12/29/06
Christmas storm carves new drop-off
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=287&iid=36&sud=30
N.C. study takes aim at flow of pollutants into ocean
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=116771&ran=231917
Towns want new distribution formula
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/12/27/politics/pols0051.prt
Time to recycle trees
Carteret County News Times by Cheryl Burke (11/29/06)
FORT MACON — Oh Christmas tree. Oh Christmas tree. What am I
to do with you? That’s the song many lament following Christmas
as they pack up holiday decorations. Not to worry. Many have found
a solution that also benefits the environment by donating their used
trees to the Fort Macon State Park Dune Stabilization Program. For
many years Fort Macon has accepted used Christmas rees to stabilize
eroding dunes. “We use them to stabilize dunes that have been
damaged by foot traffic,” said Fort Macon Ranger Scott Crocker. “Foot
traffic kills the vegetation that stabilizes the dunes. “Placement
of the trees stabilizes the sand and allows new vegetation to take
hold. The trees also help keep people out of areas so they aren’t
trampling vegetation and gives it time to start.” Another benefit
of the trees is they provide nutrients for vegetation when they begin
to decompose. He estimated the park receives 1,000 trees annually
as part of the program. As Philip Ross of Morehead City assisted
his son
Duncan in unloading their tree Wednesday, Mr. Ross said he’s
been bringing trees to the park for at least 15 years. “It’s
part of our Christmas tradition. We know it helps the beach and rebuilds
sand dunes,” he said. “I’ve seen the tops of trees
sticking out in the dunes in July and I thought, that tree has helped
rebuild that dune.” Eddie Gwaltney of Morehead City was also
unloading a large tree. “I’m big on the beach and know
about the re-nourishment process, so anything that will help I’m
willing to do,” he said. Trees are being accepted through Jan.
21 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the bathhouse area. Please remove
all tinsel and decorations prior to dropping off the tree. “We’ve
had people drop off trees with lights still on them. We’ve
also had people bring wreaths with metal frames. We’ll take
natural wreaths, but please remove metal frames and other decorations,” he
said. For more information, call 726-3775. 12/26/06
Bogue
Banks beach project to begin soon
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=47429&Section=News
Beaches await promised funds (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/16296731.htm
Education process?
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/12/23/letters-editorials/letters008-midg.prt
The feds should hold up their end
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor
(12/22/06)
I was very happy to see the Star-News
article calling attention to the increasingly critical problems
in the Intracoastal Waterway. I thought that your reporter
(outlined) the issues, as well as the possible alternatives
to paying for dredging. It is the position of the N.C. Beach
Inlet & Waterway Association that while looking for other
sources of funds, we should not let the federal government
completely off the hook. What we see here is a perfect illustration
of the feds' passing off responsibilities to people down the
food chain without real consideration of who is actually going
to pick up the bill. What was not included in the article is
that people at UNCW have been working to determine the economic
impact of the waterway. Last summer graduate students under
the direction of professors Jim Herstine and Chris Dumas were
working up and down the coast talking to boaters and administering
surveys. At present they are assessing businesses along the
Intracoastal Waterway, trying to get an estimate of the contribution
those businesses make to the economy of North Carolina. We
don't know the exact figure, but it will be in the hundreds
of millions of dollars per year. It is expected that these
figures will help convince the federal government to consider
something other than commercial traffic when determining the
value of the waterway. - James R. Leutze, Wilmington, EDITOR'S
NOTE: The writer is chancellor emeritus of UNCW.
12/21/06
Beach
escarpment repaired
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=262&iid=35&sud=30
Two more invasive species found
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16279742.htm
12/19/06
NMB
Gets Initial OK For More Than $3 Million (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16273742.htm
True grit: Beach residents want sand mess fixed (VA)
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=116259&ran=100845
Invasive species could harm waterways (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6289353p-5485564c.html
Nasty barnacle invades area (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=123149
12/18/06
Beach
cliffs will be leveled this week
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=236&iid=34&sud=30
Wrightsville's 2006 sea turtle season shows decline
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=239&iid=34&sud=30
Visiting hours are over
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=47250&Section=News
As federal dollars dwindle, some coastal communities face
a rising tide of costs
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/17/06)
Wrightsville Beach | Most North Carolina residents
would be hard pressed to put a price on the state's coast. With more
than 300,000 boats registered statewide and beaches that draw hundreds
of thousands of visitors, the shoreline generates millions of dollars
a year for businesses and governments alike. But recently, many communities
have had to come to grips with how much they're willing to pay to
maintain beaches and keep waterways navigable. Keeping North Carolina's
coastal waterways open to boating costs an estimated $25 million
a year and millions more are spent to nourish beaches eroded by storm-driven
waves. Local governments used to take for granted that the federal
government would pick up some, if not all, of the tab when a beach
required more sand or an inlet needed dredging. But, not anymore.
These days, communities that need such work are finding that federal
money to maintain the state's waterways, inlets and beaches is drying
up. Up and down the coast, governments are struggling with how to
finance such projects at a time when the cost of doing the work is
rising.
'We need this now'
The latest concern for mariners is around Carolina
Beach Inlet. The inlet's entrance along the Intracoastal Waterway
and some spots in Snow's Cut have shoaled to 4 1/2 feet, half the
depth at which the Army Corps of Engineers tries to maintain the
waterway. Tom Morgan with TowBoat US in Wrightsville Beach said he's
got simple advice for boaters headed that way. "Take it slow
and plan your passage on a rising tide," he said. The increasingly
shallow water is both an economic and safety issue for Carolina Beach,
whose Yacht Basin is lined with charter boats and a few commercial
fishing vessels. "We need this now, before it gets even more
dangerous," Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark said last month. "We
can't wait until the waterway is impassable." Yet twice last
month the New Hanover County Commissioners voted not to use local
tax dollars to help fix the problem. The money, as much as $781,000,
would have been matched by the state. Although concerned about public
safety, a majority of the commissioners said they couldn't justify
spending room-tax dollars earmarked for beach nourishment on a dredging
project. New Hanover's denial of funds is the third time in six months
that coastal North Carolina voters or elected officials have decided
against spending local money on beach or waterway projects. Those
decisions might indicate the limits to which some residents will
go to protect and maintain their beach and water resources, although
whether they constitute a trend is unclear. Other coastal communities
have joined the state in investing local dollars to maintain inlet
crossings. For example, on Tuesday town officials in Ocean Isle Beach
in Brunswick County approved spending more than $650,000 to fund
a beach nourishment project for its badly eroded east end, and Topsail
Beach in Pender County appears close to doing the same for its beach.
The growing debate also comes as Washington, historically the largest
financial backer of these projects, continues to cut its funding
for such work - and as the cost and need for the projects increase.
The $7.26 million price tag for this past summer's Wrightsville Beach
and Masonboro Island nourishment project, for example, was nearly
double the cost of similar work in 1998 and 2002. Corps officials
also have said the agency needs about $7 million to maintain the
Intracoastal Waterway at its current level, which is shallower than
its authorized depth of 12 feet. Yet the corps is expected to get
only about $3 million in the upcoming federal budget for waterway
dredging in North Carolina, all of which is earmarked for areas north
of Morehead City where most of the state's commercial boat traffic
is concentrated. Federal funding also remains uncertain for dredging
of the state's five shallow-draft inlets, including Carolina Beach
in New Hanover County, Lockwood Folly in Brunswick and New Topsail
in Pender County.
'Graveyard of the Atlantic'
All of this comes as business along the coast
is booming. Tripp Brice, dock master of the Bridge Tender Marina
that sits in the shadows of the Wrightsville Beach drawbridge, apologized
recently as a couple from Texas prepared to launch their sailboat
from his dock. With wintry weather on the way, he said he wished
he could find a slip for the visitors. "But I'm full up," he
said. As the couple pulled away, Brice said he's always busy this
time of year as snowbirds begin their migration south for the winter. "But
this year we've been extra busy, partly because people are delaying
their trips to Florida," he said. It also has been an especially
busy time for Morgan and others who help rescue vessels that have
become stranded in shallow water. "This is probably the busiest
season for us ungrounding vessels in the last five years," he
said. While officials in Raleigh and up and down the coast discuss
where to find money to replace shrinking federal funds, Mike Bradley
wonders what other money might wash away if something isn't done.
Bradley, director of the N.C. Marine Trade Services at the University
of North Carolina Wilmington, said the state is home to 100 boat
builders, employing nearly 40,000 people, including subcontractors,
who constructed nearly $500 million worth of boats last year. "And
a majority of them require significant water," Bradley said.
Then there's the economic activity from boaters, especially snowbirds
who travel south for the winter and then return back up the Intracoastal
in the spring. Bradley said the financial ripples aren't just centered
around the marinas that host the generally large boats either. "For
every boat that bobs there are seven people wishing they could be
on that boat," he said. "That's the big economic impact
- the wannabe boaters." "So if the boats aren't there,
the wanna-be-boaters aren't there either." A 2005 study commissioned
by the General Assembly estimated that maintaining the state's inlets
and 308 miles of Intracoastal Waterway could cost as much as $25
million a year. With a new mile of highway costing upward of $20
million, coastal officials said that's not a steep price to pay for
maintaining the marine equivalent of Interstate 95. The N.C. Division
of Water Resources has earmarked $20 million for beach and waterway
projects for the current fiscal year, including work for the deepwater
ports in Wilmington and Morehead City. Bradley said allowing the
waterway to shoal up and get segmented into passable and impassable
sections would do more than just hurt marinas. "Imagine the
economic impact to gas stations, restaurants and truck stops if travelers
on I-95 had to make a huge detour through Eastern North Carolina," he
said. "Except in this case, the detour would be out into the
Atlantic. "And they don't call the North Carolina coast the
Graveyard of the Atlantic for nothing." Waterfront property
values, a prime income generator for coastal governments, also could
take a hit. Bradley added that there's an even more basic reason
for North Carolina to want to maintain its water resources. "We're
a boating state," he said.
Coastal states versus the heartland
The Intracoastal Waterway, which winds for
more than 300 miles through Eastern North Carolina, is a series of
natural and man-made waterways running from Virginia to Northern
Florida. Originally built for commerce, the waterway today serves
mainly recreational traffic. That shift poses a problem because the
federal government allocates dredging dollars based on commercial
use. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., said he doesn't expect the
trend of tight budgets to change even with the Democrats set to take
charge of Congress. "Traditionally this hasn't been a partisan
issue but a battle between coastal and interior sections of the country
over competing priorities," he said. "What makes it extra
tough these days is that the battle is now being raged in the middle
of a severe federal deficit." Rick Catlin, chairman of the New
Hanover Ports, Waterway and Beach Commission, said that unlike other
parts of the country, Southeastern North Carolina is only now feeling
the true impact of the federal cutbacks. "That stream was cut
off years ago, and we're starting to see the final trickles now," he
said. Catlin said it took Herculean efforts by the state's Congressional
delegation and an intense lobbying effort to secure federal funding
for the recent Wrightsville Beach and upcoming Pleasure Island beach
nourishment projects. He said it's unrealistic to rely on similar
efforts for other projects or to expect federal funding to suddenly
re-materialize. "We're seeing a new reality," Catlin said.
Pushing for money
State and local officials said it's too early
to give up on the federal partnership for beach and waterway projects,
both because of history and the amount of money involved. They also
said the recent setbacks at the local level, while disappointing,
don't indicate a general unwillingness of coastal residents to use
local dollars to maintain their beaches and waterways. Last month,
North Topsail Beach voters easily defeated a $34 million bond referendum
that would have financed the nourishment of nearly 11 miles of beach.
The decision has left town officials scrambling to come up with an
alternative, since doing nothing to alleviate the town's wide-spread
erosion woes isn't seen as a viable option. Caswell Beach Mayor Harry
Simmons, who also is executive director of the N.C. Shore, Beach
and Waterway Commission, said he thought the ballot defeat had as
much to do with how the costs would be spread between ocean and non-oceanfront
property owners as much as anything else. "I don't think that
was a referendum on beach nourishment itself, but on how they were
looking at funding it," he said. Topsail Beach on the other
end of Topsail Island also is looking at funding its own beach nourishment
project while it waits for a federal project that may or may not
come through sometime down the road. Town officials said they intend
to push forward with the project. When New Hanover County considered
funding for Carolina Beach's waterway, the concern among the majority
of the commissioners appeared to be that taking on a responsibility
that legally and historically has been the domain of the federal
government might be precedent-setting. In addition, using room-tax
funds dedicated for beach nourishment on a project that wasn't a
traditional beach-building project left some commissioners uncomfortable.
That sentiment was echoed by state Rep. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover,
who has helped modify the county's room-tax legislation in the past.
New Hanover County's beach nourishment portion of the room-tax fund
has about $25 million and grows by roughly $2 million a year. But
all five members of the county board said they realize the magnitude
of the problem if the waterway is allowed to shoal up. Catlin said
federal, state and local governments must sit down and come up with
a solution that's equitable, fair and predictable. "We can't
live with all of our projects being an adventure every year," Catlin
said. "We just can't." Staff writer Paul Jefferson contributed
to this report.
Reconsider Beach Access No. 33
Letter to the Editor – Lumina News
(12/14/06)
We urge the mayor and Board of Aldermen to
reconsider their Nov. 9 decision to cease investigating possible
town remedies for the closing of Beach Access No. 33. To begin with,
there really wasn’t anything to cease. The extent of the “investigation” apparently
was a brief discussion among the mayor, the board and the town attorney.
Town attorney John Wessell offered his off-the-cuff opinion that, “the
town could make a claim for prescriptive easement.” That casual
opinion cries out for investigation, not stifling it. The mayor may
well be correct in his opinion that the town’s potential prescriptive
easement is not a “slam-dunk” case. But every beach access
is very important to many, if not most of us; at least as important
as a Blockade Runner parking deck. And, most likely, the Blockade
Runner is far from a “slam-dunk” case. How can we fund
that complex litigation and not spend a comparatively few dollars
for a real investigation of potential remedies for our beach access
loss? The mayor’s stronger aversion to investigation may lie
in his statement, quoted in the Lumina News, that, “I don’t
want to get into litigating issues with our residents.” That’s
an understandable personal sentiment. Beach Access No. 33 should
not be a personal issue. We, the residents of Wrightsville Beach
(as well as countless visitors), have earned the legal right to use
Beach Access No. 33 by using it for more than 40 years. The property
owners of record have thrown the gauntlet into the face of the public.According
to the mayor, the recorded property owners have no interest in negotiation.
They have, in effect, said, “The public’s rights be damned,
we want the land, so we’ll take it.” The public’s
elected representatives have an obligation to respond on behalf of
the public, i.e. to at least seriously investigate a remedy. - Susan & Robert
Hur, Island Drive
12/13/06
Town
OKs beach repair (Ocean Isle)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16227364.htm
East end sand project approved
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/articles/2006/12/13/free/04-free.prt
N.C. inlet dredging funds left for new Congress to resolve
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=47106&Section=News
N.
Topsail addresses damaged structures
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=47105&Section=News
Beach-expanding project resumes on Hilton Head
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6279705p-5478359c.html
Rift
continues over sand drift
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (12/13/06)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH - The Open Forum at North
Topsail Beach ’s Thursday night meeting re-opened old wounds
over the bitter beach nourishment bond vote. Only two residents
asked to speak, but they could not have possibly been further apart
in opinion. Resident Bill Walsh said that he hopes the town accepts
the vote against the $34 million bond to pay for beach nourishment
as an indicator that they need to move on. He explained that he
felt the town should not spend any more money on beach nourishment
until a long range plan was developed. “We’ve already
spent millions chasing this sand-pumping dream,” he said.
Property owner Carl Chiang disagreed, saying that he was disappointed
in the town for voting against the beach nourishment bond and could
not understand why it failed. “Sand is gold around here,” he
told the town board. When Tom Jarrett of Coastal Planning and Engineering
gave his presentation about where beach nourishment stood in light
of the failed bond, Alderman Richard Peters asked Jarrett for guidance. “You
heard the two citizens who spoke,” Peters said. “We
couldn’t possible have two more extreme ends of the spectrum
here. Give us some advice.” “Your job is to figure
out how to pay for the damn thing,” Jarrett told the board.
Alderman Dick Farley sternly disagreed with that notion. “We
gave the people a chance to pay for it and they said ‘no,’” Farley
explained. While steadily figuring on his calculator, Farley said
that the board was told that beach nourishment would help protect
its tax base because certain ad valorum taxes could only be collected
for the purpose of beach nourishment. He said he figures the town’s
tax loss for not doing beach nourishment was about $400,000 a year. “So
that means that we are doing a $3 million a year project to save
$400,000,” he said. Farley said that he understood why citizens
were skeptical of the project. Mayor Rodney Knowles said that he
the numbers Farley were using we arbitrary. “What?” Farley
asked. “Tom’s numbers are arbitrary?” Jarrett
interjected, saying that the core reason for doing beach nourishment
was not to save the town’s tax base, but to save homes. “Citizens
had an opportunity to vote and they voted ‘no,’” Farley
repeated. Jarrett explained that to obtain the proper permits to
keep the project on track would cost the town another $400,000.
He said that once the permits were obtained the town could do as
little as it wished to nourish the 11-mile coastline. “You
get a permit that’s like a rocket to the moon when all you
might do is charter a sailboat to Bermuda ,” he said. But
Farley said that he could not see spending any more of the taxpayers’ money
after beach nourishment was defeated. The mayor reminded Farley
that it was the bond to pay for it and not the actual beach nourishment
that failed. “People wanted to pay more?” Farley asked. “With
an 80-20 split, if people weren’t happy with the money then
that means they wanted to pay more? 90-10?” Peters said that
nothing could be settled at the time and that the decision to pay
the remaining $400,000 for permitting should be deferred until
a later time. “I say we just end it,” Farley said. “Let
the state do the beach and the county do the inlet.” Alderman
Fred Handy said that he felt like the people misunderstood the
rates and that is why they voted against the bond. “Everyone
I talked to thinks it is too expensive and we should just stop,” Farley
said. “We must be talking to different people,” the
mayor said. Alderman Dan Tuman said that the beach is a town wide
benefit and the town should be responsible for it. “We don’t
have time tonight,” Peters said again. “We need a commitment
from the state and the county.” Alderman Larry Hardison said
that he agreed with both Peters and Farley. “We need more
time to go over this, but we cannot ignore the vote!” he
said. Hardison said he thinks everything should be stopped until
the board has time to talk it out. A motion was made to table the
discussion and the board voted 3-2 to do so. Immediately thereafter,
Farley made a motion to disband the beach nourishment committee.
The mayor said that it was too late to discuss the agenda item
further and moved on with the five hour meeting until it was recessed
at close to midnight. When the board reconvened at 11 a.m. Monday
morning, the beach nourishment project came up again. The board
voted 3-2, along the same lines with Farley and Hardison voting
against, to apply for possible state funding. Town Manager Bradley
Smith explained that the state might be willing to pay for 30-percent
of the town’s beach nourishment project if it were to go
forward with it. Farley questioned where the other $20-some million
would come from. But Tuman said that it was a wonderful opportunity
that the town should pursue. Peters agreed, saying, “We don’t
need to look a gift house in the mouth.”
Hold off on beach nourishment spending
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (12/13/06)
At the Dec. 7, 2006, North Topsail Beach town
meeting, representatives from Coastal Planning and Engineering stated
that North Topsail Beach would not incur any additional expense if
the town waited six to nine months to pursue the beach nourishment
permitting process. If no additional expenses would be risked by
tabling the contract for six to nine months, given that NTB's voters
soundly defeated the beach nourishment referendum last month with
80-percent saying no, why would NTB even consider proceeding with
spending upwards of $400,000 to get a beach nourishment permit? If
NTB is going to ignore the voters, why did we bother to vote? This
is a travesty. NTB should not be spending any more money on beach
nourishment until they have re-examined addressing beach erosion
(how to do it and how to pay for it) and re-submitted a new plan
to a town-wide vote. - Ed Doherty, North Topsail Beach
Sensible beach-building
Wilmington Star Editorial (12/12/06)
Three years late, Ocean Isle Beach is finally
getting the shot of sand it was promised. But it's questionable whether
the town should spend taxpayers' money in what's likely a futile
effort to save the erosion-prone east end. It's easy to sympathize
with people whose homes have been lost or are threatened by the encroaching
Atlantic Ocean. Yet the Army Corps of Engineers declined to add the
east end to the beach renourishment project for a very good reason:
sand near an inlet routinely washes away. The board is supposed to
meet today to decide whether - and if so, how - to proceed with its
own sand-pumping project. Perhaps a better use for the town's money
would be to help move the remaining endangered houses and to develop
new rules prohibiting unwise construction on this fickle spit of
sand. A temporary fix will only delay the inevitable.
Additional information regarding The Point
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (12/13/06)
I am writing about the purchase of The Point,
which was covered in your paper last week. It is true that the Board
of Trustees of the state’s Clean Water Management Trust approved
less than the full amount requested to protect The Point. However,
they recommended that an additional $2,000,000 be provided from other
state trust funds, and there is almost $3,000,000 in federal grants
currently in the Senate’s budget. That $6,000,000 should be
sufficient to purchase not only 9-10 acres of buildable lands above
the CAMA line, but also 35 acres of land not currently buildable,
but valuable for wildlife, recreation and other public purposes.
Please also be advised that there is no dispute as far as the Coastal
Land Trust is concerned. The owners continue to work with us in good
faith, have provided us the letter of intent we requested, and continue
to meet with us to work through the details of this very complex
transaction. Similarly, our partnership with the town of Topsail
Beach has been critical from the beginning, and the town remains
a valued partner. As with any project of this magnitude, the details
of the financing will be closely scrutinized by the funding agencies.
Since the funding for this project is not local, but from state and
federal sources, it’s to be expected that there will be competition
from other projects around the state and the country. In summarize,
we are very grateful for the cooperation we’ve received to
date, as well as the funding we have received. The Coastal Land Trust
will continue to work to save as much of The Point as we can. P.S.
The North Carolina Coastal Land Trust welcomes donations from new
members this holiday season. We can be reached at 910-790-4524 or
on the web at www.coastallandtrust.org. - Camilla Herlevich, Executive
Director North Carolina Coastal Land Trust
12/9/06
N. Topsail not ready to give up
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=47036&Section=News
Kitty Hawk requests help in protecting NC 12
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/12/09/politics/pols0221.prt
County denies dredge funding — again
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=201&iid=33&sud=30
Editorial: Horrific Blow To Our Local Tourism Economy
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/opinion_more.php?id=9658_0_3_0_M
12/7/06
Ocean Isle Beach dredging bids delayed
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/articles/2006/12/06/free/02-free.prt
Drop-off leaves lasting impact (Wrightsville)
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=179&iid=32&sud=30
Chilling warning on warming (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/16180260.htm
Ocean Isle nourishment under way
But weather may threaten replenishment of sand
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/7/06)
Sand is starting to flow onto Ocean Isle Beach
three years after the Brunswick County town was scheduled to receive
a booster shot for its
beach. The $2.1 million federal nourishment project has been delayed
for several years because of sky-high bids and a shortage of dredging
equipment, situations exacerbated by the demand for work in Florida
and the Gulf Coast after the disastrous 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons.
But town officials are still working on the details of a smaller, locally
funded project to rebuild the beach along the badly eroded eastern
end of the island. Ocean Isle hopes to piggyback on the larger Army
Corps of Engineers project to keep mobilization and other costs down.
Town Administrator Daisy Ivey said the commissioners hope to make a
decision at their meeting Tuesday about east end nourishment, which
would pump an estimated 135,000 cubic yards of sand onto the beach.
The corps won't renourish the area adjacent to Shallotte Inlet because
areas near inlets are inherently unstable. In short, the federal agency
can't guarantee the sand will stay on the beach for any extended period
of time. The recent spate of rough weather, fueled by nor'easters blowing
in, has worsened the situation on the east end, where several oceanfront
homes have been lost. Walls of sandbags already protect about a dozen
other homes and town infrastructure, including roads and utility lines.
But the sandbags are regularly overwashed, and the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management won't allow residents or the town to "supersize" the
fabric walls beyond what's allowed under state law. According to state
regulations, sandbags are supposed to be temporary structures until
a more permanent solution - such as a beach nourishment or property
relocation - can be devised. Hardened structures, such as groins, or
sea walls, are illegal along North Carolina beaches.
Group chips away at beach rock problem
Wilmington Star News by Brenda C. Birmelin (12/6/06)
Although turtle nesting season is over and the town of Oak Island can
use machinery to clear rocks off the beach, there's still a need for
manual pick-up of rocks below the tide line. To clear this low-lying
area, the Oak Island Beach Preservation Society has used a number of
tactics. First, there is a monthly rock party in which volunteers pick
up rocks and deliver them to backhoes and carts to carry them away
from the beach. At the end of the afternoon, a rock party for the volunteers
features hot dogs, hamburgers and - of course - rock 'n' roll music.
This past summer a Beach Rock Landscaping and Design Contest was held.
First prize went to Larry and Meta Carriker, who landscaped the flower
beds on their Northeast 47th Street property with lots of beach rocks.
Second prize was awarded to Donald and Peggy Cannady, who also live
on Northeast 47th Street. Third prize went to Paul and Rose Bailey,
who used the beach rocks to landscape their East Dolphin Drive home.
The
prize-winning home-owners were given their awards at the Fall-O-Ween
Festival at Bill Smith Park. There were eight
entrants into this contest,
but another 6,000 or more rocks were used by people who didn't enter
the contest to construct projects on their properties. The contest
and publicity by rental agencies got the word out that visitors are
welcome to "take a beach rock home." And many tourists did,
helping solve the problem that arrived along with sand pumped to rebuild
the beach in 2001. Part of the project was funded as a restoration
of the turtle nesting habitat. "There was a consensus among tourists
this summer that the sand was clearer of rocks than any other time
since the Turtle Habitat Project in 2001," according to the Beach
Preservation Society. Monthly rock parties will continue in order to
rid the beach of rocks. The rocks are not only a nuisance to beachgoers
and swimmers but a hazard to nesting turtles. The Beach Preservation
Society also continues to harvest sea oat seeds for the Oak Island
greenhouse. Then the young plants are sold to oceanfront homeowners,
who plant them to stabilize and grow dunes. The Beach Preservation
Society has a mannequin decked out in fashions made from trash found
on the beach, Beach Bum Bonnie. Bonnie has her own coloring book to
educate children about beach pollution. Logger the turtle is Bonnie's
sidekick. Each year a Beach Bum Bonnie coloring contest is held, and
the winner receives a $50 savings bond. Rip Tide, a character designed
to educate the public about rip currents, made his debut last year
at the Oak Island Christmas parade. When Bonnie, Logger and Rip Tide
aren't making public appearances, they can be found at the Oak Island
Recreation Center. They are available for educational programs. The
latest project for Beach Preservation Society volunteers is building
bike racks for the beach accesses. Already more than a dozen racks
have been built and placed at beach accesses. As time and money allow,
more will be built. If you would like to help with any of these projects,
contact the Oak Island Beach Preservation Society through its Web site:
www.oakislandbeachpreservation.org.
People voted “No” on beach bonds
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (12/6/06)
North Topsail Beach Alderman Dan Tuman’s recent letter states
that the $34 million North Topsail Beach (NTB) bond referendum “failed
to obtain voter approval.” What an understatement! The darn
thing was taken to the woodshed! Approximately 80-percent of the
voters said, “No.” It is a clear indication that the
voters are not interested in the project. It is not surprising. In
the past, beach nourishment financing proposals failed in similar
fashion in Carteret and Dare counties. After six years of meetings,
mailings and untold presentations and slide shows from the town’s
consultants, the citizens said no. Mr. Tuman accurately describes
some of the hazards of living at the beach. Unfortunately when you
live this close to the Atlantic Ocean those are real and unavoidable
risks. Many of the town’s citizens have experience with hurricanes
and storms, having been through Hurricanes Fran and Bertha and there
is even a few who remember Hazel back in the 1950s. Yet they still
voted no. The citizens of NTB fully understand everything that Mr.
Tuman is telling them. “The sky is falling” approach
just doesn’t resonate with them. Mr. Tuman’s letter seems
to lament the fact that sand wasn’t placed in front of the
condemned houses at the north end of the town. There was good reason
for it. They were in the water. Ultimately, NTB did approve and partially
fund, with county assistance, a dredging operation to place sand
in front of those homes. Unfortunately three months after NTB and
Onslow County contributed a combined quarter million dollars to assist
with that project (the state and federal government contributed much
more) the water is back under those homes; a fact that was not lost
on people considering a $34 million (plus $9 million of interest)
bond referendum. The letter refers to these and other problems as “sand
deficit” and “sand losses.” The old timers called
them erosion. The question in front of our electorate was whether
approximately $90 million (bonds, interest and periodic maintenance)
over a 30-year period will stop erosion. It seems to me that it is
perfectly reasonable for citizens to look at the costs, assess the
risks and benefits and vote what they feel is in their best interest.
I’m not sure if it was that type of thought process that prompted
Mr. Tuman to label “some” people as “deluded” and
wanting to “put our heads in the sand,” either way they
overwhelmingly voted no. I suspect from the tone of his letter that
he would have preferred that the bond referendum had passed. Because
NTB isn’t spending $90 million to address its “sand deficit”,
he is projecting serious financial problems for NTB. The truth is
that NTB is in excellent financial shape. In order to move forward
with the bond referendum NTB needed clearance from the state’s
municipal finance watchdog, the Local Government Commission (LGC).
The LGC has an outstanding reputation throughout the country and
is one reason North Carolina maintains an excellent credit rating.
After reviewing the town’s finances and its ability to repay
the debt, the LGC permitted North Topsail Beach to proceed with the
bond referendum, which would have required annual interest and principal
payments of approximately $5 million. In addition, the town’s
reserves or fund balances are several times the minimum required
by the state and each year the NTB annual audit is forwarded to the
LGC for analysis. The state is looking over NTB’s shoulder
and doesn’t see a problem. No one who lives at the coast should
fool themself into believing that storms won’t hit. They will
cause damage. The voters know it. They knew it when they voted. Property
will be damaged from water and wind. Most will be repaired some will
not. Roads could be damaged, if so, they will be repaired by Department
of Transportation. Debris will be removed and town property will
be repaired, mostly paid for by the federal government. The town
will clean up and continue on. In spite of all this, the building
pace on the oceanfront has been frantic. Investors are pouring money
into houses – big houses, big money, and sophisticated investors.
As you read this letter, buildings are going up as close to the water
as the state of North Carolina will allow. The question is - are
they prepared to bear the financial risk or are they expecting the
taxpayers of NTB and Onslow County to bail them out if the tide turns?
The voters of NTB have had their say. - Richard Farley, North Topsail
Beach (Editor’s note: Richard Farley is a North Topsail Beach
Alderman.)
Topsail Beach leaders deserve thanks
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (12/6/06)
It's as rare as a snowy day in June down here
on the coast that citizens have the opportunity to compliment their
elected officials for doing
something right. That opportunity recently came to the citizens of
Topsail Beach. Some time ago, in considering how to fund a much needed
beach renourishment plan, Mayor Ed "Butch" Parrish and
his board of commissioners presented their version of the plan used
by Oak Island to fund their renourishment program for our consideration.
Many Topsail Beach citizens thought that the proposal contained inconsistencies
that would have created inequitable applications if it were adopted
as presented. At a public hearing held for a discussion of the proposal,
large numbers of those in attendance vociferously objected to those
inconsistencies. Subsequently, Parrish advised us that the proposal
had been revised and the new plan would feature one rate for oceanfront
property owners, another rate for owners of property zoned for conservation
and therefore unbuildable, and a third rate for all other property
owners. While this may not end up precisely as the final version
to be voted on since there will undoubtedly be a need to accommodate
making the inevitable square pegs fit into round holes, it essentially
answers at least a substantial portion of the objections that were
raised at the public hearing. One of the issues still pending which
has not yet been addressed is the relationship between the contributions
to be made by oceanfront property owners vis a vis other property
owners. In the interest of fairness, it might be desirable to find
compromise positions by lowering the contributions of the former
somewhat and raising those of the latter slightly in order to maintain
the needed gross revenues for the project. One would hope that another
public hearing to hear concerns on this matter might be scheduled
somewhere down the line before a vote on the final version is taken.
It is indeed satisfying to know that our mayor and town board did
not have a proprietary interest in their proposal and were open to
responding to the public's concerns. They did that, and for that,
they deserve our thanks. I hope they will continue to do so, at least
on major issues such as this one. - Harold B. Hanig, Topsail Beach
12/5/06
Ocean Isle sand bids yet unfilled
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/16166338.htm
Waves taking big toll on Isle of Palms
Residents form company to seek permit to renourish
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=121229
Oceanfront pool plan doesn't float in Sunset
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16166423.htm
Measure would keep drilling rigs out of state waters (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=121383
Wild horses of Corolla breeding like rabbits this year
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/517599.html
Enough raids on beach funds
Wilmington Star Editorial (12/4/06)
Thanks to Danny McComas, the New Hanover County
Commissioners won't rob beaches to pay dredges. Three commissioners
seemed ready to do
it. Bill Kopp had called a special meeting Thursday to reconsider the
commissioners' 3-2 vote against the idea three weeks before. (Bill
Caster and Nancy Pritchett favored it; Kopp, Ted Davis and Bobby Greer
didn't.) If McComas hadn't shown up, Kopp presumably would have flip-flopped,
and $781,000 set aside for pumping sand onto beaches would have been
grabbed to pump sand out of the waterway. It needs to be pumped because
the Bush administration and Congress have abandoned the feds' historic
role of keeping the interstate waterway open to navigation. But if
local governments must now pay for such routine maintenance, they must
also find a new way to pay for it - not rob a fund established to pay
for other recurring needs. McComas suggests paying for dredging with
a portion of the room tax that goes to promote tourism. After all,
tourism would suffer if we lacked navigable waterways. In any case,
the fund set aside for beach renourishment should be off-limits. We
never know when a storm, or a series of storms, might scour the county's
strands, leaving little space for beach-goers and threatening high-dollar
property and the taxes they generate. McComas says he regrets the way
he helped the county borrow beach renourishment money to move Mason
Inlet several years ago. For one thing, that legislation opened the
door for future raids. As McComas put it Friday, "We pulled one
pickle out of the jar, and this would be another one, and once you
start, there's no stop." Let's stop now.
12/2/06
State launches boating survey
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46895&Section=News
North Myrtle Beach spruces up beach access
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/16147137.htm
Need long bridge
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/12/02/letters-editorials/letters029-farr.prt
Waterway dredging denied again
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/1/06)
The state representative who crafted the bill
allowing New Hanover County to use room-tax dollars for beach-building
projects said Thursday
that using the money to dredge the Intracoastal Waterway would violate
the intent of his legislation. "I don't think this is beach nourishment," said
state Rep. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover. That sentiment was enough
to convince County Commissioner Bill Kopp to maintain his vote against
a proposal to use as much as $781,000 in room-tax dollars, along with
an equal amount of money from the state, to dredge shoaled-up sections
of the waterway near Carolina Beach Inlet and in Snow's Cut. Kopp had
requested Thursday's special meeting to reconsider a vote by the five-member
Board of Commissioners nearly three weeks ago against using local dollars
to dredge the waterway. The move ensures that work on deepening the
waterway around the inlet, which has shoaled to 4 1/2 feet - half the
depth the Army Corps of Engineers tries to maintain the waterway at
- could not take place until fall 2007 at the earliest because of environmental
restrictions. Along with Kopp, Commissioners Bobby Greer and Ted Davis
Jr. maintained their votes against the proposal. Greer and Davis both
said they thought the county could find itself on a financial "slippery
slope" if it agreed to take on work that's historically been financed
by the federal government. "I agree this project needs to be done," Davis
said, noting that he's a boater. "But it needs to be done the
right way." Supporters of the dredging proposal, including Commissioners
Bill Caster and Nancy Pritchett along with the county's three beach
town mayors, said they're worried about the long-term consequences
of Thursday's decision. They had argued that the project qualified
as a beach nourishment project because the sand would have been pumped
onto the undeveloped northern end of Carolina Beach, where it would
protect the Freeman Park area and eventually migrate toward the town's
developed oceanfront areas. Both Caster and Pritchett also said they
didn't like spending local dollars on something that the federal government
had made a long-term commitment to maintain. "But something needs
to be done," Caster said, alluding to safety concerns and the
economic losses tied to an unnavigable waterway.
A 'negative' message
Rick Catlin, chairman of the county's Ports,
Waterway and Beach Commission, said Thursday's vote wouldn't put any
pressure on Washington to live
up to its fiscal responsibilities. "But we will be sending a message
to our partner in the state of North Carolina, and a pretty negative
one," he said. John Morris, head of the N.C. Division of Water
Resources, had previously said the state would likely take its matching
dollars elsewhere if New Hanover didn't allocate any local funds for
the dredging work. The county's beach nourishment fund, which stands
at roughly $25 million, is financed through a portion of a special
tax on hotel stays and rentals under 30 days. McComas said he was willing
to work with the beach towns to give them more discretion over how
some of the room-tax funds generated in their communities are spent. "But
we can't have a short-term gain for a long-term loss," he said,
alluding to his opposition to using beach nourishment funds for non-beach
projects. Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark said he was disappointed
by the board's decision. "It's a safety issue," he said,
noting the dangers of boats running aground within the waterway and
others forced out into the open ocean.
