Consent Agenda

a.      Minutes of Regular Meeting – November 12, 2002  - Changes have been made by Town Clerk.

b.      Minutes of Special Meeting – November 4, 2002

c.      Tax Refunds / Releases

d.      Amendment to Personnel Policy Regarding Town Holidays

e.      Budget Amendment - Wellness Program

f.        Budget Amendment – FEMA Debris

g.      Resolution Accepting CAMA Grants for Reconstruction of

Lee Street and Seagull Drive Walkways

h.      Budget Amendment – CAMA Grants

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to accept the Consent Agenda with corrections as noted.  The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion Carried.

Public Comment

            Mr. James M. Willis, III from Atlantic Beach, said he does not usually come to other town's board meetings to make a comment but he thought this comment was needed.  Mr. Willis praised the Town of Emerald Isle’s web page on the internet.  He related pictures were taken this morning of the ground adding ceremony and by 4 PM those pictures were on the web site.  He also praised the agenda section where you can find anything you want to know about what Emerald Isle is doing, any proposed ordinance amendment, any resolution or any information you want.  He noted it doesn’t take a Forrest to supply the board with agenda items.  It is right on the web page. He felt honored and privileged to live on the same island with folks like these.  He thanked the folks for a job well done. 

            He was thanked for his comments, and it was noted that many individuals work to make the web site what it is. Mayor Schools along with former Commissioner Wootten worked to get the site started, and now Rhonda Ferebee and Town Manager Rush do most of the work to keep it updated. It is not just one person, but a lot of people that work on the website to keep the information current.

Eastern Phase Beach Nourishment Project                          

a.   Weeks Marine’s Request to Utilize Pipeline                    

     (Cutter-head) Dredge at 6 ft. Depth in Additional Areas  

      b.   Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Dune Plantings        

c.      Resolution Authorizing Contract Amendment for Dredge Monitoring Equipmen

            Mr. Rush noted that three items are presented to the board tonight on the Eastern Phase Beach Nourishment Project.  The first would authorize Weeks Marine to utilize a pipeline (Cutter-head) dredge at a 6 ft. depth in additional areas.  The board has previously approved sub-areas of the approved borrow area for Weeks Marine to go with a 6 ft. depth. That will yield about 400,000 cu yards and that is roughly 22% of the volume of sand that is needed to complete the project.  Weeks is now requesting permission to use other areas of the borrow site at a 6-foot depth.  That would basically generate 1.2 million to 1.5 million cu yards of sand for the project.  The board will consider whether or not the town will move forward with that.  Mr. Larry DaVico from Weeks Marine was present to address the board about the difference between Hopper dredges and Cutter-head dredges and how that impacts sediment quality as well as some other operational concerns that might be helpful in making a decision on this matter.

            The second thing that will be talked about are plans for revegetating roughly 9,000 linear feet of new dunes that will be constructed as part of the project and there is a Resolution for consideration for authorizing Mr. Rush as the Town Manager to move forward with that aspect of the project. 

            Finally, Mr. Tom White will explain some monitoring equipment that is proposed to help monitor the location of the Hopper dredge and the application of the Cutter-head dredge as well. 

            Mr. DaVico from Weeks Marine, addressed the concerns about the likelihood or the stories that have been told about the Cutter-head dredge, mainly that you would end up with a lot more mud or unfavorable materials on the beach when you are done.  Some people have some information and some knowledge about the Hoppers from seeing the job done in Pine Knoll Shores.  There has been no experience with the Cutter-head dredges.  The truth of the matter is that Hopper dredges do have a little bit of initial advantage with beach nourishment that you are filling the hopper on the dredge and you are getting some pre-washing as you are pumping the material into the hopper.  You fill the hopper to overflowing and you continue to fill the hopper with the heavier sediments, which is the sand that you want to keep and send to the beach sink to the bottom of the hopper.  Anything that is lighter or larger than silt gets stirred up and there is a lot of overflow over the side of the dredge.  The Hopper dredge would go to a location, hook up to a pipeline and send the sand to the beach, partially pre-washed.   There would still be some large confined sediments trapped in the sand but you would have a little pre-washing.  Of course this goes to the beach and some additional washing takes place as you pump the sediments onto the beach.  You do not have the advantage of pre-washing with a Cutter-head dredge but you do have the advantage that much more water is mixed with the sediments, and when you send it to the beach you get a much more complete washing on the beach than you would with a hopper.  There would be as clean or cleaner fill with the Cutter-head as you would have with the Hopper. There are little of no concerns with the turtle issues with a Cutter-head.  There are very few documented cases where a Cutter-head sucked up a turtle and pumped it to the beach and in the documented cases it was shown that the turtle was already dead and was on the bottom, was picked up and pumped to shore.  Another advantage with the Cutter-head is it allows you to more clearly define areas in the borrow where you have unsuitable material. As you are moving along with the Hopper dredge, and Mr. DaVico was not sure how many people had any information regarding Hoppers but it sails freely around in the borrow area with two “Vacuum cleaners” dropped along the side and they drag along the bottom and suck up the sediment and put it into the hopper. It moves at a very good clip, anywhere from 1 to 3 knotts through the borrow area and sucks up sand, mud and shell as it moves around.

            With the Cutter-head dredge is placed in one location and it swings in an arch, you know when you see material come out of the end of the pipe whether it is good or bad.  You know that the area where the Cutter-head dredge is located right now is where the material is coming from.  The Hopper covers 1 mile or more in a pass, it fills up in about one hour, comes in and pumps off.  If there is bad material in the Hopper, you know it came from somewhere within that mile trail.  It is next to impossible to isolate it to say it came from here or it came from here.  Another advantage with the Cutter-head is if you want to maximize the use of the material you have.  You want to get as much on the beach as you can from the borrow area that you have available to use, the permitted area, you want to make sure you get as much out of it as you can.  With the Cutter-head, if you get a bad material, you can call the dredge and say you are pumping mud or we are seeing a lot of shell and we do not want that.  You pick up the Cutter-head and move it ahead 50 feet and then try again.  If you get good material you continue to dig.  If you have not avoided the bad material, you move ahead another 50 feet or you have to skip the areas as you move ahead with the dredge in real time as you are trying to avoid the material.  As with the Hopper, all you can say is that we avoid the whole 1 mile.

