NEAR BEAUFORT — Officials wielded ceremonial gold-painted shovels Monday to break ground on an economic development project specifically tailored to the needs of coastal communities, a plan that one advocate likened to successful technology-incubation hubs but instead intended to support shellfish aquaculture jobs.

When construction begins at the recently cleared site this summer, the Shellfish Mariculture Hub will feature a 2,500-square-foot structure on county-owned land next to the boat ramp at Straits Landing, just across from Harkers Island. The building will be outfitted with cold storage, equipment, an outdoor workspace and crucial water access — shared resources for shellfish growers, officials said.

Tom Looney of Wrightsville Beach, a former vice president and general manager of Lenovo North America and a longtime board member with Coastal Review’s publisher, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, said he had been involved a decade ago in developing the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, which works to recruit new business, assist existing businesses, help companies with international trade, promote the state as a tourist destination and counsel small companies and startups.   

“Today, it’s the number one workforce engine in the country for the last three out of four years,” Looney said. “We know how to attract businesses. We know how to create new businesses. What I learned in that role was, some of the most economically challenged regions in our state were our coastal communities. We had to find new ways to create jobs for people to feed their families, grow a business, have opportunity.”

Looney, who was an IBM man for more than 30 years, said that, since 2013, North Carolina’s oyster industry has grown more than 500%. Today, the state boasts one of the fastest-growing oyster industries in the country, generating more than $300 million annually.

“And let me tell you, folks, this hub will set it on fire, as far as North Carolina as a state,” Looney said.

That success will be the result of combined forces, including the shellfish aquaculture program at Carteret Community College, and provide a good return on the investments made by the legislature, the county, the Coastal Federation and others, he said. Looney praised Coastal Federation staff, including Chief Program Officer Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic for shepherding the project.

“We’re doing it the right way. We’re creating jobs while protecting the culture and our coastal waters,” Looney said.

He said the mariculture hub would apply the same principle as American Underground, a Google tech hub for startups in Durham, but with oysters.

Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis said the hub project was “about putting down roots for an industry that has been proving its worth in eastern North Carolina and across the country for a long time now.”

Shellfish mariculture, Davis said, combines economic opportunity, environmental benefits and a unique cultural heritage in a way that few other industries can.

“It creates jobs, it supports working waterfronts, and it keeps seafood production local, which is fantastic,” Davis said. “And at the same time, our oysters are out there every day, quietly doing their work, cleaning the water, filtering the water, improving clarity and water quality across the coast. So, that all together is a combined return on investment that you rarely find and few industries can match. It’s driving economic growth while actively improving water quality and protecting the coast.”

Also on hand for the event was Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, and who also represents Carteret, Chowan, Halifax, Hyde, Martin, Warren and Washington counties. Sanderson explained how his district has a “very important role to play in our seafood industry,” as producers and consumers. He noted the move to transfer the Division of Marine Fisheries from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of Agriculture as part of the Republican-led legislature’s regulatory reform efforts. “Because too many times, it hinders the growth that we could use here on the coast to create jobs and to make our economies more stronger and more prosperous.”

Sanderson described his district’s rankings in the state Department of Commerce economically distressed counties tier system. Under this system, the department ranks the 100 counties’ economic well-being and assigns a corresponding tier number, 1-3. Commerce designates the 40 most distressed counties as Tier 1, the next 40 as Tier 2 and the 20 least distressed as Tier 3.

“I have four counties, five counties that are Tier 1s, which is the most economically distressed counties in the state of North Carolina. And so anything that we can do to help those counties is going to be a blessing,” Sanderson said.

He said the Mariculture Hub was one of the few projects to get legislative support from all corners.

“This one is an easy one to sell, because I think people, first of all, they love seafood,” Sanderson said, adding that he hoped that the project becomes a prototype for others.

“We have over 300 farmers now farming oysters for at least a secondary income. We’re hoping that it will eventually become primary income for them,” he said.

Rep. Celeste Cairns, R-Carteret and Craven, also spoke at the event Monday. She said the project was “a real collaboration among state folks, local folks, and great organizations like the Coastal Federation, and I know I speak for Senator Sanderson as well when I say, when everybody is moving and pulling in the same direction, it is a rare and beautiful thing.”

Cairns said she had been told the total number of leases and franchises was about 500.

“Each of those, whatever the number — it’s a lot and growing — and each of those folks represents a small business or family or an individual trying to make a livelihood on the water.”

The Rocky Mount-based Golden LEAF Foundation, created by the North Carolina General Assembly to award proceeds from the 1998 National Cigarette Manufacturer Settlement Agreement, uses that money to create economic opportunities in rural, tobacco-dependent and poorer counties.

Golden LEAF’s early support and $200,000 in backing in August 2022 helped build momentum for the project. Jason Rochelle evaluates funding proposals for the organization, works to implement Golden LEAF priorities, and oversees project monitoring and compliance.

“At the time, the project represented a strong vision, one rooted in supporting local aquaculture, strengthening coastal economies and creating new opportunities for shellfish growers in the region,” Rochelle said. “Today, it’s incredibly rewarding to see that vision move forward. The shellfish hub is a strategic investment in the future of Carteret County and addresses real needs identified by the shellfish farming community by providing shared infrastructure such as dock access, refrigeration, storage, grading and loading equipment and a central point for distribution. This facility will make a meaningful difference in the day-to-day operations of local growers.”

Rochelle said the hub would serve up to 15 operations and generate around $2 million annually.

“By locating the facilities near the fishing waters, growers will be able to spend more time harvesting, less time on logistics,” Rochelle said. “This increased efficiency will translate to higher production, increased income and the creation of high-quality jobs in this community.”

Assistant Carteret County Manager Matt Reynal said the project reflects “who we are as a county, from Harkers Island to Cedar Island and all across Down East, our connection to the water has always been central to how we live and work. Shellfish mariculture builds on that tradition.”

Reynal said that economic development “isn’t just about bringing in something new or shiny” to Carteret County.

“It’s about supporting the industries that are already here and ensuring that we have the infrastructure to grow,” he said. “That’s why the county was proud to provide this land. We see the long-term value and what this project supports working waterfronts local businesses and innovative opportunity that stays rooted in our communities, and that’s especially important for Down East.”

Chris Matteo, president of the North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association, said that when he was first told of the plan, he “immediately agreed to participate.” He said Coastal Federation founder Todd Miller and Looney had seen a similar model in Australia, and that infrastructure helped fuel a thriving shellfish aquaculture industry there.

“And today we are finally breaking ground on our shared vision. I’m very excited for our local shellfish farmers and for our industry. This is a special day, not just because we are breaking ground on a new building, but because we’re laying the foundation for the next stage of growth in our young industry,” said Matteo. “This project took years of persistence, collaboration and a shared belief that working waterfronts and shellfish mariculture are critically important to North Carolina’s coast.”

The fun part lies ahead, Matteo said.

“This shellfish hub will create job local jobs, support family businesses and keep waterfront communities working on the water. It will do so while helping grow one of the world’s most sustainable and healthy animal proteins, and as if that wasn’t enough, it will also improve our estuaries. Every oyster grown in our waters does more than feed someone. It is filtering water, creating habitat, rebuilding public trust stocks of marine species, and proving that economic growth and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand.”

Matteo said he was especially proud that shellfish farms in North Carolina filter more than 600 million gallons of estuarine water every day.

“This hub will help us grow that number further,” he said. “As a shellfish grower here in North Carolina, I can tell you firsthand, this hub isn’t just a nice to have. It solves real-world problems that growers across the state deal with daily. While shellfish farming has enormous potential, the reality is, starting and scaling a farm is not easy. For many growers, one of the biggest barriers has always been access to waterfront infrastructure.”

For small operations, the costs can be terminal.

“Shellfish farmers haven’t been limited by demand or ability,” Matteo said. “They’ve been limited by not having a place to work on the water, the equipment to process and refrigerate their product and an efficient way to get it to market.”

Stewards of North Carolina’s rivers and streams have created a manual designed to assist local governments in establishing land use rules that protect water quality and boost community flood resilience.

The new guide, “Gold Standard Development Practices for Watershed Protection,” was developed in response to river keepers’ documentation of irresponsible land use practices that have resulted in severe and devastating impacts across the state, said Neuse Riverkeeper and Sound Rivers Inc. Director of Advocacy Samantha Krop.

“We realized that how our cities approach land use practices is one of the most important indicators of water quality and flooding mitigation we have,” she said. “So, we’ve taken a very thoughtful pivot to focusing on land use policy because we see it as inextricably linked to our community health and safety in the future.”

The guide, created by Waterkeepers Carolina with support from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, provides an array of options local governments may consider implementing in land use rules, developers can offer as proffers or in conditional rezoning applications, and concerned residents may use as an advocacy tool.

Counties, cities and towns throughout North Carolina establish key land use regulations through a single, consolidated document called a unified development ordinance, or UDO.

A UDO governs land use, zoning, and development standards aimed at guiding growth and protecting natural resources.

Local governments use these ordinances to govern land use in ways tailored to their communities.

Down-zoning ban limits local governments

In 2024, the North Carolina General Assembly banned local governments from being able to initiate a process called down-zoning, which is when property is rezoned to less dense or less intense use.

The ban effectively restricts those governments’ ability to enforce land use rules because the law requires that they must get written permission from all affected property owners before amending zoning text or maps.

The down-zoning ban in Senate Bill 382, a 2024 disaster relief bill, one vetoed by then-Gov. Roy Cooper, has prompted cities like New Bern and Durham to pump the brakes on updating their UDOs because the law lacks clarity, Krop said.

“I think that is presenting a lot of challenges, both in what the letter of the law says and also in what municipalities are sort of perceiving it to say, or sort of worried it’s created this boogeyman that I think is creating a lot of fear in municipal governments around can we do anything at all,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we can still do, both in passing changes to local UDOs and also in asking for more in some of these rezoning cases as proffers to protect waterways and communities from some of the harms that we’ve been documenting associated with development practices.”

Waterkeepers Carolina and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice last week in Durham hosted an event, “Designing Communities that Protect our Waters,” to discuss development and zoning practices aimed at protecting water and building community flood resilience.

Counsel for Environmental Justice James Huey at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice explained that one tool local governments have is something called conditional zoning.

Conditional zoning is a process in which a property owner and local government negotiate conditions in a rezoning request.

Local governments, “can impose conditions that address lots of various potential issues that might come up with any sort of development,” he said. “A lot of times with development, there isn’t really a one-size-fits-all and I think that’s why this document is important to show that there is a path forward, especially for those local governments that are concerned about their authority and also a little bit confused about if they should always be implementing a certain system or what systems to implement.”

Tree retention protects water quality

The guide also highlights how local governments can implement overlay districts that identify and bolster protections specific to sensitive and important areas such as drinking watersheds.

“With water quality, it really boils down to silver bullets, and that starts with leaving more trees in the ground,” Krop said. “The single, best thing that we can do when developing a landscape, a forested landscape, is leaving as many trees in the ground as possible. That looks like tree retention instead of removal and replacement with young saplings.”

Targeting tree retention around waterways, expanding riparian buffers, making sure wetlands are protected and buffered and increasing overall tree connectivity on the landscape are crucial in protecting water quality.

In areas where multiple acres of trees are being removed at one time, it is crucial that exposed soil is stabilized as soon as possible to prevent erosion, sedimentation and pollution in waterways. Local governments can regulate timeframes for which developers must establish ground cover to avert erosion.

Waterkeepers Carolina continues to push for a change in state law that would require developers to monitor all discharges coming from their sediment basins to prove they’re not pumping dirty water into creeks and streams.

“We would argue that this is something that needs to happen, at least in all sensitive watersheds where there’s evidence of construction practices polluting waterways,” Krop said.

She encourages communities to look at those that are implementing forward-thinking rules and protections for waterways.

“I think we can learn from each other and try to create more universal, more consistent protections across the whole state,” she said.

Emerald Isle commissioners are expected to consider at their meeting later this month raising tenfold the town-imposed penalty for violations involving damage to primary dunes.

The proposal, one that would increase the fine from $1,000 to $10,000, was unanimously approved last Tuesday by the town’s planning board and comes on the heels of Emerald Isle’s issuance of a cease-and-desist order for construction on an oceanfront lot.

Remarque Home Builders LLC was slapped with a notice of violation and ordered to stop working at 3405 Ocean Drive until the dune destroyed at the property, as well as a designated natural area on the lot, have been fully restored.

“I’ve been working as a beach town manager for most of my career, nearly three decades, and this is the most egregious violation I have ever seen,” Emerald Isle Town Manager Frank Rush said by telephone late Wednesday.

Carving more than 5,600 square feet of primary dune that buffered the lot from the oceanfront beach is a violation of the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, minor permit the builder’s obtained May 1, 2024.

The developer also violated a town ordinance that requires 35% of a lot remain as undisturbed natural area.

The owners of the Cedar Point-based limited liability company did not respond to Coastal Review’s request for comment in time for publication, but in a statement to WCTI-TV, the owners said they were “cooperating fully” with the state and the town.

“We are working cooperatively with the regulators to finalize a remediation plan, to restore the dune in accordance with their directives, and to satisfy any lawful fines or penalties that may be assessed. We will continue to do what the Town and CAMA ask for us until this matter is fully resolved. Dune stewardship along the coast is a shared responsibility.”

It is unclear why the dune was leveled.

“The questions being examined at our property, such as how construction, landscaping and dune work interact with CAMA requirements, are not unique to 3405 Ocean Drive,” Remarque Home Builders said in the email. “We understand that similar work has been undertaken by other owners on Ocean Drive without triggering comparable regulatory action.”

“We raise this not to deflect responsibility, but to underscore that these are questions faced by many property owners along the coast, and by the regulators charged with applying the same standards to each of them,” the statement continues. “We welcome a regulatory process that produces clear, consistent guidance and even-handed enforcement across all similarly situated properties, and we are committed to helping that process succeed here.”

Rush said that sand from the dune was redistributed on the 0.43-acre lot and, in some cases, pushed onto adjacent properties.

“Essentially they have to put it back the way it was,” he said.

That entails restoring the dune to its original height of around 25 to 26 feet and planting it with vegetation commonly used for dune stabilization.

Under the terms of the notice of violation, the developer will also have to resubmit a new, separate pool permit so town staff “can judge that application on its own merits after this violation is completely resolved.”

The town’s notice of violation issued April 22 came with a $1,000 fine. The developer also faces an estimated $1,000 state-imposed fine, according to the town. If the limited liability company does not come into compliance within 60 days, the developer will be fined $1,000 a day until work is complete.

“They’ve indicated they intend to rectify it much sooner than that,” Rush said.

The town will not issue a certificate of occupancy for the 7,300-square-foot, 12-bedroom, 13 ½-bath house listed for $6 million until the repairs and restoration have been completed, he said.

Remarque, in its statement, reiterated that the property is privately owned and asked the media and public to stay off the lot where the conspicuously missing dune has drawn the ire of area residents and property owners who’ve taken to social media to express their outrage.

“If this is not escalated appropriately, it opens the door for others to push limits, take shortcuts, and deal with the consequences later. That is not a precedent we can afford to set in Emerald Isle,” Jamie Vogel, a former town commissioner, wrote in a social media post last month.

“The oceanfront dunes provide critical storm protection, aesthetic, and ecological value for Emerald Isle and the Town places the highest priority on a healthy beach strand and dune field,” Rush wrote in the May edition of the town’s newsletter Emerald Tidings. “Collectively, the community has invested tens of millions of dollars in beneficial beach nourishment projects over the past 23 years, and these sane placement efforts have resulted in the significant augmentation of existing dunes and the construction of new dunes to advance the Town’s goals. The Town’s existing dune protection regulation and State CAMA regulations are carefully crafted to balance dune protection, private property rights, and overall storm protection for the entire community and the violations at 3405 Ocean Drive were clear and obvious.”

The Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing during its May 12 meeting at 7500 Emerald Drive before considering amending an ordinance to increase the penalty for violations that involve primary dunes. That meeting will begin at 6 p.m.

Though parts of North Carolina saw rainfall over the weekend, it didn’t touch the extreme drought conditions the state has been experiencing for at least six months.

State Climate Office of North Carolina Assistant State Climatologist Corey Davis told Coastal Review Monday that, while eastern North Carolina fared better than the rest of the state this weekend with the rainfall totals outperforming the forecasts — with A few spots like Lumberton and Goldsboro had around an inch, and parts of the Crystal Coast had 2 to 3 inches — “I don’t expect that will bring any improvements on the drought map this week.”

He is referring to the U.S. Drought Monitor’s weekly assessment of drought conditions. The North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council, or DMAC, looks at data from Tuesday to Tuesday and submits its recommendations to the National Drought Mitigation Center. The center then publishes on that Thursday a map showing where conditions range from abnormally dry, or D1, to exceptional drought, or D4.

Often, Davis continued, the first rain event or two after a prolonged dry spell has little to no impact on things like soil moisture because the ground can hardened and then it becomes tough for water to infiltrate.

“Streamflow levels are also very low still, so it will take more rain to recharge those streams and their tributaries,” he said, calling the recent rain more of a “stop-the-bleeding kind of week.”

The state began moving toward these extreme drought conditions late last summer, the result of little rainfall overall, a quiet tropical storm season that did not contribute to the average precipitation numbers, and followed by a fairly dry fall and winter.

Since mid-March of this year, there has been a summer-like weather pattern with high pressure overhead, meaning unseasonably warm temperatures and little rainfall. That has helped drought intensify, and more than 40% of the state is now in extreme drought, which is considered the second most severe category in the U.S. Drought Monitor’s classification system, according to the climate office. Most of coastal North Carolina is in the severe drought category, the third category.

“The main hope is that this event is the start of a pattern change, and the forecast is promising for at least a couple more rain events through the end of the week,” Davis said Monday. “If we can pick up a few more inches of rain over the next week or two, then that could at least soften the edges of those Severe and Extreme Drought areas on the map and start bringing some gradual improvements.”

Davis made a similar point Thursday during a webinar “About Extreme Drought: What to know this spring and beyond.” He was joined by other members of DMAC, including its chair Klaus Albertin with the Division of Water Resources, N.C. Forest Service Forestry and Fire Environment Staff Forester Jamie Dunbar, and Senior Service Hydrologist Barrett Smith with the National Weather Service’s Raleigh office.

Davis said during the online presentation that the state had been experiencing a substantial drought for a while and will not be getting rid of the drought and its impacts with one event, or even in one month.

“Ideally, we would like to start seeing consistently at least 1 to 2 inches of rain per week,” Davis explained. “This time of the year, we tend to average between three-quarters of an inch to an inch of rain every week. We want at least to get that normal amount — an extra inch on top of that would be even better — and that would let us start chipping away at this drought and some of the ongoing impacts.”

In parts of northeastern North Carolina, “they are only, in quotes, in the moderate drought level, but that still means they are starting to see some crop stress and some low surface water levels,” Davis said.

The severe drought still prevalent across the coastal plain and central Piedmont means that it has been dry long enough that farmers are not going to see the yields that they expect if these conditions continue. And “at this point, that drought has been around long enough that it can start to take a toll on our water supplies.”

The final category, exceptional drought, “is reserved for the very rarest and the very driest events,” or “the most dire situation,” Davis said, which is “when water supplies are critically low, and you’ll see even more water restrictions implemented at even higher levels than what we’re seeing right now in extreme drought.”

Adding to the drought this winter was a La Niña pattern, which is where there tends to be cooler water out across the Pacific that weakens the jet stream, and ultimately shifting storms north, making it so places like the Great Lakes see more rain, while North Carolina usually experiences warmer and drier winter months.

The snowfall in late January and early February did not have much effect on the rain total deficits. “Even though we saw a foot of snow in some spots, that only amounted to about an inch of liquid, which is average per week at that time of the year,” he added.

Since the middle of March, there has been high pressure either just offshore or right over the Carolinas and has put the area in what Davis called a “heat dome” that is expected around June or July, not in April. “That’s why we’ve seen record high temperatures over the last few weeks and it has really blocked any sort of rai- making weather systems from moving through.” 

Impacts that most people are starting to notice as the drought lingers is that the soil moisture is extremely low right now.

“What that tells us is that the soil moisture is not in any shape for planting right now. There is just no moisture there, especially in the upper layers of the soil. And even if we were to get some decent rainfall over the next week, that does not necessarily mean it is time to start planting,” he said, because anything that’s planted will establish a very shallow root system.

“And if this drought continues, or if we get into some hot weather this summer, those shallow roots will dry out very easily, and that can kill the plant,” he said.

Davis mentioned Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network, or CoCoRaHs, a community science program that encourages people to make daily rainfall measurements and to submit condition monitoring reports that talk about the sort of dryness or impacts that they’re seeing around their home or in their neighborhood or in their community.

There was “a really interesting report from the northeastern part of the state,” Davis said about a submission from a farmer in Chowan County, which is in a moderate drought.

While farmers were able to get the corn in the fields, “the problem there is that a lot of those farmers will pull water directly from the Albemarle Sound, where it meets the Roanoke River, and use that to irrigate their farms,” Davis said. “Typically, in the upper levels of the sound there, you’re getting enough fresh water that’s being flushed down the river, then it’s not too much of a worry about saltiness.”

Because of the drought, water isn’t moving down the river, and salty water is pushing farther inland, which is too salty to use for irrigation. “That’s a very unique impact that we’ll see in that corner of the state during times of extreme drought like this one.”

Albertin with the Division of Water Resources explained that groundwater gives a good indication of the more extreme droughts.

“Surface water can fluctuate rapidly,” Albertin said. When there’s rainfall, groundwater is much more stable, but when there are low groundwater levels, widespread impacts to water resources across the state should be expected.

Another place drought presents itself is that the reservoirs are under more demand, and as the temperatures rise, evaporation is higher.

“When you have inflows that are below or well below the median,” he said, “it’s not surprising that we’ll start to see levels in the reservoirs drop fairly quickly.”

This has resulted in many areas implementing water restrictions, which may increase if conditions do not improve.

Common conservation guidelines are to limit outdoor watering to a couple of days a week and water by hand instead of using a sprinkler.

“It’s better to water heavier once a week versus lighter twice a week and try and water before 10 a.m. this results in less evaporation and reduces grass diseases,” Albertin said. Adding to avoid washing driveways and sidewalks, but repair leaking faucets and run full loads of dishwashers and washing machines.

Dunbar with the state Forest Service, said that as early as December, there have been abnormal load of wildfires.

The 10-year average for January was around 339 fires, but this year, there were more than 1,000 incidents that month across the state.

The coastal plain has a very pronounced spring fire season and if the drought gets worse, eastern North Carolina could very easily have a late spring and summer fire season, he added, and has an above-normal risk for significant wildfires next month.

When the burn ban was instituted on March 28 by the Commissioner of Agriculture, almost 18,000 online burn permits were canceled, noting that in the southeast, about 45% of wildfires are caused by debris burn escapes.

“Although the ban doesn’t prevent wildfire, it definitely reduces the number of new ignitions,” Smith said, allowing more local resources to be used to control complex fires, and allows firefighters to be able to move around more effectively around the state.

Smith with the National Weather Service said the next 30 days are critical for the state in terms of how much rainfall we get and how it impacts the drought.

The outlook for the coming weeks points to above-normal precipitation, and more rain through the summer months.

“As we head toward June, July and August, we come much more dependent on afternoon showers and thunderstorms,” which may help an individual community, farm, city, reservoir, but not always the entire state.

Forecasters are also keeping an eye on patterns in the pacific that could impact the 2026 tropical storm season.

Smith also plugged CoCoRaHS, which he said they are desperate for rainfall reports, “not just when it is raining, not just when it is flooding, but when we’re in these dry situations. We don’t have enough rainfall reports.” Adding that it does not take up much time. “We really need these reports, especially in these very dry situations.”

WILMINGTON – For more than two hours, residents in an area considered ground zero for PFAS contamination in North Carolina passionately, often angrily, chastised the Environmental Management Commission’s proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules.

Dozens of people who signed up to speak – 60 in all – at the public hearing Thursday in downtown Wilmington took turns at a podium unleashing what turned into a collective no-holds-barred rebuke of the proposed rules and, at times, the commissioners who pushed them forward for public comment.

Several of those who spoke in front of a crowd of about 230 people who filled a room in Wilmington’s Skyline Center shared stories about their own health issues, illnesses their loved ones have suffered, and family and friends they’ve lost to various forms of cancer.

Throughout the hearing, people snapped their fingers, signaling their agreement with those speaking at the podium. At the close of every short speech, the audience erupted in rousing applause and cheers.

The sheer number of people who signed up to speak prompted Environmental Management Commissioner Yvonne Bailey, the hearing officer that evening, to ask that residents limit their comments to two minutes.

“Those of us living here have advocated relentlessly at the local, state and federal level, and even at the U.N. for protection of our air and water,” said New Hanover County resident Priss Endo. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality “has proposed new surface water standards, but in response, the Environmental Management Commission is proposing regulations that will still allow 500 industries across the state to release PFAS chemicals.”

The hearing last week was the third and final the commission scheduled this year on its proposed monitoring and minimization rules for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA; perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS; and a branded compound called GenX developed by DuPont spinoff Chemours. The commission has also been hosting public hearings on similar proposed rules for the monitoring and minimization of 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent and likely human carcinogen that has also been found in downstream drinking water sources.

PFAS are a mixture of chemicals used in a host of consumer products from nonstick cookware and food packaging to stain-resistant carpets, water-repellant attire, and makeup.

These chemicals have been found in numerous drinking water sources in North Carolina and traced back to discharges from industrial manufacturers, landfills, firefighting facilities and publicly owned treatment works that accept industry effluent.

Ongoing research into human health effects of PFAS, of which there are more than 15,000 related compounds, have found that some of the substances, including PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to health issues such as weakened immune response, liver damage, low infant birth weights, and higher risk of certain cancers.

Nearly a decade has passed since residents in the Lower Cape Fear region first learned through a local newspaper article that Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County had for decades knowingly discharged PFAS directly into the Cape Fear River.

Since then, public drinking water utilities that pull raw water from the river have spent millions of dollars upgrading their facilities with filtration systems and methods to keep PFAS out of their final product.

Chemours, under a 2019 consent order, has had to test thousands of privately owned drinking water wells for contamination.

“The 2019 consent order was a start,” resident Jim Nesbit said. “It’s not enough. Your mission is to protect the health of the people of this state. Use the full authority you have to take on the pollution of corporations.”

The PFAS monitoring and minimization rules the commission agreed to put out for public comment have remained under a hail of verbal fire from residents, the public utilities that provide their drinking water, and environmental organizations throughout the Cape Fear region.

As written, the rules do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for PFAS dischargers found to be in violation of those rules.

“As a 33-year water professional and former EMC member, I am testifying that the voluntary minimization plans, as proposed, are ineffective,” Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Ken Waldroup said Thursday. “They’re essentially empty facades that do not solve the problem. These minimization plans do not remove PFAS from the Cape Fear River because all reductions are voluntary. Voluntary plans are simply ineffective. Upstream dischargers have had decades to disclose and minimize their PFAS discharges. Unfortunately, history has shown that dischargers only do so in response to effective regulation with specific mandatory limits or mitigation.”

Dr. LeShonda Wallace, who serves on the advisory board for the GenX Exposure Study, one that is measuring GenX and other PFAS exposure in area residents, said the proposed rules ignore science.

Instead, the proposed rules prioritize corporate convenience over public health, she said.

“The impacts are also economic as well as generational,” Wallace said. “PFAS contamination reduces property values, and it shifts the cost away from the polluters and on to the rate payers. Environmental protection and justice requires that those who cause the pollution pay to prevent it and that they pay to clean it up, and I urge the commission to reject these ineffective minimization rules and adopt enforceable, evidence-based standards that reduce pollution at the source.”

Lifelong New Hanover County resident Chip Jackson carried a doll baby with him to the podium.

“I came here tonight to tell this panel how ignorant I have been. I’ve been ignorant because nine years ago I trusted you people. I trusted you to do something,” he said. “I’ll give y’all a pro tip. When you see a baby float by in a stream, you look upstream to see who threw it in the stream.”

Resident Rosemary Schmitt said she simply wants to trust that the water coming out of her tap is not harmful.

“Drinking water should be safe, not something that comes with a list of side effects,” she said.

Just two weeks away from graduating with an undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina Wilmington, Tyler Raines said he was in a conundrum.

“I don’t have much else to say that hasn’t already been said about the economic, environmental, and social impacts of PFAS on the health of all human beings,” he said. “As I think about where I’m planning to root myself post-graduation, I find myself at a loss. Do I stay here in Wilmington and get poisoned by PFAS or do I go back to my home in Fuquay-Varina and get poisoned by 1,4-dioxane?”

The Environmental Management Commission could decide as early as September to approve or reject the proposed rules. If adopted, those rules would go to the Rules Review Commission for final approval by early next year.

Written comments on the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules are being accepted by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject title “PFAS minimization” or by mail to Karen Preston, DEQ-DWR NPDES Permitting Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699-1617.

Energy providers wasted no time last year asking the Trump administration to rescind 2024 federal standards for coal ash disposal.

Five days before President Donald Trump returned for a second term in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, 10 power suppliers, including Duke Energy, fired off a letter urging Lee Zeldin, Trump’s then-nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, “decline to defend these unlawful rules.”

Now the EPA is proposing to revise federal regulation for coal ash disposal, a move that would relax the Biden-era national standards for inactive, often unlined basins designed to store a sludgy mix of watered-down fly ash and bottom ash.

Here in North Carolina, where comprehensive coal ash legislation was pioneered, proposed changes at the federal level are not expected to affect, at least for the time being, the state’s robust coal ash management law.

Nor would the proposed federal revisions impact the terms of a 2019 settlement agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Duke Energy, and public interest groups that set closure schedules and monitoring requirements for the power company’s remaining coal ash basins.

“None of that is going to be changed by what EPA is trying to do now at the federal level,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Nick Torrey said.

But Torrey cautioned that sites where coal ash has been removed may still contain residual groundwater contamination.

“The federal regulations require monitoring and corrective action for that pollution,” he said. “If utilities can get exceptions and exemptions from those things, that’s potentially concerning. Fortunately, we do have a state process as well that’s dealing with groundwater issues, but it was never meant to be a substitute for the federal standards. There’s more vulnerability that coal ash contamination could be allowed to persist. So, we’ll have to be watching that very closely as things go forward.”

Coal ash, referred to in regulation and industry as coal combustion residuals, or CCR, is the byproduct created when coal is burned for electricity. It contains toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and radioactive elements, according to the EPA.

In early February 2014, some 39,000 tons of coal ash slurry discharged from a collapsed pipe at Duke Energy’s retired Dan River Steam Station near Eden into the river. The spill spread as far as 70 miles downstream.

In the fall of that year, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act, or CAMA.

CAMA (not to be confused with the Coastal Area Management Act) initially set deadlines for Duke Energy to close a group of basins at four of its power plants by certain deadlines.

EPA in 2015 finalized the federal CCR rule under the Obama presidency. The Biden administration strengthened those regulations in 2024.

By that time, DEQ had finalized a basin closure schedule for all 14 of Duke Energy’s facilities in North Carolina. Following litigation and a settlement agreement between community and conservation groups, DEQ and Duke Energy, a 2020 consent order was approved to govern the cleanup process for the remaining sites.

Duke Energy anticipates officially fully excavating the 12th of its 32 coal ash basins in North Carolina by year’s end. Both coal ash impoundments at the Sutton Steam Plant in Wilmington were excavated by July 2019.

Duke Energy spokesperson Bill Norton confirmed in an email earlier this week that the excavation of ash at its W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant in Lumberton is complete, well ahead of schedule. The company is in the process of working through the basin’s clean closure certification, a process expected to be completed later this year, Norton said in the email.

“Not yet counting Weatherspoon, we have completed excavation at 11 North Carolina basins and are making strong progress at the remaining 20, with well over half of our basin ash safely excavated in the states,” he stated. “All sites remain on or ahead of schedule for basin closure deadlines as shown here.”

Norton said the EPA’s proposed rule changes will not impact Duke Energy’s proposed coal retirement dates.

“We continue making progress on coal retirements while balancing our regulatory approvals and increased load growth – regulators have made clear that replacement generation must be online and serving customers prior to further coal plant retirements,” he said. “While the potential EPA CCR rule changes have no impact on our proposed coal retirement dates, we appreciate prior changes to in the federal regulations that provided flexibility for our coal facilities, enabling us to maximize the value of existing generation by extending the operational life of these assets to help meet load growth at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Retirement dates are subject to regulatory approval.”

Coal-fired operations at Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County are expected to be shut down no later than Jan. 1, 2040. The retirement of that plant’s coal combustion operations will mark the end of Duke Energy’s coal-fired power generation in the state.

“We are making tremendous progress on meeting all obligations agreed to years ago in our North Carolina settlement with state regulators and environmental groups – that commitment is unchanged, and state regulators have confirmed our plans are protective of public health and the environment,” Norton said.

Beneficial reuse units at the company’s Buck Combined Cycle Plant in Salisbury, Cape Fear plant in Moncure, and H.F. Lee Energy Complex on the banks of the Neuse River in Goldsboro have been reprocessing coal ash at those sites to make it suitable for use in concrete since 2020, he said.

Katherine Lucas, DEQ’s Division of Waste Management public information officer, stated in an email that the agency “is evaluating the proposed changes to determine any potential impacts on ongoing excavation and remediation activities at Duke Energy facilities.”

“In the absence of an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved state permit program, utilities must comply with both federal and state requirements. North Carolina remains a national leader in coal ash management, both in establishing comprehensive regulations and in the scale and pace of closure and remediation efforts. DEQ believes the state’s regulatory framework is at least as protective as federal requirements and does not anticipate that federal changes would reduce existing environmental and public health protections.”

The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule changes through June 12.

The agency is hosting an online public hearing at 9 a.m. on May 28. 

North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission is moving through the steps to update rules for building along high-hazard coastlines that are particularly vulnerable to erosion and flooding.

When the commission met April 16 in Ocean Isle Beach’s town hall, members voted unanimously to advance the rulemaking process to draft language amendments for ocean erodible areas and inlet hazard areas. Proposed changes include using the most recent data for erosion rates and maps for the two zones, which are classified as areas of environmental concern.

If approved, this will be the first time new inlet hazard boundaries have been updated since they were initiated in the late 1970s. The commission has been discussing revisions for decades, but the complicated process and public blowback have pushed talks of updates year to year.

Both inlet hazard and ocean erodible areas fall under the ocean hazard areas category of areas of environmental concern, which are the foundation for the Coastal Area Management Act permitting program. CAMA was enacted in 1974, along with the commission to adopt rules for legislation that protects the state’s coastal resources. The Division of Coastal Management, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, acts as staff to the commission.

Inlet hazard areas, or IHAs, encompass land along the narrow body of water that allows for tidal exchange between the ocean and inland waters. These swaths of shoreline are susceptible to inlet migration, rapid and severe erosion, and flooding. Land within the boundaries is subject to the commission’s development rules.

Ken Richardson, the division’s shoreline management specialist, told Coastal Review that in addition to the proposed updates to inlet hazard area boundaries, one of the primary changes under consideration is that erosion rate setbacks within inlet hazard areas will be based on inlet-specific erosion rates detailed in a 2025 report rather than the adjacent ocean erodible area, or oceanfront, rates, which is currently the case.

Because of limited data and resources, erosion rate setback factors within inlet hazard areas have been based on the rates of adjacent ocean erodible areas, essentially treating the inlet shoreline as an extension of the oceanfront.

“Given the rapid changes that can occur at inlets, this method has often resulted in setback factors that underestimate the true erosion dynamics of these areas,” according to the division. Erosion rates are used to determine how far back new construction must be from the shoreline.

Richardson said that, “Additionally, the rules would effectively ‘hold the line’ of existing development by preventing seaward expansion of new development in inlet areas that have experienced natural accretion.”

He referenced the “Inlet Hazard Area Boundaries, 2025 Update: Science Panel Recommendations to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission,” presented in August 2025 to the commission that explains “any accretion at most inlets is temporary and likely to reverse over time; maintaining this line helps reduce future exposure to erosion hazards.”

The commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards was directed in 2016 to update IHA boundaries. Rules were in the process of being updated in 2019, but the COVID-19 pandemic paused draft rules from moving forward.

The “Science Panel recommended updating IHAs on a five-year cycle alongside oceanfront erosion rates, by the time work resumed after the pandemic, the next oceanfront study (2025) was already approaching.  As a result, some stakeholders asked the CRC to proceed with a coordinated update,” leading to the directive in 2023 to provide another five-year review, Richardson told Coastal Review.

Richardson explained during the meeting last week that the science panel analyzed for the 2025 update the state’s developed inlets, which are Bogue, New River, New Topsail, Rich, Mason, Masonboro, Carolina Beach, Lockwood Folly, Shallotte and Tubbs.

Panel Chair Dr. Laura Moore, professor of coastal geomorphology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, presented the findings in the inlet hazard area boundaries report during the August 2025 meeting.

Last February, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council and a subcommittee reviewed the report and suggested deviating from the panel’s recommendation to measure setbacks from the hybrid-vegetation line because of concerns that existing structures would be nonconforming, and therefore harder to replace if something happened to the structure.

They decided to base the language on existing rules and continue to measure setbacks within inlet hazard areas from the actual vegetation line or pre-project line but not extend farther oceanward than the footprint of an existing structure, or, in the case with vacant lots, the landward-most adjacent neighboring structure, according to the division.

Richardson told the commission that another recommendation included amending the language for ocean erodible areas language citing the 2019 report to the “North Carolina 2025 Oceanfront Setback Factors & Long-Term Average Annual Erosion Rate Update Study: Methods Report report.”

Richardson noted that there are no boundary maps for ocean erodible areas because boundaries are measured from the vegetation line, which are dynamic and could change overnight, so the landward boundary is determined in the field.

Staff also proposes eliminating the distinction of residential or nonresidential for the type of structure, because “It doesn’t matter to erosion what the structure is being used for,” Richardson said.

Now, the proposed rule changes will go through the fiscal analysis. This step in the rulemaking process determines the financial impact of the proposed amendments. After the analysis is presented and voted on, the commission will decide to move on to the public comment period, then to final approval before sending it to the Rules Review Commission.

Septic tank update

Cameron Luck, a policy analyst for the division, briefed the commission on the work to develop rules for septic system siting, repair and replacement within ocean hazard areas.

He began by sharing what took place during a meeting March 30 in Buxton coordinated by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, with representatives from the North Carolina Home Builders Association, North Carolina Septic Tank Association, Outer Bank Association of Realtors, National Park Service, and from county health departments.

Attendees were brought up to speed on some of the issues surrounding failed septic tanks on the oceanfront, heard from Cape Hatteras National Seashore representatives about their policies and ongoing struggles and efforts to address both the threatened oceanfront structures and the failed septic tank systems and systems out on the beach

Department of Health and Human Services provided a quick synopsis of their process, focusing on the role within and alongside local health departments, with a discussion on how the department permits and cites septic tanks and how and failure enforcement.

Luck said that he and other division staff presented the most recently proposed rule language for discussion.

“We spent a good amount of time talking through the proposed language and some areas that could be improved,” Luck said.

Main points in the discussion focused on defining what type of repair would qualify for a permit.

“In other words,” Luck explained, would property owners be required to secure a permit if a filter or a section of pipe needs to be replaced, or does the rule need to be more focused on extreme failures.

Discussion also focused on whether the proposed rule changes should be applied coastwide or be more targeted to specific situations or locations.

“Perhaps, key takeaway from that meeting was a clear consensus among those attendees that some form of action is needed to limit the repair of failed septic systems on the ocean beach and to prevent them from remaining on the beach once they failed,” he said, adding that staff is working on those rule language updates.

SURF CITY – Kerri Allen acknowledged early on what was also obvious to her audience.

“I do not need to tell anyone in here we have a really high density of leases,” the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s coastal management program director said. “In our public trust waters, when you have that many users, there are going to be conflicts.”

Several people sitting inside the Surf City Municipal Complex’s town council chambers that April 14 afternoon nodded in agreement, eager to share their thoughts on the subject.

With either temporary or permanent shellfish leasing moratoriums in North Carolina waters to its north and south, Topsail Island’s waters have become a hot commodity for oyster growers.

There are now nearly 190 shellfish leases in the waters behind the 26-mile-long barrier island from the New River and its adjacent estuarine waters south to Topsail Sound.

That’s a roughly 46% increase from the collective number of leases in 2018 in Onslow and Pender counties.

The squeeze put on the waters around Topsail Island has prompted ongoing calls for a temporary moratorium on new shellfish leases in the area.

The Topsail Island Shoreline Protection Commission, or TISPC, which is composed of elected officials from each of the island’s three towns – Topsail Beach, Surf City and North Topsail Beach – initiated a request for a temporary pause on leases more than a year ago. Commissioners in Onslow and Pender counties did the same.

Shellfish lease moratoriums in the state may be enacted only by the North Carolina General Assembly.

On April 10, 2025, Rep. Carson Smith, R-Pender, introduced legislation requiring a statewide study on shellfish leasing and the current lease moratorium.

House Bill 841 made it no further than the Senate’s Rules and Operations Committee.

“If there is a temporary moratorium, we don’t feel that’s unreasonable,” Allen said last week.

A pause would give the Coastal Federation and North Carolina Sea Grant more time to talk with those who live along and use the waters around the island and come up with suggestions to help shape future policy that would protect the industry, make it sustainable long term, and ease user conflicts, she said.

Additional focus groups, including one for shellfish growers, will be scheduled this fall.

Meanwhile, a temporary moratorium that has been repeatedly extended since it was first enacted in New Hanover County in 2019 is set to expire in July.

“It’s very reasonable to say if we were able to open up some of these other areas that could help alleviate the pressure that this area is seeing,” Allen said. “A lot of the oyster growers that we work with in this region live in New Hanover County and they would love not to have to drive up here to take care of their farms. We are actively trying to get New Hanover to not extend their moratorium. I do not have a good feel, one way or another, how that’s going to go yet, but we are having those conversations.”

Surf City Mayor Teresa Batts said officials on the island do not intend to wait for a decision before asking for a temporary moratorium.

“I know you’re going to go through the procedural steps, but the TISPC, we’re not going to sit back and wait,” she said. “If we see that New Hanover County is trying to extend their moratorium, then we’re going to try to slide in there on their session and piggyback on their moratorium.”

The Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, and North Carolina Sea Grant teamed up last year to launch a Geographic Information System, or GIS, database pinpointing areas where leases may or may not be suitable in the waterways behind Topsail Island. The GIS database is anticipated to be published next year.

Recommendations shared with the organizations will help shape the North Carolina Strategic Plan for Shellfish Mariculture, a plan commissioned by the General Assembly in 2017.

This document is effectively the state’s roadmap for a sustainable shellfish industry. It’s not meant to be a fixed document, rather one that evolves as the industry evolves and conditions change, Allen explained, adding, “which they very much have changed since 2017.”

In the years since, the state has seen a shift where shellfish farmers are using floating gear to grow oysters in the water column, a method that allows them to maximize the spaces in which they grow their product.

Unlike cages that are placed on the waterbed, those in water column leases poke up from the water’s surface.

And, as more water column leases have been granted, complaints have mounted about their impacts to the viewsheds of waterfront properties, boating and kayaking access, and infringement on popular fishing spots.

Fishing guide Capt. Ray Brittain offered to take Allen and N.C. Sea Grant Extension Director Frank López on his boat, and on his dime, to show them how the leases affect his business.

“There’s so many PVC pipes out there,” Brittain said. “You don’t need a thousand PVC pipes to mark,” a lease area. “We can’t fish in those. I mean, mark your outer edge to show people where it is, but a lot of it is just unnecessary stuff.”

Brittain was among nearly 30 attendees at the April 14 meeting, where participants were asked to break into two groups to discuss concerns and recommendations that will be documented and shared with local elected officials, legislators, and state agency officials.

Those at the meeting in Surf City last week touched on a host of issues, raising concerns related noise associated with shellfish farming activities, nighttime navigation around shellfish leases, the density of leases around Permuda Island Reserve, and linear placement of leases along estuary island shorelines blocking anglers from following fish.

Some asked for shellfish farmers to be required to carry liability insurance, while others suggested the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries create a more robust public notification system announcing lease applications that would include property owners whose land is within and adjacent to the viewshed of a proposed lease.

Other recommendations included an implementation of buffers by moving leases further from shorelines based on specific locations within a waterbody, potentially increasing lease fees, decreasing the length of time a lease is valid, and the possibility of commissioning studies on the impacts of floating cages on the ecosystem.

The Coastal Federation and Sea Grant are accepting comments online through the Stump Sound shellfish mariculture planning – stakeholder input form through Aug. 1.

FAYETTEVILLE — Proposed monitoring and minimization rules for industrial dischargers of 1,4-dioxane and the public sewage plants that accept those facilities’ waste fail to protect North Carolinians’ drinking water, speakers at a public hearing said Tuesday.

All but one of the 13 people who spoke at the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s hearing at Fayetteville Technical Community College criticized the proposed rules, arguing those rules fall short in reducing the amounts of 1,4-dioxane discharged into people’s drinking water sources and lack enforcement.

Those comments mirror ones articulated at the commission’s April 9 hearing on the proposed rules in Hickory. A third hearing is scheduled for May 12 in Jamestown.

“The so-called monitoring and minimization rule establishes certain monitoring requirements, but the term minimization is misleading,” Fayetteville resident Madison Williams said. “The way the rule is promulgated is in a way that does not require polluters to reduce PFAS or 1,4-dioxane emissions into North Carolina drinking water supplies, and it imposes no consequences, even if those discharges increase. This in effect is a polluter written rule.”

Related: Public hearings set on proposed wastewater discharge rules

The commission is hosting separate public hearings, the first of which was held in Asheville last week, on a similar rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS; perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA; perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS; and GenX, a chemical specific to a manufacturing plant that sits near Cape Fear River in Bladen County.

Under the proposed rules, publicly owned treatment works that receive industrial wastewater, and their manufacturer customers, would be required to monitor for discharges of 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent, into rivers, creeks and streams.

Facilities would be required to conduct baseline monitoring every three months for one year. Based on those sampling results, dischargers may be required to conduct additional monitoring.

“If determined to need ongoing sampling the industrial direct discharger will be required to develop a minimization plan,” explained Bridget Shelton with the Division of Water Resources’ planning section. “A minimization plan is a strategy to reduce or eliminate pollutants at the source before they are discharged into the environment.”

Facilities that “meet certain criteria” may request exceptions from ongoing monitoring and minimization plan requirements, she said.

The proposed rules do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for violations.

That fact has drawn sharp criticism from residents, environmental groups and public drinking water providers who have been calling on the state to establish drinking water standards for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and regulate direct dischargers of those chemicals.

“Over 1 million North Carolina residents consume water from the Cape Fear River, water that is contaminated with 1,4-dixoane, PFAS and other forever chemicals that will continue to proliferate without sufficient regulations at the federal and state levels,” said Jonelle Kimbrough, executive director of Fayetteville-based environmental nonprofit Sustainable Sandhills. “The proposed 1,4-dioxane minimization rules seem to be an attempt at regulation but, as written, they essentially do nothing to protect the natural resources or public health of our state and we need protection.”

Rob Clark, Cape Fear River Watch’s water quality programs manager, said the organization and its more than 1,000 members collectively opposed the proposed rules.

“These rules are completely inadequate when it comes to dealing with PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution in the Cape Fear River Basin,” he said. “The proposed minimization rules do not set enforceable limits on how much these toxic compounds can be discharged into our waterways. Instead, they rely on polluters to monitor their pollution and submit plans describing how they might reduce that over time. Do we really think that polluters are going to cut into their profits in order to do the right thing and stop discharging these chemicals into our waterways?”

Representatives of downstream public water suppliers said the proposed rules lack a clear objective to significantly decrease 1,4-dioxane levels in state surface waters.

Fayetteville Public Works Commission’s Environmental Programs Manager Rhonda Locklear pointed out that statewide monitoring has identified 1,4-dioxane primarily in the Cape Fear River Basin.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, “has sampled surface waters in 15 of North Carolina’s 17 river basins, confirming that most industrial 1,4-dioxane sources are in the Cape Fear River Basin, where 35% of these samples since 2017 were above non-detect thresholds, almost 10 times the rate in the Neuse River Basin, and nearly 200 times that of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin,” she said. “The problem areas are well-defined, documented, and PWC expects DEQ to set meaningful regulations and reductions in the Cape Fear River Basin.”

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Deputy Executive Director Kevin Morris said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which classifies 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen, warns that at even at concentrations of 0.35 parts per billion, long-term exposure to the chemical increases cancer risks to humans and may cause significant kidney and liver impacts.

“Downstream water systems continue to experience periodic spikes in 1,4-dioxane despite having no role in producing or discharging this chemical, which demonstrates the limitations of our current regulatory framework,” Morris said.

He highlighted how effluent from Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant has periodically tested for elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane, concentrations of which far exceeded levels associated with long-term health risks.

“These discharges flow into waterways like the Haw and Cape Fear rivers,” Morris said. “They’re relied upon by downstream drinking water systems, and they require additional monitoring, treatment, adjustments and customer communication. The downstream public ultimately bears the risk from and the cost of managing contamination that they had no part in creating. Voluntary reduction measures are insufficient to ensure consistent outcomes or to protect downstream communities. Utilities can manage only what arrives at their intake.”

As of Wednesday, DEQ had received more than 2,000 public comments and counting on the commission’s proposed rules for 1,4-dixoane and PFAS, according to Josh Kastrinksy, DEQ’s deputy communications director.

“The comments we’ve received in writing have by and large reflected the comments we’ve received in person,” he said.

Andrew Mlot, chair of the North Carolina Pretreatment Consortium Inc., a nonprofit that represents more than 180 pretreatment professionals in 64 state-approved pretreatment programs across North Carolina, was the only person Tuesday to speak in support of the proposed rules.

But that organization has “several specific concerns” with the rules as they are currently written, he said.

“The costs to treat 1,4-dioxane at the POTW (publicly owned treatment works) level is staggering. Capital costs alone range from $10 million to $1.3 billion, making source control the only practical path forward,” he said.

The proposed rules would require public treatment works in Greensboro, Burlington, Asheboro, High Point and Reidsville, which have been conducting monitoring and minimization activities going back to 2015, to start over, Mlot said.

“We ask for an explicit offramp for POTWs that have already completed successful programs. Replace any detection with a workable screening threshold. As currently written, any detection of 1,4-dioxane triggers ongoing monitoring requirements and a full minimization plan. NCPC members do not believe this is workable. We support an alternative screening threshold based on meaningful concentrations or loading levels,” he said.

DEQ is accepting written comments through June 15. Comments may be submitted by email to publiccomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject heading “1,4-dioxane minimization, or by mail to Bridget Shelton, DEQ-DWR Planning Section, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1611.

Microplastics and pharmaceuticals have made the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly published draft list of substances in public drinking water that warrant scientific scrutiny.

This marks a first for the EPA, which, along with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced last week that microplastics and pharmaceuticals are two of four contaminant groups and dozens of chemicals included on the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List.

The April 2 announcement kick-started a 60-day public comment period.

The Trump administration hailed the additions to the list, also referred to as CCL 6, as “a landmark set of actions to safeguard the nation’s drinking water.”

“For too long, Americans have vocalized concerns about plastics and pharmaceuticals in their drinking water. That ends today,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated in a release. “By placing microplastics and pharmaceuticals on the Contaminant Candidate List for the first time ever, EPA is sending a clear message: we will follow the science, we will pursue answers, and we will hold ourselves to the highest standards to protect the health of every American family.”

The announcement comes as the Trump administration is actively pursuing rolling back drinking water standards for several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, established under the previous administration.

PFAS, along with disinfection byproducts, once again made it onto a CCL, which singles out contaminants that are known or anticipated to be in public drinking water systems, but are not regulated under the Safe Water Drinking Act and may be considered for future regulatory action.

Also making it back on the list is 1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent that, along with PFAS, is known to be in the drinking water sources for tens of thousands of North Carolinians, perhaps most notably in the Cape Fear Region.

Last year, the EPA announced that it would retain current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PFOA and PFOS but rescind regulations and reconsider regulatory determinations for other PFAS, including GenX.

GenX is specific to Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility that is situated near the banks of the Cape Fear River and more than 70 miles upstream of Wilmington. The Cape Fear River is the raw drinking water source for hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.

The federal agency also said it was extending deadlines for public water treatment plants to come into compliance with the federally established limits for those PFAS.

Since the late 1990s, the EPA has been required by law to publish every five years a list of contaminants that are either unregulated or not proposed for regulation.

CCLs are considered the initial step in a process to better understand, through scientific research, potential human health risks of contaminants in drinking water.

And, while clean drinking water advocates say this is a good first step, they urge the public to call for regulations to limit the levels of or altogether halt the discharge of contaminants into public drinking water sources.

“I think it’s important to recognize what chemicals are in our drinking water and to study the risks associated with that,” Hannah Nelson, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office said. “But simply adding chemicals to this list isn’t going to protect our communities. They’re on the list because we know they’re in drinking water, so now we need to take the next step to control the source of that pollution at the source and get it out of our drinking water. I North Carolina, because we know these pollutants are already there, I think we really should be focusing on how do we keep them out in the first place, because that’s how we truly protect our communities.”

Residents in the Cape Fear region, the local governments that represent them, the public water utilities that serve them, and environmental organizations are embroiled in an ongoing fight pushing for state regulations to put the onus on dischargers of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane to reduce the amounts of chemicals they release into drinking water sources.

On Tuesday, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will host its first in a series of public hearings on proposed PFAS and 1,4-dioxane monitoring and minimization rules.

Three hearings will focus on proposed rules for discharges of PFOS, PFOA and GenX into North Carolina’s surface waters and three on proposed rules for monitoring and minimizing 1,4-dioxane in wastewater discharges from certain facilities into surface waters.

The proposed rules packages do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for discharge violations, which has become a sticking point for those who argue that the rules would do little in actually minimizing the amount of those contaminants in drinking water sources.

“We know our environmental rulemaking body is currently trying to pass rules on PFAS and 1,4-dioxane that don’t control chemicals at the source,” Nelson said. “Having drinking water standards would be a helpful too, but our real focus should be, how can we keep these out in the first place and how can we encourage our state and our federal leaders to protect the people from the pollution before it even reaches the point of coming out of our sink and pouring into our cups.”

Beyond Plastics, a Bennington College, Vermont-based organization dedicated to ending single-use plastic pollution, called for similar regulation for microplastics.

“The U.S. Environmental Agency has taken an important first step to regulate microplastics in drinking water,” Beyond Plastics President and former EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck stated in a release. “I applaud this decision by the EPA and urge the agency to move rapidly to not only regulate microplastics in drinking water but to also prevent microplastics from entering our water supplies.”

Cape Fear River Watch’s Water Quality Programs Manager Rob Clark agreed, saying that microplastics are ubiquitous – they’re in our environment and in our bodies.

“It’s a situation where it seems like we already have a lot of information on this,” he said. “What we need is ubiquitous monitoring across the country and we need regulation. The quicker that we get to setting a maximum contaminant level for microplastics, the quicker it’s not in our drinking water.”

In its April 2 release, the EPA noted that while human health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals are not regulations and not enforceable, “they are a vital resource, empowering local decision-makers to evaluate risks and protect their communities when pharmaceutical contamination is detected at concerning levels.”

The public comment period on draft CCL 6 will close June 5.

The EPA is expected to sign a final list by Nov. 17.

“I think public comment periods on action like this are really important because it’s a good time for folks to express concerns about the chemicals that are known to be present in their drinking water,” Nelson said. “Adding chemicals to the list is truly just an acknowledgement that they’re in the water. I don’t think we should read this list as a commitment to going above and beyond and advocating for folks. What we need to see is strong action to keep those chemicals out, whether it be from the federal administration or our state agencies.”

Notorious for its bloated and rigid regulatory structure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works program is looking to slim down and speed up, all while redirecting resources and prioritizing programs.

As detailed in 12 memorandums released in March, the agency’s new initiative, “Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork,” seeks “to deliver critical projects and programs for the nation more efficiently, sooner, and at less cost than the current ways of doing business,” Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam R. Telle stated in a February press release.

“This will eliminate bureaucratic delays and provide fast, clear decisions needed to save lives and empower our economy,” he added.

According to the release, the plan’s 27 initiatives are grouped under five categories: maximizing ability to deliver national infrastructure, cutting red tape, and focusing on efficiency, transparency and accountability and prioritization. The plan would not affect the Corps’ execution of its emergency response support to natural and human-made disasters.

Even by federal government standards, the Corps’ Civil Works is massive, managing about $259 billion in water resource assets and employing an estimated 37,000 full-time-equivalent employees, 98% of whom are civilians, according to a 2025 congressional report.

Through the initiatives, there are assurances that all projects are reviewed for the best path forward, said Eugene Pawlik with the Corps’ public affairs in an email, responding to questions from Coastal Review. “(The Corps) will be focused on strategically allocating available resources to prioritize the most pressing infrastructure needs across the country.”

The slow pace of the permit approval process will be addressed with new technology and geospatial tools that will expedite jurisdictional and permitting decision-making as well as reduce subjectivity in identification and elimination of Clean Water Act areas, Pawlik said.

Additional permitting goals, he wrote, include reissue and expand the existing Nationwide Permit program, eliminate barriers that prevent establishment of new mitigation banks, leverage private capital to modernize and expand generating capacity at Corps facilities, provide long-term leases with rights to additional revenues to entities willing to pay for capital improvements, and reform how the Corps conducts Section 408 reviews and engineering oversight.

The Section 408 program allows people or entities to make changes to a civil works project following reviews that are to verify that the changes do not have negative effects on the public interest or the project itself.

No additional funds nor dedicated budget item is being requested to implement the program.

“We believe the transformation initiatives will be a more effective use of annual appropriations,” Pawlik said.

But a closer look at just two interconnected and increasingly important tasks that the Corps is charged with in North Carolina and numerous other states — that is, dredging clogged inlets and nourishing eroding beaches by pumping in sand — may seem logical and sensible. But it’s not that simple.

With both activities being done more frequently, while sand supplies are becoming more sparse, the Corps is more often being asked to put the dredged sand from navigation channels on the beach. And more often, and to the enormous frustration of the permit applicant, it’s not permitted.

“In the Wilmington District, maintenance dredging often serves a dual purpose through the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material,” the Corps press release said, referring to a program created under the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. “The district uses beach-quality sand removed from navigation channels and inlets to provide for North Carolina’s coastal communities.”

On the Outer Banks, for instance, dredged material from Oregon Inlet in past years had been pumped onto an adjacent beach on the north end of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.

“Maintenance dredging is about more than just keeping the channels clear and ships moving; in North Carolina, it’s also a critical tool for coastal resiliency,” said Col. Brad A. Morgan, commander of the Corps’ Wilmington District. “By placing dredged sand back onto our beaches, we aren’t just maintaining a channel—we are protecting coastal infrastructure, supporting the local tourism economy, and restoring vital habitats.”

