Wetlands Board Packets

AGENDA SUFFOLK WETLANDS BOARD September 19, 2013 6:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes Work Session – August 15, 2013 Special Work Session – August 29, 2013 IV. Old Business VMRC #12-1348 – River Bluff Living Shoreline – Monthly Update/Progress Report V. New Business VI. Adjournment  MINUTES SUFFOLK WETLANDS BOARD August 15, 2013 6:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Suffolk Wetlands Board was held on Thursday, August 15, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 441 Market Street, Suffolk, Virginia. MEMBERS: STAFF: C. Robbie Johnson, Chairman Brian Alperin, Principal Planner Geoffrey Hinshelwood David Parks, Planner II Jeffrey Colley Darius Davenport Brad L. O’Berry, III Gretchen Arnold Sidney Hazelwood ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Johnson. The roll was called by Mr. Alperin and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. RECOGNITION OF SERVICE: On behalf of the Board, Chairman Johnson presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Mrs. Ellison in honor of Mr. John (Jack) Ellison, III for his years of service on the Wetlands Board. 1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS: C. Robbie Johnson was nominated as Chairman. This nomination was passed by a voice vote of 7 to 0. Brad L. O’Berry was nominated for Vice-Chairman. This nomination was passed by a voice vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: A motion was made to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as distributed which was passed by a voice vote 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VMRC #13-0689, Suffolk Parks and Recreation – Sleepy Hole Park Living Shoreline Mike Kelly of Parks and Recreation briefed the Board on the Sleepy Hole Park Living Shoreline. Mr. O’Berry suggested that the City needs to put this proposal out for public input and to get their opinion about the project. PROGRESS REPORT on VMRC #12-1348 – Living Shoreline Mr. Alperin stated that at the Commission’s meeting last month, the Board expressed concerns about erosion and sediment control, siltation and contamination. The Board passed two motions: 1) To require the applicant to have a contractor test the area down at the wetlands bench and provide a plan to remove the material. 2) 2 Enforcement of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program to correct any violations that exist on the project. Mr. Alperin advised that he did notify the Public Works Department of the motion. The Construction Manager had planned on being at the meeting, but was unable to attend due to an emergency. David Parks, Planner II, gave a status update on the Riverbluff Living Shoreline. Mr. Johnson advised Mr. Reed that it would be very helpful if the Board could get the elevations. Mr. Hinshelwood stated that before grading Zone 5 back, he would like to see a plan before moving to the next phase. After the Board discussion, Mr. Hinshelwood made a motion for the applicant to provide an elevation survey along the shoreline every 25 feet and have it by next month meeting. Mr. Colley expressed his concerns about the varying elevation of the coir logs. Mr. Hinshelwood made a substitute motion for the applicant to provide an elevation survey, hold a special meeting in two weeks and to allow the applicant to remove the eroded material under the Soil Engineer supervision as proposed in their plan for removal, they can proceed prior to the special meeting and allow them to continue to remove the stockpile, seconded by Mr. Davenport and passed by a recorded vote of 7 3 to 0. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Johnson inquired about the new requirements (land disturbance permit and E&S inspection fees) by the Public Works Department. Mr. Alperin advised that he had informed Mrs. Earley of the Board concerns in reference to the cost of the plan review fees. The Board asked Mr. Alperin to send a memo to the Director of Public Works, Eric Nielsen, inviting him to address the Board with their concerns. Mr. O’Berry inquired about on-site compensation. He made a motion to ask the Chairman to send a letter to the City Manager, City Council and the Director of Planning Community Development requesting compensation for mileage, seconded by Mr. Colley and passed by a recorded vote of 7 to 0. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. 