            Mr. DaVico mentioned the concern with tires.  Whenever tires are sucked up, as per contract, there is a charge associated with that.  The Dredge gets paid per hour depending on how long it takes the dredge to get operational again.  It has been shown by history that Cutter-heads are much, much less impacted by tires than the Hoppers.  Hoppers have smaller pumps and small pipelines.  The Cutter-head dredges are much larger, pumps through a much larger pipeline.  Most of small truck tires, small car tires, will pass through a Cutter-head and you will never know it went through until you see it on the beach.  With the Hopper, you would have them trapped in the drag head, trapped in the pumps and you would have to shut down for 15 minutes to one-half hour and sometimes 1 hour to clean those out.  They would expect much less down time with a Cutter from the tires.

            Some people have been told that if you run a tire through the Cutter-head it would look as if you had run the tire through a shredder and what you end up with on the beach is fragments scattered everywhere. Again because of the size of the tires, pumps and pipeline, very rarely are the tires damaged passing through the system.  Occasionally they will be ripped or torn but that is about it.  You do not end up with shredded tires on the beach. 

            Mr. Rush added that within our permit, the town was permitted for very large borrow areas to a 4-foot depth and there were certain criteria associated with that content.  Shell content has been a very big issue with the Board of Commissioners.  At that level, basically, the town has been able to hold the shell content to 35% based on the Board taking the optional areas.  The permit has been modified to go down to the 6-foot level.  That increased the shell content up to about 42%.  Smaller areas have been identified with a 6-foot cut in which cases you can use a Cutter-head.  You cannot use a Cutter-head for a 4-foot depth.  Because the board is concerned with sediment quality, the town wants to try to maintain the 35% shell quality threshold and other similar characteristics. There is enough material, more than 1.8 million Cu.Yds., available within the 6-foot cut borrow area permitted by the Agency.  However, when that borrow area was being redefined to find the best attainable material at a 6-foot level it is down to about 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu.Yds.  What the board is considering tonight is whether or not to authorize Weeks to use that 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu.Yds of material with a 6-foot cut and therefore we would have almost the same identical material as in the 4 ft. areas.  The only difference would be the type of operation as far as the mud content on the beach.  That is the reason for the decision between the Hopper and Cutter-head dredges.

            Mr. DaVico agreed the things you do not want on the beach are mud, clay and large shells.  Weeks does not want that either. The town does not want it for aesthetic reasons and for Weeks it is because mud is not so difficult to pump but if you start pumping mud on the beach it washes away the sand placed on the beach.  It is extremely difficult to grade and hold in place.  Weeks does not like to see mud on the beach at all. As far as the shells and clay, they are both extremely hard to cut with the Cutter-head or Hopper. They are extremely hard to push through the pumping system.  Whenever they encounter clay or shell, production drops off substantially.  They would want to avoid shells, clay and mud just as the town wants to avoid them.  There would be no issues or advantage to Weeks to conceal they are pumping those items.

            In answer to a question about which dredge can work in the roughest weather?  Mr. DaVico replied that the Hopper was a little more effective when it comes to waves.  Whenever you have seas, they hit you broadside.  When you get hit broadside, both vessels would probably have to be shut down in similar sea conditions.  But if they are hitting you angular to the stern, the one that would be used here is a very large Cutter-head, and it can

work without much trouble in 4,5 or 6- foot.  Ground swells are worst for either type of dredge.  The Hopper can usually, without any difficulty work in 5 to 7 ft. and in some cases 6 to 8-foot seas.  It gets to the point where the digging of the Hopper is not as much a factor as coming to the mooring location and hooking up to the mooring.  There is a little bit of advantage there.  Mr. DaVico said, he thinks the picture is complete in that the production typically is much greater with the Cutter so even if the Cutter ends up working a smaller percentage of the time due to weather, the weather differential would have to be quite large for the Hopper to keep up with the current production line.

            Mr. Bill Reist asked if there were any advantages with the Hopper?  Mr. DaVico said, there are advantages to the Hopper and he explained.  Hopper dredges, this fall season, are far more behind on schedules than the Cutter-heads are.  There is a good chance it will cost more (cost to Weeks, not to Emerald Isle) to do the work here with the Cutter than it would with the Hopper but the Cutter is more readily available now than the Hoppers are.  In answer to Mr. Reist’s question Mr. DaVico said, some of the advantages of the Hoppers are the sea conditions where you can work in worse sea conditions.  The town has more protection from the type of weather expected in the winter than most areas along the eastern seaboard.  Another advantage is the Hopper can be productive in a much shallower digging phase than a cutter can which is one of the reasons all of the Cutter bids came higher than the Hopper bids because it is very difficult to be productive with a Cutter if you don’t have much depth of the material to dig because you end up sucking up more water than you do material.  That is why there is a need to get the depth enlarged to 6-feet for it to be favorable to use the Cutter to do more of the work here.

            You have a much smaller crew on the Hopper.  The Hopper is more mobile. You could end up having to hop from site to site a lot and in that situation the Hopper would be advantageous.  If all of the three borrow areas that are up for consideration of use by a Cutter, if they are all used the layout is very close to ideal for a Cutter to do the majority of the work

            Mr. Rush added that Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach only had a permit for a 4-foot depth and that required a Hopper dredge. 

            Mr. John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, stated the cost of the Cutter dredge was substantially greater than the Hopper dredge and that was a drive and consideration to leaning toward the Hopper dredge.  He asked if something had changed?  It sounds like something has changed.  Mr. Rush replied that the town received a bid from based on a 4-foot cut.  After the contract was reworked and it was said “We have a Cutter-head available we would like to bring it up here.  We will still charge you $5.00 per Cu Yd.  The board authorized 400,000 Cu. Yds for that.  It was initially thought the Cutter head would be less expensive with a cheaper rate per Cu. Yd. , however when the permits were written by the County and the town is was written for a 4-foot depth because it was believed at that time it would have had less impact on organisms.  The town went back and requested the additional permission to go to the 6-foot cut after all the turtle issues that occurred last year.  When bids were received, they were substantially higher on the Cutter-head than for the Hopper. 