But the state Division of Environmental Quality has to permit sediment placed on state beaches, and it requires that sand to meet standards. On federal lands, such as the Pea Island refuge and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, the U.S. Department of Interior also must permit the sand placement. Even when sand is removed from a nearby location, it’s not necessarily transferable to the beach where it’s needed.  Dredged sand may be the wrong color or size, or testing has revealed pollutants or toxins. It might be mucky and unsuitable for bird habitat. It might be too fine for the targeted location, meaning it would soon blow away. Or as happened in 2015 at North Topsail Beach, it could be too rocky.

Still, the Corps would continue to ensure that dredged material used as beach fill meets required standards, Pawlik said.

“The Flood and Coastal Storm Risk Reduction programs reduce risk for millions of Americans and billions of dollars of infrastructure,” he wrote. “(The initiative) will ensure USACE pursues cost efficiency through better use and scheduling of dredging assets nationally and increased use of dredged materials for beneficial use.”

Pawlik said that the Corps’ district commanders would review all projects and be “key players” in forward motion of projects and allocation of resources “to prioritize the most pressing infrastructure needs across the country.”

Each of the 12 memorandums provides details of different aspects of implementation of the “Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork” program, addressing what many people have frequently noted about the agency.

As one excerpt from the memo, “Prioritization of Efforts Within the Army Civil Works Program” reveals, there’s room for improvement: “In recent years, the Corps has prioritized every effort all at once, which of course means there are no priorities and that we can mask lack of delivery with progress on paper.”

Coastal Review will not publish Friday as our offices will be closed in observance of Good Friday.

Before accepting the Trump administration’s $1 billion taxpayer buyout, TotalEnergies fostered a campaign that its wind energy project off the coast of Brunswick County would eventually generate enough electricity to power 300,000 homes in the Carolinas.

“Our team is passionate about creating a clean energy economy and the new opportunities it brings to our local communities,” reads an excerpt from TotalEnergies Carolina Long Bay website. “Our partnerships in the Carolinas are making renewable energy a regional priority, building a stronger future for us all.”

TotalEnergies Carolina Long Bay, a wholly owned subsidiary of the France-based global energy company, “will harness the power of offshore wind to generate abundant energy and significant economic growth for the communities of the Southeast.”

The Interior Department’s announcement Monday that TotalEnergies had accepted a federal buyout of its wind energy leases off the New York and North Carolina coasts is a sharp pivot from the company’s previous narrative on offshore wind in the United States.

TotalEnergies’ chief executive officer and chair of the company’s board of directors said in a Department of Interior release that the decision to relinquish offshore wind development in the United States was made because such projects are “not in the country’s interest.”

Instead, TotalEnergies will invest the refunded money in a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Texas and other fossil fuel projects.

The Trump administration lauded it as an “innovative agreement,” one that is a major win for President Donald Trump, who has made offshore wind the biggest bullseye in his target to dismantle renewable energy projects and replace them with fossil fuel and nuclear power.

“Offshore wind is one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a release. “We welcome TotalEnergies’ commitment to developing projects that produce dependable, affordable power to lower Americans’ monthly bills while providing secure U.S. baseload power today – and in the future.”

Shortly after taking office in January 2025, Trump issued an executive order barring new offshore wind leases and requiring reviews of existing and permitted wind projects.

Last December, the Trump administration, citing risks to national security, ordered work to stop in five offshore wind energy areas on the East Coast, including Dominion Energy’s 2.6-gigawatt project based in Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Courts have since allowed all five of the projects to operate for the time being until final judgments are rendered in those cases.

Monday’s announcement drew immediate rebuke from opponents who argue the deal sets a dangerous precedent and limits alternative energy production as Americans face rising electricity bills and concerns mount about the amount of power artificial intelligence data centers use.

“Donald Trump truly can’t leave a good thing alone,” BlueGreen Alliance Vice President of Federal Affairs Katie Harris said in a release. “His never-ending vendetta against offshore wind shows that he either doesn’t understand the affordable energy crisis or that he just doesn’t care. Either way, it’s clear he’s never paid his own electricity bill, and he’s determined to raise bills for working people.”

Southeastern Wind Coalition Senior Program Manager Karly Brownfield said that the agreement “feels really counterproductive” at a time when people are closely watching their energy costs at home and at the pump.

“The whole thing is unprecedented and it’s also completely unprecedented to take a lease payment and then refund it in exchange for investment in the natural gas industry. That has never happened before,” she said in a telephone interview earlier this week. “Whether you’re investing in offshore wind or you’re investing in solar or whatever it might be, it’s not a great feeling to know that just because you have a project that’s permitted or a project that’s received all the stamps of approval that it still runs the risk of the plug being pulled halfway down the line. Certainty is what drives business and the more uncertain we make our energy market the more complicated this is all going to become in the long term.”

North Carolina is investing in natural gas, but the gas turbine industry is facing years-out backlogs on turbine orders. Nuclear power, from permitting to production, can take upwards of 15 years to build.

“And the leg up we had with offshore wind was that these projects were leased. Permitting had started. The sites were secured. There was some sort of headway that was made on those projects,” Brownfield said.

The Carolina Long Bay wind energy area spans a little more than 110,000 acres roughly 22 miles offshore, south of Bald Head Island.

The area is split into two leases.

In May 2022, Duke Energy paid $155 million for what equates to a little more than half of the total wind energy area.

In June of that same year, TotalEnergies Renewable USA paid more than $133 million for the adjacent lease.

Projects in the Carolina Long Bay area were anticipated to generate up to 3 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power about 675,000 homes, and estimated to provide more than $4 billion in net economic impacts.

According to information on its website, Duke Energy was collaborating with TotalEnergies on “early development activities.”

When asked for comment, Duke Energy spokesperson Bill Norton responded to Coastal Review by email, writing in part, “Large offshore wind projects involve substantial capital investments and extensive development timelines. It’s reasonable that policy makers question cost-exposure of such projects to customers. We continue to evaluate next steps as it relates to the Carolina Long Bay lease, which is currently maintained by Duke Energy’s nonregulated subsidiary, Cinergy.”

Duke Energy prioritizes energy sources “proven to be the most cost-effective while meeting the growing needs of our customers,” he wrote. “A diversified energy mix is essential to meeting the moment of high demand under all conditions.”

Offshore wind, Brownfield said, offers just that.

“What offshore wind is really, really good at is providing that really stable and predictable energy during extreme weather, and especially at nighttime, when solar is not really working, or when either gas is really constrained or you’re looking at scarcity pricing,” she said. “And, with wind being a free resource, yes, it’s an upfront investment, but it’s a very predictable cost of the project.”

There are still active leases for a wind project off Kitty Hawk that’s owned by Avangrid Renewables and Dominion Energy.

“As far as I know, Avangrid is still very much firm on engaging in North Carolina and they’re still looking at a longer-term future for their lease,” Brownfield said.

As she sees it, the Interior Department’s agreement with TotalEnergies is perhaps less of a setback to offshore wind energy production in the U.S. but rather increases the need for other energy resources.

“Not saying that we don’t need natural gas. SEWC is a very technology-neutral organization,” Brownfield said. “We don’t want to shoot down other resources by any means. But your grid is a lot more balanced when you’ve got a little bit of everything on it. And, right now, we’re on track for our grid to be about 50% gas by 2034, and that’s a lot of gas.”

AHOSKIE — Between 35 and 40 protestors gathered on a downtown street corner Saturday to call attention to the proposed reopening of the Rivers Correctional Facility in Winton as a federal immigrant detention center.

While the number protesting was modest, they were buoyed by the overwhelmingly supportive response from passing drivers.

The 257-acre, 1,450-bed facility shuttered in 2021 is being considered as a facility to house people seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and suspected of not being in compliance with U.S. immigration law. The facility is owned by international private prison company GEO Group, “the largest detention services provider to ICE, with nearly 40 years of operational experience under ICE contracts,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU on Jan. 29 released the information it had obtained via a Freedom of Information Act process, and within three weeks, during the Hertford County Board of Commissioners Feb. 16 meeting, at least 10 people spoke out against the prison plan.

One individual, while not expressing support, noted that the decision about the fate of the Riverside prison was in the federal government’s hands, leaving county officials little, if any, recourse.

County commissioners, as of this publication, had declined to take a position on the property. Soon after the Feb. 16 commissioners meeting, Coastal Review asked County Manager Bill Shanahan whether he had been contacted about reopening the facility.

“I can tell you that the county manager has not been contacted,” he said, indicating that he had no more to add.

In an email following Saturday’s protest, Shanahan said nothing had changed.

Caroline Stephenson, who helped organize the protest, told Coastal Review that while she opposed ICE moving in, she had also been thinking about the “implications for citizens and residents,” she said. “I think the implications are not great.”

She said the facility would overwhelm the sheriff’s office, emergency medical services and hospital. “We’re a really small, rural county in terms of the amount of capacity that we have,” she explained.

Hertford County had fewer than 22,000 people when the last census was taken, and the official estimate was fewer than 20,000 as of 2024. Its population is roughly 58.4% Black, 36% white, 6.7% Hispanic or Latino, 1.9% Native American and 1.2% Asian. Nearly 23% of residents live in poverty and the per capita income is less than $29,000.

Walking along the protest line, Bobby Riddick used his cellphone to record the protest, planning, he said, to use it on his Facebook page. As cars passed by honking in support, he talked about the challenges of organizing a protest in Hertford County.

“It’s a very small area. A lot of people here have been here all their life,” he said. “They’re not used to protesting. They’re not used to fighting for their rights.”

Stephenson agreed, telling Coastal Review, “A lot of people, I think, are unsure or afraid of using their First Amendment rights and any of their rights that are provided under the Constitution. I think it’s important to educate people about their rights, but also about the dangers of not speaking.”

Standing with two friends behind a sign reading “ICE Out,” C.S. Brown High School senior Bird Lashbrook spoke clearly about her feelings.

“I have a voice that should be put to use, and I’m happy to give my support,” she said.

In 2021, President Biden, citing Justice Department reports that found private prisons were often less safe and had lower safety standards, as compared to publicly managed facilities, ordered the Justice Department to no longer renew contracts with private prison companies.

It’s been nearly a month since a video first aired of Wilmington’s mayor invoking residents to voice their opposition to one town’s plans to pull millions of gallons of water daily from the Cape Fear River.

“Today this vital resource is under threat from growing water-hungry communities upstream,” Mayor Bill Saffo says in the clip as he stands along the city’s downtown Riverwalk.

Fuquay-Varina, a town about 30 miles south of Raleigh, wants to move more than 6 million gallons of water each day from the Cape Fear River to the Neuse River, he explains in the video made in collaboration with the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority.

“That’s 6 million gallons gone, each day, forever. It is important that you make your voice heard now for your family and for future generations. Add your voice to those of your neighbors and friends who already are telling the state to say no to Fuquay-Varina’s permanent taking of our water,” Saffo concludes.

Only a couple of more weeks are left until the public comment period on Fuquay-Varina’s request for an interbasin transfer, or IBT, certificate closes.

Maya Holcomb, a Division of Water Resources representative, told members of the state Environmental Management Commission’s Water Allocation Committee last week that she anticipated receiving comments all the way through to the April 1 deadline.

In her presentation to the committee Thursday, Holcomb provided an update on the numbers of correspondence she’d received in the days since she initially crafted her report, when the email count was at 283.

Related: Opponents say river water transfer puts Cape Fear in peril

“But I just keep getting so many emails, which — we’re hearing from the public, that’s great — but I have received an additional 42 emails since this PowerPoint was created last week,” Holcomb said.

Holcomb said she had also received 41 resolutions from cities, towns, counties, homebuilders, substations and public utilities.

She did not say how many of those resolutions oppose the IBT, but instead highlighted what she described as the “newest” issues of concern: loss of water for agricultural purposes, nutrient concentration in the Neuse River Basin, such as those that cause algal blooms, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, hypoxia, drought vulnerability and chemical export of industrial pollutants from the Cape Fear River.

Those concerns mirror some of arguments made by dozens of people who spoke out against the transfer during a series of state-hosted public hearings in December.

Fuquay-Varina projects that the water supply, from which it currently buys from Raleigh and Harnett and Johnston counties, will fall short of demand by 2030.

Under the proposed preferred alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement for the transfer, Fuquay-Varina would source its entire water supply from a water treatment plant in Sanford, which is in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Once water pulled from the Cape Fear River is used by residents and businesses in that town, the treated wastewater would then be discharged into the Neuse River Basin.

This would permanently subtract 6.17 million gallons each day from the river flow that currently serves about 900,000 residents of counties, cities, towns and communities from Fayetteville to Wilmington.

“Put in perspective, 6.17 (million gallons per day) of raw water from the river is enough to provide treated drinking water to more than 27,000 homes,” according to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority’s website.

In the weeks and months leading up to CFPUA’s campaign against Fuquay-Varina’s plan, several local governments and utilities adopted resolutions and sent letters of opposition to the state.

New Hanover County, Wilmington and Brunswick County and more than a dozen Brunswick County municipalities have officially gone on record opposing Fuquay-Varina’s request.

Holcomb explained last week that, after April 1, state environmental officials will respond to comments on the draft environmental impact statement and then formulate a hearing officers’ report, which will be finalized sometime between July and September.

After that, the Environmental Management Commission will determine whether the EIS is technically adequate. Following that determination, the Department of Environmental Quality will issue its record of decision.

Another round of public hearings will be held before the EMC makes its final determination.

If approved, the transfer would occur after 2031, according to the draft impact statement.

Comments may be submitted to Maya Holcomb, Division of Water Resources, 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604, or by email to maya.holcomb@deq.nc.gov.

In a matter of weeks, more than 20 North Atlantic right whale mothers and their babies will begin swimming hundreds of miles up the East Coast to their feeding grounds.

Their offshore route from the northern Florida and Georgia coasts north to New England slices through waters heavily traveled by seagoing vessels, making the journey for these critically endangered whales particularly dangerous.

Ship and boat strikes, along with fishing gear entanglement, are the leading killers of North Atlantic right whales, of which there are roughly 384 on the planet.

To reduce the strike threat, vessels 65 feet or longer are supposed to heed speed limits of no faster than 10 knots when traveling through federally-designated seasonal management areas, or those where right whales and heavy vessel traffic overlap. Though not required, vessels shorter than 65 feet in length are encouraged to slow to speeds of 10 knots or slower within those areas.

Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Fisheries Service announced in an advanced notice that it is considering scrapping the 2008 speed rule and replacing it with technological strike-avoidance tools.

Wildlife conservation groups are bristling at the suggestion.

“It’s incredibly sadistic to destroy a solution that helps shield endangered whales from being killed by speeding ships. Trump officials are attacking one of the only protections North Atlantic right whales have against extinction,” Center for Biological Diversity Oceans Policy Specialist Rachel Rilee said in a release. “This is a brutal blow to right whales, who need and are legally entitled to far more help than they’ve been getting. I’m disgusted to see the Trump administration going after these beloved animals.”

Oceana Senior Campaign Director Gib Brogan in a telephone interview last week with Coastal Review defended the speed rule and argued that current vessel strike-reduction technologies are inadequate.

“The one weakness in this strategy is, so far, the technologies that do this, that allow the whales to be seen by the boats and allow the boats to steer and get away from the whales, it’s not proven to reduce the risk to the whales, or it’s not scalable to the amount of boat traffic that’s happening in the U.S. Atlantic,” Brogan said. “So, for the time being, slowing down is the best tool and most effective tool that we have, and there’s been no evidence that there’s a technological fix that is ready to take the place of speed zones. By no means should it be repealed or weakened in any way.”

If anything, the speed rules need to be more stringently enforced, he said.

“The fishery service told us a few years ago that we need nearly 100% compliance with the mandatory zones and 100 percent cooperation with the slow zones if we’re going to give the whales the full value of the existing protections. So, there’s a need to do better on the water,” he said.

Researchers have identified 22 North Atlantic right whale calves this calving season, making it the highest number of births in 15 years.

Under normal circumstances, 20 newborns in a calving season, which runs mid-November through to mid-April, would be relatively fruitful one, according to NOAA Fisheries.

But, because of the estimated rate at which North Atlantic right whales are dying and being seriously injured due to human causes, approximately 50 or more calves must be born each season “for many years” to halt the population’s decline and allow for recovery, the agency says.

“The only solution is to significantly reduce human-cause mortality and injuries, as well as stressors on reproduction,” NOAA Fisheries’ website states.

There are believed to be only about 70 breeding females in the right whale population. The gestation period for these females, which reach sexual maturity around age 10, lasts more than a year.

Though the normal interval between births is considered to be between three to four years, reproductive North Atlantic right whale females are having calves every seven to 10 years, according to NOAA.

Biologists attribute those lower birth rates to stresses from vessel strike-induced injuries, entanglements, and changes in food availability because of climate change.

In its announcement last week, NOAA Fisheries stated it is considering deregulating the speed rule to cut down on “unnecessary regulatory and economic burdens” on the maritime industry.

The agency is seeking feedback on several specific areas, including the efficacy of the speed rule, the effectiveness of vessel strike-reduction technologies, vessel-size specific risk assessment, alternative management areas, safety deviation provision improvements, economic impacts on industry, and outreach.

Brogan said the federal notice is not a foregone conclusion that protections for right whales will be weakened.

“They’re framing it as a deregulatory action, but as we dig more into this there is an opportunity here and we’re going to be pushing for the fishery service to make improvements to the existing rules and those protections that are out there,” he said.

There are two specific areas where large groups of North Atlantic right whales are being observed that do not fall within a speed zone, including an area south of Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, and mid-Atlantic waters off the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia.

Brogan said researchers are also learning more and more about the importance of coastal Georgia and northern Florida for mothers and calves.

And while entanglements remain another leading threat to right whales, “we are seeing innovation and expanded use of ropeless or on-demand fishing gear, both in the northeast and the southeast, including the black sea bass fishery off Georgia and North Carolina,” he said. “This gear was theoretical a decade ago, and now it is being used commercially and has shown that it works. We’re working across the U.S. Atlantic to expand the use of this on-demand gear and include that in the fisheries as a way to reduce the risk that the whales will be entangled.”

NOAA Fisheries is accepting public comments through June 2.

“Anything they do will need to be supported by science and careful analysis,” Brogan said. “We have a critically endangered species and so the bar is very high and we’re going to be pushing that any changes are justified and well though out and can be shown to support the recovery of North Atlantic right whales. That is the challenge in front of us.”

HERTFORD — Even as the proposed Mid-Currituck bridge project has been uncharacteristically zipping along in the planning process, a new analysis of two revenue options has cast doubts on the project’s future, with serious concerns raised about the latest estimated construction costs that hover around $1.2 billion.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation presented a report Feb. 18 to the Albemarle Regional Planning Organization comparing a traditional toll project and a “P3” toll project, as required by federal law, to determine “value for money.” With a traditional toll project, the state is responsible for financial, operational and construction-related risks. A “P3” toll project is where a private sector/single developer has responsibility for revenue, financial, operational and construction-related risks.

“The base case financial results from the comparative analysis reveal that neither the Traditional Toll Delivery nor the P3 Toll Delivery are currently financially feasible,” the report said. “The analysis highlights funding gaps of $1,005 million for the Traditional Toll Delivery and $875 million for the P3 Toll Delivery, both of which exceed the $173 million of committed STIP (State Transportation Improvement Plan) funding.”

And it doesn’t appear that sunny prospects are around the corner. “Project costs have continued to increase above inflation and any schedule delays would likely increase costs further,” the report adds.

NCDOT has scheduled another presentation to the Albemarle Regional Planning Organization of the Mid-Currituck bridge comparative analysis for 11 a.m. Wednesday at the Albemarle Commission headquarters, 512 South Church St., Hertford.

A decision on the next step must be made by the organization’s board by its April meeting.

Although the transportation department and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, the state agency responsible for tolling, are not advocating for any particular decision, the report said, it did cite several potential options.

One option is to adjust the STIP schedule and submitting it again to compete for funding, or removing the project from the schedule all together, which would free up the $173 million bridge allocation to be used for other Division 1 projects. Other options are to continue applying for federal grants, looking for other funding sources, consider local sales or occupancy taxes, and/or request an annual state appropriation.

Despite the challenging budgetary situation, the bridge agencies are still in the fight, with both NCDOT and the Turnpike Authority continuing to advance the project toward construction, Logen Hodges, the authority’s marketing and communications director, said in an email responding to questions from Coastal Review.

So far, he said, three permits have been issued for the project, including those issued by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s divisions of Water Resources and Coastal Management on Sept. 19, 2025, and one issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Oct. 28, 2025. While geotechnical investigations are being completed, another permit application to the Coast Guard is pending.

First identified as a need in 1975, the proposed bridge would connect the Currituck mainland at Aydlett to Corolla, on the Currituck Outer Banks. The 4.66-mile-long bridge would cross Currituck Sound and a 1.5-mile-long bridge would cross Maple Swamp on the mainland side about 25 miles south of the Virginia state line.

But the project, which has a timeline of five years for design and construction, has been rife with conflict, budget shortfalls, waning and waxing political support and repeated legal challenges. Dare and Currituck counties, and most of their respective towns and villages, have been pushing for the bridge for decades as a necessity to decrease traffic volume and improve hurricane evacuation.

At the same time, vocal opponents, many of them residents from both sides of the proposed bridge, have maintained that the bridge would be a costly boondoggle that would damage the environment and increase traffic.

Legal challenges were filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which challenged the permit issued by DEQ on different fronts.

“The timeline for resolution of this legal challenge is uncertain,” Hodges wrote. “Due to the pending legal challenge of an environmental permit and additional project funding needs, the project schedule will remain uncertain. To reflect this, the project construction let date has been extended by one year and may continue to be adjusted until a project schedule is determined.” 

On behalf of No Mid-Currituck Bridge, a citizens’ group opposed to the bridge, and the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit group, the SELC submitted a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing to the state in November that challenged the DEQ’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit. 

The petition argues, among others, that the bridge will bring adverse effects and disrupt communities on both sides.

“The permit for the construction of the Bridge Alternative would induce dramatic increases in traffic and development on both the mainland and Outer Banks, strain already overburdened coastal wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, permanently harm estuarine waters, wetlands, and other surface waters,” the document states.

In a separate action, the law center submitted a petition for judicial review to the state in December, also challenging the issuance of the permit by Coastal Resources Commission and DEQ.

To the community on the northern Outer Banks and the southern end of mainland Currituck County, as well as for visiting property owners and tourists, the summer traffic crossing the Wright Memorial Bridge back and forth from Currituck to Dare counties is an annual headache, with bumper-to-bumper traffic clogging roads to and from Corolla every weekend and holiday.

According to a September 2025 traffic and revenue report, more than 1 million vehicles crossed the Wright Memorial Bridge in July 2023, the highest count to date. 

“The proposed (Currituck bridge) is expected to provide significant distance and time savings to residents and visitors, particularly to those that travel to the most northern portion of Dare County and the Currituck County portion of the Outer Banks,” the report said. “The (bridge) will reduce peak season congestion for trips to the south, facilitate planned growth north of the (Wright bridge), and improve emergency evacuation for those residing on all parts of the Outer Banks.”

Tolls would be charged starting in 2032, according to the report. Minimum tolls in 2023 dollars for cars would be $6 each direction, with discounts for tolls paid by transponders and future increases reflecting the inflation rate. Trucks and other heavy vehicles will pay proportionally higher tolls.

The report also states that the optimal toll rate of $15 would generate 90% of the maximum forecasted toll revenue. In the numerous models, calculated rates were as high as $40. 

But Hodges cautioned that the models are not just that.

 “While estimated toll rates were used for the purpose of the analysis, all toll rates are set by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority Board of Directors,” he wrote in the email. “Formal toll rates for the Mid-Currituck Bridge would not be established until closer to the facility’s opening.”

The $173 million in committed division funds represents about 20% of the total STIP funding for Division 1, Hodges said. Depending on the outcome of the project schedule, the DEQ permits would not expire on their own, he said. The Corps’ permit, however, is set to expire iis set to expire on Dec. 31,2030, unless an extension is granted.

But if the Albemarle Regional Planning Organization decides to move the project to the last five years of the STIP, he said, it could potentially be eligible for funding at statewide, regional impact funding and division needs tiers.

“Ultimately whether the project is funded and programmed for construction would be dependent on available funding at each tier and how the project scores relative to other projects submitted for prioritization,” he wrote.

Whatever its fate, it’s taken a lot of resources for the Mid-Currituck Bridge proposal to finally reach the runway, only to be stalled indefinitely — or eliminated. 

“Since the early 1990s when the project was first conceived,” Hodges wrote, “approximately $60 million has been spent on early project work, including preliminary engineering, environmental analysis and initial right-of-way acquisition.”

As North Carolina’s population grows, local and state governments, elected officials, educators and nonprofit groups are bracing for the demands more residents will put on the state’s already taxed and aging water infrastructure.

The 2026 Emerging Issues Forum: Future Forward Water held Feb. 25 brought together these decision-makers and advocates to forums in Morehead City, Winston-Salem and Asheville, where they could share their challenges, ideas and solutions regarding the often-unnoticed necessity.

The forum featured several speakers, including Gov. Josh Stein, and group discussions that focused on four main challenges: aging infrastructure, resiliency, the water workforce crisis, and maintaining safe and reliable water systems.  

In a video message, Stein said that North Carolina’s water infrastructure faces serious challenges. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently graded the state, giving it a C-plus on drinking water, C-minus on stormwater, and a D-minus on dams and on wastewater.

“Storms like Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Matthew, Hurricane Florence and tropical Storm Chantal damaged wells and water systems across the state, leaving many communities without clean water,” he continued. “At the same time, continued population growth in some of our areas require expanded service and new infrastructure. Life sciences, companies, data centers coming to North Carolina also require large amounts of water to operate, further straining our infrastructure. Many rural communities struggle in aging systems and limited financial capacity. Contaminants such as PFAS further poison our water supply. We must take all of these challenges on as a clarion call.” 

Usually held in Raleigh, this year’s forum was hosted in the three locations to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Emerging Issues Forum, the idea of the late Gov. Jim Hunt, who died in December. Institute for Emerging Issues, established in 2002 at North Carolina State University, hosts the forum. The institute “is a nonpartisan connector, bringing North Carolinians together across sectors, regions and perspectives to address the state’s most significant challenges while advancing its economic competitiveness.”

Sandra Merkel DeJames, who is a member of the Institute for Emerging Issues National Advisory Board, explained to the more than 100 attending the Morehead City forum that the challenge being addressed that day is how to keep up with the unprecedented population growth facing the state. Population growth is the topic of the three-year Emerging Issues Forum series that kicked off in 2025, and focused on energy infrastructure. Next year the event will address housing.

“Last year, the state added an average of 400 new residents every day. That’s over 145,000 people by 2050. Some 14 million residents will call our state home, compared to the 11.2 million today,” said DeJames, who is president and CEO of Harmonize Strategy Group.

“People are moving to North Carolina for work, education, our climate and a host of other reasons,” she continued. All of these “new residents will need access to housing, energy and water that’s safe and affordable. They’ll need transportation and broadband and all of the other critical infrastructure needed to support a thriving economy, like childcare, healthcare, public safety and education.”

Companies are moving to the state as well, she continued.

“We’ve been named the best state for business in three of the past four years by CNBC. Once here, they too need infrastructure to support their operations,” DeJames said. “As to those businesses already here, this population and business growth will not be even across the state, or even within this region, but all areas have infrastructure needs, and we must now meet them.”

DeJames continued that forum organizers spent the last year learning more about the state’s water issues, “and we’ve learned the following: Water is a truly hidden infrastructure.” But, it is also the “most local form of infrastructure.”

The state is one of 10 with more than 5,000 public water systems – it is closer to 6,000 — and that number does not include the more than 2 million people who use privately owned wells and septic systems.

While water issues vary by region, there are common themes.

“First, our water infrastructure is aging,” DeJames said, despite some of the largest increases in water infrastructure spending in recent years.

“One conservative estimate is that we need $20 billion in new investments for drinking water and $21 billion in new investments for wastewater treatment and sanitary sewers in the coming decades, left unaddressed, our state’s economic vitality and public health are at risk.”

Next is the need to treat water for new contaminants.

“The emergence of new contaminants that can impact our health, such as PFAS, and the additional billions of dollars in cost to treat them will further compound financial pressures on our water systems and our customers,” DeJames said. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are long-lasting chemicals found in water, air and soil that are linked to harmful health effects.

Third, the state’s water infrastructure is too vulnerable.

“The damage done to wells and water systems from Hurricane Helene, Tropical Storm Chantal and other storms add to longer-term challenges to water and wastewater systems across the state. We need to increase our infrastructure’s resiliency,” she said.

“And finally, we need more workers in the water sector. There is significant shortage of qualified workers as the current workforce ages out, and not enough new workers to enter these fields.”

N.C. State’s Peter A. Pappas Real Estate Development Program Director Chuck Flink expressed similar points in a message delivered to all three forum locations via video.

The state’s population is expected to grow by between 3 and 3.5 million people in the next 25 years, and the growth is not going to hit North Carolina in a uniform manner. “A lot of it’s going to congregate in our two metro areas, which we expect to grow by more than a million people each in this 25-year period,” Flink said.

Wake County currently is the third fastest growing county in the country, averaging around 65 to 75 people moving there each day. It is the most populated county in the state. Charlotte is currently the sixth fastest growing city in America, averaging around 65 residents a day, and it’s the 15th most populated city in the country today, Flink continued.

By the year 2050, 75% of all residents will live in cities, and that’s a new phenomenon for the state, and at the same time, while we have this population growing, the state is experiencing population loss, with 41% of North Carolina’s municipalities in decline.

“We have vast swaths of our eastern part of our state and some portions of our western counties that are losing population,” Flink said. “In fact, we have a band of counties that stretches from the Virginia border to the South Carolina border, where we need more population, we need more economic opportunity. So it’s not a real simple picture there.”

He paused to say that he loves that the state is a collection of small communities, “and yet some of these small communities, especially in the eastern part of the state, are literally being abandoned due to population loss.”

“In North Carolina, 50% of us derive our drinking water from underground reservoirs, aquifers, and when we look at other elements of our water infrastructure, our water and wastewater systems are antiquated and they’re failing,” he said.

In some cases, there has been an overall decline in water quality across the state because of drought, overconsumption, and pollution, including forever chemicals.

The people that manage water infrastructure are aging as well. More education and training is needed for a new workforce to manage the infrastructure going forward.

However, Flink said he’s optimistic about where the state can go.

“It really begins with planning. Planning for growth. How do we want to grow? I think that’s the ace of spades that we control,” Flink said, adding that growth can be controlled and that’s how these challenges will be met.

There were four panel discussions throughout the day. The panels each had participants represented different sectors who shared the hurdles they’re facing, their frustrations and ways they’re navigating these challenges.

Martin Doyle, professor of River Systems Science and Policy at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, explained that water systems are not supported by general tax revenue, but are covered by the funds generated by billing its customers.

The UNC School of Government surveyed water systems around the state, and found that less than a quarter of those water systems actually collected sufficient revenue to be considered economically viable.

“They’re not collecting sufficient revenue to cover their costs as well as to cover the cost of preventative maintenance,” Doyle said. “The challenge for this is that we have a large number of water systems that are operating right at the financial threshold. They’re just getting by” and unable to keep up with preventative maintenance.

East Carolina University Water Resources Center Associate Director Samantha Mosier said that there are a number of ways to solve some of the state’s problems. She encouraged raising awareness about infrastructure needs, but the “real solution” is to help municipalities establish or join a regional authority.

“Most small local governments in North Carolina have their own water and wastewater system because that was part of becoming a town, years and years ago when we had lots of population,” Mosier said. “But in the eastern part of the state, we’re seeing that loss of the population.”

With the population dwindling, utilities are losing their customer base, making it no longer feasible for every small town to maintain a water system. Encouraging regionalization brings folks together to have those conversations. 

“To me is that next critical strategy we’ve got to embrace as a local, regional and state level,” she said.

Belhaven Town Manager Lynn Davis said that Beaufort County town’s obstacles are many, including a limited budget. “How do we not just look at the day to day, not just look at the infrastructure that we have, but how do we plan for if something breaks and that’s a challenge that faces us.”

She said staffing is another challenge. Half of the town’s staff could retire right now, and it won’t be easy to replace those workers. “You just don’t find people that have the knowledge and the skills.”

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Security and Emergency Manager Craig Malone said when it comes to tackling these issues, “it’s not the plan itself that we need to focus on, it’s the process of planning. It helps us look at these contingencies, look at these risks, and our options to address these emergencies.”

He incorporates resiliency planning into his capital improvement plan. “Now you don’t have to stop and plan for emergency. Now you don’t have to stop and plan for that resiliency action or that upgrade to your facility.”

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon said the town has 3,000 year-round residents, and around 45,000 in the summer time, and 80% of the properties have on-site septic systems. On a summer day, millions of gallons of water goes through the houses and into the septic systems.

“At the same time we have sea level rise, which is bringing the water table up under those wastewater systems, causing them to perhaps function less effectively. And then we get a storm, and you get a lot of water in those ditches and in the ground, and you can imagine the dynamics of what’s happening in the ground.”

Cahoon said the town has to plan for these issues.

“We do integrate drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, capacity into our zoning, development/redevelopment decisions. We do that by tying our infrastructure capacity directly to our long-range planning and adopted master plans and our resilience strategies, rather than treating any of these separately. So in Nags Head, our land use and development decisions are guided by the town’s comp plan.”

To address the retiring workforce that most local governments seem to be facing, some town leaders are changing how they recruit. For example, Maysville Town Manager Shcumata Brown said they’re looking for employees who have the aptitude to learn and not focus on certain certifications.

Perry Harker, vice president of Workforce Continuing Education at Carteret Community College, said that students aren’t hearing about this type of career, and the college is trying to introduce students to water and wastewater industry opportunities.

Compounding these issues is water quality.

Ben Farmer, planning and development services director for Upper Coastal Plain Council of Government, said raw water is pumped to a treatment plant, and that water has to fall within certain threshold or maximum containment levels. The systems, regardless of the town or city’s size, have to make sure that drinking water is up to that very extreme standard to keep the water safe.

Cape Fear Riverkeeper Kemp Burdette told the attendees that many residents get their drinking water from rivers — the Cape Fear River basin provides about one in five residents with the drinking water – and “protecting rivers is the single most effective way of protecting drinking water supply and reducing infrastructure costs for communities, period.”

Jacksonville Stormwater Manager Pat Donovan-Brandenburg said that we all need to be part of the solution.

“Each one of us impact stormwater. Meaning we have a home, we have a car, we have a road to get to and from work. I challenge all of us to look at our individual yards, our individual businesses,” she said.

“What can we do to disconnect our stormwater runoff from ever making it out to the storm drain in the road and out to a stream? Can we get it to infiltrate instead of making it to our surface waters? Making it to our surface waters does not recharge our aquifers, and we need to recharge aquifers in order to have the drinking water,” she said. “There’s the connection. So can you disconnect your storm drains or your gutters and put it into your landscape beds? Can you put in an infiltration trench? Can you put in a rain garden or rain barrel? Everybody’s yard, everybody’s business counts toward stormwater runoff, so we can all be part of the solution,” she reiterated.

There’s so much technology out there, so ask your engineer to think outside of the box. “Yes, it may cost a little bit more, but if you’re building there for the rest of your life, invest in your community. Because that’s what it is. We’ve got to invest in our neighborhoods, invest in our communities. So my message is very simple, reduce the storm water that you’re creating individually off your own property, and collectively, we will make a difference.”

Coastal Resources Commission members last week held off on addressing oceanfront septic tank system rules in order to give environmental and health officials the opportunity to collaborate on the process.

During the commission’s Feb. 26 meeting in Atlantic Beach, staff with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management, which implements the commission’s rules and policies, asked for extra time to work with the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS regulates permitting, design, installation, operation and maintenance for on-site septic systems.

The failed septic system issue had been forefront for the commission in the early 2020s, until the topic was sidelined in April 2023 when the Rules Review Commission rejected dozens of rules the Coastal Resources Commission submitted as part of the 10-year rule review process, including protections for Jockey’s Ridge, redirecting the CRC’s attention.

After the rules protecting the sand dune system on the Outer Banks were put back in place in 2025, the Coastal Resource Commission resumed the discussions on remedies for oceanfront septic system failures.

Division Coastal Policy Analyst Cameron Luck explained last Thursday that the commission directed the staff at its November 2025 meeting to find out how many septic system failures along the waterfront were caused by tidal inundation, how many coastal communities rely on septic systems, and the overlap of the commission’s rules with the DHHS’s permitting process.

Luck said that Initially the plan for the February meeting was for the proposed amendments to move forward. But, after the division, DHHS and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, met Feb. 18 to review the issue, the consensus was to pause the rulemaking process.

The plan as of last Thursday was to schedule a meeting in mid-March with the health department and other agencies and organizations. “We want everybody at the table,” to better understand how stakeholders feel about the issue and willingness to address septic tank failures through a collaborative effort, Luck said.

Under the current rules, septic tanks are grouped with houses, which precludes oceanfront septic systems from requiring a permit for repair. And, an oceanfront septic system must be relocated or dismantled within eight years of when a home becomes threatened.

Division staff proposed clarifying that new structures must meet the oceanfront setback, and if a home or septic system is relocated, all remaining debris, including the original septic system, must be removed as well.

Staff also proposed specifying that septic system repair and/or replacement is not evaluated under general statute. Instead, it requires a Coastal Area Management Act permit to replace any septic tank, pump tank, or ground absorption system component.

North Carolina Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis, who was previously director of the Division of Coastal Management, has been involved in the process for some time. The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

Davis explained to the commission that it already regulates new oceanfront septic tanks by requiring that those systems meet the oceanfront setback. However, the division currently doesn’t have rules regarding repairing oceanfront septic systems.

DHHS, Dare and septic systems

Two officials with the state health department explained to the commission the prevalence of on-site wastewater systems in the state and the role the division plays in managing them.

Deputy Environmental Health Section Chief Jon Fowlkes said that about 50% of the state relies on septic systems and that has remained consistent over the last 20 to 30 years.

“Every county in our state uses septic systems, some counties more, some counties less,” he said, with some ranging from 14% to 93%, “so it really varies on where you’re at, and we’ve had approximately 1 million septic systems installed since 1990.”

The state’s wastewater rules apply to residential and some commercial on-site septic systems.

On-Site Water Protection Branch Head Wilson Mize with DHHS told the commission that neither he nor Fowlkes worked on the coast before, and “it’s been a learning curve” for them while working with Dare, Currituck and Carteret counties.

He used Dare as an example for how the county is handling its oceanfront septic problems, particularly the scenario of when a tank that was once covered in sand is exposed during a weather event.

After every storm, environmental health staff coordinate with local building inspectors and walk the impacted beach areas, looking for damaged dwellings and determine which systems have been compromised, Mize said.

In many cases the health department’s hands are tied when it comes to not issuing permits. “Our rules don’t give the county much authority to deny that permit if it meets our rules,” Fowlkes said.

Dare County Manager Bobby Outten said the county has a similar situation, stating that they’re also required to issue a permit for septic tanks, even if they’re in the surf zone.

“If the owner can get access to his building, we have to give them the permits. And so now they’ve got a house sitting in the water, their septic tank’s on the wet sand beach, and their drain field is back in the dry sand beach and we have to permit it,” he continued.

“They do it. Two weeks later, we have a nor’easter. It knocks the top off, it dumps the septic in the ocean again, and we start the process again. The water subsides. They put a new top on it. It meets all the requirements. We permit it,” he explained. “And the cycle continues until they lose enough lot that they can’t have a drain field, or they’ve lost enough lot, or lose the tank, and they don’t have anywhere to put the tank, and we don’t have a remedy for that, and we don’t have a remedy for it once it’s all said and done.”

Outten said there are options to break the cycle, including the establishment of setbacks by the commission, or rules that the health department can enforce.

“So we’re stuck in this situation because none of the rules work together to solve what I think we all see as a problem,” he said. “If our goal is to get those tanks off of the beaches, then the rules don’t currently work to do that.”

Commission Chair Renee Cahoon recognized that there’s no easy solution, “but we know that we can’t continue to have all the septic tanks on the beach. It’s not environmentally healthy. It’s not even good business sense for the people in North Carolina, because it does impact our tourism industry and all the property owners that are invested here.”

Though it snakes 50 miles through Onslow County from start to finish, the New River is, in a practical sense, two distinct parts.

The upper river begins northwest of Richlands, a small but increasingly developing town that’s roughly 10 miles from the Duplin County line. From there, the river cuts a narrow path through largely rural agricultural land southeast to Jacksonville, where it widens, its fresh water transitioning to salt water.

The lower river then forms into a tidal estuarine 2 miles wide before ultimately opening into Onslow Bay in the Atlantic Ocean.

Plans have been in the works some two years now to ensure the river’s distinguishing parts get the attention they need. This year, Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, with the support of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, is finalizing the Lower New River Watershed Restoration Plan,  one that focuses on areas where saltwater creeks drain into shellfish-harvesting waters and tributaries including bays and creeks.

One river, two plans.

Plans are being designed through a wide-reaching collaborative effort to work in unison to restore and protect the river’s water quality.

“We felt that, even though this a river that begins and ends in Onslow County, that it would be a great opportunity for us to separate it into two different plans so that we are spending as much time as we can in those two sections and really delve into the issues and the concerns and things that are affecting water quality and things that could potentially improve water quality through the watershed restoration plan,” Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Executive Director Lisa Rider told Coastal Review in an interview earlier this month.

Next year, the upper New River plan is expected to be complete. That plan addresses inland freshwater systems that flow through neighborhoods, farms, and paddle trails, she added.

At their cores, the plans espouse the connections shared by water, land and people. Essential to both missions is bridging people, whether it be those who live along it, recreate on it, or fish in it for sustenance, with organizations and agencies “needed to respond at the scale the river demands” to improve and protect it, Rider explained.

“It’s definitely a collaborative effort and I think that’s what makes this process a little bit unique for the watershed water management planning,” she said. “We’ve been really spending a lot of time connecting with community members, leadership in the community, folks that really have a unique grasp of what’s going on in the area.”

Riverwatch has worked through the New River Roundtable, a collaborative group of scientists, regulators, academics, government representatives and stakeholders, Rider explained. The organization has also worked closely with the county and with state partners.

The organization took a boots-on-the-ground approach, setting up at local festivals and other public events and speaking at various homeowners’ associations and community meetings.

The watershed restoration plans are a first for Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, an organization that has for years been monitoring the New River to try and determine sources of bacteria detected in the river.

The plans are rooted in the idea that, by creating one set of watershed restoration plans for the river, “we may get some really great projects out of that” to fill in gaps in areas of the river where water quality improvements and protections are needed, Rider said.

“That sort of initiated us into starting to work with the North Carolina Land and Water Fund to start funding the lower part of the New River plan, and we talked to them quite a bit about the reasoning for separating those plans out, knowing that eventually we would be working in unison,” she said.

The North Carolina Division of Water Resources has been key in helping the organization make the lower river plan sustainable through continued use and updates.

The plans in the agency’s watershed improvement projects, or WIPS, tool, which maps water quality improvement projects reported by residents, organizations and local governments.

“Even after the plan is complete it’s not really complete because we’re going to be continually using the watershed improvement tool to gauge what the public sees, what’s being requested in terms of projects by stakeholders and community members, and then looking to help connect funders with the projects that are being prioritized,” Rider said.

Severe pollution closed the New River to the public in the 1980s.

Things were so dire in the river that when 25 million gallons of waste flowed from a breached hog lagoon into its waters, no fish kills were recorded.

Three years after that spill, Jacksonville closed its downtown wastewater treatment plant to cut off the predominant source of pollution that had been sickening the lower river, where the riverbed between Wilson Bay and Stones Bay was covered by soft organics like ammonia and phosphates that, when in excessive amounts, choke out aquatic life.

City officials urged those at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune to stop its wastewater facility from discharging into the river.

The river was reopened in 2001.

Since then, both the city and Onslow County have been taking further steps to improve and protect the New River.

Jacksonville took on a multiyear project installing artificial reefs on either side of the river between Wilson Bay and Stones Bay to grow millions of oysters. The final phase of the $1.6 million Oyster Highway Project, which has helped usher marine life back into the river, wrapped a couple of years ago.

In 2024, the city’s elected leaders signed off on a grant awarded to Jacksonville’s stormwater department to develop a New River Nutrient Management Plan.

That plan focuses on nutrient loading from nonpoint sources — stormwater that flows from streets, subdivisions, commercial and industrial areas — into the city’s drainage system.

Last December, the Onslow County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution that supports using low-impact development strategies in all new or significantly renovated county-funded facilities “when they are fiscally responsible and practical,” according to a county notice.

The resolution also encourages the county school system and Coastal Carolina Community College in Jacksonville to adopt similar strategies, such as bioretention areas, swales, pocket wetlands, impervious surface removal, cisterns, green roofs, and permeable pavement, for new and renovated projects.

“As Onslow County continues to grow it will be increasingly important to meet the needs of future development through sustainable means,” according to a county release.

Onslow County residents who would like to help Coastal Carolina Riverwatch identify flood-prone areas, streams in need of restoration or stabilization, areas where stormwater runoff causes erosion or water quality problems, and flood mitigation projects may contact the organization by email at waterkeeper@coastalcarolina.org.

Community-based organizations, including homeowner associations, civic and church groups, environmental and conservation clubs, paddling and fishing organizations, business associations and school groups may request a presentation by Coastal Carolina Riverwatch – or offer a project idea, or talk about an area where there are problems with flooding, at one of the group’s regular meetings.

“The collaboration, I think, really reflects how the river itself works,” Rider said. “Water doesn’t recognize those jurisdictional lines so the solutions themselves are more effective when the planning reflects that reality. This approach, we fell like, helps ensure that the investments are targeted, the support is local, and that it’s designed to deliver real benefits for both water quality and the quality of life across the watershed.”                                                                                                               

New sheepshead regulations kick in next month for North Carolina recreational and commercial fisheries.

Beginning Sunday, the bag limit for recreational fishers will be five sheepshead per person per day.

The revised regulations for commercial fisheries include a limit of 1,500 pounds per operation per day, a limit of 10 fish per person per day or trip, including trips that occur over more than one calendar day, for gig and spear fishing, and a limit of 300 pounds per trip.

Both fisheries will have a size limit of 14 inches total length.

These changes are being implemented “because of increases in sheepshead harvest, particularly juvenile fish, in recent years,” according to a North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries release.

Under the new regulations, each fish should be measured from the tip of the snout to the longest part of the tail when pinched together.

These measurement changes align with regulations for black drum, according to the division.

“Aligning the measurement point for the two species simplifies regulations for the public,” a division release states.

Additional information is available on the division’s Proactive Sheepshead Management webpage.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management has objected to the proposed Wilmington Harbor project, concluding that a federal study of the plan is too scant on details and that, as presented, deepening and widening the channel would have “significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.”

The Army Corps of Engineers’ review lacks an evaluation of PFAS in the sediment in the lower Cape Fear River, fails to adequately assess cumulative flooding impacts or thoroughly detail areas where dredged material would be placed, and does not sufficiently account for potential effects on fisheries habitat, freshwater wetlands, shorelines, or state, historic and other properties along the river, the division concluded.

The draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS, the Corps released last September also falls short in analyzing the project’s economic benefits and evaluating “potential economic losses associated with environmental degradation,” Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller wrote to the Corps’ Wilmington District in a 15-page letter dated Feb. 24.

A Corps spokesman, in a statement Wednesday, called the state’s objection “disappointing” and highlighted what the Corps describes as offering “numerous opportunities” to engage with the public and work with state and federal agencies.

The Corps “felt we had been working hand in hand with all our State and Federal partners and resource agencies since we began coordination regarding this project nearly 3.5 years ago,” Jed Cayton, a public affairs specialist with Wilmington District, said in an email. “Given all the integration and engagement throughout this process, the objection provided at this late stage in the process is disconcerting.”

The Corps and North Carolina State Ports Authority are reviewing the division’s letter “to determine how we will proceed,” Cayton said. “Since we are very early in this review, we cannot yet give a specific date for completion.”

The Corps may pause the project and work with the state to try and resolve the state’s concerns or initiate a formal dispute resolution process.

The division’s objection comes a little more than a month after the division granted the Corps’ request to pause its review of whether the proposed project was consistent with state coastal management program laws, regulations and policies.

Miller wrote that, during that pause, the division “detailed its concerns along with possible paths forward to address the information deficiencies.”

On Feb. 16, the Corps asked the division in an email to resume its review of the project, one that has been highly scrutinized for its potential effects to the environment, shorelines and historic and culturally significant areas along the shores of the lower Cape Fear River.

“Our objection was based on a combination of lack of sufficient information to determine the impacts from PFAS and flooding and anticipated significant adverse impacts to fisheries resources, wildlife habitat and cultural and historic resources,” Miller told the Coastal Resources Commission during its meeting Wednesday in Atlantic Beach.

In his letter, Miller wrote that the lack of information regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances was “of particular concern.”

“The DEIS does not evaluate the potential for contaminant resuspension during dredging and the resulting fate and transport of these chemicals into nearby water bodies and land areas,” the letter states. “This is of particular concern since extensive scientific research has documented the presence and persistence of PFAS over the past decade within the [Cape Fear River Basin], including a growing body of research indicating significant negative ecological implications of PFAS in fish, birds, and reptiles.”

The proposal calls for extending the entrance of the federal navigation channel farther offshore, deepening the channel by 5 feet and widening portions of it from the mouth of the Cape Fear River more than 25 miles to the Wilmington port.

The ports authority says the project is needed to accommodate larger ships, which will attract more import and export business to the port, ease shipping congestion on the East Coast and keep the state’s ports competitive.

But opponents of the proposed project argue it will accelerate erosion and exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, disperse PFAS in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, is not economically justified, and threatens historic and cultural resources along the river.

One such historic site is Orton, a privately owned property that spans some 14,000 acres off the lower Cape Fear River’s western bank in Brunswick County and that includes a former plantation.

Orton owner Louis Bacon has spent millions restoring an expansive rice field system and earthen dike that enslaved Africans built more than two centuries ago to protect the rice fields from the river.

In a statement to Coastal Review on Wednesday, Bacon said the Division of Coastal Management’s objection to the proposed harbor project, “is proof that facts and persistence matter.”

“My concern has always been simple: this project, as proposed, puts undue and unacceptable risk on important historical and ecological sites,” Bacon stated. “The corps has not provided the analysis or safeguards the law requires. At Orton, dredging so close to a 250-year-old earthen dike creates a very real risk of catastrophic failure according to two separate expert firms – collapsing and flooding 350 acres of freshwater rice fields and exceptional wetlands with Atlantic saltwater, thereby eradicating the legacy of enslaved African Americans who built these systems over centuries, a monument to their efforts that I have spent years restoring.

“My objection is rooted in the fact that the project cannot be considered ‘consistent’ with North Carolina’s coastal protections if it causes this much damage,” he continued. “Large infrastructure decisions must be grounded in rigorous scientific evaluations, transparent disclosure, and enforceable protections, because these valuable resources cannot be rebuilt once lost.”

Several towns in Brunswick and New Hanover counties have adopted resolutions urging state and federal agencies to protect a series of islands within the lower Cape Fear River that support 30% of the state’s coastal shorebird population. Those towns have also asked for the creation of a comprehensive, long-term, and fully funded environmental and adaptive management plan to cover costs related to monitoring and mitigation to prevent and repair environmental harm.

Last month, the Wilmington City Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for state and federal decision makers to further review the proposed project.

In his letter, Miller noted that an overwhelming majority of the written comments the division received last year regarding the proposed project opposed it. And everyone who spoke at a public hearing the division hosted in downtown Wilmington last November opposed the project.

Kerri Allen, coastal management program director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, was one of the 72 people who expressed their concerns about the proposed project at that meeting.

“I’m encouraged to see DCM thoughtfully consider the many strong public comments submitted on this project,” Allen said in an email on Wednesday. “The level of engagement from coastal residents, local leaders, and partners shows how much people care, and it matters when that input is reflected in decisions. Our public trust waters belong to everyone, and transparent review like this helps lead to better, more resilient outcomes for our coast.”

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Ramona McGee echoed similar sentiments in a release Wednesday.

“This decision is welcome news for the people of Wilmington and beyond who cherish the lower Cape Fear River and its surrounding natural areas,” McGee stated. “This $1.3 billion project would put at risk the communities and wildlife that call this region home by exacerbating flooding, destroying habitat, and damaging wetlands. The Lower Cape Fear is already threatened by sea-level rise and industrial pollution – we shouldn’t be further damaging this special place with an unnecessary and costly project.”

It has been almost two weeks since the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to ax Obama-era carbon emission regulations for new motor vehicles and engines, arguing that the agency didn’t have the authority to impose the science-based standards on the greenhouse gas emissions that the current administration says have only a negligible effect on climate change.

While Republican lawmakers and leaders in the fossil fuel and automotive industries support the move, Democratic Party leaders, health care industry and environmental groups are saying the decision goes against decades of peer-reviewed research that the heat-trapping gases will amplify climate change, and are taking legal action.

President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Feb. 12 that the administration was rescinding its own findings, and, consequently, eliminating the greenhouse gas emission standards, or the legal limits on the amount of pollutants a vehicle can emit, that have been in place for more than 15 years.

“We are officially terminating the so-called Endangerment Finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers,” Trump said during a press conference Feb. 12 at the White House. “Effective immediately, we’re repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond.”

The agency stated in a release that week that the Obama-era EPA, via section 202 of the Clean Air Act, exceeded its “authority to combat ‘air pollution’ that harms public health and welfare.” The EPA said that a policy decision of this magnitude should be up to Congress, and “even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100. Therefore, maintaining GHG emission standards is not necessary for EPA to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment, but regardless, is not within the authority Congress entrusted to EPA.”

When the action was announced, there was a torrent of criticism.

“Today, the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding: the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules. Without it, we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money,” former President Barack Obama said on social media Feb. 12.

Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said that the EPA’s action to repeal the endangerment finding that greenhouse gases threaten the health of all communities undermines decades of science and rulings by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Instead of protecting the public’s health from the dangerous and deadly effects of air pollution, including greenhouse gases emitted by new cars and trucks, this action will exacerbate the health threats we are already seeing from climate change, including increased heat waves, more air pollution and deadly wildfires,” Benjamin said in a statement.

Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that Zeldin “took a chainsaw to the Endangerment Finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health. Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok.”

Goldman continued that the science establishing harm to human health and the environment from heat-trapping emissions was clear in 2009.

“More than fifteen years later, the evidence has only mounted as have human suffering and economic damages. Meanwhile, the continued burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming emissions to rise. The science, the facts and the law are unassailable: EPA has the obligation and the authority to regulate this pollution under the Clean Air Act, an act of Congress it’s now blatantly violating,” she said. “The transportation sector is the single largest source of U.S. global heat-trapping emissions. By scrapping vehicle global warming pollution standards today, the Trump administration has co-signed the release of more than 7 billion tons of planet-warming emissions nationally in the decades ahead.”

The “Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act” was published Feb. 18 in the Federal Register.

The same day more than a dozen groups filed a lawsuit in the D.C. circuit against the EPA, “over its illegal determination that it is not responsible for protecting us from climate pollution and its elimination of rules to cut the tailpipe pollution fueling the climate crisis and harming people’s health,” the Environmental Defense Fund announced last week.

“The finding supported commonsense safeguards to cut that pollution, including from cars and trucks. In addition, the agency eliminated the clean vehicle standards, which were set to deliver the single biggest cut to U.S. carbon pollution in history, save lives, and save Americans hard-earned money on gas,” continued the Environmental Defense Fund.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act has given the EPA comprehensive authority to set standards for and regulate motor vehicle pollution since it was signed by President Richard Nixon Dec. 31, 1970.

Section 202(a), states that the administrator “shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

The act was amended in 1977 and 1990, expanding EPA authority.

In 2004, the agency initiated efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Then in 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

By December 2009, the EPA had established the backbone for greenhouse gas emission rules with the final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” or the “endangerment finding.”

The EPA administrator had two conclusions: the “endangerment finding,” and the “cause or contribute finding.”

The endangerment finding that determined the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — “in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

The cause or contribute finding is that “the combined emissions of the six “well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a).”

Rescission background

Rescinding the endangerment finding has been in the works for a year. Zeldin said in March 2025, that the agency was going to formally reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding and resulting regulations.

A fact sheet from the EPA explains that the agency was directed to review the legality and applicability of the endangerment finding.

“EPA carefully considered and reevaluated the legal foundation of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the text of the CAA, and the Endangerment Finding’s legality in light of subsequent legal developments and court decisions,” the agency states. “The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide EPA statutory authority to prescribe motor vehicle emission standards for the purpose of addressing global climate change concerns. In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it.”

Zeldin reiterated the argument during the Feb. 12 press conference, saying that Congress never voted for the climate mandates in section 202 of the Clean Air Act.

“If Congress wants EPA to regulate the heck out of greenhouse gasses emitted from motor vehicles, then Congress can clearly make that the law, which they haven’t done, for good reason,” Zeldin said at the press conference. “We have now realigned EPA rulemaking to reflect the Clean Air Act exactly as it is written and as Congress intended, not as others might wish it to be, where our predecessors focused on trying to make and please a few fear mongering climate alarmists.”

‘Exhaustive Precedent’

Around the time a public comment period opened on the findings, Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity out of the New York University School of Law, and legal fellow Kate Welty, issued a 19-page brief, “Exhaustive Precedent: EPA’s Requirement to Regulate Motor Vehicle Emissions that Contribute to Dangerous Air Pollution” in July 2025.

They explain that the current administration’s reasons for repealing the emission standards, stating that the “EPA’s suggestion that motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions may not legally ‘contribute’ to climate change because they comprise a small share of global emissions rests on a flawed understanding of Section 202.”

They write that the Clean Air Act controls pollution from both stationary sources such as power plants and factories and mobile sources such as cars and trucks. Section 202 requires EPA to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles “if the Administrator finds that they ‘cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’”

The provision “authorizes EPA to regulate a variety of air emissions from new ‘motor vehicles,’ which encompasses cars, light-duty trucks (pick-up trucks and SUVs), heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles. Under this authority, EPA has been regulating air pollution from motor vehicles since the 1970s,” they continue.

With the 1977 revisions to the Clean Air Act, “Congress wanted EPA to consider how each source of emissions contributed to public health dangers, not limit the agency to regulating only source categories that emitted enough pollution to independently cause health harms,” Adler and Welty explain. “Any effort by EPA to now require that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles independently endanger public health and welfare would contradict the express Congressional intention described in the legislative history.”

