Chris Doley’s legacy at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is closely tied to his long and deeply influential partnerships with community-based organizations working on the frontlines of coastal restoration. Among those, his relationship with the North Carolina Coastal Federation stands out for its longevity and impact and for the role it played in advancing community-driven habitat restoration in North Carolina and beyond.

Chris became involved with the Coastal Federation’s work in the mid-1990s, during the formative years of NOAA’s Community-Based Habitat Restoration efforts. At that time, the Coastal Federation was in its second decade of work and was beginning to expand into fisheries habitat restoration as an emerging program area. The organization was advancing an idea that was still gaining traction nationally: that locally driven, science-based restoration — done with communities, not just for them — could deliver durable ecological results.

Chris was never just a grant manager. He became a trusted partner, sounding board, and advocate within NOAA — someone who understood both the realities of federal programs and the practical challenges of getting projects done on the ground. His willingness to listen, ask hard questions, and support promising ideas proved instrumental during a period when both NOAA’s restoration programs and the Federation’s habitat work were still taking shape.

With support provided through what would become NOAA’s Restoration Center, the Coastal Federation began to build one of the country’s more visible and respected nonprofit coastal restoration programs — rooted in applied science, community engagement, and practical outcomes.

Building a Restoration Agenda from the Ground Up

Working closely with Chris and NOAA’s habitat restoration staff, the Federation developed an increasingly integrated restoration approach — linking living shorelines, oyster reef restoration, salt marsh recovery, and water quality improvement into a more cohesive strategy. This systems-based framing was not yet common practice in the 1990s and early 2000s, when many restoration projects were relatively small, site-specific, and narrowly focused.

Chris encouraged partners to think beyond individual projects — at scale and to achieve significant ecological outcomes beyond individual project boundaries. Early NOAA support enabled the Federation to pilot some of North Carolina’s first living shoreline projects in the early 2000s, well before the practice was widely accepted or routinely permitted. These projects demonstrated that oyster reefs and marsh vegetation could stabilize shorelines, protect property, and improve habitat—often performing as well as or better than hardened shoreline structures, particularly during storm events.

The success of those projects didn’t just validate a new technique; it reshaped the Federation’s restoration agenda. Living shorelines became a core program area, and the lessons learned in North Carolina helped inform NOAA (and other federal agency) guidance, state permitting reforms, and restoration programs nationwide.

Oyster Reefs, Scale, and Staying Power

A similar trajectory emerged with oyster restoration. With Chris’s backing, the Coastal Federation undertook increasingly ambitious reef restoration efforts, including a major NOAA-supported initiative in 2009-2010, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That effort restored nearly 50 acres of oyster reefs and helped establish permanent oyster sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound, at the time among the larger oyster restoration efforts in the region.

More than a decade later, that long arc culminated in another milestone: the 2022 NOAA-supported investment to complete North Carolina’s 500-acre oyster sanctuary network. This project reflects decades of shared learning, trust, and persistence between NOAA and its partners.

Restore America’s Estuaries and Broader Influence

The Coastal Federation is a founding member of Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE), established in 1994 to connect community-based restoration organizations and share effective practices nationally. Chris supported NOAA’s engagement with RAE, recognizing that strong regional organizations could anchor a growing national restoration movement.

Through RAE and other collaborative forums, restoration approaches refined in North Carolina, such as community-driven project delivery, living shorelines, oyster sanctuaries, and volunteer engagement, were shared, adapted, and applied in other regions, helping advance restoration practice across the country.

Enduring Impact

From my perspective, what set Chris apart was his quiet confidence and deep respect for the people doing the work on the ground. I recall sitting with him in quiet corners of crowded conferences and workshops, where he would ask thoughtful, practical questions or offer observations about how our partnership was evolving. He simply wanted to understand, to learn, and to find ways to be an even better partner.

Chris Doley rarely sought the spotlight, but his influence is clear in the durability and credibility of NOAA’s community-based restoration programs and the projects they have supported. He created space for partners like the Coastal Federation to experiment, learn, and improve — while never losing sight of ecological outcomes and the public good.

As Chris retires after more than 35 years at NOAA, the North Carolina Coastal Federation — and countless partners across the country — continue to build on the foundation he helped establish. The restoration agenda he supported in North Carolina now informs broader policy discussions, restoration practice, and investment strategies nationwide.

Thank you, Chris, for believing early, backing consistently, and helping turn local action into lasting impact.

Commentary

Dr. Donald E. Ensley, an accomplished public health educator, environmental champion, and steadfast advocate for North Carolina’s coastal communities, is in hospice care, preparing to leave behind a legacy that will forever shape the places and people he touched.

Born and raised in rural Belhaven, Don’s journey was one of resolute determination — breaking barriers as one of East Carolina University’s first African American faculty members in health sciences and dedicating his life to service. As a professor emeritus in the College of Allied Health Sciences, Department of Health Services & Information Management, he mentored generations of students, shaping the future of public health and environmental justice in our state.

I first met Don in 1982 when a mutual friend urged me to reach out to him as the North Carolina Coastal Federation was taking shape. I walked into his office at ECU not knowing what to expect, but within moments, we connected — united by our love of the coast, our passion for fishing, and our deep appreciation for the cultural heritage of our state’s waterways. Without hesitation, he embraced the need for the Federation and became not only a founding board member but also our first president. His leadership in those early years helped define what the Federation would become — a force for preserving and restoring the natural places and communities we hold dear.

But Don was never just a colleague — he became a dear friend, a trusted confidant, and a fishing buddy whose company I cherished. Over the years, we shared countless adventures, including a red drum surf fishing tournament we ran on Hatteras Island as a fundraiser. It was more than just a tournament — it was a gathering of kindred spirits, an experience made richer by Don’s presence and the fellowship he fostered. On Oct. 26, 1990, after all our participants had arrived, a wayward dredge knocked out the Bonner Bridge, stranding us on the island as a tropical storm raged. I still remember Don bursting into our tournament headquarters with excitement, announcing that a “ship” was pinned against the bridge he had just crossed — only for the power to cut out dramatically moments later. That was the last year we held the tournament, realizing that hosting a fixed event on an ever-shifting island might not be the best idea.

Back then, the Federation was small, operating more like a family than an organization. Our board and staff were deeply connected, and those annual membership meetings at the oceanfront pavilion of Hammocks Beach State Park were special times. We’d all stay the night on the island, sometimes joined by guests like former Congressman Richard Preyer and his wife. One night, we were all jolted awake when Don’s young daughter, Akilah, tumbled out of her bunk bed, crying out in the darkness. That moment — funny in retrospect — was just a glimpse of the love and devotion Don had for his family. Akilah has since built an incredible career leading a strategic policy firm in Washington, D.C., but in recent years, as Don’s health declined, she has remained a constant presence by his side — an unwavering source of strength in his final chapter.

Even after his initial tenure on the Federation’s board, Don never truly left. He returned in later years, stepping up once again to serve on the board, ensuring that we never lost sight of our roots. Despite his own health struggles and the loss of his beloved wife, Ramona, he continued to show up, offering institutional memory, insights, and steady leadership as the organization transitioned. His vision was clear: the Federation’s mission was not just about protecting the coast—it was about making it a place where both people and nature could thrive.

Beyond his work with the Federation, Don’s impact reached even further. As a member of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, he played a critical role in shaping policies to protect the state’s air and water. I’ll never forget one of the largest public hearings ever held by the commission at East Carteret High School, where Don presided over an emotional and powerful debate about a controversial plan to pump treated sewage more than 30 miles to eastern Carteret County farmland. Thousands of people made clear they objected to the plan, and after the hearing, the idea was abandoned.

Don’s dedication to public health, equitable access to resources, and community empowerment has left an indelible mark. His efforts helped build the Federation into what it is today, but more than that, his kindness, his tenacity, and his unwavering friendship left a mark on all of us who were lucky enough to know him.

As he prepares to take his leave, I find myself reflecting on the conversations we had, the successes we cherished, and the laughter we shared. I will miss hearing his voice and insights and experiencing his relentless determination. But I also know that his wisdom and his spirit won’t fade. They live on in the work he championed, in the people he mentored, and in the coast that he loved so deeply.

Fair winds and following seas, my friend. Your legacy endures.

Commentary

The North Carolina Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

As I reflect on my journey over the past four decades with the North Carolina Coastal Federation and the changes of the past year, I am filled with both gratitude and optimism for the future of our coast.

This year has marked an exciting new chapter for me personally and for the Federation. Since stepping into my role as Senior Advisor to our new Executive Director, Braxton Davis, back in February, I’ve had the privilege of shifting my focus away from the day-to-day operations, allowing me to concentrate on some of the core priorities of our organization in a way that is both refreshing and invigorating.

When I founded the Federation in 1982, our mission was clear: protect and restore North Carolina’s coastal ecosystems for future generations. Over the years, we have worked toward this vision — advocating for stronger environmental policies, engaging with local communities, and making significant strides in safeguarding our waters and wetlands. But as I’ve learned throughout my time here, the work is never done. It’s a continual journey, one that requires constant reflection, collaboration, adaptation and lots of helpful hands.

In my new role, I’ve been able to focus more deeply on the heart of our mission: land protection and habitat restoration, along with improving safeguards to prevent polluted stormwater runoff. These are critical efforts that will help restore coastal water quality, protect wildlife, sustain our fisheries, and make our coastal communities safer and more resilient for years to come. Healthy, thriving habitats — whether wetland forests, estuaries, or saltwater marshes — are the foundation for vibrant ecosystems and communities. As we look to the future, these efforts have never been more urgent. The challenges ahead are real and growing, but so are the opportunities.

One of the most pressing issues we face is the ongoing loss of wetlands. Wetlands play a vital role in filtering pollutants, providing habitat for marine life, and buffering communities from storm surges and flooding. This year, the Federation made significant progress on land protection initiatives, securing ownership and conservation easements on thousands of acres of riparian estuary buffers and collaborating with partners to raise more than $33 million to restore marshlands and riparian zones. These efforts will continue to grow in the years ahead, supported by our strong relationships with landowners, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies, and the N.C. General Assembly.

Restoring fisheries habitats is another area where we see great potential for impact. Coastal fisheries are essential not only to the health of our marine ecosystems but also to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people in North Carolina depending on our commercial, recreational and tourism industries. By focusing on water quality and habitat restoration — particularly in the headwater areas of our coastal estuaries — we can ensure these ecosystems continue to thrive. Already, we’re seeing positive effects of this work: fish populations are rebounding in some areas, and water quality is improving in others. But there is still much work to be done, and the Federation remains committed to staying at the forefront of these efforts.

The Coastal Federation has always thrived due to its strong, community-driven approach. We know that lasting change happens when people come together—when communities are empowered to protect their environments and when businesses, local governments, and environmental organizations collaborate for the greater good. With our new director’s years of experience working with North Carolina’s coastal communities to protect coastal habitats and marine fisheries, I am confident that the Federation will continue to build on this foundation, driving progress in ways that are both sustainable and effective. While I will continue to help where I can, this work relies on many capable and passionate hands — especially younger generations — who will sustain it for the future.

Becoming a grandparent this year has given me even greater perspective on the importance of this work. In August, I welcomed my first grandchild, and just before Thanksgiving, we learned that our family will grow with a second grandchild arriving in the spring. This personal milestone has only deepened my commitment to ensuring that we leave a healthier, more productive coast for the next generation.

The road ahead may not always be smooth, but we are on the right path. As we look toward the future, the hard work of today will lay the groundwork for a healthier coast tomorrow. The Federation has the knowledge, commitment, and partnerships needed to overcome the challenges we face and ensure that North Carolina’s coastal ecosystems remain healthy and productive for generations to come.

Only together, will we move forward as we protect, restore, and preserve our coast for the future.

Amid the shifting tides of change sweeping our planet, the North Carolina coast finds itself at a pivotal juncture, confronted by the increasingly familiar specter of extreme weather events.

While hurricanes have historically been the primary concern, the recent wildfire that engulfed Maui, Hawaii, serves as a chilling reminder of the mounting menace posed by wildfires. Although North Carolina may appear worlds away from the tropical havens of the Pacific, the aftermath of the Maui tragedy underscores the stark plausibility of a similar catastrophe unfurling along our shoreline.

The scorching flames that devoured Maui’s landscape underscore the raw power of wildfires; their ferocity capable of unleashing destruction with minimal notice. Fueled by a lethal blend of drought, soaring temperatures, and invasive plant species, the inferno raced across thousands of acres, sparing none in its path. These unsettlingly familiar conditions echo along North Carolina’s coastline.

I recall the scary events of April 1985, when firefighters fought a wildfire along a 20-mile-long fire line. Flames roared through 6 miles of the Croatan National Forest and forced 600 people to evacuate, including 60 kids at a wilderness camp. The fire blanketed Carteret County in dense smoke for weeks. Persistent northerly winds propelled this fire to the shoulders of N.C. Highway 24, threatening homes and to leap the road and reach Bogue Sound. Yet, as the sun vanished behind dense black plumes, a fortuitous shift in wind direction miraculously drove the flames back into already charred forest areas. The intense glow of the flames illuminated the night sky. Helicopters tirelessly shuttled water in large hanging buckets from Bogue Sound to douse the fire’s lingering embers.

The following May, nearly 73,000 acres — about 114 square miles – of Onslow and Pender counties burned for nearly two weeks in the Topsail fire, which charred more than 80% of the 48,000-acre Holly Shelter Game Land.

There have been others. The 2008 Evans Road fire, which burned for more than six months, consumed 50,000 acres in Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The Pains Bay fire in May 2011 and the Whipping Creek Road fire in April 2016, both in Hyde and Dare counties, each raced across the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge toward the Air Force’s Dare Bombing Range.

Each year, a slew of fires along the coast serves as a stark reminder of our vulnerabilities, including this year’s 32,000-acre Great Lake fire, which showered Craven County with ash in April. Also this year, wildfires scorched 16,000 acres of the Green Swamp Preserve in Brunswick County and 5,200 acres in Tyrrell County.

These fires are stoked by the undeniable force of climate change, a factor that has upended conventional weather patterns, amplifying extremities to unprecedented proportions. Escalating temperatures, enduring droughts, and erratic winds have woven an environment where wildfires ignite and rage with disconcerting ease. Our coastline, adorned with fragile ecosystems and a delicate interplay between human endeavors and natural grandeur, stands more susceptible than ever. The looming specter of a “Maui” fire scenario in North Carolina transcends conjecture; it is a distressing reality, particularly as our population burgeons within working lands and forests.

In confronting this imminent threat, proactive measures are imperative. Coastal communities must unite around comprehensive fire management strategies, encompassing early warning systems, defensible home perimeters, and well-coordinated evacuation plans akin to those devised for hurricanes. Synergistic cooperation between local, state, and federal entities forms the bedrock of effective wildfire preparedness and response.

Equally vital is a proactive stance on land management. Routine controlled burns, a practice embraced by the Croatan National Forest, along with targeted removal of both native and invasive vegetation, serve to curtail the accumulation of combustible materials, thus diminishing the risk of an unstoppable blaze. The expansion of controlled fire usage as an ecosystem management tool, harkening back to the practices of indigenous communities, stands essential to striking a balance between human progress and natural habitats.

In parallel, public awareness campaigns emerge as another pivotal component of preparedness. Fostering widespread comprehension of fire safety, evacuation protocols, and individual responsibilities empowers residents to safeguard the properties and loved ones. Swift recognition of the gravity of the situation is paramount, a comprehension that can galvanize citizens to champion policy shifts that accord priority to wildfire prevention and mitigation.

In the aftermath of the 2023 Maui wildfire, the alarm bells toll more resoundingly than ever. The prospect of a “Maui” fire scenario along the North Carolina coast might appear remote, yet the convergence of environmental factors necessitates our attention. Through a holistic and prudent approach encompassing community initiatives and policy reforms, we can collaboratively diminish this menace and shield the pristine beauty and communities that define our coast.

Dear Friends of Our Coast,

Lots of things have changed in the past 40 years since the North Carolina Coastal Federation was formed.

For example, technology advanced in leaps in bounds. The Commodore 64 computer was released in 1982. One year later, the Coastal Federation bought an Apple IIe with a 5-inch floppy disk drive and a dot matrix printer. This first computer is still one of the most expensive ones we ever purchased.

A sturdy manual Underwood office typewriter was how we prepared correspondences prior to personal computers. We typed two successful grant proposals to get the organization started: one to the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation and another to N.C. Humanities Council. These grants provided “seed” money to kickstart our work. The letterhead used for those first proposals was homemade on that typewriter, fancied up by pasting a small pen and ink sketch (drawn by my sister Deede) of a flying brown pelican next to the address line.

