Category Archives: Hydrology

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

 

Beavers Love BMPs
(Big Messy Projects)

Posted on by
Reply

By G. C. Morrow

Wards Corner Outfall Beaver Dam

Wards Corner Outfall Beaver Dam

I decided to look at previous projects to see if I could find a pattern in their failures. It is extremely hard to conceive that these projects with their half million plus engineering budgets fail so miserably at their purpose. At first glance, it appears that the engineers are attempting to move their drainage conveyances to more accessible locations, but even the greenest of engineers should know better than to try to drain water uphill.  (G. C. Morrow, June 15, 2016)http://insidethecrater.com/714-2

Most of the environmental and pollution problems we are facing in stormwater management can be traced to very simple explanations and solutions. I warned in 2016, “South of Wards Corner, there are three outfalls much lower in elevation than the one at Wards Corner, and they are necessary to handle several hundred acres of stream flow, as well as roadside drainage.”

Beavers are drawn to the sound of water whose flow is disrupted. They have invaded the Wards Corner outfall, as well as two unmaintained neighboring outfalls.

I saw three dams at Wards Corner this week. At one place, the dam filled the outfall to the top, about 6-8 feet deep. Water was overflowing next to a 36-inch pipe and cut through the earth surrounding the pipe to create a spillway. This eroded soil is going downstream into the marsh.

Similar erosion has occurred around the 36-inch pipe at the start of the outfall off the shoulder of route 198. Old-fashioned concrete endwalls would have prevented the erosion at both locations, but today, only cosmetic plastic endwalls are used–and this project didn’t even use those.

We won’t know until the dams are cleared exactly how the beavers managed to block the flow so well. If the outfall had functioned properly, draining within 2-3 days after rainfall, there shouldn’t have been enough water to attract beavers in the first place, especially since the outfall is uphill of most of the area it’s supposed to drain.

A large number of saplings, stripped of their bark, are lined up on the banks near the dam, ready to be used to enlarge or repair it. The beavers will continue to stop the water as long as it’s moving slowly enough for them to harness it to float the saplings into place.

It appears that using rock checkdams to slow down the water flow in a rural environment is not the right answer. Putting the drainage in the right place might have been a better idea.

Makes you wonder why the state spent $1.6 million to cause perpetual flooding of downstream locations. A much smaller amount could have restored the outfall to Stutts Creek behind the high school, and cleared or even replaced the pipes in the VDOT easement along the football field. Doing that would have conveyed the water from Route 198 to the creek and not let it flood the school and park properties. Now, the county is being asked to fund half the cost of the restoration through revenue sharing or continue to suffer the damage of its property. It may be that VDOT’s failure to maintain an outfall inventory meant the designers didn’t know about the existing outfalls.

At some point, VDOT designers and engineers have to use real world considerations and get away from their laptop configurations. Overbuilding to create a new construction project, instead of developing a simpler restoration of existing structures, is not a better value-based decision in the long run, even if federal money is involved. And that era may be ending soon.

 

The following pictures are taken at the shoulder on Route 198 looking toward the area with the beaver dam showing the progressive erosion.

Wards Corner 2012

Wards Corner 2012

2013--eroded area 4-feet wide

2013–eroded area 4-feet wide

2014

2014

2015

2015

2016

2016

Excerpts and Errors from the Middle Peninsula All Hazards Mitigation Plan — Another Installment of Accuracy Not Guaranteed

Posted on by
Reply

                                                                  By Carol J. Bova

There are so many major and minor mistakes about Mathews County in the regional All Hazards Mitigation Plan, there’s no easy way to address them at one time. Maybe it’s time to start an ongoing catalog of them to get a head start on the 2021 Mitigation Plan. We learned with previous reports like the Regional Water Supply Plan that there’s a very slim window for public input, and once a report is written, MPPDC has no interest in changing it. Even when citizens presented information at a meeting of the MPPDC about the Roadside and Outfall Ditch Report and asked that the report not be accepted until corrected, they acknowledged the errors and accepted it anyway, saying they’d correct it afterwards. The result: MPPDC staff decided there were no errors, and the mistakes in it continue to be recycled in newer reports, like the recent Virginia Coastal Policy Center’s Ditch Maintenance Study. That one involved a $40,000 grant, examined one ditch, and came up with the wrong answers, largely due to the influence of the earlier MPPDC reports. (More on that in a future post.)

