Writer’s Note: The following story is the latest chapter in a story we have been reporting on for at least two years. The links included tell the story from the beginning and the documents will give some background and context.
The most common local news question we get at The Easton Gazette is “What’s does the Oxford Strand look like today?”
The answer is simple, a mess.
This is how the Strand looked just a few years ago. It was this way for over 300 years.
Beautiful, isn’t it? Not any more. Now it looks like this:
And this:
You might think this project was still under construction. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. This project was signed off by Oxford Town Commission President Tom Costigan in July of 2024 as “complete.” He even went as far as to say in a candidate’s forum in June that “the Strand Project is a success.” Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment don’t agree.
Neither do we.
Since work began, people started noticing that things weren’t quite right with the first phase of Oxford Strand Project completed by Underwood and Associates, the contractor. After the project was finished, people noticed that the product didn’t match the original plans. Officially, the plan was labeled “out of compliance” by regulating agencies. In fact, a great deal of the project, called “a living shoreline” was out of compliance with many different standards and requirements.
This didn’t bode well for Phases 2 and 3 included in the grant which were to lift the Strand Road and Parking Lot.
As Oxford’s new town manager, Holly Wahl began her tenure in the town office, she, a couple of commissioners, and some interested citizens discovered that they were left with a very big mess on the Strand, one they had not created. They met with officials from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment and communicated with other regulatory agencies and experts.
They discovered that the approach and subsequent work by Underwood on the Strand was grossly deficient. Somehow, during the time the project was being worked on, town manager Cheryl Lewis had no one who was competent monitoring what was being done even though she “reported” to commissioners on the project from time to time.
We’ve been reporting on this poorly designed, incorrectly conceived project for over two years now. We shared how the town manager, Cheryl Lewis, initiated the project as “flood mitigation and infrastructure protection” even though reports on flood mitigation in Oxford done by engineering firms listed more important priorities than the Strand. Here are the two plans:
Microsoft Word – Oxford_cover page.docx (2013 Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Plan)
Below is the 2016 Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Plan which was conveniently hidden from citizens of the town for years as it was labeled a “draft”:
The 2016 report had a chart and timeline for the most important projects.
But Lewis, “found” a 3 million dollar grant to apply for with the National Wildlife Federation, and was able to convince town commissioners that this project, above all other possibilities, was vital to prevent flooding and infrastructure damage in the town.
At some point she pivoted away from this rationale because citizens of the town questioned this project as a priority when compared to the often-flooded Causeway entrance to town. Lewis suddenly claimed the emergency nature of the project was to “save Oxford’s historic beach.”
Lewis convinced Oxford Commissioners at the time, Jim Jaramillo, Tom Costigan and Brian Wells, that the project should proceed and that SHE should have the power to sign off on all phases, all checks, all plans, etc. Commission President at the time, Jim Jaramillo, signed the papers to get the project going in January of 2022. Lewis wanted that grant and she needed to find a way to bring it to Oxford.
As a member of the Army Corps of Engineers was quoted in a meeting in 2025 regarding the Oxford Strand Restoration, “It was a grant looking for a problem.”
Since then, the citizens were shocked by the mess contractor Underwood and Associates made of the project. Chief “engineers” Chris Becraft and Keith Binstead apparently drew plans and then disregarded them as they worked, Becraft told people he wasn’t sure how the project would be designed because he had to see how it went while he was working on it. Becraft no longer works with Underwood and Associates. The EASTON GAZETTE has chronicled the debacle in these articles:
Why Are They Destroying Oxford’s Beautiful, Iconic Shoreline? – The Easton Gazette
Hundreds Of Years Of Nature’s Work Destroyed On Oxford Strand – The Easton Gazette
What Have They Done To The Oxford Strand? It’s Awful! – The Easton Gazette
Oxford Strand Beach Project: Doomed To Fail From The Beginning – The Easton Gazette
Here is a video of an “information” session in 2024 for citizens of Oxford:
Town Talk-The Strand and more (Video link)
Here is a condensed timeline of the project from its inception through February, 2025 provided by Oxford resident Ron Walker: (Some of the links in the timeline document do not work, however, we have downloaded as many of the resources as possible in the articles above or at the links below. Also, stories from the Star Democrat are referenced in our articles shared above.)
One of the most revealing quotes in the above timeline is this one from Cheryl Lewis:
“So, for me—for Oxford—to be able to pull off these resilience projects, get them funded,
and make them actually happen, it’s all really dependent on the support
of National Wildlife Federation’s team. As we were getting this project off
the ground, any time something was getting left behind or falling off the deep
end, somebody like Amanda [National Wildlife Federation’s Mid-Atlantic
Coastal Resilience Program Manager] would go “Hey, we need to do this
next.” And without that, I don’t think we would have been that successful,
because at times my job is totally overwhelming. The rest of it is all me.“
It’s not clear what Lewis defined as “successful.”
As referenced in the timeline, here is the full proposal . A Model Approach to Ecological and Community Resilience in Oxford Maryland:
Throughout the entire project demolition and “restoration” many of us noted how the contractor seemed to be building a “marsh land” on the Strand, not a beach. He also didn’t seem to have a clear idea of what he was doing and wasn’t following the plans.
After Lewis had been gone from the town for four months and the Strand project was declared “finished”, the town contracted engineers to come and take a look at what was done. They assessed Underwood’s plan for the next two phases of the project, lifting the Strand Road, and preventing flooding in the Strand parking lot. These two phases were the hook that was used to get the town to buy into Phase 1 “the beach restoration” project. Here is the report from those engineers:
Basically, Underwood was preparing to start Phase 2 and 3 of the project with that lacked sound engineering or zoning principles, permits or any feasibility. In those plans, the contractor didn’t account for overhead utilities or underground infrastructure. Underwood also seemed to neglect water dynamics and stormwater management practices and how they would impact the success of the project.
