Issues & Actions

NC Coastal Federation Position On

     The year 2004 is a milestone in that it marks the thirtieth anniversary of the passage of North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Soon after the passage of CAMA, coastal regulators set standards for development to protect most oceanfront structures from erosion for thirty years, the typical length of a homeowner's mortgage.
     North Carolina knew decades ago that this "day of reckoning" for oceanfront properties was on the way. That's why it adopted formal regulatory policies for how best to respond to continuing and predictable shoreline migration. Land use planning, construction setbacks, building relocation, subdivision rules, management of vegetation, and pumping sand on beaches are preferred responses to erosion.
     It is understandable that oceanfront communities are lobbying for help in paying to put more sand on their beaches. Nourishment projects can temporarily reduce property losses and they hold out some hope for maintaining the "status quo" or even allowing more intense oceanfront development. The rate of sea level rise is increasing and projected within a generation or so to reach 1.7 feet per century Hurricanes and northeasters are predicted to occur more frequently and at greater intensity. And there are chronic shortages of economical and environmentally acceptable sources of sand along significant portions of our coast. Simply stated, the result is that the on-going costs of drawing a line in the sand, and attempting to hold the beaches where they are today, will escalate until it is no longer technologically or economically feasible to do so.

  
   Some beach communities are looking at inlets as sources of high quality sand for beach nourishment. Mining inlets for sand is risky business. Several existing inlet mining projects in North Carolina are causing increased beach erosion that is damaging private and public properties. Fish and wildlife are also being harmed. Before future mining projects are approved, permit applicants must assume the burden of proving that proposed mining projects are environmentally acceptable. Regulatory agencies must also demonstrate that they have the capacity to anticipate the environmental consequences of mining activities, and to consistently enforce permit requirements.
     There are clearly some areas where beach nourishment and inlet mining projects are not appropriate. Long-term beach nourishment project should not be conducted in areas where sand is scarce or where erosion rates are high because the costs of such projects will exceed the benefits. Neither federal nor state funds should be spent on any beach nourishment projects in congressionally authorized COBRA zones. Areas with significant natural heritage or public trust values, such most of our national seashores, wildlife refuges and state parks are not appropriate locations for beach renourishment. Inlet mining is not appropriate beyond what is necessary to keep navigational channels open at existing dimensions.
     To protect environmental quality and insure that public beaches are accessible, the North Carolina Coastal Federation proposes the following measures for inlet mining/alteration projects and beach nourishment projects:

• Compatible sources of sand: The state Division of Coastal Management must develop and utilize measurable standards and protocols to verify that beach nourishment is compatible with the native beach. The standard must contain quantitative limits on the amount of fine and course material that may be placed on the beach. The standard must also include quantitative limits so that the nourishment material matches the mineralogy and color of the native beach. The standards for each project must be included in the permit applications and in the final permits. Only beach nourishment projects that will clearly meet state standards should be permitted. If a project violates sand compatibility standards during construction, the project should be required to halt operations and correct the deficiency. The state Division of Coastal Management should develop protocols for mitigation when projects violate sand compatibility standards and require that mitigation be undertaken.
• A thorough and objective environmental impact statement (EIS): An EIS must be conducted under the NC Environmental Policy Act or National Environmental Policy Act for any project that proposes to dredge or mine sediment from offshore, inlet or estuarine areas or upland sources and place sediments on the beach or in the nearshore area:
  