11/30/06
Conference attendees scrutinize ICW money
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=169&iid=31&sud=30
Contract awarded for sand project
News Times by Shannon Kemp (11/29/06)
PINE KNOLL SHORES— Funding for a long-awaited beach nourishment
project to replenish the western part of Bogue Banks with sand with
the Morehead City Outer Harbor dredge spoils was approved and the project
is set to begin in January. With the contract awarded, “it pretty
much means it’s a done deal,” Greg “Rudi” Rudolph,
county shore protection manager, said of the Section 933 Project – a
project that has been ongoing for at least four years. The contract
was awarded to Weeks Marine, which was the low bidder for a total cost
of $10.3 million. The project is to take the dredge material from the
Morehead City Outer Harbor and place it on the beaches of Pine Knoll
Shores. The project is set to start January 2007 and finish in March
of that year. Weeks Marine was also awarded the contract for the first
phase of this project in 2004 to place the sand dredged from the outer
harbor on Indian Beach. Mr. Rudolph said that the company did a real
nice job on that project so it was good to have that company doing
the second phase. The Section 933 Project is a cost-share effort between
Bogue Banks towns, Carteret County, the state and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) for dredging, beach nourishment and sand management
and is actually part of the Morehead City Harbor Federal Navigation
Project. On behalf of the State Ports Authority, the Corps maintains
the Morehead City Harbor by dredging the inner harbor and the outer
harbor. Each year, the outer harbor is dredged by a hopper dredge,
which then places the sand in one of two offshore disposal sites. Rather
than dumping the dredged material from the outer harbor into the offshore
disposal sites, interested towns can agree to pay the extra costs of
transporting that sand to its shoreline and have the sediment placed
on the beach. Pine Knoll Shores has offered to pay that extra cost
to have the sand placed on its beaches. “We’re real excited
about this project because it’s kind of a win-win-win project
for us,” Mr. Rudolph said. First, the sand that’s dredged
out of the outer harbor should be able to move between Shackleford
Banks and Bogue Banks but because the sediment is dumped offshore it
doesn’t do that. Mr. Rudolph said it would be nice to have everyone
on same page to return sand to the beaches. Second, the sand that will
be placed on the shoreline of Pine Knoll Shores is “Grade-A,
top shelf sand,” he said. And third, Pine Knoll Shores has agreed
to develop new access with parking in association with the project
because the project is being federally funded in part, and public access
is a provision of that funding. Pine Knoll Shores and the Carteret
County Beach Commission have been waiting several years for this project
to take place. There were two years of study to begin with in 2001-2002
and then the first phase of the project was conducted along Indian
Beach in 2004. In 2005 Brandt Island was pumped out and the sand was
going to be placed in Pine Knoll Shores but the sand quality was poor.
In 2006, the bids were too high but next year the project is finally
coming to fruition. The sand is also good for the location because
it is the only area that has an insufficient shoreline, according to
a Bogue Banks Beach and Nearshore Mapping Report update. Pine Knoll
Shores east beaches are below the planning volume threshold of 225
cubic yards per linear foot. The western beaches of Pine Knoll Shores
are right at the cusp at 226 cubic yards per linear foot, Mr. Rudolph
said. This means that Pine Knoll Shores, being 5,000 linear feet long,
should have 225 cubic yards times the 5,000 linear feet, Mr. Rudolph
explained. However, Pine Knoll Shores is in the worst shape out of
all the towns in that regard, Mr. Rudolph said. So having the project
go through and contracts awarded will be a good thing for the shoreline.
County board might reconsider dredging
County funding 'not black and white,' Kopp says
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/30/06)
Carolina Beach | At least one New Hanover County
Commissioner is having second thoughts about not spending local dollars
on dredging a shoaled-up
section of the Intracoastal Waterway near Carolina Beach Inlet. Commissioner
Bill Kopp, who initially voted against the proposal two weeks ago,
has asked for a special meeting today to reconsider the matter. "It's
a tough issue," he said Tuesday. "It's not black and white
in terms of yes and no." That issue is whether the county should
use local dollars earmarked for beach nourishment projects to help
pay for dredging that's historically been funded by the federal government.
Questions also have arisen as to whether the work qualifies as a true
nourishment project, since the sand would be pumped onto the undeveloped
northern end of Carolina Beach. The proposal calls for the county to
use up to $781,250 in room-tax dollars to match an equal amount of
state money to dredge the Carolina Beach Inlet crossing of the waterway
and some nearby shoaling "hot spots" in Snow's Cut. The inlet
crossing has shoaled up to 4 1/2 feet in places, well below the 8 to
9 feet the Army Corps of Engineers aims for in the waterway, and has
become a navigational and safety concern for both local boaters and
seasonal users of the waterway in the area. But using county money
to help fund something that's always been a federal responsibility
isn't sitting well with Chairman Bobby Greer, who also voted against
the idea last time around. "I feel like that's the wrong use of
those dollars to dredge the waterway," he said. "If it was
the inlet, it would be a different story ... and if we did, where would
be next?" That "next" is something that also concerns
Commissioner Ted Davis Jr., the third commissioner to vote against
the proposal. He said the federal government could have little incentive
to fund any new dredging in New Hanover County if it knows the county
is likely to do the work anyway. Kopp said he has the same worries
as Greer and Davis. "But the flip side is, if we do it, it's letting
the federal government know how serious we are about the Intracoastal
Waterway in New Hanover County," he said. "So sure, you can
look at it both ways." Commissioner Nancy Pritchett, who supported
the proposal along with Bill Caster at the Nov. 13 meeting, admits
it's a slippery slope. But she said the county can't just sit on its
hands as boaters take their lives in their hands trying to go up and
down the waterway. "Yes, we are probably taking this on for the
future, and I don't think it's right," she said. "But it
is a safety issue." Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark said he can
understand the economic and other issues the commissioners are grappling
with. "But we need this," he said, ticking off a navigable
waterway's importance to his town and the county as a whole. "It's
going to put a hurting on people traveling through here if we don't."
Panelists view potential
Tideland News by Annita Beast (11/29/06)
Art Schools and Julia Wax, members of the state’s Waterfront
Access Committee, say progress is being made in the effort to preserve
North Carolina ’s waterfront access. “So far we’ve
had two meetings and our work will definitely amount to something,” said
Schools, the Emerald Isle mayor. “One thing that has happened
is the definition of water access has been broadened. My push was to
make sure that all water access gets included – paddlers, fishing
off bridges, piers – from that standpoint, the definition has
been broadened.” At the most recent meeting, which took place
in Pine Knoll Shores , the issue of development was taken up. Schools
said his town’s experience with a potential development is a
good example of how local government can work with developers for the
public good. “Within the last couple of months Emerald Isle has
allowed developers of the Village East area to put in a slightly higher
number of units in exchange for additional benefit to the community
at large,” he explained. “The town and developers can get
together to benefit both. “Another example of this is what we
tried to do with the Emerald Isle Pier and the people who were going
to purchase and develop that area.” The town of Emerald Isle
had worked out an agreement that they would exchange waterfront access
for parking spaces and other types of access to the pier. That particular
plan fell through, but the town hopes to work in that manner with any
new pier owners. “Working together with the developers can wind
up being a win win situation,” Schools said. Dr Barbara Garrity-Blake,
a cultural anthropologist and member of the committee, spoke to members
about the impact coastal changes have had on the number of local fish
houses. “We all had the vague disturbing sense we were losing
our fish houses. Dr. Garrity-Blake gave us the numbers and we have
lost over a third of all the working fish houses. That’s why
it’s such a priority that we do something before it’s too
late,” Wax said. Wax, owner of Emerald Isle Realty, said the
committee said awareness of – and a desire to protect – local
commerce could have an impact on the future of working waterfronts. “Right
now there is a big strong local-food movement,” she explained. “I
hope that this will also bring a greater awareness that if we don’t
protect the fish houses we will lose a valuable resource.” Committee
members are hoping to produce a draft report for the state legislature
within the next few months. “The next meeting is scheduled for
mid-January,” Wax said. “We hope to have something sketched
out regarding the final report that is due out in the spring. “I
think this (Waterfront Access Study Committee) has been a good idea.
The ocean and waterways are like federal state parks. Funding needs
to come from the federal and state governments with some local matching
of funds.” The state’s shoreline is important to people
far beyond the local area, according to Schools. He used a recent effort
to keep the Bogue Pier open as an example. Schools said that 80 percent
of the visits to the www.SaveOurPier Web site were from interested
parties outside the state. “Water access in North Carolina is
not just for people living here,” he noted. “It’s
definitely a situation that needs broad funding.”
Committee has key to access
Tideland News Editorial (11/29/06)
North Carolina ’s Waterfront Access Committee is coming to the
disturbing conclusion that the state’s commercial waterfront
is diminishing. In a report at its recent meeting, committee members
learned that more than one-third of the state’s fish houses are
out of business. While this is not necessarily “news,” it
certainly validates the fear that has motivated Swansboro’s pro-commercial
waterfront efforts over the past two decades – if local and state
governments do not act, North Carolina will lose its commercial waterfront.
Swansboro has long recognized the need to maintain its commercial waterfront,
going so far as to enact a special zoning designation in the town’s
historic district that puts restrictions on residential use. There
are no residences allowed within the Business-2 Historic District Overlay
district, unless the residence is part of a bona fide business. Currently,
Swansboro is considering the possibility of extending that type of
overlay to the town’s remaining commercial waterfront. The effort
would make an excellent point for discussion at the next meeting of
the state’s Waterfront Access Committee. For obvious reasons,
commercial waterfront is, in nearly every sense of the word, “public.” Allowing
commercial to convert exclusively to residential will mean the loss
of access. For a town such as Swansboro, that prides itself on its
numerous outdoor events, that would be devastating. What must be taken
into account is the financial well-being of the commercial property
owner. And that is where the committee – a body that should have
the ear of the state’s lawmakers – could provide a huge
boost in the quest to protect working waterfronts. Specifically, state
government must recognize that maintaining a waterfront business is
a unique pursuit that deserves some special considerations. Concessions
in the areas of property tax and building codes should be thoroughly
explored. Without some type of assistance, the public will most likely
lose its waterfront.
Some better than none
Topsail Voice Editorial (11/29/06)
Topsail Beach has been working to acquire undeveloped land at the southern
tip of its town to be used for recreational purposes as well as wildlife
habitat. But such an endeavor does not come cheap. The town had hoped
to purchase approximately 50 acres for about $15 million, getting funding
and grants from environmental agencies. Unfortunately, the grant money
did not flow in as freely as was hoped. Instead of being able to purchase
50 acres, the town might only have funding to acquire 10 acres. But
10 acres are better than none. When the town was developing its land
use plan, residents came out in force supporting a plan to leave the
southern tip of the island undeveloped. Residents signed petitions,
held rallies and talked of fond memories spending time with families
and friends in the area known as The Point. Town leaders listened to
the residents and sought counsel from the League of Governments on
how to preserve the undeveloped area. The town was advised to purchase
the property if it wanted to ensure that it would never be developed
and left open to public use. And that is what the town is doing. While
10 acres is a far cry from the 50 originally sought, it is still worth
acquiring and town leaders are to be commended for continuing to work
toward that purpose. No one knows what the future holds but North Carolina
has realized there is a real need to preserve open areas and public
water access, especially along the coast. By starting out with 10 acres,
perhaps future funds will be available to procure the remaining acreage.
11/28/06
Riseley Pier repair in limbo
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46804&Section=News
Nor'easter damage was fairly minimal in Dare County
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=115077&ran=89895
11/26/06
Ash Wednesday, Halloween and now, Thanksgiving: another 'holiday'
storm
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/25/top_stories/tops0361.prt
Outer Banks towns survey damage storm left in its wake
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=114996&ran=1424
Carteret pushes for water access grant
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46769&Section=News
Carolina Beach Town Council Consolidates Regulations For Freeman Park
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=9553_0_2_0_M
Coast took hit from storm
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/514107.html
Groups Spar Over Shorebird Habitat Rules
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11715
Hilton Head examines dunes
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16081798.htm
Reconsider Public Access No. 33
http://www.luminanews.com/letters.asp?letterid=392
State panel gets sobering figures on dwindling resources
Carteret County News Times by Ben Hogwood (11/24/06)
PINE KNOLL SHORES — The state is losing its fish houses, public
marinas and public access to the water, but a state-formed committee
is examining ways to make sure the public trust waters are not only
available to those who can afford waterfront property. The Waterfront
Access Study Committee, formed by the General Assembly, discussed the
problem and possible solutions Monday when it met in the Soundside
Room at the N.C. Aquarium in Pine Knoll Shores. Dr. Barbara Garrity-Blake,
a cultural anthropologist and one of four county representatives on
the board, gave a presentation outlaying the impact the changing coast
has had, particularly on fishermen and fishing communities. She gave
the presentation with Barry Nash, of N.C. Sea Grant. The two conducted
a three-month study that revealed some sobering statistics: during
the past decade, the number of piers in the state has gone from 32
to 21; in addition, the state has lost more than 1,000 hotel and motel
rooms in the last six years to residential development and the number
of fish houses has gone from 136 to 95, a 30 percent reduction. Fish
houses, she said, are an integral part of fishing communities. Fishermen
often get their ice and tie up their boats in a fish house’s
docks. In return, the fishermen sell them their product. The fish and
seafood then move from the fish houses to the road, where it is distributed
to the markets. When a fish house goes out of business, fishermen lose
not only their main customer, but also all those necessary amenities.
Dr. Garrity-Blake said the fishing industry is made up of a culturally
distinct group with roots that often stretch back centuries. But that
continuity may be at a breaking point, she said. While the industry
has a history of ups and downs, the latest struggle began in 1995 with
competition from imports, said Mr. Nash. In addition, fuel prices increased,
governments enacted stricter environmental regulations and some resources
became scarce. Adding rising property taxes and values and low product
values to the equation leaves fishing communities under tremendous
stress, said Mr. Nash. Dr. Garrity-Blake said competition could improve
and gas prices could go down, but it’s hard to bring working
waterfronts back once they have gone residential. The commercial aspect
of the transformation of the coast is just one aspect of the issue,
said Walter Clark, co-director of the N.C. Center for Coastal Resources
Law, Planning and Policy. He told committee members that they also
needed to keep focus on the demise of the public’s access to
the water. “Estuarine waters are like big state parks where we
can all recreate if we can get to them,” he said. The committee
is exploring three main initiatives. One idea would be to present a
bill to the General Assembly that taxes property at its present use
value, rather than its best use value, which is residential. Waterfront
property, be it a fish house or a condominium, is currently taxed at
its worth as a residence. Another initiative being considered is encouraging
local governments to use special planning and zoning districts to protect
areas for public access. Also the committee is looking at using conservation
easements and buying development rights from the landowner to preserve
areas for water access. The committee began discussing some of these
items Monday. Erin Wynia, a law student from UNC-Chapel Hill aiding
the committee, gave a presentation on funding mechanisms for land acquisition.
The presentation went over the two main acquisition alternatives for
governments: purchasing in fee simple, where the government owns the
property and can do to it what it wishes, and acquisition of land easements,
where the land owners sells a partial interest in the property. Typically,
the land remains dedicated to a particular use for a particular amount
of time. Gordon Myers, division chief with the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, also gave examples of state departments combining their
efforts to create access points for the public. He cited the Oyster
Creek boat ramp, in Davis, which the wildlife resources commission
was able to do after the N.C. Department of Transportation gave the
commission its right-of-way. “It’s the state’s responsibility
to ensure public access,” he said, otherwise access falls only
to those who can afford land on the coast. The committee will meet
one more time in December before it must give a preliminary report
of its findings to the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and
Aquaculture, the Marine Fisheries Commission and the Coastal Resources
Commission. The committee will then hold three public meetings through
February and March in coastal locations to solicit public comment on
the draft report. The committee must complete its report by April 15.
11/22/06
Stormwater plan slowly moving forward (Nags Head)
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/22/politics/pols0401.prt
Topsail Beach decreases citizen assessment by half
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (11/22/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH - The amount needed from property
owners to pay for Topsail Beach ’s emergency beach nourishment project has been decreased
by 50-percent. That decision came out of a recent town board workshop
held concerning the $3.6 million assessment. During that meeting, the
board voted to limit the assessment to a maximum of $1.8 million. The
remaining $1.8 million for nourishment will be financed by earmarking
the following tax streams: the existing cash flows from the town’s
Occupancy Tax, the $.04 Ad Valorem tax that is dedicated to beach nourishment
and the $100,000 that Pender County provides in its budget each year. “We
tried to be as fair as we know to be,” Mayor Pro-Tem Bobby Humphrey
said. “Many of our citizens were saying that the assessment presented
them with a financial hardship.” He explained that the project
will have to be completed before the assessment is collected, so property
owners will have time to save up to pay for it. Adjusting to the public
opinion that was garnered during the Oct. 7 workshop held at the Assembly
Building , the board also decided to combine the proposed interior,
sound front, canal, and inlet area districts into a single non-oceanfront
district. The Conservation District will be kept. “The board
has remaining work to do regarding the precise definition of the process
that property owners should use if their lot is unbuildable and they
wish to have their assessment reduced,” Mayor Butch Parrish explained.
He said that the board’s focus right now is the state’s
budget cycle. “We now need to get the remaining $2 million during
the upcoming session,” he said. Mayor Parrish said that both
state Representative Carolyn Justice and state Senator R.C. Soles
were instrumental in getting the first $1 million, and he has been
in contact
with them about the remaining $2 million.
Funds toward purchase of The Point far less than sought
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (11/22/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH - The NC Clean Water Management
Trust Fund recently approved slightly more than $1 million toward the
NC Coastal Land
Trust’s
attempts to purchase the 50-acre area at the southern end of Topsail
Island, known as The Point, but that was $3 million less than what
Topsail Beach had requested. And thus, NC Coastal Land Trust has no
choice but to scale its once $15 million proposal down to $6 million.
As result, the original hoped for 50 acres might end up being only
10. “But at least it is the 10 most important acres,” said
Camilla Herlevich, NC Coastal Land Trust’s director. The most
important acres being those farthest to the south, according to Topsail
Beach Mayor Butch Parrish, since sand is added to the end of the island
at the rate of 90 feet per year. That adds up to approximately five
acres since someone started keeping records of it in the 1930s. NC
Wildlife Resource Commission officials say that preserving The Point
is a tremendous opportunity to protect rare shorebirds, such as the
piping plover. The Point is one of the few natural habitats left to
the threatened bird. Mayor Parrish said that an undeveloped Point means
a chance to preserve for public use a beautiful piece of waterfront
property. Last month, a dispute over an alleged rezoning request for
other property in the area by the current owners of The Point created
friction between Topsail Beach, NC Coastal Land Trust and the owners — MBM
Properties. The issue has yet to be resolved to town officials’ satisfaction.
There was also some apprehension on the part of the NC Clean Water
Management Fund that geological information concerning Topsail Island
was incorrect. However, William Hollan, Chairman of NC Clean Water
Management Fund Acquisitions Committee, explained that, in the end,
most of the board was convinced that The Point was worth the price.
There were many other proposed projects that received no funding
from them. The next step is for Congress to vote on more than $2
million
it has earmarked in the 2007 budget to go toward the purchase of
The Point.
County must step up beach nourishment efforts
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (11/22/06)
The North Topsail Beach $34 million beach nourishment
referendum was defeated in the Nov. 7 elections. One of the most obvious
reasons
was
the lack of support from the county and state. The county commissioners
took a hands off approach till after the election, and now the citizens
of NTB have taken the same approach till the county is willing to
step up to the plate and make a commitment to support one of the
county’s
most productive tax revenue sources. Just in the last year NTB has
produce $5 million in additional tax revenue, not to mention the jobs,
sales tax, and recreational amenities that NTB’s growth has produced
for the county. “Onslow economy gets high marks” is the
lead in a March 31, 2006 Jacksonville Daily News article in which Jim
Fain, the state’s commerce secretary said he’s “optimistic
the park (N. A. Burton Industrial Park) will eventually be noisy with
economic develop.” Well Jim, North Topsail Beach is noisy with
economic development to the tune of $5 million new dollars in tax revenue.
He goes on to laud the county’s tourism revenue, which he estimates
to be $125 million. Is there any doubt that North Topsail Beach has
not been a major contributor in making these revenues possible? It’s
about time county officials recognize the contribution North Topsail
Beach has made to fueling this economic engine which has produced
$5 million new dollars in tax revenue and step up to the plate and
join
the voters in designing a nourishment program that will sustain this
type of growth of jobs, tourism, tax revenue and recreational opportunities
for the citizens of Onslow County. Mr. Commissioner, the $200,000
recently offered to NTB for beach nourishment is only 2.5 percent
of the additional
$5 million generated in 2006, not to mention the accumulative taxes
coming in future years. Compared to what the county spends on economic
development this is a drop in the bucket, and is at best a shorted
sighted investment based on return of revenue, and politically not
wise when the people of Onslow County realize the lost opportunity
of the benefits of beach nourishment. Billy M. Sandlin - North Topsail
Beach , NC
Erosion still a serious problem
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (11/22/06)
Though the proposed bond financing for the beach
restoration project failed to obtain voter approval, the situation
as it affects our
town of North Topsail Beach continues to be of serious concern. Last
autumn,
after Hurricane Ophelia, this town for the first time did not have
sufficient sand to rebuild our dunes over the entire length of the
town. Fortunately for us, FEMA paid for trucking in and placing 74,000
cubic yards of sand at a cost of $1.54 million. This expenditure
was a continuation of the FEMA policy. The policy is very simple.
If you
had sand and dunes prior to a named storm, FEMA will pay for the
restoration. If you didn't have the sand or dunes FEMA would not
pay for any restoration.
As an example, while the dune line was restored over the entire length
of the town of NTB, the eight buildings at the north-end of the island
that had been experiencing severe erosion and had no sand, got no
sand from FEMA. Today this overall sand deficit situation in our
town is
a serious problem and does not bode well for the future. Typically,
the months of January through March are stormy and the worse for
erosion. Sand losses are the greatest during this season and on average
NTB
suffers a net loss of sand for the entire year. Other events such
as Tropical Storm Ernesto also cause sand losses and dune damage.
Unfortunately,
these kinds of losses are the town's financial responsibility for
replacement not FEMA’s. We can continue to scrape our beach
to obtain sand in an attempt to rebuild our dunes but this only succeeds
in moving
the mean high water level closer and closer to the toe of dune further
shortening the life of this protective mass. Future prospects are
indeed worrisome. Should we continue to suffer sand losses during
this year
(and next) and be impacted by another storm like Ophelia or worse,
we are in for serious problems both financial and rebuilding. We
don't have the financial reserves in hand to pay for our recovery
nor do
we have sand reserves locally to restore protection for private property
and local road accesses. A scenario like the aftermath of Hurricane
Fran or Floyd would be a horrendous disaster. To begin, there would
be little or no local sand to close the ocean to sound inlets that
we experienced in the past thus making our roads impassable and our
town uninhabitable. Likewise there would be no local sand to rebuild
our dunes that protect the very roads that we need to access our
homes. Full time residents on Ocean Drive , Topsail Road and New
River Inlet
Road would be especially impacted. And future recovery of our entire
town would be in doubt if not impossible. Our town doesn't have the
$20 a cubic yard to truck in the amount of sand that would be required.
What I'm describing is a town-wide problem and not just a Coastal
Barrier Resource System zone issue as some may delude themselves
in believing.
In any event, I am convinced that we have a very serious problem
that needs to be dealt with. I am well aware that there are already
issues
among our citizenry concerning the affordability of living here.
But we can't ignore the other issue of our very safety and the future
jeopardy
associated with being able to call NTB our home. Nor do we have the
option, as some seem to suggest, of putting our heads in the sand.
We just don't have the sand to do that. Dan Tuman - North Topsail
Beach
11/21/06
Panel begins study of waterfront access issues
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46661&Section=News
The point is, it'll be preserved
Wilmington Star Editorial (11/20/06)
The serenity of strolling an uncrowded beach inhabited mainly by shorebirds
is an experience all too rare these days, and that makes a $1 million
grant to help preserve a slice of Topsail Island worth so much more.
It's too bad the N.C. Clean Water Trust Fund didn't approve enough
to buy even more land at The Point, but there was plenty of competition
from other worthy land preservation causes. As it stands, the grant
approved Monday, when combined with other sources, should allow the
N.C. Coastal Land Trust to buy 45 to 50 acres - about 10 of which could
otherwise be developed - at Topsail's southern tip. It's a start. That
land will provide sanctuary for native plants and wildlife and an unspoiled
stretch of sand for fishermen and nature-lovers to enjoy. The deal
isn't signed yet - the Land Trust is still looking for roughly $5 million
in other state and federal funds - but chances are good that the rest
will fall into place. And if the mayor of Topsail Beach is correct,
the size of this natural habitat should continue to grow for as long
as sand continues to accumulate at the island's tip. As some clean
water fund trustees remarked, $6 million is a lot of taxpayer money
to spend on a spit of land so vulnerable to nature's whims. Losing
this beautiful spot would impose a far greater cost.
11/18/06
Bigger could mean further back
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46594&Section=News
County Commissioners Say No To Cost Sharing
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=9451_0_2_0_M
CAMA Beach Access No. 33 (Wrightsville Beach)
My Thoughts
http://www.luminanews.com/editorials.asp?editorialid=162
Save Public Access No. 33
http://www.luminanews.com/letters.asp?letterid=386
Beach Access Is A Right
http://www.luminanews.com/letters.asp?letterid=388
A Huge Hit To Credibility
http://www.luminanews.com/letters.asp?letterid=384
Still Accessed By The Public
http://www.luminanews.com/letters.asp?letterid=389
Rules on sand for beaches near OK
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/17/06)
Atlantic Beach | Coastal regulators appear poised
to adopt new rules meant to ensure that material pumped onto beaches
during
nourishment projects is
compatible with what's already there. But some environmentalists don't think
the rules, while a good first step, go far enough. Jim Stephenson, policy
director with the N.C. Coastal Federation, said at Thursday's meeting
of the Coastal
Resources Commission that the regulations give too much leeway in compatibility
requirements considering the differences in sediment composition of the state's
beaches. "In this case, maybe one size doesn't fit all," he said,
noting that three separate sets of rules tailored to each portion of the coastline
might have been better. But Jeff Warren, coastal hazards analyst with the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management, said he feels the rules are as specific as
they can get while still being effective. "We wanted to be clear what
people needed to do," he said. "We didn't want to leave it open to
interpretations. And as I've been saying since this process started, this is
about keeping mud and rocks off the beach." The proposed rules come after
several nourishment projects in recent years pumped incompatible material onto
beaches. Problems included discolored, muddy and shell-strewn sand in Bogue
Banks and rocky material pumped onto Oak Island's beach. Warren said the proposed
rules would have prevented those problems or required that they be fixed. Along
with sediment compatibility language, the rules also set a benchmark - including
pre-project sampling requirements - for nourishment projects. Warren said the
rule language also has been tweaked to prevent road material, even natural
aggregates like granite, from ending up on the sand. Holden Beach ran into
trouble this spring when workers included asphalt and stone in trucked-in sand. "Even
though it is a natural rock, it has no place on the beach," Warren said
of the granite. Existing language requires new sand only to be "compatible" with
what's on the beach now and taken from those areas "where the resulting
environmental impacts will be minimal." Warren and Stephenson both agree
that the current rules aren't effective. But environmentalists worry that the
proposed new rules don't contain any mitigation or monitoring requirements.
The regulations also don't cover dune-building projects, which often involve
trucked-in sand. Stephenson called that a "major loophole." But
Warren said mitigation and monitoring questions are dealt with during the
permit review
process, where they can be tailored to a specific project's needs, and dune-building
projects are covered by another state regulation. The N.C. Coastal Resources
Commission is expected to vote on the rules today. If adopted, the new regulations
would go into effect Feb. 1.
11/16/06
Ocean’s
fury uncovers strange beach objects
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1712
Beach access will remain off-limits
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1714
Southern Shores hopeful about proposed canal dredging
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/15/politics/pols0471.prt
Navy asked if sonar will impact fisheries
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46539&Section=News
Editorial: Sometimes legal doesn't equal 'right'
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/15/letters-editorials/letters047-.prt
Channel 20 (Dare County)
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/15/letters-editorials/letters047-midg.prt
County rejects funds for dredging
Carolina Inlet project usually paid by feds
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/14/06)
A divided New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Monday declined to join the state and spend nearly $781,000 to help
maintain the Intracoastal
Waterway near Carolina Beach. The move came after several commissioners
expressed concerns about the potential for a spiraling financial burden
by adding waterway and inlet maintenance to funding beach nourishment
projects. "I understand the problem. I understand it needs to
be fixed," said Commissioner Ted Davis, who joined Bill Kopp and
Chairman Bobby Greer in voting against the proposal. "But is this
just going to be creating additional problems for us down the road?" The
move means that the Carolina Beach Inlet crossing of the waterway,
which now has just 4 1/2 feet of draft at low tide, much less than
its authorized depth of 12 feet, could become an impediment to boaters
in the near future. That could constitute a major economic hit on Carolina
Beach and marinas along the waterway that support mariners with everything
from fuel and food to berths and beer. It also could affect access
to Carolina Beach Inlet itself. But a majority of the commissioners
said they couldn't support spending a portion of the local room-tax
dollars that are dedicated to beach nourishment on a project that primarily
concerned the waterway. "We're not dredging the inlet nor are
we re-nourishing Carolina Beach with this," Kopp said. Greer said
he wasn't against spending local public dollars on beach nourishment
projects that protect people and property - and important tax base
- against storms. "But if we're going to be taking on responsibility
to keep the waterway open, that's a whole other ball game," he
said. The county uses funds collected from a surcharge on hotel stays
and rentals under 30 days to help pay for a portion of the periodic
federal beach nourishments of Wrightsville, Carolina and Kure beaches.
Currently, the beach portion of the room-tax fund, which also includes
money to help support the new convention center, has about $25 million.
Proponents of the county's participation in the dredging had noted
that the sand was to be used beneficially and placed on Freeman Park,
an undeveloped section of northern Carolina Beach. "I agree that
we might be stepping into uncharted territory here," said Commissioner
Bill Caster, who with Nancy Pritchett supported the proposal. "But
there's a slippery slope for not doing this also."
Feds cut funding
Unlike beach nourishment projects, the maintenance of the waterway
has always been a federal responsibility. But like the beach-building
projects, Washington has been cutting funding for the dredging work
for several years. Chris Frabotta, navigation project manager with
the Wilmington district of the Army Corps of Engineers, said the federal
budget for the current fiscal year - although it has not been passed
- proposes about $3.4 million for waterway maintenance in North Carolina.
But all of that money is earmarked for the channels north of Morehead
City, where there is much more commercial traffic than down in the
southern portion of the state. The federal government historically
has allocated dredging dollars based on commercial, not recreational,
traffic.
Town disappointed
Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark expressed disappointment with Monday's
decision by the commissioners. "But they're right," he said. "We
are bailing out the federal government." Clark added that he would
probably propose that some dredging work take place with just the state
contribution, assuming the N.C. Division of Water Resources doesn't
pull its funding. Along with the inlet crossing of the waterway, Frabotta
said there are several shoaling "hot spots" in Snows Cut.
Kure Beach Mayor Tim Fuller, who spoke in support of the measure, said
the county could be hurting itself by not funding the work. He said
many visitors come to New Hanover County because they can cruise the
waterway and use Carolina Beach Inlet to access the ocean. "If
we lose the waterway, we lose the inlet," Fuller said.
Public airs concerns on Navy sonar plans
Carteret County News Times by Mark Hibbs (11/15/06)
MOREHEAD CITY — The Navy says it wants to be a good environmental
steward, but area residents concerned about the environmental effects
of active sonar training off the Carteret County coast say they want
objective opinions first. “Neither side trusts the other,” Cape
Carteret Commissioner Michael King said Tuesday during the Navy’s “open
house” scoping meeting at the National Guard Armory on the environmental
impact of active sonar training exercises offshore. “You need
an independent group. If the Navy presents all the data, it can’t
be without bias. Sometimes people without the bias see things others
can’t see.” Navy officials said they had expected a good
turnout at the Morehead City venue. Attendance had been scant at the
five similar meetings held in other East and Gulf Coast cities during
the past three weeks. But within an hour, about 30 residents, elected
officials and representatives from environmental groups had signed
in at the front door of the National Guard Armory. The meeting, which
included Navy Department representatives manning “information
stations” with handouts on Navy operations, plans and research,
lasted from 5 until 8 p.m. The Department of the Navy seeks public
input and concerns related to proposed mine and antisubmarine warfare
active sonar training exercises along the East Coast and the Gulf of
Mexico . The Navy will consider that input as it prepares a combined
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental impact
statements and analysis related to the exercises. Jim Brantley, media
relations officer for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command, said the number
of attendees was not as important as the quality of comments received. “We
want to make sure we do it right,” he said. That’s why
the Navy is teaming with Duke University and other institutions to
study the effects of sonar on marine mammals, he said. During training
exercises, surface ships, submarines and aircraft use a number of active
and passive sonar systems, as well as other training devices. Active
sonar emits pulses of sound waves that travel through the water, reflect
off objects and return to the receiver on the ship. It gives U.S. ships
both the direction and distance of enemy submarines. But marine mammals,
such as whales and dolphins, use similar sounds. Environmental groups
say the intense sounds of mid-frequency sonar at the proposed range
that would cover 500 nautical miles about 47 miles off the North Carolina
coast could have serious effects on the state’s fisheries. The
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries has criticized the Navy’s proposal.
Studies have shown that intense sound can damage fish’s ears,
affect their eggs and offspring, retard growth and disrupt their navigation
and behavior. Shrimp and crabs may also be affected. Mary Alsentzer,
director of the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, an environmental group,
said there are too many unanswered questions that the Navy must address
before moving forward with its plan. “They need to prove that
they’re not harming marine life, not we have to prove that they
are,” she said at the meeting. But the Navy said it is spending
nearly $10 million each year on research of marine life. The Navy says
environmental protection efforts have been part of its operations for
decades. Carteret County Commissioner Jonathan Robinson also attended
the meeting. He said the county’s economy is closely tied to
the marine environment and natural resources and that balance must
be carefully maintained. “I’m looking for some reassurances
those considerations are being looked at,” he said. “With
the vastness of the ocean, there ought to be enough room to accomplish
all kinds of testing and training and still be considerate of our resources.” Mr.
Brantley said the Navy is paying close attention to “emerging
sciences” related to marine life. He said the input of environmentalists,
scientists, fishermen and the general public will help the Navy make
good decisions. The merger of Navy research and university studies
will boost credibility, he said. “It’s better if the answers
come from our fellow peers,” Mr. Brantley said. Gerald Battle,
a retired Naval Reservist who lives in Morehead City , submitted written
comments during the meeting Tuesday. He said he likes the Navy’s
approach to this issue but its proposal is no radical departure from
current training operations here. “I’m glad to see the
Navy is concerned and trying to do right,” he said. “But
I see no difference in operations than what we’ve been doing
here for 50 years.” The seventh and final scoping meeting will
be held in Charleston , S.C. , on Thursday.
Bond failed but erosion continues
Topsail Voice Editorial (11/15/06)
In last week’s public referendum the permanent residents in North
Topsail Beach overwhelmingly voted down a $34 million bond issue to
pay for re-nourishing the town’s beachfront. While the vote was
lopsided in the outcome, the reasons were more diverse. Although approximately
79-percent of residents voted against the bonds, a recent town survey
paradoxically shows 80-percent of residents supporting the town moving
forward with a beach nourishment project. So what was the problem?
What was the reasoning behind the majority of voters in the town not
supporting the referendum that would initiate a town-wide beach nourishment
effort? The answers are complex but show a diverse focus on the issue.
Some voters argued the price tag of $34 million was too high; some
opponents considered the financing structure for repaying the bonds
(80-percent by the oceanfront property owners, 20-percent for everyone
else) was unfair; other opponents wanted assurance of financial support
from the county and state government before supporting the bond; and
finally other no-votes came as a result of skepticism that all options
had been considered. The failure of the town board of alderman to aggressively
support the effort also contributed to the defeat of the referendum.
But out of failure can come success if the town board will look at
why the issue failed and learn from the mistakes. Beach nourishment
is definitely not dead in North Topsail Beach, not if one looks at
the number of people in the town survey who say they support it. The
town board needs to go back to the drawing board and rework a financial
plan for paying for beach nourishment that the majority of town residents
will approve. The bond issue failed but the beach itself continues
to erode, putting the town’s infrastructure, as well as residents’ personal
property, in jeopardy. The time to act is now, while all the environmental
and geological studies are still valid. The price for beach nourishment
is not going to decrease and the environmental rules and regulations
are only going to get more stringent. As the saying goes -- “tide
and time wait for no man.” North Topsail Beach officials cannot
afford to wait for a solution to beach erosion to surface sometime
in the future. The town must nourish the beach before the price becomes
even higher.
11/13/06
Beach erosion remains an issue
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46382&Section=News
No equal time for beach nourishment debate
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/11/top_stories/tops0501.prt
County might fund dredging
Carolina Beach Inlet's boat accessibility at stake
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/11/06)
New Hanover County might have to dig into its
beach nourishment funds to keep boat traffic flowing near Carolina
Beach Inlet. The county
commissioners are expected on Monday to discuss spending up to $781,250
from the county's room-occupancy tax fund that's dedicated to beach
projects, with the state kicking in an equal amount, to dredge the
section of the shallow-draft inlet that crosses the Intracoastal Waterway
this winter. The estimated 156,000 cubic yards of sand would be pumped
onto Carolina Beach. Historically, the federal government has funded
the maintenance of the inlet, one of five shallow-draft inlets in the
state, and the waterway. But as with federal beach nourishment projects,
funding for the work has largely dried up in recent years. That's prompted
the state and local communities to step up to fill the funding breach.
