfront restaurant and dock across the road from his home. From the one local news report available online, the selectmen did not challenge the request, but granted it. In the same article, other residents said there was no need for such a large reduction.

Two years later, this reduction was used to object to an aquaculture project in Maine by the same selectman who granted it. The Department of Marine Resources in Maine rejected this objection, as well as others that cited interference with contemplative, spiritual and meditative values of the area since “that would introduce a subjective element into the lease process that would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and impossible to administer.”

Obstruction or Change?


How much will a field of 17 rows of objects one foot high or less, placed 25 feet apart obstruct a view? It depends how close the viewer is, doesn’t it? At water level, say turtle’s-eye view, there’ll be some obstruction, but from the land, there is none. The condominium, private residence and commercial piers are more than one foot above the water, and they do not obstruct the view.


View of approximately 17 rows of a floating system.


The view above is from a drone flying a few feet above the boat in the picture. Jet skis, kayaks, sailboats, fishing boats, all have a higher profile than the planned aquaculture cages. And the condos and homes are at a level higher than that the drone used. So it’s not the obstruction, it’s the change in the view that is being challenged.

Like it or not, the historic use of this area is for commercial waterfront, not condominiums and vacation homes. There were 13 waterfront residences from Narrows Point to Edwards Creek in 1917. They all saw the steamboats that sailed around the Narrows to Callis Wharf, Cricket Hill Wharf and Fitchett’s Wharf until the 1930’s. They didn’t object to that or to the many smaller craft bringing produce, fish and oysters and other goods to and from the wharf.


Will one-foot high floats on a small part of the entire area really interfere with anyone’s view? Or is it that a select group feel they should have exclusive use and control over all they see and stop a project that will bring jobs, new tax revenue, and better water quality for Milford Haven?

Aerial view of Milford Haven.

Fiction’s More Dramatic Than Facts When It Comes to Oysters

by Carol J. Bova

In my June 14 post, I talked about the benefits of floating cage oyster aquaculture for improving water quality. So I’ve been quite surprised at the comments objecting to Kevin Wade’s Milford Haven application to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). I considered each protest and found many were based on misinformation or lack of information.

Eighty-three couples or individuals filed 98 protests to the application, with 295 separate statements. I sorted those into five general groups: Business, Water Access and Safety, Environmental, Miscellaneous and Personal Impact. The first four involve factual matters and opinions about those matters. Those in the Personal Impact group are about perceptions and feelings, and I’ll discuss those in a separate post.

Business: 100 objections

Twenty-four of those were opposed to commercial development in Gwynn’s Island, some against all commercial development there. This is not only unrealistic, particularly for a working waterfront district, VMRC has no jurisdiction over this.

The other 76 objections were related to the land operations of this specific business: 28 for increased traffic, 26 for noise, 13 for smell, and 9 miscellaneous for trash, increased septic demand, hours of operation, being in the RPA, “surrounding neighbors and waterfront,” and the belief jobs will be seasonal and they won’t employ locals.

Noise, Trash, Odor:

This company has operated for 18 years at this location without problems, and some of the facilities there go back to the 1950s. If the application is approved, the natural movement of the water on the floating cages will eliminate the need for tumbling equipment. Flipping the cages periodically in the water eliminates the fouling that requires power washing. Sorting and packing will be done indoors.

If the floating cage application is turned down, tumbling and power washing will be necessary.

Traffic:

Previous business in crabs was at least twice as much as there will be even with the new aquaculture project. While heavy trucks were used to ship crabs in the 1950s, none are required for the current business or future oyster project. Since the oysters will supply the half-shell market, shipments can go out on small refrigerated trucks that will not burden the infrastructure.

Jobs & Septic Demand:

The 14-16 new full-time, year-round jobs will be open to any locals who wish to apply, at above minimum wage. Since there used to be twice as many people working there in the past, there is no issue with septic system capability.

Water Access and Safety Issues: 56 objections

These protests were on impacts to navigation, water access from private docks, safety issues and increased boat traffic.

Increased Boat Traffic:

Tending the oyster cages will be done from two boats working 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. Not exactly a marine rush hour situation.