Adler and Welty note that, in 2009, when the EPA concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and that the greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to climate change, “the agency found that new motor vehicles were responsible for over 23 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and approximately 4 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and concluded that either comparison was sufficient to meet the contribution standard of Section 202(a).”

In the time since, nothing has meaningfully changed to disturb this finding, as motor vehicles remain responsible for more than 23% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles “still make a meaningful contribution to climate change and unquestionably cause substantial damages in and of themselves. They also far surpass the levels of contribution that EPA has consistently recognized as sufficient to justify regulation in the past,” they wrote.

“The scale of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, EPA’s regulatory precedents under Section 202, and its reasoning under analogous Clean Air Act provisions all demonstrate that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to dangerous air pollution.”

Coastal effects

Southern Environmental Law Center Climate Analyst Jenny Brennan told Coastal Review last week that the lift of the endangerment finding “will almost certainly result in the worsening of climate change impacts that North Carolina communities are already struggling with — meaning sea level rise at faster rates, more rainstorms that drop massive amounts of water in just a few hours, and heatwaves that make it difficult for people to stay safe and healthy.”

Brennan continued that all these impacts will add stress to the already taxed infrastructure, such as roads, drainage systems and housing.

“Extreme heatwaves with even more air pollution, which is likely in the absence of the air regulation policies based on the endangerment finding, pose an even greater health hazard; heat plus air pollution makes it harder for even healthy people to breathe and is especially dangerous to people with asthma, heart conditions, or other medical conditions,” Brennan said.

This story has been updated to include a corrected description of land ownership. Information initially provided to Coastal Review had incorrectly identified the owner.

More people moved to North Carolina last year from different parts of the country than any other state in the nation.

North Carolina’s population grew by almost 150,000 people, trailing behind only Texas and Florida, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released last month.

As political leaders grapple with the demands that growth is placing on essential services like water and sewer, public safety and education, pressure is mounting on conservation groups to acquire, conserve and preserve land.

This month, more than 2,000 acres in coastal counties have been secured for permanent protection from development.

These newly protected areas are filled with natural landscape features that reduce flood risk, improve water quality, and provide habitat for plants and animals that are increasingly getting squeezed out by encroaching development.

In Brunswick County, one of the fastest growing in the state, North Carolina-based conservation nonprofit Unique Places to Save acquired land that serves as a corridor between two protected natural areas, bridging what amounts to nearly 10,000 acres of conserved landscape.

“We really want to be able to maintain large, connected natural areas for habitat for species and to maintain biodiversity of our natural areas,” Unique Places to Save Executive Director Christine Pickens told Coastal Review in a recent telephone interview. “And, particularly, in the southeast of North Carolina, we have some really cool endemic species and really wonderful habitats that you don’t find anywhere else.”

Within the 1,040-acre tract nestled between the towns of St. James and Boiling Spring Lakes are forested wetlands, Carolina bays, sandy pine and wet sandy pine savanna.

The tract, referred to as Boiling Springs Wilderness, specifically connects thousands of acres of privately conserved land including Orton with the North Carolina Boiling Spring Lakes Plant Conservation Preserve.

“When you connect these large areas, you’re connecting a mosaic across the landscape and there’s tiny variations of habitat availability,” Pickens explained. “What that does is allow species that use that area for habitat or refuge or migration to use those slight variations of habitat. When we experience extremes in weather, precipitation or drought or big storms, having just a little bit of wiggle room in terms of available habitat goes a long way to allowing species to be resilient to some of these extremes and some of these changes.”

Habitat that is free from being sliced up by ditches or roads is valuable to species that rely on that habitat, she said.

Take the red cockaded woodpecker, for example. These birds, which were reclassified in late 2024 from endangered to threatened, live in groups, or clusters, helping each other raise their young.

They depend on large, connected natural areas – typically anywhere from 125 to 200 acres – where living pine trees, preferably mature, longleaf pine forests, grow.

Boiling Springs Wilderness includes varying types of soils that support different sets of plants, trees, shrubs and forbs, more commonly referred to as herbs.

A good deal of pond pine and a “little bit” of young longleaf pine grace its landscape, Pickens said.

The headwaters of Orton Creek are within the project area, as are wetlands that blanket the Castle Hayne aquifer, a drinking water source for thousands of Brunswick County residents and tens of thousands in other coastal North Carolina areas.

“That’s a long-term way to protect water quality,” Pickens said. “The areas around streams act as buffers to absorb nutrients, runoff, excess components in surface water that soak in, and they get absorbed by the plants and the roots and the soils around streams. That prevents excess nutrients getting into waterways.”

Then there are the wetlands, which function like nature’s sponges, absorbing stormwater that might otherwise flood developed properties.

“Every chance we get to conserve wetlands is really important right now,” Pickens said.

That’s because state lawmakers decided to align North Carolina’s definition of wetlands with that of the federal government, which is in the process of changing the interpretation of waters of the United States that may omit protections for millions of acres of wetlands in the state.

“It may result in more wetlands being nonjurisdictional, therefore a lot more likely to be converted to uplands through ditching and draining. These conservation easements are perpetual. Once we protect it, that’s it,” Pickens said.

The Boiling Springs Wilderness project was funded through a $3.68 million North Carolina Land and Water Fund grant.

Unique Places to Save will own and manage the tract, while the state will hold the conservation easement. The Coastal Land Trust will steward that easement.

Last year, Unique Places to Save applied for another state Land and Water Fund grant to protect about 500 acres of predominately wetlands between the town of St. James and N.C. Highway 211.

“We’ve got a provisional award from the Land and Water Fund so if they have enough funding we may get funded this year for that effort,” Pickens said.

She touted efforts among other groups that work to conserve land throughout the state, including the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, and Cape Fear Arch to name a few.

Tyrrell County parcel transferred

Last week, national nonprofit The Conservation Fund finalized the transfer of ownership of about 1,550 acres of coastal wetlands and forestland in Tyrrell County to the Coastal Federation.

“This partnership reflects years of careful conservation planning and cooperation,” Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis stated in a release. “This acquisition protects important coastal wetlands that help filter water, support fish and wildlife habitat, and provide natural flood buffering in on the of the state’s most ecologically significant regions.”

Portions of the Tyrrell County property, which is valued at an estimated $1.7 million, are in the Land and Water Fund’s Stewardship Program, one designed to establish, monitor and enforce perpetual conservation agreements.

The property will be included as part of the Coastal Federation’s Land for a Healthy Coast program, which focuses on protecting estuaries, reducing polluted runoff, buffering floods, and boosting long-term coastal resilience.

“Some lands are simply too important to risk losing,” Coastal Federation founder and senior adviser Todd Miller said in the release. “When a property protects water quality, supports fisheries, and strengthens the natural defenses of the coast, we believe it’s our responsibility to step forward and ensure it is permanently conserved and well managed.”

This report has been updated for clarification.

Dominion Energy’s 2.6-gigawatt offshore wind project based in Hampton Roads, Virginia, which was ordered by the Trump administration to stop work right before Christmas, has resumed the project and is now on track for completion by early 2027.

But the 26-day shutdown of Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, also known as CVOW, came at considerable cost to the company, its customers and the nation’s energy needs. 

According to its Jan. 30 project update, Dominion tallied the current total project cost at $11.5 billion, reflecting $228 million for increases associated with the suspension, as well as $580 million related to actual/estimated tariffs. Dominion’s update in May 2025 had the project cost at $10.8 billion.

“It’s a terrible time to be restricting any source of new energy and especially sources of new clean energy that can be constructed in places that otherwise have limited ability to add new generation, whether that might be a new gas plant or a new coal plant,” Katharine Kollins, president of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, told Coastal Review.

When fully operational, CVOW’s 176 wind turbines will generate enough energy to power up to 660,000 homes, making it the largest offshore wind farm in the U.S and one of the largest wind energy production facilities in the world. Dominion, which provides electricity to 3.6 million homes and businesses in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina and natural gas service to 500,000 customers in South Carolina, said the wind project is critical to its “diverse energy supply strategy” to meet growing regional demand.

“I think from the wind industry’s perspective, this is an industry that has been operating for over 20 years and has shown that there’s an ability to put a significant amount of new clean energy on the grid every year — when the free market is at play and when they are able to construct in areas where it makes sense to have wind,” Kollins said.

Citing risks to national security, the U.S. Department of Interior issued the suspension order on Dec. 22 to CVOW and four other offshore wind projects in varied stages of development on the East Coast. The following day, Dominion sued the federal government.

In the action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dominion argued, in part, that it had worked extensively with military interests while developing the project to ensure that any concerns about radar, training or operational readiness were addressed. Not only did the agency director lack the “generalized authority” under the lease regulations to order the suspension “at whim,” the lawsuit said, the government did not cite an “applicable trigger” to halt construction.

“Our nation is governed by laws, and a stable legal and regulatory environment is essential to allow regulated public utilities like (Dominion)  as well as other businesses, contractors, suppliers, and workers, to invest and support our nation’s energy needs and associated jobs,” according to the lawsuit.

“Sudden and baseless withdrawal of regulatory approvals by government officials cannot be reconciled with the predictability needed to support the exceptionally large capital investments required for large-scale energy development projects like CVOW critical to domestic energy security, continues the legal document. “That is true regardless of the source of energy.”

Based on a 2022 agreement with regulators on cost-sharing, for project costs beyond $10.3 billion up to $11.3 billion, the company and the customers each pay 50%, and from $11.3 billion to $13.7 billion, the company pays 100%, according to Dominion’s Jan. 30 project update.

Customers in Virginia, but not North Carolina, currently pay about $11 a month to cover CVOW costs, said Jeremy Slayton with Dominion media relations in a Feb. 10 email response to Coastal Review. Cost recovery, which influences rates, is updated annually, he added, and the October 2025 filing is still before the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

On Jan. 16, the court granted Dominion’s request for a preliminary injunction that allowed construction at CVOW to resume while the lawsuit is resolved. Courts have now allowed all five stalled offshore projects to operate for the time being.

“While our legal challenge proceeds, we will continue seeking a durable resolution of this matter through cooperation with the federal government”, Dominion Energy said in a press release.

The company didn’t waste time getting back to work. According to information provided by Slayton, project construction was by late January about 70% complete, with the facility expected to deliver its first power to the grid by the end of the first quarter of this year.

“Our U.S-flagged wind turbine installation vessel Charybdis completed the first turbine installation today,” Slayton wrote in the Jan 27 email. 

So far, he added, all 176 monopole foundations have been installed, and 119 of the 176 transition pieces — the yellow parts that connect the foundations to the turbine towers — are in place.

Also, two of the three offshore substations have been installed, the deepwater offshore export cables installation has been completed and the nearshore export cables installation is about 60% completed. And about 67 miles of an estimated 231 miles of inter-array cables, which carry energy created by the wind turbines to the offshore substations, has been installed.

Onshore electric transmission construction is expected to be completed in early 2026. Before the abrupt stop-work order, CVOW, which started construction in 2024, had expected to flip the power switch on by that date, and be fully operational by the end of 2026.

In addition to the obvious benefit of clean, plentiful energy, the project has brought millions in economic value to the region, including many jobs and dollars while under construction.

“Offshore wind, in particular, provides the United States with a generational opportunity to supply large amounts of affordable, reliable power while spurring investment and creating U.S. jobs,” Dominion argued in its filing.

According to Dominion, the completed project will create 1,100 direct and indirect jobs annually in Hampton Roads, equaling about $82 million in pay and benefits, $210 million in economic output, $6 million in revenues for local governments and $5 million in state tax revenue.

Since Donald Trump’s reelection, the president has focused on dismantling renewable energy-related projects — solar, wind, battery storage, even grid modernization —  in the U.S, and replacing it with fossil fuel and nuclear power. But he has reserved his strongest animus for offshore wind, apparently based on his objection to 11 wind turbines in the water off his Aberdeenshire, Scotland golf course.

Shortly after he purchased an estate there in 2006, according to a July 29, 2025, article published online by the BBC,  Trump “soon became infuriated at plans to construct an offshore wind farm nearby, arguing that the ‘windmills’ — as he prefers to call the structures — would ruin the view.”

He also insisted that the turbine blades killed “all” the birds, but surveys at the site have to date not found a single bird strike. In addition to calling wind energy “a scam,” as quoted in the article, the president regards wind power as “very expensive, very ugly energy”.

Despite Trump fighting the plans through the Scottish courts and ultimately the UK’s Supreme Court, construction of the “monsters” went ahead in 2018.

“It clearly left him smarting and he’s not had a good word to say about wind power since,” the article said.

According to an Audubon study, most bird deaths are caused by striking buildings, especially tall ones with large windows, and cats eating them. On land, building collisions alone are estimated to kill over a billion birds each year in the U.S., the report said.

“On the open ocean, birds can be killed or injured when they collide with ships or offshore oil platforms,” the report stated. “Similarly, offshore wind infrastructure — including turbine blades, towers, electrical platforms, and construction equipment on boats — all pose potential threats.”

The report goes into much detail, but best practices were summed up as “Avoid, Minimize, Offset and Monitor.”

Dominion states on its website that it uses the latest technologies to protect birds and other wildlife, such as time-of-year restrictions, installation of anti-perching devices and acoustic monitoring.

Typically, offshore wind production is generated by three-bladed rotors attached to a ocean-worthy structure that houses a generator insider turbines attached to elevated platforms. Cables from the generator deliver the energy to the bottom of the tower to the underwater transmission cables to onshore power stations. 

But technology has evolved considerably since the first offshore turbine was built in Denmark in 1991.

“As turbine technology continues its rapid evolution — with units now reaching 26 (megawatts) — and floating wind advances toward commercial scale, the industry finds itself at a critical juncture that will shape its trajectory for years to come,” Power magazine reported in a Feb. 9, 2026, article published online.

Global offshore wind capacity reached 83 gigawatts at the end of 2024, the article said, and it appears that the 2025 report will show it was another banner year for the industry, with new construction “positioning the sector for accelerated growth through the decade.”

Significant projects have been constructed or are planned in European and Asia-Pacific regions, the magazine said. Meanwhile, the U.S. offshore wind industry is sputtering, resulting in a severe impact to the market. The International Energy Agency, according to the article, forecasts a 60% downward revision from 2025-2030 for U.S. wind energy, equaling 57 GW of both onshore and offshore capacity “that is now unlikely to be built.”

It appears the U.S, for now, may be left in the dust.

“Offshore wind technology continues its relentless march toward larger, more powerful machines,” according to the article. “The average capacity of turbines installed offshore in 2024 reached 10 MW, according to (the Global Wind Energy Council), a figure that would have seemed implausible a decade ago. Yet, the frontier has already moved well beyond that threshold.”

Still, in the long run, the realities of market forces and the limitations of dirty or destructive energy resources can make an unlimited, clean energy such as wind an unavoidable choice. Offshore projects may be a younger industry in the U.S., but it is considered a powerful renewable resource to tap. While land-based wind projects are less costly, wind speeds are generally higher and more constant offshore, allowing turbines to generate more electricity for longer periods.

In the U.S., solar and wind have often been the most affordable energy resource, but they are also compatible grid partners, Kollins said, with wind at its peak when the sun is not.

“Generally, wind turbines have higher generation factors in the winter and in evenings, and those are two times when solar has less output,” she said, “So if you have a lot of solar on the grid, you can add a lot of wind before you really need storage.”

Once all five of the offshore projects are operating at full capacity, she said, that’s when people will see the benefits of having more electricity produced, when they need it — such as the recent weekend deep freezes along the East Coast.

“These things are going to be generating their full output all weekend when everybody’s got their heat turned on and is using max electricity load,” Kollins said, adding: “Offshore wind is highly correlated with winter storms.”

There is an increasing demand overall for electricity, Kollins noted. And construction of gas turbines and nuclear power is many years down the road.

“These electrons are needed so badly,” she said.  “We are in a period of rapid economic growth, and in order to continue fueling that growth, we need every resource available.

“And offshore wind provides one of the only ways to build a significant amount of new energy generation in the near term.”

A North Carolina court has ruled that the state’s lead environmental agency has the authority to set 1,4-dioxane discharge limits for public wastewater utilities.

The ruling reverses a 2024 administrative law judge’s determination that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality did not follow the proper process when it established discharge limits for a handful of municipal wastewater treatment plants in the piedmont.

DEQ followed state Environmental Management Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “protocols in creating the 1,4-dioxane limits and created the criteria for the purpose of protecting the health and wellbeing of North Carolinians,” Wake County Superior Court Judge A. Graham Shirley wrote in his Feb. 5 decision. “Compliance with regulations and a desire to maintain or improve public health cannot be said to be a ‘patently in bad faith’ decision.”

Shirley wrote that the agency “did not err” in considering 1,4-dioxane, a substance used primarily as a solvent in chemical manufacturing, as a carcinogen.

“Because 1,4-dioxane is a pollutant likely to cause cancer in humans, permit limits are necessary to protect North Carolinians’ drinking water and their health,” DEQ Secretary Reid Wilson stated in a release the agency published Thursday. “The court vindicates DEQ’s decision to impose limits to protect downstream communities from this harmful carcinogen.”

Discharges of the chemical substance into North Carolinians’ drinking water sources has gained attention in recent years, with downstream public water suppliers and communities calling for tighter regulations and that pollution be controlled at the source.

DEQ’s Division of Water Resources attempted to do that when, in August 2023, it issued Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit that capped its releases of 1,4-dixoane.

Asheboro sued, challenging the state’s authority to include a water quality standard for 1,4-dioxane in the permit and arguing the new limits created an excessive financial burden.

The cities of Greensboro and Reidsville joined the lawsuit. Both had been ordered to include limits in their draft NPDES permits after they received notices of violation for 1,4-dioxane discharges in November 2019.

Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant discharges into Cape Fear River basin, where some 900,000 North Carolinians receive their drinking water downstream of the plant.

Brunswick County, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Fayetteville Public Works Commission intervened in the case, asserting that upstream 1,4-dioxane dischargers placed an undue financial burden on them to sample drinking water sources for the chemical and try and reduce the level of consumption of it to their customers.

In a September 2024 ruling, then-Chief Administrative Law Judge Dr. Donald van der Vaart sided with the upstream municipalities and revoked the permit limits set by DEQ.

“The Superior Court was right to uphold DEQ’s ability to limit chemicals in our water, and my office will continue working with DEQ to make sure people have clean drinking water,” North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson stated in a release.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Kenneth Waldroup said in a statement to Coastal Review Thursday afternoon that the utility is pleased with Shirley’s decision.

“CFPUA’s raw water intake is the last on the Cape Fear River. We rely on State regulators to set and enforce reasonable discharge standards upstream of our intake to protect our region’s raw water supply,” he explained. “While CFPUA’s Sweeney Water Treatment Plant is able to treat drinking water for 1,4-dioxane, that treatment process carries an expense and our ability to treat this pollution has its limits. Reducing the amounts of 1,4-dioxane and other emerging contaminants being released upstream also reduces the financial burden on downstream customers and communities.”

Last October, Waldroup joined representatives of other public water utilities and residents in asking the EPA to uphold its earlier objection to the proposed NPDES permit excluding Asheboro’s discharge limit for 1,4-dioxane.

As of this report, the EPA had not made its final determination.

Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, said in an email that the Superior Court ruling, “is a win for public health and every downstream community threatened by Asheboro’s irresponsible leadership.”

“It’s a shame cities like Asheboro prefer squandering tax dollars defending industrial polluters rather than protecting the public’s drinking water supplies,” she said. “It’s also a devastating reminder that until North Carolina creates strong source control measures for toxic chemicals, we will always be one discharge away from the next preventable crisis.”

Earlier this year, the state Environmental Management Commission voted to push proposed monitoring and minimization rules for 1,4-dioxane and three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the public this month.

Critics of the proposed rules argue they lack any real enforceability because they do not include water quality standards, specify what best management practices dischargers must follow, or how facilities must minimize their discharges.

The public comment period had yet to be announced as of this report.

In June of last year, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch and Haw River Assembly against Asheboro and the city’s industrial customer StarPet Inc., to stop their discharges of 1,4-dioxane into the Cape Fear River basin.

“Asheboro, Greensboro, and Reidsville have spent years arguing for downstream communities to shoulder the health and monetary costs of the cities’ pollution,” Jean Zhuang, a senior attorney with the center’s Chapel Hill office, stated in a release. “The Wake County Superior Court saw through the cities’ arguments and restored a key tool that can be used to protect families, communities, and drinking water utilities downstream.”

According to that release, the cities have filed a motion to suspend the court’s decision and an appeal is pending.

Ocean Isle Beach hopes to pump tens of thousands of cubic yards of sand onto the beach at the easternmost tip of the island by this spring as an erosion stopgap.

The Brunswick County town has asked the Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District for authorization to have up to 70,000 cubic yards of sand placed east of its terminal groin where erosion has been chipping away at the shoreline in front of a luxury neighborhood.

The Corps announced late last week that it is accepting public comments through March 8 on the town’s application to modify the federal permit it received in 2016 to build the terminal groin at Shallotte Inlet. 

As it stands, that permit does not allow sand to be placed east of the terminal groin.

A terminal groin is a wall-like structure built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas with high rates of erosion.

Proposed modifications to the permit include placing sand along an 1,875-foot stretch of shoreline at The Pointe, a gated community whose oceanfront property owners have been desperately trying to hold back an encroaching sea.

Under the terms of the proposed permit changes, this would be a one-time beach nourishment project.

The town is also asking for its permitted sand borrow source in Shallotte Inlet to be expanded from about 83 acres to a little more than 117 acres, to add a new borrow area within the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and be allowed to work outside of the environmental window for dredging from April 30 to June 15.

Ocean Isle Beach Town Manager Justin Whiteside said on Tuesday that the town wants to get the modified permit as quickly as possible in hopes that the sand placement project would coincide with a federal dredging project.

The Corps announced last September it had awarded a nearly $8.5 million contract to maintenance dredge several areas along the Intracoastal, including at the Shallotte Inlet crossing.

Whiteside explained that Ocean Isle Beach anticipates receiving 25,000 cubic yards of sand “that the town is paying for” from the Corps through the inlet crossing project.

“The hope is to get this permit modified within the timeframe that the Corps’ contractor is here on site and then we could contract with them possibly to dredge more in that federal channel or go into that inlet borrow area to put that additional sand there,” he said.

Whiteside said the town does not yet have an approximate cost of its proposal to nourish the beach east of the terminal groin.

Ocean Isle’s east end had for decades been losing ground to chronic erosion, the worst of which occurred along about a mile of ocean shoreline beginning near the inlet.

An encroaching ocean claimed homes, damaged and destroyed public utilities and prompted the North Carolina Department of Transportation to abandon state-maintained streets there.

To stave off further erosion, the town in 2005 was permitted to install a wall of sandbags to protect public roads and infrastructure from getting swallowed up by the sea.

In 2011, Ocean Isle Beach was, along with a handful of other beach communities, allowed to pursue the option of installing a terminal groin at an inlet area after the North Carolina General Assembly repealed a law that banned hardened erosion control structures on the state’s ocean shorelines.

Five years later, the town received state and federal approval to build a 750-foot terminal groin.

But before construction could begin, the Southern Environmental Law Center in August 2017 filed a lawsuit on behalf of the National Audubon Society challenging the Corps’ approval of the project.

More than three years passed before the lawsuit, which later included the town, concluded after an appellate court affirmed a lower court’s decision that the Corps fairly considered the alternatives included in an environmental impact statement examining the proposed project.

Construction of the $11 million project was completed in the spring of 2022, the same year the final plan for The Pointe, a 44-lot subdivision, was approved for development.

By fall 2025, The Pointe’s oceanfront properties were suffering significant erosion.

Last November, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission unanimously agreed to grant permission to the owners of eight lots in that neighborhood to install larger than typically allowed sandbag structures waterward of their land.

Whiteside said Tuesday that those sandbags had not been installed.

Sand in the area east of the terminal groin, he said, appears to be “recovering a little bit.”

“We think over the past month and a half or so that we’ve gained, just looking at aerial photographs, approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sand that’s deposited east of the groin, so some of the beach is building back up in that area,” Whiteside said.

He explained that in 2022 the town’s federal beach nourishment project took place in conjunction with the construction of the terminal groin.

“The dredger came through and we had a huge spit on the east end of the island and that contractor came through and just dredged right through that spit and took it down to a negative 15-foot elevation,” Whitesaid said. “It’s kind of filled back in now and we’re thinking that’s why we’re seeing the growth back east of the groin. We’re hoping this shows that that’s some of what contributed to it, that it was maybe our own nourishment project through the Corps.”

“But, in the meantime, we know this is a short-term solution that we’ve got to figure out some type of long-term solution to, so our engineer firm is going to be doing some modeling to see what kind of modifications, if any, need to take place to the existing groin,” he continued.

Comments on the proposed project should refer the permit application number (SAW-2011-01241) and may be submitted to the Corps electronically through the Regulatory Request System at https://rrs.usace.army.mil/rrs or by email to Tyler Crumbley at tyler.a.crumbley2@usace.army.mil. 

Written comments may be mailed to Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Attention: Tyler Crumbley, 69 Darlington Ave., Wilmington, NC  28403.

The Corps will consider written requests for a public hearing to be held to consider the proposed application modifications.

Reprinted from N.C. Health News

North Carolina’s struggle with PFAS contamination underscores the unintended consequences that can follow widespread chemical use — even as Congress is considering overhauling the nation’s foremost chemical safety law.

That law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, governs how industrial chemicals are reviewed and regulated in the United States. Passed in 1976 and overhauled by a Republican Congress in 2016, the chemical safety law sets standards for the data companies must provide, the timeline federal regulators have to review new chemicals and whether substances can enter commerce.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin has defended proposed changes to TSCA as a way to make chemical reviews more predictable and efficient while maintaining safety standards. In announcing the proposal, Zeldin said the agency aims to provide “a clear, predictable, commonsense approach that’s grounded in the law and the science.” He added that reforms are intended to protect health and the environment while allowing American manufacturing to thrive.

Critics say industry interests are driving the push for changes.

“It’s clear that the chemical industry is engaged in a full court press to try to make some amendments to TSCA,” said Stan Meiburg, former acting deputy administrator of the EPA and retired head of The Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability at Wake Forest University, in an interview with NC Health News.

In North Carolina, contamination from PFAS and other industrial chemicals evaluated under TSCA brought enforcement of the act into sharp public focus.

Often called “forever chemicals,” PFAS persist in the environment and have been linked to such human health issues as elevated cholesterol, immune suppression, developmental effects and certain cancers. Once contamination is discovered, cleanup can take years and cost utilities — and taxpayers — millions.

Much of the current debate in Washington centers on required environmental review of the law’s fee authority, mandated under the 2016 amendments. The law allows EPA to collect fees from chemical manufacturers to help fund safety reviews, and it requires the agency to periodically reassess whether those fees are sufficient. That authority will expire at the end of fiscal year 2026 unless Congress renews it, which raises broader questions about how federal chemical oversight will be funded. 

The disagreement has played out publicly in recent congressional hearings, where lawmakers debated whether the chemical evaluation process should be simplified to accelerate the review process.

Speed vs. safety

That tension surfaced during two January hearings, a Jan. 8 session before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a Jan. 22 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, where lawmakers debated whether to move chemical reviews along more quickly or strengthen oversight under TSCA.

Supporters of overhauling the law said the process needs greater efficiency and clearer timelines, while critics argue that speeding reviews without strengthening scientific capacity could weaken protections.

“EPA is required to complete new chemical reviews within 90 days,” Charlotte Bertrand, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, said during the Jan. 8 House hearing. “Yet more than 90 percent of active reviews exceed that statutory deadline. Over 60 percent remain pending for more than a year — and some for several years.”

Without changes, she added, delays in chemical approvals could put American manufacturers at a global disadvantage, particularly when compared with China.

Meiburg, who testified at the Jan. 8 hearing, warned against prioritizing speed over scientific rigor.

“Quick decisions do not serve the public if they are not based on the best science, are inconsistent with the law, are unduly influenced by interested parties or not transparent,” Meiburg told lawmakers.

His warning comes as the agency’s scientific capacity has faced reductions. Last year, the Trump administration announced plans to reduce the organization’s funding by 65 percent, a proposal that has resulted in substantial cuts to the Office of Research and Development — the agency’s primary science arm and the division responsible for conducting chemical risk evaluations under TSCA.

At the Jan. 22 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Tracey Woodruff, professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of its Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, argued that the proposed reforms would weaken safeguards built into the 2016 amendments.

“The proposed changes would remove public health guardrails and undermine EPA’s ability to protect people from harmful chemicals,” Woodruff said.

Environmental advocates echoed those concerns, arguing that shortening timelines or narrowing data requirements could increase the risk of overlooking potential health and environmental harms — especially if EPA lacks sufficient scientific staffing and resources.

A looming deadline

Beyond the mechanics of fee renewal, former EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the broader issue is whether the agency has the resources to carry out the law as written. While the statute itself remains strong, Congress has not provided funding to match the expanded responsibilities created under the 2016 overhaul, he said.

“When you reduce government the way it has been done over the last year or so, you are actually reducing the ability for TSCA to work the way Congress intended it,” Regan told NC Health News during an interview.

Under TSCA, companies submitting new chemicals pay review fees, while manufacturers of existing chemicals selected for formal risk evaluations share the cost of those more extensive, multi-year assessments. Those fees, which can range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars depending on the type of review, help fund EPA’s scientific staff and risk evaluation work.

That authority is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026 unless Congress renews it, giving lawmakers leverage not only to adjust fee levels but also to revisit broader elements of the law.

For North Carolina communities, the stakes are not abstract. PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River has required costly treatment upgrades and years of regulatory and legal action. Supporters of strong oversight argue that thorough, well-resourced reviews are far less expensive than responding after widespread contamination occurs.

Meiburg said the lesson from decades of chemical regulation is straightforward.

“Preventing pollution is always cheaper than repairing damage later,” he said.

This article first appeared on North Carolina Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This report first appeared Feb. 3 in NC Newsline.

North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey says even as snow from last weekend’s storm begins to melt, his office has received a flurry of calls from business owners and lifetime Outer Banks residents upset to see more homes falling into the Atlantic Ocean.

The powerful storm, packing winds of 60 mph, brought down four more unoccupied structures in Buxton.

“There’s some angry people out there,” Causey told members of the Council of State on Tuesday. “That makes a total of 31 homes that have collapsed since 2020.”

Related: Winter storm takes 4 Buxton houses, leaves inches of snow

Causey said while his office doesn’t have a solution to deal with the continually eroding shoreline, the state should listen to the locals.

“The complaint that I hear is there’s been too much finger-pointing with the multiple agencies involved, the federal government, the parks system, environmental groups, on down the list,” said Causey. “But what they’re telling me is that we need emergency help to stop the bleeding, because we can’t let these houses keep collapsing.”

Buxton typically loses six feet to eight feet of shoreline each year, but rising sea levels and an active storm season can accelerate that erosion. And a collapsed home can leave a debris field that stretches for miles.

“It is an economic nightmare and it’s an environmental nightmare when that happens,” said Causey.

Property owners are responsible for removing debris when a home collapses, but currents can spread the wreckage far down the coast, so responsibility has increasingly fallen on park officials to protect the shoreline.

Last year the Cape Hatteras National Seashore hauled out over 400 truckloads of debris from fallen houses.

Causey said the residents he’s spoken to this week want to see manmade reefs or hardened structures, which are currently banned, reconsidered. Beach renourishment, which has been used in other coastal communities, is an expensive and temporary solution.

This is not the first time Causey has pressed for help for Outer Banks homeowners.

Last November, Causey and Gov. Josh Stein urged Congress to pass the Preventing Environmental Hazards Act of 2025. The bipartisan bill would allow National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) payments to be made before an imminent collapse caused by erosion.

Standard homeowners’ insurance doesn’t cover shoreline erosion damage, so property owners can’t collect on it, even if the property is condemned, until the house collapses. The proposed legislation would give homeowners financial help to demolish or relocate a condemned structure before it falls into the surf.

“Federal NFIP pre-collapse authority would reduce hazards, protect visitors and wildlife, and save taxpayer dollars on emergency response and cleanup,” Causey and Stein wrote in their Nov. 2025 letter.

But the bill, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3), has not moved since last May, when it was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

“I think those people deserve to be heard,” said Causey.

While Causey was focused on the coast at Tuesday’s Council of State, Stein turned his attention to disaster recovery out west.

The governor’s office continues to push for Congress to authorize $13.5 billion requested for Hurricane Helene relief, Stein told the council. While North Carolina’s congressional delegation is supportive, the wheels of the federal government move very slowly, tied up in red tape due to new FEMA review requirements.

North Carolina has only received about 12% of the federal aid it has requested for Helene recovery, Stein said.

“I’m so glad I’m not in Congress because I can only imagine trying to get anything constructive done in that body,” said Stein. “But we need their help, Western North Carolina needs their help, and we’re going to keep asking for their help.”

For now, Stein said he’s incredibly grateful for the state employees who helped North Carolinians weather back-to-back winter storms in January.

Transportation crews pre-treated state roads with over 10 million gallons of brine, Stein said. Over 100,000 tons of salt was spread across North Carolina’s 100 counties, with another 20,000 tons expected to be needed in the next day or two with more wintry weather in the forecast.

“They’re just working nonstop to try to minimize the impact on our lives,” said Stein.

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence.

MANTEO — Shoaling in a Roanoke Sound channel just outside Shallowbag Bay has once again prevented the state attraction Elizabeth II from leaving its moorings at Roanoke Island Festival Park for maintenance.

And once again, Dare County has agreed to help manage another dredging project for the state so the ship can motor to the Wanchese state shipyard for its overdue haul-out.

“We’re still essentially in the planning stages,” Dare County Waterways Commission administrator Barton Grover said in a recent interview. “We’re not exactly sure what path we’re going to take moving forward.”

The 43-year-old wooden-hulled vessel, built to represent a 16th-century English sailing ship that participated in Sir Walter Raleigh’s 1584-1587 Roanoke Voyages, was last hauled out for dry-dock maintenance in 2021, after sitting in brackish water for four years.

Grover said that the proposed project would be addressing the same clogged area near where the channel intersects at Roanoke Sound and Shallowbag Bay that had earlier blocked the ship from moving.

In November 2020, the county had approved a contract and a grant application to conduct maintenance dredging in the channel to allow larger vessels, including the Elizabeth II, to access Manteo harbor. The vessel, which has an 8-foot draft, was able to safely leave its dock in Dough’s Creek about a week earlier than completion of the project in late February 2021, according to the county website.

Although the Roanoke Channel is officially a federally authorized channel, Grover explained that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pipeline dredge does not do work north of Wanchese. Ultimately, a bucket-and-barge method was used for the 90-day project, which increased the depth of about 2.2 miles of channel from as little as 1 to 5 feet to 9 feet. Another 290 feet in a connector channel to the ship’s berth was also dredged. Costs for the $1.9 million project were appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly, with an additional $170,000 provided by the state’s Shallow Draft Navigation Channel Dredging and Aquatic Weed Fund and the town of Manteo.

Some of the factors that come into play with the proposed dredge project, Grover said, include higher costs to dispose of the dredged material, as well as the lack of an obvious disposal area.

In the earlier projects, the material — scooped from the channel, piled onto a barge and then transported to land — was hauled off in a truck to the be placed on top of the county’s Manns Harbor landfill. But the increased expense may have made that option less attractive, he said. Other possibilities could include placement in a permitted area of water, or beneficial re-use along a shoreline or other area, he said.

Another consideration under review is whether the local hopper dredge Miss Katie would be capable of doing the necessary work instead of again using a bucket-and-barge method, Grover said. But the choice of an appropriate disposal site could also come into play in determining costs for that dredge to reach the site.

Typically planning and permitting for a similar dredge project takes at least “six-plus” months, he said. Also, the state has yet to secure the funding. Ideally, he said, a project would be ready to go during the upcoming winter of 2026-2027.

By then, the 69-foot-long ship will have been sitting in the brackish water alongside its dock in Dough’s Creek for about six years.

Michele Walker, assistant communications director at the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, said in an email responding to questions from Coastal Review that the last condition report was done by surveyor Paul C. Haley with Capt. G. W. Full & Associates Marine Surveyors in 2016, when numerous issues, including signs of rot and deterioration of the exterior and interior, were detailed.

When the vessel was hauled out in 2021, she added, Haley did not travel to the Outer Banks because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but he verified with the firm’s staff on site that the earlier repair recommendations had been completed.

“In addition, the ship is inspected annually by the U.S. Coast Guard,” Walker wrote. “This provides us approval to operate as an attraction vessel, which allows us to have passengers on board while moored.”

Walker added that the ship is maintained above the waterline throughout the year, with more extensive maintenance done while Roanoke Island Festival Park, a state museum that memorializes regional English precolonial and Native American history, and the adjacent Elizabeth II State Historic Site are closed January through mid-March.

Haley’s 2021 report, while emphasizing his familiarity with the vessel from doing the surveys in 2004, 2011 and 2016, also lauds the park for always following through on the surveyors’ recommendations.

Notably, when compromised planking documented in the earlier survey had been replaced, he said, the frames exposed during the work were observed to be in good condition. Also, all the critical repairs and plank replacements had been completed, he said.

“The vessel has a good maintenance program by the park and they haul out the vessel on a regular basis for repainting of the bottom and doing any maintenance work that requires the vessel being out of water,” he wrote.

Except for a few months in the winter, the Elizabeth II welcomes visitors aboard to experience a sailor’s view of ship life and duties, guided by interpreters in period costumes who regale them with stories.

As a representative vessel, the Elizabeth II was built based on knowledge of the tools, materials and basic designs used in Elizabethan-era shipbuilding, but there are no original design sketches of the actual merchant ships that sailed during the late 1500s to Roanoke Island from England. Still, the three-masted, square-rigged ship with dashing blue-and-white markings contrasting with its wooden hull — even while rarely moving from its dock across from the Manteo waterfront — has reliably served its mission as an ambassador for the state, the Outer Banks and Manteo’s heritage as the site of the first English colony in America.

But since the flashy ship’s 1984 launch during the town’s 400th anniversary celebration of the Roanoke Voyages, which culminated in the ill-fated “Lost Colony” that was never seen again after its governor left for supplies in 1587, once-routine day trips to visit coastal ports or join in community festivals fell by the wayside due to lack of funds, scheduling difficulties and other challenges. And gradually, even annual haul-outs started being delayed for multiple years, despite that prolonged time in the water for wooden hulls can lead to damage from shipworms and rot.

The ship’s current dockside stranding was not anticipated during the last review five years ago.

“It is the plan of this office to be present and to conduct a full survey at the haul out at the beginning of 2022,” Haley wrote in the report. “With this in mind, it is our opinion that the vessel is suitable for her present use.”

On Dec. 18, the nonprofit Friends of Elizabeth II indicated no intent to give up the ship, so to speak, posting a notice seeking to hire a new captain for the vessel. Applications were due Jan. 29. In addition to overseeing the maintenance of the ship and leading the crew and interpreters, the job’s responsibilities include training staff and volunteers in rigging, sailmaking and marine woodworking.

The required duties also illustrate that the Elizabeth II isn’t just a pretty ship decorating a small historic North Carolina town’s harbor. The captain must not only understand Coast Guard regulations associated with “moving watercraft” through waterways, the captain must be capable of “sailing the Elizabeth II as needed.”

While North Carolina residents are dealing with the inches of snowfall in the aftermath of this weekend’s winter storm, National Park Service officials on the Outer Banks are also dealing with the debris left behind by four more houses collapsing on Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s beaches.

National Park Service Public Affairs Specialist Mike Barber told Coastal Review Monday that Cape Hatteras National Seashore officials were notified that a house in Buxton collapsed earlier in the day, around 9 a.m. It was the fourth unoccupied house to collapse since Sunday morning.

The first house at 46201 Tower Circle Road collapsed early Sunday morning. Overnight, two more unoccupied houses at 46215 and 46219 Tower Circle Road fell, then the fourth house, which was at 46285 Old Lighthouse Road, Buxton. These four bring to 31 the total number of houses to collapse on the seashore’s beaches since 2020.

“Cape Hatteras National Seashore advises everyone to stay away from the collapse sites and the surrounding beach area, due to potentially hazardous debris. The beach is closed in front of the entire village of Buxton,” Barber said.

The Outer Banks, like much of the coast, continued to experience compromised roadways Monday and people were advised to stay off the roads unless necessary.

State transportation officials closed N.C. Highway 12 Saturday evening between the Basnight Bridge and Rodanthe, as well as on the north end of Ocracoke. They said Monday that the road would remain closed, “as we continue to see ocean overwash from this weekend’s nor’easter. Overwash also occurring at Buxton corner and on Rodanthe secondaries. Crews will be out working to clear today.”

N.C. 12 experienced ocean overwash and dune breaches on Pea Island Sunday morning, as well in Buxton and in Hatteras.

Additionally, all ferry routes were suspended Friday and remain suspended until conditions are deemed safe for operation, according to the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

NCDOT crews said they were making progress Monday clearing interstates and highways, but dangerous icy spots may remain because temperatures remained low. Gov. Josh Stein’s office and transportation officials urged people to stay off snow- and ice-covered roads and warned people to beware of black ice, which forms when ice and snow melt and then refreeze overnight into hard-to-see slippery patches.

As of late Monday, there were 2,500 NCDOT employees and contractors working to plow snow and spread salt on the highways and secondary routes. Since the storm began affecting the coast Saturday, crews have spread more than 23,000 tons of salt and plowed thousands of miles of roads.

Stein said that the state was “working around the clock to clear roads and get people back to their daily lives as quickly and safely as possible, but because temperatures will remain low overnight, this process takes time. We ask for your patience, and if you need to be on the roads this week, I urge you to slow down, give extra distance, and use caution while traveling.”

His office reported that the sunshine Monday, with temperatures reaching the upper 30s to lower 40s, allowed for snow that fell over the weekend to melt. However, that water will likely refreeze after sunset Monday evening because temperatures are forecast to fall into the teens and 20s.

Temperatures will warm into the low to mid 40s Tuesday before a cold front approaches the region.

The National Weather Service said Monday that for parts of eastern North Carolina, a light wintry mix of snow and freezing rain was possible Wednesday night.

“Please continue to remain vigilant as we are still experiencing extremely cold temperatures across the state,” NC Emergency Management Director Will Ray said in a statement. “As a reminder, several hazards remain, such as the risk of freezing pipes in homes. There are many people in our communities that are especially vulnerable to prolonged cold temperatures, so please check on your friends, family, and neighbors.”

Currituck County Emergency Management, in a social media post around lunchtime Monday, said that NCDOT crews were actively out working on the primary roadways throughout the county.

“While some roads are improving, many side roads remain covered with snow and ice, and freezing temperatures are keeping conditions slick. As temperatures drop and the sun goes down tonight, please be alert for black ice: a thin, nearly invisible layer of ice that forms when moisture refreezes on road surfaces. Black ice is especially common on bridges, shaded areas, overpasses, and low-lying roads, and can cause vehicles to lose traction with little warning,” they warned. “If you must travel, slow down, increase your following distance, and use extra caution. If you can stay home, that remains the safest option.”

Carteret County sent out a similar message Monday.

“Some roadways still have several inches of snow coverage, and partially melted snow and ice are expected to refreeze overnight, creating dangerous travel conditions. Residents are urged to stay off the roads if possible. If travel is necessary, exercise extreme caution, as icy conditions may make driving at posted speeds extremely dangerous and cause vehicles to lose traction with little warning,” according to Carteret County government officials. “Secondary and less-traveled roads are more likely to remain untreated and pose additional risks. Remaining off the roads also allows first responders and emergency management staff to continue their work safely.

Largely because of travel concerns, most county government offices were closed Monday because of the weather, and several had announced plans to close Tuesday as well, including Beaufort, Carteret, Gates, Pamlico, Dare and Hyde counties.

Record snowfall in coastal counties

Assistant State Climatologist Corey Davis, in a blog on this weekend’s snow storm, called the accumulated snow that fell all across North Carolina, “our most widespread wintry event in more than a dozen years, and the biggest snow for some areas in several decades.”

For parts of eastern North Carolina, this was the snowstorm of a lifetime, he continued.

“More than a foot fell over the central Coastal Plain, surpassing every other wintry event so far this century. The 12.5 inches in New Bern and 15 inches in Newport made this the first foot of snow for both areas since December 1989. The highest totals in the state came along the Crystal Coast, including 19.5 inches in Peletier and 17 inches in Swansboro,” he wrote.

In Cape Carteret, near whiteout conditions were observed on Saturday, Davis continues, bordering on blizzard criteria. Beaufort reported three consecutive hours with visibility of a quarter-mile or less, wind gusts of 35 mph or greater, and heavy snow falling or blowing.

Northeast North Carolina from Friday to Sunday experienced between 6 and 10.5 inches of snow, according to the National Weather Service Wakefield, Virginia, office, which provides the forecast for the region that includes Ahoskie, Elizabeth City and Currituck County.

Mainland Hyde County experienced a widespread swath of 8 to 12 inches, with localized snowfall totals in some townships exceeding 12 to 16 inches. For Ocracoke Island, “reliable totals” range from 4 to 6 inches, and that accumulation was coupled with “significant coastal flooding and inundation,” county officials announced Monday.

Heading south, centrally located counties including Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Pamlico, Onslow and Tyrrell saw between 2 and 19 inches. Dare experienced the least amount with 2 to 11 inches and Carteret, Craven and Pamlico had areas getting hit with more than 18 inches, according to the Weather Service office in Newport.

“Most remarkably, along the Pamlico River in Beaufort County, this was the first foot of snow in more than 67 years, since December 1958. In that region, reported totals included 17 inches in Bath, 15 inches in Bayview, and 13 inches in Belhaven,” Davis explains in the blog.

“Along with having a strong, moisture-laden low pressure system just offshore, a key factor in ramping up the snowfall amounts was the cold air that created unusually high snow-to-liquid ratios for this part of the country. While Wilmington only measured 0.32 inches of liquid precipitation, that yielded 5.8 inches of fluffy snow – the heaviest snow there since 1989 – at an impressive 18-to-1 ratio,” Davis wrote.

In a Monday morning announcement, Holden Beach officials in Brunswick County warned residents that, although the bridge to the island had reopened, roads on the island were “treacherous.”

Holden Beach’s neighboring island to the west, Ocean Isle Beach, was covered in a whopping 15 inches of snow, according to estimated totals based on National Weather Service reports and local observations.

Farther north in Brunswick County, Leland, Bolivia and Southport all received a reported 9 inches of snow.

Brunswick County announced its offices and facilities will reopen at 10 a.m. Tuesday. The Brunswick County Commissioners meeting postponed Monday had not been rescheduled as of this report.

In New Hanover County, a reported 9 inches of snow accumulated in Carolina Beach. Wilmington saw less with a little under 6 inches of snow.

And, in Pender County, Hampstead received 10 inches of snow, while farther north, areas of Onslow County got upwards from 13 inches accumulation.

From a science perspective

Davis explained to Coastal Review that the coast was hit so hard because, “to put it simply, this was a strong nor’easter setup that happened to be cold enough for snow.”

He said that anytime the state gets these low-pressure systems right off the coast, whether they’re tropical storms or winter storms, “we know they’re capable of some major impacts. And we saw a lot of those typical impacts in this event, including the gusty winds and high surf that has already claimed a couple more houses along the Outer Banks.”

Davis compared this system and the nor’easter that moved up the coast October 2025.

The main low-pressure center started to deepen at pretty much the same location just south of Cape Fear, and the minimum pressure observed at Hatteras was nearly identical: 998.8 millibars in October, and 998.4 millibars during this storm. A millibar is a metric measurement of atmospheric pressure.

“If this had happened at any other time of year, we would have been talking about similar impacts, but with rain instead of snow. Having such cold temperatures in place so far south meant that it fell as all snow, and the snow-to-liquid ratios were off the charts compared to what we’re accustomed to. That let a lot of snow add up very quickly, and with the wind added in, that snow covered everything, and deep,” Davis continued.

When it comes to climate change and storms like these, Davis noted that a “common, or at least vocal, misconception about climate change is that it can and will make cold and snow impossible.”

He explained that while warming temperatures do make some wintry events — like the one from this previous weekend — more marginal for anything frozen, cold and snow are still a part of the winter climate, and big events like this can and do still occur.

“Of course, we’ve also seen the flip side of that, with a nearly three-year stretch with no measurable snowfall across much of the state, the average annual snowfall nearly cut in half in places like Charlotte and Raleigh, and steady warming in our wintertime low temperatures at the rate of about a degree per decade. All of those things — warming with snow events becoming rarer, along with seeing an occasional big snowfall — can still be true,” Davis explained.

“As a scientist, I think it’s important to acknowledge our certainty about climate changes and future projections. We’re very confident that the overall warming trend, especially in our nighttime low temperatures, will continue into the future, and that will continue to reduce our overall snow totals and snow event frequency. We’re less certain about how coastal winter storms like this one may change in the future,” he continued. “We often think about these climate trends as clearly pointing in one direction, but that’s really not true for projections of coastal storms like this, and there are competing forces that may affect how they evolve.”

He said that on one hand, these systems originate in tropical areas and strengthen over the warm ocean, which we know is warming at an even faster rate than the atmosphere, letting these coastal lows strengthen faster and pull in more moisture. But, on the other hand, it’s getting tougher to get temperatures cold enough over land to see all-snow events. These lows tend to bring in warm air in the mid-levels that causes precipitation to transition from snow to sleet, freezing rain, or regular rain, like we saw a couple of weekends ago.

“You might say that this storm offered up the best — or worst, depending on your perspective — of our past and future climates. We had that deep layer of cold air like we saw during our big storms back in the 1970s and 80s, but also a rapidly intensifying coastal low in a very warm and moist ocean environment that was able to drop extreme snowfall amounts,” he said. “That doesn’t mean this sort of event will get any more common in the future. It is now, and always will be, a rare collision of circumstances to bring such a major winter storm over such a large part of the state.”

Though there’s piles of snow out there, Davis said to keep in mind that, in terms of the liquid precipitation totals, most areas saw less than an inch of total liquid during this event, which he said is “a surprisingly low amount, given how much snow we received.”

That matters because it may mean the state sees less drought recovery than expected.

“Most of eastern North Carolina is still in moderate to severe drought, and even after the storm, places like Wilmington, Greenville, and Fayetteville are more than 10 inches below their normal precipitation over the past six months,” Davis said. “We may see some small improvements this week based on that precipitation, and the gradual snow melt may bring a slow recharge in streamflow and soil moisture levels over the next few weeks. But this winter is still tracking as a dry one overall, and we could use some more precipitation in any form before the end of the season to keep from entering the spring and the growing season with a bad drought still going on.”

Communities near Marine Corps bases in Jacksonville and Havelock, as well as the auxiliary landing field in Bogue on N.C. Highway 24, should expect through February increased military vehicle traffic and noise associated with a monthlong training exercise starting Friday.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit will begin Friday training, which will include various land-based, ground troop activities, and aircraft and night operations, as part of a larger certification exercise at Bogue Field, the U.S. Marine Corps announced Thursday.

Bogue Field is an outlying property of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point based in Havelock. Training will also be carried out at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River, both in Jacksonville.

For a list of scheduled noise-generating events at Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, please visit https://www.lejeune.marines.mil/News/Noise-Advisories.

For activity at Bogue Field, direct inquiries to Cherry Point’s Communication Strategy and Operations at 252-466-4241 or cherrypoint@usmc.mil.

The National Park Service has approved a project to stabilize about a mile of rapidly eroding shoreline at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site.

The 513-acre site located on the northern end of Roanoke Island in the Albemarle Sound was established in 1941 to preserve where Sir Walter Raleigh established colonial settlements between 1581 and 1591.

National Park Service leadership signed on Jan. 14 a finding of no significant impact to install a combination of rock revetment and rock berm to sections of the shoreline. A finding of no significant impact confirms that a proposed action won’t significantly affect the environment.

When the National Park Service announced the project’s approval Jan. 15, officials also released the mandatory floodplain statement of findings, which explains why the project must take place in a floodplain, along with any associated risk, and flood mitigation strategies.

The announcement opened up a two-week comment period that ends Friday on the findings. Instructions on how to comment are on National Park Service’s website.

The floodplain statement of findings concludes that the proposed rock revetment and berm to prevent ongoing and future shoreline erosion at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site “is necessary and consistent” with federal rules on activities in floodplains.

On the same day, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management announced and opened up a public comment period for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-requested federal consistency determination for the proposed rock berm and revetment combination project.

The determination is to “ensure compliance” with the Coastal Zone Management Act, a national policy for managing coastal resources.

“Specifically, the National Park Service proposes installing rock berms and rock revetments along approximately 1,100 linear feet of shoreline on the western end of Roanoke Island to reduce erosion, protect infrastructure, and enhance long-term shoreline stability,” per the state. “The State’s review of the submitted federal consistency determination request will determine if the proposed project in Dare County is consistent with the enforceable policies of North Carolina’s Coastal Management Program.”

To read the shoreline stabilization federal consistency determination request and comment, visit NCDEQ’s website.

Since becoming a national historic site, erosion along the property’s shoreline has been a management challenge. The shoreline is estimated to have eroded a quarter-mile or more since the late 16th century, according to the National Park Service.

Previous efforts have been made to slow shoreline loss but erosion has continued at an estimated 1 to 5 feet per year, impacting both cultural and natural resources at the site as well as the adjacent, privately owned Elizabethan Gardens, documents explain.

Michael Flynn is the physical scientist and certified floodplain manager for the Outer Banks Group of National Parks, which consists of Fort Raleigh, Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Wright Brothers National Memorial.

Flynn told Coastal Review that wind, wave action and currents have eroded the shoreline over time and threaten facilities, infrastructure and cultural resources such as the Waterside Theater, where the “Lost Colony” out door drama is performed every summer, and a family cemetery on the property.

“This has caused loss of archeological resources and upland forested areas,” Flynn said. “In the 1980s, the park installed stabilization measures including rock berm and rock revetment. Erosion is especially prevalent at the edges of these stabilization measures in an effect known as flanking.”

In recent years, park staff have been developing the stabilization and erosion control plan approved earlier this month and the associated environmental assessment, which identifies any potential effects of the proposed project.

The plan and environmental assessment released in July 2025 detailed three possible projects: a rock revetment, a rock berm or a combination of the two. The environmental assessment that was out for public review July 21, 2025, to Aug. 20, 2025, identified as the preferred action the combination of the two.

“After evaluating the potential impacts of three action alternatives, NPS selected the preferred alternative: a combination of rock revetment and rock berm in areas of the shoreline that are the best fit due to existing topography, land use and constructability,” according to the press release.

Flynn said the combination was chosen because of the variable topography along the shoreline. The approach also offers flexibility for engineered designs for different environmental conditions.

For example, the rock revetment alternative will be placed in locations where existing steep and high embankments range from 5 to 15 feet or higher, he said.

“For areas with rock revetment, the application of appropriately sized rock will prevent the bluff from sloughing. The rock berm alternative will be placed in areas with no or minimal embankment heights. For areas with rock berm, the application of appropriately sized rock will protect the low-elevation sand beach areas from erosion caused by wave action,” he explained.

Flynn said that the environmental assessment for the proposed project was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and Department of Interior NEPA regulations.

Because the National Park Service issuing earlier this month the finding of no significant impact, often referred to as a FONSI, officials determined that the preferred alternative identified in the environmental assessment, or EA, will not have a significant effect on the human environment. If the environmental assessment does not support a finding of no significant impact, then the park service must prepare an environmental impact statement and issue a Record of Decision before taking action on the proposed activity.

“In short, Fort Raleigh may now proceed with implementing the preferred alternative described within the EA. The park will stabilize the shoreline for erosion control once NPS officials finalize the accompanying Floodplain Statement of Findings,” Flynn said.

The floodplain statement of findings is necessary because of two executive orders that require the National Park Service to evaluate the likely impacts of actions in floodplains.

It is park service policy to preserve floodplain functions and values, minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding, including threats to human health and safety, risks to National Park Service capital investment, and impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, he said.

That means a floodplain statement of findings “is prepared when a proposed action is found to be in, or affecting a floodplain, and relocating the action to a non-floodplain site is considered not to be a viable alternative. This is the case with implementing shoreline stabilization measures for erosion control,” Flynn continued.

Flynn noted that the floodplain findings factor in climate change effects. When data are available, the climate-informed science approach detailed in one of the executive orders is the preferred way to develop the floodplain statement of findings.

The climate-informed science approach incorporates the use of best-available data on water movement and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding due to the increasing severity and frequency of precipitation, sea level rise, tidal cycles, land use change, yielding the most accurate elevation and flood hazard area, Flynn said.

Once the public review and comment period closes Friday, park staff are to revise the document accordingly and send it to the National Park Service’s Water Resources Division for review and signature. After that, the plan goes to the regional office for review, signature and approval to move forward, he explained.

The Army Corps of Engineers wants more time to mull over concerns that have been brought up on the proposed project to deepen and widen portions of the Wilmington Harbor channel.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management announced late Tuesday afternoon it had granted the Corps’ request, indefinitely pausing the division’s review of whether the proposed project is consistent with state coastal management program laws, regulations and policies.

“The decision to pause allows time for the Corps to review and consider issues raised by DCM and the public before DCM completes its review,” according to a release. “A timeline has not been established for when the pause may be lifted.”

The pause follows a series of deadline extensions that have been made in recent weeks on the proposed project, one that is being highly scrutinized for its potential effects to the environment, shorelines and treasure of historic and culturally significant areas along the shores of the lower Cape Fear River.

The N.C. State Ports Authority says the project designed to accommodate larger ships would attract more import and export business to the port, ease shipping congestion on the East Coast, and keep the state’s ports competitive. The proposal calls for deepening the harbor channel by 5 feet and widening portions of it from the mouth of the Cape Fear River to the Wilmington port.

In late December, the division announced that the Corps’ Wilmington District was giving the division more time to complete its review of the federal determination, pushing its deadline from Jan. 5 to Jan. 19.

The Corps requested the pause on Jan. 16, just days after state fisheries and wildlife resources officials sent the division memorandums saying those agencies continue to have concerns about impacts to fish and wildlife resources within the proposed project area.

A Corps spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by deadline for this report.

In its Jan. 14 memorandum to the Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries reiterated its concerns about the proposed project’s effects on habitat essential to fish in the river, wetlands connected to the river, and the overall water quality in the river.

Deepening and widening the harbor as planned “will have significant adverse impacts to fisheries resources due to the permanent loss of state-designated nursery and anadromous fish spawning areas along the Cape Fear River estuary and its tributaries,” the memorandum states.

“There is also potential for significant adverse impacts to wetlands, (submerged aquatic vegetation), shellfish resources, and water column habitat due to insufficient mitigation plans and uncertain impacts associated with the proposed actions that are not adequately discussed,” in the federal letter report and draft environmental impact statement of the Wilmington Harbor 403 navigation project released in September. The figure 403 refers to the relevant section of the Water Resources Development Act.