4  MINUTES SUFFOLK WETLANDS BOARD - WORKSESSION August 29, 2013 6:00 P.M. A special work session of the Suffolk Wetlands Board was held on Thursday, August 29, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room of the Municipal Building, 441 Market Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: C. Robbie Johnson, Chairman Robert Goumas, Assistant Director Brad O’Berry III, Vice Chairman David Parks, Planner II Gretchen Gonzalez Darius Davenport Sidney Hazelwood, II Geoffrey Hinshelwood Jeffrey Colley ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Johnson. The roll was called by Mr. Parks and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. WORK SESSION Elevation Report on VMRC #12-1348 – River Bluff Living Shoreline David Parks, Planner II, briefed the board on the reason for the special work session tonight. There was a motion two weeks prior that required the applicant to prepare an elevation survey at 25-foot intervals. The applicant has provided the results of an 1 elevation survey that was conducted on site within the past two weeks. Also, the applicant was also instructed to remove existing sediment along portions of the bank under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer as stated in a previous report. Mr. Parks commended the board with their work on this project and also being able to meet these past 6 months on this project. Staff is recommending that these meetings continue until the entire bank is graded and stabilized. Mr. Parks stated that the applicants are in attendance to answer any questions on the elevation survey which is the purpose of tonight’s meeting. Also, the applicants have provided a report from the geotechnical engineer that states that sediment was removed in the areas identified previously by the engineer and this removal was coordinated with the geotechnical engineer. Mr. Parks also informed the board that Ben Stagg from VMRC has made comments on the elevation survey and those comments were provided to the board. Mr. Parks briefly goes through a few slides on the powerpoint to show the site as it sits today. There has been a trench that has been dug in zone 5. This trench was dug in preparation for the future bank grading of zone 5. Mr. Parks explains to the board that this work in zone 5 is in violation of the previous motion that the board made at their August 16th work session. Mr. Parks then ends his presentation and allows the applicants to present the findings of their elevation survey. Chairman Johnson then addresses the applicants to see who all would like to make a presentation on this 2 report. Mr. Brian Large will represent the project and act on behalf of the project. Mr. Large explains that during the initial approval of the project a .5-foot to 2.5-foot elevation seemed consistent with the existing marsh grasses along the bank and also the existing marsh grasses across the river. Mr. Large explained that in certain sections along the bank after the coir log was set and the elevation was achieved with the sand and grasses were sprigged, it did not seem like some of the grasses were flourishing. In those sections, it was decided that to better protect the grasses and to ensure survival of those grasses, the elevations were raised a few inches and the area was sprigged again. This new area has shown improvement in the development of the alterniflora sprigs. Mr. Large explained to the board that they have sent pictures of the sprigs to their grower and the grower feels confident that the elevations are where they need to be. Mr. Colley asks Mr. Large about the elevations of the coir logs and how the numbers were generated on the double coir logs. Mr. Large explains that the numbers were taken from the height of the 1st coir log then measured again from the 2nd coir log. Mr. O’Berry asks Mr. Large if he is comfortable with the elevations along the bank. Mr. Large states that they are comfortable with the elevations and comfortable with how the sprigs are thriving along the bank. The adjustments in the elevations have improved the sprigs. Mr. O’Berry also asks where the 2.5-foot elevation came from on the plans. Mr. Large explains that this is the optimal growing 3 elevation for the alterniflora. Mr. Large introduces Billy Almond who designed the project and has had experience in living shoreline projects. Mr. Almond explains to the board that getting these grasses to grow is an exact science and is required to monitored over time. The coir log allows stabilization while the grasses are growing into maturity. Mr. Almond explains that this project was very similar to the project that was done in the 80s at the Marine Science Center. Mr. O’Berry asks Mr. Almond about the range of tide at the current project. Mr. Eric Garner explains that the range of the tide was observed on site over time and also taken from the existing bank in the area. Mr. Hinshelwood explained to the applicants that he is concerned that some of the areas are not getting wet with high tide where the elevations have been raised. The applicants explained to the board that after the shoreline work is done, the area will then be re-sprigged to fill in any areas that are bare along the shelf. The applicants explained to the board that they have documented that all of the grasses are getting wet with high tide and are growing as they need to. Chairman Johnson asks Mr. Almond about the life