20020158 Ver 3_Sunset Beach Response to Public Comments_20210110

Strickland, Bev
From: Neal, Robert <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 4:13 PM
To: 'Greg Currey'
Cc: Mairs, Robb L; Mickey Sugg; Huggett, Douglas; York, Dawn; Shelden, Jeff, Lisa Anglin
Subject: [External] Sunset Beach Response to Public Comments - USACE ID SAW-2019-01155
Attachments: 9269-SJinksCreek-Response_to_USACE_Comments-010821.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Greg,
Please find attached, the Town of Sunset Beach's response to the public comments received for the Maintenance
Dredging of S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, and Feeder Channel with Nearshore Placement permit application and public
notice.
Thank you for assisting with this effort and please let me know if additional information may be necessary!
Best Regards,
Robert Neal, P.E.
238 Princess Street I Wilmington, NC 28401
D 910.218.7082 10 910.218.7100 1 C 910.524.3285
Creative People, Practical Solutions.
Connect with us: Website I Facebook I Linkedln Twitter
Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Moffatt & Nichol will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultonts,
including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Moffatt & Nichol will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to present proposals and will
not be discriminated against in consideration for on award. For additional information go to: http://www.moffattnichol.com/content/small-business-outreach

238 Princess Street
,,,, Wilmington, NC 28401
moffafi & nichol [phone]
www.moffattnichol.com
January 08, 2021
Greg Currey via email ([e-mail])
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155 (Town of Sunset Beach)
Maintenance Dredging of S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, and Feeder Channel with
Nearshore Placement
Response to November 2020 Public Comments
Dear Mr. Currey,
Please accept the following response letter on behalf of the Town of Sunset Beach (Town) to address
concerns expressed during the November 2020 public commenting period for the south (S.) Jinks
Creek, Bay Area, and Feeder Channel system with Nearshore Placement permit application.
Approximately 65 comments received through email correspondence directly to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) expressed concerns with the proposed project. For reference, comments
received have been categorized in the following topics to facilitate responses:
■ Project purpose and need;
■ Potential increased storm surge in south Jinks Creek;
■ Potential increased tidal velocities and erosion impacts;
■ Economic concerns for both benefitting and non-benefitting residents;
■ Consistency with the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Law (113-229) and the rules of the
Coastal Resources Commission;
■ Degradation of existing beach due to the nearshore placement of beach compatible material;
■ Potential conflicts of interest within the Town Council project approval process;
■ Potential impacts to established wetland, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife resources within
the south Jinks Creek system; and,
■ Potential ecosystem impacts resulting from the nearshore placement of dredge spoils.
The responses below are provided for each category listed above and address the item of concern as
stated in the public comments received through November 2020.
Project Purpose and Need
Several comments suggest the purpose and need for the project was not justified to recommend (1)
dredging south Jinks Creek to any depth beyond existing, and (2) dredging south Jinks Creek to a
depth greater than the connecting waters. Shoaling occurring in south Jinks Creek indicates without
the proposed project, navigational access will be lost in low tide events. During a December 16, 2020
site visit, shoaling during low tide provided clear evidence of the threatened navigational access
Page 1

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
through south Jinks Creek. In addition, a shoaling analysis conducted by the Town indicates the annual
shoaling rate in south Jinks Creek equals approximately 2,200 cubic yards (CY) per year. The shoaling
rate analysis compared bathymetry collected in August 2016 and August 2020. An end point analysis
of the data determined approximately 8,800 CY shoaled into the proposed dredge footprint during
the 4-year period, or approximately 2,200 CY per year. The continued degradation and shoaling of
recreational navigation routes will eliminate the opportunity for boaters to access south Jinks Creek
during low tide events. Figure 1 shows a profile comparison of the 2016 and 2020 bathymetry
collected in south Jinks Creek and Figure 2 shows a ground level photograph of the same area from
July 2020.
Figure 1. (A) Profile Comparison of 2016 & 2020 Bathymetry, (B) Location of Bathymetric
Comparison
Figure 2. July 2020 Ground Level Photo of Shoaling Area Photo (A) shows sediment shoaling near the fixed docks in
south Jinks Creek and Photo (B) shows boaters forced to travel under or through a dock system to obtain sufficient navigation depth.]
,dhq
Page 2

