12/24/07
Wild Dunes aims to keep its sandbags
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/dec/21/wild_dunes_aims_keep_its_sandbags25545/?print
Aldermen to draft letter to CRC
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1812&iid=93&sud=30
Congress approves beach nourishment funding
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1811&iid=93&sud=30
N.C. beaches get millions in funding for nourishment
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=53962
Public information meetings set for ORV management plan
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.12.20-PublicInfoMeetings.html
Negotiated rulemaking advisory committee is official
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.12.20-NegotiatedRulemakingAdvisoryCommittee.html
Ruling opens way for new bridge
Wilmington Star by Shannan Bowen (12/22/07)
Raleigh | A federal judge cleared the way Friday for the state transportation secretary to award a contract to build a new bridge to Sunset Beach, a proposed structure that's been the subject of 30 years of studies, debates and lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have barred the N.C. Department of Transportation from building the bridge until more environmental studies were conducted. DOT Division Engineer Allen Pope said after Friday's hearing that transportation officials would await the judge's written opinion in the case, which is expected within two weeks, before proceeding with awarding a contract to build the bridge. The DOT was ready to award the contract Oct. 4 to English Construction Co., which submitted the low bid of $30.9 million. But the state transportation board agreed to delegate the authority to the transportation secretary after the lawsuit was filed that morning by the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, Douglas W. Hix, William A. Ducker, Bonnie Kelley, Nina Marable and the Brunswick Environmental Action Team. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit now will decide whether to take the case to trial. The lawsuit's plaintiffs allege that the DOT failed to address the environmental impacts of the 65-foot-tall bridge that would replace the antiquated, single-lane pontoon bridge connecting the island to the mainland. The plaintiffs' attorney, Jim Maxwell, said during the hearing Friday that his clients were concerned with three additions to the DOT's plan that weren't addressed in a previous environmental impact study. He said new details for the DOT's proposed bridge included a relocation of a stormwater pond at the Sea Trail Golf Resort, the creation of an infiltration basin and changes to the DOT's plan to widen Sunset Beach's causeway. Maxwell said the DOT should submit supplemental environmental studies that would ensure these plans wouldn't harm the Intracoastal Waterway or marshes near the bridge. But Assistant Attorney General Lisa Glover, representing the DOT, said the DOT is not required to conduct an environmental study for each new detail in its plan. Amos Dawson, an attorney representing the town of Sunset Beach in support of the DOT, said during the hearing that new details were insignificant and called the plaintiffs' lawsuit a "desperate last stretch" to try to delay the construction of the bridge. Transportation officials have said that a preliminary injunction would delay the bridge's completion by at least a year and increase its cost by about $4.5 million. Glover said the maintenance of the current bridge costs the state about $400,000 each year. "Every dollar spent at Sunset Beach is a dollar less for other projects in the state," she said. And, according to an affidavit from David Thomas, a DOT maintenance engineer, the existing pontoon bridge would have several maintenance issues if it remains in service beyond May 2010, the project's expected completion date. The bridge is often closed for repairs, the affidavit says. There were 10 cable breaks that had to be repaired between May and October; a boat struck a cable in May; and a vehicle damaged the pontoon bridge's guardrail in October. Dawson said the plaintiffs' request for supplemental environmental studies would only delay the bridge and wouldn't accomplish anything. But Maxwell disagreed. "Hopefully, what would be gained is a hard look required by federal law would be taken and the environment would not be damaged," he said.
12/19/07
Village opposes setback proposal
http://www.stateportpilot.com/Stories/19%20Village%20Brown.htm
Loggerhead threat status questioned
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/dec/18/loggerhead_threat_status_questioned25254/?print
$24M to aid area beaches, dredging
House may act on massive spending bill today, and send it to President Bush
Wilmington Star by Vicky Eckenrode (12/19/07)
The coastal area is positioned to receive about $24 million for beach nourishment and dredging projects in the massive federal spending bill Congress is debating in its final hours before adjourning for the year. The Senate on Tuesday night approved the $516 billion omnibus spending bill that funds most federal gencies and includes the money for Wilmington-area projects. The House voted for it Monday night and would have to approve it again today because the Senate added another $70 billion for funding in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would then be sent to President Bush for his signature. The local money for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects includes more than $3.7 million for Wilmington Harbor deepening and $378,000 for sand restoration at the Brunswick area beaches. The spending bill also includes nearly $5.5 million for dredging in the Intercoastal Waterway. "We have got a great Christmas present for Southeastern North Carolina," said Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. "The money is an astounding amount, especially when you consider the money that's included for the Wilmington Harbor, beach renourishment and for the deepening of our inlets." He said it has been an intense fight to fund the inlet and waterway projects, particularly against the backdrop of the overall budget fights in Washington this year. McIntyre pointed out that the beach restoration requests for Wilmington and other coastal areas have been left out of the Bush administration's recent budget proposals. Local spending projects also have come under scrutiny this year as the new Democratic-controlled Congress vowed to tighten down on earmarks as pet projects for lawmakers to take home to their constituents. McIntyre said lawmakers were under pressure to show a wider relevance for any type of special project request. "This year, to get these fundings you have to show there is a regional or national significance," he said, adding that he argued on the safety and business benefits of maintaining and deepening the waterways. "There's clearly a regional impact economically that in turn has a national impact when you consider the intercoastal water and the coastline is an environmental treasure."
The N.C. coast is in his debt
Wilmington Star Editorial (12/18/07)
UNCW won't be the only loser when Courtney Hackney leaves the faculty for a university in another state. The North Carolina coast will lose a watchdog. A biologist, Hackney has served on the Coastal Resources Commission for 18 of the past 20 years. During that time, he and his colleagues, all volunteers, have been responsible for protecting our coast from the determined assaults of man and nature. Commissioners have puzzled over complex questions of science and engineering and struggled with the far more difficult issues of money and politics: Those with money - and those who hope to make money by exploiting the coast - use their dollars to make friends among politicians at home and in Raleigh. Like hurricane waves surging toward a barrier island, critics assault laws and rules that we adopted to protect beaches, forests and wetlands. Too often, they win, and the public loses. The assaults will grow stronger as coastal property values and sea levels rise. The pressure to develop every inch, no matter how transitory and vulnerable, will increase. Politicians will want the property tax revenues. Builders will want the work. And buyers will want to protect what's theirs, even if that means damaging what's ours. As the North Carolina coast faces that difficult future, it will miss the voice of an experienced expert, strong but not strident. And it is not reassuring that, to replace him as chairman of the CRC, Gov. Mike Easley chose not a scientist, but a fellow who works for a huge corporation whose business is selling timber.
12/14/07
Holiday Inn concerned over setbacks
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1769&iid=92&sud=30
Beachgoers to touch foreign soil in Miami-Dade
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/v-print/story/342730.html
Wild Dunes beach may soon be public
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/dec/14/wild_dunes_beach_may_soon_be_public24971/?print
Cabin owners seek beach renourishment project
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/105350.html
In favor of Hunting Island renourishment?
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local/story/111252.html
Surfrider appeal puts Access 33 fence on hold
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1767&iid=92&sud=30
2007 annual loggerhead turtle report complete
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1770&iid=92&sud=30
12/13/07
Whose Beach Is This Anyway?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119741959764822149.html
Devlopment Model Built On Sand
http://www.carolinajournal.com/print/print_issue.html?id=4484
Appeal keeps question alive: Who owns beach access 33?
Wilmington Star by Steve McDaniel (12/12/07)
The very public battle over Public Access 33 continues at Wrightsville Beach. The narrow path that winds between the Blockade Runner hotel and a cottage at 301 S. Lumina Ave. has been the subject of contention for more than a year now. The owners of the cottage, brother and sister Alex Murchison and Mary Gornto, want to fence off the path they recently learned they own but has been used by the public since the 1960s. They applied for and were granted a permit by the town Nov. 28 to erect a fence, but an appeal filed Friday by the Surfrider Foundation has postponed any work there until at least early 2008, when the town's board of adjustments can hold a hearing on the matter. Jim Mincher is a member of Surfrider, which works to protect clean water and public beach access worldwide. He has spoken at town meetings in favor of keeping the access open, and said his group questions whether ownership is so clear cut. "We want to know who really owns the property, since it was for public use for more than 40 years," he said. "We knew we were running out of time for an appeal. This will start a path toward finding out who owns the property. We would like to see the truth in this matter. If it's their property, no one can take it from them." Mincher says the group is also worried about the precedent that could be set in this case. "We think this is an important issue in a larger sense," he added. "We're scared that another owner might try to close an access. We think there should be more access, not less." The Murchison family, which has lived in the cottage for five generations, said they were unaware of their ownership of the narrow strip of land until they were informed of their tax liability by New Hanover County in 2006. "It appears that someone unknown to us made an inquiry about the soundside property on Seashore Street (on Banks Channel across from their home). When the tax department started looking into that inquiry, that's what led to them looking into the easement where beach access 33 is," Murchison said. The family asked for verification of their ownership, which Murchison said they received from the county in May 2006: a five-page document, including a copy of the deed. It showed that the land, which was part of Seashore Street, became the property of what is now the Blockade Runner and the Murchison family when the town abandoned ownership of it in 1962. County records show the 2006 tax bill of $6,600 has been paid and no back taxes are owed. Once their ownership was established, Gornto sent a letter to the town in July 2006, stating the family's intent to close the access in October of that year and asking that signs marking the access be removed at that time, which the town did. Gornto said there are several reasons they want the access closed: Liability in case of injury, litter, trespassing, noise and even some instances of public urination. The issue lay dormant throughout the winter, Murchison said, except for a few behind-the-scene discussions with some townspeople. In April of this year, he said the family brought an informal offer to the town that would keep the access open. "It basically says we would give (the town) 5 feet of the 20 feet to maintain access with a couple of conditions: you maintain it, you build the fence, maintain the trash, a serious problem, and pay us a pro rata share of the land involved." The cost per year to lease the access, based on 2007 tax revaluations, came to about $1,500, Murchison said. The town then had its attorney, John Wessell, draw up a more formal document based on the family's offer, which Murchison said both sides approved. After the board of aldermen met in a closed session in June to discuss the proposal, Murchison said word came back to the family that the town had turned down its offer. "Two weeks later when we are expecting the town to say they're ready to sign the document, they go into closed session," he said. "Word comes back that some members of the board can't justify the money and some members do not think this issue warrants all the effort, and - this is the biggest thing - they just don't feel like (the access) is used enough." Murchison said after word got out that the town had turned down their offer, public opinion turned decidedly against them, even to the point where he received an anonymous death threat via e-mail. Mayor-elect Steve Whalen, a current member of the board of aldermen, said the proposal was not in the town's best interest. "We felt it was too costly," he said. "The town has tried to find a resolution to this. It has become a contentious issue." At that point, Gornto said, the family members decided that because the issue had dragged into another summer they would wait until this fall to close the access. They got the permit, and work to erect the fence was set to begin Monday or Tuesday until the appeal was filed Friday. "It's a real important thing from our perspective that the town never initiated anything," Gornto said. "We took the initiative, from saying we don't own (the property) to subsequently saying it's our plan to close it in four months. There was no effort on the town's part, then when we make an actual offer to them, it's declined. We feel we've tried very hard to work with the town."
Ask experts about this shore 'fix'
Wilmington Star (12/12/07)
North Carolina is blessed with an abundance of academic marine geologists and biologists, near-shore oceanographers and coastal managers. Housed in most of our universities (including UNC-Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, UNCW, N.C. State, Western Carolina University and Duke), a number of them hold chairs awarded for their scientific distinction. The scientific literature abounds with hundreds of technical papers and books describing the physical and biological processes on our continental shelf, beaches, barrier islands and the sounds behind them. Nature at our shoreline is about as well understood here as anywhere else in the world. Given all this, one would hope that when critical issues regarding the future of our marine environment are debated, the state of North Carolina would call upon this outstanding reservoir of expertise to furnish advice and ideas. This seems especially reasonable since most of the experts are on the state's payroll. As we speak, a critical issue is at our doorstep. Our beaches are facing the biggest threat since erosion control structures were banned in 1985. The proprietors of Figure Eight Island have proposed that they be allowed to build a terminal groin (another word for a jetty) at the north end of the island in order to protect a dozen houses threatened with erosion. The irony of this situation is that, as sure as the sun sets and flowers grow in the spring, the terminal groins will cause increased erosion on the very islands they are intended to protect. There is a vast amount of international experience with these structures, dating back to Roman times, and we are dead certain what will happen, although exact timing, rates and location can't be accurately predicted. If this hard structure is approved by the legislature, the door is open for North Carolina to follow the shoreline armoring paths of New Jersey and Florida. This will inevitably lead to more erosion, and more measures to halt it. Figure Eight Island is already discussing adding more groins down the length of the island, and three additional terminal groins are already being considered for other islands. The long-term impact on a generational scale will be the loss of our great-grandchildren's beaches. Does this generation have the right to destroy the beaches of future generations? At least a dozen of the state's coastal experts would be qualified in any court in the land to speak to the issue of terminal groins. But these experts aren't asked. Instead, the state legislature is held hostage to the opinion of high-paid public relations and engineering consulting firms that routinely give assurances of success in holding back the sea, without creating problems elsewhere. But consulting firms have an exceedingly poor record on the North Carolina shore in predicting beach quality, nourished beach durability and project impacts. They have led us into mining inlets for nourishment sand, which increases erosion rates, and have shown a strong lack of objectivity by providing the truth according to their client's needs. Because no one asked, the N.C. Senate was unaware of the magnitude of the disaster it was handing the state when it voted 41-8 to pass a bill that would allow the Coastal Resources Commission to approve a terminal groin. Fortunately for the future of our beaches, the House of Representatives failed to pass the bill. The issue is certain to surface again when the legislature convenes in May. For me personally, I feel like I have been transported back to the stone age of science. Legislators and citizens alike are being fed opinions that would not hold up well in the time of Caesar. And just as in the Roman times, the patricians hold sway. The powerful and well-off owners of beachfront property (mostly rental property) hold the fate of our beaches in their hands by funding their own experts. The state does have a panel of coastal scientists that reports to the CRC. But the consultants who have recommended the terminal groin and the mining of inlets sit on that panel. There is no way a panel so constituted can advise the CRC objectively. The panel should be reconstituted with members who have no economic interests in topics under discussion. Between now and what is likely a May vote on this issue, I hope the legislature will seek out - and listen to - the state's own experts and disinterested scientists. North Carolina citizens are more interested in preserving the beaches than in preserving the buildings owned by individuals who were imprudent enough to build next to an eroding shoreline. - Orrin H. Pilkey is a professor emeritus at Duke University and author of The North Carolina Shore and its Barrier Islands.
12/10/07
Wild Dunes owners in 'potential violation'
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/dec/08/wild_dunes_owners_potential_violation24440/?print
Sand: Coast's most valuable resource
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/8/07)
For North Carolina's beach towns built on sand, it might seem a strange question. While much of the recent rancor over beach nourishment projects has focused on how to pay for them, there might be a more basic fact to consider. Is there enough sand out there to nourish potentially more than 100 miles of beachfront as almost every town along the coast looks for help to protect its valuable oceanfront property from the encroaching Atlantic? "Clearly there are parts of North Carolina coast where there's less sand available than other parts, which could make some nourishment projects challenging," said Harry Simmons, executive director of the N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association. "But that also means we simply have to look harder to take care of those projects." With pressure on coastal communities mounting to stabilize disappearing beaches, and with nourishment projects needing to be repeated every few years to be effective, sand might just be the coast's most valuable natural resource. A recent study by researchers from Appalachian State, the University of North Carolina Wilmington, Duke and East Carolina universities said that 14 of Southeastern North Carolina's 17 public beaches could erode all the way to the road by 2080 without preventive action, such as nourishment projects or seawalls. "It's like repaving roads or repairing your roof," former Topsail Beach mayor Butch Parrish said of the need for regular beach nourishment. "If you live at the beach, it's a fact of life." But finding the money and the sand to rebuild battered beaches isn't a simple process. First, sand isn't an infinite resource. Coastal systems are adding little to no new material, meaning nourishment projects are often doing little more than moving around sand that's migrated from the beach to an inlet or just offshore. Sand also is publicly owned, which opens up questions of who should get first dibs on material and when. Many potential sand sources are more than three miles offshore, which places them in federal waters. The state has mandated new sand compatibility requirements meant to make sure the material getting dumped on a beach is similar in size and consistency to what's already there. That could further limit a community's potential sources. And financing a project is always a challenge, as North Topsail Beach officials will attest to after town voters overwhelmingly rejected taxing themselves for a $34 million beach-building project. "Those are all things that add to the complexity for local communities looking to do these projects," said Greg Williams, chief of the hydraulics and hydrology section with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington district. For a worst-case scenario, all North Carolina officials and residents have to do is travel 750 miles down Interstate 95 to sand-starved South Florida. There, the situation has sparked "sand wars" between coastal communities desperate to rebuild their eroded beaches. Miami-Dade County tried to dredge sand off the coast of a neighboring county. Miami Beach, which has run out of its own offshore sand deposits, even sought permission to import sand from the Bahamas. And Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, is studying the use of recycled glass to supplement scarce sand pumped onto its beaches.
'Hungry for sand'
State and coastal officials stress that North Carolina's situation isn't anywhere as serious as that. But some communities are taking steps to protect their sand sources. Carteret County this week filed suit to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from taking material dredged from the Morehead City shipping channel and dumping it several miles offshore. Greg "Rudi" Rudolph, head of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office, said removing as much as 1 million cubic yards of sand a year robs Bogue Banks of an important sand source to regenerate its beaches. The corps has said it is studying the best way to dispose of the dredged material while striving to be the best steward of taxpayer dollars. Historically, for practical and financial reasons, beach towns have looked to inshore sand sources. Those are largely inlets and the Intracoastal Waterway, sand sources that are renewable because the waterways require constant dredging to stay navigable. But towns can't simply dredge massive amounts of sand from an inlet without significantly altering its hydrology, potentially causing more erosion problems. "It would be hungry for sand, and if an inlet's hungry for sand, there's generally one place to get if from, and that's the adjacent beaches," Rudolph said. That leaves offshore deposits, which may or may not be renewable. But allocating sand between competing needs, whether inshore or offshore, could be a legal and political quagmire. Currently, the federal and state governments allocate submerged sand resources as they are requested. Jeff Warren, coastal hazards analyst with N.C. Division of Coastal Management, said the state's new comprehensive beach and inlet management plan will look at regional sediment management strategies. The N.C. Coastal Resources Commission also intends to discuss sand ownership issues to see if a more proactive allocation strategy might be required.
Marooned by the tide
Topsail Island might be ground-zero for the clash between the need to nourish beaches to protect valuable oceanfront property and the challenges of actually doing it. From the north, where oceanfront homes in North Topsail are marooned at high tide, to the south, where homes teeter on the edge of the dune line, the 26-mile-long island's beaches are losing ground to the ocean. Last month Topsail Beach wrapped up one relatively small beach nourishment project. The town wants to undertake a larger one next year and then have the Army Corps of Engineers pump even more sand onto its beach sometime early next decade. Surf City and North Topsail Beach also want federal nourishment projects to help boost eroded beaches and protect valuable oceanfront property. In addition, North Topsail is looking at doing its own beach-building project in the interim. But Onslow Bay, which runs from Cape Lookout to Cape Fear, is one of the most sand-poor areas of the coast, said Rob Thieler, a research geologist with the U.S. Geological Society. Finding the money for the proposed nourishments has proven a challenge, with residents divided on whether spending millions on a project that has no long-term guarantee of success is good fiscal policy. But Topsail Beach's Parrish said beach towns have little choice but to keep battling for the sand if they want to survive - economically and physically. "The average erosion rate in my town is 2 feet per year, and that's not going away, and if we can't replace 2 feet a year on an average basis, we're going to lose the front row," he said. "That chronic erosion is never going to stop and must be dealt with or these towns built 50 or 60 years ago are going to disappear."
Setback rules and exceptions open debate
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/9/07)
Wrightsville Beach | The Holiday Inn SunSpree is a big presence in this beach town, physically and economically. But hotel officials worry its size could cost it - and the town - under new setback rules being discussed by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. "We wouldn't be able to rebuild if we were destroyed by a fire or a hurricane," said Sue Bulluck, who is in charge of government relations for the hotel. "This would take away our property rights that exist now." Officials admit that maybe a blanket rule on how far back new beachfront structures would have to be from the dune line doesn't fit the whole coast, particularly when it comes to communities like Wrightsville Beach that have a long history of nourishing their beaches. But granting exceptions for all 7,000 existing oceanfront structures, which several speakers at last month's CRC meeting said they'd like to see, isn't viewed as an answer either. "The point of setback rules is to help communities to move back from the ocean as the ocean gradually moves landward," said Jim Stephenson, coastal policy analyst with the N.C. Coastal Federation. "Grandfathering in structures wouldn't be good coastal policy and it would, in effect, be the state permitting structures to be built in harm's way." Welcome to the world of North Carolina's coastal regulators, where tweaking rules first adopted when large swaths of the coast were undeveloped means stepping on somebody's property rights. And with the price of coastal property soaring, giving up an inch of sand isn't a popular option. "Greed is driving us, and greed is a very difficult thing to stop," said Orrin Pilkey, a coastal geologist with Duke University and a critic of coastal development patterns and policies. But not attempting to modify regulations that are outdated or ineffective would mean surrendering the state's responsibility to help keep people and property out of harm's way, said Courtney Hackney, the outgoing CRC chairman. The graduated setback rules are emblematic of the challenge facing coastal regulators. Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, said the aim of the proposed rule change is to have bigger structures built farther back from the ocean. Regulators see the measure as a proactive move as more and more people and buildings crowd beaches that are inherently unstable and facing further erosion from sea-level rise.
Financial fallout
But the proposal has run into vocal opposition from local officials and beachfront property owners worried about the financial fallout if current beach homes can't be rebuilt because lots are too small to meet the new setback requirements or only can be replaced with smaller structures. Hackney, also a biologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, said allowing exceptions in some cases can provide a degree of fairness. "But when the basic aspects of a property change, there has to be a way that the rules can accommodate that," he said. Hackney added that he expects more debate, and potentially some tweaking, on the proposed setback changes before the CRC makes any push for adoption. Bulluck said that's all the SunSpree is looking for. "We see no reason to rush to judgment on this," she said. "We think all of the potential economic ramifications of this proposal need to be looked at before any final decision is made."
Fight for our beach
Carteret County News Times Editorial (12/9/07)
The Corps’ own studies document the significant damage that is being done to Bogue Banks. The sand from Beaufort Inlet needs to stay on our beaches where God intended it to be instead of dumped in the ocean just to save money. — Buck Fugate, Chairman, Carteret County Beach Commission
We heartily endorse the civil lawsuit filed by the county last Monday against the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. Representing about 49½% of the county’s real property tax base for 2007, notes Pine Knoll Shores Commissioner Ted Lindblad, a member of the County Beach Commission in a letter to the editor today, the beaches are also the county’s main tourism draw. Keeping our county tax rate low, they also drive our economy. Though the Corps of Engineers attempts to meet federal budget mandates by disposing of dredged spoils in the least costly method — dumping offshore — it is past time to halt this continued wasteful and inefficient practice of dumping spoils from Beaufort Inlet offshore year after year after year. Mr. Fugate, former mayor of Indian Beach and now chairman of the County Beach Commission, and County Commissioner Pete Allen, former Emerald Isle mayor, commissioner and town manager, have long championed beach nourishment and, more importantly, a way to pay for it. That is now being accomplished by the county’s occupancy tax, legislatively mandated for beach nourishment. Together with James N. “Cap’n Jim” Willis III, Atlantic Beach , and others, they have fought the practice of dumping dredged spoils offshore for years. In an April 1999 letter to The News-Times, Mr. Willis said Bogue Banks erosion results from the “continued expansion of the channel depth for one industry, our port, at the expense of another, our tourism. This is wrong. No industry should expand at the expense of another.” Reiterating his February 1971 suggestion to the Corps, he said if all dredged material from the Morehead City harbor channel maintenance and deepening projects had been placed on Bogue Banks, there would be no erosion problem. Replying to a typical gloom and doom prediction by Duke Professor Orrin Pilkey about beach erosion in a Dec. 3, 2004, letter to the editor of The News & Observer, Mr. Fugate said some beaches, like those of Bogue Banks, are “geographically situated in a south-facing orientation that would cause them to grow seaward if left to natural processes. This is happening at south-facing Sunset Beach and would be happening on south-facing Bogue Banks if not for the artificial displacement of 1 million cubic yards of sand per year from Bogue Banks beaches, equivalent to approximately 66,000 truckloads of sand. All developable shoreline would not need nourishing,” he added, “if the state and the ports did not take sand away from some of our beaches.” Lamenting the Corps’ practice of disposing spoils by the least costly method last week, Mr. Fugate said since 2001 municipalities have spent more than $30 million in beach nourishment because dumping spoils offshore removed the sand from the Bogue Banks natural ecosystem — the littoral drift —preventing it from finding its way back into the system. Following best management practices to stem beach erosion, the goal of the county’s lawsuit, would save millions and millions of dollars — along with our beaches — the goose that lays our golden eggs.
Carteret County News Times Letter to the Editor (12/9/07)
As a citizen of Carteret County, the heart of the Crystal Coast of North Carolina, I am dismayed by the position that one of the county commissioners has taken with regard to the suit, which the county has recently filed against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The commissioner in his press release regarding the lawsuit makes several points which need to be questioned. The first of these is his position as the only Democrat on the board, which by the way, should have no real bearing on this issue since we are all affected by what happens along the beaches. He writes that as the only Democrat on the board he feels the county should be concerned with creating jobs. Is it possible he is not aware of how many jobs and how much tax revenue the beaches contribute to the county general fund? As to his point about other alternatives being pursued in an effort to come to agreement, how can anyone who purports to represent the county and be aware of that which the county is involved in not have any idea how long the people of the county have been trying to work this issue? I personally have spent many years working with the Beach Association and the County Beach Commission to avoid costly litigation. What, if any, effort has this commissioner made in support of this most valuable asset of the county? Is there never a time when words fail and alternative actions are necessary? The commissioner states he is concerned about spending the taxpayer’s money on this litigation. Consider the following: The taxpayers of Bogue Banks have shelled out $31,678,000 to pay for sand that the Corps took away from our beaches. If you include North Carolina and federal tax outlays for beach nourishment on Bogue Banks, the total taxes paid to replace sand that was diverted by the Corps is $66,750,000! Of even greater significance is the money being spent on this lawsuit comes from occupancy taxes and in no way impinges the county’s general funds. I wonder how that escaped the commissioner’s attention when he worried about spending the taxpayer’s money. Oh, and just one more insignificant fact he seems to forget regarding taxes: Bogue Banks represents approximately 49.5% of the real property tax base for all of Carteret County for 2007. His comment about port employees being unable to enjoy the amenities of the beach is particularly egregious considering beachfront communities have put as much time and money as they have to greatly increase the number of public beach access points. I support his right to speak his mind; I just wish his mind was concerned about the welfare of the county in general and not his position as the only Democrat on the County Board of Commissioners. This is no time to play politics. This is the time for a united stand to protect a resource which produces a positive cash flow for the county. To keep this letter and my opinions as honest as possible I am a member of the County Beach Commission and am also a commissioner in Pine Knoll Shores where we do not run as Democrats or Republicans but as concerned citizens. – Ted Lindblad
12/7/07
Beach pathway to be fenced off Monday
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1741&iid=91&sud=30
CRC discusses setbacks, denies pier variance
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1749&iid=91&sud=30
County tries to stop Army Corps
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (12/5/07)
PINE KNOLL SHORES — Carteret County filed a civil action Monday against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop what the complaint calls “significant adverse impacts” to Bogue Banks by the Corps. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case against the Corps and associated officials challenges the Corps’ management of the sand it dredges for routine navigation purposes annually from Beaufort Inlet, known as the outer harbor, as part of the Morehead City Harbor Navigation Project. The dredged beach-quality sand is taken out of the beach’s natural ecosystem when it is dumped onto offshore disposal sites, according to the complaint filed in Raleigh. The county is requesting an order permanently enjoining – or prohibiting – the Corps from dumping the sand offshore and wants the court to enjoin the Corps from dredging Beaufort Inlet until the Corps prepares documents, required by federal law, that fully evaluate the environmental impacts of the Morehead City Harbor Project. The Carteret County Beach Commission, which manages beach nourishment activity here, has been arguing this issue with the Corps for more than 10 years, according to beach commission Chairman William “Buck” Fugate. Carteret County Board of Commissioners Chairman Doug Harris agreed. “We have tried for years to work this out with the Corps,” said Chairman Harris. “Unfortunately, those efforts have failed. We are determined to do whatever is necessary to prevent further damage to Bogue Banks.” The Corps’ representative Penny Schmitt said in a written statement, “as with any suit in litigation, it is not appropriate for us to comment or respond in detail to the claims made in the suit.” The Corps has 60 days to respond in court.
Ms. Schmitt also said, “the issue of sediment management along the Carteret County Coast has been under discussion and study by the Corps, the State of North Carolina and coastal interests in the area for many years.” She further stated, “Currently, the Corps is undertaking to create a new dredged material management plan for the Morehead City Harbor Project.” Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi“ Rudolph said while the Corps agrees that a new sand management plan is needed, it doesn’t resolve the legal claims being made in the lawsuit. According to Mr. Fugate, the Corps’ practice is to dispose of the sand in the least costly method for taxpayers. But that isn’t what is being done, he said. “If they (the Corps) consider this the least costly way, they have not taken into account the county spending for nourishment (projects),” Mr. Fugate said. Carteret County’s municipalities have spent more than $30 million in beach renourishment projects since 2001 – projects Mr. Fugate believes are direct results from the sand being removed by the dredging project from the beach ecosystem, which would make its way back into the system if the sand was managed correctly. “The Corps’ own studies document the significant damage that is being done to Bogue Banks,” said Mr. Fugate. “The sand from Beaufort Inlet needs to stay on our beaches where God intended it to be, instead of dumped in the ocean just to save money.” The outer harbor, which connects to the Atlantic Ocean, is dredged annually to maintain the 45-foot-deep channel that leads to the Morehead City Port. The sand that finds its way into the channel mostly comes from the adjacent shoreline of Shackelford Banks due to sand migration. According to the complaint, the removal of the sand has caused “a number of significant, adverse impacts to Bogue Banks … and several municipalities,” including Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, Emerald Isle and unincorporated Salter Path. The sand would naturally move onto the shoreline across the outer harbor into the Bogue Banks littoral, or ecosystem, if the channel wasn’t dredged. “Based on our research the best … practices would dictate the sand would go into the littoral system … by direct placement on the beach or within 15 feet of the (shoreline) waters,” Mr. Fugate said. There are several claims being made in the complaint, and they are “really all about the management of sand,” according to attorney Steven J. Levitas of Kilpatrick Stockton out of Raleigh, who filed the complaint for the county. However, “It’s pretty complicated from a legal standpoint,” he said, adding that the lawsuit is 44 pages with more than 25 exhibits. Kilpatrick Stockton is the law firm representing the county in this matter and has been involved in trying to work out an agreement between the county and the Corps on this issue since September 2006, a process that met with no satisfaction on the part of the county and led to the civil action. The allegations include asking the Corps’ to prepare a new National Environmental Protection Act environmental impact statement (EIS), a procedure required of all federal projects, but according to Mr. Rudolph, the Corps has failed to do the EIS. Another claim asks the Corps to rescind its Section 111 Report – a report prepared by the Corps concerning the impacts of the navigation project on Bogue Banks.
However, it “applied the wrong standard (in making its conclusion) and ignored the bulk of its own technical findings,” states complaint. The county is also asking the court to make the Corps permanently stop disposing sand in the offshore dredged material disposal sites. Another claim requests the Corps to stop dredging the outer harbor until all state and federal requirements have been met. The complaint states that the Corps has significant information that the procedure of placing the beach-quality dredged material offshore is “neither environmentally acceptable, nor engineeringly sound” and “is not consistent with North Carolina ’s Coastal Zone Management Act Regulations.” Mr. Fugate said legal efforts of a similar nature have taken place in other parts of the state and have been successful. He said something similar happened in Bald Head Island and Caswell Beach , when those local governments asked the Corps to put sand on the beach, which led to a sand use management plan. “It’s not some new concept … they (the Corps) do make a beneficial use of dredged material,” he said. However, while the better management of sand would benefit all of Bogue Banks, according to Mr. Fugate, a sand management plan would not need to be established for all of Bogue Banks because each town is trying to manage its oceanfront.
The County Beach Commission is financing the full amount of the legal action out of the portion of the occupancy tax legislatively mandated for the purpose of beach nourishment, according to Mr. Rudolph. He said the contract with Kilpatrick and Stockton is not to exceeded $900,000. “We are nowhere near that threshold yet,” he said. Half of the county occupancy tax goes to the Tourism Development Authority (TDA) while the other half goes to the purpose of beach nourishment into a “beach fund.” That beach reserve fund is administered by the beach commission and is allowed to accrue each year, so the commission has money on hand for things like the legal action or beach projects, according to Mr. Rudolph. “It is not coming out of the county’s general fund,” he said. However, at least one member of the county board disagrees with pursing legal action. County Commissioner Wade Nelms in a written statement said, “I do not support this litigation or its use of taxpayers’ money.” The only Democrat on the County Board of Commissioners, he said he believed “that we should be creating jobs and affordable housing in Carteret County , and this litigation certainly does not further that effort.” “The United States Army Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 34,600 civilian and 650 military members. It provides vital engineering services and capabilities, in support of national interests,” Commissioner Nelms said in the written statement. Additionally, he said the county “should be good stewards of the resources we have and while some nourishment of the beach is practical, I personally feel that our taxpayers’ money should not be used in this litigation.”
Carteret County News Times Letter to the Editor (12/7/07)
Keeping an eye on the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission is a full time job. Especially if you own property, pay property tax or are perceived as an ROPO (Rich Oceanfront Property Owner.) Take the issue of determining the stable line of vegetation on Bogue Banks. If the CRC had its way it would probably be drawn just east of the I-95 corridor based on various unfounded fears about the impact of sea level rise and hurricanes on Bogue Banks. In 1953, Hurricane Hazel devastated the line of vegetation on Atlantic Beach. Today, thanks to transporting sand from Beaufort Inlet to Atlantic Beach instead of throwing the sand offshore, the stable line of vegetation is 100 feet further south than in the wake of Hurricane Hazel. Like most Green organizations, the CRC has little accountability for its actions. With its mantra Retreat from the Shoreline, it would have undoubtedly stopped all reconstruction after Hazel for the same reasons it gives today. The consequences for the citizens of Carteret County would have been devastating. There’s nothing artificial about the sand transported from the offshore disposal area to Emerald Isle and adjacent beaches. Except for maintaining Beaufort Inlet at artificial depths, this sand would have made its way to Emerald Isle and adjacent beaches years ago. Hurricanes and sea level rise are not causing erosion on Bogue Banks. Removing sand from the littoral system in maintenance of Beaufort Inlet causes erosion on Bogue Banks. Where should the stable line of vegetation be drawn? Where the high water mark was prior to maintaining Beaufort Inlet at artificial depths. - JOE EXUM, Executive director Bogue Banks Environmental Stewardship Corp.
It is time to become proactive
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (12/5/07)
In 1990 when North Topsail Beach was incorporated there must have been a vision. A vision of a community that could take care of itself and its homeowners better than it thought that the county of Onslow was doing. A community that no matter what the differences would put lives and property first. A place that was a safe haven for all who bought within the town. And, yes, a lot of good things have come to North Topsail Beach. There is a stunning town hall, a police department, a fine fire department. They created jobs, built parks, purchased police cars and fire trucks. They made the choices to take care of the people. They were what government for the people was all about. Our elected officials today can’t compare. The recent election in North Topsail Beach should be an eye opening experience to all. To look at the numbers one would think the town was divided down the middle, when in fact the town is divided into three groups. Group one is the clique, the group that currently governs. Group two is the fulltime residents hell bent on saving homes. The third group is the non-voting homeowners who have no say in our own local government. In perspective, two thirds of the people of the town would not have the newly elected officials in office. The fact that they are there should not deter anyone. There is more than one branch of government. When elected officials won’t help then we have the courts. Many of us are in danger of losing our homes to the Atlantic Ocean and the November election sent us the message, “There will be no new sand.” It is time to become proactive. Topsail Reef can drop 240 lawsuits on the mayor’s desk alone. There are also the many single family homes that could bring that number closer to 300. Town officials already have eight lawsuits on their desks that are costing them legal fees monthly. We need to give them another 300. The town officials have been negligent to take emergency measures to protect our homes and should be held liable in the event there is loss of property due to erosions. We need to get a court injunction against the dredging of the New River Inlet until an independent study can be made. The dredging may be causing adverse affects to the shoreline. In 1997 Brevard County , Florida did just that and won a landmark case for millions of dollars. We need to understand together that we do not need our elected officials to get the job done. We have options and we need to exercise these options now. Some of us who enjoyed our homes in 2007 may not be so lucky in 2008. Together we will make the difference, together we are government. The excuse that registered voters will decide if we lose our homes or not is not acceptable. - John Giannini, Jim Paonessa, North Miami Beach , Florida
12/4/07
Battle for sand gets even grittier (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/dec/04/battle_sand_gets_even_grittier23973/?print
Carteret County files lawsuit against Army Corps of Engineers
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=53649
Carteret County suing Army engineers over dredging spoils (AP - long)
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/808225.html
Carteret County suing Army engineers over dredging spoils (AP - short)
http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/v-print/story/808157.html
12/3/07
Brevard OKs study of man-made reef project
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071128/NEWS01/711280325/1006
No good from groin
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/v-print/story/804321.html
Rising seas raise issue of property rights
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (12/1/07)
Greenville | Coastal regulators could face a thorny legal issue in upcoming decades as, if expected, ocean levels rise, beaches wash away and shorelines migrate inland. That could bring into open conflict two of the state's most jealously protected rights - development interests and the public's access to the water. Friday, the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission took the first tentative step to try to understand that potential legal quagmire. Under current North Carolina law, everything from the high-tide line down is considered public trust land. So even on a private island, such as Figure Eight Island, the public has the right to walk the beach. But residents also have a right to defend their property, and - as stated in the Constitution - must be compensated for any public taking of land. Those rights can collide on the coast. For example, if regulators don't allow someone to protect their beach house from the advancing ocean, does that constitute a "taking" of private property? No, said David Owens, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He said protecting public trust property rights, which has a long legal history in North Carolina, gives regulators the legal authority to prohibit an action that would infringe on them. "You are basically preventing them from doing something that they didn't have the right to do anyway," Owens said. But sea-level rise could exacerbate this inherent conflict between public and individual rights as more and more communities look for strategies to hold back the encroaching ocean. While some question remains as to how much of an effect man is having on rising ocean levels, there's general scientific consensus that it's happening and will likely increase as the century goes on. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this month strengthened its earlier warnings about the effects of human-induced climate change on coastal areas, which it forecast would increase as the century progresses. The IPCC, which released its final report Nov. 17 in Spain, said the 0.12-inch annual average rate of global sea-level rise between 1993 and 2003 was 58 percent higher than that measured over the previous three decades. While that doesn't sound like a lot, researchers caution that much of the North Carolina coast is especially vulnerable to sea-level rise because it consists of low-slung barrier islands. Areas in the northeast part of the state also are sinking at the same time the oceans are rising. Courtney Hackney, chairman of the CRC and a biologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, said the state's coastal regulations have always tried to take a reasonable approach that allows people to develop their property while protecting the natural resource. But with more people and ever-larger houses crowding the coast, there's less land to share between those often competing needs. The value of coastal property also magnifies every regulatory decision and makes people more likely to fight to preserve what they have, Hackney added. "People today expect far more than just living along the ocean," he said. "They want that house that justifies how much it now costs to live at the beach and, if anything, I see those pressures increasing."