            Mayor Schools made note of one thing that Mr. DaVico said at a meeting today was that if he had a 10-foot depth, a Cutter-head would be substantially less.

            Commissioner McElraft asked about when the southeast is shut down because of the turtles, does the Cutter continue to work and only the Hoppers are shut down?  Mr. DaVico said this was correct.

            Mr. Rush answered, to a question from Commissioner McElraft about the money set aside for turtle takes, that $75,000 for turtle down-time and $72,000 for tire down-time has been set aside.  Mr. Rush said during the turtle take at Pine Knoll Shores, they were down 11 days. 

            Mr. Rush also commented that if Emerald Isle takes one turtle, we have to stop temporarily and consult with the Corps of Engineers.  Based on the Corps correspondence and conversations that he has had it is not his belief that they would shut the town down after one turtle.  He really thinks that after a second turtle, they would require shut down for some period of time at which time, we would incur the $75,000 per day charge. 

            Mayor Schools made note that the Safety Officer for Weeks, Inc  lives in New Bern and was present for tonight’s meeting. 

            Mr. Tom White clarified a couple of things. CSE has never asked in the beginning of the EIS nor in this for substantially deeper cuts because the sediments are bad at the deeper levels. You simply don’t have at that depth the quality sediments that you need to build the beach.  They are all in the top 6-feet.  Once you go to about 6 ½ feet you see a serious segregation of sediment quality.  You have the borderline economics on the Hopper Vs. Cutter-head and it was still thought it was going to be a Hopper project. 

            Mr. White talked to the board about what CSE was going to be able to control.  There are three things that can be tracked visually, by the dredgers and CSE, and they are the clay, the hard mud, total amount of mud and the total number of very large shells larger than 1cm.  These are large materials, not calcium carbonate percentages. 

            Mr. Eckhardt mentioned the gravel.  He had interpertated that we would be able to get an idea of how much gravel there was on the beach.  Mr. White replied that both dredges have indications of that and visually it can be tracked as well. 

            Mr. Charles Vincent asked for clarification on the mud content.  Mr. Vincent said it has been said it is the same amount that would be taken by a Hopper and by Cutter but because of additional water, the Cutter would wash it out.  Even if it took more in the process, it would tend to flush it off at the beach.  Mr. White replied that was correct.

            Mr. White said it does not stay on the beach.  You will see a negative impact that is a temporary increase in turbidity in the surf because it is the higher percentage of mud that will increase the turbidity levels. 

            Commissioner McElraft asked if the beach itself would show any more mud and the answer was no.

            Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, commented, “I have concerns, along with others in the town, that the majority of the board continues to present gloom and doom for the upcoming nourishment project in Emerald Isle.  He does not understand why the board would not accept the data these guys keep telling them about and their recommendations from these highly experienced professionals.  He does not understand why the board thinks they are more knowledgeable about the final outcome of this project than these professionals who have completed many similar projects.  The board members continue to say the project will not be delayed but will go forth.  No one will delay this project, etc. etc. but then they continue to also be totally negative whenever the opportunity arises.  This morning at the Ceremony that was held in this room (The board room) one of the three commissioners that did come showed no support for anyone who spoke except from a half-hearty applause when Mr. Rush spoke.  Regardless of what they say, the majority of the board does not support this project. Any action they take to move this project along is done begrudgingly and mainly because the Referendum requires it, and not because they support it.  The Jacksonville Daily News recently reported a board member saying that the Cutter-head would produce poor quality sand.  But how can you say that with your limited knowledge.  A quote was also reported in the news that a higher percentage of mud produced by the Cutter-head would result in poor quality sand, which we have learned it not true, but the difference in the percentage of mud between the Hopper and Cutter-head, from what I understand and have been reading, is a whopping 8/10^th of 1%.  Again, I cannot understand the board's extreme concern about this when three scientists, Tim Kana, Tom Jarrett and John Wells have all agreed that the samples show very similar sand to what is out there now.  Why can't the board not look at the experience Atlantic Beach had concerning mud.  I know a lady that works down there and watched Atlantic Beach widening being done. 

            She said the mud was pretty bad when it was pumped out, and it was, large balls, etc.  However, she said it was gone in a fairly short time.  Go take a look at Atlantic Beach now.  Mud is mud.  One of the great advantages of using a cutter-head, as we have learned, is that the turtle take will be less likely and why isn't the North Carolina Coastal Federation and their representatives here jumping at this chance to reduce turtle takes?  Is it because they are more concerned with putting sand on the beach than they are in saving turtles?  I just wonder.  One of our commissioners said the Cutter-head will cost Emerald Isle $75,000 per day for shut down if it has to be moved because of unwanted material.  This was also in the Jacksonville Daily News.  Is this a hint there will be complaints from the town about the quality of material, which could cause delays?  Do we already know these kind of complaints are coming?  I understand the board is prepared for a shut down period that would equate to 1 million dollars.  This could be required when using a Hopper dredge.  This cost could go into placing more sand on the beach if the town would continue using the Cutter-head dredge from what I hear, and it sounds to me like no turtle takes.  I do not believe that would be proper stewardship of citizens taxes when there is an acceptable alternative such as the Cutter-head.  Also it is my understanding that should we use the Cutter-head dredge for the entire project, our project would not be shut down even if another project in the Southeast is required to stop.  One of you stated in the Jacksonville Daily News that absentee property owners wanted only to save their structures while the town looses its natural sandy beaches. If you would just visit the beach area, 16^th Street and east of there, you will see that the town has already lost its natural sandy beaches”.

