Attachment 6 - Radio Island scoping meeting minutes

Town of Nags Head
Radio Island Beneficial Use of East Taylor’s Creek Dredge Materials
Scoping Meeting
June 22, 2021

Attendees:
Doug Huggett, Moffatt and Nichol
Dawn York, Moffatt and Nichol
Robert Neal, Moffatt and Nichol
Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Gene Foxworth, Assistant Carteret County Manager
Cameron Weaver, NCDEQ
Gregg Bodnar, NCDCM
Jonathan Howell, NCDCM
Erin Bryan-Millrush, NCDMF (Shellfish Sanitation)
Kim Harding, NCDMF
Holley Snider, NCDWR (401)
Liz Hair, USACE
Kathy Matthews, USFWS
Twyla Cheatwood, NMFS

After a round of introductions, Doug Huggett (Moffatt and Nichol) thanked everyone for attending, and
then explained that the dredging component of this project, specifically the dredging of East Taylor’s
Creek, has already been permitted. It was then stated that an opportunity has arisen for the beneficial
use of the resulting spoil material, which was originally scheduled to be trucked to the Atlantic Veneer
site off Lennoxville Road.
Greg “Rudi” Rudolph (Carteret County Shore Protection Office) next explained that the area of proposed
beneficial use was along a section of shoreline along the east side of Radio Island. Rudi discussed the
heavy recreational usage of the public of this section of estuarine beach, the proximity of the adjacent
Marine Road, which leads to a military loading facility at the tip of the island. Rudi showed several slides
depicting the heavy public usage of the recreational beach, as well as slides depicting the severe erosion
of this shoreline, and the resulting undercutting of portions of Marine Road. Rudi then discussed
shoaling patterns within East Taylors Creek and gave a background on the County’s permitted shallow
draft navigation project. Rudi closed by stating that the County wishes to change the previously
approved method of dredging from bucket to barge to direct placement by cutterhead dredge. The
County’s next step would be to apply for permit modification soon, with the intention of going out to bid
in late summer/early fall, with construction in the winter of 2021/2022.
Robert Neal then reviewed preliminary engineering design concepts for the beneficial use project.
 Extend the Radio Island eastern shoreline 2,800 ft with approximately 36,000 cy of sand
from East Taylor’s Creek
 Conceptual design will taper from a 20-ft seaward extension to a 10-ft seaward extension
over the southern 1,200-lf government-owned parcel.
 2019 vegetation line overlayed on 2015 aerial photograph depicts severe erosion of
approximately 35-ft of shoreline, with most severe erosion taking place in the southern part
of the project area.
 Additional sediment sampling will be done to ensure that the material, which is estimated to
be >97% sand, is compatible with the estuarine beach.

Robert also stated that the Navy has a proposed project to install a rock revetment to stabilize Marine
Road. The County is coordinating with the Navy, who are in the planning phase of the project. Funding
for construction of Marine Road stabilization is uncertain currently.

Jonathan Howell questioned how the scheduling of the Navy’s possible project would impact the
County’s proposed project. Robert indicated that he two projects are separate, and the Navy project
can easily take place after the County’s.

Jonathan also questioned whether the property on the west side of Marine Road could be used as a
spoil containment area to allow the material to dry before placing on the estuarine beach, which would
allow the project to be consistent with 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(8)(C)(ii). Rudi stated the County’s belief
that the overriding public benefit clause found in 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(3) should apply to this
beneficial use project due to the heavily used public beach and the protection of federal infrastructure.
Doug further indicated that in the permit modification request for this project, the County will be asking
for NCDCM to utilize the overriding public benefit clause to allow relief from 07H.0208(b)(8)(C)(iii).
Jonathan indicated the overriding public benefit language has many caveats and includes components
that address long-term benefits and alternatives evaluation.

Erin Bryan-Millrush with the Division of Marine Fisheries, Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water
Quality Section stated that this is a highly used recreational beach; the dredge material is coming from a
closed shellfish area and the construction timing is important. If the project is constructed after March
31st, a public notice would have to be released, and a temporary notification of beach closure would
take place until 24 hours after pumping is completed.

Kim Harding with the Division of Marine Fisheries indicated that a moratorium like the one on the
existing East Taylor’s Creek permit (April 1 to September 30) will likely be required. The National Marine
Fisheries Service made a similar comment.

Liz Hair with the Corps of Engineers stated that because the original dredge method was bucket to barge
and we are now proposing pipeline dredge for beach disposal, the Corps would need to coordinate with
agencies during the modification process. The Corps’ navigation branch has questioned how the
material would be stabilized to be sure the material does not slough off into the navigation branch.
Additionally, the original 408 memo that was issued for East Taylor’s Creek would likely need to be
adjusted.

Holley Snider with the Division of Water Resources commented that a pre-filing notification should be
filed as soon as possible for the proposed modification. Doug Huggett indicated that such a filing would
be made by the end of the week.

Kathy Matthews with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kathy stated that there could be a concern with
manatees in area but following the manatee guidelines and adhering to the moratoria window
requested by other agencies will help to reduce and avoid any potential impacts.