Setback change debated
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (12/2/07)
GREENVILLE — Town officials, homeowners and environmentalists from Atlantic Beach to Wrightsville Beach had a chance to air their concerns on proposed changes to setback rules for renourished beaches. The rule changes being considered by the state’s Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) are a major shift in policy and could allow some homes to be built closer to the shoreline, while others could potentially become nonconforming. The public hearing was held Thursday during the CRC’s regular meeting Thursday and Friday at the City Hotel and Bistro in Greenville. The deadline for written comments on the issue is Dec. 31. While the CRC did not vote on the issue during the meeting Thursday, the panel may vote on the issue as early as January 2008. “We are going to review all the comments,” Courtney Hackney, CRC chairman said after the public hearing. “The commission has a lot to consider. There is a large quantity of work going into this … we’ve been working on this for about a year and a half,”
While a lot of work has been put into the proposed regulation changes, there’s a lot of work in understanding exactly what those changes are, according to Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, who attended the meeting. “Understanding what was proposed to start with is half the battle … I think understanding the rules is the hardest part of the whole thing,” he said Friday. The two proposed rules and the major points of discussion during the public hearing were the aspect of the static line of vegetation and the idea of graduated setbacks. The static line of vegetation is established if a town undergoes a beach nourishment project. The static line is set to where the first stable line of vegetation was before the nourishment project. That line becomes permanent and, no matter how far the line of vegetation moves seaward, is fixed forever. The new rules allow towns to petition to receive a static line exception but would have to include a 30-year nourishment plan in the petition, among other requirements. If a town gets the exception, the maximum building size on the exempted beachfront is 2,000 square feet – something that residents and officials seemed to take issue with. Emerald Isle town manager, Frank Rush said, “2,000 square feet is just a small house in this day and age.” He told the commission there are 171 properties that are nonconforming in Emerald Isle – 160 of those have existing homes. The proposed rule change would allow those homes to be reconstructed if damaged by storm. However, a total of “143 of those homes are 3,000 square feet or less and 83 are 2,000 square feet or less,” he said. If they were to be damaged in a storm, they could only be rebuilt to 2,000 square feet, according to the proposed changes. Mr. Rush said he felt a 3,000-squar-foot limitation would be more appropriate and requested the commission to consider. However, Jim Stephenson with the N.C. Coastal Federation, an environmental group based in Ocean, and a member of the Carteret County Beach Commission said, “I think the commission needs to ask itself whether it makes sense to approve exceptions to the static line rule especially with rapidly increased sea level on the rise and potentially more intense hurricanes.” Steve Ambrose, a property owner in Emerald Isle, was among those who felt 2,000 square feet was a bit small for buildings today but he suggested something a little larger than 3,000 square feet and asked the commission to consider 3,500 square feet. “The rule will allow sections to be rebuilt and others to be brought up to code,” he said. His property would also be able to benefit from the static line exemption. He felt 3,500 square feet was reasonable if the other proposed rule, the graduated setback rules, were also taken into consideration – it would set the larger buildings farther away from the ocean. Currently there are two oceanfront setback rules. The first is any structure less than 5,000 square feet must have a set back of 30 times the annual erosion rate behind the vegetation line. Anything over 5,000 square feet will be about 60 times that rate, in general. The proposed graduated set back rule would include eight different categories of setbacks based on size. The larger the building is, the larger the set back. Concern with this rule was heard mostly from Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach representatives – areas that have a lot of large-scale condominiums – but Atlantic Beach Councilman Jim Bailey voiced concern with development planned for the town’s the circle area, the former amusement site, and the proposed rule. Mr. Bailey said the town has been working on the circle area development for some time now and could be seriously impacted if the rules were to be established. A mixture of residential and commercial uses is planned for the circle area, and utility construction is under way. Councilman Bailey felt a grandfather clause should be established for existing structures and projects that are currently being developed like the circle area that have not finished construction but are actively working on getting the required permits. Mr. Rudolph explained that the concern with the graduated setback rule was, “If (someone) has a large-scale condominium project that meets the setbacks now … it might be nonconforming as soon as that rule passes,” he said. “People think that would be crazy to take a conforming building and throw them into nonconforming,” he said. After the meeting, Chairman Hackney said the board would have a lot to decide, based on all the comments heard. He said there is a delicate balance between private property owner rights and the natural beach system. “We are trying to let people have some use of lots on beaches that have been renourished.” However, he also said that some people were requesting the new rules allow them to do things that they currently are not allowed to do. “It’s something the commission is going to have to decide, whether the trade-off is worth it,” he said.
11/30/07
New sand on the Strand
http://www.thesunnews.com/news/local/v-print/story/266850.html
Edwardses opposed to seawall plan
http://www.charlotte.com/local/v-print/story/384559.html
The mess at Mirlo Beach
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.11.29-ShootingTheBreeze-MirloBeach.html
Sandbags remain as deadline looms (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/nov/30/sandbags_remain_as_deadline_looms23640/?print
Beach home limits worry coastal officials
Setback proposal includes keeping new houses under 2,000 square feet
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/30/07)
Greenville | A fair compromise or opening a Pandora's box? State regulators and environmentalists are still squabbling over a proposal to modify the state's setback rules along beaches that periodically receive a fresh injection of sand. And now some coastal officials are concerned about language that would limit the size of the new homes to 2,000 square feet, which is meant to make relocating the homes more feasible if the rebuilt beach starts eroding. "The total-floor-area limitation set forth in the rules appears to be inconsistent with similar restrictions established elsewhere in the oceanfront development rules," Oak Island Commissioner Dara Royal said Thursday at the meeting of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. The commission, which regulates the coast, could vote on the significant policy shift in January. Under current rules, oceanfront setback requirements along beaches that have had large-scale nourishment projects are based on what the beach looked like before the new sand was added. The rationale behind the rule is that homes built closer to the ocean could be threatened if the engineered beach isn't periodically nourished and erodes back to its natural state. The push to soften the regulation comes as some coastal towns, including Ocean Isle Beach and Oak Island in Brunswick County, complain that the current rules severely limit both new construction and the replacement of homes along wide swaths of their nourished beachfront that are healthy and stable. Oak Island, for example, has 475 beachfront structures that are nonconforming. That means they can't be replaced if destroyed by a hurricane or fire. Dozens of other oceanfront lots are unbuildable, costing the town significant property tax revenue. The towns have taken their frustrations to Raleigh, where a bill by state Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick, to modify the setback requirement was introduced but didn't pass. Environmentalists have said the existing rule for nourished beaches has worked, keeping people and property out of harm's way. Allowing development closer to the ocean would simply give homeowners a false sense of security, since there's no guarantee that the political will, money and sand will always be there to continue nourishing the beach, they said. "I think the commission needs to ask itself if it makes sense to approve exceptions to the static line rule in an era of rapidly increasing sea-level rise and potentially more intense hurricanes," said Jim Stephenson, policy analyst with the N.C. Coastal Federation. But Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, has said the new rule wouldn't unleash a building boom in questionable oceanfront locations. He said the proposal includes a series of checks to limit development that can meet the new setback requirements. Those restrictions would require towns to show they have the money - and the sand - to sustain long-term nourishment projects. They also would limit house size to 2,000 square feet and not allow structures oceanward of neighboring structures. But like Oak Island's Royal and Emerald Isle Manager Frank Rush, Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith said she had reservations about the 2,000-square-foot limitation. She said that including covered porches in the calculation would take the size of a new home back to the average size of the 1970s. "I don't think any of us here want to back up," Smith said. Instead, she said, the commission should consider a more reasonable house-size maximum, possibly somewhere closer to the 5,000-square-foot limit allowed along non-nourished areas of the beach. Royal added that limiting house size would discourage homeowners from replacing older structures with better-built homes.
Letter to the Editor
Carteret County News Times (11/30/07)
In response to an article about beach nourishment, Dr. Pete Peterson, a researcher and teacher at UNC Institute of Marine Sciences, Morehead City, said that while beach nourishment can be good, improperly designed and implemented projects can cause serious biological and ecological problems, both short and long term. He also said if the state and the county want to continue nourishing Bogue Banks, officials should look to Cape Lookout shoals as the source for sand. I submit that doing so may cause “serious biological and ecological problems.” While this sand source may seem like a wonderful idea to many, especially those whose residences are not situated behind those protective outer banks of south Core Banks, it would be a shame for this notion to be perpetrated based on the statement of this one person. Has there been a biological impact study done on this idea? What would partial removal of the shoal do to the south end of Cape Lookout National Seashore? Would it be eaten away more and more with no way to reverse the mistake, similar to old and new Drum Inlet sand removal results? The Corps of Engineers really started something there. Bogue Banks has been developed. There are houses on the ocean shore. The people there have chosen to build on the protective island barrier that buffers the mainland areas from hurricanes. This is fortunately not the case on south Core Banks. There has been no removal of dunes or sand to make way for houses. This is an intact barrier system — so far. The people who have homes near Straits, Ward’s Creek, North River, Otway, Bettie, Gloucester and inland, are dependent on south Core Banks to shield them from storms. For Bogue Banks to use this barrier’s sand to nourish their beaches is preposterous, and that is precisely what using Cape Lookout shoals would be doing. In effect, it would remove part of the south end of the protective sandbar. Let us all be mindful of the impact of our present and future actions in regard to our very fragile environment here. Even though the sand of Cape Lookout shoals may be the right color and texture, perhaps the county and state should resist the temptation to consider it a reasonable source for “nourishment” projects. – Sheron Dedmon
11/29/07
Plan would allow homes closer to the Atlantic
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/800230.html
State agency to discuss its role if sea levels rise, beach erodes (AP)
http://www.thesunnews.com/564/v-print/story/262443.html
CRC to discuss dock variance, setbacks
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1719&iid=90&sud=30
Course changes finish after beach erosion
http://www.charlotte.com/golf/v-print/story/381513.html
Figure Eight's precedent
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/v-print/story/794960.html
When seas rise, who owns shoreline?
N.C. coastal panel to tackle public-private property rights issues
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (11/26/07)
Greenville isn't exactly synonymous with the beach. But when the state agency that regulates the coast meets there later this week, one of the topics on the agenda will be what role the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission could play in managing the state's response to sea-level rise. Specifically, what should coastal regulators do when the public beach, which is defined as anything below the high-tide line, moves inland as private oceanfront property erodes? Posed another way, where's the line between public and private property rights? While some question remains as to how much of an effect man is having on rising ocean levels, there's general scientific consensus that it's happening and will likely increase as the century goes on. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this month strengthened its earlier warnings about the effects of human-induced climate change on coastal areas, which it forecast would increase as the century progresses. The IPCC, which released its final report Nov. 17 in Spain, said the 0.12-inch annual average rate of global sea-level rise between 1993 and 2003, was 58 percent higher than that measured over the previous three decades. While that doesn't sound like a lot, researchers caution that much of the North Carolina coast is especially vulnerable to sea-level rise because it is sinking while the oceans rise. Rising seas also mean storm surge events associated with tropical weather systems would be that much stronger. The recent focus on sea-level rise has prompted some CRC members to try to get a handle on the commission's legal reach and responsibilities before it is faced with tough questions from worried property owners. The issue is a thorny one because North Carolina bans towns and individual property owners from building permanent structures along the beach to protect oceanfront areas from erosion. And while sandbags have turned into a quasi-permanent way of getting around the prohibition, public and regulatory sentiment has been turning against their long-term presence on the beach. But few expect coastal homeowners or officials to meekly surrender oceanfront areas to either Mother Nature or public ownership. In a closely intertwined issue, the CRC also is scheduled to talk about sand ownership. With rising seas eroding beaches faster, many communities are expected to focus on beach nourishment as one way to hold back the encroaching ocean and protect valuable oceanfront property. Rising ocean levels coupled with increased storm surge means more sand would have to be pumped onto beaches, and more frequently, just to maintain the status quo. The prospect of limited sand supplies and surging demand could drive some coastal communities to start making preemptive grabs for the state's submerged land resources - even pushing sand-starved communities to start looking in federal waters, which start three miles offshore. Currently, state and federal regulators allocate sand sources on a case-by-case basis. The CRC meeting takes place Thursday and Friday.
11/19/07
N.C. coastal fight builds
http://www.charlotte.com/outdoors/v-print/story/368026.html
Fight looms over proposal to stem erosion on Figure Eight Island (AP)
http://www.thesunnews.com/564/v-print/story/254677.html
County to ask to intervene in law suit
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/11/17/top_stories/tops0441.prt
Here comes the sea
http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/v-print/story/368070.html
Seas rising, ready or not
Wilmington Star Editorial (11/18/07)
The bad news for North Carolina's beaches wasn't new. But it's about time we paid attention to it. A conference at Carolina Beach last weekend brought together local and federal officials to discuss what beaches can do as seas rise. The consensus seemed to be that dealing with it will be mainly up to local officials. Taxpayers in other places are unlikely to bail us out. As one bureaucrat put it, "the federal debt is rising faster than the sea level." Seawalls aren't the answer. They leave little or no beach for the public to use. Piling sand on eroding beaches is a better answer, but renourishment is neither cheap nor permanent. Sand supplies aren't limitless. Neither are government dollars. And seas are expected to rise even more rapidly as the planet warms. According to The News & Observer, a federal marine geologist argued that, "It's wrong to build up expectations that beach nourishment is going to get us out of this bind. It's not." The only solution, he said, is to move buildings back. That familiar and unwelcome proposal drew an unsurprising response from Mayor Debbie Smith of Ocean Isle Beach: "I don't think you're going to get people on the coast to retreat." Certainly they won't if government programs continue to subsidize development in flood-prone areas, and to help people rebuild after storms that should have taught them a lesson: This is no place to put a house or business. Calvin Peck, once the town manager of Carolina Beach and now the manager of Bald Head Island, knows a thing or two about the ocean. He observed that beach communities should take rising seas into account as they plan development. "We have not done that in the past," he said. We rarely do it now. And the ocean is biding its time.
11/16/07
Rising seas worry beach officials
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/773298.html
Keeping the sea at bay
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/nov/16/keeping_sea_at_bay22372/?print
Lost WWII plane uncovered on beach in Wales
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/ap_lostp38_071114/
Environmentalists seek more protection for loggerhead turtles
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/story/250982.html
News Alert
Island Free Press (11/14/07)
Dare County will ask to intervene in beach driving lawsuit. The Dare County Board of Commissioners voted in closed session after its Nov. 5 meeting to file a motion to intervene in the lawsuit that was brought against the Park Service last month by two environmental advocacy groups, the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society, which are represented by Southern Environmental Law Center. The lawsuit claims that the Park Service has failed to regulate beach driving on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore beaches according to federal law. If approved, Dare County would be allowed to participate as a party in the suit to represent the interests of the people who live, work, and visit Dare County and “to protect against the devastating negative economic impacts that would result if beach driving were further restricted or prohibited.” “It is important for us to have a seat at the table so the people have a voice in the matter,” said Warren Judge, chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners. “A process has been established to develop a long term ORV management plan to balance the interests of all involved. Until that plan is complete and the final rules are established, the Interim Management Plan must stay in place.” According to Dare County Attorney Bobby Outten, the motion is expected to be filed in the next couple of weeks in the U.S. District Court in Elizabeth City.
Letter to the Editor
Carteret County News Times (11/16/07)
For several decades now we have been subjected to a steady stream of unsolicited advice from Dr. Orrin Pilkey on what to do about beachfront erosion on Bogue Banks. When beach nourishment was first proposed some 30 years ago, Dr. Pilkey’s advice was not to proceed with such a project because it was a waste of time and money and would not provide lasting protection for oceanfront property. When it was discovered that nourished beaches survive hurricanes and other storms better than unnourished beaches, Dr. Pilkey abandoned this tactic and began to talk about the damage nourishment does to the mole crab and coquina clam population. When it was discovered that these critters rapidly reestablish themselves following beach nourishment, this ploy was abandoned in favor of a new tactic, i.e., the quality of sand being placed on the beaches. Is it just me, or do others feel that a beach made up of sand, which is less than perfect, is better than no beach at all? My family has owned property in Atlantic Beach since 1940. We now have more thickly vegetated dunes here in Atlantic Beach than anytime since 1940, and this is due primarily to the three nourishment projects by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Beach nourishment works. In the News-Times Nov. 14 article on beach nourishment, Dr. Pilkey venomously attacks beachfront property owners by saying, “To hell with them” because they built on an eroding shoreline. When these houses were built there was little or no erosion. The erosion began with the deepening of the Beaufort channel by the Corps of Engineers. My advice to Dr. Pilkey is for him to stay on the west side of I-95 and let the people in Carteret County, who really care about the protection and preservation of our beaches, continue to do the wonderful job they have been doing. – James Lanier
11/14/07
Warming worries coastal officials
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/771883.html
Concerns are rising along with sea levels
http://www.stateportpilot.com/Stories/14%20Concerns%20Brown.htm
Beach battle heating up (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/nov/14/beach_battle_heating_up22125/?print
Marine geologist says beach renourishment a short term fix
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/v-print/story/249155.html
Hazard area could increase
Tideland News by Annita Best (11/14/07)
Proposed changes to state rules regarding inlet hazard zones, and a greatly increased inlet hazard zone area at Bogue Inlet, could have an effect on new construction in the area. The hazard zone encompasses the east end of Bear Island and the west end of Bogue Banks, the area known as the Point. The N.C. Division of Coastal Management is taking a look at some outdated boundaries, according to Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, of the Carteret County Shore Protection office. DCM will be making some proposals for changes early next year. “The state has realized the boundaries are outdated and have been analyzing all the inlets in N.C. and are proposing new boundaries for inlet hazard areas,” Rudolph said. This new zoning is a twofold process, he explained. In addition to the proposed rezoning, DCM is also looking at releasing new rules that guide development within these inlet hazard areas. “Everybody is scratching their heads right now,” Rudolph said. “We don’t know what the new rules are yet. It could be setbacks, sandbags or development issues.” The biggest difference could be in the types of development allowed in the zone. Currently, permanent structures are permitted at a density of no more than one commercial or residential unit per 15,000 square feet of land area on lots subdivided or created after July 23, 1981. Additionally, only residential structures of four units or less or non-residential structures of less than 5,000 square feet total floor area are allowed within the area. As for the rezoning, the new DCM hazard area will include a wider expanse of land on each island. Once the proposals are put down on paper they will be presented to the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. Until then, no one can really say what those changes may be or how they will affect building in the zone. “The only thing they’ve done so far is present recommended boundary changes,” said Frank Rush, Emerald Isle town manger. “They have indicated that they also plan to propose new development regulations for the inlet hazard zones, and won’t take any formal action on the new maps until they have the accompanying regulations ready for discussion. “Everything depends on what the new regulations say. If they simply amend the maps, there won’t be a significant practical impact in Emerald Isle. The real impact would come from any new regulations, which we’ll be watching closely and also participating in the discussion.” As for Bear Island, the current inlet hazard area only calls for a moderate expansion and doesn’t appear to affect any of the structures that are part of Hammock Beach State Park. Nor would the increased area have any affect on plans for the park, at this point, according to Paul Donnelly, park superintendent. “Right now, there’s not anything planned,” he said. There will be a series of public hearings when the proposals are presented to the CRC, probably in January 2008, then the CRC will vote on whether to make the change. The changes must then go through the review commission. Any approved changes can be expected sometime early next year.
11/12/07
Wild Dunes homeowners ask to let sandbags remain
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/nov/10/wild_dunes_homeowners_ask_let_sandbags_r21817/?print
Storm brews over lighthouse access (SC)
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/nov/10/storm_brews_over_lighthouse_access21841/?print
Sand washing away at Ocean Isle Beach
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/767338.html
11/9/07
Congress clears water projects
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/244510.html
Planning for the future of beach driving: Will the lawsuit have a chilling effect at the negotiating table?
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.11.05-ShootingTheBreezePlanningFutureOfBeachDriving.html
Erosion threatens west Ocean Isle Beach
Wilmington Star by Shannan Bowen (11/9/07)
Ocean Isle Beach | Tom and Barbara Myers, who own a house near the west end of Ocean Isle Beach, were surprised during a recent walk to find that a big part of the beach is missing. Yellow caution tape surrounded a home Thursday at the tip of the peninsula, where Tubbs Inlet meets the ocean, and contractors worked to secure a wooden walkway that was in danger of being knocked down by water. This was not the west end of Ocean Isle Beach that the Myerses knew when they visited their vacation home in the spring. "It was all sand dunes," Barbara Myers said, pointing to an area now covered by the inlet. She said she was told by contractors working on the private walkway that about 280 feet of dunes had washed away. Ocean Isle Beach town officials are accustomed to dealing with beach erosion, but mostly on the eastern end of the resort island. "The only thing that we know that's caused this is some lunar tides," said Planning Director Justin Whiteside. He said lunar tides bring high tides that are a foot and a half higher than normal. High winds and Hurricane Noel, which was closest to the state's coast Nov. 2, also could have contributed to high tides and beach erosion, said Mark Bacon, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Wilmington. He said higher-than-normal tides combined with large breaking waves are top contributors to beach erosion. Whiteside said the owners of the house at 149 Ocean Isle West Blvd. received a Coastal Area Management Act permit to place sandbags near their home as an emergency protection step. But the town doesn't have any relief plans for that end of the island, Mayor Debbie Smith said. Beach nourishment projects are costly and require permits and long-range planning, she said. "It takes time if you want to do anything like that," Smith said. "We don't do things that protect individual private property." The town paid for beach nourishment earlier this year that provided temporary relief for residents on the eastern end of the island. But the sand that was pumped there washed away within a few months. The erosion problems on both ends of the island are related to the unpredictable patterns of the inlets, said Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist for the state's Division of Coastal Management. Tubbs Inlet, which artificially was moved in 1970, has recently migrated east toward the west end banks of Ocean Isle Beach. "Erosion could increase," Warren said. "Inlets are very complicated areas." Warren said the town could consider dredging the inlet. Other options include moving homes away from the water. "The only thing sandbags do is buy you some time," Warren said.
Senate action helps county
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (11/9/07)
CAPE CARTERET — A new law has language that would allow funds to be used to place dredge sand on the beaches of Carteret County instead of dumped in offshore disposal sites. However, how much money will actually be used for such projects is still “speculative,” according to Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph By a 79-14 vote on Thursday, the U.S. Senate overrode President George Bush’s veto of H.R. 1495 – The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 – which included language in Section 2037 requested by 3rd District Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C. The Senate’s vote, which enacted the bill, followed a 361 to 54 House vote on Nov. 6, to overturn the President’s veto of the bill.
Congressman Jones’ language authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to cooperate with state and local governments like Carteret County on regional sediment management projects to economically use sand dredged from a federal navigation project on nearby federal shore protection projects. It authorizes $30 million per year for these projects, and directs the Corps to give priority to a project to place sand from Morehead City Harbor on the beaches of Bogue Banks. “In Eastern North Carolina, our beaches are economic engines, providing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenues. However, erosion threatens the very existence of our beaches,” Congressman Jones said in a press release. “This language helps ensure that sand from dredging projects is not wasted needlessly when it could be used for shore protection on nearby beaches that desperately need it. The current standard used by the Army Corps of Engineers requires the disposal of dredged material obtained from a federal navigation project in the least costly manner. This method almost always results in the offshore placement of sand. “While short-term costs may be lower by dumping at sea, the ultimate long-term costs to governments will be higher as the same sand is later removed for renourishment projects,” Congressman Jones continued. “The language approved today allows the Corps to bypass this inefficient middle deposit and quickly renourish our beaches in a way that ultimately saves taxpayers money.”
Mr. Rudolph said he was “thrilled for the recognition of the Morehead City Harbor navigation project (because) it needs some management.” However, “what that means at the end of the day and how much money will be given is kind of speculative at this point,” he said. Mr. Rudolph explained in an e-mail that WRDA is an authorization bill, which means it usually does not provide any money from the federal treasury to agencies but rather generates a list of federal projects that Congress and the President can fund by means of the annual appropriation process. “The WRDA does not obligate Congress and the President to fund the projects but provides the legal means of doing so. WRDA also provides policy guidance to the Corps – everything from peer-review procedures to what parameters can be utilized for benefit-cost metrics analyses.” He was also interested in another part of the WRDA. An Independent Peer Review Provision in Section 2034 of the bill will require any shore protection project that has a total life cost of more than $45 million to go through a peer review process. “That kind of puts an interesting twist on things,” Mr. Rudolph said. Mr. Rudolph explained by using a hypothetical 50-year shore protection project as an example. Such a project could nourish a beach a little bit each year for 50 years but the cost could be well over $45 million, he said. Even though such a project would be spread out over many years it would still trigger the peer review provision. Mr. Rudolph said it would be interesting to see how that is integrated with the normal environmental impact statements and public comments that projects already have to get. “Hopefully things will be integrated so things move in a linear fashion,” he said.
Channel shift shows results
Tideland News by Annita Best (11/7/07)
The most recent condition surveys by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirm that Bogue Inlet and the connecting channel are still in good shape and dredging can be postponed even longer. The fact that neither the inlet nor the connector channel have needed to be dredged since June 2006 has to be a record, according to Stan Jarusinski of Stella, a member of the N.C. Beach and Inlet Waterway Association and avid boater. Jarusinski attributes the continued success of the inlet to the fact that the connector channel was shifted westward more than a year ago. “We used to have to dredge five or six times a year. We still have $230,000 banked with the Army Corps of Engineers for about 19 days of dredging,” he said. Happily, he doesn’t know when that money will have to be spent. Soundings taken in mid-October show that the Bogue Inlet mean low-tide water level is 6 feet and the Bogue Inlet connecting channel is maintaining an 8-foot mean low-tide water level. “The last survey looks good,” said Greg “Rudi” Rudolph of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office. “There is nothing too earth-shattering as far as shoaling goes. If a dredge happened to be in the area, it would be more of a touch-up situation. But right now, there are no plans for a side-cast dredging in Bogue Inlet or the connecting channel.” The fact dredging can be put off even longer is especially good news since there is still no money in the federal budget for shallow draft inlet dredging, according to Rudolph. The money banked with the USACE was donated by the local towns and counties and matched by the state. “Congress and the President haven’t rectified what they want to spend this year,” he said. The House and the President put aside nothing for dredging and the Senate put aside $900,000 for Bogue Inlet dredging. The government is currently operating on a continuing resolution, which means that congress didn’t complete the funding bills before the Oct. 1 deadline so they passed a continuing resolution. That resolution ends mid-November, according to Rudolph, and then they must either pass another one or come up with a budget. Jarusinski said credit for the successful soundings in an area that used to fill up quite regularly needed to go to the agencies who pushed for and funded the channel shift. “We need to thank the N.C. Beach Inlet and Waterway Association for overseeing the inlet activities,” he said. “The money we still have banked with the Army Corps of Engineers is a result of funding from the state, Onslow and Carteret counties and the towns of Swansboro, Emerald Isle, Cedar Point and Cape Carteret.” He added that the “most recent soundings show that not only is the area maintaining its depth, but it’s getting deeper. It’s staying clean. I think that’s phenomenal!”
Beach nourishment should be a no- brainer
Topsail Voice letter to the editor (11/7/07)
A recent letter to your paper from Maryann & Jerry Heid about beach nourishment in North Topsail Beach made some very valid points. I would like to express support for some of those points, and add some others.
1. Given the situation that many homes in NTB are vacation homes, or rental units with non-resident owners, it would only seem fair that an issue as critical and expensive as beach nourishment should include the opinions of all property owners, even those that do not reside in NTB for voting purposes.
2. The referendum voted on last year regarding beach nourishment, which was defeated, seemed to have a "poison pill" embedded in it, which almost guaranteed its defeat. Its 90-percent -- 10-percent ratio, with oceanfront property owners responsible for 90-percent of the cost, assured it’s not being passed. Given the circumstances described in number 1 above, of many non-resident property owners, it hardly seems fair from several perspectives to put such a disproportionate burden on many property owners, while allowing them no say in the referendum process. Also, it seems to me that a 90-10 split isn't fair for another reason. If, for example, I want a house which will cost $250,000 to build, but because of its location on the ocean it has a (very optimistic) current market value of $650,000 - $700,000, a valid question seems to be what would be the value of that house if it were located elsewhere in the township? Perhaps not $650,000, but surely close to $300,000 or $325,000. With a 90 percent 10 percent split, the tax burden would have been all out of proportion to the value of an otherwise similar house. And if, and it is indeed just an "if," there is some notion that oceanfront property owners would benefit more from beach nourishment than other owners, wouldn't a more fair ratio of financing be 55-45, or 60-40 at the most?
3. The many examples the Heids cite in which people all over the world have successfully coped with the forces of nature, clearly shows that doing nothing in terms of beach nourishment ignores the "facts on the ground" that great investment has already been made in property development in NTB.
In attempting to understand the possible motivation for a do-nothing position, the only possible motives seem to be ignorance, jealousy or laziness. For certainly the economic strength of the township, the county, and the state, is greatly enhanced by having good, useable, attractive beaches. Beach nourishment should be a no brainer, so perhaps therein lies the real source of the problem.
The only real issue worthy of discussion, with involvement of all interested parties, should be how to finance the effort in a fair way. - Peter O'Neill, North Topsail Beach, New Cumberland , PA
11/5/07
As Beaches Erode, So Do Solutions
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/travel/escapes/02sand.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Inlet hazard zone change could affect some beach properties
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1608&iid=86&sud=30
Jean Beasley receives Animal Planet award
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=53045
Current events
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/v-print/story/760020.html
Miami Beach Denied Foreign Sand For Replenishment
MIAMI BEACH (CBS4) ― Whipping winds from Tropical Storm Noel have been making a bad beach erosion problem even worse across South Florida and now the City of Miami Beach has been dealt another blow to their efforts to restore the beach. The Army Corps of Engineers has denied Miami-Dade County's request to purchase foreign sand in order to replace some of the coastline. As CBS4 News first reported in September 2007, Miami Beach is running out of sand and running out of places to buy sand to replenish eroded beaches. Truck loads of sand cost truck loads of money but officials from the Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) have said in the past despite the steep expense, Miami Beach doesn't have much of an option any more. Beach erosion at 29th and 44th streets has reached a critical point. In July, the county asked the federal government for permission to buy cheaper foreign sand from the Bahamas and the Caribbean. The decision was left up to the Army Corp. of Engineers which has now denied the request. In a letter obtained by CBS4 News, the Army Corp. of Engineers denied the request because the draft report submitted by the county in July was incomplete and did not state whether or not domestic sand was available for purchase. Federal law prevents Miami Beach from considering foreign sources until a domestic search is exhausted. The letter went on to say that once the county's report is revised and resubmitted, and it's determined that there's no domestic sand available, then the county can ask again to import foreign sand. Currently, the sand on certain parts of Miami Beach isn't even from Miami Beach. The government of Miami Beach recently spent $2-million to buy sand from the suburbs of West Palm and have it trucked in to replace lost beachfront property. Officials are also hoping that barriers installed a few years ago at 29th street on Miami Beach will also help keep the sand in place. Some short term solutions include scraping sand from other beaches and off shore dredging which pumps sand from the sea floor several hundred feet out. But three decades of dredging has led to a depletion of most of those off shore sources, according to DERM. The process is also complicated by three sensitive coral reefs that run parallel to the coastline. To make matters worse, officials can't just dump any old sand on the beach because state environmental laws say the sand has to be the right match and granules should be the same size and color. DERM officials say importing sand, whether foreign or domestic, is an important tool to protecting property as well as keeping tourists happy. The Army Corps of Engineers found that beaches prevented $20-million in property damage during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. (© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
11/1/07
Hunting Island State Park officials keep eye on Noel, erosion
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6717117p-5989047c.html#
Ten Endangered U.S. Beach Towns Named
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/photogalleries/beach-pictures/index.html
related - http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/07-52.htm
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/31/07)
It is very sad that there are residents of North Topsail Beach who feel the homes of their neighbors are expendable. It is almost impossible to walk along the north end of the island. At mid-tide and higher, there are three choices: walk in the ocean, walk under the homes that have “Danger Falling Objects” signs posted or walk on the dune. What will it take for the residents of this town to realize that something needs to be done? Vacationers are going to stop coming to this town when there is no beach on which their children can play. Property values will plummet when homes are sold well below worth because homeowners don’t want their homes to be like the uninhabitable houses that stand in the ocean most of the day. The voting residents of this town need to take their heads out of the sand before there is no sand left! - Mila Masur, North Topsail Beach
10/29/07
Beach erosion steals sand bought in '06
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/231135.html
Battling nature for Bonner Bridge
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/752373.html
Erosive effect of groins led to ban in N.C.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/v-print/story/6710869p-5983127c.html
Hammocks Beach grows by 17 acres
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=52910
Erosion dominates Isle of Palms forum
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/28/erosion_dominates_isle_palms_forum20371/?print
Want to help save our coast? It will cost you $1
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/63438.html
10/25/07
It's a race for survival for turtle hatchlings
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=135148&ran=249003
Environmentalists file suit while plan being formulated
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/10/24/top_stories/tops0692.prt
Topsail Beach dredge is here
Topsail Voice by Amanda Hutcheson (10/24/07)
TOPSAIL BEACH – The dredge has arrived and sand is being pumped on Topsail Beach. The project is going 24 hours a day, said Interim Town Manager Thomas Hogg. However, the pump does not operate all the time, taking breaks to refuel. The project is a 40-day operation working seven days a week. If the pump were to operate only during the day, it would extend the project by another 40 days and cost the town more money. That does, however, mean that lights and a beeping noise from the bulldozer backing up are also going 24/7. “I have only had one (complaint),” Hogg said. Two grandparents had apparently rented an ocean-front house with their grandchild. “The complaint was the grandchild woke up about three in the morning. The bulldozer backed up, lights were casting shadows in the bedroom. The child woke up screaming, ‘it’s a monster; it’s a monster.’” On the beach, several men from Monroe had rented a house for fishing as they do every year. This year, that house was directly in front of the pump. “It hasn’t really disrupted our vacation,” said Jackie Watts, one of the vacationers, as his friends showed off caught fish and waved to the bulldozer operator. “The first night it kept us up, the lights and noise, backing up.” “Let’s get down to the bottom line. Which would you rather have?” said his friend Perry Blythe, pointing from the portion of the beach which had already had sand pumped to the portion which had not. “Do you want to put up with an inconvenience for a little while to put back what Mother Nature took away?” Hogg said the town has also received no complaints about the closing of stretches of road to accommodate the pipe. “There’s a little discomfort to the whole thing, but it’s something we need to do,” Hogg said.
Citizens should do what it takes to preserve their town
Topsail Voice letter to the editor (10/24/07)
With regard to the issue of beach nourishment, the current controversy would imply that the matter is an extremely complex one when, in reality, it boils down to a very simple choice. While the experience and expertise of Dr. Pilkey are certainly indisputable, it is our opinion that his statements regarding North Topsail Beach would have much more relevance if the island was all virgin land and we were deciding whether it should be developed. The fact of the matter, however, is that it is developed and that this development represents not only hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of investment – to say nothing of the huge amount of tourist revenues generated on both the local and state level – but also the hopes and dreams of many people who have already settled here or plan to do so. In the abstract, some might agree that this land should have been left untouched. However, given the fact that it was built upon, we are now faced with the practical reality of protecting our homes and our community, and is it not the first responsibility of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens? We have but to look at New Orleans to see what happens when those who are elected to do so abdicate that responsibility. We may not be able to hold back the forces of nature forever. On the other hand, forgiving the comparison, if this had been the attitude of those who built the Netherlands, the Venetian Republic, San Francisco, Los Angeles and even New York City, which, like the latter two is built upon a geological fault, these places would never have existed – and this represents but a few of what are countless examples. The issue of how beach nourishment is to be funded certainly merits close examination, but as we see it, regardless of how this eventually takes place, the citizens of NTB have no choice but to do whatever it takes to preserve and protect their community. - Frank J. Frattalone, President, Topsail Villas Townhome Owners’ Association, Inc.
10/21/07
Removal of sandbags could cause destruction (AP)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/224719.html
Saving Hunting Island Beaches
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/v-print/story/6704290p-5977063c.html
Saving Hunting Island Beaches II
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6704291p-5977052c.html#
All sides to look for solution to Hunting Island erosion
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/58688.html
Environmental groups sue over Cape Hatteras beach driving
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=134958&ran=6874
Environmental groups sue Park Service over beach driving
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.10.18-EnvironmentalGroupsSueNPS.html
Suit seeks to limit beach driving
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/742078.html
Environmental groups sue to change beach driving rules
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/v-print/story/222387.html
Against the Odds: A sea turtle's journey
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=135115&ran=168524
Sandbag removal deadline means trouble
Virginia Pilot By Catherine Kozak (10/20/07) - Information from Star-News staff writer Gareth McGrath was inserted in this story.
Nags Head | Whether they're stacked up in neat walls, or scattered and torn on the beach, exposed sandbags in Dare County have got to go. The state Division of Coastal Management will send notices to property owners in seven coastal counties that have sandbags, reminding them of the looming deadline for their removal, said Mike Lopazanski, the division's coastal and ocean policy manager. After discussion of the issue in July at a Coastal Resources Commission meeting, the panel decided to allow the last extension for sandbags to expire in May 2008. "This is it," Lopazanski said. "They didn't take any action on the rule at that meeting. They said it could run its course." One Southeastern North Carolina location likely to be affected by the ruling is The Riggings in Kure Beach, New Hanover County, where sandbags have protected the condominium complex from the encroaching ocean for more than two decades. Sandbag concerns range from the aesthetic, especially when bags start shredding or are uncovered, to their interfering with the public's enjoyment and access to the beach. The primary problem state regulators have with sandbags is that they don't solve the erosion problem but simply shift it to another spot along the beach. That then can lead to long walls of sandbags. Recent local examples of this include the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and South Beach on Bald Head Island, both in Brunswick County.
The problem is that the sandbags in South Nags Head are keeping the ocean from destroying beachfront homes, said Yogi Harper, owner of Erosion Control Specialists in Nags Head. Harper's business involves installation and repair of sandbags. "This is going to be a catastrophic event," he said recently. Harper, a property owner and 40-year resident in South Nags Head, said that if the bags are removed, the effect on the property closest to the beach - which includes several motels - would be swift. "There's going to be houses that will be condemned within hours or days," he said. "As soon as those houses are gone, it'll be the next row of houses." Lopazanski said the letters are expected to go out by Thanksgiving, and coastal management staff will begin enforcement in the spring. Although some sandbags have been in place for 20 years or more, the huge bags - which can weigh about 6,000 pounds - have been permitted for temporary erosion control to protect imminently threatened structures and roads. But the state considers them hardened structures, which are banned on the coast because they cause erosion on either side of them. Previous sandbag removal deadlines were extended over the years because of hurricane damage. In 2000, at the request of Dare County, the commission granted a coast wide extension on sand bag permits until May 2008 for communities pursuing beach nourishment. When it became apparent that Congress was not going to provide money for a federal beach nourishment project in Dare County, the town of Nags Head developed a $30 million nourishment proposal. It would have been financed by a $24 million bond issue, and the cost would have been paid back by taxpayers, with property owners in a special district along the beach picking up a larger share. But in a special election in April, town voters slapped it down. Nags Head Mayor Renee Cahoon, a coastal commission member, said the town is still pursuing permits for the nourishment project, in case another way to pay for it is found. Otherwise, she said, there's not much more the town can do to alleviate the consequences when the sandbags are removed from the beach off Old Oregon Inlet Road. "We tried to address it, knowing this was coming," she said. Ray Sturza, the county planning director, said he expects that owners of vulnerable property will not be happy with the state. Sturza, the mayor of Kill Devil Hills, is also a member of the commission's advisory council. "Eventually, it's going to result in some ill will toward the regulatory agency," he said. "It's the only defense these properties have left. This takes away the only hope they have." But Lopazanski said the bags, made of strong synthetic fabric, are not only an eyesore but a litter problem. Torn-up bags do not rot, and biodegradable bags do not work. Removal will have to done with heavy equipment, and it's expensive job, Harper said. And that's on top of the owner facing the potential loss of a home and investment. A number of homeowners, he said, bought their property without being aware that the sandbags had to be removed. Harper said there are about 53 sandbagged properties in Nags Head. Nags Head should ask the beachfront owners - most of whom are out-of-towners who had no chance to vote in the bond referendum - to open their wallets, he said. "I'm telling you that the oceanfront homeowners are willing to pay for beach nourishment in South Nags Head," he said. "Pick up the phone and ask them for $50,000 and see how fast they cut you a check."