Folks still ask why we picked the pelican as the logo of the Coastal Federation. I could say it was a strategic decision to use as our logo, a bird that had come back from the brink of extinction to symbolize that environmental protection works. However, in truth, the drawing was within easy reach when urgently needed to make proposals look good.

Raising funds in 1982 was a big challenge. We had no track record, and the economy was in recession. Yearly inflation was 6.16 percent, interest rates were 11.5 percent, and the Dow Jones closed the year at 1046. Of course, the cost of living was less: rent averaged $320 a month, the median price of houses was $67,800, gas cost 91 cents a gallon, and incomes averaged $21,050 a year.

More than half our existing staff members were not born when we were established. And dozens of our board members who served us faithfully over the years have passed away. All these changes make me think about the 1961 Broadway musical: “Stop the World – I Want to Get Off.”  Of course, change is inevitable. Having the agility to evolve and adapt is essential to remain effective in our work.

This astonishing and adventurous four-decade journey has been traveled along with thousands of nice, generous, and dedicated people. These many enduring relationships constantly stimulate creative and innovative solutions to many coastal management challenges. Forty years ago, we were full of ideas and idealism about what our efforts might accomplish. Decades later, past successes breed even more ideas and opportunities that invigorate our work.

The latest edition of Our Coast, the Coastal Federation’s quarterly magazine, includes summaries of our five mission-related goals and samples of our award-winning journalism, which is published every workday in Coastal Review. Our goals prioritize our daily work since it’s impossible to pursue every worthy need or idea. That’s not to say we don’t seek to expand our capacity. This year we intend to finish our $6.5 million capital campaign so we can build our new Center for Coastal Protection and Restoration facilities and programs that better serve our coast.

To our members, thank you for being part of the Coastal Federation’s legacy. With your continued help, our efforts to protect and restore the coast are only just getting started. To readers of Coastal Review, supporting the Coastal Federation also makes possible our continued coverage of the important news of the North Carolina coast that you’ve come to expect.

From our publisher:

Food is always a big part of my family’s holiday tradition, whether it’s a holiday oyster roast or fresh fish caught from Bogue Sound.

Like so many of us, I think a lot more about what I eat these days. In addition to trying to eat healthy, I worry more and more about plastic contamination in my seafood. Scientists say microplastics are a growing problem worldwide and right here in N.C.

Scientists tell us that microplastics are one of the most common types of debris found in animals and environmental samples. Peer reviewed studies show that synthetic microfibers—a type of plastic smaller than a millimeter in length and made up of various synthetic polymers—are found in the waters, fish and shellfish sampled just about everywhere in the world, including in our sounds and rivers in coastal N.C. These microfibers now make up 85 percent of the human-caused marine debris across the globe, according to a study published in the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology.

These tiny fibers come from many sources. The most obvious source is consumer waste such as plastic bottles and disposable cups. While consumer waste is a source, much of this microplastic comes from clothes, cosmetics, toothpaste and thousands of other products that we use every day both inside and outside of our homes and businesses. For example, Environmental Science and Technology recently reported that every time you wash a fleece jacket it sheds about two grams of microfibers—about the same weight as two paperclips.

There is little doubt that these microplastics find their way into your diet, especially when you eat seafood. Research on the health implications of eating these fibers is still ongoing. Scientists don’t yet understand the potential health consequences of eating plastic, but advise that until more is known, we should be doing everything possible to reduce the amount of plastic that we’re releasing into our coastal waterways.

Microplastics are a difficult problem both because they are invisible and because they come from so many diverse sources. In that way, this challenge reminds me of stormwater pollution, which at one point seemed to be an impossible challenge with so many pollutants coming from so many sources. But just as we have found ways to effectively address stormwater, I am confident that we will find ways to address microplastics. We just have to begin.

Here at the Coastal Federation, we are ready to dive in. Our first steps will be to encourage important research on microplastics, and to team up with experts to better understand and document the sources, concentrations and health implications of microplastics in our coastal waters and seafood. We plan to work to organize an informational forum in 2021 to connect scientific experts with local policymakers. We believe that science should inform policy on this issue, and we will advocate for environmental policies that take science into account.

This is a new focus area for the federation.  To learn more about what we have planned and to support this initiative, please to go to the following website: https://workingtogether.nccoast.org/site/R?i=LwY-mpywFFm_wpYrPvj9KA

Featured Image

April is the time of year to keep an eye out for flowering dwarf iris, also known as Iris verna, or dwarf violet iris, in the Croatan National Forest.

According to the North Carolina Cooperative Extension, the flower only gets as tall as 6 inches, but its foliage can double the size after flowering. The fragrant native North Carolina perennial can be found in partly shady areas under the longleaf pines in the Southeastern coastal plain from Maryland to Florida.

Learn More

• Cooperative Extension, Craven County Center

Featured Image

We lost a dear member of the North Carolina Coastal Federation family on March 20 when our former board president Dick Bierly passed away at age 86 at home peacefully in his sleep.

Dick became part of our work to protect and restore the coast back in the early 1990s when he learned firsthand that wise management of coastal resources simply doesn’t just happen without public education and engagement. He retired with his wife Mary to Carteret County after a highly successful career as a business executive. He recounted many times how he helped IBM locate in North Carolina back when the Research Triangle Park was more of a concept than a reality.

It’s hard to believe that nearly 30 years has passed since Dick first became involved with the federation’s work. He came to us because he and his neighborhood feared that there would be significant negative environmental impacts from a proposed nearby waterfront development. Dick quickly transitioned from someone asking us for help to becoming an advocate for sound coastal management in his own right. He read environmental laws and regulations, constantly attended all kinds of meetings, and in typical Dick fashion reached out to all kinds of people from all walks of life for guidance, support and for their leadership.

Over time, Dick used his newfound knowledge and interests in coastal management to become one of our leading environmental advocates for our entire coast. He joined the federation’s board of directors and soon rose into our leadership. Because of his extensive corporate experience, he skillfully played the role of a board member with professionalism.  He shared his considerable business knowledge and connections while not getting into the middle of how the staff at the federation does its jobs.

It surprised many people who are engaged in environmental causes that Dick was a hardcore registered Republican. He saw no conflict between being a Republican and an environmentalist. In fact, he called out elected officials from all political parties when he thought their votes and policies were not supportive of good environmental management. He viewed environmental protection as a sound business practice that should be a bipartisan cause. Dick was constantly challenging all of us to put aside our stereotypes and preconceived notions and to find ways to reduce the political polarization that results in little enlightened public policy accomplishments these days.

Over the last few months, Dick’s health suffered from a series of cascading problems that forced him to step back from his active engagement in our work. Even though he was largely confined to home, his mind and attention remained attentive to our work, and he continued to offer sound ideas and advice.

In just the past few weeks, he insisted that we let people know just how much investment that the federation makes each year in our coastal economy. He had us estimate the amount of money we spend each year with local vendors and contractors to restore our coastal habitats and how millions of dollars of expenditures are a significant economic benefit for the coast in terms of supporting jobs and commerce. We rolled out these numbers last week in meetings with economic developers and business leaders whom Dick helped to engage in supporting the federation’s work. He sought out their help to convince state lawmakers that investing in restoring the coastal environment is an economic development strategy for our coast.

I last visited with Dick two days before he died. He could have spent our time together focused on his health challenges, but instead he directed the conversation toward discussing the work of the federation and what opportunities lie ahead. He even made some plans for what he could do to continue to help us reach out to people whom he believed needed to get engaged in our work.

It’s very sad to have lost such an important member of the federation’s family. Dick was a lot more than a professional associate to all of us here at the federation. Simply put, he was our friend. Over the years, we have attended his birthday parties, gotten to know his kids, grieved with him when he lost his wife to cancer, spent family vacation time together, and even helped him deliver Santa Claus on his boat to the Beaufort waterfront. For me personally, Dick became my own surrogate father in many respects.

Dick’s passing reminds us that our time on earth is limited. He inspires us through the way he lived his life to make every day count as much as possible. Dick lived a full life, and during the time that I knew him he worked hard to make every day worth living.

It’s a wonderful privilege that Dick was my friend. He leaves an enduring legacy through his life’s accomplishments. He certainly left a lasting beneficial impact on the federation and everyone who works here. We will all miss him tremendously.

The best thing about my job is experiencing the amazing unselfish contributions that so many people make to our coast and the work of the North Carolina Coastal Federation.  And since I’ve been at this job for 35 years, that inevitably leads to one of my most difficult and saddest duties — saying goodbye to people who inspire our work.

One such very special person passed away Wednesday. James Barrie Gaskill of Ocracoke apparently had a heart attack and died while fishing his gill nets that morning. He died doing something he loved most. That brings a little comfort to those of us that knew him.

The first time I met James Barrie was more than 30 years ago. I was with Alton Ballance in his pickup truck, driving down the beach near Ocracoke Inlet. James Barrie came cruising down the beach in his very old two-wheel drive truck. I remember his big smile as he scouted the beach for schools of fish. Alton told me I needed to get to know James Barrie, and for that introduction I’ll always be grateful.

James Barrie was the type of person who would give you the shirt off his back to help you. He used to raise money for the federation by selling T-shirts at Albert Styron’s Store, and got involved in helping develop a new land-use plan for Ocracoke Village and in fighting offshore oil and gas development proposed by Mobil Oil. Before long, he joined the federation’s board of directors. As a native of Ocracoke, he cared deeply about his community and its people.

James Barrie was smart and savvy. He figured people out and sized up issues quickly and got to the root of problems without worrying about being politically correct. He married Ellen who had come to Ocracoke from Washington, D.C. They had their son Morty the same year my oldest son was born, and I still have a picture of our two babies playing together in a boat that served as their playpen.

Morty is like his father in many ways. He became Ocracoke’s youngest commercial fishermen while growing up, and he is very smart. He excelled in school. However, he felt imprisoned when he went away to the prestigious North Carolina School of Sciences and Mathematics during his junior and senior years of high school. He was no longer free to roam around Pamlico Sound on his boat except during infrequent visits home. Morty’s strong spirit is a pure reflection of both his father and mother.

There are many funny stories that James Barrie would tell us about his travels and interactions with people who had a hard time understanding his Outer Banks brogue. He loved adventure, and he respected people who appreciated his way of life. He was a vital member of the federation’s board of directors, always reminding us that our work is as much about people as it is about fish and wildlife.

It is with a heavy heart that I must say goodbye to a good friend. He was always there when you needed him, and now his spirit will continue to reside in our fond memories of his life. Speaking for the board and staff of the federation, we are blessed to have known James Barrie Gaskill as our friend.

Obituary

James Barrie Gaskill, 74, of Ocracoke, died on Wednesday, June 21, 2017. Born in Carteret County on April 20, 1943, he was the son of the late Daisy Styron Gaskill and James Lumley Gaskill Jr.

In keeping with James Barrie’s wishes, there will be no service at this time.

After graduating from the College of the Albemarle, James Barrie received his bachelor’s degree from East Carolina University. He was a teacher at Ocracoke School and later became its principal. A commercial fisherman on the Pamlico Sound, he also served as a board member for the North Carolina Coastal Federation and the Ocracoke Working Watermen’s Association. In 2013, James Barrie and Gene Ballance shared the federation’s Pelican Award for leadership in restoring coastal habitat.

He is survived by his wife, Ellen Gaskill; two children, Candy and Morton Gaskill; sister-in-law, Linda Gaskill, all of Ocracoke; and a nephew, Joseph Gaskill and wife Stephanie of St. Mary’s, Georgia. Along with his parents, he was preceded in death by a brother, Joseph W. Gaskill.

Memorial contributions in his honor may be made to the North Carolina Coastal Federation, 3609 N.C. 24, Newport, N.C. 28570, or the Ocracoke Working Watermen’s Association, PO Box 1165, Ocracoke, N.C. 27960.

Twiford Funeral Home of Manteo is assisting the family with arrangements. Condolences may be expressed at www.TwifordFH.com.

Eight years ago a business lobbyist who had formerly worked for then Gov. Mike Easley called just as I was leaving the office for the day.  He said he wanted to give me a “heads-up” that a major new industry was about to announce plans to locate in Wilmington, and that it would be a wonderful economic stimulus for southeastern N.C.  He assured me that the company would be a good coastal steward, and encouraged the N.C. Coastal Federation to welcome the project.

The next day Titan America, a Greek international conglomerate, announced its plans to build one of the nation’s largest cement kilns and limestone mines next to the Northeast Cape Fear River just upstream of downtown Wilmington.  Secret meetings with state and county leaders had already “cemented” the deal with the company, including securing a commitment for over $4 million in government incentives to entice Titan to locate in New Hanover County.  The political and business establishment had worked out the arrangement, and the company thought it would be operating by 2012.  The only people not consulted in advance were the residents and visitors of the communities who would be directly affected by the company.

Titan, by their own words, expected to be welcomed with open arms.  But within hours after the project was announced, many people began asking serious questions about what the company would do to the region’s quality of life and environment.  What emerged was a passionate grassroots Stop Titan coalition of residents, civic organizations, businesses, medical professionals and environmental groups that started asking hard questions about why a dirty, extractive industry that could pollute the air and water and dry up the region’s groundwater supplies would be welcomed to our coast.

At that time, New Hanover County had antiquated zoning that simply rubber stamped all heavy industry, even if it might be dirty and dangerous as a neighbor. This rapidly growing and evolving county is blessed with a natural environment that attracts vibrant high-tech, service, academic, retirement and tourism businesses.  It hadn’t yet come to terms with how to encourage this desirable growth and protect it from potentially polluting industry.

Given the existing support for Titan among most county elected leaders, public concerns about the proposal were at first fiercely directed at federal and state permitting agencies that are responsible for protecting water and air quality, wetlands and groundwater.  In addition, local residents went to the N.C. General Assembly asking for help. Thousands of people attended public hearings, and before long Titan’s efforts to obtain numerous environmental permits were stymied.  At that point, the company put all its energy into getting its air quality permit.

And even as “anti” regulatory initiatives became more prevalent at the state level, the Titan controversy moderated some attempts to rollback state mandated environmental safeguards as lawmakers were careful not to weaken laws that would make it easier for Titan to locate in coastal N.C.

As the years rolled by, the local officials that welcomed Titan were not re-elected or retired. A new set of county commissioners realized that more local control over heavy industry was essential, and they adopted a special use permit as part of the zoning ordinance similar to ordinances that already existed in neighboring Brunswick and Pender counties.  This new local permit process enables the county board to protect public health and welfare and gives it the authority to either approve or deny industrial proposals such as Titan.  With the adoption of this ordinance, Titan became even more dormant and quiet.  The only regulatory activity that remained active was litigation over its air quality permit that is still pending.

Maintaining a high level of public engagement for eight years as Titan became increasingly quiet was quite a challenge. The coalition turned its attention to promoting sustainable economic development, improving the special use permit, obtaining additional recognition and protection for the region’s wonderful natural assets and to protecting fragile and limited potable groundwater supplies.

So when word came a couple of weeks ago that Titan was calling it quits, coalition members were hugely relieved that their exhausting fight was over.  After the initial celebration, everyone soon realized that while this battle was won the conditions that had caused this fight still existed and remain a threat to the region.

Better environmental safeguards and a clear vision for what types of economic development to be recruiting are still needed before the next Titan-like project comes along and threatens the region.

Titan was a “Goliath,” toppled by ordinary people who waged an extraordinary campaign to protect their quality of life and environment.  It took a huge amount of energy and funding to win this battle.  Now is the time to focus the coalition’s energy on building a strong and vibrant economy that is compatible with the coast’s fragile environment.  The goal is to keep the Cape Fear coastal region one of the best places to live, work and play in the world.

Over the years, the N.C. Coastal Federation was privileged to help lead this coalition that held public officials accountable and stimulated constant public discussions about the best economic and environmental future for our coast.  Private foundations were wonderful partners helping to fund research, legal work and outreach campaigns. The Wilmington Star-News observed that: “Anti-Titan efforts have made it clear that environmental groups in our region are a force to be reckoned with.”

The Orton Foundation’s support for the federation and other nonprofits in the Cape Fear region facilitates this focus on protecting the region’s unique natural and cultural attributes. Through this work, the foundation supports an emerging vision for the Cape Fear region that recognizes the important role our natural resources play in shaping our productive economy and wonderful quality of life.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson

OCEAN — Gov. Pat McCrory and his administration have repeatedly said that their support for offshore oil and gas development depends on the state receiving its fair share of revenue from the federal government.