The N.C. Division of Water Resources is helping fund the dredging of
several heavily shoaled inlet crossings of the waterway, including
Shallotte and Lockwood Folly inlets in Brunswick County. Agency director
John Morris said the state sees the funds as money well spent. "We're
taking care of the most urgent problems that otherwise might not get
done and could cause serious problems for these coastal communities," he
said. Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark said keeping the Intracoastal
navigable and the town's namesake inlet accessible to boat traffic
is vital to the community's economy. "But it's not just economically
important for Carolina Beach, but for New Hanover County as a whole
with all the boat traffic that traverses through there both from locals
and those traveling through the state," he said. Carolina Beach
officials have estimated a non-navigable Carolina Beach Inlet could
cost the local economy nearly $200 million over five years. The federal
government doesn't take into account recreational impacts - only commercial
boat traffic - when allocating federal dredging dollars. That leaves
the inlets and the waterway, which runs from Virginia to North Florida,
high and dry because they have little barge traffic. North Carolina
officials have called that interpretation shortsighted since thousands
of noncoastal residents enjoy the state's coastal resources. County
Commissioner Bill Caster said Thursday the federal government needs
to give better direction as to whether it intends to fulfill its long-standing
commitments to maintain the region's beaches and waterways. He said
the constant uncertainty, which often takes a friendly congressman
or senator to restore federal funding for a specific project that was
left out by the White House, leaves communities unsure as to when the
work might take place and how to plan and finance them. And both Caster
and Clark said waterway maintenance isn't something you can simply
ignore for a year or two and still expect to have a safe, navigable
channel. "Inlet crossings are always in need of dredging, constantly," Clark
said. "You can't just abandon them."
Dredge inlets with new dollars
Wilmington Star Editorial (11/12/06)
If the federal government no longer can be counted upon to keep North
Carolina's inlets and waterways open, we'd better find a new source
of funding. In New Hanover County, it shouldn't be the room-tax fund.
It was created to pay for anti-erosion projects on our beaches - mainly
to pump sand onto narrowing strands. But as soon as a few dollars collected
in that pot, everybody and his brother wanted to dip them out. The
tourism promotion people got a big handful. The New Hanover County
Commissioners borrowed millions to move Mason Inlet. Now the commissioners
are talking about grabbing another $781,250 to dredge a sandbar that
threatens to obstruct Carolina Beach Inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway.
That spot should be dredged. But not by threatening the future renourishment
of our beaches. Obviously, it would be financially idiotic to let inlets
and waterways silt up. Recreational boating and commercial fishing
generate jobs, profits and taxes. But so do wide beaches, which are
open to the public and which protect miles of rental houses, restaurants,
businesses and public infrastructure. Coastal residents and politicians
fought to get a steady source of money to maintain our beaches. Now
it's time to find a steady source of money to maintain our waterways.
Boaters and boating-related businesses would benefit most from regular
dredging. Boaters and boating-related businesses should make the biggest
contribution
11/8/06
North Topsail voters reject beach sand tax
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46360&Section=News
No to sand plan; no to incorporation
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/507626.html
Sandstorm: Justification for This Federal Spending Is Rapidly Eroding
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935007&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191423363&path=%21editorials%21oped
N.J. aim: Better beach access
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20061107&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=611070306&SectionCat=&Template=printart
11/6/06
State, local tab a little higher for Bogue Banks sand plans
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46238&Section=News
Nags Head residents to decide tax increase
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/11/04/politics/pols0581.prt
Special Report: Killing Our Coast
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5629603
Sand is stirring up friction at Cape Henry Beach
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113853&ran=208944
ODU professor kicks sand at ODU beach report
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113613&ran=232973
Towns move to sink own funds into beach
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/3/06)
Faced with eroding shorelines, worried property
owners and tight purse strings in Washington, some North Carolina towns
are looking at using
their own money to pay for expensive beach nourishment projects. That
list includes North Topsail Beach, where on Tuesday fewer than 800
registered voters will decide whether to pursue a $34 million project
to bolster more than 11 miles of largely eroded beachfront. While most
of the state’s other beach communities are pursuing projects
funded mainly by federal dollars, officials in towns where waves are
lapping at the foundations of million-dollar oceanfront homes said
they see little choice but to spend local money to protect their tax
base. “We need to do something now,” said Nags Head spokeswoman
Roberta Thuman, whose Outer Banks community is looking at a $30 million
nourishment of 10 miles of beach. “We can’t afford to wait
for a federal project.” Topsail Beach is looking at funding its
own project, as is Ocean Isle Beach, which wants to nourish an area
near Shallotte Inlet that’s outside the town’s federal
project. In Carteret County, local coffers in recent years have been
tapped to fund beach-building projects in Pine Knoll Shores, Indian
Beach and Emerald Isle.
‘ Cheap insurance’
The most expensive locally funded project being
proposed is on North Topsail Beach. Town Manager Brad Smith said that
under the plan up
for vote Tuesday, oceanfront property owners would be responsible for
80 percent of the project’s costs, with the remaining 20 percent
divided among the rest of the town’s property owners. For the
owner of a million-dollar oceanfront home, the annual bill would come
to $4,400, or about $35,000 over the eight-year repayment schedule
for the bonds, Smith said. “If I owned million-dollar property,
it’s cheap insurance,” he said. The proposal hasn’t
been without its critics, whose gripes go beyond the uncertainty inherent
in all beach nourishment work. Questions have been raised about how
the costs should be divided between oceanfront residents and those
inland and whether it’s fair to allow only the town’s full-time
residents – 778 registered voters as of Wednesday – to
vote on the bond referendum. Like most of the state’s coastal
towns, the lion’s share of North Topsail property owners don’t
have their primary residence on the barrier island. That means they
can’t vote on the referendum but will be stuck paying for the
project if it is approved. Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, head of
the Carteret County Shore Protection Office, said his county saw a
spike in registered voters for its nourishment elections. “One
vote in a small beach town can make a real difference, so it wasn’t
a hard sales pitch to people,” he said. But Rose Whitehurst,
elections director for Onslow County, said it was hard to tell if the
increase in registered voters in North Topsail Beach was directly tied
to the town’s upcoming beach bond referendum. “We always
see an increase across the board for a general election,” she
said.
Should voters decide?
Topsail Beach, which is mulling a $10 million nourishment project,
has decided to avoid a voter referendum and instead allow the town’s
Board of Aldermen to vote on the issue. In a Sept. 28 letter to the
town’s property owners, Mayor Butch Parrish said a referendum
could disenfranchise the majority of Topsail Beach’s 1,462 households. “A
referendum where less than 20 percent of those impacted could legally
vote would be grossly unfair,” he wrote. But Smith defended North
Topsail’s approach. He said the town was just following state
law, which says you vote where you lay your head to sleep. “And
we wanted the citizens’ input,” Smith said. Do the handful
of town-funded projects signify a shift away from dependence on the
federal government for beach-building work or simply a response to
localized erosion woes? Opinions are divided. “Folks have to
do what they need to do for emergency purposes, and that’s been
going on in a number of other states for a while, particularly Florida,” said
Howard Marlowe, a Washington lobbyist specializing in coastal issues
who has been retained by several North Carolina beach towns and counties.
He added that because of the size, cost and complexity of large beach
nourishment projects, it is unlikely the federal government will get
out of the beach-building business anytime soon or that it will stop
being the first funding source coastal communities look to. “But
as long as the government stays as cash-strapped as it is, beach nourishment
funding is in the same boat as every other domestic discretionary program,” Marlowe
said.
Still counting on Washington
New Hanover’s three beach towns, along with Ocean Isle Beach
in Brunswick County, are the only communities in North Carolina guaranteed
a periodic injection of sand from the Army Corps of Engineers. Although
New Hanover County had to fight to win funding for this spring’s
Wrightsville Beach nourishment and had to rely on emergency funding
that came after Hurricane Ophelia to pay for the upcoming Pleasure
Island projects, Rick Catlin said the county remains committed to working
with Washington. “We haven’t given up on our federal partnership,” said
Catlin, chairman of the county’s Ports, Waterway and Beach Commission.
But he admitted that planning for the federal projects, which include
a 35 percent local cost share, most of which is picked up by the state,
is difficult when the funding message out of Washington is so inconsistent.
Steve Ellis with Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based fiscal
watchdog group, said having local communities take financial charge
of their own nourishment projects isn’t necessarily a bad thing. “We’ve
always maintained that since the benefits of the projects are predominantly
local, the funding of the projects should also be predominantly local,” he
said. “And since it’s always easier to think big when someone
else is paying for it, this could result in more reasonable approaches,
such as pulling back in some risky areas, since it’s their money.”
11/1/06
Beach erosion raises concerns
Tideland News by Annita Best (11/1/06)
Rapid erosion on the shoreline at the western
end of Emerald Isle has some homeowners nervous. While sand has extended
the tip of the Bogue
Banks in the months since the Bogue Inlet channel was shifted west,
the oceanfront at the Point has lost beach. Approximately 75-100 linear
feet of sand has eroded in just a few weeks, and owners of oceanfront
property were invited to a special meeting at town hall Saturday to
discuss the situation. “Everyone’s losing their private
walkways. No one (at the town) had detailed conversations with those
property owners as to the degree of the erosion,” said Bill Schrott,
who owns a new home on Inlet Drive. “We feel we’ve been
kicked in the stomach. I don’t feel as if we had been informed.
We didn’t really understand the impact,” his wife, Anne
Schrott, added. The Schrotts were referring to the relocation of the
Bogue Inlet channel in 2005, when approximately 30 homes were threatened
to be lost to erosion. The decision to shift the inlet did not come
lightly, according to Frank Rush, town manager. The situation was studied
for three years before any decision was made regarding the movement
of the channel. “During our three years of research, all the
projections that were done when we were considering the relocation
of the channel were done with the concern that no one’s property
would be in jeopardy,” he explained. “Under this plan,
no homes would be threatened. There would be some erosion there, but
the beach would be in a similar position that it was in 1976-78. There
was not perceived to be a great risk. “I can tell you, we wouldn’t
have gone through with the project if we thought any of the homes were
in jeopardy – and I can speak for all the town officials. If
we had jeopardized some homes to save others, believe me, it would
have just created a new set of headaches.” Mayor Art Schools
echoed Rush’s comments. “We did this to save your houses,” he
said. “We decided to go forward. Repeatedly we said there would
be some erosion at the Point, but it was minimal risk to save the 30-some
homes at the point.” William Cleary, a coastal geographer from
the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, said the movement of
the sand was predictable. He presented a slideshow of various inlets
throughout the state to show the effects of the movement of a channel
based on actual events and some modeling. “You’re going
to have more erosion. I can’t tell you exactly when, but there’s
no doubt about it. You can blame the last hurricane for some of the
rapid erosion,” Cleary said. “My take is that everything
will reconfigure in the next few years. The reconfiguration would have
been more rapid if that dike had remained in place, but there would
still be erosion in here. “My prediction is the shoreline will
be cut back and erode through a series of accretions and erosions and
the sand will eventually infill around the west. “If the channel
maintains more centrally (between Bogue Banks and Bear Island ) my
guess is the sand will reach an equilibrium,” he added. Cleary
predicts the erosion will extend to about 7,000 feet to the east of
the Inlet or approximately to Lands End or Spinnaker’s Reach.
North Topsail Beach residents ready to vote on bonds
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (11/1/06)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – After years of fighting to get its beach nourished,
the issue will come down to a vote on Nov. 7 when North Topsail Beach
residents will be asked to vote on $34 million worth of bonds. The
bonds, if approved, will pay for a beach nourishment project that spans
the entire town and includes a project to straighten and widen New
River Inlet. The inlet has been linked to erosion at the island’s
north end. The project is slated to begin its first construction phase
in January 2008. If the bond referendum fails, the town must decide
if it wants to attempt to go forward and find another plan that voters
will find more palatable. “If this thing fails it sends a clear
signal that we need to go back and reassess the plan so that the impact
on the residents is not as great,” said Alderman Fred Handy.
During the October town meeting the board of aldermen voted to divide
the costs of paying off the bond 80-percent for oceanfront property
owners and 20-percent for everyone else. The 80/20 split equates to
44.25-cents per $100 valuation for oceanfront properties and 12.5-cents
per $100 valuation for everywhere else. According to town figures,
an oceanfront home assessed at $454,540 would pay $2,011 per year toward
the beach nourishment project, and a non-oceanfront home assessed at
$358,572 would pay $448 a year if the bonds are approved. Handy said
the numbers are somewhat misleading. “They are based on the maximum
amount if we have to pay for the project without any help,” he
said. He said he has talked to county officials and they have assured
him the county will pitch in and help pay for the project – they
are just not willing to come up with a figure until the town approves
the project. “It is understandable that the county wants to see
if the project has support before it commits funding,” said Handy.
He also believes that the state will help pay for the project. “It’s
like I’ve said before – the beach doesn’t just belong
to NTB, it belongs to the county and the state – it belongs to
all citizens,” said Handy. Other North Carolina beach nourishment
projects, including nearby Wrightsville Beach, Emerald Isle and Pine
Knoll Shores , all receive state funding. The $34 million in bonds
for the project are a worse case scenario, according to town officials.
The project could cost as little as $21.2 million. If the entire $34
million is needed, the total payoff with principal and interest is
$43,180,000. While the town has used dredged sand to shore up its beaches
in the past, it has never conducted a beach nourishment project. The
difference is the quality of material placed on the beach and the scope
of the project. With the beach nourishment project a dune line built
to 15-feet high will be constructed as well as a dry sand beach area
of approximately 75-feet. “We need this project,” said
Handy. “It doesn’t just benefit oceanfront properties,
it benefits the whole town.” Handy said a wider beach with a
15-foot dune line would slow wave action and offer some protection
should a hurricane strike the town. “Those who were here during
Hurricane Floyd know that it wasn’t just the oceanfront homes
that were affected, it was the whole town,” said Handy. “Some
people who live here have never been through a major storm.” If
the beach project goes through, it will need to be maintained with
renourishment every four to six years. However, FEMA will help pay
for the cost of reconstructing a nourished beach if damaged is sustained
due to a hurricane or other natural disaster. Opponents of the beach
nourishment plan cite costs, environmental concerns and equity of protection
in relationship to costs levied. One group in town is touting an alternative
beach building plan, known as Holmberg Technology, which incorporates
tube-like stabilizers. While Holmberg Technologies dispute that the
stabilizers constitute hardened, groin-like structures, which are illegal
in North Carolina, so far state environmental agencies consider them
hardened structures and will not allow them to be placed along North
Carolina beaches. The issue has gone as far as the NC legislature,
which is looking at the technology but has not approved it. But for
most who are opposed to the beach nourishment plan, it all comes down
to money. “They were hit by an approximately 400-percent property
revaluation by the county this year, and now the bond issue is coming
right on its heels,” said Handy. “After revaluation the
town lowered its tax rate from 45- to 13-cents but the county only
lowered its rate from 67- to 50.3-cents.” Handy said the additional
money for the bonds on top of the increase in taxes is more than some
people can bear. But many residents, including sound front owners,
say they would ante up and vote for the bonds if the rate of payment
was more equitable, said Handy. “This is one town, this is a
town project,” said Handy. “I believe the cost should be
evenly divided.” The polls open at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30
p.m. on Nov. 7. Residents of North Topsail Beach vote at the Turkey
Creek Volunteer Fire Department, located at 115 Tar Landing Road in
Sneads Ferry.
Purchase of the Point held up by property owners who want re-zoning
for other land
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (11/1/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH - Controversy is again brewing
over the 50 acres on the southern tip of Topsail Island , known as
The Point. Topsail Beach
Mayor Butch Parrish has revealed that representatives of MBM Properties
informed him that they would not sell The Point until the town had
approved the rezoning of another of their properties in accordance
with the desires of a developer of their choice. Town officials stopped
short of calling it blackmail, but said that there was too much passion
involved with The Point among Topsail Beach citizens for any backroom
deals to be made. “Combining the granting of the option (of selling
the 50 acres) together with rezoning makes me very uncomfortable with
this process,” Parrish wrote in an e-mail to MBM Properties on
Sept. 28. The mayor’s accusations stem from an Aug. 25 meeting
between the town and MBM Properties. MBM Properties comprises Franklin
McCloud, Michael Oppegaard and other property owners on Topsail Island.
McCloud said that he was present at the meeting and does not remember
zoning ever coming up in the discussion. “I was there and I can
say that the rezoning of other properties in connection with The Point
never came up,” McCloud explained. Oppegaard would not comment
on the Aug. 25 meeting or the e-mail sent by the mayor. Camilla Herlevich
with NC Coastal Land Trust, who was also present at the meeting, explained
that she is bound by a confidentiality agreement and cannot comment
on what was said during the meeting. In his Sept. 28 e-mail Mayor Parrish
wrote, “It will be my recommendation to the board that it would
be inappropriate for the town to continue to pursue a conservation
arrangement where the town has to pass zoning rules on the section
of land your developer wants to buy before we can obtain an option
to preserve part of the land.” “We are only doing what
we said we would do,” McCloud said, “and that is work with
the town.” McCloud said that MBM Properties has every intention
of selling the 50 acres to NC Coastal Land Trust. Last year, when Topsail
Beach was deciding the best way to ensure the conservation of The Point,
public hearings were so crowded that the meetings had to be moved from
town hall into the Assembly Building Residents came out in force against
developing the southern tip of Topsail Island. The Point is a natural
habitat for rare shorebirds including the threatened Piping Plover.
The N.C. Council of Governments suggested to town officials that the
best way to prevent unwanted development of The Point was for Topsail
Beach to purchase the land. The town entered a relationship with NC
Coastal Land Trust to do just that. The property owners, identified
as MBM Properties, then promised a portion of the land to NC Coastal
Land Trust. Since then, NC Coastal Land Trust began raising funds to
purchase The Point. This month the NC Clean Water Management Trust
Fund will consider allocating more than $4 million to NC Coastal Land
Trust for the purchase. Recently, however, Clean Water trustees have
asked for more information on The Point before they approve their part
of the purchase price. The US Senate has earmarked more than $2 million
in its 2007 budget to go toward the purchase of the 50 acres. Several
grants have been set in motion to help pay for the land including the
NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund
and the federal coastal wetlands protection fund. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources is also currently involved
in finding money to contribute towards the purchase of The Point and
NC Coastal Land Trust has asked that $30 million of this year’s
Governor’s budget be set aside for Topsail Beach. The Conserve
The Point, Inc. lobbying group has also been involved in fund raising
efforts.
Park works to aid turtles
Tideland News by Martha S. Ahlquist (11/1/06)
Turtle time is slower than most people probably
realize. Not only do these reptiles move slowly, but they also mature
slowly and grow old
slowly. As a result, data that Sam Bland and the other rangers at Hammocks
Beach State Park are collecting will be more helpful to biologists
in 50 to 60 years than it is now. For Bland, who has worked in the
sea turtle program at the park since its inception in 1975, that’s
all right. “I’m OK with it,” he said. “I still
feel like we’re doing the right thing to protect a species. Hopefully
someone will be able to help that species live. It’s well worth
it.” The sea turtle program is one of the park’s resource
management projects. And, while there are five different species that
live in the waters of the park, Bland said the loggerhead, the green
and the leatherback sea turtle are the ones most frequently seen. “All
are threatened or endangered,” he explained. “When they
come in the park we are mandated by federal law to protect them.” The
park’s role in the program is to provide nesting conditions for
the turtles and to collect data on nesting turtles and their hatchlings.
Bland said education is important to teaching visitors how they can
help. “In addition to our regular interpretative programs, every
camper who applies for an overnight camping permit during nesting season
is told what to do if they see a turtle,” he said. The park also
has summer interns who spend the night on Bear Island during nesting
season to patrol the beaches. “Having a physical presence on
the island helps,” he said. “They make sure the turtles
can nest and that they nest undisturbed.” Nesting is probably
the most visible and important part of the resource management program. “But,” Bland
said, “we also want to learn more about their biology.” Bland
explained that the life span of a turtle could be 100 years. But there
is not 100 years of research on sea turtles yet. With support from
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, the park tags all turtles that
come ashore to nest. They receive a metal tag that is crimped on their
flipper. Bland said as the turtles’ age, their bodies are likely
to reject the tag and it falls off. The newer pit tags would probably
be more effective and permanent. “The turtles are injected with
a nodule that is no bigger than a grain of rice,” he said. Once
that is in the flipper, the tag is activated like a scanner similar
to what stores use to scan a bar code. “That turtle then has
a number.” Bland said rangers are now scanning turtles when they
come ashore and injecting a tag if they don’t already have one.
He said this would allow scientists to track nesting trends. “How
many times does one female nest in a season? Do they always nest in
the same location year after year? Are six turtles nesting six clutches
a year or are four turtles nesting six clutches a year?” he asks.
These are questions that might one day be answered, Bland said. He
pointed out that scientists and rangers in other coastal areas compile
all of the tag information in one database for review. This will help
determine migratory patterns. “It used to be believed that turtles
went south for the winter,” he said. “Now some are wondering
if they go east, toward the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream .” Bland
said that occasionally a ranger has to perform a biopsy on dead turtles
that wash ashore or dead hatchlings that don’t mature. “This
genetic analysis will give us information on the turtle population,” he
said. Bland said that rangers have to cut off the flippers and remove
the eyeballs and send them off for analysis. “The bones in their
eyes grow rings like a tree as a turtle gets older,” Bland said.
This information will give scientists a standard on how to determine
the age of turtles.
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editors (11/1/06)
- Taxing all North Topsail Beach property owners
to pay upwards of $90 million for the proposed $34 million beach
nourishment bond,
plus
$9 million of interest, plus $6 million every for years (for 30 or
40 years?) is, quite simply, a “special interest” tax.
The owners of the handful of properties that are endangered at the
north end of the island are asking the entire town to bail them out
of an unwise investment. Whereas I have empathy for their predicament,
they bought or built in a known high-risk area, and should not expect
NTB taxpayers to pay to protect their property. - Ed Doherty, North
Topsail Beach
- Vote yes for the North Topsail Beach Bond Referendum
because if you are sound side within the next 10 years, without beach
nourishment,
it is projected that some 80 properties on the sound side of New
River
Inlet Road will need to be taken in order to move eroded parts of
the road. Within the next 10 years, without beach nourishment, we
will
lose a substantial part of our tax base, raising taxes for all. Without
beach nourishment, we will see severe damage to our town infrastructure
in the event of any future storms. Without beach nourishment and
with homes continuing to become uninhabitable, all our homes will
decrease
considerably in value. People will fear buying into a town with such
severe erosion problems. The 12.25-cents per $100 of assessed valuation,
as set by this year's board of aldermen, is the maximum and will
be reduced by any county and state money we receive. We can't be
sure
of exactly how much we will receive but we are certain to receive
some funding. This is a good investment to protect our town! For
a $500,000
assessed home, you will pay $612.50 per year to help save our town.
If you are in the southern and central section without beach nourishment
all of your oceanfront homes are at risk now. Are you willing to
wait for the federal project, which is at least some six years away?
Many
of your oceanfront homes have little or no dune protection. Even
those with height elevation must remember that elevation offers no
protection
from ocean erosion and may only protect somewhat from storm damage.
You will expect the town to pay its share of the federal project
when it comes due. Are you willing to forsake the central and northern
areas
of you town now, its tax base, its infrastructure? Remember, as has
been often repeated, this town is a town of all for one and one for
all. Remember, the entire town will be getting a nourished beach
from the project; every foot of the town including the federal areas
will
gain sand. If you think you can wait for the Holmberg system, remember
it is currently against state law. Holmberg people can and should
get the law changed and we could possibly use the system for future
replenishment,
if needed. But we cannot afford to wait for the law to be changed.
The attempt failed in this year's legislative session and we have
no reason to think next year will be any different. If you are any
oceanfront
owner the 44.25-cents per $100 of assessed valuation as set by this
year's board of aldermen is the maximum and will be reduced by any
county and state money we receive. We can't be sure of exactly how
much we will receive but we are certain to receive some funding.
Every oceanfront property in NTB is at risk to be taken by the sea,
some
face the real possibility in the next several years, some may have
10 or so years. Any major hurricane can of course take any oceanfront
home now, with our eroded beaches and lack of consistent dune structure.
Over the last six years or so your property values have risen 400-percent
on average. Though the market is in a slump right now, we know nourished
beach property will continue to rise substantially in value. Let's
imagine you will accrue a mere five percent appreciation per year,
exceedingly modest for oceanfront property. The maximum of 44.25-cents
per $100 assessed valuation would come to $3,318 per year on a $750,000
house, or just 4-percent of its value. That 4-percent expenditure
will protect the $750,000 investment and add the modest 5-percent
appreciation
of a whopping $37,500 a year to your property value. On the other
hand, if we do not do beach nourishment, you save the $3,318 per
year but
many, within the next five years, and a majority of oceanfront owners,
within the next 10 years can lose their entire $750,000 investment
and any and all potential appreciation. It is a good investment for
all! It is important for all voters to note that if a hurricane does
impact our engineered beach and we are declared a federal disaster
area then it is likely that FEMA programs will contribute at least 75-percent
of the cost of replenishment. One last assurance. Many people have
been bothered by the fact that the board can change tax ratio every
year. Aldermen Farley, Hardison, and Peters voted for the plan and
will work to keep it on track. And much to his courage and credit,
and putting the town welfare before his own preference, Alderman Handy
has told me that he will “do all in (his) power to stop any change” in
the future. So voters: be assured that these four trustworthy aldermen
will work to make the plan that has been presented to you now the
plan that will remain in effect. Vote yes for beach nourishment.
Vote yes
to save our entire town. - Mary Convy, North Topsail Beach
10/31/06
North
Topsail answers concerned citizens’ tax
gripes
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46156&Section=News
Boat ramp gets a boost
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=46178&Section=News
Beach Vitex Threatening Coastal Sand Dunes & Native Plants
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=9207_0_2_0_M
N. Topsail bonds
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (10/29/06)
North Topsail Beach voters will have the opportunity
to vote for or against a $34 million bond issue on Nov. 7. The devil
is in the details
of what will not appear on those ballots – details like: $34
million is before interest; follow-up maintenance projects could cost
an additional $6 million every four years or so; a hurricane could
erase every bit of sand we pump ashore; insurance companies will not
reduce flood or other premiums. The bottom line is that it is a bad
idea that will not work. Beaches along the entire coast of North Carolina
know that erosion is the real problem, which will continue (and actually
increase) after any sand pumping project. Why, then, are we three towns
on Topsail Island divided on how to deal with beach erosion? Why must
each town stand alone against this age-old problem? Our beaches are
a valuable asset to our town, county and state. So let's unite and
find a real solution to the problem. Let's demand that our county,
state and federal governments take the lead on this and help find and
pay for a long-term solution. - Bill Walsh, N. Topsail Beach
10/28/06
Nags Head to choose financing plan to present to voters
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/10/28/top_stories/tops064101.prt
Report erodes myths about sand dollars
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113241&ran=96563
Officials plan for erosion repairs (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15851305.htm
Hawaii Landowners Cannot Landscape to Extend Shoreline
Environmental News Service (10/25/06)
HONOLULU, Hawaii, October 25, 2006 (ENS) - The
Hawaii Supreme Court today issued a ruling reaffirming that the shoreline
in Hawaii, which
marks the boundary between public beach and private land, extends to
the highest wash of the waves. The Court rejected the use of deliberately
planted vegetation in determining the shoreline. The case on appeal,
Diamond v. State, involved a challenge by North Shore Kauai residents
Caren Diamond and her attorney, Harold Bronstein, of the decision of
the Chairperson of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources,
DLNR, to certify the shoreline of a lot on Kauai's North Shore based
on vegetation the landowner planted and propagated to create a false
shoreline further seaward. Earthjustice, on behalf of citizen groups
Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter, filed
an amicus brief in support of Diamond and Bronstein's appeal. The court,
in a unanimous decision, reversed the state's shoreline certification
and held that the shoreline should be established "at the highest
reach of the highest wash of the waves." The court also clarified
the role of the "vegetation line" and "debris line" as
indicators of the shoreline. Contrary to the state's and landowner's
interpretation of legal precedent, the court ruled that the vegetation
line trumps the debris line only when the vegetation line lies more
inland than the debris line. This decision furthers the public policy
of extending to public ownership and use "as much of Hawaii's
shoreline as is reasonably possible." The court also ruled that
the state erred in using artificially planted and propagated vegetation
to determine the vegetation line based on the reasoning that the vegetation
survived more than a year. The court cited the public policy of protecting
and extending public shoreline resources and uses and emphatically "reject[ed]
attempts by landowners to evade this policy by artificial extensions
of the vegetation lines on their properties." "I am pleased
that the Court acknowledged the principles we have been articulating
all these years," said Caren Diamond, who, together with Bronstein
and other community members, have resisted attempts by landowners to
extend their lots onto public beach with artificially planted vegetation. "Now,
our government officials need to start enforcing the law and stop vegetative
encroachments that are causing the loss of our sandy beaches." The
court's decision follows on the heels of the state's recent amendment
of agency rules, effective June 2006, to remove any preference for
the vegetation line over the debris line in the determination of shorelines,
an issue first raised years ago by Diamond and Bronstein in their challenges
to the location of certified shorelines. That amendment was the product
of a settlement of a lawsuit brought in 2005 by Earthjustice on behalf
of citizen groups Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Sierra Club, Hawaii
Chapter. The state rendered its decision in the Diamond case in 2004. "We
appreciated the opportunity to work with Chair Peter Young and DLNR
to fix the problem of the agency's shoreline definition," said
Earthjustice attorney Isaac Moriwake. "However, landowners still
persist in planting vegetation and calling it the shoreline. This ruling
sends a clear message that this game is over." "The Supreme
Court's ruling vindicates the public's rights to shoreline access and
use," said Jeff Mikulina, executive director of the Sierra Club,
Hawaii Chapter. "But we still need our state and county officials
to get serious about protecting these rights from getting buried under
walls of vegetation and concrete."
Ramp is worthy of our support
Tideland News Editorial (10/25/06)
The towns of Cape Carteret , Cedar Point and
Emerald Isle are in the unique position of being able to help influence
the establishment of
an N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission boating access on the banks of
Bogue Sound. What the towns’ leaders say will not be the final
word, but officials in Raleigh will be listening. Our hope is that
the men and women elected to represent the people of our community
will look at what is best for the public. And, in this case, building
an access ramp on state right-of-way at the north end of the B. Cameron
Langston Bridge makes good sense. Access points for the general public
are limited, if not diminishing. If the state fails to take the lead
to establish suitable access for boaters, it runs the risk of shutting
the door to anyone who can’t afford to buy or lease waterfront
property. Statewide, there is a trend to raise the level of exclusivity
when it comes to water access. From Atlantic Beach to Wrightsville
Beach , more and more marinas are choosing to become “boatominiums.” A
report in the Wilmington Star News last week indicated that a dry-stack
slip in a marina near the mouth of the Cape Fear River sold for between
$18,000 and $45,000 three years ago. Today, that same slip is selling
for between $90,000 and $159,000. This is not some nefarious plot designed
to push out the common man. It is just capitalism. But that doesn’t
mean the state can’t do its part to allow access for all. More
Wildlife ramps is certainly one way to strike a balance between those
who have an additional $100k to put into a boat slip and those who
may not. It is true that building a ramp facility at the Langston Bridge
will mean more vehicular traffic for the community during boating season.
But that is not a reason to oppose this plan. Surely, engineers with
the N.C. Department of Transportation can find a way to allow safe
access for boaters wishing to use the ramp. Just across NC 24 from
the proposed facility, DOT apparently found a way to accommodate the
expected increase in traffic from a proposed Wal-Mart. The Langston
Bridge property is ideal for a boat launching facility. Hopefully,
the elected officials in our community will do all in their power to
see this boat ramp project through. Hopefully, they not fall for the
same arguments that, if valid, would have stopped the development of
Cedar Point’s Wal-Mart. The public deserves the opportunity
to enjoy the state’s waters.
10/24/06
New sand tax?
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/10/21/top_stories/tops071104.prt
Jennette's Pier replacement stalled
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/10/21/top_stories/tops071101.prt
Boaters in the dark on Rudee Inlet (Va)
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113091&ran=132497
Uninhabited island becomes high-tech (SC)
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6184611p-5407639c.html
10/20/06
N.C.'s top court to hear beach access appeal
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/10/20/101906_news_Ocean_hillcase.html
Critics fear range will scare away fish
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45913&Section=News
Escarpments
dismissed as ‘normal beach features’ -
Wrightsville
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1673
Beach access closed - Wrightsville
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1674
Wrightsville turtles have turbulent week
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1676
10/18/06
Congressman McIntyre Visits Area To Examine Beach Nourishment Needs
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=9081_0_2_0_M
Nags Head looking for action to correct problems
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/10/18/top_stories/tops075101.prt
Pender County to help Topsail Beach dredge Intracoastal Waterway
Topsail Voice by Ken Clarke (10/18/06)
BURGAW – In an attempt to prevent the New Topsail Inlet from
shoaling, Topsail Beach and Pender County have teamed up with the state
to dredge the Intracoastal Waterway. The need for local and state financing
is due to a lack of sufficient funding from the federal government.
In an e-mail to the Pender County Commissioners soliciting funds for
the dredging, John Sutherland, P.E. Chief of Water Projects Section
of the US Army Corps of Engineers Division of Water Quality, wrote
that the limited funds made available this year for dredging could
not cover the cost of dredging in the eight inlet crossings in the
Wilmington District. To compensate for a lack of funding the state
has agreed to pay for 50 percent of the cost of dredging if the local
communities affected by the dredging pay the additional 50 percent.
Sutherland wrote that in other cases where this was done, such as in
North Topsail Beach , the state paid 50 percent, the town paid 25 percent
and the county paid 25 percent. On Monday at the commissioners meeting
Topsail Beach Mayor Butch Parrish asked the county to participate in
sharing 25 percent of the costs. “The waterway is shoaling up
and the corps has no money,” said Parrish. With a maximum cost
estimated to be at $937,500, the state would pay $468,750 and the county
and town would each pay $234,375. It is estimated that 85,000 cubic
yards of sand will be pumped back on to the beaches in Topsail Beach
to help with some restoration. But a limited permit will only allow
the sand to be pumped onto 1,000 feet of beach. “That is only
about 20 homes,” said Parrish. “We are trying to get it
in front of 30 homes.” While the sand, be it in front of 20 or
30 homes, will help, it is not a long term solution toward beach nourishment,
according to Parrish. “This is low quality sand,” he said. “It
may last three years.” “But this can help some houses that
are losing there dunes completely,” he added. Commissioner David
Williams said it is no secret where this is heading -- the federal
government is looking to get out of the dredging business. “Which
is fine, but let it fall to the state and local government and put
it into our jurisdiction,” he said. “We can do it more
efficiently.” Commissioner Steve Holland asked Parrish if the
town could front the money for the county until the next budget year.
Parrish said he was not prepared to answer at that time but said he
thought he could convince his board to loan the money until the next
budget year. “But I would have to do it with interest,” he
said. Commissioner Bill Moore asked if the county could take the $100,000
out of the beach nourishment fund set up by the commissioners to help
Topsail Beach and Surf City on nourishment projects to help pay this
cost. Parrish explained this is a dredging project not a nourishment
project. “I will be asking for that money in a few weeks,” he
said. Holland said with expected growth he felt the county could be
able to help. Moore said he believed the county could find the money
even if it meant dipping into the fund balance. “If you dip into
that fund balance too much you can get in to trouble,” said Holland. “We
did that before and we got into trouble so I’m a little gun shy.” With
no clear idea where they would get the money the commissioners unanimously
passed a resolution to pay the 25 percent. Believing they have a few
months before they have to write a check, the commissioners instructed
Interim County Manager Paul Parker to find the money. For its part
Topsail Beach Town Manager Jim Carter said the town would most likely
get its money from its shoreline protection fund. The Topsail Beach
Commissioners will hold a special meeting Thursday night to vote on
paying its part of the project.
Assessing the situation in Topsail Beach
Topsail Voice Editorial (10/18/06)
Apparently most residents in Topsail Beach agree
-- the town needs to pursue an emergency beach nourishment project
to stave off erosion
until the US Army Corps of Engineers begins its project to stabilize
and nourish the town’s beach in 2012. The only apparent concern
expressed is how to fairly divide the cost of the project among town
property owners. Unlike North Topsail Beach which is establishing special
tax districts to fund a possible bond to be decided Nov. 7, Topsail
Beach is adding an assessment to properties within the town limits
to pay for the costs. The assessment plan has its pros and cons. The
pros include flexibility. With assessments the town can be flexible
in establishing costs for property in different areas of town, such
as oceanfront, sound front and interior. And the town council can take
into consideration special conditions of the property owners such as
those on fixed incomes. The cons include not giving the townspeople
the option of voting for the plan. Although the townspeople will not
have the opportunity to vote on the issue, they are given plenty of
chances to voice their opinion to the town board. Mayor Butch Parrish
said the town board will continue to seek public input and maintain
a high level of open communications with residents and property owners.
