FW_ M-0540A (NC24 Living Shoreline Project)

From:Ward, Garcy
To:Sprinkle, Hannah H
Subject:FW: M-0540A (NC24 Living Shoreline Project)
Date:Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:58:02 AM
Attachments:2021-05-26 M0540A_NCDOT_Permit Drawings_REVISED.pdf
Good morning Hannah- going through some old e-mails and came across this one. Just passing it
along in case you want to put it in your project folder.

Garcy Ward
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resources
252-948-3917

From: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 1:23 PM
To: Ward, Garcy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: M-0540A (NC24 Living Shoreline Project)

Garcy,
I just realized Jason did not cc you with this email.

Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT- Environmental Analysis Unit
[phone]

From: Dilday, Jason L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>; Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>; Mark Mickley <[e-mail]>
Subject: M-0540A (NC24 Living Shoreline Project)

Tom/Stephen,
Attached are the latest draft drawings for the three living shoreline sites along NC 24. If you could
please review and see if there are any comments/edits that may be needed to meet the
requirements necessary for permitting. We feel that the Site 3 drawings are close in design. After
the discussion of the off-shore structures being no more than 30 feet from mean high water (MHW),
the team went back and looked at the other sites. Both of these sites could be considered to have
structures over 30 feet from MHW.

Site 1: Currently has the oyster racks further than the 30’ line. If you look at the drawing, the MHW
line and its 30’ offset are shown. To comply with this condition, the 30’ offset would put
construction within the existing marsh. That would not be conducive to the planned project. The
oyster racks are predominately suspended from the bottom, with small diameter anchors into the
bottom. Can these structures be considered not subject to the 30’ from MHW condition? If not, is
there any other options we could pursue to avoid triggering a major permit?

Site 2: Site 2 was broken into 2 sites (a&b). Site 2a has a similar situation as Site 1, with the oyster
racks outside the 30’ offset of MHW. It was placed where it was to try to preserve the tidal pool
between it and the roadway embankment. For Site 2a, the question is basically the same as for Site
1, can these racks remain as depicted.

Site 2b is the area adjacent to the existing mitigation site wall. Due to this site running perpendicular
to the shoreline, along East Channel the calculation of MHW is not possible. Site 2b, we propose to
use the existing wall to measure MHW. If this can be considered valid, all structures would fall
within the 30’ offset.

Site 3: This site was discussed at length in the last meeting with you guys. No new developments
have occurred here, however the drawings that are included still depicts a new channel being built
on the outside of the sills. This will be removed in the next iteration of the drawings.

Please let me know your thoughts on the mentioned issues.

Thank you,
Jason

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.