N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission officials raised similar worries, stating in a Jan. 15 memorandum to DCM that while it had been involved throughout the project’s development process, “our agency still has concerns regarding impacts the proposal will have on wildlife resources in the project area.”

“These comments include concerns regarding the proposal’s direct impacts to wildlife habitats, whether impacts to these habitats have been adequately assessed, inadequacies of mitigation proposals, the need to consult appropriate agencies prior to moving forward with the proposal, and the subsequent impacts to wildlife and their habitats (particularly nesting waterbirds and shorelines) from larger and increased vessel use.”

A number of towns in Brunswick and New Hanover counties have adopted resolutions urging state and federal agencies to protect a series of islands within the lower Cape Fear River that support 30% of the state’s coastal shorebird population.

Those towns are also calling for the creation of a comprehensive, long-term, and fully funded environmental and adaptive management plan to cover costs related to monitoring and mitigation to prevent and repair environmental harm.

A Corps official earlier this month confirmed to Coastal Review that the agency was implementing a programmatic agreement with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, the General Services Administration, the state Ports Authority, “and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation” to review historic and culturally significant areas along the river that may be impacted by the proposed project.

The agreement must be signed before the agency finalizes project plans, which would occur after the Corps releases its final environmental impact statement.

The final environmental impact statement is expected to be released sometime this summer, according to a tentative timeline released by the Corps. It is unclear how the Corps’ request of the state to pause its review may affect that projected timeline.

Once the review process resumes, DCM must decide whether to concur with or object the Corps’ determination.

“If DCM objects, it can offer alternatives or conditions that, if agreed to by the Corps, would allow the project to proceed,” according to the division.

Construction on the proposed project would begin no earlier than 2030 and take about six years to complete, a schedule Corps officials have said is optimistic.

Note: This story has been updated to correct the misspelling of Louis Bacon’s first name.

Restoring land as close to how it was more than two centuries ago is by no means a cheap venture.

Just ask Louis Moore Bacon.

Since 2012, Bacon has invested more than $100 million in the property on which his ancestor, Roger Moore, founded Orton Plantation in 1725 off the lower Cape Fear River’s western bank in Brunswick County.

Nearly a third of that cost has gone toward restoring an expansive, historic rice field system and an earthen dike enslaved Africans built some 250 years ago to protect the fields they planted, grew, and harvested Carolina Gold rice from the river.

If the state green lights a proposed project to deepen and widen portions of the shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Port of Wilmington, all of it – the dike, 350 acres of historic rice fields and hundreds of acres of freshwater wetlands – will face threat of “irreversible damage,” according to Bacon.

In a 22-page letter he submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management late last year, Bacon detailed how the proposed Wilmington Harbor 403 navigation project “threatens the failure” of the earthen dike.

“The structural integrity of the dike is Orton’s number one concern,” Bacon wrote. “The Project poses a real and unacceptable risk of catastrophic failure of the dike system. Failure of the dike will result in a cascading series of events including saltwater intrusion into the historic rice fields, rendering them incapable of growing rice and destroying the freshwater ecological water system at the Orton Property. Failure of the dike would flood the rice fields and freshwater ponds with saltwater, erasing what stands today as a preserved monument to enslaved African Americans dating back centuries.”

He closed the Nov. 24, 2025, letter with an ardent request of the division: Object to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that the proposed project aligns with the state’s coastal policies and rules.

The Corps, Bacon wrote, failed to analyze how the proposed project to deepen and widen the harbor channel might affect historic and cultural resources along the river.

His objections echo those of other individuals and groups voicing concerns about how the project the N.C. State Ports Authority says is needed to keep the Wilmington Port competitive might impact those sites along the river.

Deepening the river channel from 42 feet to 47 feet and widening it along areas throughout the river will allow larger vessels to travel to and from the port, attracting more business, according to the authority.

But opponents of the proposed project say that, in addition to threatening historic and cultural resources along the river, it will accelerate erosion and exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, disperse contaminants in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, and is not economically justified.

Like Bacon, their hope is that the Division of Coastal Management rejects the Corps’ determination.

The determination

Two days before the New Year, NCDEQ announced that the Corps was giving the Division of Coastal Management more time to complete its review of the federal determination, pushing the division’s deadline from Jan. 5 to Jan. 19.

Division officials have until then to determine whether the proposed project is consistent with the state’s coastal rules, including those under the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA.

The division must decide whether to concur with Corps’ determination, concur with conditions, or object.

Related: Wilmington residents see no good in proposed harbor project

If the division decides the latter, that could shutter the proposed project altogether.

“An objection generally prevents the federal permit or approval from being issued unless DCM and the project proponent negotiate a resolution that would allow the project to go forward,” according to the division’s Dec. 30 release notifying the public about the extension.

The Corps “may be entitled to certain mediation/appeal privileges” with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office for Coastal Management, which heads programs including the National Coastal Zone Management Program and Estuarine Research Reserves and works with coastal states, territories and partners to manage resources and address impacts from climate change.

The division has to render its decision months before the Corps wraps what it says will be a detailed examination to identify all historic and cultural properties within the project study area.

“To ensure historical and cultural sites are identified and evaluated properly, the Corps is executing a study specific Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, the General Services Administration, the North Carolina State Ports Authority, and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” Jed Cayton, public affairs specialist with the Corps’ Wilmington District, said in an email responding to questions.

The programmatic agreement, he wrote, is a “commonly applied strategy to protect cultural and historical resources.”

“It facilitates more informed decision-making by allowing time for additional data collection and formal coordination efforts to extend beyond the feasibility study phase,” Cayton said.

The agreement, which is currently being reviewed, must be signed before the agency finalizes project plans, which would occur some time after the Corps releases its final environmental impact statement on the proposed project.

Under a tentative timeline the Corps has shared with the public, the federal agency is expected to release the final EIS sometime this summer.

Construction on the project would not begin until 2030 and take about six years to complete, a schedule Corps officials have said is optimistic.

‘Necessary analysis’

Today, the Orton property spans about 14,000 acres. More than 830 acres of that land, including 6,800 feet of restored and repaired earthen dike and coinciding system of canals, roads, dams, and ditches, around the rice fields is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

In his letter to the division last year, Bacon argued that CAMA protects the historic resources on his land “from irreversible damage and it protects the Property’s significant ecological resources from adverse impacts.”

The draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, the Corps released last September, “does not disclose these obvious impacts,” Bacon wrote.

“There is no analysis in the Draft EIS about the effects of the Project on the Orton Property or the CAMA-protected resources at Orton. None. This analysis cannot be deferred. The Corps’ consistency determination must be supported by ‘comprehensive data and information.’”

“The Corps’ failure to undertake the necessary analysis is the simplest reason that Division should object to the consistency determination,” he continued.

His land is among nearly 30 historic sites and properties the N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources’ State Historic Preservation Office lists as being within the proposed projects area of potential effects.

Last October, that office penned a letter to the Corps requesting the programmatic agreement, “so as to address effects on known and potentially National Register-eligible historic properties to be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking and the regularly scheduled maintenance dredging, spoil placement, and environmental mitigation measures following the proposed undertaking.”

While Corps studies of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project “appear to have focused solely on the physical impacts of dredging the river-bottom, placement of dredged materials, and locations of mitigation measures, we believe from nearly two decades of observation and monitoring erosion at historic properties along the channel that we can expect other effects will result from the proposed project,” the letter states.

Dark Branch

Among the list of 28 sites and properties identified in that letter is Dark Branch, a community in unincorporated Brunswick County where land remains largely owned by the descendants of emancipated slaves.

Dark Branch, also known as Kendall Chapel, was founded in the early 1870s by a handful of formerly enslaved people, including Robert “Hooper” Clark, who’d been forced to work the rice fields of Orton, Lilliput, and Kendal plantations.

The land they purchased between those plantations became “a thriving hub of Black farming, entrepreneurship, and civil rights activism,” according to the Historic Wilmington Foundation.

Dr. Charles Chavis Jr., Clark’s fourth-great-grandson and executive director of the Dark Branch Descendants Association, explained in a telephone interview that there is a direct connection between the cultural resources that have been restored at Orton and those members of the Dark Branch community have taken upon themselves to preserve.

“Everything that Mr. Moore Bacon has sought to preserve is the work of our ancestors and those who were enslaved on the various plantations,” Chavis said. “For us, this is not only about protecting our cultural resources, but also about protecting our community.”

Chavis, an assistant professor at George Mason University and founding director of the university’s John Mitchell Jr. Program for History, Justice, and Race, started the association about three years ago to preserve the community’s history.

There are about 20 historical structures in Dark Branch, including homes, a store, and sharecropping and slave cabins.

Some of those structures, as well as the community cemetery, one Chavis calls one of Dark Branch’s most sacred sites, are under threat of riverine flooding.

“We just can’t afford for it to get worse and we’re working with local organizations to try and get resources around historic resource preservation,” he said. “We’re concerned that any potential harm or more work done to the river is going to make our job as an organization harder to protect the cultural resources that we have. Based on the assessments and our conversations with those we’ve consulted with, it’s not going to get better. It’s going to get worse.”

Dark Branch is a member of the National Park Service’s Reconstruction Era National Historic Network.

According to the Division of State Historic Sites, the Dark Branch Community Historic District was added to the National Historic Preservation Study List in 2024.

Sites that make that list are good potential candidates for the National Register.

The association continues to pursue a nomination for the National Register of Historic Places.

The Dark Branch community lies within the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, which encompasses 12,000 square miles of coastal area that runs up the southern Atlantic Coast from St. John’s County, Florida, to Pender County.

The corridor links places of historic significance to the Gullah Geechee, West Africans torn from their native land and enslaved on plantations along the southern Atlantic Coast, and tells stories of their lives on the plantations and in the coastal plains after abolition.

Efforts are underway to build the North Carolina Gullah Geechee Greenway Blueway Heritage Trail that will run from Navassa to Southport.

Last summer, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the trail’s construction.

Veronica Carter, chairwoman of the heritage trail and member of the Leland Town Council, also raised concerns about how the proposed project might affect land within the trail. Carter is also board member with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review.

“Deepening the Cape Fear River will negatively impact our culturally significant, state-established North Carolina Gullah Geechee Blueway portion of our trail by increasing saltwater intrusion, worsening erosion, and degrading water quality, thereby threatening sensitive habitats,” she wrote Col. Brad Morgan, the Corps’ Wilmington District commander.

The Corps acknowledges that “more surveys are needed to determine the presence of additional historic and cultural properties within the study area,” Cayton said by email. “We have already included conservative cost estimates for this work, based on known resources identified within Wilmington Harbor and experiences at other similar projects, to ensure these resources are properly managed and respected.”

Proposed rules that would require hundreds of industrial manufacturers and public sewer plants across the state to test the wastewater they discharge into rivers, creeks and streams for three types of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane will go out for public comment next month.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission last Thursday voted to push proposed monitoring and minimization rules for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFOA, PFOS and GenX, and for 1,4-dixoane, an industrial solvent, to the public in February.

Commission Chair JD Solomon indicated that more than one public hearing will be scheduled during the comment period, which is to be held through April. As of publication, neither specific dates for the comment period, nor dates and locations for hearings, had been announced.

Solomon told fellow commissioners he anticipates the state will receive thousands of comments on the proposed rules packages, which do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for violations.

Those omissions from the proposed rules were the basis of lengthy, at times contentious, discussion among members of the commission.

A majority of commissioners ultimately rejected Commissioner Robin Smith’s motion to inject federally enforceable limits on a half-dozen individual chemical compounds and a mixture of those compounds into the proposed rules package for PFAS.

Amending the rules to include the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforceable levels of PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS and GenX, Solomon said, would substantially change the proposed rule, triggering the need for a new regulatory impact analysis to examine projected costs associated with the rule.

PFAS are a mixture of chemicals used in a host of consumer products from nonstick cookware and food packaging to stain-resistant carpets, water-repellant attire, and makeup.

These chemicals have been found in a number of drinking water sources in North Carolina through discharges from industrial manufacturers, landfills, firefighting facilities and publicly owned treatment works, or POTWs, that accept industry effluent.

Ongoing research into human health effects of PFAS, of which there are upwards of 15,000 related compounds, continues. Some of the more well-studied substances, including PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to health issues including weakened immune response, liver damage, increased cholesterol, high blood pressure, lower infant birth weights, and higher risks of certain cancers.

The Trump administration’s EPA announced last year that it would retain current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PFOA and PFOS and extend deadlines for public water treatment plants to come into compliance with the federally established limits for those PFAS.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin also announced plans to rescind regulations and reconsider regulatory determinations for the other PFAS, including GenX.

Solomon said the commission will start talking about legally enforceable limits, also known as numeric standards, for PFAS at its March meeting.

“That is the intention and that will continue to be the intention,” he said, later adding, “Everybody on this panel wants a numeric standard. The question is more, what level are those numeric standards and for what compounds. That’s what we’re going to talk about when we get to the numeric standard part.”

The Environmental Management Commission voted 10-3 to move the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules package to public comment and hearing.

60-day deadline

Under the proposed rules, industrial manufacturers and publicly owned treatment works, which officials call POTWs, will be contacted by the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources and given 60 days to conduct baseline sampling for the three PFAS from the time the rules become effective.

Testing would be done quarterly for one year, with results reported to the division. Division officials would then determine whether ongoing sampling is needed based on practical quantitation limits, which are considered the base line in testing laboratories.

The division would decide whether a business or POTW has to develop a minimization plan, one that would take about 2.5 years to be implemented.

When asked how minimization would be measured, Division of Water Resources Deputy Director Julie Grzyb said, “There is nothing in the rule that defines a set level or set goal in the particular case. So, there is some left up to who is reviewing it.”

Minimization, she said, is determined by a number of things, including training and education equipment and seeing whether one product could be substituted for another.

“However, usually we have a water quality standard that we are shooting to meet and that defines the minimization much more clearly. I’ll leave it at that,” Grzyb said.

The proposed rule also does not specify what best management practices a facility must follow or how that facility must reach minimization.

Smith, who voted against moving the proposed rule to public comment, warned the rule may not pass the Rules Review Commission because, among other things, it lacks such standards.

“I think that one of the concerns is this could be an ongoing perpetual monitoring machine that doesn’t result in significant reductions,” she said, adding that a rule should not be sent out for public comment that “has basic drafting problems and gaps in essential decisions.”

“I cannot vote for this motion to be sent to public notice and comment the rule as it currently stands because I think there are too many issues that need to be resolved,” Smith said.

Commissioner Michael Ellison, who seconded the motion to move the rules to public comment, argued that the rules “help us as a state, statewide, reduce our uncertainty as to where the problems are and how bad they are while science continues to advance, while EPA continues whatever research they’re going to do and whatever standards they’re going to promulgate.”

After the vote to move the proposed rules on PFAS to public comment, the commission also agreed to ask for comments on whether industrial businesses and sewage plants should report to the division all 40 PFAS they are required to test for under federal requirements.

Smith made similar arguments against the proposed 1,4-dioxane monitoring and minimization rule that the commission voted 7-6 to move to public comment.

She said that while the proposed rule pertaining to 1,4-dioxane is a “pretty good monitoring rule,” it is “not a good minimization rule.”

“What I don’t want to do is create an impression out there that we have a serious minimization program if we don’t have any teeth in it. I think we need to be honest with the public about what this rule does. I’m not for something that calls itself a minimization rule that doesn’t have any enforceable attachment to it,” she said.

Early in what turned out to be a more than two-hour discussion leading up to their vote on the proposed PFAS monitoring and minimization rules, Solomon reminded commissioners that the votes they cast Thursday would not be their final, saying that getting the rules out for public comment is an incremental step in a process aimed at ultimately reducing PFAS discharges.

The two agencies that enforce the Clean Water Act have proposed changes to the waterbodies considered jurisdictional, or under federal protection, and the deadline for the public to comment is here.

The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers published on Nov. 20 in the Federal Register the “Updated Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” opening the public comment period that ends 11:59 p.m. Monday, Jan. 5. Information on how to submit comments is on the EPA website.

The agencies said the proposed rule revises “the regulations defining the scope of waters federally covered under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, also known as the Clean Water Act, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.”

The agencies argue that their proposed amendments to the “waters of the United States” definition when finalized, will provide clarity and align with the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Sackett case that the “Clean Water Act extends to relatively permanent bodies of water connected to traditional navigable waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those waters ‘so that there is no clear demarcation between “waters” and wetlands.’”

Environmental organizations argue that the proposed changes will gut basic water quality protections, which were already compromised by the 2023 Supreme Court decision on Sackett v. EPA that essentially left nontidal wetlands without protection. Nontidal wetlands are usually in floodplains along rivers and streams, in isolated depressions surrounded by dry land, along the margins of lakes and ponds, and in other low-lying areas where the groundwater intercepts the soil surface or where precipitation sufficiently saturates the soil, according to the EPA.

“When it comes to the definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ EPA has an important responsibility to protect water resources while setting clear and practical rules of the road that accelerate economic growth and opportunity,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a Nov. 17 press release. “EPA is delivering on President Trump’s promise to finalize a revised definition for WOTUS that protects the nation’s navigable waters from pollution, advances cooperative federalism by empowering states, and will result in economic growth across the country.”

Environmental Defense Fund Coasts and Watersheds Science Senior Manager Dr. Adam Gold told Coastal Review that the “proposed rule could increase the pace of wetlands loss and lead to more flooding impacts for communities. Wetlands loss increases downstream flooding impacts, and at the same time, any new infrastructure built in former wetlands is also at increased flood risk.”

Under the agencies’ proposed rule, the term “waters of the United States” would include “(1) traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; (2) most impoundments of “waters of the United States;” (3) relatively permanent tributaries of traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and impoundments; (4) wetlands adjacent (i.e., having a continuous surface connection) to traditional navigable waters, impoundments, and tributaries; and (5) lakes and ponds that are relatively permanent and have a continuous surface connection to a traditional navigable water, the territorial seas, or a tributary.”

The difference between the existing rule and proposed is that the existing rule includes an interstate waters category and the word “interstate” is in front of the lakes and ponds category. The agencies propose deleting both.

The agencies also recommend revising the existing exclusions from the Clean Water Act permitting process for waste treatment systems, prior converted cropland and ditches, and adding an exclusion for groundwater, as well as definitions for “continuous surface connection,” “ditch,” “prior converted cropland,” “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” “and waste treatment system.”

Carolina Wetlands Association Executive Director Rick Savage also has concerns about the flooding that could be unleashed on communities if these proposed changes go through, and the damage to water quality.

He said communities are going to see developers take wetlands without a permit.

“These wetlands are often buffers against flood waters. if they are developed then guess what happens? The flood waters just go inland to the community,” Savage said, adding that water quality could suffer as well, because of the potential for more pollution to pass into streams.”

North Carolina Sierra Club Deputy Director Erin Carey told Coastal Review that ultimately, “the American public should be very concerned that the federal agency tasked with ensuring clean water, clean air, and the protection of our natural environment seems determined to undermine that responsibility. With this proposed change, the EPA claims to seek clarity in regulation, but this rule would serve only to allow industry to profit from environmental destruction, and the ruination of our natural resources.”

Gold said that according to the fund’s analysis published September 2024 in Science that modeled different interpretations of the Sackett decision, the modeled scenario that best aligns with the proposed rule open for public comment now would result in 82 million acres, or 91%, of nontidal wetlands in the contiguous United States estimated to be without Clean Water Act protections. 

About WOTUS, Sackett decision

The Clean Water Act is the revised and restructured Federal Water Pollution Control Act, enacted in 1948 to protect waterways that are used for or could be used for commerce.

“The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act established federal jurisdiction over ‘navigable waters,’ defined in the Act as the ‘waters of the United States,’” according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

But that’s as far as the definition goes, leaving the two agencies that jointly enforce the regulations to define the term under statute, and have had to determine what geographical features such as wetlands, streams and rivers fall under “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, and, therefore, under federal protection under the Clean Water Act.    

In the decades since, that definition has undergone several amendments, most recently in 2023 to conform to the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision.

The Sacketts are an Idaho couple who were fined by the EPA for backfilling wetlands on their property near Priest Lake. The Sacketts filed a lawsuit asserting that the wetlands were not directly connected to the lake, a navigable body of water protected by the Clean Water Act. Justices ruled in favor of the couple and put parameters on “waters of the United States.”

Justices state in the May 2023 majority opinion that the Clean Water Act’s use of “waters” only refers to geographical features described in everyday language streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes “and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.”

The ruling narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States, stripping away protection under the Clean Water Act for isolated wetlands, or those without an obvious connection to navigable waters.

The two federal agencies, under the Biden administration at the time, had published a revised definition in January 2023 that was then amended that September to conform to Sackett.

Shortly after the second Trump administration took office, the agencies began a campaign to change the amended 2023 WOTUS that it called “overly broad” in a news release Monday and “failing to fully implement the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Savage explained that the Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, was based on relationships with navigable waters. Then in 1977, the Corps of Engineers came up with the wetlands definition manual, which set the process for how wetlands were defined, based on hydrology, hydrophilic vegetation and hydric soils.

“During that time, almost any wetland was protected because you could find some relationship to​ a navigable water, even if it’s over land, but now you know that’s all changing,” he said, and the reason it started changing was because the Supreme Court got involved.

“That was in 2006 and ever since then, it is going around and around and up and down and through. You know, nobody knows what the rules are half the time. I mean, there’s been a couple of times where half the states were under one set of rules and the other half are under another set of rules because of litigation,” Savage said.

On the state level

Savage said regarding the proposed rule change that there’s two ways to look at it: the federal level and the state level.

“Right now, as far as North Carolina is concerned, it’s not looking good, period,” he said, because of the Farm Bill that made state and federal regulations to protect wetlands the same.

During summer 2023, the General Assembly approved language in Senate Bill 582, often called the Farm Bill, to align the state’s definition of wetlands with the federal. The definition reads: “Wetlands are classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States as defined by” the Army Corps and EPA.

Savage said he’d heard that a few legislators were starting to reconsider the move, and he said part of it is because the state government is funneling millions of dollars to use nature-based solutions, like wetlands, to mitigate flooding issues. “However, what the heck is this about, not wanting to protect the very resources we need to use to protect our communities? And I think that might be having a little bit of an effect.”

Savage said they’re working with the Southern Environmental Law Center and other groups to make changes, but there’s not a lot that can be done at the state level in North Carolina because of Dillon’s rule, which means that local governments only have as much power as the state specifically allows.

“Anything a locality may want to do to protect wetlands, the state legislature can immediately overturn it” via legislation, Savage said. “So, it’s not a lot that can be done there.”

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Mark Sabath told Coastal Review in an earlier interview that, while this proposed rule reduces federal protections, states and tribes still have authority to protect waters, and can fill the void in protecting these resources that the federal government is leaving behind.

Sabath said in some situations, it’s not a possibility because of not having the resources, “and there are examples occasionally of states that do their best to try to fill that gap. But much more often, we see the opposite, like in North Carolina.”

Savage clarified his point in noting that, just because the wetland is not considered protected by the Clean Water Act, it is still a wetland.

“Some people think if it’s not jurisdiction​al, then it’s not a wetland. No, it’s just not a jurisdictional wetland. It’s still a wetland. It meets the Army Corps of Engineers’ definition of a wetland, which is heavily based on science,” Savage said. “I think it’s important to make that distinction. We have jurisdictional wetlands that are protected, and the definition of jurisdictional wetlands is getting tighter and tighter and tighter, so that most of our wetlands are no longer jurisdictional, right? Therefore, they’re not protected, but they’re still wetlands, right? And that’s why we still have to be concerned about them.”

The EPA and Corps committed in a Dec. 22 press release to consider the public input received in developing a final rule.

Post has been updated.

WANCHESE — Genetic testing of purportedly wild-caught shrimp served earlier this month at dozens of Outer Banks restaurants found that 64% of the shrimp was actually imported.

On behalf of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, SeaD Consulting collected and analyzed shrimp samples from randomly selected seafood restaurants in Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills, Manteo, Rodanthe, Salvo, Avon, Buxton, Frisco, Nags Head and Hatteras, according to a Dec. 17 press release from SeaD.

Of the 44 restaurants tested, 43 had verbally claimed to serve local American wild-caught shrimp, but only 16 — 36% — were found to be serving local shrimp in the tested dishes. The remaining 28 restaurants had served imported farm-raised shrimp, but only one of them admitted it. All 44 of the eateries had used imagery to imply that they served local shrimp. 

“The findings raise concerns about seafood transparency in an iconic coastal region known for its local fishing heritage,” the release said.

Despite the Outer Banks’ poor showing, it was noted that Wilmington did even worse, with an “inauthenticity rate” of 77% in previous testing. 

SeaD (Seafood Development) Consulting, in partnership with Florida State University, holds the patent for the Rapid ID Genetic High-Accuracy Test, or RIGHTTest, that was used in the survey conducted Dec. 2-6. The Southern Shrimp Alliance, an advocacy trade group, has funded the genetic testing of shrimp throughout the region.

Shrimp, the most popular seafood in the U.S., was an $8 billion market in 2025, with Americans consuming 5 pounds per capita of shrimp a year. But it’s not local shrimpers who are raking in big profits.

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, 93% of the shrimp consumed in the United States comes from overseas, with 1.7 billion pounds of shrimp products imported in 2024, valued at $6 billion. Meanwhile, commercial shrimp harvests in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic declined from $522 million in 2021 to $269 million in 2023; $25 million to $14 million, respectively, in North Carolina. 

The demand for shrimp is only increasing, along with the creativity in how to serve it.

“We don’t need to undersell our industry and our product,” David Williams, a commercial fishery scientist and co-founder of SeaD, told Coastal Review in a recent interview. A generation ago, shrimp cocktail was the extent of its use in most American cuisine; now there’s a dozen different shrimp dishes on menus, he said. “It should be a proud part of our industry”

As the Alliance detailed, imports, depending on the country, can be “dumped” at lower prices because they use cheap labor, and sometimes even forced, trafficked or child labor. Some countries use a lot of antibiotics, or grow shrimp in polluted ponds. A few countries impose tariffs ranging from 13% to 45% on U.S. wild-caught and farmed shrimp.

While most restaurant prices for shrimp dinners are on the higher end of the menu, they’re not reflecting the dock prices, which have remained low. But more recognition for the quality of wild shrimp as a food source would increase its value.

“The only real way of doing that is that people in restaurants appreciate wild caught shrimp,” Williams said. And diners who choose to eat wild seafood should be able to trust that they’re getting what they’re paying for, otherwise, it’s misrepresentation.

“You charge a premium for a product that’s not a premium,” he said.

North Carolina does not have a law that requires restaurants to disclose the origin of shrimp on menus. Certain retail seafood products fall under federal country-of-origin requirements, but they do not apply to restaurants. North Carolina U.S. Rep. David Rouzer, R-7th District, has recently met with the Alliance and others in the industry and is looking into the legislative remedies and other shrimp industry issues.

“Tackling mislabeling is crucial to ensure that consumers receive the shrimp they are sold,” Blake Price, deputy director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance said in the release. “This testing shows American fishermen are regularly losing sales of their own product to shrimp farmed in countries with safety, labor, and environmental abuses.”

Mark Vrablic, general manager of Willie R. Etheridge Seafood in Wanchese, said that he’s not directly aware of Outer Banks restaurants misrepresenting imported shrimp as local. Still, he has had people tell him that they were told the seafood they were served had come from Etheridge’s, when he knew it didn’t.

“I would love for it not to be this way, but I wouldn’t dare sell a farm-raised shrimp and call it domestic,” he told Coastal Review in an interview. People have a right to know what they’re eating, he added. “I’m not going to sell something marked one thing and it’s something else.”

Vrablic, 66, agrees that the biggest problem with imported shrimp is that the dock price shrimpers are paid is almost too low to make it worth the costs and work involved. 

Probably 25 countries send shrimp here, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico and Venezuela, he said.

“When fuels went up real high two years back, (local shrimpers) were going to have to either raise prices or just get out of it, because they were going to go broke,” Vrablic said. Even with gas lower now, he said, the “homeboys” should still be getting prices 30% to 40% higher.

“But because of the millions of pounds of farm-raised that’s available daily, it’s just overwhelming,” he said. “The market is staying down because of the supply.”

Vrablic, who is a member of the Etheridge family, once one of the most powerful fishing clans on the Outer Banks, began fishing when he was 14 years old, and later joined the family restaurant business for a few years before taking over commercial management and sales.

Until about 20 years ago, shrimping was a short summer fishery in North Carolina, he said. But as the climate changed, the waters warmed to the shrimp’s liking. Now the season stretches from July Fourth until December or later.

“I don’t like imports, Vrablic said. “They’ve crushed us like cockroaches. They’ve taken our markets away, and our fishermen can’t get the fair share what they should be getting. When I fished, I made a lot of money. We didn’t have imports.”

But the fact is, he said, the increased demand for shrimp on the Outer Banks, and elsewhere, exceeds what local shrimpers can catch. And almost all farm-raised shrimp is from overseas.

“We produce shrimp in this country, but we do not produce enough,” Vrablic said, and referred to the 1.7 billion pounds that were imported last year. “Where would we find something like that?”

To his point, he explained, Etheridge Seafood doesn’t have the capacity or bargaining power to meet the volume of the demand.

“We keep a heavy inventory of shrimp, and it’s just the whole world dumps on us,” Vrablic said.

Bottom line, Vrablic says that something has to be done about the unfair competition from imported shrimp. Ideally, restaurants and fish markets should prioritize serving local catch, but when they can’t, they need to be honest about the origin of the shrimp they’re selling. And it would help if consumers remember that wild-caught shrimp also is a seasonal product.

“When restaurants say ’Mark, what will we do if we went three or four months without shrimp?’ I said, ‘If I got no shrimp … we could treat it like we do soft crabs or scallops or oysters when it comes in season.’ People come buy them just like they do watermelons. When it comes out of season, guess what? You come up short.

“Then they’ll just buy more fish from me,” he said, “because they can’t compete with me with fresh fish.”

The following eateries on the Outer Banks found to be serving authentic, American, wild-caught shrimp in the random sample of 44 restaurants:

1. 1587 Restaurant & Lounge, 405 Queen Elizabeth Ave, Manteo.
2. Barefoot Bernie’s Tropical Grill & Bar, 3730 N. Croatan Highway, Kitty Hawk.
3. Basnight’s Lone Cedar Café, 7623 S Virginia Dare Trail, Nags Head.
4. Coastal Cravings, 1209 Duck Road, Duck.
5. Goombays Grille & Raw Bar, 1608 N. Virginia Dare Trail, Kill Devil Hills.
6. Greentail’s Seafood Market and Kitchen, 3022 S. Croatan Highway Unit 34, Nags Head.
7. I Got Your Crabs Shellfish Market and Oyster Bar, 3809 N. Croatan Highway, Kitty Hawk.
8. Lucky 12 Tavern, 3308 S. Virginia Dare Trail, Nags Head.
9. O’Neal’s Sea Harvest, 618 Harbor Road, Wanchese.
10. Outer Banks Brewing Station, 600 S. Croatan Highway, Kill Devil Hills.
11. Red Sky Casual Dining & Cocktails,1197 Duck Road, Duck.
12. Roadside Bar & Grill, 1193 Duck Road, Duck,.
13. Sea Chef Dockside Kitchen, 8770 Oregon Inlet Road, Nags Head.
14. The Paper Canoe, 1564 Duck Road, Duck.
15. Village Table & Tavern, 1314 Duck Road, Duck.
16. Vicki B’s Restaurant & Market, 301 Budleigh St., Manteo.

BUXTON – Faced with devastating destruction across a significant segment of its beachfront, this small Outer Banks village is seeking help for coastal solutions, including measures that could require potentially controversial legislative action by the state and federal governments.

Since September, 15 houses have collapsed on a stretch of beach in Buxton just north of Cape Hatteras, the distinctive point of land midway along the East Coast that juts far into the Atlantic. Adaptation to storms and natural forces have fortified the community since its establishment in the late 1800s, but now stunningly rapid erosion is endangering its future.

“Today, small areas of our oceanfront have deteriorated to the point where we can no longer shoulder these challenges alone,” Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard wrote to members of the North Carolina General Assembly in November. “With your support, we can preserve our coastline, protect public infrastructure, and sustain the economic engine that benefits all of North Carolina.”

The county is one of the few “donor counties” in North Carolina, with more than 3 million people annually visiting Dare’s beaches and national parks and generating significant state tax revenue, he said. So far, he added, the county has spent about $275 million for beach nourishment as well as additional millions to maintain inlets, with little state or federal assistance.

In addition to a beach nourishment project in 2026 for Buxton, the county is planning to repair a purportedly half-intact groin, one of three installed in 1969 to protect the former Navy base constructed in 1956 near the original location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.

Dare and Hyde counties also have asked the state Division of Coastal Management to lift the 1985 state ban against hardened structures so the remnants of the two deteriorated groins at the site can be replaced.

But beach stabilization of any sort on the Outer Banks, with its extraordinarily high-energy coastal conditions, is becoming more challenging in a changing climate with quickly evolving and often unpredictable consequences: Sea levels are increasing faster than projected, storms are intensifying, rainfall is heavier.

In recent years, Hatteras and Ocracoke islands on the barrier islands’ southern end have been suffering dramatically increased shoaling in its inlets and far worse erosion at numerous hot spots along N.C. 12, the island’s only highway. Over wash, loss of dunes and road damage is becoming more frequent and difficult to mitigate, sometimes resulting in loss of vehicular access for hours or days. 

People say things feel different. Residents — from old timers to long-time transplants — have noticed places flooding where they never did before, shoaling in waterways that had never clogged before, and erosion consuming an entire shoreline that had been wide and stable just a few years before. And this fall and winter, even seasonal nor’easters have switched to overdrive, with the storms coming in one after another and more often than some ole salts say they’ve ever seen. 

“When we really developed these islands in the ’70s and ’80s, it was a different system, and we need to recognize that, acknowledge it, and plan accordingly,” Reide Corbett, executive director of the Coastal Studies Institute and Dean of the Integrated Coastal Program at East Carolina University, said in a recent interview. “We can’t let self-interest lead the way. We need to understand what this looks like, and we need to get behind better policy. And it starts with how we develop.”

Responding to increasing numbers of house collapses in Buxton and Rodanthe, the Hatteras Island’s northernmost village, state leaders are urging Congress to pass legislation introduced by Rep. Greg Murphy, a Republican from North Carolina’s 3rd District, that would authorize proactive Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance payments to remove threatened oceanfront houses before they fall.

While the proposal has garnered bipartisan support, FEMA is currently understaffed and targeted for downsizing, reorganization or even elimination, and its flood insurance program is woefully underfunded.

A delegation representing local, state and federal officials toured the damaged area in Buxton on Nov. 24, where dozens of additional oceanfront houses are scattered willy-nilly, awaiting near-certain demise. Numerous members of the group expressed shock at the disarray and destruction at the scene.

Meanwhile, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson has directed the Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel to analyze shoreline stabilization options, including the potential effectiveness or negative impacts of groins.

Erosion on Buxton’s oceanfront has been a persistent problem for many decades, at least to the infrastructure on the beach, such as the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.

“It was quite obvious to everybody that in the course of time the lighthouse would topple into the Atlantic Ocean and the thousand acres of park land, upon which no tree and scarcely any blade of grass grew, would be swallowed up by the warring ocean currents that swirl around the point of Cape Hatteras,” author Ben Dixon MacNeill wrote in an article published on July 30, 1948, in the Coastland Times. At that point, he noted, in just the lifetime of a middle-aged man, erosion had already whittled away 1,500 feet of beach. 

Despite the 1937 congressional directive to the National Park Service to preserve what would later become Cape Hatteras National Seashore as a “primitive wilderness,” until the early 1970s, according to park documents, the agency spent more than $20 million to stop the “natural process” of barrier island movement. Projects included installing in 1930 steel sheet pile groins along the beach by Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; installing in 1933 additional sheet pile groins at the lighthouse; nourishment of the beach in 1966 near the Buxton motel area with sand dredged from Pamlico Sound; and in 1967 placement of revetment of large nylon sandbags in front of the lighthouse.

In addition, the U.S. Navy built three reinforced concrete groins in 1969 to protect its facility near the lighthouse; the beach near the Buxton motels was nourished again in 1971 with material dredged from Cape Point; and the beach near the Navy operation was nourished in 1973 with Cape Point sand. 

Those actions were in addition to construction and repeated reconstruction of sand dunes, as well as beach fences and planting grasses, shrubs and trees to hold the dunes. 

Finally, in 1973, the National Park Service acknowledged the futility and unsustainable costs of stabilization, and abandoned its efforts. The agency, however, did continue various attempts to protect the lighthouse with riprap, offshore artificial grass, sandbags and a scour-mat apron. With the sea by then lapping at its base, the lighthouse in 1999 was relocated a half-mile inland.

In a letter dated Jan. 9, 1974, from the U.S. Department of Interior to a Buxton resident, the agency promised that all available data would be analyzed before determining future beach stabilization management decisions in the Seashore, including relative to the groins.

“The most reliable scientific data we have obtained thus far offer no evidence that the existing jetties or groins at Buxton provide acceptable protection from ocean forces,” the department added. “While some stabilizing effect may be gained in the immediate area, the jetties actually cause more erosion in adjacent locations.”

A report the year earlier published by University of Virginia coastal scientist Robert Dolan, et. al, to analyze the effects of beach nourishment in Buxton, in fact, said that the groins — short jetties extending from a shoreline — rapidly increased erosion by the motel area, causing dune destruction and ocean over wash into private property.

“The groins, somewhat unexpectedly, are trapping sediment at the expense of the beaches to either side and as a result of their success, the reach protected by the groins has become stable,” the report said, adding that the localized erosion problem at Buxton had followed construction of the groins.

Barely more than four years after they were built, the groins were damaged by storms and required repairs with new sheet piling. Patches and reinforcements continued until the Navy in 1982 abandoned the base, apparently leaving the groins to the elements.

By the time heated discussions kicked in about whether the lighthouse should be saved in place or moved, the community tried to persuade the federal government to not only maintain the by-then-deteriorating existing groins, but also to add a fourth groin. The petition was soundly rejected, and the Navy, the Park Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers appeared to want nothing to do with the groins.

Today, the county sees the sand trapping barriers — even a single groin — as a way to prolong the effectiveness of a $50 million beach nourishment project, and importantly, as a way to buy time while consultants determine a long-term strategy for Buxton.

Dare County Manager Bobby Outten reported in March that, according to Coastal Science & Engineering, the firm hired to do the beach nourishment and groin work, the southern-most groin would meet the state’s 50% rule that allows repair of an existing structure that has 50% or less in damages. The county is currently awaiting approval from the state, as well as acknowledgement that the application meets the exemption criteria for an exemption from the hardened structures statute, he said.

If the groin work is approved, contractors estimate the $2 to $4 million project would take up to two months to complete this summer and involve about 640 feet of repairs, using steel sheet pile and riprap scour protection within the original footprint.

As Outten summed up the current dilemma facing Dare and other North Carolina coastal communities: There are two extremes, either hold the coast in place as it is, and build sea walls. Or let nature take its course, let the houses fall and see the economy crumble.

“And neither one of those extremes is acceptable,” he told Coastal Review. “To anybody.”

The chairman of the Carteret County Board of Commissioners likely won’t be wishing anyone a Happy Hanukkah.

When asked by a fellow member of the all-Republican commission to include the sentiment in his verbal list of holiday well-wishing at the close of the board’s meeting Monday in the county administration building in Beaufort, Chairman Chris Chadwick replied, “No, we don’t say that.”

His response drew a visible reaction from Commissioner Marianne Waldrop, her mouth agape at Chadwick’s prompt dismissal of her suggestion. 

Other commissioners smiled while chuckles, including those from other board members, could be heard on the video recording of the meeting as Chadwick turned to the audience and said, “I want to wish everybody Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and we appreciate y’all coming.”

As he spoke, Waldrop leaned toward her mic, pulled it closer, and said “And Happy Hanukkah.”

After the meeting adjourned, Waldrop looked at Chadwick and said she was setting “you up for success, not failure.”

When reached by telephone Wednesday, Chadwick told Coastal Review, “Nothing was meant by the comment in any negative fashion whatsoever.”

“I told (Waldrop) after the meeting she could say whatever she wanted, but I said, ‘Merry Christmas,'” he said. “She kind of caught me off guard, and I just said, ‘I say Merry Christmas,’ or ‘We say Merry Christmas.'”

Monday marked the second night of the Jewish Festival of Lights, the eight-day holiday in which Jews commemorate the second century B.C.E. rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after the Maccabean Revolt.

After watching a video clip of the meeting, Leonard Rogoff, president and historian of Jewish Heritage North Carolina, on Wednesday afternoon said by email, “At a moment when Jews have been slaughtered in Australia for celebrating their holiday, when armed police guard synagogues here in North Carolina as Jews worship, for the county commissioner to refuse to acknowledge his Jewish neighbors and fellow citizens is not in keeping with the spirit of the holidays. How could Jews not take offense?”

Rogoff is referring to the massacre last Sunday on Sydney’s Bondi Beach, where two shooters opened fire at a Hanukkah celebration, killing 15 people and sending more than 20 others to area hospitals.

“Especially at a time when antisemitism is surging — tragically underscored by the murder of 15 people at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia — we need our elected leaders to honor the religious traditions of all constituents, not laugh and dismiss the observances of Jewish residents,” Tali Cohen, Anti-Defamation League Washington, D.C., regional director, said in an email Wednesday afternoon.

“We’re reaching out to Chairman Chadwick, and we hope this incident will prompt reflection on the importance of respecting people of faith across our community.”  

As of the time of this publication, neither Waldrop nor any of Carteret’s five other commissioners had responded to calls and emails requesting comment.

The board meeting, as is standard practice, was broadcast live and the entire recording is available on the county website. Videos of the latest meetings are aired at 8 p.m. on the next Thursday and at noon the following Sunday on Spectrum’s local cable channel 10. The meeting videos are archived for one year.

New Hanover County commissioners have approved the purchase of more than 28 acres along the Cape Fear River’s western bank across from downtown Wilmington.

Commissioners on Monday afternoon unanimously agreed to the $2.24 million land deal, one that includes two undeveloped tracts that will remain preserved once under county ownership.

The purchase signals the county’s commitment to protect land along the western bank, which has in the past several years been eyed by developers who have come to the county with proposals to build a hotel and spa and a luxury high-rise condominium complex.

All that remains before the purchase is finalized are the results of soil and groundwater samples taken on one of the properties where an oil storage facility was operated for roughly a decade until the mid- to late 1990s.

Soil found to have been contaminated by fuel leaks in an area of the 17.13-acre tract west of U.S. 421 was excavated more than a decade ago and stacked on the property, where it is being remediated onsite in bioreactors. A 2007 environmental study of the site concluded that contamination was not flowing into the river.

The county expects to receive the results of the latest soil and groundwater samples no later than next week. County staff have indicated they do not expect the results to give them cause for concern.

“We have heard the public tell us repeatedly how important preservation is in our community,” Commission Vice-Chair Dane Scalise said Monday. “This is another example of us doing it.”

He pointed out that County Manager Chris Coudriet recently emailed commissioners saying that, if they moved forward with the purchase, the county will have acquired more than 100 acres for preservation within the past seven months.

“We have heard the community over and over again tell us that they want preservation and particularly in that area and we are committed to doing that,” Commission Chair LeAnn Pierce said. “That is something that we’ve pivoted on and we have decided that that is what we want to do is preserve open space and green space and mitigate some of the building that’s going on in New Hanover County. And this is the only way we can do it is by buying that property when it becomes available to us.”

The latest purchase also includes an 11.42-acre riverfront tract just north of Point Peter, an undeveloped area that was a few years ago the subject of a highly controversial proposed development.

Look back: New Hanover Board denies new zoning district

Point Peter is a plot at the confluence of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers along an area already feeling the effects of sea level rise.

Environmental, historical and cultural preservation groups, and community members banded together in opposing a request by developers to rezone roughly 8 acres so that they could move forward with plans to build a complex of three high-rise condominiums overlooking the river and adjacent downtown Wilmington.

Commissioners ultimately denied the rezoning request in late 2021 and pursued revising an amendment to the county’s 2016 comprehensive land use plan to create a new conservation “placetype” specifically for the western bank at the confluence of the rivers. “Placetype” is a planning term used to describe the mix of compatible uses within an area.

The riverfront tract at 1450 Point Harbor Road that the county intends to buy includes a little more than six acres within the Cape Fear River waterline.

The plot was once used as a railroad terminal yard. The land has not been identified as having known environmental conditions by any regulatory agency, according to county staff.

The tract across the highway at 1209 N. U.S. 421, is adjacent to the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office’s target shooting range. This property would prevent encroachment to the shooting range and provide river access for the sheriff office’s marine unit.

Funding to buy the tracts will be pulled from reserves from the county’s revenue stabilization fund, which will be replenished through annual reimbursements of $266,130 from the county’s general fund for the next 10 years.

The purchase is expected to be complete by Dec. 31.

A Navassa-based chemical processing company has pleaded guilty to discharging pollutants into the Cape Fear River.

American Distillation Inc., or ADI, owner Andrew J. Simmons Jr., also pleaded guilty to failing to pay federal taxes, according to to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

ADI is guilty of knowingly discharging tert-Butyl alcohol, a highly flammable, colorless, oily liquid, and other pollutants into the Cape Fear River, according to a release published Monday.

The company, which was incorporated in 1992 to make and sell industrial-grade ethyl alcohol, regularly accepts large quantities of tert-Butyl, or TBOH, from its customers, according to information presented in court.

“During distillation, ADI created and stored byproducts in an approximately 250,000-gallon storage tank (known as Tank 14), which regularly stored liquid wastewater that included TBOH, isopropyl alcohol, and acetone mixed with water,” the release states.

From late 2019 through 2024, the company began accepting more TBOH and other chemicals from its customers than it could legally and properly dispose of under the terms of its federally issued permit.

In January, Barry Darnell White, ADI’s former production manager, pleaded guilty to purposely releasing approximately 2,500 gallons of liquid wastewater from Tank 14 five to six times per year between 2020 and 2024.

White discharged the pollutants “by connecting a hose that drained into a nearby pipe” that ran directly to the river, according to a release.

“ADI released TBOH byproduct from Tank 14 into the Cape Fear River to ensure maximum profits without ceasing operations,” the release states. “ADI management had informed some employees that if operations came to a halt, the company would suffer serious financial harm, potentially including dissolution.”

“This was not an accident, and it was not a paperwork violation,” U.S. Attorney Ellis Boyle stated in the release. “ADI deliberately decided to dump harmful chemicals into a North Carolina river to increase profits. When corporations choose pollution over safety, we will hold them criminally accountable and enforce the law without hesitation.”

ADI’s “multi-year illegal discharges of industrial waste poses a serious threat to the River’s water quality and is harmful to ecosystems,” Chuck Carfagno, special agent in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s criminal enforcement program in North Carolina, said in the release. “Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that the EPA and its partner agencies are committed to protecting the environment and pursuing those who threaten our natural resources.”

Donald “Trey” Eakins, special agent in charge at the Charlotte Field Office, IRS Criminal Investigations, stated that Simmons “willfully engaged in a long pattern of violations of the internal revenue laws.”

“Tax evasion is not a victimless crime, it affects every American by stealing resources vital to fund schools, maintain public infrastructure, and enhance social welfare,” he said in a release.

The two federal branches that enforce the Clean Water Act last month pitched changes to the “waters of the United States” definition, which establishes the types of waterbodies that are federally protected against pollution, and if these amendments pass as written, conservation groups fear millions of acres of nontidal wetlands will be left vulnerable.

The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers have for decades had the authority to regulate “navigable waters,” which means “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” as written in the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Expanded in the 1970s, the measure is typically referred to as the Clean Water Act.

The EPA explains on its website that the Clean Water Act “establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.”

One thing the Clean Water Act doesn’t do is clearly define “waters of the United States.” The EPA calls it a “threshold term in the Clean Water Act and establishes the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Act.”

EPA and Army leadership announced Nov. 17 plans to update the definition, which has been the subject of lawsuits and years’ worth of arguments.

The “Updated Definition of ‘’Waters of the United States’’’ was published Nov. 20 in the Federal Register, launching a 45-day comment period on the proposed changes that closes Jan. 5.  A virtual public meeting is scheduled for 12:30 to 4 p.m. Tuesday, with a 2-2:30 p.m. break. Attendees must register online to speak by 5 p.m. Monday. To listen only, register by the start of the meeting.

This latest attempt, which would exclude isolated wetlands, is directly linked to the Supreme Court’s May 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision. The Sacketts are an Idaho couple fined in the late 2000s for backfilling a section of their property that the EPA considered wetlands.

Judges ruled in the final opinion on the case that the “(Clean Water Act)’s use of ‘waters’” only refers to geographical features described in everyday language “as ‘streams, oceans, rivers and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.”

Earlier that year, the EPA had finalized a “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States'” rule that took effect March 20, 2023, and which the Sackett case invalidated. In August 2023, the EPA and Army Corps issued an amendment to align the rule with the Sackett decision.

That final conforming rule is what the EPA and Army Corps leadership are proposing to amend.

The agencies argue that the change “would fully implement” the Supreme Court’s ruling “by ensuring federal jurisdiction is focused on relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water—such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes—and wetlands that are connected and indistinguishable from such waterbodies.”

With this proposed rule, the agencies explain in the docket, they “intend to provide greater regulatory certainty and increase Clean Water Act program predictability and consistency by clarifying the definition of ‘waters of the United States.’ This proposed rule is also intended to implement the overall objective of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the quality of the Nation’s waters while respecting State and Tribal authority over their own land and water resources.”

Environmental groups argued then, when the Sackett case was ruled, and still maintain that by removing protections from the millions of acres of nontidal wetlands, there will be consequences: Water quality will be jeopardized and flooding will increase, to name just two.

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Mark Sabath said in an interview that for 50 years, the Clean Water Act has been the strongest and best federal protection for many of the waters and wetlands around the country.

The law does that “by saying you can’t pollute, you can’t fill, you can’t destroy certain features, certain waters, without a permit,” Sabath said, and the permitting process means that there are certain protections and controls you have to apply to minimize the amount of destruction.

Sabath added that a number of features of the Clean Water Act are dependent on the type of water, and, in addressing its critics, not every puddle in the country covered by the act.

“It’s only things that meet the definition of waters of the United States, and that isn’t defined in the statute itself,” Sabath continued. “Congress didn’t define it, so EPA and the Army Corps, in a series of rules over the years, have tried to define exactly what wetlands are and aren’t covered by the Clean Water Act.”

This proposed rule is the latest revision and it is “by far the most narrow, the most extreme definition,” Sabath continued. “It includes the fewest number of streams and wetlands and other waters of any interpretation of ‘waters the United States’ that we’ve seen.”

North Carolina Wildlife Federation Conservation Policy Vice President Manley Fuller told Coastal Review that with this proposed rule, the bottom line is a massive loss of protection of waters of the United States, which are vital habitats for fish and wildlife.

“This will also negatively affect hunting and fishing, which are a significant part of our natural resource-based economy,” he continued. “Wetlands are also buffers for the built environment and help reduce downstream flooding. Protecting clean waters and wetlands is extremely popular with the public for many reasons and we need to strengthen rather than weaken these programs.”

North Carolina Sierra Club Deputy Director Erin Carey told Coastal Review the rule will effectively remove federal protections from at least 80% of wetlands and over 5 million miles of streams across the country.

“This rule will open millions of acres of wetlands to the threat of development, leaving communities already vulnerable to flooding without the frontline protection afforded by these invaluable habitats. Wetlands act as filters for floodwaters and other runoff, making them critical not only to flood mitigation, but to the preservation of clean water resources,” Carey said.

Environmental Defense Fund Coasts and Watersheds Science Senior Manager Dr. Adam Gold pointed out as well that if the proposed rule is implemented as written, nearly all nontidal wetlands and intermittent streams could be without Clean Water Act protections in North Carolina and across the United States.

While there are many changes in the proposed rule, the most notable are to the definitions of “relative permanence” of waters and a “continuous surface connection” for wetlands, Gold said, adding that the proposed language introduces the concept of a “wet season.”

“Under the proposed rule, wetlands and waters would only receive Clean Water Act protections if they have surface water throughout the ‘wet season,’ described in the rule as ‘an extended period where there is continuous surface hydrology resulting from predictable seasonal precipitation patterns year after year,’” Gold said. “This proposed rule would make it easier to drain or develop wetlands that do not meet the ‘wet season’ surface water requirement, putting our wetlands and the benefits they provide at serious risk.”

In North Carolina, the impact of the proposed rule is 3.2 million acres, or about 88%, of nontidal wetlands estimated to be without Clean Water Act protections. “Importantly, this analysis relies on wetland ‘wetness’ during the growing season, but the proposed rule uses the ‘wet season,’” Gold said.

About the wet season, Gold continued, there are “fundamental issues with the proposed rule’s ‘wet season’ dataset.”

He said the classification of the “wet season” comes from the Army Corps of Engineers Antecedent Precipitation Tool, but the underlying data this tool relies on is modeled using the average monthly temperature and precipitation between 1950 and 1999. The modeled dataset was published in 2001 and does not use the best-available methods.

“The agencies proposed ‘wet season’ dataset classifies most of the year, and in some cases the entire year, as ‘wet’ for much of coastal North Carolina. So, under this proposed rule, wetlands or streams in Jacksonville would need to have surface water year-round (the whole year is classified as ‘wet’) to have Clean Water Act protections. For New Bern, the ‘wet season’ is 11 months, and for Wilmington or Brunswick County, the ‘wet season’ is 10 months.”

Gold said the proposed rule “which could essentially remove nontidal wetland and intermittent waters from the Clean Water Act, does not align with the goal of the Clean Water Act to ‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.’ Science shows us that all wetlands, regardless of how ‘wet’ they are, clean our water, provide critical wildlife habitat, and reduce downstream flooding impacts.”

The EPA and Corps also asserted the week the proposed changes were announced that the new rules would provide “the regulatory certainty needed to support our nation’s farmers who feed and fuel the world and advance EPA’s Powering the Great American Comeback initiative.”

Sabath noted that the idea that this will have huge benefits for farming and for farmers is a common refrain when they’re restricting the protections of the Clean Water Act, “but the Clean Water Act actually exempts most farming activities from coverage already, so you don’t need to get a permit for doing regular farming activities, even when they would affect a wetland or stream that would otherwise be covered.”

The idea that this is a huge benefit for farmers is a nicer story, “because they don’t want to say, well, this is a huge benefit for large industrial facilities, industrial polluters, developers,” Sabath said.

Carey sees the proposed rule as demonstrating “that the EPA has abdicated its mandated responsibility to protect the environment and the people who depend on it. Even worse, the agency appears eager to sacrifice our natural resources on the altar of corporate greed.”

The public should be “very concerned that the federal agency tasked with ensuring clean water, clean air, and the protection of our natural environment seems determined to undermine that responsibility. With this proposed change, the EPA claims to seek clarity in regulation, but this rule would serve only to allow industry to profit from environmental destruction, and the ruination of our natural resources,” she added.

White Oak Waterkeeper Riley Lewis said in a statement that the EPA’s new definition of Waters of the United States ignores decades of scientific understanding and generations of Indigenous knowledge.

“By redefining wetlands using ambiguous criteria seemingly designed to maximize developable land and reduce regulatory barriers, the agency is turning a blind eye to the very real, very predictable impacts on our communities,” Lewis said. “Water will continue to move beneath our feet through groundwater and across the landscape during storms, regardless of a federal definition or a construction permit. This rule sets Americans up for flooding, damaged infrastructure, and increased pollution in the waters we rely on for our drinking supply, our food, and our way of life.”

So, why does this actually matter to the public? Sabath said it does in a few ways.

In North Carolina, people who hunt, fish and paddle use wetlands directly and those might be impacted by being destroyed or polluted without a permit.

“Anyone who is in a community that floods during extreme weather, and we all know that that’s happening more and more now, or that’s at risk of flooding,” Sabath said. By losing those wetlands, you lose their ability to protect communities from flooding, and that comes more often now from extreme weather.

“It’s a double whammy. You’re losing the benefits that they provide, and you’re probably creating more problems,” and more potential pollution or channels of pollution at the same time by replacing wetlands, natural areas with pavement or developed areas, he said.

With wetlands being a “good natural sponge” that can absorb huge amounts of water, “if anything, we should be trying to expand wetland coverage rather than take it away, Sabath said.

“In short,” Carey with the Sierra Club continued, “communities will watch rivers and streams in their communities fall victim to unchecked pollution. Without federal protections, industry will discharge and develop at will, destroying habitats, water quality, and flood protection measures as they go. The wetlands and streams of this country belong to all people, not just those who seek to exploit them.”

A Piedmont town’s request to permanently pull millions of gallons of water a day from the Cape Fear River would raise the risk of water shortages during periods of drought, undercut utilities’ ability to keep up with growing demand, and result in higher levels of contamination in the raw drinking water source for downstream communities, opponents of the plan say.

Of the dozen people who spoke Tuesday night during a public hearing in Raleigh, none supported Fuquay-Varina’s call for transferring 6.17 million gallons per day from the Cape Fear River Basin to the Neuse River Basin to meet that town’s projected water demands.

Similar opposition was expressed during a hearing held in Fayetteville last week by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the state Division of Water Resources. A third hearing was scheduled to be held Thursday in Pittsboro.

Both elected officials and heads of public utilities in the lower Cape Fear region on Tuesday continued pressing the commission and division to host a public hearing in that area.

“None of the hearings for the Fuquay-Varina request are being held in the lower Cape Fear region, even though our communities will feel the downstream impacts,” said New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple. “Residents in the city of Wilmington and the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender would have to spend four to five hours on the road just to attend the public hearing. Most residents simply cannot do that. Holding a hearing in the lower Cape Fear region in Wilmington would reduce frustration, encourage public trust, and allow our communities to be hearing in a constructive manner.”

As of Wednesday, more than 20 counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, businesses and drinking water providers have adopted resolutions opposing Fuquay-Varina’s request for an interbasin transfer certificate, or IBT.

Officials in Fuquay-Varina, which is about 30 miles south of Raleigh, project that the amount of water the town currently buys from the capital city, and Harnett and Johnston counties will fall short of demand by 2030.

Under the proposed preferred alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement for the IBT, the town would source its entire water supply from a water treatment plant in Sanford, which is in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Once water pulled from the Cape Fear River is used by residents and businesses within the town, the treated wastewater would be discharged into the Neuse River Basin. This would permanently subtract more than 6 million gallons each day from the river flow that currently sources more than 500,000 residents with drinking water.

“We have absolutely no problem with Fuquay-Varina wanting to continue with their development,” Zapple said. “But if you take the water, just return it. That’s all. That’s the way the system works. And, if it costs more, well maybe that’s the price of doing business. We need our development down in the lower Cape Fear region as well and we can’t afford to lose 6.17 million gallons a day.”