Sunset Beach to help DOT fight suit
Wilmington Star by Shannan Bowen (10/20/07)
Sunset Beach | The town of Sunset Beach hopes it can pull some weight and help the N.C. Department of Transportation overcome the latest lawsuit blocking construction of a new Intracoastal Waterway bridge. The Sunset Beach Town Council voted at a special meeting Friday to hire Raleigh attorney Amos Dawson to intervene in the latest bridge lawsuit. Dawson has represented the town before on issues relating to the proposed 65-foot bridge that will replace the town's single-lane pontoon bridge. A lawsuit was filed Oct. 4 by the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, Douglas W. Hix, William A. Ducker, Bonnie Kelley, Nina Marable and the Brunswick Environmental Action Team. The lawsuit was filed the same day the DOT was expected to award a construction contract to English Construction Co. The lawsuit most likely will delay the construction of the bridge, as the construction company's $30.9 million bid is good only for up to 60 days. The plaintiffs allege that the DOT has failed to address environmental effects of the bridge construction and that the DOT is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Act. The complaint contends the DOT has modified its construction plans since completing a court-mandated environmental impact statement in 1997 and should conduct a supplemental study. Jim Maxwell, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he will not oppose the town's intervention. Maxwell said he and the state attorney general's staff are working to move toward a hearing on the suit within the next few weeks. Sunset Beach Mayor Ron Klein said the town's intervention is needed because the town and its residents are directly affected by the lawsuit and the delay of the bridge's construction. Klein said he wants the DOT to remember that "the last public hearing was five to one in favor of getting the bridge up."
10/18/07
Cabin owners, state officials to discuss Hunting Island beach erosion
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/56824.html
Daufuskie Island residents to foot $1M bill to save beaches
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/v-print/story/6701780p-5974843c.html
Sea Grant considers closing local office
Carteret County News Times by Mike Shutak (10/17/07)
MOREHEAD CITY — Years without a state funding increase and several mandatory salary increases has made N.C. Sea Grant consider closing its branch offices, including the one here in Morehead City at the N.C. Center for Marine Sciences and Technology (CMAST). Sea Grant is a University of North Carolina partner program that helps coordinate and conduct research, outreach and public education projects on coastal science. The program receives funding from both state and federal sources, but Mike Voiland, executive director of Sea Grant, said the agency hasn’t received an increase in the annual $763,000 funding from the state General Assembly for 12 years. “If there is another state employee salary increase in 2008, and we are not given any additional state funds to cover it, we will need to look for ways to cut our budget,” said Dr. Voiland. “That could result in cutting staff and/or consolidating coastal offices. The decision has not been made yet as to which offices would be affected.” Salaries have had mandatory increases for the last two years. In fiscal 2006-2007, salaries increased about 5.5 percent. This fiscal year, 2007-2008, they’ve been increased about 3 to 4 percent. “We’ve had to find $104,000 to cover the cost,” said Dr. Voiland. “We usually find that money on the federal side.” The federal government provides Sea Grant with $1.6 million annually through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
“That means less money for projects and research,” said Dr. Voiland. Sea Grant currently employs 24 employees total. Three professional positions and one support staff position are held at the Morehead City office. Two professional and one support staff positions are at the Wilmington office, and two more professional positions are at the Manteo office. Manteo used to have a support staff position, but it was cut due to lack of funding. While closing is being considered, employees at the Morehead City Sea Grant office aren’t worried. “I haven’t seen much of a reaction yet,” said Bob Hines, a fishery specialist with the Morehead City office. Mr. Hines has good reason not to be very worried himself. “I’m close enough to retirement I could (if they closed),” he said. “I’m not going to worry about it until it’s more imminent next fiscal year.” Mr. Hines has been with Sea Grant for 28 years, and said budgets are just something you have to deal with. He’s confident a solution will be found. “It’s just a matter of working with the General Assembly on things like mandatory salary raises,” he said. Sea Grant staff have been encouraged to seek grants from sources outside of state and federal funding. Dr. Voiland said many have been successful, but it doesn’t help their salary problem. “They’re small grants for specific projects,” he said. “They don’t support the core of our program, our salaries for our good people.” Mac Currin, Chairman of the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC), sent a letter to Sen. Charles Albertson, D-Duplin County, and Rep. William Wainwright, D-Craven County, on Sept. 24. Mr. Currin stressed the importance of Sea Grant as a source of research and information and encouraged the General Assembly to “correct this funding crisis before valuable resources are lost.”
Coastal engineer’s response to project criticism
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/17/07)
Dr. Orrin Pilkey’s letter, printed in Topsail Voice on Oct. 3, complained that the consultant on the Bogue Inlet and Emerald Isle project failed to predict correctly the response of the inlet and the details of the channel realignment. Since I was not privy to what the Phoenicians and the Romans recognized when dredging navigation channels or how Coastal Planning & Engineering, also our North Topsail engineers, predicted how the Bogue Inlet would respond to sand mining of the channel, I asked the next best authority, Tom Jarrett. He was an engineer with the US Army Corp of Engineers for many years and is now with the east coast coastal engineering firm CP&E. He has helped many communities along our North Carolina coast with erosions problems. Dr. Pilkey may not designate him as an authority but most everybody else who is involved with the NC coast would. Tom’s response is below: “Actually, we did tell the town of Emerald Isle that erosion rates on the western 7,000 feet or so of the town's shoreline would experience accelerated erosion due to the channel relocation. The predictions were based on morphological studies of past inlet/shoreline behavior conducted by Dr. Cleary (a professor at UNCW and an authority on our Topsail coastal environment). “When the channel was in the location proposed (and ultimately moved) the shoreline along the west end of Emerald Isle was somewhat landward of its pre-project position. We used what we called the minimum shoreline position observed along the west end of Emerald Isle between 1938 and 2001 for our worst-case prediction. I have attached two pdf files, one showing all of the historic shorelines and the other showing the minimum and max shoreline along with the 1978 shoreline. The 1978 shoreline was associated with a channel located in approximately the same location of the new (relocated) channel. “We made no bones about the possibility of increased erosion on the west end of Emerald Isle. In fact, during our very first presentation to the town during the AE selection process, we told the town that moving the channel would result in increased erosion along their shoreline. “The increased erosion in not directly associated with the removal of the material but due to the alignment and position of the channel and the reconfiguration of the ebb tide delta that would accompany the new channel. “Pilkey also mentioned something about Figure 8 and Ocean Isle. With regard to Figure 8, nothing has been done in Rich Inlet . We are working with the island to develop a management plan for Rich Inlet, but that project is still in the formulation stage, so don't know what he was referring to. Mason Inlet was relocated, but no negative impacts of that project have shown up on Figure 8 that I am aware of. In fact, Figure 8 gets material from maintenance of the Mason Inlet project. “As for Ocean Isle, the Corps has been monitoring both Ocean Isle and Holden Beach and nothing negative has shown up on either shoreline. Ocean Isle was experiencing severe erosion on its east end prior to the Corps beach nourishment project and the shoreline erosion rates post-project construction are not any worse. Probably need to talk with Greg Williams in the Corps office to confirm.” I’m sorry that there is not enough room to post the two files referred to above but I think you can come to a conclusion from just these words. Now, all of you judge for yourselves. There certainly does not appear to be a “failure to predict how the inlet would respond to the mining” as Dr. Pilkey charged. It is really offensive to see anybody who has only a partial knowledge of the facts impugn a fine engineer and gentleman like Tom Jarrett. - Becky Bowman, North Topsail Beach Vice Chair Beach Preservation
Geologist professor’s opinion more valid than mayor’s
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/17/07)
In an Oct. 12 letter to the editor of the Jacksonville Daily News, North Topsail Beach Mayor Rodney Knowles challenged the assertion of Duke University Geologist Dr. Orrin Pilkey, that NTB is one of the “most hazardous barrier island developments on the East Coast.” This is certainly not the kind of news that any NTB resident wants to hear – especially the mayor. Mayor Knowles (who has voted to raise taxes to fund a beach nourishment plan) would have one believe that Dr. Pilkey’s opinion is no better than any other. Dr. Pilkey has spent 45 years studying beach erosion. His scientific credentials are impeccable. His concern is based on the fact that rising sea levels make it virtually impossible to hold back the ocean for any appreciable length of time. Certainly Dr. Pilkey’s opinion should carry more weight than that of Mayor Knowles’. Dr. Pilkey has no hidden agenda. He has no “dog in the fight” or a stake in the outcome. He was just presenting his well-educated opinion. Mayor Knowles, on the other hand, is running for reelection on a “sand pumping” platform. Mayor Knowles, in addition to challenging Dr. Pilkey’s opinion that sand pumping is folly, attempted to discount Dr. Pilkey’s statement that 80 percent of NTB voted not to nourish NTB’s beaches. This is in reference to the fact that 79-percent of NTB’s voters overwhelmingly rejected last November’s $34 million beach nourishment bond referendum. Mayor Knowles claims that the vote was not a rejection of beach nourishment, but simply a concern over the financing plan. Mayor Knowles contends that NTB’s voters really want beach nourishment because the majority of the respondents to a 2006 NTB survey favored beach nourishment. That simply is not true, Mayor Knowles. The survey question was not about beach nourishment. The survey question was, “Do you believe beach erosion is something the town of North Topsail Beach should address?” There is a very substantial difference between favoring “addressing beach erosion” and being in favor of a very expensive and controversial beach nourishment project. To conclude – in the face of the overwhelming no vote in November – that the majority of NTB wishes to proceed with beach nourishment is a very curious leap of faith indeed. In fact, it reminds me of a former president who asked what “it” means. Certainly we can spin things this way or that, but no means no! I won’t let Mayor Knowles or any other candidate for mayor or alderman change the meaning of the word no. The fact of the matter is that no one knows for sure why 79 percent of the voters said no to last November’s beach nourishment referendum. But to spin the election results by claiming that the voters want beach nourishment and that they were only against the financing plan is ridiculous! What does no mean? Eight out of 10 voters said no to spending $34 million dollars to pump sand! One can only reasonably conclude that the voters were saying, “Don’t pay for beach nourishment with our tax dollars.” For NTB to proceed with a beach nourishment plan, with increased NTB tax dollars and without putting a new plan to another vote is unconscionable. Sadly, that’s exactly what I assume Mayor Knowles would favor if re-elected to the office of mayor of North Topsail Beach on Nov. 6. I trust the voters of NTB will ensure otherwise. - Bill Walsh, North Topsail Beach
Election is about listening to the voters
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/17/07)
Last week three North Topsail Beach candidates for elected office – alderman candidates Dick McCartney and Gary Rowland, and mayoral candidate Sue Tuman – responded in your newspaper to a recent Topsail Voice op-ed piece by Duke University Geologist Dr. Orrin Pilkey. In addition to attacking the credibility of Dr. Pilkey, who has studied beach erosion for 45 years, McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman promoted their beach nourishment plan – the single issue on which they are running for NTB elected office. I invited Dr. Pilkey to speak in NTB in August, as I felt it was important for the citizens of NTB to understand that there are no easy answers to the challenges of beach erosion. I offer the following in response to the McCartney/Rowland/Tuman letter to the editor. Dr. Pilkey, McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman wrote that they “believe…Pilkey is wrong and merely self-serving.” Wrong about what? Wrong to suggest that rising sea levels make it virtually impossible to hold back the ocean for any appreciable length of time? Given that reality, is it “wrong” to recommend the relocation of endangered homes, and to restrict future development in high-risk areas? Dr. Pilkey’s position makes perfect sense. As for their claim that Dr. Pilkey’s statements are “self-serving” – I question who is most likely to make self-serving statements – a Duke University professor of geology with impeccable scientific credentials and no property in NTB or candidates for public office, some of whom have NTB homes that are endangered by beach erosion? NTB tax dollars would pay for beach nourishment. McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman wish to spend $3 million a year of NTB taxpayer funds to implement a “pay-as-you-go” beach nourishment plan. Over 10 years, that’s $30 million, roughly the same amount that NTB’s voters overwhelmingly rejected last November. And, the $3 million would have to be allocated every year forever since beach nourishment sand is washed away every few years. McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman claim that their beach nourishment plan requires “no tax districts, no tax increases.” No tax districts means that every NTB taxpayer would pay equally for beach nourishment – even though beach nourishment only protects oceanfront property. Every other North Carolina community that has implemented beach nourishment recognizes that oceanfront property owners derive the benefit of beach nourishment, and oceanfront property owners have paid most of the cost of beach nourishment. Emerald Isle oceanfront property owners, for example, paid over 90 percent of the cost for beach nourishment. The McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman claim that their plan includes “no tax increases” is particularly deceitful. Since June 2006, NTB’s tax rate has increased 48 percent – from 11 cents per hundred to 16 cents per hundred -- all for beach nourishment. Four months ago, McCartney and Rowland asked NTB to raise our taxes so that 100 percent of the Onslow County $1.5 million tax rebate could be set aside for beach nourishment. Allocating just a portion of the tax rebate would have averted a tax increase. Want more proof that their beach nourishment plan is funded by your tax dollars? If NTB decides not to proceed with beach nourishment, the $3 million per year could be used to reduce our NTB taxes dramatically – by at least 50 percent. Finally, a truly scary scenario: many believe that the Onslow County $1.5 million tax rebate is likely to be rescinded in the next year or two. If it is rescinded, how do you think McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman would make up the loss? That’s right – increase our NTB taxes by, perhaps, 50 percent! McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman are ignoring NTB’s voters. Last November 79 percent of NTB’s voters rejected a $34 million beach nourishment bond referendum. And yet McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman would ignore the voters. If they would ignore the wishes of the voters about beach nourishment, about what else would they ignore the voters? The North Topsail Beach election next month will determine whether or not millions of NTB taxpayer dollars will be spent every year on beach nourishment -- or for other NTB needs -- or for NTB tax relief. If either McCartney or Rowland are elected alderman, the money will be spent on beach nourishment – without voter approval. This election is not about Beach Nourishment. It is about whether or not our elected officials will listen to the voters. McCartney, Rowland, and Tuman have shown that they would not. They will not get my vote. - Ed Doherty, North Topsail Beach
10/15/07
Adrift on Bonner Bridge
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/735596.html
Edisto the loggerhead goes home
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/14/edisto_loggerhead_goes_home19150/?print
Tracking to offer insight into mysterious males
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/14/tracking_offer_insight_into_mysterious_m19120/?print
Coast, state need Sea Grant
Wilmington Star Editorial (10/14/07)
North Carolina gets huge benefits from a tiny agency whose practical research helps coastal residents thrive in a dangerous and delicate environment. It's time Tar Heel legislators gave Sea Grant the trivial sums it needs to continue its work. The research that Sea Grant fosters seeks solutions to common coastal problems: How to help oysters, crabs and other sea life cope with pollution and development. How to build houses that don't disintegrate in hurricanes. How to deal with erosion. How to design marinas and harbors. How to minimize water pollution. Once it gets answers to such questions, Sea Grant's 24 employees share them with anyone who asks. This is the way government and university programs ought to work. This is the way knowledge ought to flow to the people who pay for it. Sea Grant is funded by Congress and the N.C. General Assembly. But the General Assembly hasn't increased its $763,000 contribution for 12 years - years in which that same General Assembly told all state agencies to give their employees raises. The inevitable result has been cutbacks and more cutbacks at Sea Grant. Now there's talk of shutting down the offices in Wilmington, Morehead City and Manteo if the General Assembly doesn't come up with more money. Maybe legislators have simply overlooked a program that gets less than $1 million out of state budgets that run into the billions. But now that their attention is being called to it, surely they will give Sea Grant the relatively few dollars it needs to continue its invaluable efforts on behalf of coastal residents, the environment and the economy.
10/11/07
Beach replenishment plan hinges on sandbag deal
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/11/beach_replenishment_plan_hinges_on_sandb18790/?print
Senator Dole makes replacing Bonner Bridge a priority
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=134414&ran=51298
Officials plan to meet with beach dwellers
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/v-print/story/6694375p-5967827c.html
National Weather Service to hold tsunami talk
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1523&iid=83&sud=30
Inlet proposal could alter setbacks
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (10/11/07)
Forget the impending May deadline to remove most sandbags littering North Carolina beaches and talk about adjusting setback requirements for oceanfront property. The biggest change facing the state's beach communities could be a proposal to dramatically expand the size of most inlet-hazard areas that could lead to more stringent setback requirements and size limits for thousands of oceanfront property owners. Scientists have long known that land around the state's inlets reacts differently than other areas of the beachfront because of the unstable nature of the inlets themselves, which often whip back and forth unpredictably and cause erosion at much higher rates than other areas. Other inlets can move rapidly in one direction, such as Mason, New River and New Topsail inlets. Knowing how precarious the shifting sands at the end of the barrier islands could be, regulators 25 years ago created the inlet-hazard zones to try to keep people and property out of harm's way. But officials years ago figured out that the reach of the inlets went well beyond the knobs at the ends of barrier islands. "If you look at problem areas along our coast from severe erosion and sandbags to threatened homes and infrastructure, you will find the vast majority are associated with inlets," said Courtney Hackney, chairman of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission and a biologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. "But what we hadn't been able to do until recently is get the science to the point where we were comfortable defining those new inlet-hazard zones."
Effects on property
Widening the swath of territory included in the zones, however, could see thousands of oceanfront property owners potentially facing tougher building size limits and setback requirements than other beachfront areas. For example, the draft map for Caswell Beach expands the inlet-hazard zone from just the eastern tip of the town, near the Baptist Assembly, to oceanfront properties extending to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant's cooling canal - a distance of nearly two miles. The zones for Bald Head Island and around Shallotte, Lockwood Folly, Rich and New River inlets also are significantly expanded. And on some islands, the new zones extend several rows inland from the oceanfront. Because most of the state's developed barrier islands are almost completely built out, this could significantly affect an owner's redevelopment opportunities if a house is burned down or destroyed by a hurricane. Officials also have hinted that the size of the inlet-hazard zones won't be the only things likely to change. "Obviously inlets are the most dynamic parts of our coasts, and that's where our sandbags are in most cases," said Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. "So that's why we want to use an innovative approach to see if what we need are rules and regulations that are different than what's been done in the past." That could mean, for example, new ways of determining setback requirements to better reflect the instability inherent to inlet-affected areas. "Frankly, historical erosion rates don't work around inlets because inlets are much more difficult to deal with than run-of-the-mill erosion problems," said Spencer Rogers, a coastal engineering expert with N.C. Sea Grant and a member of the CRC's Science Panel, which created the draft maps.
Cause for concern?
The distance homes in inlet-hazard zones now have to be built back from the first line of stable vegetation is based on the erosion rates in adjacent beachfront areas. But state officials cautioned that any rule changes, like map changes, were months and plenty of public hearings away from being put into practice. The draft maps and what they could eventually mean for development, however, have already generated concern from some local beach officials. Caswell Beach Mayor Harry Simmons, who also is executive director of the N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association, said placing additional restrictions on huge swaths of oceanfront property could have significant economic and development ramifications. "I certainly think that if the Coastal Resources Commission doesn't adjust the rules as relates to inlet-hazard zones, it's going to cause some real problems for some coastal communities," he said. Warren said state officials understood that people might be concerned about what the building restrictions may be inside the new inlet-hazard zones. "But I don't think anyone could argue that the boundaries shouldn't change," he said. Rogers added that the new maps also could give communities a better feel on whether it makes sense to pump sand onto beaches where the material has potentially little chance of staying put for very long. Ocean Isle Beach knows firsthand the struggle of trying to keep sand on an inlet-influenced stretch of beach. The Brunswick County community last winter piggybacked on a larger federal beach project for the town-funded nourishment of the east end, which has suffered severe erosion tied to Shallotte Inlet. Today, most of that sand has washed away, and the homeowners are back to relying on sandbags to hold back the Atlantic. Mayor Debbie Smith said Ocean Isle has no immediate plans to pump more material onto the eroded area. "We are hoping the General Assembly might give us other options, such as groins, to offer those areas some long-term protection," she said. The proposed expanded inlet-hazard zone for the Ocean Isle Beach side of Shallotte Inlet would include all of the town's beachfront now experiencing erosion woes.
10/10/07
State takes ownership of Jennette's Pier
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/10/10/top_stories/tops0831.prt
Sea Grant may tighten belt
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/v-print/story/730476.html
Fisheries director seeks waterfront access project ideas
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/10/10/top_stories/tops0832.prt
Global warming: Will rising seas drown Lowcountry life as we know it?
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/50419.html
Consider alternatives to shifting beach sand
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=52362
Turtle hospital needs room to grow
Wilmington Star by Tyra M. Vaughn (10/9/07)
Jean Beasley's heart breaks every time she has to turn away a patient from her Topsail Beach sea turtle hospital. While rare, the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center sometimes has to deny care to an ailing turtle because the hospital has only enough space and resources to care for about 20 turtles a year, Beasley said. "We usually only turn away one or two turtles during the years we're filled to capacity," said Beasley, who founded the hospital in 1997. "We try to work with agencies to find other places for those sea turtles." Beasley is hoping she'll never have to turn away another patient after a new sea turtle hospital is built in the town of Surf City in the next year or two. The proposed $1 million facility, to be built on 4 acres near the town's community center off J.H. Batts Road, will replace the 850-square-foot hospital in Topsail Beach about 7 miles away, Beasley said. "We've simply outgrown our current facilities," Beasley said. "When all our volunteers are in a room working on a sea turtle, it can get pretty cramped in there with all that equipment." The new facility will be 16,000 to 18,000 square feet, including the hospital and an education wing for tour groups. The Topsail Beach location sees more than 25,000 visitors a year, Beasley said, a figure she expects to double after the first year the new hospital opens. Beasley said the facility will offer more activities for the public. She would like to restore nearby wetlands and build a walking trail where visitors can learn about native plants and animals. "There are a lot of students who don't know about things such as Venus' flytraps," Beasley said. "I'm hoping they'll become educated about those things and other creatures that are native to this part of North Carolina." Beasley hopes to break ground on the new facility by the end of 2008, but she is still working to get the proper permits needed to begin construction. She already has applied to be annexed into Surf City, she said. Mayor Zander Guy said a public hearing has been scheduled for the town council meeting next month so the board can vote on the request. Beasley said she hasn't decided what she will do with the Topsail Beach building once the new hospital opens, but she would like to convert the old facility into a rescue center for beached dolphins and small whales. She will have to work with the town of Topsail Beach, which owns the land, to determine the building's future.
A pro-active, affordable plan to protect the beach
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/10/07)
Orrin Pilkey has chosen North Topsail Beach as “the most hazardous barrier island development on the East Coast” as he wrote on the opinion page in this paper just recently. Furthermore, on Oct. 26, at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver, CO; as part of a symposium on the nation’s most endangered coastal communities, Mr. Pilkey will speak about North Topsail Beach as his choice for this special recognition. Dr. Pilkey visited North Topsail Beach recently at the request of opponents to the town’s proposed beach nourishment activities. Ultimately, it’s anybody’s guess as to what specifically Dr. Pilkey intends to accomplish by making the above declaration. For example, we recall that back in the early 1990s in a video he made for North Carolina Public Television he declared the residence at 2392 New River Inlet Road in North Topsail Beach as the most dangerous house in North Carolina. This house continues in its original location, has always been available for occupancy and there are no condemnation notices or safety issues that we are aware of. Dr. Pilkey is a strong individual opponent to beach nourishment. His policy mantra is “retreat, retreat, the ocean is coming!” He is also quick to condemn those who disagree with his opinions. In the meantime, most of the East Coast, much of North Carolina and the rest of Topsail Island have accepted a pro-active beach nourishment stance in concert with a sound environmental oversight. This position is a comparably small price to pay for securing peace of mind, property protection and having family oriented recreation available. We thoroughly reject Mr. Pilkey’s ideas for North Topsail Beach. We, who live here, endorse the plans developed by North Topsail Beach ’s contracted coastal engineering firm, Coastal Planning and Engineering, for erosion protection and beach construction at the north and central portions of the town; and the US Corps of Engineers plans for the federally designed 50 year protection for southern end of the town. We also believe that this overall plan should be implemented in phases in conjunction with our plans for raising the funds needed to pay for this project. The first phase involves the north-end of our town and addresses issues with the New River Inlet. It is there that we will construct a new wider and deeper navigational channel in the New River, which will be positioned to promote sand accretion along the beaches of the New River Inlet where erosion has been a problem. The sand removed from this channel will be deposited and used for beach reconstruction along 14,000 feet of the beach starting from the north and proceeding south. This will be the first step in the overall plan to nourish the entire length of beach of North Topsail Beach. Subject to the receipt of CAMA Environmental Permits which have already been applied for, this activity would start in the autumn of 2008. It is also planned that subsequent phases of the continuing project would be done every two or three years by dredging sand from identified off-shore locations to our town beach until our entire town’s shoreline has been nourished. An ongoing beach and New River channel maintenance program would also be performed in conjunction with the initial beach construction as circumstances require. Furthermore, should the US Congress delay or fail to make the necessary financial appropriations to fund the planned US Corps of Engineers project for the southern end of North Topsail Beach, we support back-up plans with the CP&E firm to do a beach construction project there also. So, how do we propose that our town pay for this effort? Our plan calls for setting aside $3 million annually, coming from available sources, which would be committed for beach nourishment purposes only. Of the total $3 million, half, or $1.5 million would come from North Topsail Beach’s share of North Carolina sales tax receipts. The other $1.5 million would come from the 3-percent tourist taxes that North Topsail Beach and Onslow County already collect from visitors to North Topsail Beach; and the 3 cents per $100 beach nourishment tax that is presently collected as part of our ad valorem tax collections. Other sources of funds for beach nourishment are also possible and will be pursued. These additional funds, when they become available, will be applied to future projects. This proposed beach nourishment plan avoids all the serious problems we had when the town attempted the bond referendum. There are no bond sales, no tax districts, no tax increases. No need to fear that you might need to refinance your mortgage to live here. This plan allows us to rebuild our beach and protect and enhance the value of our property. Obviously, the town could do more, sooner, had it more money. But we believe that our plan is affordable and a good way to get started. In this election, candidates Gary Rowland, Dick Macartney, and Sue Tuman are the pro-beach nourishment candidates. We are also the candidates who have been most active over the years in the best interests of the town and its citizens. The other candidates are either opposed or are indifferent to beach nourishment and would prefer that this town and its citizens not have this valuable and necessary town improvement. So, we believe that Mr. Pilkey is wrong and merely self-serving when he suggests that we abandon our town. Ours is a constructive forward thinking plan for the future. - Gary Rowland, Richard Macartney, Susan Tuman - North Topsail Beach
Avoid tunnel vision
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/10/07)
In response to the criticism of North Topsail Beach officials on the Oct. 3 editorial page, it would be good to look to the above right of your column for one of the excellent reasons some chose to stay away. While Emerald Isle beach nourishment is being touted as a great success, did anyone mention access to The Point, a popular beach access, is closed due to beach erosion? It is important to listen to all sides and avoid tunnel vision on this very important issue for our town. - Carol Evans, North Topsail Beach
10/8/07
Time running out for sandbags in Dare County
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=134142&ran=182630
An eroding land, an eroding trust
As two cabins succumb to the ocean's grasp, some blame restoration project
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/v-print/story/6689162p-5962736c.html
State destroys cabins hurt by severe erosion
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/210772.html
State seeks water access projects to spend $20 million on
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=52402http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=52402
How far can $20M go on the coast?
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (10/6/07)
Armed with $20 million, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries is looking for projects that will help protect and enhance the public's access to the water. But what effects will that war chest have along the state's coastline, where property deals sometimes involve seven figures and developers often have even deeper pockets? Add the pressure for the state agency to spread the grant funds around the coast and that could water down any significant award amounts for a single project. Officials, however, said they see the grant funding meant to preserve and enhance working waterfronts as seed money as much as anything else. "If we can team up with other groups and agencies to leverage these funds, then we can make them go that much further," said Fisheries Deputy Director Dee Lupton. The General Assembly created the fund this summer to help protect, enhance and develop working waterfront areas. The grant program was a result of a study by the Waterfront Access Study Committee that showed access to the water for both commercial and public interests to be threatened. Marine Fisheries, which is in charge of distributing the funds, has created a citizens advisory committee to help consider projects, with proposals due Nov. 1. Focus areas are to be public docking facilities, public boat ramps, fishing access and other marine industry facilities. Lupton said the more uses a proposal covers, the better its funding potential. "The idea is to promote projects that can be used for multiple purposes, recreational and commercial," she said. Mark Ledermann, a New Hanover County resident and member of the state's Coastal Conservation Association, is a member of the 10-person advisory committee. The recreational fisherman said he would like to see some of the money used to enhance public boating facilities. All areas of the coast, but especially in fast-growing areas like New Hanover and Brunswick counties, are suffering from a shortage of sites for people to launch from. And Ledermann said those areas that do exist are often overwhelmed, like the public ramp at Wrightsville Beach. "We have businesses and much of our tourism industry that relies on getting out onto the water," he said. "But if people can't put their boats in the water, all of that suffers." Another commission member is Travis Elliott, whose family has run the Capt'n Pete's Seafood Market in Holden Beach since Hurricane Hazel in 1954. Elliott said he knows firsthand the financial pressures on the commercial fishing industry as increased taxes, cheaper foreign imports, rising fuel costs and the lure of a big payday from developers turns more working waterfronts into homes and condominiums. "Basically right now we're just treading water," he said of his own fish house's economic situation. Elliott said declining water access is also one of his major concerns, especially as more historic access points are "privatized" as development gobbles up more of the coast. Protecting oceanfront fishing piers also is expected to generate considerable interest. Long a magnet for many coastal tourists, the state's roster of fishing piers is shrinking as owners are either driven out by rising costs or sell out to cash in on the surging value and demand for oceanfront residential property. Oak Island has already said it hopes to buy the Yaupon Pier, which is involved in a legal battle, for $1.9 million and then turn around and sell it to the state. Since any property acquired under the waterfront grant program must be state-owned, N.C. Aquariums is likely to be in charge of any acquired piers. The agency in conjunction with the N.C. Aquarium Society already operates Jenette's Pier in Nags Head. "We realize someone needs to do it and we think we can do a good job," said Donna Moffit, director of the N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher. But she cautioned that any pier proposal must make sense economically and logistically, which would appear to rule out running a facility too far from Fort Fisher. "We see it as another potential tool to educate the public about the great marine resources we have here in North Carolina," Moffit said. "But we don't want to get stuck with a money pit either."
Sunset Beach council nixes plan for public boat ramp
Wilmington Star by K.J. Williams (10/6/07)
Sunset Beach's plan to provide public boating access was sunk this week after a state agency declined to design and maintain a launch. N.C. Wildlife Reources based its decision on the narrowness of the creek that provides the direct connection to the Intracoastal Waterway. The town council voted unanimously Monday to exercise its option to terminate a contract signed in August to buy less than an acre for $2.35 million from Joe Peed, of Sunset Beach, who owns businesses at the site. Mayor Ronald Klein said without the support of Wildlife Resources and the possibility of grant money from the Coastal Area Management Act to offset the cost, the purchase of 0.76 acres at 310 Sunset Beach N. was too expensive for the town. Klein said that Wildlife Resources said the creek was too narrow and there were private docks located too close to it as it neared the waterway. Other issues included some petroleum waste found underground and the N.C. Department of Transportation's requirement of separate roadway entrances and exits because the site is at the base of the proposed high-rise bridge. Town officials said they realized the property was likely their only hope for providing public boat access because of construction growth in the area. "It's almost like preserving an endangered species," Klein said of efforts to provide access. A site on private property currently in use by boaters will eventually disappear since it lies in the path of the planned 65-foot-high bridge. Peed said he was disappointed that the deal had fallen through, and would look for another buyer. "It's going to get worse; they're running out of places to go," he said Friday of public boat access for recreational boaters and fishermen.
Let's save piers while we can
Wilmington Star Editorial (10/7/07)
Oak Island officials should keeping trying to buy the Yaupon Beach Fishing Pier, despite protests that it would put government in competition with private business. The public is rapidly losing access to public waters. Oak Island has a rare opportunity to help prevent the Yaupon pier from going the way of the late Oak Island pier and many others along the North Carolina coast. As land values rise, piers and waterfront businesses are being sold and often turned into residential communities that exclude the public. Oak Island has put in a $1.9 million bid, the minimum asking price. That may not be enough, but the town must try - not only for the sake of its residents but also for the tourists, local and long-distance, who visit the beach to take in a spectacular view and maybe even get in a little fishing. The waters belong to all of us, but that hardly matters if access is restricted to a wealthy handful.
10/5/07
Erosion restricts access at The Point
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=52278
They'll do solid research on liquids
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/higher_education/story/712476.html
Sunset Beach bridge snags on suit
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/209098.html
Mason Inlet dredging set for winter
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (10/5/07)
With the folks who are going to be paying the bill now satisfied, New Hanover County intends to push forward with Mason Inlet maintenance dredging work this winter. Chris Gibson, vice president of Carolina operations for engineering firm Gahagan & Bryant Associates, said work on the roughly $1 million project should start around New Year's. "Permits are all in the works, but we don't foresee any holdups with those," he said. Residents from the north end of Wrightsville Beach had initially expressed some skepticism about the need for the project. They said they hadn't been adequately informed about why the work was required and how much it might cost. Homeowners from the north end of Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island are on the hook to pay all bills associated with the inlet's monitoring and maintenance through 2030. But after a Sept. 19 meeting with engineers and the county staff, residents said they agreed to the need for the dredging. "Based on information provided at this meeting, the MIPG approves proceeding with construction plans and specifications and obtaining bids for the proposed maintenance dredging event," said Frank Pinkston, head of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group (MIPG). "MIPG will expect to be involved in discussions concerned the scope of work, contract costs and the decision as to how the costs the dredging work will be allocated." Maintaining the inlet and who should pay for the work has been a hot topic in recent months. Five years ago, with the inlet licking at the foundation of the Shell Island Resort, the 1,400 homeowners agreed to pay all inlet-related costs for 30 years to facilitate the county's relocation of the waterway - which separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island - nearly 3,000 feet to the north. So far that tab has reached more than $8 million, with the county still to assess $3.3 million of that amount. The Wrightsville Beach homeowners this summer proposed that the county dip into the room-tax fund, a portion of which is earmarked to fund beach nourishment projects, to help pay for 50 percent of the unassessed and future inlet-related costs. They said the inlet relocation has been an unqualified success that has benefited all county residents, not just the threatened homeowners. But the commissioners declined to reopen the deal, calling a contract a contract. They did, however, agree to give the residents a seat at the table to see how their money was being spent. The commissioners also voted to delay the latest round of assessments until the homeowners group could review the bills. Gibson said the upcoming inlet work will include dredging Mason Creek and shoaling in the Intracoastal Waterway near the creek's mouth. He said not clearing out the creek could prompt Mason Inlet to restart its southern migration. As with previous inlet work, the estimated 180,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be bought by Figure Eight Island to boost the eroded southern end of the private island. Gibson said crews also will used land-based machinery on the southern tip of Figure Eight to dredge sand from the area around the inlet mouth.
New span to Sunset Beach faces delay
Wilmington Star by Shannan Bowen (10/5/07)
The N.C. Board of Transportation held off awarding a contract to build a new Sunset Beach bridge at its meeting Thursday after learning a preliminary injunction was filed to prevent construction from moving forward. The board agreed to delegate the authority of awarding the contract to the secretary of the N.C. Department of Transportation, said Lanny Wilson, the Wilmington area's representative on the transportation board. Awarding the contract to English Construction Co. will depend now on the pending lawsuit, he said. No date has been set for an initial hearing on the suit. It's the latest in a long string of delays for the bridge project. The lawsuit was filed in federal court Thursday morning by the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, Douglas W. Hix, William A. Ducker, Bonnie Kelley, Nina Marable and the Brunswick Environmental Action Team. The plaintiffs allege that the DOT has failed to address environmental impacts of the construction of the 65-foot-tall bridge and that the DOT is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Act. The complaint contends the DOT has modified its construction plans since completing a court-mandated environmental impact statement in 1997 and should conduct a supplemental study. The construction company's bid of $30.9 million is good for 60 days. If it expires, the bid could be extended or terminated. "I think this will result in the completion of the project being delayed," Wilson said. Jim Maxwell, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said his clients would rather see a smaller, less expensive replacement for the one-lane swing bridge that connects the mainland to the island. Jan Harris, president of the Brunswick Environmental Action Team, said she thinks stormwater drainage from widening the road to the bridge and from a holding pond at Sea Trail Golf Resort into shellfish waters near the bridge will damage the area's shellfishing industry. The Brunswick Environmental Action Team was part of a group of plaintiffs whose legal challenge in 1990 led a judge to order the DOT to conduct the environmental study. It wasn't concluded until 1997. Another action was filed in 2002 alleging that the impact study was inadequate, but a judge rejected that. The Sunset Beach Town Council passed a resolution at its meeting Monday requesting the DOT award the bid to English Construction Co. "It's a disappointment mostly because it's going to drive the prices up and put people on the island in danger of being deprived of emergency services if the bridge ever breaks down," Mayor Ronald Klein said after learning about the latest delay. "It just prolongs the danger." Klein said many property owners are ready to see a replacement bridge. But Sue Weddell, a former member of the board of the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, said she thought residents on the island will be pleased with the transportation board's decision. "You'll probably see fireworks coming from Sunset Beach," she said.
Town closes beach access
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (10/5/07)
EMERALD ISLE — The town has recently closed a vehicle and pedestrian access at the end of Inlet Drive near The Point due to localized oceanfront erosion, but the closing should only be temporary. Town Manager Frank Rush said while The Point is still experiencing an accretion of sand, the oceanfront has receded back to the access. We’ve had some localized erosion on the oceanfront during the summer,” he said. However, that area is continually improving and the erosion should move west. Mr. Rush said the town had experienced localized oceanfront erosion to the east of The Point in the area of Channel Drive earlier this summer but it resolved itself naturally as it adjusted to the filling in of “old” channels. “That area continues to improve with accretion, but the erosion is now moving to the west causing the current erosion problem and has forced us to close the vehicle ramp and pedestrian access,” Mr. Rush said. The erosion on the oceanfront area near The Point is due to the continued adjustment and closure of the old Coast Guard Channel and the old Bogue Inlet Channel. Mr. Rush believes that it will be a short-term problem, but said officials are still keeping an eye on it. “We think it will be a short-term impact. Right now (that area) is in the process of adjusting,” Mr. Rush said. “The Coast Guard Channel is in process of shutting down and the shoreline is in the process of resolving itself. Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph said today the problem is something that could have happened naturally and could be fixed naturally. “If we had not closed the old channel but we saw a big storm that caused the inlet to shift by itself, we would be seeing the same thing.” He also said that the area that had been eroding has now recovered and the erosion is moving westward. “We hope the cycle is progressing west and hope that it continues that way and gets out of that system and away from the infrastructure area,” Mr. Rudolph said Friday. In an edition of the town’s newsletter, Mr. Rush said that the town continues to monitor the situation closely. Officials are relying on aerial photography, comprehensive underwater topography surveys and input from experts on inlet dynamics to understand the changes occurring in the area. Despite the current erosion, the data still suggests that the long-term prospects for the area are good and accretion is expected after the oceanfront shoreline adjustments as a result of the relocation of the main channel in Bogue Inlet. While the vehicle ramp and pedestrian access at The Point will be closed indefinitely, Mr. Rush said the access would open as soon as possible after the erosion situation has been resolved.