“It would be difficult to sell this to the North Carolina public unless there is a revenue-sharing plan with the federal government,” McCrory said during a media briefing last fall in Raleigh. “If there’s no money, none of us win.”

Any potential revenue, McCrory said, is likely five to 10 years away.

Conversely, President Obama wants to scrap offshore revenue sharing that currently goes to Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. He wants the money to provide “broad natural resource, watershed and conservation benefits for the entire nation.” His proposal is part of his current budget proposal to Congress that was delivered in early February.

The President’s proposal would save the federal government $5.6 billion over 10 years according to his U.S. Treasury Department. The money generated by cancelling revenue sharing appears to be appetizing targets for some Republican and Democratic deficit reduction advocates, especially those from non-oil and gas producing states.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stresses in recent press articles that offshore oil and gas reserves are a national asset, and “we believe (revenue sharing for select Gulf states) needs to be reexamined to (provide) a fair return to the taxpayers across the whole United States.”

Enhanced revenue sharing for some Gulf Coast states was part of 2006 energy legislation that passed Congress. This law allocates 37.5 percent of revenue from many offshore leases – up to $500 million annually – to  Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

The prospect that Obama will be successful in eliminating this current revenue sharing commitment is extremely slim in this year’s Congress. Equally unlikely, is the prospect that McCrory will get the federal government to commit the federal revenues he’s seeking for North Carolina.

It will take a super majority of at least 60 votes in the U.S. Senate and Obama’s signature to develop a binding plan to share oil and gas revenues with North Carolina. That simply won’t happen given the number of senators on record from both parties that object to such a provision and the clear opposition from the Obama Administration.

What happens in the future after Obama leaves office and new senators are elected is certainly open to speculation. And then again, what happens year-after-year as the federal government looks for increased revenues to pay its debts and fund its programs will always be at the whim of future federal leaders. Unless revenue sharing becomes a constitutional right, future elected members of Congress and presidents are free to allocate the money as they see fit.

It’s worth noting here that the royalties that oil and natural gas companies pay for the privilege of drilling offshore make up the country’s second-largest single source of revenue, exceeded only by the federal income tax. In fiscal 2011, federal offshore receipts from oil and gas activities totaled $6.5 billion, according to the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

It’s pretty clear that there will be no revenue sharing plan between North Carolina and the federal government for at least the next couple of years. Beyond that, it’s important to remember Jefferson’s caution about relying on big government to provide for your needs. What federal government gives it can certainly take away.

McCrory says that receiving adequate revenue sharing from oil and gas drilling is his litmus test regarding the acceptability of offshore oil and gas development for his state. It seems clear that despite his highly public efforts to lobby for revenue sharing there won’t be any more federal money flowing from Washington any time soon.

I was walking on the beach at Bear Island on Sunday, Nov. 1, 1987, wondering why dozens of dolphins were surfing the waves and my two dogs kept sneezing. Later that afternoon, it was announced that a red tide had washed ashore, and public health officials began warning everyone not to eat seafood and to stay out of the water. The next day scientists identified a toxic dinoflagellate in our coastal waters, and they later figured out that this toxin had come from the Gulf Stream.

For the next 3.5 months, about 50 percent of the oyster beds and 95 percent of the clamming waters in the state were contaminated. Fear of going near the water had dramatic effects on tourism, although the industry was fortunate that the toxin had invaded during the off-season.  The economic losses were conservatively estimated at $25 million according to NOAA researchers.  The T&W Oyster Bar on N.C. 58 near Cape Carteret displayed a sign of the times—proclaiming it only served “Safe Out-of-State Seafood.”

The red tide proved that what goes on in the Gulf Stream can have a direct effect on our coast. The Gulf Stream is one of the natural wonders of our planet—it provides for rich fisheries throughout much of the world. It directly influences our climate, and since it sits on a hill of water about three feet high it even influences sea level on the N.C. coast. It is a natural treasure that is critically important to the health of our coast and the world’s oceans.

For all these reasons, it’s hard to comprehend why anyone would want to put the Gulf Stream and our coast at greater risk of catastrophic environmental damage. The recent announcement by the Obama administration to perhaps allow oil and gas rigs off our coast is worth losing sleep over. If someone screws up—which someone always does when it comes to oil and gas activities—it’s impossible to calculate the long-term environmental, economic and social consequences that will occur.

Most estimates are that oil and gas reserves off our coast are pretty small in terms of providing for the daily needs of the United States. However, there is probably enough energy off our coast to make the oil corporations and their stockholders a lot of money. That explains why the oil industry campaigns so hard to be allowed to drill.

The federal agencies will now evaluate if they should lease sites for drilling that would be at least 50 miles off the coast. That would put wells in deep, stormy waters near or in the Gulf Stream. Drilling rigs will closely resemble BP’s ill-fated Deepwater Horizon in terms of size, depth and risk.

Just recently both our U.S. Senators quoted an oil industry study of the economic benefits of drilling. That study is based upon the following assumptions: “Atlantic OCS drilling would be expected to begin in 2019, with an average of 30 wells drilled annually from 2017 to 2035 mostly in deep water. In the last five years of the forecast (2031-2035) an average of 66 wells would be expected to be drilled annually as the number of active projects grows and the need for development wells increase.” Doing the math, that works out to 780 wells lining our Atlantic waters.

And while they focus on the revenue side of oil and gas development, politicians aren’t talking about the huge expenditures associated with accommodating a big surge in temporary and permanent coastal residents. What are the costs associated with housing, schooling and taking care of this new workforce that comes and goes along our coast?

The actual amount of oil and gas, and where it will be brought ashore if it is discovered, has not been determined.  However, most experts have long ago concluded that North Carolina won’t be a hotspot for employment related to this industry. Most insiders believe that the vast amount of support and staging for deep-water drilling will go to Norfolk and Charleston.

And even if everything occurred as drillers might dream, the economic returns on opening up our coastline to the petrochemical industry are at least a decade or more away. North Carolina has one of the most productive and healthy coastal ecosystems left in the United States, and it’s a real pity that we aren’t putting all our home-grown human energy and economic development resources into working to better tap the economic potential of our clean natural assets that are capable of making our existing coastal economy grow and prosper.

Our political leaders were united in their opposition to oil and gas drilling off the N.C. coast when it was proposed more than 25 years ago. Under the leadership of then governor and sailor Jim Martin, our coastal treasures and economy were protected. Now that this issue is being widely discussed and evaluated once again by coastal residents and visitors, and they are beginning to learn more about what is really being planned, it will be fascinating to watch which way the political winds blow our state’s leaders.

The N.C. Coastal Federation is opposed to hard erosion control structures like groins and seawalls along the oceanfront and inlets. Setting back development, moving endangered buildings and buying time for existing development by renourishing beaches or managing the location of inlet channels provide more environmentally sound alternatives for high hazard locations. The federation provides extensive comments to regulatory agencies, local governments, homeowners and others that evaluate proposed terminal groin projects.

The final Environmental Impact Study for the $18 million terminal groin project for Bald Head Island at the mouth of the Cape Fear River was issued in August by the Army Corps of Engineers. Accompanying the final study is what’s called a “Section 7 review” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It evaluates if there are any possible adverse effects from the project on endangered species. Required before a final study is issued, the review did not find significant threats to endangered species or their habitats.

Instinctively, we think that a terminal groin is a bad idea, and we doubt it will work to hold back the sea. We also don’t like the fact that this will become the 17th groin built on this beach. Sixteen big sand tube groins placed here two decades ago (and replaced several times) have not resolved the erosion problems plaguing the island.  In addition, there may even be future plans to build more groins along the Cape Fear River shoreline if this new project doesn’t stop the erosion.We asked independent scientists if they agreed with this assessment. Everyone agrees this location is not critical habitat unlike most inlets in N.C. The deep ship channel that is dredged just offshore of the project site has done a pretty good job over the years of eliminating this location’s habitat values.

That said, the federation is not going to formally object to the Bald Head project. We continue to think it won’t solve the island’s erosion issues, but we aren’t overly concerned that it will cause significant new environmental harm to the area. Local taxpayers have voted to spend their own money to build and maintain the project, and there should not be any cost to state and federal taxpayers. We will focus our time and resources on protecting more productive and natural inlet habitats elsewhere along our coast.

We will evaluate and report through Coastal Review Online how this project performs and its ongoing costs, and make sure it provides a valuable learning opportunity for everyone concerned about the future of our beaches.

FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND — It wasn’t D-Day, but on July 2 four environmental groups including the N.C. Coastal Federation made a landing on the northern tip of Figure Eight Island at Rich Inlet. Their mission was to share with the local media information about the amazing natural habitats and processes of the inlet, and why an ill-conceived effort to build a 995-foot-long sheet pile wall attached to a 505-foot-long rock groin in the middle of this fragile spit of land should be abandoned in favor of a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Cross-section drawings show that it will be a massive pile of rocks.  It will require digging out about a half football field length of sand (140-foot wide excavation area) to about five and half feet below sea level.  A bed of rocks 120 feet wide bed will be placed in the hole. This includes a 30-foot scour apron seaward of the groin to protect it when the beach washes away.  The visible rocks will be 80 to 90 feet wide and about six feet above the sand.

There was a welcoming committee for our landing. The paid administrator for the private homeowners association on the island had learned about it in advance, and he sat in his beach buggy a few hundred yards away watching with binoculars.  And then we were joined by a handful of local property owners who came to learn more about what we had to say as well.

That designation makes it illegal for federal agencies to authorize development, such as a massive rock terminal groin, within this designated critical habitat area that would in anyway damage its natural values. If for some reason the federal agencies fail to do their job, environmental groups have already compiled a massive agency record so that they’ll be ready to successfully pursue legal actions to protect this critical nesting area.The sand spit on the northern tip of the island is accreting rapidly and has become home for many oystercatchers, skimmers, terns, willets and plovers. Coastal biologist Lindsay Addison who works for Audubon North Carolina says that if is the largest least tern colony on record in N.C. in over forty years. “This year it’s the largest colony on the entire Atlantic coast,” she said in a recent interview. “It represents about a third of the breeding least terns in the state.” Given the huge amount of bird activity on these 65 acres, it’s easy to understand why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated it as “critical habitat” for endangered and threatened bird species.

Naively perhaps, we thought that the proponents of building the groin would also see just how valuable this land is for the birds, and would recognize that they will face insurmountable natural, legal and fiscal obstacles if they continue with this project. Since 2008, the Figure Eight Homeowners Association spent $210,000 lobbying the N.C. General Assembly mostly to allow the groin. These lobbying efforts have done nothing to weaken or remove barriers to the project imposed by the Congress through the Endangered Species Act.

One of the goals of the media outing was to help inform people about why this bird habitat is so special.  We are always surprised when it is claimed that a groin will “stabilize” the habitat and make it better. This habitat is productive because it is so “unstable.” It must remain very low in elevation with no vegetation and occasionally experience flooding to be useful as nesting and foraging areas for these species of birds.

If the groin were built, it would cause the barren sand landward of the structure to become higher and vegetated.  This would destroy its value as bird habitat.  It would also destroy the beach and sand flats that are public trust areas used heavily by boaters and beach goers from all over the state. Computer models paid for by the association show habitat seaward of the groin washed away within five years of construction.

According to the association, it has spent more that $1.6 million on environmental studies for the terminal groin.  What it got for its money was one of the worse draft environmental impact statement studies that various government agencies and the public have ever reviewed. Fundamental issues, such as securing permission from inlet landowners to build the project on their private lots, were completely overlooked. This resulted in having to go back to redo these already costly environmental studies. Due to the needed permission from landowners the association now proposes a groin location farther north on the island as the best alternative. The former location was also promoted as the best alternative by the association so one must wonder what their parameters are to determine what is best.

The 2012 draft study predicted disaster for property owners at the north of the island if the groin was not built. Instead, nature in a few short years has rebuilt the north end of the island at no cost to anyone. The draft study estimated the cost of managing the location of the inlet channel with dredging as hugely expensive, but again nature showed these costs projections were highly inflated. The channel would only take minor dredging to keep it in its current location if that became necessary. The costs of this minor dredging are far less than the costs of building and maintaining the terminal groin.

It’s time to forget the groin, and for everyone to work together to devise a much lower cost and practical alternative for Rich Inlet.  That would be a much more productive and cost-effective use of everyone’s talents and resources.

MOREHEAD CITY — Hundreds of people from all walks of life lined up for hours on May 1 to have a chance to celebrate the life of Charles Jones. His unexpected passing last week was a shock to everyone.  Sixty years is just too early to depart life, and his family graciously welcomed everyone who came to say their goodbyes to a very good person.

People from every aspect of life in Carteret County and throughout N.C. came together to honor a life well lived.  There were land surveyors, teachers, developers, lawyers, government officials, environmentalists and many of his Downeast Carteret County neighbors.

A local native, Charles gave back to the community in many ways.  He worked for many years for the N.C. Division of Coastal Management where he eventually became its director until his retirement in 2009.  Since then he became chairman of the board of the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center on Harkers Island, and continued to engage in many civic affairs to help protect and improve coastal N.C.  Here is the obituary.

Charles retired from his career in coastal management without having lost his sense of humor and his friends and with his ability to avoid polarizing people and segments of society. He built bridges between diverse groups of people and was able to put issues into a perspective that helped people to work together and to have a better understanding of their different viewpoints.  He held his ground when necessary, and tried to navigate issues in a way that resolved and did not fester conflicts.

Charles instinctively knew the ways and means of our coast and its communities.  That made him an extremely effective coastal manager and advocate.  His easygoing yet steady touch enabled him to bring people together to make the coast a better place for all of us to live, visit, work and play.  He will be missed.

We are honored that Fred and Alice Stanback allowed us to name our new coastal education center in Wrightsville Beach after them. We announced the name of the new center on May 3 at its grand opening.

The federation asked permission to name the center after them with some hesitation. That’s because we know the Stanbacks do not seek the limelight for what they have done to make North Carolina a much better place. We took a chance and asked them because we felt that this was a really meaningful opportunity to thank them publicly for all they do for our state’s environment.

This past month we moved into this new center in Wrightsville Beach. It is a historic 1948 Wrightsville beach cottage that was donated to the federation, moved by barge to its current location in the Town’s Historic Square (next to the Wrightsville Beach Museum and Chamber of Commerce also in historic cottages) and has been made ready to serve us for at least the next 30 years as a very high-profile, public location for the coastal advocacy work of our Southeast Office.  The town is providing the land where our building sits. We have raised donations from residents, visitors, businesses and foundations to pay for the move and to remodel the building, and it now starts serving as an effective tool for our work. Already, we held an April 21 reception on its porch for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island where he made some remarks about his work to address climate issues.

For the last three decades, the Stanbacks, who live in Salisbury, have helped the federation to be a consistent and effective voice for the coast.  Their generous support allows us to plant our roots deeply into our coastal communities and work with current and future decision-makers to bring about long-term improvements in how our coast is managed. They have enabled us to maintain positive forward momentum in improving how we protect our coast and to approach our work knowing that we’re going to be a long-term force. This is allowing us to gain greater trust and respect of coastal residents and visitors and to expand the groundswell of public interest and support to bring about fundamental changes and improvements in how we care for the coast. This new center is an important tool to help us expand upon this momentum.

In addition to what the Stanbacks have done for the federation and the coast, their widespread and significant support for environmental causes and protection all over North Carolina is making a huge difference from Calabash to Murphy.  They have made the entire state a better and more healthy place to live.

Thus, it’s with great pride that our new center is now named after the Stanbacks.  They in no way sought this recognition, which is why we feel it’s so special that they have allowed us to name the building in their honor. 

Thank you Fred and Alice Stanback for helping to make North Carolina a wonderful and special place for generations to come.

A hotter climate is already creating big worries among people who live and visit our coast and who work its land and water. It strains the budgets of taxpayers, government agencies, lawmakers and insurers.

And this winter, climate warming has intruded upon our ability to simply want to catch one of the state’s most prized game fishes.

Many of us may not realize that such worries are directly related to a warming climate, and it’s time to understand how climate is so directly connected to how we live our lives and that none of us are immune to the consequences of a warming Earth.

This winter the wild swings in weather are linked to something called the “polar vortex.” The weather now dominates the news and our daily lives. It has caused major delays in work and big economic losses for businesses, closed schools, interrupted travel plans and along the N.C. coast resulted in a big die-off of speckled trout.  To protect the trout that survived the cold, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries has imposed a statewide moratorium on harvesting them until June.