While skeptics would question the responsiveness of the town board,
Topsail Beach ’s track record shows that the people’s opinion
carries weight in the board’s decisions. A little over a year
ago the town was ready to put its stamp of approval on its land use
plan when the citizens came out in force, demanding that the southern,
undeveloped portion of the town remain undeveloped. Responding to the
citizen’s concerns the town partnered with a conservation group
to purchase part of the property in question to keep undeveloped. When
concerns about water access were brought up at town meetings the town
board moved to find a suitable piece of land to purchase. The town’s
new public boat ramps were dedicated last week. The Topsail Beach town
board has proven in past action that it has the best interest of the
town at heart when making decisions. Topsail Beach citizens should
continue letting the board know how they want the assessment applied
fairly and the board should act accordingly. Working together benefits
the town as a whole and makes it stronger as a community.
Homeowners should stick together
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/18/06)
Dear Editor,
In response to the 80/20 divide regarding the beach nourishment project
in North Topsail Beach, some seem to want to separate us homeowners
instead of keeping us together on issues in this small, but wonderful
town. I guess the next vote on board members should be decided by where
the candidates live - oceanfront or sound side. Myself, being a resident
living oceanfront, I know which direction my vote will go! - June Hoffman,
North Topsail Beach
10/13/06
Groups Want Sea of Change for Beach Projects: Protesters point out
dangers, economic impact
http://www.ocobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20061010&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=610100306&SectionCat=&Template=printart
Battling nature: Beach protection experts gather at Shore
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20061010&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=610100463&SectionCat=&Template=printart
Currituck and state officials to discuss lessons from Ernesto
http://www.dailyadvance.com/local/content/news/stories/2006/10/12/101106_news_flood_meeting.html
Bacteria levels cause more sections of beach to close (SC)
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6158117p-5388589c.html
A brighter future for lighthouse (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=112561&pubDate=10/11/2006
A beach access free-for-all (NJ)
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/NEWS01/610110451/1004
Topsail Beach looks to make assessments fair
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (10/11/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH - After hearing from several experts
including, Spencer Rodgers from North Carolina Sea Grant, the floor
of the Topsail Beach
Emergency Nourishment Workshop was opened to the public. And the public
had a lot to say. Mayor Butch Parrish reminded the crowd of more than
200 to remain civil and to remember that they would still be neighbors
in the morning. This drew laughter from the crowd and, with the exception
of a few heated exchanges, the crowd expressed their alternating opinions
calmly. Early in the workshop, someone asked about the possibility
of retirees on fixed incomes not being able to pay the assessment.
Town Commissioner Garth Boyd told the crowd that no one would be forced
out of Topsail Beach. “We will make sure that an amendment or
provision is in place to help people on fixed incomes with the burden,” he
explained. There were no real objections to the project itself. The
town seemed unified in believing in the need and benefit of emergency
beach nourishment. “A beach resort without a viable beach strand
is worthless,” resident Harold Hanig told the crowd. “We
can’t duck our responsibilities to our investment here.” The
division came when it was time to talk about how the residents would
be assessed in order to pay for the project. Several residents expressed
the opinion that property owners with land on the interior of the island
should not have to pay more than those with more valuable sound front
lots. One property owner disagreed sharply, saying that he already
had an incredible expense in maintaining a seawall. Another resident,
Tom Harris, who lives on Ocean Boulevard, said that he spent years
planting sea oats and grass and putting in sand fences in an effort
to preserve the dunes on his property. But he said he is still required
to pay the same amount as the people who spent their time fishing. “We
are in this together now,” he said. “To the gentleman who
complained about building a seawall…I’ll come help build
your seawall if you come help plant my grass.” After the public
asked questions and offered opinions, the mayor took several hand-raising
polls to try and gauge where those present stood. He was admittedly
surprised when only a slight majority of attendees raised their hands
noting that the oceanfront property owners should be assessed at a
higher rate than the rest of the town. The citizens apparently wished
to keep the assessment as simple as possible as the vast majority of
them favored one rate for the beachfront and one rate for everyone
else. Parrish said after the meeting that he did not anticipate the
level of concern regarding “buildable versus un-buildable” status
for some lots south of the Sea Vista Hotel. “We must strike a
balance between the concerns of the community and the rights of the
individuals who own those lots,” he said. “We are already
planning some meetings with our engineers, NC Sea Grant, and CAMA to
start the dialogue about how much to nourish this area and how to define
a construction set-back line that will be fair to everyone.” Parrish
explained that the town will continue to seek public input and maintain
a high level of open communications with residents and property owners.
Navy seeks input on range
Tideland News by Annita Best (10/11/06)
In addition to the pending issue of the undersea
warfare training range that is being considered for a 500-nautical-mile
area off Onslow Beach
by the U.S. Navy, the Navy announced earlier this month it refining
its sonar training up and down the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. “Currently
we do sonar training up and down the East Coast and in the Gulf. We’ve
been doing it for 40 years. We are trying to be more deliberate about
our training and we want to demonstrate to the public that the Navy
is a good steward of the environment and we want to do our training
the best possible way,” said Navy spokesman James Brantley. The
Navy currently uses active sonar for anti-submarine warfare and mine
warfare training associated with ongoing Independent Unit Level Training,
Coordinated Unit Level Training and Strike Group Training in those
areas. The Navy announced its intent to prepare a combined NEPA Environmental
Impact Statement and Overseas Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate
the potential environmental consequences associated with MIW and ASW.
The proposed action is to identify areas in which to continue to conduct
that training with minimal consequences to the marine environment. “We
are already doing the training, but we want to look at three alternatives;
do we just continue what we’re doing all year long, do we only
do it in certain areas all year long, or do we do it seasonally in
certain areas,” Brantley said. There will be a scoping meeting
in Morehead City at the National Guard Armory Nov. 14, from 5 until
8 p.m., in order to allow the public to provide input on the alternatives. “This
is different from the regular public hearings. This is more like an
open house where the public and interested parties are invited to come
and express concerns and provide comments in person, on forms and through
the Web site.” “We’re going to take all the comments
and use them in making our decision. For example, a local fisherman
may be able to tell us a good place for training because no one fishes
there because there are never any fish in that area,” Brantley
explained. “The Navy is still working the undersea training range.
That’s an instrumented range for unit level training that provides
instant feedback. “This is more for the strike groups and involves
a much larger area. We’re not building anything. We utilize the
entire open ocean, but we’re limiting the operating area through
this. “We haven’t written anything yet. We want the public
involved in the whole process. We’re looking at every aspect.”
10/9/06
Now visitors can get to The Point
Bogue Inlet - Beach makes a comeback
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/495754.html
Oceanfront owners would pay bulk of burden for North Topsail sand tax
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45435&Section=News
Kure Beach Storm Water Outfall Experiment Shows Good Results
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=8978_0_2_0_M
Crews finish first part of renourishment (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6149613p-5382285c.html
Topsail Beach sifts for a plan to pay for sand
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (10/7/06)
Topsail Beach | Frayed pieces of an old sandbag
jutted out from the base of the dune that looked like it had been hacked
with a meat cleaver.
The erosion hadn't exposed the legs of the crossover that Pam Gretchner
descended from yet. But the high tide mark, which rubbed up against
the dune, showed it was likely just a matter of time until the stairway
a few blocks south of the Jolly Roger fishing pier was in trouble. "I've
been coming down here for six years now and this is the worst I've
seen it," said Gretchner as the Winston-Salem resident looked
up at the wounded escarpment less than 20 feet in front of her rented
beach house. With 30 homes considered "imminently threatened" by
the state and dozens more perilously close to the edge of the dune
line, Topsail Beach officials have decided they can't afford to wait
until 2012 or later to see if the town's proposed federal beach nourishment
project secures regulatory and financial approval. Town Manager Jim
Carter said the time has simply come for a beach-boosting project. "Topsail
has never really renourished its beaches," he said. "We've
pushed sand, reinforced our dunes, dredged sand from our inlet, but
never really done a true nourishment project. We've got to draw the
line somewhere." But while there appears to be little opposition
to Topsail Beach performing its own nourishment project, which would
add an average of 50 feet to the beach, how to cover the estimated
$3.6 million shortfall in the $10 million project is creating fissures
within this small Pender County beach community. Like the proposed
town-funded nourishment project in North Topsail Beach on the other
end of Topsail Island, the issue is dividing oceanfront property owners
from those with property further back from the encroaching Atlantic
and permanent residents from part-timers. Mirroring other North Carolina
beach towns, only 250 of the town's 1,462 property owners have Topsail
Beach addresses. In hopes of reaching some consensus, town officials
have called a meeting at 9:30 a.m. today to discuss the emergency beach
nourishment project. "My assessment of the overall sentiment of
our property owners is that we have very strong support for the project,
but that the question of how the assessment is allocated needs work," stated
Mayor Butch Parrish in a Sept. 28 letter to town property owners. Carter
said Topsail Beach was leaning away from placing most of the cost on
oceanfront property owners, a funding method used by several Bogue
Bank communities. "We think oceanfront property owners should
pay more, but not as much as Emerald Isle did," he said. Emerald
Isle assessed beachfront properties at 48 cents per $100 of assessed
value and interior properties at 3 cents per $100 to help fund its
recent nourishment projects. Lori Westervelt, for one, thinks oceanfront
property owners shouldn't be sandbagged with most of the cost. The
owner of Quarter Moon Books & Gifts, one of few commercial enterprises
in this predominantly residential community, said she supported an
even assessment for all of the town's property owners since the impacts
of a disappearing beach wouldn't stop at the oceanfront homes. "It's
just the price we have to pay for living at the beach," Westervelt
said. "Without the beach, what do we have?" But Bobby Barefoot,
a part-time town resident who owns property on Maritime Way, said he
didn't think the town should have to pay additional money for something
that generates recreational opportunities for residents and visitors
alike. He doubted, however, that his or any other resident's thoughts
would really matter. "They're going to do what they want to do
anyway," Barefoot said of the town officials. Carter said the
town's Board of Commissioners wouldn't make a decision today. But he
said the question couldn't drag on indefinitely, since Topsail Beach
hopes to start pumping sand in November 2007.
10/5/06
Tax rate worries some residents
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45307&Section=News
Strand cities to push for beach repair funds
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15682791.htm
Officials scramble on inlet / Ignored by feds, Bogue may get reapportion
funds
Tideland News by Annita Best (10/4/06)
Even if Bogue Inlet is left out of the state’s Shallow Draft
Navigation dredging budget again next year, a plan is in the works
to reapportion money from the state’s other inlets in order to
keep dredging plans afloat. Although a continuing resolution was passed
Sept. 29 to extend the current budget through the November elections,
in the proposed budget, Bogue Inlet is left without funding once again. “At
this point congress hasn’t passed a budget for 2007. Until they
do, we have to plan based on the President’s budget last spring,” said
Penny Schmitt, Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson. In last year’s
federal budget there was no money allocated for maintenance dredging
of any of the shallow draft inlets in North Carolina. However, the
Senate budget had allocated $3 million for maintenance dredging of
all of the state’s five shallow inlets except Bogue Inlet and
its connecting channel. “Neither the President’s nor the
House version of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriation
Bill includes funding for any of the five inlets,” said Greg
Rudolph of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office. The Senate
version of the Bill included funding for four of the five inlet’s– Lockwoods
Folly, Carolina Beach , New Topsail and New River . Only Bogue Inlet
was left out of the budget for the second year in a row. “No
one really knows why it’s been left out of the budget for two
years now. My thoughts are that they got confused with the $9.8 million
that was funded for moving the Emerald Isle inlet and didn’t
realize this was the connector channel and a whole different issue,” said
Rudolph. “Once they didn’t fund it the first year, it set
the precedent.” Congress is expected to go into recess until
the November elections and resume during the lame duck period to finalize
the budget. The Carteret County Shore Protection office has developed
a plan and a restructured budget in which the $3 million that was spread
between the four inlets be instead spread out among all five. Harry
Simmons, executive director of the North Carolina Beach, Inlet and
Waterway Association requested support for this plan in a letter to
Senator Elizabeth Dole. “As you know, the unchecked shoaling
of any inlet is a serious safety hazard as well as a hindrance to the
commercial and recreational boat traffic that is so important to the
coastal economy. In an effort to assure that Bogue Inlet does not have
to face a second year of postponed maintenance dredging, the North
Carolina Beach , Inlet and Waterway Association respectfully asks that
you support a plan that could provide workable funding to all five
authorized inlets.” According to Simmons, the amount each funded
inlet is reduced is commensurate with its percentage of total funding
in the Senate version of the Bill. He added, “We respectfully
request that you support this plan, conveying that support to the leadership
of the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittees.” “The
impacts of Bogue Inlet are huge,” said Rudolph. “We have
fishing tournaments, a commercial fishing industry and recreational
boats whose very existence depends on safe waterway access to and from
the Atlantic Ocean – that all hinges on safe passage. Safe passage
hinges on reliable maintenance.” Local business owner Greg Dennis
of The Reel Outdoors agrees. “Bogue Inlet is our main access
to the ocean in the Emerald Isle and Swansboro area. It’s what
draws people here and brings in money for everyone – restaurants,
tackle shops, hotels and rental homes. They need to keep it open,” he
said. “It’s amazing they don’t think it’s important
enough to provide the funds for it.”
Parrish answers tough questions on assessment
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (10/4/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH - With a public workshop on Topsail
Beach ’s Emergency
Beach Nourishment Project set for Saturday, Mayor Butch Parrish agreed
to sit down and answer questions about the project and the proposed
assessment to pay for it.
Topsail Voice: What do you say to property owners who do not believe
in beach nourishment?
Mayor Butch Parrish: Damming rivers, dredging harbors and digging this
big ditch called the Intracoastal Waterway has stopped the natural
flow of sand from the mountains to the beach, which prevents the beach
from sustaining itself. Actions of man have starved the beach for replacement
sand. Do we let the beaches just wash away? I don’t think so.
The dunes have become a major part of the infrastructure in coastal
towns. We need to protect them.
Voice: Do you think a beach nourishment referendum would pass?
Parrish: Yes.
Voice: There are some people who have claimed that Topsail Beach is
dishonest and is trying to scare property owners into supporting the
project.
Parrish: Well, I don’t like being called dishonest. Anyone who
hears that we’re using scare tactics should walk the beach at
high tide and make up their own mind.
Voice: Some contend that the project is only for the financial benefit
of developers.
Parrish: No developers have been involved in the development of this
plan, and I don’t see it as anything like that. I see a lot of
houses that represent retirement nest eggs for the people here. Helping
people take care of their investment is our job.
Voice: Will the project do enough to be worth the cost?
Parrish: If I didn’t think that this was a slam dunk, I wouldn’t
be doing it. You say, “$10 million” and some people get
upset. You say “$4,000 to protect a $1 million home” and
most people have a different attitude.
Voice: What is the advantage to Topsail Beach residents of an assessment
over using taxes to pay for the project?
Parrish: This is not a question with a short answer. Since a tax district
requires that residents of that district approve it, we felt that this
created two significant problems: only local residents could vote on
it and very few local residents actually live on the oceanfront. Our
town has about 450 registered voters who actually represent only about
300 households. Conversely, our town consists of over 1,800 taxable
properties. On the oceanfront, we have only about 40 resident households.
We agreed that to pounce on 40 oceanfront residents and ask them to
vote on a tax district that might end up paying 90-percent of the tab
for the project would be a very ugly thing to do. Topsail Beach is
a small town. Relationships between neighbors are very important here.
Voice: Is the current assessment proposal fair to property owners on
the interior of the island? Other towns have used a simple oceanfront
/ non-oceanfront formula.
Parrish: Most people think that the entire town should pay for beach
nourishment, and I agree with them. Our first approach has some problems
in it that need to be addressed, but no one has said that the beachfront
wasn’t paying enough. Some interior property owners don’t
believe they should pay more than sound front lots, which needs to
be addressed.
Voice: What about a case by case assessment, where the property owners
who reap the most benefits, pay the most.
Parrish: This is a very hard question to answer. We can go so far in
trying to find the fairest formula for each property that the assessment
districts could get so complicated that only an engineer with a Ph.D.
could understand them. We can’t do that. The balance between
fairness and being overly complex can be difficult. We have to end
up with an approach that everyone can easily understand, and that they
think is as fair as possible.
Voice: There are a few sound front lots that are actually closer to
the ocean than some interior property lots.
Parrish: Obviously our first approach has some flaws we need to correct.
There are two common sense ways to do this. We could create zones that
had a lesser assessment percentage as you moved away from the ocean.
That would solve the problem, but it also creates some other problems.
What do we do about lots of land that end being in two assessment zones?
While we can make zones work, I would prefer to tweak what we already
have so that the oceanfront stays with the $16,000 per acre and the
interior and sound front are grouped together and pay about $6,000
per acre. While this is easier to execute, if the majority of the property
owners prefer zones, that’s what we’ll do.
Voice: Emma Anderson Memorial Chapel got an assessment letter. Doesn’t
non-profit 501c status make religious organizations exempt from this
sort of thing?
Parrish: I spoke with our attorney, Joe Stroud, before sending that
letter out. He assured me that while they are exempt from taxes, the
church is not exempt from an assessment. I did not have the authority
to excuse the church on my own, and had to send the letter. There will
be an Assessment Variance Board set up as we go along to deal with
matters like this. I expect these items will certainly be brought before
the Variance Board.
Voice: Once this assessment is over, what is to stop the town from
doing another assessment?
Parrish: Another complex answer. CAMA (the Coastal Area Management
Act) says our long-term erosion rate is two feet per year. After nourishment
we hope to have a beach that is 50 feet at high tide. Our engineering
firm thinks that the nourished beach will have an erosion rate of about
three feet per year. Our new beach could last 16 years before we were
in as bad shape as we are now. We wouldn’t wait that long. If
our federal project has not happened by 2015, we would want to rebuild
the beach again. Our current occupancy taxes and ad valorem taxes would
pay for that without another assessment.
Voice: In the three years that property owners have to pay off the
assessment, has the town given thought to keeping taxes steady as a
way to help with their expenses?
Parrish: Normal housing growth should allow us to maintain our current
tax rate.
Voice: What about inflation?
Parrish: New homes being added to the tax base will cover inflation.
I don’t see us raising taxes for the foreseeable future.
Voice: Will the town seek alternatives, like parking meters, to offset
the cost of the project?
Parrish: Everyone I have ever spoken with hates the idea of parking
meters.
Voice: What about a rental accommodation fee, passing the cost onto
visitors as well as residents?
Parrish: There is already a 6-percent occupancy tax. If we raised that,
we would be higher than any other municipality North Carolina .
Voice: What have the Pender County Commissioners done to help?
Parrish: Because of work that Steve Walter did, they are already contributing
$100,000 per year. We have presented a case to them for an additional
$50,000, but we were not successful. We plan to ask again next year.
Voice: What about at the state level?
Parrish: Representatives Carolyn Justice and Thomas Wright, along with
Senator R.C. Soles have been outstanding. Justice got Topsail Beach
$500,000 in the House revision of the state budget. Wright made sure
that the money stayed in the budget until it was passed. Soles pledged
to match their amount and came up with $500,000 in the Senate’s
budget. Between the three of them, they got the state to give us $1
million for this project. All three of them worked hard for us, and
I feel confident that we will be able to obtain the balance of the
funds that we need.
10/2/06
For now, the turtle nest is still
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111833&ran=88920
Navy planning sonar range hearings
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45244&Section=News
Navy plans impact studies on sonar ranges
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/492749.html
Hearings set on Navy plan
Carteret County News Times by Brad Rich (9/29/06)
WASHINGTON , D.C. — The U.S. Navy on Thursday announced its intent
to prepare a combined National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental
Impact Statement and Executive Order Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement to evaluate potential environmental consequences of antisubmarine
warfare along the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The notice
of intent is to be published in the Federal Register today and follows
about a year of discussion and intense debate on a more specific proposal
to build an Underwater Submarine Warfare Training Range (USWTR) off
North Carolina. The notice said the Navy plans to hold public scoping
meetings on the EIS/EOOEIS at seven different locations, including
Morehead City , in the next few months. The Morehead City meeting will
be Tuesday, Nov. 14, at a time and location yet to be announced. According
to the notice, the mine warfare (MIW) and active sonar training (ASW)
exercises “include independent unit level training, coordinated
unit level training and strike group training exercises. “These
active sonar training exercises include air, surface and subsurface
sonar platforms manned by personnel who require training in order to
maintain certification and readiness for deployment,” the notice
continues. “Additionally, effective MIW and ASW are dependent
on training involving coordination among these platforms.“ The
notice states that Navy forces “must train to deal with the threat
of modern quiet submarines; the most effective detection technology
available is active sonar detection. In addition, Navy forces must
train to detect mines, which can prevent access to strategic areas,
damage fleet forces and disrupt commerce.” Three alternatives,
which each meet the requirement to train and maintain combat-ready
Navy forces, will be analyzed in the EIS/OEIS. The “no action” alternative
is to conduct year-round training within and adjacent to current Navy
operations areas without geographic restriction, but in logical locations
that maximize active sonar training opportunities. The two other alternatives “evaluate
the capability of fixed and seasonal active sonar training areas along
the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico to meet operational criteria and
provide year-round training capacity, fidelity, including short notice
and surge deployments of U.S. Atlantic fleet units.” Additionally,
the EIS/OEIS may also incorporate other reasonable alternatives that
meet the Navy’s purpose and need and are identified during the
public scoping process. All alternatives “would utilize the protective
measures used during Navy training to minimize potential effects to
the marine environment.” Potential “effects” mentioned
in the notice fall into three main categories:
• Physical Environment - air and water quality and ambient sound levels.
• Biological resources - wildlife, including state and federally listed
threatened and endangered species and otherwise protected wildlife
such as marine mammals and migratory birds, fisheries including an
analysis of essential fish habitat, coastal, marine, and benthic
communities and special biological resource areas.
• Socioeconomic resources - including recreational, commercial and industrial
activities, safety and occupational health and hazardous materials,
airspace, artificial reefs, and cultural resources.
The notice states that, “Analysis will include an evaluation
of the direct, indirect, short-term and cumulative impacts. No decision
will be made to implement any alternative until the NEPA process is
completed. The Navy “is initiating the scoping process to identify
public concerns and local issues that should be addressed in the EIS/OEIS,” the
notice states. “Federal, state and local agencies and interested
persons are encouraged to provide oral or written comments to the Navy
to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern. The
Navy will consider these comments in determining the scope of the EIS/OEIS.
In addition to the Morehead City meeting, the Navy has scheduled scoping
meetings on Oct. 23 in Norfolk, Va.; Oct. 26 in Corpus Christi, Texas;
Nov. 2 in New London, Conn.; Nov. 7 in Jacksonville, Fla.; Nov. 9 in
Panama City, Fla., and Nov. 16 in Charleston, S.C. Written comments
on the EIS/OEIS should be submitted in accordance with future Federal
Register notices for public scoping meetings. Comments must be postmarked
by Dec. 1, and should be mailed to: Atlantic Division Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Attn: Code EV21 (Atlantic Fleet Sonar PM), 6506
Hampton Blvd. , Norfolk , Va. 23508-1278 ; Fax:(757) 322-4894. Meanwhile,
the USWTR continues to draw attention from North Carolina officials.
The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC), policy-making arm of the
state Division of Marine Fisheries, agreed during its meeting Thursday
in Pine Knoll Shores to send the Navy a letter that will request that
the military prepare a “supplemental draft environmental impact
statement” for the proposed USWTR. The MFC previously has expressed
concern about the lack of adequate information contained in the original
EIS on fisheries resources and hard bottom habitat. Panelists have
been particularly concerned about research by East Carolina University
researcher Joe Luczkovich on the effects of sound on fish in the
ocean off North Carolina.
Onslow County prepares for tsunamis
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (9/27/06)
ONSLOW - Going over the high-rise bridge between
Sneads Ferry and North Topsail Beach there is a sign that most motorists
have likely
never
seen before. It reads, “Tsunami Zone – In case of tsunami
evacuate the beaches.” The sign was put there by Onslow County
Emergency Services employees as part of their preparations for the
county to be designated as “tsunami ready.” Other signs
were put on county beach accesses and on Camp Lejeune. “ Onslow
County was the first county in the state to receive a ‘storm
ready’ designation from NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) years ago. We are working to be the first ‘tsunami
ready’ county in North Carolina ,” said Mark Goodman, Onslow
County Emergency Services Director. Goodman explained by being tsunami
ready the county would be prepared to respond and react in case a tsunami
were to hit. How likely is a tsunami to impact the North Carolina coast? “The
east coast has been hit by tsunamis before, just not in our lifetime,” said
Goodman. “And a tsunami will impact the east coast again.” A
tsunami could strike the east coast as the result of an earthquake,
underwater landslide or other seismic activity, said Goodman. “The
Puerto Rico Trench is an area of seismic activity,” said Goodman. “If
an earthquake were to originate there causing a tsunami, it could come
up the east coast and, because of the way North Carolina juts out into
the ocean, we could be at risk.” Goodman said the chances are
slight that a tsunami would hit our area but cautioned that it is good
to be prepared. “One of the aspects of being tsunami ready is
to educate people,” said Goodman. Signs posted at the county
beach accesses warn people to leave the area in case of a tsunami. “If
the water begins to recede, leave the area – run!” said
Goodman. “Don’t stand around looking for shells.” Move
at least 100 yards away from the beach and get to higher ground, Goodman
advises. “Depending on the cause of the event, there may be a
few hours or very little warning,” said Goodman. He said a NOAA
weather radio would provide warning to coastal residents. In the event
of a tsunami, Onslow Emergency Services would call the coastal communities
to warn them. “But they will get the warning as soon as we do
from their NOAA radios,” said Goodman. Onslow County will be
inspected today by NOAA representatives, who will then determine whether
the county will receive tsunami ready status. “Part of what we
are doing is preparing, part of what we are doing is educating the
public. We are doing this to save lives,” said Goodman. The
county is adding tsunami information to its website and is setting
up web-based
information and lesson plans for teachers. To learn more about tsunamis
visit http://www.noaa.gov/tsunamis.html on the Internet.
9/27/06
Varied setbacks may be the answer
http://www.stateportpilot.com/stories/9-27VariedAnswerSnow.htm
State of the Beach report raises familiar concerns (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=110208
Three years after Isabel, most wild ponies are fine on Ocracoke
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111680&ran=171803
The Coast Isn't Clear
Orrin H. Pilkey, shoreline expert, answers Grist's questions
http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2006/09/25/pilkey/index.html
Loggerheads have one shell of a season (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6121148p-5361735c.html
Platforms are coming!
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/27/letters-editorials/letters096-hall.prt
Work coming together to put sand on beaches
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (9/27/06)
PINE KNOLL SHORES — Bogue Banks communities will participate
in two long-awaited beach nourishment projects this winter and spring.
One project is the Morehead City Harbor Section 933 Project, intended
to nourish the shoreline of Pine Knoll Shores because of the sand lost
in 2001. The second project is the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) post- Ophelia sand replenishment project to replace the sand
that was lost during Hurricane Ophelia in Emerald Isle, Indian Beach
and Pine Knoll Shores. Because information concerning bid contracts,
federal funding, permit conditions and other issues change so often
and leave more questions than answers, the Carteret County Shore Protection
Office has been reluctant to provide the public and the County Beach
Commission with the ever-changing information. “It would just
cause confusion, create false expectations and generally foster distrust
as the project parameters change almost on a daily basis,” County
Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph said Monday
at the County Beach Commission monthly meeting at the town hall. However,
because the projects are coming together, project perimeters are being
set and bids have gone out for both projects, “it’s a good
idea to start talking about it,” Mr. Rudolph said. The beach
commission is more familiar with the 933 project since it has been
in progress for at least five years. In 2001-2002, Pine Knoll Shores
did a locally funded beach nourishment project that ran into a bunch
of snags, Mr. Rudolph said, and the town was unable to get all the
sand onto the shore. After a two-year study phase in the fiscal 2002
and 2003, the town and the beach commission thought Pine Knoll Shores
would get some sand that was to be pumped from Brandt Island. However,
the dredging was interrupted and the commission received funds to continue
the project. Then in 2004, the town was successful in putting sand
dredged from the Outer Harbor onto Indian Beach, Salter Path and the
western tip of Pine Knoll Shores. The commission received more money
from the Corps for the project in 2005, and the Brandt Island storage
area was to be pumped and sand was to be placed on the beach, but the
sand quality was terrible, Mr. Rudolph said. Now, the project looks
like it will work out this year, and sand will finally be placed on
Pine Knoll Shores, Mr. Rudolph said. The 933 project is a federal/non-federal
cost-sharing program under which dredged shoal material from the Outer
Harbor of the Morehead City Federal Navigation Project is permitted
to be placed somewhere other than the offshore disposal sites. That
site is the shoreline of Pine Knoll Shores. While Carteret County is
the non-federal sponsor, Pine Knoll Shores has taken on all the local
cooperation terms, including the non-federal cost share and rights
of entry. The FEMA project will reimburse communities for the replacement
of sand lost during Hurricane Ophelia, a federally declared disaster.
Because the original project was not federally funded and the project
sponsors have developed and adhered to a beach maintenance and monitoring
program, Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach will receive
100 percent reimbursement for the sand that was lost. FEMA has approved
the replacement of 1,107,560 cubic yards of sand lost during Ophelia
for the towns. Pine Knoll Shores will receive 239,796 cubic yards of
sand, Indian Beach 298,604 cubic yards and Emerald Isle will receive
569,160 cubic yards. In order for the towns to receive the sand, FEMA
has to know exactly how much was lost during the storm. “And
we know that … we know exactly how much we lost, thanks to surveying,” Mr.
Rudolph said. Both projects have been solicited for bids for the dredging
and pumping work. The FEMA project went out for solicitation last Wednesday
and the 933 project went out Tuesday. So far, four companies have expressed
interest in the FEMA dredging project. However, that does not mean
that they will put in bids for the project, Mr. Rudolph said. Although
two separate bids are going out, one for each project, the projects
will take place at the same time. “It just happened that way
because of the dredging window, for environmental reasons,” Mr.
Rudolph said. The window of dredging opportunity without getting in
the way of the turtle-nesting season is from January to April 1. “We
don’t want people getting in each others’ way, but we only
have so much control of that,” Mr. Rudolph added “We are
doing our best to make both companies aware of both projects,” he
said. The reason the beach commission is soliciting bids for two separate
companies is because it would be tough for one to do both projects.
Mr. Rudolph said there is only so much equipment one company will have
and the project would require a minimum of two large hopper dredges
or four smaller vessels or combinations of both. However, if bids are
opened on schedule, it looks as if the projects might start in time
to be completed before the window is closed.
9/25/06
No consensus yet on setbacks
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45057&Section=News
N.C. still opposing offshore oil drilling
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45075&Section=News
Currituck County shuts down pumps after 20 days
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111468&ran=245364
Pier's future still unclear (Jennette's Pier)
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/23/top_stories/tops099102.prt
Public cash, public sand (NJ)
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060923/NEWS/609230377
Draft beach setback rule outlined
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/22/06)
How close to the ocean is too close? With potentially
millions of dollars worth of beachfront property value at stake, it
wasn't surprising that
the discussion topic drew a standing-room-only crowd at the N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission meeting at the Hilton Wilmington Riverside on
Thursday. The issue centers on setback rules for structures along the
beachfront. While a seemingly mundane topic, the setback requirement
from the first line of stable vegetation - usually a sea-oat-covered
dune - determines whether a lot is buildable and what size structure
can be built on it. Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist with the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management, said Thursday's discussion on
modifying the 27-year-old rule was prompted by the size of the structures
now being built along the coast. The state proposal, dubbed "a
vehicle for discussion" Thursday, would replace the fixed rule
with a graduated setback requirement. "This is a big issue," said
CRC member Joan Weld, alluding to the economic and physical effects
the draft rules could have along the coast.
Here's the skinny on the proposal:
Q: What are the setback rules?
A: For single-family homes and small commercial buildings, it is 30
times the annual erosion rate. Since that's 2 feet a year along most
of the coast, the setback requirement is usually 60 feet. Commercial
structures greater than 5,000 square feet have a setback requirement
of 60 times the erosion rate.
Q: What would the proposed regulations do?
A: Use the total floor area to determine the setback requirement. In
short, the larger the structure, the larger the setback.
Q: Would the proposed setback max out?
A: Yes, at 120 times the erosion rate for buildings 125,000 square
feet and larger.
Q: Why look at changing the rule now?
A: Warren said that in 1979 no one envisioned the mega-mansions, common
along the Outer Banks and increasingly sprouting in Southeastern
North Carolina, and other large buildings crowding the state's coastline.
The state's largest oceanfront structure is the 16-story residential
tower in Ocean Isle Beach, with 220,553 square feet.
Q: What would be the effect of the proposed rule?
A: Adopting a graduated setback approach could reduce the risk posed
by large buildings to both the beach and neighboring structures.
Those hazards can include more debris if the structure is compromised
by wind or waves. It also would move the structures - which aren't
practical to be relocated - farther off the beach, reducing their
exposure to short-term erosion.
Q: Who supports modifying the setback requirement?
A: It's too new for anyone to take a formal position on it. But Jim
Stephenson, coastal analyst with the N.C. Coastal Federation, said
at first blush the proposal holds promise.
Q: Who is against it?
A: In general, developers who fear the rule would limit what they could
build and where. Most beach towns also have yet to take a formal
position on the proposal.
Q: Would the rule change cover beaches that are regularly nourished?
A: Yes. The proposal doesn't distinguish between natural and nourished
beaches. On nourished beaches, the static line of vegetation is fixed
because the thinking is the pumping of sand has altered the natural
dynamics. There is a proposal to soften the static line, which is
set in perpetuity. Doing that could open currently unbuildable lots
to development.
Q: Do any local beach towns have static lines of vegetation?
A: Yes. All three New Hanover County beach towns do, along with Oak
Island and Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County.
9/21/06
The rules that govern construction on the beach (SC)
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/columnists/15552388.htm
AB's new access site to honor councilman
Carteret County News Times by Brad Rich (9/20/06)
ATLANTIC BEACH — Town councilmen Monday night accepted a $400,000
state grant to develop a public ocean beach access at the end of Henderson
Boulevard, and, in a highly emotional ceremony, adopted a resolution
to name the proposed facility after Councilman Tom Doe. The councilman,
who has been seriously ill for several months and was unable to be
at the meeting, thanked the council and the audience by speakerphone. “I’d
personally like to thank you (and the council)” he said to Mayor
Joyce “Tootsie” Vinson, a longtime friend who had placed
the call to the councilman at his home a mile or so away off Money
Island Drive. “You have my heartfelt thanks for this honor. It
means so much to me and my family, and I ask you to commit yourself
to (preserving) the history of Atlantic Beach.” Mr. Doe, who
has also served long stints on the town board of adjustment and planning
board, has long been an unflinching advocate for public beach access
and has been instrumental in several beach nourishment projects that
have widened and protected the town’s strand. When a developer
bought the old Triple S Pier and its property at the end of Henderson
Boulevard – condos are under construction there – he insisted
that the town try to preserve oceanfront access and participated in
negotiations with the property owner/developer. Since then, the town
has begun the process of condemning some land there for public access
in case no agreement is reached. The councilman is also known for walking
the strand for long distances, surveying the condition of the beach
and greeting friends, almost daily for many years until his failing
health made that impossible. He’s also been a fierce advocate
for Atlantic Beach guarding the sand it has received at no cost for
beach nourishment during and after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging
projects at the N.C. Port of Morehead City. Mayor Vinson read the resolution
the council adopted to name the proposed beach access for Councilman
Doe, and opened the discussion with some brief remarks. “Tom,
I think everyone will agree that the sands of Atlantic Beach belong
to you,” she said. “It’s your love. The sand fences
(which Mr. Doe has championed and helped install in some cases to trap
sand after those projects) are your passion. “So it’s my
pleasure, on behalf of myself and the entire board, that I read this
resolution in your honor.” The resolution, adopted by a 4-0 vote
(Councilman Ruth Barnes also was absent) stated that “Councilman
Tom Doe has … worked tirelessly to preserve, nourish and otherwise
enhance the quality of public beaches … and (to) preserve and
promote the number and quality of beach accesses in the town and throughout
Bogue Banks.” Mr. Doe’s son, Michael, a Chief Warrant Officer
II stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army, was on hand, in dress uniform,
and said it was his pleasure to accept the honor on behalf of his dad.
Atlantic Beach Manager Chuck Cooper announced the state Division of
Coastal Management’s approval of the grant for the access. “Several
months ago you (the council) approved our application for this grant,
to assist the town in acquiring property for the Tom Doe Public Beach
access,” he said. “We’re proud to accept it.” In
other action related to Henderson Boulevard , the council heard from
Dr. Scott Rice, who for the past two months has complained about debris,
stormwater runoff, mud, blowing sand and other problems associated
with the Triple S property condo construction. Dr. Rice said he met
with Atlantic Manager Chuck Cooper and Assistant Manager Mark Schulze
in the area, near his home on Asbury Drive , and is now satisfied that
at least some actions are forthcoming. For example, he said, he received
assurances that sand fences will go up on the beach to try to stop
at least some of the blowing sand, and the town council is looking
into possible ordinances or ordinance amendments to keep the problems
from occurring elsewhere.
