Category Archives: Gwynn’s Island

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

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.

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.