1. No category

KING WILLIAM COUNTY
WETLANDS BOARD
April 29th, 2015 – 7:00 PM
AGENDA
1. OLD BUSINESS
Adopt Minutes of March 26, 2014 meeting
2. NEW BUSINESS
Elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman
VMRC Case #15-0293 – Install a Riprap Revetment on the Mattaponi River.
Applicant: Robert Dean Simmons
3. ADJOURNMENT
KING WILLIAM COUNTY
WETLANDS BOARD
APRIL 29, 2015– 7:00 P.M.
VMRC Case # 15-0293
Applicant: Robert Dean Simmons
Contractor: Joseph Foulis, Waterfront Construction and Design, Inc.
Site Details


Located on the Mattaponi River
Tax Map #49A-9, 220 Foxes Tract, West Point, VA 23181
Project Details


Proposing to install 155 linear feet of riprap revetment 1-2 feet channelward of mean
high water
Proposing to impact 245 square feet of non-vegetated wetlands and 65 square feet of
vegetated wetlands
Staff Observations





Site visit held on April 15th, 2015 by Sarah Richards, Charlie Shaver, Joseph Foulis, and
Randy Owen (VMRC).
See pictures taken at time of site visit.
Moderate to severe erosion/undercutting at the toe of existing bank due to moderate wave
action/repeated storms/tidal surges. Existing trees and vegetation on upper portion of
bank increasingly precarious.
Adjacent property downstream and adjacent property upstream have both had riprap
revetments installed at an earlier date; however, there do not appear to be existing King
William County Wetlands Board case files on either of these properties. There are
existing VMRC cases for both properties for piers/boat sheds, but none for riprap.
Letters sent to adjacent property owners on Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 notifying them
of proposed project and hearing date and time.
Staff Recommendations



Minimize impacts necessary to install the riprap revetment; maximize square footage of
bank available for re-vegetation after installation.
Because all impacts to vegetated wetlands are in the forward half of the revetment,
compensation on a square-foot-per-square-foot basis is not required.
The VIMS Tidal Shoreline Report (attached) recommends:
o Construct a properly sized revetment landward of tidal wetland, beach and/or
subaqueous resources as much as practical. It may be beneficial to grade the top




of the bank to reduce the steepness of the slope; this would improve growing
conditions to sustain vegetation and reduce impact of gravity on the soil, reducing
potential for erosion. After grading, the bank should be stabilized with a variety
of native deep-rooted plants.
Due to the steep, undercut nature of the bank, staff also feels that re-grading and
protecting the shoreline from additional erosion is necessary for providing safer access to
the proposed pier and boat shed.
The riprap revetment, as shown and located on the construction drawing received on
March 10th, 2015 as part of the Joint Permit Application (JPA), will impact
approximately 65 square feet of vegetated wetlands. However, mitigation is not required,
because the impacts are limited to the forward half of the revetment.
An alternative to the project as proposed that would further minimize impacts to wetlands
vegetation would be to move the revetment 1-2 feet landward of the proposed site.
However, doing so would most likely involve additional grading work and could increase
the cost of the project to the homeowner.
Although riprap revetments are generally preferable to “harder” infrastructure (i.e.
bulkheads) in terms of providing habitat for flora and fauna, a “living shoreline”
approach involving an offshore rock sill would still be the optimal shoreline treatment for
encouraging marsh/mudflat habitat communities. Again, however, the cost to the
homeowner may be substantially more with such an approach than the cost of the project
would be as proposed by the plans submitted with the JPA. Should the Wetlands Board
have questions about this, Mr. Foulis should be able to speak generally about the
differences in cost of each scenario.
Photos from April 15th, 2015 Site Visit
In attendance: Joe Foulis, Randy Owen, Sarah Richards, Charlie Shaver
Looking down at northeast side of project site from top of
bank
Northeast side of project site from bottom of bank
Southwest side of project site from bottom of bank. Existing
structure/building to be removed.