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
Regarding dredging deeper than the connecting waters, the Town has eliminated north Jinks Creek
from the proposed project to avoid and minimize potential impacts to fisheries resources. The Town
recognizes leaving an unmanaged navigation route between south Jinks Creek and `deep water'
provides a compromise with environmental concerns and recreational navigation needs. Vessels may
travel `on plane' through north Jinks Creek in the areas of significant shoaling, so access is not optimal
but is available. The Town recognizes local knowledge may be necessary to navigate north Jinks Creek;
however, the Town also understands the agency concerns with dredging north Jinks Creek. Therefore,
the Town compromised with the environmental agencies to provide a direct benefit to the navigation
concerns in south Jinks Creek and will continue to monitor the conditions in north Jinks Creek. A
result of the compromised removed the deep -water access to connecting waters.
The original application also provides the Town's reasoning for not limiting dredging to an elevation
of -2-ft MLW (mean low water) in south Jinks Creek. The limited dredging would not provide a
reasonably constructable project and would not provide a long-term management option for south
Jinks Creek. The dredging equipment necessary to complete the work would need greater water
depths, and recommended safety concerns in south Jinks Creek would not be satisfied. With the
numerous residential docks in south Jinks Creek, navigators should not be expected to travel `on -
plane' due to safety and vessel density concerns.
As discussed in the original permit submittal, the resource agencies indicated removing north Jinks
Creek from the project plan was the best way to achieve some navigation relief for south Jinks Creek.
An approximate 500-ft channel section located at the confluence with the AIWW provides the
dominate area with depths less than -2-ft MLW in north Jinks Creek. Therefore, recreational boaters
traversing north Jinks Creek would have a much shorter distance to cross in restricted draft conditions
versus the complete 1,450-ft in south Jinks Creek and 6,850-ft in the Feeder Channel system and
2,200-ft in the Bay Area, if dredging was restricted to -2-ft MLW. (Note, there are other locations in
north Jinks Creek with elevations are equal or higher than -2-ft MLW, however, the most prominent
obstructions exist near the confluence with the AIWW.)
Potential for Increased Storm Surge in south Jinks Creek
The proposed project does not propose a risk of increased storm surge in south Jinks Creek. As
documented in the original permit submittal, the maximum estimated change in water surface
elevation during extreme storm conditions equals approximately 1 /64' of an inch.
The proposed project will not change the tidal prism in south Jinks Creek and thus will not allow
additional wind driven surge. As discussed in the original permit submittal, storm surge in south Jinks
Creek will remain consistent in `with' and `without' project conditions. The proposed project does not
include a deep -water connection to the Atlantic Ocean or the AIWW. By avoiding the hydraulic
connection to both Tubbs Inlet and the A1WW, the proposed project also avoids the critical cross-
section for both hydraulic passageways. These critical cross -sections govern the flow rates and
volumes through Jinks Creek and fall outside of the proposed project limits. As such, the tidal
exchange in south Jinks Creek will not be improved, as tidal waters will still cross an approximate 3/4
mile shoaling area adjacent to Tubbs Inlet and an approximate 5,000-1f (linear foot) section of north
Jinks Creek. Since the proposed project will not affect the tidal prism through south Jinks Creek, the
anticipated storm surge resulting from any extreme event will be consistent in `with' and `without'
project conditions.
,d,q Page 3

