Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nags Head commissioners endorse scaled, property‑level approach to estuarine shoreline management
Summary
After hearing staff concerns about permitting, cost and property impacts, the board voted to move away from large offshore breakwaters and instead pursue smaller, implementable living‑shoreline elements, focus RCCP funds on a Soundside Road resiliency berm, and direct staff to work with property owners and consultants on design and permitting.
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners on Jan. 7 endorsed a revised approach to the Estuary and Shoreline Management Plan that shifts away from large, offshore breakwaters and toward smaller, permit‑feasible living‑shoreline projects and property‑level solutions.
Deputy Planning Director Joe Costello presented staff findings and options, describing preliminary designs for the Harvey site (nearshore structures roughly 50 by 30 feet and nearshore sills about 9 feet wide) and describing a previously considered concept of large offshore breakwaters for the Nags Head Woods Preserve that carried an opinion of probable cost of about $5 million. Staff cited concerns about permitting feasibility, the proposed amount of fill, potential unavoidable impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), long‑term maintenance needs and opposition from property owners who would be asked to grant construction and maintenance easements.
Costello said staff’s recommendation was to abandon the large‑island/breakwater design for that preserve, hire a consultant to run listening sessions with property owners, and pursue design alternatives that are less costly, easier to permit and that still deliver habitat and erosion‑protection benefits. He noted a possible alternative site (Catfish Farm/Sugar Creek Causeway area) on town‑owned property that could be more straightforward to design and implement and visible from the highway.
Commissioners debated the tradeoffs and asked staff to be cautious about impacts to views from amenities such as gazebos. Commissioner (motion maker) moved to adopt the revised approach and to focus RCCP (Resilience and Coastal) grant funding on a resiliency berm section of Soundside Road rather than offshore breakwaters; the motion was amended on the floor to include that focus and carried by voice vote.
The board’s action directs staff to pursue the path outlined in the staff report: refine designs with consultants, engage affected property owners, and prioritize projects that are implementable and less likely to trigger permitting barriers. Construction timing for subprojects will depend on permit approvals and scheduling; Costello indicated permit submissions could be made within days to weeks and that bidding might occur in late spring with contracts in place by June for post‑September construction windows where applicable.
By endorsing the revised approach, the board signaled a preference for phased, locally acceptable projects that aim to balance habitat protection, erosion control and cost and to reduce the likelihood of long delays due to permitting or easement requirements. The motion carried by oral vote; board members who spoke supported staff’s willingness to step back from higher‑cost, lower‑feasibility options and test alternatives on town property and with individual property owners.
What’s next: staff will work with consultants and property owners on revised designs, pursue appropriate permits, and return to the board with more detailed program recommendations and proposed allocations of RCCP funds.