The Cape Fear River is Brunswick County’s “primary and only reliable water source,” said Christopher Giesting, Brunswick County Public Utilities deputy director of water operations.

The utility supplies drinking water to 19 municipalities and serves more than 350,000 residents and seasonal visitors.

Giesting said that Brunswick County has invested more than $183 million to expand its Northwest Water Treatment Plant and upgrade to a reverse osmosis system designed to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, discharged into the river by upstream polluters.

“These investments were made with the expectation that the full safe yield of the Cape Fear River at the intake would remain available,” he said. “Any IBT that removes water without returning it means that safe yield volume is reduced, ultimately making these major infrastructure investments unable to function as planned and designed. Our county alone has more than 50,000 planned housing units already built, under construction, or in the works. Without reliable access to the full safe yield of the Cape Fear, we cannot meet future water demands for these communities.”

The IBT proposal also threatens water quality, Giesting continued, because the requested daily transfer would lessen the amount of water available to dilute contaminants, including PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, discharged by upstream polluters.

The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority, which provides wholesale regional raw water to treatment facilities that serve more than 550,000 customers in a five-county area, has sourced from the Cape Fear River more than half a century.

Authority Executive Director Tim Holloman said the river is already being substantially used as a water resource in the region.

“For a river that’s already maxed, we just ask that that be considered. If the IBT is granted, that (water) be returned to the Cape Fear River Basin because the need is not going to go away. It’s only going to increase over time,” he said.

Fayetteville Public Works Commission Chief Executive Officer and General Manager Timothy Bryant said that the commission would be forced to spend millions more each year to ensure safe drinking water to its more than 250,000 customers.

“I would argue very strenuously that no one with any legitimacy can claim that removing over 6 million gallons of water per day isn’t a foreseeable detrimental effect on the river basin and the 900,000 downstream residents of North Carolina who depend on this water every day,” he said. “To be clear, growth in Fuquay-Varina should not come at the expense of other communities. There are multiple reasonable alternative options presented that are not only consistent with the intent and letter of North Carolina law, but also squarely place the cost burden on Fuquay-Varina and not the customers downstream of it.”

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Ken Waldroup asked that the Environmental Management Commission look into what he said are “critical technical shortcomings” associated with models presented by the town.

The commission will make the final determination on whether to grant Fuquay-Varina’s request.

If approved, the IBT would occur after 2031, according to the draft impact statement.

No announcement had been made at the time of this publication as to whether a public hearing will be held in the lower Cape Fear region.

A district court judge has ruled that Chemours and its predecessor company cannot conceal thousands of pages of documents from the public.

The manufacturing giant failed to provide sufficient evidence the documents include commercially sensitive information that, if released, could competitively undermine the companies, Judge James Dever III concluded in his Dec. 3 ruling.

Information the companies requested to keep under seal are among 25,000 pages of documents lawyers representing public utilities and local governments downstream of Chemours’ Bladen County plant submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina as part of lawsuit those entities brought against the companies in October 2017.

Related: EPA seeks reporting rollback as new study finds hidden PFAS

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, or CFPUA, Brunswick County, Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority, and Wrightsville Beach aim to recover costs and damages associated with the Fayetteville Works’ plant’s discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, for decades into the Cape Fear River. The river is a drinking water source for tens of thousands of residents.

PFAS are a group of more than 14,000 chemicals used in everyday consumer products including food containers, stain-resistant carpet and water-repellant gear. These human-made chemical compounds are persistent in the environment and have been found to accumulate in humans and animals. Exposure to these substances has been linked to weakened immune function, reproductive and development issues and increased risk of some cancers.

Last February, attorneys for Chemours and its predecessor company DuPont filed a motion requesting that the court keep thousands of pages of those documents under seal, arguing information in those documents contain internal communications about chemical production that, if made public, could give a leg up to their competitors.

Dever denied that request. He also rejected a second motion by the companies’ attorneys seeking to keep from the public an April 2018 report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency detailing its inspection the Fayetteville Works facility.

“Defendants’ second motion to seal fails for the same reason as defendant’s first motion to seal. Defendants provide insufficient evidence to demonstrate that sealing the [Toxic Substance Act Compliance Monitoring Inspection] report serves a compelling interest which outweighs the public’s right of access,” Dever wrote in his 13-page ruling.

A document’s “status as confidential or commercially sensitive alone does not justify its sealing,” he continued.

“We thank the Court for its wise ruling in denying the motion to seal,” Cammie Bellamy, CFPUA public information officer, said in an email responding to a request for comment. “CFPUA will oppose every attempt by Chemours to delay, obfuscate, and deny the public its right to access the facts of this case. The documents that Chemours and its codefendants wanted to hide from the public include records of its decades of wrongdoing. The people of Southeastern North Carolina deserve better. CFPUA continues to work to hold Chemours accountable for its decades of polluting of the Cape Fear River – the source water for 500,000 North Carolinians.”

Dever also denied requests submitted to the court last April by environmental and community organizations, and the NAACP New Hanover County Branch, to intervene in the case and object to the companies’ motion to keep the documents sealed, ruling those motions are moot.

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, and the Environmental Justice Community Action Network.

“We think that this is absolutely the right outcome,” Jean Zhuang, a senior attorney with the center’s Chapel Hill office, said in a telephone interview Friday morning. “In this case, the companies have concealed decades of pollution in southeastern North Carolina and harmed drinking water from the Cape Fear River for 500,000 people.”

The release of the documents comes at a crucial time, she said, because Chemours wants to expand its production of vinyl ethers, which are a class of compounds used to create a variety of products used in a range of technologies from semiconductor chips to aviation components.

The company’s permit application for that expansion is under review by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

“Chemours is expecting the public to just trust them while they are planning a massive expansion of their facility,” Zhuang said. “After all these decades of harm they have caused on North Carolina communities, secrecy is not an option anymore.”

Tests commissioned by the SELC and Cape Fear River Watch showed that Chemours is releasing “extremely high levels” of ultra-short chain PFAS, which are highly mobile and difficult to remove from raw drinking water, into the Cape Fear River.

The results of those tests, released last October, confirmed earlier test results published by CFPUA, which has spent tens of millions of dollars upgrading its Sweeney Water Treatment Plant in downtown Wilmington to filtrate PFAS from reaching its customers’ taps.

CFPUA officials, along with those from other downstream facilities, are calling on the state to enforce polluters to treat chemicals at the source and set enforceable limits in discharge permits.

Anne Harvey David, chief counsel for environmental justice for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which asked to intervene in the case on behalf of the NAACP New Hanover County Branch, said in a release, “An effort to conceal information that details with the health and safety of thousands of North Carolinians cannot go unchallenged. We are happy to see this decision in favor of protecting public access to these documents. Information and transparency around the extent of the pollution is fundamental for the health and safety of the impacted communities.”

NACCP New Hanover County Branch President LeRon Montgomery said last week’s ruling “is one win in a long battle for our community to live free from harmful contamination of our air and water,” according to the release.

“The importance of this decision goes far beyond who it will impact today,” he stated. “The pollution of the Cape Fear River will impact generations to come, but so will having access to this information.”

As of this publication, it was unclear when the documents would be made public or whether the companies’ attorneys would appeal the ruling.

The Coastal Resources Commission approved last week revised text that is meant to satisfy the latest objection from the Rules Review Commission regarding Jockey’s Ridge’s designation as an area of environmental concern.

The Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, has been trying to get this text sorted since October 2023, when the Rules Review Commission objected to and removed 30 rules, including those for Jockey’s Ridge protections, as part of the 10-year periodic rules review process.

According to the the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management, which carries out the rules and regulations set by the CRC, the text that had been up for review a few years ago was almost identical to what had been approved in 1984 for the centerpiece of Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Dare County.

Part of the text the Rules Review Commission most recently objected to reads: “(a) Description. Jockey’s Ridge is the tallest active sand dune (medano) along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Located within the Town of Nags Head in Dare County, between US 158 and Roanoke Sound, Jockey’s Ridge represents the southern extremity of a back barrier dune system which extends north along Currituck Spit into Virginia.”

The CRC at its regular business meeting in Beaufort Hotel was briefed about the rules commission’s latest objection Wednesday during the annual rules review update, and again Thursday before voting unanimously to submit the amended text to the rules panel.

Daniel Govoni, policy analyst with the Division of Coastal Management, said Wednesday that a general statute directs staff to review and identify any rules that are unnecessary, burdensome or inconsistent. Rules that are considered necessary, go through the rules review process, and that includes being run through the Rules Review Commission.

Govoni said that just recently, the Jockey’s Ridge area of environmental concern permanent rules the Coastal Resources Commission approved Aug. 27 was sent to the Rules Review Commission and “they again have objected.”

The reason this time, he continued, “is because the rule was split up into three categories: (a) being description, (b) being boundaries and (c) the use standards. They basically said that the description was unnecessary.”

When Coastal Resources picked up the discussion Thursday, Govoni reiterated that the rule was drafted into three parts, with a description explaining Jockey’s Ridge and its importance, and a boundary describing the area of environmental concern boundary and an accompanying map.

Govoni stated that the Rules Review specifically objecting to “the paragraph (a) description,” and that it “was not the same as the designation as under general statute.”

Coastal Resources was left with two options with a deadline of Dec. 1: either amend the rule to address the Rules Review objection, or submit a written response explaining why the rule won’t be changed.

Govoni said staff came up with the following proposed language as a way to meet the requirement: “Designation. Given the status of Jockey’s Ridge as a State Park, State Nature Preserve, complex natural area, and an area containing a unique geological formation as identified by the State Geologist, the Coastal Resources Commission hereby designates Jockey’s Ridge as an Area of Environmental Concern pursuant, as required under general statute.”

The amendment also included adding that “The AEC is located within the Town of Nags Head in Dare County, between US 158 and Roanoke Sound” to the boundaries explanation.

The Coastal Resources Commission’s legal counsel, Sarah Zambon, explained that the legal counsel for the Rules Review Commission was consulted on the proposed permanent language but, “just like I don’t speak for all of you, RC Council doesn’t speak for the RRC, but they have reviewed this language.”

Zambon continued that “the main issue was with the description of it being the tallest sand dune along the Atlantic Coast.”

Coastal Resources Chair Renee Cahoon pointed out that “this description just became a problem in August. Amazing. Amazing. After 40 years.”

About Jockey’s Ridge rules

The more than two-year back-and-forth between the two commissions began in early October 2023 over 30 rules undergoing the 10-year periodic review process.

“Development activities in and around the state park boundaries have been regulated by the administrative rules of the Coastal Resources Commission since the designation of Jockey’s Ridge as a Unique Geologic Feature Area of Environmental Concern in 1984,” division documents explain.

When the rules commission reviewed the 30 rules the division submitted, including Jockey’s Ridge as an Area of Environmental Concern and use standards, the rules panel removed the rules from the North Carolina Administrative Code and returned them to the Division of Coastal Management.

Coastal Resources filed a lawsuit shortly after contesting the Rules Review’s decision to remove the 30 rules, which is still in litigation.

The CRC then adopted emergency and temporary rules reestablishing the area of environmental concern and use standards that went into effect Jan. 3, 2024, and expired May 13, 2024, which the Rules Review Commission also objected.

Coastal Resources decided to move forward with permanent rulemaking on April 25, 2024, and adopted the permanent rule Nov. 14, 2024. The rules commission objected to the proposed permanent rule on Dec. 19, 2024, for failing to comply with public notice requirements. Staff said in documents that the terms of this objection had been satisfied.

A Wake County Superior Court judge in February of this year ruled in favor of Coastal Resources in the lawsuit that directs the codifier to “immediately return” the rules to the administrative code. Rules Review has since filed an appeal challenging the ruling and the Coastal Resources is due to submit a brief in response by Dec. 12.

The Coastal Resources Commission took up the subject again Aug. 27 and adopted permanent rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern and use standards. The Rules Review Commission objected on Oct. 30 to the recently submitted text for using the word “Description” because it is “not the same as a ‘designation’ as required under state law.”

The Coastal Resources Commission was given Dec. 1 as a deadline on the new proposed designation, which is an attempt to clarify the language going forward, Govoni said Thursday. In the time since the judge ruled that the Jockey’s Ridge rules would be returned to the administrative code, the division decided to amend and clarify the language.

If the suggested language meets final approval, the existing rule would be repealed and replaced with this new version.

Coastal Review will not publish Thursday and Friday in observation of the Thanksgiving holiday.

BEAUFORT – Owners of vacant oceanfront lots being chewed by erosion at the eastern tip of Ocean Isle Beach have been permitted to install larger than typically allowed sandbag structures at the beach to protect their properties.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission unanimously agreed last week to grant permission to the owners of eight lots in The Pointe, a luxury gated neighborhood built east of the town’s terminal groin, to have sandbag structures that are 40 feet wide and 12 feet tall placed waterward of their land.

Current commission rules limit sandbag revetments to a 20-foot base width and a 6-foot height. The rules also stipulate sandbags may be placed only in areas where erosion scarp is within 20 feet from a structure.

The new, larger sandbag structures will connect to two revetments installed along developed lots this past summer, creating one, long contiguous sandbag wall along at the eastern tip of the Brunswick County barrier island at Shallotte Inlet.

Charles Baldwin IV, the Wilmington-based attorney representing the property owners, explained Wednesday during the meeting in Beaufort Hotel that his clients want to “simply connect the dots” and “try to avoid irreparable harm.”

“It needs to be a unified wall,” he said. “You can’t throw one person out and expect this project to go forward and work.”

Baldwin’s clients attribute the plight of their properties to the terminal groin the town had installed more than three years ago to stave off erosion that had battered Ocea Isle’s east end for decades.

“Obviously what we have is a unique situation here,” he said in his initial remarks to the commission. “We have these lots that are being affected negatively by the terminal groin.”

Terminal groins are wall-like structures built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas of high erosion.

Baldwin noted that both state law and the town’s permit to build the terminal groin “say that if the groin doesn’t perform, and it’s required to monitor, has adverse effects, it has to be modified or removed.”

“That’s because that’s the law,” he said.

Baldwin went on to argue that a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said the terminal groin might contribute to “some short-term erosion” east of the structure, “but that within year one it’s going to stabilize.”

“That has not happened,” Baldwin said. “Their lots are already being substantially diminished, but this structure out there is just simply failing.”

Ocean Isle Beach officials have refuted that claim.

In a letter Coastal Review published last month, Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith wrote that The Pointe’s developer went before the town’s planning board in June 2015. The developer purchased the property in September of that same year.

By that time, both a draft and final environmental impact statement on the terminal groin had been published, and a public workshop on the terminal groin had taken place, Smith wrote.

The town received a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit in November 2016 to build the structure.

But construction was pushed back years after the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of the National Audubon Society, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of the project.

The lawsuit claimed that the Corps failed to objectively evaluate alternatives to the terminal groin, including those that would be less costly to Ocean Isle residents and less destructive to the coast, particularly what was then the undeveloped area on the island’s east end.

In March 2021, a panel of judges with the Fourth Circuit, affirmed a lower court’s decision that the Corps fairly considered the alternatives.

Construction of the $11 million terminal groin was complete in April the following year.

The final subdivision approval was granted to The Pointe’s developer in 2022, after which time construction began in the 44-lot neighborhood.

A series of offshore coastal storms that have skirted the East Coast the latter half of this year have further contributed to the threat to The Pointe’s oceanfront properties.

Erosion has swiped away chunks of the private road that rounds to lots at a cul-de-sac nearest the ocean entrance to the inlet. Piles of debris, including wood from an old bulkhead unearthed by the erosion, has been described as a scene akin to that of a war zone.

In a presentation to the commission Wednesday, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Assistant General Counsel Christy Goebel said that comparisons of the shoreline east of the terminal groin show that the line is moving landward.

The use of temporary sandbags “is to buy time” for existing, threatened structures while a longer-term solution can be figured out to protect those structures, she said.

Goebel noted that there have been no plans to relocate Shallotte Inlet, that the terminal groin already exists, “and the likelihood of success of beach nourishment placement so close to the inlet being dredged by the Corps’ shallow draft program and the associated available funding is uncertain.”

Baldwin rattled off a list of possible solutions, including reducing the profile of the terminal groin, removing rocks, using different size rocks to make the structure “more leaky,” modifying its location, or removing it altogether.

The commission’s motion approving the variances were made with a stipulation that the public area of the beach remain unimpeded by the sandbag wall.

TYNER – As neighborhood businesses go, Timbermill Wind is quiet, clean and visually striking. And barely a year from the start of its wind energy production in this rural northeastern North Carolina community, it is already pumping money into local coffers.

At a ceremony held Tuesday at the site of the project’s local operations, Ken Young, CEO of Apex Clean Energy, the operation’s owner, presented a large, ceremonial check representing about $750,000 in net tax payments to Chowan County.

“There’ll be many more like it,” Bob Kirby, a Chowan County commissioner, told a small gathering of local officials and community members.

According to a Timbermill Wind press release, annual payments to the county over the project’s 30-year lifespan are expected to total about $50 million, which will support community needs such as education and emergency services. The infusion of revenue, so far, makes Timbermill the county’s single largest taxpayer, officials said, equaling more in property taxes this year than last year’s top nine taxpayers combined.

With the silver blades of a turbine turning slowly in the background over his shoulder, Kirby couldn’t help boasting that the land-based wind facility was the first of its kind to be permitted in North Carolina.

“There’s a $400 million investment that’s sitting behind me,” he said.

Beyond the benefits to the county and state, Kirby added, Timbermill is also a huge help to local farmers who receive annual payments — the amount is deemed proprietary information — to lease their land to the business.

“The people who own these farms are under unbelievable stress to their way of life,” he said. “For the leaseholders, this sort of thing, that’s a predictable source of income for them.”

While farmers lose access to a small amount of their land, they can continue as usual to farm the land under the turbines.

During a tour of part of the production site, Richard Bunch, a local representative for Timbermill, while standing in front of a turbine, told the group that farmers are able to get relatively close to the side of the tower when they’re working the land, although they can get closer after the corn or other crops is harvested. 

“He’s going to lose a half an acre here, that’s all,” Bunch said.  “And he’ll have income for 30 years.”   

A 6,000-acre tract, bordered by tall trees and owned by timber company Weyerhaeuser, was the first site to be cleared for the project, said Win Dale, a project representative for Timbermill.

“Once they cut every tree down, every stump was removed,” he said, waving toward a large circle of open land surrounding a turbine.

Each “crane pad” at the 45 sites, he said, is an eighth of an acre.

Hunters now have new access roads to the area, where they hunt mostly for deer, as well as some bear and wild turkey, Bunch said.

“They rented this whole tract from Weyerhaeuser to hunt,” he said, adding that he’d heard that they’re quite happy with the change. “Between a company and a hunting group, to be able to say that — that never happens.”

Farmers are also enjoying the easier access to their land, Dale added.

“The roads are like interstates compared to what they were before,” he said.

The towers themselves are 345 feet tall. Counting to the tip of the blades — the project has a total of 135 — each “windmill” is 591 feet tall. Providing a short lesson for visitors, Tyler Finley, facility manager for Timbermill Wind, explained that each tower is divided into five sections. Inside, there’s a ladder running up the middle with a platform at each level. The three blades are attached before they’re elevated to the top. 

“It’s kind of like building a very big Lego,” he said about the assembly process.

When they’re moving, the 242-foot-long blades create a 4-acre sweep area. Shadow flickers that would otherwise pass over homes are mitigated by siting towers away from residential structures.

Finley and other Timbermill representatives said that the blades, which are a composite of fiberglass with an interior metal structure, don’t kick on until the wind reaches at least 7 mph, and they’re capable of pitching from zero to 90 degrees. When winds reach about 50 mph, they’ll flatten to reduce surface area. Feathering of blade pitch provides “aerodynamic braking,” and trailing-edge serrations on the blades help reduce noise.

From the onsite substation, a 6-mile line is connected directly to the Dominion Energy “point of intersection,” Finley explained.

Apex has a power purchase agreement with Google, meaning it provides Google with a portion of the power produced at Timbermill. But the power is obtained from the grid, which collects energy from numerous sources.

“It’s an integrated power market,” Finley said.

Simply put, the energy produced by the wind turbines is eventually sent to a large distribution network, where it is purchased by different customers. The concept is similar to global oil and gas markets, where the location of the energy source is rarely the direct recipient of that energy.

 According to Timbermill, the 189-megawatt wind energy project developed and operated by Charlottesville, Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy generates enough clean energy to power the equivalent of 47,000 U.S. homes.

Timbermill, which came online in Dec. 2024, became the second industrial scale land-based wind farm in the state.

Although it was permitted earlier, numerous delays led to it being behind the 104-turbine Amazon Wind U.S. East wind farm that straddles Perquimans and Pasquotank counties and that started its 208-megawatt operation in early 2017.

The Apex Community Grant Program has awarded more than $120,000 for local nonprofits and support for regional reforestation and other community conservation projects.

Speaking after the event, John Mitchener, 84, a native of Chowan County who had served as commissioner from 2010 to 2018, said he was on the board when “the significant decisions” were made about permitting the wind farm.

He noted that opinions initially seemed to be divided between the folks in the Yeopim area, who reside south of Edenton toward the Outer Banks, and the other side of the county.

“The people who objected the most lived down there, and the people who lived up there objected the least,” he said.

While Mitchener said he couldn’t pinpoint the reason for the differences, he said that he knew it was important to maintain a polite and civil approach.

“Part of my outlook as a public official,” he said, “is to try to have the conversation where you could come back to it.”

And as it turns out, he said, people in the community all seem pretty happy now with Timbermill.

Updated at 8 a.m. Thursday to include the link to the Federal Register, which published the proposed rules Thursday after the story posted, and public comment information.

The two federal agencies with jurisdiction over navigable waterways have published amendments to the existing “waters of the United States” rule that they say will “establish a clear, durable, common-sense definition” of the term, and a public comment period has opened.

The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army’s changes have heightened worry among conservation groups that federal protections for isolated wetlands might be weakened further than they were soon after the 2023 Supreme Court decision that found wetlands must be connected by surface water to a navigable body of water to fall under the 1972 Clean Water Act.

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers said in a release Monday that the newly proposed changes were to “fully implement the court’s direction by focusing on relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water—such as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes—and wetlands that are connected and indistinguishable from such waterbodies.”

As part of the announcement, leadership posted the prepublication notice they planned to submit to the Federal Register, which was published Thursday, starting a 45-day public comment period.

Comments must be submitted by Jan. 5, 2026, and identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OW–2025–0322, through www.regulations.gov, by email to OW-Docket@epa.gov, or mail to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

Language in the Clean Water Act states that the “term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” However, the act doesn’t define what “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, actually are, leaving the EPA and Corps to determine the geographic scope of the rule.

Over the last five decades, pushback and litigation have forced the two agencies to revise the definition several times.

The current regulatory definition, according to the EPA, was put in place in September 2023 to align with the May 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the Sackett v EPA lawsuit.

The Sacketts filed the lawsuit after the agency ordered the Idaho couple to restore where they had begun backfilling with dirt the section of their property that the EPA considered to be wetlands of a nearby navigable waterbody. The judges sided with the Sacketts that federally protected wetlands must have an obvious connection to waterbodies like streams, oceans, rivers and lakes.

To conform to the Sackett decision, the EPA and Army amended in September 2023 the latest final rule, which had been put in place that January.

EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle shared with Washington, D.C., lawmakers Monday afternoon an overview of the proposed rules.

“I know that across the country, news of today’s proposal is going to be met with a lot of relief and happiness from farmers, ranchers, other landowners, governments that have been looking for a simple, prescriptive definition that the whole country can operate off of, and would allow individuals to know whether or not there’s a ‘water of the United States’ without having to go hire an attorney or a consultant, having to pay someone to Tell them,” Zeldin said Monday during the announcement livestreamed on the EPA’s YouTube.

The EPA secretary explained that the proposal “includes practical, common-sense revisions that will make a real difference,” and adds definitions for what he called “key terms” such as “’relatively permanent,’ ‘continuous surface connection’ and ‘tributary’ to appropriately limit the scope of what is consistent with” the Sackett case.

“We’re establishing that jurisdictional tributaries must connect to traditional navigable waters, either directly or through other features that provide predictable and consistent flow. We’re adding a new exclusion for groundwater and revising exclusions for certain ditches prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems,” Zeldin continued. “We’re incorporating locally familiar terminology such as wet season to help determine whether a water body qualifies as WOTUS. And we’re strengthening state and tribal decision-making authority by providing clear regulatory guidelines while recognizing their expertise in local land and water resources.”

He explained that the proposed rules were developed based on input from multiple sources, including preproposal recommendations, docket information from nine public listening sessions and consultation comments from states, tribes and local governments.

Telle addressed the audience after Zeldin.

“Since 1972 Americans have struggled to understand what Congress meant when it included the term ‘waters of the United States’ in the Clean Water Act. Did it apply to them? Did it not? The definition of that term has been often abused, sometimes stretched beyond recognition over time, and it’s left Americans uncertain about whether they were complying with the Clean Water Act or not,” he said Monday, adding that “under President Trump’s leadership, the EPA and army Civil Works, which oversees the Corps of Engineers, are kicking off the formal process that will give American certainty about their property once and for all.”

Several Republican officials thanked Zeldin from the podium for initiating the proposed amendments including West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey who said that “for too long there’s been great deal of uncertainty” about the WOTUS rule.

“Unfortunately, it left many people holding the bag. Farmers, contractors, small business owners guessing whether their ephemeral stream or a backyard ditch was going to be classified as a waters of the United States rule and potentially subject them to significant penalties,” he continued.

Alabama Congressman Gary Palmer said he was confident that the rule will prioritize clean water while protecting farmers, ranchers, landowners and businesses alike.

Conservation groups have been vocal about these revisions opening up isolated wetlands to development and degradation since the announcement was made.

“Wetlands are the lifeblood of our coast, and should be held to the highest standards of protection,” North Carolina Coastal Federation Coastal Advocate Kerri Allen explained. “The wetlands most impacted by these proposed rollbacks are the very wetlands that hold water during storms and help protect downstream waters. With the proposed changes, our coast will face irrevocable damage that impacts not only our wildlife and fisheries, but also our coastal economy and communities.” The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Mark Sabath said Monday in a statement that this proposed rule, if adopted, “could have catastrophic ramifications for communities already plagued by flooding, water quality concerns, and drinking water shortages. After critical, longstanding protections for clean water and wetlands were drastically narrowed by the Sackett decision, we need stronger protections, not weaker, to safeguard our communities and environment.”

League of Conservation Voters Healthy Communities Program Director Madeleine Foote had a similar reaction.

“The Trump administration’s Polluted Water Rule is another blatant giveaway to big corporate polluters that will jeopardize the waters that our families and communities rely on for drinking, recreation, and fueling our local economies,” Foote said.

“In 2023, the Supreme Court’s devastating Sackett decision stripped federal protections from millions of miles of streams and tens of millions of acres of wetlands, and now corporate polluters are pushing their friends in the administration to go even further in decimating our clean water safeguards. They won’t be happy until the Clean Water Act is nothing more than words on a page and they can pollute our waters with abandon,” Foote continued.

Environmental Defense Fund Associate Vice President Will McDow stated Monday that the new proposed WOTUS rule from the Trump administration that will redefine which wetlands and waters have Clean Water Act Protections. 

“We already spend billions annually responding to disasters that were created by building in risky areas. With today’s proposed WOTUS rule, commercial developers will be allowed to pave over wetlands to build unsafe housing that either floods or increases flooding to neighbors,” he continued. “This rule brings tremendous uncertainty and risk to our nation’s drinking water, flood protections and critical habitats. Based on our peer-reviewed analysis, new requirements for wetland protections could leave nearly all wetlands without Clean Water Act protections. Requirements in the new rule are not based in science, difficult to implement in practice and will create a dangerous lack of clarity.” 

WILMINGTON — Deepening the Wilmington Harbor would disperse PFAS now mingling in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches, accelerate erosion, exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, and is not economically justified, area residents said during a state-hosted public hearing.

Many who spoke at the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s hearing in downtown Wilmington Monday night argued that the federal draft environmental statement released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers earlier this fall fails to fully examine potential impacts associated with the proposed project.

The draft study examines different alternatives for the North Carolina State Ports Authority’s aim to accommodate larger container ships at the Wilmington port.

The preferred alternative selected in the study calls for deepening the harbor from 42 to 47 feet, widening the channel in multiple areas, and extending the ocean entrance to the river. These changes would accommodate vessels that can carry 14,000 20-by-8-foot shipping containers, ports officials say.

But several of the nearly 20 people who spoke argued that the proposed project would not benefit the local economy, and its environmental harms would drastically overwhelm any associated economic benefits. About 70 people attended the hearing.

“This project is a poor economic decision given the massive cost compared to the miniscule benefits,” said Jessica Hardee, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The cost of deepening the harbor and the channel is projected to be over $1 billion. However, the only noted benefit of this project are cost savings to international shipping companies who use the port, not North Carolina or local communities. This project provides little benefit to the Wilmington area and North Carolinians while also threatening significant damage to the coastal region.”

One striking absence from the study is how churning up and moving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in the sediment of the lower Cape Fear River might affect the environment, animals that rely on that environment, and human health, some speakers said.

“Even though we all know that there’s PFAS in the sediment of the river, the Corps says we can’t consider that because it’s not a regulated chemical,” said Wilmington resident and geologist Roger Shew.

But PFAS, or similar chemical compounds of which there are more than 14,000 used to make a host of consumer goods from food containers to stain-resistant clothing and carpet, will be regulated by the time the channel would be deepened in the early to mid-2030s, he said.

“And since 15 million of the 35 million cubic yards of dredge material will be used as beneficial placement in marshes on our area beaches, we should know the content of that sediment and potential impacts with sediment placement,” Shew said. “A core function of an (environmental impact statement) is consideration of potential harm. Therefore, they should and must include PFAS in the study.”

A study published late last month found concentrations of 56 PFAS in blood samples obtained from 119 Wilmington residents between 2010 and 2016.

Two chemical compounds – TFA and PFMOAA – were the dominant PFAS in the samples, “despite their likely short half-lives in the human body,” according to the study.

TFA, or trifluoroacetic acid, and PFMOAA, or perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid, are ultrashort-chain PFAS, which are the smallest type of PFAS and hardest to remove from drinking water sources.

The blood samples examined in the study were obtained before the public was made aware in 2017 that an upstream industrial facility had been discharging PFAS directly into the Cape Fear River, the drinking water sources for tens of thousands, since the 1980s.

“While current TFA and PFMOAA levels have likely decreased substantially from those in the historical blood serum samples evaluated here as a result of mandated discharge controls at the upstream fluorochemical manufacturer, this study, along with other recent studies, highlights the importance ultrashort-chain PFAS can play in determining the overall human PFAS burden,” the study states.

Wilmington resident Kaiti Sheehan said the fact that PFAS is not considered in the draft environmental impact statement, or DEIS, “is a slap in the face to residents who are paying for a $42 million granulated active-carbon filtration system and still facing the health consequences that have come from 40 years of contamination from our upstream bad actor.”

“I do genuinely hope that you will look and you will see how much the community has come out tonight in recognition that this is bad for Wilmington and this is bad for North Carolina,” she said.

Others raised concerns about how deepening the harbor to allow for larger ships to travel the 28 miles upriver to the port would increase erosion on the string of bird islands that pepper the lower Cape Fear River and the riverbanks themselves.

The Cape Fear River supports almost 30% of the state’s nesting American oystercatchers.

Audubon North Carolina’s Lindsay Addison, a coastal biologist, said she and her staff are on the Cape Fear River two to three days a week between March and August and at least once during each of the other months of the year.

“We have seen progressively the impacts of the larger and larger classes of ships coming up the river,” she said. “We saw larger, more severe wakes. The DEIS does not take this into account. The Corps, in its beneficial use plan, talks about maybe putting sediment on 2 miles of the shoreline.”

Birds nest on high-tide lines, Addison said. Waves created by a large ship’s wake push water “like a tsunami” over nests and sweep nests away.

“There is no model in the DEIS that accounts for this,” Addison said. “There is no data collection in the DEIS that accounts for this. In fact, there’s no new data collection in the DEIS. They’re relying on data that was already collected. They told us in the stakeholder meeting, flat out, that they’re not going to collected new data so impacts to the migratory birds in the DEIS are not taken into account.”

Officials with the Division of Coastal Management, which is under the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, announced Monday night that the public comment period on the draft study has been extended from Dec. 5 to Dec. 20.

Written comments may be mailed to Federal Consistency Coordinator, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC  28557, or emailed to Federalconsistencycomments@deq.nc.gov with “Federal Consistency: USACE Wilmington Harbor 403 Navigation Project” in the subject line.

More information on the proposed project is on the Corps’ website.

The North Carolina Coastal Federation is putting out a call for commercial fishers to join the Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project taking place in January.

An effort in place since 2014, the nonprofit organization hires commercial fishers to collect crab pots during the annual closure Jan. 1-31 of internal coastal waters north and east of the Highway 58 bridge over Bogue Sound to Emerald Isle to all crab, eel, fish, and shrimp pots.

Commercial watermen and women along the northern and central coast are invited to submit an application through the organization’s website until Dec. 12. Captains must have a valid North Carolina standard commercial fishing license.

The project is scheduled to take place in the southeast region during the closure from March 1 to 15. A call for applicants will go out early next year.

“Every year, crab pots and other fishing gear are lost in our sounds in a variety of ways. Lost gear can get hung up or drift into channels, creating serious hazards for boaters, wildlife, and fishermen,” the organization said in a release.

In partnership with North Carolina Marine Patrol, 2,136 pots were removed in 2025 from select areas on the coast.

The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

COROLLA — There’s a pond at the Donal C. O’Brien, Jr. Sanctuary and Audubon Center, the Pine Island Club, just to the west of the clubhouse, with a troubled past.

Sometime in the 1940s, when the Pine Island Club was a hunting club, the membership dug out an existing pond, put in what was perhaps a 3 inches in diameter pipe to carry water from a canal off Currituck Sound and then bulkheaded the shore.

“They bulkheaded it so that they could have ducks in there all the time, so they could breed them,” said Audubon Center Senior Coordinator of Habitats and Facilities Sara Marschhauser.

The pond though, after more than 75 years, was no longer an inviting habitat for ducks, geese, or any of the species of birds, turtles or mammals that are part of the sanctuary habitat, longtime Sanctuary Director Robbie Fearn recently told the Coastal Review.

“The number of birds that I saw in it each winter went down as that pond was no longer serving the needs of wildlife,” he said.

Over the years, the water level had been falling, and “the water level was 2 feet below the bulkhead, so there was no soft side for turtles and smaller ducks. We saw little goslings (that) got stuck in there last year,” Marschhauser said. “We had to put something in there to get them out.”

That has since changed. As part of a $309,000 grant from the North Carolina Land and Water Fund, the pond, Marschhauser said, has been “restored back to its previous footprint.”

With the pond restored, wildlife came back almost immediately.

“Pretty quickly we had two wood ducks come out from the back side of the marsh and just hang out on the edge for a couple weeks,” Marschhauser said.

She mentioned that she had seen shorebirds, in this case a tri-colored heron, spotted sandpiper and great egret, standing side by side feeding.

“That means then there must have been a lot of food there. They don’t cooperate unless there’s food,” Marschhauser said.

Restoring the pond required considerably more than merely removing the bulkhead, smoothing the sides and digging out the bottom where silt had filled it.

The original pipes were much too small to provide enough water to maintain the pond’s depth, and, over the years, Fearn noted, “as sediment filled into the bottom of that pipe it got more and more restricted.”

The new pipe is significantly wider and will be much easier to maintain so that silt doesn’t restrict water flow. That extra volume of water can already be seen as it allows fish more access the pond.

“We’ve already seen increase in fish reproducing in this pond,” Marschhauser said.

What was clear from the outset of the project, however, was that simply bringing the pond back to its original shape and size and laying in a larger pipe would not be enough to maintain sufficient water levels.

The road from the clubhouse to the Currituck Sound dock passes through an open vista of marsh, trees and grasses. Songbirds are in constant motion. The dock itself is a haven for shorebirds and an occasional nutria.

About 25 or 30 yards from the dock, the canal that feeds the pond passes under the road. At one, the crossing was little more than a causeway over a ditch. “There were two little pipes … and that was it. You weren’t really getting much flow at all,” Marschhauser said.

To correct that, a low bridge now crosses the canal that is more open, allowing water to flow freely, “so that there’s not even a pipe that it has to go through,” she said.

An added bonus, Marschhauser continued, is that in high-water events, which results from any sustained wind from the west, “hopefully our bridge won’t flood.”

With a sustained flow of water, Marschhauser said she was confident the habitat will return to its original diversity.

“The hydrology is what’s going to bring in all the critters now,” she said.

Fearn agreed, noting how much more diverse the wildlife using the restored pond will be.

“By changing it back to a to a natural-edge pond where not just like diving ducks could use it, but (also) wading birds and bobcats and the otter, it becomes a buffet for everybody, rather than a small buffet for a limited number of species,” he said.

The North Carolina Land and Water Fund grant the Donal C. O’Brien, Jr. Audubon Center has received is the second substantial grant awarded to the center in the past two years. Last year a $3.05 million National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant “to fund innovative marsh restoration pilot projects” was begun with a number of those pilot projects ongoing.

At least one of the projects, Fearn said, “a thin layer sediment, putting silt and sand on top of the (marsh) islands, is cutting-edge for the state of North Carolina. So the process of working through it with regulators … is taking a little longer to get that permit.”

Other shoreline-stabilization projects have been completed and are being evaluated.

Fearn attributed Pine Island’s success in scoring major grants to simply listening.

“We’re listening to the landscape, and we’re listening to what the community needs, and then we understand the grants that we’re applying for and make sure they fit well,” he said.

Think of it like a menu, one brimming with choices on how to slow the loss of tree cover and grow greener, healthier canopies in urban and rural communities.

Alliance for Cape Fear Trees has designed a guide offering just that, a policy resource to help local planning departments and governments, developers and community advocates shape green development.

“Code & Canopy” is 45 pages chock full of policies and practices that aim to create and maintain robust tree canopies, a core mission of the Wilmington-based nonprofit.

“Local planners, elected officials, they can look at this and see what is most applicable to their community and their community’s needs,” Alliance for Cape Fear Trees Executive Director Isabelle Shepherd said. “Cities and counties regularly update their land development codes and we plan to, piece by piece, introduce some of these ideas into our local codes and ordinances. This is a full menu of possibilities.”

The guide, which officially dropped Oct. 14, is a culmination of nearly a year of investigating codes and ordinances that shape development in the Lower Cape Fear Region, specifically Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover and Pender counties.

But Shepherd, who, with the support of the alliance’s board members and senior advisers, researched and wrote the guide, believes that what she set out to create as a local effort can be extended to other regions throughout the state.

“We wanted to make sure that it was all well-researched, but also that it was presented in a way that’s easy for the public to understand and for local governments to enact,” she said. “Fundamentally, we’re trying to make it easy for local governments to stand up for trees.”

The guide entails a variety of policies and rules that municipalities and counties can adopt to promote slow tree canopy loss, boost healthy canopy growth, and strengthen existing protections.

For example, communities may establish “tree save areas,” which require developers to preserve a percentage of undisturbed, natural areas and protect significant trees, or those that hold particular importance because of their size, age, cultural significance, or rarity, within a building site.

The city of Charlotte has such a requirement in its unified development ordinance, or UDO.

Wilmington and New Hanover County have regulations protecting certain species of mature trees, but Shepherd said the alliance would like for the city and county to include protections for all species of trees that are 24 inches in diameter at breast height or larger.

“That said, other municipalities and counties across the region do not have any protections for mature trees. That’s something that we are pressing for,” she said.

The guide suggests ways municipalities and counties can incentivize developers to preserve natural areas.

It also highlights several policies local governments can implement to protect and grow tree cover, including establishing conservation resource areas, revising performance subdivision rules, identifying high-value nature areas and strengthening zoning protections, and requiring annual training that focusing on tree protection protocols for general contractors and site supervisors.

“Code & Canopy” includes samples of resolutions municipal and county boards may adopt and letters those boards can send to the North Carolina General Assembly to advocate state legislators restore local zoning powers.

In December 2024, legislators amended Senate Bill 382, known as the Disaster Recovery Act of 2024, restricts the authority of local governments to “down-zone,” or rezone a property to reduce the density or intensity of a how a piece of land may be developed.

Alliance for Cape Fear Trees was founded 10 years ago as an advocacy organization for urban forestry depleted by coastal storms such as hurricanes, rapid development, and climate change.

The organization planted more than 3,000 native trees and distributed more than 15,000 throughout the region. It also offers educational programs and events that teach residents how to care for newly planted trees.

Since 2016, Wilmington’s tree canopy has shrunk from covering 48% of the city to about 40% today.

In unincorporated New Hanover County, more than 3,000 acres of canopy disappeared between 2014 and 2022.

Shepherd attributes those losses in what she described as a collision of climate stress and development pressure.

“Absolutely hurricanes like Florence play a major role in that, but development is also a primary driver of this loss and the costs go beyond aesthetics,” she said. “Mature forests intercept hundreds of millions of gallons of stormwater, reducing flood risk and improving water quality. Their roots stabilize soils. Their shade cool streets. When large trees and natural areas are removed without adequate replanting, the region loses vital green infrastructure.”

As part of their researcher, the alliance reached out to municipal and county planners, as well as developers who “demonstrated care toward the canopy,” for feedback.

A New Hanover County spokesperson said in an email that “Code & Canopy,” “will serve as a resource guide for the county’s Sustainability Manager to collaborate with departments in developing or updating policies that advance the county’s Strategic Plan goals for Sustainable Land Use and Environmental Stewardship.”

McKay Siegel, a partner with Chapel Hill-based development firm East West Partners, a sponsor of Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, lauded the organization for extending an invitation to developers to get their input.

“Developers don’t wake up and think about cutting down trees,” he said. “Whenever you take something from raw land to build, it’s not as though all you consider are the trees. There’s a whole lot of other factors – zoning, parking, stormwater. I think that ACFT is really doing their best to wrap their heads around some of the compromises that can be made in all the different areas, and what’s really best for the trees. I think ‘Code & Canopy’ is a good start. At least they’re giving us an opportunity to tell our side of the story, which is really neat and I think that the document reflects a lot of those conversations and hopefully it’s a good launch for the future.”

North Carolinians from cities, towns and communities throughout the Cape Fear River Basin urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to uphold its objection to a municipal wastewater treatment plant’s proposed permit that excludes an effluent discharge limit for 1,4-dioxane into their drinking water sources.

One after another, speakers at a public hearing the EPA hosted last Wednesday night asked the agency to force the state to reissue a permit that will limit discharges of the likely human carcinogen into surface waters that flow into tributaries of the Haw and Deep rivers, which converge to form the Cape Fear River.

Residents from Wilmington northwest to Fayetteville, Sanford, Pittsboro, Siler City, and Asheboro joined representatives of environmental organizations and downstream public water utilities at the hearing at Randolph Community College in Asheboro, the very city that fought to get 1,4-dioxane limits removed from its permit.

“Frankly I’m embarrassed that Asheboro is polluting the drinking water of as many as 900,000 people who live downstream from us,” longtime Asheboro resident Susie Scott said. “The solution, to me, seems simple. Our city should hold the companies producing this pollution to account and insist that they clean up their waste before we accept it into our treatment plant. People living downstream from us deserve safe drinking water.”

In August 2023, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources issued Asheboro a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit limiting the city water treatment plant’s release of 1,4-dioxane.

The city sued, challenging the state’s power to include a water quality standard for the clear, odorless chemical solvent used in manufacturing processes.

In September 2024, the Chief Administrative Law Judge for North Carolina at the time, Donald van der Vaart, ruled in the city’s favor and revoked permit limits of 1,4-dioxane.

In his ruling, van der Vaart said that DEQ officials did not follow the letter of the law written in state statutes when they calculated discharge limits and established an enforceable water quality standard for 1,4-dixoane. He also noted anticipated high costs associated with monitoring and treatment of the chemical compound.

DEQ’s appeal of that ruling is pending in Wake County Superior Court.

Costs to treat 1,4-dioxane will fall on the backs of downstream water utilities customers if the pollutant is not controlled at the source, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Executive Director Kenneth Waldroup said.

“The presence of 1,4-dioxane in our source water is just the latest example of how gaps in regulation can lead downstream communities exposed to risk,” he said. “1,4-dioxane is a synthetic, highly mobile compound that resists natural degradation and conventional water treatment. Once it enters our watershed, it is persistent and travels far downstream, all the way to our drinking water intakes. Removing 1,4-dioxane from our drinking water requires advanced and very costly treatment technologies. We’re talking millions of dollars in systems and additional millions in operations costs over a period of time.”

Waldroup said DEQ “took appropriate action” when it included 1,4-dioxane limits in Asheboro’s NPDES permit, but that the state Office of Administrative Hearings “inappropriately and inaccurately invalidated that move.”

“EPA is obligated to assume permitting authority if the state fails to comply with federal permits, and EPA must require the state of North Carolina to address this pollutant and protect 900,000 downstream users,” he said.

Public water utilities, including CFPUA, and businesses downstream of Asheboro’s wastewater treatment plant were notified by DEQ last January that the plant had discharged substantially high concentrations of 1,4-dioxane into Hasketts Creek, which empties into the Deep River.

Misty Manning, Fayetteville Public Works Commission’s chief operations officer for water resources, recalled to EPA officials last week of the Jan. 24 sampling results reported by the state and Asheboro.

“Asheboro’s own sampling result from that day was 3,520 parts per billion. This is more than 10 times higher than EPA’s calculation of what Asheboro’s discharge should be to protect public health at 22 parts per billion. Without enforceable limits, the city of Asheboro’s pretreatment program has yet to be successful in limiting 1,4-dioxane discharges to levels that meet water quality goals for a pollutant with a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above state water quality standards,” Manning said.

She was one of several speakers at the hearing to point out that other municipalities in the state have successfully reduced 1,4-dioxane discharges through industrial pretreatment processes without bearing economic hardship.

“And Asheboro has the responsibility to do likewise, using its permitted authority over their local industrial users,” Manning said. “Downstream communities should not bear the financial burden of treating and removing pollutants introduced by unchecked upstream discharges.”

Last June, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch and Haw River Assembly against Asheboro and the city’s industrial customer StarPet Inc., to stop their discharges of 1,4-dioxane into the Cape Fear River basin.

“As part of its antiregulatory fight, Asheboro has raised the absurd argument that it should not be the one that has to pay to control the cancer-causing pollution that it dumps upstream of drinking water supplies,” SELC attorney Hannah Nelson said. “I want to be clear. Asheboro could stop this pollution today by requiring its industries to treat for 1,4-dioxane, but it has chosen not to. In making that choice, Asheboro forces us, the families, the drinking water utilities, the local businesses, the schools, all of those who live downstream of the city, choose us to have to pay for their pollution.”

Stephen Bell, an attorney with Cranfill Sumer law firm’s Wilmington office and outside counsel for Asheboro, said that the city he represents believes steps DEQ took in implementing the August 2023 permit “set dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications.”

“Asheboro is not asking for no water regulation. They’re asking for regulation in accordance with the state law. As it stands today, based upon the court’s ruling, there is no water quality standard for 1,4-dioxane. The courts, our environmental rulemaking agency, they’re currently addressing this issue of limits for 1,4-dioxane and the EPA should respect that state-level process,” he said.

Once everyone at the hearing who signed up to speak addressed EPA officials, a member of the audience asked when the agency expects to make a final determination on the permit. The EPA may reaffirm its objection to the permit, require that the state modify the permit, or withdraw its objection of the permit.

Paul Schwartz, associate regional counsel in the Water Law Office at EPA’s Atlanta region office, said there is no statutory or regulatory timeline in which the agency must decide.

“In terms of specifying a date, certain that it would be done by, I don’t think we can do that,” he said. “And it doesn’t make it any easier that we’re operating during a period of government shutdown. But I think we want to give it immediate attention and focus on it so it doesn’t drag on too long.”

If the EPA decides to reaffirm its objection or require the permit to be modified, DEQ will have 30 days to submit a revised draft permit to the agency. If DEQ does not do that, the EPA will become the permitting authority.

The EPA is accepting public comments through Oct. 31 via email to R4NPDESComments@epa.gov or by mail to US EPA, NPDES Permitting Section, Water Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.

The 18.8 million visitors to North Carolina’s nine National Park Service sites in 2024 injected $2.3 billion into the state’s economy, second only to California’s $3.7 billion, finds a recent report.

Of that $2.3 billion statewide, around 4.7 million visitors spent $732.2 million in the communities around the coast’s five National Park Service sites, according to “2024 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation” made available to the public Sept. 25.

Park service officials release the annual report detailing what visitors paid the previous year on lodging, camping fees, restaurants, groceries, gas, local transportation, recreation industries and retail in gateway regions, which are the communities or areas that surround a site. An easy-to-use interactive online tool breaking down the report is on the website.

With the ongoing government shutdown that began Oct. 1, and ongoing at the time of this publication, next year’s numbers will likely show a different story.

Visit NC Executive Director Wit Tuttell told Coastal Review that the report “makes it clear that national parks, seashores, historic sites and trails enrich our state and local economies.” Visit NC is the state’s official destination marketing organization.

The study looked at the Wright Brothers National Memorial, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, all on the Outer Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore in Carteret County, and Moores Creek National Battlefield in Pender County, and, in the western part of the state, Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

“Beyond the monetary impact, there’s endless value in preserving our scenic wonders and the experience of what humans as well as nature have achieved,” Tuttell continued. “Travelers come here to channel the Wright Brothers, camp on the beach at Cape Lookout, and view the foliage along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Knowing there’s an economic boost to go along with these priceless experiences makes us doubly appreciative.”

Nationwide, more than 85 million acres make up the 433 federally managed sites found in every state, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The report states that across the country in 2024 a record 332 million park visitors spent an estimated $29 billion in gateway regions at the 404 sites that counted the number of visitors. The previous record was set in 2016 with 330.9 million visits.

Total visitor spending estimates increased by almost 10% in 2024 compared to 2023, which the report authors credit to a 2% park visitation increase of around 6.36 million. Data also shows that more than 55% of parks had an above-average off-season in February-June and October-December. 

Using this report, the National Park Conservation Association estimates that the National Park Service is losing $1 million a day nationwide from fee revenue for each day the government is shutdown.

“Based on the Park Service’s shutdown plan, almost 9,300 people (nearly two-thirds of Park Service staff) are now being put in the scary position of not knowing when their next paycheck will arrive. Additionally, park concessioners and partners now face the prospect of lost revenue and further economic hardship — local economies could lose as much as $80 million in visitor spending every day parks are closed in October,” the association stated on its website.

National Park Service on the coast

On the Outer Banks, Wright Brothers National Memorial saw 407,000 visitors who spent around $28.6 million. The site in Kill Devil Hills “encompasses the spot where Wilbur and Orville made their world-changing first flights, the historic sand dune where they did most of their gliding, and the location they lived while they were experimenting in the Outer Banks,” the park service states.

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site is on Roanoke Island and its 275,000 visitors brough in an estimated $19.3 million to the local economy. The site “preserves and interprets the site of the first English Colony in the New World, is the site of the theatrical production, The Lost Colony, and interprets the historical events of the Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans who lived on Roanoke Island, North Carolina,” according to the park service.

Cape Hatteras National Seashore saw 2.8 million park visitors in 2024 spend an estimated $650 million. This national seashore is roughly 70 miles from north to south and is made up of Bodie, Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. The nation’s first national seashore, Cape Hatteras was established in 1937 “to preserve significant segments of unspoiled barrier islands along North Carolina’s stretch of the Atlantic Coast,” the National Park Service said.

Bryan Burhans is the director of Outer Banks Forever, the official nonprofit partner of three parks, and a branch of Eastern National, a nonprofit that promotes America’s national parks and other public trust partners.

“The National Parks are a money generator. They generate a lot of tourism dollars for the Outer Banks,” he said, but more importantly, these sites are “such an integral part of the fabric that makes up the Outer Banks, which he called “a unique and special place.”

Outer Banks Forever is the official philanthropic partner and does not receive any federal funding. Its work is funded by local businesses, donors, state and county partners, and through various grants. “And our goal is simple. It is to preserve and enhance the visitor experience of our national parks here on the Outer Banks,” Burhans said.

One of the group’s recent projects is the pathway at Cape Hatteras connecting the lighthouse to the beach. It’s in the second phase of the project and is under contract with a company to build a restroom facility with outdoor showers with hot water. “The restroom facility alone is about a $380,000 investment by Outer Banks Forever.”

Cape Lookout National Seashore in Carteret County brought in 552,786 visitors that spent $28.9 million. The site protects a 56-mile stretch of barrier islands where sea turtles and shorebirds nest, a herd of wild horses roam free, and Cape Lookout Lighthouse and two historic villages are a snapshot into the past.

“People come to Cape Lookout National Seashore to recreate at the beach and end up supporting the U.S. and local economies along the way,” said Katherine Cushinberry, the acting superintendent, in a release. “We’re proud that Cape Lookout generates $32 million in revenue to communities near the park.”

Moores Creek National Battlefield is an 88-acre site in Pender County that welcomed 691,000 visitors who spent about $5.4 million. The battlefield preserves the site of a Feb. 27, 1776, Revolutionary War battle. “Loyalist forces charged across a partially dismantled Moores Creek Bridge. Beyond the bridge, nearly 1,000 North Carolina Patriots waited quietly with cannons and muskets poised to fire. This battle marked the last broadsword charge by Scottish Highlanders and the first significant victory for the Patriots in the American Revolution, according to the website.

“The two leading drivers of tourism are natural resources and history. Moores Creek National Battlefield is rich in both,” Greater Topsail Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Executive Director Tammy Proctor said in an interview.

“This national park is a treasure that attracts thousands of visitors each year, not only from the Pender County beaches but from the Wilmington area and Brunswick Isles,” she said, adding that the park and its history “had a significant impact on the Revolutionary War. Those fighting for independence from England experienced their first decisive victory at Moores Creek Bridge.”

Moores Creek is a tributary flowing to the Black River and a perfect kayaking location, with a kayak launch at the park. “The creek is pristine and leads to one of the nation’s most pristine rivers. The trails in Moores Creek provide visitors with an experience of the great outdoors and a walk among historical events,” Proctor continued.

“Regarding Moores Creek National Park staff, I can’t say enough about the educational opportunities, programs, and events this staff orchestrates in collaboration with the Friends of Moores Creek Battlefield Association, the nation’s oldest National Park friends organization,” she said.

National Park Service and the shutdown

As of Wednesday, the United States Government had been shut down for three weeks because, according to Oct. 10 post by the National Conference of State Legislatures, on Oct. 1, “lawmakers failed to resolve a budget deadlock, halting some federal operations and putting approximately 750,000 employees on unpaid leave. Triggered by partisan clashes over funding beyond Sept. 30, the shutdown has created uncertainty for many federal programs.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures was created in 1975 by state legislators and legislative staff to provide research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers, according to its website.

During a government shutdown, the organization continues, “the administration retains limited spending flexibility by prioritizing funding for programs that the president deems essential for public safety or national security, such as military operations or emergency services.”

As a result, national parks have remained partially open to the public. Many of the sites advise that some services may be limited on their official Facebook page by way of a reshare from the National Park Service dated Oct. 1, with a link to the Department of the Interior’s “Operations in the Absence of Appropriations” that includes the park service’s contingency plan dated September 2025.

Lincoln Larson, an associate professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at North Carolina State University, explained to Coastal Review that during a government shutdown, much of the park staff is furloughed, “meaning they don’t work and aren’t paid but retain their job and benefits when the shutdown ends. Overall, a shutdown presents enormous challenges for park management, members of the public who want to visit parks, and for the park employees themselves.”

In most cases, the decision to close depends on the park itself, but many park managers want to keep their sites as open and accessible to the public as possible. However, that is difficult to do with limited staffing, he continued.

While basic services such as roads and restrooms are usually open, they are not monitored or maintained at the same level as during regular operations, and other services, including visitor centers, entrance kiosks, campgrounds, websites, programming and permitting systems, might not be available at all.

Most National Park Service staff view stewardship of natural and cultural resources as a major part of their job, but when they’re not available to protect and conserve these valuable assets, many threats arise, including the effects of overtourism.

Threats like littering, graffiti, human waste, and off-trail behavior often increases under these conditions, causing irreparable damage to fragile park resources. “We saw this happen during the COVID-19 pandemic, when excessive visitation and limited staffing created unprecedented challenges for parks,” Larson said.

Limited staffing also creates safety issues, particularly if law enforcement or search and rescue operations are negatively impacted, which led to many parks closing during the pandemic because of concerns about degradation in the absence of enforcement. A government shutdown poses similar problems.

Larson said it’s difficult to quantify the broader economic impacts of park closures or service reductions.

“Although a shutdown clearly impacts operations within a park itself, the negative effects outside of parks can take an even greater and longer-lasting toll on nearby communities,” Larson explained. Adding, in many parts of rural America, including eastern North Carolina, national parks are major economic engines that, through outdoor recreation and tourism, power local economies.

“These gateway communities depend on park visitation to survive and thrive. Many park workers also live in communities near the parks, and their salaries breathe life into these towns. When parks shut down, many of these economic benefits are lost, making life much tougher for people living nearby. If shutdowns happen during peak tourism seasons, the economic impacts can be even more devastating and leave a lasting effect on the social and cultural landscape of an area,” Larson said.

The National Park Conservation Association urged in a Sept. 29 letter that the National Park Service close all parks during the shutdown to avoid the damage to infrastructure, vandalism and sanitation issues, like human waste and trash, many of the federally managed parks experienced during the last shutdown that lasted 35 days in December 2018 to January 2019.

“NPCA will not stand by and watch history repeat itself… We know what happened last time park staff were forced to leave parks open and unprotected, and the impacts were disastrous … If the federal government shuts down, unfortunately our parks should too,” NCPA President Theresa Pierno said in a release.

Chemours’ air permit application to expand production at its Fayetteville Works plant excludes emissions data that should be disclosed to the public, environmental lawyers say.

The company “improperly withheld vital emission data from the public” in its Aug. 14 application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality, according to a letter Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys sent the department last month.

“We urge the Department to require Chemours to re-submit its application with disclosed emissions data,” the Sept. 19 letter states. “North Carolina law clearly states that emission data cannot be kept secret.”

Jess Loizeaux, Chemours’ communications leader, refuted that claim, writing in an email responding to a request for comment, “our permit application fully disclosed the projected emissions associated with the expansion.”

“Certain details included in the application submitted to DAQ – such as production capacity, operating hours, and emissions factors – were redacted from the public version because they are considered confidential business information and, if made public, could harm our competitive position,” Loizeaux said. “Protecting confidential business information is standard practice and does not affect transparency regarding environmental impacts.”