Vote reopens Point ramp
Special to Tideland News by Shannon Kemp (9/20/06)
Despite concerns about erosion, beach vehicle
accesses in Emerald Isle opened early Friday morning for driving season,
including the vehicle
ramp at the west end of Bogue Banks – the area known as the Point – that
has been closed for more than six years. Emerald Isle commissioners
voted 3-2 on Sept. 12, with Commissioners Maripat Wright and Pete Allen
opposed, to reopen the vehicle access ramp at the end of Inlet Drive
at the Point. The area was closed due to beach erosion problems when
Bogue Inlet encroached on the shoreline and houses. Since then, the
area has seen significant accretion of sand over the last 1-1/2 years
and may now be stable enough for vehicle traffic. “I’m
not against opening it. I just thought it was a little soon,” Wright
said after the meeting. A project relocating the main Bogue Inlet channel
has caused sand to build up naturally at the point. A nourishment project
involving the dredging the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway connecting
channel placed additional sand on the area to stabilize the beach even
further. Now, the area has accreted 500 to 600 feet of sand in some
places and is at least 100 feet wide overall. The ramp was opened to
the public for pedestrians in April. Since the Point is a popular place
for surf fishermen and the location is in high demand for vehicles,
the opening of the Point after being closed for so long is an added
bonus, shore protection manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph said. “To
have (the access) opened less than two years after the (relocation
of the main inlet) project was completed is real great … we’re
all set to go,” said Rudolph. “The area is stable enough
for cars.” Angler Claude Murdoch, a 75-year-old Salty Shore resident,
was one of the first to take advantage of the newly opened access.
Murdoch said he used to catch bluefish at the Point when he was little
and now that the vehicle ramp has reopened, he jumped at the chance
go fishing here again. However, there are some restrictions for vehicle
traffic along the 12-mile stretch of Emerald Isle beach. The area adjacent
to Bogue Drive and the areas just east and west of Channel Drive are
especially fragile. Those areas concerned Wright and Allen. The engineers
who were involved with the channel relocation project told town officials
that the beach would return to its original form in five to six years,
Wright said. However, town officials said those two areas should remain
closed to vehicle traffic regardless of the decision on the Inlet Drive
ramp. The limitations on driving locations satisfied Wright who said
she was happy with the compromise. “Since it’s being controlled,
I’m happy with what was done … I just wanted a little protection
for the fragile areas,” she explained. Emerald Isle has two other
access points that will remain open to vehicles. One is at Black Skimmer
Drive and the other is near mile marker 15 on NC 58 at the Ocean Drive “dogleg.” The
access that was opened at Doe Drive, 2.5 miles east of the Inlet Drive
access, was strictly for temporary use for vehicles and pedestrians
while the Point access was closed. Now that the point access is open,
the Doe Drive access will close. Permits are required to drive on the
beach. The fee for obtaining a permit is $40 for Emerald Isle residents
and $80 for non-residents. Handicapped motorists and citizens older
than 65 years can obtain a free permit. Driving on the beaches is allowed
daily from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. in September, October and April. Daily
hours change to 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. in November and remain in effect until
March.
Town, not federal government, controls growth best
Topsail Voice Editorial (9/20/06)
When the federal government initiated the Coastal
Barrier Resource Act in 1982 it hoped to discourage growth in undeveloped
coastal areas.
At that time federal officials picked out coastal areas where little
or no development had taken place and designated them as CBRA to discourage
future development. If North Topsail Beach is an example of how well
the program worked to discourage development, the act is a dismal failure.
Two reasons for the failure of the act to prevent development were
the lack of education of the public about the intent, and existence
of infrastructure already in place for development prior to the area’s
designation. “If CBRA was established to discourage development,
certainly the federal government did not go out of its way to promote
it,” said North Topsail Beach Alderman Dan Tuman at a meeting
to discuss the issue. “This locale was developing and ripe for
more development given all the substantial infrastructure investment
already there – roads, water, sewer, telephone, cable TV, electrical
power and recreation,” said Tuman. “I suspect the government
had a role in establishing the infrastructure.” The CBRA areas
of North Topsail Beach were developed and now the area is unable to
receive any federal recovery assistance which means the town and private
property owners are on their own when it comes to recovery and nourishing
the town’s beachfront. This is one very large penalty not shared
by neighboring coastal communities that avoided being designated as
CBRA areas. Federal officials recently visited North Topsail Beach
to study the results of the act. Their findings should show that CBRA
did nothing to discourage growth in North Topsail Beach. Yet the town,
of its own accord, has controlled growth and successfully protected
designated conservation areas. In addition, the town has enacted strict
zoning rules to establish low-density growth in certain areas of the
town. The difference between the town’s successful efforts versus
the federal government’s failed efforts is intent and continued
oversight which did not happen with the Coastal Barrier Resource Act.
The federal government’s effort through designating areas of
North Topsail Beach as CBRA has done nothing to discourage growth but
has done much instead to penalize good intentioned community growth. “Growth
and development is best controlled and discouraged at the local level
than through CBRA,” notes North Topsail Mayor Knowles.
9/20/06
Setback changes go before CRC panel
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45005&Section=News
NPS reopens seasonally closed village beaches to ORV use
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/20/top_stories/tops103103.prt
New idea floated for N. Topsail beaches
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=45007&Section=News
9/17/06 Point anglers get wheels back
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44852&Section=News
Wind, waves and tides ate away at Lowcountry beaches
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=108402
Renourishment project gets moving this week (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6101990p-5347408c.html
Unwanted growth at beach
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44946&Section=News
Development along coasts lies in geologist's cross hairs
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111136&ran=63823
As floodwaters recede, questions rise
http://www.dailyadvance.com/local/content/news/stories/2006/09/14/091406_news_corolla_flooding.html
N.C. beaches in Corps' untrustworthy hands
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15505197.htm
9/13/06
Council asks for changes in static rule
http://www.stateportpilot.com/stories/9-13CouncilSpiers.htm
Ernesto leaves riddles on road maintenance at Whalehead Beach
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=110899&ran=212058
Another idea
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/13/letters-editorials/letters110-elms.prt
Save the dunes
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/13/letters-editorials/letters110-lack.prt
North Topsail Beach : CBRA has not stopped development
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (9/13/06)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – Officials from the Government Accounting Office
on a fact finding mission in North Topsail Beach learned from town
officials and residents that the enactment of a Coastal Barrier Resources
Act zone had not discouraged development. “If CBRA was established
to discourage development, certainly the federal government did not
go out of its way to promote it,” said North Topsail Beach Alderman
Dan Tuman. Tuman pointed out that the town was already developing when
parts of it received the CBRA designation. “This locale was developing
and ripe for more development given all the substantial infrastructure
investment already there – roads, water, sewer, telephone, cable
TV, electrical power and recreation,” said Tuman. “I suspect
the government had a role in establishing the infrastructure,” he
added. Mayor Rodney Knowles agreed that CBRA had done less to discourage
development than had town ordinances. “Growth and development
is best controlled and discouraged at the local level than through
CBRA,” said Knowles. Both town officials and residents said what
CBRA had done was to cause hardships when it came to obtaining flood
insurance in the past few years. Alderman Fred Handy said while flood
insurance rates ranged from about $1,500 to $3,000 for non-CBRA areas,
the rate for CBRA ranged from about $10,00 to $15,000 a year. “We’re
basically being raped by private insurance companies,” said resident
Buddy Godwin. Still, even the high flood insurance rates did not stop
development and the demand for island land, said Handy. The difference
was that it is mainly the wealthy who can afford to own a home and
pay insurance in the CBRA zones. “It’s creating an island
where only the rich can live,” said resident Gerald Convy. Alderman
Richard Peters said most of the people building homes in the CBRA zones
are not living in them but rather using them as vacation rentals. In
doing so, the homeowners can recoup their insurance premiums in rental
fees. “It is causing the town to become primarily a rental community,” said
Peters. The mayor said he has studied the CBRA since its inception
and questions its seemingly arbitrary placement in North Topsail Beach. “I’ve
never found anywhere that was divided like North Topsail Beach,” said
Knowles, who noted that the CBRA zones divided the town into six different
areas. In addition to not being eligible for federal flood insurance,
the CBRA zones are ineligible for federal funding of any kind, including
beach nourishment. “They will not pay for one grain of sand in
a CBRA area,” said Knowles. While the town is working with Surf
City on a federal beach nourishment project for the non-CBRA part of
town, it is working on a private project for the CBRA area. Handy said
he does not think that is fair given that North Carolina mandates that
the beach strand below the high tide mark belongs to the public. “I
don’t understand why a public beach has to be paid for in a CBRA
area by the people who live there while non-CBRA gets federal beach
nourishment,” said Handy. The GAO officials said they would continue
doing studies on CBRA areas in the United States. “We chose a
couple places as case studies,” said Sherry McDonald, assistant
director with the Natural Resources and Environment division of GAO.
About two-thirds of the land in North Topsail Beach , including much
but not all of the northern part of town, is in a CBRA zone.
Tallying the cost of Tropical Storm Ernesto
Topsail Voice byLindell Kay (9/13/06)
TOPSAIL ISLAND - With a week to survey the property
damage caused by Tropical Storm Ernesto, officials in the Topsail area
are coming up
with a more precise reckoning of the price tag—and it is better
than expected. That is the good news; the bad news is that sand erosion
on the island — given a boost by Ernesto’s wind and rain
-- continues to be a problem. “There are 18 structures potentially
endangered from dune loss,” Surf City Town Manager Michael Moore
reported during last week’s town council meeting. The properties
could qualify for emergency sand pushing. But even if they do, they
will probably have to wait until after turtle nesting season is officially
over on Nov. 15. Other than that, Moore stuck to his original approximation
that the town’s beach lost three to five feet of sand in some
spots and that some sand was added in other areas. Pender County officials
estimate the total cost of Ernesto to Surf City at $500,000, but the
town says it is still adding the totals. “We want to be careful
with our estimate,” Surf City Mayor Zander Guy said. Likewise,
the town of North Topsail Beach was still sending out its building
inspectors as recently as Monday afternoon. Terrie Woodle, the permits
specialist for NTB, said that Onslow County estimates the damage to
the town at $440,000, with all but $40,000 centering on the St. Regis
resort. But the town’s estimate came to $417,000 — $23,000
less than the county projected. According to Holly Ridge interim Town
Manager John Maiorano, the town’s storm water infrastructure
held up and no flooding occurred. “We had no significant damage,” he
said. “We came out clean. We didn’t even charge one single
hour of overtime to the town.” Topsail Beach ’s estimates
remained grim however. The early estimate of $500,000 in sand loss
is most likely accurate, according to Topsail Beach Town Manager Jim
Carter. “The beach south of the 1200 block on Ocean Boulevard
was decimated,” Mayor Butch Parrish said. He explained that the
town is talking with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about possibly
using the sand that is dredged from Topsail Creek to restore eroded
dunes. “They have a standing permit to dump sand below the high
tide line, we just need to see if we can get permission for them to
repair the dunes while they are at it,” he said.
Conditions change
State Port Pilot Editorial (9/13/06)
Traditionally, when a beach undergoes a nourishment
project by pumping sand onto the shoreline, the static vegetation line
from
which required
building setbacks are measured does not change. What the Coastal Resources
Commission may decide next week is whether beach communities where
such nourishment projects have been effective for a number of years,
like Oak Island, should be allowed to move that static line back closer
to its original location. Not having to adhere to old static lines
would allow property owners to make better use of their oceanfront
lots based on current conditions of the shoreline and not on the past.
It makes sense to allow people fair use of their property in areas
fortunate enough to benefit from nourishment projects. At Oak Island,
following Hurricane Floyd in 1999, a nourishment project added sand
to the beach that changed the conditions dramatically from what Floyd
had left behind. Yet about 40 properties located in that beach nourishment
zone — from 19th Place East through the 6300 block — are
currently not buildable based on the post-Floyd conditions. Meeting
in Wilmington next week, the CRC may amend rules to allow municipalities
the flexibility to ask for another look at the beach and their established
static lines. But as written, the proposed changes won’t help
Oak Island because of an eight-year waiting period and further development
restrictions. No one is asking that building rules be set aside or
that oceanfront property owners receive special waivers, just that
they be allowed rights once held under prior conditions, now that those
conditions have been restored. There should still be strict regulations
about the size of structures allowed and setbacks from adjacent buildings.
There should still be strict management of development in erosion-prone
areas along our coast. However, a blanket CRC rule that unfairly leaves
Oak Island high and dry in this process demands more study.
Voice opinion at Topsail Beach public hearing
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/13/06)
About 20 years ago, Topsail Beach was one of the first municipalities
in the state to ask our legislature to authorize it to tax its visitors
to help pay for beach renourishment. At the time, the mayor and board
of commissioners had the idea that revenues collected from that tax
from visitors would be accumulated until a hurricane required spending
that money to rebuild the dunes. Sadly, succeeding boards didn't quite
see it that way, and proceeded down the slippery slope of spending
that money on numerous other beach related things like vehicles, heavy
equipment, salaries, and even advertising for tourists. It has occurred
to me that had we just sat on that money, we would probably have a
substantial part of the money we need to raise in our bank account
right now. Be that as it may, our mayor and board of commissioners
have set Oct. 7 as a date for a public hearing on the proposed assessment
project. They've already presented us with their planned approach,
which is a copy of one adopted by Oak Island to pay for one of their
projects. Although they've given us no alternative methods to consider,
that's not to say that they don't exist, should not be brought to that
meeting to be discussed, and/or perhaps be adopted in place of the
one they've selected for us. Briefly, the Oak Island model sets a rate
for ocean front property owners, establishes a rate half that size
for interior lot owners, and establishes another rate half of the one
for interior lot owners for property owners on Banks Channel, our community's
most expensive real estate. I can't tell you what the logic for that
proposal is, because if it's based upon distance from the beach strand,
then lumping all interior lot owners into one category doesn't satisfy
that requirement. Another approach might be to base the assessment
rate on the fact that the restoration of our beach serves the entire
community equally. Without a restored beach strand, our infrastructure
(our paved streets and water system) will be defenseless against the
next major storm that comes our way. Worse than that, much of our ocean
front property will be exposed to further destruction and ultimately
will end up being removed from our tax rolls. Isn't it therefore in
everybody's interest that we do what we have to in order to maintain
our beach strand? As an owner of an interior lot, I have no problem
with the fact that ocean front property owners will get what amounts
to a collateral benefit from the renourished strand. I'm willing to
pay the same rate as all other property owners and without complaint
in order to buy protection for our streets, water system and our tax
revenue base. If my assessment contribution buys anything beyond that,
it'll be a gift willingly given and without begrudgement. If that kind
of simplicity doesn't satisfy our need for fairness, a third approach
might be to add a set percentage for the project to each municipal
tax bill, which would result in those owning the most valuable properties
being asked to pay the most to preserve their investments through the
renourishment program. I urge you to discuss this letter and its contents
with all of your friends and neighbors and, more to the point, to plan
to attend the scheduled public hearing on Oct. 7.You need to make your
views known at that meeting. Our mayor and town board members are not
mind readers... they need and will welcome your guidance. Even if you
can't attend, please find a way to tell any or all of them what you
think will be best for our town by way of an equitable plan to pay
for the pending program. Harold B. Hanig - Topsail Beach
Disappointed with NTB proposed beach plan
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/13/06)
I am extremely disappointed in the vote of the North Topsail Beach
's aldermen on the special
tax district for beach nourishment which totally lacks fairness and
equity. Taxation should match funding for three NTB beach districts.
The nourishment plan all along includes the South — most or all
may be able to get some federal money; Central — middle of NTB;
North — where major erosion problems exist and where most, if
not all of the sand placed on their beach in the last year has been
washed away. If three separate tax districts were set up the tax dollars
for the South would support their dunes and beaches, similarly the
central would support theirs and the North would have to do the same.
However, what is being proposed is the area which needs the most dollars,
will contribute the least dollars since the North’s tax assessment
value is significant less than the other parts of NTB. In some cases,
10- to 20-percent of the value of comparable property in the Central
and South. Assuming that the beach nourishment actual holds on the
north end (which past experience does not support), the value of the
North properties would increase dramatically, but it would be eight
years of paying “their share” at the current lower assessed
value with the rest of the NTB subsidizing them. It is interesting
to note that the town of Topsail Beach’s proposal to fund their
program does not tie the beach nourishment to the tax assessment as
is being proposed by NTB’s elected officials, but rather the
amount of ocean frontage of each property owner, so the person who
has a higher appraisal because of location or the existence of a structure
on their property would not be penalized in the town of Topsail Beach.
The town of Topsail Beach’s plan also more fairly has property
owners off the beach contributing significantly more than is being
proposed by NTB. Other equity issues Why are inlet properties on the
north end not considered oceanfront? They take a major beating in a
storm — probably even larger than the oceanfront’s. Others
have and will comment on the inequities of the oceanfront owners paying
90-percent plus with no special assessment to the other property owners
who also will gain value from our beaches. Larger beaches and dunes
will not only protect all of the narrow island that has had a number
of complete washovers, but will increase values of both rentals and
sales of other property. Should the town address these inequities,
there is no question that I and other owners in NTB would support a
fair beach nourishment plan. Bob Gerkens - North Topsail Beach
9/11/06
North Topsail beach tax far from settled
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44762&Section=News
Beach Nourishment Funding Approved; Starts This Fall
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=8698_0_2_0_M
Seashore to Allow Limited PWC Access
http://www.nps.gov/calo/parknews/09_06_2006b.htm
Personal watercraft back at Cape Lookout
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44763&Section=News
Plan will secure lighthouse at Bodie Island
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=110683&ran=7667
Renourishment starts today (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6088755p-5337845c.html
Erosion work gives beachgoers more room to play (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6088754p-5337841c.html
WCU, Duke Launch Collaboration To Study Developed Shorelines
Western Carolina University Press Release (9/6/06)
CULLOWHEE, N.C., Sept. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- The
Duke University professor internationally known for his work on the
hazards of building at the
ocean's edge is joining forces with a former protege at Western Carolina
University who testified before Congress about storm damage and recovery
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The two have begun working together
as part of a new spirit of cooperation in marine sciences between Duke
and campuses of the University of North Carolina, a partnership that
will see Duke's renowned Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
gradually move from Durham to WCU's Cullowhee campus. Duke's Orrin
Pilkey, a pioneer in the study of coastal erosion, established his
shoreline study program in 1986. Now Pilkey has decided to focus on
writing books and articles. Looking to keep the program alive, Pilkey
says he found the right person to take over in Rob Young, WCU associate
professor of geosciences. Young, who earned his doctorate studying
with Pilkey before joining WCU's faculty, has become one of the nation's
leading experts on the science of hurricane impacts and coastal management. "I
believe the collaboration with WCU puts this program in a powerful
position to have an even greater impact on coastal management programs
nationwide," said Pilkey, who will continue to serve as director
emeritus of the program. "This is coming at a time when global
warming-induced sea-level rise is increasingly a threat to coastal
dwellers. I think the collaborative program will provide international
leadership in the search for economically viable and environmentally
sound solutions to our disappearing beaches and our increasingly threatened
beachfront development." The PSDS will continue its emphasis on
research focusing on beach replenishment and other forms of shoreline
stabilization, hazard risk mapping on barrier islands, sedimentary
processes on shorefaces, and mitigation of hurricane property damage
on barrier islands. "Over the years, the program has become a
driving force in asking policy- makers to rethink the way our nation's
shorelines are managed," said Young, who has studied the impact
of hurricanes on the coastline for more than 20 years. "Poorly
planned coastal development has cost American taxpayers more than $100
billion in the last five years alone. I look forward to continuing
the program's work to translate good science into good public policies
that would save taxpayers' money."
Corps takes on sand project
Ocean Isle hoping to bolster east end (the Sun Journal)
SHALLOTTE, N.C. - Ocean Isle Beach is likely to get its long-delayed
beach renourishment this year as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
accepted an $8.2 million bid to replenish it and two New Hanover County
beaches. Ocean Isle Beach officials plan to negotiate with the contractor
to replenish the badly eroded east end at the same time the rest of
the seven-mile-long island gets sand. The east end, where oceanfront
homes have succumbed to erosion, doesn't meet the corps' cost-benefit
ratio for federal renourishment money. Town officials are hoping they
can negotiate a price for the east end that the town can pay on its
own. The corps' renourishment extends from the western end of Ocean
Isle Beach to Shallotte Boulevard. The project has been delayed for
two years, first because the beach still had most of the sand put there
in a 2001 renourishment and then because Hurricane Katrina projects
pushed the cost beyond what the corps was willing to pay. Penny Schmidt,
spokeswoman for the corps' Wilmington office, said a date has not been
set for the renourishment of Ocean Isle Beach and Carolina and Kure
beaches in New Hanover County. The work must be done outside of the
months determined critical for nesting sea turtles, which means it
won't start before mid-November and will be completed before April.
Schmidt did not have a breakdown for the cost for each beach but said
the total bid includes the 35 percent local match. Ocean Isle Beach
Mayor Debbie Smith said the town hopes to be able to piggyback the
east end work onto that on the rest of the island. She said the town
can save as much as $2 million in the cost of getting the renourishment
equipment into place by doing one project at the same time as the other.
Town commissioners have not made a final decision to do the east end,
which must be funded entirely with local dollars. Carolina and Kure
beaches had their first renourishments in the '90s. Ocean Isle Beach's
was in 2001, according to the Corps. Carolina and Kure beaches got
their most recent renourishments during the deepening project for the
port at Wilmington.
9/8/06
Topsail’s
up-sands down
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44718&Section=News
Island likely to look into sand-pushing
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44719&Section=News
Offshore in sights of special interests (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=localnews&tableId=106879&pubDate=9/8/2006
Sea turtle nests increase in area (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15457767.htm
Park access OK'd for PWC
Carteret County by Brad Rich (9/8/06)
HARKERS ISLAND —After years of debate and
controversy, personal watercraft (PWC) are now welcome again within
parts of the Cape Lookout
National Seashore (CLNS). CLNS Superintendent Bob Vogel made the announcement,
which is effective today, late Thursday, and said the rule was to be
published today in the Federal Register. The 10 access locations for
PWC within the National Park Service (NPS) seashore, meaning they can
come ashore at these locations, are:
North Core Banks
• Wallace Channel Dock to the demarcation line in Ocracoke Inlet near Milepost
1.
• Existing soundside dock at Milepost 11B about 4 miles north of Long Point.
• Ferry landing at the Long Point Cabin area.
• Soundside beach near Milepost 19 (as designated by signs) about one-half
mile north of Old Drum Inlet (adjacent to the cross-over route) encompassing
about 50 feet.
South Core Banks
• Soundside beach near Milepost 23 (as designated by signs), approximately
one-fourth mile long, beginning approximately one-half mile south of
New Drum Inlet.
• Carly Dock at Great Island Camp, near Milepost 30 (noted as South Core
Banks-Great Island on map)
Cape Lookout
• A zone 300 feet north of the National Park Service dock near Milepost
41.
• Soundside beach 100 feet south of the summer kitchen to 200 feet north
of the Cape Lookout Environmental Education Center dock.
• Southside beach at Power Squadron Spit across from rock jetty to end
of the spit.
Shackleford Banks
• Soundside beach from Whale Creek west to Beaufort Inlet, except the area
between the Wade Shores toilet facility and the passenger ferry dock.
When accessing the seashore at these locations, PWC are required to
operate at a flat wake speed and must travel only directly into shore.
Superintendent
Vogel
hailed the rule as a good balance between those who have long used and favored
use of PWC in the pristine Down East park and those who consider the craft
to be nuisances. The superintendent, reached in Washington, D.C. ,
where he accepted
an award for his work, said he had hoped to get the rule in place before Labor
Day, but just missed that self-imposed deadline. “It’s hard for the
public to understand, and quite frankly it’s sometimes hard for me to understand,
why it takes so long for us to enact a rule,” he said. “But in a
sense I guess it’s good that it does take so long, because after spending
countless hours on this and looking at the entire park and hearing from a lot
of people, we ultimately came up with a plan that we think provides the public
access to all the major island within the seashore and at the same time does
a good job of protecting water quality, our resources and the quiet areas.” The
reality, Superintendent Vogel said, “is that much of the seashore just
isn’t very usable by PWCs.” “We looked at all of this very
carefully. What we did was give access in areas that for the most part have already
experienced a good bit of boat traffic … and noise.” But, he added,
it was important to give PWC users the access they wanted. “Some people
think that the only visitors who use PWCs are young kids who make a lot of noise
and just zip around all the time,” the superintendent said. “But
we have quite a few people whose only access to the park is by PWC.” He
conceded that it will be difficult for park service personnel to enforce the
rule. “The reality is we are somewhat challenged with staffing levels,
not just for enforcement of this, but with any boating rules,” he said. “What
we will try to go is mount a very aggressive public education campaign. And we
do believe that the vast majority of our visitors care deeply about the resources
here and respect the seashore and try to follow the rules. Since the park is
federal property, the U.S. Coast Guard can also enforce the law. Citations within
the seashore generally cost about $150. “We hope and believe this will
all work out,” Superintendent Vogel said. “Above all, as always,
our main goal was to make sure that the resources are protected.” It was
especially important, he said, to protect marsh, which serves as habitat for
a cornucopia of marine life. But not all Cape Lookout visitors are happy that
PWCs are again allowed. “I just don’t think it’s necessary,” said
Morehead City resident Sherry White, who said she visits the seashore at least
two or three times a year. “With all the waterways we have in Carteret
County, it just seems to be there are plenty of other places for them.” The
county’s population is increasing, Ms. White said, and development along
the shores is making it harder and harder to find pristine and quiet spots in
the water or on land. “I’ll still go to the cape,” she said,
referring to the park. “That won’t change. But my attitude will change
some. The seashore will lose something. I can’t look favorably on this.” Ms.
White said she and others who have long considered CLNS a sanctuary from the
more civilized and busy world around it had expected the final PWC rule to readmit
the small boats to CLNS, but added that she was personally disappointed. “Like
I said before, it’s just not necessary, in my opinion, when there are so
many other places they can go.” PWC access locations permitted by the rule
provide PWC operators access to about 50 percent (five of 10 miles) of the soundside
sandy beach most frequented by park visitors with boats. The remaining 51 miles
of the sound, and all 56 miles of the ocean side of the seashore remain closed
to PWC; these remaining areas are either sensitive marsh and/or are generally
not suitable for beaching vessels. To obtain the list of sites where PWC can
access the seashore, and to get a map, go to the park’s Web site at:
www.nps.gov/calo Beginning today, a copy of the rule will be available from
the Federal Register
Web site at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html In addition to these descriptions,
seashore staff will install signs delineating the access locations in the near
future.
In the EA released in 2005, the NPS considered three alternatives, including:
continuing the prohibition of PWC use (no action); reinstating PWC use under
a special NPS regulation throughout the seashore; and reinstating PWC use under
a special NPS regulation at certain designated areas and with additional management
restrictions. The PWC ban that had been in effect was the result of a federal
lawsuit and a rule, adopted during the administration of President Bill Clinton,
which set a deadline for parks to establish regulations governing the watercraft
or to impose a blanket ban. Then CLNS Superintendent Karren Brown first implemented
the ban in March 2001, after determining through staff investigations and public
comments, both written and verbal, that personal watercraft were not thought
to be an appropriate use at the park, primarily because they were noisy, caused
pollution and potentially caused habitat damage. However, almost as soon as
the ban was put in place, then U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gale Norton, who
took over
the agency when the Bush Administration came to power in 2001, ruled that appropriate
rulemaking procedures had not been followed, lifted it. The Bluewater Network,
a California-based group, filed suit and claimed PWCs cause noise and air pollution
and pose environmental and safety hazards. Eventually, a court settlement between
the NPS and the Bluewater Network regarding PWC use in national parks across
the country resulted in a temporary ban. The whole issue pitted some powerful
interest groups against each other. Environmentalists have been opposed strongly
by the Personal Watercraft Industry Association, which also sued the Park Service.
Consistent with Bluewater Network v. Stanton, No. CV02093 (D.D.C. 2000), and
the court approved settlement agreement, the NPS had to base its final decision
to issue a park-specific special regulation to continue or reinstate PWC use
on an environmental analysis conducted in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The EA report on personal watercraft use at Cape Lookout
National Seashore recommended that PWCs – also known by trade names such as Jet
Skis and Wave Runners – be allowed to return to the park within certain
areas as a means of “transportation.”
9/6/06
Permits obtained in N.C. so floodwater can be pumped into ocean
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=110476&ran=37885
If Dams Run Free For Fishy Friends
http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=1174
Time to act
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/06/letters-editorials/letters117-pete.prt
Volunteers watch over turtle nests
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (9/3/06)
EMERALD ISLE — Dotting the Emerald Isle coastline are sections
of beach claimed by wooden stakes, tape and federal signs reading, “Violators
will be fined $100,000.” The scene is all part of a sea turtle
protection program that keep nests of baby sea turtles safe during
their pre-journey to the sea. The Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Protection
Program makes the nesting and hatching phases easier for turtles that
are not much bigger than a child’s hand. While the program is
linked to state and federal endangered species programs, it’s
an independent endeavor run by volunteers who walk the 19 miles of
beach each morning looking for nests and keep vigil all night waiting
for them to hatch. “On our stretch of 12 and a half miles of
beach, volunteers help from the first of May until October,” said
Jim Craig, director of the protection program. Although there may be
other activities during this time, volunteers generally walk the beach
divided into 13 zones looking for turtle nests. Mr. Craig said that
teams of people get up early in the morning, around 6 and 7:30 a.m.,
and look for the characteristic marks of a sea turtle that has crawled
from the ocean to lay eggs. With female sea turtles ranging from 250
to 300 pounds and about 36 inches long, they leave big marks in the
sand, Mr. Craig said. When a potential nest has been identified a small
evaluation is performed to confirm that the piece of sand does contain
a nest. An excavation is done to check for eggs and everything is left
in place. “Right now we have 20 confirmed nests,” Mr. Craig
said. “Twenty nests this season is pretty remarkable (and) so
far they have been pretty successful in the hatches,” Kristen
Holloman with the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission said of Emerald
Isle’s Protection Program. The number is surprising because of
everything that could go wrong during the nesting season. Mr. Craig
said that some turtles are frightened back to the water by people at
night. Others may crawl on shore and then crawl back to the ocean without
even laying eggs for no known reason. Mr. Craig said that even the
beach terrain can be a determent. “One fell into two big holes… could
not get out so it went back to the ocean,” he said. Other factors
that make if difficult for nesting include the dangers that humans
contribute, he said. The amount of “damage that humans do… make
it difficult for sea turtles,” he said. Turtles are killed at
a ferocious rate by boats and pollution each year, Mr. Craig said adding
that 100 were killed this year by those factors alone. The program
does what it can to help the hatchlings make their back to the ocean
safely to let nature take over if a nest is confirmed after an excavation,
the eggs are covered back up carefully. The volunteer team will put
stakes around the area and a federal notice claiming that the location
is an endangered species area. Tampering with the nest in anyway can
result in a $100,000 fine or up to a year in prison, said Pam Minnick,
volunteer coordinator for the protection program. But sometimes signs
and posts do not work. “We’ve had two nests vandalized,” Mr.
Craig said adding that in both cases, someone dug in and removed all
the eggs from the nest. “To threaten endangered species… is
a serious federal offense,” he said, “and we hope it’s
a one time thing.” After the site is marked, the incubation period
countdown begins. A normal incubation period is about 60 days. Five
days before the end of the 60-day period volunteers dig a trench from
the nest site to the ocean to guide turtles back to water and to cut
off extraneous light that turtles may be attracted to which could throw
them off course. “We have people sitting at the nest waiting
for the hatchings,” Mr. Craig said. Those sitting by the nests
watch for any sign of activity. Then when the turtles come out of their
sandy nest, the patient watchers help to guide the babies to the ocean
and shield them from nighttime predators. “Ghost crabs are a
big problem. We don’t kill the ghost crabs, we just don’t
want them to kill our turtles,” Mr. Craig said. In order to keep
the crabs from getting the turtles, they are picked up and placed down
the beach away from the turtles. So far, 10 of the 20 nests have hatched.
That number is up from the 14 nests recorded last year and the nine
recorded the year before that. “In Emerald Isle, at this point,
there have been close to 800 turtles released into the ocean,” Mr.
Craig said. “One nest hatched right before the storm Thursday,” Ms.
Minnick said. Watching a nest hatch is really the amazing thing, Mr.
Craig said, especially a boil. A boil is when a lot of turtles come
up at the same time and the sand looks like it is boiling. Seventy-two
hours after a nest boils and the turtles make it to the ocean safely,
the volunteer team will excavate the nest a second time. This allows
for an accurate count of turtles that were in the nest and made it
to the sea. The number of eggshells that were infertile and the turtles
that didn’t make it are all counted. The information is then
recorded and reported to the state turtle program director who compiles
the information and makes it ready for federal and state papers. “It’s
a lot of work, a lot of walking and a lot of sitting at night,” Mr.
Craig said, adding that sometimes a nest will take longer than the
60 days to hatch. “We had one nest to hatch 90 days and had to
sit on the beach at night for a month,” he said. However, it
is “still a thrill” to do, he said and the program still
gets volunteers to do it. And according to the N.C. Wildlife Association,
Emerald Isle has the largest volunteer group on Bogue Banks, Ms. Holloman
said. Emerald Isle is the most productive stretch of beach when it
comes to sea turtle hatchings, and it’s all thanks to the volunteers
who also share their time with other coastal towns in their effort
to protect sea turtles. Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach each have
their own turtle program but it is not as developed as Emerald Isle’s,
Ms. Holloman said. The volunteer program, which has been running for
about seven years, is stepping up to “help with Indian Beach
because they lost their coordinator,” Ms. Minnick said. “Volunteers
have taken over two nests, one which has hatch and the other is three
or four weeks away,” she said. The volunteers at Emerald Isle
do not walk the beaches for the Indian Beach program but depend on
people calling the police and informing them of nests who then the
call the Emerald Isle program. Not only do the volunteers of the program
search for nests, watch over turtle eggs and help out with neighboring
towns they also educate the public. “There is a lot of public
education going on,” Mr. Craig said. “We will go out to
a nest in the afternoon or evening and people will be drawn to it like
a magnet,” he said. The public wants to know what’s going
on and some will come back every night to see the progression of the
nest. “We invite them, too,” Mr. Craig said adding “people
will help us and better protect them when they know what’s going
on. The public has been wonderful to us.” The group holds meetings
which are posted on the Emerald Isle town Web site which can be viewed
at www.emeraldisle-nc.org.
Topsail Beach hit hard by Ernesto
Topsail Voice by Lindell Kay (9/6/06)
TOPSAIL ISLAND - One year ago, Hurricane Ophelia
pounded Topsail Beach ripping away so much sand that the town had to
launch an emergency
beach renourishment project. And last week, Topsail Beach was hit hard
again, this time by Tropical Storm Ernesto. With more than a half-million
dollars in sand loss, all the work put into building up the dunes on
Topsail Island’s southern most beach over the last year has been
wiped away. “It is much worse that anyone expected it to be,” Town
Manager Jim Carter said in the early morning hours Friday while driving
around estimating damage. “If we are hit with another storm on
the south end…it would be devastating.” Topsail Beach Mayor
Butch Parrish said that most of the beach held up relatively well,
but that south of the 1200 block of Ocean Boulevard was a different
story. “There was minimum structural damage to the town, but
there has been worse dune erosion than with Ophelia,” Parrish
said. He went on to explain that since the rest of the coast did not
suffer as much sand attrition; the state would not incur enough damage
to qualify for federal funding. And that leaves Topsail Beach picking
up the check on beach renourishment once again. The town has already
applied for a permit to rebuild the dunes using bulldozed sand and
hopes for quick approval from the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management. Tom Vear, who lives at 1213 Ocean Boulevard , said he lost
his first house on that spot to Hurricane Fran 10 years ago. After
he rebuilt, there was 18 feet of dunes between his home and the beach.
Now, after years of erosion, there is nothing. Vear said he has watched
bulldozers push sand up to his home and he has watched storms carry
it away. “I don’t know what the solution is,” he
said as he pointed out where at least some semblance of dunes existed
barely 24 hours before. “All the work they did is gone.” The
rest of the island faired much better with less beach erosion and just
a few in-town problems. In Surf City there was flooding on sections
of South Shore Drive where the NC Department of Transportation had
not finished putting in overflow drains. Thursday evening several vehicles
stalled out trying to drive through up to four feet of water. “We
had some roads flood, but they are all clear now,” Ron Shanahan,
Surf City ’s Assistant Chief of Police, said Friday morning.
Shanahan said that the town mostly suffered roof damage and half a
dozen broken windows, but that overall he felt the city was in good
shape. He also said that Jones/Onslow EMC did an excellent job of getting
the power back on. Surf City Town Manager Michael Moore explained that
Surf City did well in the storm and that by Friday morning everything
was up and running. As far as beach erosion, he said the beach lost
three to five feet of sand in some spots and some sand was actually
added in others. According to town officials, North Topsail Beach also
did reasonably well during the storm. “Considering the storm
was much more than anybody expected, I think we did extremely well,” said.
Town Manager Bradley Smith. Except for major damage to St. Regis Resort’s
exterior walls and two restaurants, standing water and storm-strewed
debris were the town’s worst problems. Clean up on the island
continues and each of the three towns will provide yard debris pick
up for residents and property owners. Topsail Beach will hold a large
item pick up on Friday, Sept. 8. Surf City has three Tropical Storm
Ernesto yard debris pick up days. The city will pick up branches and
bagged leaves on Sept. 13 for properties north of Roland Avenue , Sept.
