Wetlands board approves Cedar Island replanting and five‑year monitoring plan, with county legal review required
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Accomack County Wetlands Board voted unanimously to approve the Cedar Island joint permit application (JPA) and its five‑year monitoring and replanting plan, contingent on county attorney review of financial liability; public commenters raised concerns about barrier‑island policy, survey age and a possible conflict of interest.
The Accomack County Wetlands Board unanimously approved JPA "20 24 23 60" for a Cedar Island replanting project and a five‑year monitoring program, while asking county staff to confirm that the county will not be held financially responsible for any fines from state or federal agencies.
A board member moved to approve the application as presented with the new planting plan and a condition that the county attorney review whether the county could be held liable; another member seconded and the vote was unanimous.
The project team — including consultant Chuck Rodley of Stantec and project representative Emily Hyde — described monitoring that will include aerial imagery, drone surveys, transects and ground assessments with decision points after years 1, 3 and 5. Emily Hyde told the board the project has an award from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and that "we've received the grant award from NFWF, and so it's all part of our grants and contracts" and that monitoring funds have been reallocated to cover replanting if needed.
Public commenters pressed the board on policy and science. Philip Valiant, an oyster farmer who said he lives behind Matompkin Island, argued that ‘‘the exact goals of this project are to slow the island's migration and to artificially relocate 89,000 cubic yards of sand,’’ and said the biological survey is seven years old and may understate existing marsh vegetation. He also raised a perceived conflict, saying a project scientist is married to someone being paid by the project and asking whether that compromises independent review.
Claire Gorman of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) told the board VMRC had approved the component it reviews and said she had "no issues or questions about the replanting plan," but that discussions of finances and staff commitments are outside a typical replanting plan review and that she had not previously seen bonding required for similar wetlands/beaches projects.
Deputy county administrator Lee Pam told the board the county is technically the applicant and that county code contains no standard bonding requirement for nondevelopment projects; he advised first consulting the county attorney before escalating the matter to the Board of Supervisors.
Board members asked that monitoring reports be widely distributed; project staff said monitoring reports will be submitted to regulators and made available to partners and the public. The motion approved the JPA with the conditions discussed and the board directed staff to coordinate any outstanding legal review before the permit would be finalized.
The board’s action means the project can proceed through permitting with the agreed monitoring and replanting framework, subject to the county attorney’s review and any final agency conditions.