            “One final comment.  I have experienced the attitude of some of the board also.  I overheard one board member speaking to my wife, say that the best thing that could happen to the houses on the front row was for them all to wash into the ocean and that way the town would have plenty of parking spaces.  Thanks for your support.  This kind of talk and other negative comments is what makes many of those doubtful of a timely completion of this project and gives the most sand for our money.  I hope the board will do the right thing and allow the use of a Cutter-head dredge as long as possible.  Thank you.”

            Mayor Schools commented he hoped everyone in this room believes what the board says.  He has always said there is actually nothing that any board member has done  to make this project any slower.  We are ahead of schedule.  Right now we have it lined up about 20 to 30 percent of where we thought we would be on January 1.  All of the concerns have to be looked at.  He respects everything that is put in the newspaper but some of this stuff is taken out of context.  He just asked that people come ask him or ask any board member directly whenever they have a concern because some things are being misinterpreted.

            Commissioner Marks said she does not support nourishment but she vowed that whatever the vote was she would support that.  To her, the most important thing is to follow the material that is put on the beach.  It is not sand.  If you look at our beautiful Emerald Isle beaches, it is not what is going to be replaced.  It is going to be large shell content, very very tiny pieces of shell, gravel and it is not going to be an Emerald Isle beach anymore but it will save the houses and that is what it is all about.  She has never heard her two cohorts say they would stop this project.  They have been charged with that.  The board is trying to do the best for Emerald Isle.

            Mr. Tom Smith, 10545 Wyndtree Drive, took exception with Commissioner Marks.  Mayor Schools interrupted and asked not to get argumentative.  About 11 years ago repair was done to the beach.  In the beginning it seemed like it might be that way because the material was gray, it did have some shell in it and it had thousands of sharks teeth in it as well.  The winds blew as they always do and it rained and before long that beach was the most beautiful part of this whole stretch.  Very shortly after that renourishment, weddings were taking place in front of his house, funerals, photographers came and took pictures and they still do. They park in his and his daughter’s driveway as they come to do that.  It really happened.  He does not know exactly how they dredged it but he does know that they had that renourishment.  He urged the commissioners to make a very intelligent decision.  The two gentlemen present have inspired a great confidence in him and he hoped it will inspire confidence in the board.

            Mr. Lee Lipstiz, a resident, echoed that he hopes it will inspire some confidence.

            Commissioner Marks remarked it was not dredged from off the coast.

            John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, said, “whenever you get into a project like this one of the things you have to do is identify, quantify and rank the risks that are involved to get the project completed within the budget to meet the objective of the program.  The objective of this program is to put sand on the beach so that tourists will come, sit on the sand, and spend their money in the stores and to do it environmentally safe.  The second objective is moving the channel when that point is reached.  This is what taxpayers voted for.  That is why the voters increased their own taxes to do just that, to have tourists come sit on the sand.  Listening to these gentlemen, it was really educational, there is a quality risk here and the risk is the quality of the material being put on the beach and a Cutter-head does increase somewhat the possibility of a risk of quality, but I hear that risk is temporary.  A couple of people, including the piece from the scientists, from one month to one year, two years, and you look at the Pine Knoll Shores experience, that seems to be what has happened.  When it first came up out there it was terrible but now it is a fairly decent product and clearly it has changed the objective of tourists sitting on the sand. Scheduling costs risks now is another

story because now you are talking about a taxpayer money and you are talking about a check book. That can be permanent.  The amount of $75,000 per day, the idea of someone down in Florida shutting us down totally, that could get really serious in a heart beat.  That happened to Pine Knoll Shores. That risk can be avoided with a Cutter dredge. You avoid the risks of total shut down.  Please when you do deliberations remember the objectives, people sitting on the beach, and remember the taxpayers voted to increase their own taxes to get that done.  Let’s do it in the most cost efficient manner”.

            Commissioner Marks remarked that in the meeting with Frank and Larry today, they have heard more about Cutter-heads today than they have before and she hopes they have come up with a solution that will make all of the board happy.  We are going ahead with a Cutter to begin with and if it is feasible for us after 400,000 Cu Yds. of material has been pumped on the beach, we will revisit the situation and see if we will permanently go on with a Cutter-head.  We have seen what happened at Pine Knoll Shores with a Hopper.  We are saying, “Let’s start our project, look at what comes out on the beach and hopefully it will be much better, to see if that is actually the way to go.  We will give you an opportunity to look at it.  We will start with a Cutter-head and then evaluate what comes out on the beach.  You can come back and give us your advice again.  We will start, evaluate in a very short time and make a decision again”.

      Mr. Rush clarified for both the public and the board, one of the ideas that was discussed this afternoon, as you know there are three sub-areas within borrow area B2 that we have approved for 6-foot cuts.  Tim Kana has taken all of those three areas and reduced them to try to meet the 35% shell content with a similar characteristic that you would expect to see at a 4-foot cut.  Sub-area 1 generates about 400,000 Cu Yds. That is the area the board has previously authorized.  Sub-area 2 has about 550,000 Cu Yds in it and sub-area 3 has somewhere around 610,000 Cu Yds of material.  One idea that Commissioner Marks is trying to present for consideration is what if the board authorized the sub-areas 1 and 2 which would give the board an opportunity to see roughly a mile’s worth of the beach; Authorize that first 970,000 Cu Yds. of material, make a decision on sub-area 3 after you have had a chance to witness what is on the beach because the timing is such that Weeks Marine needs 10 to 14 days notice to decide whether or not they were going to need the Hopper dredge or Cutter dredge.  This approach that was recommended today was an effort really to try to move forward with the Cutter-head dredge.  It would provide some protection and provide an opportunity to see the quality on the beach and basically confirm that what Mr. DaVico is telling us holds true as far as the mud content.  Mr. Rush thinks in terms of the shell content, those happy with the shell content now are going to see the same material out there.  People who are not happy with the shell content are going to see the same material out there, give or take.  He feels it will not make a tremendous impact in that regard.  Hopefully with this process and the management process that is in place, we can avoid large concentration of larger shells, mud rollers, etc.  Mr. Rush does not want to tell anyone on the board or the audience that there is not going to be any shell because there is.  He thinks that what Commissioner Marks is trying to tell the audience is those ideas discussed this afternoon provides a reasonable compromise that the board might consider tonight.