14 for locations south of Roland Avenue and Sept. 15 for the mainland.
North Topsail Beach will wait until after its regularly scheduled trash
pick up to see if further action needs to be taken.
Wrong on right whales
Carteret County Editorial (9/1/06)
The National Marine Fisheries Service is considering
reducing the speed limit for large boats that travel near ports on
the East Coast, including
Wilmington and Morehead City. Purpose of the proposed new rule, which
would negatively impact a struggling industry, is to avoid collisions
between ocean-going vessels and the North Atlantic right whale, the
most critically endangered whale species. It would impose a 10-knot
speed limit on vessels 65 feet in length or longer in certain locations
along the coast at certain times of the year. It would affect a 30-nautical
mile semi-circle around Morehead City and Wilmington from Nov. 1 to
April 30. “It’s so stupid it’s almost comical, but
there’s really nothing funny about it,” says Sonny Davis
of the Capt. Stacy Fishing Center in Atlantic Beach. The Capt. Stacy
IV, captained by Maurice Davis out of the Stacy Fishing Center, is
83 feet long. Many charter boats in the area exceed the 65-foot threshold
and generally run at least 15 knots. Mr. Davis says he hardly ever
sees whales while fishing in deep water and collisions have not been
a problem in his lifetime. “It’ll double our running time,” says
Sonny Davis. “It would mean that out of 11 hours running to the
fishing ground and back, people would be just riding for eight hours
and fishing for just two or three. Who would want to do that?” At
an August 2004 meeting in Carteret County, charter and heads boat captains
told the NMFS they rarely encounter whales. They also tried to explain
their vessels have differently designed hulls — which increase
maneuverability to help avoid obstacles —and which do not draw
whales or other big objects as do the hulls of extremely long vessels.
Mr. Davis says officials either did not listen or did not care. He
adds that if this rule is implemented he will be out of business. “Look
at what we’re already up against. Gas prices are close to $3
a gallon so it already costs people more to get to us than ever before.
And our fuel costs are way up, too, so it costs us a lot more to get
where the fish are.” Public comment on the proposal has been
extended until 5 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 5. Comments should be sent by
mail to Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Attn: Right Whale
Ship Strike Strategy, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Springs, Md. 20910. For e-mail comments: www.shipstrike.comments@noaa.gov
or www.regulations.gov. This is important not only for businessmen
who run charter boats but for sportsmen who fish offshore. Let the
concerns be heard.
9/5/06
Jennette's Pier still on hold
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/02/top_stories/tops120102.prt
St. Regis Resort most-damaged at North Topsail
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44607&Section=News
Pay now, pay later
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/02/letters-editorials/letters120-mint.prt
Correcting earlier letter
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/02/letters-editorials/letters120-smit.prt
Taking issue with Basnight
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/09/02/letters-editorials/letters120-vand.prt
9/1/06
Transfer of landmark Jennette's Pier to gear up revamping
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=110224&ran=16525
Southern Brunswick Islands OK
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15414017.htm
8/30/06
Riggings Condos Notified By State; Sand Bags Must Be Removed
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=8582_0_2_0_M
Boaters express views in survey
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15394892.htm
Shifting sandbags
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/479379.html
Beach nourishment plan
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/30/letters-editorials/letters124-cree.prt
Beach panel secures legal help
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (8/30/06)
BOGUE BANKS – Even though legal help has been secured for sand
management efforts, the county’s beach commission hopes it can
reach a settlement with the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the
placement of sand before a trial occurs. At the County Beach Commission
meeting Monday, the panel voted unanimously to enter into a contract
with the Raleigh law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton, LLC, for future legal
representation regarding the sand management issues associated with
the Morehead City Federal Navigation Project. Every year the Corps
dredges the outer harbor and dumps the spoils off shore, Greg “Rudi” Rudolph
County Shore Protection Manager said after the meeting. “Doing
so prohibits the movement of sand between Shackleford and Bogue Banks… essentially
starving the beaches of sand,” Mr. Rudolph said. Because the
material that goes into the channel is dumped offshore and because
there are no new sources of sand coming to the coast because of geological
and climate conditions, Mr. Rudolph said that “the sand that
exists in ocean inlet system is the only source of sand we have and
we need to manage it in a much better fashion.” The process to
formally get a better sand management system started in May when a
subcommittee of the beach commission was appointed by Chairman Buck
Fugate to review letters of interest from three different law firms
interested in the commissions case. The subcommittee’s job was
to hold interviews with each firm and to provide a recommendation to
the full beach commission regarding legal representation that would
be associated with sand management issues at the Morehead City Harbor.
That scope of work has been determined as the beach commission’s “next
step” in resolving planning and implementation conflicts regarding
the dredged material practices used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) at the Morehead City Federal navigation Project. “This
has been a two- to three-year process,” said Mr. Rudolph. The
county has been working with the Corps for several years to reconcile
the differences through various correspondences, meetings, state Coastal
Zone Management consistency notices and a Section 111 report prepared
from a request made by Pine Knoll Shores and completed in 2001 by the
Corps. Then in 2004 the county retained the coastal engineering firm
Olsen Associates to develop a regional sand transportation study to
document both the positive and negative impacts that the Morehead City
Harbor Project has on the Beaufort Inlet complex, adjoining barrier
islands and other adjacent coastal environments. “When we hired
Olsen Associates we knew that we may need attorney to help with the
process,” Mr. Rudolph said after the meeting. That’s when
in May the beach commission decided to seek legal counsel to begin
a more formal process of negotiating an acceptable sand management
plan for the navigation project. Three law practices were requested
to provide a letter interest including their understanding of the problem,
their legal strategy, estimated cost and time to resolve the matter.
Out of all three the subcommittee recommended that the beach commission
approve a contract with the firm Kilpatrick Stockton. The lead attorney,
Steven J. Levitas, besides possessing a great deal of environmental
permitting experience, was an assistant secretary of the N.C. Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DENR). “This is
a very big position, and he has the expertise in the regulatory field
and knows the players to help get the ball rolling,” Mr. Rudolph
said. Another attorney, Todd Roessler, received his master’s
in coastal geology from the UNC Institute of Marine Sciences and studied
Bogue Inlet. “He then went to law school and will be working
on our case. He has very good technical and legal experience,” Mr.
Rudolph said. Also, if the case should not be settled before entering
into a court of law, not only does the trial attorney, Daniel R. Taylor
Jr., have a very impressive resume but he owns property in Pine Knoll
Shores, Mr. Rudolph said. “If we go to trial, it kind of worked
out real well for us,” he said. However, the commission felt
that the matter should be solved before going to trial. “Hopefully
we can settle his before we enter into a court of law,” Mr. Rudolph
said. “We are not looking to sue anybody, we are just looking
to put sand on the beaches,” beach commissioner chairman Buck
Fugate said. Another concern for the commission was how the case would
affect the relationship with the Morehead City Port. “My dilemma
concerns the port,” said beach commission member Pat McElraft,
a county commissioner. She was concerned about the good relationship
between the commission and with the Corps. “Hopefully we can
negotiate this in a settlement,’ she said adding, “I wish
we didn’t have to do this, that the sand would just be placed
on the beaches, but I guess it is necessary.” Mr. Fugate made
it clear that the intention of the commissioner was not to lose good
relations or “hurt” the port but just to place sand on
the beaches through a sand management plan. The commission is considering
three individual disposal sites as part of a 50-year plan, Mr. Fugate
said. A sand management plan would regulate sand placement so that
100 percent of the sand would not go to one place, he said. Because
the County Beach Commission cannot contract directly with agencies
or firms the issue will be brought before the County Board of Commissioners.
In terms of cost, the proposed scope of work that the firm will carry
out has a not-to-exceed $900,000 cost which includes negotiations with
the Corps, a trial and one appeal. However, if the matter were to be
resolved before a trial, the commission would not have to pay the cost
of a trial on an appeal. Although the cost seems high, the firm had
initially proposed $1.14 to $1.87 million for their work, but through
negotiations was reduced. “I firmly believe that if we do not
commit to a course of action we will not get sand on the beach,” Mr.
Fugate said.
Tideland News Letter to the Editor (8/30/06)
I’ve heard that one of this area’s finest attractions has,
once again, been shoved to the bottom of the list of priorities. There
will be no dredging of Cow Channel (access route to Bear Island ) this
winter. This insures another summer of limited public access – provided
the channel doesn’t completely close off over the winter months – to
the only truly public, family oriented, unspoiled beach in the area.
It makes one wonder where our elected and appointed officials are.
Hammocks Beach/Bear Island is used extensively I ads for this area
and touted as one of our best attractions to bring in those tourist
dollars. Yet when the tourist arrive they are met with delays (if they
can get one of the few available tickets to the island at all). This
summer they were also treated to watching the dredging of Bogue Inlet,
a project most local watermen agreed could have been avoided by simply
moving the channel markers. The question they asked – as we all
should be asking – is why not Cow Channel? I have heard any number
of reasons including lack of funding, environmental restrictions, they
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc., etc., etc. The bottom line, however,
is that none of our local “powers that be” seem to want
to fight for a project that will benefit everyone involved. Bear Island
brings in money. Where art the tourism boards and Chambers of Commerce?
Local municipalities are willing to put our tax dollars into dredging
Bogue. Can’t they put their political power behind dredging Cow
Channel? It wouldn’t cost a dime of our money and it would bring
money into the area. If, perhaps, some local politician who was running
for state office in November got behind the project, it would be a
win/win situation for all of us. Let’s face it, we have seen
enough of the special interests, in this region they have what they
want, when they want it. How about doing something that is good for
everyone! I am told there are funds available for the project. They
simply need a champion to free them up. If this does not happen, we
can all sit on the dock and watch as our local beaches become what
was recently described as a “playground for the rich.” And
how long will it be before the visitors from out of the area (and many
come from out of state and even out of the U.S.A. ) realize that Onslow
County really isn’t somewhere to spend their money? This situation
is giving our area, local officials, state representatives and North
Carolina in general one enormous black eye. Just think, for a portion
of the cost of one of the houses on “The Point,” Cow Channel
could be dredged and public access to the beach insured. I do not understand
the reluctance to complete a project that would do nothing but good
for the area in general when so much effort has gone into working through
millions to benefit a few. Mary Ellen Yanich - Swansboro
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/30/06)
EDITOR: Our civic and community leaders would be well advised to pay attention
to the Aug. 28 Star-News article concerning the problem of beach access in
California. The long and the short of it is that water-access properties all
over the coastal regions of the country are being converted to expensive private
homes and condos for the affluent and marinas are being sold off as condos,
with slips selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This process excludes
ever greater areas of desirable waterfront usage by the general public. The
privatization of waterfront and beach land is being implemented here in the
Wilmington area at an explosive rate and will eventually begin to have a significant
financial impact as the area begins to decline as a popular tourist attraction
for working-class and middle-class Americans. Yet the privileged minority that
is rapidly achieving exclusive ownership of the best beaches, marinas and waterways
will still expect the now-unwelcome majority of taxpayers to continue to pay
for beach renourishment and dredging and maintenance of waterways and inlets.
I suggest that it is not wise to place a long-term bet on a continuing flow
of taxpayers' money going to maintain the private playgrounds of our more affluent
citizens. Gustav Dahl - Wilmington
8/26/06
Roadside parking could be eliminated
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1587
Towns anticipate losses due to beach nourishment plan
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/26/top_stories/tops127102.prt
Consider the real cost
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/26/letters-editorials/letters127-basn.prt
This Ocean's Too Noisy
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=2343979&page=1
Sonar's a whale of a worry
Wilmington Star (8/26/06)
The public must know about the imminent risks from the proposed U.S.
Navy Undersea Sonar Training Range in Onslow Bay off the North Carolina
coast. The plan embraces a vast area of 600 square nautical miles of
the ocean floor, studded with rock outcrops with encrusted organisms
which serve as habitat for numerous species of commercially important
snapper and grouper species. The Navy is proposing this sonar range
to detect diesel-powered submarines owned by Iran (3), Russia (18),
North Korea (25) and China (58). Nevertheless, the Navy is obligated
to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The responses from
the public, law firms and state government prompted the Navy to revise
the statement, which may come out again in the spring of 2007. We have
no idea what impact mid-frequency sonar beams will have on migrating
marine mammals such as the endangered right whales (of which only 350
now exist). Mass stranding of melon-beaked whales occurred off Hawaii
in 2004 and pilot whales off the North Carolina Outer Banks in 2005
and rough-toothed whales off Florida in 2006. The stranding of whales
off the Bahamas was attributed to a Navy sonar exercise. Mammalogists
also have some evidence that sonar can be lethal or make whales sick
and weak. It turns out that not only male humpback whales sing to attract
females, but also some male fish such as silver fish or gag groupers
produce low frequency sound in mating periods. Female fishes can become
deaf on exposure to unusual mid-frequency noises that the Navy wishes
to propagate, and may not respond to males' call for mating. The turtle
hospital at Topsail Beach is also concerned that the Navy operation
will interfere with the migration of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley and
even leather-back turtles that nest on North Carolina shores. Originally
the Navy considered three potential sites: one off Norfolk, Va., one
off Jacksonville, Fla., and one off Cape Lookout and finally chose
the Onslow Bay site. I wonder why the Navy chose a site loaded with
undersea gardens. I am somewhat puzzled that the proposal to put a
sonar testing range above the mid-shelf cold coral reefs and Lophelia
coral reefs off shelf edge is contrary to the conservation measures
recommended to protect deep-water coral reefs from bottom trawling.
NOAA Fisheries has questioned the Navy and presumably expressed dissatisfaction
over the first Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There are pros
and cons for the sonar range. However, considering all the negative
implications thus far emerging from various sources, including the
Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Environmental Law
Center, I suspect that Navy may prudently drop this grandiose plan
and come up with an alternate defense plan. Robert Y. George, a former
UNCW professor, now heads the George Institute for Biodiversity and
Sustainability in Wilmington. He also serves on the Deep-Water Ecology
Working Group of the International Council for the Explorations of
the Seas.
8/23/06
Research
focuses on shoreline’s weak spots (SC)
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15316509.htm
Invasive plant could threaten turtles (SC)
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6046763p-5306656c.html
Blame it on Isabel
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/23/letters-editorials/letters131-broc.prt
Change delays dredge
Tideland News by Martha S. Ahlquist (8/23/06)
Hammocks Beach State Park officials got the news
last month that there will be no channel dredging this season. For
a state park that is only
accessible by boat, that is bad news indeed. Paul Donnelly, park superintendent,
said Coastal Area Management Act officials gave the news in a meeting
originally scheduled to discuss dredging set for this fall. Dredging
is allowed November through March. “All of our studies and environmental
assessments are complete,” he said. “(But) at our preliminary
meeting with CAMA we were told there would be no dredging without a
variance.” The park had completed requirements necessary to dredge
what Donnelly said is the “hot spot,” a 3/4-mile stretch
in Cow Channel used by the ferries to transport visitors to Bear Island. “We
wanted to dredge one mile and we wanted to make it 50 feet wide and
nine feet deep,” he said. By dredging deeper and wider, Donnelly
said officials were hoping to decrease the frequency of dredging. That
plan also allowed for nourishing the park’s oceanfront. However,
park officials were told they couldn’t dredge part of a channel
deeper than the rest of the channel, which is currently at seven feet.
Their choices are to ask for a variance to allow for an uneven channel
bottom or dredge the complete 2-1/2 miles at nine feet. The second
option, the option the park has decided to pursue, would result in
the relocation of more dredge spoils. This additional spoil would not
be compatible enough to be pumped onto Bear Island, like the original
plan called for. Donnelly said park officials have to look to Finn
Island and determine the island’s capacity to accept more spoil. “We’re
tentatively thinking of putting the good spoil on the beach and the
non-compatible spoil on Finn Island ,” he said. “Now we
have to go back and look at Finn Island. “All of this requires
more paperwork. There is no way to get all of that done (for this dredging
season).” Donnelly said the increase in the length of dredging
might force the park to find someone else beside the N.C. Ferry Division
to do the work. “We might have to contract out the work to a
private contractor,” he said. Of critical importance, according
to Donnelly, is to do whatever is environmentally right. “We
want to adhere to CAMA and their rules,” he said. “We don’t
want to ask for a variance.” Donnelly said asking for a variance
wouldn’t allow for dredging this season anyway. “We wouldn’t
get an answer until April,” he explained. “So it wouldn’t
do us any good.” So what does this mean for visitors to the park? “It
means another season of what we have to deal with now,” he said. “It’s
extremely frustrating.” Donnelly said the plan the park is using
this summer has worked “fairly well.” Smaller ferries were
used for about five hours a day. Those ferries can only transport 11
passengers. The park can only operate ferries during daylight and day
visitors taken over to the island must be able to leave the island
at the end of the day. “Folks have been very patient and we try
to explain the situation to them before they get on the ferry,” he
said. Donnelly said the park has requested another small ferry for
next season to help carry more visitors to and from Bear Island. He
added that accommodations would be made for school groups wanting to
visit the park on for a field trip. “We could take school groups
over to the island in the fall and spring,” he said. “We
can get them over but due to tides and school time constraints we might
not be able to get them back in time.” The plan is to have the
groups enjoy a program at the visitor’s center on the mainland
and then take a marsh tour on one of the larger ferries. David Pearson,
president and founder of Friends of Hammocks and Bear Island , said
he was disappointed there would be no dredging this season. “It
limits the access to Bear Island, which is the main attraction to Hammocks
Beach,” he said. “It’s disappointing, but it’s
an ongoing issue,” he said. “We’re still moving forward
to get it dredged.”
Dredging is nothing new to Cow Channel.
According to Don Reuter, assistant director of planning and administration
for the N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation, 45,000 cubic yards of
material was dredged from Cow Channel in 1984. Ten years later 20,000
cubic yards were dredged. Dredging in 2001 and 2002 resulted in 16,000
and 5,600 cubic yards respectively. Reuter said a mud bucket was used
in 2002 to dredge a small portion of the channel that was severely
impacted by shoaling. Paul Donnelly, superintendent at Hammocks Beach
State Park, said the dredging in 2001 and 2002 were for maintenance.
Donnelly said the new permit would ask for permission to dredge 97,000
cubic yards. Of that, 60,704 cubic yards will be compatible to pump
onto Bear Island . The remainder will be put on a spoils island. Ferry
operations to Bear Island began in the early 1960s.
Waterfront access panel announced
Carteret County News Times by Brad Rich (8/23/06)
GLOUCESTER — One Carteret County appointee to a new legislative
study committee on waterfront access said Tuesday it’s late in
the game, but she hopes the panel can help “snatch victory from
the jaws of defeat” by preserving at least some of what’s
left of the commercial fishing industry and its infrastructure of fish
houses, vessels and docks. Dr. Barbara Garrity-Blake, an East Carolina
University and Carteret Community College professor of anthropology
and N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission member who lives in this small
Down East fishing village, was appointed by N.C. Senate President Pro-tem
Marc Basnight, D-Dare. She is joined on the panel by, among others,
Emerald Isle Mayor Art Schools , Carteret County real estate agent
Julia Wax and Newport resident Jim Stephenson, policy director for
the N.C. Coastal Federation. N.C. House of Representatives Speaker
Jim Black, D-Mecklenburg, appointed those three. Sen. Basnight, from
Manteo, also appointed Dare County Commissioner Allen Burrus, Oak Island
Mayor John W. Vereen, Buddy Milliken of Shallote and Hardy Plyler of
Ocracoke, while Speaker Black also tabbed Meredith College professor
Doug Wakeman and Robin Mann and Ernie Foster, both of Dare County.
They are expected to be joined in coming days by a few others, including
someone from the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, parent agency of
the fisheries commission, and someone from the N.C. Coastal Resources
Commission, which is the policy-making arm of the state Division of
Coastal Management. The panel, created by the General Assembly through
legislation this summer, is charged with studying incentives, zoning
regulations, shoreline development trends and tools that other jurisdictions
have used to facilitate access to waterfronts. The legislation calls
for the committee to make an interim report to the Joint Legislative
Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture, the Marine Fisheries Commission
and the Coastal Resources Commission by Jan. 15, with the additional
goal of making a final report by April 15. It was fitting that Dr.
Garrity-Blake got a seat on the panel, as she helped get the ball rolling
toward its formation. She was one of the founders of a maritime scholars’ group
that wrote the legislature and the fisheries commission last year to
urge action to stop the decline of the commercial fishing industry
and the dwindling number of fish houses and commercial fishing vessel
docks. She’s also been deeply involved in the work of Down East
Tomorrow, a citizens’ group that has been pushing to slow or
put a temporary halt to large-scale development east of the bridge
over North River in Carteret County . “I hope we can accomplish
our charge, but it is a little late,” she said. “This (demise)
has been going on for some time. “But,” Dr. Garrity-Blake
added, “there are things left to save, and in a way, it’s
good that we were given a relatively short time to complete our charge,
because the coast is changing so fast.” The southern portion
of the state’s coastline, she said, long ago became highly developed
for residential and commercial purposes, and the northern portion,
closer to the major U.S. population centers of the northeast and Mid-Atlantic,
developed very quickly in recent years. “Nags Head and Hatteras
Island have probably already peaked in the last four or five years,
although there is still a lot of development activity,” she said
Tuesday from her home in Gloucester. “Things have slowed some
in those areas. But Carteret County and much of the central coast has
been one of the last frontiers.” She said a number of struggling
fish houses in the region are owned by either old-timers who want to
hang on or sell to others who want to revitalize the industry and its
infrastructure or by new owners who want to do the same. There also
have been some innovative ideas in recent months. For example, Dr.
Garrity-Blake said, a fish house on Ocracoke Island has been bought
and is now being run as a nonprofit company. A couple new to the island,
she said, has been organizing fishermen since July 1 and has 25 watermen
landing products for the business. Wanchese Fish Co. has loaned the
nonprofit company a truck, and it has already established customers
and a regular service route. “They’re forging new ground,” she
said. “And it looks viable.” Others in the industry, she
added, want to hang on and grow, but it’s going to take innovative
solutions, which is where the study committee can make a difference,
if it works quickly. Ideas, she said, are important. One person, she
said, recently noted that it’s important to preserve fish houses,
not just as places to sell the products, but also for other purposes.
For example, she said, he asked what would happen to trawlers if all
the fish houses disappear and no longer make dock space available to
big trawlers during hurricanes. “There are a lot of problems
that are related, and we all need to work as quickly as we can,” Dr.
Garrity-Blake said. “Some of the people who were appointed I
don’t know, but it looks like a good committee. There is a lot
of potential. But there’s a lot of work to do, and not a lot
of time.” House Speaker Black appointed Rep. William Wainwright,
D-Craven, to co-chair the committee. Sen. Basnight has not yet named
his co-chair.
Wildlife officials eyeing Langston for a boat ramp
Tideland News by Annita Best (8/23/06)
Local boaters may have another place to launch,
if plans for a new boat ramp go through. Gordon Meyers, engineering
services division
chief with of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, said the new
ramp would be on the Cedar Point side of NC 58 at the B. Cameron Langston
Bridge. “There is a lot of need for more public boat access throughout
Coastal North Carolina,” he stated. “With that in mind,
we’re looking there for an opportunity.” The property is
owned by the N.C. Department of Transportation with a memorandum of
agreement with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, allowing them
to use the property. “The property was originally reserved for
potential bridge expansion, but I don’t foresee any plans for
widening the bridge for at least 20 years,” he said. In the meantime,
Meyers says the land could be utilized in a way that will allow more
people to have access to the coastal waters. The initial Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation study has been completed and there is nothing in
the results to indicate there would be negative impact to the vegetation
there, according to Meyers. “Now that the preliminary results
show basically no impact, we’ll hire a consultant to do a more
detailed Submerged Aquatic Vegetation analysis so we can be absolutely
certain that putting the ramp there won’t harm the area,” he
added. Other than the location, an additional benefit of utilizing
that area for a boat ramp is that there is only a small amount of dredging
that will be necessary. “There are pretty good water depths most
of the way. Our bare minimum is three-and-a-half to four feet at dead-low
tide and it looks like we have that there,” he said. Meyers says
a negative aspect of using that area is the shape of the land. “The
tract there is long and narrow and it will be difficult to get the
parking close to the water,” he noted. Still, Meyers anticipates
at least 50 parking spots and maybe more depending on the storm water
requirements. Another potential problem with the use of that land for
a public boat access is the increased traffic problems at an already
busy intersection. “Traffic is one of the concerns we have there,
but I don’t believe that traffic will be severely impacted because
of the boat ramp. “We will put together a plan, though, that
will include input from a traffic engineer,” Meyers added. He
anticipates some property owners and residents to object to the proposed
boat ramp for various reasons. However, residents and concerned citizens
will get an opportunity to voice concerns when a stage has been reached
where a complete proposal can be presented. “Once we have a complete
schematic design we’ll host a public hearing that will be most
likely held in Swansboro in a few months. “We are doing this
very methodically, step by step, before we present it to the public,” Meyers
said.
Little landing, big debate
Tideland News by Martha S. Ahlquist (8/23/06)
Willis Landing, a small section of waterfront
in Bear Creek, is a big concern for area residents. The picturesque
landing has been the subject
of debate on the county and state levels. Kenny Seigler, a Hubert resident
who uses the landing, claims the Onslow County commissioners initially
established the landing in 1784 and as a result it should be open and
accessible to the public. Currently the land is state-owned and is
marked as a N.C. Wildlife Ramp. Seigler is upset because he believes
access to the ramp is now limited by guardrails and fences that are
on both sides of the road that lead to the landing. This has decreased
traffic using the ramp because patrons now have no place to park their
vehicles and trailers after launching their boats. “Generation
after generation of fishermen have gone down to Willis Landing to fish,” he
said. “But people want to try to own it and close it.” The
dispute began in 1987 when Nathaniel Hancock and Jack Hurst, owners
of property adjacent to the landing, placed a fence at the end of the
road, said Seigler. Seigler said the N.C. Department of Transportation
and the N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources became
involved and informed Hancock and Hurst they had to remove the fence
because the access could not be blocked. Then around 1990, a 30-foot
section was condemned to make the ramp accessible. “The landing
sat like that until about 1999,” Seigler said. As a result of
easier access, traffic to the landing increased. That changed when
Hurst wrote a letter to Annette Hargett, director of the governor’s
east office, in 1998 to complain about people parking on his property.
As a result, the DOT installed fences and guardrails along the road.
Seigler claims that funds used to pay for the project were misappropriated.
Small Urban and Contingency funds were used, he said, and those funds
are allocated for projects within three miles of city limits. Willis
Landing is seven miles from any township, Seigler said. “The
guardrails are still there,” he said. Hurst said the fence was
part of the agreement made with the state when the state purchased
property in 1985. The fence and guardrail are on the property line.
Hurst said if they were removed, patrons using the ramp would be parking
their trucks and trailers on his property. “I don’t think
that’s right,” he said. Seigler maintains that without
adequate parking, the landing is essentially a private one. There is
currently parking for about four or five cars at the landing. “I
want to see enough parking there that’s conducive to the situation,” he
said. “We want an access that people can use without being intrusive
to the people who already live there.” Furthermore, Hurst said
with Shell Rock Landing being so close to Willis Landing he wants the
state to close Willis Landing. “It has created so much of a problem
I want them to close it,” he said. Seigler presented a petition
to the Onslow County Commissioners at their meeting on Aug. 7. Seigler
said he has been told the petition has been forwarded to the DOT. The
petition, signed by 260 people living in the Bear Creek area, is asking
the DOT to remove the fencing and guardrails and resurface the road.
Seigler said he believes the Willis Landing situation is a recurring
one throughout the state. “You can talk to any agency that has
anything to do with public access and they will tell you that there
just aren’t enough of them.” Seigler also said access development
has not kept up with construction development on the coast. “Every
coastal county is running behind the development curve. “You
can’t invite people down here to look at something, get them
down here and cut them off from it. “I see that I’m fighting
the fight for anybody who has a child who wants to throw a fishing
line in the water. “When will I be done? “When I draw my
last breath,” he said.
Lawmakers looking at access
Are there enough waterfront accesses in the state?
The General Assembly is wondering the same thing. Gordon Myers, engineer
services division
chief at the WRC, said he believes that the number of accesses available
statewide is not keeping up with the need. There are currently 198
wildlife ramps throughout the state and about three or four a year
are added. “There is a bigger issue,” he said. “Even
though we’re adding accesses we have a net loss every year.” Myers
said the increased pressure for development is causing many sites to
be shutdown. “We are faced with a huge problem,” he said.
Myers said House Bill 1922 was recently passed by the general assembly
to look into waterfront access. The study committee, made up of 17
people, is directed to gather information about local land-use management
and zoning, hold three public meetings, and file a report by Jan. 15,
2007.
Unite the town
Topsail Voice Editorial (8/23/06)
North Topsail Beach Aldermen must work fast to
build consensus within the community on the formula for financing beach
nourishment. Otherwise
the 6.4 square mile beach community may succumb to the forces of nature
as the area faces future storms that can further erode the fragile
beachfront. Recently the town began the application process for a $34
million bond sale for nourishment of the town’s beachfront to
be repaid in eight years. The town’s residents appear to be in
favor of maintaining a beach nourishment program but the sticking point
is the formula for financing the nourishment. As beach nourishment
committee chairman Dick Macartney noted in a recent public hearing, “The
issue is the money; Nobody wants to pay.” The town board has
proposed the creation of a special taxing district consisting of oceanfront
properties that will be taxed to pay 90 percent of the bond cost. Property
taxes from the rest of the town will cover the remaining 10 percent
of the bond cost. The argument for taxing the oceanfront properties
to cover 90 percent of the cost is that those properties gain the most
in the process. But this is a shortsighted argument. As local resident
Paul Dorazio noted in the Aug. 9 public hearing, the entire town will
benefit from the beach nourishment. Remembering the destruction caused
by hurricane Fran in 1996 Mr. Dorazio noted that “the sound side
experienced as much damage as the oceanfront.” The town plans
a bond referendum as part of the November elections which gives the
Board of Alderman a little more than two months to create a reasonable
formula for all parties. Both the residents in the newly designated
special service district and the remainder of the town’s residents
must both approve the referendum. Failure of either group to pass the
referendum will mean no sale for the town. The town board must act
quickly. First a more equitable and reasonable formula for cost sharing
must be created. Something more on the order of 65 percent coverage
by oceanfront property taxes and 35 percent from the remainder of the
town. And secondly, the board must get aggressive in selling the concept
to the voters. Failure to come to a quick and reasonable conclusion
will doom more than just the oceanfront properties of the North Topsail
Beach . Failure may well doom the entire town or at least set up the
property owners for even more expensive repairs should the area suffer
a direct hit from a major hurricane. What North Topsail lacks in finances
pales in the face of what it lacks in time to respond to the vagaries
of nature. The Board of Alderman and the entire town need to act reasonably,
decisively and quickly.
Tax districts arbitrary
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (8/23/06)
A recent survey of property owners of North Topsail
Beach found a difference between year around residents and non-residents
about how a $34 million
bond referendum for beach nourishment should be supported. The Topsail
Voice and the Jacksonville Daily News newspapers reported that 54.3
percent of all who responded that the rate should be equal and 41.5
who said it should vary. However, when year round residents were broken
out the numbers changed to 38.9 percent who think the rate should be
equal and 55.7 percent who think the rate should vary. As a property
owner for 20 years, and a permanent resident for the last three years,
I have concern that NTB property owners send a message to county, state
and federal authorities that we are serious about preserving the infrastructure
that makes NTB a desirable place to visit and live. The debate about
beach nourishment includes several issues: Costs Benefit: Maintaining
the dune line and supporting vegetation will, in my opinion preserve
and mitigate the damage caused by hurricanes and nor’easters.
Damage to personal property will be lessened as well as damage to dunes,
utilities and roads, and result in lower cost and time to repair/or
replace. It should not be expected that this would be a one time cost
and/or effort, but will be continuous and therefore include a long-range
plan with time critical projects based on an engineering assessment
for erosion control. Who pays: Property owners, the county, and state
and federal governments should all share in the cost for beach nourishment.
While the benefits are obvious for the property owners, the various
levels of governments will also benefit from the taxes generated by
sales and property tax. In order to garner the support of government
for this effort, property owners of NTB must demonstrate willingness
in anteing up. Most governmental agencies require local matching funds
before they will approve expenditure of public funds. It is not only
property owners who gain from beach nourishment but also all the people
who come to NTB to vacation, fish, and enjoy the beach. The county
has just completed an assessment of property in NTB, which has resulted
in a higher proportion of taxes being paid by the residents of NTB
than any other municipality in the county. These assessments are based
on property values as determined by sale (or value) of property sold
in previous years (2004 & 2005). It is obvious that resort values
are directly related to the quality of the beach, roads, sewer system,
utilities and other infrastructures. If these infrastructures are not
protected by beach nourishment values will decline and all who have
invested in NTB (property owners, county, state and federal government)
will be the losers. Prudent business practices dictate that these infrastructures
be maintained. Repayment of the $34 million-bond issues should be based
on assessed property values at a rate sufficient to cover the repayment
of principal and interest over the period of the bond. A fair and equitable
method would be to place a fixed rate per $100 of assessed property
value to be used solely for beach nourishment. This would mean that
properties of higher value would be paying a higher proportion of the
cost to maintain the value of their properties. To try to establish
taxing districts for the different properties based on location (oceanfront,
soundfront, or second row), and then assign a percentage of cost, is
at best arbitrary and unequal. - Billy Sandlin, North Topsail Beach
8/22/06
Sandbags to remain in Nags Head
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/19/top_stories/tops134101.prt
Sea turtle nests numbers down
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/19/top_stories/tops134102.prt
Waterfront access panel picked
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44278&Section=News
Comments sought on ship speed rules
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44279&Section=News
Jellyfish nettle beaches
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6037534p-5299560c.html
8/17/06
Condos face state penalties
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/475918.html
Walkovers draw aldermen’s ire
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1574
A fancy for ferries
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/475841.html
8/16/06
Dredging project delayed once again
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44127&Section=News
Guest editorial: Sand mining detriment to Outer Banks
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/16/letters-editorials/letters138-.prt
And a dash of common sense
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/16/letters-editorials/letters138-frye.prt
Could right whales sink port expansion? (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/default_pf.aspx?NEWSID=102666
Town votes to establish beachfront district
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (8/16/06)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – The people in North Topsail Beach might not
agree on how to pay for beach nourishment but they do agree on one
thing, the issue is dividing the town. Over 200 property owners came
out to a public hearing on Aug. 9 to let their feelings be known on
whether the town should implement a special service district, which
could pay more for beach nourishment than the rest of the town. The
board of aldermen voted 4-1, with Alderman Fred Handy voting against,
to create the service district. The board stopped shy of establishing
the beach nourishment tax rate for the service district but had previously
suggested a 90/10 split, with the service district paying 90-percent
and the rest of the town paying 10-percent. Board members assured the
property owners at the hearing that they would decide on the percentage
each part of the town will pay before the November election. Most of
the people who spoke out said they were against setting up a special
district. Full time resident Paul Dorazio said beach nourishment will
offer the town protection during storms and hurricanes. He said many
of the people who live in the town now were not there when Hurricane
Fran hit and did not see that the destruction affected the entire town,
not just the oceanfront. “The sound side experienced as much
damage as the oceanfront,” said Dorazio. While Dorazio’s
property is on the sound side, he said he does not think the oceanfront
property owners should have to pay so much more than everyone else.
While many oceanfront property owners agreed with Dorazio, sound side
owners tended to disagree. “People on the oceanfront benefit
more (from beach nourishment),” said Bob Hale. Hale also objected
to fact that only people whose property is located in the service district
received letters informing them of the public hearing. Attorney Neil
Whitford confirmed that potential service district property owners
were the only ones who legally had to be contacted by mail because
their properties were the ones that would directly be affected if the
board adopted the service district. Mayor Pro-tem Larry Hardison said
because everyone had not been informed the same way, he did not feel
that he had received adequate input from the property owners. “It
is unfair that the citizens as a whole did not receive all the same
information,” said Hardison. The town board is considering holding
another public hearing on the matter sometime in September. The oceanfront
service district was not the only divisive issue at the meeting. Some
property owners said the town should be divided into areas that are
and are not in a federal flood zone, and thus not eligible for federal
funding. Linda Knowles said the service district issue is tearing the
town apart. “We need to go back to being a town again and start
working together and stop working against each other,” said Knowles.
Beach Nourishment Committee Chairman Dick Macartney said that beach
nourishment is something that the majority people in the town agree
they want; they just cannot agree how it should be paid for. “The
issue is the money. Nobody wants to pay,” said Macartney. According
to the resolution passed by the board Aug. 9, the reason to set up
a service district is because “The oceanfront property owners
included in the district will receive the greatest benefit from beach
nourishment.” In July the town board proposed a municipal service
district that consisted of oceanfront properties or properties that
are adjacent to the frontal dunes. The town intends to purchase $34
million worth of municipal bonds to use to nourish its beach, with
the bonds being paid back in eight years. To pay back the bonds it
was proposed that there be a 90/10 split, with the service district
paying the larger amount. The issue will be decided in the November
election when there will be a bond referendum on the ballot. If town
residents vote for the bond, the town will begin its beach project
in November 2007 but the bond must pass in both the service district
and town-wide. If the bond does not pass, the service district will
be eliminated and the town will not move forward with its beach nourishment
project.
