Category Archives: Mathews County

How Can Our Kids Learn If They’re Not in School? Absenteeism Rates in Mathews Public Schools –Not what they appear to be at first look!

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova  posted October 18, 2022, updated October 19

What these numbers from the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) School Quality/Learning Climate reports fail to indicate is the number of students that are covered by the percentages. The October 19 post, “Virginia Department of Education Absenteeism Reports Under Learning Climate Are Misleading!” explains why.

Division ALL STUDENTS ALL STUDENTS ALL STUDENTS ALL STUDENTS
2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
Enrollment 1064 1008 932 903
All Students 13.8% 13.0% 12.6% 25.3%
Female 11.1% 26.5%
Male 14.0% 24.1%
Black 13.9% 7.8% 24.7% 28.8%
Hispanic 10.5% 17.1% 10.8% 15.2%
White 13.0% 12.7% 10.8% 25.9%
Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Multiple Races 28.8% 24.1% 29.4% 23.5%
Students with Disabilities 19.1% 22.1% 16.1% 28.0%
Economically Disadvantaged 20.0% 16.8% 18.1% 32.4%
English Learners 0% 0.0% 0% 5.9%
ALL STUDENTS Mathews  Elementary Thomas Hunter Middle School Mathews High School
2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021
Enrollment 932 333 313 286
ALL STUDENTS 12.6% 6.6% 13.8% 17.9%
Female 11.1% 7.2% 13.1% 12.8%
Male 14.0% 6.0% 14.3% 23.7%
Black 24.7% 16.7% 16.7% 40.0%
Hispanic 10.8% 0.0% 15.8% 16.7%
White 10.8% 4.5% 11.9% 14.8%
Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Multiple Races 29.4% 23.5% 33.3% 31.2%
Students with Disabilities 16.1% 7.9% 25.0% 18.4%
Economically Disadvantaged 18.1% 10.4% 18.2% 27.5%
English Learners 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
ALL STUDENTS Mathews  Elementary Thomas Hunter Middle School Mathews High School
2021-2022 2021-2022 2021-2022 2021-2022
Enrollment 903 319 291 293
ALL STUDENTS 25.3% 21.5% 20.7% 33.9%
Female 26.5% 22.7% 24.3% 31.8%
Male 24.1% 20.6% 17.2% 36.3%
Black 28.8% 23.8% 16.7% 45.0%
Hispanic 15.2% 17.6% 5.3% 30.0%
White 25.9% 21.4% 22.6% 33.5%
Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Multiple Races 23.5% 23.5% 19.0% 30.8%
Students with Disabilities 28.0% 26.2% 28.6% 30.2%
Economically Disadvantaged 32.4% 28.1% 27.9% 42.9%
English Learners 5.9% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Source: https://schoolquality.virginia.gov/

Woke Geology from the Washington Post

Posted on by
Reply

By Carol J. Bova

The Washington Post published a piece June 4, 2021, on the geologic origins of Mid-Atlantic summer destinations, many in Virginia. Its wrap-up switches into Woke doctrine and describes the Chesapeake Bay as “a case study in climate change…Efforts are on to mitigate the effects of rising water on islands in the bay and the cities and towns along it.” The article warns, “Climate change may have brought the bay into being, but now human-caused climate change endangers it… will the Chesapeake Bay itself cease to exist, subsumed by the Atlantic?”

Dramatic. Of course, there was no place for mention of the impact crater that provided the depression in which the Bay formed. The article refers to the melting glaciers of 10,000 years ago. No mention, though, that during each of the five Ice Ages going back to 2.4-2.1 billion years ago, glacial periods have always been followed by interglacial periods when the temperatures rise, or that we’re still in one.

Of course no mention of the land subsidence from the excessive drawdown of water in the Potomac and related aquifers by Virginia, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. And certainly no mention of the role of that subsidence in relative sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay region, especially in Hampton Roads.

Instead of those inconvenient details, it was much easier to rely on the mantra of “human-caused climate change.”

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.

 

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.

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.

