Author Archives: Carol J Bova

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.

Throwing Out a
Perfectly Good Plan
Is No Way to Treat a Virus

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

On April 2nd, James C. Sherlock talked about the “Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Operations Plan, Hazard-specific Annex #4, Pandemic Influenza Response” in an article on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. He posted again on April 3rd that the plan had been removed from the state website.

The Commonwealth’s September 2019  Emergency Operations Plan not only removed the pandemic plan, it dropped all references to a pandemic and fails to offer any steps needed to deal with one.

If the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) still had that plan as a guideline, we could  have been more prepared and more responsive to the Covid-19 pandemic in Virginia.

Look at the plan stages in the abandoned document and when they would have kicked in.

Stage 1 –Suspected Human Outbreak Overseas 
WHO Phase 4
This occurred in November, 2019 in China.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Review and exercise the VDH pandemic influenza plan.
  • Continue surveillance.
  • Coordinate with partners.
  • Initiate education campaign.
  • Prepare pre-scripted messages.
  • Review and adjust inventories of selected resources.
  • Coordinate with suppliers.
  • Review and update the fatality management plan.

We don’t know if VDH reviewed supplies and coordinated with suppliers at that point. If they did, why don’t we at least have (Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for our healthworkers four months later?

The Virginian-Pilot on April 2nd posted the Commonwealth’s March 30th request for Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) resources, showing the amounts requested and amounts received.

The article noted this was the third shipment. It would be informative to know when the state made the first two requests and when they first took steps to procure supplies directly from manufacturers before turning to the SNS.

Stage 2 –Confirmed Human Outbreak Overseas
WHO Phase 5
This occurred December 31 2019 – January, 2020

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Declare a “public health emergency.”
  • Review and activate appropriate plans.
  • Maintain dialogue with partners.
  • Maintain heightened hospital and community-based surveillance.
  • Continue education/guidance to the public.

Jan 26 VDH news release said first 3 test specimens sent to CDC, announced novel corona virus webpage and provided information.

Jan 27: Two cases negative. Waiting for third results.

Did VDH review the pandemic plan? Were supplies ordered? No mention in media release.

Jan 30, WHO declares international public health emergency
 9976 cases in 21 countries
Stage 3 –Widespread Outbreaks Overseas 
WHO Phase 6        

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Maintain heightened hospital and community surveillance.
  • Prepare to implement surge plans.
  • Review and implement anti-viral distribution plans.
  • Continue education and guidance to the public

No VDH announcements on surge plans or supply inventories.

Stage 4 –First Human-to-Human Case in North America 
WHO Phase 6
This occurred January 21 First case confirmed in Washington state after travel from Wuhan.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Maintain heightened hospital and community surveillance.
  • Prepare to implement surge plans.
  • Review and implement anti-viral distribution plans.
  • Continue providing education and guidance to the public.
  • Implement antiviral treatment/targeted prophylaxis.

Feb 13: VDH publishes infographic on Covid-19 symptoms

Feb 21 Fairfax County Health Dept. “Flu is making people sick in Fairfax, not coronavirus.” https://www.facebook.com/122759944481405/videos/640000020132352/

Stage 5 –Spread throughout U.S.  
WHO Phase 6
This occurred February 26-28: Cases in California, Oregon, Washington, New York

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Maintain situational awareness of impacts on the health and medical sector.
  • Continuously evaluate epidemiology of the virus.
  • Update recommendations on treatment and protective actions

March 7, VDH confirms first two Covid-19 cases in Virginia in Fairfax

“Governor Northam and Cabinet officials have been briefed. Officials at Fort Belvoir Community Hospital and the Virginia Department of Health are working cooperatively, according to longstanding public health protocols. The teams are in regular and close communication with federal, state, local, and private sector partners.”

“Public health officials caution that evidence has not been seen of COVID-19 spreading  in Virginia and said the risk is low.”

March 8, VDH press conference – status update

Virginia Health Commissioner Norm Oliver [4:03]: “A coordinated public health response is already underway. While the risk to the general public is low, the Virginia Department of Health is working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Fairfax Health District, the Prince William Health District, and our Department of Defense partners to identify people who had contact with the cases and may be at risk of becoming infected with this Novel Corona Virus. I would like to sincerely thank our partners for collaborating in this very complex and rapidly evolving situation.