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
Potential Increased Tidal Velocities and Erosion Impacts
As clarified in the original permit submittal and the previous discussion regarding increased storm
surge, the proposed project will not alter or increase the tidal prism in south Jinks Creek. The modeling
analysis submitted with the original permit supports this conclusion. Therefore, the potential for
increased erosion generated from increased tidal velocities is not supported.
Additional concerns suggest the proposed channel alignment in south Jinks Creek may create
increased erosion. However, the alignment follows the existing preferred route for tidal velocities and
mimics the 2008 alignment for south Jinks Creek. The design follows the preferred route to avoid
altering the natural flow way and disrupting the coastal processes in south Jinks Creek. Tidal dynamics
provide a higher probability for success by following previous alignments as opposed to reconfiguring
flow pathways that show no history of success. Therefore, the erosion trends should not accelerate
from the existing trends beyond those experienced in 2008. For reference, Figure 3 provides images
of the south Jinks Creek channel alignment dating back to 2008.
Figure 3. Historical Alignment of South Jinks Creek (A) 2008, (B) 2011, & (C) 2017
Economic Concerns for both Benefitting and Non-Benefitting Residents
Multiple comments received by the USACE indicated concerns over which residents would be paying
for the dredging project and how any type of assessment would be allocated. Please note the special
assessment established by the applicant only applies to Benefitting property owners, which for this
project limits participants to property owners with water access within the dredging project. The
applicant established the assessment in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. The North
Carolina General Assembly granted the Town authority to assess for navigational projects during the 1985
Session when Chapter 725 House Bill 1406 was ratified on July 12, 1985. North Carolina General Statutes
Chapter 160A Article 10 outlines the procedures and requirements to make special assessments against
benefited property owners.
Concerns over Consistency with the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Law (NCGS 113-229) and
the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
Several commenters expressed concern that the placement of spoil material in the proposed nearshore
disposal area would violate 113-229(h2) of the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Law (113-229). This
law requires that "Clean, beach quality material dredged from navigational channels within the active nearshore, beach
or inlet shoal systems shall not be removed permanentyfrom the active nearshore, beach or inlet shoal system. This
1/1q
Page 4

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
dredged material shall be di posed of on the ocean beach or shallow active nearshore area where it is environmentally
acceptable and compatible with other uses of the beach':
Based upon communications with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM),
the State agency charged with enforcing NCGS 113-229, the Town believes that the proposed
nearshore placement is consistent with the requirements of this Law, as the material will be placed
within the Tubbs Inlet "active nearshore area". Final confirmation of this project's consistency with
this Law will be conveyed upon issuance of a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) major permit
by NCDCM.
Comments were also provided concerning consistency of the proposed project with 15A NCAC
07H.0208(b)(1)(1), which states;
Maintenance excavation in canals, channels and boat basins within primary nursery areas and areas of submerged
aquatic vegetation as defined by the MFC shall be avoided. However, when essential to maintain a traditional and
established use, maintenance excavation may be approved if the applicant meets all of the following criteria:
(i) The applicant demonstrates and documents that awater-dependent need exists for
the excavation;
(ii) There exists a previously permitted channel that was constructed or maintained
underpermits issued by the State or Federalgovernment, if a natural channel was
in use, or if a human -made channel was constructed before permitting was necessary,
there shall be evidence that the channel was continuously used for a specific purpose;
(iii) Excavated material can be removed and placed in a disposal area in accordance
with Part (b)(1)(B) of this Rule without impacting adjacent nursery areas and
submerged aquatic vegetation as defined by the MFC; and
(iv) The original depth and width of a human -made or natural channel shall not be
increased to allow a new or expanded use of the channel.
These concerns questioned whether the proposed increase in the original depth of excavation, as well
as new or expanded uses resulting from the new depths, were consistent with this rule language.
However, in reading this rule in its entirety, it is clear that the prohibition on deeper depths or new or
expanded uses only apply if a dredging project were to impact a primary nursery area (PNA) or area
of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The proposed project will not directly impact either PNA or
SAV habitat. Therefore, 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(I) should not apply in this case. Additionally, a
CAMA permit (Permit 79-19) has already been issued for the dredging of south Jinks Creek, thereby
clearly indicating that the NCDCM has not found the project proposal to be inconsistent with this
rule.
Degradation of Existing Beach Due to the Nearshore Placement of Beach Compatible
Material
Several comments raised concerns relating to the compatibility of the sand to be placed in the
proposed nearshore placement area, and the potential for adverse impacts to the adjacent beaches
should this material wash ashore following placement. In response to these concerns, the Town would
note that this material was already fully reviewed and vetted through the CAMA Major Permit review
process for the original Jinks Creek dredging proposal that included beach placement. In issuing the
,d,q Page 5