What is the “polar vortex?”

Scientists tell us that it normally stays in the Arctic.  But this winter it came down south and brought us extremely cold temperatures, snow and ice.  The vortex is pulled south by an unusually strong jet stream, which climate scientists tell us is going to continue to happen even more frequently as the world continues to warm.  In fact, 2013 was the fourth-hottest year on record (the second-hottest for a year without an El Niño).  Greenhouse gas pollution simply traps more heat in our atmosphere.

Meanwhile, coastal communities complain to lawmakers about the rising costs of insuring property from wind and floods and paying higher prices to fight erosion and floods.  We’re told by scientists that a warming climate not only causes more wild swings in winter weather, but it is also the likelihood to result in more extreme storm events throughout the year such as hurricanes, northeasters, tornados—not to mention droughts and forest fires.

Over the past couple of years, there’s been a spirited debate in N.C. about sea-level rise predictions and how we should plan for a rising tide going forward.  Few people debate that the sea is rising, but some argue about how fast and say there’s no reason to worry about things that won’t happened for decades to come.

Almost all climate experts predict an exponential increase in sea level worldwide several decades from now.  That’s because when the climate warms even by a little, past geologic history and simple physics clearly show that the volume of a warming sea increases significantly as well.

We still have decades to adjust to these longer-term changes and make our communities more resilient to climate extremes. Already, we should take steps to design sewers, roads, drainage systems and other infrastructure that will be around for the next century so they are not so vulnerable to floods and erosion.

A new documentary called “Shored Up” shows what happened in New Jersey and New York as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Sandy hammered coastal communities from all sides.  Damage was widespread on both barrier island and mainland communities. Sandy illustrated that massive investments in fortifying the oceanfront do little to protect entire coastal communities.  These projects were about as effective as the Maginot Line in France was during World War II.  The sea simply bypassed impressive beach fortifications and found other low points to invade coastal communities.

Short-term strategies to protect existing development in coastal communities are fine to pursue, and these efforts give some time to fully appreciate and depreciate existing investments in real estate and infrastructure.  Such strategies include beach re-nourishment and inlet management projects. Over time, however, such strategies will become progressively less effective and more expensive.

Back in 2009 a diverse group of about 50 coastal management experts produced a series of short-term and longer-term recommendations for how to manage our barrier islands. They crafted recommendations that would allow for existing development to be protected as long as the public beach and environment are not harmed. They also said that efforts to protect existing development should not be a catalyst for increasing the amount and density of new development that is placed in risky areas.

The group also floated ideas for how to manage and adapt coastal communities when it no longer proves possible to completely protect them as they are today. Few of these proposals have been taken seriously or adopted so far.  The longer we put off addressing these longer-term needs, the more catastrophic and costly change will be when it eventually occurs anyway.

The more we all pay the full price to sustain our lifestyles, the more rational we’ll be about selecting places to live that keep us out of harm’s way.  This means that the people who benefit from efforts to protect their property should bear financial responsibility for those safeguards.

Here at the N.C. Coastal Federation we’re pretty reasonable people who also live and work at our coast.  That’s why we’re constantly seeking ways for coastal communities to prosper in harmony with the natural coast. A healthy coastal environment is essential if our counties and cities are to flourish for years to come.

Some of the best things about working for the N.C. Coastal Federation are the wonderful people who constantly step forward to help us protect and restore our coast. And one of the most painful parts of this job, especially after 32 years, is saying goodbye to one of these good friends who have become part of your life.

Yesterday we lost one of our best friends of the coast.  Bernice Rice of Thomas Landing on Stump Sound passed away.  She and her late husband, Bill, were instrumental in helping bring attention to the polluted runoff from coastal development that was destroying water quality and the clams and oysters that depend on clean water. They became eloquent advocates for better stormwater management and control. Along with their neighbor Lena Ritter, they helped local residents convince state agencies to buy and protect Permuda Island in Stump Sound and to adopt progressive stormwater controls.

If not for their work, over 300 condominiums and a marina would have been built on the island, and the rich oyster beds around it would be polluted. And because their fight made so clear to everyone in the state what was at stake in terms of the future quality of our coastal waters, North Carolina now has some of the most effective coastal stormwater controls in the nation.

One of the highlights of all that effort was a visit to their farm in 1986 by Walter Cronkite. He was flown down to the coast by helicopter from Raleigh by WRAL-TV as part of its Save Our Sounds campaign.  A community lunch on their lawn under huge live oak trees brought statewide attention to the needs of our coast.

Bernice and Bill are no longer with us, but their legacy is strong. They were proud of the fact that they were able to farm their land and cultivate oysters in harmony with each other. They frequently told the story of when the government offered to ditch and drain their farm, and they said, “No thanks. Why would we ever consider doing that to our oyster garden that we have next to our farm?”

Bernice loved to grow flowers, and her green thumb brought joy to everyone who ever visited their beautiful farm on the banks of Stump Sound near Holly Ridge. While we will miss her greatly, we won’t ever forget what she has contributed to making our coast a better place for the generations that now follow behind her.

It’s taken a little time for Gov. Pat McCory and the N.C. General Assembly to wrestle control of state government from the legacy of previous administrations and legislatures. That job has now been completed.

Over the past year, they made sweeping changes in state regulatory commissions and agencies.  Most budgets for these programs have been cut, some significantly. Lawmakers doubled the number of state government workers that are politically appointed to enable the governor to have more control over his agencies – up to 1,000.

Few voters have paid attention to these changes. They really don’t care about how government functions unless something happens that shows it isn’t working properly.

And while there have been some heated debates about education and voting rights, during the past year public concerns about the coastal environment have been pretty muted. That’s largely because we haven’t had any hurricanes, strong northeasters or other high profile environmental disasters and threats.

Many local governments are just learning that state lawmakers significantly reduced their authority to adopt their own environmental safeguards. For example, the county board in Carteret County recently discovered its inability to regulate a proposed wind farm because of a new law that restricts local ordinances that go beyond state standards.Some environmental issues stirred public passions, and in very bipartisan ways. There are many people plenty upset by plans to sell the Hofmann Forest in Jones and Onslow counties. Drainage of more than 4,600 acres of wetlands in Pamlico County is being strongly opposed by its board of commissioners. Two huge proposed rock quarries in Beaufort and Onslow counties have local communities up in arms. And, more than 70 percent of voters in New Hanover County oppose a proposed large cement plant and limestone quarry.

In the final analysis, most people want abundant and safe seafood, pristine beaches and unpolluted places to swim. They get upset when they see investors seek quick and unsustainable profits while wreaking long-term environmental harm within their communities. They want government to make their communities and jobs more resilient to storms and floods, and they want coastal waters and parks protected and restored.

They also want leaders that reduce social conflicts by forging good solutions to tough public policy challenges; who don’t simply fan the flames of disagreements.

A poll commissioned by the N.C. Coastal Federation last year measured the degrees to which people that voted for McCrory value and use our state’s natural environment and whether or not they will vote for him again based upon his environmental protection track record.

The poll found that a sizable majority of all voters, including those who cast their support to elect the new governor, think it’s prudent to balance economic development with environmental protection.

Many once-successful politicians learn the hard way that public support is fickle and fleeting. McCrory and lawmakers have seen their poll numbers plummet in the past year just like what happened to their predecessors in Raleigh.

It’s now clear that it’s much easier to take control of state government than it is to keep public support for your political leadership. McCrory and the legislature must either find ways to broaden their base of political support, or they will find themselves more and more marginalized by increasing polarized voters.

Let’s hope the New Year brings a renewed commitment by our political leaders for more productive partnerships and working together for the sake of our coast.  Effective long-term governance is exceedingly difficult even in the best of times—and these are the times that try our souls.

The N.C. Coastal Federation will continue its work in 2014 with a renewed commitment to help people from all walks of life work better together for a healthy a coastal environment.  We will continue to seek out more and more partners to help us sustain progress in protecting and restoring our coast.

Thanks to all our supporters for your help in 2013, and best wishes for the New Year from everyone here at the N.C. Coastal Federation.

Everyone felt a sense of pride and amazement for the schoolteachers who used their bodies to protect their students when the huge tornado roared through Moore, Okla., earlier this month. And if you have school-aged children, you are very thankful for the dedication and service most teachers provide on a daily basis for your kids. They certainly don’t do their jobs for the money.

At the same time, teachers need livable wages to pay their bills, just like the rest of us expect. And we should help them to become better educators, and reward them when they are.

One of the major programs of the N.C. Coastal Federation is working with school children and their teachers to expose them to our coastal treasures and to help them understand what it takes to be good environmental stewards. Thousands of kids each year help us restore oysters, marshes, wetlands and water quality.

Along with other major cuts to the education budget, both the Gov. Pat McCrory and the N.C. State Senate have eliminated funding for NCCAT in this year’s budget. They even want to dispose of its facilities.One of our key partners is the N.C. Center for the Advancement of Teaching, or NCCAT, which has its eastern campus in the old Coast Guard Station in Ocracoke. The main campus is in Cullowhee in the state’s mountains. The Ocracoke center is a wonderful refurbished facility that gives lucky teachers a few days about once in a blue moon to be away from their classes to be immersed in cultural, historical, scientific and other enrichment opportunities. It provides one of the few opportunities public school teachers have to recharge themselves, and it encourages them be better long-term classroom educators.

The refurbished Coast Guard Station at Ocracoke is a wonderful facility, but it has issues that will make it difficult to sell to a private buyer. There’s a clause in its deed that means it might have to be given back to the federal government if the state no longer wants to use it, and its sewage system and driveway are located on National Park Service property.  Thus, the millions of dollars the state has invested in this facility won’t be recouped if it is sold, and therefore will be wasted.

Let’s hope the N.C. House of Representative budget writers don’t sell our educators short. They should restore funds to NCCAT and the teachers that use it. The best investment we can make in the future of N.C. is providing a solid, stimulating education for our kids, and we need good teachers to make that happen.

The tornado in Oklahoma reminded us that we should not take our teachers for granted.

Beautiful, old live oak trees like this one would have been lost if Hoop Pole Creek had been developed. Photo: Sam Bland

ATLANTIC BEACH — Step back in time when you visit the N.C. Coastal Federation’s Hoop Pole Creek preserve in the middle of Atlantic Beach. Known as the “central park” of this resort town, this preserved 31-acre maritime forest is about one percent of the town and about all that’s left of its natural environment outside the borders of a state park.

The federation bought the property in 1997 with a $2.5 million grant from the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund. It was the first land acquired using the newly established fund, and the purchase brought to an end a long and controversial debate over the fate of this property.

For many generations, this beautiful maritime forest has been called Hoop Hole Creek because of the historical marker posted along N.C. 58 or Fort Macon Boulevard. Union forces led by Gen. John G. Parke landed here March 29, 1862, during the Fort Macon campaign.

Many local high school students also knew it as the place to go park on dates.  Back in the 1960s, a paved road was built in a failed attempt to develop the land, and it became a convenient lovers’ lane.

Investors from near Charlotte had a different idea when they bought the property in 1984 and made plans to build 100-condos and a 100-boat marina. Their plans would have destroyed the thick canopy of live oak trees and polluted the creek that’s rich in clean oysters and fish.

The federation successfully contested the state permit. This battle involved an amazing cast of characters, including two young lawyers who represented the federation pro bono. They then worked for Terry Sanford, a former governor who later to become a U.S. senator. These lawyers were Charles Meeker, who went on to become a long-time mayor of Raleigh, and Steve Levitas, who became deputy secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources under Gov. Jim Hunt.

Also involved was Paul Wilms. He was director of the N.C. Division Water Quality before he later took the job as the head of the N.C. Homebuilders Association. Wilms wrote a key memo that resulted in the permit being revoked for the project.  He said it would degrade water quality because of polluted stormwater and illicit waste discharges from boats.

Volunteers pick up trash at the annual clean up.

The preserve offers a place to rest and reflect.

The battle over this project paved the way to the adoption of much tighter state rules to control polluted stormwater runoff and for the proper siting of new marinas so as to protect shellfish waters that are still in effect today.

Ten years went by, and then in1996, the same investors applied for a new state permit to build 50-condos and a 50-boat marina.  This was the same year that lawmakers created the trust fund. The federation offered to buy the property if it could acquire the grant funds.  The developers agreed to the potential purchase, and a year later the property was saved as a water quality buffer.

One of the most surreal days of my life was when I visited the land the first time after we bought it. In a heavy downpour, I had a ball pulling up survey stakes that laid out the planned development. It was great fun to do that legally.

Since then, the property has been zoned “conservation” by Atlantic Beach.  The federation built a nature trail that includes a boardwalk that doubles as a dam to hold back polluted runoff so that it will filter into the ground and not pour directly into the adjacent creek.  Thousands of school children visit the property each year to learn about the water quality and the adjacent estuary.

One of the most vexing management problems we faced was what to call the property.  Local historian Jim Willis altered the historical marker next to the property with black electrical tape from Hole to Pole.  He says its real name refers to a piece of fishing equipment called a “hoop pole” that is used to bail fish out of a purse seine. None of the historical maps ever showed a creek named Hoop Hole, and that name came most likely from a printing error when the historical marker was made.

The nature trail is open for public use during daylight hours.  It’s a wonderful place to escape the urban sprawl, and to see the island as it existed long ago.  There is a guided nature trail brochure at the trailhead. Be prepared for some bugs in the summer.

When it comes to advocating for sound coastal policy in the N.C. legislature, much more than half the battle is finding legislators who understand how the process of protecting the coast works.

Indeed, most of what the N.C. Coastal Federation does in Raleigh is simply educating legislators so they understand why we want them to vote a certain way.

If that sounds easy, try boiling down the details of the state’s stormwater management process in three minutes or less – which is about the time we often have with legislators as they run from meeting to meeting during the legislative session.

You can read more about S10 here, but in a nutshell, the Senate version of this bill essentially gutted both commissions of their public interest representatives in favor of special interests. A classic effort to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse, if you will forgive the cliché. The importance of having informed legislators with direct experience balancing conservation with economic development was made clear again last week during the N.C. House of Representatives’ debate of Senate Bill 10. This bill would have completely reshaped a number of critical state policymaking committees, including the state’s Environmental Management Commission and its Coastal Resources Commission.

Thankfully, once the bill came roaring out of the Senate with little or no public debate, the House decided to slow down and take a closer look at it. The federation weighed in to warn that the bill put the state’s federal funding and authority for managing the coast at risk.

That’s also about the time rookie state Reps. Rick Catlin of New Hanover and Chris Millis of Pender counties, got involved with the bill. Both are Republicans, neither a classic tree-hugger, but most importantly, both are environmental engineers who spend their professional lives working through federal and state rules to make sure their clients’ projects comply with important safeguards for our air and water.

They took one look at what the Senate bill did to the commissions and immediately told their colleagues – and the federation – that there were serious problems with S10 and its impact on the state’s ability to keep our natural resources clean and available for future generations.

Proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished, the House leadership asked them to apply their experience to make the bill better.

When the bill popped up in committee last week, many of the Senate’s most objectionable proposals were gone. And some of the existing law’s most important safeguards – like conflict of interest protections – were restored.

Those of us who had been keeping a close eye on the bill knew where those changes had come from. In the press, Millis and Catlin were rightly recognized for their work on the bill.

Of course, S10 is still far from perfect and if we had our druthers it would die a fast death. There’s no evidence, for example, that the EMC and the CRC should be reorganized beyond some legislators’ desire to stack the commissions with GOP appointees. And a representative of conservation interests is still lacking on both commissions – an appalling oversight we will be talking to legislators about changing.  Furthermore, S10 will make it much more difficult to recruit people to serve on state boards and commissions if they believe they will be removed every time the state’s political winds shift.  And the impact of the bill on the state’s federal funding and authority is still an open question.

That said, coming from a legislature that has been at war with the environment in recent years, the House version of the bill is much better than the one approved by the Senate.

Now of course, I don’t expect the federation to be in agreement with everything Millis and Catlin do in the legislature. But having lawmakers who understand that economic development and conservation go hand in hand – especially on our coast, where so many jobs count on a healthy environment – makes our job in Raleigh a lot easier.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

The N.C. Coastal Federation maintains its longstanding opposition to offshore drilling for oil and natural gas and here’s why.Mencken’s quote accurately sums up the debate over whether or not to drill for oil and gas off the N.C. coast.

Advocates of offshore oil and gas development say it will help the U.S. become more energy independent, lower gas prices, provide jobs, increase tax revenues and with careful management be environmentally safe and benign.