Before I turn this over to my colleagues to provide more details, I would like to emphasize that protecting the health and well being of Virginians is our top priority. The virus is spreading much like the Novel Influenza Virus would. VDH, the Department of Health, has led a very robust and comprehensive pandemic influenza preparedness effort since 2004. VDH successfully responded to the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 to 2010 and that work serves as a very solid foundation for the work that we’re doing for the response to Covid-19. The Virginia Department of Health works across all sectors, including healthcare providers, state and local government, first responders, and many community partners to prepare for and respond to outbreaks in all types of emergencies.”

State Epidemiologist, Lillian Peake [6:28]: “Testing for the case at Ft. Belvoir was conducted at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Testing for the patient from Fairfax City was conducted at the Department of General Services, Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services in Richmond, Virginia. Both tests will be confirmed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Both cases had travelled internationally days before developing symptoms and the two cases are not related. At this point, there are no signs of the virus spreading in the community in Virginia. As of nine o’clock this morning, 44 Virginians have been tested for the Novel Corona Virus. Thirty-six tests were negative, and we are awaiting results on six tests. Virginia has been preparing for the possibility of cases occurring in the Commonwealth since early January when the novel corona virus was first identified in China. The Virginia Department of Health has been closely coordinating with clinicians, our state lab, and other key partners statewide so we are able to identify patients early and take action quickly to prevent the spread of the disease to others. Virginia’s local health departments across the state are working with their communities to prepare, increase awareness, and encourage prevention. VDH set up a Covid-19 webpage very early in the response, and we are keeping it up to date with accurate information.”

The governor declared state of emergency March 12.

VDH Infographic releases:

http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/resources-and-support/

Mar 13: VDH infographics on symptoms, local and travel
Mar 13: CDC About Covid-19
Mar 16: CDC on stopping spread
Mar 18: About CDC response and activities
Mar 20: CDC on symptoms

When were PPE supplies ordered or requested from SNS before March 30th?

TBD
Stage 6 – Recovery/Preparation for Subsequent Waves
WHO Phase 6

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:

  • Assess regional impacts on the health and medical sector.
  • Review lessons learned and implement adjustments.
  • Replenish essential resource inventories.
  • Adjust regional staffs to meet needs.
  • Prepare for next wave.

Repeating what State Health Commissioner Norm Oliver said March 8th, “VDH, the Department of Health, has led a very robust and comprehensive pandemic influenza preparedness effort since 2004. VDH successfully responded to the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 to 2010 and that work serves as a very solid foundation for the work that we’re doing for the response to Covid-19.”

So why was VDH still denying the possibility of a widespread outbreak in Virginia, and why hadn’t they worked to secure supplies earlier?

Response to Dee Russell’s Statement in the Paper

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

There’s no way to answer this in the paper before the election, so here are some facts for Dee Russell and anyone else who agrees with Russell’s statement about the Draft Floodplain Ordinance being tainted by “Secret Meetings.”

Studying FEMA regulations on your own and writing down possible rewording of an ordinance is not a “secret meeting.” Discussing different viewpoints in FEMA bulletins on the phone does not constitute a “secret meeting.” Checking with FEMA and NFIP staff on how best to include information—not a secret meeting. Typing up corrections to an ordinance and letting others read them and comment to get the clearest wording is not a “secret meeting” when the draft and details were all given to Amy Dubois as she requested.

Taking Amy’s NINE spreadsheet sections of comments that were not in a usable condition and retyping them into one document anyone could download and compare to the draft ordinance line by line and cross referencing them to her unusable ones was not a secret meeting.  Giving the organized spreadsheet to her that listed, explained and gave the FEMA and NFIP sourcesr AND posting it online on a site open to the public was not a “secret meeting.”

When was the last time you saw anyone writing a document in public? I’ll bet never. You see people discussing a finished draft in public meetings, but a formal discussion of the draft floodplain ordinance never happened. It was dismissed by the former lawyer because he wanted it in the zoning ordinance. Something the board told the lawyer before him they didn’t want.

Is it required by law to be in the zoning ordinance? No. Was the lawyer told that by DCR? Yes, and he chose to ignore them and said so in a public meeting.