Looking down at southwest side of project site from top of
bank
Northeast side of project site from bottom of bank looking
towards downstream neighbor
Southwest side of project site from bottom of back, looking
towards downstream neighbor’s existing riprap revetment and
pier
Project site from top of bank, looking towards downstream
neighbor
Upstream neighbor--riprap and pier/boatshed
VIMS Tidal Shoreline Management Recommendation (VMRC #15-0293)
Preferred Options for Shoreline Management
The shoreline best management practice(s) recommended in this report reflect(s) the preferred approach for shoreline
stabilization from a broad coastal ecosystem viewpoint, and is based on VIMS comprehensive coastal resource management
guidance to preserve and maintain tidal wetland ecosystems in the face of coastal development and sea level rise. The goal of
the recommended approaches is to foster the sustainability of shoreline resources using living shoreline designs where
appropriate and applying traditional shoreline hardening only in areas where site conditions make them necessary. These
recommendations reflect the Commonwealth’s preferred approach for shoreline stabilization using living shoreline treatments
whenever adequate erosion control can be achieved.
The comprehensive coastal resource management guidance recommendation is based on the natural resources and physical
characteristics of the shoreline and is not dependent upon the project being proposed.
Since a Comprehensive Coastal Resources Management Portal (CCRMP) has not yet been developed for your locality at this
time, the Decision Tree Coastal Management Decision Tools have been used to determine the environmentally preferable
approach for management of this shoreline. The Decision Trees are a tree-like graph of questions and answers about shoreline
characteristics that lead to the environmentally preferable approach. To access the Coastal Management Decision Tools go to:
http://ccrm.vims.edu/decisiontree/.
In the future, the preferred shoreline management recommendation for your locality will be determined using a geo-spatial
model, a component of the CCRMP, that accounts for the observed shoreline conditions collected during a VIMS inventory of
your locality’s shoreline, such as bank condition, nearshore depth, exposure to waves, and location of primary structures (e.g.
homes). The model is based on the comprehensive coastal resources management guidance developed by VIMS.
Recommendation Details (15-0293)
Applicant: Robert Dean Simmons
Address: 220 Foxes Tract, West Point, VA
Waterway: Mattaponi River
The preferred shoreline best management
practice recommendation based on the shoreline
site conditions and the comprehensive coastal
guidance to preserve and maintain tidal wetland
ecosystems is to:
Construct a properly sized revetment landward of
tidal wetland, beach and/or subaqueous resources
as much as practical.
It may be beneficial to grade the top of the bank to
reduce the steepness of the slope; this would
improve growing conditions to sustain vegetation
and reduce impact of gravity on the soil, reducing
potential for erosion. After grading, the bank should
be stabilized with a variety of native deep-rooted
plants.
MINUTES OF MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
KING WILLIAM COUNTY
WETLANDS BOARD
MARCH 26, 2014 – 7 PM
CASE TO BE HEARD
VMRC Case #14-0208 – Revetment on the Pamunkey River
Applicant: Glenn C. Young
Board Members Present:
Charles M. Shaver, Chairman
William R.P. Barber, Jr.
Jesse T. Crawford
Bryan F. Johnson
Staff Present:
Sarah Richards – Environmental Planner/Zoning Compliance Officer
Others Present:
Randy Owen – Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
The meeting was opened promptly at 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Shaver opened the meeting as the acting chairman as agreed upon during the
February 15, 2012 meeting. Mr. Shaver welcomed visitors, the Board, Sarah Richards, Bret
Schardein, and Mr. Bryan Johnson, who is new to the Board. Mr. Shaver then brought up
nominating Board Members. Mr. Crawford made a motion to leave all current Board member
positions “as is.” Mr. Barber seconded the motion. The Board was unanimous in approving the
motion.
Old Business:
Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 21st, 2012 meeting, which was
seconded by Mr. Barber and Mr. Crawford. The vote was unanimous to approve this motion.