There was then additional discussion with the Division of Coastal Management concerning their rules
that prohibit the placement of excavated (unconsolidated) materials for estuarine beach nourishment
until such materials are first dewatered.

Jonathan Howell indicated that he was unaware of any other time in which the overriding public benefit
allowance clause has been used for a project. Jonathan went on to indicate that the project is clearly
needed, but there seems to be other alternatives that would meet the estuarine beach nourishment
rules. Johnathan specifically indicated that there appears to be adequate area directly behind the beach
to allow for the drying of dredge materials before placing on the beach.

Rudi Rudolph asked why the language is even included in the Coastal Resources Commission’s rules if
they are never able to be used? Rudi also indicated that he believed that double-handling of the
material vs direct placement on the beach would seem to be more impactful. DCM was then asked to
explain what the process may be for receiving approval for the over-riding public benefit? Jonathan
indicated that a public notice would need to be issued, and that they would and request feedback from
the USACE Navigation Branch on the 408 review. The review process and interagency discussion will
determine whether the overriding public benefit clause could fit. He also reiterated that he believes that
there is an alternative present that would eliminate the need for direct placement. Jonathan also stated
that public use of the estuarine beach has not been removed, as the beach continues to be used by the
public, especially on the weekends.

DCM confirmed a Major modification would be requested. Should a variance be needed, it is likely that
the variance could not be heard before the Coastal Resources Commission’s meeting on November 9 th
and 10th. The County could request an expedited variance from the Coastal Resources Commission, but
the granting of this expedited review is not certain.

Gregg Bodnar asked about the jetty on the southern shore, and a concern over potential impacts of the
project on the structure. Robert Neal indicated that there should be no effect on the jetty as it is close to
the navigation channel. A concern was then raised about the marina to the north – specifically how
would sediment transport affect the marina? Robert Neal indicated that this issue will be looked at, and
a jetty may could possibly be added at the north end of the project to limit sediment transport towards
the marina.

There was a discussion of how long material would need to be dewatered to be considered “dry”?
Jonathan indicated that it would be dependent on structure and design, but while the rule language
states the material would need to be dry, he believes that dewatered material would be acceptable.

Doug Huggett asked if an offshore sediment/turbidity curtain could be placed to satisfy the “dry
material” rule, and Johnathan stated that it could not, although a turbidity curtain may still be required
as a permit condition of any permit issues.

A question about grain size of the material was raised. Jonathan Howell indicated that their rules simply
state that material should match material at the site found naturally. Sediment analyses like those done
for ocean-facing beach projects is not necessary. Robert Neal indicated that some sediment analysis will
be conducted, and that the scope of the analysis will be provided to the Division of Coastal Management
for their review before implementation.

A question was asked about whether debris/asphalt currently on the beach be cleaned up prior to
material placement. The County indicated that they would consider this issue during design phase.
Material in surf zone will not be picked up and will be buried due to cost of screening.

Doug Huggett reviewed written comments provided beforehand by Maria Dunn of the Wildlife
Resources Commission (who was not able to attend the meeting) and determined that Maria’s
comments had all be discussed during the open-discussion phase of the project. A copy of Maria’s email
is attached to these meeting minutes.

Agencies were asked again for any comments, but none were forthcoming. The County and Moffatt and
Nichol then thanked the participants for their time. The meeting was concluded at 12:13 pm.

From: Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 9:07 AM
To: Weaver, Cameron <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Webex meeting invitation: Taylor's Creek Proposed Dredging
Cameron,
I am unable to attend the meeting at 11. I do apologize for I had all intentions to call in.
While I am sure the applicant has plans that will answer many questions and the other agencies will
cover most of my concerns, I would like to present a few things that must be answered or considered.
These are not the final comments or questions from NCWRC as I will await additional information. The
estuarine beach and associated shallow water areas provide important habitats and should be
considered accordingly. If there is not a benefit to resources, alternate disposal options should be
considered.
 The material was listed in the application to be 97% sand and 3% fines, but there was no other
analysis provided. Please detail if there is additional information or if there are contamination
concerns. Material must be suitable for estuarine beach placement.
 The permitted methodology was bucket to barge – is this still the proposed methodology? If so,
then access points should be shown (as on the Radio Island map) and any disturbance should be
returned to pre-project conditions. Estuarine beach manipulation should be detailed.
 Impacts from the project would be associated with the aquatic and estuarine beach community.
Separate best management practices, including moratoria may be needed.
 Details must be provided on linear placement distance, distance waterward NWL, if measures
are to be incorporated to keep fill on the beach, and monitoring, mitigation, remediation, etc.
As I mentioned, these are very basic questions that I’m sure will be approached in the meeting. I do
apologize for my absence but look forward to additional information as it becomes available.

Maria
------------------------------
Maria T. Dunn
Coastal Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
943 Washington Sq. Mall
Washington, NC 27889
office: 252-948-3916

www.ncwildlife.org