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
CAMA permit for this original project proposal, NCDCM affirmed that the material met the State's
sediment compatibility standards set forth in 15A NCAC 07H.0312. Therefore, it is not expected that
there will be any degradation of the existing adjacent beaches resulting from placement of this same
material within the nearshore placement area.
Furthermore, the Town understands the construction process will require monitoring to help reduce
the risk of unacceptable materials being deposited in the nearshore site and remains committed to
providing the necessary oversight. The construction monitoring will strive to verify only placement of
beach compatible material occurs in the nearshore site. However, if the construction process
inadvertently places any non -compatible material in the nearshore site, corrective actions shall be taken
immediately to stop or relocate the dredging operations. In addition, the regulatory agencies (including
the USACE Wilmington office) shall be notified in writing of the incident to determine if additional
actions should be initiated.
Potential Conflicts of Interest in the Town Council Approving the Project
The Town Council has addressed the concern of a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict
multiple times in public meetings. During each occasion, the Town attorney reviewed the details of
the project and found no conflict existed. Town Attorney directly opined there is no conflict of interest
for a Councilmember to live on the canal property and participate in the dredging at three Council
meetings on June 21, 2016, May 1, 2017, and June 3, 2019, and in an email to NC Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) on April 11, 2019. Councilman Corbett made public rebuttals at
Council meetings on May 1, 2017 and June 3, 2018; and signed a certification on May 17, 2019 that
was accepted by the NCDEQ, Grant Authority. See Attachment A for specifics.
Potential Impacts to Established Wetland, Water Quality, Fisheries and Wildlife Resources
within the South links Creek System
Multiple commenters raised concerns over the potential for adverse impacts to existing wetland,
fisheries and wildlife resources and water quality functions within the south Jinks Creek complex. The
Town has worked with the resource agencies to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the
environmental resources through coordination efforts since 2016, including multiple coordination
meetings and on -site discussions. The Town minimized the dredging footprint to avoid potential
impacts to shellfish and adjacent Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) by removing north Jinks Creek from
the proposed project . The Town also focused on addressing the areas of primary shoaling and
removed the areas believed to be experiencing milder shoaling patterns.
Additionally, environmental issues related to the proposed dredging within south Jinks Creek were
vetted through the CAMA major permit process for the original permitted project (CAMA Permit
No. 79-19). During the course of this review, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the project, indicating consistency of
the project with State wetland and water quality standards. The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDMF) indicated approval of the south Jinks Creek dredging project provided certain conditions
were adhered to, including development and implementation of a shellfish relocation plan for shellfish
resources in the proposed dredge cut and its buffer area, and implementation of a dredging
moratorium period of April 1 to September 30. Both of the NCDMF recommendations were included
as conditions in CAMA Permit No. 79-19. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
,d,q Page 6