1
New Business:
VMRC Case #14-0208 – Revetment on the Pamunkey River
Applicant: Glenn C. Young
Mr. Shaver introduced the case to be heard, VMRC #14-0208, an application by Glenn C. Young
to construct a riprap revetment on the Pamunkey River. A site visit was conducted on January
11th, 2014, and was attended by Mr. Shaver, Mr. Barber, Mr. Owen, Mr. Young, Mr. Bystryk,
Mr. Thorndike, and Ms. Richards. Pictures and a staff report were given to the Wetlands Board
to show the existing site conditions, as well as staff suggestions and recommendations. At this
time, Mr. Shaver turned the meeting over to Ms. Richards for a staff presentation.
The staff presentation included site details, project details, staff observations, and staff
recommendations. Ms. Richards stated that that the applicant is proposing 200 linear feet of
riprap revetment, 8 feet channelward of the mean high water line, and is proposing to impact
1600 square feet of non-vegetated wetlands. Staff observed that there was minor to moderate
erosion and undercutting along existing bank. Ms. Richards also noted that the existing trees and
vegetation on the upper portion of the bank were in an increasingly precarious position due to
erosion and undercutting of the bank. Staff noted that the adjacent property downstream, Mr.
Bystryk’s property, is in similar condition to Mr. Young’s property, and that the adjacent
property upstream to Mr. Young’s property has an existing riprap revetment that was approved
by the Wetlands Board on November 30, 2011. Ms. Richards also noted that a riprap revetment
was unanimously approved by the Wetlands Board for the property in question, Mr. Young’s
property, on May 16th, 2007, but was never constructed.
Ms. Richards discussed the staff recommendations. She recommended that the applicant
try to minimize the impacts, if at all possible, necessary to install the riprap revetment, and
minimize grading of the back as much as possible, in order to maximize square footage for revegetation after installation of the revetment. Staff recommended that the revetment be installed
as shown on the construction drawing received February 18th, 2014 as part of the JPA, and that if
there is any existing vegetation, that the revetment be placed landward of said vegetation. Ms.
Richards further commented that she believes that, due to the steep and undercut nature of the
2
bank, re-grading and protecting the shoreline from additional erosion are necessary for providing
safe access to the proposed pier. Ms. Richards noted that riprap revetments are seen as
preferable to “harder “infrastructure, such as a bulkhead, as they allow more cracks and crevices
for living organisms, but that a living shoreline approach, if feasible, is always optimal for
creating viable habitat. There were no questions for Ms. Richards.
Mr. Shaver called on Randy Owen to speak if he had anything to add. Mr. Owen said he
has no comment.
Mr. Shaver referred the Board to the pictures attached to the staff report, and reminded
that Board that no more than 2 Wetlands Board members can attend a site visit, as 3 members
would constitute a quorum and would the site visit would thus need to be advertised as a Public
Hearing.
Mr. Shaver opened the public part of the hearing. Mr. Hank Thorndike stood up to speak.
He noted that Mr. Bystryk’s trees were in a much more precarious position than Mr. Young’s,
and therefore they were proposing less grading of the bank overall on Mr. Young’s property.
Mr. Thorndike noted that they felt that what he and Mr. Young were proposing would be able to
stall erosion on Mr. Young’s property more or less indefinitely. He noted that the goal was to
grade the bank to a 2:1 slope. Mr. Thorndike reiterated what Ms. Richards said earlier, that there
was no evident wetlands vegetation at the toe of the bank. He commented that the bank had a
layer of Blue Marl clay at the lower portion, about 2 feet, that works well in deflecting tidal
erosion, but about 2 feet above that layer of clay, the rest of the bank is mostly sand, which is
highly vulnerable to erosion. Mr. Thorndike said that this factor would therefore make a living
shoreline approach less viable. Mr. Shaver then stated that he was under the impression that Mr.
Owen had met with Mr. Thorndike and the property owners to encourage a living shoreline
approach. In response, Mr. Thorndike emphasized that Mr. Owen had encouraged them to
consider the approach, but not to encourage the use of a living shoreline for this particularly
case. Mr. Thorndike also noted that there was three to four feet of mud close to the shoreline as
well, which would also make it more difficult to install a living shoreline. Mr. Shaver noted that
the area of Mr. Young’s shoreline where a tree had fallen out into the waterway created a sort of
natural groin/jetty; Mr. Thorndike responded that that particular area was the only one that had
any “base” to it at all. Mr. Shaver asked the Board if there were any questions of Mr. Thorndike.