expectancy of a coir log that stays wet. Mr. Almond explains that the life of the coir logs are anywhere from 2 to 5 years. Mr. Johnson has concerns about what will happen to the grasses once the coir log goes away. Mr. Almond explains that the idea is to have those grasses establish root and maintain the shelf along the bank once the logs have gone away. The board still has concerns with 4 sediment that is washing down the bank and settling along the edge of the bank where the grasses are being planted. Mr. O’Berry still would like the applicants to test all areas of the bank to see if there is sediment on top of the sand. Chairman Johnson explained that at the last meeting there was an agreement that no work was to continue in zone 5 until the elevation report had been discussed by the board tonight. Mr. Johnson asked why there appears to be work done in zone 5. Mr. Bobby Reed addressed Mr. Johnson and explained that no bank grading has been done. There has been a cut made in the bank in preparation of grading the bank. Mr. Hinshelwood also brought up to the applicants that the stock pile still has not been removed as requested by the board at the last meeting. Mr. Hinshelwood thought that this would be done by now. Mr. Hinshelwood also has concerns about the hole that has been dug. The applicants explain that the hole is to help with cutting the bank back. Mr. Hinshelwood then addressed concerns about the compaction of the bank. Chairman Johnson also stated that this hole is in the RPA and is not helping with stabilization of the site. Mr. Hinshelwood then asks the applicants if this hole was in the construction plans of the project to cut the bank back. Mr. Large explains that there was not construction details on how the bank was going to be graded. Mr. Hazelwood would like the applicant to explain the process on how the bank will be graded to test compaction of the new bank. The board as a whole has concerns about the stability of 5 the graded banks and how the banks will be compacted. Mr. Hinshelwood also has concerns about the slope and the runoff coming down the slope. Chairman Johnson then addressed the applicants again as to why there was work done in zone 5 when there was an agreement at the last meeting that no work would be done until after tonights meeting. Mr. Johnson sees this as a violation of the approved permit. Mr. Large explains that this work was just to prepare the bank to be graded. No bank grading was done. Mr. Hazelwood sees this work as a blatant disregard to the previous motion. Mr. Large explains that no work was done in the jurisdiction of the wetlands board of zone 5. Just prepping was done. Mr. Large explains that they were wrong in prepping the bank prior to this meeting. Mr. Hinshelwood stated that he has lost complete confidence in the applicants on this project. Mr. Hinshelwood also stated that there have been previous violations with this project, CBPA and also E and S violations. Mr. Large then addressed the board to ask if we can finish the project based on the submitted elevation survey. Ms. Gonzalez stated that she has contacted Karen Duhring at VIMS to ask about variability in the elevation along the shoreline. Ms. Duhring stated that there will be variation in the elevation and it is up to the applicant to make corrections on the survivability of the grasses. Ms. Gonzalez states that they do have their bonds in place should something need to be revised on the plan. Mr. Large addressed the boards concerns with erosion and stated that with the 6 implementation of the buffer plan it should help with runoff from the top of the bank to the bottom of the bank. Mr. Large states that they will be present on the project to revise any part of the plan that may need a closer look. Their biggest concern is survivability of this shoreline. Mr. Hinshelwood asks staff if ignoring the boards motion was a violation of the existing wetlands board permit. Mr. Parks reads the approved permit with all the conditions that are attached. Mr. Parks states that it is staffs opinion that the work that has been done in zone 5 is not a violation of the permit since the approved permit included bank grading in this portion of the bank and the bank will ultimately be graded in this part of the site. The board states that it is a direct violation of the board’s motion. Ms. Gonzalez states that this should be a violation of the erosion and sediment control regulations. Mr. Parks explains that the history of this project and a misinterpretation when this project was approved, there was not a land disturbance permit issued for this shoreline project. Chairman Johnson asks the questions again whether the board feels this is a violation of the permit. Chairman Johnson asks the board whether there are any additional questions for the applicant. Ms. Gonzalez brings up the concern about compaction along the bank and wants to make