There were 65 comments on Amy’s spreadsheets.

The Building Official and Zoning Director offered NONE.

One general comment was from a citizen and did not relate to the ordinance itself.

First lawyer said to delete definition of market value.

Dubois/Love  made 3  comments.  One was to request an appeals process process be added. Two  were on definitions of market value and substantial improvement. DCR said the suggested Dubois/Love combination of substantial damage/substantial Improvement might be technically compliant, but they advised against it. (DCR email 6/1/18).

The other 60 came from Debbie Gibson, G. C. Morrow and me. They added necessary language according to the regulations, used FEMA recommendations, and eliminated unnecessary material. There was never anything improper in the work that was done and submitted. Each section benefits everyone in the floodplain in the same circumstances in exactly the same way. And I have an official email from a FEMA Region III spokesman that proves the former county attorney was wrong to dismiss what we did as not part of the regulations. All of it was.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

 

BYLAWS AMENDED BY BOARD ACTION AND NOT CHANGED OR CHANGED WITHOUT BOARD ACTION.

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

Mathews County Bylaws 13.2 “… The full text of an amendment to these By-laws shall be made part of the Minutes of the Meeting at which they were adopted.”

This has not been done on a consistent basis over the past few years.

 1. 2014 Bylaws Annual Organizational Audio removed from meeting portal.
Between September 14, 2018 and September 16, 2018, the January 8, 2014 Minutes and Audio were taken offline from the Meeting Portal. The Minutes were reposted as a link in January 28, 2014 Agenda and Amended Bylaws posted September 17, 2018 under January 28 meeting documents.  https://mathewsva.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=5&meta_id=761

No copy of proposed amendments was included and the text of the amendments is not in the January 8 Minutes which are posted under January 28, 2014 Minutes. Cannot review Audio because Audio for January 8, 2014 was not reposted after being taken down in September, 2018.

2. ARTICLE 9.1 (now 8.1) Not brought forward into 2017 Bylaws as adopted in 2016. Still not in 2018 or 2019 that electronic online record of minutes is the official record for legal purposes.

Audio 50:40, ARTICLE 9. MINUTES. Mrs. Conner also requested the Board clarify what constitutes the official record and recommended the Board designate the online record as the official record for legal purposes. She noted that in doing so, it would simplify administrative processes somewhat when dealing with FOIA requests and other matters. Mr. White stated that this would be a legal designation. Mrs. Conner agreed.

MOTION: On Motion of Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Cole, the Mathews County Board of Supervisors voted 5 – 0 – 0 as follows, Ms. Casey, Mr. White, Mr. Ingram, Mr. Cole, Mr. Morrow – aye; to adopt the Bylaws of the Mathews County Board of Supervisors as presented and as amended in 8.3F, and to designate the electronic online record of the minutes as the official minutes of the Board of Supervisors for legal purposes.

3.  2018 Bylaws changed by administrator when Board voted not to amend them. Changed motion in Minutes from what was said in meeting.

January 10, 2018. Audio starts at 4:55: Chairman asks if one motion could cover approval of A, B and C on agenda, Code of Ethics, Bylaws, and Regular Meeting Schedule. Administrator said, “If you don’t want to amend anything, that would be fine.” On audio at 5:29: Supervisor Love said: “I make the motion we continue with the Bylaws and Code of Ethics as is.”

At 5:58, Administrator said she didn’t see anything that needed to be looked at. After questions and discussion, at 11:10, Supervisor Morrow seconded the motion. Motion approved 4-0-0.

But January 10, 2018 Minutes said vote was “to adopt the Mathews County Board of Supervisors Code of Ethics, Bylaws and Schedule of Meetings for calendar year 2018, as presented and attached to and made a part of these Minutes.” As presented is handwritten and underlined on online Minutes for January 10, 2018.

4. 2018 Bylaws in 6.1: Without Board action, omitted phrase that agendas are to be prepared “in consultation with the Board Chairman.”  (See motion in 3.  “to continue as is.”)

6.1. Changed to: The Annual Organizational and Regular Meetings of the Board shall have a formal Meeting Agenda prepared by the County Administrator or his designee. The County Administrator at his discretion and Board members individually may, by request to the County Administrator, place matters of business on the Agenda for discussion, information and /or action by the Board as are germane to the affairs and interests of the Board and County. Agendas for Special Meetings are optional at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors or County Administrator.

