The Lancaster County Wetlands Board on an agenda of permit applications approved a series of shoreline stabilization and living-shoreline projects affecting multiple creeks and Rappahannock River frontage.

Joseph Scott of Solterra Solutions presented the first applications, including a plan to remove a failing bulkhead and install riprap, sand nourishment and wetland plantings in Baird and Bones Cove off Carter’s Creek. “This is a project to replace failing structures on, off Carter’s Creek,” Scott said, describing riprap for the most deteriorated portions and living-shoreline elements where wetlands vegetation persists. Staff offered no objection.

Other projects led by design agents included a 400-foot class A riprap revetment near Greenvale Marina, a 230-foot armor-stone connection to the previously permitted Rappahannock River Bluffs, and a number of shorter riprap revetments where agents reported severe undercut banks. Ben Burton of Bay Design Group described a revision to convert a previously proposed revetment on Antipoison Creek into a living shoreline at the board’s request; staff “appreciates the owner's willingness to revise the plan to include Living Shoreline,” a staff member said.

Bayshore Design’s Craig Palabinski presented several consolidated applications: a 170-foot extension tying into an older revetment, a 90-foot revetment on Carter’s Creek, replacement low-profile timber groins and a 40-foot armor-stone spur with roughly 500 cubic yards of beach nourishment for a Chapel property, and an extensive two-sided project for Dr. Valerie Jones that includes 608 feet of revetment and a 212-foot revetment on the cove side with multiple sills and spurs to protect fringe marsh. Palabinski described site constraints, fetch, and where living-shoreline techniques were or were not practical.

Kelsey Haney of Ranson’s Nursery and Jacqueline Wilburn of Coastal Wetlands Consulting each presented living-shoreline or revetment projects that included planting and nourishment. Staff described one mitigation calculation for a revetment as “The 250 square feet of vegetative wetlands impacts will be mitigated on-site, and a replacement rate of 1 to 1.”

Board members moved and seconded approval motions for each application; most votes were recorded by a show of hands with no roll-call tallies read into the record. The board approved every permit on the published agenda. The board later approved the minutes from its prior meeting, and staff noted VIMS will offer a “Being On Board” wetlands training by Zoom (date pending, likely in February); Olivia Hall will finalize scheduling.

The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

Votes at a glance: Each agenda project discussed during the hearing was moved, seconded and approved by the board; motions were typically recorded as “approve the project as submitted” in the meeting record. For projects with identified mitigation obligations (for example, a 250 sq ft vegetated-wetlands impact in the Luca application), staff documented on-site mitigation and a 1:1 replacement rate.

What’s next: Permittees are responsible for selecting contractors and scheduling construction; several agents said contractors had not yet been chosen. The board will offer VIMS training for members; staff will notify members when the date is set.