Scientists troubled by sonar proposal
Carteret News Times by Brad Rich (8/16/06)
BEAUFORT — Sea turtles, marine mammals, fish and the incomes
of offshore commercial fishermen could all be at risk if the U.S. Navy
builds a controversial sonar range in the ocean off North Carolina,
experts said during a forum here Monday. But it’s up to the public,
not federal or state agencies, to ensure the Navy meets the requirements
of the National Environmental Protection Act or NEPA, which requires
an environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide full disclosures
on impacts. “NEPA is not going to stop the range from going in
here or anywhere else,” said Michelle Nowlin, senior attorney
for the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, at a daylong
event sponsored by the N.C. Coastal Federation at the Duke University
Marine Lab on Pivers Island . About 120 people attended. But NEPA will
force the Navy to mitigate for environmental damage, according to Ms.
Nowlin, if the Navy builds the sonar range in a 661-square-mile area
about 47 miles off Camp Lejeune. Naval officials initially accepted
an invitation to send representatives to the forum, but canceled last
week, Christine Miller, spokesman for the Coastal Federation said Monday
at the outset of the event. The Navy contends that the proposed range
off North Carolina is necessary for training seamen in detecting, new
quieter diesel submarines. Pulses of sound are bounced off submerged
objects to track subs. The service has said the range would be built
during a 10-year period at a cost of about $98 million, and has said
it is too expensive to send East Coast-based ships and subs to the
West Coast, where there is an existing training range. The other possible
choices for the East Coast range are off Virginia and Florida , but
North Carolina is the preferred option. A draft EIS was released last
year. Michelle Duval, senior scientists for Environmental Defense,
another national environmental group, agreed with the scientists who
said the Navy’s draft EIS for the Underwater Submarine Warfare
Training Range (USWTR) doesn’t meet the requirements of NEPA.
In part that’s because the EIS is incomplete and proposes mitigation
only for marine mammals, such as bottlenose dolphins and some whales.
Mike Street, chief of the habitat protection section for the N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries, put it most bluntly. “A NEPA document – and
that’s what the EIS is – is either adequate or it’s
inadequate,” he said. “It’s supposed to be ‘full
disclosure.’ It’s supposed to tell everything. They (the
Navy) can say it (USWTR) will have terrible effects, and (the EIS)
could still be adequate. But it’s supposed to be ‘full
disclosure,’” and it’s not. For example, Mr. Street
said, the EIS fails to mention that of the entire area proposed for
the USWTR, only 20 percent has been evaluated to determine whether
or not is productive “hard bottom” habitat. “The
EIS also mentions ‘future uses’ of the area, but it doesn’t
say what those future uses might be” in addition to the sonar
range, he added. “Under the law, once future uses are mentioned,
they become ‘reasonably foreseeable,’ and they must be
discussed.” The EIS, Mr. Street said, gives short shrift to the
fact that most of the state’s commercially and recreationally
significant reef and wreck fish – snapper and grouper and black
sea bass – are believed to come from Onslow Bay, the geographic
name for the ocean area where the USWTR would be built. The National
Marine Fisheries Service has that data, he said, and the Navy “should
ask for it and use it” in the EIS. Other speakers were even more
specific about what they considered shortcomings of the EIS. Dr. Joseph
Luczkovich, an associate professor at East Carolina University’s
Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, said he and others have
turned up compelling evidence that some fish, including some of those
that frequent the proposed USWTR site, hear and make sounds and use
those abilities to locate mates for spawning. Dr. Luczkovich played
a number of fish sounds he and others had recorded near Duke and said
that some of them would likely either be masked or drowned out by the
loud sonar devices on the ocean floor. He agreed with Capt. Joe Shute,
a longtime local charter boat captain and tackle shop owner, who said
the key problem for fish wouldn’t be mortality, but avoidance
of the area or dispersal from it if they were there when the sonar
is used. Capt. Shute, who was one of three members of a stakeholder
panel that commented throughout the forum on the comments by the scientists
and attorneys, recounted an incident in which participants in the Big
Rock Blue Marlin Tournament here several years ago caught fish the
days before and after a Navy sonar training event, but saw none during
the days the sonar was in use. Although the Navy has said the exact
effective range of the active sonar equipment is classified, Capt.
Shute added, one official told him the minimum is about 15 miles. That,
he added, would cover a huge swatch of water, particularly if the sonar
is used at the outer limits of the proposed range. Dr. Luczkovich concurred
and said all of the charter captain’s points were “excellent” and
pointed out the need for the Navy to do a lot of additional testing
before releasing the final EIS. “The Navy has not done an adequate
job of addressing avoidance,” he said. Dr. Larry Crowder of Duke
Marine Lab said much the same about the Navy EIS discussion of sea
turtles. He and Dr. Ann Pabst of UNC-Wilmington said there were huge
gaps in the scientific knowledge of the impact of sonar on turtles,
and that the Navy needs to do a lot more work to complete the EIS.
For example, Dr. Crowder said, although the draft EIS states that sonar
would operate at higher frequencies than sea turtles are able to detect,
there has been almost no research on sea turtle hearing. Jean Beasley,
a stakeholder panel member and director of the Sea Turtle Rescue and
Rehabilitation Center at Topsail Beach, said she believes the turtles
are affected by noise. In fact, she said, turtles at the center almost
always react to noise, to the point that workers had to stop using
one vacuum cleaner. Dr. Crowder also noted that if fish avoid the area
when the sonar is in use, as Dr. Luczkovich predicted, turtles might
face a food shortage in the area. “Obviously these turtles are
hanging out up here, not just to find a date, they’re looking
for food,” he said. Finally, Dr. Crowder said if turtle avoid
the area and move into more southerly waters, reproduction could be
affected. Sea turtle sex is determined by water temperature: 80 to
90 percent of those in warmer waters, such as those off Florida, are
females, while most of those in cooler waters are male. If there are
too few males, the possible ramifications are obvious. Dr. Pabst expressed
similar concerns about the EIS treatment of impacts the USWTR might
have on whales. Although sonar has been tied to some strandings and
deaths in the whale population, the EIS tends to downplay that possibility.
In many instances, the scientists noted, the EIS opts to state that
there might be impacts on marine species, but that those impacts are
unknown. And, Mr. Street and others said, unknown effects are not the
same as ‘no effects,’ and the Navy needs to fill in the
gaps in the knowledge base before finalizing the EIS. In many cases,
Mr. Street said, data to flesh out the EIS exist, but the Navy apparently
hasn’t tried to get the necessary information. One glaring example,
he said, is the Navy’s statement that there will be no impact
on public trust areas. “The EIS makes the statement,” he
said, “but offers no support.” Another example is the document’s
failure to note the potential impact on the food chain that supports
sea birds. “Living things are not distributed randomly,” he
said. “They are distributed by habitat need. “The burden
is on the applicant, not on the state,” Mr. Street concluded,
to make sure the EIS is adequate under NEPA.
Sonar plans talked over
Tideland News by Annita Best (8/16/06)
A public forum on the effects of a possible sonar
training range off the coast of Onslow Bay raised more questions than
provided answers
Monday at the Duke University Marine Lab Auditorium in Beaufort. The
forum, which was sponsored by the N.C. Coastal Federation, Southern
Environmental Law Center, Environmental Defense and Natural Resources
Defense Council, was organized to discuss the impacts of the proposed
range and the gaps in the science and research regarding various areas
of the draft environmental impact statement that was released in October
2005. There were a number of experts from various universities and
organizations to address concerns with the potential installation of
the range off the shore of Onslow Beach. Currently the U.S. Navy has
plans to install a 660 square mile undersea training range. The preferred
site is off the coast of Onslow Bay about 47 nautical miles. The range
would be equipped with undersea cables and sensor nodes, and would
be connected by a single trunk cable to a landside cable termination
facility at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Many issues were raised
regarding what is perceived to be gaps in the science of exactly how
the sonar will affect various areas of the sea life in the proposed
area. The biggest topics of concern were sea turtles and SONAR, marine
mammals and SONAR and fish acoustics and behavior. “We know so
little about sea turtles and their responses to sound,” said
Dr. Larry Crowder, a Duke University professor and expert on sea turtles. “A
sea turtle takes at least 30 years to reproduce. There are so many
threats that can take out a sea turtle. We have to protect the adults
to help them be able to reproduce. “The subpopulation of loggerheads
is at its lowest in decades. It declines at a rate of 1.7 to 3 percent
a year despite our focus on protecting them,” Crowder said. “There
just isn’t enough information on sea turtles and their reaction
to sound. We know they hear low frequency sounds. The proposed sonar
range will utilize mid-frequency sound. “But just because turtles
hear at low frequencies doesn’t mean they don’t also hear
at the other ranges.” Not only the sound is at issue. There is
also concern that turtles may be severely impacted during the construction
phase as well. Jean Beasley, director of the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle
Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in Topsail Beach, and a member of
the stakeholder panel, said the draft Environmental Impact Statement
doesn’t consider the beaches that are popular for nesting in
the Topsail Island and Onslow Beach area. “They won’t want
to go anywhere near Onslow Beach to nest if there is all this construction,” she
said. The 2005 mammal strandings of 33 short-finned pilot whales, two
dwarf sperm whales and a minke whale at and near Oregon Inlet were
discussed as well during the forum. Although the necropsy results were
inconclusive, Dr. D. Ann Pabst, of the University of North Carolina
at Wilmington said that the strandings could still have been causal
as well as coincidental. “It isn’t known now, nor may it
ever be known for sure what the cause of the strandings is, however,
events point out critical data gaps and research needs,” she
said. Another issue that needs further study, according to many present
at the forum, is the effects the sonar training will have on the vast
variety of fish in the area. According to information from the U.S.
Navy regarding the proposed training range, the USWTR activities would
not significantly impact commercial or recreational fishing. There
will be certain training events during which the range would need to
be clear of vessel traffic for safety purposes. If a clear range is
needed, the Navy would give advance notice by issuing Notices to Mariners
72 hours prior to the training event. “The range would never
be closed to fishermen,” said Jim Brantley, U.S. Fleet Forces
Command media relation officer. “Notices to Mariners and notice
to airmen would be issued prior to any training involving the use of
inert (not live) torpedoes taking place on the range. “If a Navy
vessel arrived on scene to begin a training evolution and a commercial
fishing vessel was present, the Navy vessel would discuss the situation
with the vessel to potentially relocate or wait until the commercial
vessel completed its operations in that area.” Also, the Navy
says it would make every attempt to avoid scheduling exercises during
large offshore fishing tournaments. Dr. Joseph Luczkovich, an expert
on fish acoustics and behavior from East Carolina University, spoke
about the potential threat to the area’s fish population if the
sonar range is installed in the area. “It’s important to
have both passive and active sonar use. We are sympathetic to the Navy’s
needs. We want our Naval ships and sailors to be properly trained,
but there are potential impacts of loud sound on fish,” he said.
Luczkovich provided the audience with a variety of sound samples made
by various fish that are found in the area, proving that fish use sound
to survive and reproduce. Issues that may be harmful to the fish are
the loss of equilibrium, direct hearing loss, behavioral avoidance,
damage to the sea bottom and pollution from discarded batteries and
other debris. “If the fish are adversely affected or leave the
area, there could be indirect food web effects that will need to be
incorporated into our environment,” he said. Fishing boat Capt.
Joe Shute echoed Luczkovich’s concerns. “When we hook up
a tuna we turn off our sound detection devices because we know it affects
them. “We’re talking about a popgun compared to what the
Navy’s got. “They plan to use the range about half the
time, but fish are creatures of habit and they come here year after
year. If they don’t like the sounds, they can get in the habit
of not coming here. “Sound is active for a minimum of 15 miles
in the ocean. That stuff just really bothers me a lot,” he said.
Brantley added, “The North Carolina site is one of the three
proposed sites and no decisions have been made as where the Undersea
Warfare Training Range would be built if approved. “The USWTR
team is still in the process of reviewing all of the comments received
on the proposed range.”
Against a special tax district for beach nourishment
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (8/16/06)
Our beaches are gone at high tide; people are
sitting under owners’ homes,
others are vandalizing abandoned structures that are leaning dangerously
toward collapsing onto their heads. The North Topsail Beach town meeting
on Aug. 9 about separating the oceanfront residents from the non-oceanfront
residents to pay for beach nourishment was fraught with different ideas,
hurt feelings and angry words of protests. I emphasize with the retired
residents who are getting slammed with extra taxes and now a new assessment
for our ever-promised beach nourishment project. Everyone had a chance
to voice their opinions. Everyone, it seems, wants to fix the beach.
David Rhodes brought up an excellent point, “if we pay for the
beach renourishment project and it doesn’t work, am I entitled
to rebuild my house?” Paul Wang, a resident of St. Regis resort
stood and politely said that it was a bad idea and dangerous for the
town to split the island into two districts. He pointed out this is
how civil wars were started. Cinda Sullivan brought up the fact that
if oceanfront people were burdened with the brunt of the cost, what
would stop oceanfront property owners from blocking off their land
to keep people from using their properties? It is a fact that several
islands do such things to keep people from accessing the owners’ beach
areas. There would still be the access, but how much access would you
really have to swim and camp out? I realize that over half of North
Topsail Beach is considered oceanfront and everyone agrees that our
island is not very wide. I was very impressed with a non-oceanfront
resident who lived on the soundside of North Topsail Beach . He stated
that we needed to work together, because when hurricanes Floyd and
Fran hit the entire island, including his house, was in equal danger.
Everyone knows if the island goes under water, no one will win, because
even in Hurricane Ophelia the non-oceanfront houses were under water
and some of the roads were small ponds. I believe the oceanfront owners’ biggest
gripe is people sitting under their houses, parking in their driveways
and throwing trash in their yard. Most people would not think to sit
in their neighbors’ yard and throw their trash out, but it is
not given a second thought for vacationers staying at the beach. My
opinion is that the general consensus of those who attended the meeting
was why can’t the public pay? They use our beach. It was brought
to my attention that you can’t charge for a public parking area
in North Topsail Beach . If that is true why can Wrightsville Beach
charge their dollar-an-hour rates? What about Emerald Isle and Atlantic
Beach, all these beaches do not give you free public beach access.
It comes at a considerable cost to the public. The environmentalists
are screaming that the houses are destroying the environment. On the
contrary, I look at the marsh everyday and watch jeeps and pickups
with children clinging for their lives driving at full speed through
the marshes throwing bottles, cans, even dirty diapers and fishhooks.
Nothing is sacred in this area. There is a sign stating no swimming
in the inlet, where several people have drowned yet people allow their
children to romp and play near this very dangerous area. Signs are
posted for no parking after dark, yet it is not uncommon to see a tent
or an all night fishermen at anytime. Why can’t we charge people
for parking like the other beaches that have beach renourishment projects
in hand? They charge for the fishing pier, why not charge for use or
parking in the inlet and for trash. On the beach nourishment project,
when we do implement this project, why not also vote in the Holmberg
project as a stabilization system, so the beach will not be in a constant
state of renourishment? My final thought is why not work together.
Give our senior citizens that live on this island some relief off their
tax base. Make sure this is not paradise lost, even state parks charge
for the use of their facilities. Why do our island people have to have
the brunt of this entire project? - Bonnie Dawson, N. Topsail Beach
8/15/06
Sonar range effects on fish debated
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=44099&Section=News
Science sees trouble in sonar
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/471041.html
Beach erosion 'widespread' (Hawaii)
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/06/ln/FP608060345.html
Smoother sailing
Wilmington Star Editorial (8/13/06)
Boaters in Southeastern North Carolina should feel safer knowing that
buoys will again mark the channel in Shallotte Inlet. The markers have
been gone since last year, when the Coast Guard removed them - the
water was too shallow for its vessels to safely tend to the buoys.
But state Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick, and the N.C. Wildlife Commission
toured the inlet in June, and the commission says it can place its
own buoys there. That's a relief for boaters who have complained about
hidden hazards, such as sandbars, because the navigation channel wasn't
marked. Shoaling is a big problem in the inlet, which isn't eligible
for federally funded dredging. That makes the buoys even more important
in preventing accidents. The Wildlife Commission isn't sure when the
buoys will appear, but the red and green markers will be a welcome
sight to those who maneuver their vessels through the inlet.
8/11/06
Oceanfront may bear beach sand burden
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43940&Section=News
Citizens hope to kill litter with kindness
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1563
Masonboro preservation efforts paying off
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1562
8/9/06
Conservation groups challenge Bonner Bridge proposal
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/09/top_stories/tops145103.prt
A taxing dilemma for North Topsail Beach
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43925&Section=News
Town wants portion of sales tax collected for beach nourishment
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/09/politics/pols145101.prt
'The boil'
Tideland News Editorial (8/8/06)
From the depths of his grainy home, the turtle
senses it is time. Bird-like, he punches through his leathery egg and – following the instinct
that has guided a thousand generations – he uses his flippers
to push past the remnants of his shell and begin his “swim” to
the top of his nest. On the other side of his incubator, the movement
is barely perceptible: A slight movement in the dome of sand that has
magically appeared in the tiny crater in an otherwise unremarkable
stretch of Carteret County beach. The temblors are miniscule and they
come at intervals that fool the watchers who surround the site into
wondering whether the movement they see is really movement at all.
And yet the people watch. Some more patiently than others, but they
watch. They have come from across the country, from other countries,
for an Emerald Isle vacation, and they realize they are being treated
to a bonus, a sight that few will ever experience. For hours, the pageant
plays out underground. One can only guess what is happening as the
sun, shrouded by storm clouds that have cooled the hot sand, slowly
slips toward the earth’s western rim. And as the sun sinks lower,
the level of activity at the center of the sea turtle nest gets higher.
There, a flipper shakes off tiny grains of sand and is visible – to
the trained observers who are among the crowd. In a few more moments,
the hatchling is obvious to us all. And then there is another. But
they are half-in and half-out of the sand, in a state of lethargy,
as if their first-ever taste of the light of day has drugged them.
Surely these tiny creatures are too fragile to pull themselves out
of the pit. Some in the crowd must feel the urge to reach in and gently
lift them over the lip of the crater. But we wait. As the shadows lengthen,
a third turtle begins to emerge. He is smaller than the other two who
are close to surfacing, maybe only half as big as his brothers. But
is bolder and within a few seconds, he is completely free of the nest.
Still, he, too, pauses when he reaches the top, perhaps catching a
breath. A few minutes pass and the urge to reach in and give a push
comes back. But we wait. And then, with the sun finally gone over the
horizon and the nest bathed in twilight, the little guy gets a charge
from somewhere – an internal alarm that sends him scurrying in
a way that shocks the crowd of humans into near-silence. Where did
the energy come from? The turtle is off. In quick order he has climbed
over his brethren, reached the lip of the crater and has scurried past
the yellow 4-by-4 post that has marked nest No. 5 for the previous
two months. As we all watch, the turtle is making his way down the
spillway to the ocean, a path meticulously crafted by the Emerald Isle
Sea Turtle Project volunteers. The little guy’s rapid progress
is so shocking after the hours of waiting that we forget for a few
seconds there may be other turtles who want to emerge, at least a couple.
Reluctantly, we unlock our gaze from the little runner and look back
to the nest. But it is no longer a sandy dome. Rather it is a veritable “boiling” of
life. What appears to be dozens of hatchlings are scrambling and pushing,
flapping over each other with a sense of urgency that had not even
been hinted at just seconds earlier. The sluggishness is gone and the
turtles are moving with purpose and pace. In groups of 5-10, the hatchlings
scramble free of the teeming mass and head to the path that will lead
them to the gently lapping shore-break. As the last few make it out
of the crater – it seems to happen in no time – the crowd
shifts its attention to the turtles’ run for life. People line
the area marked off-limits to humans by the Project volunteers. The
observers soak it all up as the 60 turtles reach the warm waters of
the Atlantic . All too quickly, it is over. Every one, even the straggler
who seemed ready to head over the dunes to Ocean Drive as opposed to
the safety of the ocean, is in the water and headed to the Gulf Stream.
For these turtles, there are many struggles ahead, experts estimate
less than 2 percent will reach adulthood. For those onshore, dispersing
in the day’s last light, smiles abound. We have witnessed one
of nature’s most incredible marvels. It has been an experience
that we will treasure forever.
8/8/06
Beach tax splits North Topsail
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43905&Section=News
Beach-access dispute in Corolla taken to high court
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108837&ran=39857
Burr: Offshore drilling bill won't add East Coast
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/468615.html
N.C. waters getting cleaner
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43899&Section=News
Oceans in Crisis But U.S. Slow to Act
Environment News Service b J.R. Pegg (8/7/06)
WASHINGTON, DC, August 7, 2006 (ENS) – The federal government
is failing to respond to alarming evidence that the oceans are in crisis,
ocean experts told a Senate panel last week. Two years after a federal
commission called on the Bush administration and Congress to aggressively
overhaul the nation's ocean policy, key recommendations have not been
implemented and critical ocean research efforts face deep funding cuts.
The state of the oceans is not good and "is getting worse," said
Leon Panetta, a former California Congressman and cochair of the Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative. Pollution, overfishing and coastal runoff
are damaging the nation's oceans and coasts, and massive dead zones
plague waters in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay and off the
coast of Oregon.
Dangerous algae blooms are increasing in size and frequency in coastal
waters in Florida and the Northeast and scientists are increasingly
concerned about the rising acidification of the oceans - a change linked
to rising greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government is struggling
to respond to these growing problems despite a clear blueprint on how
to revamp ocean policy, according to scientists, ocean advocates and
state officials at the hearing. Panetta called the nation's system
of ocean and coastal governance "dysfunctional, out-of-date, and
inadequate." "We need a national ocean policy," he told
the Senate Commerce Committee's National Ocean Policy Study. "We
have done it for clean water, we have done it for clean air, but we
do not have a national ocean policy that commits this country to protecting
the oceans." The committee convened the hearing to examine the
state of the oceans and the progress made in enacting the recommendations
outlined in 2004 by the Congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy.
The commission called on the federal government to adopt an ecosystem-based
management approach to oceans policy, increase investment in ocean
research and strengthen the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
(NOAA), which is the lead oceans agency in the federal government.
The commission's report came on the heels of a similar study by the
private, nonprofit Pew Oceans Commission - members of the two panels
have since formed the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative to try and
accelerate ocean policy reform. In February the initiative gave the
nation a D+ on ocean policy reform and expressed deep concern about
the lack of progress. For example, Congress has thus far failed to
strengthen NOAA, which is hampered in part because it was created by
a 1970 presidential order, not by a specific law. Both the U.S. and
Pew Oceans Commissions called for Congress to pass legislation that
would codify NOAA, its structure and responsibilities, but lawmakers
have struggled to agree on a bill. And neither Congress nor the White
House has shown much appetite for increasing investment in ocean research.
The Bush administration proposed a $280 million cut to NOAA's budget
for fiscal year 2007, including a 30 percent reduction for the National
Ocean Service. The budget request eliminates or significantly reduces
funding for programs that support reducing marine debris, oceans and
human health research, nonpoint source pollution plans, cooperative
fisheries research, marine mammal health research and ocean education.
"
A budget is a blueprint of priorities," said Senator Frank Lautenberg,
a New Jersey Democrat. "Our oceans are facing enough manmade difficulties.
We shouldn't compound the problem by refusing to allocate the resources
that we must have in order to meet these challenges." NOAA Administrator
Conrad Lautenbacher refused to criticize the White House for the proposed
cuts and said the budget cycle is "dysfunctional." "I
support the President's budget – it is the best we could do with
the funding that we have," Lautenbacher told the panel. Senator
John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican and chair of the subcommittee,
told colleagues that NOAA's budget has increased 60 percent since 2000. "I
think we need to appreciate we've made good strides," said Sununu,
who added that the Senate has taken steps to restore funding cut by
the administration. Last month the Senate Appropriations Committee
passed an appropriations bill that includes $4.4 billion for the agency,
well above the administration's $3.9 billion request.
But it remains to be seen how much of that will survive when the House
and Senate settle their differences - the House budget earmarks only
$3.4 billion for NOAA. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat,
urged colleagues to fight for more funding. "If ever there was
a bipartisan issue, this is it," Boxer said. "We need to
save our oceans. We can say all the things we want to say, but if we
don't really show that we mean it by investing the resources … than
it is useless."
Federally funded research efforts are critical, said Michael Orbach,
director of the Duke University Marine Laboratory, because scientific
knowledge about the oceans is "sorely lacking." "Oceans
are the black hole of environmental science and policy," Orbach
said. The U.S. spends only six percent of its research budget on efforts
to study the oceans, Panetta said. "We cannot deal with these
issues … without science, without research," Panetta told
the subcommittee. "We just can't do it." Panetta also urged
the Senate to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, calling
it a "disgrace that the United States of America is the only industrialized
country" that has not confirmed the treaty. The 1982 accord, which
has been ratified by more than 140 nations, sets forth international
standards for navigating the oceans by commercial and military vessels,
fishing on the open seas, mining the sea bed, laying communications
cable, and protecting the marine environment. It became effective in
1994 and there is broad agreement among ocean experts, the Bush administration
and the majority of lawmakers that it is in the best interests of the
United States to join the accord. A handful of Republican Senators
have blocked ratification of the treaty – they contend it gives
the United Nations too much power. "If we took a floor on the
vote of the Senate we'd get at least 95 votes in favor of ratification,
yet we are sitting on our hands," said Paul Kelly, a member of
the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative and a consultant to offshore
drilling giant Rowan Companies, Inc.
8/7/06
Foes cite problems with bridge plan
http://www.newsobserver.com/125/story/467747.html
Support extended for long Bonner Bridge replacement
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108712&ran=217786
Town Permitted To Use Beach Rake Twice A Year; Out of Turtle Season
http://islandgazette.net/newspm/localnews_more.php?id=8340_0_2_0_M
Eastern Shore waterman fights rules designed to protect sea turtles
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108808&ran=240234
Hunting Island sands a beach bum paradise (SC)
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6006396p-5276550c.html
Nesting season is solid
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6006397p-5276562c.html
Experts warn of perilous rip currents (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15216025.htm
Who's the airhead?
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/08/05/letters-editorials/letters148-mint.prt
8/4/06
Special delivery
http://www.luminanews.com/news_articles.asp?newsid=1550
Group sues EPA for beach water pollution
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15195649.htm
Bag the beach bags
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/15185600.htm
8/3/06
Senate Approves More Offshore Drilling in Gulf, Sets up Confrontation
with House
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10979
Renourishment Preparations (SC)
Beaches to get sand
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5996128p-5269342c.html
Rip currents are tugging at more swimmers
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/466768.html
New Port Requires Careful Planning
http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=1155
8/1/06
Bridge on the Banks
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/466331.html
Help Protect Sea Turtles
http://www.nps.gov/caha/pphtml/newsdetail24629.html
Environmental rules unenforced by beach towns
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/15131969.htm
7/31/06
Road fate undecided
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/29/top_stories/tops155101.prt
Oregon Inlet a bonanza for economy, report finds
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108399&ran=44375
A yes vote, because states share in profits
http://www.newsobserver.com/690/story/465728.html
On turtle watch
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5985273p-5261404c.html
Slow on sandbags
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/466069.html
The sting of summer lurks in surf
Wilmington Star by Cheryl Welch (7/29/06)
They're spineless, swarming area beaches and
sting like crazy. Sea nettles, a type of jellyfish, are depleting area
lifeguards' stocks
of vinegar, often used as a treatment. They arrived at Wrightsville
Beach in mid-July - a few weeks ahead of schedule - and now plague
Carolina Beach. Concerned about the high number of jellyfish reports,
the New Hanover County Health Department issued a jellyfish sting health
alert Friday morning. Charles Smith, Carolina Beach Ocean Rescue director,
said the alert couldn't have come soon enough. Just from Monday through
Thursday, at least 75 people were stung by jellyfish. The week before,
there was a gradual increase in the number of stings. Tourists, surfers
and two lifeguards were treated with vinegar by Ocean Rescue. One swimmer
had to be transported to New Hanover Regional Medical Center with a
suspected Portugese man-of-war sting. Most of the stings occurred south
of the beach's Marriott by Courtyard hotel. The gelatinous gremlins
have kept the medical community busy, too. VitaLine, a local health
hotline staffed by New Hanover Regional nurses, has fielded about a
dozen calls a day for three weeks regarding jellyfish stings. Each
of the hospital network's two emergency rooms have treated a handful
of patients with more severe stings. "I can't recall any particular
year that it's been that bad," Smith said, adding lifeguards are
making beach-goers aware of the risk and urging them to stay out of
the water. On Thursday, so many of the graceful, floating nettles populated
the water that the beach flew the red flag, alerting visitors of dangerous
conditions. The yellow flag, signaling elavated risk, flew Friday due
to rip currents as the offshore breeze kept jellies at bay. At Wrightsville
Beach, Ocean Rescue director Dave Baker said lifeguards treated about
a dozen stings a day when the jellies were bad. It has since slowed
down to about one sting a day. "Last year we had very few, this
year we have a lot," he said. "It's just Mother Nature." So,
what caused the jump in jellyfish? Explanations range from Tropical
Storm Beryl pushing the nettles inland, to a combination of temperatures,
salinity and rich feeding grounds creating an irresistible nettle paradise.
Peggy Sloan, education curator with the N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher,
said that nettles usually arrive on our shores in August when the water
is warmer. "Definitely the warm water is going to determine the
number of jellyfish, but the wind will determine where they are," she
said. Tom Matheson, meteorologist with the Wilmington office of the
National Weather Service, said he's looking into developing a jellyfish
forecast for this area based on winds, water salinity and warmth. An
avid swimmer, he has been wary of jellyfish ever since he was stung
a few years ago at Wrightsville Beach. "It was just incredible
pain," Matheson said. "I got out of the water and just kind
of staggered and realized I had a hard time breathing. Ever since then
- barracuda, sharks - I don't care about them. It's the jellyfish that
scare me."
Time to sandbag the sandbaggers
Wilmington Star Editorial (7/30/06)
Finally the state may be serious about keeping a promise to beachgoers
and taxpayers - a promise that sandbags the size of small SUVs can't
stay on beaches longer than two years. Despite its long-standing rule,
the state has allowed sandbags to remain in some places for decades,
hogging strands and sometimes worsening erosion elsewhere. The most
spectacular example is in front of The Riggings condominiums at Kure
Beach. The state let the condo owners put down bags in 1985. They supposedly
had two years to find another way to protect their oceanfront investments.
Twenty-one years later, they still don't have one. And it's their own
fault. Local, state and federal officials (most notably, U.S. Rep.
Mike McIntyre) arranged a taxpayer bailout of these private investments
threatened by Mother Nature. The federal taxpayers would give them
$2.7 million to rebuild across the road, leaving them with an unobstructed
ocean view from a safer distance. A majority of the 48 owners voted
no. Apparently they believed the state would never make them haul the
sandbags away. Of course, they had every reason to believe that, because
the state has never screwed up the courage to enforce its own rules.
Until now, possibly. The Division of Coastal Management has told owners
that because they rejected the last workable plan to save their buildings,
they have to get rid of the sandbags by the middle of next month. (And
property owners elsewhere along the coast are being given two years
to get rid of any exposed sandbags they plopped down before 2000.)
Whining and foot-dragging are as predictable as the next high tide.
It will be a pleasant surprise if the hulking bags disappear on schedule.
But maybe this time the state will find the backbone to fight for the
public's beaches. It's coddled game-playing investors long enough.
7/27/06
Outer Banks bridge plan gets support
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/464636.html
AP - Interior secretary: Replace N.C. bridge, worry about road later
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15131511.htm
Fishing interests wary of MFC pick
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43572&Section=News
Island heel's erosion hard to fix (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5982638p-5259569c.html
Two leatherback turtles rescued from nest laid in May (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5982637p-5259549c.html
7/26/06
Time runs out for sandbags on beaches
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/464383.html
Mysterious sheen on water briefly closes Nags Head beaches
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108074&ran=114591
Origin of beach tar balls remains a mystery
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5978025p-5256099c.html
First ocean rescue saves loggerhead
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/articles/2006/07/26/free/04-free.txt
Riggings must remove sandbags this summer
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/26/06)
Kure Beach | Continuing its tough stance on sandbags
along the state's coastline, the N.C. Division of Coastal Management
has given the Riggings
an ultimatum. Homeowners at the Kure Beach condominium complex have
been told that the sandbags holding back the encroaching Atlantic Ocean
since the early 1980s have to come out this summer, not next summer
as originally planned. The move comes three months after a majority
of the complex's 48 homeowners rejected a $3.6 million federal grant
that would have helped them relocate their oceanfront condominiums
across U.S. 421. Since the latest extension approved by the N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission in April 2005 was tied to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency grant, which was to expire June 30, 2007, the Riggings'
rejection of the grant makes the extension void and all sandbags must
be removed by mid-August. Legal action and fines could follow if the
bags aren't removed, warned the July 10 letter from Coastal Management.
Charles Jones, director of Coastal Management, said on Tuesday that
it's time for a resolution of the long-running issue. "It's been
a long time and it's just time to move on," he said. A call to
Jean Cashion, president of the Riggings Homeowners Association, wasn't
returned Tuesday afternoon. The Riggings is sandwiched between rocks
to the south that protect historic areas of Fort Fisher and a beach
to the north that's regularly renourished with sand. But the Riggings'
beachfront isn't part of the Army Corps of Engineers renourishment
project because of several outcroppings of coquina rock that serve
as habitat for sea life. The homeowners have claimed for years that
the nearby rock embankment has exacerbated their erosion problem by
redirecting waves toward their exposed beach. Some also have argued
that the FEMA grant didn't reflect the full-market value of their oceanfront
property. Kure Beach Mayor Tim Fuller said Tuesday he had hoped the
federal grant would offer an amicable way out of the situation for
both the homeowners and the state. "I wasn't surprised as much
as disappointed that they weren't able to work it out, especially since
the grant was a result of a lot of hard work and seemed like a good
opportunity," he said. "But we're still willing to work with
them to find a solution that's good for all parties involved." The
Riggings situation has been a thorn in the side of the CRC for years
- and an easy target for critics of the state's perceived unwillingness
to enforce its ban on hardened structures along the coast. Sandbags
are supposed to be a temporary solution to protect oceanfront property
and infrastructure until the beach builds back naturally or a more
permanent solution, such as a beach nourishment project or relocation,
can be developed. But the CRC, which helps formulate state policy for
the coast, has repeatedly issued extensions for the Riggings sandbags,
even though little progress was made to come up with a permanent solution
to the erosion woes since the bags were first installed in 1985. This
summer, however, has been kind to the south end of Kure Beach, depositing
more sand on the beach than has been washed away. A visit to the Riggings
on Tuesday also showed that the homeowners are in the process of burying
and vegetating the sandbags as part of a larger project to spruce up
the complex after years of neglect tied to its uncertain future. State
law allows sandbags that are completely covered by sand and stable
vegetation to remain in the ground. But Jones said simply burying bags
and sprigging sea oats on top doesn't meet the state requirement. "That
doesn't constitute stable and natural vegetation," he said.
Purchase of The Point moves one step closer
Topsail Voice by Mike Loveday (7/26/06)
TOPSAIL BEACH – Efforts to conserve the area known as “The
Point” took a positive turn when The Senate Appropriations Committee
for Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies approved
the 2007 fiscal year budget for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program which includes $2.9 million. The money will be used by the
North Carolina state parks system to acquire land on the southern tip
of Topsail Beach. “The town of Topsail Beach couldn’t be
more pleased with this announcement,” Mayor Butch Parrish stated. “The
land adjacent to the inlet is some of the most beautiful coastal habitat
on the entire eastern seaboard and it is readily accessible for all
citizens to enjoy. We greatly appreciate the fact that the property
owners are willing to work with us and the Coastal Land Trust to preserve
a piece of it.” The town has been working with the NC Coastal
Land Trust for the past year in an effort to conserve The Point which
is home to rare and endangered species including the piping plover,
and loggerhead turtles. The area is regarded as on of the largest stretches
of undeveloped barrier island in the state still under private ownership. “We
are thrilled that this popular stretch of barrier island beach, with
its abundant wildlife habitat, has been nationally recognized,” Camilla
Herlevich, Executive Director of the NC Coastal Land Trust stated in
a press release. “We look forward to working with our senators
and congressman to keep this funding in place until the federal budget
is signed into law.” The NC Coastal Land Trust and the NC Division
of Parks and Recreation are seeking additional funds which include
matching funds for federal and state grants as well as a substantial
contribution form the landowners and local private fundraising. A $4.6
million application has been submitted to the state Clean Water Management
Trust Fund. Once the land is acquired it will be managed by the NC
Division of Parks and Recreation as part of the Lea Island State Natural
Area.