But the track record for oil and gas development elsewhere in the country is dogged by failed claims of economic prosperity and environmental stewardship.  Tainted coastal waters, disruptions of recreational and commercial fishing and inequitable distribution of economic benefits result in an ugly legacy for oil and gas development.

The N.C. coast is still at a crossroads when it comes to energy development.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s under the administration of Republican Gov. Jim Martin, the state fought efforts by Mobile Oil to explore for oil and gas off our coast.  At that time, Martin eventually came to the belief that inviting this industry into our state outweighed the benefits it would bestow on our residents.  But now Gov. Pat McCrory is in favor of oil and gas development, and says he’ll promote it to occur off our coast.

Here is a synopsis of the arguments for and against offshore oil development in N.C.:

• Oil and gas reserves will make our nation more energy independent. In reality, the amount of oil and gas off our coast is just a tiny drop in the bucket of U.S. demand.  The Carolina Trough south of Cape Hatteras has a potential of about 690 million barrels of oil and 16.25 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to supply our country’s demands for just 36 days of oil and 246 days of gas (Governor’s Scientific Advisory Panel on Offshore Energy Report).
• Oil and gas will cost less. According to the Annual Outlook on energy supply and prices written by the Energy Information Administration, analysts project that the existing oil and gas reserves in the U.S. coast would not lower, or even significantly affect, gas prices.
• Offshore oil drilling will create 6,700 new jobs.The Southeast Energy Alliance, an oil industry trade group, made this estimate in a 2009 report based on potential investments in offshore platforms and onshore refinery facilities. Previous studies by independent committees formed by state government have found that the chances are very slim that N.C. could even compete for this investment with larger ports and much more industrialized areas in Virginia and South Carolina. This estimate assumes that local communities would even want to allow refineries and petrochemical industries. Oil refineries have been proposed for Wilmington and Morehead City in the past and very intense public opposition forced state and local politicians to withdraw their early support for these industries and to eventually soundly reject them.
• Tax revenues will increase. The industry estimates that $66 to $400 million a year in direct income to state government over the lifetime of the reserves will come from royalties and leasing fees. However, it will take a Congressional change in federal law to divert these funds to the states keeping in mind the severe budget issues facing the nation currently. This revenue estimate does not speak to the “costs” associated with providing for the public infrastructure and services that are necessary to provide for an increased population growth.
• Oil and gas development will cause little harm to marine fisheries. Most opposition to offshore oil and gas exploration is focused on possible impacts in the open ocean. Because the Carolina Trough is located at the confluence of two currents – the cold Labrador and warm Gulf Stream currents — this area is hugely productive for fisheries and specifically prone to disasters that might be caused by hurricanes and nor’easter storms.  Normal, daily operations of an oil rig also produce water pollution through small oil and gas leaks and natural geologic seeps posing constant risk to North Carolina’s natural resources, economy and society.

Offshore drilling is a shortsighted solution that does nothing to minimize global climate change. While fossil fuels will remain in the energy mix into the foreseeable future, reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be the guiding principal behind any future energy policy.

Barring a major catastrophic disaster offshore, the development of support facilities and refining capacity onshore poses the biggest risks to the N.C. coast. We have one of the cleanest and most productive coastlines remaining in the U.S. This will no longer be true if oil and gas development results in major new investments in onshore refineries, storage facilities, pipelines and related petrochemical industries (as proponents claim it will). That’s because petrochemical industrial development has never taken place without degrading coastal environments.  Existing environmental laws work to minimize harmful impacts, but do not prevent them from occurring.Producing usable supplies of oil and gas from off the N.C. coast is a very long-term pipe dream. Even if the oil companies could drill anywhere they wanted off the coast of N.C., it would take at least two decades before any meaningful production of energy could occur (Governor’s Scientific Advisory Panel on Offshore Energy Report). Congress will have to authorize leasing, environmental impact studies would need to be completed, and permits issued. Right now there are still hundreds of existing but untapped offshore oil and gas leases in this country that are not being used. These unused leases are situated very close to existing refineries and other necessary oil and gas infrastructure. The existing over-supply of natural gas and the huge expense of tapping new and yet unproven reserves will make drilling off our coast a low priority for the private sector for many years to come.

For example, decades of petrochemical production around Galveston Bay has resulted in numerous fish and shellfish consumption advisories. The most widespread advisory is for speckled trout because of dioxin and PCBs. Residents are warned not to consume more than a one eight-ounce meal of trout each month, and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant and children should not consume the fish at all. There are also advisories for red drum, blue crabs and other popular estuarine species in these tainted waters.

According to the Governor’s Scientific Advisory Panel on Offshore Energy Report, no independent studies have been completed to assess the economic benefits of oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic for N.C. Furthermore, several attempts to study socio-economic and environmental impacts of an offshore oil and gas drilling in the N.C. outer continental shelf were made but they were all inconclusive. To this date there is no comprehensive study of these issues.

But common sense should prevail when it comes to deciding whether or not to support or reject efforts to promote petrochemical industries along our coast.  While offshore oil and gas development in North Carolina is highly unlikely to ever deliver on the favorable economic and environmental claims of its proponents, it will no doubt make some energy companies and their investors a lot of money.  Do we want to risk our spectacular coast and the existing economic and recreational industries by chasing this alternative economic future that has so severely pollutes so many other coastal areas?<

A recent poll commissioned by the N.C. Coastal Federation measures the degrees to which people who voted for Gov. Pat McCrory value and use our state’s natural environment and whether or not they will vote for him again if based upon his environmental protection track record.

The poll found that a sizable majority of all voters, including those who cast their support to elect the new governor, thinks it’s prudent to balance economic development with environmental protection. Most McCrory voters think the new governor currently places more or equal importance on economic development and environmental protection. Only 24 percent of McCrory voters stay they will not care about his track record on the environment as a factor in how they cast their vote in four years.

To avoid getting a bad environmental rap, the governor is going to have to steer very carefully through treacherous currents of anti-environment agendas floating around the N.C. General Assembly these days. If he doesn’t work hard to moderate these agendas, McCrory may end up signing some very bad environmental laws that define his environmental record.Even the most avid environmentalists aren’t naive enough to believe that McCrory’s track record on the environment will determine how a majority of people will cast their votes in 2016. However, the poll does indicate that the environment matters to voters and that a small but still significant percentage of McCrory voters could swing to supporting his future opponent over environmental issues. This means that if the next election is closely contested, McCrory can’t afford to be labeled with a reputation of running roughshod over our state’s beautiful and productive natural resources.

McCrory will stand for re-election in a statewide vote. A strong challenger could easily give him a run for his money. Keep in mind that in the last election, the 13 democratic candidates for Congress in North Carolina received 81,000 more votes in total than their 13 Republican challengers, even though only four Democrats won their seats. Gerrymandered districts that favor candidates don’t help in statewide elections.

Pat McCrory is a smart politician, and he is no doubt very aware that he can’t afford to alienate even small percentages of his voters that he will need again to be re-elected and become only the second Republican governor to serve two terms in office in N.C. Given that his political base is concerned about protecting and restoring the state’s environment, let’s hope he’ll step out and distinguish himself as an environmental leader.

He has good company. McCrory is the third Republican governor to be elected to the office after Reconstruction and the sixth overall. Two of his most recent Republican predecessors both did many good things for the state’s environment. Gov. James Holshouser helped enact the Coastal Area Management Act in 1974 and got the program started on a strong footing. The list of environmental accomplishments during Gov. Jim Martin’s two terms is impressive as well, including new coastal stormwater regulations, marina siting rules and the designation of 10 percent of coastal estuaries as Outstanding Resource Waters.

The N.C. Coastal Federation is ready to work with the new administration to advance the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental safeguards for our coast. We will work hard to inform the public of the good, bad and the ugly as it takes place.

Gov.-elect Pat McCrory now has lots more discretion to make state government a highly political place to work thanks to a new law passed by the N.C. General Assembly.

Lawmakers stuck a special provision into the state budget during the waning hours of the session this year that gives the new governor the authority to increase the number of “exempt” positions in the cabinet departments, such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, from 100 to 1,000 – a tenfold increase.

This change received zero public discussion or explanation.  It gives McCrory the opportunity to appoint political friends and contributors throughout state agencies.

There is sound logic for why a governor should have the ability to put a loyal management team in place that will help carry out a new administration’s agenda. Staff has a huge amount of power to make or break key priorities that a new governor might want to pursue, and it’s only right that new leadership be given the ability to put enough people in place that will really support carrying a new administration’s priorities.Traditionally, such exempt appointees were only placed into top leadership and management positions.  Now, the new governor has the authority to place political friends just about anywhere within these agencies.

However, a tenfold increase in state government employees that will be exempt from the State Personnel Act is not a good idea.  This provides too much opportunity for unqualified staff to be inserted into key professional positions.

This sort of smacks of what’s historically known as the “political commissar,” or political officer, who is responsible for the political education (ideology) and organization, and loyalty to the government of the military. According to Wikipedia, the commissaire politique (political commissary) first appeared in the French Revolution (1789–99), guarding it against anti-Revolutionary (ideological) thought and action, and so ensuring victory.

Click here to read the full text of the changes to the exempt positions in the budget amendment. It’s section 25.2E that starts on Page 141.

It’s somewhat ironic that a hurricane named “Sandy” is washing away beaches up and down the East Coast this week. Let’s hope that the storm isn’t a killer, and that everyone gets out of harm’s way.

It will take some time to determine just how much damage Sandy causes. But we already know that many re-nourished beaches have lost a lot of sand, and it is inevitable that beach communities will ask the federal government to pay to rebuild their lost beaches.

All these funds come out of a program that is designed by Congress to help local and state governments repair damage to “public infrastructure” that they own. It is often used to rebuild schools, water and sewer systems, courthouses and parks.Last year when Hurricane Irene hit North Carolina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, approved more than $12 million for five coastal communities to repair their beaches. A lot of this work still hasn’t happened, so there is likely to be requests by these same communities for even more money after Sandy.

However, FEMA has also adopted rules based upon the federal Stafford Act that define beaches that are re-nourished as “public infrastructure.” This allows it to pay to repair beaches that are damaged by a federally declared natural disaster. Thus, after each major hurricane or northeaster, communities submit requests for FEMA dollars to rebuild their beaches. They have figured out it’s a good way to make the federal government pay for their beaches without having to get authorizations and appropriations through the administration and Congress.

It isn’t at all clear, however, if Congress ever intended for taxpayers to pay disaster aid to rebuild oceanfront beaches washed away by storms. The local governments that are getting these disaster funds have previously re-nourished their beaches with local or state funding. The upper beach is still private property, and the lower beach is owned by the state. This means FEMA pays local governments to repair beaches owned by private landowners and the states.

Congress designed the Stafford Act so that it would not have to pay repeatedly to repair the same “public infrastructure” after each storm. It requires flood insurance for infrastructure located in a “special flood hazard area.”

Last year this insurance requirement was very costly for two fiscally struggling counties in North Carolina. Schools in Pamlico and Tyrrell counties were flooded by Hurricane Irene, and FEMA refused disaster aid to help these counties repair their schools because they weren’t insured. The counties had dropped coverage because it was too expensive for their budgets. Aid was eventually forthcoming in the form of federal loans, and now these counties have purchased flood insurance for their schools.

Beaches are obviously in areas subject to flooding, but re-nourished beaches aren’t eligible for flood insurance coverage. This means that FEMA has committed taxpayers to repeated claims for disaster aid after each storm, and this commitment is inconsistent with the Stafford Act’s requirements.

Congress and the past few presidents have resisted intense lobbying efforts by beach communities to increase the federal funds for beach re-nourishment. However, FEMA is routinely providing this funding by allowing disaster aid to pay to rebuild beaches.

Whether the federal taxpayer should pay for beaches is a debate that should be waged openly in the halls of Congress. Lacking such a clear legal mandate from lawmakers, it is inappropriate for FEMA to stretch its legal authority to provide this financial aid.

Getting to work for many people is a chore. We all know the common complaints—so many crazy drivers and too much traffic.

Some of the great things about my job at the N.C. Coastal Federation are the trips I make for “work.” I have no complaints.

Take for example my Wednesday commute to a meeting at Ocracoke to discuss water-quality issues. Sure, I had to get an early start. I met federation board member Randy Mason at 6:15 a.m. at my house in Ocean, and then we drove the hour and 15 minutes to Cedar Island in eastern Carteret County.

The sun was just coming up over northern Core Banks as we drove N.C. 12 through the marshes. A brilliant red sky framed the distant islands, Core Sound and the marshes of the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge.

As we drove onto Cedar Island, we turned right and went to the end of the road. There the refuge provides a boat ramp. We launched my 22-foot Jones Brothers Bateau, a flat bottom skiff that can skirt over shoals that are common to our coast.

We pushed the boat off its trailer and then headed out for the 25-miles to Ocracoke.

This area of our coast is about as remote as any place in the state, or for that matter, the eastern United States.  It also supports one of the most healthy and productive fisheries in the world. Core and Pamlico sounds are extremely shallow behind Core Banks. It is one vast bed of sea grass covered shoals extending for miles out from the backside of the narrow barrier island that runs from Drum Inlet north to Portsmouth Village and Ocracoke Inlet.

All along these shoals are many dozens of pound nets. These nets literally corral fish into a trap, where they swim around and stay alive until they can be culled and sorted. There is virtually no bycatch with pound nets, either the fish are kept to be sold or released alive.

The pound nets in these areas typically mark the water that is still possible to navigate. There’s a small opening in the nets near the traps that provide space for boats to pass, and as you move down the sound you go from net to net, using these openings much like channel markers. Stray to far away from the nets, and the depth of the water quickly evaporates.

Near the backside of Portsmouth Village near Ocracoke Inlet the water gets even shallower. In fact, the reason the village was essentially abandoned over a century ago was because shifting shoals made it nearly impossible for boats to come to the docks there.  Residents decided to move over to the Ocracoke Island side of the inlet.

There are a few small, poorly marked sloughs through which you can squeeze your boat at low tide as you go north to the inlet. Finding this slightly deeper water is always a challenge because the shoals are constantly shifting. This recent morning the tide was high and it was still flooding in very strongly. Just after we passed by the village we starting bumping over big swells and breaking waves surged in through the inlet. We found another slough between the shoals that had enough deep water to calm the waves and ran the final three miles to Ocracoke into the very placid waters of Silver Lake.

Silver Lake is the harbor for Ocracoke. The densely populated village surrounds the harbor, and as a result the lake is polluted.  We tied up at the watermen’s museum, and then spent about three hours meeting with local people and officials about strategies to clean up the harbor. There is plenty of work to do and quite a few more commutes to Ocracoke that are likely to occur.

Then, it was time to get back to Cedar Island. The tide was dropping, and so we quickly departed to take advantage of what depth of water remained. I wanted to get passed Portsmouth Village before it got really shallow.

This time the ocean swells were gone, flattened by the out-going tide. We made it through the shoals with just inches to spare under the boat’s keel. Then we hit a huge traffic jam as we headed south behind Core Banks.

It was a huge jam of cormorants. Thousands and thousand of these large black birds were flying south, and settling to rest on the water. They flocked together right on the spot we needed to head. As we push through the flock, they took hasty and panic flight in their cumbersome, very awkward manner. You could almost feel the splashes churned up by their rapidly beating wings hitting the water. The fleeing birds blacked out the sky surrounding us.

Once we got by the cormorants, it was just an uneventful but spectacular trip south down the sound to Cedar Island. With the boat loaded on the trailer, we arrived back home in Ocean around 5 p.m.—normal quitting time for office workers.

Thus was another day of work here at the N.C. Coastal Federation. It is simply wonderful that such commutes help to inspire our work to protect and restore the water quality and habitats of our coast.

On April 12, 2006 the N.C. State Ports Authority purchased about 600-acres of undeveloped land on the Cape Fear River near Southport for a new international port. It paid $30 million.

Today, the tax value for the same property is $12.73 million, and plans for the port are dead in the water.

The port proposal was derailed by strong public objections to the project, as well as a worldwide economic market that makes building a mega-port anywhere in N.C. a shipper’s pipe dream and a taxpayers’ nightmare.

The huge drop in land value is currently concealed within the authority’s annual audits under capital assets and long-term debt. It’s unclear what the total cost of this land has been given the accrued interest payments for various loans that were secured to buy the property.

The authority made the purchase decision with little public discussion. In retrospect, this fiasco serves as a great example for why such large state-funded industrial development projects should always conduct an environmental assessment as required by the N.C. State Environmental Policy Act.

