Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. – Abraham Lincoln
Sadly, it seems that environmental opportunists in Oxford will test Lincoln's statement to see if they can fool all of the people all of the time.
In a recent article THE EASTON GAZETTE quoted National Wildlife Federation staffer Amanda Poskaitis saying to Oxford residents in an information session at the Oxford Community Center, "Change is hard." Residents were complaining about the destruction of the historic Strand Shoreline by a project which was supposed to be "restoration." The project was being funded by grants from the National Wildlife Federation, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the National Fish and Wildlife Federation. Here is an article about that information session:
Based on a blog written on February 27, 2024, by Ms. Poskaitis, she must believe, "Truth is Hard." Or maybe truth just doesn't sell a special project well or boost one's career. Therefore, truth must be avoided. The NWF is well practiced in falsehoods. Here is the article:
A New Look at Oxford’s Shorelines - The National Wildlife Federation Blog (nwf.org)
To be as fair as we can be, the blog entry was written prior to some of the damage that has occurred to the Shoreline this winter. However, the lies are still glaring.
Postaikis's blog entry isn't in line with what Oxford residents see or know about the Strand/Shoreline Restoration project. In fact, the article is a complete misrepresentation of what is really happening on the Oxford Strand. The entry starts off with a definition of "living shorelines":
"a method of protecting coasts from erosion while emulating the natural habitats that coastal wildlife need for food, rest, and shelter. A win-win..."
My understanding is that a "win-win" is a situation where both parties involved get something valuable out of the situation. The Strand Protection Project may be an economic win for the engineering firm doing the work and a way for the National Wildlife Federation/DNR etc. to court new suitors for their experimental processes, but it is a loss for the citizens of Oxford who treasure the town's shoreline.
Here are the worst lies in the article that lauds the project. The lies begin in the paragraph below:
One successful such project just wrapped up construction this October in the town of Oxford, Maryland, where the town’s highly valued recreational beach is now home to a beautiful living shoreline that protects recreational access, addresses flooding along a crucial local road, and maintains natural ecosystem functions.
Lie #1: Ms. Poskaitis says that the project was "wrapped up "in Oxford. This is probably news to the citizens of the town since the engineers, Underwood and Associates announced last Fall that they would "be back." Here's the sign they posted:
What's the truth? It says in the rest of the article that the engineers would be back to work on the flooding on the other side of the Strand. It also mentions the planting of plants. Those plants are not going to repair what the Strand looks like now. Are they done laying down sand? Will they correct the current erosion? Who knows.
Lie #2: The second lie is even more glaring as the article states: where the town’s highly valued recreational beach is now home to a beautiful living shoreline that protects recreational access. I'm not sure which beach she is writing about, but the beach we now have looks like this:
Does this look like a beautiful shoreline to you? Does it look like it is a habitat? Does it look like it is protecting the beach from erosion? Does this look like a recreational beach? It's none of those.
It's a far cry from the pictures the National Wildlife Federation put in the blog entry. A visual lie is just as bad as a verbal one as they show Underwood and Associates publicity pics. Oh, by the way, the statement that Underwood and Associates is a "local" firm is also a lie. They are not local to the Eastern Shore, much less Talbot County.
Lie#3: The third lie in the paragraph is where they claim the project "addresses flooding along a crucial local road," Again, the sad truth is that the Strand Road is actually flooding more now than it did before. The two pictures below show flooding after they stopped working on the project.
On to the next lie:
Planning and community engagement was critical to this project’s success, and the partners took great care to engage the community through every step of the process, from planning through design and construction. In fact, the project team updated the project design in response to community input expressed during public meetings, ensuring the project was much more inclusive than typical construction jobs.
Lie#4: The community was engaged and included in the design of the project. When consultants said this at a recent information session at the Oxford Community Center, residents throughout the room were shocked. "When were we consulted?" they asked. Many shouted, "They never consulted us." Oops.
Lie #5: The author writes about how " Many of our projects on the East Coast recently experienced significant flooding from major storms, some of which dropped over two inches of rain in a short amount of time!" but "Oxford’s new living shoreline held up wonderfully during these events." Again, reference the pictures above. Does that look like the Shore held up wonderfully? What is Amanda's standard for "holding up wonderfully?"
Poskaitis tries to explain away the destruction of the Shoreline this winter by saying, "this dynamic behavior allows living shorelines to absorb and dampen wave energy, while allowing nature to handle much of the long-term upkeep, as native plants and smart structural design help sediment to naturally accrete and combat erosion." I got news for her, most of the sand, mulch, and stones placed on the beach during this project have washed into the Tred Avon River. According to the definition of accretion (grow by accumulation or coalescence) the project is a failure.
The article closes with the view of future work. Again, some big whoppers in this paragraph:
"After the rest of this work is completed, the Town of Oxford will be more resilient to storms and flooding. The new shorelines will ensure the Town can bounce back quicker after extreme events, and the roadway and parking lot elevation will reduce flooding of these areas significantly. Crucially, the living shorelines will also provide safe harbor for many incredibly important wildlife species, including terrapins, horseshoe crabs, and migratory birds."
Apparently, Amanda doesn't know or care about the horrible flooding in the rest of Oxford because she thinks that the Shore Restoration Project will solve the town's problems. Even the engineer from Underwood and Associates didn't participate in that lie, saying that the flooding of the parking lot and condos next to the Strand would still continue even when the project is complete.
He also said that the restoration would not create a "marsh" or "tidal pool" as advertised in other articles. Aren't those things needed for the kind of wildlife described in this blog post?
I'll give credit to Ms. Poskaitis for one truth she stated. She said the Town Manager of Oxford had been working on this project for years, thus giving her credit for the Shore Restoration Project. (You can find a link to the interview with Cheryl Lewis in the NWF article.) The citizens of the town know that to be true. We will forever hold the current Town Manager (and the Commissioners who approved the project) responsible for this destructive fiasco.
I think Lincoln was correct. You can't fool all the people all the time. Sooner or later, they see the lies for what they are. Lies.
We see them every time.
UPDATE!UPDATE!UPDATE!!!
The plants have been carefully placed on the Strand berm for planting, probably this week. Notice also the backhoe working on one of the islands.