7/24/06
Oregon Inlet impact study shows value
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/22/top_stories/tops162102.prt
Push for sand on island's heel persists
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/5971758p-5251032c.html
Access Adjustments at Cape Point
http://www.nps.gov/caha/pphtml/newsdetail24525.html
Takes issue with story
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/22/letters-editorials/letters162-penn.prt
Preserving working waterfronts
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/22/letters-editorials/letters162-drap.prt
A coastal panel
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/463442.html
7/21/06
Course toward more access
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43451&Section=News
Baby turtles perish on Folly Beach
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/15088832.htm
Scientists Map Submerged Sand Dunes Off San Francisco
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10912
Senate omits Bogue money
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (7/21/06)
BOGUE BANKS — Funds to dredge Bogue Inlet are once again missing
from the proposed U.S. Senate’s budget, much to the disappointment
of local officials. A version of the 2007 federal budget, approved
by a Senate Appropriations Committee June 29, funds four other shallow-draft
inlets, but not Bogue, a repeat of last year’s budget. “Bogue
Inlet is the only shallow-draft waterway not funded again… It
just doesn’t make sense,” said County Shore Protection
Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, who monitors the beach and
dredging funding for Carteret County and its coastal communities. Carolina
Beach Inlet, New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet and Lockwoods Folly
are included, the same pattern as in the 2006 funding cycle. While
there was no money in 2006, the state and local governments agreed
to what they hoped would be one-time funding to work jointly to pay
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do the work. The first part of
that dredging was finished last week, and a separate project where
the inlet crosses the waterway, also involving state and local funds,
is scheduled to be complete in about 10 days. The four shallow-draft
inlets maintained by the Corps’ side-cast dredging fleet and
funded again are Carolina Beach Inlet, $550,000; New Topsail Inlet
$675,000; New River Inlet $820,000; and Lockwoods Folly, $950,000. “Ideally,
all five inlets would receive a single appropriation,” Mr. Rudolph
said. Mr. Rudolph also said there could be a possibility of funding
in the reallocation of money from each of the other four inlet dredging
projects, taking as much as $1,000 from each project. That would generate
about $4,000 for the Bogue Inlet work. Also, the full Senate has not
yet approved the bill. After that process it will go to a House and
Senate conference committee where the differences between the two can
be worked out, Mr. Rudolph said. However, that might come later rather
than sooner, as the date for the conference is unknown. The federal
fiscal year starts Oct. 1.
AB council in huff over dredging project
Carteret County News Times by Brad Rich (7/21/06)
ATLANTIC BEACH – Angry town councilmen Monday evening unanimously
directed Manager Chuck Cooper and Attorney Derek Taylor to leave no
stone unturned to get a dredging contractor to return to Bogue Sound
to complete crucial work the town says he didn’t finish. The
council, which met in regular session in the assembly room, acted after
hearing from resident Eddie Briley, an avid boater and fisherman, who
said he represented many others who he said were upset about the lack
of success in the navigation project west of the high-rise bridge to
Morehead City. “I’m not your worst enemy, but I can tell
you you’ve got some bad ones out there,” said Mr. Briley,
who said he recently ran aground and lost a big chunk of fiberglass
from the bottom of his boat while moving through the marked channel. “It’s
time for you to make something happen. This problem has been going
on long enough.” Work on the key channel that leads to the Intracoastal
Waterway began around Easter, with a hydraulic dredge from King Dredging
of Beaufort. After months of planning and literally years of discussion,
the channel was supposed to be dug to a depth of 6 feet at mean low
tide. However, after dredging to a depth of about 4 1/2 feet,
the company told the town it had encountered hard shell material and
couldn’t
go any deeper, councilmen said Monday night. At that point, the councilmen
said, the company simply quite working. Then portions of the channel
quickly began filling in again as soon as the work ended. Now, Mr.
Briley said – and Mayor Tootsie Vinson agreed – there is
as little as a foot or 18 inches of water in the mouth of the channel,
where it joins the Intracoastal Waterway. “It’s very disheartening,” the
mayor said. “It’s very disappointing to know that we have
pumped out all that sand and the channel is not really open, and boats
have run aground. “I was out there two hours ahead of low tide
and there was only about 2 1/2 feet of water. Where do we go from here?” Mr.
Briley, who had spoken during the citizens’ requests and comments
section of the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, had suggested
that the town go after the performance bond the town had required the
dredging company to post when the company’s owner got the contract
for the work. Councilman Jim Bailey, who as a marina owner and major
developer has often been involved in dredging projects for years, said
King Dredging had done the first part of the work specified in the
contract, but had not completed the second part, as the town had desired.
The town, the councilman said, got Coastal Science and Engineering
(CSE), a local company, to take core samples from the channel and found
that there was no reason the company couldn’t finish dredging
to 6 feet. One thing the town can and should do, Councilman Bailey
said, is get CSE to put some instrument buoys in the channel to see
why the channel has filled with sediment again so quickly. That would
cost about $1,800. As for the contractor, Councilman Bailey said, “he
just needs to get out there and finish, ” and other councilmen
agreed. “The citizens say we should go after his performance
bond,” Councilman Ruth Barnes added. But Councilman Tom Doe said
that would take time, and “we need to get this (the contractor
back on the job) done tomorrow, and we need to send the attorney if
necessary.” The contract with King Dredging was for $334,977.
The cost of the work includes $206,643 for the dredging of 15,300 cubic
yards of material from the obstructed portion of the channel, plus
an add-on of $128,334 for preparation and construction of town property
for the deposition and temporary storage of the material to be dredged.
The town property involved in the plan is between the U.S. Post Office
and the town’s west end water tower. Work there was completed
about a month ago, and included clearing and construction of a 4-acre
spoils disposal site, hauling of debris from that work to an approved
landfill, hauling in of dirt and construction of a dike designed to
ensure that the initially wet material stays on the site. That portion
of the project, councilmen pointed out, will be available for use in
future dredging projects. The channel, which doesn’t have an
official name, provides access to deep water for people who live on
the west side of the bridge to Morehead City. The channel also provides
access to and from the town’s only public boat ramp and to the
Royal Channel and the Moonlight Bay Channel, which are heavily used
by town residents and property owners and by tourists. The town last
tried to dredge the channel in 1999, with some success, but many boaters
have said the work didn’t last very long. Complaints from boaters,
in fact, began in about 2002.
7/20/06
Bogue Inlet loses
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43408&Section=News
County says no to paying lobbyist, yes to $8 million for project
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/19/politics/pols166101.prt
Study Finds Beaches Sicken 1.5 Million in California
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10899
Environment first
Raleigh News & Observer Letter
to the Editor (7/16/06)
The beach communities of North Carolina take
exception to being painted by Rick Martinez with an oily brush in
his July 5 column "Bounty
and the beaches." We don't deserve the tar ball he threw at us.
The N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association is a statewide organization
of coastal communities and leaders trying to find ways to keep our
beaches clean and sandy, our waterways open and our inlets safe. Our
board of directors has voted in support of this statement: "NCBIWA
opposes any federal policy that conditions funding for our beach, inlet,
or waterway projects upon granting permission to drill and produce
oil and natural gas off the North Carolina coast. We believe that any
decision of this magnitude must pass every environmental test and stand
on its own merits." Our coastal projects are deserving of a continued
federal partnership without condition. Our environment is not a bargaining
chip. The recent offshore drilling bill passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives has some good points, particularly a provision that
moves the drilling ban from 3 miles to at least 50 miles offshore.
Without this we could be in danger of a lifted moratorium and a scenic
view of oil platforms from our coast. We are under no illusion as to
the financial challenges our coastal projects face or the needs of
an oil- and gas-thirsty nation, but the Atlantic is a much harsher
environment for drilling and production than the Gulf of Mexico, and
a thorough evaluation of environmental risk must be at the front of
every discussion. Our coasts are not for sale.
Rick Catlin - Chairman, N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association
Senate OKs Water Resources Act Update
National Journal's CongressDailyAM (7/20/06) by Darren Goode
The Senate, acting by voice vote Wednesday, approved
a long-fought reauthorization of federal lock and dam projects, despite
the White
House's "strong concerns" over the cost of the measure. The
measure would update the Water Resources Development Act for the first
time since 2000. WRDA is supposed to be reauthorized every two years
but Congress has not updated it because of disagreement over its price
tag and how Army Corps of Engineers projects are reviewed and approved.
Hundreds of Army Corps projects authorized in the bill, especially
those billed to help prevent damage in New Orleans following last fall's
hurricanes, helped propel the measure. The bill "is going to make
substantial investments along the coastline to keep our rivers open,
to keep our ports operating, to protect these wetlands and to help
create a stronger barrier," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. According
to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the bill authorizes more
than $13.2 billion in federal costs for projects. These projects also
account for more than $3.5 billion in non-federal costs, according
to the analysis. CBO scored a WRDA bill passed by the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee in April 2005 as authorizing nearly $12
billion in discretionary spending, though a preliminary Bush administration
cost estimate of the version passed Wednesday by the full Senate has
a higher authorized cost than the committee-passed bill. The two-year
update to the law approved in 2000 authorized less than $6 billion
in projects. Supporters say they have to take into account that the
law has not been reauthorized since 2000. "We have a tremendous
backlog," said Environment and Public Works Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo.
Because of an estimated $50 billion backlog of Army Corps projects,
the White House said the Senate bill "should establish priorities
among these activities and limit new authorizations to those projects
that represent the highest priorities for federal funding," according
to its Statement of Administration Policy. But the Senate Wednesday
rejected two competing amendments to prioritize projects. Senators
rejected an amendment, 80-19, by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell
Feingold, D-Wis., which would have required a Cabinet-level committee
to work with the Army secretary on an annual priority list of projects
authorized for construction. The two senators touted their amendment
as a way to wisely invest limited resources, but critics contended
that it would take power away from Congress and put it into the hands
of the executive branch. An alternative amendment offered by Bond and
Environment and Public Works Chairman Inhofe also was defeated, 56-43.
Their amendment would have directed the Corps to rate projects based
on four national priorities to allow Congress to prioritize the projects.
But Bond said, "I don't mind at all," that he and Inhofe's
amendment failed because under current law, prioritization of projects
will still come "from the policy makers. We don't have to take
all of these things that are authorized ... and priorities change." On
a 54-46 vote, senators approved an amendment by McCain and Feingold
that requires independent reviews of projects that are estimated to
cost more than $40 million; are requested by a governor of an affected
state; that the head of a federal agency has determined might have
a significant adverse impact, or that the Army secretary believes is
controversial. The two senators tied their amendment to the backlash
over flooding that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina,
when levees failed. "I think the events of New Orleans cry out
for independent review and outside scrutiny," McCain said. Senators
subsequently rejected, 51-49, an alternative independent review amendment
offered by Inhofe and Bond that would have required independent reviews
for projects exceeding $100 million and to be done at the same time
that the Corps studies a project, instead of after the study is completed.
The House passed a WRDA bill, 406-14, last July that authorizes roughly
$10 billion in projects, a cost the White House also opposes. There
is no timeline for a conference committee.
7/18/06
Speed limit proposal making waves
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43357&Section=News
A beach, not a landfill
Wilmington Star (7/18/06)
Most of the thousands of people who visited Wrightsville Beach over
the Fourth of July holiday were courteous enough to pick up after themselves.
But others left mounds of garbage for someone else to clean up. Blame
these surf swine for provoking a town-wide crackdown on littering and
even innocuous imbibing on the strand. As is usually the case, it only
takes a few irresponsible people to spoil everyone else's fun. Crowds
always leave some trash behind, but Wrightsville Beach residents and
officials were understandably appalled at the volume of beer cans,
paper, cigarette butts and other refuse left on the beach Independence
Day weekend. That disgusting scene spurred the Board of Aldermen to
call for tougher enforcement of laws against littering and consuming
beer in public - although to their credit, police say they have no
intent of searching the coolers of visitors who may be sneaking a cold
one. Credit town officials, too, for recognizing their part in creating
the sandy pigpen. It's hard to properly dispose of trash when the nearest
receptacles are overflowing, as was the case at Wrightsville Beach.
The new rules call for more police on weekends and busy holidays, and
they and the lifeguards will come equipped not only with safety gear,
but with extra garbage bags. But human nature being what it is, there
will always be those who use the public beach as their personal ashtray
or wastebasket. The penalty for such thoughtlessness should be weekend
beach detail - cleaning up what their fellow piggies leave behind.
Washing away sticky sand not always so easy to do with limited beach
shower spots
Wilmington Star by Angela Mack (7/16/06)
Oak Island | A little sand can go a long way.
After a morning walk on the beach or swim in the ocean, you're guaranteed
to take some of
the grainy beads with you wherever you go. To your car. Into your home.
Maybe back to work. A quick rinse at a public beach shower could lessen
your sandy woes. But from Sunset Beach up to Topsail Island, no matter
which local beach you visit, your options are limited. In Oak Island,
officials are considering adding more showers to its 10-mile beach
stretch. Only three of the town's 67 public beach accesses have showers.
Those locations are McGlamery Street, Barbee Boulevard and the Oak
Island Cabana. "It would be great to have one at each exit," said
Lorie Seitz who visits Oak Island each summer from South Carolina. "It
would be a lot to ask from the town." Installing a shower at a
beach access costs about $2,500, including adding a water line and
tap, according to town public works officials. The amount of water
used at showers could not be determined. Oak Island Councilman Reece
Simmons said the town can't put a shower at every access but he agrees
more are needed. "A hot, sweaty, sandy day at the beach … personally,
I would like to rinse off a little bit," he said. At the July
11 council meeting, Oak Island Councilwoman Dara Royal suggested adding
three new shower sites to the town's beach. She raised the issue after
being approached by at least a dozen beachgoers about the matter. "I
think we have an obligation to provide these kind of facilities to
the people," she said. Next week, a shower will be added near
Ocean Crest Pier on East Beach Drive for about $20 by tapping into
an existing water line, Simmons said. Other locations are also being
considered. "We are a beach town. We should have showers for the
same reason parks have picnic tables," he said. A beach shower
offers the bare minimum so don't expect that luxurious spa feel when
you step on the wooden platform to wash off. Most consist of a simple
shower head and hose nestled atop a metal pole. You either push a button,
twist a knob or pull a lever to turn on the water. "They're not
extensive," said Wrightsville Beach Town Manager Bob Simpson who
admits that the town's three beach showers are probably not enough
during the busy summer months when the population swells from about
2,600 people to 30,000. "You always get the demand for more. There
could be 40 out there," he said about the showers. "We don't
have crews to support that." Topsail Beach Mayor Butch Parrish
said he's never heard anyone question why there aren't any showers
at the town's 21 public beach accesses. He said the town's beachfront
doesn't have a boardwalk and many beachgoers are renters who use private
facilities. As Mark Sharpe watched his son, Andrew, play in the sand
Thursday morning at Oak Island, foamy waves crashed into the shore.
Sharpe started questioning how clean the water might be since so many
ships cross the Cape Fear River each day. "There are some contaminants
in the water," he said. "You don't want to carry it with
you all day."
Robbing the Feds
Coastal states hijack energy policy.
Washington Post - Sunday, July 16, 2006; B06
LAST MONTH the House voted to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and
gas drilling that has held for 25 years in most U.S. coastal waters.
The bill's central thrust was right -- offshore drilling can be done
safely -- but it contained several flaws, not least excessive generosity
to coastal states, which would pocket an estimated $69 billion over
15 years at the expense of the federal budget. Now the Senate leadership
may vote on a bill that bows to coastal states again. The Bush administration
and leaders in both chambers need to stand up for federal interests.
The Senate bill is narrower than the House one. Rather than lift the
drilling moratorium in all U.S. coastal waters, the bill restricts
drilling to 8 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Because
the moratorium was scheduled to expire in part of this area anyway,
the incremental effect of the Senate plan would be to open up only
0.4 percent of the natural gas reserves and 1.5 percent of the oil
reserves that are thought to exist in the Outer Continental Shelf.
For this modest concession, the coastal states that traditionally resist
offshore drilling would be handsomely rewarded. For Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas, the reward would be financial. These states pocket
as little as 2 percent of the royalties from the offshore drilling
that's already allowed in the western gulf. Under the Senate plan,
the states' share of the royalties from new drilling leases would rise
to 37.5 percent. For Florida, meanwhile, the reward would take the
form of a statutory ban on drilling anywhere near its coast. Whereas
the House bill would ban drilling within 50 miles of the shore and
allow states to extend that to 100 miles, the Senate would allow no
drilling within 125 miles of Florida's shore, and some parts of the
state would get a buffer zone of more than 200 miles. Given that offshore
drilling may pose smaller environmental risks to Florida's coast than
the alternative of bringing oil in by tanker, this protection is excessive.
The coastal states don't deserve billions of dollars in royalties from
oil and gas that lies in federal waters. Nor does it make sense to
replace the current moratorium on drilling, which is renewed from year
to year and could thus potentially be lifted soon, with a statutory
ban that would last until 2022. Balancing the nation's need for energy
against its environmental concerns is always hard. But that's not a
reason to allow coastal states to hold the rest of the nation to ransom.
7/15/06
Boat
ramp plans proceed
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=43235&Section=News
Muller: A few facts on beach nourishment
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/15/letters-editorials/letters169-mull.prt
Wrightsville Beach leaders OK beach measures
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/14/06)
Wrightsville Beach | Shocked and embarrassed by
the sight of trash strewn on their beach after July Fourth, Wrightsville
Beach leaders on Thursday
approved measures that include random alcohol sweeps on of the beach
and a ban on off-street parking on Harbor Island. The Board of Aldermen
also voted to add more police during weekends, equip police and lifeguards
with additional trash bags to help control beach litter and enforce the
town’s alcohol ban more aggressively. “Everyone is doing
a good job already,” said Town Manager Bob Simpson. “But
we need to do more.” But whether the moves aggravate residents
as well as visitors and ends up hurting the town’s vital tourism
economy remains to be seen. Still, town officials said they couldn’t
allow a repeat of the Independence Day fiasco. “We need to regain
control of our beach,” Simpson said. Officials said that while
the situation had been deteriorating for a while, the sights of overflowing
trash cans, thousands of beer cans and even a keg on the beach after
the recent holiday called for action to address the problem. The measures
proposed by Simpson and unanimously endorsed by the Board of Aldermen
include stepped up enforcement of booze laws on the beach by the town’s
police and lifeguards. But the most proactive measure involves sweeps
of specific beach areas for alcohol by law enforcement. Police Chief
John Carey said that while consumption of alcohol is prohibited on the
beach, possession is not. “We cannot search people’s coolers,
and I certainly don’t want to become the cooler police,” he
said. Carey said he expects police to start off with warnings to try
and educate the public. “But at some stage we will move to writing
citations,” Simpson said. While the sweeps will be aimed at different
parts of the beach at different times of day, he said the focus would
be on areas where there’s been a history of problems – namely
the beach strand around Johnnie Mercers Pier. To help control the crowds
around the pier, the town also intends to ban parking along the grassy
areas and medians along Pelican Drive and Salisbury Street. Simpson said
the off-street parking, which is some of the only free parking left on
the island, funnels people into the pier area since they park and then
walk up Salisbury Street to the beach. But town officials admit that
the move could aggravate an already serious parking problem on the island.
Boaters could find the new parking ban especially problematic, because
it’s often the only place to park their trailers after the boat
ramp lot has filled up. Residents, who often have friends or family park
on the grassy median, also could be inconvenienced by the ban. “That’s
not going to be an easy decision for you to make,” Simpson warned
the aldermen before their vote. Some of those concerns were raised by
Alderman David Cignotti, who wondered if imposing new measures town-wide
to address problems primarily on the beach was like using a sledgehammer
to kill a fly. “I feel like we’re threatening the people
who live here,” he said, noting that residents could get caught
up in the dragnet. But Simpson said that the town had to be uniform in
how it enforced its rules, including applying the alcohol ban to all
areas of the island and during special events to maintain credibility
and fairness. He said he expected some of the new initiatives to be rolled
out as soon as this weekend.
7/12/06
Nags Head focusing discussion on sand bags
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/12/top_stories/tops173101.prt
Expert warns of possible tsunami
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15018706.htm
Kill Devil Hills considers regulating off-season beach driving
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107411&ran=98757
Find a better way
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/12/letters-editorials/letters173-alve.prt
North Topsail Beach looks at setting tax districts
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (7/12/06)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – A meeting has been set to figuratively draw
a line in the sand, dividing the town of North Topsail Beach into two
municipal service districts. The town board of aldermen voted unanimously
last Thursday for a public hearing to be held on Aug. 9 to discuss
the districts. The municipal service districts, as set at this time,
consist of one district that is considered oceanfront or adjacent to
the frontal dunes and another that includes everywhere else. The two
preliminary districts were decided upon by the town for tax purposes
in paying for beach nourishment. Attorney Neil Whitford explained to
the board of aldermen that while the division will be made next month,
levying the taxes will not begin until next year. He also told the
board that maps depicting the division will be available for the public
to view. “This report will be in the clerk’s office (at
North Topsail Beach town hall) for public review for the next month,” said
Whitford. Town residents will vote on a referendum this November on
whether they want beach nourishment for the town’s beaches. If
the referendum passes, the town will purchase $34 million worth of
bonds to pay for the project and the tax districts will go into effect
the following fiscal year. In addition to the tax town rate and the
3-cents beach nourishment rate already in place, it is anticipated
that those in the oceanfront district will pay a special ad valorum
tax of between 40- and 50- cents per $100 valuation. Everyone else
in town will pay a special tax of between 5- and 15- cents per $100
valuation. Beach Nourishment Committee Chairman Richard Macartney said
he foresees the rates to be 43-cents for the oceanfront district and
5-cents for everywhere else. The rate is subject to change if the town
receives financial help from federal, state or county sources. Each
year, during the budget process, the town board will set the rates
as needed. If the town receives no outside help it will take about
eight years to repay the bonds. The beach nourishment project includes
realigning the New River Inlet channel to prevent erosion, adding 50-
to 75-feet of sand to the width of the beach and constructing a dune
line about 15-feet tall and approximately 25-feet wide. The project
also includes renourishing the beach after four or six years. “The
actual projected cost will depend on market costs for dredging equipment,” said
Macartney. The high cost scenario of the project is $35 million and
the low end cost is $24 million, according to Macartney. The public
hearing will be held at the town hall on Aug. 9 at 7 p.m.
NTB tax districts a bad idea
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (7/12/06)
I think the notion of having more than one category
of taxpayers for North Topsail Beach property owners is a very bad
idea; it is highly
divisive, and pits one group of property owners against another, rather
than our working together for our common benefit. In my opinion, it
would be the same as requiring people who have need to use the services
of the police or fire departments to bear a greater portion of the
costs of those services. In as much as all beaches in North Carolina
are open to the public, no property owner stands to benefit more than
another by having a usable beach. If oceanfront property owners have
to pay a higher tax rate for beach re-nourishment, would it not follow
that they should have greater control over who has access to and use
of that beach? And it is helpful in this discussion to question why,
for example, the town of North Topsail Beach has rebuilt protective
sand dunes with tax revenues from all taxpayers? Why was it not left
to the individual oceanfront property owners to pay to have it done,
or not have it done at all if they so chose? The answer is obvious;
the entire township, indeed even Onslow County and the state of North
Carolina, benefit from having a stable dune and beach environment.
Another reasonable question is whether oceanfront property owners would
get a tax rebate for tax money spent on the regional public beach access
areas. Surely, oceanfront property owners have little need to use those
facilities, so why should their taxes be used for those areas at all?
Yet another factor is that oceanfront property owners who rent out
their houses already pay a larger share of taxes due to the renter’s
tax. Since oceanfront houses rent for considerably more than similar
rental houses located elsewhere, far more revenue is already obtained
from oceanfront owners. Oceanfront property owners already bear far
greater expense than other property owners due to the greater risks
from hurricanes and other storms. Higher insurance rates, higher maintenance
costs, and higher (uninsured) repair costs, such as frequent replacement
of stairways to the beach, which are often destroyed due to even less
severe storms, such as “North Easters.” Multiple categories
of taxpayers is a very bad idea; it seems to me to reflect only political
posturing, and is a sign of a vacuum in leadership and imagination.
Peter O'Neill - North Topsail Beach, New Cumberland, PA
7/11/06
Risky business
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/14998133.htm
Ocean Isle hopes for sand fix
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/11/06)
Walls of sandbags haven't kept visitors from hitting the beach at the
east end of Ocean Isle Beach. But the Brunswick County resort town
is still desperate for sand in the eroded area as encroaching waves
continue to threaten oceanfront homes. Shallotte Inlet is blamed for
surging erosion rates on the east end, which was losing an average
of 6 feet of beach a month between summer 2004 and summer 2005. The
result is a nearly 1,500-foot-long wall of sandbags protecting beachfront
homes, roads and utility lines. The Army Corps of Engineers finished
pumping nearly 50,000 cubic yards of material onto 800 feet of sandbag-protected
oceanfront east of Shallotte Boulevard last month. The material came
from where Shallotte Inlet crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. But almost
all of the new sand has since washed away. Ocean Isle officials hope
to adopt a more long-term solution by piggybacking on a larger corps
nourishment project and pumping up to 135,000 cubic yards of sand onto
the east end. The federal agency won't deposit sand there, citing the
area's unstable nature. Although the corps nourishment project has
been delayed for two years, officials expect to open bids late this
summer and have the contractor start work after the expiration of a
Nov. 15 moratorium on beach work to protect nesting sea turtles.
Old Topsail Creek reopens to boats
Wilmington Star (7/11/06)
A popular cut through in Pender County for boaters has been re-opened
to navigation. In April, the Coast Guard plucked about a dozen buoys
from Old Topsail Creek where shoaling made the channel too shallow
in some places for buoy tenders to operate. Those buoys have been put
back in the creek. Topsail Beach led the way in getting the creek dredged.
The town, with financial backing from the county, The Harbor Village
Yacht Club and The Topsail Island Board of Realtors, hired someone
to remove enough of the shoaling to open the channel for navigation.
Boaters like to use the mile-long creek to get from the Intracoastal
Waterway to the ocean. With the creek closed to navigation, the trip
was at least 15 miles long. - From staff reports
7/10/06
Minds open to offshore drilling
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/459105.html
Coastal Land Trust working to preserve Springers Point
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2006/07/08/top_stories/tops176101.prt
Dredging project slated to wind up within two weeks
Carteret News Times by Shannon Kemp and Rich Levey
BOGUE BANKS — The dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway’s
Bogue Inlet Crossing, which started June 28 and is projected to be
finished in two weeks time, is moving as smoothly as the sand that’s
being pumped to cover sandbags at Emerald Isle’s Point. The $3,809,000
project will benefit not only boaters using the waterways, but the
local economy, as well. "We are more than a quarter of the way
done so far," Greg "Rudi" Rudolph, County Shore Protection
Manager, said of the project that’s taking place between the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) and Bogue Inlet. The project
calls for the dredging of the channel that connects the AIWW to Bogue
Inlet. Sand spoils dredged from the channel are being pumped to the
Emerald Isle Point, to help with sand accretion in that area. Specifically,
the sand is being pumped in the vicinity of the hundreds of sandbags
that protect the Point’s waterfront homes. "The sand is
sticking," Mr. Rudolph said for lack of a better term. He said
that there was some concern that the sand placed at the Point might
just wash away, "but that’s not the case... it’s doing
real well." Emerald Isle Town Manager Frank Rush said Friday that
the placement of sand around the sandbags at the Point has exceeded
his expectations. "It’s going well from our perspective," Mr.
Rush said adding that "the placement of the new sand will probably
add 100 feet of new beach to areas over there that haven’t seen
a beach in about a year." Although Emerald Isle welcomes the sand
placed in front of the sandbags that protect Point homes to the north, "the
main point of the project is to dredge the channel," Mr. Rush
said. "In some areas of the inlet crossing, places that are supposed
to be 12-feet deep have shoaled up to 1- or 2-feet deep," he said.
The new connecting channel will be much safer. The connecting channel
is also in a new location. Located to the west of the old channel,
the new passageway takes advantage of a natural channel, that local
boaters have been using for years. John Williard Dudley, owner of Dudley’s
Marina, a dry stack facility in Cedar Point, explained that the safer
passageway to the ocean will be of particular benefit to boaters unfamiliar
with the local waters. "The inlet is fine, the problem has been
the connecting channel because it shoaled up and the markers had to
be moved frequently. Now that the western side has opened up and the
markers have been moved over there, it’s much safer for boaters
unfamiliar with the area to get in and out of the ocean more safely." The
project itself is one of four inlet crossings (Bogue, New River, Lockwoods
Folly and Shallotte) in North Carolina that will be dredged by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps agreed to dredge the four crossings
because of a cost-share plan set up between state and local governments.
Federal funds were inadequate to accomplish the entire projects, so
the total $3,809,000 will be split between the Corps, which will put
$2,309,000 toward the project; the state, which will pay $750,000;
and local governments, which will pay the remainder. For the Bogue
Inlet portion of the project, Emerald Isle will contribute $45,000,
Peletier will pay $3,000, Cedar Point has voted to contribute $6,000,
Swansboro agreed to pay $6,000 and Carteret and Onslow counties will
both pay $69,000. The Cape Carteret Board of Commissioners voted not
to participate in the funding, and the Bogue board has tabled the issue.
But the cost is worth the benefits, proponents say. The newly dredged
connecting channel will provide safer and easier access to the ocean,
according to Capt. Stan Jarusinski from Peletier, a seasoned professional
king mackerel fisherman who runs charters out of Bogue Inlet. "We
have a first-class operation, a well-marked connecting channel and
deep, safe inlet. It’s a straight shot from the Intracoastal
Waterway to the ocean. Now vacationers can come down and navigate the
channel easily, without the risk of running aground." Capt. Jarusinski
expressed his displeasure in the Cape Carteret board’s decision
not to contribute to the project’s funding. "I find it unbelievable
that one of our local towns voted against supporting the dredging," he
said. "Without safe waterways, people aren’t going to vacation
here and the locals can’t get out on the water, either. "I’m
happy that all the other towns pitched in, and that Emerald Isle has
played such a large role in the project, picking up the slack of the
town that didn’t participate." But marinas and boat dealers
aren’t the only businesses benefiting from the safer connecting
channel. According to Kelly Nicholson, operations manager for Blue
Water Realty on Emerald Isle, many of their summer rentals depend on
safe boating conditions. "Our soundfront rentals have grown every
year, and the reason for that is because people like to bring their
boats and use them while they’re on vacation. Whether they go
fishing or shell collecting on one of the local islands, they need
a safe way of getting there." Melissa Kenward, marketing director
for Emerald Isle Realty, added that without navigable waterways, many
vacationers will go elsewhere. "It’s absolutely imperative
that we keep our waterways dredged," she said. "A lot of
our vacationers bring their own boats so they can enjoy all the barrier
islands that make vacationing here such a unique experience. If they
don’t have safe access to the waterways, they’ll find another
place to vacation."
Environmental groups plan sonar session
Carteret County News Times by Brad rich (7/7/06)
OCEAN — Environmental groups opposed to
the U.S. Navy’s
plans to build an anti-submarine warfare training facility in the ocean
off North Carolina are planning an Aug. 14 forum to educate the public
about the plans and are carefully following a Hawaii lawsuit they say
could conceivably affect the proposal. Christine Miller of the N.C.
Coastal Federation, based in this unincorporated community off N.C.
24 between Morehead City and Cape Carteret, said Thursday that the
forum, scheduled to take place in the auditorium of the Duke University
Marine Laboratory on Pivers Island in Beaufort, will bring in experts
who will discuss the impacts sonar can have on fish, marine mammals,
sea turtles and habitat. The session will last from 9 a.m. until 4
p.m., Ms. Miller said, and is intended to give the public the latest
scientific information and to fill in the gaps the federation and other
critics have called flaws in the environmental impact statement (EIS)
the Navy released last year on its proposed Undersea Warfare Training
Range (USWTR). That range, if approved, would be built in a 661-square-mile
area on the sea floor of Onslow Bay , about 47 miles off the state’s
coastline. Michelle Duval, a scientist with the Raleigh-based North
Carolina chapter of Environmental Defense, a national environmental
group, said that organization also has participated in the planning
for the forum, which will be free and open to the public. Ms. Miller
said the Coastal Federation is following the Hawaii lawsuit, which,
like the plan for the USWTR, involves the use of active, not passive,
mid-frequency sonar. The Navy on Wednesday asked a federal appeals
court to block a court order that prevents it from using active sonar
during its war-game exercises off Hawaii. The emergency motion, filed
in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , Calif.
, seeks a stay on an order a judge issued earlier this week that would
stop the Navy from using the high-intensity sonar. The Navy was forced
to abandon plans to use mid-frequency active sonar during the international
maritime exercises after a federal judge issued the order. Environmentalists
had sued, claiming the sound waves might kill or harm marine mammals.
A senior Navy admiral told the Associated Press on Wednesday that he
was hopeful the military would settle differences with environmentalists
so his sailors could use active sonar during the exercises. Sailors
use active sonar by pumping sound waves through the ocean to hunt submarines.
The federal judge on Monday had ordered the two sides to discuss measures
to minimize the impact sonar would have on marine mammals. The Navy
and the plaintiffs, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, are
due to appear again in Los Angeles , Calif. , federal court on July
18. “We’re hopeful through further discussions there will
be some relief down the road,” said Vice Adm. Barry Costello,
commander of the U.S. Third Fleet and director of the drills. Vice
Adm. Costello said the Navy’s ability to defend U.S. interests
depends on its sailors learning to use active sonar and regularly practicing
their skills. “It’s a national security issue to prepare
for the next fight. And you cannot win in the future if you don’t
train against the threat,” the vice admiral told reporters as
about 20 ships prepared to sail from Pearl Harbor for the exercises,
which involve close to 40 ships and 19,000 sailors from eight nations.
The Navy plans to have its sailors listen for submarines only with
passive sonar and visually look for “enemy” submarines
during the drills. Active sonar locates objects by analyzing sound
bounced off them, while passive sonar involves analyzing noises generated
by the objects. Environmentalists say active sonar may kill or harm
whales and other mammals, possibly by damaging their hearing. Regardless
of the final outcome in the Hawaii court case, Dr. Duvall said, the
arguments raised in that case and the evidence cited in it “should
be something the Navy will need to consider” as it continues
to sift through and respond to the comments raised by the public in
response to the EIS for the USWTR. “We haven’t had strandings
(of marine mammals, such as whales) in Onslow Bay that can be directly
attributed to sonar, as in Hawaii, but we have (had strandings some
believe can be attributed at least in part to sonar) along the Outer
Banks that I think sound a cautionary note for the Navy,” Dr.
Duvall added. “And we’re concerned not just about the impacts
on marine mammals, but also on ... fish and invertebrates.” Dr.
Duvall said the Navy has been “strangely silent” on its
USWTR plans in recent months, and that Environmental Defense is closely
monitoring the Hawaii case. Ms. Miller said the Coastal Federation
has scheduled its forum at Duke so that it will precede a “stakeholders” meeting
the Navy has announced it will hold in North Carolina in October. Comments
submitted to the U.S. Navy by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) earlier this year suggested that the military’s
planned sonar range off North Carolina could cause whales to beach
themselves and die. NOAA, parent agency of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the agency responsible for protecting whales, dolphins
and other marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
the Endangered Species Act — the cornerstones of environmental
and wildlife protection in the U.S. — states unequivocally in
its official comments that the Navy was wrong to claim in its draft
EIS that there was no evidence the powerful sonar array would cause
the whales to beach. The comments, which along with hundreds of others
submitted by government agencies, scientists and citizens are supposed
to be considered by the Navy before moving ahead with its plans, stop
short of saying whales will die. But they do say there is the potential
for that to happen, and that the death of even one Northern right whale — one
of the most rare species — would significantly imperil the species.
Scientist believe there are only about 320 of those whales left in
the world. In its environmental study, which was blasted by scientists
and others during a public meeting attended last year by more than
200 people in Morehead City, the Navy claims that right whales move
close to the shore of North Carolina while migrating and thus wouldn’t
be harmed by the loud sonar sounds in the range. The Navy contends
that the proposed range off North Carolina is necessary because there
are now enemies of the U.S. who use submarines much quieter than any
used in the past. The service has said the range would be built during
a 10-year period at a cost of about $98 million, and has said it is
too expensive to send East Coast-based ships and subs to the West Coast,
where there is an existing training range. The other possible choices
for the East Coast range are off Virginia and Florida, but North Carolina
is the preferred option. -
(The Associated Press contributed to this story.)
7/7/06 Corps of Engineers, Audubon to protect Ferry Slip Island
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5120516
National Park Service Beach Access Report for July 6, 2006 (Cape Hatteras)
http://www.nps.gov/caha/pphtml/newsdetail24362.html
Public Notice
- All interested parties are herby advised that
the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an
application for work within
jurisdictional waters of the United States. Coastal Science and Engineering
has applied to excavate by hydraulic dredge beach quality sand and
deposit it in locations in the Town of Emerald Isle, Town of Pine Knoll
Shores and Town of Indian Beach for the purpose of beach renourishment
in Carteret County, North Carolina.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Notices/2006/0632753016.pdf
Old Topsail Creek reopens to boats
Wilmington Star (7/7/06)
A popular cut through in Pender County for boaters has been re-opened
to navigation. In April, the Coast Guard plucked about a dozen buoys
from Old Topsail Creek where shoaling made the channel too shallow
in some places for buoy tenders to operate. Those buoys have been put
back in the creek. Topsail Beach led the way in getting the creek dredged.
The town, with financial backing from the county, The Harbor Village
Yacht Club and The Topsail Island Board of Realtors, hired someone
to remove enough of the shoaling to open the channel for navigation.
Boaters like to use the mile-long creek to get from the Intracoastal
Waterway to the ocean. With the creek closed to navigation, the trip
was at least 15 miles long. - From staff reports
Crowds leave a beach trashed
Wrightsville Beach sanitation crews have their hands full as residents
express irritation.
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/6/06)
|