NC Coastal Federation
Position on Beach Renourishment

     Pressure to get the State more vested in beach restoration projects is coming from oceanfront towns and counties from the Outer Banks to Ocean Isle. Local governments are worried that along more than 160 miles of beach, the ocean may soon undermine homes, rental properties, hotels and condos, as well as the streets, highways and other utilities that service these seaside resorts. Mounting damages include eroding property values, incomes from rental properties and the tourism economy.
     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-so assert these state policies.
     Based upon these regulatory principles, projects designed to respond to erosion should avoid losses to natural heritage and not adversely affect the productivity of our coastal and ocean waters. The public trust right of the public to use the ocean beaches, including traditional recreational uses such as walking, swimming, surf-fishing and commercial fishing are to be preserved.
     It's predictable that oceanfront communities are lobbying for help in paying to put more sand on their beaches. For a while such projects can reduce property losses and they hold out some hope for maintaining the "status quo" or even allowing more intense oceanfront development. But sea level is now rising at a projected rate of 1.7 feet per century, hurricanes and northeasters are now predicted to occur more frequently and at greater intensity, and there are chronic shortages of economical sources of sand along significant portions of our coast. All this means 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 not technologically or economically feasible to do so.
     Estimates of the average yearly cost of beach renourishment vary widely. These yearly estimates range widely from $350,000 to more than $3 million a mile. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, in the year 2010 it would cost in excess of $58 million to do all the beach pumping now being sought by towns, counties and state agencies in North Carolina.
     Most lawmakers and taxpayers resist such expenditures, especially those that are not financially connected to oceanfront property. There is little chance that the vast majority of taxpayers will willingly foot the bill for all the projects now being sought-particularly if they have any say in the matter.

Proposed Elements of a Beach Restoration Plan for North Carolina

     The State should base its new beach restoration strategy on its existing oceanfront policies that require a multi-faceted response to beach migration. The North Carolina Coastal Federation supports these policies, and advocates carrying them out by evaluating the acceptability of all beach renourishment proposals based upon the response to the following concerns:

• There must be acceptable and adequate sources of sand available. There should be suitable and sufficient sand available within an economical pumping or hauling distance to keep beach nourishment a viable alternative for at least 30 years. We know that cheap sand (i.e., high-quality sand close to the beaches) is not in plentiful supply along much of the NC coast. Mud, mud balls, and shell debris should not be allowed on any beaches as has occurred with renourishment projects at Atlantic Beach.
• The project must be properly planned, timed and executed. Proper planning, timing and execution of projects is essential to minimize unacceptable impacts to fisheries and endangered species. The "window of opportunity" each year when dredging can occur is small (normally November through March). That window can get even smaller in years when temperatures are unseasonably warm. Regulatory agencies must strictly enforce permit conditions on projects even if that means starting a project later than planned or stopping the project before it has been completed.
• Adequate habitat and water quality monitoring must occur to evaluate effects on fisheries and water quality. It must be demonstrated that the mining and placement of sand on beaches has no unacceptable effects on fisheries and water quality. The scale of existing beach renourishment projects is small compared to new projects now contemplated. Because there has been so little study of the biological effects of beach renourishment, all new projects that are undertaken should include monitoring to prevent unacceptable effects on recreational and commercial fishery habitat. This includes on-going monitoring of the use of potential "borrow sites" as fish habitat to determine when dredging should be allowed to begin and when it must end. At least 5% of the project budget should be spent on monitoring activities.
• Project planners must be completely forthcoming about the long-term costs of renourishment. Nobody knows for sure how long a beach renourishment project will last. Storms will ultimately claim much, if not all, of the added sand, and long-term storm prediction is very uncertain. Based on past experience, most beach nourishment projects on the Atlantic coast last less than five years. Planned projects should delineate the range of possible project costs based upon worst and best case scenarios.
• The project must provide adequate public parking. The beach access public parking standards adopted by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission establish the minimum amount of public parking that should be provided as part of any publicly funded beach renourishment project. Communities that don't have this amount of public parking must provide it to become eligible for projects that are financed with state or federal tax dollars.
• The project must include an "exit strategy" to deal with beachfront property when renourishment is no longer feasible due to insufficient funds, sand supplies, and/or future storm activity. The Coastal Resources Commission and local governments should adopt and enforce a beachfront building setback from the ocean for new construction based upon a factor that would protect houses and properties for 100 years. Counties and municipalities should not be eligible for state and federal funding unless they have land use plans and ordinances that actively discourage development of structures on beachfront property that cannot readily be moved. All local units of government should adopt a public disclosure ordinance requiring that potential buyers be fully informed about the erosion history of oceanfront properties and of the anticipated future costs of nourishment. Each prospective buyer should also be given a copy of Questions and Answers on: Purchasing Coastal Real Estate in North Carolina. This well-written pamphlet was prepared through the North Carolina Sea Grant Program and provides unbiased information about beach erosion.
• The project must be financed so that it places the burden on the people that benefit from renourishment. Public financing for beach renourishment should place the burden of paying for projects on the people who most benefit from them. The most obvious beneficiaries include oceanfront property owners and their guests. Primary sources of funding include special property tax districts, oceanfront lots and occupancy taxes. There should be taxation with representation by bringing the issue to a vote via public referendum, thereby giving citizens the opportunity to decide.