Navigation, Access, Safety:

All of the other issues are covered by VMRC General Permit 4 and the Joint Permit Application for the project. The agencies reviewing the application are the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), VMRC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and local Wetlands Board. The application shows:
– No riparian landowners are within 500 feet of the area in the application.
– Only 5.5 acres of the current 18.03 acre ground lease will be used.
– No dock or other access to the water from the shore will be impeded.
– No navigation channel will be impacted.
– Boundary markings will be according to state regulations.

Environmental: 42 objections

Some of these objections are the hardest to understand. Can so many people really not know what oysters do for the environment?

Pollution:

Oysters do not pollute water or cause excess sedimentation. Oysters improve water quality by filtering phytoplankton, excess nutrients and sediment from the water. When they are harvested, the nitrogen they took into their bodies and shells are permanently removed from the water. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recognized shellfish gardening and farming “for the positive impact it has on the Chesapeake Bay.”

Impact on Eelgrass:

Eelgrass is one form of subaqueous vegetation (SAV). The map below from VIMS shows areas of SAV beds in Milford Haven. The proposed floating cage project will not be over SAV, so it cannot shade it, but when the oysters filter the water and improve the clarity, more sunlight will reach the SAV, which in turn, allows it to produce more oxygen and provide all the benefits the protestors were concerned about.

Image courtesy of VIMS SAV Ecology, Monitoring & Restoration Program, College of William & Mary.

One person quoted from what he said was a study from the University of Massachusetts about aquaculture ecosystem damage from oyster cages that destroyed eelgrass, which in turn,has impacts on migratory waterfowl. He called for an environmental impact study, but what he quoted from was not a study, it was a blog post by UMass students about an Audubon Society lawsuit against Humboldt County in California over allowing an expansion of oyster aquaculture in and over SAV beds. All the citations in that blog post were related to those problems or discussed the functions of SAV. There was no connection to the conditions specified in the local application.

Ospreys:

Concerns that the cages will interfere with ospreys looking for fish are unfounded. Ospreys hunt from the air and clearer water will help them locate fish more easily.

Miscellaneous: 23 objections

Five gave no reason.

Four said it would interfere with potential archeological surveys, although VMRC General Permit #4 requires permittees “to cooperate with agencies of the Commonwealth in the recovery of archeological remains if deemed necessary.”

Three felt there’d be a negative impact on tourism, even though Kevin Wade wrote in a letter to the editor of the Gazette Journal, “We’ll add to the eco-tourism goals of Mathews County, showing the waterman’s lifestyle, even though it’s a slightly different form, and the benefits of aquaculture as a sustainable model.”

The remaining eleven objections felt Gwynn’s Island was an historic district and the project did not belong there. In 1895, however, in the Report of the Chief Engineer of the Army to Congress, Major C.E.L.B. Davis reported about Gwynn’s Island: “It has a population of 600 to 700, chiefly engaged in fishing and oystering.” The location has been a working waterfront for over 200 years. What on Gwynn’s Island is more a part of its history than that?

So far, facts have not made a difference in the attitudes of those protesting this project, but the facts are spelled out here.

Personal Impact

I will discuss this group of 74 objections related to property value, view, and quality of life in the next post on InsideTheCrater.com.

The National Watershed Boundary Dataset – Chesapeake Bay Watersheds and Virginia River Basins

By  Carol J Bova

In 2001, the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (NWBD) became the official hydrologic unit system of the United States. Virginia made some adjustments to simplify identifying smaller watershed units. You might never need the details here, but if you do, this should help because an accurate list is not always easy to locate. A special thank you to Sam Austin and Randy McFarland of the USGS for their help.

Watershed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Level, Name and Unit Size

1st Order = Region            HUC = 2 digits         Avg. 177,560 sq. miles

2nd Order = Subregion      HUC = 4 digits         Avg. 16,800 sq. miles

3rd Order = Basin              HUC = 6 digits         Avg. 10,596 sq. miles

4th Order = Subbasin         HUC = 8 digits         Avg. 703 sq. miles

5th Order = Watershed       HUC = 10 digits       40,000 – 250,000 acres

6th Order = Subwatershed   HUC = 12 digits     10,000 – 40,000 acres

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) describes River Basins as follows:  Although 3rd level units of the WBD are called “Basins,” these units are not necessarily the equivalent of river basins as described in many state programs. For instance, DCR frequently divides the commonwealth into 14 River Basins for program usage as follows: Potomac River, Rappahannock River, York River, James River, Atlantic Ocean Coastal, Chesapeake Bay Coastal, Chowan River, Albemarle Sound Coastal, Roanoke River, Yadkin River, New River, Clinch-Powell Rivers, Holston River and Big Sandy River. Except for offshore ocean claims, all of Virginia is accounted for in these basins.