The Mayor of Tangier Island is Right

Posted on by

By Carol J. Bova

(Originally posted as a response to James A. Bacon’s blog, “Does “Ooker” Estridge Know Something the Experts Don’t” on Bacon’s Rebellion about sea level rise impacting Tangier Island in the Chesapeake Bay. Tangier Island is losing about 16 feet a year on its western side and 3 on the eastern.)

“Ooker” Estridge is right that Tangier Island’s problem is erosion, and he’s got hard science behind that statement. While sea level rise is a long-term issue and increased monitoring of local impacts is important, that’s not why Tangier Island is endangered. Lewisetta is the nearest tide gauge and not out in the Bay, but the local sea level trend is 1.7 ft in 100 years, which is less than a quarter inch per year. So there’s more in play there.

“Storms provide the greatest source of coastal change on barrier islands due to storm surge and strong waves. Surging water and stronger waves can erode barrier island beaches and, if the surge is high enough, result in overwash, breaching, or back bay flooding… .” (U S Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk. January 2015.)

Tangier Island is a barrier island, and like all barrier islands and barrier beaches, it’s made up of sand-sized sediment that is deposited, moved, and reformed by wind and waves. Political positions about sea level rise have ignored the reality of longshore transport of sediment (also called longshore drift). If the sand supply is not maintained, the island erodes to the point where it is inundated by the tides. No one realized in the 1700s how fragile these bodies are, or that it wasn’t a good idea to build on them.

NOAA relates the story of Tucker Island in New Jersey, settled in 1735, and how attempts to stop longshore transport of sand using jetties in 1924 eventually caused the loss of that barrier island.

We have the same problem on the Chesapeake Bay coastline in Mathews County where we’ve just about lost Rigby Island, another barrier island, and have a breach in the Winter Harbor barrier beach caused by a nor’easter in 1978.  Beach replenishment could repair it and restore the protective function of the barrier beach against storm surge flooding, but the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Corps of Engineers chose instead to only supplement the tiger beetle habitat below the breach, allowing the breach to continue to widen.

The Virginia Department of Transportation helped create the problem by removing 5-7 feet of sand from the beaches to the north of Winter Harbor in the 1930s and 1940s to use to build roads in two counties. (This was confirmed by a memo in VDOT’s files.)

The Corps of Engineers also helped create the problem by working with the County to open a channel directly from Garden Creek to the Bay. The jetties they built to keep the channel open failed, but they also prevented the movement of sand southward to the Winter Harbor barrier beach leading to its breach.

Wetlands Watch joined with the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission (MPPDC) in blaming sea level rise for the loss of the barrier beach and barrier island around the New Point Comfort Lighthouse in the NOAA grant-funded MPPDC Climate Change Adaptation Phase 2 report and repeated the claim in the 2011 Phase 3 report with slides implying sea level rise causes the lighthouse to be left on a tiny island. One has picture of the lighthouse in 1885 and “today” with the caption, “shoreline has moved 1/2 mile.” Another says, “TODAY – 5 ft water covers more than 1,000 plated subdivision lots.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



The platted subdivision only existed on paper because the project failed financially in 1905. Much of the barrier island and barrier beach were lost in the 1933 August and September hurricanes, and the rest lost through longshore transport after that.

The reports include those slides and a mocking cartoon about the “Coconut Telegraph,” alluding to person-to-person communication between Mathews citizens, as part of Power Point presentations made throughout Virginia and in other areas on sea level rise by MPPDC Executive Director, Lewie Lawrence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When local observations are ignored in favor of political positions, everyone loses. Tax money is spent on the wrong responses and real problems get worse because they’re not acknowledged.

People who come from generations who’ve lived in the same place may not have the university degrees, but they have knowledge that could benefit the universities and government agencies who disregard them.

In the http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/Portals/40/docs/NACCS/NACCS_main_report.pdf”Hurricane Sandy report, the Corps of Engineers places barrier island and barrier beach preservation among the highest Coastal Storm Risk Management and Resilience measures, short of removing buildings from the coast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Too bad no one considered this kind of replenishment for Tangier Island while there was a better chance of saving it.