Attorneys for Chemours and its predecessor company DuPont made a similar argument earlier this year when they filed a court motion to keep under seal thousands of pages of documents they say include “non-public facts” that largely pertain to chemical production.

Lawyers representing public utilities and local governments downstream of Chemours’ Bladen County plant submitted 25,000 pages of documents to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina as part of lawsuit those entities brought against the companies in October 2017.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Brunswick County, Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority, and Wrightsville Beach aim to recover costs and damages associated with the Fayetteville Works’ plant’s discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, for decades into the Cape Fear River. The river is a drinking water source for tens of thousands of residents in the region.

The court had not rendered a decision on Chemours’ request as of this story’s publication.

In 2020, Chemours submitted an application to renew its Title V permit, which applies to major source of air emissions, for its Fayetteville Works plant to the state Division of Air Quality.

Two years later, the company applied for a separate permit to expand its production of vinyl ethers and IXM.

Chemours revised and resubmitted that permit application to expand only its production of vinyl ethers last August. Vinyl ethers are a class of compounds used to create a variety of products used in a range of technologies from semiconductor chips to aviation components.

Vinyl ethers are used to create a wide variety of products, including polymers for adhesives, coatings, and plastics

The expansion would pertain to the plant’s two existing vinyl ethers production units, Loizeaux said.

“As outlined in the revised permit application, additional abatement technology will be installed alongside each expansion and is projected to decrease the site’s overall fluorinated emissions by approximately 15%, despite an increase in production,” she said. “A timeline for the expansions has not yet been set.”

Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys argue in their Sept. 19 letter to DEQ that Chemours is violating provisions within the state law that outlines protection and disclosure rules for confidential information.

The application, “blacks out emission rates from stack testing, uncontrolled emission factors, hours of operation, maximum hours of operation, historic production, and post-modification production capacity. The information is necessary to verify and fully understand the emissions and authorized emissions at the facility and cannot be withheld from the public,” according to the letter.

The letter goes on to state that Chemours previously disclosed similar information in previous submissions to DEQ.

“Chemours’ about-face from its past submissions further confirms that this information cannot be treated as confidential,” the letter states.

Last April, the SELC, on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, asked DEQ to deny Chemours’ request to expand production at its Bladen County plant, arguing that the company’s air permit application was riddled with flaws.

As part of 2019 consent order with DEQ and Cape Fear River Watch, Chemours installed a thermal oxidizer to capture and destroy PFAS from emitting into the air. The order also requires the company to test tens of thousands of private drinking water wells for PFAS contamination throughout the region.

In a 20-page letter to DEQ, SELC attorneys argue Chemours questioned the efficacy of thermal destruction technology on PFAS.

“Investigating Chemours’ thermal oxidizer specifically, [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] determined that, due to a lack of data, ‘removal processes for products of incomplete combustion or of destruction of potential compounds not studied … are still unclear.’ In other words, it is possible that the company’s thermal oxidizer does not fully destroy many PFAS. Some may break down into other harmful chemicals, and others may not be destroyed at all,” the letter states.

DEQ Interim Deputy Communications Director Shawn Taylor said in an email earlier this month that while air quality officials deem the latest version of Chemours’ application administratively complete, “the Division may require additional information from the applicant to conduct its technical review.”

“The Division plans to schedule a full public engagement process, including a public comment period and public hearings, to be announced at a later date,” he said.

Post has been updated.

The nor’easter that swept up the East Coast this past weekend stripped ocean beaches of sand, inundated areas with floodwaters and pushed seawater over dunes and roads along North Carolina’s coast.

The Outer Banks suffered much of the brunt of the powerful system that brought wind, rain and coastal flooding.

On Saturday the North Carolina Department of Transportation closed sections of N.C. 12 on Ocracoke. Overwash forced officials to close portions of the road Sunday on Hatteras Island, where crews spent the weekend pushing sand and water from the road and rebuilding the dune line that divides the beach from the road.

As of late afternoon Tuesday, N.C. 12 on Ocracoke was the only road closed and the Hatteras-Ocracoke Ferry service remained suspended, NCDOT’s Assistant Director of Communications Jamie Kritzer said in an interview.

N.C. 12 is closed on the north end of Ocracoke Island between the ferry terminal and the National Park Service Pony Pens.

“This afternoon, we’ve been forced to close N.C. 12 again on Pea Island from Marc Basnight Bridge to Rodanthe, due to ocean overwash,” Kritzer said. “The stretch on Pea Island was reopened at 5 p.m. (Monday) but the wind increased this afternoon and we saw overwash around high tide.”

Kritzer said that NCDOT crews were continuing to push sand and water from N.C. 12 and restore the protective dunes on both islands.

“Our ability to reopen N.C. 12 will depend on whether the dune holds through the next high tide cycle,” he said.

In addition to NCDOT’s highway crews, the state’s Ferry Division played a critical role during the response to this weekend’s nor’easter, Kritzer said.

“At one point, all seven ferry routes were suspended this weekend. However, when the winds subsided, the ferries were able to make a special run to take Ocracoke visitors back to Swan Quarter,” he said. “The Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry have helped transport highway crews and equipment between Hatteras and Ocracoke, so the crews could work on clearing N.C. 12.”

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac told Coastal Review early Tuesday afternoon that there has been a lot of coastal erosion in certain areas of the national seashore.

At the time of the interview, the National Weather Service forecast much of the Outer Banks to experience flooding through Wednesday. Hallac said that he expects oceanfront flooding as a result, which could make driving on the highway through the seashore hazardous.

“The beaches continue to remain hazardous, especially the beachfront in the Buxton area and the beachfront in the Rodanthe area due to the waves and high-water levels battering many threatened oceanfront structures,” he said.

Between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2, eight unoccupied beachfront houses fell in Buxton, five of which collapsed within 45 minutes of each other. Another unoccupied house gave way on Oct. 3 in Buxton, bringing the total number of houses that have succumbed to encroaching ocean waters to 21 within the past five years.

As of Oct. 3, nine homes on Hatteras Island have toppled into the sea, “but there are a number of significantly threatened oceanfront structures, and you know, collapse is definitely possible,” Hallac said. “Even if collapse doesn’t occur, pieces and parts of those homes have broken off over the last couple of days, including large structures like decks. So that’s the reason that the entire beach front in the village of Buxton remains closed.”

He recommended travelers avoid taking N.C. 12 during the high-tide window, adding that there’s a likelihood of some minor soundside flooding as the winds are switching more to the north and northwest.

“That could also make some of our access points on the sound side flooded, and also make highway driving hazardous,” he said.

Conditions were less dire further south along the state’s coast.

Carteret County’s Public Information Officer Nick Wilson said that the county didn’t see any significant damage from last weekend’s coastal low.

“Most of the impacts were primarily in the Down East,” he said, where some roads in Cedar Island and a few other areas experienced overwash.

“A couple of our convenience sites were closed on Sunday for safety but were back to normal on Monday,” he continued. “There haven’t been any reports of building damage or injuries. The high tides over the weekend, combined with king tide conditions, did cause some flooding in low-lying spots, but it quickly receded once the low passed.”

Carteret County Shore Protection Manager Ryan Davenport said Wednesday morning that Most of Bogue Banks fared well during the recent storm.

“We did see moderate erosion and some dune escarpments in western Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, and Salter Path, but the impacts were no worse than what we typically expect from a winter storm. We remain on track for the island-wide nourishment project scheduled to begin in fall 2026,” he said.

Town officials from North Topsail Beach in Onslow County to Holden Beach in Brunswick County reported experiencing some erosion and escarpment.

North Topsail Beach officials assessed the town’s little more than 11-mile stretch of ocean shoreline throughout Monday and found most erosion to have occurred along the northern end of town toward New River Inlet.

“We noticed our typical hotspots had erosion,” North Topsail’s Town Manager Alice Derian said Tuesday. “There’s some escarpment there. There was some scarping south, but the dunes are still intact.”

All of the town’s public accesses remain open.

Topsail Beach’s ocean shoreline “held up well except at the very south end,” Topsail Island Shoreline Protection Commission Chair William Snyder said.

He said that there is some escarpment to the natural dunes that front a portion of the undeveloped southern tip of the island.

New Hanover County Coastal Protection Coordinator Bryan Hall said in an email Tuesday afternoon that Wrightsville, Carolina and Kure beaches all experienced some erosion over the weekend. Wrightsville Beach’s ocean shoreline also suffered some escarpments.

“As far as I’m aware, there was no significant public or private infrastructure damage or significant established dune damage, which is a testament to the well-established dunes and the County’s Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) projects,” Hall said.

Officials in Brunswick County beach towns that responded to Coastal Review’s requests for comments also reported minor erosion, including Bald Head Island and Oak Island.

“Honestly, I think we fared pretty well,” Ocean Isle Beach Town Manager Justin Whiteside said Tuesday afternoon.

One end of a privately maintained road that runs through a gated neighborhood at the eastern tip of the island has been partially eaten away.

Whiteside said roughly half of the cul-de-sac within The Pointe, a relatively new development of luxury homes, is gone.

“They’re sandbagging around the perimeter of where the cul-de-sac was,” he said.

“There have not been any reports to us of damage besides some flooding caused by tides and winds,” Holden Beach Town Manager Bryan Chadwick said in an email Tuesday afternoon. “We do feel fortunate because it could have been a lot worse.”

Storm recap

Warning Coordination Meteorologist Erik Heden with the National Weather Service office in the Newport/Morehead City office said that with this last storm, “we wanted to make sure people knew that despite it not having a name,” nor’easters can produce the same winds, flooding and rain as hurricanes.

There have been multiple offshore storms that have beaten and battered areas of the state’s coastline, particularly the Outer Banks, where N.C. 12 on Ocracoke and Hatteras islands has been closed for most of the last few days and Down East Carteret County has experienced high-water levels.

There was also a king tide, which means at certain times of the year the tides come in higher and go out lower than normal, that began early last week, leading to some flooding, which was not storm related, in Beaufort, Buxton and other spots on the Outer Banks, Heden said.

The combination of higher water levels with a king tide, a storm with gale-force winds, large waves and swells, and 3 to 4 inches of rain made everything worse, especially in low lying areas, he said.

Flooding occurred up the Neuse and the Pamlico rivers, pushing water levels in New Bern to their highest since Hurricane Ophelia in 2023.

Down East Carteret County had a “tremendous amount of water on the roads,” but nothing they haven’t experienced before, Heden said. The Outer Banks experienced significant ocean overwash, especially at the March Basnight Bridge southward to the Pea Island Visitor Center, where the man-made dunes are built.

Heden said that while the coast will experience slow improvements and fall temperatures the remainder of this week, some areas will continue to experience issues with water, especially at high tide.

“Today’s Tuesday, and we’ve got this advisory through Thursday, so it’s not going to be worse than it was this weekend. We don’t have the wind, we don’t have the swell, but it takes a while for that water to calm down,” he said.

​It was well into what we now call hurricane season in 1879 when the Atlantic Hotel on the Beaufort waterfront began filling with hundreds of guests ahead of the North Carolina Press Association’s annual meeting taking place there in late August.

Visitors from across the state, including the then-governor and his wife, made the lengthy trek to the hotel, most arriving around Aug. 15, of that year, about the same time as rumors began to circulate that a hurricane was causing damage in the Caribbean.

“But nobody in Beaufort was too bothered by that. In fact, the hotel manager was told about it, and he said, ‘we haven’t had a bad storm here in over 20 years. Everyone’s going to be fine,’” Assistant State Climatologist Corey Davis explained when he began his talk on “Lessons Learned from Recent Statewide Storms” at the Down East Resilience Network’s fall gathering.

Davis is with the State Climate Office of North Carolina based at N.C. State University in Raleigh, and was one of the speakers at the get-together held Sept. 23-24 in the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center on Harkers Island.

A project of the museum, the network meets there a few times a year to share and discuss with scientists, decision-makers and residents the latest research on the threats to Carteret County’s coastal communities such as nuisance flooding and hurricanes, and opportunities to address the aftermath.

Davis continued, fast-forward to a few days later, and warning signs began to appear that a storm was coming. “It’s the fishermen, the locals, that are the first ones to take notice.”

Then a Coast Guardsman stationed at Fort Macon on Bogue Banks began to receive telegraph transmissions from Florida and Georgia about the storm making its way up the coast.

The Coast Guardsman rushes to Beaufort to tell the hotel manager that a hurricane is on its way, Davis narrated, “and this hotel manager just scoffs. He said, ‘Nobody from the U.S. government is going to tell me how to run my hotel. Now you go back and do your job. Everybody here is going to be fine for the night. Well, as you can guess from the foreshadowing, they were not fine,” Davis said. “By 3 a.m. the rain had picked up. The wind was blowing even harder. The floodwaters along the ocean from the storm surge had risen to waist high by that point.”

A local then sounded the alarm to alert everyone that they needed to seek safety. The bottom floors of the hotel were already flooding, but not many people took notice.

“Now, I wish I could tell you that this story had a happy ending, but it doesn’t. This is a tragedy in our state. This is the story of the great Beaufort hurricane of 1879. It was a Category 3 storm at landfall right here in Carteret County. And in total, 46 people in North Carolina and Virginia lost their lives during the storm,” Davis said.

The hotel was rebuilt the next year on the Morehead City waterfront, only to burn to the ground in 1933.

He opened his talk with ​that history to give “a perspective of how these storms were perceived 100 and some years ago. Largely, that’s that hurricanes were primarily coastal events.”

Prompting him to ask what has changed when it comes to learning about hurricane behavior and forecasting, as well as why tropical storms and their hazards getting worse, and putting more folks at risk.

One change, for the good, is that forecasting has improved since the early 1970s. “What we saw back in the late ’70s, early ’80s is that the average track error at 72 hours was something like 400 nautical miles. That’s basically the distance between right here on Harkers Island and Knoxville, Tennessee,” Davis said.

Track error is the difference between where a hurricane is expected to go and the path it actually travels.

As science, modeling and forecasting have improved in the decades since, track error has decreased. “Over the last five to 10 years, that 72-hour error is under 100 nautical miles,” he said.

Another area of improvement, which he thinks should continue to improve, is communicating to the public the storm forecast and associated hazards.

Past messaging has focused on winds being the primary hazard, especially for coastal areas, but in recent years forecasters have emphasized rain amounts, flooding and storm surge, as well as hazards people in inland areas should expect.

One of the changes “that we don’t have a whole lot of control over” is background climate, which includes increasing global ocean heat content, or the total amount of heat the ocean has absorbed and stored.

“We know by now that the oceans have really absorbed the brunt of the warming that’s happening, especially over the last 50 to 60 years,” he said, and there’s been a steady increase since the late 1960s or the early 1970s.

This increase has had a few different impacts on tropical storm and hurricane events.

“No. 1, when you’re seeing that much warm water present, it means more seasons will be favorable for tropical activity. Even though there can be some other environmental oceanic factors that you have to worry about, if the ocean is warm enough, you can pretty much always get storms to form,” Davis said.

Another big impact is rapid intensification, like when a storm goes from a Category 1 to a Category 4 in 18 hours, as did Hurricane Erin earlier this summer.

“Obviously, that does add to the punch that those storms bring when they get to land,” Davis said.

As for atmospheric factors, a warmer atmosphere is similar to a bigger sponge and is “able to soak up more moisture, and it tends to wring out that moisture all at once, and it is able to do that even farther inland as well. So storms are getting wetter overall,” Davis said.

Hurricane Florence in September 2018 dumped “36 inches of rain in parts of southeastern North Carolina, just unheard-of amounts.”

Researchers looking at hurricane trends have found that, especially since the early 1970s, the storms are slowing down and even stalling when reaching land, and that’s primarily for the coastal Carolinas.

“That means we see storms like Florence. They get to our coast and just slow to a crawl; they sit over us for days and drop even more rainfall than we’ve ever seen,” he said.

Another consequence of these changes is that more people are in harm’s way from these storms. Davis cited a study from a few years ago that found for every house in North Carolina that was removed due to floodplain buyouts, another 10 had been built in those floodplain areas.

Another study determined that from 1996 to 2020, 43% of the flooded buildings in the state were outside of the Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated floodplains, and of all the buildings that have flooded in the state during this 25-year window, 23% flooded multiple times.

Storms look different now than they did in 2010, Davis continued, referencing a map showing the major storms most people consider the worst they experienced.

From the mountains, east, the storms were: Frances in 1916, Ivan in 1940, Hugo in 1989, Hazel in 1954, Fran in 1996, Floyd in 1999 and Isabel in 2003.

Davis then moved to a new map his office created showing the state’s worst tropical events as of September, which looks drastically different from the 2010 map.

“Carteret County is a really good example,” Davis said. “You’ve got one of those classic coastal monster storms. Hazel in 1954, a big event, storm surge in Morehead City and other parts of the coastline.”

But for the North Core Banks and Ocracoke Island, 2019’s Dorian caused soundside storm surge like those areas had never seen before. “Most of the rest of Carteret County and most of southeastern North Carolina would now show Florence as the worst.”

Fifty other counties have seen their worst storm come during the last 10 years.

Looking at the scale of some of these events, Florence can now be considered the worst storm from Cape Lookout to the suburbs of Charlotte. “That is a massive footprint that we just didn’t see historically for those sorts of storms,” Davis said.

Davis said there are things to be learned from these storms.  

“The first is what I’ll call action at a distance,” which essentially means that an area can experience big impacts even if the eye of the storm remains far away.

“I know this area saw that with Erin earlier in the summer, 200 to 300 miles offshore, but you still saw the rip currents and the overwash as if it was literally right in your backyard,” Davis said.

Another takeaway, he continued, is that you can’t just look at the strength of the winds or the category to understand what a storm will do.

Tropical Storm Chantal in early July was a weak tropical depression when it moved over central North Carolina, but the 8 to 10 inches of rain over a 12-hour period was far beyond what those areas had seen before.

Davis said he’s “firmly in the camp” of if we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it, and one of the big tragedies in eastern North Carolina was after Hurricane Floyd came through in 1999. Residents were told that it was a thousand-year event, leading people to believe a storm of that magnitude wouldn’t happen again in their lifetime, their children’s lifetime, or their children’s children’s lifetime, so they rebuilt the same as before.

“It wasn’t until we got the next storm with Matthew and the next storm with Florence, that they realized it’s probably not a great idea to have a house here, because this is not a once-in-a-lifetime event,” he said, adding that has to be emphasized to people. “If it happens once, it’ll happen again.”

A development company proposing to build a neighborhood on land in New Hanover County that includes a forest of centuries-old trees will “continue to fight” to see its plans through, the company’s founder said.

Copper Builders founder Wade Miller earlier this week called out what he referred to as misconceptions about Hilton Bluffs, a neighborhood proposed within a 4,000-acre tract that includes a nationally threatened forest.

In front of a crowd of opponents of the proposed development, Miller stressed at a New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting that trees in Sledge Forest would not be cut, wetlands would not be developed, 1,000 acres would be reserved as open space, and he reiterated a desire to conserve more than 1,100 acres on the tract.

“This means over 60% of the property will be protected if we achieve this goal,” he said. “We know this path comes with tradeoffs. We lose some density. We lose our golf course. We will lose one home per acre conserved. This is our preferred plan. This is what we are trying to do. We’ve invested considerable time, resources and energy into all this and we will continue to fight for it.”

Miller, as well as several people opposed to the development proposed for Castle Hayne, addressed commissioners during the board’s public comment session Monday afternoon.

Prior to the meeting, nearly 150 people gathered outside of the county’s historic courthouse in downtown Wilmington for a Save Sledge Forest rally.

The board meeting came on the heels of an announcement late last week that the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources had rejected a nonprofit’s multimillion-dollar grant request to purchase hundreds of acres of wetlands in Sledge Forest.

Unique Places to Save, in partnership with the Charlotte-based development company, had applied for a $15 million North Carolina Land and Water Fund grant to purchase 1,160 acres.

Opponents of the proposed neighborhood argue that the entire tract should be spared from development.

Sledge Forest rises from the banks of the Northeast Cape Fear River in northern New Hanover County and is part of the river floodplain, one of the largest landscape corridors in the southeastern part of the state.

More than 20 years ago, the Natural Heritage Program of North Carolina identified the forest as a significant natural area, one that includes bald cypress trees up to 500 years old, longleaf and loblolly pines older than 300 years and some of the Southeast’s largest remaining Atlantic white cedar.

The forest was added to the Old-Growth Forest Network’s national list of threatened forests earlier this year.

“With abundant wetlands and rising waters, the entirety of this site, not just a portion, must be preserved to maintain the site as a nationally significant heritage area,” geologist Roger Shew said during the commissioner’s meeting.

Shew, a senior lecturer in the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Ocean Sciences and Environmental Sciences department and a conservationist, warned that developing the upland area of the tract would impact adjacent wetlands with stormwater runoff “or subsurface flow that may exacerbate flooding and contaminant movement.”

“We already know that contaminants have moved off the GE site into the wetlands,” he said. “In fact, Copper Builders is petitioning to have a small brownfield site designated there.”

The tract being eyed for development is adjacent to a state-designated inactive hazardous site contaminated from drums of calcium fluoride and lubricants that were stored in unlined trenches during the 1960 and 1970s.

That contamination spread across two parcels, including one owned by General Electric, and the other owned by Nuclear Fuel Holding Co. Inc., a GE affiliate.

Miller did not address concerns raised about contamination. He did, however, point out that development would occur in areas that are farmed regularly for timber.

The current owners of the property have the right to clear cut all of the land, he said.

“We don’t want that to happen,” Miller said. “We want to save Sledge Forest through honest conversation efforts, not through an ask for legal or regulation changes. I’m an outdoorsman. I want to protect it. I care deeply about it.”

A petition of more than 13,000 signatures of those fighting the proposed development was presented to commissioners.

Because the proposed development is on land that does not have to be rezoned, the project does not require approval from a public body, effectively omitting the opportunity for public comment.

“It’s been a year since we learned about that project, since we learned that a developer had found a loophole in our ordinance that would allow him to build perhaps the largest residential project in the history of New Hanover County, while also allowing him to block any input or review by you, our elected officials, or by us, the community that will be impacted,” Castle Hayne resident and Director of Save Sledge Forest Kayne Darrel said Monday. “Due to this loophole, we were told by that developer that this massive project was a by-right development that gave us no voice in the decisions. Our ask is that you make a decision to join us in being part of the solution because we believe, and we want you to believe, that together we can fix this mistake and we can save Sledge Forest.”

Public hearings on the proposed Carolina Bays Parkway extension project have been rescheduled for later this month.

The hearing in Brunswick County originally set for Sept. 29-30 for two locations has been scheduled for Oct. 23 at Sea Trail Convention Center, 74-A Clubhouse Road, Sunset Beach.

The project would entail extending the parkway from its location at S.C. Highway 9 in Horry County, South Carolina, across the North Carolina state line to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County near Shallotte, constructing a multilane full-access freeway.

The meeting will kick off with an open house from 5-6:30 p.m., during which time attendees may review project information, environmental documents and maps of all seven project alternatives. A formal presentation and public hearing will follow at 7 p.m.

The hearing will also be available online and by telephone by dialing (984) 204-1487 with conference ID: 513 946 767#.

The hearing in South Carolina has been scheduled 5-8 p.m. on Oct. 20 in North Strand Recreational Center, 120 State Highway 57 South, Longs. Virtual attendees may join the meeting here.

The hearings originally scheduled for last month were postponed due to coastal storms that churned off the East Coast and pushed heavy surf along much of the North Carolina coast.

Update: A ninth oceanfront Hatteras Island house fell late Friday; an unoccupied structure at 23047 G.A. Kohler Court, Rodanthe, collapsed shortly before 6 p.m.

Original report follows below:

BUXTON — It started two weeks ago, when one small, unoccupied house here fell into the ocean, long before two powerful tropical storms were approaching Hatteras Island.

But by mid-afternoon Tuesday, shortly before high tide, both hurricanes Humberto and Imelda, while well offshore, had supercharged the ocean off Cape Hatteras, where the Outer Banks bend out farthest into the Atlantic. In a highly unusual spate of structural surrender, five houses along the beach in Buxton — all unoccupied and all off Tower Circle Road or Cottage Avenue — collapsed, apparently one after another and all within 45 minutes after 2 p.m.

Before midnight, another nearby house gave way to the pounding surf.

Then, at about 8 p.m. Wednesday, the eighth house fell onto the same stretch of beach, adding to a staggering amount of debris scattered along the oceanfront and buffeted by swirling surf.  

“We’ve got at least one or two more tides to go before this thing calms down,” John Robert Hooper, the owner of Lighthouse View Oceanfront Lodging in Buxton, told Coastal Review Thursday. “It’s a messy situation right now.”

Debris is spreading south through much of the village oceanfront, which is part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. But unlike in Rodanthe, Hatteras Island’s northernmost village that experienced 12 house collapses from 2020 to 2024, the debris has not spread as far or as wide along the beach. Instead, much of it has been trapped under houses and driven by wind and surf into neighborhoods.

“We are working very closely with Dare County to coordinate cleanup activities,” said Dave Hallac, superintendent of Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Hallac told Coastal Review Thursday that the National Park Service had been in contact with the property owners before the homes collapsed and is working to again communicate with them.

“We are implementing emergency cleanup activities to protect these federal lands and waterways and to prevent continued impact from the spread of debris,” he said. “We’re planning on starting tomorrow (Friday) morning.”

From what he had seen, Hallac said that it appears many of the houses still had contents inside when they fell. He said the park service had also observed “pieces and parts of septic drainfield lines and other wastewater system components.”

About two dozen park service personnel were planning Thursday to start collecting debris Friday between the southern end of Buxton and Cape Point.

The entire stretch of beach from the north end of the village to the Off-Road Vehicle Ramp 43 will remain closed until further notice.

Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard said Thursday that county and park officials expected to meet with the county’s contractor in Buxton Friday morning to assess the site and coordinate the cleanup response.

“We’re trying to get the homeowners to get contractors to move that debris to the road, so that our guys can come in with bucket trucks and pick it all up and haul it all away,” Woodard told Coastal Review.

Woodard said he believed that most, if not all, of the fallen houses were owned by out-of-town people. But there are an additional dozen or more homes along the same area of beach that are still vulnerable to collapse, he added. 

“We thought there would be a lot more going down yesterday, with that high tide at three o’clock,” Woodard said, referring to Wednesday’s rough conditions.

Considering the extensive impact of the offshore storms, the chairman couldn’t help lamenting the bad luck in the storm’s timing, saying it wouldn’t have happened if a beach nourishment project now planned for 2026 had been in place. 

“We were all praying once we’ve moved the nourishment from ’27 to ’26, just hoping and praying that we wouldn’t have any damages until then,” he said. “But unfortunately, with Mother Nature in 2025, we’ve had three weather systems that kicked us in the butt down there.”

Hooper, who was born in Buxton in 1954, said that these multiple collapses over such a short period of time is dramatically worse than he can recall happening before. 

“Oh, yes, it is,” he told Coastal Review. “There is something else going on here, rather than this normal erosion. You know, clearly the ocean’s higher, but … where is the equilibrium?”

A beach nourishment project in Buxton a few years ago seemed to have mostly ended up at Cape Point a couple of miles south, he said. Yet, Hooper, who had served as a Dare County commissioner from 2000 to 2004, said he has seen ebb and flow of the shoreline over the years, a slow rebalancing.

“And we may be there today, and this may be the end of it, I don’t know,” he said. “But clearly, as quick as all this stuff happened, this is a new element.”

Hooper has had sandbags – technically, a temporary measure only — in front of his oceanfront motel and cottages in Buxton since about 1992, he said, and he repaired and expanded them in 2013.

“Until now, we’ve been able to manage,” he said. The cottages, located south of the motel, have been most affected by the swell.

“I’ve been here fighting this thing for 50 years now, off and on, and probably this morning it’s my first house (that’s) unsafe because of the sewage,” he said. “It’s been tough, but it’s been really tough this fall with some of the PR, and certainly storms like this don’t help”

Since about Aug. 20, he said, visitation in Buxton had been hurting. Since mid-August, he said, he figures that businesses are off 60-70%.

Still, Hooper said that even though it hurts in the short term, losing the houses that were so close to the surf was a looming threat that seemed inevitable. 

“But at least in my viewpoint, you know, we got that over with,” he said. “Because nothing is worse than a house sitting out in the ocean.”

A new steel manufacturing company’s plans to open a factory in Hertford County will be “transformational” for the area, according to a state senator who worked behind the scenes to help land what is anticipated to be a nearly $1 billion investment project.

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, said he expects an official announcement from U.S. Forged Rings Inc., “coming very soon and it will be a very large event.”

“There’ll be folks from (Washington) D.C. coming down for this event,” he said.

USFR did not respond to requests for comment.

Hanig spoke to Coastal Review in a telephone interview a few days after the General Assembly on Sept. 23 advanced to Gov. Josh Stein a bill to appropriate $51 million to construct a public dock with access to the Chowan River and another $11 million to build a public road “capable of accommodating industrial loads” to the dock.

Stein signed House Bill 358 into law on Tuesday, stating it “makes helpful investments across the state” and that it “supports the state’s broader economic efforts.”

The bill does not specifically name the business for which the dock and road would be constructed, but states the company “is a manufacturer of steel forgings and large diameter steel fabrications” that would be required to invest a minimum of $947 million in the project site and create no fewer than 835 new jobs.

USFR on its website advertises itself as the country’s “only integrated One-Stop-Shop Manufacturer of Steel Forgings and Large Diameter Steel Fabrications.”

“What it’s going to do for Hertford County and all of northeastern North Carolina is transformational,” Hanig said. “This is going to be probably the biggest economic development project in decades. What’s happening here with these folks coming to town and this dock and barge … it’s going to explode into a major economic area. It really is.”

Hanig called what he said was a teamwork effort that included Hertford County commissioners, the county’s Economic Development Director Kelly Bowers, and state Rep. Bill Ward, a Republican who represents Camden, Gates, Hertford, Pasquotank counties, “magnificent.”

“We’ve been laughing, we’ve been crying, we’ve been yelling,” Hanig said. “You name it, every emotion over the last couple of years to get this thing to happen.”

Hertford County officials did not respond to requests for direct comment, instead issuing a statement by Andre Lassiter Sr., chairman of the county’s board of commissioners.

“Hertford County officials are excited at the prospect of a major industrial company considering locating a manufacturing facility in the county,” Lassiter stated. “Discussions with the company, and state and federal lawmakers and officials, have been occurring for more than a year, and are ongoing. The $51 million appropriation by the N.C. General Assembly, and the assistance and cooperation of the Economic Development Partnership of N.C., the N.C. Department of Commerce, and the Office of the Governor of North Carolina, all have been and remain critical to this endeavor.”

According to its website, USFR aims to operate three plants, including a piping facility, a fabrications facility and a forging and ring-rolling facility, all by the end of 2029.

“We are developing a state of the art Atlantic Coast based heavy industry components manufacturing hub with three co-located facilities,” the website states.

The fabrications facility, which the company plans to have up and running by the second quarter of 2028, will produce annually up to 100,000 metric tons of steel cylinders and shells up to 26 feet wide and up to 200 feet in length.

“The factory will have direct access to a wharf for shipment of large sections directly to end users or downstream fabrication yards,” the company website states. “It will support the energy & infrastructure sectors, supplying critical shell components and containment vessels for a wide range of applications.”

USFR has a supply chain partnership with Charlotte-based Nucor, a steel production company that has a plant in Hertford County near Cofield, a small village off the Chowan River.

Nucor’s Hertford County mill has been in operation since September 2000 and employs some 500 people. According to a recent WRAL report, Nucor has purchased hundreds of additional acres in the county this year.

Nucor did not respond to a request for comment.

Hanig said the General Assembly fund-appropriated dock will be utilized by more than one company and that “multiple companies” are inquiring about nearby property.

“There will be an agreement with USFR that they use it a certain amount of time and then other businesses will be able to use it as well,” he said. “That’s what is attracting other businesses to the location. As soon as this project starts it’s going to fill up so fast it’s going to be incredible. This is just a springboard to what’s going to happen over the next several years in Hertford County. I just can’t even put it into words how excited I am for everybody involved.”

OCEAN ISLE BEACH — When the Army Corps of Engineers issued its final decision on the terminal groin project here more than eight years ago, the document conveyed a prescient warning.

A terminal groin “may increase erosion along the easternmost point of Ocean Isle Beach, down-drift of the structure.”

Today, the shoreline east of terminal groin is being gnawed away, vanishing beach in front of a neighborhood of grand, multimillion-dollar homes built shortly after the $11 million erosion-control structure was completed in spring 2022.

A wall of sandbags fends off waves from reaching some of the waterfront homes on the ocean side of the gated community that’s advertised as “luxurious coastal living.”

Several lots remain vacant because the properties no longer have enough beachfront necessary to meet the state’s ocean setback requirements.

“I would have never developed the property if I had known this was going to happen,” said Doc Dunlap, a developer with Pointe OIB, LLC. “It’s just devastating to tell you the truth. I even had plans myself to build there, have a summer home.”

The caveat written in the federal record of decision all those years ago, one that was a central argument in a lawsuit to try and stop the terminal groin from being built, was not explicitly pointed out to the developers of The Pointe, they say.

In an email responding to Coastal Review’s questions, the Division of Coastal Management said it, “is not aware of any specific notification to those property owners other than the standard (area of environmental concern) hazard notice.”

“We were just under the impression that all of this was going to be extremely positive and help protect this part of the beach,” said Jimmy Bell, who contributed to the planning and implementation of the community. “And then, once we started experiencing this massive erosion, I started researching groins more. We had engineers and other people that were helping, and we were informed and under the impression that it was going to all be good, and now it’s turning out to not be quite as good.”

Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith pushed back on those claims.

“My heart breaks for them, but the developers knew that that groin was going in,” she said. “They knew it was not designed to protect that area. It was not designed to harm it, but they also know that adjacent 2,000 feet west of them was a line of sandbags and most of them had been there for years.”

The developers are now seeking legal representation as they continue to try to figure out how to protect the oceanfront properties within the 44-lot neighborhood.

“Mr. Dunlap is extremely disappointed in the decisions made that resulted in the placement and construction of the terminal groin and the erosion damages it has caused,” John Hilton III, corporate counsel to Pointe OIB, stated in an email. “He is committed to holding those who made these decisions legally accountable and also seeking a remedy to correct the ongoing erosion.  We are working to obtain local legal counsel to explore and pursue all available options.”

Erosion-battered shore

The east end of the island at Shallotte Inlet historically accreted and eroded naturally as the inlet wagged back and forth between Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach up until Hurricane Hazel hit in 1954.

When the powerful hurricane – likely a Category 4 storm using the Saffir-Simpson scale developed in 1971 – made landfall in October 1954 near the South Carolina border, it caused the inlet channel to move in a more easterly direction, accelerating erosion at the east end of the barrier island.

Erosion has remained persistent in that area since the 1970s, according to N.C. Division of Coastal Management records.

The worst of the erosion occurred along about a mile of oceanfront shore beginning near the inlet. An encroaching ocean claimed homes, damaged and destroyed public utilities, and prompted the N.C. Department of Transportation to abandon state-maintained streets.

In 2005, the town was permitted to install at the east a wall of sandbags to barricade private properties and infrastructure from ocean waves.

Sandbags revetments are, under state rules, to be used as a temporary measure to hold erosion at bay.

In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly repealed a decades-old state law that prohibited permanent, hardened erosion-control structures from being built on North Carolina beaches.

Under the revised law, a handful of beach communities, including Ocean Isle Beach, get the option to pursue installing a terminal groin at an inlet area.

Terminal groins are wall-like structures built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas of high erosion like the east end of Ocean Isle Beach.

These structures are controversial because they capture sand that travels down the beach near shore, depleting the sand supply to the beach immediately downdrift of the structure, stripping land that is natural habitat for, among others, sea turtles and shorebirds.

Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization Island Coordinator Deb Allen said that beach conditions east of the terminal groin have hindered turtles from nesting there this season. Escarpment, sandbags and debris that Allen believes is coming from the development have impeded turtles from accessing the sandy areas they seek to lay their eggs.

As of early September, the organization had recorded four false crawls, which is when a female turtle crawls onto a beach only to return to the ocean without laying eggs, and three nests east of the terminal groin, Allen said.

The potential for that type of impact to wildlife was argued in a lawsuit the Southern Environmental Law Center filed on behalf of the National Audubon Society in August 2017 challenging the Corps’ approval of Ocean Isle Beach’s project.

The lawsuit claimed that the Corps failed to objectively evaluate alternatives to the terminal groin, including those that would be less costly to Ocean Isle residents and less destructive to the coast, particularly to what was then the undeveloped area on the island’s east end.

The lawsuit, which later included the town, came to an end in March 2021 after a panel of appellate court judges affirmed a lower court’s decision that the Corps fairly considered the alternatives included in an environmental impact statement, or EIS, examining the proposed project.

“As we went through and talked about the impacts of terminal groins in the EIS, this was the central argument – will the land east of the groin erode at a more rapid pace? And, everything we could point to, all of the science, said yes,” said Geoff Gisler, program director of SELC’s Chapel Hill office. “There’s only so much sand and the way that these structures operate is they keep more of it in one place and necessarily take it from somewhere else. That’s why we have seen over and over again that when you build a groin towards the end of an island, what happens is the island erodes at the end. That there is less sand going to the east end is not an accident.”

‘Righting this wrong’

Gisler said the SELC will be following how the town and the Corps respond to the erosion that is occurring east of the terminal groin.

“The town committed and the Corps committed to righting this wrong if it occurred and that’s what we’ll be looking at,” he said.

Under conditions in the town’s federal permit, the town is required to monitor the sand spit east of The Pointe as well as the town’s shoreline and that of neighboring Holden Beach to the west.

Should those shorelines erode past boundaries identified in 1999, “consideration will be given to modifying the structure to allow more sediment to move from west to east past the structure,” according to final EIS.

The town also has the option to nourish an eroded shoreline.

“In the event the negative impacts of the terminal groin cannot be mitigated with beach nourishment or possible modifications to the design of the terminal groin, the terminal groin would be removed,” the EIS states.

The Corps and the Division of Coastal Management are reviewing the monitoring report submitted by the engineering firm hired by the town, Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina.

That report indicates that erosion “has exceeded the 1999 shoreline threshold for the area immediately east of the groin.”

“However, the applicant is working on a modification request to alter this threshold as the shoreline had eroded landward of part of that threshold prior to construction of the groin,” according to the division.

A beach maintenance project scheduled for fall 2026 to inject sand west of the terminal groin is anticipated to increase the rate of sand that bypasses the terminal groin and “would serve to ‘feed’ the shoreline immediately east of the groin with additional material,” according to the town’s engineer.

But The Pointe’s developers and property owners say they can’t wait another year.

“There’s got to be an exception to the standard application restrictions (i.e., sandbag placement and height) the (Coastal Area Management Act/Coastal Resources Commission) process has today to protect near term east of the groin due to emergency status and a path longer term that can get us to a point of evaluating what we can do for the groin from a redesign standpoint that would protect all both west and east of the groin,” property owner Brendan Flynn said. “What we’re dealing with now in my view is we need to have another review of what could be done to enhance the groin’s performance to benefit and protect the other part of this island.”

Smith said that the terminal groin is doing what it was designed to do.

“It is building up right adjacent to the groin,” she said. “It just has not built anything far enough down to protect this new development. I wish Mother Nature would reserve herself and build it up right now instead of taking it away. I wish I had some magic bullet for them too, but I don’t today. It’s really up to them to take some action.”

Kerri Allen, director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s southeast office in Wrightsville Beach, called the situation “heartbreaking,” but not surprising. The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

“When you alter the natural movement of sand with a hardened structure like the terminal groin, you might protect one stretch of beach, but you inevitably put other areas at greater risk,” she said. “And, unfortunately, the erosion we’re seeing east of the groin is exactly what experts warn could happen.  That being said, the purpose of this groin was to protect existing infrastructure that was already at risk. Instead, new homes were built in an area that’s incredibly vulnerable and these homeowners are now facing devastating losses. Moving forward, we need to focus on solutions that don’t just shift the problem from one place to another and ensure that public resources aren’t used to subsidize these risky, short-term development decisions.”

“I think this is a pivotal moment for Ocean Isle and for other coastal towns,” she continued. “We have an opportunity to step back, look at the science, and commit to managing our coast in a way that protects both our communities and the natural systems that sustain them. That means resisting the temptation to build our way out of these challenges because, ultimately, the ocean always wins.”

EAST LAKE — Red wolf populations in northeastern North Carolina are still far from recovered, but there are optimistic signs that the highly endangered species now has a solid chance.

More wolves are breeding, more pups are surviving, coyote hybridization has been cut, and there are fewer mortalities from vehicle strikes and gunshots.

While still modest, those successes reflect increased community engagement and renewed commitment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its numerous partners.

“It’s kind of a small crew, but we’re really dedicated to what we’re doing here,” wildlife biologist Joe Madison, North Carolina program manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Red Wolf Recovery Program, said during a virtual meeting held Sept. 23 to provide updates on the program. “We want to make this work. We want to work with landowners to make this work. We don’t want to impose it.”

Madison said that only about half of the red wolves roam within Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge land. The population, as of August, according to Fish and Wildlife data, totals about 30 red wolves, including 18 collared adults as well as uncollared juvenile wolves and a few other adults. This population roams the designated recovery area, 1.7 million acres of public and private land in Hyde, Dare, Tyrrell, Washington and Beaufort counties. Red wolves have been seen in all five counties

It is the only known wild population in the world.

Red wolves had once ranged over wide swaths of the U.S. mainland, including much of the Gulf Coast and Southeast regions, but after years of overhunting and habitat loss, the animals were declared extinct in the wild and added to the Endangered Species List in 1967. Twenty years later, four pairs of captive wolves, offspring of wild stragglers captured earlier in Louisiana, were transferred to Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, headquartered in Dare County. Innovative management tactics led to steady population growth, reaching a height of about 120 red wolves by 2007.

In 2020, there were only about seven collared wolves.

But poor communication with landowners led to angry confrontations over wolves coming onto private lands, while coyote hunting regulations led to mistaken identities.  Political support and funding for the recovery program dropped precipitously, and more wolves were being shot, whether intentionally or by mistake. By 2015, proposals were introduced to drastically reduce or potentially eliminate the program. After a series of lawsuits by environmental groups, the recovery program was eventually restored.

As Red Wolf Recovery Program Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Emily Weller has acknowledged, the agency had to change the way it operated.

“Reintroducing a large carnivore into the wild had never been done before, and the focus of this program in the beginning was almost entirely biological,” Weller said, according to minutes of a management update meeting in September 2024. “But the social aspects, the community engagement, and human dimension — those were the cracks in our program’s foundation.”

Now the concept of “collaborative conservation” is viewed as critical to the survival of the red wolf, she said recently. 

“We cannot recover this species on our own,” Weller said during this week’s virtual update. “Our work depends on a pretty complex network of organizations, agencies, communities and individuals.”

That network includes veterinarian care at North Carolina State University and local veterinarians, staff with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and assistance from numerous nonprofit and nongovernment groups.

“The science tells us what’s possible,” Weller said. “But it’s the relationships, the trust, the collaboration, that really determine what’s achievable.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service also now works with “Prey for the Pack,” a habitat-improvement program that engages with private landowners in eastern North Carolina wolf recovery areas in mutually beneficial habitat programming.

The Red Wolf Recovery Program also works closely with 52 zoo and wildlife centers across the country as part of the Saving Animals From Extinction, or SAFE, program, an initiative of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which currently cares for 280 captive red wolves. Part of the program’s goal is to increase the SAFE population to 400.

“They are a critical piece of this program in that they support the establishment of wild populations in maintaining genetic diversity,” Weller said.

Much care goes into choosing captive wolves to transfer to the recovery program in hopes of future pairing, as well as deciding which pups to place into dens with similarly aged pups for wild mothers to adopt, Weller noted.

“We rely on universities and academia for research and data to guide and base our decisions, and we’re using it constantly to adapt our management,” she said. “And then we need close coordination and communication with local landowners and community members to understand and incorporate their concerns and hopes for their community, as they have the most direct bearing on conservation and recovery, since they are the ones that live with the red wolves.”

Weller said that, other than a period of time when spending was frozen or restricted, the current funding for the Red Wolf Recovery Program had not been reduced.

Ultimately, she said, success will be when red wolves can be delisted — when they don’t need human help to survive — which is expected to take about 50 years, if all goes as planned.

Criteria that meets that goal include measurable thresholds: three viable populations, distributed to maximize redundancy and protect from catastrophic loss; one population of at least 180 and two with a minimum of 280 wolves, each with high gene diversity. Populations must be stable or growing for a decade with minimal human help and have a 95% probability of persisting for 100 years.

And finally, there must be long-term commitment that the sustainable populations can be maintained into the foreseeable future without Endangered Species Act protections.

“Red wolf recovery is about far more than just saving the species,” Weller added. “It’s about restoring ecosystems or landscapes to their natural balanced state and creating healthier environments that benefit plants and wildlife, including game species, and people.”

Every December, the red wolf program issues a release strategy for the coming year, that sets out a plan of how many captive wolves to release into the wild population that will best enable genetic diversity and sustainable growth. Changing conditions will be considered in any necessary revisions.

“It is also important to recognize that the ability to execute many of the releases is highly dependent on numerous on-the-ground factors,” according to the 2024-25 plan. “These factors include, but are not limited to, the ability to successfully capture specific wild Red Wolves, the correct timing of birth, and size of wild ad captive litters, to allow for pup fostering, and the survival of individual wild Red Wolves included in the scenarios.

“Given the myriad of factors that influence the different scenarios, the Service’s actions described in this strategy require real-time flexibility and the ability to adapt to changing factors on the ground and situations; thus, they require management discretion in the field to maximize the chances of success.”

Madison said that the team depends on having that flexibility to make judgment calls and adjust management tactics. During the update meeting, he elaborated on numerous and highly complex strategies that go into pup fostering, proper wolf-human interactions and handling — as little as possible — and wolf feeding – frozen, wild, small mammals like rabbits, raccoons, nutria and fresh frozen roadkill, like deer — and matchmaking (wolves are picky and fickle, too).

But Madison seemed quite pleased with the improvements in pup population survival, an obviously critical component of species recovery.

The pup survival rate to one year is typically about 50%, he said, but after two complete litters didn’t make it in recent years,  the recovery team determined that the likely cause was canine distemper.

“So this year when these pups were in an acclimation pen, and they were five weeks old, we went in the pen, recaptured them, and we gave them their first round of vaccines,” Madison explained. “Also, we implanted them with abdominal transmitters so we would be able to track them after they were released.”

So far, so good, he said. A family group that was released into the wild in May seems to be thriving.

“We may go into the season with a great plan, but then, you know, stuff happens out there,” Madison said. “And we have to adjust and make do with the best we possibly can.”

A discussion about a proposal to transfer the Division of Marine Fisheries from the Department of Environmental Quality to the state agriculture department looms large on the list of priorities for a newly formed alliance created to support North Carolina’s commercial fishing industry.

During the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition’s second meeting Sept. 16 at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City, Dare County Board of Commissioners Chair Bob Woodard explained that the proposal was floated after asking commercial fishermen about their concerns.

Among those issues were catch limits, water quality, educating the rest of the state on coastal issues, predation management, and the idea that Woodard called “a big one.” 

“It’s a biggie, is moving the director of Marine Fisheries to the Department of Agriculture,” Woodard said.

The Division of Marine Fisheries provides staff support to the state Marine Fisheries Commission, which is a nine-member board appointed by the governor that manages fisheries in coastal and joint waters.

Woodard initiated the alliance in a July 3 letter to other coastal counties after a state Senate committee amended a House bill that would “prohibit the use of trawl nets to take shrimp in coastal fishing waters or the Atlantic Ocean within one-half mile of the shoreline.”

House Bill 442 was first introduced in March with the stated intention of opening fishing for summer flounder and red snapper, but Senate added the trawl ban language before approving the measure. Despite a handful of “noes” from a few coastal Republican senators and a well-attended protest organized by commercial fishing interests, the amended bill was approved June 19 in a nearly unanimous vote and sent back to the House to consider. House leaders announced on June 25 that the House would not take up the bill.

The coalition held its first meeting Aug. 5, also in Morehead City, and plans are in motion for the next meeting to be Nov. 5 at the same location.

“I think we’re making some really, really positive headway with respect to this coalition,” Woodard said as he called the meeting to order.

Woodard also explained that the Food and Drug Administration has warned that the public should avoid eating imported shrimp potentially contaminated with radioactive material that may have been sold at Walmart in 13 states.

“This is exactly what we’re talking about, folks. Folks sitting around this table, we want to eat local shrimp, and we want to eat it out of clean waters. Americans are being warned not to eat or sell or serve certain Great Value, raw, frozen shrimp sold at Walmart after toxic levels of radioactive materials were detected in just one sample,” said Woodward, noting that the FDA states in its press release that the suspect shrimp had been imported from Indonesia.

“This is this is what we’re dealing with,” Woodard reiterated, adding that nothing is more important than protecting the livelihood of commercial fishermen and local seafood.

As part of that focus, the coalition members has since the first meeting been talking to those in the commercial fishing industry about their concerns. The coalition was tasked with breaking down the list of 10 issues into four priorities.

The priorities to which they agreed to and ranked in order of importance are education, fisheries limits and water quality, legislative items, and predation management.

Regarding the top priority, education, the goal is to inform the rest of the state, local governments, the legislature and consumers about the commercial fishing industry.

Currituck County Commissioner Janet Rose pointed out that consumers are statewide but don’t have a seat at the table. “I think we really need to play into the consumers. I think that’s important.”

For priority No. 2, water quality decline and limits and rules for crabbing, shrimp and flounder, Pasquotank County Commission Chairman Lloyd Griffin said the “biggest opponent right now is the five highways that come to eastern North Carolina.”

“We’re fighting stormwater runoff. We’re fighting the closures because of the stormwater runoff. We have more people that want to live on the coast because of the quality of life. So our roads are our issue,” Griffin said. “You really want to be conscious of is what is happening with our closures because those closures do have an impact.”

The suggestion to move the Division of Marine Fisheries to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Marine Fisheries Commission data sharing and transparency, and testing for restaurants to back up local seafood claims, all fall under the third priority: legislative items.

Carteret County Commissioner Chris Chadwick spoke up in support of the idea of the division being under the Department of Agriculture.

“Shrimpermen, fishermen and floundermen and all that, they are food producers. The only difference — they don’t own the land. They’re out there in the public water. But I think it would be a much more friendly atmosphere over there. Maybe less political. Hopefully less political,” Chadwick said.

Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, was in attendance, and she told the coalition she understands fish issues and the environmental constraints.

As a representative, Harrison said “it’s incumbent on us to educate our colleagues and these folks back here have done a really excellent job of that,” adding that it has been interesting to counter the bad facts that have been floating around the legislature.

Marine Fisheries’ ‘early history’

During the meeting, two scientists who have retired from the North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries were invited to speak about their time as public servants.

Cornell Purvis, who acted as director for Marine Fisheries from 1978 to 1992, said that “in the last 40 years, Marine Fisheries has been the red-headed stepchild of state government, but it didn’t start out that way. It started out with something that needs to be celebrated. I’m here today to lift the truth and to celebrate the early history of Marine Fisheries.”

He said that, going back 50 years, it “was all old school,” while under the leadership of the division’s third director, the late Ed McCoy. Purvis called him “the brainchild behind the focus on the science and the focus of connection with the fishermen.”

The director taught his staff that they were public servants who served the fishermen in the state. “He told us experience is the best teacher. It’s always the best teacher. These fishermen already know it. We have to learn what they already know and put it in scientific terms.”

Jess Hawkins, previously the chief of fisheries management for the division, worked in state government for 30 years, with much of that time in fisheries regulation. His role with the division was to coordinate rulemaking for the Marine Fisheries Commission.

So, how did the state get to a point where a bill proposing a flounder season was transformed into banning shrimp trawling in estuarine and a coastal waters, he said. “How does that happen in our state?”

Hawkins said the trawl amendment “did not spontaneously develop. It was a chronic process of what I believe is failed governance, and education is a key component of that.”

He added that his comments were intended to help, not disparage, before reciting a brief history of the last few decades of fisheries management.

The Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, which was passed with bipartisan support, “set the foundation for fisheries management in North Carolina and it was an epiphany for our state,” Hawkins said.

The act was meant to transform how the state manages its fish, and set the structure for the Marine Fisheries Commission, established the science-based management system, and required fisheries management plans for all commercially and recreationally important fisheries. The act also provided an avenue for robust public engagement through advisory committees.

When Hawkins retired in 2006, he was managing 25 advisory committees, and now there are seven, prompting his concerns with the public input or stakeholder process.

“My observation is — and following fisheries policy in our state since I’ve retired — is the last 15 years or so, the stakeholder input process of the Fishery Reform Act has been corrupted,” Hawkins said.

The process to build a fisheries management plan begins in a committee, but “right now your fishery management plan committee only meets once,” which used to meet consistently, Hawkins said, the same as the standing and regional committees.

The North Carolina General Assembly requires the Marine Fisheries Commission chair to establish a committee that helps develop the management plan. “The executive branch has interpreted that, that they only need to meet once. During which time, they only share ideas, then staff “assimilate the ideas and go off and work on the plan,” Hawkins said. The committee never gets to review the draft plan before it goes before the commission. “So, that process has been corrupted.”

The habitat and water quality advisory committee used to meet monthly, but in the years since Hawkins retired, he said that the committee has never met. And the finfish committee should have been able to review the flounder fishery management plan, but during some years, it never had the opportunity.

Hawkins also pointed to what he called a lack of dialogue between the public and the fisheries commission, particularly limiting, he said, is the three-minute time limit per person during the public comment portions of commission meetings.

“The silence about seafood consumers in our state when we manage our resources is deafening. There’s very little regard to that, very little discussion of that,” Hawkins said.

There is advocacy for consuming domestic seafood, and it is known that the country has a well-managed seafood system management system that inspects the product caught in the United States, but “We only inspect 1-2% of our foreign seafood, yet we import 85%. We import 90% of our shrimp and yet we have a bill that’s introduced to even stop the shrimp harvest based on no scientific reason of shrimp populations being harmed.”

Hawkins gave the coalition a list of his proposed legislative changes that he said he had also sent to legislators over the years. None have been approved.

“North Carolina cannot afford to continue to rely on the leadership that changes with the gubernatorial office every four years to manage our seafoods. It can’t do that. There needs to be changes,” he said.

Precariously perched as a narrow strand protruding into the stormy Atlantic Ocean, Ocracoke Island and its vulnerable highway have been a longtime headache for coastal scientists and road engineers.

Worsening erosion, flooding and storm damage exacerbated by climate change have heightened the urgency for the year-round community: What can be done to save their beloved island?

Researchers met with islanders Sept. 10 at the Ocracoke Community Center to present a study that modeled what the island’s future may hold under different scenarios, from the status quo to new efforts at beach nourishment and bridging.

The bottom line is that the very road itself, along with ongoing attempts to block the ocean’s advance with dunes and stabilize the roadbed with sandbags, has instead resulted in the narrow, low landscape that is currently so under threat by natural forces.

“The heart of the challenge is that the storm events we need to protect roads and buildings from would actually otherwise provide a lifeline for barrier islands in the face of rising sea levels,” Laura Moore, professor and associate chair of research with University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, said in an interview before the meeting. “It’s an extremely difficult reality, but unfortunately, the more successful we are in preventing storm impacts, the more quickly we’re managing the barrier islands out from under us.”

Accessible only by ferries, private boats and small planes, Ocracoke Island, most of which is part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, depends on a single, highly vulnerable highway stretching about 13 miles from the ferry dock on the north end of the island to the village.

The road, N.C. Highway 12,  has been protected by oceanside sandbags for years along one section about 5 miles from the northern ferry terminal known as the South Dock because of the link to Hatteras Island. But not only are the sand barriers unable to withstand the overwash during storms — the road was impassible and closed for several days after Hurricane Erin in August — the stacking lanes by the ferry dock have also suffered severe erosion.

“It’s very threatened,” Moore told Coastal Review. “I mean, we spend so much time thinking about the road, and yet (potential loss) at that terminal is a storm away, maybe two.”

The multiyear study, led by the UNC Chapel Hill researchers as part of a team that also included scientists from N.C. State University, Duke University and East Carolina University, as well as representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation, the National Park Service, Hyde County and Tideland Electric Member Corp., is intended to provide information based on scientific modeling, and does not make recommendations or propose solutions.

“What we were charged with was to consider how different management strategies might influence the future landscape,” Moore said. “So, we have looked at different management strategies under different sea level rise scenarios, and we are able to say something about how the different strategies will likely influence Island width and island elevation and the persistence of the island in the future.”

In other words, as Moore explained, the study did not set out to design and test strategies; it instead modeled, which is essentially, “if you do ‘X’, this is what is likely to happen.”

“We’re really looking at relative differences between the management strategies in terms of their effects on the island,” she said.

Moore said that researchers studied current coastal conditions and processes and worked off data and prior research provided in the N.C. 12 Task Force report and NCDOT feasibility studies for guidance as the team developed the strategies to be reviewed: the status quo, i.e., dune road and/or sandbag rebuilding and maintenance; beach nourishment, i.e., widen or nourish the eroding shoreline with sand pumped from stored dredged material or offshore deposits; or road alternatives, i.e., relocate the ferry dock(s), which would eliminate the need to maintain hot spots on N.C. 12,  or build a bridge or causeway to Hatteras Island.

What the modeling revealed is that under the status quo, the island would continue to narrow until, within years or decades, it would become impossible to maintain the transportation corridor. With use of beach nourishment, there would be short-term improvement for 10 to 20 years. But elevating or bridging the road would help to rebuild the landscape.

It’s the first time that the coastal scientists have been able to customize a barrier island model that includes all these processes for a particular location, Moore said, as well as conduct hindcast to calibrate that model.

“Not only are we supporting the local community and the stakeholders … we’re also supporting the scientific community and barrier island communities more broadly because what we’re learning also advances the science so that we can do even better next time,” she said.” It’s really been a beautiful next step to both be coproducing the science in a way that contributes to the local conversation and also contributes to the scientific advancements so that other communities throughout the world on barrier islands can also learn from one another.”

The Ocracoke erosion and road problem has been the target of much study by several iterations of an N.C. Task Force, a multiagency panel of coastal scientists and engineers and government officials that focused on seven vulnerable areas — the “hot spots” — all but one on Hatteras Island. The most recent group was established by the Dare County Board of Commissioners in 2021, with a report released in 2023.

Back in 1972, renowned University of Virginia coastal scientist Robert Dolan, who died in 2016 at age 87, warned in a study published in the journal Science about the consequences of development on the Outer Banks.

“Barrier dune development has been encouraged by man along the Outer Banks of North Carolina to stabilize the barrier islands,” according to the study abstract. “This modification of a delicately balanced natural system is leading to severe adjustments in both geological and ecological processes.”