            Mayor Schools said, Weeks Marine indicated that they are OK with the idea of going along with two of the sub-areas and decide on the third later on as long as we give at least two weeks notice so they can know what to do.

            Commissioner McElraft asked how long it would take to do 970,000 Cu Yds.  Mr. DaVico replied they would move along with an approximately date and with approximately 30,000 Yds. per day so you are looking at a month or a month and one-half.

            By the time they finish with area 1 they would want to know what is going to happen with area 3.

            Mr. Rush noted that about 1 mile, that would be the point in time we would have to tell them “Yes continue with the Cutter-head dredge in area 3 or send in the Hopper dredge”. It is to their advantage and ours, if we want to change to a Hopper, to have them come in when the Cutter is leaving.  They have to have about two weeks notice in order to make that happen.

            Commissioner McElraft asked what the criteria would be for the board to say stop and bring in a Hopper?  It is known the shell content is the same, the mud is pretty much the same or maybe a little cleaner.  If it is not we will have mud rollers.  It sounds to her like the amount of clay that in this project, there will not be any mud rollers like they had in Pine Knoll Shores.  What would be the criteria to say bring in the Hopper?

            Commissioner Marks said she wants the chance to look at the material.  The board has already seen what Hopper dredge did at Pine Knoll Shores It is feasible that the board looks at what goes on the beach.  If Pine Knoll Shores turns out to be better then at the end of that period we can say use the Hopper.

            Commissioner Messer commented it is his understanding that there is a negligible difference in what goes on the beach whether it is a Hopper or Cutter-head.  Mr. DaVico said it will be better.  This will give the board the opportunity to see without committing.

            Commissioner Messer said if someone does not like what goes on the 9-block area and we go to a Hopper dredge and there is no difference in material from the Hopper dredge then we have increased the turtle take potential.  He does not understand why the town would want to switch to that when the scientist have assured us that it will do the job, it will do the same thing as a Hopper, it will not take a turtle and they can do it quicker and get more volume of sand.

            Commissioner McElraft said in the borrow areas are almost exactly alike.  .8% mud, not .8% clay, but mud, silt, that will probably wash off.  To take the risk of bringing in a Hopper for any reason because we do not like the sediment on the beach. They did not like it in Pine Knoll Shores or Indian Beach, and she does not think they will like it here because it is the same sand.  To say that we are bringing a Hopper in with the possibility of paying $75,000 per day for a turtle take that could possibly take up to 10 days shut down like Indian Beach had, she thinks it is fiscally irresponsible and she does not think the board should even attempt at getting a Hopper in here.  For three commissioners to make a decision to bring a hopper at that time because they do not like the sediments on the beach is irresponsible.

            Commissioner Farmer asked, “We have already approved Area 1.  If we approve sub-area 2 now and tell you in a week that we want to switch to a Hopper, we would still continue and finish sub-area 2 and we would not have delayed you in anyway.  Am I right?”  Mr. DaVico said if they have two weeks notice it should not be a delay.

            Mr. Rush input that we did envision that if the board approved sub-areas 1 and 2, and they were happy with it, they would continue to work with a Cutter-head until they needed to bring the Hopper in.

            Commissioner Farmer said “Or at that time we would say it looks fine continue on with the Cutter-head?  The answer to her question was “Yes”.

            Commissioner Eckhardt was very impressed with Weeks approach to quality control.  He thought it was a little premature to think the whole project could be done with a Cutter-head anyway. Even if it were decided tonight that the town was going to do it, there is no guarantee that it can do it.  There is only 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu Yds. of sand identified by CSE that could even be used.  So the likelihood that the Cutter-head could be used for the whole project is something that has not even been decided. 

            Mr. White said it can be done.  That was the plan from the beginning.  Within the permitted areas, there is sufficient material to do the entire project. 

            Mr. Rush clarified that within the permitted borrow areas there is more than enough to do the 1.8 million Cu Yds. project.  Within the sub-borrow areas there is 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu. Yds. of material that would meet the board criteria.

            Mr. White said if the larger areas of the permitted 6-foot cuts were allowed in order to do this entire project with a Cutter-head, the one criteria that would have to be loosened is the 35% calcium carbonate.

            Commissioner Eckhardt said if we learned anything in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach from their experience, it was that going into the unknown is risky business.  They learned that with turtles and tires and he feels that this is the same way.  We are going into an area that we don’t know anything about.  By going in and using these two areas as a sample, we are going to be able to find out where we want to go.  It seems to be the best of both worlds.  We get an idea of what is there.  The more important thing to Commissioner Eckhardt is that Weeks demonstrate, and they have already impressed him, that they can control quality within those areas.  When they get a vein of clay, they can move. When they hit large shell deposits, they can move. It is even more flexible than the Hopper dredge.  He thinks this is very impressive.  By using these two areas with the Cutter-head, getting a jump on the project, he thinks we have the best of both worlds.