Changed from:  6.1. The Annual Organizational and Regular Meetings of the Board shall have a formal Meeting Agenda prepared by the County Administrator or his designee in consultation with the Board Chairman. The County Administrator at his discretion and Board members individually may, by request to the County Administrator, place matters of business on the Agenda for discussion, information and /or action by the Board as are germane to the affairs and interests of the Board and County. Agendas for Special Meetings are optional at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors or County Administrator.

5. 2018 Bylaws, 6.4 also changed without Board approval:

2017 Bylaws                                                                    2018 left out last line:
6.4. The Board shall take no Action of Record on            Closed Meetings and business
any matter that is not on the Meeting Agenda                  matters brought before the Board
unless a modification to the Meeting Agenda is                under Supervisors’ Reports [are]
requested at the time of Approval of the Agenda.             exempt from the the provisions                                                                                          of this paragraph.

Modification of the Meeting Agenda requires a                                                               majority vote of Board members present. Upon                                                           Approval of the Agenda, no further modifications                                                            may be made except as provided for in paragraph                                                              7.3. Closed Meetings and business matters                                                                   brought before the Board under Supervisors’                                                               Reports exempt from the provisions of this                                                                paragraph.

6. 2018 Bylaws: 7.3.F. Changed without Board action:

2017 Bylaws                                                               2018 Bylaws
A second to a primary or substitute motion is             Changed “primary or substitute” to
required in order to formally discuss and/or vote        “primary and substitute” and adds
upon the motion. Voting shall be by show of              “NOT” before required. That was
hands. The Chairman shall verbally summarize           discussed in 2017 and decision was
the vote upon conclusion of an Action of Record,       to continue to require a second as noting by individual name those Board members        the practice has been.              abstaining or voting in the minority on the Item                                                                     of Business.

Rowe Didn’t Do His Homework on His Hole in the Wall Septic System Solution

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

In his interview for the interim board position, when asked what do you think a board member should do to be effective, Mike Rowe said, “Do their homework.”

He did not do his homework on the solution he claimed for the Hole in the Wall Restaurant septic system at the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 24th. He didn’t give the board any documents or facts to support what he said, and most of his statements were incorrect.

He did not discuss how a direct discharge of treated wastewater fits the Milford Haven TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) from the EPA-approved water quality improvement plan or the impact to the oyster grounds and recreation adjacent to the restaurant. Even well-treated septic system effluent discharge will cause a permanent condemnation of that part of Milford Haven for shellfishing. Do we really want to discharge treated sewage effluent where people boat, kayak and use paddleboards?

Rowe, along with supervisor Amy Dubois, the county administrator, the building official, and the restaurant owner, had a private meeting with a vendor, Environmental Services of Virginia, who “gave an assessment of what he thought could be done.” The vendor “recommended an alternative system, which would be the Clearstream, and he recommended that we apply for a permit with DEQ, and once we get that, then they can design the system.”

Rowe said that without a DEQ permit you can’t move forward, but he didn’t say DEQ cannot approve a discharge permit alone. They must forward an applications for discharge into shellfish areas to the Virginia Department of Health Environmental Health Services division (VDH-EHS.)

Dr. Marcia Degen from VDH-EHS said, “There is no general approval process and the design is reviewed based on the information submitted by the design engineer.” The designer must show the selected unit can perform as required to reduce pollution and suspended solids. So an engineered design is required before the permit application is submitted.

Asked about the price for the system, which would include UV disinfection, Mr. Rowe said, “Total price tag, engineering and installation will be between $23,000 and $30,000 dollars.” He also said there is no fee for that permit from DEQ. Rowe’s cost estimate is too low, perhaps half of what would be required.

The current operating permit was issued in 1998 and allows 380 gallons of wastewater a day for 45 seats. The current Virginia Health Department (VDH) standard is  2,250 gallons a day (gpd), based on 50 gpd for each seat. (12VAC5-610 in Table 5)

The largest Clearstream treatment system is 1500 gpd. So two systems that can handle a capacity of at least 2,250 gpd are needed, including pretreatment and a UV disinfection treatment for each.