Dolan, who was credited with being the first scientist to determine that the Outer Banks, rather than being anchored to coral reefs, was instead a 30-foot-deep shifting “ribbon of sand,” later elaborated, saying that the islands’ dune system “may be detrimental to the long-range stability of the barriers and may become more difficult and costly to manage than the original natural system.”

While other coastal scientists have built on Dolan’s research, including Moore, it is undeniable that the complex tension between natural forces and humanity’s need to control them where they live is becoming more difficult in places like Ocracoke.

“And so, the only reason the barrier islands exist in the first place is because of these processes that move sand from the front to the island interior,” Moore said. “That’s what formed these islands, right? And so now that things are changing more rapidly, we’re just really getting pinched in a way that we haven’t seen before.”

In simple terms, barrier islands are built higher and broader by overwash and wind carrying sand over the land. Where the ocean is battering away at the shoreline, the swath of land from the ocean to the sound side collects the sand, unless it’s blocked.

“We are understandably wanting to protect road and roads and infrastructure,” she said. “It makes perfect sense from that perspective, to build a dune to protect the road.”

As sea levels are getting higher, and storms intensify, the battering is more powerful. “And if we don’t allow the island elevation to build up, it will eventually become fragmented and drown in these areas,” Moore said. “So we’re kind of fighting a losing battle, unfortunately.”

Sea levels have been rising ever since the islands formed, she added. But it’s now rising much faster. Between the year 2000 and 2050, seas have been expected to rise 12 inches, a rate Moore called “very significant.”

“It’s so unfortunate, but if we can’t quickly slow the rate of sea level rise, we’re definitely going to have to find different ways to live at the coast,” she said. “In the case of barrier islands, if we want them to persist, we need to find a way to allow them to shift underneath us or accept that we may lose the ability to live on them at all.”

Still, with adjustments, there is hope, Moore said. Citing the 2.4-mile Rodanthe “jug handle” Bridge” and, farther north, the 2,350-foot-long Richard Etheridge Bridge as examples, she said sand will rebuild the island and the shoreline when the natural processes are allowed to happen.

The main goal of the research is to provide the scientific models of several scenarios so the community can work with partners in planning their island’s future.

“It’s really an opportunity to be an incredible example and posterchild leading the way for coastal communities broadly, because they are at the forefront,” Moore said.

Naturally, islanders can see that conditions are changing, and something has to be done, said Randal Mathews, chair of the Hyde County Board of Commissioners and an Ocracoke resident. For the time being, he said, the consensus seems to be to do beach nourishment.

“Well, it’s going to buy some time, because there’s no long-term plan, and there’s no real good short-term plan.”

What could be a reasonable solution, he said, is to “harden” the area with a jetty by the South Dock Ferry Terminal.

What the island folks don’t want to do is move the ferry terminal toward the Pony Pens in the middle of the island, as has been proposed in the recent past.

“They did a survey, and it was 90% of the people don’t want to move south and don’t want to lose access from Hatteras, because they know, like after Dorian, that’s what it was like here, logistically,” he said. “We were dying.”

Mathews said he is truly grateful for Moore’s and her research team’s work, and islanders are listening. But meanwhile, Ocracoke can’t withstand repeated hits to its economy, and the ferry system and road access are major concerns. And he knows that they need political support and funding.

“You know, in the big picture, there’s a lot of moving parts that we have to address, we have to come up with these short-term solutions,” he said. “And we’ve got to  go to Raleigh, and we’ve got to go begging, you know, and that that’s how it works.”

If you want a sense of just how complicated and drawn-out state rulemaking can get, look no further than the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee.

More than a year has passed since the committee began kicking around a rule that would, as initially proposed, limit industrial discharge of forever chemicals across the state.

Any such rule has been passionately debated time after time, meeting after meeting, only to be tabled again and again, heightening the collective frustrations of thousands of North Carolinians and the water utilities that serve them.

Now, if adopted by the full commission, the rule will also have to get the General Assembly’s approval.

The proposed rule would trigger a threshold established under House Bill 402, known as the “Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS)” Act, a new law that has drawn sharp criticism from environmental and health advocates who argue it will stifle an already daunting rulemaking process and create significant obstacles to addressing pollution.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, which recommends rules to commissions, including Environmental Management, echoed similar sentiments in an emailed statement responding to a request for comment late last month.

“The Department of Environmental Quality and its Commissions’ rules provide essential public health protections. They help ensure that our air, water and land are clean and safe throughout North Carolina while giving businesses and municipalities the certainty they need to make fiscal decisions. The new law will make it significantly more difficult, and it will take longer, to create new protections against environmental harms like PFAS and other forever chemicals. These rulemaking changes also add significant uncertainty for businesses, municipalities and our residents.”

The REINS Act establishes a tiered system for rules based on their projected financial impact. If a rule exceeds a certain threshold, that rule can no longer be approved simply by a majority vote of a rulemaking board or commission.

Rules projected to cost $1 million over five years must receive a two-thirds majority vote of the rulemaking body. Any rule with an impact of $10 million or more over five years must receive unanimous approval. If a proposed rule is expected to cost $20 million or more over five years the rule must be formally approved by the General Assembly before it can take effect.

Since 2020, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management has reviewed fiscal and regulatory impact analysis of 31 proposed rules that exceed REINS Act thresholds.

In all, 15 of those proposed rules OSBM has reviewed in the last five years were projected to have impacts of $1 million or more over five years, according to information provided by that office.

Seven proposed rules had projected costs of $10 million or more and nine rules had projected financial impacts of $20 million or more.

The Environmental Management Commission, Commission for Public Health, Building Code Council, and Wildlife Resources Commission were among the rulemaking bodies who considered those proposed rules.

North Carolina has more than 300 boards and commissions that oversee a range of issues that will be affected by the law, one Republican leaders have argued would enhance government accountability and protect residents and businesses from overregulation.

The state is one of the latest to adopt measures modeled after the federal Regulations from Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which establishes a congressional approval process for a “major rule,” including one likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

“I think what we’re looking at is a lot of gridlock around topics that have not made as much progress as they should have so far,” said Grady O’Brien, North Carolina Conservation Network’s water policy manager.

One of the starkest examples of that, he said, are rules relating to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

DEQ’s initial rule proposal to the Environmental Management Commission included health standards for eight PFAS in groundwater and surface water. The commission’s committees pared down that number down to three chemical compounds – PFOA, PFOS, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours’ Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County.

Under the proposed rule DEQ initially presented to the water quality committee, the state would have been given the ability to enforce limits on dischargers for PFAS. Critics of the current proposed rule argue it lacks the teeth the state needs to be able to ensure industries are actually reducing releases of the chemical compounds into surface water including the Cape Fear River, the drinking water source for tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

The proposed draft rule, which could go to a vote of the full commission in November, would require industries that discharge PFAS into surface water and industries that discharge those chemicals to publicly owned treatment works to monitor for PFOA, PFOS, and GenX.

As is, the proposed rule’s projected financial impact is $129.5 million over the next six years, which means the rule requires both a unanimous vote of the full commission and legislative review.

“So, things have gone from frustrating and slowed down to looking almost impossible when you’re going to need a unanimous vote, which kind of empowers one person on whatever board or commission in question, one person can shut something down that has this $10 million threshold over five years,” O’Brien said.

The law excludes economic benefits associated with a proposed rule and, critics point out, as current rules go up for periodic review, rules that have been on the books for decades that fall within the new thresholds could be stripped from the books.

Braxton Davis, executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, said rulemaking “already involves an extensive process, including fiscal impact analysis and public input.”

“It often takes a year or more from the time a rule is drafted until it becomes effective – even when rules are being relaxed,” Davis said. “If the commissions’ rulemaking process becomes even more challenging, it may force the General Assembly to act on new issues and information to an extent that would be much better suited for the executive branch to address, at least initially.”

Davis, former director of DEQ’s Division of Coastal Management, said that, in his experience, regulatory commissions have members that bring different expertise, experience and perspectives to the table.

“And, as with any board, it will be very difficult to achieve a unanimous vote on any significant rule changes,” he said.

Mary Maclean Asbill, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, said the law will “pretty much shut down” environmental rulemaking.

“We’ve already seen over the past few years the erosion of separation of powers in North Carolina, where the conservative majority of the General Assembly has legislated changes to the composition of boards and commissions, taking away authority from the governor, or the executive branch, and giving it to themselves,” she said. “We have seen appointees to any number of environmental boards and commissions mimic the ideology of the legislature. By that I mean they are anti-regulation, anti-protection, anti-environmental protection and so it has already been difficult for the past few years for state agencies who are charged with protecting the health and environment of North Carolina to promulgate any rules or regulations that are protective of health and the environment. This is going to make it exponentially more difficult.”

Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the law, writing in his June 27 rejection of House Bill 402 that it would, “make it harder for the state to keep people’s drinking water clean from PFAS and other dangerous chemicals, their air free from toxic pollutants, and their health care facilities providing high quality care.”

The law, he wrote, would “impose red tape” and would make agencies, boards, and commissions, “less effective at protecting people’s health, safety and welfare.”

The General Assembly voted to override Stein’s veto.

The Environmental Management Commission voted unanimously Thursday to send a rule outlining health-based standards for three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to the state Rules Review Commission.

The 15-member commission also wrapped up the rulemaking process to “clarify” the definition of wetlands, as directed by a summer 2023 session law. The draft language now heads to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Per the session law, the rule is exempt from the Rules Review Commission.

During the environmental commission’s meeting held in Raleigh and streamed virtually, members voted on the draft rule that specifically targets PFOA, PFOS, and GenX in groundwater, which supports about half of drinking water in North Carolina.

Under the rule that is now expected to go before the rules commission at its Oct. 30 meeting, permitted releases of PFAS to groundwater will be limited. The rule also establishes goals for cleaning contamination in groundwater and ensures residents whose drinking water exceeds contamination limits receive alternative water supplies.

Comments the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality received on the rule through a public comment period late last year overwhelmingly supported the rule, but, as Commissioner Dr. Jackie MacDonald Gibson noted Thursday, the public also raised concerns that the rule did not set standards for additional PFAS.

“It’s a very emotional issue,” Gibson said. “I went to the (public) hearing in Wilmington and people there, their families have been directly affected by PFAS exposure to the point that some people were afraid to have their kids drink water at school. I think a lot of people are going to be glad that we’re moving forward with this. They’re going to wish we were doing more.”

The environmental commission’s groundwater and waste management committee last year voted to omit five of the eight compounds DEQ staff originally presented to be included in the rule.

The committee chose to focus on PFOS and PFOA, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours.

Commissioner Tim Baumgartner, who chairs the groundwater and waste management committee, explained that the compounds that were omitted – PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA and PFHxA – are being regulated at the practical quantitation limit, or PQL.

PQL is considered the base line in testing laboratories.

“It’s not that we’re not regulating PFAS. It is a matter of what the quantitative limit is for remediation, or what the target level is,” he said.

Commissioner Robin Smith said she regretted that the commission did not adopt health-based standards for all eight PFAS as initially presented by DEQ.

“It would have actually helped some land owners and some responsible parties who need to clean up groundwater by providing them with a health-based standard that is above the PQL,” Smith said. “I’m going to vote for these. I think this is a good rule, but to me, I can’t follow the reasoning of dropping the other five when, in fact those would have made the rules less stringent, but still would have maintained a health-based standard for those other five.”

Environmental Commission Chair JD Solomon responded, saying that instead of using a health-based equation, one that is subject to change, for the compounds that were omitted, the commission “defaulted to PQL.”

“Keep as much PFAS out of the water as possible,” he said. “So, while PFAS is being debated at the national level, and whatever level, we decided as a body to keep it as stringent as possible, even for cleanups.”

If approved by the rules commission next month, the rule would become effective Nov. 1.

A proposed draft rule requiring monitoring and development of PFAS minimization initiatives for dischargers into surface water will be on the commission’s water quality committee’s agenda in November.

Members of that committee voted 4-2 Wednesday to include the draft rule on their meeting scheduled Nov. 12. The proposed rule would require industries that directly discharge compounds into surface water and all significant industrial users that discharge to publicly owned treatment works to monitor their releases of PFOA, PFOS and GenX.

If the committee approves the rule, it will go to the full commission for consideration Nov. 13.

During staff comments, the commissioners were informed that DEQ is now requiring Chemours to expand the number of private wells eligible for PFAS contamination sampling to about 14,000 additional residences in New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus and Pender counties.

Related: DEQ requires Chemours to expand PFAS well water testing

The expanded area was identified through additional data analysis conducted by the state and Chemours. Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant in Bladen County discharged PFAS, including GenX, for decades directly into the Cape Fear River, ground and air.

Wetlands definition rule

The General Assembly with a June 27, 2023, session law directed the commission to adopt a rule consistent with language in the statute that read “Wetlands classified as waters of the State are restricted to waters of the United States as defined by” federal regulations.

Sue Homewood with the Division of Water Resources explained Thursday to the commission that, “We had the session law in 2023, the EMC requested that we move forward with this rule amendment, even though we were implementing the rule and are implementing the session law already.”

Around the same time this session law was drafted and making its way through the state legislature, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Idaho couple, the Sacketts, who sued the Environmental Protection Agency for putting a stop on work to backfill what the federal agency argued was wetlands.

The Sackett v. EPA decision on May 25, 2023, changed the definition of “waters of the United States,” which are navigable waters protected under the Clean Water Act. The definition now excludes noncontiguous wetlands, or those not connected to navigable waters. The EPA aligned its definition with the court case effective Sept. 8, 2023.

When the North Carolina General Assembly put the 2023 session law through that summer, commissioners worked with staff on how best to proceed. The matter was on pause between April 2024 to January of this year, when the water quality committee approved the language to go to the full commission. Members approved in March the proposed text rule and moving ahead to public comment, which was open April 15 to June 30. A public hearing was held June 26.

Homewood said 134 written comments were submitted and 13 oral comments were presented at the hearing, which are in summarized in the hearing officer’s report.

Of all the comments, she continued, only one was in favor of the rule amendment.

“In general, the comments opposed to the rule amendment were concerned about loss of wetland protection in North Carolina,” Homewood said, such as what the rule means for flooding, resiliency and wildlife habitat.

The public also commented that the state is investing in mitigation and flood resiliency that these wetlands could help provide, and there were some comments stating that the General Assembly should not dictate a rule making body on how to implement rules.

The wetlands definition rule was approved with 10 voting for the rule and commissioners Smith, Gibson, Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Dr. Ann Chelminski and Dr. Ilona Jaspers voting against. In a separate vote, the hearing officer’s report passed 13-1, with Orme-Zavaleta voting against no and Gibson abstaining.

Homewood said the next step is to submit the rule to the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings, then to General Assembly, which would be the 2026 session. After that, it needs to be approved by the EPA, because this definition is part of the state’s water quality standards.

Karen Higgins with the water planning section said that the EPA has 60 days to approve, 90 days to disapprove, or nothing happens if they take longer. If the EPA disapproves of the standards change, the agency sends it back to the state.

Solomon said he had been asked what could be done about the rule and the bottom line is “our rules have got to be consistent with state laws. And so while this is a little unusual to say, they did their action, we have to clean up our rules now to make sure the definitions fit.”

He continued by pointing out that the rulemaking process “is more or less procedural” and there are concerns but the commission has to comply with the state laws.

Baumgartner reiterated that it was a statutory directive from the General Assembly and the commission is following the Administrative Procedures Act by making this rule change, which Commissioner Kevin Tweedy acknowledged, but said he’s hoping that the state can disconnect from the federal definition.

“North Carolina has unique resources that I think a lot of people, obviously, from the comments, agree it should be protected. I think we can do that protection in a smart way that that takes into account everybody’s concerns and issues with wetlands. But I think connecting it to the (federal definition) and keeping it that way is just not a good long-term policy,” Tweedy said.

Smith, a longtime attorney, called this “bad policy” and part of the reason is that nothing at the federal level is about which or whether these wetlands are important for ecological or other purposes.

“The only issue at the federal level is federal jurisdiction, and that’s driven by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and it’s driven by the language of the Clean Water Act,” Smith said. “It’s a jurisdictional issue at the federal level. It has nothing to do with assessment of the value of these wetlands.”

Managing the wetlands is primarily a state responsibility, which is why “it’s a mistake to tie state decisions about the value and protection of wetlands to a federal jurisdictional issue,” Smith said.

Aside from bad policy, she said, it’s bad legislative practice, because there’s a section in the session law that causes the entire session law language to sunset as soon as this rule is adopted.

“What the legislature did not change,” Smith said, is the existing definition of waters of the state in a statute, which will continue to be in effect after the session law expires.

She reiterated a point Solomon made that the commission’s rules cannot be in conflict with state law. “But unfortunately, what the legislature has given us is a situation that will create a conflict with state law.”

Smith voted against approving the rule, saying that she understands “the realities of situation, but between the policy and the legislative process and the, in my view, misuse of the session law in this way, without clarifying a statute, makes this an easy vote against for me.”

This report has been updated to correct the area code in Chemours’ well sampling request phone number.

About 14,000 additional residences in the lower Cape Fear region have been added to the list of private drinking water wells eligible for PFAS contamination sampling.

N.C. Department of Environmental Quality announced Thursday that it is requiring Chemours to expand sampling eligibility to more areas of Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover and Pender counties.

“This expansion comes after Chemours and DEQ staff completed an extensive review of existing residential well data as part of the ongoing assessment work and continued actions taken in accordance with the 2019 consent order between DEQ, Cape Fear River Watch and Chemours,” according to a DEQ release. “Current information provided by Chemours indicates that only a portion of these residences may receive their water from wells and need to be sampled.”

Residents within the newly expanded sampling area whose primary drinking water source is a private well may request well sampling by calling Chemours at 910-678-1100 or by completing the company’s online form.

Those who call are asked to live their name, phone number, email and mailing address if prompted to leave a message. The return call may come from Parsons Environment and Infrastructure, which is the authorized third-party contractor conducting the well sampling.

Newly eligible residents who previously requested sampling will be contacted soon by the third-party contractor to arrange sampling.

DEQ’s Division of Waste Management is scheduled to host a virtual public meeting at 6 p.m. Oct. 7 to provide more details about expanded sampling and answer questions.

The webinar number is 2435 548 5932 and the password is chemours (24366878 when dialing from a phone or video system).

Residents may also join the meeting by phone at +1-415-655-0003 (US toll) or +1-904-900-2303 US toll (Jacksonville), access code 243 554 85932.

JACKSONVILLE – When the proposed flood insurance rate maps for Onslow County were released back in 2016, Jacksonville officials were surprised to say the least.

The preliminary maps created under North Carolina’s Flood Plain Mapping Program shifted more than 800 additional structures in downtown Jacksonville into a high-hazard flood zone.

“Jacksonville had the highest number percentage-wise increase of anywhere in the state,” said Ryan King, the city’s director of planning and inspections. “That was an eye opener for us because, if you look at it, we don’t have a lot of areas that flood. We don’t have a lot of structures that flood. Now, we have some, don’t get me wrong, but we don’t have a lot.”

King spoke with Coastal Review last week during an open house the city hosted for residents and business leaders to review and discuss proposed updated flood studies and revisions to the maps that have been made following the city’s appeal.

Special flood hazard areas, or SFHAs, are identified as areas with a 1% or higher annual risk of a flood. Unlike moderate to low-risk areas, where flood insurance is recommended, but optional, flood insurance and federally backed mortgages are required in high-risk zones.

Jane Sutton and her husband have opted against buying flood insurance, telling Coastal Review that their property, two blocks from the New River, does not have a history of flooding.

“I can tell you as long as I’ve lived here and as many hurricanes as I’ve lived through our neighborhood has never flooded,” Sutton said.

The couple were among the first area residents who trickled into the open house last Wednesday. They were relieved to learn their property will not be affected under the proposed revised maps.

Under the 2016 preliminary maps, which were largely based on storm surge modeling, many downtown homes would have to have been elevated, some as much as 10 feet. That would be on top of the city’s 3-foot freeboard requirement above base flood elevation.

“In the downtown area, which is an area that jumped out at me, you went to an elevation of 10,” King said. “I think that area should be in a flood zone because the houses do flood. But I think the number seemed off at 10 feet.”

There were other things that raised city staff’s concerns. Some properties in Carolina Forest, a residential neighborhood of townhomes and single-family homes roughly 5 miles from downtown, were included in a flood zone based on data from 2000, King said.

Construction of that neighborhood didn’t get underway until after that year.

After city staff shared their concerns with Jacksonville City Council, the board agreed to hire design, engineering and consulting firm Applied Technology & Management Inc. to take a deep dive into some of the discrepancies being pointed out by staff.

The city formally appealed 33 blocks, or areas of land divided into smaller sections on flood maps, identified in the revised maps the Federal Emergency Management Agency released in 2016.

North Carolina received FEMA’s approval some two decades ago to take over the state’s Flood Plain Mapping Program, a move supported by those who believed map updates are best handled at the local level by people who are familiar with the areas under review.

Revised preliminary maps were released in late March 2024.

The maps incorporate newer data, including information gathered using LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, which uses laser light to measure distances and create detailed models of the environment.

The proposed revised maps do not, however, factor in sea level rise.

“And we know, from what I’ve been told, the next revision will incorporate sea level rise so we want to make sure that we get it right this time because I think it’s just going to stack on top of it as we move forward. So, this is almost like the new baseline,” he said.

Beginning Sept. 18, property owners will have 90 days to appeal the 2024 revisions. That appeal period closes on Dec. 18.

King encourages Jacksonville property owners to contact their insurance agents to inquire about flood policies.

“It’s worth reaching out to find out to protect your property, but that’s a conversation the homeowner needs to have with the insurance company,” he said.

The North Carolina Sea Turtle Project kept careful watch over incubating nests threatened by the ocean overwash, storm surge and erosion associated with mid-August’s Hurricane Erin.

Under the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the N.C. Sea Turtle Project is a coastwide, collaborative conservation effort that brings together federal, state, conservation and volunteer groups to monitor sea turtle activity, particularly during nesting and hatching season from early May to mid-November.

The commission’s sea turtle biologist Matthew Godfrey, who manages the project, explained to Coastal Review that about half of all sea turtle nests laid in the state had finished incubation before Hurricane Erin impacts began to arrive. Of the nests that were still incubating, nearly all experienced at least some overwash because of large waves and wind associated with the hurricane.

Coastal flooding and other signs of the storm moving north off the coast began around Aug. 19 and lasted throughout the week as the storm moved north.

“Several beaches reported observing entire nests being washed away, and others reported today (Aug. 26) that some remaining nests experienced the emergence of hatchlings overnight,” illustrating that some sea turtle eggs can withstand storm-related inundation and still produce hatchlings, Godfrey said.

Loggerhead, green, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles all come ashore to lay eggs. The females return to the beach every few weeks to nest, up to four times a season. It usually takes about 55 days for the eggs to hatch. Nests can be excavated after a minimum of three days after the first hatchling emerges, or when the commission grants permission, if the nest is unsuccessful.

“We won’t have a full account of how many nests were lost or negatively impacted until the end of the season, but based on experience from other years, it is likely that those lost to Erin will include nests that had been moved from more exposed areas to seemingly safer areas of the beach,” he said.

Godfrey explained that sea turtles have been around for millennia, surviving despite impacts from storms and hurricanes on their nests.

“Part of the life history strategy of sea turtles is to lay large clutches of eggs in nests on sandy beaches across different locations and times of the summer to spread out the risks associated with egg incubation in a dynamic environment, such as coastal areas,” he said. “While storms like Hurricane Erin may reduce the production of hatchlings from some specific nests, the overall rate of hatchling production from NC nests should remain relatively good this year.”

Through the Sea Turtle Project, the Wildlife Resources Commission permits more than 20 different groups that help monitor sea turtle nesting and strandings on North Carolina beaches.

Outer Banks

Network for Endangered Sea Turtles, or N.E.S.T., President Tony Parisi said that there have been 29 nests this season from their patrol area, the Virginia line to south Nags Head. There were 18 nests as of Aug. 20, before the state began seeing significant effects from Hurricane Erin.

“There isn’t a lot we can do to protect nests in situations like this,” Parisi explained. “Before Erin struck, our main preparation for the storm was removing stakes and signs, and making provisions to find the nest if everything gets washed away or covered.”

One nest in Corolla was partially washed out, and a few others had significant sand accumulation, including one in Corolla and another in Southern Shores, Parisi said, adding that the organization won’t know how many nests or hatchlings survived until the nests are excavated. 

“The survival rate is dependent on several factors, primarily how much a nest was over washed and how long it remained underwater,” she said. “In some cases, we may have to wait 75 days after a nest is laid before we can excavate,” or 90 days for nests laid after July 31.

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Public Affairs Specialist Mike Barber said the staff during post-storm assessments found that out of 109 nests that were in the ground prior to Hurricane Erin, 35 were lost due to storm impacts and 72 nests were overwashed, which may increase losses attributed to the storm.

Central Coast

At Cape Lookout National Seashore, Hurricane Erin washed out 49 sea turtle nests, but 69 nests remained on the seashore’s beaches as of Aug. 27. There have been 225 sea turtle nests so far this year at the National Park Service site in Carteret County.

Chief of Resource Management Jon Altman said that before the storm, staff excavated and inventoried the hatched nests to collect the data before those nests were washed out.

“Since we lose a few days of monitoring, we know we will lose some information,” he said.

That information can include knowing when nests hatch during a storm and survive, or when new nests are laid on the beach and track evidence is obscured by strong winds.

“Without direct observation evidence those events are unknown,” he said.

After the storm, staff assessed the beach and documented nests that were washed out, buried under sand or overwashed, and how many remained on the beaches. The nests in or on the dunes, where there’s higher ground, generally fared better.

“The sea turtle nesting season extends into September, and we have had three new nests since Hurricane Erin passed by,” Altman said last week.

For Fort Macon State Park, five of the six nests at the site hatched before the storm, Superintendent Randy Newman said.

There’s one nest still on the beach, which was overwashed several times during the storm with about a foot of sand being deposited on top of the nest. “We have removed the sand back to pre-storm levels over the nest. Now we wait a couple of weeks to see if the nest will hatch or not,” he said.

Atlantic Beach Sea Turtle Project Volunteer Coordinator Michele Lamping told Coastal Review that fortunately, the sea turtles had already hatched and entered the ocean before the storm. Lamping, who is the sea turtle specialist for the North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores, said the ocean reached the dunes in several places and would have drowned the nests had they not already emerged and entered the sea.

Farther south on Bogue Banks, Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Patrol Program Coordinator and President Dale Baquer said that this year’s sea turtle season got off to a great start with 23 nests, which is better than average.

There were 13 successful hatches, with an 85% total hatch rate, leading up to the storm.

“We knew Hurricane Erin would bring high tides. We had planned to remove all extra equipment off the beach, and pound our stakes in Monday night ahead of the storm. We were inundated with higher tides sooner than expected,” Baquer said, so volunteers rushed out the afternoon of Aug. 18 to shore up the nests after receiving calls about the nests being under water.

Baqur said there were 10 nests before the storm, one of which hatched overnight during the storm, and one was completely washed out — the turtles and eggs were swept out by waves.

The volunteers are waiting until the remaining eight nests “either hatch or approach day 75 of the incubation cycle, when we are permitted to excavate,” he continued. “The nests took on some heavy waves but sometimes nature can be amazing.”

Hammocks Beach State Park Ranger Renee Evans said that there were nine nests, six of which successfully hatched before Hurricane Erin on the beach at the park near Swansboro.

The remaining nests experienced significant over wash, and one nest is completely gone. Another nest saw some overwash, and per the commission’s program protocol, the nest will be excavated after 75 days, when they’ll be able to determine the final outcome of that nest. 

“However, our third nest survived all odds,” Evans said. On Monday, Aug. 25, “I discovered that the nest hatched at some point during the storm last week. Park staff excavated the nest and found 155 eggs in which 80 of them had hatched. There were even 37 live hatchlings still in the nest and ready for that swim. Park staff released them to the ocean.”

Cape Fear Region

Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center Deputy and Conservation Director Terry Meyer said that for the region they patrol, “fortunately, we had about half our 90 nests hatch prior to the high tides.”

The Topsail Island-based organization lost fewer than 10 nests outright, Meyer said, and how the nests were lost depended on where they were on the island’s more than 20 miles of beach.

In some cases, markers indicating where the nest’s location were washed out and no eggs were found after the storm. The beach gained sand as well. Some eggs were under 2 feet of sand, and had several tides of standing water, “so we wait and see what happens there,” Meyer said. About a dozen nests were high and remained dry, and were expected to hatch as normal.

Audubon North Carolina Coastal Biologist Lindsay Addison said the conservation organization monitors Lea-Hutaff Island, a 4-mile-long undeveloped barrier island between Figure 8 Island and Topsail Island.

“This year, we have 23 nests and three probable nests,” which refers to egg chambers that were not confirmed when the crawl was found, Addison said.

“When Erin passed offshore, 15 of those 26 total nests were still incubating. Nine of them experienced overwash. We are continuing to monitor all nests on the island and will know over time if the eggs in the overwashed nests survived or failed,” Addison said. “After the storm has passed, we record the condition of the nests and may, depending on the circumstances of each nest, remove any additional sand that has accumulated over the top of the nests.”

There were 40 documented sea turtle nests, all loggerheads, at the Masonboro Island Reserve. The reserve is one of 10 protected sites under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management.

Southern Sites Manager Elizabeth Pinnix said last week that when the effects of Hurricane Erin began on Aug. 19, almost half of the nests, or 17 of the 40, had already hatched.

Hurricane Erin produced large surf and wave runup on most of the 8.5-mile stretch of Masonboro Island with some of the more low-lying and dune-lacking areas experiencing wave overwash from the ocean to the marsh.

The reserve lost two nests as a result. Nearly half of those remaining experienced some overwash.

As of last week, the reserve had 19 nests still incubating on the beach. “Fortunately, most of our remaining nests were situated on dunes or higher portions of the beach where they experienced overwash, but were not completely washed out and lost. Many nests can experience a small amount of overwash events and remain viable, as long as they don’t remain in standing water or become exposed for a long period of time,” she said.

Bald Head Island Conservancy Sea Turtle Biologist Paul Hillbrand explained that during the storm, both daily high tides were consistently reaching the dune toe in most areas of the island. The team assessed how much water was on the beach during high tides and how much sand was accumulating or being displaced.

“Once Erin passed, we still had significant tides into the weekend. We started recovery Sunday and Monday when we replaced runways and dug out cages (nests) that had accumulated more than a foot of sand,” he said.

Of the 22 remaining nests at the time, all but one was either significantly washed over or consistently in the surf line in the hours surrounding the high tides.

“We were fortunate to not have any nests completely washed out, but significant overwash is not ideal. That being said, we are hopeful that some of the resilient nests are capable of withstanding this tide event,” Hillbrand continued. “We have had two nests hatch since Erin passed, providing hope for my team, volunteers, & the island alike.”

Caswell Beach Turtle Watch Co-Coordinator Jamie Lloyd began by explaining that the beach there struggled with severe erosion in the last year, especially on the east end near the mouth of the Cape Fear River, which “greatly impacted our nesting turtles as there was no beach to lay in some areas. We had a high number of false crawls. Add to that king tides and Hurricane Erin swells and we had tidal trouble for the nests that were laid.”

Lloyd said they “painfully watched” as the tidal swells from the storm overwashed nine of the 10 remaining nests for three or four days, twice a day. Some were splashed over repeatedly and a few were under standing water for hours.

“Fortunately, none of our nests or nest stakes were washed away, but some had up to a foot of sand accretion,” she said.

One nest has hatched since the storm, which Lloyd said they inventoried three days later. The nest was a large clutch of 140 eggs, with 94 developed.

“We have teams monitoring the other nine nests daily and nightly for activity. Nests that do not hatch by Day 75 of incubation will be excavated and closed with permission” from Wildlife Resources Commission, she said.

Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization Coordinator Deb Allen said the organization as of Wednesday had verified 40 nests on the island, and 17 nests emerged on or before Aug. 10. 

“The surge from Hurricane Erin overwashed or submerged nests with ocean water,” which Allen said put the incubating nests in danger of partial or total loss of the nest, but four nests did emerge as the surge from Erin came close to the nests.

“Teams were able to inventory the nests, getting 424 hatchlings to their ocean home prior to nests being underwater. A visitor reported 20 hatchlings were emerging from nest 25. The team arrived as the egg chamber began to fill with water. The team was able to save 116 hatchlings from drowning,” Allen said. “We think we lost 18 nests but are hoping for a better outcome.”

Updated at 11 a.m. Friday, Aug. 29, to include link for public comment.

The Trump administration’s move to repeal a federal rule that prohibits logging within large swaths of U.S. national forests would strip protections for tens of thousands of acres of public lands in North Carolina.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced earlier this summer the department’s intentions to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, one the administration calls outdated, saying it restricts the Forest Service from being able to properly manage for fire risk, and that it suppresses the country’s economic development in the forestry sector.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it will publish the notice in the Federal Register on Friday, beginning a public comment period on the potential environmental effects that ends Sept. 19.

“For nearly 25 years, the Roadless Rule has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to action – prohibiting road construction, which has limited wildfire suppression and active forest management,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said in a release. “The forests we know today are not the same as the forests of 2001. They are dangerously overstocked and increasingly threatened by drought, mortality, insect-borne disease, and wildfire. It’s time to return land management decisions where they belong – with local Forest Service experts who best understand their forests and communities.”

Lifting the rule, commonly referred to as the “Roadless Rule,” would align with President Trump’s initiatives to expand U.S. timber production and boost energy production on federal lands.

In North Carolina alone, more than 170,000 acres of the National Forest System are designated “roadless areas” under the rule.

Logging, mining, energy development, and road construction are, with a few exceptions, largely prohibited in these areas because they have been identified as possessing at least some of a number of natural features the forest service classifies as “roadless area characteristics.”

Those include attributes such as high-quality or undisturbed soil and water, diverse plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened and endangered species and species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, recreation, and traditional cultural properties and sacred sites.

In all, there are more than 58 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the national forest system, one that includes 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands covering more than 190 million acres in 43 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

More than 1.2 million acres of national forestland fall within North Carolina’s borders.

The two largest national forests, Nantahala and Pisgah, make up an overwhelming majority of those lands in the state’s mountain region. Uwharrie National Forest, the smallest in the state, sits in the south-central part of the state.

And then there’s the Croatan National Forest, one the Forest Service refers to as the “only true coastal forest in the East.”

The 160,000-acre forest is bordered on three sides by tidal rivers and Bogue Sound. The land there is peppered with pine forests, saltwater estuaries, bogs, swamps and pocosin.

Within those swamps lies all of the more than 20,000 roadless acres designated in the Croatan, which means those areas are not conducive to road construction, according to Adam Rondeau, public affairs officer for the National Forest Service in North Carolina. 

“Whether it’s next month, or 10 years from now, the moment something of value is worth extracting from that forest, roads will be built, pocosin or no,” Erin Carey, state conservation policy director of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in an email response to Coastal Review. “The only way to ensure the Croatan is protected for future generations is to keep the Roadless Rule in place.”

Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center Advocate Emily Mason in a statement Wednesday urged that national forests be naturally maintained.

“It is more important to protect these areas than to get a little more wood or to build one more mine or one more road,” she said. “Let’s keep our wild forests wild.”

During a telephone interview last week, Carey said the Croatan is a place of escape for residents who live in the region around it.

“The folks in that region have a very close connection to that forest, at least the ones I’ve worked with, and I think the idea of their forest being cut in two will motivate folks in the area to try and stand up and protect it,” she said.

The Sierra Club has launched a campaign of sorts to inform the public of the administration’s aim and what’s at stake if the rule is rescinded – the fragmentation of natural habitat, the prospect of fewer open, wild areas for people to enjoy, and the harvest of land that is increasingly crucial in combating the effects of global warming.

“Americans love their national forests,” Carey said. “They love their parks. They love these open spaces and they’re very protective of them. That is what’s at risk is the ability for not only us, but for future generations to be able to wander out into the wild and really experience wilderness and experience wildness.”

She also argues that national forests offer a line of defense against floods.

“In the coastal plain, we’re experiencing a lot of flooding and we’ve developed so much land that the water can’t sink in, and the water does sink in (in) forests,” Carey said. “Trees hold water. Trees hold carbon. So, the idea that we can go into these forests and cut roads and cut down trees is just, it’s horrifying for me on a personal level, but also it just doesn’t make any sense from a public safety standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from a habitat-preservation standpoint.”

In her June announcement, Rollins argued that revoking the rule will open “a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation’s forests.”

Nearly 30 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the forest service system are in areas at high or very high risk of wildlife, according to the USDA.

“Rescinding this rule will allow this land to be managed at the local forest level, with more flexibility to take swift action to reduce wildfire risk and help protect surrounding communities and infrastructure,” according to an agency release.

But some question how the Forest Service, which already faces a lengthy backlog in maintaining existing roads within the forest system, will be able to adequately manage additional roads.

Limited resources, aging infrastructure and increased public use have delayed the Forest Service in regularly maintaining its roads, bridges, buildings and dams. The agency faces an estimated $8.6 billion in deferred maintenance costs.

Critics of the plan to erase the rule also point out that more roads could lead to more fires.

Nearly 85% of wildland fires in the U.S. are caused by humans, according to the Forest Service.

“Easier access to these places is not going to prevent fires,” Carey said. “It’s probably going to make it worse. In fact, fires are 90% more likely to be started within a half-mile of a road, so we probably should not be punching roads into places where we don’t want fire.”

Sooner than two months after announcing plans to rescind the Roadless Rule, Rollins issued a memorandum directing the Forest Service to prioritize energy projects on national forestlands based on output per acre.

“America has the resources and ingenuity to power our future without depending on foreign adversaries,” Rollins said in an Aug. 21 statement. “Under this memorandum, we are putting America First, ensuring that every acre of federally managed land is used wisely, balancing the needs for energy security with our responsibility to safeguard natural resources. We will no longer allow foreign-made solar panels or inefficient energy projects to undermine our national security.”

Environmental groups argue that paving the way for oil and gas production on national forestlands would unnecessarily put rich, biologically diverse forest areas at risk and create the potential for pollution and oil spills.

EAST LAKE — In the sadder, more gruesome labor of wildlife conservation, a new count of dead wildlife on the asphalt of two strips of highway within Alligator River Wildlife Refuge continues to reflect the merciless decimation of living creatures by vehicular traffic.

A new report, “US 64 Roadkill Monitoring Survey Year One Interim Report,” released Aug. 13 by the nonprofit Wildlands Network, counted more than 5,000 vertebrates representing 144 species, as well as 1,050 snakes, 1,186 turtles, and 1,529 frogs dead alongside the highway or flattened on the pavement. The first year of the two-year study covered Aug. 1, 2024, to July 31, 2025.

“It’s pretty remarkable carnage, and we’re sure that’s an underestimate, because some things get removed by vultures,” Ron Sutherland, the conservation group’s chief scientist, told Coastal Review.

The updated information will be valuable to planning for proposed wildlife crossings under sections of U.S. Highway 64 and nearby U.S. 264, a need highlighted over the years by numerous vehicle strikes of critically endangered red wolves. Huge bear and deer that run into the road are also increasing hazards to human life, especially at night. 

Although the red wolf had once roamed much of the Southeast, the only wild population of about 30 red wolves, including about a dozen pups, is currently managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes refuges within a five-county recovery area in northeastern North Carolina, a good portion of which is intersected by the two highways. 

“One happy surprise is we didn’t see any red wolves,” Sutherland told Coastal Review. “One of the reasons we set out to do the project, one of our goals, was to keep the road clean of roadkill.”

Vehicle strikes, in addition to gunshots, have threatened recovery of the species.  Wolves have been known to be drawn to the highway to eat the dead animals, and tragically suffer the same fate as their would-be meal.

“Research is an important step in the construction of wildlife crossing structures,” the report states. “In order to be cost effective, it is imperative to know where hotspots of wildlife road-crossing activity occur so the sites can be chosen that are most effective both in mitigating wildlife road collisions and maintaining habitat connectivity.”

The study route was chosen to inform planning efforts by North Carolina Department of Transportation, Fish and Wildlife, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to develop proposals for wildlife crossings and fencing installations on U.S. 64, the report stated, “with the immediate goal” of reducing wolf strikes.

“We also realized that providing more recent roadkill data would be essential as a fresh baseline for evaluating any future wildlife crossings that were installed on the highway,” according to the report.

Earlier roadkill surveys along U.S. 64 were completed between 2008 and 2011 as part of the North Carolina Department of Transportation planning for a proposed 27.3-mile-long widening and bridge replacement project. The road-widening plans, which had included numerous wildlife crossings, have since been dropped, but construction of a replacement bridge connecting Dare and Tyrrell counties over Alligator River is underway. Construction plans include wildlife crossings and under-road tie-ins at both ends of the bridge.

Sutherland said that the survey team chose to drive at a less pokey pace, about 35 mph or so, and skipped weekend surveying, due to the increased amount of traffic now on the highway. Wildlife officers were informed about large carcasses such as bear so they could be promptly removed, and smaller creatures were scooped up and tossed into the woods. Not pleasant, but unfortunately dead animals along the road are not unusual.

“Overall, you know, I’ve had a lot of years of experience working down there and seeing the wildlife before we started the survey,” Sutherland said. 

While he wasn’t shocked by the continued high numbers of roadkill, he said he didn’t expect to see so many birds. In one period of time, after a rare snowstorm, the technicians found hundreds of deceased yellow-rumped warblers alongside the road, many of which were apparently struck while seeking patches of grass without snow cover. It may not prove Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but intelligence matters even for birdbrains.  As Sutherland noted, of the 68 different types of dead birds — totaling about 800 — there were only three crows, the geniuses of the bird world.

“We know how to keep all these other wildlife species from getting hit on the road, because you can build crossings under or over the road, with fencing to steer them to the right places,” he said. “And it works for basically everything, but the birds. That’s going to take some work to figure out.”

Last December, U.S. Federal Highways’ Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program awarded a $25 million grant to build crossings on U.S. 64 by Buffalo City Road, a red wolf “hot spot” in East Lake on the Dare County mainland where the animals often cross into the refuge. Wildlands Network teamed up with the Center for Biological Diversity, another conservation nonprofit, to raise an additional $4 million in private donations for matching funds, Sutherland said.

If all goes as hoped, Sutherland expects that construction of the crossings could start in late 2026

“It’s expensive because they’re having to raise the road up to be able to put underpasses underneath,” he said, adding that design details are still being worked out.

With the project construction including what he described as a kind of “big ramp,” there will be opportunities to also put small crossings and tunnels on each side for the little crawling, slithering and hopping species, hopefully allowing a total of six to 10 crossings.

“But that’s going to be kind of a win-win situation, because that way that at least part of Highway 64 is going to be elevated,” Sutherland said. “And with sea level rise and storms and hurricanes and so forth, it’s going to be a good for climate resiliency, too, to have the road elevated.”

Registered voters of Holden Beach will decide this November whether to approve a multi-million bond that would pay for construction of a new town-owned pier.

Holden Beach commissioners on Tuesday evening unanimously agreed to move ahead with plans to get a $7.3 million bond referendum added to the Nov. 4 ballot.

The board’s decision followed the second public hearing commissioners hosted within the past week on what remains a divisive topic since this Brunswick County town bought the old pier and accompanying property three years ago.

Shortly after the town’s $3.3 million purchase in 2022, officials, citing safety concerns, closed the pier and historic pier house to the public.

An engineering firm contracted by the town would later advise the town that the structures, originally built in the late 1950s, were in significant disrepair.

Last April, the pier house was demolished, leaving a vacancy on land that includes an 80-space parking lot, two public beach access points, an emergency beach access point, and a multisite campground. The property spans more than three acres and includes a 350-foot stretch of continuous oceanfront land.

A chunk of the old pier remains standing beyond the surf off the ocean shore smack in the center of the barrier island.

HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas recommended the town tear down and replace that structure at a cost not to exceed $7.3 million.

Commissioners agreed to pursue a pier replacement option and gave the engineering firm the greenlight to research building a 1,000-foot-long timber pier with a T-shaped structure at the end.

“My bet is if we have a decent engineering company that’s going to construct that pier and it’s going to be wooden then it’s going to be standing here when a majority of us, and most of us in this audience are fairly old, are gone,” Regina Martin said during a public hearing held last Saturday. “But, guess what? My grandchildren and my great-grandchildren will still be here. And, guess what? They will still remember that I used to work at the fishing pier when I was 13, 14 and 15.”

Martin, who owns rental property on the island, reiterated her support for a pier replacement at the hearing late Tuesday afternoon, when those who spoke resumed a back-and-forth debate of sorts about whether the town needs another pier, especially one funded by its taxpayers.

“I hear you all telling me that people don’t want a pier, they don’t want this, they don’t want a tax increase. And, none of us want a tax increase, but we’re talking about a bond referendum here that we may or may not ever use. If we vote for it, it’s another option,” she said Tuesday.

Longtime Holden Beach resident Steve Jenkins said Tuesday that he too wants the town to replace the pier.

“I’ve always had it and I always hope we will have it,” he said. “I’ve always loved this place and I’d like to have it restored to the way it was before.”

But others argue that those who want a new pier are driven by nostalgia and that costs associated with building and maintaining a pier are too burdensome.

Bob Brown said that since he and his wife bought their Ocean Boulevard vacation home a little more than eight years ago, their use of the old pier “has never been too significant.”

“Here we are owners of something that is in a state of significant disrepair, which requires an even more significant investment of property owners, not just voters’ dollars to make what I consider to be slightly flavored water out of lemon,” Brown said on Saturday. “And what is the end here? If we got such a good deal then we should probably be able to see it and break even.”

Jim Bauer said the town’s decision to purchase the property “reckless” and “ill-conceived” and “the most undemocratic thing” because it went against a majority of residents’ wishes.

“We have been saddled with this collection of sticks, which has created nothing but angst, bad feelings and obviously inebriated social media rants that has taken up too much of the town’s time treasure,” he said Saturday. “The same wooden pier at the same location, subjected to the ever-increasing water levels and we are told that we shouldn’t expect the same result. We are told that we are not doomed to repeat the same. That’s nonsense.”

With interest calculated to be at a cost of more than $4.2 million, the cumulative total over the life of the bond is estimated to be nearly $11.6 million.

If voters and the town move forward with acquiring the bond to rebuild a pier, property taxes would increase annually by an estimated $31.60 per $100,000 valuation.

The town would have seven years to issue the bonds if approved by voters.

It was the massive scale of destruction in the North Carolina mountains after Hurricane Helene last year that spotlighted how advantageous microgrids — small independent power grids — can be to communities that have suffered disasters.

After horrific flash floods from the storm that hit Sept. 27 inundated many of Asheville’s roads and buildings — and nearly all of its vital utility infrastructure — critical help soon arrived from the New Orleans-based nonprofit disaster service Footprint Project in the form of mobile renewable power.

An estimated 1 million western North Carolinians lost power in the storm. Many were also left without running water, food and shelter.

“We saw the value in what they were doing, in deploying small-scale solar and battery storage to help communities that lacked access to power, water and telecommunications,” North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Executive Director Matt Abele told Coastal Review. “And so we jumped in right away and helped to fundraise for them to be able to expand the amount of work that they were doing in that part of the state.”

Apparently, the practicality and flexibility of the technology also impressed officials with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality State Energy Office, which on Aug. 12 announced a $5 million investment to provide accessible post-disaster emergency power with permanent and mobile microgrids.

“Hurricane Helene showed us that we need to be prepared to withstand severe weather emergencies,” Gov. Josh Stein said in a press release announcing the plan. “That means rebuilding our energy infrastructure with resilience in mind.”

Along with NCSEA and the Footprint Project, the state energy office will collaborate in the project with Land of Sky Regional Council, as well as a network of regional partners.

With as many as 24 stationary microgrids that would be installed across six western counties affected by Helene and two mobile Beehive microgrid hubs, one on the coast, the other in the mountains, the project is intended to fill critical needs in communities statewide.

Essentially four large shipping containers with solar panels on top of the outside and battery storage systems inside, each Beehive — the “Hive” — operates independent of the stationary power grid. Smaller mobile solar-equipped trailers — the “Bees” — are dispatched to affected areas to provide power for essential services such as water filtration stations, charging stations for phones and other devices and hotspots for internet through cellular or satellite connections.

Abele said that NCSEA became familiar with Footprint through its relationship with Green Tech Renewables, a nationwide distributor of solar and battery storage that had partnered with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association and Footprint in responding to Maui wildfires.

Abele said his organization reached out via email to Footprint as Helene was approaching the mountains. As it turned out, the large scale of the damage and the randomness of impacts from the storm really highlighted the value of the Beehives being able to go where needed.

“I think that’s the beauty of having a setup like these Beehive microgrids, where you can charge mobile equipment,” Abele said. “Because only investing in permanent infrastructure, it’s like trying to essentially find a needle in a haystack and predict exactly where the next storm is going to hit, versus having the equipment on hand and ready to go, to be deployed to where that next storm is.”

Green Tech’s Raleigh location had solicited donations of solar panels and other supplies, as well as raised funds to purchase products such as photovoltaic wire and batteries, and trucked it to western North Carolina to support Footprint Project’s work, as described in an article published by Elizabeth Ouzts for the nonprofit news site Energy News Network in October 2024.

According to the article, by late December the group had built about 50 microgrids throughout mountain communities. That was the most ever since it started in 2018 in response to founder Will Heegaard’s experience two years earlier working as a paramedic in New Guinea and struggling to find power to refrigerate blood supplies.

Heegaard, today operations director for the Footprint Project, which he founded with partners Jamie Swezey and Nate Heegaard, said the group is working toward replacing the fossil-fuel-powered generators that have long been serving communities after disasters with battery-charged solar panels. Not only are Beehives and Bees not dependent on fuel supplies, they’re quiet and clean.

“Responders use what they know works, and our job is to get them stuff that works better than single-use fossil fuels do,” he told Energy News Network. “And then, they can start asking for that. It trickles up to a systems change.”

Even if the microgrids don’t outright replace those generators, Heegaard added, they can supplement them, helping fuel supplies last longer.

The state’s grant will provide about two beehives with mobile equipment and permanent installations with fixed solar and battery storage that would be attached to either local government buildings or nonprofit center or other location where people congregate after a storm, Abele said. 

“And so those are all really important decisions in terms of where that investment is being made, to ensure that it is being made in a place that people will go and serve the community appropriately,” he said.

“Because the worst-case scenario is, you walk down a path of investing, and then deploying infrastructure, and then that infrastructure sits unutilized during a natural disaster because it’s inaccessible,” he said.

According to the state, the Land of Sky Regional Council, part of the Appalachian Regional Commission, will soon begin purchasing the Beehive microgrids, and site selection for the microgrids is to begin this fall. The stakeholder engagement for the installation will take place in September, and project completion is anticipated in June 2027.

One of the most significant reasons that solar-powered microgrids like the Beehive hadn’t  found much traction in the U.S. is because of the high cost of batteries, Abele explained.  But now, he said, the price of batteries — similar to what happened earlier to solar panels — has decreased about 92% in the last 15 years, making the much-improved technology affordable.

“We’ve seen sort of a smattering of these projects on an ad hoc basis, but not a comprehensive strategy around deploying this equipment,” he said.

In addition to the proposed Beehives, there have been other smaller microgrid projects in the state, including on Ocracoke and plans in Charlotte.  

“But aside from that, there aren’t a ton of examples that you can point to in other states,” Abele said. “And so I think North Carolina really is going to be a leader in setting the example for recovery after a natural disaster.”

This story has been updated.

WILMINGTON – Beams of sunlight broke through dark gray storm clouds suspended in the sky above this historic city on a recent August morning.

The local forecast was calling for rain, the kind of weather that drives tourists from area beaches to explore other experiences the area has to offer. The kind of weather that makes for a busy day at the Battleship North Carolina, the iconic floating World War II memorial moored on the Cape Fear River across from downtown Wilmington.

“This parking lot will be full in another hour,” said Terry DeMeo, the battleship’s director of development.

A year ago, DeMeo might not have made that prediction with as much certainty.

Back then, floodwaters overspilling from the Cape Fear River might have swallowed dozens of parking spaces in the western portion of the parking lot and forced visitors to make a decision: wade through water to get to the museum’s visitor center or head for higher ground.

That’s not much of a worry these days.

A wetland has been built in place of the chronically flooded section of parking lot to help absorb high-tide driven water. A tidal creek now meanders through this area of the property to direct water from the wetland back to the Cape Fear River.

A 500-foot-long and 50-foot-wide bioretention area extends through a paved, raised parking lot that has, since its completion Memorial Day weekend, gone untouched by floodwaters.

A bioswale runs the length of the parking lot next to Battleship Road. Living shorelines blend in with the rest of the natural, wild landscape around the ship’s mooring.

These features are all part of the battleship’s “Living with Water” project, one that accommodates the water rather than try and fight it back.

Construction on the project, some seven years in the making, is mostly complete.

Land next to the battleship has become a well-known and well-documented case in point on the impacts of sea level rise.

Since the memorial opened to the public in 1961, flood events on the property have climbed on a near-steady incline. Over the past six decades, a more than 7,000% increase in tidal flooding frequency has been documented at the site.

Flood events spurred by the rising sea created a sense of urgency for the museum’s leaders. The memorial does not receive regular government funding.

Persistent flooding of the property threatened one of the primary sources of the battleship’s funding – admission fees and gift shop sales.

“We actually lost parking, but that’s how committed we are to this project,” DeMeo said as she looked across the parking lot.

The lot sits at an elevation 6 feet above the old gravel one it replaced earlier this year.

The parking lot slopes to a bioretention area that looks as much like a pleasing water feature as it does a functional holding area for stormwater that allows water to percolate down into the soil.

A total of 450 spaces were at the memorial before the project was built. Today, there are 150 fewer parking spaces on the property.

Of those parking spaces, 100 were unusable due to flooding of the western portion of the old parking lot, DeMeo said. Plans are in the works to finish an overflow lot that may add roughly another 55 spaces.

“So, discounting the unusable old spaces, we expect to come out about even,” DeMeo said later in an email.

The loss of spaces has been a small price to pay for the multimillion-dollar project, one funded through federal and state grants, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina Land and Water Fund, as well as the USS North Carolina Battleship Commission, Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, and numerous individual donors.

Within days of the wetland and tidal creek’s completion, birds moved in on the area, DeMeo said.

“That’s been pretty amazing to see the avian community step in right away, which means fish were in there,” she said. “That’s also when we saw the diminution of walking through knee-high flooding.”

The land, she explained, has been able to recreate itself.

The site now hosts researchers from NOAA as well as the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who are monitoring everything from the physical and vegetative parameters of the area to water quality.

The museum’s leaders are now in the early stages of exploring the creation of a living lab partnership with the university and NOAA.

A living lab is a natural fit, “and it’s a way to keep an eye on the project itself,” DeMeo said.

“This is a long-term project,” she said. “We don’t know where it’s ending. We consider ourselves a model for how this can be done and how it can’t be done. We really see ourselves as an opportunity to use as a case study. We had the opportunity and we had the need. That’s why we feel so strongly about serving as a model.”

BOILING SPRING LAKES – For the most part, work had wrapped on Pine Lake Dam here back in mid-June.

The light at the end of a tunnel of headaches caused since the closure of one of this city’s main traffic arteries, portions of which run atop Pine Lake and North Lake dams, was shining brighter and brighter.

With the dams complete, reconstruction could begin on sections of East Boiling Spring Road that have since the summer of 2023 been closed while crews rebuild and restore the dam system crippled by rainfall during Hurricane Florence nearly seven years ago.

But a swift burst of rain that drenched this little Brunswick County city on June 14 revealed that something was not right about the nearly finished Pine Lake Dam. It did not seem to be functioning properly.

That was the message one of the city’s commissioners relayed in a phone call to town staff that day. Rainwater, the commissioner reported, wasn’t stacking up behind the dam.

“In other words, there wasn’t a lake there,” City Manager Gordon Hargrove said. “It was a significant rainfall and it should have held some water. It did not hold water. It was running right through the dam.”

An investigation found that Pine Lake Dam, the design for which was vetted in multiple reviews by both federal and state agencies, is at an elevation of about 5 feet too low.

More than a month has passed since the city informed its residents of the revelation, one that has drawn a firestorm of criticism and finger pointing in a matter that might very well end up getting hashed out in court.

No timeline in sight

Today, large bright-white and blaze-orange barricades block off a roughly 750-foot stretch of neatly packed dirt and coarse sand imitating a road over top of Pine Lake Dam.

Pine Lake Dam is part of a system of five earthen dams initially built here in the mid-1960s.

Throughout the years, the dams withstood the brute force from powerful coastal storms that have swept through the region.

But the unprecedented rain Hurricane Florence dumped in September 2018 over the area – up to more than 30 inches in some parts of coastal North Carolina – proved too much.

Rainwater filled the 275-acre Boiling Spring Lake to the brink, overtopping Sanford Dam. The breach, paired with substantial embankment erosion, led to the dam’s catastrophic failure.

The breach caused a domino-like effect of failures at all four of the smaller upstream dams in the city, and then the lakes that made up Boiling Spring Lakes were no more.

During the years since, the city secured about $56 million in funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through Department of Defense grants, and Brunswick County to repair and restore the dams it owns and operates: North Lake, Pine Lake, Sanford, and Upper Lake dams. A fifth dam, Middle Lake Dam, is privately owned.

That funding has been spent, in part, on hiring firms to undertake the task of designing and building dams that meet today’s safety codes.

Work to restore Sanford Dam was progressing nicely, Hargrove said, when another coastal storm, one often referred to in these parts as the “unnamed storm,” caught Brunswick County and southern portions of New Hanover County by surprise last September.

Potential Tropical Cyclone No. Eight pummeled Boiling Spring Lakes with more than 20 inches of rain within a short period of time. Rain waters swept away Sanford Dam’s bypass channel, destroying the work that had been completed thus far and forcing construction crews to essentially start from scratch.

“Weather forecast was for 3 inches,” Hargrove said. “We got 22. It flooded out the detour route and so people were stranded in particular pockets in that side of town with no way of getting out.”

The city experienced a similar scenario last May with residents becoming trapped in patches of the community as a wildfire spread through the area and jumped N.C. Highway 87.

East Boiling Spring Road is a primary entry and exit point as a hurricane evacuation route through the city.

“So, yes, there’s a lot of angst involved with getting this road open,” Hargrove said. “I mean, we have looked at every possible alternative short of building a bridge, but by the time we finish a bridge, this project will be done.”

When that might happen remains an unanswered question.

“The setback with Pine Lake Dam, I can’t even give you a timeline of how long it’s going to keep that road closed. It took 12 months to get our permits last time” from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Dam Safety Program, Hargrove said.