With that background in mind, let’s look at the Hazards Mitigation Plan. The Plan is 556 pages, divided into 5 parts. They are available at mppdc.org.

Mathews County is located at the eastern tip of the Middle Peninsula. The County is bordered mostly by water, with the Chesapeake Bay to the east, the Mobjack Bay to the south, the North River to the west, and the Piankatank River to the north. Except for approximately five miles that border Gloucester County, the County’s perimeter is formed by its 217 mile shoreline. (Part1, pg. 16.)

The name and location are correct, and a peninsula is largely bordered by water. A few minor details are off, like the Chesapeake Bay is to the east and south of Mathews, and the western border includes Mobjack Bay along with the North River and the Gloucester County line. The miles of shoreline number is off by 130 miles. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science reported 347.42 miles of shoreline on page 20 of the 2008 Mathews County Shoreline Inventory. Eight years should have been long enough for the MPPDC to become aware of the fact.

Image Courtesy of FEMA Region III (red notes added)

Image Courtesy of FEMA Region III (red notes showing Mathews’ area added)

The plan’s presentation of the county’s population over the years is at odds with reality.

Mathews County’s population changed little between 1840 and 1900. The population peaked in 1910 with 8,922 residents, but gradually declined over the next five decades to a low point of 7,121 in 1960. This was in keeping with a national trend of population shifts from rural to urban areas because of the increased job opportunities in the cities. The population began to grow in the 1970’s and it took until the mid 1990’s before the population reached the peak reported in 1910.

An actual graph paints a different story. After every decline in population, there’s been an upward trend. Mathews will never be an urban area, nor would most of its residents want it to be. What’s MPPDC’s purpose in distorting the description of the population pattern?

Mathews Population from U.S. Censusu 1800-2010

MPPDC’s lapses in accuracy continue on page 75 of the All Hazards Plan under Ditch Flooding Vulnerability.

Throughout the Middle Peninsula of Virginia, the network of aging roadside ditches and outfalls, serving 670 miles of roads, creates the region’s primary stormwater conveyance system.

Arithmetic is a weak point for the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission. According to VDOT statistics, the six counties involved in this regional plan have 279 miles of primary roads and 1,358 miles of secondary roads between them. Even if I didn’t have an educated pencil, my computer says that’s 1637 miles. My Echo Alexa agrees.

Currently each locality in the region experiences inadequate drainage and as a result, roads and private properties are frequently flooded after a storm event. The lowest lying localities (ie. Mathews and Gloucester County) are more vulnerable to ditch flooding as most of their land is either at or slightly above sea level.

Mathews is part of two watersheds and seven subwatersheds all existing so rainfall not absorbed by the land can reach the rivers and Chesapeake Bay. An extensive complex of streams follows the topography which consists of gentle contours from about 3 feet in the southern salt marshes to 35 feet in the northwestern region.

“At or slightly above sea level”? No wonder MPPDC thinks a foot and a half of sea level rise will wipe out a third of Mathews.

Watch for the next installment of Accuracy Not Guaranteed when the error catalog of the Middle Peninsula All Hazards Mitigation Plan continues.

Another VDOT Drainage Project Engineered to Fail

Posted on by
Reply

By G. C. Morrow

After reviewing VDOT’s current Mathews Courthouse drainage project (VDOT #87865), I decided to look at previous projects to see if I could find a pattern in their failures. It is extremely hard to conceive that these projects with their half million plus engineering budgets fail so miserably at their purpose. At first glance, it appears that the engineers are attempting to move their drainage conveyances to more accessible locations, but even the greenest of engineers should know better than to try to drain water uphill.

