3609 Hwy 24 (Ocean) | Newport, North Carolina 28570

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2004

Ted Wilgis, Cape Fear COASTKEEPER^®
910-790-3275 office; 910-520-6606 cell
coastkeeper-cf@nccoast.org

NCCF Requests Enforcement of
Permits for Mason Inlet Relocation

     Wilmington – The NC Coastal Federation (NCCF) has asked federal officials to step up enforcement of the permit they gave New Hanover County to relocate Mason Inlet after monitoring done by the group found that the county isn't adequately complying with key permit conditions and the Army Corps of Engineers is lax in enforcing them.
     County commissioners and regulatory agencies plan to meet Thursday from 4-6 p.m. on the third floor of the Historic County Courthouse to discuss implementing the permit conditions.
     "We have observed a persistent pattern of delayed implementation and non-compliance with the permit for this project. This unsatisfactory record of compliance and enforcement has resulted in serious environmental degradation in the project area," Ted Wilgis, the Federation's Cape Fear COASTKEEPER^®, said recently in a letter to the Corps. "While the inlet has been moved and property protected, measures meant to limit the harm to the environment as a result of the project have not been fully implemented and complied with." 
     The permit, issued last year after considerable debate among state and federal agencies, requires that the county take timely steps to reduce the negative environmental effects of the project. Many of those conservation measures, designed to protect birds or preserve valuable habitat, were months late or not effectively implemented in, this, the first year of the 30-year permit. 
     "We understand that this is a complex project and the numerous conditions take time to develop and implement. However, there has been a failure by New Hanover County to fully abide by and fulfill its permit requirements in the required time frame," Wilgis said. "In addition the Corps has not adequately enforced its own permit requirements. Thus, the concerns raised by the resource agencies and citizens about potential negative environmental effects of the project have proven to be justified."
     In addition to a series of missed deadlines and inadequate compliance, NCCF is most worried about the project's effect on shorebirds and waterbirds, including threatened and endangered species. To limit the effects on birds that nest, feed and over-winter in the project area, construction was to be completed by March 30, 2002, a day before the nesting season begins. Instead, the Corps granted an extension, and the relocation was not complete until April 22. 
     The permit also contained a condition that required the county to prepare a bird monitoring plan and a strategy to protect their nesting areas. Both were due within 30 days after the permit was issued. The plans were completed 86 days after they were due, and the nesting area was not protected until late May, well into the critical period of the nesting season. 
     "While some elements of the plan were put in place in a timely fashion, you still had birds competing with bulldozers and people for nest sites," Wilgis wrote in his letter. "This delay has to be considered when you look at the nesting success of 140 nests in 2001 versus only a very few nests in 2002."
     Other permit conditions that were delayed have yet to be implemented or inadequately complied with:

• Biological monitoring for the project to evaluate its effects on the environment has been reduced to one sampling event each year. This combined with only one pre-construction sampling event, will make it very difficult to fully evaluate the effect the project has had on the area's biological resources.
• The permit called for 10,000 bushels of oyster shells to be placed annually in the project area to offset the effects to shellfish. Only 3,000 bushels were distributed this year because of logistical difficulties.
  A required mitigation plan to restore wetlands was to be implemented at the same time or before the project began. It has been delayed for a year until June 2003.
• The permit also required the county to acquire and preserve the last privately held land - about 30 acres – on Masonboro Island by November 2004. The county also has to develop a plan by January to protect and manage the north end of Carolina Beach. These efforts are proceeding very slowly and their effectiveness has yet to be determined.
  Most recently, the Corps notified the county that it was in "violation of Federal law" for failing to prevent erosion at its spoil site where it was placing dredge material. The material was produced from the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway as a result of shoaling caused by the newly opened Mason Creek.
• Additionally, the county had heavy equipment on the beach in October during the sea turtle nesting season, which runs through November 15. The equipment was removing debris left over from the inlet relocation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not consulted, as required, before this activity occurred.

     "The plan to mitigate and limit the negative environmental effects of this project already started out very weak and fell short of mitigating for 40 acres of intertidal habitats. Now this plan has been further weakened by delays and not being adequately complied with nor enforced, Wilgis said. "All that we are asking is that the County completely fulfill its obligations and the Corps effectively enforce its own permit and comply with existing environmental rules and regulations. The protection of the environment has to be given equal emphasis to protecting houses and condominiums."

Reporters, editors note:
Ted Wilgis, the Cape Fear COASTKEEPER^®, will be available today and Thursday (Nov. 6 and 7) to take reporters on boat and/or walking tours of the inlet and project area. Please call 910-790-3275 to schedule a tour.