sure the applicants understand that compaction is key for this project to be successful. Mr. Large explains that they will continue to keep an eye on the bank and will make the necessary corrections along the bank should they need to be made. 7 Chairman Johnson asks that the board make comments among themselves about this project. The board’s main concern here is compaction along the bank and whether the grading will be done with a professional on site to confirm compaction. Charimain Johnson also states that he has lost confindence in this project being completed. Mr. Hinshelwood also states that he has lost all confidence in the living shoreline concept due to the fact that there is no cohesion with these projects with them occurring in all different jurisdictions. Chairman Johnson agrees with Mr. Hinshelwood. The board also has concerns about the docks being built onsite while the shoreline project is still ongoing. Mr. Hinshelwood makes a motion that states that:  All work shall be stopped on the living shoreline project until an onsite evaluation can be performed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) to evaluate the current conditions of the project as is and compliance with City and State regulations. This evaluation shall be completed prior to any work continuing on the living shoreline project under the approved Wetlands permit. Mr. Goumas addressed the board in regards to the motion on the table. Mr. Goumas stated that the applicant has cooperated with previous motions other than the work that 8 was done this past month. Mr. Goumas expressed concerns that staff has with issuing a stop work order on the site with no apparent violation with the wetlands permit. Mr. Goumas suggests that work continue on the site during this evaluation by the different agencies. Mr. Hinshelwood stated that he considered revoking the permit but is not going to take that action today. Mr. Davenport had a concern that if we stop work will it hurt more than it will help with this project. The grading is almost complete. Mr. Davenport is concerned about how long it will take to get all the agencies out to the site. This motion was seconded by Mr. O’Berry and passed by a vote of 7 to 0. There was a second motion introduced by Mr. Colley to address the first motion if the site visit showed no violations. This motion stated:  Allow work to resume on the living shoreline after the above noted agencies have performed an inspection of the work site and found the site to be in compliance with the approved Wetlands permit and also any applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to this project. This motion was seconded by Mr. Davenport and passed by a vote of 7 to 0. Mr. O’Berry introduced another motion related to the construction of piers on the waterfront lots within the River Bluff Subdivision. That motion stated:  To issue a moratorium on any existing or proposed permitted private piers along the waterfront lots within the River Bluff subdivision until the living 9  shoreline project is deemed complete. Staff informed the board that the construction of the piers are outside of the board’s jurisdiction and this motion may not be valid. The board wanted to continue with the motion due to the relation of the piers with the shoreline project. Mr. Goumas stated that maybe the board should write a letter to VMRC based on their concern with the construction of the piers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hinshelwood and was passed with a vote of 6 to 1. Additionally, due to the boards questions regarding motions, jurisdictions on different projects, and also levying fines, a motion was introduced by Mr. O’Berry that stated:  Seek opinion from the City Attorney to see: o What the range of civil and criminal penalties that are available to be levied for any permit violations and also for noncompliance with directives issued by the Wetlands Board, o What jurisdiction the Wetlands Board has pertaining to living shoreline projects, o What fines can be associated with the particular land disturbance issue that is currently being reported at the River Bluff site, o Are motions issued by the Board prior to or after an approved permit is issued able to become part of the approved wetlands permit. 10 This motion was seconded by Mr. Colley and was passed by a vote of 7 to 0. The board introduced one last motion to make it official that the applicants would need to continue with the 30 day update meetings until the entire bank has been graded. The motion was introduced by Mr. O’Berry and stated:  To continue meeting once a month to monitor the progress of the living shoreline project until the entire bank is graded and stabilized. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davenport and the motion was passed by a vote of 7 to 0. There being no more business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 11