There were not.
3
Mr. Owen asked to speak at this time. He stated that the purpose of the meeting with the
property owners prior to the site visit was not to discuss the living shoreline approach, but rather
was part of a pre-application site visit. He clarified that he mentioned the approach as something
to be considered by the applicant and Mr. Thorndike, but nothing further.
Mr. Shaver thanked Mr. Owen and apologized for misspeaking earlier. He then asked the
Board if there were any further questions. There were not, and Mr. Shaver closed the Public
Comment Period.
Mr. Shaver opened up the case for discussion and motions, if appropriate, from the
Wetlands Board. Mr. Crawford noted that the case “sounded like your standard application to
save the shoreline, and voted that both applications (Mr. Young’s and Mr. Bystryk’s) be
recommended for approval. Mr. Shaver stated that each case was to be considered individually.
Mr. Crawford then made a motion to approve Mr. Young’s case. Mr. Barber seconded the
motion. Vote was unanimous to approve.
The vote was as follows:
Charles M. Shaver
Aye
William R.P. Barber, Jr.
Aye
Jesse T. Crawford
Aye
Bryan F. Johnson
Aye
Mr. Shaver noted that, as required by law, after ten days, the Wetlands Board vote of
approval would become law.
VMRC Case #14-0209 – Revetment on the Pamunkey River
Applicant: Christopher E. Bystryk
Mr. Shaver introduced the case to be heard, VMRC #14-0209, an application by Christopher E.
Bystryk to construct a riprap revetment on the Pamunkey River next door to Mr. Young’s
property. A site visit was conducted on January 11th, 2014, and was attended by Mr. Shaver,
4
Mr. Barber, Mr. Owen, Mr. Young, Mr. Bystryk, Mr. Thorndike, and Ms. Richards. Pictures and
a staff report were given to the Wetlands Board to show the existing site conditions, as well as
staff suggestions and recommendations. At this time, Mr. Shaver turned the meeting over to Ms.
Richards for a staff presentation.
The staff presentation included site details, project details, staff observations, and staff
recommendations. Ms. Richards first reiterated that the property in question was directly
adjacent to Mr. Young’s property, who was the applicant in the case just heard and approved.
Staff noted that Mr. Bystryk’s property was not addressed, and stated the tax map number, 60-15B, for reference. Ms. Richards stated that that the applicant is proposing 250 linear feet of
riprap revetment, 8 feet channelward of the mean high water line, and is proposing to impact
2000 square feet of non-vegetated wetlands. Staff observed that there was minor to moderate
erosion and undercutting along existing bank. Ms. Richards also noted that one existing tree had
already fallen into the waterway due to erosion, and other trees and vegetation on the upper
portion of the bank were in an increasingly precarious. Staff noted that the adjacent property
downstream, 60-1-5C, was a VMRC Case in 2007, has an existing riprap revetment, approved by
the Wetlands Board on May 16th, 2007. Mrs. Richards observed that the adjacent property
upstream, Mr. Young’s property, is in similar condition. Ms. Richards also noted that a riprap
revetment was unanimously approved by the Wetlands Board for the property in question, Mr.
Bystryk’s property, on May 16th, 2007, but was never constructed.
Ms. Richards discussed the staff recommendations. Staff recommendations were
essentially identical to the recommendations made for Mr. Young’s property. Ms. Richards
recommended that the applicant try to minimize the impacts, if at all possible, necessary to
install the riprap revetment, and minimize grading of the back as much as possible, in order to
maximize square footage for re-vegetation after installation of the revetment. Staff
recommended that the revetment be installed as shown on the construction drawing received
February 18th, 2014 as part of the JPA, and that if there is any existing vegetation, that the
revetment be placed landward of said vegetation. Ms. Richards further commented that she
believes that, due to the steep and undercut nature of the bank, re-grading and protecting the
shoreline from additional erosion are necessary for providing safe access to the proposed pier.