Virginia developed a new four-character code for its 5th and 6th level units. The first two characters are based on the major stream name in the basin, or portion of the basin, where the unit is located. The two digits that follow are numbered in sequence by drainage flow from headwaters to mouth.

These four-character identifiers are not part of the national WBD standard. The Virginia system is called the Virginia National Watershed Boundary Dataset (VaNWBD). Originally released in 2006, the VaNWBD has been updated a number of times, and currently is referred to as version 5 (VaNWBDv5).

The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) website lists the internal coding for all 5th and 6th level units of the VaNWBDv5 at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil-and-water/hu. The Virginia coding for 5th and 6th level units for the Chesapeake Bay watersheds and sub-watersheds of the VaNWBDv5 from Table 4 shown below.

CHESAPEAKE BAY VIRGINIA WATERSHEDS AND SUB-WATERSHEDS
5th LEVEL UNITS (VAHU5) 6th LEVEL UNITS (VAHU6) DRAINAGE
PL-A – PL-U PL01-PL74 Potomac River, Lower
PU-A – PU-F PU01-PU22 Potomac River, Upper
PS-A – PS-T PS01-PS87 Potomac River-Shenandoah River
CB-A – CB-O CB01-CB47 Chesapeake Bay/Chesapeake Bay Coastal
AO-A – AO-H AO01-AO26 Atlantic Ocean Coastal
RA-A – RA-R RA01-RA74 Rappahannock River
YO-A – YO-S YO01-YO69 York River
JL-A – JL-L JL01-JL59 James River, Lower (Tidal)
JM-A – JM-U JM01-JM86 James River, Middle (Piedmont)
JR-A – JR-E JR01-JR22 James River- Rivanna River
JU-A – JU-T JU01-JU86 James River, Upper (Mountain)
JA-A – JA-J JA01-JA45 James River- Appomattox River
CM-A – CM-H CM01-CM32 Chowan River-Meherrin River
CU-A – CU-R CU01-CU70 Chowan River, Upper
CL-A – CL-C CL01-CL05 Chowan River, Lower
AS-A – AS-D AS01-AS20 Albemarle Sound
RU-A – RU-V RU01-RU94 Roanoke River, Upper
RD-A – RD-S RD01-RD77 Roanoke River- Dan River
RL-A – RL-G RL01-RL24 Roanoke River, Lower
YA-A – YA-B YA01-YA07 Yadkin River-Ararat River
NE-A – NE-Z NE01-NE90 New River
TH-A – TH-L TH01-TH46 Tennessee-Holston River
TC-A – TC-H TC01-TC35 Tennessee-Clinch River
TP-A – TP-D TP01-TP19 Tennessee-Powell River
BS-A – BS-H BS01-BS35 Big Sandy River

 

Comments and Concerns Sent to US Army Corps of Engineers

Date:  December 22, 2015

To:      Keith R. Goodwin, keith.r.goodwin@usace.army.mil
CC:      Joe Schumacher, Congressman Wittman’s office
Mathews County Supervisors
RE:      NAO-201501451 Chesapeake Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank

The prospectus for the referenced mitigation bank fails to adequately address issues of public health and safety, potential East River water quality impacts, and conflicts with the Mathews County Comprehensive Plan. A number of responses to the Virginia Off-Site Mitigation Location Guidelines Checklist are factually inaccurate. Contrary to the responses, the riparian areas of the East River are on adjacent properties except for a small fringe of the RMA in the southeastern corner of the site, and a residence is currently under construction on a parcel adjacent to the site. While the risk of lead contamination of the groundwater which connects to the Yorktown-Eastover aquifer, the primary and generally only source of drinking water for Mathews County, is of the utmost concern, consideration of the impacts of reduced water flow to the East River is important to the health of the river and the Chesapeake Bay. The other issues raised here need to be considered as well.
Thank you,
Carol J. Bova