10/3/07
Wind and tides cut away at Isle of Palms
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/oct/03/wind_tides_cut_away_at_isle_palms17914/?print
Town casts bid to buy, save pier
http://www.stateportpilot.com/Stories/3%20Town%20Stites.htm
Oak Island trying to buy, save Yaupon Beach Fishing Pier
Wilmington Star by Shelby Sebens (10/2/07)
Oak Island is trying to save one of its two remaining fishing piers. The town made a bid Monday to buy the Yaupon Beach Fishing Pier as a court-appointed real estate company accepted proposals on 17 properties entangled in a lawsuit between a major local developer and his financial backers. The proposals will go before Judge John R. Jolly of the N.C. Business Court at 9 a.m. today in Raleigh. Mayor Johnie Vereen said the town council wanted to save the town's heritage by purchasing the pier, which was built in 1954 and rebuilt in 1993 and 1994. He said the council feared another buyer would tear it down. "We started a step in the right direction, doing the right thing for the right reason. We've already lost Long Beach Pier," he said of the island's third pier, which was recently torn down to make way for residential development. Vereen said the council worried that a private developer would replace the Yaupon pier with condominiums. "That's about the last thing I want built," he said, noting there were two other bidders for the pier in addition to Oak Island. The council did not meet or take a vote on the pier bid, but Vereen said he gathered a consensus from the council on Friday. He said the town met the approximately $1.9 million asking price for the property. Town Manager Jerry Walters said the council will hold a public meeting to formally vote on buying the property before anything is finalized. Jolly could make a decision as soon as today, Vereen said. Walters said the money to pay for the pier would probably come from the town's general fund. But Vereen said he is confident the town would be able to convince the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries to buy the pier from the town, using part of a new $20 million Waterfront Access and Marine Industry Fund. Vereen sat on the waterfront access study committee that helped persuade the General Assembly to create the fund this summer. The agency recently sent out a notice asking for project ideas. Vereen said it would be beneficial for the state to buy the pier and allow the N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher to use it for educational purposes. "What a perfect match," he said. The pier and other properties are up for sale in an ongoing legal battle. James and Bridget Chirico filed a lawsuit to prevent Rodney Hyson Sr. and Rodney Hyson Jr. of Cape Fear Realty from taking further actions on behalf of the Cape Fear Trading Group, the companies that both sides formed to develop land and businesses. The Chiricos alleged the Hysons lied about profit expectations, took funds to use in their other businesses and hired people without permission, among other misdeeds.
Town leaders should familiarize themselves with options
Topsail Voice Editorial (10/3/07)
Last week North Topsail Beach town officials and a small group of interested residents visited Emerald Isle to learn about that town’s beach nourishment and inlet project. The majority of those who attended have already expressed support of a similar project for North Topsail Beach. Sadly those who have shown opposition for such a plan were conspicuously absent from the meeting indicating they have no interest in learning about possible nourishment solutions. It is imperative that town representatives from both sides of the beach nourishment issue do everything they can to familiarize themselves with the subject. When renowned beach nourishment opponent Dr. Orrin Pilkey spoke recently at a public forum in the town hall, the meeting hall was packed with residents and officials -- both supporting and opposing this issue. Yet when invited to another town to see a successful beach nourishment project the opponents of nourishment were nowhere to be seen. But this was not the only failure on the part of town officials to gain needed knowledge about coastal issues. When scientists, engineers and experts from the Coastal Resources Commission and other state agencies met in Wilmington last week for a conference on coastal issues, the only elected official from North Topsail Beach to attend was Mayor Rodney Knowles. The other two towns on Topsail Island are actively seeking redress for their eroding shorelines. Yet the town of North Topsail Beach -- which is at the north end of the island where a dynamic inlet continuously shapes the contours of the nearby beach – can’t seem to make up its collective mind about what to do about its beach erosion problem. No matter what the town ultimately decides to do, it would behoove town leaders to completely familiarize themselves with both sides of the issue in order to be able to make informed decisions about the fate of the town they were elected to lead.
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (10/3/07)
The recent visit of the North Topsail delegation to Emerald Isle illustrates why the community was wise to reject the beach nourishment erosion control option by an 80 percent to 20 percent vote margin. The NTB nourishment committee heard what they wanted to hear at Emerald Isle by talking only to proponents of nourishment. The beach they observed was made up of the best and the cheapest sand available because it came from an inlet. What the NTB nourishment committee wasn’t told on Emerald Isle (but they knew it if they read a letter I sent to Mr. McCartney or if they had listened to my recent talk) was that the sand removed from the tidal delta of Bogue Inlet assures that Emerald Isle will have an accelerated erosion rate for years to come. The north ends of Figure 8 and Ocean Isle already suffer from inlet-mining-induced accelerated erosion. The problem is that the sand body seaward and landward from the inlet is in equilibrium with the waves, sand supply and tides of that particular inlet. So, when sand is removed, the inlet slowly repairs itself using sand that would have been transferred to adjacent islands. The predicament of sand removal from inlets was probably first recognized when the Phoenicians and the Romans dredged navigation channels. When I gave a talk on this subject at NTB I pointed out that the consultant who designed the Bogue Inlet project (the same consultant that NTB is using) completely failed to predict how the inlet would respond to the mining. I showed a diagram from their design document in my talk to illustrate this. These consultants don’t understand either, the details of what will happen when the channel realignment occurs at New River Inlet. Moving the channel to the north, which the consultants support, is a good idea but only if the dredged sand from the new channel is used to fill in the old channel. Instead, the plan is to use the sand to nourish the beach. Nature will fill in the old channel using sand that would normally have gone to NTB. The net result, just as at Emerald Isle, Ocean Isle and Figure 8 will be a long-term increased erosion rate. NTB could use a new and more objective nourishment committee with an eye to the long-term welfare of the entire community and its beaches. - Orrin H. Pilkey, James B Duke Professor of Earth Sciences Emeritus, Duke University
10/1/07
Birthday on the beach
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/203772.html
Corps cleans up old hazards on the Outer Banks
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=133620&ran=168744
Leadership in question on sea rise
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/29/07)
Fight, flight or bury our heads in the proverbial sand. The state commission tasked with managing North Carolina's coastal resources got a quick primer on sea-level rise Thursday - and the potential responses, from increased beach nourishing to surrendering vulnerable areas to the rising waters. And while no decisions were made, officials agreed that pretending significant physical, environmental, social and economic changes to the coast aren't coming isn't the right answer. Courtney Hackney, chairman of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, said ignoring the issue would not only leave the state's coastline vulnerable and unprepared, but also would erode the public's trust. "I think this commission has a lot to do and a lot to think about over the next few years," said the biologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. But is the CRC, which met Thursday and Friday in Wilmington, the right agency to tackle this issue? Maybe. But right now it isn't really set up to do so, said Hackney. He said the magnitude of the issue supersedes the agency's current reach and mission, such as dictating land-use planning - now a local issue - or determining how and where infrastructure is built and funded. But Joan Weld, a CRC member from Pender County, said someone at the government level has to take the lead in preparing the coast for the inevitable change that's coming. "We need to start getting more proactive, less reactive," she said. There's little question the world's oceans are rising. But debate remains whether the cause is simply natural, human-induced or a bit of both. The rate of sea-level rise that we'll see in coming decades also is an unknown. Just using historical data, however, shows that large swaths of coastal North Carolina are extremely vulnerable to sea-level rise - and not just beachfront areas enduring heavy erosion. That's because much of the state's northeast is still settling, meaning that land that's already just a few feet above sea level is sinking even as water levels rise. A presentation by N.C. Division of Coastal Management stated that some areas around the Outer Banks could see 3 to 7 meters of sea-level rise over the next 100 years - roughly double the projected water rise around Southport. But with firm data on the rate and scope of change still in short supply, getting officials and residents to take the initiative on the issue won't be easy. Studies under way in Bogue Banks and Pamlico Sound that are expected to wrap up next year should provide more information on how quickly things are changing and how the environment is responding. Yet officials realize getting the message out when the seas are only rising the thickness of a couple of dimes a year won't be easy. "It's only a little creep," Hackney said. "But every year every house along our beachfront becomes that much more vulnerable to storm surge."
Friend turned foe
Wilmington Star By Gareth McGrath (9/29/07)
Bald Head Island | The man with the machete was on a mission. Pausing amid the clusters of beach vitex that covered most of the oceanfront lot on this Brunswick County island, Hal Drotor picked up one of the plant's ground-hugging runners and began scraping off the outer bark. With the soft tissue underneath exposed, his assistant Eric DeLuca swabbed purple herbicide onto the cut. "What the plant is doing is actually starving to death," said Drotor, a research technician with Clemson University and vitex eradication expert, describing how the herbicide would disrupt the woody shrub's ability to feed itself. "This gives it a bad case of hardened arteries." The eradication campaign against beach vitex in the Carolinas is a work in progress, with researchers still determining the extent of the problem and the best ways to knock back the hardy, sometimes beautiful, but very ecologically damaging plant. But the initial skirmishes are showing some success, and that has officials upbeat. "It's exciting to be part of a success story, an effort where we are showing significant progress against an invasive species," said Suzanne Dorsey, executive director of the Bald Head Island Conservancy. "We have a chance here." Still, there's a lot of work to be done - and not a lot of time to do it. "If we wait five years, we'll be in real trouble," said Melanie Doyle, North Carolina coordinator with the Carolinas Beach Vitex Task Force.
Kudzu of the coast
The plant, first welcomed to the coast two decades ago as a useful landscaping plant and now viewed as one of its biggest scourges, is getting dug up, poisoned and labeled a persona non grata along more and more stretches of coastline. Two years into an islandwide eradication program, Bald Head has largely vanquished the large clumps of the invasive species from most of its known locations. Other North Carolina beach communities also are stepping up their eradication campaigns. In South Carolina, vitex that clogged lawns and strangled native plants is being cleared off the vital beach dunes in increasing amounts. But officials are still nervous. Money and manpower remain tight, the extent of the problem in North Carolina is still largely unknown and education of landowners and local officials is an ongoing concern. The plant also doesn't simply disappear when the surface branches and runners are cleared. With deep roots and a growth rate that can reach several feet a month during the summer, vitex quickly bounces back without close monitoring and ongoing maintenance. Then there is the plant's ability to produce thousands of seeds - up to 20,000 seeds per square meter - that can get transported to new locations by wind, water and hungry animals. Drotor said South Carolina officials recently found vitex on Waites Island, the undeveloped island just across from Bird Island in North Carolina. "And it didn't get there by someone planting it," he said. Adding salt to the wound, deer - a growing scourge on many barrier islands, including Bald Head - are voracious plant eaters but won't eat vitex. Still, officials said they feel better today than they did a few years ago when vitex received the unflattering moniker of the "kudzu of the coast."
Dune destroyer
It's easy to see why vitex first entranced landscapers and homeowners. Fast-growing, salt-tolerant and sporting a beautiful purple flower during the summer, vitex was first marketed as a coastal landscaping plant by N.C. State University in the 1980s. The plant became popular in South Carolina after Hurricane Hugo devastated the Charleston area in 1989, when officials looking to stabilize dune lines couldn't find enough sea oats and sea grass to do the job. "But no one back then knew how bad it could be," Drotor said. Officials started worrying about vitex earlier this decade as beach dunes began getting overrun by the shrub. Not only does the plant kill off the native dune vegetation, but vitex lacks the dune-building benefits of sea oats or sea grasses and is a hazard to nesting sea turtles and shorebirds. And the plant can grow up to 15 feet a year, double that amount in areas with irrigations systems, quickly crowding out everything else. Killing vitex also can be a problem. Pulling it up generally doesn't work, since the roots are often left behind. And runners cut off from the mother plant just sprout their own roots and continue growing. Mulching the plant, unless it is completely dead, also simply spreads it to new locations. "It really is about the worst thing you can plant on a barrier island," said Gene Douglas, a councilman on Bald Head Island.
Eradication efforts
Leading North Carolina's anti-vitex campaign has been Bald Head Island. Officials on the ritzy island at the mouth of the Cape Fear River became concerned several years ago when the plant that had been widely planted for landscaping began taking over dunes and gardens. "We just didn't know any better," Douglas said. Using a mix of grants and more than $100,000 in village funds, the eradication effort led by the Bald Head Island Conservancy has been largely effective in clearing known infestations. Still, officials know they haven't completely defeated the foreign invader - hence the reason for the five-year eradication plan. "If we stopped now, a lot of our effort would be wasted," said Maureen Dewire, the Conservancy's senior naturalist, as she stood in a lot that had been covered in mats of vitex feet-deep last year. Now just a few sprigs sprout through the sandy soil. They will soon be sprayed with herbicide as part of the island's ongoing monitoring program. Dewire said of the estimated 5 acres of vitex on the island in 2005, nearly 95 percent has been removed. Bald Head removed most of its vitex by digging it up, often with heavy equipment. But other, less back-breaking methods are being tested. The vitex-infested lot Drotor was working in had been intentionally kept full of the invasive plant by the Conservancy so it could be used as a test bed for eradication methods. Large brown clumps of the dead plant were testament to where another herbicide applied earlier in the summer had killed vitex. While eradicating the invader is the vitex task force's mission, Doyle said the immediate goal in North Carolina is to locate all outbreaks along the coast. While some recent surveys have been done, other barrier islands haven't even been eyeballed in years - if at all. Drotor said he expected beachfront property owners and even local officials to be helpful allies in that search once they realize the insidious nature of what's actually growing in their backyard. "It's no longer a matter of we'll let you in," he said of the reaction he now gets from South Carolina residents and officials. "It's when will you get here."
9/28/07
Turning back the tides
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51999
Dare County sand dune work funded by repealed tax to start soon
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=133394&ran=105003
Mason’s Creek dredging project expected to proceed
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1462&iid=81&sud=30
Dredging starts this winter for Pawleys Island
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/198417.html
Study: Sea turtle numbers drop as dangers increase
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/sep/25/study_sea_turtle_numbers_drop_as_dangers17085/?print
Loggerhead turtle numbers down on S.C. coast
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/199396.html
Mystery channels eliminate rainwater ponds on beach, but do they pose a new danger? (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/39455.html
Final loggerhead nest hatches
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1469&iid=81&sud=30
Turtle nesting slumps in S.C. ... but what does it mean?
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6680142p-5954599c.html
North Topsail Beach eyes Emerald Isle beach projects
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (9/26/07)
EMERALD ISLE – After looking at the results of Emerald Isle’s beach nourishment and inlet relocation projects, officials from North Topsail Beach are optimistic about their own proposed project. “I am very impressed,” said NTB Mayor Rodney Knowles. “Their project did just what it was supposed to do.” NTB residents and town officials were invited to Emerald Isle last Friday for a presentation on the town’s projects and a trip to the beach and inlet sites. Emerald Isle Town Manager Frank Rush showed the crowed the wide, healthy beach strand that the town now boasts, along with a reconfigured inlet that has added over a thousand feet of sand to the area known as The Point. “It appears that their program was a success,” said NTB Alderman Dan Tuman as he walked near the inlet. “The restored beach and sand at the inlet are very impressive.” NTB Alderman Dick Peters said he initially had some concerns because an earlier beach nourishment project in Emerald Isle had left shell pieces strewn on the beach. “The shell problem has been completely absorbed and covered up by the additional sand,” said Peters. “It’s wonderful what they’ve accomplished.”
Emerald Isle project
Rush, along with coastal engineer Tom Jarrett, who is also working with NTB, gave a presentation about the project to the crowd at the town’s recreation center. Rush noted that there had been some negative feedback about the project but it had come mostly from people who did not live in the town. However, he said that the town had set specific goals for the project and had successfully accomplished them. The first goal was to nourish 4.5 miles of beachfront to provide protection for the island, its residents and infrastructure. The second goal was to address the erosion caused by inlet migration and to relieve pressure on the homes at The Point. The third goal was to provide better public access to The Point. The fourth goal was to improve navigation of Bogue Inlet. The fifth goal was to accomplish all the goals without negatively harming the environment. “In fact, a case could be made that there has been a positive impact on the environment,” said Rush. “We are overwhelmingly pleased with the results of our project,” he added. Jarrett gave an overview of Emerald Isle’s project and compared it to NTB. He said that the erosion caused by inlet migration and beach erosion from storms and wave action had deteriorated Emerald Isle’s beachfront the same way NTB’s is at this time. Emerald Isle’s plan was similar to NTB’s proposed plan – relocate the inlet, make it deeper and wider, and pump sand on the beach. Construction on Emerald Isle’s project began early in 2005 and was completed later that year. “By the summer of 2006 we were already seeing the beach build up,” said Jarrett. “Two years later, sand dunes are being established naturally.” Jarrett said the project did meet some challenges – Hurricane Ophelia hit the area in the fall of 2005 and disrupted the inlet project. But while the hurricane slowed the project results down, it did not stop them.
Who pays?
Rush said that while most people in the town were for the project, they had concerns about how to finance it. “The question was how to pay for it,” said Rush. The town elected to borrow $17 million in bonds. Initially, the beachfront property owners were paying back 70-percent, other property owners paying back 10-percent, another 10-percent coming from the town’s occupancy tax and the remaining 10-percent coming from a grant. The oceanfront property owners are now paying approximately 16-cents per $100 property valuation and other property owners are paying approximately 1-cent per $100 valuation to satisfy the debt. The issue also divided the town board. Rush said that while the board did approve the project, it was not by a unanimous vote. NTB asked its residents to vote on a bond last November to pay for its project. The $43 million bond overwhelmingly failed. Many beach nourishment proponents in NTB contend that the residents did not vote against beach nourishment, just the formula the town had proposed to pay for it. The town is now searching for alternatives to present to its residents.
Opinions
Ed Murphrey owns a beachfront home at The Point. He said he attended Friday’s meeting to give a resident’s point of view. “I would vote to do it all over again,” said Murphrey. “We’re so grateful to the town of Emerald Isle for doing what they did.” Murphrey said there would have been homes and beachfront lost if the town had done nothing. Dr. William Cleary, a coastal geologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, also attended the meeting. He said people need to realize what can happen to their homes and property, as well as their community, if nothing is done to halt beach erosion. “People need to understand the consequences of not doing anything,” said Dr. Cleary. “The consequences are severe.” Dr. Cleary said that nourishing the beaches and saving homes benefits everyone in a beach community. While there were no dissenting voices at the meeting, one such voice caused the event to take place. Dr. Orrin Pilkey, a noted Duke University professor and opponent of beach nourishment, spoke in North Topsail Beach in August at the behest of one of the town’s residents. At that meeting, Dr. Pilkey criticized the Bogue Inlet project and its functionality. It was thought that Dr. Pilkey would attend Friday’s meeting but he did not. When he learned of Dr. Pilkey’s remarks, Rush invited NTB residents to come and check out his town’s project for themselves. “I want people to know what our goals were, see our project and make up their own minds,” said Rush. In addition to the mayor and two town board members from NTB, several residents came to the meeting. “We need a project like this to protect our beach,” said Rick Bumgardner, who attended with his wife Linda, and who owns several properties in NTB. Two candidates for NTB town board also attended the event – Sue Tuman and Gary Rowland.
Results
Jarrett said that when the project was first completed the beach looked wider and different than it does now. “The way the beach looked immediately after it gets beach fill is not how it will look one year later,” he said. The project is designed so that it will fill offshore areas, too, and the construction berm will adjust itself, Jarrett explained. While Emerald Isle’s beach now averages about 45-feet wide and The Point continues to gain sand, like all beach nourishment projects it will need to be maintained with additional sand pumped onto the beach and the inlet pumped every few years. But the benefits are far reaching, said Rush, who explained that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will pay to replace sand that is washed away during a declared storm from an engineered beach. “FEMA provided funds to replace sand that we lost during Hurricane Ophelia because it was a planned beach project,” said Rush. Standing on a wide beach in an area where there was once an inlet, Alderman Tuman said he would like to see the same kind of results in NTB. “I would encourage people with an interest in beach nourishment to visit Emerald Isle and see the results. It’s impressive,” he said.
Potential private isles in area: 231
Survey of sites in N.C. prompts push for a plan
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/28/07)
The number was enough to make developers drool - and environmentalists cringe. A preliminary review of the North Carolina coast using aerial photography has found 468 non-barrier islands of an acre or more, officials said during Thursday's meeting of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission in Wilmington. The three counties with the most undeveloped islands are all close to home: Pender with 86, New Hanover with 73 and Brunswick with 72. The largest site in the state was a 2,020-acre tract in Pamlico County. While a good number of the islands will likely be eventually dropped from the list, that could still leave dozens of new coastal areas ripe for development. "We need to try and get a handle on this before it's too late," said Joan Weld, a Pender County member of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. "This is an issue that's begging for some strategic planning."
Avoiding S.C.'s trouble
Doug Huggett, major permits coordinator with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, said it was South Carolina's experience that prompted the statewide survey. There, state officials were caught off guard when marsh islands and other specks of land along the coast that had long been overlooked or just ignored for more accessible areas suddenly began sparking interest from developers. While North Carolina has seen some marsh island development, including along the Cape Fear River south of Wilmington, it hasn't been widespread. But officials fear that could soon change. "Development pressures in coastal areas are ballooning on every piece of land, no matter where it is," Huggett said Thursday. Given the increasing demand for coastal homes and surging property prices, he said it's only natural to think that these small parcels - largely located in marshy areas of the state - could soon face similar pressures. But first you have to find the islands before you can worry about whether they need additional regulatory protection. Ken Richardson, GIS analyst with Coastal Management, said he primarily looked for clumps of trees during his island search. "We thought trees would be a good indication of elevation," he said. Richardson said many of the islands found in the central and southern portions of the coast were in the marshes that line the Intracoastal Waterway. But he admitted that simply relying on photographs is an imperfect way to inventory islands. Further investigation, whether by air or on foot, would likely show some sites to be simply clumps of marshes free of any uplands. Island size also could be self-limiting on the site's development potential, and the dozens of spoil islands owned by the Army Corps of Engineers around inlets and the Intracoastal Waterway also would be off-limits. But even culling those non-buildable sites could still leave dozens or even hundreds of private islands that could theoretically make a nice home. Still, just because an island is big enough and privately owned doesn't mean a building permit could be imminent. Huggett said current rules, such as those governing setback requirements and the construction of docks and bridges, should help control development on many islands. The lack of access and utility woes also could help blunt builder interest.
Impact on wildlife
Other federal and state regulatory agencies, especially those worried about the loss of important maritime habitat, also could chime in with concerns to limit construction on these small, isolated islands. But if the state wants to stiffen protection for these marsh islands above and beyond regulations for barrier islands, officials said the rules should be strengthened before an application is submitted. Jim Stephenson, policy director with the N.C. Coastal Federation, said marsh islands fill an important ecological niche, especially for nesting and wading shorebirds. "They're unique," he said. "There's habitat there you don't find in other places." State officials might eventually have to research the ownership of some of the more developable islands. But CRC members Thursday expressed concern about whether that would be the best use of Coastal Management's already over-stretched staff. In the meantime, Huggett said he intends to contact other coastal states to see how they have handled the issue and report back to the commission at its November meeting in Greenville.
Beach nourishment not a failure
Topsail Voice letter to the editor (9/26/07)
I am responding to Gary Knoeppel’s letter that you printed in the Topsail Voice on Sept. 19. Mr. Knoeppel contends that the beach nourishment project in Long Branch , NJ to be a waste of money and a failure. He also listed a website to corroborate his point. The website www.historiclongbranch.org is a ruse. There are no photographs related to their beach program and it is difficult to make sense of what you see. We suspect that Mr. Knoeppel wrote his letter at the request of his local friends who are not in favor of beach nourishment in our town of North Topsail Beach. Based on my investigation, Mr. Knoeppel’s claim that beach nourishment did not work in Long Branch New Jersey is very misleading and not factual. The facts that I observed in person and that I gleaned from information from the New York District of the Army Corps of Engineers website is that Long Branch beach was restored in 1996 as part of a 21 mile project on the northern shoreline of New Jersey. Prior to that project being approved several nay-sayers including Dr. Orrin Pilkey, and Norm Psuto, another coastal scientist, projected that the beach would not last nine months and that the sand would disappear in two years. Whereas, in fact, the northern New Jersey beaches are in the best condition in the last 100 years as earlier efforts to use hardened structures to “amour” the shoreline just made things worse. Last fall the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association held it annual meeting in Long Branch, New Jersey and I attended. Their beach was still much wider than the beach in front of my house in North Topsail Beach. The hotel I stayed in and a boardwalk connecting new shopping and restaurants looked to be a very impressive multi million recent investment providing relaxation, recreation, and shopping within yards of the Atlantic Ocean. There is no argument that restored beaches need to be re-nourished. Dr. Pilkey, at a meeting in our town hall recently, suggested that to occur every three years. In fact there is no timetable that will fit every beach as they are each different. Long Branch had been scheduled for re-nourishment after six years but that has been delayed because of federal funding cutbacks. In spite of the two year delay the beach is still wider than expected and providing storm protection and the focus for economic revitalization. So, if the effort of Mr. Knoeppel’s letter was to convince residents and taxpayers of Onslow County and North Topsail Beach that beach nourishment is folly by just stating a personal opinion, I believe the information relayed will negate that conclusion. If you visit the Long Branch NJ website which has current information and pictures, you will see a beautiful wide beach and a video. This video prepared by TV network CNBC rates Long Branch NJ as being on of the 20 top beaches in the country. Their website is www.visitlongbranch.com. I wrote this letter because I and Gary Rowland, members of the North Topsail Beach's Beach Preservation Committee, are candidates for alderman in the upcoming election, and along with candidate, Sue Tuman, for mayor, are proposing a sensible and affordable beach program and view Mr. Knoeppel’s letter as a willful attempt to mislead the public on the merits of beach nourishment. - Dick Macartney, North Topsail Beach
9/24/07
Navy to add S.C. site to sonar range list
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/712442.html
Navy adds SC site to list of possible sonar range locations
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/v-print/story/195721.html
Beach project to start Nov. 1
Strand renourishment to take 14 months
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/195814.html
Coastal agencies rubbing elbows
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51981
Federal report shows declining loggerhead turtle populations
http://www.newsobserver.com/1565/v-print/story/712286.html
Sea Grant's reduced funding may reduce programs, staff
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/09/22/top_stories/tops1002.prt
Corps dredging explored
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (9/23/07)
PINE KNOLL SHORES — A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project would place 170,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach but commissioners voiced concern with the cost to the town and quality of sand during a special meeting Tuesday. During the meeting at the town hall, commissioners discussed several concerns they had with the Corps’ project and whether it was worthwhile for the town to participate based on the cost and the sand’s quality and steadfastness. Another meeting will be held at a later date to discuss the cost findings. The Corps plans to dredge five spots in the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) from Morehead City to Wilmington for navigational purposes only and the work will not be considered a beach renourishment project. County Shore Protection Manger Greg “Rudi” Rudolph attended the meeting to answer any questions about the project.
He explained that two of the five Corps projects would be partly funded while three would be fully funded, adding a spot behind Pine Knoll Shores was at the top of the list to be dredged and be fully funded. If commissioners approve the Corps’ project it will begin in November. The Corps also traditionally places the dredge sand spoils in the most cost-effective place, which happens to be the town’s beach, Mr. Rudolph said. If commissioners do not want the sand on the beach it could go to north Radio Island on property owned by the N.C. Ports Authority. Town Manager Brian Kramer told commissioners, “This is the first step in a multi-step process” and one of those steps is knowing the costs that are involved. In order for the town to precede, two easements – one at the Country Club golf course and one at the old Holiday Inn property – would be needed in order to set the pipe that would get the sand to the beach. Commissioners wanted to know the cost of those easements as well as cost to restore the property where the easements were and any legal fees. The other cost concern was for a sleeve, an underground tube under Highway 58 so the dredges can come up to and connect to the dredge pipe. The town currently has a 20-inch steel sleeve but the Corps wants a 30-inch reinforced concrete sleeve. “If the Corps wants a bigger sleeve or rehabilitation to the one that exists is needed there could possibly be a cost to the town,” Mr. Rudolph said after the meeting. “But I don’t think there would be because the Corps normally takes care of that,” he said. In order to place that sleeve, highway encroachment is definitely part of the process, town public services director, Ernie Rudolph, told commissioners during the meeting. A permit is needed from the state Department of Transportation to do work in their right of way. However, Mr. Rudolph said there was no mention of cost in the form to be submitted concerning the drilling under the road. Mr. Kramer told commissioners that he would look into the costs of the easements and approach the property owners as well as make arrangements for the pipes to be drilled under the road.
Other than cost, commissioners voiced several different concerns about the sand itself. Greg Rudolph briefed commissioners on a similar project that was done in the early 1990s in which the quality of sand was terrible. Almost all the grains were well below 1/16 millimeter and were very black. Mr. Rudolph told commissioners the explanation given for the grain size was that the dredging company went below the required dredging depth and got sand that had been there for thousands of years rather than just the sand that has shoaled from shores and surrounding beach. However, the samples taken from the dredge spot that would be placed on the beach in this project is sand and passes the state sediment criteria for beach nourishment from the channel. The grain size is less than 10 percent “mud,” which is just a technical term for any grain size less than 1/16 mm in diameter. Sand is 1/16 to 2 mm and gravel is anything above 2 mm, Mr. Rudolph explained. Commissioner Bonnie Peter asked if the finer sand would blow more in beach-goers’ eyes. Mr. Rudolph said it probably would but it was also the type of sand that builds up the sand dunes. Commissioner Peter also asked if the cost would go up if the town wanted to move the pipes to put the sand where the town wanted it instead of the spot that the Corps had designated for the sand to go. Mr. Rudolph explained that the Corps is only concerned with clearing the ICW for navigational purposes and not where the sand is spread out on the beaches so it would be more expensive to have it placed somewhere else. “They want to get the channel clear so I’m not certain how diligent they will be on getting that fill down the beach,” Mr. Rudolph explained. “As soon as they (the Corps) say that it is not productive to move down the beach, that’s when they stop moving (the sand) down the beach,” Mr. Rudolph said. Commissioner Ashland suggested that the least expensive path for the town would be to “accept what the Corps says in good faith that they’ll do the best they can … than for us to get in the nitty-gritty of the details.” Commissioner Bob Danehy asked if this project would cause erosion further down the beach. Mr. Rudolph said while he was not 100 percent sure he did say that here hasn’t been any down drift or up drift of sand from projects like this but it may help with the shock absorbing aspect of the beach during storms when waves crash on the shore. However, while the sand may wash off the shore quickly because of the small grain size, Mayor Joan Lamson said, “Seeing the sand isn’t all the benefit to it. There is benefit from unseen sand.” Mr. Rudolph confirmed that was true saying the sand offshore helps in unseen ways; however, a heavier grain would stay longer than the finer grain.
“But the dune build up is from the fine grain,” he added. Commissioner Ted Lindblad asked if the fine grain would coagulate on the beach. Mr. Rudolph said, “The sand may be sitting in the channel in clumps … once they are on the beach they will dry and break apart.” The dark color and aesthetics of the sand was another a concern but Mr. Rudolph explained while the sand dredged up may be a darker color, as it dries the color will also become lighter. Commissioner Peter then asked Mr. Rudolph if there would be any pollutants in the dredged area that would end up on the beach. “The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has already given the Corps clearance to put this sand on the beaches … pollutants don’t really attach to the quartz of sand,” he replied. Commissioners asked if this project would affect their chances at receiving help on any other beach projects especially beach nourishment projects. “As far as impacting on any projects, it wouldn’t do that. Each project stands alone,” Mr. Rudolph said. Mr. Kramer ended the meeting by going over the points commissioners wanted him to find out prior to another meeting sometime soon including the cost of easements, legal fees, whether the town can use funds in its escrow account, if the Corps could verify restoration costs and would even approach the Carteret County Beach Commission to see if they could help in the costs in any way. A meeting to discuss his finding has not been scheduled at this time.
More stalling at the inlet
Wilmington Star Editorial (9/20/07)
Maybe they'll eventually keep their promise to repay New Hanover County for moving and maintaining the migrating inlet that threatened their property. But owners on the northern end of Wrightsville Beach apparently intend to stall as long as possible. And the New Hanover County Commissioners apparently intend to let them. First, the property owners asked the county to split the cost - a cost the property owners (and those on Figure Eight Island) had begged to assume and to pay for 30 years, after which the pleasure would be the taxpayers'. When the commissioners insisted that property owners live up to the deal, the property owners demanded detailed answers about how the county has spent $3.3 million on the project, and how it plans to spend the next batch of cash. The county staff urged the commissioners to send the bills and get started on the new dredging. The commissioners stiffed the staff and promised to give the property owners the answers they want. The county's engineer had argued that it's time to get started on the next dredging. If it's delayed, he said, shoaling might get worse, the inlet might start moving again, and the delayed work might cost an additional $500,000. But maybe the property owners would rather avoid paying their old assessments than re-dredge the inlet, which remains comfortably distant. And maybe they aren't too worried about higher costs because they figure the county commissioners will eventually send half the bills to the taxpayers anyway. That wouldn't be a surprise.
9/19/07
Shipping channel gobbles Tybee sand
http://savannahnow.com/node/360092/print
Sunset Beach bridge bid likely to get OK
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/708624.html
Short bridge support
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/v-print/story/707476.html
Boats and bridges
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/v-print/story/707472.html
High bridge, high bid
But it's lower than first Sunset Beach bid, likely to be accepted
Wilmington Star by Shannan Bowen (9/19/07)
The low bid to build a new Sunset Beach bridge is still higher than the state's estimate for the project, but a state official said it's likely to be accepted. Bids were accepted for the second time and opened Tuesday. English Construction Co.'s low bid of $30.9 million is 10.8 percent higher than the state's new estimate of $27.9 million, but the difference might be small enough for the N.C. Board of Transportation to award the company a contract to construct the 65-foot-high bridge that will replace Sunset Beach's single-lane pontoon bridge. The board of transportation typically doesn't award contracts if bids come in more than 10 percent above the Department of Transportation's estimate. Bids first opened July 17 were rejected and re-let because they were higher than the state's estimate of $26.8 million. English Construction Co. had the low bid then at $31.5 million, which was 17.5 percent higher than the state's estimate. Because both parties adjusted their estimates and the construction company's estimate is close to the 10 percent limit, DOT construction engineer Joe Blair said he expected the board to award the contract. "I am pleased the difference has come down," Blair said Tuesday after the bids were opened. The board of transportation will decide at its Oct. 4 meeting whether to award the contract. Blair said nothing significant changed about the project, and, if the contract is awarded, construction can begin Oct. 29. If the contract is not awarded, the project will be re-advertised and delayed another two months, Blair said. Meanwhile, a second lawsuit over the project is being considered by the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association. James Maxwell, the attorney representing the group, wrote a letter to board members addressing the group's concerns about the project's cost and environmental impacts. In the letter, dated Aug. 21, Maxwell asked why the project's cost estimate of $18.3 million in the DOT's Transportation Improvement Program had increased to $26.8 million when the initial bids were opened in July. Blair said it's not unusual for the engineer's estimate to be different than the TIP estimate because the TIP estimate is often outdated and unrefined. Maxwell also mentioned in the letter that the group had environmental concerns relating to possible increased stormwater discharge, construction of an infiltration basin in the marsh and expansion of the island's causeway. The group's first lawsuit was filed in 1990 and asked for an environmental impact study relating to the bridge's construction, Maxwell said. The study was completed in 1998, but Maxwell filed an unsuccessful subsequent lawsuit in 2000 challenging the report's adequacy. Maxwell said he will probably wait until the board makes a decision on the contract next month before deciding whether to file another lawsuit. He said the group isn't opposed to a new bridge to Sunset Beach, but it doesn't think the new bridge should be as large or expensive as the one planned by the DOT. "There's no objection to some new bridge," he said.
Beach nourishment an expensive, ongoing project
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/19/07)
I was visiting friends on North Topsail Beach recently and heard about the plans for beach nourishment. I thought you might like to hear about our beach replenishment project at the City of Long Branch, New Jersey. Long Branch has a population of about 35,000. It is a small city, only five square miles, located on the Atlantic Ocean. The beach is a huge attraction at Long Branch but our beach was eroding to the point that there was very little beach left. A few years ago, Long Branch started a beach replenishment project. It was about a $50 million project covering some four miles of beach. The US Army Corps of Engineers started dredging sand from the floor of the ocean and placed it on the beach. The beach became so wide that you could barely see the water; it was beautiful. But even with all that sand, today if you were to visit Long Branch you would find that most of the sand is gone. Your readers can see photos of the beaches of Long Branch going back over 100 years by going to http://www.historiclongbranch.org/. What I have seen in Long Branch is that beach replenishment is very, very expensive and it needs to be done over and over again to keep the sand on the beach. Gary Knoeppel - West Long Branch , New Jersey
9/17/07
Forums on vehicle use begin
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51780
Nervous Bonner Bridge users want replacement _ but which one?
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/v-print/story/190108.html
Island research center plans to be different
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/189721.html
Loggerhead leaves its haven
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51753
Dredging for deeper ground around Rudee Inlet
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=132558&ran=143513
Insensitive folks with uninformed opinions on the bridge issue
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.09.012-InsensitiveFolksWithUninformedOpinionsOnBridgeIssue.html
Surfrider Foundation campaigns to reopen public beach access 33
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1396&iid=79&sud=30
County Commissioners Say No To Using Room Tax Fund For Inlet Project
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1800&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Beach town bans left items, holes
Wilmington Star by Steve McDaniel (9/14/07)
Wrightsville Beach | Beachgoers will have to take their stuff with them and fill up their holes in the sand when their day of fun in the sun is over. The town unanimously passed a resolution to that effect at Thursday's Board of Aldermen meeting, following what has become a trend for area beach communities. "The hole issue became a public safety problem," Mayor Robert O'Quinn said. "They're also a sea turtle hazard, and we just put something in effect to address a problem that we had recognized." O'Quinn said the issue of abandoned tents and canopies had been brought to his and Town Manager Bob Simpson's attention by the town's public works department this summer. "They were carting off truck after truck of lawn chairs and tents and the like, left either with the intent to abandon them or come back later to use them," O'Quinn said. "We saw a problem developing here. That's why we acted on it." Lifeguards still staffing the busier areas of the beach, as well as roving beach patrols, will begin enforcing the new ordinance, which can carry a $100 fine, as soon as the town can get the word out to its employees and the public. Since the 2007 season is winding down, this resolution was passed mainly with an eye toward next summer, O'Quinn said. Wrightsville Beach is the latest coastal town in the region to pass an ordinance prohibiting abandoned canopies and tents, and addressing the public safety issues associated with deep, large holes left unfilled in the sand. Ocean Isle Beach passed a similar ordinance earlier this week, and Sunset Beach already has a policy in place that requires items to be removed at the end of the day. In other meeting news, O'Quinn signed a proclamation asking residents to voluntarily conserve water during the ongoing drought. "The governor sent a letter to me that listed three categories of counties in distress with drought," O'Quinn said. "And this is just to put our citizens on notice that they can do things voluntarily to help conserve water." Actions listed in the proclamation include limiting lawn watering and vehicle washing; taking showers instead of baths and limiting them to four minutes; and using washing machines and dishwashers only when full. A complete copy of the proclamation will be available at the town's Web site, www.townof wrightsvillebeach.com. Brunswick, Pender and New Hanover counties are on the list sent out by Gov. Mike Easley and are included in the extreme drought category, one step below the more severe category of exceptional drought.