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments 08 January 2021
(NCWRC) expressed appreciation for the significant pre -application coordination and meetings with
the Town, and also did not object to the proposed project provided that timing restrictions intended
to minimize and avoid impacts to sea turtles, endangered bird species, and marine life in the nearby
PNA habitat were implemented.
The Town has also consented to maintaining a 10-ft dredging buffer from any established marsh
grasses or wetlands in the Feeder Channel system and the Bay Area. The Town mapped the existing
marsh grasses and developed drawings showing the intended 10-ft buffer as part of the CAMA major
permitting process in December 2017. Because conditions may change, the Town understands the
construction plans for the Feeder Channel system and the Bay Area will need to show updated
boundaries for the 10-ft buffer representing the conditions at the time of construction. Copies of the
construction drawings with the updated buffers shall be provided to the regulatory agencies, including
the USACE, prior to construction activities initiating for the Feeder Channel system or Bay Area.
Attachment B provides the respective marsh buffers established from the 2017 mapping efforts and
aerial photography.
Given the preceding information, it is not anticipated that the proposed dredging of south Jinks Creek
will result in significant adverse impacts to water quality functions or wetland, fisheries and/or wildlife
resources within the Jinks Creek system.
Several commenters also raised concerns over the potential for future dredging proposals for portions
of north Jinks Creek. In response to this issue, it should be noted that the current proposal deals only
with dredging with south Jinks Creek, a project which the Town believes has independent functionality
and utility. Should the dredging of portions of north Jinks Creek be considered in the future, the Town
would expect that any such proposal would have to undergo a new and robust environmental
permitting review, including new public notices which would provide members of the public an
opportunity to weigh in on the proposal at that time. Therefore, this issue should not have any bearing
on the ongoing permit application review.
Potential Ecosystem Impacts Resulting from the Nearshore Placement of Dredge Spoils.
Several commenters raised concerns that the proposed nearshore placement of beach compatible spoil
material could have negative impacts to the ecosystem within the placement area. During a June 30,
2020 scoping meeting with resource and permitting agencies, the issue of the nearshore placement
option was the primary topic of discussion. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not
object to the proposed nearshore placement option, but they did request post -construction
monitoring of the nearshore placement area to determine how the placed material disperses over time.
In response to this issue, a post -construction monitoring plan of the nearshore placement area was
included in the permit application package submitted to the USACE. At the request of the NCDWR,
a turbidity monitoring plan for the nearshore placement area was also included in the permit
application package. NMFS also indicated that a new or revised Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
(EFH) would be required for the project. The EFH assessment was updated and included in the
permit application package. NCDMF stated that the proposed construction window of November 16
through March 31 should aid in minimizing fisheries concerns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) indicated that there were no designated critical habitats in the project area, but they would
expect for measures to be taken to minimize impacts to red knots and piping plovers, as well as
,d,q Page 7

Action ID No. SAW-2019-01155
S. Jinks Creek, Bay Area, & Feeder Channel CAMA Application
Response to USACE Public Comments
08 January 2021
adherence to manatee protection guidelines. The Town understands these concerns and will
implement the recommended avoidance or minimization efforts.
During the CAMA major permit application review for the nearshore placement component of the
project, the NCDMF indicated they had no comment on the proposed project. NCWRC indicated
approval of the proposed project provided that appropriate timing restrictions are adhered to. Based
upon this information, it is not expected that the proposed placement of dredge material will result in
significant negative impacts to the aquatic ecosystem within or adjacent to the nearshore site.
The Town of Sunset Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide a response to these comments and
understands the complexity of the review process. The Town also appreciates the USACE's time and
effort towards coordinating and reviewing the application and related correspondence. In that regard,
if there are any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience at
910-218-7082.
Sincerely,
MOFFATT & NICHOL
Robert Neal, PE
Senior Coastal Engineer
Cc. Lisa Anglin, Town Clerk, Town of Sunset Beach
Jeff Shelden, Lead Coastal Engineer, Moffatt & Nichol (via email w/o attachments)
Doug Huggett, Environmental Permit Specialist, Moffatt & Nichol (via email w/o attachments)
Dawn York, Environmental Permit Specialist, Moffatt & Nichol (via email w/o attachments)
,d,q Page 8