Case in point is the Wards Corner Project at Routes 14 and 198 (VDOT# 56940). VDOT has two outfalls just north of Wards Corner on Rt. 198 that are so neglected they can only be found by locating the endwalls and large pipes. South of Wards Corner, there are 3 outfalls much lower in elevation than the one at Wards Corner, and they are necessary to handle several hundred acres of stream flow, as well as roadside drainage. All roadside ditches in this vicinity are so poorly maintained that the flow lines are almost completely lost, and many large pipes are obscured in the right-of-way.

Wards Corner, July 21, 2012 Photo: C. J. Bova

Wards Corner, July 21, 2012 Photo: C. J. Bova

The Mathews High School football field and the Mathews County Park on 198 have been flooded several times since the Wards Corner Project completion. On one occasion, I photographed a 200′ wide river on our football field and park. At the same time, the pipes at Wards Corner were less than half full because water still goes downhill, and the high school is downhill from Wards Corner.

High school football field Aprl 15, 2014 Photo: GC Morrow

High school football field Aprl 15, 2014                                                               Photo: GC Morrow

This $1.618 million project was a gross waste of resources and will cause perpetual flooding of downstream locations and personal property from roads that still need proper and adequate conveyance of storm water and stream flow. VDOT could have invested a much smaller amount to restore the outfall to Stutts Creek behind the high school, and clear or even replace the pipes in the VDOT easement along the football field, and convey the water from Route 198 and not let it flood the school and park properties. (See State Highway Plat Book 3, pg. 211, 0014 057 305.)

An earlier project on East River Road, Route 660 (VDOT #61013) $1.334 million, did not address Route 14 drainage between Route 660 at Foster and Route 617 at North. The roadside ditches less than .25 mile west of Foster are flooded most of the time. The 1965 USGS topographic map shows that three uphill streams that should cross Route 14 are channelized to roadside ditches in the VDOT right-of-way. The adjacent properties are now flooded along the roadside ditch. No matter how well a project is engineered and designed, if necessary adjacent conveyances are not maintained, any project can negatively impact the already neglected system.

The Mathews Courthouse Route 14 Drainage Improvement Project (#87865) is another case of a poorly engineered and designed package. The engineers relied on computer-generated maps without ground verification to identify the drainage areas. The 2011 USGS topo included historical drainage ditches which no longer function, and in some cases, no longer exist. That 2011 map also labeled a ditch north of the Hyco Subdivision as Put In Creek. First, it’s barely identifiable today, and second, it’s a created drainage ditch, not Put In Creek, and third, it is downhill from the planned location of the four new pipes crossing 198 to Put In Creek.

VDOT Route 14 Drainage Improvement Plan Map pg. 10

VDOT Route 14 Drainage Improvement Plan Map pg. 10

Most of the drainage areas in the plan are overstated because the natural drainage pattern for them would be to the Morris Creek watershed, not to the Put In Creek/East River watershed. The boundary between the Morris Creek and Put In Creek watersheds is incorrect on both national and state maps. The 198 connection to the Put In Creek ditch could be adequate to carry water from the road, but not any of the Morris Creek watershed.

If the original ditches were functioning properly, the water from the Hyco Subdivision and adjacent land would go to Morris Creek by two routes.

Ditch 1. runs parallel to Route 198 north to Critter Lane where it can enter Morris Creek, but the ditch is constrained by a collapsed 15″ pipe.

Ditch 2 is to the east of Hyco Subdivision where VDOT has an 800’ outfall. (198-4957-02, sheet 5) The deeded 800’ outfall follows the proper contour northward to Morris Creek. This conveyance has a dimension of approximately 12′ wide and 7′ deep at the tree line, then it tapers down to 2′ wide 2′ deep approximately 300′ from the roadside. The landowners adjacent to this failed ditch have documented many complaints about standing water on their property to VDOT without response.

The plan also shows water being directed to Put In Creek from the Liberty Square Courthouse to Church Street through a ditch system which failed a long time ago. The plan does not address restoring it.

More than 100 acres of water from part of Glebe Road, the rest of the Liberty Square Courthouse, the Cricket Hill Apartments, and Bank of America crosses under Route 198 to the east to an outfall at 10601 Buckley Hall Road. This is part of the same Ditch 1 listed under Hyco Subdivision which goes to Critter Lane and Morris Creek.