He practices what he preaches
Wilmington Star Editorial (9/17/07)
Coastal engineer Spencer Rogers has climbed through the wreckage left by many a hurricane, trying to figure out why buildings fell apart. That experience has motivated him to apply what he's learned. After he bought a 10-year-old house a third of a mile from the Intracoastal Waterway in 1994, Rogers began to strengthen it bit by bit. He installed roof connections ("hurricane straps") and leak-resistant roof vents. He bolstered a closet into a "safe room" He made plywood storm shutters to protect the windows. When the windows began to leak recently, he replaced them with high-grade versions designed to resist high winds and flying debris. Rogers calculates that choosing the toughest windows he could find, and paying a good contractor to install them carefully, cost 21 percent more than he would have paid for a standard job - $44,400 versus $36,800. That difference is substantial. But so is the improvement in safety - not to mention the convenience of being able to forget about installing shutters every time a storm threatens. Still, it's a rare homeowner who's willing to spend that kind of money without getting an immediate and tangible payback. That payback ought to be lower insurance costs.
Public Beach?
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (9/13/07)
EDITOR: Just love the articles and letters about (some Wrightsville Beach property owners) wanting monetary support via the room tax to ease the payments they agreed to make when Mason Inlet was relocated. The reason help is deserved they say, is because Wrightsville Beach is a public beach, and the fund's purpose was to improve conditions to preserve tourism. Wrightsville Beach, a public beach? Bah, humbug. The residents there have done nothing to encourage the local gentry to splash in their water or relax on their sand. Too well can I remember when WB started overcharging for parking. The newspaper quoted a homeowner gleefully stating that it would at least keep out the day trippers. The paid parking areas grew to incorporate every spot possible. Wrightsville Beach wants tourists, not neighbors. If you don't have expendable cash, don't bother crossing those bridges. (Residents of the north end) should pay what (they) agreed to pay without any outside help until Wrightsville Beach acts like a public beach, and not like Wrightsville's Beach. Andrea Garfinkel – Wilmington
9/12/07
What's the going rate for a day at the beach?
Well, it ranges from $3.32 to $9.97 per person
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6661926p-5937083c.html
Beach sand plan: $29.5 million contract awarded
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/184613.html
Gabrielle got the last laugh with N.C. 12 overwash
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=132170&ran=105983
Topsail Beach approves additional dredging funds
Topsail Voice by Amanda Hutcheson (9/12/07)
TOPSAIL BEACH – At a special meeting of the town council Thursday, Topsail Beach approved an additional $108,500 for the Topsail Creek waterway dredging project. Mayor Butch Parrish said that through conversations between the Army Corps of Engineers and the contractor, the price of the project had gone up, including an extra $300,000 to distribute sand along 5,000 square feet instead of 1,500 and an extra $50,000-$80,000 for the method being used, resulting in a total additional cost of $350,000 to $380,000. Through conference calls with the Corps and the contractor, the bid was lowered. One of the adjustments to the bid included lowering the berm from six feet to between three and five feet and doing away with a dyke running longitudinal to shore. “We thought it unnecessary,” Mayor Parrish said. “It’s not a necessity to spend the extra money to make it six feet instead of three to five feet.” Another compromise which helped lower the bid was to pump 4,000 feet of beach instead of 5,000 feet. The new area will go from Scott Avenue to the Sea Vista Motel. “All houses really in serious jeopardy (are still included),” Mayor Parrish said. “When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service walked on the beach, this was the original point. We wanted a little grace room.” The pipeline for the project will cross at Anderson Boulevard. Since Anderson Boulevard is a state street, the pipeline must run under it, which has not been required in past projects which did not cross at state streets. Instead of the contractor putting a temporary pipeline under the road, the town has offered to install a permanent culvert which can be used in any future projects. The changes resulted in a $217,000 total increase. The state will fund 50 percent of the project, as it has been doing, leaving $108,500 to the town. Commissioner Harold Hanig asked if the culvert would leave a bump under Anderson Boulevard. Mayor Parrish replied that it would not, that the culvert would be 30 inches, reinforced concrete, and permanent. The town can plug the ends of the culvert when it is not in use. Commissioner Mary Meece asked how soon Coastal Planning and Engineering would be able to begin the project. “It’s subject to obtaining permits and funding from the state,” Mayor Parrish said. “Our object is to start next fall (in 2008).” Commissioner Bobby Humphrey made a motion to approve the request for additional funds. Commissioner Hanig seconded the motion, which passed 3-1 with Commissioner Meece objecting. Commissioner Garth Boyd was not at the meeting.
We apologize
Tideland News Editorial (9/12/07)
Sometimes a good-faith effort is not enough.
Last week, the Tideland took our state’s lawmakers to task for failing to do anything with the report filed by the Waterfront Access Study Committee. The assumption that the solons had dropped the ball came from the fact that requests to two of our local legislators for confirmation on action went unheeded until Monday – a full week after the request – when one of the lawmakers responded with details of the bill that speaks to waterfront access.
So, rather than rattle off an explanation as to the good things that Senate Bill 646 will accomplish, we direct your attention to a letter from Michael Voiland on this page that does that and, suitably, chastises the paper for last week’s editorial.
For our part, we apologize. And, while we’d like to say it would never happen again, sometimes a good faith effort is not enough to guarantee that it won’t.
As chair of the former Waterfront Access Study Committee referred to in your editorial of Sept. 5, I must take issue with your assessment that the state has been “invisible” on the access issue, and that “the state’s most important elected officials have done nothing.”
In brief, the 2007 session of the General Assembly resulted in important first steps to address the working waterfront and public access issue in North Carolina, including:
• Establishing, through the state’s 2007-08 budget bill, a $20M Waterfront Access and Marine Industry Fund that would “acquire waterfront properties or develop facilities for the purposes of providing public and commercial waterfront access and improving and developing the same.” I am certain that the state’s “most important elected officials” all worked to get this funding set aside and approved in the budget bill. The director of NC Marine Fisheries, Louis Daniel, has been tasked with setting up the process that will result in investment of these funds. He is moving expeditiously to do so, including convening a citizens advisory committee to recommend projects for funding.
• Passing legislation (Senate Bill 646, Session Law 2007-485) that, among other actions:
1. Makes commercial fishing-oriented and recreational fishing pier waterfronts eligible for deferred real estate tax assessments known as “present use value” taxation. In short, such properties, like actively farmed and forested lands in the state, can be assessed at their current use value, and not at their potential value as residential or other property. This could help these working waterfronts resist being “taxed out of business” or feeling so compelled as to sell their land to non-waterfront-dependent interests.
2. Directs the NCDOT to work with agencies and other entities “to ensure that public access to coastal waters is expanded along the roadways (and) bridges … owned or maintained by the department.”
3. Increases boat registration fees so as to generate, by formula, millions of dollars more in additional funding for the state’s boating facilities infrastructure program.
In addition to the new state legislation noted above, state agencies have responded in several ways to our Committee’s recommendations. In just one example, N.C. Aquariums has indicated that they plan to finance and develop three state recreational fishing piers, beginning with Jeanette’s Pier on the Outer Banks. Plans call for these piers to offer public educational exhibits as well as fishing access, and to be affordably priced at a fee that does unfairly compete against other private fishing pier businesses.
One can acknowledge that the efforts and contributions of local governments and communities are critical to fully addressing working waterfront and public access issues along the state’s coastal public trust waters. One can also show that local interests, such as Onslow County and Emerald Isle, are often able to move more quickly and directly on specific waterfront matters in their own locales. And certainly there were recommendations offered up by our committee that the state has yet to move on, such as enabling or encouraging special land zoning, planning, or development right approaches at the local level. But to say that the State of North Carolina and its leaders have been “invisible” and have “done nothing” on the issue is just not the case. - Michael Voiland, Raleigh
Nourished beaches offer protection
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/12/07)
Kudos on your editorial Long on opinion, short on facts” in the Aug. 29, edition of Topsail Voice. As is your normal editorial behavior, you selected a key issue for the community, you were patient, you weighed the facts, you voiced your opinion, and you were “right on” with your conclusions. Dr. Pilkey, to his credit, clearly stated his opinions. To his discredit, he used the good name of Duke University and his title to imply that what he was saying was based on solid science. But what he said, is not based on science, and for some reason known only to him, clearly avoids key facts. One of these facts is the experience of Wrightsville Beach that was ravaged in the 1950s and 60s by a multitude of hurricanes particularly Hazel. The island was in jeopardy with waves washing under a large number of structures at high tide not unlike the north end of North Topsail Beach today. Only, Wrightsville’s property was in danger in the middle of the island. At that time, some true leaders of the community found a way to nourish the beaches by pumping sand from the sound thus creating the large dunes and beach they have today. And when hurricanes like Fran hit Wrightsville Beach, renourishment needs are minimal and the island survives well. The leaders of North Topsail could do well to follow the leadership path of Wrightsville Beach. Most of us currently and our future generations would be in their debt if they assumed this role. - William Slack, North Topsail Beach
Stop subsidizing the wealthy with beach nourishment
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/12/07)
I sincerely believe that through this letter that I am speaking for the majority by saying that its time for the taxpayers to stop subsidizing the wealthy residents who chose to build or buy their luxury homes right next to the ocean. As world famous scientist Orrin Pilkey said using tax money to pay for beach nourishment is “an obvious form of welfare for the rich.” Pilkey, probably the foremost authority on beach erosion, also said “There’s just a bunch of well-off people who have been imprudent, even stupid, and they’ve built their buildings right next to the beach – They’re asking us to pay for restoring the beach when all we have to do is to tell them to move their buildings and the beach would be restored.” This is a message from the beach dwellers that chose to ignore the facts and challenge nature by living directly in the path of danger. It’s time to stop complaining and to quit begging for Federal, State and County money to pump sand again and again in front of your homes. It’s foolish to even consider doing such a dumb thing, for at best it’s only a temporary fix to a major problem caused by people living too close to the water. Don’t expect others to pay for your mistakes, pay for them yourself. Wise up beach lovers, attempting to control nature is stupid for you will lose every time. Listen to those who have studied erosion problems and believe them. People building close to the water are the culprits that cause beach erosion, for as Orrin Pilkey stated many times, “You don’t have an erosion problem until you build something too close to the water.” And these words to our County Commissioners and those who represent us in Raleigh and Washington: “Don’t you dare spend another dollar of mine or my neighbors to pump sand or fund any beach re-nourishment projects until you get our permission through a referendum. And as a suggestion to the residents of North Topsail Beach , since in a referendum 79 percent of you said no to a taxpayer funded beach renourishment project, don’t allow your town alderman even thinks about doing it. Defying the will of the people elected officials is morally wrong and in my opinion should be a criminal act. Certainly we all want our beaches to be renourished and restored to their pristine conditions as they will be, when men stops interfering and leaves it for nature to do it for them. - Herschel R. Brown, Jacksonville
9/10/07
Kure Beach To Take Educational Route To Deal With Dangerous Sand Holes
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1716&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Carteret gets light rains, wind from storm
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51571
Gabrielle packs little punch for N.C.
http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/stories/v-print/story/698697.html
Let’s get on with the bridge replacement
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.09.06-LetsGetOnWithTheBrideReplacement.html
Plans for replacing the Bonner Bridge are moving forward – for now
http://www.islandfreepress.org/Archives/2007.09.05-PlansForReplacingTheBonnerBridgeMovingForward.html
Don't replace bridge
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/v-print/story/698547.html
Eroding beaches decrease tax value
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/9/07)
Even the tax man can't fight Mother Nature. Erosion has prompted tax officials in New Hanover and Brunswick counties to sharply reduce the assessed value of dozens of threatened oceanfront and waterfront parcels. On Figure Eight Island, the loss of beachfront and dune lines has caused New Hanover County to slash nearly $11 million in assessed value from 20 lots and homes, many of which are relying on sandbags to hold back the encroaching Atlantic. But while tweaking of oceanfront properties occurs every year, the adjustments this year have been magnified because of revaluations in both counties. In New Hanover's case, the reassessment - the first in seven years - saw the value of some oceanfront properties jump fourfold. The need to protect the valuable oceanfront tax base was one of the primary arguments to relocate Mason Inlet, the wandering inlet that five years ago was threatening property at the north end of Wrightsville Beach. Beach nourishment proponents often make the same argument. Caswell Beach Mayor Harry Simmons, who also is executive director of the N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association, said there are many reasons to pump sand onto a beach, ranging from storm protection to increasing recreational opportunities. "But clearly protecting property values is one of them," he said. "Anyone who says it's not isn't paying attention." New Hanover Tax Administrator Bob Glasgow, however, said officials don't just tweak tax values willy-nilly. "We are careful when we reduce the values because it is revenue that the county will no longer be getting," he said. "But we want to be fair, and you've got to be equitable." Tom Bagby, Glasgow's counterpart in Brunswick County, said it isn't unusual for oceanfront properties to have huge land values in relation to the building value as long as the beachfront property is considered stable. That usually means a low erosion rate or that the property lies along a nourished beach, where there's been at least one injection of fresh sand. "But it's only one good storm from changing," Bagby said, referring to the havoc a major hurricane strike can cause. Hurricane Floyd in 1999 destroyed or heavily damaged 100 beach homes on Oak Island, costing local governments nearly $27 million in tax revenue and leaving formerly pricey beachfront lots unbuildable and practically worthless.
Brunswick tax officials recently reduced the land value of a dozen eroding oceanfront lots on the east end of Holden Beach by 80 percent. In that case, the cause of the disappearing beach is Lockwood Folly Inlet. The stretch of beach near Figure Eight's north end has suffered from erosion for years, and island officials are hoping the dredging and reorientation of Rich Inlet along with a proposed pilot groin project can help stabilize and eventually rebuild the beach. But any relief could be years away. And while the erosion has yet to wash away any homes, it has eaten away the sand and dunes in front of them. That's led county officials to reduce the land value for the threatened oceanfront properties. A property's assessed value is made up of two components - a value for the land and a value for any structure on the land. On Figure Eight, as is true with most beach towns, the land values of oceanfront lots are generally at least 50 percent higher than the building values. But the land values for the threatened properties are now roughly equal to the building values. At 15 Comber Road, for example, the assessed value of the oceanfront parcel owned by William Courtney from Cincinnati is $515,000 for the land and $461,591 for the house. Adjacent properties have similar adjusted values. Several waterfront parcels along Rich Inlet also have seen their land values reduced significantly, with tax officials slashing the value of an undeveloped lot owned by Elizabeth Cameron 93 percent from $1.3 million to $81,500. In 1999 the assessed value also was reduced, from $149,000 to $50,000. Glasgow said about half of the Figure Eight changes were made by his office and the other half after homeowners raised concerns. But the valuation cut isn't enough for seven of the private island's homeowners, who have appealed the county's assessment to the N.C. Property Tax Commission. Several island property owners either couldn't be reached for comment or didn't return phone calls this week. But just because a tax value is cut one year doesn't mean it will stay that way. At Wrightsville Beach's Shell Island Resort, for example, tax values were dropped 50 percent when Mason Inlet was licking at the building's foundation in the late 1990s. But after the wandering inlet was relocated 3,000 feet north in 2002, removing the imminent threat, the tax value was restored. "We've put them on and we've taken them off," Glasgow said of tax reductions based on disappearing or rebuilt beaches and shorelines, whether they occur naturally or through human intervention. Another oceanfront area of New Hanover County that is suffering from chronic erosion woes and relies on sandbags for protection is The Riggings in Kure Beach. But Glasgow said his office hasn't given the 48-unit condominium complex any tax reductions because recent sales support the Jan. 1 market value recommended by county assessors. "We can see the value," he said "We can support those values we've put on there." Friday a unit was for sale on Realtor.com for $249,900, significantly higher than the assessed value of $203,000 for the top condominiums at the complex.
9/7/07
Inlet group’s request for funding denied
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1365&iid=78&sud=30
Forces beyond landmark Chafee law preserved barrier beaches, study finds
http://www.projo.com/news/content/GAO_beaches_09-03-07_A56UQ0G.25d7eb9.html#
Local eyes watch storm off coast
Unnamed system could mean more erosion at beaches
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/6/07)
With strong hurricanes ripping through the Caribbean, a storm system swirling hundreds of miles off the Georgia coast has local officials on edge. Although its path is still uncertain, several computer models show the yet unnamed system moving toward the Carolinas and strengthening as it crosses over the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. That could mean desperately needed rain for the Tar Heel State. All of North Carolina is suffering from drought conditions, with Wilmington 18 inches below normal rainfall levels for the year. But the storm, depending on its path and strength, also could bring punishing winds and waves to the coast. And its proximity means the storm could be on top of the state quickly - possibly as soon as this weekend. "We're watching it, largely because it's the first thing we've had that looks like it could impact us this season," said Warren Lee, emergency management director for New Hanover County. "But two or three days from now we'll have a better idea of where it's going." Locally, the 2007 hurricane season has been as inactive and quiet as the 2006 season. Nowhere in Southeastern North Carolina has that been more welcome than in Topsail Beach, where a spring nor'easter washed away chunks of the Pender County town's beach. Mayor Butch Parrish said the situation is a little better now, thanks to some bulldozing of sand and the seasonal summertime buildup the beach usually sees. "But if we see any significant storm damage, we'll be in trouble," he said. That's because nearly a quarter of the Pender County town's oceanfront homes, 75 in all, are within 25 feet of the escarpment. Parrish said what makes the timing especially bad is that Topsail is about two weeks away from an emergency nourishment to boost its eroded beach. The project will pump an estimated 155,000 cubic yards of sand onto a 4,000-foot stretch of beach running north of the Vista Motel. Like Topsail Beach, Kure Beach took it on the chin this spring as the same nor'easter washed away a lot of the sand that had just been pumped onto its beach during the winter. Tom Barber, the town's nourishment coordinator, said some - but not all - of the sand had come back. But recent strong winds out of the east have caused some erosion, creating an escarpment along the beachfront south of the town pier. "The beaches are fragile these days, so I'm keeping a wary eye on it right now," Barber said of the storm system. "But all we can do is watch and wait." Erosion is just one of the dangers posed by the heavy wave action common to tropical storm systems. Another is potentially treacherous surf conditions. Dave Baker, head of Wrightsville Beach's Ocean Rescue, said the reach of the storms can be very broad. Take, for example, Hurricane Felix, a Category 5 monster that ripped into Central America after smashing its way through the Caribbean. "We were receiving the swell from that, and look how far that was from us," Baker said. "So this definitely has potential to cause treacherous waters for inexperienced swimmers and surfers." The National Weather Service expects the rip current threat to start today and continue to increase into the weekend. Winds blowing out of the north and northeast also could exacerbate erosion and dangerous surf conditions. But even with storm clouds potentially brewing on the horizon, Wednesday was a beautiful day at the beach. "Absolutely gorgeous," said Melinda Cooper, assistant manager of the Ocean Crest Pier in Oak Island. "It's the most beautiful turquoise-green water you've ever seen." She said some of her customers, between catching copious amounts of flounder and Spanish mackerel, were inquiring about the storm's status. "They're just curious, hoping it doesn't ruin their weekends," Cooper said. "But I tell them we need the rain. You just hope it's not enough to damage anything but enough to give us what we need, which is the rain."
Officials watch system
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp and Helen Outland (9/7/07)
BOGUE BANKS — There’s a low-pressure system a-brewing’ in the southeast Atlantic Ocean that spells uncertainty of flooding and erosion on Bogue Banks, and officials are keeping their eyes on it. While the “disturbance” in the southeast Atlantic could possibly develop into a tropical storm or even a hurricane during the next few days, there is still a lot of unpredictability concerning the track and intensity of the system, which hasn’t even reached tropical depression status. The National Weather Service stated Thursday that all it can do for now is keep an eye on the system lingering between the Bahamas and Bermuda. Sarah Jamison, meteorologist with the weather service, said an upper level cell of dry air was the only thing holding the system in place, keeping it from becoming more structured. According to Jim Merrill, another weather service meteorologist, the future of the storm’s development depends on a lot of variables. “Right now it has moved slightly and since the high level cool air has dissipated the system has tightened up somewhat,” he said this morning. “I have been doing this (weather) for 25 years and seen a lot of quick changes in systems either way.” Mr. Merrill said the system could remain a weak low and just brush the coast with some rain and a few storms, or it could cross over the warm waters of the Gulf Stream and pick up some intensity, becoming a tropical storm with winds 35-45 mph. “We have issued a small craft advisory for coastal waters as the front is pushing in waves that could reach 3 to 5 feet by tonight,” he said. “By Sunday, if the storm were to strengthen, then waves could reach 5 to 7 feet or greater.” Mr. Merrill said a rip current warning have been issued for the coast, as well. “Right now the warnings are at a moderate level,” he said. “However, over the next 24 to 48 hours we expect that level will increase. We are encouraging swimmers to be extra cautious.”
County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph also has his eye on the low-pressure disturbance because of the threat it could pose to Bogue Banks through flooding and sand loss. According to Mr. Rudolph, the worse-case scenario is that the disturbance becomes a Category 1 or 2 hurricane and Carteret County is on the east side of the hurricane’s center. The most powerful quadrant of hurricane is the northeast quadrant where the highest storm surges come from and where the highest winds usually are, he said. “If the center went over Topsail Beach or anywhere over Carteret County, that would not be good,” he said. The direction and intensity would have a profound impact on sound-side flooding, which, according to Mr. Rudolph, would be the greatest threat the lingering system could pose because the water level in the sound is already so high. Mr. Rudolph was unsure just how much higher than normal the tides were. “The winds have been blowing out of the northeast and the east these past few days, which pushes water up into the creeks and sounds so water levels there are already high … depending on the track and intensity, we could see some pretty severe sound-side flooding,” Mr. Rudolph said. In addition to flooding, there are four major areas of concern for the Bogue Banks beachfront, Mr. Rudolph explained. The first is The Point in Emerald Isle near the end of the island. The area is very low and is currently being compromised, Mr. Rudolph said, and any over wash would essentially flood Bogue Court. An area near 21st Street in Emerald Isle is a second site for concern. This is a low spot along the island and the site of the breach that occurred during Hurricane Donna in 1960, Mr. Rudolph said. If the dune fails in this area, then seawater could reach the sound and vice-versa. Then there is the area near the old Iron Steamer pier and Pine Knoll Townes in Pine Knoll Shores. He said the development in this reach sticks out more than on the coastline compared to adjacent areas and accordingly is more susceptible to erosion. The circle, or The Grove, in Atlantic Beach is the fourth area of concern. Similar to the area near 21 Street in Emerald Isle, if a nearby seawall fails or water escapes through the cracks, then it is nothing but downhill to the Atlantic Beach causeway, Mr. Rudolph said. “All this could be exacerbated if there is strong sound-side flooding,” Mr. Rudolph said. But, “the disturbance hasn’t even gotten its act together, yet. It’s not even a tropical depression, yet,” he said. Right now the storm is only identified as an “invest 99.” A National Hurricane Center forecaster will give an “invest” and an identification number to a disturbance that may have the potential to become a tropical depression so computer forecast tracking models can be generated, Mr. Rudolph said. If it becomes a tropical depression, it is then given a tropical depression number. Then if it becomes a tropical storm, it is given a name, which, if necessary, it carries to hurricane status. The name of this storm, if it forms, will be Gabrielle. “Right now its kind of hard to say what type of impact we are going to have because we aren’t too far along in the whole entire process (of a storm),” he said. Mr. Rudolph added, “With that said, with the pathway they (meteorologists) have forecasted for this disturbance to travel and its intensity, it defiantly has our attention big time.”
Ms. Jamison and Mr. Merrill with the weather service said the disturbance could strengthen and begin moving toward the east, but it will probably move just skirt coast. “We have heard a lot of gossip about it already being or becoming a Category 2 storm, but there again, nothing is definitive right now,” Mr. Jamison said. Regardless of the prediction, Mr. Rudolph said he feels the weekend should prove interesting for Bogue Banks. But he’s not the only one constantly checking intensity and path. County Interim Emergency Management Director Jo Ann Smith said her office is maintaining constant contact with the weather service and has advised control groups – groups that would man shelters in the event of a storm – to prepare for the worse. “I have had numerous discussions with the National Weather Service in Newport concerning the tropical low off our coast,” she said. “I have briefed our control group on the condition at this time,” she added. “With this in mind, I want to let everyone know that we are looking at this system, and we are making sure we have proper contact numbers, as well as making sure that our generators at our shelters are running and ready to go.” Ms. Smith said she has had contact with state emergency departments and they have already taken requests to pre-position supplies, such as water and tarps, just in case. “I have also spoken with Red Cross to let them know that we are currently looking at the system and everyone should remain on alert,” she adds. Mr. Rudolph is also making sure the beaches will be taken care of in the event of a storm and has had some conversations with the beach survey crew for Bogue Banks, Coastal Science and Engineering of Morehead City, who determine how much sand is lost during a storm. “We’ve got them on the very cautious notice just in case,” he said. Every year the beaches are surveyed at 120 profiles at 1,000-foot intervals along the shoreline. “If we get notice of a big hurricane or a storm that’s declared a federal disaster, it’s our trigger to activate the rapid response survey,” he said. The survey crew will then go to every fourth or fifth profile location and get a quick survey so the beach protection and towns can get a good estimate of how much sand is lost during the storm. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) states that a town has to have a beach monitoring program like this in place to know how much sand a beach had before and after a federally declared emergency in order to receive funds to replace the lost sand. Because the survey of all 120 profiles is done every year in April or June, “We’ve got our pre-hurricane season snapshot of what the beach conditions were like pre-hurricane season,” Mr. Rudolph said. “We can tell you how much sand we had before and how much we lost right after a particular storm.” While everything about the disturbance is still speculative, the possibility of a storm has had an impact for some fisherman, as well. Just to be on the safe side, the Atlantic Beach King Mackerel Tournament slated for this weekend has been rescheduled. The fishing tournament is now set to take place on Oct. 18-20, the same weekend as the Calcutta Wahoo Challenge. “This little disturbance definitely has our attention,” Mr. Rudolph said.
The county isn't room service
Wilmington Star Editorial (9/7/07)
Twenty-seven years from now, New Hanover County taxpayers will get the bills for keeping Mason Inlet in place. That's soon enough. They'll presumably pay them forever. In the meantime, the biggest winners from the county's relocation of the inlet are legally and morally obligated to pay those bills. They begged for the privilege. On Tuesday, the commissioners reminded them of that. Some property owners on the northern end of Wrightsville Beach had asked to back out of the deal. They wanted the county to start paying half the yearly maintenance costs. A spokesman pointed out that the county benefited when it moved the migrating torrent away from the buildings it was threatening to engulf. The rescued property is generating property taxes, and overnight visitors are paying into the room-tax fund that helps finance beach renourishment and tourism promotion. The beach has been enlarged, and nesting birds are getting some protection. Well, that's a relief. Why else should the county and its taxpayers have done this enormous favor for people whose risky investments were threatened by a predictable natural phenomenon? Bailed out by the government, these investors benefited mightily. Not only was their property saved, but its value leapt skyward. In the long run, its value is incalculable. These folks made their luxurious bed. They can brush sand out of the sheets for the next 27 years.
All should pay for better beach
Wilmington Star letter to the editor (9/6/07)
EDITOR: As a longtime resident of Wrightsville Beach, 22 years, I have not seen the same systematic conversion to a private beach that (a recent letter writer) has seen. (The Mason Inlet group was) not asking the taxpayers or county for help. Shell Island Resort and homes north of the SunSpree (asked) for a share of the Tourism Development Authority fund money. This money is a tax that is paid on motel and house rentals at Wrightsville Beach. This money is to be used for tourist-related projects and items. I bet you did not know that approximately four-fifths of our taxes go to the county. I am trying to figure out what we get from New Hanover county for our money. We have our own police and fire departments. When our police department gets overwhelmed during the summer on weekends, we have to pay the Sheriff's Department to help out - that's right, pay. I know that the people who come here from the county and other places really enjoy themselves. We see all of their Happy Meal wrappers, etc., in our yards and on the streets. They also give us a big howdy yell and good-time screams as they turn over and kick the trash cans between 1 and 3 a.m. Good-old summertime. - Betty Kennedy, Wrightsville Beach
9/5/07
National Defense Beats Whales in Sonar Case
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-04-092.asp
Simmons makes his point on national TV
http://www.stateportpilot.com/Stories/5%20Simmons%20Brown.htm
Broadcast - http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=492037492&play=1#
County denies public funds for inlet
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (9/5/07)
A contract is a contract. That was the message from the New Hanover County commissioners on Tuesday as they declined to spend public money to help maintain Mason Inlet. "Promises were made, assurances were given and I expect you to live up to them," said Commissioner Ted Davis Jr., who was chairman when the project was approved in 2001. Property owners from the north end of Wrightsville Beach had petitioned the board to dip into the room-tax fund, a portion of which is earmarked to fund beach nourishment projects, to help pay for 50 percent of future inlet-related costs. The current agreement calls for 1,044 property owners from the north end of Wrightsville Beach and from Figure Eight Island to pay all bills associated with the inlet's monitoring and maintenance through 2030. With the inlet licking at the foundation of the Shell Island Resort, the homeowners agreed to pay those costs to facilitate the county's relocation of the inlet - which separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island - nearly 3,000 feet to the north. So far that tab has reached nearly $8 million, with the county still to assess $3.3 million of that amount, one-third of which is left over from the inlet relocation itself. Davis said the commitment by the homeowners to pay all of the inlet's bills was vital in getting the controversial project approved in the first place. But the homeowners argued that the inlet relocation has been a financial and environmental success for all county residents. "We are not trying to back out of any deal," said Frank Pinkston, chairman of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, which represents the homeowners. "But this project has had benefits well beyond the north end of Wrightsville Beach." With the immediate threat from the inlet removed, property values at the north end of Wrightsville Beach have surged, which means more tax revenue for the county. The project also has kept "heads in beds" at Shell Island and other rentals along the north end, pumping an estimated $416,000 annually into the county's room-tax fund. Of that room-tax revenue, $125,000 is earmarked for beach nourishment. New Hanover County charges a special 6 percent tax on hotel stays and rentals under 30 days. The creation of a large, sandy peninsula at the north end of Wrightsville Beach also has created additional recreational opportunities for people and nesting areas for shorebirds. Pinkston said that considering all of those positive outcomes of the project and the long-term nature of the inlet project, the homeowners thought it fair to ask for some financial assistance. "We're at the point now where we're looking for some relief," he said. But while largely sympathetic, the commissioners Tuesday declined to modify the funding agreement. Chairman Bill Caster shared Pinkston's frustration about some of the environmental conditions tied to the inlet project's federal permit. But he said asking the regulatory agencies whether some of those requirements could be dropped or modified was as far as county officials could go. Commissioner Bill Kopp added that spending room-tax funds on the inlet could require changes in the state legislation that allows New Hanover to collect and spend the money.
Setback rules are under review
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (9/2/07)
PINE KNOLL SHORES — While the Carteret County Beach Commission decided to not take a position on proposed static line of vegetation setback rules for oceanfront developments, the public will have a chance to state their own position during a public hearing Nov. 29 and 30 at the City Hotel and Bistro in Greenville. Last year, the state’s rule-making division for the coast, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), directed N.C. Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) staff to evaluate the oceanfront development setback rule as a whole with an emphasis on the static line provision, Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Gregory “Rudi” Rudolph said Monday during the beach commission meeting at the Pine Knoll Shores Town Hall. Also last year, “the beach commission was directed to not take a position regarding this subject in an attempt to avoid becoming cast as an advocate for the development or anti-development blocks of the argument,” Mr. Rudolph wrote in a memo included in the commission’s agenda. But now there is no question if there is an issue or not; now the question is what are the rules going to be, he said. “Because the ink has dried – both metaphorically and figuratively speaking – to whether provisions should be made to relax the static line and because a rule is available for public comment, the beach commission may wish to articulate their thoughts regarding the rules,” he said. In North Carolina, the vegetation line extends from the first line of vegetation 30 times the annual erosion rate to a particular development site and is set up before a beach is renourished. If a community’s erosion rate, which is determined by the DCM, is 2 feet or less per year, it makes the setback for oceanfront structures 60 feet from the first line of stable vegetation. For commercial and multi-family developments that are more than 5,000 square feet, the setback is 60 times the annual erosion rate. When a beach is renourished, the shoreline extends seaward. Because sea grass naturally grows closer to the water when a beach is renourished, as the shoreline moves farther out, the first line of stable vegetation moves with it but the static line stays in its established position forever. The existing rules prohibit development from inching forward with the vegetation line. Mr. Rudolph explained that if a building is nonconforming or a lot is unbuildable before the static line was established, then they are forever nonconforming or unbuildable.
The two proposed rules make it possible for individual communities to apply to the CRC for an exemption – with certain conditions – from the static line rules, thus allowing development to move out with the beach that builds up after a renourishment project. The commission was not specifically asked for comments on these two rules but discussed Monday during its meeting whether or not it wanted to take a position on the issue. Members decided that too many personal property rights came into question and that they shouldn’t get involved in the political aspect, but instead felt they should focus on protecting the beach from the dunes to the shoreline, since that is the commission’s mission. The panel will also be available for any help requested by the CRC. Chairman William “Buck” Fugate said he felt it may be an imposition to local municipal zoning authorities for the commission to take one side or the other and wanted to get the opinions of area town commissions on the subject. Beach commission member Bill Donnelly said he also felt if the commission gets involved in the “political thicket,” it might take away from the board’s focus. “Should we be getting into something like this when we are really concerned with what lies between the dunes and the shoreline?” Mr. Donnelly asked. However, commission member Ted Lindblad said he felt the static line should be considered by the beach commission’s mission statement.
“I think the static line does play a part in protecting the beaches … preventing structures from moving beachward is probably a good thing,” he said. The first of the proposed rules – 15A of the N.C. Administrative Code (NCAC) 07H. 0305 – offers three changes, Mr. Rudolph said. He said it tweaks the definition of the vegetation line and how that line is determined; it changes language concerning an alternative vegetation line that is related to Brunswick County beaches and it changes the parameters for a large-scale beach nourishment project, which is the trigger for the establishment of a static line. The second rule – 15A NCAC 07H. 0306 – is “where the real nitty-gritty comes down,” Mr. Rudolph said. Here reside the changes for oceanfront setbacks and specifications for an exemption to the static line. The new rules take into account the total square footage of living space. Where before it was just the heated floor space, now anything covered will be considered in determining the oceanfront setback. Also, while the minimum setback will remain 30 times the erosion rate for structures less than 5,000 square feet as the current rule states, the new graduated setback rule has a total of eight major categories that determine the setback – which increases based on the size of a structure. “One of the concerns is that eight factors in the graduated setback rule may be too many,” Mr. Rudolph told the commission. Mr. Rudolph said rule 0306 also provides provisions for communities to petition the CRC for a static line exemption. “The exemption is essentially contingent upon meeting a series of parameters established for a long-term beach nourishment program and oceanfront construction,” he said. However, while a town may petition, no single family can apply for an exemption – and the CRC will still have the final say. There is also concern with the contentious issue of the proposed 2,000-square-foot limitation for any construction that has received a static line exemption, Mr. Rudolph wrote in the board’s agenda. “If you have a 4,000-square-foot house that received a static line exemption and the house burns down, you have to rebuild at 2,000-square-foot,” Mr. Rudolph explained. Also, if an empty lot gets a static line exemption, the property owners can only build a 2,000-square-foot structure on the lot. “The graduated setback categories start at 5,000-square-foot, which also makes the 2,000-square-foot exemption provision inconsistent with the overall rule,” Mr. Rudolph wrote. After discussing the topic of the graduated setback rules based on structure size and whether 2,000 square feet was compatible with municipalities’ building height regulations, the commission decided it was best to provide help to the CRC when requested rather than get involved in political aspects of the issue. There is no agenda set for the November CRC meeting at this time.
State invisible on access issue
Tideland News Editorial (9/5/07)
A full year after the North Carolina Legislature appointed a study committee to find ways to protect the state’s traditional coastal lifestyle, little appears to be happening at the state level. Fortunately, local governments are at least “testing the waters” in the search for ordinances that will, if not protect traditional waterfront commercial activity at least not imperil it. Most recently, Onslow County commissioners accepted a report from the county planners that offered suggestions as to how boat-based commercial efforts might co-exist with the rapid spread of waterfront residences. In Swansboro, zoning laws have recently been revised in a way that ensures the commercial waterfront will remain at least partially commercial while allowing a mix of residences. Emerald Isle commissioners and staff worked hard last year – when a sale appeared imminent – to make sure the town’s last remaining fishing pier remain open to the public. Signatures were gathered by hard copy and the Net, grants were explored, alliances were formed with the seller and buyer and other state agencies and significant progress was made before the seller and buyer chose to terminate negotiations. The fact is, that effort has not been wasted, as it will serve as a starting point if and when the Bogue Inlet Fishing Pier does attract a buyer. With all these local efforts to protect the rights of watermen, keep working waterfronts working and ensure the shore-bound public has a place to wet a line, it would be a boost if the state’s leaders came up with something to help. Without some sort of state initiative to temper the rush to develop the coast, enjoying the seaside might become a dream for the middle class. The legislative study committee came up with several ideas and suggestions that lawmakers could act upon. And yet, the state’s most important elected officials have done nothing. Thanks goodness local officials are taking the lead in this effort. Otherwise, it appears, nothing would happen.
Beach erosion is due to a rise in sea levels
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (9/5/07)
I am responding to your Aug. 29, 2007, editorial “Long on opinion, short on facts,” about Dr. Orrin Pilkey’s recent presentation to the citizens of North Topsail Beach (NTB), as I was the one who invited Dr. Pilkey to speak. Your editorial disregarded Dr. Pilkey’s most important observation – that beach erosion is due to a rise in sea levels, and it is virtually impossible to “hold back the ocean.” Given that reality, Dr. Pilkey’s suggestion that threatened structures be relocated, and that future shoreline building be prohibited, is eminently reasonable. As Dr. Pilkey points out, beach erosion is only a problem when buildings are at risk. Beaches erode throughout the world all the time – without any concern because the erosion occurs where there are no buildings. So the fundamental issue is not about beach erosion per se, but rather about the risk of damage to homes. For NTB to continue to allow the construction of homes in known high-risk locations exacerbates and perpetuates the very problem faced by homeowners at the north end of NTB today. More construction at or near the beach only ensures that generations to come will face exactly the same dilemma we face today. How foolish. How shortsighted. Dr. Pilkey’s opinion about this matter should not be taken lightly: as Duke University professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. Pilkey has been studying beach erosion around the world for over 45 years. He has authored 38 books and over 200 technical journals on the subject of beach erosion. He clearly is one of the country’s most knowledgeable authority about beach erosion. In his professional judgment, Dr. Pilkey doubts that beach nourishment (widening beaches with dredged sand) can provide a long-term solution that is economically feasible. “Economically feasible” is the key issue when it comes to beach nourishment. Those favoring beach nourishment almost never discuss the need to repeat the complex and terribly expensive process every two to three years forever. Can a town as small as North Topsail Beach, with limited financial resources, possibly afford to do that without raising taxes to the point that long-time residents are forced to move? More to the point, should NTB even try to do so? After all, it is private property that is being threatened. Should taxpayer funds be used in an attempt to protect private property? I contend that NTB should not use any taxpayer funds for Beach Nourishment without the approval of the voters. That is the democratic way – the only right way – for the officials of North Topsail Beach to decide whether or not to proceed with this very controversial project. Your newspaper could be extremely helpful by writing an editorial supporting a simple proposition: all the pertinent facts about embarking on a Beach Nourishment project, including the committed sources of funding, should be voted on by the citizens of NTB. Until then, North Topsail Beach should cease spending money on Beach Nourishment. - Ed Doherty, North Topsail Beach
9/3/07
Environmental groups seek probe of Oregon Inlet bridge plan
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131671&ran=186060
A troubled bridge over water
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/690893.html
Combating Rising Sea Levels
http://www.metronc.com/article/index.aspx?id=1407&print=true
Visitors Share Unique Experience with the Pleasure Island Sea Turtle Project
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1657&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
YouTube Videos Feature Sea Turtle Hatchlings At Carolina Beach North Carolina
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1654&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Pier will be harder for Mother Nature to bring down
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/690832.html
8/31/07
He's the Sand-a Claus for many coastal towns
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070830/a_sandman30.art.htm
Pulverized glass seen as one solution to Florida beach erosion
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_BEACH_GLASS_FLOL-?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-26-04-03-07
Inlet funding up for review
County commissioners to look at using room-tax money
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (8/31/07)
There's little question that the 2002 relocation of Mason Inlet has been good for New Hanover County's bottom line, boosting property values on Wrightsville Beach and pumping revenue into the county's room-tax fund. It also kept the county's vital tourism industry from taking a potentially painful body blow if the Shell Island Resort and other structures had been allowed to fall into the ocean. But it isn't known if those benefits will be enough to convince a majority of the county commissioners Tuesday to modify the funding formula for the inlet's ongoing upkeep and maintenance costs. The commissioners had little discussion about the proposal at Thursday's pre-agenda meeting beyond reviewing figures provided by the county Finance Department. The current agreement calls for 1,044 property owners from the north end of Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island to pay all bills associated with the inlet's monitoring and maintenance through 2030. With the inlet licking at the foundation of Shell Island, the homeowners agreed to pay those costs to facilitate the county's relocation of the inlet - which separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island - nearly 3,000 feet to the north. So far, that tab has reached more than $8 million, with the county still to assess $3.3 million of that amount. Wrightsville Beach homeowners would like the county to dip into the room-tax fund, a portion of which is earmarked to fund beach nourishment projects, to help pay for 50 percent of the unassessed and future inlet-related costs. With the immediate threat from the inlet removed, property values at the north end of Wrightsville Beach have surged, which means more tax revenue for the county. The assessed tax value of some condominiums at Dune Ridge, for example, increased from $300,000 in 1999 to $1.5 million this year. The relocation also has been good for speculators who snapped up condominiums at Shell Island for $40,000 when the inlet was lapping at the high-rise's foundation. Some units are now on the market for $400,000. The project also has kept "heads in beds" at Shell Island and the rentals along the north end, pumping an estimated $416,000 annually into the county's room-tax fund. Of that room-tax revenue, $125,000 is earmarked for beach nourishment. New Hanover County charges a special 6 percent tax on hotel stays and rentals under 30 days. The creation of a large sandy peninsula at the north end of Wrightsville Beach also has created additional recreational opportunities for people and nesting areas for shorebirds. But opposition to changing the funding contract has been mounting, primarily over concerns about using room-tax money for non-beach nourishment projects - especially with Washington actively looking to get out of the beach-building business.