In this case, the authority purchased the property without conducting any environmental reviews. Why no environmental impact statement was prepared before $30 million in public funds were spent is very hard to explain.

The law requires state agencies such as the authority to review and report the environmental effects of its proposed actions that may occur by the expenditure of public monies when those projects could have a potential negative environmental effect on natural resources, public health and safety, natural beauty, or historical or cultural elements of the state.

Clearly, if the proponents of the port had taken more time to comply with the law before investing in buying the land, they would have probably have come to their senses and not wasted so much money.

Some may argue that such environmental reviews are not required simply to purchase land.  Many grants are given by The N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund to purchase land.  Generally, environmental reviews in accordance with the State Environmental Policy are not required if the goal of the land purchases is to protect or restore the environment. However, if land purchases are made to build major new infrastructure (i.e., buildings over 10,000 square feet) then an environmental review or impact statement is normally prepared.

Soon after the land was purchased, significant public backlash developed against the port proposal, and it lost support with many local governments as well as the N.C. General Assembly.  More studies now show that the port would never be economically viable. It is also doubtful that the port could have received environmental permits for the huge amount of dredging and wetland filling that would have been necessary to get large ships to its proposed docks.  Approximately 30 percent of the land is salt and fresh water wetlands according to Brunswick County tax records.

Unloading this now surplus property at a price that recoups the state’s investment will be about as easy as offloading a freighter along its shallow marshy shoreline.

The real estate bust of 2008 can’t be blamed for why the authority paid over $17 million more than the land is worth. This property is located next to a nuclear power plant and large military ammunition depot. It was never prime real estate for golf courses, houses or condominiums. Its economic value as open space or industrial land should not have fluctuated so severely even with the recession. The steep decline in value begs the question as to why did the authority ever pay $30 million to buy the property in the first place?  Clearly, appraisal requirements to determine fair market value for public land purchases may need to be revisited.

That said, since plans for the international port are now scrapped, it’s time to examine alternative and better uses for this land. The state has already lost its shirt on the purchase, and it would be better to cut its losses and do something productive with this property that would benefit taxpayers.

Perhaps some of the interior portions of the property could be used for economic development projects to finally create a few jobs, and the waterfront might make a nice state or local recreational park.

Public access for swimming and boating is always in short supply, and having such open park space would attract more tourism dollars to the area.

At least as a park, taxpayers can sit back in their beach chairs, watch big ships move up and down the river and feel that something worthwhile has been done with their hard earned dollars.

Sea level is a misleading term. It implies a flat sea.

The sea is not level.  It waves, surges and mounds and is in constant motion.

Daily tides and winds cause the sea to rise and fall, and that flushes our coastal estuaries keeping good water quality and helping to make our estuaries productive nursery grounds for fish and shellfish.

Floodplains are defined by storm surges. Beaches and shorelines erode and move about because of choppy seas.

Salinity and atmospheric pressure cause the sea to rise and fall as well. Warming and cooling temperatures make water molecules expand and contract, not to mention ice sheets to melt and freeze.

Even the density of water in the ocean influences the level of the sea. Salt water is denser than fresh water.  The middle of the Gulf Stream normally is very salty, and that makes it about two meters higher than its edges. In recent decades, melting ice sheets off of Greenland have diluted the Stream’s salinity, and it has become flatter. That’s why scientists are now finding that the east coast north of Cape Hatteras is a hotspot in the world for sea level rise.

The level of the sea is directly influenced by climate change in many other ways. Geologic records provide clear evidence that when the climate warms the sea will rise significantly.

Understanding what influences sea level takes study and observation. Scientific surveillance helps us to comprehend the far-ranging consequences of climate change and global warming.

Persistent rises in sea level caused by global warming will over time bring about dramatic changes. Higher sea level will make storm surges have more damaging effects. Shorelines will erode more rapidly. Saltwater will intrude further inland changing vegetation to more salt-tolerant species and killing trees and crops that aren’t so resilient to salt. Drinking water supplies will be tainted by salt, and coastal plain industrial users of rivers may experience more disruptions as salt water reaches further upstream to their “freshwater” intakes. In Connecticut, a nuclear power plant was recently shut down because the ocean water used to cool its reactor became too warm.

Whether the scientists are correct or not, the weather makes us painfully aware of just how vulnerable we are to nature’s wrath.The National Academy of Sciences confirmed in 2010 that fossil-fuel emissions are the largest contributor to global warming. A survey conducted last year by the Nature Climate Science Journal found that about 97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the climate is warming due to people burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. And again this year, many respected climate scientists link this extremely warm year to changes in the climate induced by humans.

Drought is killing crops, and what’s still left to harvest can’t be barged down the Mississippi River because of record low water levels.  Food prices are about to soar, forest fires burn up the west and the tropics spit out hurricanes. When added all together, the economic turmoil that results from all this extreme weather is bad for everyone’s pocketbook.

Meanwhile, climate change cynics work hard to convince us that the scientific community disagrees about the causes of global warming and sea level rise.Their tactics work. The 2011 survey conducted by Nature Climate Science Journal reported that 66% of the public wrongly thinks there is a lot of disagreement among scientist over climate change issues.

These naysayers are about as level with us as is the sea. The longer they prevent meaningful collective action against global warming the more severe its economic consequences will be for all of us.

Keep in mind that only three percent of climate scientists cling to the notion that we don’t need to take action prevent climate changes, but only one-out-of-three people know that it’s only a fringe group of scientists who still cast doubts on what’s happening to our climate.

We all know people confused by the propaganda spread by climate naysayers. Do your best to set the record straight, and level with them about why temperatures and the sea may rise much too fast if we keep sitting on our hands.

It’s time for the Army Corps of Engineers to bring some sanity to the examination of building a terminal groin at Rich Inlet on Figure Eight Island.  It’s received an overwhelming stack of detailed comments from numerous federal and state agencies and community organizations, and it’s clear that the current draft Environmental Impact Statement is beyond hope of ever being viewed as having any credibility.

The draft document prepared by the applicant’s hand-picked and long-time terminal groin consultants is simply too biased in its construction to ever be considered an impartial and fair review of possible project alternatives for the island.

We have to ask why an Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared. A complete permit application has never been submitted. Normally for projects proposed by private parties with private funds, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review would only begin after a complete permit application has been submitted and a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary because the project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts.

In this case, no complete application has ever been submitted to either the federal or state agencies. In fact, because the applicant has not secured the necessary private property rights to build its preferred alternative a complete application is not even possible under both federal and state permit application rules. Until a complete permit application is submitted and these property rights are secured, it is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and resources to evaluate the terminal groin alternative.

There’s even a question of whether any property is currently imminently threatened, and therefore whether state law allows consideration of a terminal groin. The inlet channel is shifting naturally, and the beach in front of houses that were imminently threatened is currently building back. The beach is accreting in front of the properties that are currently sand-bagged, and they are no longer within 20 feet of an erosion scarp. None of these properties can be deemed “imminently threatened.”

The project has not been adequately defined to even trigger a NEPA review. The project’s scope, purpose and need have been drastically changed without any public notice in the Federal Register. In this case, the applicant has been on a fishing expedition regarding project alternatives, and it has identified and defined these alternatives with no involvement by any outside agency or the public in the past two years. There has been no ongoing role in the development of the study by the Corps appointed “Project Delivery Team” that has not met for two years. This has allowed the applicant to define the project alternatives that are not its preferred alternative. They have been defined in a manner that makes them appear less desirable.

The draft study cannot be salvaged to make it a useful document. While it might be possible to correct inaccuracies, omissions, content and the disorganized state of the document, making the study a truly independent and unbiased analysis of alternatives will be impossible. It is fundamentally flawed because it is entirely constructed around justifying the terminal groin alternative.

One of the consultants that helped prepared the study recently made a presentation to the Figure Eight Homeowners Association annual meeting.  His handouts further document that the consultant is totally sold on the need for a terminal groin, and the one-sided presentation to the homeowners clearly was designed to sell that alternative instead of giving a fair and balanced analysis of possible alternatives. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but just like the Corps would not hire the Coastal Federation to prepare this study, it should not be relying on a terminal groin advocate to do it either.

It’s time to call a time-out, and halt the study process.  If the Figure Eight Homeowners Association wants to pursue a terminal groin, it should be required to submit a complete and acceptable permit application to the federal and state agencies. This will require proof that it has the property rights acquired from numerous individuals to build the structure on their land. Then a proper scoping notice can be published that fully discloses what’s proposed, independent contractors can be hired to prepare the report, and the process can start again if necessary.

Trying to fix the current process simply won’t work. Let’s hope the Corps of Engineers agrees, and we can all get back to work that’s much more beneficial and productive for our coast.

Clamming does not have to be too strenuous. You can float around with just your head stuck out of the water, and use your fingers and toes to find and dig out clams. It’s a great way to lie back, relax, and think about the world, and still feel productive. You usually end up with a good mess of clams for dinner.

I remember going clamming in Bogue Sound with my father one fall morning 31 years ago. That particular day has stuck in my memory because we talked about what I could do after college. I was about to graduate in December from UNC with a master’s in city and regional planning and only had some temporary research work lined up with a professor.

Only a few weeks before I turned down a job offer in Florida. Tampa needed someone to work to reduce the amount of stormwater pollution in its bay, and the job was a match for my experience. What wasn’t a good match was Tampa Bay. Walking down to the seawall next the bay after my job interview, I saw thousands of dead fish floating belly up. The thought of moving to a city by a polluted bay as opposed to being able to walk out my back door and catch clams would have been a very tough adjustment, but it still took all the courage I could muster to turn down a good job and paycheck.

What really seemed like an exciting prospect was the idea of becoming a paid advocate for the N.C. coast. Some of the research I’d done in college exposed me to people who worked for conservation organizations around the country. I’d observed a strong correlation between independent citizen-based groups and stronger and more effective environmental protection programs.

While we clammed, I told my father about what I really wanted to do, but how there were no coastal environmental groups in North Carolina with enough money to hire me. He said not to be discouraged. “Where there’s a void to be filled there’s opportunity,” he advised.

That turned out to be good insight, and at that I decided to make a run at forming a coastal organization for which I could work. The thought “nothing ventured, nothing gained” gave me some internal confidence to go forward.  With the encouragement of my entire family, friends and people who I met along the way, the idea of forming the N.C. Coastal Federation began to gel.

My professor and boss at UNC, Ray Burby, provided a few hundred dollars through a now defunct organization called the N.C. Land Use Congress to support an exploratory meeting about whether a new coastal group was needed. That meeting was April 22, 1982, and about 65 people came to what’s now called the Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores to attend. It was co-sponsored by eight civic groups including Carteret County Crossroads, The Neuse River Foundation, The Pamlico-Tar River Foundation and others.

The idea of having one group that helped to engage and inform people’s involvement on a coast-wide basis was explored. No one said it was a stupid idea or not needed. That was enough of an opening to start putting together an initial board of directors, and a good group of respectable people was enlisted who either saw the potential for the organization or who might have just wanted to humor me.

Then there was the challenge of coming up with a formal name for the organization. I’d like to tell you there was a lot of research and forethought that went into the decision. In truth, the name was decided on the 30-minute drive from Jacksonville to Ocean after a Coastal Resources Commission meeting.

Ted Ullman, a youthful board member of Carteret County Crossroads, gave me a ride in his vintage Chevy Impala (that lacked a good muffler). Over the roar of his old car, we talked about numerous possible names, and Ted observed that we were really talking about a “federation” of groups. As we drove into my yard, we decided that the N.C. Coastal Federation would be a good name, and that decision stuck.

Next there was the issue of how pay for the organization. The only real hope of getting enough money to hire any staff was to get a grant. Engaging local people in deciding if large-scale peat mining of wetlands should be allowed was a hot issue that provided a good opportunity to test of the concept of the federation. I wrote a proposal to the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation that outlined what we could do. The Babcock Foundation had a reputation back then for being willing to provide seed money for good ideas and upstart organizations.

There was no stationary for a cover letter for the proposal, and so a pen and ink drawing of a brown pelican that my sister Deede had drawn for me for school project years before was pasted on a piece of paper, and a single piece of letterhead was made with a typewriter. It looked semi-professional, but it was the best I could pull off.

The foundation reviewed the proposal and wanted to hear more. I received an invite for an interview in Winston-Salem to chat, and asked Derb Carter, who at that time worked for the National Wildlife Federation in Raleigh, to help me at the meeting. Together we were convincing enough to make it on the final docket that fall.

Meanwhile, I was running out of money to live and had begun looking around for more traditional planning jobs. If the grant had been turned down, no one other than me would even remember the fledgling N.C. Coastal Federation today.

Just a few days before Thanksgiving word came that a $20,000 grant had been approved. With these funds, and a few extra dollars collected from elsewhere, the federation’s budget grew from a few hundred dollars in 1982 to a huge budget of $28,000 in 1983. It even gave me a salary of $1,000 each month.

Looking back over the last 30 years makes my head spin. That shouldn’t be too surprising, because the nature of the federation’s work still makes me dizzy just about every day. There is constantly an amazing array of opportunities and challenges that prevent any complacency and boredom.

Ronald Reagan years ago asked the question:  Are you better off than you were four years ago? We need to ask a similar question about our work – Is the coast better off than it would have been if the N.C. Coastal Federation did not exist?

In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes!

Our three program areas include advocacy, education and habitat restoration and preservation. These programs are like three legs of a stool. Together they support our mission to engage people of all walks of life in coastal decision-making. We’ve continued to work to keep these legs of our programs in balance so that the stool does not topple over. We simply can’t get too far out ahead of our coastal communities with our efforts—without their real engagement and support we would simply be spinning our wheels when it comes to coastal protection and restoration.

There are many hundreds of thousands of acres of protected land, tens of thousands of acres of restored wetlands and fisheries habitats and enhanced coastal development practices that have come about because of our work.  These things have been accomplished because we’ve engaged our decision-makers at every level of government, held them accountable for their actions and worked to engage and educate people of all ages and walks of life regarding our coast and its needs.

This brings me to reflect on the secrets to our successes. There are three main reasons why we’ve had a productive 30 years of work. They include:

• We rely on synergy to get results. Synergy is two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable. We’ve always work to tap into the ability to outperform even our best individual efforts because we know that we can’t protect or restore the coast by ourselves. It’s always been clear that an effective organization is more than the sum of its parts. Synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member. We don’t shy away from the fact that there are many points of disagreement among the people with whom we work to protect and restore the coast. Instead, we actively look beyond these disagreements for areas of mutual interest. The value added by working with so many diverse people as a whole, beyond that contributed independently by each individual, is created primarily by the lasting relationships we build over time.
• We use the tools of our democracy and have faith that when we exercise them, people will make good choices regarding our coast. As the legendary environmentalist David Brower once said, no environmental victory is ever final. Over and over again, we have proven that when people come together and have a civil and informed process by which they make decisions regarding our coast, those decisions are generally more favorable to environmental protection. When real public engagement is lacking, then bad choices get made.  There are no shortcuts to our work – we have to help people understand the real choices that must be made and how best they can exercise their power to help direct those choices. We’re actually very fortunate to have many avenues of access to governmental decision-making; however, engaging people in those decisions is a constant chore that simply can’t be ignored.
• People make the difference. What has inspired me to stay involved in this work for so many years are the people who I get to know? Time and again individuals have stepped forward in ways that just amaze me—using their expertise, energy, imaginations, fortitude, money and thousands of other assets to lend a hand to help us with our mission.

Many times I’ve joked that the only reason the federation was formed was because I needed a job, and no one else would hire me. The truth is that being able to earn a living doing something that you really care about remains a big motivating factor for all of us who work for the federation. Not wasting away one’s life doing someone else’s dirty work was another valuable insight I learned from my father as well.

Since no conservation victory on our coast is ever permanent, there will always be the need for the federation to tap into and cultivate the capacity of people to provide for good coastal stewardship. Thirty years from now I’m very confident that a group of people will assemble to celebrate another milestone in the history of the federation and the coast. Many of us won’t be around for that anniversary, just like so many of the early supporters of the federation aren’t here to celebrate with us today.

The enduring ability of the federation to function as a positive force for coastal protection and restoration exists because so many people work together so well. Thank you for being part of the legacy of the N.C. Coastal Federation.

The controversial sea-level rise law that has drawn unwanted international attention to N.C. has now morphed into another mandated state study by order of the N.C. General Assembly. As enacted last week, it stalls any meaningful policy development by N.C. in addressing sea-level rise issues for the next four years.