Concern about Lead Contamination of Groundwater and Aquifer

The initial lead remediation plan for the proposed mitigation site on Route 14 will stop unless a subsequent random soil test is higher than 400 ppm, which is equal to 400,000 ppb. The EPA action level for lead in drinking water is 0.15 mg/liter, which equates to 15 parts per billion, yet the remediation plan does not address the possibility of lead leaching into groundwater during the five years of shooting range activity which uses approximately 2,188 pounds of lead shot annually. No water testing is included in the prospectus or lead remediation plan even though the Yorktown-Eastover, the primary aquifer for domestic wells, is 7 feet below the surface of the ground as recorded in the USGS borehole about 1.5 miles southwesterly on Route 14 from the site, and the aquifer is in contact with groundwater in many places.

“The Yorktown-Eastover aquifer and the eastern part of the surficial aquifer are closely associated…and jointly compose a shallow, generally semiconfined groundwater system that is hydraulically separated from the deeper system.” (USGS Professional Paper 1713, Abstract. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/2006/1731/pp1731_download.htm)

The National Wetlands Inventory shows 6.28 acres of land designated as temporarily flooded overlaying part of the shooting range fallout zone. This is not shown on the prospectus site map. Even if that area is no longer flooded, the remediation plan does not follow the Technical/Regulatory Guidelines of the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council regarding runoff. (See page 6–NWI map detail with 5 areas marked where precipitation runoff crossed Honey Pod Lane to the East River in December 2015.)

“Nearby surface waters or wetlands that could be receiving runoff from the areas of the ranges where shot or bullets are deposited should also be noted, and the sampling and analytical plan should investigate this possibility.”                               (http://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/SMART-1.pdf)

Annual rainfall for this area is about 45 inches. The U.S. Army’s report, “Prevention of Lead Migration and Erosion from Small Arms Ranges” discusses effects of saturated soil on corrosion and lead migration with shallow depth to groundwater not addressed in the prospectus.

“Rainfall also influences the solubility of lead. The more rainfall, the greater the likelihood the soil will become saturated, increasing the time the round stays in contact with the rainwater. The longer the round stays in contact with moisture, the faster it will corrode. Acid rain accelerates the corrosion process.

“The risk of lead migration to groundwater becomes greater when the corrosion rate is high and depth to groundwater is shallow (less than 10 feet). Basically, the closer the groundwater is to the surface, the greater the chances of contamination.”  (http://www.aec.army.mil/Portals/3/range/leadmigration.pdf)

According to EPA’s Best Management Practices for shooting range operation, sandy soils, high annual rainfall, and a water body downslope of the range increase the risk of lead migration and contamination. (http://www3.epa.gov/region02/waste/leadshot/epa_bmp.pdf)

Runoff from the proposed site was observed in five locations crossing Honey Pod Lane from west of the site in December 2015 after a moderate amount of rainfall. (See page 6.)

The remediation plan for lead in the soil will not start until 2018 while lead could be leaching into the groundwater or be in runoff to the East River in the five years before then.

Negative Impact of Berms and Blocking Drainage on East River Water Quality

Although the environmental specialist for the sponsor told the Mathews Board of Supervisors on December 15 there would be the same three discharge sites, he also said there will actually be less water coming off the site because of planting trees. “We’re decreasing the flow off the site.” The prospectus describes the plan to raise the site’s groundwater level by blocking the existing drainage channels on the property and building berms which would seem to indicate less water will reach the river from those changes as well.

The East River has two Category 5 impairments on the state’s 2014 303D(1) report which can be worsened by reduced water flow: pH exceedance in 8 of 12 months and low dissolved oxygen. The East River TMDL review is not scheduled until 2024, so any worsening of impairments will impact the Chesapeake Bay water quality at least until that time.

Inaccurate Statement about Fallsington Soil

The prospectus states, “…most of the surrounding property has Fallsington Soils, which are not suitable for drainfields.” This is not an accurate statement because suitability is site-dependent. Fallsington soil is present in much of the County and can be suitable for septic systems. The “User Notes for National Wetlands Inventory Maps of Eastern Virginia” lists the Fallsington Soil Series with an asterisk: “Requires site evaluation to determine whether soil is wetland.” The presence of five homes adjacent to the proposed site and one under construction would also confirm this fact.