Inlet relocation benefits all
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/30/07)
EDITOR: I have read a number of letters on the subject of the Mason Inlet relocation … I am not a property owner at Wrightsville Beach or any other beach, but I do enjoy visiting the beach and I am most grateful that we have such a beautiful beach close by. I have lived in this area for over 12 years and I am aware of the problems that existed at the north end of Wrightsville Beach back in the late '90s. Had this problem not been corrected, we would not have this long stretch of wide beach to enjoy today. I applaud the courage of the group on the north end of Wrightsville Beach for taking on this awesome task of relocating Mason Inlet and thereby preserving this beach for all county residents and visitors. As I understand, they have paid about $7 million for this project and are now asking for some help from the room occupancy tax fund for ongoing expenses. This seems fair to me since this special tax is generated from visitors to our area and is for the purpose of promoting tourism and beach preservation. We, the public, get to continue enjoying the beach while the tourist helps to pay to preserve it. The county also benefits through the protection of a large property tax base. - Jack Gariepy, Wilmington
8/29/07
Topsail Beach plans for its own emergency beach nourishment
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=51201
Aging N.C. bridge's replacement clears hurdle amid struggle
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131228&ran=87246
Environmental groups seek review of Bonner Bridge plan
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=131320&ran=182901
Environmentalists seek fed review of Bonner replacement plan
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/story/170466.html
Beach access proposal requires path to water
http://www.stateportpilot.com/Stories/29%20Beach%20Brown.htm
Short and unsweet
The move to replace the troubled Bonner Bridge has taken a troubling turn, toward what may be a shortsighted plan
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/v-print/story/685578.html
Long on opinion, short on facts
Topsail Voice Editorial (8/29/07)
Is the beach erosion that threatens North Topsail Beach comparable to the events in Florida and other coastal communities around the world? Apparently so, based on the comments of nationally recognized coastal geologist Dr. Orrin Pilkey. Dr. Pilkey presented his opinions at the request of a North Topsail resident at a public forum conducted at the town hall on Aug. 16. During the 1 1/2 hour forum, Dr. Pilkey, professor Emeritus of Geology and Director Emeritus of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Duke University, devoted much of his time explaining why there is beach erosion in other countries and the efforts the state of Florida is expending to control its own eroding beaches. Sadly he said very little about Topsail Island. While he did say that Topsail’s project was poorly engineered, he gave no examples of just what was wrong with the plan and seemed largely unfamiliar with it. Dr. Pilkey also kept reminding the audience that his statements on beach nourishment were his own opinions which we are confident are based on scientific evidence but he failed to provide such facts. Those attending the public forum had to have left disappointed considering his focus on opinions and not facts. Dr. Pilkey is one of the best known opponents of beach nourishment in the country. His opinions carry weight with many environmental groups and lawmakers. When the media needs an opposing view to beach nourishment he is the specialist most often quoted. Instead of citing scientific evidence about the harm of manmade efforts to fight beach erosion, he just gave his own opinion, which is to retreat and relocate away from eroding beaches. Abandoning the beach and letting it revert to a natural state might look good on paper but it is not something leaders or residents in coastal municipalities are going to do. In spite of the numerous threats associated with owning property and living on the coast, such as hurricanes, erosion, constant salt and humidity, folks just keep on coming. The reason is obvious, coastal living is an attractive lifestyle and financially beneficial to government and industry. Coastal living is financially beneficial to government because coastal housing and development provides tax revenues for both the local and state government. And of course tourism, which is prompted by coastal living and investment is arguably the state’s second largest industry. With these facts in mind it is obvious that beach nourishment will still be an issue that beach communities and the state will tackle in an effort to save a away of life. And speaking of life, nourished beaches do provide support for all sorts of wildlife from nesting turtles and piping plovers to a variety of plants. While there are arguments supporting Dr. Pilkey’s recommendation against fighting eroding beaches, the internationally acclaimed coastal geologist failed to provide any compelling ones during his presentation in North Topsail Beach. Opponents of beach nourishment seeking to halt projects on Topsail Island need better arguments than those presented at the recent public forum.
8/27/07
S.C. beaches in good shape near height of hurricane season
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/v-print/story/167865.html
Kure Beach Addresses Need For ADA Beach Access
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1577&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Storms strike insurance rates
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/682999.html
Shallow Intracoastal Waterway leaves boaters aground, merchants high and dry (SC)
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6632617p-5908900c.html
Replace bridge now
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/681938.html
8/22/07
Dr. Orrin Pilkey recommends retreating from eroded beaches
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (8/22/07)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – Noted beach nourishment opponent Dr. Orin Pilkey spoke before a standing-room-only crowd in North Topsail Beach last week. He acknowledged that Topsail Island had an erosion problem and said there are three responses to an eroding shoreline – hard stabilization, such as groins, which are currently prohibited in North Carolina; soft stabilization such as beach nourishment; and relocation or retreat. “The way to go, I think, is to relocate and get out of the way or stay and do nothing,” said Dr. Pilkey, adding that his statement was his point of view and not scientific. Dr. Pilkey presented pictures and data about shoreline erosion around the world, citing various reasons for erosion and different ways communities are attempting to control it. In North Carolina, beach nourishment is being used as a method of controlling erosion on many beaches. However, Dr. Pilkey said there are several problems with beach nourishment. One of the challenges for North Carolina beaches is getting good sand for beach nourishment projects. “It’s tougher and more expensive to get good quality sand in North Carolina ,” said Pilkey. He also said that nourished beaches encourage further residential development. “One of the most important things we could do in this state is to prohibit high rise development next to nourished beaches,” said Pilkey. Continuing costs and environmental impact were also concerns of Dr. Pilkey’s, as was the length of time that nourished beaches last. Beach nourishment is not a one time deal, which can be another challenge, according to Dr. Pilkey. Beach projects are 50-year plans and have to be renourished every few years. Dr. Pilkey said that southern beaches last longer than northern beaches but that Topsail Island beaches might not last as long as some coastal engineers are predicting. “I don’t believe you have a chance of your beach lasting four to six years,” said Dr. Pilkey. He said he thought Topsail’s beaches would only last two or three years but that “no one can predict how long a nourished beach will last.” He also said that his prediction about Topsail’s beaches was just his opinion. “And my opinion is better than any mathematical model,” he added. A member of the audience asked Dr. Pilkey what he thought of Holmberg Technology, which incorporates long tubes of grout along the beach to trap sand. “Holmberg is a groin,” said Dr. Pilkey. He said that it would trap sand in the area but would cause greater erosion problems elsewhere. He was also questioned specifically about North Topsail Beach ’s beach nourishment plan. He said if the town had decided to use beach nourishment and it were up to him, he would nourish the first two to three miles of the beach at the north end of the town and hope it would migrate southward to help the rest of the beach. As for the plan to relocate the New River Inlet, Dr. Pilkey said that sounded like a good plan. “That should perhaps build up the shoreline at the critical north end,” said Dr. Pilkey. Dr. Pilkey is a Duke University Professor Emeritus of Geology and Director Emeritus of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. He was invited to speak in North Topsail Beach by Ed Doherty, a private citizen of the town. The program was not endorsed by town leaders.
Note: As a result of Dr. Pilkey’s program, town leaders in Emerald Isle have invited anyone who is interested to visit their town on Thursday, Sept. 13. Coastal engineers will give a brief on the expected outcomes of the Bogue Inlet repositioning, then to review the results at the site.
Plan to use tax for inlet opposed
Kure Beach says occupancy funds for nourishment
Wilmington Star by Brittany Butcher (8/22/07)
Kure Beach | An effort to tap into the New Hanover County room occupancy tax fund to help pay for the Mason Inlet relocation project is getting sandbagged by some beach town leaders. The Kure Beach Town Council on Tuesday night expressed its opposition to using money slated for beach nourishment to pay for the 2002 relocation and ongoing maintenance. Earlier this month, Frank Pinkston, head of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, asked the county to revisit the initial agreement, which calls for 1,044 property owners on Figure Eight Island and the north end of Wrightsville Beach to pay for all costs for 30 years. The group represents the Wrightsville Beach property owners. Pinkston submitted a proposed resolution to the New Hanover County Commissioners asking them to consider using room occupancy tax money to pay half of the roughly $2.8 million yet to be assessed to Wrightsville Beach residents. Figure Eight Island residents owe $561,178, though there hasn't been any word on whether that amount would change. So far, about $10 million has been spent on the inlet project, with $6.7 million already assessed to the Figure Eight and Wrightsville Beach residents. Five years ago, the county relocated Mason Inlet - which separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island - nearly 3,000 feet to the north. At the time, Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight residents who pushed for the move agreed to pick up the tab. Rick Catlin, chairman of the Wilmington/New Hanover County Port, Waterway and Beach Commission, said the resolution still hasn't been presented to the commission. He said room occupancy tax money is not for inlet maintenance or waterway dredging. "I don't think it would be an allowed expenditure out of the beach portion of the room tax," he said about the Mason Inlet project. "I think it would take a legislative change to approve that expenditure coming out of the room tax." Catlin said he can't speak for the commission, but "with the lack of federal funding that we have now, we have to be very judicious in how we spend the funds that we have." The county commissioners will meet Sept. 4 to finalize the amount Wrightsville Beach property owners will be assessed.
8/20/07
Bonner Bridge decision still not made
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/18/top_stories/tops1351.prt
Replacement plan for aging Bonner Bridge remains undecided
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/v-print/story/159715.html
A sea turtle's best friend: Golden retriever has a nose for turtle eggs
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6626116p-5902694c.html
Ready to lend a hand
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=50906
It's unfair not to share the cost
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/17/07)
Editor: If your editorial about Mason Inlet was intended to address the issue of fairness, you should have started with a fair presentation of the facts. Maybe that would not have served your purpose in presenting the biased viewpoint you were after. You did not point out that this relocation has been a stunning success … and that the benefits have been enjoyed by all citizens who care to use the excellent beach, clear inlet and beautiful bird sanctuary that have resulted from this project. If the Mason Inlet Preservation Group had not had the courage to take on this task in the vacuum of leadership that existed at the time, the inlet would still be migrating south … As was stated in the working meeting, the preservation group has met its commitment to keep the inlet in excellent condition and will continue to do so. These same citizens are contributing significantly to the room occupancy tax and have never received a single cent to assist with beach erosion. They are excluded from this benefit because of an old ruling on the use of the fund. The bottom line is that a handful of ordinary citizens like me are paying for a public property and suggesting that this condition should be reviewed. Perhaps a better title for your editorial would have been: "Your inlet, our cash." - Dick Hoffmann, Wilmington
Unfair to whom?
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/17/07)
EDITOR: It is understandable that the New Hanover County Commissioners and county citizens would balk at being asked to pay millions for work on Mason Inlet when a) the wealthy homeowners concerned already agreed to foot the bill, and b) funding by the county would show little tangible return. Here's a modest proposal to make the deal more palatable: Why not have the town of Wrightsville Beach provide "free parking" decals to all owners of vehicles registered in the county? - Bob Nichol, Wilmington
They made deal; they should pay
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/20/07)
EDITOR: Why is it that most people who are financially well off detest the idea of government taking "their" money, but have no shame when asking the same government to put money back into their pockets? We now have the residents from the north end of Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island asking for (room occupancy tax money to) foot the bill for moving Mason Inlet. When the Shell Island Resort was one storm away from falling into the ocean, they agreed to a 30-year commitment for the maintenance and environmental oversight as the cost for moving the inlet. The project has clearly been a success. The inlet was moved north, values of the affected properties have increased and nesting birds have flourished on the strand that was created. So what's the reason for asking for a bailout now? Are the costs higher than expected? Probably, but that should have been planned for before agreeing to a 30-year commitment. Are the costs creating a financial hardship? Unlikely, when you look at the value of the affected properties. They may be able to justify it in their minds, but I can't and will surely vote against any county commissioner who expects me subsidize the cost while people with more wealth than (many) other residents benefit. Michael Nevin - Wilmington
8/16/07
Bonner Bridge plan stalls again
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=130392&ran=151753
Erosion traps Carteret fishing boats
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/670880.html
Killer whales come ashore; DNR euthanizes 3 (SC)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/158493.html
Stranded whales euthanized
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/159390.html
Making their way
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/14/making_their_way12941/?print
Pocket parks need attention
Tideland News Editorial (8/15/07)
As a waterfront town, Swansboro is fortunate to be able to offer its citizens a number of ways to gain access to the White Oak River and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The most visible is Swansboro Bicentennial Park , a lovely spot at the foot of the White Oak River bridge that features a larger-than-life-sized bronze statue of the town’s most famous native son, Otway Burns. Burns, a naval hero from the War of 1812, is credited with building the state’s first steamboat, the Prometheus, just a few blocks from the site of the statue. The park includes public restrooms, an over-the-water gazebo and a fishing pier. A public pier at the foot of Main Street is also popular with both locals and visitors. Attractive for shore-bound fishermen, the pier was fitted with a dinghy dock a few years ago to accommodate small boats. The dock, damaged by storms more than a year ago, is undergoing repairs that may be complete by the time this editorial is published. At the south end of town is Ward’s Shore, an area that offers the public a place to sit and enjoy watching traffic on the river and the AIWW. It is also the site of a storm water mitigation demonstration project. While those three sites are easily the most popular in town, they are not the only access points for citizens. Each street in town that dead-ends on the water, with one exception, provides public access to the water. The town has an absolute treasure trove of potential waterfront parks. These “pocket parks,” if developed – and they should be developed – could offer a variety of low-impact access uses on the waterfront. From a simple bench, where nearby residents could sit and watch, to a kayak and canoe launching area, streets that end on the water are diamonds in the rough in Swansboro. Failure to develop these access points could lead to their loss as adjacent property owners fail to respect the fact that they have been dedicated for the public. Town commissioners should make development of these pocket parks a priority.
8/13/07
Expert to offer thoughts on beach nourishment
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=50717
Emerald Isle homes threatened by recent erosion
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=50708
So whose beach is it? Hatteras National Seashore's shoreline shifts
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=130164&ran=1418
Officials discuss inlet project costs
Group wants others to share Mason expenses
Wilmington Star by By Sherry Jones (8/10/07)
Wrightsville Beach residents who pay a special tax to cover the cost of relocating and maintaining Mason Inlet now want others to share the financial burden, but New Hanover County officials are still considering the request. "It really is time to recognize that the benefit of that project serves a lot more people than those who have the responsibility of paying the tab," Frank Pinkston, head of the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, told the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners on Thursday during a special work session on the topic. Five years ago, New Hanover County relocated the inlet nearly 3,000 feet north, away from Shell Island resort and other threatened properties at the north end of Wrightsville Beach. The inlet separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island. When the inlet was relocated, 1,044 property owners on Figure Eight Island and the north end of Wrightsville Beach agreed to pay for all costs over the project's 30-year lifespan. To date, about $10 million has been spent on the inlet project, $6.7 million of which has been assessed to the property owners. Thursday's work session was an opportunity for county officials to review the status of the inlet project and discuss what to do about roughly $3.3 million in outstanding inlet-related expenses. Pinkston submitted a proposed resolution to the commissioners, asking that they consider using room occupancy tax money to defray 50 percent of the remaining cost to be assessed to Wrightsville Beach residents, which is about $1.4 million. The homeowners, who formed the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, have grown frustrated in recent years over paying for ongoing environmental monitoring and management programs. They also have said the inlet relocation has been a boon for the whole county, not just for them. Pinkston said property owners recognize that they made a 30-year commitment when the inlet was relocated, and they still feel that the project was the right move. "If we hadn't done it, we'd have a mess today," he said. "But the costs are adding up." Some commissioners, though, questioned whether the room occupancy tax - which is charged to guests of accommodations such as hotels, motels, inns, room rentals, tourist camps and other short-term rentals, and must be used for beach erosion projects - can be used as Pinkston suggested. If not, Pinkston said he'd recommend taking money out of the county's general fund, which means all New Hanover County property owners would share in the maintenance costs. "That's just as fair," he said. But Commissioner Bill Kopp responded: "Well, of course, that's really debatable." The commissioners didn't commit to anything Thursday. Chairman Bill Caster said he was "fearful of mucking around with it and the unintended consequences." But he also said the project has "worked beyond my expectations." Vice Chairman Bobby Greer said he didn't see how the county could reduce the amount Wrightsville Beach residents owe for the initial relocation project, but he hopes the county can do something to keep down ongoing maintenance costs. The commissioners are expected to determine the amount to be assessed to property owners during their Sept. 4 meeting. The amount still to be assessed to Figure Eight Island property owners is $561,178. There was no discussion of whether to reduce that amount.
Their condos, your cash?
Wilmington Star Editorial (8/11/07)
Wrightsville Beach property owners want all the property owners in New Hanover County to help pay for moving an inlet that threatened the Wrightsville Beach property owners. That's not a surprise. Even though more than 1,000 property owners on Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island promised five years ago to pay the entire cost of moving the inlet and keeping it there, the bills keep going up. At the moment, the county is owed roughly $3.3 million. That's not chicken feed, even for folks who own condos and houses on the ocean - houses and condos whose value soared when the county moved the inlet. Predictably, these well-off, well-spoken and well-connected citizens are exercising their constitutional right to ask politicians to bail them out with other people's money. Equally predictably, the New Hanover County Commissioners listened to their tale of woe and their plea for help. They didn't say yes, but they didn't say no. They're going to cogitate upon it until Sept. 4. Eager to be reasonable, the beach property owners say they'd be satisfied if the county taxpayers would pony up only half of what the property owners owe. They explain that the county taxpayers could take that $1.4 million from a fund set aside for anti-erosion projects, or from the county's general fund, which is fed by property taxes. The property owners' spokesman opined, "That's just as fair." Or just as unfair.
8/9/07
Rejected again: Back to bids for Sunset Beach bridge
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/articles/2007/08/08/free/03-free.prt
Health Concerns Close Record Number of U.S. Beaches in 2006
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-07-02.asp
NRDC press release - http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070807.asp
Turtle Nest No. 1 finally hatches (Wrightsville)
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1246&iid=72&sud=30
Folly gets $225,000 refund after beach renourishment
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/09/folly_gets_refund_after_beach_renourishm12522/?print
Editorial: Build the bridge
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/08/letters-editorials/letters146-.prt
Fewer turtle nests part of natural cycle
Experts say babies could be hatching into October
Wilmington Star by Shelby Sebens (8/9/07)
While fewer sea turtles might be nesting on the region's beaches this year, interest in the creatures remains high. Beach towns across the region are counting fewer than average nests this season, but local experts are not too concerned. "We're all down, but that doesn't mean anything," said Gloria Hillenburg, Ocean Isle Beach turtle watch coordinator. Matthew Godfrey, sea turtle biologist with the N.C. Wildlife Research Commission, said nesting tends to fluctuate naturally because the female turtles lay their eggs only every second or third year. Though the season typically winds down in August, he noted it's not over yet. "It's hard to say what the final total will be," Godfrey said, adding there was a delay in the season's start this year, so there is a chance the numbers could still pick up. So far, Ocean Isle Beach turtle watchers have spotted six nests. Last year there were 28 nests on the Brunswick County beach. The season typically lasts from late May through August. Hillenburg, who has been observing sea turtles for 37 years, said the turtle watchers could see the babies hatching and making their way to the ocean through October. Nancy Fahey, of the Wrightsville Beach Sea Turtle Project, said the town has had an interesting season so far. After recording the state's first nest of the season May 23, Wrightsville had no activity for 55 days, she said. But then three nests were laid in three days in late July. "We've had a very strange summer," Fahey said. "We're still hoping for more." One of the four nests on Wrightsville has hatched, and the turtle group planned to excavate it Wednesday night to see how many hatched and if there are any stragglers that need help finding their way to the sea. So far, 45 turtle nests have been spotted on Bald Head Island, compared with 64 last year. And Topsail Island has had 48, compared with 75 last season. Although the number of nests is down, the sea turtles' popularity isn't. Hillenburg said people want to be educated about sea turtles. She had to turn people away during a recent speech about the fascinating creatures at Ocean Isle Community Center because the crowd had reached the center's capacity. Godfrey said interest in sea turtles has been high for years, adding he is not sure if the interest is growing or if officials are getting better about spreading the word. "Sea turtles are always a big draw," he said.
Beach holes create issues
Tideland News by Jim Craig (8/9/07)
Digging holes and building sand castles have been traditional beach pastimes since time immemorial. Usually the efforts are modest and temporary, lasting only until the next high tide, or new beach activity. However, once in a while, the excavations become massive in size, usually through the efforts of strong young men. Nearly always, the efforts are benign but a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, by father and son physicians, has pointed to some serious downsides. They specifically cite the death of a 17-year-old boy who fell into an 8-foot deep sand pit in Westerly , R.I. By-standers efforts to save the youth resulted in slumping of the sand that completely smothered and suffocated him. They go on to cite statistics showing that there have been more fatalities resulting from collapsing sand in beach and backyard excavations than from shark bites in the past 20 years. The article quickly made the rounds of CNN , USA Today, The Virginia Pilot and many other news media. That article begs the questions about holes in our local beaches. How many are there? And, are they a problem? The answer to the first question is unknown but certainly numbers in the hundreds to thousand every day – ranging from little ones dug by children with small plastic scoops to major excavations dug by young fathers with long handled shovels. The extent to which holes, especially larger ones, represent problems depends upon size, depth, location and time of day. Rarely do the holes represent a problem if they lie below the high tide line, regardless of their size, because the next high tide will wash sand back into them and create a smooth beach. In contrast, holes dug above the high tide line can persist for days and represent both an inconvenience and a potential danger to visitors, beach patrol vehicles and sea turtles. Large holes are usually accompanied by large piles of excavated sand and are easily seen in daylight. However, at night, large holes can be nearly invisible and represent a danger to those walking or driving on the beach and to sea turtles that crawl on to the beach. The Emerald Isle Beach Patrol noted that their daily trips up and down the beach often require considerable maneuvering around visitors, blankets, chairs and beach tents. The holes generally represent just one more obstacle and require patience to navigate. They do note, however, that large holes are a much greater problem at night when they and emergency vehicle drivers find it difficult to see the depressions. Artie Dunn, director of Emerald Isle Public Works, said that problem of large beach holes has been slowly growing. Some years back, his office would receive about one complaint per season. Now, the complaint calls come about once per week and that the holes seem to be getting bigger. Dunn said that the larger holes – the largest he has seen was about 12 feet in diameter and at least 5-1/2 feet deep – require the use of a backhoe to fill in. Emerald Isle Town Manager Frank Rush echoed Dunn’s comments but added that he did not know of any serious injuries resulting from holes in Emerald Isle’s beaches. He did acknowledge that hole digging did seem to be an activity on the increase and that it may become an issue for the town to address in the future. The Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Protection Program and other sister programs along the North Carolina coast have a somewhat different perspective on the topic of beach holes. Nesting sea turtles weighing 250 to 350 pounds are already equipped with rather poor eyesight and almost always crawl ashore during the dark of night.
There are many accounts of turtles bumping into beach paraphernalia and sliding into large holes. Hence, turtle volunteers up and down the coast are constantly on the alert for any holes that need filling.
Responses from 11 of the state’s turtle programs were unanimous in having to face more and bigger holes. Marilyn Youngbluth of Kure Beach likened the beaches to sometimes resembling a cratered lunar landscape. Every beach reported large holes from time to time but the largest was one reported by Raymond Zetts of Sunset Beach . It was 18 feet across and 5-1/2 feet deep. Gloria Hillenburg of Ocean Isle Beach reported a recent incident in which her ATV fell into a hole bruising her leg and breaking a rib. Furthermore, she faced a situation at 4:30 a.m. when a turtle slid into a deep hole and she had to literally dig a ramp and path for the turtle to escape. Linda Purcell of Holden Beach found the idea of beach holes puzzling. “I don’t get it all – why would anyone on vacation want to slave in the hot sun digging a huge sand pit?” she asked. Certainly, Emerald Isle turtle volunteers have seen some very bad sun burns on the backs of visiting sand excavators. Virtually all turtle volunteers along the coast would like to see some ordinances, such as those in effect at Surf City and Holden Beach , to limit the size of holes and or require daily refilling. The Emerald Isle volunteers, like their counterparts statewide constantly make polite requests that eager beach engineers refill their holes at the end of the day. Many cheerfully respond, but the others contribute to our growing problem.
Still no access in Southport
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (8/8/07)
EDITOR: While reading the articles on the state budget, one item jumped out at me: public water access. Seems our lawmakers have decided to create a new fund to acquire waterfront property for public and commercial access. … Please don't get me wrong - I am delighted that the lawmakers have put this fund in place. There is a committee in Southport and a petition with several thousand signatures that told our lawmakers over three years ago that this was needed. This took place as the N.C. State Ports Authority was prepared to sell the marina at Southport to private investors. Instead of selling the marina, a new lease-holder was put in place, a new lease was written, and public property was on its way to being private. The leaseholders will tell you this is not true. Why, they intend to have a state-of-the-art marina at Southport. If this is true, why did it take so long to get the public ramps up to speed, and where are all the commercial boats? While our lawmakers are trying to secure public and commercial access to our waters, I ask that you keep an eye on the marina at Southport which is now public-unfriendly and denuded of commercial boats, except for a couple. - Ed Boguskie, Southport
8/6/07
Rules for vehicles on beach in works, officials say
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-print/story/659681.html
Future still looks murky for Intracoastal Waterway (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/04/future_still_looks_murky_intracoastal_waterway/?print
Public fears safety of Bonner Bridge
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/04/top_stories/tops1491.prt
Plans begin for preservation of working waterfronts
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/04/business/bus1491.prt
Sand issue passes House
Carteret County News Times by Shannon Kemp (8/3/07)
WASHINGTON , D.C. — A House bill passed Wednesday night includes language that would help shore protection in Carteret County – that is if the president doesn’t keep his promise to veto the bill. The $20 billion water project bill would give the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority to place sand dredged from the Morehead City Harbor onto the beaches of Bogue Banks. This is good news for the County Beach Commission and the County Shore Protection Agency who have been trying to work with the Corps for years to get the federally dredged sand placed on beaches instead of offshore disposal sites. County Shore Protection Manager Greg “Rudi” Rudolph said this morning that the bill would give the Corps the authority they need to place the sand where the agency has been requesting it to be placed. “What we have been saying to the Corps is that the way it manages sand in the Morehead City Harbor is probably not the smartest, and their response to us has been that their job is navigation and not to put the sand wherever we want it … and the cheapest way to get navigation is to place the sand in the offshore disposal site,” Mr. Rudolph said. Every year the Morehead City Inner Harbor is dredged while the outer harbor is dredged biannually for navigational purposes to the Morehead City Harbor. Mr. Rudolph said the Corps is not able to dispose the sand in anyway other than the most cost efficient until Congress tells them that they have the authority to do otherwise. “That’s what this bill does, it tells the Corps to start looking for better ways to manage the sand out there,” he said. Third District Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., requested language in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 specifying that the sand dredged from the Morehead City Harbor be placed on the beaches of Bogue Banks. He told The News-Times Thursday that the language is much needed to help with erosion and sand management issues in Carteret and other coastal counties. “There are ongoing issues particularly concerning the beaches of Bogue Banks,” he said. “I’m just pleased that we got this in the language.” In a release Rep. Jones stated, “While short-term costs may be lower by dumping at sea, the ultimate long-term costs to governments will be higher as the same sand is later removed for renourishment projects. “The language approved (Wednesday) allows the Corps to bypass this inefficient middle deposit and quickly renourish our beaches in a way that ultimately saves taxpayers’ money.” However pleased Rep. Jones said he was about the bill, he also said Thursday that the president might veto the bill.
According to an Associated Press report, President Bush has said the bill is “laden with costly pet projects and shifts new costs onto the government” promising to veto the bill if it is not pared down. “Indeed, it seems a $14 billion Senate bill went into a conference with the House’s $15 billion bill and somehow a bill emerged costing approximately $20 billion,” said White House Budget Director Rob Portman and Assistant Army Secretary John Paul Woodley Jr. In addition to the Carteret County project, the bill directs $3.5 billion projects in Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina, more than $2 billion to projects in California and $2 billion for Florida , mostly for restoring the Everglades . Another $1.95 billion is included for seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers and $1.7 billion for repairing the region’s ecology. The bill also adds new drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. “There is urgent, pent-up demand to address the nation’s water resources needs,” said Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This morning Mr. Rudolph explained that the total cost of the bill, which includes projects between Alaska, Hawaii and North Carolina, can be considered directly related to the number of years that the legislation has not been passed. “In theory, the bill is passed every two years. The last one was passed in 2000 so we’re five years over due,” he said. “Each project that is authorized has a dollar amount and every year that the bill is not passed that dollar amount goes up. Some may think its way too expensive but every time we’ve tried to do something … it gets delayed and the amount just goes up,” Mr. Rudolph also said that the bill does not appropriate funds for projects but only gives the authority to carry out projects. If the bill is passed, it does not obligate Congress or the president to spend any money on the projects that the bill encompasses. - The Associated Press contributed to this story.
8/3/07
Corps to start Topsail dredge soon
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=50327
White House Threatens Veto of $20 Billion Water Projects Bill, Says It's Too Costly
http://www.enn.com/todays-news/13247
Sand battle won't blow over (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/31/sand_battle_wont_blow_over11791/?print
Bids rejected for high-rise Sunset Beach bridge
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/v-print/story/147335.html
Parking meters discussed for Sullivan's Is.
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/aug/03/parking_meters_discussed_sullivans_is12045/?print
Shouting Down a Well
http://www.metronc.com/article/index.aspx?id=1390&print=true
7/30/07
Hatchlings need help getting home
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6603194p-5880862c.html
Oh say can you sea?
http://www.carolinajournal.com/print/print_article.html?id=4195
Setback rule might erode
Proposal would gauge sites by rebuilt shorelines, not old ones
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/28/07)
Raleigh | A new proposal would soften the state's setback requirements along nourished beaches. But Jeff Warren, coastal hazards specialist with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, insisted that the new language wouldn't open the doors to a building boom in questionable oceanfront locations. "We wouldn't have allowed it to come forward with anything less," he said. On Friday, the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, with several members expressing strong support for the new rules, approved sending the proposal to a public hearing that will take place at the commission's November meeting in Greenville. Under current rules, oceanfront setback requirements along nourished beaches are based on what the beach looked like before the new sand was added. Environmentalists have said there's no reason to modify the so-called "static line" rule because it has worked to prevent people from building closer to the ocean on a beach that's going to erode away. But some coastal communities, notably Oak Island and Ocean Isle Beach, have said the static line rule is unfair. They claim the regulation limits both new construction and the replacement of homes along wide swaths of their beachfront that are healthy and stable. Oak Island, for example, has 475 beachfront structures that are non-conforming. That means they can't be replaced if destroyed by a hurricane or fire. Frustration with the static line rule has been steadily mounting, with state Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick, introducing legislation this session to modify the rule. The bill didn't pass. Warren said the new proposal, which was generated by Coastal Management staff, would allow limited additional development along nourished beaches that are long-term, successful projects. Towns would have to petition the CRC to have engineered beaches declared long-term projects. Requirements would include showing that they have adequate financial and sand sources for 30 years. Coastal communities also would have to wait 5 years after an initial nourishment project before any exemption would be approved. That would allow officials to see how the beach has fared.
Drawing the line
Warren said the proposal includes a series of checks to limit development that can meet the setback requirement from the vegetation line, but not from the static line. While the static line is used to determine setbacks on nourished beaches, the first stable line of vegetation is used on natural beaches. Usually this is the beach's dune line, which can ebb and flow as wind and waves shape the beach. Those restrictions include limiting homes to 2,000 square feet, to make moving them easier if necessary, and not allowing structures oceanward of neighboring homes. Warren said the new rules also could prompt renewed interest in large-scale nourishment projects, which some communities have shied away from because of the static line requirement. Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith on Friday called the proposal a "reasonable first step," although she had concerns about the home size restriction and the lack of "grandfather" clauses for existing structures. Another proposed change in the setback requirements would make the size of the structure, not its use, the deciding factor in how far back it has to be from the first line of stable vegetation, generally the dune line. "This isn't saying you can't build your tower," Warren said. "It's just saying you have to build it a bit farther back."
Sandbags made of hemp get an airing
Panel looks for biodegradable coastal policy
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/27/07)
Raleigh | Call it the Cheech and Chong bag. As the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission wrestles with what to do about the proliferation of sandbags along the state's coastline, one idea that's been floated is to make the bags biodegradable. And one of the materials under consideration is hemp - the industrial, non-hallucinogenic cousin of marijuana. In short, that would be one way to make sure the sandbags get rolled up instead of becoming semi-permanent structures along the North Carolina coast. "If we did adopt this, we'd be dictating the temporary nature of the bags by making them biodegradable," said Courtney Hackney, CRC chairman and a marine biologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. The CRC has placed a May 2008 deadline for the removal of most uncovered sandbags along the coast. Sandbags were originally meant to offer threatened structures temporary protection, generally for two years, until a more permanent solution could be developed. Those final solutions usually were removal of the threatened property or a beach nourishment project. But regulators have been prone to issue extensions, and many coastal towns have successfully argued that they are pursuing a beach nourishment project to fix their erosion problem. The Riggings condominium project in Kure Beach, for example, has relied on sandbags for protection since 1985. The N.C. Division of Coastal Management recently ordered the bags removed, a decision the homeowners are challenging in court. The bags also have proliferated in many places, forming unattractive and long, "hardened structures" since sandbags don't solve erosion but simply move it along the beachfront. Thus, it's often only a matter of time before neighboring areas to a sandbagged property need the bags themselves for protection. If the schedule remains, homeowners relying on uncovered sandbags to fend off the encroaching Atlantic could start getting removal letters in the mail next spring. State regulators estimate there are about 150 sandbag structures that would need to come out, including 19 in New Hanover County, almost all on Figure Eight Island. Whether public pressure or the General Assembly allows Coastal Management to go ahead with the plan is a very large unknown. Renee Cahoon, a CRC member and mayor of Nags Head, where many of the visible sandbag structures are located, said the impending deadline is already causing consternation in her town. "It's not going to be fun," she said. That's led CRC members to discuss a new approach to limiting the time future sandbags can stay on the beach, which also could prompt more urgency in developing a long-term solution. One possibility would be to use natural materials like cotton or burlap for the bags instead of polypropylene or polyester. Those fabrics have long life spans. But the polyester fabrics often soil marshes and other coastal areas when bags are ripped or wash away. Using natural fibers would bring a built-in time limit to a sandbag structure. It also would solve the lingering problem of "orphaned" sandbags that are left behind on the beach, whether on purpose or because they're buried. But one of the great unknowns is how cotton or woven natural fibers, like flax or hemp, would hold up in the harsh oceanfront environment. Natural fibers can decay quickly if not treated and could be prone to attacks by microorganisms. Coastal Management's Scott Geiss said the initial reports aren't good, with 66 days a worst-case scenario given by industry officials. But a 2005 Army Corps of Engineers study, prompted by the failure of sandbags in Iraq, showed cotton and burlap bags kept their strength well in a desert environment. A dry desert, though hot and sunny like beach areas, is a much more controlled environment than the salty and wet oceanfront. "There are a lot of unknowns out there right now," Geiss said of the practicality of using biodegradable sandbags. Or as Cheech and Chong might say, there's still a good chance the concept could go up in smoke.
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (7/26/07)
EDITOR: The sea is not rising much. elting the Arctic Ocean and the Antarctic ice shelf is like the ice cube in your drink and doesn't raise sea level. What is taking place on the coast is the result of normal beach erosion processes that move the barrier islands toward the mainland. How these operate when unimpeded is best shown on Hutaff Island. In 1985 I could take my Simmons Sea-Skiff easily through the channels behind the island to Old Topsail Inlet. After Hurricane Fran wiped the dunes away and blew their sand into the creeks, the inlet has closed. The steep bank on Wrightsville Beach is not caused by rising sea level, but by putting sand where it doesn't belong. In the early 1980s I regularly sailed a small boat around the marsh islands behind Figure Eight Island using Mason Creek and the Banks Channel.
After Figure Eight dredged Banks Channel, sand poured in from the ocean, made Mason Creek unnavigable and eroded Mason Inlet right to the condominiums on Shell Island. That dredging should never have been allowed, and the perpetrators should pay in perpetuity. We should move back a little from the edge of the sea and not emulate the failure of King Canute. The sky is not falling, and the sea is not rising much, in spite of Gorebull warming. - David W. Carnell, Wilmington
7/25/07
Whatever happened to ... gate that kept drivers off N.C. beach?
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128907&ran=232428
How N.C. mistreats its beaches
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/NEWSREC010201/707220319/1015
Waterfronts vanishing fast
Wilmington Star Editorial (7/25/07)
If North Carolinians want to save what's left of their working waterfronts, they'll have to tax those pieces of property the same way they tax farmland and timber - on their current use, not on their development potential. True, lower tax bills alone wouldn't stop the pell-mell replacement of piers, docks and fish houses with high-dollar residences. Owners would continue to be tempted by astronomical prices. Fishermen and their children might decide to abandon a hard and dangerous way of life buffeted by rising costs and falling prices. But at least the arrival of the property tax bill wouldn't be the final blow. Farmers and timber growers already are protected from steeply rising taxes fueled by the possibility of residential, commercial and industrial development. The benefits of those tax breaks flow not only to those property owners, but to the rest of us, who can enjoy fields and forests and the environmental blessings they offer. The rest of us also benefit from one of the traditional ways of living on our coast. We enjoy fresh seafood, not fish and shellfish scooped from contaminated waters on the other side of the world and then frozen and shipped. We enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of working boats and working waterfronts. But we enjoy them far less than we did just a few years ago. A committee that studied the problem for the N.C. General Assembly came up with 27 suggestions for saving them. The Honorables have ignored most of those ideas. But at least the Senate seems to be serious about offering a well-deserved tax break. It should do that, and then take up other possible remedies, such as conservation easements, zoning and similar incentives. We've almost lost our working waterfronts. If we intend to save the remainder, we don't have a day to lose.