DEQ VPDES (Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permits are not free for commercial systems. Hole in the Wall, with  821,250  gallons per year, would fall under the category of Industrial Minor (less than 1 million gallons per year) with a new permit fee of $3,300. (9VAC25-20-110. Fee Schedule).

Rowe didn’t follow the County’s Small Purchase Policy either. Since two Clearstream units, engineering, design, permits and installation will exceed the original $30,000 estimate, County Procurement Procedures for $30,001 – $50,000 require informal solicitation of a minimum of four bidders or offerors, and an award must be made in writing. He did not mention any other bidders, nor did he present a contract for consideration by the Board before he requested approval to apply for a permit. The County Administrator also failed to mention the purchase policy requirements.

This is how the County gets tangled in difficult and costly situations – Not enough facts, not enough research, and inadequate follow through by staff.

Written and Authorized by Carol J. Bova

Draft Floodplain Ordinance

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted to Floodplain Management Ordinance Committee by G. C. Morrow

This draft is based on the National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management Requirements and related documents issued by FEMA.

 

Click to access Mathews-County-DRAFT-Floodplain-Management-Ordinance-12-21-18-2-15.pdf

 

Click to access Spreadsheet-Notes-on-Draft-Ordinance-Amendments-12-21-18.pdf

More to Mathews Than Tourism — A Bit of Fishing History

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Oysters and Cleaner Water

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

When I learned of the Island Seafood oyster aquaculture project application to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, I realized this will be the first significant progress toward our water quality improvement goals for the area. In 2012-2013, I was one of four citizens on the Steering Committee of the Water Quality Implementation Plan for Gwynns Island, Milford Haven and Piankatank River Watersheds.

Floating Cage Oyster Aquaculture

History
We struggled to get the state agencies to adjust the numbers of people and animals they used to calculate water quality goals to more accurate levels, but also to go beyond blaming septic systems for the areas with E. coli. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) was the lead agency, and they did make a number of adjustments in the numbers of people, dogs, wildlife and farm animals based on citizen research.

Same Problems Still Exist
We were unable, though, to convince the authorities that we couldn’t expect to reduce the E. coli numbers until the Department of Transportation road drainage system allowed oxygenated water from fresh rainfalls to reach the major creeks and rivers. Six years later, headwaters and other streams still cannot flow through blocked pipes under roads, and stormwater still accumulates in roadside ditches, losing oxygen and growing cyanobacteria. While not monitored by the Virginia Health Department, cyanobacteria can produce toxins, and VIMS did find a low level of toxic microcystins in a sample from ditch water pictured below:

Oscillatoria (cyanobacteria) Identified in Mathews by VIMS.

E. coli Can Survive Without Oxygen if Protected From Sunlight
When E. coli encounters waters without sufficient oxygen, It enters a viable, but non-culturable state. This means while its predators, in the form of beneficial bacteria, die off without oxygen, E. coli stops reproducing and settles into bottom sediments where it’s protected from sunlight. When storms stir up the waters, and oxygen does reach the E. coli, it once more begins reproducing, without any new input from humans or animals.

Commonwealth Not Ready for Novel Ideas Then
Our 2012 suggestion to provide aeration and probiotics to the headwaters of contaminated larger streams was rejected by the Health Department staff on the committee. They refused to believe E. coli could survive in sediment beyond a few days. Journal references from researchers around the world did not convince them.

In 2015, news accounts of an experiment at Annapolis showed using aeration and probiotic bacteria did reduce E. coli levels by reducing mucky sediments, improving oxygen levels, and restoring beneficial bacteria. (Chesapeake Style, pg. 37). To my knowledge, no one in Virginia has followed this idea. Nothing has improved the E. coli levels here to any measurable extent.

Hope at Last
Now, with the Milford Haven oyster aquaculture project, in spite of the VDOT drainage failures, we have a new way to improve the water quality. We can look forward to improvement in the E. coli numbers as oysters filter millions of gallons of water and remove sediment and excess nutrients from the upper water column. Nearby subaqueous vegetation will benefit from more sunlight reaching the beds and add more oxygen to the Bay’s waters as they grow. So as a result of a waterfront business operation, we end up with cleaner water, less E. coli, more SAV and more oxygen in the water–at no expense to the County or Commonwealth.