Both Ditch 1 and Ditch 2 have partly failed and have created several acres of flooded upland, now being called nontidal wetlands.

Like the situation with Hyco Subdivision, the water from the land behind Food Lion should drain to Morris Creek, not Put In Creek. Because the original ditches that conveyed the water to Morris Creek no longer function, water leaves the Food Lion parking lot via a 48” pipe near the Chinese restaurant then funnels east into the woods behind the Food Lion. When rain exceeds 1″ an hour for 3 or 4 hours, the woods store water until the ground is saturated. The water then converts to a 70-acre sheet flow, where every drop falling on this land has to go uphill to Food Lion, and then to Faulkner and Son. This conveys torrents of water to Main Street and continues to run for days.

When I approached the lead engineer at the public design hearing, he was rather arrogant and abrasive, and stressed his job was to drain the 70 acres. The map he provided showing the lands to be drained showed no houses, no businesses, no roads, and that the drainage area was definitely downhill from Food Lion.

The median storm water level already overtops the Put In Creek ditch and adjacent property located behind Faulkner and Son. I could say much more, and I have spoken to Jim Brent, P.E., Sean Trapani, former Saluda R.A., Delegate Keith Hodges, Planning and Zoning Director John Shaw, and several engineers at the public design hearing. But there has been no change in the project except to increase the cost.

The unanswered questions are:

  1. Why hasn’t VDOT explored the possibility that the two existing pipes across Buckley Hall Road, including the one destroyed by utility pole placement years ago, might be adequate in conjunction with system maintenance and restoration?
  1. The new Westville Community project shows water discharge at 7.75 ft. elevation into the VDOT pipe system which shows a 5.42 ft. elevation at its discharge point (per VDOT plans). Will this 13 acres of additional storm water flow uphill to Hyco Corner? Or will it further damage the properties downhill to the east of the Westville Community project?
  1. Why hasn’t VDOT realized any additional water collected at Buckley Hall Road will exceed the capacity of the feeble ditch between Hyco Corner and Church Street (Route 611) at the Firehouse?
  1. Two 4’ x 7’ box culverts are 2.91 times larger than the two 42” pipes now at Church Street. They are intended to let more water out, but will definitely let more water in as well.

    Put In Creek at Church Street 42" pipe two hours before predicted low tide of .28 ft Photo: CJ Bova

    Put In Creek at Church Street 42″ pipe two hours before predicted low tide of .28 ft      

  1. Did anyone with tidal engineering or analysis experience review the plans that use a high tide water surface elevation of 0.31 feet when high tides range from 1.8 to over 3 feet?

    Put In Creek after 2.9 ft high tide Photo: CJ Bova

    Put In Creek after 2.9 ft high tide Photo: CJ Bova

I hope that someone at VDOT will ground verify and redesign this poorly conceived project that will definitely increase the probability and severity of flooding–both tidal and non-tidal.

Notice how the original outfalls traveled great distances to avoid any close tidal contact. This is another no-brainer that can’t be taught. We expect more from over $945,000 than bad, poorly directed engineering.

 

G.C. Morrow’s family‘s roots in Mathews go back to 1725. He’s worked in, traveled through, or explored most all of the county. He is co-founder of the Ditches of Mathews County Project which has worked to raise awareness of the problems and offer solutions to VDOT’s drainage issues that are affecting Mathews County.

He’s worked and fought with many state and federal agencies for the environmental well-being of Mathews and was one of the citizens on the county’s Ditch Enhancement project Committee who tried to provide local knowledge to the engineers. As Business Group Chair on the Piankatank TMDL Steering Committee to improve water quality, he fought for truth in reports and provided more accurate information than the state’s computer-generated numbers for wildlife, livestock and pet populations. In January 2016, G.C. began his first term on the Mathews County Board of Supervisors. This open letter is a personal statement of his views based on his experience and knowledge of Mathews County.

 

Comments and Concerns Sent to US Army Corps of Engineers

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Sharing What We Learned About VDOT Myths and Mathews Drainage

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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