Ironically, the debate over the law has done a remarkable job of helping to inform the public about this issue. The on-going work of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission over the past several years was mainly noticed only by “policy and scientific wonks,” and garnered only minimal public attention. The people behind the sea-level rise legislation still wanted to quash even that much discussion because they fear it would scare people away from developing and investing on the coast. Their efforts have only served to bring a huge amount of worldwide attention to the issue that reached into many households that had never thought about sea level rise ever before.

As noted by the U.S. Geological Survey report that came out a couple of weeks ago, our coast north of Cape Hatteras is a “hotspot” for sea-level rise in the world. We see the impacts of sea-level rise and a warming climate on our beaches, estuarine shorelines and with a shift northward of tropical species of fish (about 30) that now inhabit our state’s offshore waters.  Even small increases in sea levels will make the impact from “storm surges” more severe, especially if combined with more storm activity.

The private insurance industry is well aware of the potential for increased damages due to an unstable climate, and it is continuing to shift more of the burden of insurance to the public sector. Many coastal states are now in the wind insurance business, and are very exposed financially if a major catastrophe storm occurs. These state-sponsored insurance pools have been formed as private insurers have declined to provide coverage in coastal areas.

Federal flood insurance has also stepped in to provide coverage that the private insurance companies aren’t willing to underwrite for flooding–but close examination of the limits of these policies reveals that homeowners in many cases are still very exposed to losses since this flood insurance is capped at $250,000 for residential structures, and does not cover land, which can erode away as sea level rises.

As long as government is slow to respond to the challenges posed by sea-level rise and climate change, it does so at the financial peril of its taxpayers. Already, private investors seize on opportunities to shift the costs of adapting and coping with climate and sea-level rise issues from their own pocketbooks to the public sector as much as possible. We see this with insurance, disaster relief, increased public infrastructure costs and tax write-offs for uninsured property losses. A vacuum in political leadership to act proactively on climate related issues simply serves to suck even more of these financial liabilities onto the backs of taxpayers.

Perhaps a series of face-to-face discussions among scientists, politicians and the general public is what’s needed most to address the disturbing antipathy for science that the sea-level debate has revealed among many of our state’s decision-makers. At least one advocate pushing for a legislative “fix” to sea-level rise has gone so far in his blog as to ridicule the state’s most respected university experts as “masquerading” as scientists while promoting their hidden agendas.

This open distain and disrespect for scientists might simply be chalked up to a tendency to shoot the messenger when bad news is being delivered. That’s too simple an explanation. It points to a more engrained tendency among many of us today to be very suspicious of experts. That’s because it’s all too easy to find “hired guns” to spew convincing expertise for whatever position any interest group wants to promote, and as the science behind environmental issues gets much more complex, it’s much more difficult to sort out who’s right and who’s wrong (or partially right or wrong).

If you’re the undeserving target of this anti-science ridicule, it’s only natural to become defensive and round up the wagons to defend your position. That would be the wrong response among our state’s scientists going forward as the Coastal Resources Commission continues to facilitate discussions over sea level rise policy.

All sides in this debate have already spent too much time talking “at” each other, and to their own “choirs.” The commission can perform good service by convening all interested parties together, and letting them spend some time getting to know and respect each other. Creating a productive dialogue is what’s needed most right now. That’s the best way to provoke a good public policy response to sea level rise issues.

Months of high-profile public debates over whether sea-level rise is accelerating have raged in the halls of the N.C. General Assembly.  Thus, the timing of a new scientific report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that now tells us that the East Coast of the U.S. from Cape Hatteras north is a “hotspot” for rising seas is stunning.  The news is bad for communities from the Outer Banks to Boston, and it should instill a new sense of urgency in our state’s leadership that it needs to get on with the job of planning for significant changes in our coastline in coming years caused by a rising sea.

As we reported in Coastal Review Online on June 25:

The names of Robert Dean and James Houston came up often in the debate. They are well-respected coastal engineers who studied data from tide gauges and determined that long-term average sea-level rise for the past 80 years has been negligible even though temperatures have risen. The USGS researchers tried to replicate Dean and Houston’s findings by using the same tide information from across North America. To determine if the rate of rise has recently accelerated, though, they analyzed smaller time segments of tide gauge data and in a way that removed long-term trends associated with vertical land movements.

One of the study’s authors, Peter Howd explains:

“Dean’s numbers are correct for what he calculated, the long-term average acceleration over the last 80 years. That’s a very different answer as to whether there’s any recent acceleration. We just asked a different question.”

In response to the USGS study, Dean says he can’t argue with the results showing accelerating sea level rise in the region since 1990, but he said it’s more likely to be from natural cycles. The USGS study’s authors claim that there is no evidence to support that claim, and Dean himself wrote that his 2011 study does not “speculate as to the causes” of sea level rise.

He recently wrote in the Journal of Coastal Research in response to peer review criticism of his paper that:

“… our emphasis was to accurately characterize U.S. and global tidegauge recordings during the 20th century, rather than to either project into the future or to speculate as to the causes…”

Let’s hope this ends the debate over whether peer-reviewed science supports warnings that sea level rise is accelerating. It’s time for N.C. to establish prudent land use and investment policies that will ease the sea change that will result as a rising tide lifts all boats, and everything else that stands in its way.

In an op-ed piece on sea level rise, NC-20 chairman Tom Thompson cites a 2011 research paper prepared by Dr. Robert Dean and Dr. James Houston as scientific evidence that concerns about acceleration of sea level rise may be overblown. He wrote:

…despite warnings of an accelerating sea level rise, Dr. Robert Dean, professor emeritus at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and his co-author, Dr. James Houston, director emeritus of the Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, concluded in a recent paper: “The results of all of our analyses are consistent – there is no indication of an overall world-wide sea level acceleration in the 20th Century data. Rather, it appears that a weak deceleration was present.

The paper cited by Thompson was recently discussed in the Journal of Coastal Research in which it was originally published. Joseph F. Donoghue from Florida State University and Randall W. Parkinson with RW Parkinson Consulting Inc. in Melbourne, Fla., offer a very critical peer review.  While there’s not space in this blog to detail their criticisms, the interesting response by Houston and Dean to the criticism of their paper indicates that Thompson’s is misguided by his use of this paper. They responded:

…our emphasis was to accurately characterize U.S. and global tidegauge recordings during the 20^th century, rather than to either project into the future or to speculate as to the causes….

There is very strong consensus among climate scientists that historical sea level change in the 20th century as measured by reviewing tidal gauge records has little relevance to future sea level change. Instead, they are very worried by the predictions of peer reviewed and intensely discussed empirical and physics based models that project that sea level will rise at a much greater rate in the next century.

Thompson thinks it’s prudent to rely on this technical paper that according to its own authors does not attempt to project future sea level rise trends or speculate about the causes of sea level rise. That’s his right, but the rest of us may want to give a little more respect to the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus that does exist that there will be a significant acceleration of sea level rise over the next century. Only by taking the scientists seriously can we begin to make prudent public policy that will protect the economic and environmental health of our coastal communities while there’s still plenty of time to act responsibly.

Granite rock is dense, and that’s what the advocates propose to use to build their small jetty and seawall at Figure Eight Island.

The draft environmental impact statement on this proposed terminal groin is dense as well. It is stacked full of nearly 1,000 pages of often-conflicting statements, fancy sci-fi looking full-color empirical models and wishful pie-in-the-sky cost and benefit analysis.

Its authors are consultants paid by the Figure Eight Island Homeowners Association. They have thrown everything possible into the document to try to justify spending millions of dollars of property owner’s money to build a 900-foot seawall and 700-foot terminal groin at Rich Inlet.

For years, this proposed solution to natural erosion on the northern end of the island has been discussed. But up until now, details of the proposal were lacking. It was billed as a low-cost permanent solution to the erosion problems on the island that would save property owners a lot of money paying for repeated beach nourishment.

Island property owners and government regulators should wade through this nearly impenetrable document and evaluate the validity of these salesmen-like claims.

If you read the fine print, it turns out that this project is not designed to prevent damage to oceanfront property that is going to occur routinely in storms. The groin and seawall will wash away the northern tip of the island, and lots that ring the inlet will be cut nearly in half by erosion. There are no safeguards for the houses and lots on the back of the island either, other than giving them a false sense of temporary security by pumping some sand on the shoreline.

Clearly, the project is no permanent solution to erosion. Millions of dollars of beach nourishment is still needed both along the oceanfront and backside of the island as much as every four years—more often if there are storms.

No one will save any money if this structure is built. In fact, the project simply escalates the costs of nourishment over and beyond what the island has been spending each year since 1993.

All these conclusions can be drawn from the volumes of material stuffed into this document.

Simply put, the draft environmental study that is now available is informative once you can cut through the chaff and get to its meat.  The authors as cheerleaders for the project must be counting on the fact that people won’t go to the trouble of digesting the information and will be superficially impressed that they composed a document that rivals War and Peace in its thickness.

They should not assume that people will be so naive. Those that are being asked to pay for this project for three decades to come or approve its regulatory permits are unlikely to be as “dense” as  those granite rocks or this document.

Today wasn’t a good one for North Carolina. It was the day when our elected leaders decided to turn their backs on the state’s long and proud history as a leader in research, technological achievement and marine sciences. It was a day they took us backwards, to a time when science was suspect and unfounded beliefs held firm.

The N.C. Senate’s Agriculture, Environmental and Natural Resources Committee just a few hours ago passed overwhelmingly the now-infamous House Bill 819, which mandates how the state will plan for future sea-level rise. The original bill has been ridiculed all over the world since we first broke the story more than three weeks ago because it banned the use of scientific models to forecast sea-level rise. These peer-reviewed models have been endorsed by almost every major scientific organization in the world and have been used by other states and countries to forecast how high the seas might get in the future because of climate change.

The bill that passed today had been rewritten to remove some of the objectionable items and soften some of the language, but it is still a murky, ambiguous measure that ditches modern science and instead mandates the use of historical data that significantly underestimates sea-level rise.

Supporters of the bill didn’t explain how they came up with that method or why the one used by climate scientists all over the world isn’t good enough for us.

We on the coast, who are most directly affected by rising seas and storm damage, expect more from our elected officials. Let’s hope we get it and a more rational approach prevails when the Senate votes on the bill, probably next week, or if the N.C. House considers it in the future.

Back in 1974 an almost evenly divided N.C. General Assembly hotly debated the wisdom of enacting the Coastal Area Management Act.

• Coastal Forestry
• State/National Conservation Organization
• Coastal Land Development
• Financing of Coastal Land Development
• Local Government
• Coastal Agriculture
• Marine-related Business
• Wildlife or Sports Fishing
• Marine Ecology
• Commercial Fishing
• Coastal-Engineering
• Three At-large members

Under the proposed makeup, removing the agricultural seat means that the experiences of one of the biggest land users in the coastal area will no longer be on the commission. In addition, the people who benefit most from good coastal management – sportsman and fishers – won’t be able to offer their perspectives any longer. Finally, removing the three at-large seats will simply make it even more difficult for future governors to round out the commission’s makeup.  If the downsizing occurs, the commission’s one minority member and one of two women on the board will no longer be able to serve in one of the at-large seats.

The commission continues to struggle to provide effective forward-looking leadership on coastal policy. It is challenged in doing so by many obstacles, including a lack of effective participation in its work by its appointed advisors. However, no one has ever had a problem with the long-established legislative intent for the commission to bring a broad spectrum of coastal interests to the table to devise workable coastal management policies.

In other words, if the basic architecture of the commission isn’t broken, there’s no reason to fix it.

Emerald Isle’s decision to ask the N.C. General Assembly for permission to impose a sales tax to fund its beach management efforts is laudable.  It clearly sends a message that the people who benefit from beach re-nourishment should pay for it.

That’s been the policy position of the N.C. Coastal Federation for many years.  Beach re-nourishment is a good tool to help protect the status quo along our oceanfront beaches as long as proper sand is used, it’s not done too frequently and the people who benefit pay for it.

Putting the financial burden at the local level will result in a much more rationale cost-benefit decision by local leaders about when beach re-nourishment is worth pursuing.  When it becomes too costly, other alternatives will be pursued.

Beach re-nourishment beats sea walls, groins and sandbags hands down.  But eventually it is likely to become too costly to secure adequate supplies of sand to hold the line against the sea and protect existing oceanfront development.

Communities that are already experiencing rapid erosion are facing this hard decision currently, and every coastal community is vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes or northeasters that can suddenly resets the beaches and destroy the front line of development.

Emerald Isle wants to hold a referendum to see if its voters will approve a one-cent sales tax to fund beach re-nourishment.  The town recognizes that federal and state funds to manage its beaches are getting harder to get and it wants its own funds.  It estimates that the sales tax will produce between $700,000 and $800,000 annually.  The tax would set a precedent in North Carolina because counties collect all municipal sales and use taxes now.

It will be fascinating to see if the town’s voters approve the new tax if the legislature approve the referendum.  Most residents don’t actually own oceanfront property, so they generally don’t feel as threatened by beach erosion as do people who have real estate investments along the oceanfront.  An effort years ago to get Carteret County residents to support a bond for beach re-nourishment lost in a landslide vote, and clearly the further you own property away from the beach the less interested you are in paying for these projects.

Lawmakers should give the town the option to let its voters decide on the sales tax. We applaud the town for looking for ways to pay for its beach with its own money, and for giving its residents the option of deciding if that’s a good use of their tax dollars.

You must think I’m crazy to suggest that anyone invest in a company that failed to adapt as technology revolutionized the camera industry.

And in fact, I do think such an investment would have been foolish since the company went bankrupt more than 10 years ago. That’s why a bill that may be considered in our state legislature is equally foolish. It mandates that the North Carolina use “historical data” on sea-level rise to make policy for the future.

House Bill 819 mandates that both state and local agencies and institutions ignore emerging science that warns that sea level may rise exponentially faster because of the warming of the Earth. If enacted, lawmakers say we can only look backward, not forward, in making public policy.

That backward approach to environmental management may have worked in the dark ages when change came slowing and the technological and scientific revolution did not exist. These days if you don’t anticipate future trends, they’ll swamp you. Just look at what happened to Kodak and Polaroid.

There are many other reasons that this bill is a bad idea. It allows one appointed state commission to mandate what other state agencies, publicly funded universities and local governments are able to do on this issue. The Coastal Resources Commission is made up of political appointees, and it is being given the power to overrule the judgment of elected state and local officials. This is not authority that the commission even wants.

The bill also prescribes how science will be conducted over the objections of many scientific experts on sea-level rise. It mandates that measurements will occur in a way that will probably make it impossible to ever collect those measurements, and thus stymies policy by imposing these unrealistic hurdles. It’s always a bad idea to legislate exactly how science should be conducted.

For several years, the N.C. Division of Emergency Management has been conducting a multimillion-dollar study funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to try to deal with sea-level rise hazards. It is looking at ways to reduce hurricane hazards and long-term sea-level rise concerns. Just as this study is nearing completion, this law may pull the rug out from under it. This would be a big waste of government money and undermine future efforts to reduce coastal hazards.

The people who drafted this bill have made their point that policy makers need to be careful as they go about their jobs of addressing sea-level rise. They now need to put this bill aside, and let it gather some dust. Enacting it into law would be a huge over-reach of “big government,” and is not in keeping with the political times.

Local governments in coastal North Carolina paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2011 to lobby Congress for federal funds for their shore protection projects. Financial disclosures indicate that payments to lobby Congress by these same local governments have been made for years. However, a recent ban on “earmarks” means that more often than not shore protection project budgets are now set by the President’s administration and not by lawmakers. In recent years, funds for these projects dwindled as competition for shrinking federal funds becomes more intense even among beach communities.

According to 2011 Congressional lobbying disclosure,Howard Marlowe & Co. received more than $200,000 from local taxpayers to lobby for federal appropriations and earmarks for the upcoming fiscal year. His North Carolina coastal clients included:

Carteret County, $73,600; Brunswick Beach Consortium, $37,500; Beach, Inlet and Waterways Association, Inc., $35,000; North Topsail Beach, $20,000; Surf City, $20,000; and Topsail Beach, $20,000. Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and New Hanover County paid Marlowe less than $5,000 each quarter.

Many of these local governments and associations have retained Marlowe for many years. Marlowe’s firm received more than $1.4 million from clients in 2011. However, since 2008, Marlowe’s overall income has declined each year from a high of over $2.2 million. Bucking a national trend, many of his clients in North Carolina continue to pay consistently for lobbying services, with the exception of New Hanover County, which curtailed its annual payments of $40,000 after 2009. Client payments by year can be seen here.