7/23/07
Beach driving draws court's attention
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/07/21/top_stories/tops1631.prt
Cape Hatteras beach drivers won't get ticket, for now
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128775&ran=117701
Carteret aids the handicapped
http://www.jdnews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=jdn&id=50115
Carteret County group ensures beach access (AP)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/story/136265.html
Carolina Beach Inlet Receives Full Federal Funding of $1.23 Million http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1167&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Lack of dredging costing Georgetown port business
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/133237.html
Beach boost
With a reminder that a plan for managing vehicles on the beach is overdue, a judge protects the Hatteras National Seashore
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/v-print/story/646059.html
Access issues move ahead
Carteret County News Times by Lori Wynn (7/20/07)
RALEIGH — The work of a state committee charged with examining the loss of diversity and water access on the coast may have finally paid off. A bill that calls for the enactment of some recommendations established by the Waterfront Access Study Committee (WASC), including present-use value for working waterfronts, was passed unanimously Thursday in a state Senate committee. Extending the present-use property tax program, currently an option for farmland, to working waterfront businesses would tax the businesses at their worth as a business, rather than their best use, which is typically residential. Sen. Charles Albertson, D-Duplin, chairman of the committee that passed the bill, said the legislation speaks to present land use values as a way of holding on to some waterfront land that is turning into private residential property. “It (this bill) hopefully would allow people who own this property to keep it like it is,” he said. The WASC compiled a list earlier this year of 27 recommendations addressing the loss of usage along the coast. These included items for the General Assembly to address, such as establishing a trust fund to assist in the retention and enhancement of working waterfronts, as well as initiatives for state agencies and local governments. Dr. Barbara Garrity-Blake, a Gloucester resident who sat on the WASC, said it was satisfying that the bill was passed. “The present-use value legislation is huge,” she said. “That will make a big difference to many people.” Although the access committee tried to keep a broad definition of a working waterfront, Dr. Garrity-Blake said legislators decided to zero in and make the present-use taxation specific to commercial fishing facilities. The bill defines working waterfront lands as “those that abut tidal waters and that are primarily used to provide access to or support commercial fishing activities.” Dr. Garrity-Blake said some things the access committee put a lot of work into were not included in the bill, like the waterfront trust fund. “Trust funds take lots of money and they (the state) just don’t have it,” she said. But the bill did have items that were not recommended by the WASC, she said, such as a waterfront access committee within the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “There are a lot of the recommendations we made that don’t require regulatory changes,” she said. “That stuff can still happen. “In that way, I think slowly but surely many of our recommendations will come to fruition... But this bill is a great start.” Dr. Mike Voiland, executive director of N.C. Sea Grant, a university-based program in support of coastal resource use and conservation, said while the bill is reassuring, it is only the beginning. “As former chair of the WASC, I am relieved to see a legislative bill come forward that will hopefully, at least in small part, begin the process of the state addressing the working waterfront and public access issues along the N.C. coast,” he said in an e-mail. “While I can no longer speak for the WASC, which ended its work on April 13, I believe that the bill, if passed, would represent a good start by the General Assembly in addressing waterfront use in coastal N.C.” Other items included in the bill are:
• Direct the state Department of Transportation to expand public access to coastal waters in its road project planning and construction programs.
• Increase certain boat numbering fees that are held in the state Wildlife Resource Commission’s boating and waterway account, effective Jan. 1, 2008.
• Waive fees for special emergency Coastal Area Management Act building permits when life or structural property is in imminent danger as a result of a storm.
• Direct the state Division of Emergency Management to study ways to facilitate construction and repair of water-dependent structures in regulated flood zones.
Sen. Albertson said although the bill may face some opposition down the road, it saw none Thursday.
“There is strong support from all committee members,” he said. “All of us realize what’s happening when it comes to water access.” According to Sen. Albertson, the bill will now go on to the Senate Finance Committee before passing over to the House.
(Reporter Ben Hogwood contributed to this story.)
If they're reckless, we all pay the price
Wilmington Star Editorial (7/21/07)
State Rep. Bonner Stiller says people who can afford to build dangerously close to the ocean should be allowed to do it. The Brunswick County Republican says the state shouldn't require folks to build farther back, where their houses are less likely to be undermined by erosion or damaged by storms. As Stiller put it, "If people want to build on their own property and spend their own money, then they should have that right." That sounds good unless you think about it. In many cases "their own property" would be inaccessible and practically worthless without roads and utilities built by the public. "Their own property" is often separated from the ocean by beaches renourished with public money. And if these people need to be rescued from a storm, or if their houses are destroyed and strewn across the landscape, if pieces of them damage other structures and add to the rubble, the public will pay to clean it up. The public will pay the first responders and National Guard troops who guard the wreckage. The public will pay higher insurance premiums, and have a harder time buying insurance. Even when hurricanes leave us alone, ordinary storms can gouge the daylights out of beaches, endangering houses and prompting their owners to demand the right to pile up sandbags or build permanent structures that blight the beach and often cause erosion elsewhere. Simple slogans about property rights are appealing. But the reality on the oceanfront is far from simple. North Carolina's beaches are precious both to the public and to those lucky enough or wealthy enough to own property on them. The interests of the public and those owners often coincide. But sometimes they diverge. If houses are built recklessly close to the ocean, they cause problems for us all.
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (7/23/07)
The Star-News' Gareth McGrath spent a lot of ink to tell us that sea levels three feet higher or more (might be) in our future. It would have been a good piece of reporting except for the hyperbole and facts being left out in order to place the blame squarely on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) for sea level rises (It's that bad carbon dioxide again!). There is no mention, for example, of some seas receding, like the eastern Mediterranean, and the Arctic Ocean itself. Or no mention that the East Coast is sinking one inch every eight years and has been for millennia; or no mention that sea level rises probably have no relation to the (slight) warming in the last century … No one has been able to say for sure why some seas have risen … probably plate tectonics beyond human control; probably from volcanic activity on the ocean floors or the sucking of oil out of the ground, or water. Next time, please check of the real science before joining the herd. - James McGee, Wilmington
7/19/07
Will judge's order close Hatteras beaches to driving?
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128672&ran=4797
Driving on Hatteras shore to continue
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/641266.html
Turtle team locates second nest
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1164&iid=69&sud=30
The beach front
Local methods to combat sea rise vary, but share goal
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/19/07)
There might be questions about how quickly change will occur, what man's role is in the natural process and just how much of an increase we'll eventually see. But there is almost universal acceptance among scientists that the world's oceans are rising, with significant economic and environmental changes on tap.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-led group looking at man's role in global warming, estimated that ocean levels will rise by about 2 feet by 2100. But the projection came with a significant caveat. Because researchers were allowed to incorporate only data they could quantify or processes that they fully understood into their predictions, they didn't include the impact on sea-level rise from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as the Earth continues to warm. That could easily add several feet to water levels, although the ocean off North Carolina is currently rising at the nearly imperceptible rate of about a tenth of an inch a year. Still, state officials today are discussing issues that could play a major role in determining how prepared North Carolina is to deal with the inevitable changes facing its coastal environment. That's especially true on the state's fragile, low-lying barrier islands, where man and environmental changes already being affected by sea-level rise collide every day.
Hardened structures
North Carolina's ban on hardened structures has been one of the state's pillars of coastal management for decades. Officials feel that rather than solving an erosion problem, seawalls and groins simply solve one problem while creating another somewhere else along the beach. But now the most serious test of the ban in decades is working its way through the General Assembly. The state Senate has approved a proposal that would allow a test seawall groin to be built along the coast. Figure Eight Island, a private island north of Wrightsville Beach, has already had preliminary talks about building a terminal groin along its northern beach just south of Rich Inlet. State Senate leader Marc Basnight, D-Dare, said Wednesday the proposed legislation allows the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission to pull the plug on the project if it's determined not to work or to be a detriment to the coastal environment. He said the proposed project, which would be like a seawall running perpendicular to the beach out into the ocean, also offered the benefit of being privately funded. That would allow the public to see how the groin functioned without paying for its construction, scientific monitoring or potential removal. If deemed a success, Basnight said, the concept could be replicated in other oceanfront areas where properties are threatened and public beaches are disappearing. But Jim Stephenson, policy analyst for the N.C. Coastal Federation, said the bill opens the door to the balkanization of the North Carolina shoreline. "It sets a precedent from which there's really no return," he said. "Once a hardened structure is installed, it starves sand from reaching another place on the beach, and then that place becomes endangered and needs some resolution, which could be another hardened structure."
Sandbag deadline
With North Carolina's ban on hardened structures, oceanfront homeowners are left with two options for protecting their threatened home from encroaching waves: relocation or sandbags. Since moving beachfront homes is often impossible because of the size of the structure and because there is nowhere to relocate them to, sandbags have become the remedy of choice. But over the years sandbags have moved from being "temporary" protective measures, with a time limit of two years, to a sort of permanent presence along many beaches. The Riggings condominium complex in Kure Beach, for example, has had its sandbags in place since 1985. Because sandbags also often simply move an erosion problem to neighboring areas of the beach, a small stretch of sandbags can quickly mushroom into a monstrous fabric wall as homeowner after homeowner moves to shore up his disappearing dune line. Sea-level rise is expected to exacerbate the use of sandbags as more and more oceanfront areas are threatened by erosion tied to rising water levels. Now state regulators are moving to reassert control of the situation. A May 2008 deadline is looming for the removal of most sandbags that are uncovered along the coastline. State officials estimate the impending deadline affects more than 130 structures, including 18 in New Hanover County. So will the General Assembly, with the inevitable pressure from concerned homeowners and local officials, allow millions of dollars worth of property to be thrown at the mercy of the Atlantic? Devising permanent solutions to threatened oceanfront properties could cost millions and just delay the inevitable as rising waters cause more and more problems. But several local legislators said Wednesday the issue hadn't hit their radar screen yet.
Setback requirements
Faced with ever-larger homes crowding the oceanfront, state regulators are moving to increase setback requirements. The proposal would base the distance a home has to be from the first line of stable vegetation, usually the dune line, on the structure's size. The bigger the house, the farther back the home has to be built. But it's another possible change that has environmentalists butting heads with developers and some coastal officials. For about a decade state regulators have relied on an unmoving proverbial line in the sand when determining setback requirements for nourished beaches. The thinking is that because engineered beaches don't act like natural beaches, it would be foolish to allow development to follow the dune line since there's no guarantee periodic injections of sand will always occur. "It's a principle that looks toward the future, that the ocean shall return no matter what you do and will continue with sea-level rise to move landward," said the Coastal Federation's Stephenson. But not all coastal officials think the same way. Oak Island officials have said that nearly 80 percent of its beachfront properties are unbuildable or couldn't be replaced if they were destroyed by fire or a hurricane because of the regulation. Ocean Isle Beach officials also want to see a change. State Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick, is pushing legislation to change the rule, which he referred to as an unfair "take" of private property by Raleigh. "If people want to build on their own property and spend their own money, then they should have that right," he said. "It shouldn't be for the government to tell them what they can and can't do."
7/18/07
Static line affects 80 percent of shoreline
http://www.stateportpilot.com/stories/7-18%20Static%20line%20stites.htm
Erosion cuts swimming pool waterline (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/18/erosion_cuts_swimming_pool_waterline10802/?print
1 man's quest to save IOP beach (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/18/mans_quest_save_iop_beach10794/?print
Dredging inlet keeps fishing fleets afloat (NJ)
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070718&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=707180420&SectionCat=&Template=printart
Oregon Inlet beach closed to protect piping plover (AP)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/story/130833.html
Fewer sea turtle nests along SC coast this summer (AP)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/130744.html
Wading in seaweed
Wilmington Star by Shelby Sebens (7/18/07)
It's brown and smelly and has blanketed some area beaches. In recent weeks, the unwelcome seaweed called sargassum has invaded Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach and Topsail Island, among others. At Oak Island, a thick layer covers much of the sand, especially near the Ocean Crest Pier. "I suppose it's sort of a pesky situation, at least," said Dave Cooper, the pier's chief operating officer. He said fishermen have been complaining about the seaweed, which is also floating close to shore, fouling their lines. Beachgoers try to scrape a patch of sand clear for their umbrellas and coolers - and to stay upwind of the smelly seaweed. Experts can't predict whether the seaweed mass will diminish, increase or invade other beaches. But here are a few facts they do know. What is it? Sargassum is a brown algae found in large masses in the Sargasso Sea, a region in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, and in tropical waters around the world. It is distinguished by its brown color and small leaves resembling appendages that allow it to float.
What brings it ashore?
Southerly and southeasterly winds break up the seaweed and bring it toward shore via the Gulf Stream current. "It's a natural occurrence," said Michael Durako, professor of biology and marine biology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. He added sargassum often comes ashore in the summer because winds typically come out of the south in the hot months and the north in the winter. Durako said sargassum comes ashore every year along the East Coast beaches.
Why is it so thick now?
Cooper said in his five years at the Ocean Crest Pier, this is the most seaweed he has seen come ashore. Durako said wind patterns dictate just how much sargassum comes ashore and where it will land.
How long will it stay?
The seaweed dries out and breaks down in the sun and eventually disappears, but how long it's around - and whether it spreads to other beaches - depends on how long the clumps continue to wash up. And that depends on the wind and currents. "It's relatively unpredictable," Durako said.
What is the significance of sargassum?
It may be a nuisance to many on the beach, but sargassum in the water shelters small fish, crabs and shrimp. Durako said fishermen offshore often look for islands of sargassum because game fish are often nearby. He also said the seaweed makes great mulch for gardening. And that also helps get it off the beach.
High bids may delay planned bridge
Wilmington Star by Patrick Gannon (7/18/07)
The low bid for construction of a new bridge to Sunset Beach came in 17.5 percent higher than the state's estimate Tuesday, meaning the project might be delayed for months for a second round of bids. The N.C. Board of Transportation typically doesn't award bids if they come in more than 10 percent above the Department of Transportation's estimate. In this case, English Construction Co.'s bid of nearly $31.5 million came in about $4.7 million above the $26.8 million estimate. "We have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, and the numbers are what they are," said Lanny Wilson, the Wilmington area's representative on the N.C. Board of Transportation. "Most likely, the recommendation will be to reject all bids and relet" the project, he said. If that happens, new bids would likely be opened in September, delaying the project by at least two months. The board will meet Aug. 2 to decide whether to accept or reject the low bid. Wilson added that rejection of the bids isn't a done deal. DOT project estimators will re-examine their original estimate, talk to the low bidder and attempt to reconcile the estimate amount and bid amount, said Joe Blair, DOT construction engineer. "He may shed some light on something that our estimators hadn't recognized," Blair said of the contractor. In turn, the DOT could increase its estimate, bringing it closer to the low-bid amount. If that happens, the N.C. Board of Transportation could award a contract Aug. 2. The DOT opened two other bids for the project in Raleigh on Tuesday. Key Constructors Inc. bid $34.6 million, or 29.3 percent higher than the estimate. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. bid $35.4 million, 32 percent higher. The new, 65-foot-high bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway would replace the quaint one-lane, wooden-deck bridge, which swings open on the hour during boating season and on demand for commercial and government vessels. The only link between the mainland and the barrier island, the bridge is also the root of traffic jams when it opens during the busy tourist season. DOT officials say it is structurally and functionally obsolete. Wilson said he was disappointed that the bids came in so high on a project so important to Brunswick County's infrastructure. "Certainly, there's always a lot of public pressure to see these projects completed," he said.
Citizens, board voice concerns about article
Topsail Voice by Connie Pletl (7/18/07)
N. TOPSAIL BEACH – “Devastated” by an article in the Jacksonville Daily News, North Topsail Beach Mayor Pro Tem Larry Hardison called a special meeting to discuss the article and its implications. The article was published on Monday, June 9, and brought into question whether Onslow County commissioners told town officials that additional tax revenues from the ad velorum sales tax distribution should be used to help fund beach nourishment. According to the article, some of the North Topsail Beach representatives said county officials cautioned them not to use the money for tax relief. However, the county commissioners said they had no control over the money once it was allocated. An announcement went out from North Topsail Beach town hall on Wednesday, July 11, at 4:48 p.m. announcing that a meeting would take place to discuss the issue on Friday, July 13, at 6 p.m. Alderman Dan Tuman was out of town visiting Seattle , Washington and Mayor Rodney Knowles and Alderman Fred Handy said they had prior commitments scheduled at that time. Hardison, along with aldermen Dick Farley and Dick Peters, appeared for the meeting, but it could not be conducted as a formal meeting because there were not enough board members present to form a quorum. The board members present, as well as town manager Brad Smith, decided to hold an informal discussion instead. Both Hardison and Farley read prepared statements voicing their displeasure with the actions of the board and with the town budget and the allocations of funds for beach nourishment. Both Hardison and Farley had voted against the budget, which passed by a vote of 3 – 2. Farley also said the implications in the article put distrust on both the town and the beach nourishment committee. Hardison said there were a series of misrepresentations and that “the ones who are hurt by this are the people of the town.” Smith was questioned by Farley about comments that he said he was told by the county commissioners. Smith said he was told in confidence at a Shoreline Protection Committee meeting that if the town did not use the revenue for beach nourishment and capital projects that it would not receive accommodations tax revenue from the county. Aldermen Dan Tuman and Fred Handy have also said in the past that the commissioners strongly suggested the money be used to go toward the beach nourishment project or the way the county distributes the sales tax revenue could again be changed. Peters said he knew it was the position of at least one county commissioner that the money go toward beach nourishment. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting. Among those were candidates for board seats in the upcoming November election and vocal beach nourishment opponents. Two aldermen seats are open – Farley’s and Handy’s. Farley has filed for re-election but Handy said he will not run again. The mayor’s seat is also open and Knowles has not yet filed. Candidate for alderman Bob Swantek said the board needs to listen to the people. He noted that a bond referendum for beach nourishment was voted down during the last election and that the board is continuing to move forward on the project anyway. He also said he was disappointed in the board members who did not show up for the meeting. Resident Bob Hale said the board had disregarded the wishes of the voters by raising taxes and earmarking funds for beach nourishment. “All we want from our government is honesty,” said Hale. Planning Board Chairman Mike Yawn asked if it was too late to change the town’s newly adopted budget. “It’s set in stone,” replied Smith. Resident Carol Evans said she was “disillusioned” by the board and felt she had been misrepresented. She also asked that the town hold a vote on whether the residents wanted beach nourishment and learn what the people want “once and for all.” “We are going to take another vote and it will be an up or down vote,” said Smith. Farley immediately questioned Smith on where he got that idea. “Where did this come from?” asked Farley. Smith said that the board had been talking about it for a while and that it needed to be done. The town polled the citizens last summer about the issue, and the majority responded that they were in favor of beach nourishment. However, a bond referendum for financing the project failed in November. The disparity has caused friction in the town. Resident Ed Doherty agreed that the issue needs to be put to a vote. “Put it on the ballot and let the citizens decide,” he said. Candidate for alderman Gary Rowland said the town needs a beach nourishment project. “You’re going to continue to lose it (the beach) unless you do something to stem the tide,” said Rowland. Peters said he had read reports about the fast rate of coastal erosion and that the town needs to act. “Is our community ready to give up?” asked Peters. While most in attendance seemed amiable to holding a vote on beach nourishment, some questioned who would be allowed to vote. “Don’t let all property owners vote,” said Swantek, “only voters registered in the town.” Hardison asked Smith to put the topic of the evening’s discussion on the agenda for the next town board meeting, which will take place Aug. 2 at 7 p.m.
DOT torpedoes ramp facility
Tideland News Editorial (7/18/07)
Fascinating, isn’t it? The day that the Tideland News reports on the N.C. Department of Transportation’s outright opposition to building a boat launch and parking facility on property it owns at the B. Cameron Langston Bridge, the Carteret County News-Times reports that the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission is asking the N.C. General Assembly to address the state’s dwindling public waterfront access. You would think that state agencies could talk to each other about these things. It could have made a difference in the Langston project. Perhaps if Lyndo Tippett, DOT secretary, and his staff at the district level realized that there is a need for more public boating access, they would have looked more kindly on the project. Then again, the public’s need may have had nothing to do with DOT’s stand. Rather, the DOT edict has the distinct appearance of being a political end-run. Its opposition comes awfully late in the game but will probably stop a plan that seemed to be too good to be true. This was enough state property to park 75 vehicles, adjacent to waters that are not considered pristine and with easy access to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Throw in a study that provided the traffic improvements that would be more than adequate to deal with access and egress and all the ingredients were there to make this work. At public hearings on the ramp and parking facility, the overwhelming sentiment was favorable. Sure, there were detractors, folks who claimed vehicular traffic at the ramp would constitute a hazard. They were well meaning, no doubt, it’s just that the facts – as presented in the study of the proposed facility by Stantec, a Charlotte engineering firm – do not back them up. As an official with the Wildlife Resources Commission said, “From a traffic generation perspective the ramp is not a major development.” There are 75 spaces. Boaters would tend to drive in the morning and drive out in the afternoon. Compare that with a 100-unit condominium project just around the corner where each unit would have two cars, on average, and there would be three trips in and out per day, on average. Traffic at the ramp is not an issue, relatively speaking. Yet DOT seized on the potential for traffic safety. These same officials will have a hard time saying “yes” to the next subdivision on NC 24 or NC 58 – with a clear conscience. And then there was the DOT contention that the property would be needed “at some point” for a second bridge to Emerald Isle. Does that point truly merit debate? Those third and fourth lanes may come, but they are likely 25-35 years – or more – away. And when they do come would DOT be liable to provide 75 parking spaces somewhere else? Not if the WRC allowed them a state-sanctioned exemption. No, DOT, like the well-meaning opponents to this project, chose to noodle with the facts as a way to torpedo a good project. And it is the public, of course, that loses.
Majority endorses raising funds for beach needs
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (7/18/07)
In commenting on Lindell Kay’s article, “County disputes N. Topsail tax story,” in the July 9 edition of The Jacksonville Daily News, I can say that everything that involves me is true as stated. The article, however, is a muddle and is misleading when it poses the question. “Who’s telling the truth?” The facts as they relate to me and North Topsail Beach are as follows. During 2006, I presented our proposed beach nourishment program to the county commissioners and requested financial assistance from them for this project. A full-blown Power Point presentation was made to the commissioners in March 2006, and follow-up comments were also made in April of that year at a special meeting of the county commissioners. During the April meeting, I requested changing to the ad valorem method of sales tax distribution. I argued for this change for reasons of fairness and the need to fund beach nourishment. Both presentations are available to anyone who wishes to read them. I also requested and received a position from the North Carolina Institute of Government, which I forwarded to everyone involved, casting doubt on the legality of the arrangement between the City of Jacksonville and Onslow County on how state sales tax receipts were then being distributed. When the county adopted the change to an ad valorem method of sales-tax distribution this April, it did not stipulate that North Topsail Beach had to spend its ad valorem sales tax receipts for beach nourishment. There is no provision in state law for adding conditions when deciding on which method to choose. I believe that our arguments, as well as those of the other Onslow County municipalities, were a strong influence in making this change considering the difficult political circumstances involved in having the commissioners make the decision they did. My comments internal to North Topsail Beach quoted in the newspaper refer to our intent to request additional funds from the county. Though ad valorem taxes help substantially toward beach nourishment, we need the county to earmark the tourism taxes collected in our town to be returned to us for beach nourishment also. This is done for beach towns in other counties. The county officials are familiar with this additional request. Consequently, my comments meant that if we were to spend sales tax dollars for tax relief, as a minority of the town board suggest, we would weaken the rationale for our additional request and destroy our credibility. A majority of the present North Topsail Beach board endorses raising funds for our beach needs from all available state and county sources and favors reserving these funds for that purpose. I believe that a majority of our citizens and property owners are in agreement with this approach. - Dan Tuman, North Topsail Beach
(Editor’s note: Dan Tuman is an alderman in North Topsail Beach)
New plan for beach nourishment?
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (7/18/07)
I would like to respond to two letters in your opinion section of the July 11t edition concerning beach nourishment for North Topsail Beach. The first letter asks, “Why are you all against beach nourishment?” I can only speak for myself, but I am against aldermen and supporters who live in the Coastal Barrier Resource Act zones taxing those of us in the non-CBRA zone to pay for their beach nourishment. We have aldermen who blatantly ignore the majority of the voters (79-percent) and continue to mislead the public (Reference The Jacksonville Daily News article “County disputes N. Topsail tax story,” dated July 9). So no, I'm not completely against beach nourishment, I'm against liars in office that want to tax, tax, tax for their personal gain. The second letter is entitled “The majority is for nourishing the beach.” I don't see any factual evidence to support that statement. In November 2006, 79-percent of the voters opposed the bond referendum proposed to pay for beach nourishment. In the build up to that vote, the town sent out surveys. The responses showed a majority “Think something ought to be done to address beach erosion.” That does not translate to “The majority is for beach nourishment.” Also in the second letter, the writer states, “Now we have a new plan that will allow beach nourishment to proceed without the major tax implications...” Really? What is this new plan? Is this new plan for aldermen to take a windfall redistribution of sales tax from the county and lie about county officials saying they must use it for beach nourishment? Is this new plan to create a beach nourishment fund and raise taxes to fill that fund without putting this to the voters? If there is a new plan, why have the voters not been informed about it? Sorry to sound emotional, I get that way when I'm taxed out of my home. - Greg Hoch, North Topsail Beach
7/17/07
Importing Sand, Glass May Help Restore Beaches (NPR Radio)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12026379
Re-engineering America's Beaches, 1 Tax Dollar at a Time
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4217981.html
Oregon Inlet beach closed to protect piping plover hatchlings
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128564&ran=200156
Nesting breeds anxiety
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/130438.html
Sunset Beach opens bidding for replacing bridge
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/130481.html
Sand-mining exposes beaches to wave fury (India)
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007071658190300.htm&date=2007/07/16/&prd=th&
A new bridge, at last
Wilmington Star Editorial (7.17.07)
New Year's Eve 2009 ought to be particularly festive for Oak Island residents. After languishing for decades on the local transportation wish list, a second bridge to the area's most populous beach town has approval - and funding. Construction should start next month and is supposed to be completed by Dec. 31, 2009. Cross your fingers; such projects have a tendency to run into "delays." But the bridge will be built. The Board of Transportation cleared the way - at long last - for construction when it awarded a $36.6 million contract to a Tarboro company on Thursday. There's been no arguing the need. Oak Island is home to more than 7,000 permanent residents and, during the busy summer months, tens of thousands of vacationers. Traffic backs up for miles. At best, it causes long waits that annoy drivers and waste fuel. At worst, it's a safety issue: When a hurricane or other disaster threatens, it can take far longer than it should to evacuate the island. The new bridge should bring traffic relief and peace of mind. That's reason enough to buy a few extra noisemakers.
7/16/07
Growth strains N.C.'s coastline (AP Story from Wilmington Star articles below)
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/129598.html
Plan to designate habitat for the piping plover ruffles feathers
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128460&ran=143458
N. Topsail residents seek answers
http://www.jdnews.com/news/beach_49839___article.html/town_nourishment.html
Sand and sewage: Board addresses laundry list of issues
http://www.obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/07/14/top_stories/tops1701.prt
Boardwalk Beach Access Issue To Be Resolved; No CAMA Violation By Hotel For Temporary Access Way
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1081&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Coast in Crisis: The coming rise in ocean levels will reshape our shores - and our lives
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/15/07)
If you only had one word to describe the North Carolina coast, you probably couldn't do much better than "change." Populations are increasing, property values are soaring and the sounds of construction are as common as a seagull's shrill squawking. Brunswick County is now the 14th fastest growing county in the country. Though it's cooling now, Carolina Beach issued more building permits in the five years since 2002 than during the previous two decades combined. The average selling price of homes in Wrightsville Beach has nearly tripled since 2001. But another change is shaping the North Carolina coastline. Unlike more obvious changes like real estate booms, which often follow relatively short up-and-down cycles, this one is evolutionary, with consequences that will make those others seem trifling by comparison. Seas, fueled by the Earth's warming temperature, are on the rise - although some debate remains within the scientific community as to how much of a part man is playing in speeding up the natural cycle. And coastal North Carolina, with its relatively flat topography, is considered one of the most vulnerable areas in the world. This isn't a problem for your children's children's children. It's already happening.
Been to the beach lately? There, you're likely to find one calling card of the change: a giant step in the sand cleaved by storm-driven waves. While beach erosion isn't new, it's occurring at an increasing rate because of the change in water levels. That requires more frequent and expensive nourishment projects. Salt water also has begun pushing farther inland, washing away estuarine marshes and carving shorelines deeper into the interior. Our vulnerability lies not only in our topography and geology. The rising waters also will dramatically affect the coast's economy, now dominated by tourism and construction. After all, less beach means fewer places for tourists to put down towels or retirees to build dream houses with million-dollar views. Charles Peterson, a biologist with the University of North Carolina's Institute of Marine Sciences, said rising water levels mean new and potentially painful challenges for residents and policy-makers. "It means we've got some very difficult choices to make in the not-to-distant future because we can't defend everything," he said.
An island of change
Shaped by the winds and waves, Masonboro Island is on the move. "It's pretty much the bellwether for what's going to happen here to everything if we stop renourishing," said Anthony Snider, manager of the N.C. Division of Coastal Management's southern reserve sites. The mid-section of the 8 1/2-mile-long nature preserve is migrating toward the mainland at a brisk 12 feet a year. Neighboring areas of Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, which are managed with periodic beach nourishments, are eroding at a quarter of that rate. Snider said sea-level rise amplifies Masonboro's natural erosion, although to what degree has yet to be determined. The higher water levels also make high-tide events and wind-driven storm surges more powerful. Luckily for us, on Masonboro, the waves wash away only sand and dunes. "These barrier islands all want to go inland, which is OK here," Snider said. "The problem is when we put homes and economic infrastructure down that doesn't move as easily as the islands do."
'This is certain'
The ocean off North Carolina is rising at about 3 millimeters a year, or about a tenth of an inch - although that figure is expected to accelerate this century. From most people, that fact might elicit a yawn or a shrug. That's left scientists and others grappling with a challenge: How do you make people and policy-makers see global warming and all of its environmental consequences, including sea-level rise, as a threat? "There's no silver bullet for solving this problem," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. Even if we could magically shut off all new greenhouse gas emission today, Overpeck points out, we're still committed to a certain amount of climate change. "But we need to get our country in a psychological mindset that we need to start working together to solve this problem." So what should we do? None of the answers to that question - from restricting development or retreating in some areas to defending others from encroaching seas - are easy, cheap or popular. "Right now I don't see the political will there yet from folks who represent that area to make those tough decisions," said Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, who serves on the state's Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change and is a former member of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. That lack of will springs, at least in part, from the nature of the political cycle, with elected officials focusing on short-term issues. In addition, economic pressures often dominate the debate, especially with tourism and waterfront construction holding up many coastal economies. Yet scientists say we have no choice but to change our development patterns if we don't want to saddle our children and grandchildren with an untenable situation. "This isn't a hypothetical future," said Doug Rader, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense, an environmental watchdog group. "This is certain." Stan Riggs, a geologist and distinguished research professor at East Carolina University, who has been tracking sea-level rise on the Outer Banks for decades, said he remains optimistic that people and policy-makers will realize that the growth of the past few decades cannot continue as it has. It can't, he said, because we don't have a choice. "I see it as a fundamental question of education," Riggs said. "We're not advocating abandoning the coast. But if you're going to live here and be part of the system, then you better understand the dynamics of the system."
Change already afoot in Cape Fear region
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/15/07)
Castle Hayne | By 2100, large chunks of coastal North Carolina could be underwater or require protection behind sea walls or bulkheads to fend off rising ocean levels. But we don't have to wait decades to witness changes caused by rising seas. From the beaches on the oceanfront to swamps dozens of miles inland, the creeping rise in water levels is already changing the environment. Stan Riggs is an East Carolina University geologist long considered the guru of sea-level rise in North Carolina. He said his latest research, to be released later this summer, shows waters rising potentially twice as fast as the average 2-foot range projected by 2100 in a recent United Nations report on climate change. Throw in a complete collapse of the Greenland and Antarctica ice shelves if global temperatures continue to rise, and that figure could increase six-fold.
Washing away
Pausing after wading through thigh-deep muck a dozen miles north of Wilmington, Courtney Hackney pointed to a lone tree struggling to hold on amid the wide expanse of thickets and encroaching spartina grass. With its roots exposed, the scraggly black gum tree clung to one of the only high spots left in the marsh. "What we've been able to track here is the transition from a brackish marsh ultimately to a salt marsh," Hackney said over the sound of traffic from the nearby Interstate 140 bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River. Hackney is a biologist with the University of North Carolina Wilmington. For 10 years he and his students have studied the changes taking place in the marshes and wetlands in the Lower Cape Fear watershed as part of the Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington Harbor deepening project. In that time they've watched the marsh change. First the big trees aside from cypress go, then the small trees begin to die off. Finally, shrubs that might have proliferated with the dieoff of the trees begin to succumb to the saltwater, eventually giving way to salt-tolerant grasses. The intrusion of saltwater causes the transformation. Tides that regularly flood the marshes start a chemical reaction that decomposes the organically rich soil, leaving tree roots exposed. The saltwater also kills plants and trees, which help hold the soil in place. The marsh, in effect, collapses before getting washed away. This allows more wave action in the widening river, increasing shoreline erosion. Pointing to the eroding bank, Hackney said 10 feet of Rat Island's marshy shoreline has disappeared since the monitoring program began. The deeper shipping channel probably contributes to the erosion by allowing more salt-infused water to push farther inland, he said. But that's not the only factor. "My feeling is we're seeing sea-level rise," Hackney said, "and it's accelerating."
Beaches in jeopardy
Dozens of miles down the Northeast Cape Fear River on the coast, something else is washing away. A late-season nor'easter that stormed down the coast in early May carved up dunes on Topsail Island and took a third of the sand pumped onto Pleasure Island during this winter's nourishment project. The storm prompted several communities to step up their push for beach nourishment projects. As recently as the early 1990s, crews replenished the sand on only about 14 miles of North Carolina beach, almost all of that in New Hanover County. Today officials along nearly all of the roughly 120 miles of the state's developed beach seek some kind of nourishment project. "That's a direct result of the effects of sea-level rise," said Charles Peterson, a biologist with the University of North Carolina's Institute of Marine Sciences. A recent study by researchers from Appalachian State University, UNCW and East Carolina University paints a worrisome picture for Southeastern North Carolina's beaches. The report, "Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources," states that 14 of the region's 17 public beaches will have washed away by 2080, with nearly $3.9 billion in economic losses, without some sort of preventive measures. Faced with increased erosion, Greg Rudolph, head of the Carteret County Shore Protection Office, said a race is on among beach towns to secure sand sources. But a rising ocean means higher tides and stronger storm surges, which in turn mean nourishment projects might have to not only occur more frequently but also pump more sand to compensate for the higher erosion rate. And higher water levels mean storms can push water that much farther inland. "It's exacerbated our paucity of sand, and we already were dealing with a very finite resource," Rudolph said.
Can we adapt?
Back on the mucky shore of the Northeast Cape Fear River, Hackney said eventually all 800 feet of marsh running back to the riverbank will disappear, creating a wide, shallow estuary later this century. "We're seeing the same changes here that probably happened in the Chesapeake Bay 10,000 or 15,000 years ago," he said as fiddler crabs scurried around the marsh where crayfish, which can't tolerate saltwater, once resided. Like the Cape Fear basin, the Chesapeake once consisted of narrow channels bordered by swamps and peaty areas. Hackney said that while the changes tied to sea-level rise might cause man a slew of problems, they aren't necessarily bad for the environment. The marshes that wash away, for example, will become a shallow estuary that will form useful habitat for spawning and juvenile fish. Hackney said the transformation would have occurred anyway, although it is happening faster because of global warming. "This is a natural process," Hackney said, "and the environment will adapt. Now whether we can adapt is a different story."
Let them keep their promise
Wilmington Star Editorial (7/16/07)
New Hanover County taxpayers were promised that they would never pay another cent to maintain Mason Inlet after the county moved it. More than 1,000 property owners on Figure Eight and northern Wrightsville Beach agreed to foot the bills for dredging and looking out for birds. They swore up and down they'd pay those bills for 30 years. Five years later, some of them are starting to complain. They're tired of shelling out. They think other taxpayers should help them pay for their little pieces of paradise. They think environmentalists should stop being so fussy about those birds. No surprise. Star-News editorials warned that it might happen. So did letters to the editor. It didn't take powers of prophecy. It's human nature. Owners were understandably desperate to save their property from the oncoming waters. They were ready to say anything to get the county to ease that threat. No doubt most of them were sincere when they vowed to pay the maintenance bills for 30 years. But now that their property is safe, things look different. As one letter writer foretold in 2001, "My guess is once the inlet is relocated, and the bills sent out, there will be many a cry of foul play and a flurry of legal shenanigans." Yet the New Hanover County Commissioners, who were elected to represent everybody in the county, have decided to set aside time on Aug. 9 to listen to the property owners' complaints and pleas. That, too, was predictable. Politicians respond to pressure. In 2001, Commissioners Julia Boseman, Bill Caster, Bobby Greer and Nancy Pritchett gave in to such pressure. Only Ted Davis voted against the county-managed project. If other taxpayers don't let the commissioners know that they expect the property owners to keep their word, the commissioners might cave in again.
7/13/07
Dredging under way at Carolina Beach Inlet
http://www.luminanews.com/print_article.asp?aid=1143&iid=68&sud=30
Navy Wins Permission To Keep Using Newer Sonar Technology, over Environmentalist Concerns
http://www.enn.com/printerfriendly.html?id=13127&cat=today
Coastal dredging funding in works
Wilmington Star by Arelis Hernandez (7/13/07)
Federal funding for coastal dredging projects, including the Carolina Beach Inlet, was approved Thursday night by House and Senate committees. The U.S. House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee moved a bill that would provide $1.23 million for the Carolina Beach Inlet dredging and additional money for other maintenance projects in regional waterways. A Senate version of the bill set aside $600,000 for the inlet, according to U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. Committees met late into the night to reconcile funding amounts between the two bills, but McIntyre said he is optimistic about the inlet project. "Here in Washington you take each victory as it comes," McIntyre said. "We are in a strong position to negotiate for substantial funding." Though there were significant differences in appropriations between the two houses, McIntyre said simply getting the bills through committee has pushed Coastal Carolina's issues to the forefront. "We had to demonstrate how important our inlets, waterways and coastal projects are for our environment and economy," he said. "I had to hammer that home to my colleagues." Shoaling in the region's waterways has made areas like the Carolina Beach Inlet dangerous for boaters, and questions surrounding funding for these projects had been left unanswered. In addition to money for Carolina Beach Inlet dredging, the House bill includes funding for these projects: New Topsail Inlet, $670,000; Wilmington Harbor deepening, $4 million; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, $4.9 million; Wilmington Harbor maintenance, $11.2 million; and Cape Fear Locks and Dams, $588,000. The Senate bill includes money for the inlet dredging, as well as these projects: North Carolina International Port, $100,000; Surf City and North Topsail Beach, $200,000; Brunswick County beaches, $400,000; Wilmington Harbor deepening, $3 million; Wrightsville Beach, $300,000; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, $7 million; Cape Fear Locks and Dams, $588,000; Lockwoods Folly River, $1 million; New Topsail Inlet, $900,000; and Wilmington Harbor maintenance, $11.2 million.