  
  • All secondary and cumulative impacts must be identified and adequately addressed in the EIS, including those impacts that could affect estuarine or offshore fisheries resources, onshore and offshore threatened and/or endangered species, critical habitats, and the sediment budget on adjacent islands and mainland areas;
  • All site-specific uncertainties of the implications must be modeled and corrected in the EIS prior to project approval, especially those impacts that are related to wave refraction and "draw down" of the ebb tidal delta;
  • The need for a nearby source of beach compatible sand must not be used as the overriding justification for an inlet-dredging project. Economic benefit, while relevant, must be compared to environmental cost.
  • If the source of sand involves an inlet, a comprehensive inlet management plan must be developed for the inlet and included as an attachment to the EIS; and,
  • Environmental documents must adhere to the sequencing procedures that require avoidance, minimization, and finally compensation, including mitigation of impacts. All opportunities to avoid and minimize the long-term and multiple environmental impacts associated with beach or inlet projects must be exhausted prior to compensating or mitigating for such impacts.
• Ecosystem monitoring and protection plan: Ecosystem monitoring must be conducted prior to, during and for several years following a beach nourishment or inlet alteration project. To be valid and meaningful, data collection and power analysis must be relevant to similar beach nourishment or inlet alteration projects in North Carolina. Pre-project, and post-project monitoring must be of sufficient duration and repetition to allow for an accurate comparison of conditions and understanding of impacts to the ecosystem. Monitoring should include (a) turbidity, (b) biomass, population and species of invertebrates at the borrow site, beach and nearshore area, (c) number and types of shorebirds migrating, foraging and nesting, and (d) population, biomass and species of fish in the surf zone and borrow area. Independent experts in biological, physical and geological sciences should be engaged to develop and implement the monitoring plans during each season of the year and the plan must be peer reviewed prior to approval.
• Projects timed to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife: Beach nourishment or inlet projects must observe a moratorium on construction to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife. The Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of Marine Fisheries have established moratoria that prohibit dredging and construction of beach nourishment projects from April 1 through November 15. In inlet areas with high turtle activity, dredging and construction should only be allowed from January through March. All equipment must be removed from the beach prior to the beginning of a moratorium. Regulatory agencies must strictly enforce moratoria on projects even if that means stopping the project before it has been completed. If a project "takes" a total of five sea turtles, then the project must permanently cease operations until the next dredging window. When water temperatures rise above 58 degrees, all hopper dredging must halt until temperatures fall below 58 degrees.
• Standards for public access and resource protection: The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) must develop quantifiable standards for public access and parking that meet peak hour demand or beach capacity, whichever is greater. The Division of Coastal Management must include quantifiable standards for beach access as a condition of permits for publicly funded beach nourishment projects. Federal civil works, Section 933 projects and Section 206 projects must strictly apply its standard for access sites every ½ mile and parking for access sites that meets peak hour demand or beach capacity, whichever is greater. For inlet projects, sponsors must enact and enforce appropriate ordinances to protect federal migratory birds in newly created habitat to insure that humans or animals do not disturb threatened and endangered species.
• Beneficial use of dredged material: Sand removed by maintenance dredging of navigational channels in Beaufort, Cape Fear and Oregon inlets may be appropriate for use on adjacent beaches or in littoral systems. In several areas of the state, navigational channels are dredged up to 45 feet deep to support commercial vessels. These dredging operations can destabilize nearby beaches by preventing bypass of sand thereby causing rapid erosion. A beneficial use of this dredged material is to place it in the littoral zone or on beaches that are adversely affected.
• Growth management plans: Virtually all coastal communities are growing rapidly. State funding for beach nourishment and inlet alteration projects should only be provided to communities that have conducted a growth management plan that limits the size and density of structures on barrier islands and enacted ordinances to carry out the plan.
• Limitation on public funds: Public funds must not be used to support beach nourishment projects within gated communities, state or federal parks, federal wildlife sanctuaries or Congressionally authorized COBRA zones. Public funds must only support beach nourishment projects that primarily provide for the protection of public or private structures on publicly accessible beaches and only as a match to federal funds.
• Adherence to Federal and State Requirements: CAMA and US Army Corps of Engineers regulations, CAMA land use plans and state and federal water quality standards must be strictly adhered to, including the state standard for turbidity.
• Removal of sand bags: Before an inlet alteration or beach nourishment project is completed, all existing shoreline stabilization devices such as sandbags must be removed from the inlet or ocean hazard zone, except those that are buried and covered with natural vegetation.
• Acceptable mitigation strategy with financial assurances: Mitigation must be planned and anticipated for both the expected and unexpected environmental impacts of inlet dredging and beach nourishment projects. The project sponsor must be bonded and financially responsible for all mitigation, whether expected or unexpected. A detailed and enforceable mitigation plan and timetable, which is signed by the project applicant, must accompany the CAMA and Corps permits. The permits must contain specific punitive actions for failure to comply on time. If the mitigation plan is substantially changed, then all responsible agencies and the public must review it before the changes are approved. Any alternative mitigation measures must be equal to the original mitigation equation.
• Prohibition of monetary, or other financial, gains from the private sale or exchange of public trust resources: Sand removed from an inlet system or offshore or estuarine borrow area is the property of the state. The Department of Administration must not allow private entities to sell or exchange ocean, inlet or estuarine sand without fully compensating the state.
• Proven track record: Project applicants and engineering firms must have a proven track record with compliance with previous permit conditions. If permit conditions have not been met, then renewal of the applicant's CAMA permit must be disapproved.
• Public sponsorship of projects: Inlet dredging or beach nourishment projects must be sponsored by public entities. Inlet projects must be co-sponsored by public entities on both sides of the inlet.
• Approval of adjacent landowners that will or could be impacted by a project: Prior to issuing a CAMA permit for inlet dredging, the approval of property owners adjacent to the inlet must be secured, including those owning property in the flood tidal delta and the barrier islands on both sides of the inlet.