            Commissioner McElraft commented that if it had not been for Commissioner Marks abstaining during the permitting process, we would not be able to look at the cutter right now.  She is very thankful for Commissioner Marks’ action by abstaining, which was a positive vote, and the town was able to go through the permitting modification that allows the town to do the project with a cutter.  Commissioner McElraft hopes that the town can continue with the cutter. She does not want to take a turtle because of the dollars.  If we have something like ½ % mud that we don’t like, and we know it is 35% calcium carbonate, in fact it is ½% less in a 6-foot cut of shell content than there is in a 4-foot cut.  If it is allowed to let commissioners make a decision that they don’t like the sediments on the beach, then you can go ahead and call the Hopper in at that time. In the Springtime when there is probably going to be warmer weather, there is a possibility to take turtles.  Someone else in the southeast can shut us down and if the Hopper is here, what is the chance.  You can say we will bring the Cutter back in and finish the project but the Cutter will be someplace else and not available.  The town is taking a big chance with your dollars.  It will be a pure nightmare if we take turtles and we are a turtle sanctuary here.  Commissioner Farmer has made several e-mail statements that we are a turtle sanctuary here, that we need to be very concerned about the turtles.  Commissioner McElraft does not see any concern for the turtles here when it comes to comparing it to ½% mud that would wash out.  Everybody commented about the way Atlantic Beach and Fort Macon looks and why can’t we have our beach look like that?  They had 11% mud on their beach, 11% that the Corps of Engineers dredged was put on those beaches and they were gone within a few months.  She had talked with Jerry Merrin out at Fort Macon and he said not one complaint was registered about the 11% mud content.  Commissioner McElraft is afraid that when the town has pumped 970,000 Cu yds. they are not going to like the sediment content because they did not like the sediment in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach, so what is going to happen.  They will want to bring in the Hopper.  She just cannot go along with it because she doesn’t feel tax dollars need the towns protection in that way and she does not want to take a turtle.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion that the board allows Weeks to utilize the additional 6-foot cut areas identified by CSE, all three of them.

            Commissioner Marks said she would like to see what goes on the beach and would like to see the town do the trial period suggested and if it is found it is great, that would be wonderful. She would be happy to stay with the Cutter. The chance of taking a turtle in January and February is just about nil.  She mentioned 4 turtles were taken which caused the 1^st shut down.  The 2^nd shut down was in April.  Commissioner Marks said, “Yes we are environmentalists and we care about turtles”.  She is not willing to commit right this minute to say that the town is going with a Cutter-head for the whole project. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to amend Commissioner McElraft’s motion to extend the current contract to include only areas B1 and B2 at this present time.

            Attorney Taylor said you have to vote on the amendment first. 

            Mayor Schools repeated that the motion is to amend the motion to include only areas B1 and B2.

            Discussion took place on the type of dredge to be added as requested by Attorney Taylor and Mr. Tom White replied “No Sir” That is contrary to the contract.  You cannot specify the type of dredge.

            The vote for amending the motion was a split vote.  Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks were for.  Messer and McElraft were opposed.  Motion passed.

            Mayor Schools clarified that the motion on the floor now is the amended motion to allow area 2 for dredging by Weeks, Inc. Area 1 has already been approved.  

            Commissioner McElraft asked how the board plans to make the decision or would this decision be made over the Internet?

     Mayor Schools clarified that the amended motion was to allow Weeks to use sub-area 2 to a 6-foot depth and the board is to notify the dredge after 5,000 feet if they are to proceed with a 6-foot cut in area 3. The board voted with a split vote of 3-2.  Voting for were Commissioners Eckhardt, Marks and Farmer.  Voting against were Commissioners Messer and McElraft. 

1. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Dune Plantings

Commissioner McElraft questioned maybe trying to get a discount for citizens to encourage them to plant on the dunes.  Ms. Sanderson said she could ask for a discounted price.

b.     Resolution Authorizing Contract Amendment for Dredge Monitoring Equipment

            Mr. Rush explained this is computer equipment that will help track the location of the Hopper dredges that will ultimately be necessary to complete the project for $7,000.  In the meantime leading up to the Hopper dredge, it will be available for the Cutter-head dredge because the town will be purchasing this equipment.

            Commissioner Farmer asked if this was something the town does not need with a Cutter-head dredge.  Mr. White said if we knew now that the whole project was going to be Cutter-head, then you could go either way.  It is not that much of an expense but the data on the Cutter-head dredge is going to be pretty boring because it does not move much and then it jumps all of a sudden.  Visually their records can be verified as correct. If it were known this was all going to be Cutter-head, then Mr. White would say, “Let’s not bother with it”.  Mr. White would need some specific lead time in ordering some specialized equipment and some bugs are going to have to be worked out of it in order to get it operational.  He is not comfortable with knowing a week or so before a Hopper arrives that you want this done.  That is not enough notice.

            Commissioner Farmer asked for clarification of significant lead time.  Mr. White replied if they had to they could scramble.  He questions whether scrambling and all of that is necessary for this small amount of money because it does add something to the Cutter-head project.  It gives you your own independent real time confirmation of the Cutter-head location.  One thing it will help logistically on the Cutter-head project if they are going to get into the detailed assessments of “are we in some clay now or is the gravel percentage too high, do we need to skip from here to there?”  It is well worth these several thousand dollars to have that data real time so the engineers can be making that decision real type rather than having to wait for the next crew boat to come back with a disk in their pocket and give us that data so they can confirm they are saying all of that correctly.  Mr. DaVico got into that discussion today as he was getting into more details about how both the engineer and he together would decide “Yea, you are in bad stuff”.  You need to move from here to there”.

Mr. White does not know how to direct him if he does not have the real time data.  If it is thought it is going to be both Cutter-head and Hopper it is important to have this equipment.

            Mr. White said he would like to have the Resolution approved if they are going to have to make quick decisions on directing the Cutter-head.

     Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Contract Amendment For Dredge Monitoring Equipment.  The board voted unanimously, 5-0.  Motion carried.

            After a break at 8:40 P.M. the board went back into session at 8:50 P.M.

Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project

      a.   Resolution Authorizing Award of Design Contract to       

            Moffatt & Nichol Engineers

      b.   Capital Project Ordinance Amendment                            

           Mr. Rush explained that for the board’s consideration there is the Design Contract for the storm water project.  It covers permitting activities, detailed design engineering activities and also construction administration activities.  It is expected that the preconstruction activities will probably run for 18 months while the construction activities will probably be 9 to 12 months.  Total amount of the Contract is $299,872, and is based on time and materials. The $299,872 is higher than was budgeted in the Capital Ordinance for this project.  There is a capital project budget for design and engineering of $158,549.  A budget amendment for consideration for $131,323 from the Contingency account for the storm water project for design, engineering and permitting fees.  Majority of that money, around $100,000, is associated with permitting, and activities.