Pathetic response
Carteret County News Times Editorial (7/13/07)
The General Assembly is dragging its feet on recommendations to protect working waterfronts from residential or commercial development and increase public access to state waters. The N.C. Waterfront Access Study Committee, commissioned by the General Assembly to recommend ways to preserve the coast and its charm before its allure is submerged by over development, gave its recommendations to the General Assembly in April, believing legislators would act with a sense of urgency. Among its recommendations were tax incentives for fishing pier operators so they might continue offering public access to coastal fishing waters and allowing the N.C. Aquariums to build three public fishing piers. Other than more comment, such as newsstories noting North Carolina had 36 fishing piers in 1980 and now has 20, these proposals, among others, have not garnered any legislative action except the defeat of a measure concerning present-use tax value of working waterfronts. The committee recommendation was to tax working waterfronts at current use value, significantly dropping the amount the owner pays in property taxes and reducing the pressure to sell for non-waterfront dependent uses. If the owner were to sell the property for residential use, he would pay the difference in taxes. Dave Inscoe, executive director of the Carteret County Economic Development Council and a county representative on the Waterfront Access Committee, is disappointed by the situation. “The group that met, the 21 people that dedicated a good portion of their time last year to this project, did so with the full expectation there was an urgency to getting it to the legislators so they could act on it,” said Mr. Inscoe. “This is my first experience on a legislative committee and I do not know if this is normal or if this is abnormal. If it’s abnormal, I’m concerned. If it’s normal, I’m even more concerned,” he added. The latest advocate of the study committee’s recommendations is the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission, which wants the General Assembly to address the public’s diminishing access to coastal waters before it becomes even harder to resolve. In a letter to Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin, and Rep. William Wainwright, D-Craven, co-chairmen of the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture, the MFC said it believes immediate legislative action is needed to begin the process of addressing the loss of working waterfront and public access along the state’s shoreline because the longer the state waits to take action the more costly it will be to remedy the problem of accelerating non-water-dependent development and increasing real property taxes. With this year’s session of the General Assembly nearing a close, Sen. Albertson said the committee hopes to take at least some action next week. “We hope to have a tax bill and an increase in boat restoration fees,” he said. That is a pathetic response to the recommendations of the waterfront study committee, and confirmation that something has gone haywire with the process. We urge the General Assembly to act on the study committee’s recommendations, in special session if necessary. Otherwise the committee’s recommendations were facetious, or erroneous, with the belief they were necessary.
7/11/07
County disputes N. Topsail tax story
http://www.jdnews.com/news/beach_49626___article.html/county_topsail.html
Town wants to shore up groin on south end of island
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6578016p-5856337c.html
State working to increase, improve water access
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/articles/2007/07/11/free/03-free.prt
Moving back makes the most sea sense
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/632284.html
Beach loss tied to bar's demise during Ophelia
Tideland News by Annita Best (7/11/07)
When Hurricane Ophelia blew through the area two years ago, she managed to cause some damage that has resulted is some real problems for Emerald Isle beachfront property owners at the Point. A few months prior to Ophelia’s arrival, in April 2005, the town completed a multi-million dollar project that relocated the Bogue Inlet channel westward and nourished a section of the island’s west end. Within a few months of the project’s completion, several homes at the Point that had been threatened by the encroaching inlet were seeing some sand accretion once again. However, as Ophelia blew across the inlet and headed east, she took with her the Coast Guard channel sandbar. And that loss changed the entire scheme of things with regards to sand accretion. Now, several other homes are being threatened by the rising tides and there isn’t anything that can be done until after this hurricane season, according to Frank Rush, Emerald Isle town manager. “We have a permit in hand to be able to place sand in there, but because of the sea turtle nesting moratorium, we can’t do it until Nov. 15,” he told concerned property owners on Saturday. Emerald Isle officials hosted the owners in order to discuss the current state of the channel relocation project, answer questions and offer recommendations. Tom Jarrett of Coastal Planning and Engineering, the firm that oversaw the 2005 relocation and nourishment project, said the project is, for the most part, going the way it was expected. “The Coast Guard channel closing down again would really make a big difference,” he said. “It took 10 years for it to close back down the last time it was opened, we hope it won’t take that long this time.” The channel relocation basically shifted the main channel to the west and used the sand to nourish the beach where the town had placed numerous sandbags to bolster the dune line. It was predicted that the shift would cause some erosion along the oceanfront from the point to the end of Land’s End subdivision, a distance of approximately a mile and a half. The engineers did not predict the erosion to be as severe as it has been for the 10 homes that are now about 100-200 feet away from the ocean, according to Rush. Ed and Diane Murphrey, who own a home at 11203 Inlet Drive , told town officials they have seen a loss of approximately 150 feet of beachfront in the past 10 months. Ed Murphrey presented to town officials a log of the beachfront lost from September 2006 through Thursday. “One night, during a full moon, we stood there and watched 14 feet just disappear,” he said. “I’d hate to see what would happen if a hurricane shows up within 500 miles of here and beats on our shoreline for two days. “We’re looking down the barrel of a gun.” Murphy said that the pool in their front yard is only about 40 feet from the ocean. Under the current setback requirements, damage to the pool could be devastating. “Financially, if I lose my pool I can afford to replace it, but with the setback requirements, I’d have to wait 20 years for the sand to come back. I can’t afford that,” he explained. Murphrey recommended that the town put in place a master permit that would allow owners in an affected area to place sand bags when erosion is within 100 feet of their home. Their home is currently within 105 feet of the high tide. “Currently, you can put sandbags out when you get within 20 feet, but from a logical standpoint, we should be able to do it sooner,” he said. Right now, however, the only recourse is to pray that predictions for a busy hurricane season don’t come true. Rush said the Wildlife Resources Commission is really the only ones keeping the sand from being trucked in. “We have already spoken to a contractor who can deposit the sand as soon as we give him the go ahead.” The sand source Rush mentions is a sand pit in Hubert. “Essentially we would be trucking the sand onto the island and depositing it in a pile by the vehicle ramp at the point. We’d have it moved from there onto a truck on the beach and deposit it where needed.” Rush said the town estimates they’ll get 3,000 cubic yards of sand and place it between the Channel Drive walkway and about 5-600 feet to the west. “If we’re not able to do it before Nov. 15, we certainly intend to do it after then to help us deal with winter storms. It will depend on the situation at that time. Another plan in the works is to have dredged sand deposited in on the beach, however, that option won’t be available for at least a year and possibly two to three years, according to Rush. “There are two things going on. There is the normal dredging of the intercoastal waterway. That sand has historically gone on the beach. That will usually come every two to three years, but that is realistically a couple of years out. “Also, the Coast Guard has a proposal to have Corps of Engineers dredge a new channel and that is in the public comment phase. Our intention is to use that sand also but it will be at least a year and possibly two to three years away. “Who knows by then, there may be no problems at all, but we’d still use the sand where it will do the most good,” he added. For now, though, the sea turtles and the WRC are calling all the shots. Rush said the town has asked the WRC to reconsider the sea turtle moratorium in this case because the present configuration of the beach and the high water line make it unlikely a sea turtle will choose to nest there. Additionally, the town’s vehicle access ramp is located adjacent to the area and very little beach will be impacted, so the risk to seat turtle nesting activity is limited. “The WRC is just doing their job, but if just happens that it’s not helping us any in this case,” Rush added.
Marine Fisheries concerned over dwindling access
Carteret County News Times by Mike Shutak (7/11/07)
RALEIGH — The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) wants the General Assembly to address the public’s diminishing access to coastal waters before the situation gets any harder to resolve. The MFC has written a letter encouraging action on 27 suggested measures to support working waterfronts and public water access. The letter says that while the MFC appreciates the number and variety of issues the General Assembly faces during this legislative session, it believes immediate legislative action is needed to begin the process of addressing the loss of working waterfront and public access along the state’s shoreline. According to the MFC’s letter, the longer the state waits to take action, the more costly it will be to remedy the problems of accelerating non-waterfront-dependent development and increasing real property taxes. The letter is directed to Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin, and Rep. William Wainwright D-Craven, the co-chairmen of the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture. Sen. Albertson said in a phone interview Tuesday the General Assembly hasn’t yet taken action on the recommendations but it hopes to by next week. “We hope to have a tax bill and an increase in boat restoration fees,” he said. The N.C. Waterfront Access Study Committee (WASC) suggested the measures in a report to the General Assembly in April. MFC Chairman Mac Currin said the commission’s letter doesn’t cite any specific measures to be implemented. “There were a large number of measures,” he said. “Our letter is intended to urge the legislature to take action. It’s unrealistic to expect all of the suggestions to be acted on this session – we want to urge them to begin the process.” Former WASC chairman Dr. Michael Voiland, executive director of N.C. Sea Grant, feels the letter is appropriate. Dr. Voiland has been trying to keep track of the report and had not heard of any action on it since early April, when a bill concerning present-use tax value came up in the General Assembly but was defeated. The present-use tax bill would have taxed working waterfronts as a business, rather than the best and highest use. “We haven’t heard anything,” Dr. Voiland said. “The session’s almost over. The committee would be flummoxed if nothing happened.” Dave Inscoe, the executive director of the County Economic Development Council and a county representative on the WASC, said he was disappointed in the current situation. “The group that met, the 21 people that dedicated a good portion of their time last year to this project, did so with the full expectation that there was an urgency to getting it to the legislators so they could act on it,” he said. Mr. Inscoe said he previously spoke with Reps. Wainwright and Albertson and was told no action would be taken this year on the recommendations. “From a professional perspective, I’m very disappointed because water access will not get any easier two years from now than it is today,” he said. “From a personal perspective, I’m a boater. I’m always concerned about having access and having places to keep boats and put boats in the water. It’s very difficult here.” He said it was impractical to get a boat in or out of the water on a weekend and even harder to find appropriate parking. “This is my first experience on a legislative committee and I do not know if this is normal or if this is abnormal,” he said. If it’s abnormal, I’m concerned. If it’s normal, I’m even more concerned.” Mr. Currin said he couldn’t even begin to speculate why the General Assembly hasn’t acted more promptly. Dr. Voiland said it’s not too late to improve the water access issue. Many of the suggestions didn’t require legislation, but rather needed implementation by state agencies, which Mr. Voiland said they’ve been doing. “If there’s any silver lining, it’s the agencies seem to be making a truly heartfelt effort,” he said.
Dr. Voiland said three particular suggestions are more upfront:
• Present-use taxation, taxing a property on its current use rather than the one that would generate the most tax money, can be extended to working waterfronts.
• A working waterfront trust fund can be made to provide state funds for things like low-interest loans for active working waterfronts or communities that have a historically significant working waterfront.
• More funding can be given to existing public water access programs.
“Our point is they (water access funds) are there, but they’re woefully under-funded,” Dr. Voiland said.
(Reporter Ben Hogwood contributed to this story.)
Why are some against beach nourishment?
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (7/11/07)
I have a question for the residents of North Topsail Beach . Why are you all against the Beach Nourishment? Do you use the beach, or is it a private beach? Are you waiting for the people to lose their homes so your homes can become oceanfront? Do you think that the local businesses will lose money if something is not done? Do you think that if something is not done it won't affect you? Do you live by the rule if it's not my home not my problem? Maybe the city should start charging for cars parked at the beach or charge a fee for each person who uses the beach. - Carme Bommarito, North Topsail Beach, Royal Oak, Michigan
The majority is for nourishing the beach
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (7/11/07)
Over the last few weeks, I have read several letters in your paper regarding North Topsail Beach and the beach re-nourishment issue. I must say that the opinions held by some are confusing to me. In the beginning, it appeared as if the most vocal of those opposed to beach nourishment held such opinions based on the financing options proposed in the referendum defeated last November. In fact, there were many individuals that were pro beach nourishment who voted against the referendum due to the tax increase required to pay for this project. Now we have a new plan that will allow beach nourishment to proceed without the major tax implications on beach residents and the same vocal individuals seem to be against saving the beautiful beaches at North Topsail Beach once again. I am wondering if this has become more of a personal issue with some rather that an issue of what is best for the residents and property owners of North Topsail Beach. In fact, over the last month I have e-mailed (actually three or four e-mails) one of the aldermen of North Topsail Beach who has continually voted against the beach re-nourishment issues. I wanted to get his opinion on the new funding plan and what he would need to see done to be in favor of re-nourishment. To this date I have not had the courtesy of a reply. I think we should respect the hard work done by the beach nourishment and funding committees trying hard to save the beach. Some of their efforts are paying off in finding ways to make re-nourishment a feasible option. Let’s not get tied up in personal feelings and dismiss this without more thought. Remember, the surveys do indicate that the majority of property owners want re-nourishment. - Maryann and Jerry Heid, North Topsail Beach
7/8/07
A little too oceanfront
http://www.jdnews.com/news/town_49611___article.html/beach_sand.html
Virginia Beach vacationers put off by sand replenishment
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=128039&ran=168592
Encroaching Boardwalk Beach Access Closed By Property Owners
http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1007&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1
Coast Guard requests emergency dredging
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/07/07/top_stories/tops1772.prt
Commission urges action on waterfront access issues
http://obsentinel.womacknewspapers.com/articles/2007/07/07/politics/pols1771.prt
In regards to: Closing of Beach Access on South End of Boardwalk http://www.islandgazette.net/content/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1000&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=78
Senate offers inlet funds
Tideland News by Martha S. Ahlquist (7/4/07)
After being left off the federal budget for the past two years, funds to dredge Bogue Inlet might be available in fiscal year 2008. Harry Simmons, executive director of the N.C. Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association, notified association members on Friday that the U.S. Senate version of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill approved more than $10,000,000 in funds for 2008. “All the federally-authorized inlets in North Carolina received some money, which has not happened in at least the two years before this one,” he said in an e-mail sent to members. Seven million federal dollars is being proposed to dredge the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Additional federal funds propose for Bogue Inlet to receive $900,000, Lockwoods Folly Inlet to receive $1,000,000, New Topsail Inlet to receive $900,000, New River Inlet to receive $500,000 and Carolina Beach Inlet to receive $600,000. Frank Rush, town manager of Emerald Isle, said he sees the inclusion of Bogue Inlet in the Senate’s proposed budget as a positive. “That’s good news, but there’s a long process to go through,” he said. Simmons agreed. “We are most happy to see this,” he said. “We are quite pleased.” A conference committee will look at budgets proposed by the U.S. House and Senate and create one budget. The House hasn’t released its budget figures yet. In previous years, Bogue Inlet didn’t appear on either of the House or Senate budget proposals. “This is pretty good news that we’re in one budget,” Rush explained. “There is something to work with. “We’ll take any money we can get for Bogue Inlet.” Capt. Stan Jarusinski, a professional king mackerel fisherman from Stella also believes the funding will make it into the final federal budget. “I feel confident we’re going to get something,” he said. Rush said the federal budget year begins October 1. “Hopefully by then there will be a final budget,” he said. “Sometimes it’s not ready.” Since Bogue Inlet and its connecting channels did not have line items in the federal budget for two years, officials came up with creative resolutions to solve the problem. The first year, most local municipalities, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the state funded the $3.8 million dredging projects. The Corps put up $2,309,000, the state paid $750,000 and most local governments paid the remainder. The following year, Carolina Beach Inlet, New River Inlet, Lockwoods Folly and New River Inlet were funded for dredging at $3 million but Bogue Inlet was left out again. Simmons added that letters were written to all U.S. congressmen and senators asking them to include funding for dredging in the 2008 budget. “We also hired a lobbyist to make sure we were covered,” he added. Simmons said the importance of Bogue Inlet for the economy and its designation as a federally-authorized inlet should put it on a regular schedule for dredging. “It’s time to get back on a regular schedule,” he said. One of the reasons his organization became involved in the Bogue Inlet project was because its absence from the federal budget for two years. “The efforts from state and local governments helped,” he said. “The Emerald Isle Point project helped. “But we wanted to make sure Bogue Inlet wasn’t left out again. Hopefully the budget will be passed in time for the fiscal year.”
Officials to revisit relocated inlet
Wilmington Star (7/8/07) by Gareth McGrath
The tides of change could soon be sweeping Mason Inlet. Five years ago, New Hanover County relocated the wandering inlet nearly 3,000-feet north, away from Shell Island resort and other threatened properties at the north end of Wrightsville Beach. Next month, county officials intend to hold a work session to discuss the status of the inlet project and what to do about roughly $2 million in outstanding inlet-related expenses, and potentially revisit some of the requirements included in the project's permit. Those discussions could include who should pay for ongoing inlet maintenance and whether regulatory conditions tied to the project permit, such as biological monitoring, should be modified. The meeting comes as the inlet that separates Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island is experiencing significant shoaling, although Assistant County Manager Dave Weaver said no major dredging projects are currently planned. Bill Caster, chairman of the New Hanover County Commissioners, said it would be hard to argue that the inlet relocation hasn't been a success. He said the project protected private property and valuable tax base, prevented a potential public relations disaster for the county's tourism industry, created a popular bird sanctuary and did so without costing county taxpayers money. While certainly willing to listen to concerns, Caster said he wasn't willing to promise anything. "Personally, I'm not too anxious to make any changes right now," he said. When the inlet was relocated, 1,044 property owners on Figure Eight Island and the north end of Wrightsville Beach agreed to pay for all costs over the 30-year lifespan of the project. To date, about $8 million has been spent on the inlet project, $6 million of which has been assessed to the property owners. But the homeowners, who formed an umbrella group called the Mason Inlet Preservation Group, have grown frustrated in recent years over paying for ongoing environmental monitoring and management programs. They also have stated that the inlet relocation has been a boon for the whole county, not just for them, and thus maybe others should share in the financial costs of the project. Friday Frank Pinkston, head of the property owners group, declined to comment beyond that he was looking forward to participating in next month's work session. But any move to widen the financial net - or to just use room-tax funds to pay for the project - could run into opposition, including from state Rep. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover. "I don't think that would be viewed in a positive light by the rest of the county," he said. "That's not what was agreed to." Any attempt to waive or scale back biological conditions tied to the project also will be intensely scrutinized by environmentalists. Tracy Skrabal, senior scientist with the N.C. Coastal Federation, said it's hard to talk about adding more flexibility to the permit conditions when there's never really been a review of how well the county has done in meeting them in the first place. "In terms of permit compliance, we're not at all satisfied and that we haven't heard 'boo' about how well they've complied with their permit conditions," she said. "We simply want an accounting." Conditions tacked onto the Army Corps of Engineers project permit included a management plan for the north end of Carolina Beach and the purchase of the remaining private lots on Masonboro Island, although that requirement was later dropped. One of the conditions that has been met is the creation, management and monitoring of a bird sanctuary at the undeveloped north end of Wrightsville Beach, which largely sits on top of the old Mason Inlet. Everyone agrees the sanctuary has been a success, with nesting and migrating shorebirds flocking to the area and numbers increasing every years. The site also is part of the to the N.C. Birding Trail for coastal North Carolina. But Walker Golder, deputy director for Audubon North Carolina, said the birds and visitors drawn to the reserve could evaporate if money for continued management washes away. "In order to ensure it's a suitable habitat for birds, you have to implement the management plan to make sure people and dogs stay out," he said. "If you remove that, the birds are going to leave. The big picture is that everything we've done for the past five years then goes away." The work session, which is open to the public, is scheduled for Aug. 9.
7/5/07
Emerald Isle erosion under watch
http://www.jdnews.com/news/area_49531___article.html/town_rush.html
Park Service awaits word from nest of rare leatherback turtle
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/564/story/117533.html
Dying sea birds showing up on Hilton Head Island shore
http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6571359p-5849723c.html
Stinky seaweed besieges beaches (SC)
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/05/stinky_seaweed_besieges_beaches/?print
NPS and NCBBA Tackle Beach Litter
http://www.nps.gov/caha/parknews/nps-and-ncbba-tackle-beach-litter.htm
It's everyone's marina
Wilmington Star Editorial (7/3/07)
A war is brewing over use of the Southport Marina, and things could get ugly unless the state steps in and helps negotiate a compromise. Commercial boat operators who left the marina rather than pay a 50 percent increase in slip rental fees have been using the public ramps to pick up and drop off customers. Not surprisingly, Southport Marina Inc., the private company that operates the publicly owned marina, wants them to stop. Also not surprisingly, some commercial and private boat owners are unhappy with the higher rates and fear that SMI may soon make it too expensive for people of average means to enjoy docking privileges at the marina. They have a point. Last year, the Council of State rejected the city of Southport's request to buy back the marina, which would have given the public a greater say in how it is operated - and in its price structure. The council did include a provision in the lease that the marina will be operated "for the use and benefit of the general public including … commercial boat outfitters …" SMI, which is making significant improvements to the marina, has the right to a reasonable profit and the legal right to control the use of the docks. But this marina is not private property. The taxpayers of North Carolina own it, and their interest should be protected. The state - in this case, the N.C. State Ports Authority, which holds the title - says it's "looking into" whether SMI must allow commercial boat owners to use the public ramps. That's a start. Better yet, get the parties together and attempt to work out a solution that both sides can live with. Not everyone will be satisfied, but if animosity continues to build, everybody will suffer.
Inlet work starts today
Dredging set for Carolina Beach waterway
Wilmington Star by Gareth McGrath (7/4/07)
The Fourth of July celebration won't mean a day off for the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge Merritt. The crew of the side-cast dredge plans to start working in Carolina Beach Inlet today. Carolina Beach Mayor Bill Clark said the inlet's shifting sands had deepened the channel's shallowest areas from around 4 feet this spring to roughly 6 feet last month. But he said the maintenance work is still needed because the inlet, which the corps likes to maintain at 8 feet or deeper, is inherently unpredictable. "Mother Nature is doing a little bit, but it's not completely safe," Clark said. "So it's good news that they are starting and we're going to get our depths to where we need them." Carolina Beach officials had argued that an unnavigable inlet would be a safety hazard and would cost the town and the county millions of dollars in lost revenue. But funding for the dredging remains controversial. The work will be the first time in New Hanover County history that local and state dollars are completely paying for a dredging operation. The federal government usually pays for the maintenance of North Carolina's inlets and the Intracoastal Waterway, while Washington picks up 65 percent of the cost of beach nourishment projects. The White House has been trying for years to get out of the business of paying for coastal projects and Congress has found it increasingly difficult to get all of the money put back in the budget with a ballooning federal deficit and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Carolina Beach Inlet shoaling up and no federal dollars remaining, the county commissioners in May agreed to provide $60,000 for two more dredging cycles this year. The corps usually dredges the inlet four times a year. The state also agreed to contribute $300,000, with Carolina Beach providing $40,000, Kure Beach $7,500, and Wrightsville Beach $2,500. But the commissioners only agreed to contribute money reluctantly, worried that doing so would prompt the federal government to drop all future funding appropriations for the maintenance work. "We're in uncharted waters right now," said Rick Catlin, chairman of the county Ports, Waterway and Beach Commission, about future federal support for coastal projects. "There's a lot of uncertainty out there." He said local officials were diligently working with federal and state officials to develop a more dependable, long-range funding mechanism that could include tapping a portion of the county's room-tax proceeds. But he said the U.S. Senate might have give the region a nice Independence Day surprise. The Senate's proposed budget, which still has to be reconciled with the House's proposed budget, includes $7 million for maintaining the Intracoastal Waterway and $600,000 for Carolina Beach Inlet. "That's the first time in several years that we've come out of one side of Congress or another with anything meaningful," Catlin said. "So maybe we'll dodge another bullet next year."
Change the rules to protect beaches
Wilmington Star Letter to the Editor (7/4/07)
EDITOR: Your editorial on the uncertain future of our beaches points out the combination of global warming and a sinking coast is causing coastal losses twice the global average. The editorial missed a third disadvantage Carolinians face fighting back the sea. We have possibly the toughest coastal regulations in the country, and because of them, arguably the finest beaches in the Lower 48. However, they leave few options to deal with the rising sea and shifting sands. Rules created to preserve the natural beauty of our coast may need to be revised to address the challenges of today. Making solutions like the one that reclaimed nearly half a mile of beach at the northern end of Shell Island less complicated and costly should be considered. Additionally, having reached a critical mass in terms infrastructure and investment along the coast argues for an approach to stabilization used by other states coastal communities. Available solutions may do nothing to add to the beaches natural beauty but at some point we have to accept and deal with the realities of today's coast. - Charles Carver, Wilmington
7/2/07
Folly ready for the 4th
http://web.charleston.net/news/2007/jun/30/folly_ready_th/
Rare leatherback sea turtle makes nest on Ocracoke beach
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=127691&ran=32030
Shipwreck again unearthed on Hatteras Island
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=127545&ran=215306
Whalehead official wants new channel near Corolla
http://www.dailyadvance.com/local/content/news/stories/2007/06/29/0627DMdredging.html
Town officials eye land for boat ramp
Wilmington Star by K.J. Williams (7/1/07)
Lifelong fisherman Charles Canady, 64, still makes his living running his nets for fish and raking for oysters and clams even though it's become a challenge to find a spot suitable for launching his boat into the Intracoastal Waterway in Brunswick County. If the man who recently bought his box of crabs comes to an agreement with the town of Sunset Beach, however, the Calabash resident could have permanent access to the waterway via a creek on the mainland side of Sunset Beach. "It would be nice to have a nice landing here where you could put in anytime you wanted to," Canady said as he gazed at the creek, located on wooded land adjacent to Bill's Seafood, where he had just sold his crabs. Sunset Beach resident Joe Peed, 71, owner of the fish market and its attached restaurant, Crabby Oddwaters, said town officials are interested in about 1.3 acres he owns near the Sunset Beach bridge for a public boat launch and wildlife ramp. According to Brunswick County tax records, the entire 3-acre property at 310 Sunset Blvd. North, where Bill's Seafood is located, has an assessed value of more than $1 million. "This is the only place that's large enough in Sunset Beach that they can use," he said. The area now used as an unofficial public boat launching site on private property owned by Edward M. Gore Sr. of Sunset Beach lies in the path of the planned 65-foot-high bridge that, when completed for an estimated price of $24.4 million, will replace the island's single-lane pontoon bridge. Joe Blair, a construction engineer with the N.C. Department of Transportation, said the state has the right of way to the land on Sunset Beach that will be needed for the new bridge. Construction is scheduled to begin in September and be completed about three years later. The contractor awarded the project will decide whether the boat launch area can remain in use for a period of time, he said. Bids could be opened in July. Two groups that had sought to halt the building of the high-rise bridge decided not to continue their opposition after a Coastal Resources Commission chairman denied their petition in April. The Brunswick Environmental Action Team and the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association did not file an appeal of the decision in Brunswick County Superior Court, and Blair said a letter dated May 9 was sent to state officials stating the groups planned "no further action" against the bridge. The letter was addressed to both the assistant attorneys general for the Division of Coastal Management and DOT. Opponents of the new bridge have said it would harm the environment and possibly open up the island to more concentrated development. But Mayor Ron Klein has said the town has building height limits in place that will ensure its "cottage-type beach strand." Those in favor of the high-rise bridge say the wooden swing bridge's mechanical malfunctions have the potential to hinder emergency response, creating a public safety hazard, and its closing to vehicles periodically when it opens for commercial and government vessels is an inconvenience. For recreational boaters and fishermen, the new bridge will eventually spell the end of their boat access to the waterway directly from Sunset Beach, requiring them to go to Ocean Isle Beach or another one of the dwindling choices left as the coast is developed and public boat access is curtailed. But for commercial fishermen like Canady, Ocean Isle Beach isn't accessible because the site is so small, making it difficult to park your vehicle, he said, adding that the Sunset Beach site also has its drawbacks. "You can't put off there in any water but high tide because it's so boggy," he said. But the creek would be ideal because it doesn't have these shortcomings, and isn't as far to drive as the launch site at Holden Beach where there's a fee, Canady said.
Out of options
Canady, who's been a commercial fisherman for 40 years and who now launches from private property at Sunset Beach that he said may be sold, said he's running out of options. "We need a ramp where us commercial boys can put our boats in and go," he said. John Harman, who observes the boaters from a spot by the bridge, said the boats get bogged down during low tide at the Sunset Beach access site. "When it's low tide, it's difficult to get in and out," the Ash resident said. "That channel disappears; there's no where to run your boat." Sunset Beach's town council launched its effort to secure another public site for boaters following a closed session at its May 7 meeting, where authorization was given to negotiate for Peed's property, said Town Administrator Linda Fluegel. If the town acquires the property, the commercial buildings and a house would be removed from the site, Fluegel said. For his part, Peed said nothing has been decided. "There's no contract that's been shown to me," he said June 9. Peed said the waterway there was recently dredged and the town would have access to roadways for boaters to use to reach the creek if they obtained the property. "It has a creek that runs beside it that empties into the Intracoastal Waterway and that's what makes it so desirable," Fluegel said. "If we can't take advantage of this property for this public (use) and it's purchased by private persons to build another business that's going to be another access to the public … that's lost." Fluegel said that Peed's plans to retire led to the availability of the property. "We heard about it and we approached him," she said. "We're hoping to work with him (so) that maybe we could have a few years to pay for it, and we would just budget for those payments every year and it would be done through the general fund." Town officials also would apply for state grants to offset the cost, she added. "If we don't take a stand and try to preserve some of it - the public won't have any access to water anymore."
6/28/07
Don't let beaches wash away
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/619569.html
Going under?
Study assesses impact of sea-level rise
http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=1073&iid=66&sud=30
Three rehabilitated sea turtles returned to the sea
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=127429&ran=9002
Beach nourishment doesn’t harm wildlife
Fayetteville Observer Letter to the Editor (6/26/07)
I read with great interest the article published in The Fayetteville Observer on June 6 written by Dr. Orrin Pilkey on how to “save the beaches.” He attempted to portray all coastal property owners and politicians as greedy and self-serving with no regard for the fauna and flora of our coastline. Extreme opinions and colorful rhetoric are one thing, but the article was riddled with inaccuracies. I felt a need to correct these errors. We have been nourishing our beach for years, and have not experienced a “complete loss” of our beach critters, as Dr. Pilkey describes, and we certainly still have an abundance of birds in our skies. We have seen no proof of any negative effect on the nesting of the sea turtles along our beach. In fact, two of the first nestings last year were on the just-completed nourished area, with successful hatchings. Apparently, no one informed those turtles they shouldn’t nest there. The article says Holden Beach routinely bulldozes sand from the lower beach to the upper beach. That is absolutely false. Holden Beach is still the wonderful, non-cluttered, no-high-rise, family beach that I enjoyed as a kid. We have every intention of keeping it that way. Most of us coastal residents, property owners and politicians consider it a sacred duty to preserve and protect our beaches for future generations to enjoy. - Gary Staley, Mayor Pro Tem, Town of Holden Beach
6/27/07
Topsail Beach renourishment delayed: not approved by fish and wildlife
Topsail Voice by Amanda Hutcheson (6/27/07)
TOPSAIL BEACH - The Army Corps of Engineers was present Thursday at a meeting in Topsail Beach with plans for beach renourishment, but representatives from Fish and Wildlife were there as well, and they did not agree with the Corps. At the meeting, which was held in the Assembly Building because of the large public turnout, Jeff Richter from the Army Corps of Engineers shared plans to dredge Federal waterways and put the sand on the beach, building the beach up and opening navigation passages which have become too shallow to be navigable. Richter said Topsail Beach had already obtained the necessary approval to dredge Topsail Creek in November, but was now attempting to move the project up, since early storms eroded the dunes at the beginning of hurricane season. “We would be able to delay this project until November without any controversy,” said Mayor Edward “Butch” Parrish. “The only reason we’re here today is because of the severe erosion we’ve experienced.” Jean Beasley, who operates the Sea Turtle Hospital, could not attend to meeting. However, Parrish called her on speakerphone so she could address the crowd. “We are going to make sure (protecting the sea turtles) gets done,” Beasley said. The hospital’s interns will patrol the beach 24 hours a day and be prepared to relocate any nests.” Parrish told the crowd that 150,000 yards of sand would be pumped, which means three yards of sand for every foot of beach. The proposed pipe from the creek where the sand is dredge would cross over to the beach at Smith Avenue. Howard Hall with US Fish and Wildlife then addressed the crowd. “Under the endangered species act, every federal agency has a responsibility to protect endangered animals. We’re studying (the plan). We’re not sure we’re going to agree with that. Lights on the beach disturb turtles. We may advise the Corps that this project is likely to affect the turtles.” Hall said his office needs to issue a biological opinion before giving approval to the plan. The department has 135 days to complete such an opinion, but Hall said he would try to have the opinion done in the next several weeks. He also suggested that the Corps and fish and wildlife hold a formal consultation. Several in the crowd voiced their concerns over waiting to pump the sand. Volunteers from the Turtle Hospital said that normally there are between eight and 10 turtle nests by this point in the summer, and that this year there have been two. Parrish said that any nests laid on the area of beach with imminently threatened homes would be relocated, because the nests would not survive on that part of the beach, where the water reaches the dunes at high tide. “We actually lost dune last night at high tide,” Parrish said. “All my guests come off the beach because we don’t have a beach,” said Bill Johnson, owner of the Sea Vista Motel. “This is never going to go away,” Parrish said. “We’re always going to have to deal with this issue.”
Park is site of trail dedication
Tideland News by Jim Craig (6/27/07)
For the state’s bird lovers, June 19 will be remembered as a special day – the day Hammocks Beach State Park hosted the formal dedication of the North Carolina Birding Trail. Approximately 100 town, county, state and federal representatives gathered for the ceremonies at the park’s pavilion for the dedication and to see the unveiling of the North Carolina Birding Trail Coastal Plain Guide. The North Carolina Birding Trail consists of a series of outstanding bird watching sites east of Interstate 95 that are open to the public. The mission of the North Carolina Birding Trail is ”to conserve and enhance North Carolina’s bird habitat by promoting sustainable bird watching activities, economic opportunities and conservation education.” Thus there is emphasis on preserving the habitat while drawing in the birding public who will support appropriate economic development along the trail. The 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation indicated that 18 million United States residents traveled to view birds and spent about $32 billion in retail sales. Salinda Daley of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission served as master of ceremonies and acknowledged the efforts of the many agencies, localities and individuals who brought the program to fruition in the past three years. After welcoming those in attendance and describing the general goals of the birding trail, she introduced representatives of the six organizations that serve on the steering committee. They include: Audubon North Carolina , N.C. Cooperative Extension Service, N.C. Sea Grant, N.C. Parks and Recreation, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The speakers expressed great satisfaction in seeing completion of the first third of the project, which began as just a faint vision nine years ago. North Carolina now joins a number of other states that have designed birding trails for visitors interested in birds and other wildlife. It was pointed out the birding is the most rapidly growing of outdoor recreational activities and that the birds are important as “barometers” of the health of our state’s environment. It was also reiterated that identified birding sites will bring responsible tourists who will have positive economic impacts for the towns and counties of the trail sites. Daley, coordinator of the program, unveiled the first of the Birding Trail Field Guides – that for the Coastal Plain. This slick, 170-page, spiral-bound guide gives information on each of the 102 sites east of I-95 selected for inclusion in the Coastal Plain segment. It provides, for the first time, an excellent up-to-date, easy to use guide to wonderful natural areas along the coast. For anyone who loves nature and would like to see some of the best the state has to offer, it is a must. The descriptions are clustered geographically into 16 groups from the northeast part of the coast to the South Carolina border so as to make planning for visits to multiple sites convenient. Some of the local sites include Patsy Pond Nature Trail, Cedar Point Tideland Trail, Emerald Isle Woods and Hammocks Beach State Park. The description for each site includes directions, a detailed map, the nature of facilities, special features and bird species of special interest that might be observed. There is also an interesting “While you’re in the area” listing of historical and cultural sites. Daley is now heading up the efforts to produce the Piedmont Trail Guide, due out spring 2008. This will include state sites between I-95 and I-77. The Mountain Trail Guide, which will include sites west of I-77, is expected to appear in 2009. The guides are on the Web at www.ncbirdingtrail.org and they are available to the public for $10 per copy through the Web at www.ncwildlife.org or by calling (866) 945-3746. All proceeds go toward future support of the N.C. Birding Trail initiative. Guided field trips to Bear Island, the Cedar Point Trails and Emerald Isle Woods were available to the participants at the close of the program.
Grim predictions for our beaches
Wilmington Star Editorial (6/26/07)
Within the lifetime of today's adults, the beaches of Southeastern North Carolina may shrink to about half their current width. Within the lifetime of today's children, most of our beaches may disappear. Academic researchers have just released a study that raises that possibility based on the effects of global warming and the higher sea levels it will bring. By unhappy coincidence, North Carolina's coastal land is sinking as the oceans rise. So the relative increase in sea level along our coast about twice as fast as the global average. To make matters worse, the flatness of our coastal plain means that even small increases in sea level send water farther inland than they would in areas where land slopes down to the sea. After applying expected rises in sea level to the topography or our coast, the researchers conclude that by 2030, the strand at Wrightsville Beach might be only 110 feet wide. Brunswick's beaches would dwindle, too, with Ocean Isle down to 35 feet. By 2080 - when today's youngsters are retired and maybe hoping to live in a condo at the beach - there may be no beach east of the road at 14 of 17 beaches in Southern North Carolina. At Wrightsville, there might be three feet of sand for strolling, sunbathing and fishing. Carolina would have 28 and Fort Fisher 243. Those strands would be blanketed with sweating, jostling humanity, like those Black Sea resorts for the workers of the old Soviet Union. The losses to the coastal economy would be huge - not even counting the effects of hurricanes on property, tax base and agriculture. The loss of our way of life would be incalculable. So what's the answer? Pumping more sand onto eroding strands if we can find the dollars - and the sand. Maybe it would make more sense to get serious about curbing the carbon dioxide that's pouring out of power plants, air conditioners and SUVs and turning our beautiful blue planet into a hothouse.
Respect the vote in NTB
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (6/27/07)
By a margin of four to one, the voters of North Topsail Beach rejected the beach bond referendum. The vast majority did not want a add on tax for the life of the bond. The horrendous tax increase by Onslow County coupled with the bond obligation would create a financial burden for home and property owners. The vast majority of voters rejected the bond issue. Now a few half-vast elected officials are ignoring the wishes of the residents. We need to have a representative form of government instead of a small core of elitists dictating policy. Dan Tuman and Fred Handy need to listen to their constituents. It appears they never met a tax they didn't hike. We cannot afford another tax increase. Larry Hardison and Richard Farley are representing us. Maybe we need some sort of recall system to terminate elected officials who ignore the people they supposedly represent. - George Hrivnak, North Topsail Beach
Let NTB voters decided on beach nourishment
Topsail Voice Letter to the Editor (6/27/07)
When 79 percent of the voters said "NO" to the North Topsail Beach (NTB) Beach Nourishment bond referendum in November, they made an unequivocally clear statement that they do not want to pay for Beach Nourishment out of their taxes. In March, 120 NTB citizens reaffirmed that message by signing a petition asking NTB to not spend any more money on beach nourishment until a new beach nourishment funding plan is voted on by the voters of North Topsail Beach. In April, NTB Aldermen Dan Tuman, Fred Handy and Richard Peters ignored that petition and voted to spend over $400,000 of taxpayer money to secure a beach nourishment permit. Now NTB wishes to fund $450,000 of new expenses by raising property taxes, even though Onslow County is about to return $1.2 million of new sales tax revenues to North Topsail Beach. The reason for not using a portion of the $1.2 million to pay for the $450,000 of new expenses is the NTB Beach Nourishment Committee wishes to reserve all of the $1.2 million to fund a phased implementation of NTB Beach Nourishment. To do so without the consent of the voters of North Topsail Beach would be unconscionable. To approve a tax increase would be to again, blatantly ignore the wishes of the majority of the citizens of North Topsail Beach. Mr. Farley, Mr. Handy, Mr. Tuman, Mr. Peters and Mr. Hardison; when you were elected Aldermen of North Topsail Beach, you pledged to faithfully represent the wishes of the majority of the voters of our Town. Honor that pledge by rejecting the proposed NTB property tax increase and allow the voters to decide whether or not they want any or all of their sales tax refund mone |