It’s probable that Phases 2 and 3 of the project will not happen for a very long time. The town will surely have to contract with a different, competent contractor and will have to find other funding sources. To put it simply, this part of the project is nowhere near being “shovel ready.”
Then, reality also hit Phase 1 of the project as both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment either found portions of the project out of compliance based on the initial plans or in violation of MDE standards for planting and maintaining the required plants on the Shoreline. These are obstacles that must be overcome to bring the project into compliance.
The Army Corps of Engineers pointed out that the “islands” and “tombolo’s” needed to be fixed or removed immediately. Boulders which the contractor said were “requested” by the town were currently placed ON the islands but should have been UNDERNEATH the islands as per submitted plans. Cheryl Lewis had told the citizens and commissioners many times that those islands were only supposed to be visible at low tide. They are permanently visible.
The tombolos were removed. The boulders are still there and, although the town has posted signs to keep people off those islands, have become a popular sunbathing spot. As for the grassy walkway along Strand Road? It’s just a muddy path between the two persistent puddles which are there because of rain.
As for the Maryland Department of Environment, they now viewed this shoreline as a “marshland” environment where the plantings HAVE to be protected until they are fully established. Therefore, geese*, who will often visit shorelines, had to be kept off. As did humans. So, they demanded fencing be put up to protect those plantings until they are completely established and then additional fencing to keep people from destroying the initial fencing. As a side note, we have seen geese in this area every morning which could impact water quality and beach sanitation.
Thus, a beautiful beach was turned into a garish maze of poles, string, and ugly orange construction fence. This was all REQUIRED by MDE:
Everywhere you look, it’s poles, string, and dayglo mesh fencing. Granted, that fencing can come down when the plantings are considered “established” but that could be years or never.
And, as if the pain of the destruction of this beautiful beach isn’t enough, the town will be on the hook each year for the required maintenance of the shoreline plants. This maintenance will have to meet Maryland Department of Environment standards who will conduct periodic monitoring. If the plants are not being maintained, there are heavy fines and penalties.
In short, Underwood and the people who hired him destroyed a perfectly beautiful, accessible beach which had existed for hundreds of years and replaced it with an ugly, smelly, “marshy wetland” which must be protected under State and Federal law at the expense of the town. This will require employee or contractor hours and will not be cheap.
Some residents have asked whether the beach could be returned to its original, pristine condition. The answer is no. If the town did that, all the money from the grant would have to be returned. Not only that, but this is no longer considered a beach as much as it is a marshland or wetland, which must be protected:
2008 Living Shoreline Protection Act
Living Shoreline Regulations.Final.Effective 02-04-13
How Does the Clean Water Act Protect Wetlands? – LegalClarity
Any change to its current condition could be a violation of the law.
Did we mention how ugly it is?
And, lest we forget, this project also impacts other businesses near the Tred Avon Yacht Club who rely on a clean, uncluttered, beautiful beach to attract visitors. It also impacts citizens whose homes border the Strand. Imagine walking out your door every day and seeing an ugly maze of poles, string, and orange fence where a beautiful vista once was. The homeowner with a home adjacent to the project was promised that his property would be lifted and protected if he allowed access to his property during the work. At the very least, he was told his property wouldn’t be negatively impacted. It has been
So, who is responsible?
First, the National Wildlife Federation, Underwood and Associates, and the Department of Natural Resources desperately wanted this project to be a “test case” for more living shoreline initiatives. Underwood had never done such a restoration on a municipal beach, only on private residences and wilderness areas. They thought this project would spur similar restorations in the area. Oxford was a guinea pig.
And then there was the town administration during the time when this project was proposed and accepted. At no time did they consider having an independent engineer review the plans or the progress, even after completion.
Of course, Cheryl Lewis, was quite excited about the attention and publicity the project was giving her:
Some enlightening quotes from the interview when Lewis was asked about the “challenge” of projects like this:
“I also think that, because this site is so high profile and has so much public access, this living shoreline will serve as an example of how resilience projects can protect infrastructure while enhancing public access. Because our town is so highly visited, anyone can come here, look at our projects, and be able to utilize these techniques elsewhere.”
Did she envision Oxford being good publicity for living shoreline restoration projects? If so, it has failed.
She also stated that it was all about protecting the beach:
“In Oxford, our public beach is very important to us. It’s one of the few public beaches in the area, and also 300-and-some-years-old. We actually have local legislation about this beach that’s something like the second or third law ever written in the town. So it’s important to our history, important to our residents, and important to our tourism that this public beach be maintained. These nature-based approaches, much more so than a sea wall, allow us to do that while still building our coastal resilience.”
Not sure this is what people envision when they talk about “maintaining” a beach, particularly one that was doing fine after 300 years.
Yes, she’s responsible. She and the Commissioners who handed complete power and authority to her, a person who had been a “circuit rider” and did bureaucratic work for small, rural towns and who was NOT a trained engineer or project manager.
In a conversation a few weeks ago, an elderly resident who lives near the Strand said that the ” Strand Project was fine until the new town administration came in.” This is the kind of delusion that led the town of Oxford to hire and believe in an unqualified town manager for over a decade.
The “new town administration” he talks about is now forced cleaning up the messes caused by the former town manager and former commissioners who abdicated their duties and responsibilities to her.
And the citizens of Oxford? Well, we have lost a beautiful gem of a shoreline that can never be replaced.
It seems almost criminal.
Additional Sources:
The post What Does The Oxford Strand Look Like Today? appeared first on The Easton Gazette.
-Jan Greenhawk, Author