Attachment A
Conflict of Interest Notes for USACE Response,
January 8, 2021

Conflict of Interest Notes for USACE Response, Jan 8, 2021
Jun 21, 2016. Town Attorney Grady Richardson ruled there was no basis for a conflict of interest claim,
even if a Council member has canal property (applied to Carol Scott).
Meeting Minutes, p. 3: "Concerning the conflict of interest question that has been raised regarding
whether Mayor Pro -Tern Scott can be excused from voting, is she required to vote or can abstain
from voting on the dredging project, Attorney Richardson advised that in his opinion, Mayor Pro -
Tern Scott does not have an impermissible conflict that will prevent from voting. Concerning the
question of can she be excused from the vote, Attorney Richardson requested additional time for
research prior to deliver his opinion."
May 1, 2017. Town Attorney Grady Richardson ruled a second time there was no basis for a conflict of
interest claim, even if a Council member has canal property (applied to Carol Scott and John
Corbett).
Meeting Minutes, p.2.: Discussion Concerning Dredging Conflict of Interest: "Attorney
Richardson provided the Council with his opinion concerning the repeated allegations that
Councilman Corbett and Mayor Pro -Tern Scott should not be allowed to participate in the
deliberations, explorations or vote on the proposed dredging project due to owning property
adjacent to the proposed project. Attorney Richardson advised that the law requires that a direct
financial gain/benefit be derived from the project in order for either to be able to recuse themselves
from voting. Attorney Richardson stated that based on knowledge of the project at this point, it
appears that a large group of property owners if not the entire Town will benefit from the project.
Therefore, in accordance with NCGS 160A-75 Voting which states "No member shall be excused
from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member's own financial
interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under
G.S. 14-234, 160A-381(d), or 160A-388(e)(2). In all other cases except votes taken under G.S.
160A-385, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who
has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall
be recorded as an affirmative vote" both Mayor Pro-Tem Scott and Councilman Corbett will be
required to vote if they are physically present when the vote is taken."
May 1, 2017. Councilman John Corbett rebuttal to Councilman Cerrato's allegations. See YouTube for
May 1, 2017 meeting, minutes 35:40 to 42:50.
CORBETT STATEMENT TO A COUNCIL MEETING REFERRING TO ATTORNEY' S COMMENTS:
Jun 3, 2018. Minutes, p.4. "John Corbett read a prepared statement rebutting Councilman Cerrato's May
15, 2018 Recusal Memo. Minutes: Councilman Corbett explained that Town Attorney Richardson
has repeated advised Councilman Cerrato that a conflict of interest doesn't exist and therefore a
recusal would be out of order. Attorney Richardson has also explained that each Council member
is required, by State law, to vote on all Town business in the absence of a Council approved
recusal when a conflict of interest does exist. Councilwoman Harris agreed that no-one on Council
has a conflict of interest concerning the dredging project. Councilman Cerrato made a motion
requesting Councilman Corbett to recuse himself from the dredging discussion and action
concerning North Jinks Creek, and the Bay area district where he resides. No second was heard and
the motion failed."

April 11, 2019. Town Attorney Grady Richardson email to NCDEQ (Coley Cordeiro).
"Essentially, the complainants contend that if a councilman or councilwoman own property adjacent
to any area that may be dredged, it necessarily means they have an impermissible conflict. The
complainants assert this notwithstanding the fact that (1) there are hundreds of properties that may
be adjacent to the proposed dredging areas; (2) all members of the public that wish to go boating will
benefit from the dredging; and 3) no dredging has actually been approved and is in the process of
being implemented. The Town is only in the study and analysis phase to consider the Town's options
of whether to do any dredging. I have reviewed this very issue multiple times. The law, in my
opinion, is very clear — that on the continuum of constantly evaluating whether any impermissible
conflict is present so as to preclude a council member's affirmative obligation to vote on matters of
Town business, no such impermissible conflict exists for Mr. Corbett. When Ms. Scott was on the
Town Council, I also did not believe any impermissible conflict existed for her. Clearly, given that
she is no longer on the Council, any contention of a conflict by her simply being one of hundreds of
property owners adjacent to possible dredging areas has been rendered moot."
May 17, 2019. Corbett "No Conflict of Interest Certification" submitted and later accepted by Grant
Authority.
June 3, 2019. Town Attorney Grady Richardson statement on June 3, 2019 Minutes, p.6.: Attorney
Richardson stated that he continually reviews the facts to determine whether a conflict of interest
exist and as stated at least three (3) times prior, a conflict of interest is not present and Councilman
Corbett as well as all other council members have a legal obligation under NCGS 160A-75 to vote.
Attorney Richardson advised that with regard to the grant conflict of interest certificate, he reviewed
it to ensure the language contained therein specifically related to the grant application. Councilman
Corbett stated that Councilman Cerrato has been making the conflict of interest allegations against
him for nearly three (3) year and requested Councilman Cerrato to stop."