            Mr. Tim Reid, Moffatt and Nichol, explained there are 4 Tasks.  The permit documentation and responding to agency comments constituted just about all of the overage over the original estimate for the construction documents.  What is being required is two concerns the agencies have come up with, (1) Shellfish Sanitation is requiring that the spreader bar not be engaged except when the sound is closed or during an emergency situation.  With that in mind, it is requiring Moffatt and Nichol to do some additional testing and some additional geotechnical work to make sure that the site does not impact the neighboring properties with what is going to be put on the site.  The best analysis and explanation for the audience is if you have a sponge to clean around the house and you put it back under the sink it dries out.  What we have is a dry sponge and when pumping water to a certain point, the water will begin to seep into that sponge but at the same time we will get some overland flow.  Because the spreader bar is not going to be engaged, they are not going to be able to take advantage of the water that is flowing across the surface and flowing out through the spreader bar.  They are going to effectively disperse all of that water and they are not going to get the benefit of that run off.  That is why additional geotechnical testing was required and why some of the additional engineering studies, which is where the other $30,000 come in, are coming into play in the additional cost.

          Commissioner McElraft asked when Mr. Reid says they are going to wall that off, is that the sheet piling that he is talking about?  Mr. Reid replied they were going to investigate the possibility of sheet piling and at the same time they will investigate the additional information exactly what are the limits or the impacts as the water is pumped to the site is to Osprey Ridge and Cape Emerald. 

            Mr. Reid continued that two things are involved.  (1) The sands are very good so they will accept a lot of water (2) the sands are very good so that they transmit the water very quickly.  We have to make sure that there is no impact to either of those properties.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if that impact was included in the $299,000.  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  If Moffatt and Nichol can find a confining layer that will limit the transmission of that water beyond the sheet pile then that will force all of the water out one end at the site.   The other thing they will have to look at is that the sands may be good enough and they may transmit water in a break where they can put water in there and put a monitoring system in at certain points that would shut the system off and on.  It maybe can be done without the expense of the sheet wall.

            The second item that came in, and it surprised Moffatt and Nichol, was EPA came up with a requirement of additional testing of the waters to determine what the quality of the water that is being pumped is.  They are saying that Moffatt and Nichol have to meet a SA water quality.  They have also said that if the water that is collected is not of SA water quality, then the water will have to be pumped to the site and run additional models and find out as the material decays to a certain point where it meets SA water quality, then they are going to say that the area above that point has to be mitigated.  This is a big issue but in talking with the Corps of Engineers, this site is unique.  It is one of the last large natural tracts of land.  The mitigation of that site for the creation of wetlands would require the destruction of the natural area to create the lower areas for the wetlands.  Therefore, it is a practical scenario and if it is not practical and these items will come into play as far as the natural system and what has to be done to the site and what kind of construction will be required.  There is going to be some give and take there.  The EPA has required that so the additional water sampling that is in the first phase, which was a fair amount of expense is also included.

            Commissioner McElraft asked where were those water samples going to be taken from?  Are they going to be after a storm so you can see what the storm water truly is like?  Mr. Reid replied they are going to take samples both on the site and near the pick-up points where the pump stations are proposed after a storm.  Someone will place a small bucket in a ditch, as it rains and runs off someone will collect a grab sample.

            Commissioner McElraft also asked isn’t it almost impossible for that storm water to be at a 15 colliform level.  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes” but at the same time they are testing what is on the existing property and if it is not at 14, and they are thinking that because of the animals that inhabit the site, what they are pumping there may be cleaner than what is on the site currently.  That is why they are testing both sites.

            Commissioner McElraft noted the EPA will want to know if the storm water is 14 colliforms or less and Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  Commissioner McElraft continued with if it is not in this wetland area, until it becomes 14 or less, you are going to have to mitigate this part of the wetlands and asked if she was correct?  Mr. Reid replied that is what the EPA is suggesting.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if it concerns Mr. Reid at all that Tracy Rice from the Fish and Wildlife says those are unmitigatibly wetlands?  Mr. Reid said it does in that, he was concerned when they first talked to the EPA. However after talking to the Corps of Engineers, we come back to them with what is the best use for the site.  Mr. Reid thinks another thing to keep in mind is if they had the system, the town has been fortunate during the past 2 years, and he does not think there has been any flooding in October that would have required the system, other than some limited use of it. Commissioner McElraft confirmed the town did have limited use of it in October and Mr. Reid said those are the kinds of things that are going to come into play.  Use of the pump one time in two years is one of the things that will have to be weighed in talking with the Corps.  Those are the kinds of things they are going to place in the criteria as far as what is going to be required.  That is where the word “practical” is going to come into play.

            Commissioner McElraft asked how was Mr. Reid going to get Fish and Wildlife to go along on this project because they have said the wetlands are unmitigable, even though they are only used every two years or whatever?  Mr. Reid answered, they are going to have to rely on the Corps of Engineers as they are going to have the final say.  They are going to get the agencies comments and there will be some back and forth.  There will be some mitigation planning plans and some other things on site that they will gain some credits for.

            Commissioner McElraft asked about an Environmental Impact Statement.  Mr. Reid made note that they have not proposed doing any Environmental Impact Statement.  Moffatt and Nichol is going to submit all of the pertinent documents, like at the last meeting Mickey Sugg, DWQ and CAMA basically said submit the documents and let us make our comments and that is what Moffatt and Nichol is going to do in the first phase.

            Commissioner Farmer asked if Fish and Wildlife had made any comments since the last meeting and Mr. Rush said he does not recall.  Commissioner Farmer said after Tracy Rice said she was concerned about the unmitigable and about the fact the town was using that for storm water, at the last meeting she said Fish and Wildlife had no problems with the storm water.  Mr. Reid said the letter she sent where she used the strong wording in opposition was prior to the meeting.  Commissioner Farmer suggested calling Tracy and asking if Fish and Wildlife still had concerns.  Mr. Rush said he is not aware that any agency is requiring the Environmental Statement for this project.  Mr. Reid said he thinks Mrs. Rice thought this was going to serve as a storm water treatment every time it rained it would be pumped, but it is only an emergency retention system.  It is not really a storm water treatment facility.