A follow up review for the Piankatank/Gwynn’s Island/Milford Haven TMDL IP was made in August 2015 for septic system deficiencies, repairs and replacements in Mathews County, including the East River watershed (Shellfish Growing Area 41), surveyed by the Virginia Health Department, Division of Shellfish Sanitation. Growing Area 41 has 983 homes, and there were 14 septic system repairs over a three-year period (2013-2015), a rate of 1.42 percent and 6 replacements, a rate of 0.61 percent, well below the failure rate used in the Piankatank TMDL Water Quality Improvement Plan.

Although the environmental specialist said at the December 15 meeting there would be no impact on adjacent homeowners from surface flow, neither he nor the prospectus discussed the sub-surface effect on downslope drainfields of raising the water table on the mitigation site which is at a higher elevation. No statements were made as to current depth of groundwater on the mitigation site or adjacent properties.

Comments on Sponsor’s Answers to Off-Site Mitigation Guidelines Checklist

B1. Wetland Restoration: Yes
B2. Stream Restoration: No.

It is questionable whether this is a wetland restoration.

  • “Most of the marshes along the North and East Rivers are fringing marshes along the adjacent uplands…” (Mathews County Shoreline Management Plan, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Shoreline Studies Program, March 2010.)

There are no marshes on the site which would indicate the site was historically uplands.

Mathews County is a watershed discharge zone for the Chesapeake Bay through its streams, creeks and rivers. Ephemeral streams flow only after rains fall and are rarely indicated on maps. Mining of sand on the site in the 1930’s and farming prior to and after that time would have disrupted the natural ephemeral streams that would have conducted water to the East River, leading to the establishment of drainage ditches on the site.

  • Spot elevations from the National Map show most of the property is about 12 feet in elevation, with one measurement of 14 ft midway down the eastern boundary ditch which runs from state Route 14 to the East River. The site is higher than 2/3s of West Mathews according to the Comprehensive Plan, and it is in Zone X outside the 500-year floodplain. See page 7 for FEMA Flood Hazard Map.

B3. Sponsor states the site is contiguous or connected to other aquatic areas.

  • There is no description of this connection in the prospectus beyond the image of the drainage ditch on the east property line. There is no acknowledgement of the existence of the historically present intermittent stream. See pages 8-9 for adjacent properties between the site and East River.

B4. Sponsor states no existing or proposed development upslope/adjacent to the project.

  • A residence is currently under construction immediately to the west of the project at 166 Honey Pod Lane.

B4. Sponsor also states no areas are identified for future development in the Comprehensive Plan upslope and adjacent to the proposed mitigation site.

  • The Comprehensive Plan designates the upslope northern property border as part of a 300-foot wide Corridor Overlay District along Route 14 and for Waterfront Residential along the west and south borders. See page 10.

B5. Sponsor claims riparian buffer protection greater than state and local requirements.

  • The only riparian buffer may be in a small area within the RMA on the southeastern edge of the property. Any other buffers would be on adjacent properties. See page 11, Comprehensive Plan Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas map. If tree seedlings are able to take hold when planted, it would be a number of years before they can take up any significant amount of water.

B7. Sponsor claims the site is consistent with local planning requirements.

  • In fact, there are no zoning ordinance statements that apply except Section 15.8 which prohibits land use that creates “…noxious, or otherwise objectionable conditions which could adversely affect the surrounding areas or adjoining premises.” Freshwater wetlands without environmental conditions that allow wet/dry cycles to keep soil oxygenated produce methane and can produce hydrogen sulfide. The environmental specialist James Hudson told the Board of Supervisors on December 15 there would be standing water above the surface in the winter wet season.
  • The following excerpt from class notes from the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences describes wetlands methane production.

Nutrient cycling in wetlands:

“The diffusion of oxygen in saturated soils is 10,000 times slower than in unsaturated soils. A saturated soil will become anaerobic in a matter of hours (matter of days at most) depending on 1) temperate; 2) the amount of organic matter; 3) the initial microbial community and 4) the amount of reducing compounds present (example: ferrous iron)….Methanogenic [methane-producing] organisms work in the anaerobic zone to convert dissolved organic carbon into methane…..The production of methane is much more common in freshwater systems.”                                                     (http://cals.arizona.edu/azaqua/aquaplants/classnotes/NutrientCycling.pdf)

B8. Sponsor states order of stream on site is not applicable.