Ms. Richards noted that riprap revetments are seen as preferable to “harder “infrastructure, such
as a bulkhead, as they allow more cracks and crevices for living organisms, but that a living
5
shoreline approach, if feasible, is always optimal for creating viable habitat. There were no
questions for Ms. Richards.
Mr. Shaver called on Randy Owen to speak if he had anything to add. Mr. Owen said he
has no comment.
Mr. Shaver opened the public part of the hearing. Mr. Hank Thorndike stood up to speak.
Mr. Thorndike stated that, as previously noted by Ms. Richards, there is significant erosion in
some places on Mr. Bystryk’s property, and that three large trees had already gone down, and
that there were 5 others in a very precarious position, which is why he feels that grading the
whole bank is the best option in this case. Mr. Thorndike noted that Mr. Owen did recommend
investigating the living shoreline, but the issues were the same with Mr. Bystryk’s property as
with Mr. Young’s.
Mr. Shaver asked the Board if there were any questions of Mr. Thorndike. Mr. Shaver
asked Mr. Thorndike to clarify the grade of the proposed slope. Mr. Thorndike said he would
like to have at least a 2:1 slope, depending on the soil conditions—sandier soil would require a
3:1 slope. Mr. Thorndike noted that, until they started excavating, they would not know the
specific soil conditions that would dictate the required grade. Mr. Thorndike also stated that they
would like to put in a 10-foot wide plateau/landing at the base of the grade, which would help
runoff to slow and filter through the revetment.
Mr. Shaver asked Mr. Bystryk if he had anything to add to Mr. Thorndike’s comments.
Mr. Bystryk said that he was happy with what Mr. Thorndike said. He did not have additional
comments.
Mr. Shaver closed the public part of the hearing and opened it to the Wetlands Board for
discussion. Mr. Shaver then referred to Mr. Crawford’s earlier comment. Mr. Crawford
responded by saying that it sounded fairly “cut and dry” and that it was good that the neighbors
were working together on the project. Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve, and Mr. Barber
seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Mr. Shaver called for a vote. Vote was
unanimous to approve.
The vote was as follows:
Charles M. Shaver
Aye
William R.P. Barber, Jr.
Aye
6
Jesse T. Crawford
Aye
Bryan F. Johnson
Aye
Mr. Shaver addressed Mr. Thorndike and Mr. Bystryk, noting that the motion was
approved, and would become law after ten days. Mr. Shaver then noted that there was no time
limit put on this case. Mr. Owen raised his hand to speak, and noted that the Code of Virginia
required that these cases have an expiration date. Mr. Shaver asked if the Board needed to put a
time limit on Mr. Young’s case as well, and Mr. Owen said that they did. Mr. Shaver said that
the Board should finish with Mr. Bystryk’s case, and then make a separate motion to add a time
limit to Mr. Young’s. Mr. Shaver noted that the usual time limit was one year, and asked Mr.
Crawford if he wanted to amend the motion. Mr. Crawford asked Mr. Thorndike if a year was
reasonable. Mr. Thorndike noted that some counties offer an option to reissue the permit, in
writing, a month prior to the expiration of the first. Mr. Thorndike stated that he did not think
the expiration would be an issue, but wanted to ensure that the applicant had the option. Mr.
Crawford amended the motion to approve the application for a one-year period. Mr. Johnson
seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous to approve the one-year time limit on the permit.
Mr. Shaver then referred the Board back to the first case, Mr. Young’s case. Mr. Johnson
made a motion to do the same thing for Mr. Young’s case as Mr. Bystryk’s. Mr. Crawford
seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous to approve a one-year time limit on Mr. Young’s
permit.
Mr. Shaver then read the advertisement for the public hearing into the Minutes, and then
noted that the adjacent property owners were also notified as required by law. Mr. Shaver then
asked if there was a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment:
There being no further business, Mr. Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Barber
seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
7
_____________________________
_____________________________
Charles M. Shaver
Chairman
Sarah G. Richards
Secretary
8