            Commissioner Farmer suggested it being clarified with Ms. Rice because it is her understanding that Fish and Wildlife has no objections.  Commissioner McElraft noted she would like to see a letter from her stating that.

            Mr. Reid noted the next step is for them to complete the permit document and the Corps will distribute the permit documents for agency comments.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if the EPA concern has just come up and Mr. Reid informed the board that Moffatt and Nichol made some initial contacts in preparing the proposal and the SA water quality and the mitigation was never mentioned at the previous meetings.  Ms. Rice did ask for the water quality samples at the previous meeting but as far as requiring them to run a decay model and determine where the mitigation should start was not an issue.  Mr. Reid and Moffatt and Nichol do not have the time or the money for running a decay model. That is fairly elaborate so they are waiting until the get the samples back.  He is hoping the samples will be fairly consistent. 

            Commissioner McElraft said if they are 14 colliform then the town will have to run that and asked how much would that cost?  Mr. Reid said it would depend on her comments because there is also a mitigation cost of how much land do we have to go in and reconstruct and create wetlands.  The other option is to go in and just pump straight ground water from the site and that would alleviate her concerns.  There are monitor wells that will be installed at the pump locations and they will take samples from the ground water and we know those will meet whatever the water quality standards are.

            Commissioner McElraft commented, “But that is not true of what is going to be pumped into there is it?"  Mr. Reid said it would be if that is the only option there, then they will not take any surface water.

            Commissioner McElraft stated if we can’t get it to a 14 colliform count then the only thing that can be pumped is ground water isn’t it?  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  Mr. Reid noted it is basically the same just not as efficient. The other thing is it will probably increase the construction costs some because Moffatt and Nichol will have to increase the size of the system that supplies water to the pumps because of the shore site.  This is the worst case scenario.

            Commissioner McElraft mentioned their coming back to the town for additional fee modifications.  Mr. Reid said the initial fee was at $420,000.  They cut a lot of things out like SUE (subsurface utility expiration surveying).  He is sorry to hear that Mr. Conrad is retiring but hopefully they can get him to come back to show them where some things are so that they do not impact the pipeline.  If you have an area where you have multiple crossings, we may have to get some of that done.  This was a very small cost ($6,500).  Moffatt and Nichol took out the decay model and they reduced the amount time for agency comments. What the permitting agencies require them to do will depend on the first phase.

            Commissioner McElraft, relating to the decay modeling, said if it is seen that it will not be feasible, there is no point in designing the system.  Mr. Reid said this would be done in Task 1, Task 2, Task 3 and Task 4.  Commissioner McElraft asked if authorization of all of the design should be done right now or should they pay for some design work that may have to be changed?  Mr. Rush interjected he believes you can. 

            Mr. Reid said they would not start any design until they had permits in hand.  Whether authorization for Task1 or Task 2 or 1, 2, and 3, until the permit documents are submitted, comments are received back and correspond to those. Once they have the permits, that will dictate what the final design will look like.  Mr. Rush interjected that if he does not give Mr. Reid permission to go on to Task 3, they cannot go on until he signs off on it.

            Mr. Reid said the additional costs are and why they are there, as far as an increase from the $168,000 up to the $191,000 that was basically investigation of the sheet pile system.  Again, depending on the system, that may not even be required and if it isn’t required, the time looking into that alternative goes away.

            Mr. Jack Siekman, 216 Sandfiddler Court, had a budget estimate on the project dated 2-20-2002 which says the detailed design and engineering is $129,181 and asked how did it get from there to where it is now?  Mr. Rush took a look at the paper Mr. Siekman had and it said the “preliminary” design.  Mr. Siekman said it is getting more and more expensive and he sympathizes with Mr. Reid’s situation trying to deposit water and to get rid of water toward the sound is going to be an extremely difficult problem because of the 14 colliform level.  He thinks we have a little problem.  Mr. Siekman talked about the EPA and set up a situation where there is a hurricane and there is flooding.  Mr. Reid has admitted we would have rain for 5 to 7 days.  It is known that in Lands End that the catch basin is going to be underwater and the water is going to come off the road into the catch basin, which is going to be in the neighborhood level of 2,000 colliform level according to the test run by the Shell Fish and Sanitation people during hurricanes.  Mr. Siekman said his point is taking a sample outside a hurricane environment or at least outside a hurricane environment would be non-representative of what EPA is looking for and the chances of any of that water being in the neighborhood of 14 colliform is extremely slim and it is not possible.  They are running tests every month in Lands End and they can get it down to 10 or 15, 25 in the ponds due to retention but anything off the road is going to be well beyond any of those numbers and hardly 14.  If this is the case, Moffatt and Nichol will have to run that model Mr. Reid has been talking about, which is an expensive situation.  Mr. Reid has a tough problem.  We are dealing with a system, which has never been tried, and most of it, he hates to say, is computer modeling but he has some limitations.  Mr. Seikmen informed the board that they have some real data in actually controlling floods and their numbers don’t actually come very close to Mr. Reid’s.  Mr. Reid is talking about 12 ½ inches of rain, which would produce 40 million gallons of water.  The town had about 10 to 12 inches about a month ago and there was not 40 million gallons of water.  Mr. Siekman noted that we (Lands End) pumped over 100 million gallons of water over the hurricanes they pumped in.  They feel like there is a whole lot more water involved and 40 million for 12 ½ inches of rain seems like it is a little out of whack.  The thing that bothers him about the computer-modeling situation is not only the difficulty in trying to solve this problem by going to the sound or any direction that way, but some geotechnical tests were run to find out how fast the water would run through the ground water system and the sponge was a good example of that.  It can be assumed that it will not go under the road but it sure could go to adjacent homes in adjacent developments.  What makes the assumption that it will go toward the sound and not in that direction and Mr. Reid has come to the conclusion that he will have to drive sheet piling to stop that.  Now we have water, instead of going in 4 different directions, is going one-way toward the sound.