  • An intermittent first-order stream is clearly shown running to the south through the shooting range fallout zone on USGS 1948, 1965, and 2013 topographic maps, the National Map, and Mathews County Tax Map 20. It may have been damaged or disrupted by the previous clear-cut logging and the establishment of the shooting range. The temporarily flooded area shown on the National Wetlands Inventory may be evidence of this intermittent stream. (See National Wetlands INventory detail, Mathews County Tax map composite, and National Map Hydro-Imagery detail.)

C1. Sponsor states the site creates/contributes to a corridor linking large aquatic systems.

  • The property is separated from the East River by 93 acres in 12 adjacent parcels of land. See List of Properties and Tax Map Composite.

C5. Sponsor states the site will contribute to improved water quality for identified/ designated impaired waters described as “shellfish/not supporting.”

  • In spite of previous improper farming practices referred to in the prospectus as contributing sediment and nutrients to the East River, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality reports no East River nutrient or sediment impairments.
  • The shellfish impairment is for E. coli. Reducing flow of precipitation runoff to the East River will not reduce E. coli levels in the river.

C8. Sponsor states the proposed site is “at the top of the watershed.”

  • The site is at least 1 mile south of the ridge separating the East River Watershed HUC12-020801020405 from the Lower Piankatank River Watershed HUC12-020801020403. Virginia Department of Transportation project plans for Route 14, 14-667C, sheet 7, show two notations of 600 and 675 acres of drainage being carried across the road from the northwest to the East River just west of the proposed mitigation site. See National Map watershed boundary detail below.

    Watershed Boundaries in purple from National Map. (Color enhanced for better visibility.)

    Watershed Boundaries in purple from National Map. (Color enhanced for better visibility.)

Yellow arrows placed on National Wetlands Inventory map show runoff channels  crossing Honey Pod Lane from proposed site.

Yellow arrows placed on National Wetlands Inventory map show runoff channels crossing Honey Pod Lane from proposed site.

FEMA Flood Hazard Map Layer showing proposed site is in Zone X.

FEMA Flood Hazard Map Layer showing proposed site is in Zone X.

Properties Between Proposed Site (tax map 20-A-1) and East River (see Tax Map below list)

Adjacent waterfront properties with residences:
19-A-98   29.40 acres   166 Honey Pod Lane (Norton) (Under construction.)
19-A-99A   5.06 acres   366 Honey Pod Lane   (Hurst)
19-A-99   27.37 acres   524 Honey Pod Lane   (Walsh)
20-A-1A     6.93 acres   620 Honey Pod Lane   (Hudgins)
20-A-1B     5.35 acres   652 Honey Pod Lane   (Hurst)

Adjacent non-waterfront with residence:
20-A-5 1.24 acres   755 Honey Pod Lane (Jenkins)

Adjacent non-waterfront properties with no residences:
20-A-1D 0.07 acres (Walsh)
20-A-3     2.03 acres (Ingram, C.)
20-A-4     0.71 acres (Jenkins)

Parcels between adjacent properties and East River
20-A-1C (Waterfront with residence) 4.00 acres 674 Honey Pod Lane (Owens)
20-A-6 (Non-waterfront, no residence) 1.01 acre (Ingram, C.)
20-A-7 (Waterfront, no residence) 10.06 acres (Ingram, A.)

Total 93.23 acres between site and river.

Adjacent to eastern property border
20-A-2   54.30 acres (Gayle) Along eastern ditch.

Composite of Mathews County tax maps 15, 19 and 20 to show proposed site and adjacent properties.

Composite of Mathews County tax maps 15, 19 and 20 to show proposed site and adjacent properties. Intermittent stream is solid light line between Honey Pod Lane and double-circle A.

Comprehensive Plan map showing West Mathews Future Land Use.

Comprehensive Plan map showing West Mathews Future Land Use.

Mathews County Comprehensive Plan showing West Mathews Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas. RMA on proposed site circled in red.

Mathews County Comprehensive Plan showing West Mathews Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas. RMA on proposed site circled in red.

National Map Hydrography view showing intermittent stream on proposed site and East River.

National Map Hydrography view showing intermittent stream on proposed site and East River.