Rules Change

Lobbying Congress for money is an age-old pastime, but the rules of the game have changed dramatically in recent years. Now funding priorities for shore protection projects are mostly decided by the President and the Army Corps of Engineers, and not Congress.

That’s not the way it used to be. The President would release his budget in February, and Congress would approve a final budget by the beginning of the fiscal year that begins on October. The process has changed significantly.  Congress typically passes a defense bill quickly, and then stalls on everything else.

Instead, “continuing resolutions” are passed that temporarily provide base funding to keep government agencies and programs operating. Some of these resolutions allow agencies to spend what’s in the President’s proposed budget, or to spend at the previous year’s levels, or for projects that might have been included in any version of the Senate or House Energy and Water Development Appropriation bills. These instructions change from year to year, but the President’s budget rule seems to be the most consistent.

For shore protection projects that are eventually funded, Congress appropriates money either through the Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill, or wraps all the unfinished appropriation bills into an omnibus package (affectionately termed a “mega bill”).

In year’s past, the normal function of Congress was to consider each appropriation bill so as to add or cut what was in the President’s budget. For beach projects, the Corps’ entire budget was a series of earmarks. Each named project got a certain amount of dollars.  But when the Republican leadership in the House pledged in 2010 that there would be “no earmarks,” it made it almost impossible for any member of Congress to add anything into the budget and direct any particular agency what to do. The “no earmark” pledge by default allows the President to outline his spending priorities and Congress has in essence forfeited its ability to change them.

For fiscal year 2012, no stand-alone budget bill ever passed Congress. It eventually gave the Corps approximately $44.7 million for shore protection projects, and told it to develop a “work plan” for how that lump sum was to be spent. So instead of earmarking, Congress gave Corps the authority to set its own spending. The work plan is available here.

Little Flows Back

Small amounts of federal money for shore protection projects flowed back into North Carolina in fiscal year 2012. The Wilmington District of the Corps received $287,000 to investigate how to reduce storm damages in Surf City. More N.C. beach communities are proposed for funds in the President’s recommended $44.8 million shore protection budget for fiscal year 2013, but the total appropriations are meager compared to the communities’ wish list. Requests for N.C. projects in the President’s budget are listed below.

It is difficult to tell just how effective Marlowe & Co. actually is in helping its clients obtain federal funds for shore protection projects. The total amount of money available for shore protection projects from the federal budget has been stagnant in recent years under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and those communities with long established Congressionally authorized projects tend to be first in line to receive these shrinking funds.  In fiscal year 2012, 93 percent of the federal funds for shore protection projects went to communities and organizations that Marlowe did not represent. Marlowe had 31 clients in 2011 that are all competing among themselves and with every other beach community for these limited project funds.

Marlowe has his own political action committee as part of his efforts to influence Congress. Most of his political donations go to Democrats. To see his giving history, go here.

Beach communities remain pretty inventive when it comes to getting federal dollars. Federally declared disasters have become a pipeline to “repair” shore protection projects that would otherwise not be eligible for federal dollars. That will be the subject of another blog in the future.

Corps Projects

Here’s the authorized shoreline protection protects at the Corps’ Wilmington District. This does not include appropriations for dredging projects.

Fiscal Year 2012

Investigations

Surf City         $287,000

Shoreline protection projects nationwide received $44,700,000. The actual appropriations for N.C. projects represented 0.6% of total appropriation.

Fiscal Year 2013

Investigations, President’s budget

Bogue Banks                                       $445.000

Surf City and North Topsail Beach         $225,000

Investigations Subtotal                      $675,000

Construction, President’s budget

West Onslow Beach (Topsail Island)     $200,000

Construction Subtotal                       $200,000

The president in his proposed budget recommends appropriating $44,800,000 for shoreline protection projects nationwide. The proposed $875,000 expenditure in North Carolina represents 1.9% of total appropriations.

Unless it’s a gift for Christmas or a birthday, when my two teenage boys ask for money they know they’ll be held accountable for how it’s used.

Requests by state agencies for appropriations from the N.C. General Assembly typically are met with similar expectations of accountability. State programs don’t simply get funds because they exist. They must justify their budget needs each year, and account for how they spent the money they have been given in the past.

At least as a taxpayer I hope that’s how it’s done.

Twenty-three years ago lawmakers decided that annual budget requests and agency reports weren’t sufficient to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the environment.  They wanted more, so legislators asked the secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources to report every two years on environmental conditions and trends, and what’s being done to protect and restore environmental health.

In a recent email with Bill Holman who lobbied for this law in 1989, he said “…the idea was to provide an opportunity for [the department] to identify the state’s important environmental problems and make recommendations to the General Assembly on how to address them.”

Holman later served the department as its assistant secretary and secretary between 1998 and 2000.  He feels that it has never effectively utilized this report even when he was there.

Past reports started seriously enough even before the legislative mandate.  In 1987 under Gov. Jim Martin’s administration, the department prepared a report that attempted to convey to the legislature good and bad news about environmental trends across the state. That first report helped to inspire the legislature to make the biannual report a statutory mandate.  In response, two more reports were prepared in 1989 and 1991 that were pretty comprehensive in nature, and which even included a preamble by Martin himself.

Then, as these types of exercises tend to do, the reports became much more glossy presentations that looked and read much more like tourism brochures rather than serious analytical reports that digest and evaluate the status of environmental protection efforts.  And somewhere along the line, the requirement that reports be submitted to the lawmakers every two years was forgotten.

The most recent report was released early this year eleven months late after some prodding from the NC General Assembly.  It follows the now standard flowery format that celebrates our beautiful and productive environment, while providing little meaningful analysis of the numerous environmental challenges that confront the state now and in the future.

Much of the data and commentary presented in the report provide virtually no insights into environmental issues.  The impact on the Department’s ability to safeguard the state’s environment caused by a 40 percent cut in its yearly operating budget is not examined. The report is silent regarding lack of adequate staff to carry out legislative mandates that provide critical oversight of environmental standards and permits. For example, there are now nearly 13,000 permits issued for coastal stormwater systems in the 20 coastal counties, and yet the department’s staff to issue permits and monitor their compliance has been cut significantly. It also fails to report that the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission lacks sufficient funds to hold its regular meetings, making it difficult to address pressing policy demands.

Before time and money is spent preparing the next report in 2013, it’s time to refocus on the purpose of this report, and what it should contain.

The existing legal requirements are quite clear:

• Identify and analyze current environmental protection issues and problems;
• Document trends in the quality and use of air and water resources;
• Inventory areas of the state where air or water pollution is a problem or may be a problem in the next two years;
• Explain current efforts and resources being spent to correct pollution problems, and estimate what additional resources are needed to solve potential problems;
• Explain goals and strategies to protect the environment; and
• Suggest needed environmental legislation.

The report should provide a candid and honest evaluation of how well funds have been used to protect the environment, and where there are gaps and problems with management efforts.  This would provide regular measurable benchmarks upon which performance of the department can be measured, and its future needs addressed.

Perhaps it’s naive to expect any agency to evaluate itself.  That’s probably why the report has never been used to clearly communicate with lawmakers vexing management challenges the department faces.

The outcome of the election for governor later this year is highly uncertain.  This means the current leadership of the department may or may not be around next February when the next report is due.  That’s no excuse not to make the required 2013 report a priority right now.  A valid, analytical assessment of environmental needs is urgently needed no matter who’s in charge next year.

If a serious effort is not made to make the next report a meaningful and timely exercise that lives up to its legislative mandate, lawmakers should either eliminate the report or assign it to an independent third party to prepare.

It is pure insanity to keep preparing the report the same way over and over again, and expect a different, more meaningful result.

Recent studies find that motorists in North Carolina are stuck in some of the worst congestion in the United States, wasting more than 47 hours a year in traffic jams. And at a time that one-quarter of North Carolina’s major roads are deteriorated, nearly a third of the state’s bridges are in need of improvement and traffic congestion continues to choke major roads, North Carolina faces a $65 billion transportation funding shortfall through 2030.

Next time you’re stuck in traffic wasting expensive gas getting no where fast, you can turn your thoughts to the empty 27- mile four-lane superhighway that may soon be built with nearly $400 million taxpayers dollars through the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge in Tyrrell and Dare counties.

The official justification for turning U.S. 64 into an expressway has nothing to do with existing traffic congestion on this roadway. Except for the occasional bear or red wolf, it’s a lightly traveled roadway most days and there’s rarely a need to slow down except to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

Evacuating the Outer Banks from Whalebone Junction in Nags Head south to Ocracoke in 18 hours is the major justification for building the new road. A 2005 modeling study concluded that by 2030, it would take nearly 40 hours to get every vehicle that would need to use U.S. 64 out of Dare County if the existing road is not improved.

Other reasons given are to bring the existing highway into conformance with a highway plan that the state has imposed on itself, and because the bridge over the Alligator River will someday need to be replaced. Those justifications by themselves would never warrant spending so much money on this project when more modest highway and bridge improvements would suffice.

Digging deeper into the hurricane evacuation justification reveals that the estimated future evacuation time that’s projected is based upon faulty assumptions that don’t reflect reality.

Dare County evacuates visitors the way they came to the county. That means nearly 70 percent of the vehicles evacuating leave by U.S.158 and not U.S. 64. Even if there was a dire emergency, and more cars were directed to use U.S. 64, the fact that evacuations normally begin up to 72 hours prior to a storm for Ocracoke and Hatteras Islands was not factored into the model that calculated clearance times.

Many people and their vehicles will have already left Dare County before the critical 18 hour clearance time since early mandatory evacuation orders are always given for Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. These areas need to be vacated early because of the ferries and the vulnerable situation along Highway. Even if all these cars were directed to leave by U.S. 64, most will be long gone before more easily vacated areas of the county begin their evacuations.

Take away this “evacuation” justification for building this massive and expensive highway, and it’s tough to conclude that the significant tax dollars and environmental damage and social upheaval the project will cost can be justified.

State leaders should use these highway dollars elsewhere. There are plenty of congested highways that need improvements, or the funds could be used to avoid having to raise $5 million in ferry tolls annually for the next 200 years.

Remember when coastal real estate was a liquid asset and great investment?  If you wanted to make a lot of money quickly, the conventional wisdom was to buy some coastal real estate, hold it for a few years and then flip it to the next hungry investor. Like a house of cards, such trading collapsed with the Great Recession of 2008.  Speculators who failed to cash out before the real estate bubble burst found they were stuck with overpriced land, houses and empty lots that nobody wants.

The fallout of this rampant speculation in real estate has been catastrophic on the economy. Investors face foreclosures, the banks crashed and needed large taxpayer bailouts and small businesses went bankrupt. Joblessness swelled and continues to linger. An economic malaise infects our thinking making it hard to feel optimistic about the future.

No one predicts with any certainty when real estate will once again be viewed as a safe place to put your money. Needless to say, people now buy real estate when they really need a place to live, and if the price is reasonable. It’s clearly a buyer’s market.

In hindsight, it’s easy to see now that what occurred in real estate during the boom years could not be sustained. It’s just not possible to defy the basics of growth and demand.  Past permanent and seasonal population growth estimates based upon the U.S. Census have been remarkably accurate. The amount of real estate that was transformed into development projects greatly exceeded projected population demands. This over-supply in real estate projects combined with the downward spiral in the ability of people to afford to buy them all combined to cause the inevitable to happen—a crash in the market.

Vacant, unused development projects now consume land that would be more productive economically and ecologically as woods, farms or wetlands. Had we asked harder questions about the actual demand for these new projects and where they should be located and how they were be provided with public services, the real-estate crash might have had a much softer landing on investors, taxpayers and workers. Instead, nobody — including government regulatory agencies, lenders and insurers — imposed significant constraints on these get-rich quick ventures.  As a result, investors learned the hard way what it means to speculate with their money.  Sometimes you do well with speculations, and then again, sometimes you don’t.

There is now the opportunity to learn from our mistakes, and put in place common sense land-use plans and regulatory requirements that will help to pace and direct development based upon the future needs of our coastal communities.  Those communities that do foster sustainable land uses based on reasonable growth projections and good environmental management programs will be much resilient to future economic and natural upheavals.

Dancing at the crossroads used to be young people´s opportunity to meet and enjoy themselves on mild summer evenings in the countryside in Ireland, and it is now a key metaphor in Irish cultural and political life.

It’s also an apt way to characterize the convergence of enthusiasm for low-impact development, or LID, in coastal North Carolina. Development, environmental and governmental interests are excited about LID and are working together to make it occur. LID intersects their interests and provides a clear roadmap to promote a sound economy and environment.

Lauren Kolodij

In the past several years, huge progress has been made in gaining acceptance for LID along our coast. Hats off to the work of Lauren Kolodij on our staff. She has been our LID ambassador. Her enthusiasm for LID has infected homebuilders, local governments, state agencies and politicians and resulted in changes to state and local rules that actively encourage LID practices.

Because of Lauren, we now have an active partnership with the homebuilders’ association in Wilmington in trying to promote LID. We had a story about it on our Web site last week.

The list of local governments that have amended their local codes and adopted tools to promote LID is impressive and consistently growing.  They include:  Brunswick County, New Hanover County, Pender County, Cape Carteret, Cedar Point, Columbia, Jacksonville, Manteo and Wilmington. The N.C. Division of Water Quality and N.C. Department of Transportation have included LID in their programs, and the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries has installed LID practices at its headquarters in Morehead city.

And thanks to our educational programs, dozens of schools now sport rain gardens for education, and serious bio-retention basins that infiltrate a substantial part of their polluted runoff. Funding for these retrofits has come from corporations like Wal-Mart as well and government and private grants.

There’s still a huge amount of work left to accomplish before LID becomes standard operating procedure all along our coast. But there’s real hope that that day isn’t too far off given the willingness of diverse groups to actively dance together to promote LID.

Insurance companies calculate premiums based on the probability of claims. They often refuse to issue coverage for potential losses when the risks of someone collecting on insurance are too high.

You would think decisions to protect oceanfront buildings against beach erosion by pumping sand, moving inlets or building terminal groins would be made in a similar fashion. Such protection efforts are only worth pursuing when risks of losses once the projects are built are low. That’s why when such projects are considered a cost-benefit study is normally undertaken.

These studies attempt to evaluate whether the economic benefits resulting from these projects are worth the investments it takes to achieve them. It all sounds logical and simple. Don’t waste money paying for projects that cost more than the benefits they derive.

However, when it comes to determining the costs and benefits of projects proposed to protect oceanfront buildings, there is a fatal flaw in the cost-benefit analysis that is typically done.  These studies fail to adequately reflect the inherent risks associated with protecting buildings in such unstable, highly dynamic areas.

This became clear during discussions at the Coastal Resources Commission’s science panel meeting in December. Tom Jarrett, a member of the panel and an engineer who works for applicants who want to build terminal groins and other beach stabilization projects, told the group that oceanfront properties could still be severely damaged no matter what’s done to protect them.  Thus, he didn’t want projects he engineers to be blamed for losses that would occur whether or not his projects are built.

Jarrett’s concerns are well grounded.  A major hurricane or northeaster will cause lots of damage no matter what we do to try to mitigate their impacts. The probability of damage is so high that most private insurance companies no longer want to do business in these beachfront areas. Jarrett doesn’t want his projects to be blamed for damages that are inevitable whether or not his projects are built.

That’s fine and good; except that the analysis of costs and benefits used to justify projects he and others want permission to build do not factor in these inevitable losses either. Cost-benefit analysis generally assumes that property that is lost under a “no action” alternative will be saved when an “action” is taken. The 100 percent “saved” value is considered a direct project “benefit.”

But in reality, those long-term predicted benefits will only be realized if the ocean remains placid, and the tide never rises. It is much more likely that there will be significant property losses under any management alternative, but cost-benefit studies that account for those losses will show much less economic benefit associated with any preferred action alternative.

Probabilities of property losses under each management alternative during the projected life of a project need to be calculated.  These probabilities then need to be used to more accurately estimate project benefits. Estimates of economic benefits will change radically if you’re simply buying a few extra years for properties versus protecting them in perpetuity.

Clearly, property insurers are not confident that projects installed to protect oceanfront structures will work during major storm events. No insurance premium discounts are offered in locations where these projects have been constructed.   These areas are still view as highly hazardous.

Any economic analysis of benefits and costs that ignores these known risks is pure speculation when it comes to making cost-effective management choices, and little more than an exercise in wishful thinking.