Attachment B
10-ft Marsh Grass Buffer Established for the
Feeder Channel and Bay Area Systems

2016 AERIAL PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP
P
+
A10+00 12+00
8+00 r e 14+00 16+00 18+00 p
E"' N
.� Wx
i7 $+00 '� r ►i; .� - r
l
6+00
4+00
J * 4+00 Y F .-.-
': 4+00 _
4+00
JAM
R
_ifs._ a•-' Iowa
r -
4.0
IDENTIFIED MARSH ! r " ' 2+00 !
BUFFER AREA (TYP.)
0+00 e . 3 1! •!
r 0+00 ; q�
STA -O+SQ - - STA Q+QQ f.... �1
BEGIN FINGER a STA -0+2$ BEGIN FINGERS
CANAL 'A' &FEEDER BEGIN FINGER h - STA 0+00
" ;3 CANAL 'B' CANAL'C' - BEGIN FINGER '+
t _ N CANAL 'D' 7
LEGEND.,
— — PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
— — — PROPOSED CHANNEL BASE (WIDTH)
PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP (MLW)
ESTIMATED 10-FT MARSH BUFFER
0' 100' 200'
Marsh presence estimated from TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
December 2017 field surveys and NAVIGATION PROJECT GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Feb. 2016 aerial photography. FEEDER CHANNEL MARSH EXTENTS ,,,, m o f f a t t& n i c h o l
SHT I OF 3 PLAN VIEW

2016 AERIAL PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP
a _
20+00
22+00 24+00
26+00 28+00 30+00 +
t�
HO
H
r�
w +„ IDENTIFIED MARSH x w
BUFFER AREA (TYP.)
w.
r z�
r
� 4
7lr:
J� f1.iti �• � 'P40
!
TI�
LEGEND +
— — PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
— — — — PROPOSED CHANNEL BASE (WIDTH)s
PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP (MLW)
ESTIMATED 10-FT MARSH BUFFER t �'
0' 100' 200'
Marsh presence estimated from TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
December 2017 field surveys and NAVIGATION PROJECT GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
�'�,
Feb. 2016 aerial photography. FEEDER CHANNEL MARSH EXTENTS m o f f o t t& n i G h o l
SHT 2 OF 3 PLAN VIEW

2016 AERIAL PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP
limbo
w a 'A
> Ar
006 '^y
r T
STA -0+50 y w
BEGIN BAY AREA IDENTIFIED MARSH
BUFFER AREA (TYP.)_
0
\ 11 11
fie}
' tq t! �'•
.t
16.
�E
�t ► ; ' M
LEGEND
— - PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
- — — — PROPOSED CHANNEL BASE (WIDTH)
PROPOSED DREDGE LIMITS
ESTIMATED 10-FT MARSH BUFFER
AOL
0' 100' 200'
Marsh presence estimated from TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
December 2017 field surveys and NAVIGATION PROJECT GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Feb. 2016 aerial photography. BAY AREA MARSH EXTENTS ,d„
SHTIOF2 PLAN VIEW moffatf & nichol

2016 AERIAL PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP
x'
t
Its l ?
°�i�.�.i if Fd� . �.r� l�. • � 'T.
LAt
R �
s 1
Nip 77
LEGEND -
- — PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
— — — — PROPOSED CHANNEL BASE (WIDTH)
PROPOSED DREDGE LIMITS
ESTIMATED 10-FT MARSH BUFFER
Marsh presence estimated from TOWN OF SUNSET BEACH
December 2017 field surveys and NAVIGATION PROJECT
Feb. 2016 aerial photography. BAY AREA MARSH EXTENTS
SHT 2 OF 2 PLAN VIEW
k�
1 "ANA.2.1—iL rA
7 - -� N
- 0' 100' 200'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
,,,, moffatt & nichol