The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211014 Ver 1_Responses to NCDWR and USACE_20211117Additional information and clarification requested by NCDWR and USACE. Responses to NCDWR’s October 19, 2021 email. The Division shall provide public notice for each pending application for an individual certification. The public notice requirement for an individual certification may be satisfied by joint notice with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers according to their established procedures once the USACE receives a complete application. [15A NCAC 02H .0503] NCDWR’s public notice requirement can be satisfied independent of the USACE’s public notice or jointly with the USACE. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)] If any written comments are received that require a response during the USACE public notice period then the comments and the applicant’s responses will be forwarded to NCDWR. Please provide a most recent bound and published county soil survey (not web soil survey). Please cleanly draw or delineate the site boundaries on the soil survey. The most recent bound and published survey can be accessed at the following link: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/NC049/0/index.pdf [15A NCAC 02H .0502(a)(9)] Attached Please provide more details regarding avoidance and minimization of open water impacts for this project. This should include alternative designs and layouts of the sill. Specifically, please explain why shoreline restoration was not proposed as a viable alternative to the granite sill. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)] Offshore sill (proposed design) The original project design included backfill of the riprap sill which would have impacted approx. 4 acres of sandy bottom shallow water up to the shoreline. The backfill would have allowed the planting and establishment of approx. 6 acres of intertidal coastal marsh. Due to concerns expressed by USACE and additional time delays, the alternative involving backfill and planting of the backfill was removed from consideration. The selected project design of a riprap sill positioned 15 to 30 feet waterward of the normal water line coupled with marsh plantings within the intertidal zone of the existing shoreline is the least damaging and least intrusive design that still accomplishes the goal of erosion abatement. The proposed design would require a riprap sill along 12,036 linear feet of shoreline resulting in 4.14 acres of sandy bottom shallow water to be impacted by riprap. The riprap would provide additional habitat diversity while allowing saltmarsh establishment along the shoreline. This alternative only impacts open water in the Neuse River and is considered by the applicant to be the least environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA). The specific conditions of NC Division of Coastal Management general permit 15A NCAC 07H .2701 allow the landward toe of the riprap sill to be positioned up to 30 feet from the normal water line but this project was designed to minimize the usurpation of public waters by moving the landward toe of the riprap approx. 15 feet from the normal water line. The design reduces by half the area of public waters landward of the sill compared to what could be available through the NCDCM general permit. The proposed alignment also reduces the size (width and height) of the structure and the volume of riprap needed due to shallower water depths closer to shore. Shoreline restoration The shoreline restoration alternative would require grading and sloping the existing erosion escarpment which would require the removal of forest habitat, existing bulkheads, houses, and infrastructure. The shoreline restoration alternative would impact upland forest habitat, riparian buffers, streams, Section 404 wetlands and Section 10 navigable waters. This alternative would still require riprap to armor the toe-of-slope in order to protect the new slope against erosive wave energy. The shoreline restoration alternative is the most expensive and considered by the applicant to be the most disruptive and most damaging to the environment. For living shorelines, the sills shall have at least one five-foot opening every 100 feet and may be staggered or overlapped or left open as long as the five-foot separation between sections is maintained. Overlapping sections shall not overlap more than 10 feet. Please clarify the opening distance for the proposed project. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4)] The information provided in the project drawings show the sill segments between openings are less than 100 feet and the openings are 10 feet wide instead of the minimum 5 feet. Responses to USACE’s October 21, 2021 teleconference comments. Oyster shell source / volume / loose or bags Attached is a list of oyster shell sources. The volume requested is 181 cubic yards. Oyster shells will be loose. Plant species / source The project drawings specify Spartina alterniflora. Attached is a list of suppliers. Provide information regarding cultural and archaeological resources in and near the project area. Attached Verify riprap volume (cubic yards). Avolis Engineering calculates 12,321 cubic yards of riprap will be required. Verify that openings are every 100 feet or less. Information provided in project drawings. Specify how the turbidity curtain will be deployed. Information provided in the project drawings. Reflective marker post The reflective post detail was modified to include USCG retroreflective signs – See Sheet CS501 of the project drawings. Adjust project drawings to show the riprap at cross section openings will have the same width as the sill base but the riprap in the openings will not extend above normal water elevation. Adjusted on project maps. Correct misspelling from ’nitch’ to ‘notch’. Corrected on project maps.