Changes to a controversial bill that would have allowed development to trump historical and environmental protections went before the Senate judiciary committee Wednesday for discussion, and the measure now features a new provision allowing additional hardened shoreline structures to be built on Bald Head Island.
Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico and also representing Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, explained during the meeting that the previous language to change Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permitting process rules was being replaced with directives for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources regarding historically significant land.
Sponsor Spotlight
With the new language, Sanderson said Wednesday, the department would be required, “upon request,” to inform the owner or prospective buyer of property “in an area of environmental concern of anything that may be of archaeological or historical significance,” Sanderson said.
The language also would prohibit the Office of State Archaeology, under the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, to add conditions to a CAMA permit restricting development for three years after its issued, and directs the state agency to apply for funding to purchase properties in an area of environmental concern that has archaeological or historical significance, he said.
The new language replaces, as Sanderson explained it during a June 6 Agriculture, Energy, and Environment committee meeting, an attempt to harness the Division of Coastal Management, which he said had “forced developers to conduct lengthy, open-ended and costly historical and archaeological investigations to obtain a permit or as a condition of a permit.”
The previous language, Sanderson continued on June 6, “to some degree reins in DCM’s historical and archaeological jurisdiction to develop activities that involve actual land disturbance, and so that specifies the circumstances under which an area can be designated as an Area of Environmental Concern based on cultural, scientific or scenic values, or natural systems.”
Cultural Resources Communications Director Schorr Johnson said Thursday that while the new language is an “improvement from the original proposal, the Office of State Archaeology already provides information to property owners and prospective property owners about archaeological resources on their property. The new language attempts to codify that practice while also undermining archaeological protections. We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature on this proposal.”
Sponsor Spotlight
Regarding the new section on hardened shorelines, Sanderson told the judiciary committee Wednesday that the language modifies the decade-old statute that allowed a limited number of terminal groins as a pilot project along the North Carolina shoreline.
Bald Head Island was the first town to build a terminal groin after a former law banning hardened erosion control structures on the North Carolina coast was repealed in 2011.
The new language defines “terminal groin” as one or more structures constructed at the terminus of an island or on the side of an inlet, or where the ocean shoreline converges with Frying Pan Shoals, and changes the number of permits from six to seven to construct a terminal groin.
Bald Head Island has been working with the Department of Environmental Quality on the provision to allow the village to apply for a permit to build a second groin on the island nearest to Frying Pan Shoals, Sanderson explained.
“Upon passing, the village plans to do robust studies on the best environmental path forward for the new structure,” Sanderson said. “The section would also enable Bald Head Island to eliminate a number of geotextile sand tubes that have to be replaced every five to seven years at great expense to residents and replace them with permanent rock structures that are equal or less in number and size than the existing tubes.”
Southern Environmental Law Center North Carolina Legislative Counsel Brooks Rainey Pearson told Coastal Review in an email Thursday that the section added via proposed committee substitute Wednesday would change the definition of “terminal groin” to allow a new groin on the east end of south beach on Bald Head Island.
“We are against any expansion of the armoring (or ‘hardening’) of the coast, and believe that expanding the number of new groins allowed under state law will effectively open the entire coast to terminal groins on N.C.’s public trust beaches,” Pearson said in the email. “Groins are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and encourage litigation as homeowners on the ‘wrong’ side of the groin lose sand/beach to properties on the ‘right’ side of the groin.”
Bald Head Island Public Information Officer Carin Faulkner said Thursday morning in response for a comment that the village council had not reviewed the proposed language, but village staff plan to present the information during the council’s 10 a.m. Friday meeting, which can be viewed online.
Division of Coastal Management officials said Thursday afternoon that the new provision would make the Village of Bald Head Island eligible to apply for a permit to construct another terminal groin near Frying Pan Shoals and it increases the cumulative number of terminal groins that the Coastal Resources Commission can permit from six to seven.
Sanderson, Lazzara want to ‘rein in’ regulatory authority
When the previous language, which was replaced Wednesday, had gone before the Senate agriculture committee June 6, both Sanderson and Sen. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, said the intention was to “rein in” the Division of Coastal Management and CAMA authority.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed the Coastal Area Management Act in 1974 to guide development on land near coastal waters. The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for CAMA that are carried out by the Division of Coastal Management, under the Department of Environmental Quality. The commission also determines for the 20 coastal counties area of environmental concern, which are those areas that are vulnerable to flooding or erosion, or may have environmental, social, economic or aesthetic values that make it valuable to the state.
State archaeology officials said in a June 10 response that the language was linked to a subdivision being built in Cedar Point where “extensive Native American human burials and an undisturbed Woodland period (1000 BC – AD 1600) village site have been found” and the bill as it was written then “would endanger some of North Carolina’s most significant archaeological and historical resources, including Native American village sites and human burials.”
Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Public Information Officer Michele Walker said Friday that two archaeological sites were found in the 1970s at the tract where Bridge View subdivision is now being developed.
Walker said that the department, through the Office of State Archaeology and the State Historic Preservation Office, is one of 10 state agencies that review CAMA major permit applications. These agencies may recommend specific permit conditions based on the permit review.
In response to the division’s CAMA Major Permit application review, the Office of State Archeology noted that the area of potential effect for the proposed Bridge View subdivision contained these two known and unassessed prehistoric archaeological sites that are adjacent to four other archaeological sites identified in a survey for the neighboring subdivision of the 1990s Magens Bay subdivision, she said.
“During construction at the site, the remains of at least five individuals were inadvertently disturbed in the developer’s Phase 1 area, which is outside the CAMA defined area of environmental concern,” Walker said. “And an initial archaeological survey within the AEC has identified 11 additional human burial sites, each of which may include multiple individuals. This initial archaeological survey included test trenches that, cumulatively, uncovered just over 1 acre of the almost 21-acre area of environmental concern.”
State Archaeologist Chris Southerly told Coastal Review last week that the “initial findings at this site indicate that this area was a pre-contact-era American Indian settlement which was occupied over multiple generations.”
Southerly said the site “is one of the most significant archaeological sites ever identified in North Carolina and could help us to understand more about these ancient people and their day-to-day lives. It’s important to recognize that this site contains multiple human burial sites – the ancestors of people living in coastal North Carolina today. These once-vibrant people deserve the utmost respect and care of their final resting place.”
Sanderson still could try to harness CAMA
Sanderson suggested at the agriculture committee meeting earlier this month that, during the legislative session most likely to begin in January, lawmakers can review CAMA parameters, “and see which ones are still good, which ones are outdated, which ones need to be changed or updated.”
“We welcome any opportunity to improve on our 50-year history of balancing the protection of coastal resources and the public trust with economic development. We all share a common desire to enjoy a healthy environment and economic growth. We support any reforms that are thoughtful, stakeholder engaged, and that will result in positive outcomes for a healthy coast and for the public,” division officials said Thursday.
It’s been a long time, Sanderson said in noting 50 years had passed since the landmark coastal measure became law. “CAMA has done a lot of great work on the coast, exactly what it was intended for,” but it’s time for a review “and we need to make sure that what we’re doing is still relevant for the coastal area, for the environment and for the people who want to take advantage of our areas.”
Division officials last week in response explained that eliminating its regulatory role does not improve the process for the public, “it simply replaces it with a much slower federal process, and certain permit applications that are now processed by DCM within two weeks could be taken over by the US Army Corps of Engineers and take six months or more to process.”
The division “serves as a permitting clearinghouse for coastal development so that one application to us covers all state and federal permits in most cases. Instead of having DCM guide applicants on necessary permits and standards, applicants will have to figure those out on their own and may inadvertently find themselves in violation of state or federal law due to a lack of awareness.”
The primary goal of CAMA is to balance protection of the public trust — environmental, cultural, aesthetic, recreational use — with private use and economic development, DCM officials said.
“DCM has a 50-year history of finding this balance, coordinating with other state and federal regulatory and resource agencies to continuously streamline the permitting process. This has made NC one of the most efficient coastal management programs in the nation. Some of the HB385 provisions stand to reverse years of progress to the detriment of the public,” officials continued. “Local governments may face heavier burdens on their staff time and resources to manage development activity that is currently handled by the state, including adopting and enforcing new ordinances, and resolving disputes and legal challenges.”
Sanderson also noted about the previous language discussed at the agriculture committee meeting June 6 that the provision would limit CAMA permits to development activities only within an area of environmental concern, and that Division of Coastal Management would be the only agency authorized to review and issue CAMA permits.
Division of Coastal Management officials said their agency collaborates with Cultural Resources staff throughout the permitting process if archaeological work on a project is requested, including after a permit is issued if there is a condition placed on the permit related to archaeological resources.
“Between 2020 and 2023, the Division of Cultural and Natural Resources reviewed 737 projects that were seeking major coastal permits and recommended archaeological work on 13 of those projects,” Walker said. The Office of State Archaeology “has limited to no statutory enforcement authority outside of its commenting responsibilities for environmental permits. Human burials, both marked and unmarked, do have statutory protections.”
The bill as it was previously written would have restricted the Office of State Archaeology, among other state agencies, from being consulted or recommending conditions on permits issued pursuant to CAMA.
“This sets an alarming precedent and could leave the permitting body or official unable to consult archaeological experts within state government when determining a project’s impact on archaeological and historical resources, including unmarked human remains,” she said.