Days after Hargrove met for an interview with Coastal Review in city hall, he returned to the commissioners’ chamber for the board’s Aug. 5 meeting, where he provided an update on the dams.

Work continues at Sanford Dam. Had it not been for the potential tropical cyclone last September, that dam would be finished, he said. Upper Lake Dam is complete.

The section of East Boiling Spring Road atop the newly reconstructed North Lake Dam will hopefully be finished in the next two to three weeks, Hargrove told commissioners.

There was still no word as to when construction to fix Pine Lake Dam might begin.

Hargrove explained that Sequoia Services, LLC, the Greensboro-based construction company hired by the city to rebuild the dams, agreed to build a temporary road atop the dam.

But the city would be responsible for any damages to the site should any occur if the temporary road, one that would cost an additional $175,000, were to be built. Pine Lake Dam is valued at $3.5 million.

Commissioners voted against the proposal, saying it was a liability too steep.

Who’s responsible?

Hargrove didn’t mince words when he sat down for an interview with Coastal Review on a late July morning.

“There’s going to be some things I’ll talk about and then there’s, for liability reasons and that sort of thing, I’m not going to comment on them because this is obviously an issue that could grow larger over time,” he said.

The defunct Pine Lake Dam is not the construction contractor’s fault, Hargrove said. The contractor built the dam to the design the company was given.

“I’m not willing to say where the problem exists and how that problem came about. It’s the city’s position that this is a third-party responsibility,” Hargrove said.

The city hired consulting firms Ashville-based McGill Associates and Greensboro-based Schnabel Engineering to design the project.

Those designs were vetted through a series of agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and N.C. Dam Safety.

“As it goes up through the line, they’re really not getting into the hydraulics and analysis,” Hargrove said. “They’re just looking to make sure that the math works. So, the primary responsibility for the design of that dam is McGill and Schnabel.”

During the city commissioners meeting July 8, McGill Vice President Michael Hanson said that, unlike the other dams, there were no sufficient surveys or as-built records for Pine Lake Dam.

“We relied on information that was provided by the city, which was the best available information that was the original design plans,” Hanson said at the meeting, according to a WECT-TV report. “We relied on that information and moved forward. That was reviewed and approved by city staff. That was reviewed and approved by Dam Safety.”

This was Hanson’s first update to commissioners in a public setting since June 27 when the city announced in a social media post that Pine Lake Dam was defective.

The public’s response to that update was biting. There were one-word retorts including “Figures” and “Unbelievable” to accusations of “backdoor deals” and at least one call for city tax refunds to residents.

One commenter correctly pointed out, “THE HOOVER DAM WAS BUILT IN 5 YEARS, Y’ALL! In the 1930’s.”

The engineering marvel that spans the Nevada-Arizona border was, in fact, built from 1931-36, but not without disaster. The official number of people who died at the dam site during that time from causes ranging to drowning, blasting, rock slides, falls from the canyon walls, and heavy equipment and truck accidents, is 96, according to the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation.

City officials understand the mounting anger and frustration from Boiling Spring Lakes residents.

Hargrove wants them to know that commissioners have and continue to be “very proactive” and have tried to make sure the dam reconstruction cost doesn’t fall on the city’s taxpayers.

Earlier this year, commissioners approved an 8-cent tax hike, revenues of which will cover the costs of the city’s new stormwater department.

“This board does focus and look at the future and how we can improve it,” Hargrove said. “It just takes time. We’re catching up to 30 or 40 years of inactivity, but this board, my administration, are working hard to put that into play.”

BUXTON — A newly emerged area of petroleum pollution on Buxton Beach will be addressed by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-contracted response team, the Corps’ Savannah District announced late Wednesday.

After residents here again reported the presence of fuel sheen and odors, as well as the appearance of long-buried infrastructure and debris on the shoreline after a storm late last week, Col. Ron Sturgeon, the Corps district commander, visited the site Tuesday with Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac.

“We are committed to the health and safety of the community,” Sturgeon stated in press release Wednesday. “The beach environment is difficult and changes from day-to-day, but we are dedicated to finding the petroleum contamination and removing it.”

On Aug. 1, the National Park Service temporarily closed Old Lighthouse Beach lifeguard area and a 0.3-mile section of beach extending south from the southern end of Buxton village to about 0.4 miles north of Ramp 4, an area adjacent to what is officially known as the Buxton Formerly Used Defense Site.

The U.S. Navy, followed by the Coast Guard, operated bases on Buxton Beach from 1956 until 2010. Buxton Beach Access is at the south end of Old Lighthouse Road.

Hallac said the meeting with Sturgeon and members of the Corps’ response team was “very productive.”

“We had an opportunity to inspect the site and discuss next steps,” he said in an Aug. 5 text, responding to a question from Coastal Review. “They will be providing public information as they continue to evaluate options and advance a plan, but I am confident that they are moving very rapidly, as fast as they can, and are committed to mitigating the current threat to the environment.”

The contamination and debris problem had first revealed itself after a series of coastal storms in late summer 2023. Those storms caused severe erosion along the shoreline at Old Lighthouse Beach, exposing chunks of fuel-soaked peat and large pieces of buried infrastructure left behind from the Navy and Coast Guard bases. As a result, the beach was closed for safety and health reasons from Sept. 1, 2023, to June 12, 2025.

Since 1991, the Corps had been responsible for remediating the former Navy property as one of the Defense Department’s Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS, under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program. Over the years, the program had removed tons of polluted soil and set up numerous monitoring wells.

After the 2023 exposure of petroleum contaminants on the beach, the Corps conducted numerous investigations but was unable to isolate a direct source. Still, the FUDS office took responsibility for removal of tons of soil with evidence of petroleum. Although its authorization does not include removal of buried infrastructure, the Corps’ contractor was permitted to haul away tons of debris, including concrete, pipes, cables and wires, that had to be removed to access the contaminated soil.

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard had conducted a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, investigation at the Buxton Beach site. According to an October 2024 press release, the Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland initiated the site investigation in August 2023 to identify any potential contamination resulting from operations at Old Group Cape Hatteras between 1982 and 2013, when the base was abandoned.

The final CERCLA site inspection report, released in August 2024, includes details of vast amounts of herbicides, pesticides, wastewater, petroleum and various chemicals spilled, leaked and deposited at the site over the years, by either, or both, the Navy and the Coast Guard. 

One draft assessment of tests performed in 2011 at the fueling station found certain chemicals, such as PCBs, at levels that were deemed above acceptable for residential or laboratory detection limits but below permissible for commercial/industrial sites.  Other contaminants, such as arsenic and certain metals, were determined to be naturally occurring. Even evidence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, at the site was considered acceptable because it’s normally found in sea spray.

But the passage of time, the overlapping pollutants from both bases, in addition to regulatory complexity, apparently has satisfied the Coast Guard’s responsibility for the current environmental condition, from its point of view.

“In accordance with the U.S. Code and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations the CERCLA investigation sought to determine actionable remediation levels associated with volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and chlorinated solvents,” the Coast Guard said in an Oct. 4, 2024, press release. “The investigation findings concluded that there are no actionable levels of these contaminants resulting from past Coast Guard operations at the sites.” 

Coast Guard officials did not respond by deadline to an email asking whether the Coast Guard had plans to remove any remaining infrastructure that may be associated with Group Cape Hatteras. Both the Navy and the Coast Guard were obligated to remove all their buildings when they left the site, according to the park service, which owns the land.

Brian Harris, a Buxton resident and a founding member of the Buxton Civic Association, said that the latest petroleum was evident on the beach on the morning of Aug. 1, along with a portion of the remains of what some believe was from the Coast Guard’s wastewater treatment infrastructure. As typically happens on the beach, the exposed pollution and debris was soon recovered by sand, he said, and could be uncovered again at any time.

But unlike the initial incident in 2023, Harris said he has total confidence in the Corps’ FUDS team and Sturgeon, whom he can now call directly to discuss concerns. 

“A year ago, we were screaming and sending emails to all our congressional representatives and senators,” he said. “And we have contacts now.

“The Army Corps of Engineers isn’t going to tell you what they’re doing until they do it,” he continued. “But (Sturgeon) was here, and they’re working on a plan right now.  At this point, it’s light years above where it was last year.”

The Corps’ contracted response-action team will arrive as early as next week, the Corps said in the press release, and will continue to monitor the site conditions to determine the appropriate actions, including containment with oil-absorbent booms.  

“The Savannah District will concurrently mobilize equipment and personnel to excavate and remove petroleum-impacted soil from the beach and dunes,” it said. “These actions will not affect the upcoming petroleum comprehensive soil and groundwater sampling that begins in September/October 2025.”

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that sides with the owners of the private transportation system that provides service to and from Bald Head Island.

A three-judge panel ruled the Village of Bald Head Island does not have the right of first refusal to accept a third-party offer to buy the privately owned ferries, trams and barges.

According to the ruling, filed Wednesday, a 1999 arrangement between the ferry owner and the village is null because it was never signed off by the N.C. Utilities Commission.

Appellate Judge Jefferson Griffin stated in the ruling that it is “inconsequential now” as to who was obligated to get the commission’s approval.

“The two parties do not dispute that approval was never obtained,” Griffin wrote.

Judges Valerie Zachery and Julee Flood concurred in the ruling.

In an email message to village property owners late Wednesday, Mayor Peter Quinn said the village is reviewing the decision.

“In the meantime, we continue to engage with BHI Limited and BHI Transportation to support them in their service to our community and work with them in responding to our community’s concerns,” Quinn wrote.

The ruling is the latest in what marks a long-running dispute over the sale of the only ferry service system to the village.

Bald Head Island Limited petitioned the utilities commission in 2022 to approve the sale of the ferry and tram operation to SharpVue Capital, LLC, a Raleigh-based investment company.

The village, Bald Head Island Association and Bald Head Island Club intervened in the proceeding and, in August 2023, the commission approved the sale, subject to certain regulatory conditions meant to protect ferry customers.

The village appealed, arguing that the commission’s order did not go far enough in safeguarding customers into the future.

Last November, a different three-judge panel rejected the village’s request.

MOREHEAD CITY – Keep telling your story.

That was the message to those who attended the first meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition held Tuesday afternoon in the Crystal Coast Civic Center.

Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard, who initiated the coalition to be a voice for the commercial fishing industry, welcomed elected officials and staff from Beaufort, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hertford, Hyde, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington counties, and 10 coastal legislators or their representative.

“We’ve got a lot of folks here today concerned about this coalition, and this effort,” Woodard said, adding that many of the more than 100 in the audience were in Raleigh to protest House Bill 442.

But the head of the state’s recreational fishing association called the group’s goals “disappointing.”

‘No due process’

First introduced in March to open up the recreational season for flounder and red snapper, the Senate amended the bill in mid-June to include a trawling ban in the state’s inland waters and within a half-mile of the shoreline.

The proposed ban was met with both outcry and support, but when the Senate kicked the amended bill back to the House, representatives chose not to advance the bill. Since June 25, the bill has been parked in a House committee.

Woodard set the coalition in motion July 3 with a letter to the 18 other coastal counties that border bodies of water from which licensed commercial fishermen are required to report their catch, representing 20% of the state’s counties, he explained.

“That should send a clear voice to our legislators, that we got 20% of the entire counties in the state of North Carolina, and hopefully we will grow up more for people that believe in eating the fresh local seafood from clean, clear waters in our state, rather than foreign food that comes into our country. I don’t know about you, but I want to eat fresh, seafood,” he said.

When Woodard began the meeting Tuesday, he told the crowd that he was “appalled to see that (proposed trawling ban) went to the House,” and wrote a letter June 30 to Senate Leader Phil Berger.

Woodard read the second paragraph of that letter aloud: “Our democratic system, established by our forefathers, was designed to ensure that every voice in leadership could be heard-whether in support or opposition. At its core, our Constitution is built on mutual respect and, most importantly, due process.”

Woodard said, “everyone in this room sitting here today certainly knows there was no due process,” and then explained how he pitched the idea to form the coalition to a fellow commissioner.

“I said, ‘Enough is enough.’ I’ve been a chairman in Dare County for the last 10 years. I’ve been on the board the last 12 years,” Woodard said. “Every single year, we have to fight the regulatory agencies. We have to fight the leadership.”

It was time “to come together, not just counties, not just fishermen, but stakeholders all over the south and this entire state. We need to educate those legislators that aren’t living on the coast.”

Once given the board’s blessing, Woodard sent the letter proposing the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition.

“The goal of this coalition is to bring together county leaders from coastal regions to address these critical issues with a unified voice. By coordinating our efforts, we can better advocate for the long-term health and sustainability of our fisheries, our local economies and our fishermen’s way of life,” Woodard said.

About the coalition

Members agreed that the coalition would be a public body and have its next meeting at 1 p.m. Sept. 16 in the civic center, ahead of when the legislature is expected to convene.

After that, the coalition will meet quarterly in Carteret County because of its central location.

Woodard emphasized he wanted the coalition to be “as transparent as humanly possible,” adding he wanted the “public to be here.”

The coalition adopted a mission statement to support commercial fishermen and fishing communities, protect their livelihoods, preserve coastal heritage, “and safeguard the economic vitality of our working waterfronts. Together, we work to ensure the continued harvest of high-quality North Carolina seafood—feeding families, strengthening communities, and ensuring North Carolina Catch remains a priority for consumers to enjoy throughout our state and beyond.”

During the discussion, Pamlico County Commissioner Candy Bohmert said that the coalition should focus on promoting — rather than stating it’s out to save — the commercial fishing industry.

“We don’t need to save these people. They save themselves. We need to empower them,” Bohmert said. “We really need to kind of change that language. We’re promoting them. We’re promoting our commercial history. We’re promoting all of that because they’re important.”

Bobby Outten, Dare County’s manager and attorney, is to serve as staff to the board.

Outten explained that the intention with the coalition is to act as a governmental body.

“The fisheries groups have for years been working hard to deal with fisheries issues, and what we found is the legislators aren’t listening, and it’s a hard road, and it’s a tough time,” Outten said.

The idea is to get the governmental entities of the affected counties together and “then be the voice for the political side of this,” Outten said.

Fisheries groups will still be the resource to disseminate the information, but the coalition will be “the voice of the political counties.”

From the legislators

There were nearly a dozen coastal legislators at the meeting, including Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck. Hanig has been a vocal opponent of the trawling ban since it was first proposed at a Senate committee meeting June 17.

“We’ve never had the opportunity to tell our story. Well, guess what God brought us? He brought us H442, and you know what that did? That wasn’t the shot heard around the world. That was the backfire heard around the world. Let me tell you why. Now we have the ability to be on the offense, and we have to keep that ability to be on the offense,” Hanig said.

That bill “is allowing us to tell our story,” he said, adding that it led to the coalition and got 700 people to Raleigh in about three days.

The turnout in Raleigh brought together various aspects of the industry, such as commercial fishermen, packing houses, “everybody. You know why? Because what’s the first thing they went after? The shrimp, right? They’re going after everything,” Hanig said. “Because that’s what they’re after, folks, they make no qualms about it. They’re after our industry.”

In response to an audience member asking who “they” are, Hanig said “Pick someone. The CCA, the Wildlife Federation, certain legislators, you know, their efforts. They’re after this industry. They make no bones about it. They’ve been telling the wrong story, the false story, for too long, and we haven’t stopped that.” The CCA is the Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina.

“I implore you, tell your story. Do not be afraid to tell your story,” Hanig said. “Let them know where you’re coming from, because those stories matter.”

Rep. Carson Smith, R-Pender, told the crowd that people in Raleigh think there’s no fish, no crabs, no shrimp, that “our fishery is completely depleted, because that’s what the Marine Fisheries Commission is telling them.”

He added that this message is what he feels pitted recreational against commercial fishing, and “they think that the shrimp trawl has killed all the fish.”

Smith suggested two resolutions: Ask the “General Assembly to completely redo the Marine Fisheries Commission,” and “tell the Wildlife Resources Commission, ‘hey, stay in your lane.’ You count the trout in the mountains, but don’t use state resources” to try to close the commercial fishing industry down.

Sen. Bob Brinson, R-Beaufort, said the best way to educate folks in Raleigh is by “getting them on your boats, getting them in your oyster beds, getting them in your fish houses, and showing them what it is you do and how you do it.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Carteret, explained that when the Senate voted on House Bill 442 June 19, four voted against, but 40-plus voted in favor, which he didn’t expect.

He later found out that the votes for the amendment were for the “environmental side because they claim that shrimp trawling was destroying the environment in our sound. That it was going to destroy all kinds of fishing. Well, that’s one of the talking points that the CCA has used for the last 20 years,” he said.

Sanderson said that he was also upset about how the bill was amended in the Senate, “because the process stunk to high heaven.”

He explained that he was co-chair in the Agriculture Committee when the amendment “first came about, and that is the last thing that you ever do to a committee chairman,” he said. “If you’ve got something that’s going to be contentious, if you’ve got something that’s going to cause a lot of outcry or pushback,” you should go to them before the meeting. But Sanderson said that’s not what happened in this case.

“Let’s stay strong. Keep helping us. Keep telling your story, spreading this message across and around this state, so that the next time this happens, there’ll be an outcry from all over this state,” he said.

Response from CCA-NC

Coastal Conservation Association-North Carolina Executive Director David Sneed told Coastal Review in an email that “it is disappointing to read the goal of this new coalition is apparently to create a vehicle only for ‘battling issues that affect the state’s commercial fishing industry’ (fewer than 2,000 people who profit from a public trust resource) rather than acting in the public interest for the 11 million citizens of North Carolina who own our public trust resources and would benefit enormously from a healthy, sustainable coastal fishery.”

The coalition would be better served by recognizing the foundational, bedrock principles established by the public trust doctrine and the state’s constitution. “That North Carolina’s coastal fisheries resources belong to all 11 million citizens of this State and must be managed, preserved, and protected for the overall benefit of those citizens and future generations.  In addition, the coalition’s approach only divides and disenfranchises the not-for-profit fishing public that lives in and visits our coastal counties,” Sneed continued.

“There are more than 91,000 Coastal Recreational Fishing Licenses sold across the state’s 19 coastal counties each year, and it is reliably estimated that more than 300,000 people spend nearly $1.5 billion annually across the three Congressional Districts that encompass these 19 coastal counties—people who not only live in our coastal counties but also people from inland counties who visit our coast and spend money supporting our coastal fishing communities,” he said. “Our hope would be that any efforts by this coalition will be focused on building a true coalition in the public interest—one that will support the sound management of our coastal fisheries resources to achieve the long-term sustainability that all North Carolinians deserve and are entitled to under the law.”

MANTEO – The Dare County Board of Commissioners, in the face of strident pushback from residents and coastal advocates over a proposal to gut special protections for an area around the Buxton Woods Reserve, voted Monday to keep in place those development restrictions officials had previously called “unenforceable.”

The longstanding restrictions on multifamily dwellings within the half-mile buffer around the 1,007-acre Buxton Woods Reserve on Hatteras Island are part of a zoning ordinance that created the 1,868-acre special environmental district, also known as SED-1, which also includes protective areas around the island’s drinking water wellheads.

A company called OBX Timber Trail LLC in March had requested that the county remove the zone’s dwelling density limitation for multifamily development, townhouses, or condominium projects. The request from company manager and New Jersey resident Brian Suth was so he could add a fourth apartment for year-round occupancy to his commercial building in Frisco.

That request was ultimately granted in a unanimous vote Monday, but only after it had triggered questions among county officials about the validity of the 1988 zoning ordinance in place, and fears among Buxton residents and others that the special protections would be erased.

Dare County Planning Director Noah Gillam said during a meeting in April that the ordinance didn’t appear to meet state standards because it hadn’t been properly indexed or codified.

Others disagreed.

“The ordinance was properly adopted in 1988, “Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys Derb Carter and Julie Youngman wrote in a letter to Dare County Manager Bobby Outten dated Aug. 1.

When Suth submitted his request, Gillam found there had been no reference to the ordinance since the 1990s. Consequently, there had been no development that would have challenged its wording.

Concerned about confusion and possible legal challenges, Gillam proposed striking the ordinance entirely.

That’s not what happened Monday commissioners opted instead to approve a text amendment for the fourth apartment rather than remove the entire ordinance.

“Our original amendment for the text amendment was solely to lift the limitations on density, not to eliminate the entire ordinance,” said Joseph Anlauf, engineer for the project, during the commissioners’ discussion.

During a commissioners meeting May 6, the board, after hearing from Buxton residents who were vocal in support of the overlay district and a preliminary opinion from Outten that the county might lose a court challenge on the issue of improper indexing, postponed a vote to allow time for a firmer legal opinion.

Outten’s concern were confirmed by Outer Banks attorney John Leidy that it was likely the county would lose a court challenge. Outten was also worried about the implications of a state law passed late last year that prohibits downzoning, or placing a more restrictive use on a property after it has been purchased, as could be the case in enforcing SED-1 restrictions.

But the Southern Environmental Law Center pushed back in its letter, holding that, although state statutes require indexing, “it does not specifically state that an ordinance cannot be enforced if those requirements are not precisely satisfied.” Nor does the law provide a “definition of ‘indexing’ or any directions for how to do it properly.”

Other officials had submitted their written concerns about removing the development restrictions, including David Owens, who was with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management for a decade, notably serving as its director at the time the ordinance was adopted, an author, historian in land use law and retired professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina School of Government.

In his letter, Owens recalled that the “Dare County Board of Commissioners, the county planning staff, and the county attorney all strongly argued for local regulation, contending the standards the county would adopt would be comparable to the state standards being considered.”

John Taggert, who in the 1980s and 1990s was the Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Reserve manager, had urged in a letter that commissioners “retain the ordinance with consistent enforcement to permit development within the buffer that will reasonably protect Buxton Woods from significant loss of adjacent vegetative cover and allow sufficient natural infiltration for sustainable recharge of the underlying aquifer system.”

lan Weakley, professor of botany and conservation biology at UNC, also wrote to commissioners, noting that the county had approved the zoning regulations to bolster coastal protections.

“In the 1980s and early 1990s,” Weakley wrote, “the state Coastal Resources Commission relied on the Dare County zoning protections in deferring regulation of Buxton Woods as a CAMA (Coastal Area Management Act) Area of Environmental Concern. The decision was that the zoning regulations, as written and implemented, would maintain a buffer with sufficient natural character, including canopy closure, to protect the natural values of Buxton Woods.”

A proposal to strengthen and expand building rules in Leland’s flood zone will not be indefinitely sidelined, proponents of the changes say.

“I’m not going to let this die,” said Leland Councilmember Veronica Carter. “I will bring this up at every single meeting until we get some sort of ordinance.”

Carter, who also sits on the board of directors of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, and fellow Councilmember Bill McHugh in telephone interviews last week expressed disappointment after a majority of the council on July 17 voted to table proposed updates to the town’s flood damage prevention ordinance.

Suggested amendments to the ordinance included extending building regulations to land within the 500-year flood zone, which includes nearly 280 acres, restricting residential construction fill to elevate property out of a flood zone, limiting density in a flood zone to two units per acre, and increasing freeboard, or the height added to base flood elevation, from 2 to 4 feet.

The town’s planning board unanimously supported the amendments, but the proposed changes were met with fierce pushback from pro-development groups, including builders and real estate agents.

The nonprofit Business Alliance for a Sound Economy in a letter reported in Port City Daily last month argued the proposed ordinance amendments would undermine property values, limit homeowners from making improvements to their houses, and impose “major new costs to home ownership in Leland” while doing “virtually nothing to reduce the impact of flooding.”

“Were one of them (houses) to be significantly or completely destroyed for any reason, the homeowner would be personally responsible for the major added expense of elevating the home to the new standard,” the letter states.

But building in a flood zone is in and of itself an inherent risk, one that is being exacerbated by the strings of coastal storms in recent years that have dumped historic levels of rainfall in the area, proponents of the measure say.

Next month will be the one-year anniversary of the unnamed storm that dumped up to 20 inches or so of rainfall in southern portions of New Hanover County down through Brunswick County over a two-day period.

That storm, widely called Potential Tropical Cyclone 8, surprised the area with flash flooding that washed out roads and inundated homes.

The National Weather Service said the storm approached an event expected to occur, on average, once every 1,000 years.

“It was ugly and if we’re seeing that kind of catastrophic event happening outside of a major hurricane, just some random summer day, I think we need to take a serious look at where and how we’re building and developing in this zone because, let’s not kid ourselves, the more impervious (surface) that you’re building, the more you push that water out,” McHugh said. “Not taking any action to mitigate that risk, to me, is just wildly irresponsible. The idea that these events are remote and rare and some sort of lottery occurrence is just disingenuous.”

As a result of the unnamed storm, areas outside of Leland’s flood zones were swamped, including Stoney Creek Plantation.

“We all know that the bottom line is things are flooding that have never flooded before,” Carter said. “Our flood maps from the federal government are woefully inadequate and outdated.”

Amendments proposed for the town’s flood prevention ordinance do not halt building in flood zones, she said.

“We’re just saying if you’re going to do it, you’re going to take into account it’s going to flood,” she said.

The coastal storm has been just one of a seemingly growing number of significant rain events hitting the state in recent years and exposing more and more flood-vulnerable areas.

Brunswick County officials are also taking notice. The county is commissioning a study on whether to create a stormwater utility. More than 28,000 structures are within the county’s flood zones.

Strengthening building rules within flood zones, McHugh said, is a moral issue, one where elected officials must ensure they are not creating a situation that puts everyone from property owners to emergency personnel in danger.

“When things flood, when things get damaged, the cost of everyone’s insurance goes up. So, if we limit development in danger zones we limit the risk in an area from hurricanes,” he said. “I remain hopeful that we’re going to pass some sort of meaningful change to flood zone development and I think that this is a matter of critical importance to public safety, to the safety of our first responders, to the insurability of the region, and to these folks who are making the largest investment of their lives, which are their homes. You should be able to trust that a home you buy in Leland is built somewhere safe.”

Both councilmembers said the town might benefit from hosting a workshop, one where residents and special interest groups may come together and share their suggestions.

The council is expected to discuss next steps on the proposed amendments during its Aug. 18 agenda meeting. The council’s regular meeting is scheduled Aug. 21.

RALEIGH – Nearly 40 years after the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service launched an innovative program to save the eastern red wolf from extinction, a nonprofit conservation group is challenging the agency’s prior decision to not upgrade to a more protective management designation, despite its outsized importance to the species’ survival.

Arguments were heard Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle for the Eastern District of North Carolina in a federal court case filed by the Center for Biological Diversity that contends the Wildlife Service acted unlawfully when it decided to continue classifying the critically endangered population of red wolves as “nonessential.”

“Judge Boyle is so engaged on this issue … that he’s really able to dig in at this extremely deep, detail-oriented level,” said Perrin de Jong, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, during an interview Thursday about the 90-minute hearing. 

Following listing the wolves in 1966 as “threatened with extinction” on what later became the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service about 20 years later established an experimental “non-essential” population of wild red wolves. and released four pairs into Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern North Carolina.

It is the only known wild population of red wolves in the world.

The intensively managed recovery program had promising success until about 2010, when management was scaled back. That was before court actions restored much of the program.

The Center for Biological Diversity had petitioned the agency in 2016 to reclassify the red wolf population as essential. The petition was denied in January 2023.

“The service is violating its duty to consider the best available science and the facts that have taken place since 1986 that affect the survival of the red wolf in the wild,” de Jong told Coastal Review.

In a request for comment on the case, a spokesperson for the U.S. Interior Department responded in an email Thursday that the agency does not “provide comment on active litigation.”

Mortality by vehicle strikes and gunshots have been an increasing challenge to the wolves’ survival, de Jong said.

Changing the classification to “essential” would extend more protective measures for the animals, he said, including allowing another layer of protection with a critical habitat designation.

The conservation group also is asking the agency to change their enforcement code to match a 2018 court ruling by Boyle that banned property owners from shooting red wolves unless they were threatening animals or people.

“The science indicates that the greater protections will result in greater conservation success, and inversely, lower protections result in higher poaching pressure,” he said.

The Wildlife Service is not disputing the conservation group’s argument that the agency has the authority to change the essentiality determination, the legal term for the classification, he added. 

“You could describe it as, ‘We’re not going to revisit the essentiality determination, because we don’t have to.’”

Today, there are believed to be 18 known red wolves surviving in the program’s five-county recovery area, in addition to unconfirmed numbers of wolves and wolf pups that do not have collars and have been born or fostered in the wild this year.

Updated data on the Red Wolf Recovery Program was not available on the Fish and Wildlife Service website, but a spokesperson said the new data is expected to be posted in early August.

More than half of North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties will be represented at the launch of what commercial shrimping advocates envision as an organization poised to fight for the industry in Raleigh.

The inception of the North Carolina Coastal Counties Fisheries Coalition is set to kick off in an Aug. 5 meeting in Morehead City, where coastal-based local and state elected officials and their constituents are invited to converge, discuss and formulate a plan to combat what they deem politically charged threats to commercial fishers.

“Bottom line, simple mission statement: We want to provide fresh, local seafood for our citizens and visitors and protect the livelihoods and families that harvest it,” said Dare County Board of Commissioners Chair Bob Woodard. “We’re going to do everything humanly possible to protect our commercial fishermen.”

The meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. in the Crystal Coast Civic Center’s main hall, 203 College Circle.

The idea to form a coastwide coalition to defend and protect the state’s commercial fishing fleet sprouted fresh on the heels of a fierce fight that ensued in the North Carolina Legislative Building in late June.

That’s when a last-minute amendment to ban shrimp trawling in inland and nearshore coastal waters was tucked into a House bill originally authored to expand recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper. A companion bill, House Bill 441, was gutted and revised to establish a program that would pay out annual installments over three years to qualifying shrimpers.

In what quickly became referred to as “Shrimpgate,” hundreds of commercial shrimpers and their supporters, backed by coast-based legislators in both chambers and on both sides of the political aisle, flocked to Raleigh to oppose House Bill 442, one they argued would have effectively shuttered the state’s shrimping industry.

After a near weeklong bout, House Republicans announced June 25 they would not take up the bill with the changes senators had added.

It was a victory for what commercial shrimping advocates say is only one battle in a war they believe has not reached an end.

“Heck no,” the fight isn’t over, Woodard said. Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has “already said that. When they go back in session in September, who knows. I’m not sure where they’re going with it, but that fight ain’t over.”

Berger, back in June, called the amendment to the bill “a good provision.”

“It’s our position that continuing to allow trawling in inland waters is detrimental to the state overall [and] detrimental to our aquatic fish population,” he said to reporters from various media outlets. “We’re the only state on the East Coast or the Gulf Coast that allows that kind of net fishing in the inland waters and it’s time for us to change that.”

Groups, including the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina, or CCA-NC, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, have long argued that shrimp trawling harms other fisheries, including juvenile fish, and degrades essential habitats.

Commercial fishing proponents refute those claims, saying that the state’s fisheries management plan for shrimp already protects sensitive habitat and juvenile fish. Commercial fishing is heavily regulated in North Carolina, where trawlers are required to have equipment on their boats that prevent and reduce bycatch.

Woodard noted that argument in a June 30 letter he penned to Berger, writing in part, “regulations are already in place that significantly reduce bycatch in shrimp nets.”

Woodard also called out the eleventh-hour injected amendment to House Bill 442 as a move that “bypassed due process by attaching negative amendments to this bill without public debate or discussion.”

Three days after signing that letter, Woodard dispersed one to chairs of coastal county commissions announcing his proposal to establish the coalition. In it, he welcomed them to extend an invitation to other counties that may wish to get involved.

As of midday Friday, 11 coastal counties including Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Onslow, Pamlico, Tyrrell and Washington had appointed members of their boards of commissioners to the coalition.

At least four members of the Carteret County Board of Commissioners plan to attend the Aug. 5 meeting, Chair Chris Chadwick said.

“But I’m hoping to have a whole group,” he said. “You can’t try to ram something down somebody’s throat and eliminate an industry without involving the people where the industry exists. When you have somebody from Winston-Salem trying to tell you what’s best for you on the coast without involving the people on the coast, that’s a problem in my book. We look forward to a productive meeting and the beginning of something strong and a powerful organization that can go to Raleigh and advocate for the coastal counties.”

Onslow County Board of Commissioners Chair Tim Foster expressed similar sentiments.

“I think when it comes to this, the coastal counties really need to come together and show that unified support of what’s taking place,” he said. “When you see decisions that are being made that impact your communities, but you don’t see yourselves as having a voice on this, this coalition becomes that. We have Sneads Ferry that’s historically a fishing village and an industry that has grown and it impacts these families that have been doing this for generations. We just felt like (the coalition) is something we needed to be part of to support them and be their voice on some of these decisions that are being made that impacts their livelihood.”

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, plans to be at the meeting. Local elected officials have praised Hanig for initially sounding the alarm on the trawling ban amendment in a social media post.

“What they attempted to do completely backfired on them and it has given the commercial fishermen the platform that they have never had,” he said in a telephone interview last week. “The issue that we’ve had between the recreational fishermen and the commercial fishermen is the commercial fishermen are busy. They’re working all the time. They can’t afford lobbyists so they’ve never been able to tell their story and tell their side of what the real truth is. As bad as what happened several weeks back, what it has done is it exposed the truth. And, what we have to do is keep telling our story so that people understand what the real situation is.”

Hanig hailed the coalition as one that “is going to propel us to where we need to be to fight this battle,” one, he said, will “never be over.”

“When you have leadership in the General Assembly that is willing to shut down an entire industry overnight, there’s a problem and we need to fix that problem. So, here we go,” he said.

RALEIGH — A federal court decision issued Wednesday blocks the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using a potentially harmful algaecide at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, a compound that environmental groups argued would endanger the waterfowl the refuge is supposed to protect.

Refuge officials had issued a notification in 2023 that it planned to do a trial application of chemical pellets within the next two years to test their effects on persistent blooms of blue-green algae on the 40,000-acre Lake Mattamuskeet, the state’s largest natural freshwater lake.

But environmental groups were concerned that the product, according to its label, could be toxic to birds. 

In response, the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit, asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the refuge’s plan. The agency agreed during a subsequent court hearing to suspend its plan until April 2025, and a final hearing was held in May.

Wednesday’s order by U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle for the Eastern District of North Carolina Eastern Division can be appealed within 60 days,  Ramona McGee, senior attorney and leader of the Wildlife Program at the Law Center, told Coastal Review Wednesday.

“The Service is currently evaluating the court’s order,” a U.S. Department of Interior spokesperson said in an email sent Wednesday afternoon, responding to a request from Coastal Review for comment on the decision.

The email also addressed a question about the number of staff at the refuge.

“Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Coastal North Carolina National Wildlife Refuges Complex, which includes refuges from Cedar Island to Currituck. As such, Lake Mattamuskeet’s management is through a complex approach — with staff throughout the complex assisting and leading activities.”

As McGee explained, the Southern Environmental Law Center argued successfully that the Fish and Wildlife Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of the algaecide.

“This experiment was merely a distraction,” McGee said in an interview. “It was never designed to address those root causes of the lake’s water quality problems. Instead, this was a project that was explicitly experimental and alarmingly, was using a product that can kill and harm birds.”

The refuge had proposed to use Lake Guard Oxy, a sodium percarbonate-based algaecide used by Pittsburgh-based contractor BlueGreen Water Technologies, on about 600 acres of several isolated areas around the perimeter of Lake Mattamuskeet.

In recent years, the lake has been plagued during warm months with algal blooms that have become populated with cyanobacteria, which can be harmful to people and animals.

The proposed treatment, according to the agency, was intended to reduce the toxic algae enough to allow the beneficial phytoplankton to be reestablished. In the process, the refuge said, it could help restore water clarity in the lake.

In 2001, the North Carolina General Assembly provided $5 million toward the pilot study.

Refuge officials also said that, once dissolved, the pellets were safe for birds. Steps would be taken, the officials added, to prevent their exposure to undissolved pellets.

But rather than a singular problem, the algae is a symptom of an unhealthy ecosystem in the lake that has excessive nutrient levels and near complete loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, the environmental groups said.

Situated in the center of rural mainland Hyde County, the lake, which is 6 miles wide, 18 miles long and an average of 2 feet deep, has suffered severe water quality degradation over recent decades. The refuge totals about 50,000 acres and still attracts thousands of wintering tundra swan and other migratory waterbirds, as well as numerous species of resident duck.

In 2016, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources listed the lake as having impaired waters, based on high alkalinity and levels of chlorophyll-a, both indicators for cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms that produce cyanotoxins.

An effort led by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, created a collective and holistic approach to restoring the lake, with the Lake Mattamuskeet Watershed Restoration Plan being released in 2018. In the years since, the strategies in plan, which include drainage improvements and restoration of the submerged grasses, have been implemented as time, funding and staffing have allowed.  

“We hope that the Fish and Wildlife Service refocuses on the long-term solutions that will address the root causes of Lake Mattamuskeet’s water quality problems” McGee said.

Considering anecdotal reports about staff cuts at wildlife refuges — none have been confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — McGee said it makes the court decision even more timely in its benefit to the birds. As part of its proposal to do the pilot treatment, the refuge had promised that staff would shoo, or haze, the birds away from any undissolved pellets that could harm them. 

“I think it would have been very concerning for the Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed with a risky experiment like this when it did not have adequate staff to monitor and manage the project,” she said.

When contractors began cleaning up debris from the grounds of a former wood treatment plant in Navassa last year, they expected they’d be removing old railroad ties, pieces of treated wood and tires.

“We didn’t expect to see a tank there,” Ngozi Ibe said of the underground storage vessel at the property.

The same goes for other unexpected debris contractors found in a section of the former Kerr-McGee federal Superfund site designated as Operable Unit 2, Ibe, senior project manager and environmental justice specialist who manages the Multistate Trust site in Navassa, said in a Thursday night community meeting.

“We just found an extensive amount of material out there,” she said. “It was so much more than we had expected to encounter when we originally planned the work.”

As contractors unearthed the tank, which contained an unknown fluid, bricks coated in an oily sheen, and additional treated timber they did not anticipate finding in the area, it became clear more time would be needed to clean Operable Unit 2, or OU2.

The next round of cleanup is not expected to begin until sometime this fall, with work anticipated to go on for anywhere from six to eight weeks, Ibe said.

OU2 is a 16-acre section of the original 200-acre site where wood was treated for more than 40 years before operations permanently closed in the mid-1970s.

Operations on the land left a legacy of contamination of creosote, a gummy, tar-like substance used to treat wood used for railroad ties and utility poles.

The land was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List of federal Superfund sites in 2010.

In order to evaluate the land and get an understanding of the extent of contamination on it to help determine how it may be used in the future, the EPA divided the property into operable units.

The site is comprised of five units, including a 20-acre tract where untreated wood was stored. That unit, or OU1, was removed from the EPA’s National Priorities list in 2021. There are no restrictions on future development of this parcel.

In April 2024, contractors began cleaning up OU2, where both treated and untreated wood were stored, by excavating a little more than 1.5 acres of surface soils contaminated with levels of dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons considered to pose an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.

Contractors also removed old tires, treated timber, slabs of concrete and other debris discovered through an initial investigation of the unit.

Workers dug down anywhere from one to two feet, in general, to remove contaminated soil. The excavated soil has been placed on temporary storage sites, lined and covered, in Operable Unit 4.

Contaminated soils removed from OU2 and stockpiled in OU4 are being managed and inspected no less frequently than monthly, as well as after every rainfall.

Backfill suitable for residential use has been injected into the trenches dug to remove the contaminated soil from OU2 and vegetation planted on those areas to prevent erosion and runoff.

Wells have been dug in the unit so officials can monitor groundwater.

OU4, the pond and process area of the former wood-treatment plant site, spans about 32 acres.

The EPA has divided OU4 into two sections: north and south.

Erik Spalvins, EPA remedial project manager, said Thursday night that the northern section of OU4 does not have groundwater contamination or creosote and that officials will decide how to address the two stockpiles from OU2.

There is groundwater contamination in the southern section of OU4. And, creosote contamination has been found as deep as 70 feet below the ground’s surface.

Spalvins said he hopes the EPA is ready to issue a proposed plan to address remediation in OU4 in August. The plan, which will be discussed at a public meeting, will go out for public comment on how residents in the area would like to see than land used.

“What we’re trying to do is provide as much flexibility in our decision-making process so that we don’t tie our hands in the future,” Spalvins said. “So, specifically in the feasibility study, we looked at a residential option and industrial commercial option and we are going to put it out for public comment.”

A feasibility study is currently underway for Operable Unit 3, or the marsh area of the site. Spalvins said the hope is that a draft proposed plan for that unit will be released sometime early next year.

The Multistate Trust plans to donate about 30 acres that was not contaminated for the proposed Moze Heritage Center and Nature Park, dedicated to preserving the stories of enslaved Africans who worked the rice plantations along river banks in southeastern North Carolina.

Claire Morgan, director of community partnerships and redevelopment and senior attorney with the Greenfield Environmental Trust Group, explained Thursday night that the 30 acres donated to the town will be included in a conservation easement to ensure it is used for the public good.

The trust has been working with the North Carolina Coastal land Trust to serve as the easement holder, but the town will own the land.

CURRIE – There have been nights Clint North has lost sleep thinking about his land.

Ten years from now, he knows exactly what he wants the hundreds of acres of land he’s bought up in this unincorporated area of Pender County to look like: exactly the same, if not better.

And, most importantly, natural.

But North has a choice to make and it’s a decision weighing more heavily on him with each passing year.

“What’s going to happen with the land? That’s my biggest fear. It has come to where it is a concern of mine to make sure that it’s preserved. And I’d say, in the last five years, it’s become more important because I’m getting older,” he said.

Earlier this year, North and his wife, Amy, were presented with a certificate that essentially marks a first step toward permanently conserving the mostly forested land he’s purchased in plots and large chunks in this rural area southwest of Burgaw, the county seat.

North has registered 1,988 acres with North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program, committing to protect and preserve the land’s biological diversity and natural qualities, and maintain it in as natural of a condition as possible.

He is one of only three property owners in the state to register 1,000 acres or more with the program.

But what makes North’s commitment even more unique is that he has spent more than half of his life acquiring land within this quiet countryside perhaps best known as the home of Moores Creek National Battlefield with the sole intent of keeping it natural.

“That is not common that is for sure,” said Scott Pohlman, Natural Heritage Program’s nature preserve property manager. “We’re certainly encouraged by it. We’re really excited to run across folks like Mr. North who are motivated to do this kind of work. I can’t tell you how excited we are to work with him.”

A labor of love

North is a true Wilmingtonian, a rarity these days, born and raised in the state’s largest coastal city.

Before Interstate 40 sliced a four-lane fast track to the Port City, life there was quite different than it is today.

North spent his childhood playing in forests long since chopped away and replaced by neighborhoods and businesses. Those woods introduced him to native carnivorous plants: Venus flytraps, pitcher plants and sundews.

He loved being out in the woods. That drove him to pursue a degree in biology.

Prompted by his father to get to work after graduating from college, North took a job with a large commercial construction company in town. It was far from the field he dreamt of working in, but it paid the bills.

Truth be told, it has funded his pursuit for land, one that stretches back to the late 1980s, when he and his wife, a fellow native Wilmingtonian, shared a desire to move out into the country.

With just a couple of years of marriage under their belts and a one-month-old son, the budding family moved out of Wilmington and into a home nestled in 125-acre tract North bought in Pender County.

The construction business kept him busy, traveling throughout the state and into Virginia and South Carolina.

At home, the sprawling woodlands he called home were his refuge, a place he walked and studied, hunted, fished and paddled with his wife and three sons. This is the land where he taught his sons how to respect and appreciate forests in their natural state.

He spent time bushhogging and learning other forestry techniques in those woods, all the while keeping an eye and ear out for more land prospects in the area.

In 1993, he bought a 525-acre tract across Moores Creek from his homestead.

“That was a big step,” North said. “I didn’t know how far it would go. I mean, it’s still not over.”

Opportunities to buy more land kept coming his way — a hundred acres here, 140 acres there. Much of the land sold to him has been by heirs of expansive land owners back in the day. Sellers seem to appreciate the fact that North wants to keep the land natural.

He’s a card-carrying, certified prescribed burner.

His handy work stands out in neat, patchwork-like blocks of forest carefully thinned out by fire and other land management measures on portions of his land.

What started out as a hobby “kind of turned into a passion,” once North retired from construction.

He’s walked every acre of his land, finding surprises along the way that tease his curiosity about its history.

He’s planted acres of long leaf pine, added native, pollinator-friendly plants to the landscape, and located and documented carnivorous plants. He can point out Carolina bays, those shallow wetland depressions that are often fed by rain or groundwater, on his land.

More than 240 acres of the land has been identified as primary natural areas, or those intact, old growth and natural habitat, by the heritage program. The remaining acreage has been designated as habitat restoration.

A ‘champion’

Chuck Roe, the founding director of North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program, called North’s efforts to buy and preserve land, “very rare, very exceptional.”

“He is a true champion for conservation and a role model and should be recognized and honored for his conservation good deeds,” Roe said. “And, hopefully, other land owners will learn from his example and be willing to be good stewards of their land as well. The realities are that state and federal agencies are not going to be buying much more land.”

North is keenly aware that the “nice, cleared farmland” in the area, especially along U.S. Highway 421, a scenic byway that stretches through North Carolina from Fort Fisher to the Blue Ridge Mountains, is perfect for development.

He expects the whole area will change.

Conservation easements are the easiest way for him to preserve his land in perpetuity.

He’s talked with members of different land conservation organizations. He goes to meetings hosted by different organizations to learn as much as he can about the different conservation programs that are out there.

“At least that by being in the (heritage) program it kind of gives me, I’m going to say, a leg up if I were to do a conservation easement or get into some other conservation program because some of the work has already been done,” North said. “Yesterday, I got two letters in the mail that want to buy my land. I just throw them in the trash can.”

Aligning North Carolina’s wetlands definition with that of the federal government’s would put the state’s waterways at risk, erase nature’s pollution filtration systems from the land, and increase flooding, speakers at a public hearing said.

More than a dozen people commented during the Thursday night hearing in Raleigh on the revised wetlands definition the North Carolina General Assembly enacted into law two years ago.

In accordance with the 2023 Farm Act, the state’s definition of wetlands must correspond with the federal government’s, which narrows the description of a wetland to having a continuous surface connection to Waters of the United States, or those protected under the Clean Water Act. The federal definition was changed to be consistent with a May 2023 Supreme Court ruling.

In North Carolina, that alignment equates to the loss of protections for an estimated 2.5 million acres of wetlands, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality.

That agency has been implementing the definition since its approval in June 2023, but the state-appointed Environmental Management Commission, which is responsible for adopting rules that protect, preserve and enhance air and water resources, must go through the rulemaking process to amend the state’s existing wetlands definition.

The law legislators enacted two years ago explicitly directs that the Rules Review Commission cannot challenge the amendment.

Those who spoke at Thursday’s public hearing, a mandated step in the rulemaking process, urged the Environmental Management Commission to work with legislators to rescind the amendment. No one who spoke supported the definition revision.

“I think it’s a shame that the EMC does not have any discretion over what this rule looks like,” said Brooks Rainey, a lobbyist for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Dictating the text of a rule to a rulemaking body takes away the whole point of having a rulemaking body. The North Carolina General Assembly are not experts on wetlands. The Home Builders Association is not an expert on wetlands. The Chamber of Commerce is not an expert on wetlands. But there are many experts on wetlands at DEQ. When rulemaking works as intended, the experts on the subject matter of the rule are involved in crafting the rule. Otherwise, we have ceded environmental rulemaking to political whims and lobby groups.”

Rainey went on to say that the majority party at the General Assembly make “the majority appointments” on the Environmental Management Commission and that the current commission “has greater sway” with this legislature than any in recent memory.

“I urge this EMC to use that influence and ask the General Assembly to stop sending over rules that have been pre-drafted. Take the politics out of rulemaking. Leave it to the experts. It is insulting to this commission, it is insulting to the agency, and it is insulting to the public who are effectively excluded from having any meaningful input at all,” she said.

That lack of input has frustrated residents, environmental advocates and scientists, who argue that ordering a one-size-fits-all definition will be detrimental to a state where wetlands, particularly on the coastal plain, are critical to reducing flooding, cleaning drinking water and supporting fisheries.

“Tying in wetlands protections to federal definitions that change with every administration leaves our communities vulnerable,” said Kerri Allen, a coastal advocate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review. “Why should we hand off our responsibility to protect North Carolina’s natural resources to Washington. Wetlands in North Carolina, like pocosins, Carolina Bays and cypress swamps, deserve to be protected under rules written for our state’s needs, not buried under shifting federal priorities.”

Wetlands provide a host of crucial benefits, said Dr. Adam Gold, coasts and watersheds science manager with the Environmental Defense Fund.

They act as natural flood buffers, provide habitat for recreationally and commercially important wildlife, and filter pollution from waterways.

“Just one acre of wetlands can store up to a million and a half gallons of floodwater,” Gold said.

He cautioned that the federal government may further narrow the definition of wetlands. Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lee Zeldin announced plans to revise the definition of Waters of the United States, also known as WOTUS.

“As someone who has worked in the intersection of environmental policy and coastal resilience for over two decades, I’ve seen firsthand how wetland loss leads to increased flooding, degraded water quality and disappearing fisheries habitat,” said Coastal Carolina Riverwatch Executive Director Lisa Rider. “These issues are already being impacted and many rural communities and working waterfront communities are already seeing the impact from what’s going on. Stripping protections further will only accelerate harm to ecosystems and the people here in coastal North Carolina.”

Chris Herndon, director of the North Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club, said rolling back wetlands protections will waste millions of taxpayer dollars in flood recovery and contribute to the loss of the state’s natural resources.

“The revised definition freely gives the decision of which wetlands to protect to the federal government. As a result, our state wetlands protections will be determined by federal officials based on federal priorities without any special consideration of the particular importance of wetlands in our state. North Carolinians should decide which North Carolina wetlands should be protected to the benefit of our local communities and local economies,” he said.

Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Julie Youngman said that, though the commission has been mandated to pass the rule, there is no deadline in when the rule must be established.

And, since the state’s leading environmental agency is complying with the law, there is “no harm being done to the will of the legislature by slowing it down and working with the legislature to try to fix the mistake that’s been made,” she said.

“It just defies logic that we are putting our fate in the hands of a federal administration that doesn’t seem to care about the same values that we care about here in North Carolina,” Youngman said. “There is not deadline in the statute. Take your time, work with the legislature, see if you can’t come up with a commonsense way to keep the wetland protections that we have in place, in place.”

DEQ will accept public comments through today via email with the subject line “Wetland Definition Amendment” to Sue.Homewood@deq.nc.gov and by mail to Sue Homewood, Division of Water Resources, 1617 Main Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617.

The EMC is anticipated to hear recommendations on the revised rule during its Sept. 11 meeting. The 2023 Farm Act mandates that the rule cannot become effective until after legislative review, which is anticipated to take place during the General Assembly’s 2026 session.

The Environmental Protection Agency has final approval authority over the rule.

There was a time when the distinctive “kiki-do” call of eastern black rails were a common sound rising up from North Carolina marshes.

Masters of secrecy, these little birds are rarely, if ever, seen.

They prefer to skirt through the marsh using tunnels dug by rabbits and other small mammals rather than take to the sky. Their nests are typically well concealed close to the ground in the highest part of brackish, saltwater and inland freshwater marshes.

But the habitat that eastern black rails so skillfully use to maintain their privacy is under growing threat from rising ocean waters, more powerful storms, and development and, if their numbers continue to decline, projections are they’ll disappear altogether within 35 years.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission aims to help these birds, putting forth a management plan to improve the black rails’ habitat by permanently protecting coastal marshes and assisting private landowners with potential habitat creation.

That’s going to take hundreds of acres of additional inland, shallow marsh and high-elevation coastal marsh.

“We think there’s probably less than 40 breeding pairs in North Carolina right now,” said Kacy Cook, a coastal waterbird biologist with the Wildlife Resources Commission.

The commission is accepting public comment on the Black Rail Management Plan through July 11.

The eastern black rail was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2020. The commission lists it as a species of greatest conservation need.

Long gone are the days when eastern black rails were documented in freshwater marshes in the North Carolina mountains and Piedmont. No one has heard their “kiki-do” in the interior part of the state since 2005, Cook said.

Once abundant black rail habitat along the North Carolina has been crowded out by houses, roads and farmed land.

The last remaining pockets of coastal areas where the birds are heard in some places in the Outer Banks (exact locations are kept under wraps to prevent human disturbance) and Cedar Island, an unincorporated area of Carteret County. Even there, surveys reveal a dramatic population decline.

Surveys are conducted throughout the black rails’ breeding cycle by using something called a targeted call-response where biologists play a recording of the “kiki-do” sound and wait for a response from black rails in the survey area.

“You used to be able to hear 70 black rail calling from the causeway,” at Cedar Island, Cook said.

Now, fewer than 10 respond at any given time, she said.

And while that’s not good for the eastern black rail, it’s also indicative of a wider coastal problem.

“Black rails are our signal that our coastal marshes and freshwater wetlands are in trouble, and that makes a difference for a lot of species, and our own wellbeing,” Cook said.

Eastern black rails rely on very shallow water levels in marshes. They have legs that are typically just over one inch long. Their fledglings, roughly the size of cotton balls, are out of the nest within 24 hours of hatching, but they’re not able to fly until about 40 days later.

This is why coastal storm flooding, exacerbated by sea level rise, is a particular threat, because flood waters can wash away the nests, eggs and chicks. One big storm could wipe out the remaining population in North Carolina.

“Those are happening at a rate that is too high for their population to grow,” Cook said.

Lack of fire, which is crucial to maintaining that type of habitat, and agricultural practices that include cutting field borders where black rails like to settle among wet, tall, grassy habitat, are further degrading the birds’ habitat.

“I’m only finding black rails where we have high herbaceous plant diversity. They only use habitats that are very dense herbaceous cover, grasses and flowers with few shrubs and no trees,” Cook said.

The commission’s management plan for black rails includes the creation and restoration of 600 acres of freshwater marsh and 600 acres of additional high-elevation coastal march by 2056.

“What we do for black rails will benefit all of the marsh birds that we have now, including the egrets and the herons and the wood storks. So, working on restoring black rail habitat is going to benefit all of our coastal birds in some way and our seafood. Seventy-five percent of our seafood comes from coastal marshes,” Cook said.

A group of state lawmakers vow they will fight for North Carolina shrimpers to continue trawling in inland and nearby offshore waters.

Several legislators on Tuesday spoke out against a last-minute amendment injected into a House bill originally aimed at expanding recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper. They called the revision an “injustice,” “bad,” “wrong,” and one that would shutter the state’s shrimping industry.

“I have spent a lot of the last few days being very angry, and I admit that,” said Rep. Celeste Cairns, R-Carteret, during the Tuesday morning press conference in Raleigh. “It’s better to be angry than to be sad because I will end up in tears. I have been in tears several times during this last week.”

A week has passed since two Senate committees pushed forward amended House Bill 442, one that has since its introduction to the House in March been “hijacked,” according to the bill’s sponsor.

“We’re used to the Senate acting this way, but not to this degree,” Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, said. “As much as I wanted a flounder season, I urge everyone to vote to oppose this bill every chance they get.”

Sen. David Craven Jr., R-Anson, introduced the amendment, arguing that it would align North Carolina’s trawling laws with those in Virginia and South Carolina and reduce the amount of bycatch, or unwanted species, captured in nets.

Advocacy groups, including the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, have long argued that shrimp trawling harms other fisheries, including juvenile fish, and degrades essential habitats.

But lawmakers, who were joined by commercial shrimpers on Tuesday, pushed back on those claims, saying that the state’s fisheries management plan for shrimp already protects sensitive habitat and juvenile fish. Commercial fishing is heavily regulated in North Carolina, where trawlers are required to have equipment on their boats that prevent and reduce bycatch.

“This is not an environmental issue,” said Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford. “This is an allocation issue. In fact, if we were focused on the environment and the sustainability of fish, we would be talking about water quality. We’d be talking about coastal development. We’d be talking about protecting our wetlands, restoring our buffers,” and about warming sea temperatures.

House Bill 442 was last week sent back to the House, where it and proposed legislation to supplement shrimpers’ income, should the trawling ban become law, now await a vote.

Just hours after the press conference, the Senate voted 43-2 in favor of House Bill 441, which would establish a program that would pay out annual installments over three years to qualifying shrimpers.

The bill includes a provision to temporarily increase license and registration fees for recreational fishers, fishing, and some commercial fishers to cover the cost of the program.

The bill directs the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries to establish and administer the program, one that would allow shrimpers to use trip-ticket forms submitted to the state between Jan. 1, 2023, through June 30, 2025. Each month, dealers submit these forms to the division, which uses the information reported on the tickets as a means to help manage fisheries resources.

Iler also sponsored House Bill 441, which, when introduced earlier this year, called for adopting the loggerhead sea turtle as the state’s official saltwater reptile.

“Without getting into the merits of either bill, I’m here because I am very upset about what happened to these two bills,” Sen. Ted Davis Jr., R-New Hanover, said Tuesday morning.

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, called the advancement of House Bill 442 a “disgusting process.”

“This amendment wasn’t discussed with our caucus,” he said. “This amendment was a calculated, precision move by a couple of leadership in the North Carolina Senate. When I came to committee prepared to talk about this I was completely shut down. I was completely shut down by my own party and by my own leadership. Last week, I was ashamed to be a member of the North Carolina General Assembly. This is a couple of people in the Senate that are pushing an agenda, an agenda pushed by money, influence, whatever you want to call it. We can’t stand for it and if we in the North Carolina Senate don’t take a stand against this type of activity then we’re not better than they are.”

Last week, an angry Hanig asked fellow senators why they would not wait for the results from an ongoing lawsuit the Coastal Conservation Association – North Carolina filed in 2020 to ban shrimp trawling and for the results of a study on the state’s fisheries that the General Assembly commissioned three years ago.

Hanig said Tuesday that the study was expected to be presented to the legislature in the coming days.

“They know what’s in that study and they know the condition of our fisheries and they know the false narrative they have been pushing for decades,” he said.

Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort, also questioned why the call to ban trawling could not have waited until the report is released.

“Did they get a heads up and find out that maybe they’re wrong and that’s why they’re trying to rush it across before the report gets here,” he said. “There’s something dirty going on here people.”

Kidwell said that, in his district, shrimping is not a career, but a way of life.

“Are we going to shut down the people who go to work every day making an honest living because some branch of the government finally decides, in some slimy backroom deal, that they don’t want to do this anymore,” he said. “Well, by God, Down East, we didn’t ask them what they want to do. We want to fish. We want to have the fruits of our labors. We’re not going to stand and take this.”

A senator representing five Piedmont counties has introduced an amendment to a House bill that, if it becomes law, will prohibit shrimp trawling in all of North Carolina’s inland waters and within a half-mile of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.

Despite protests from a coastal senator and several commercial fishing representatives, two Senate committees that met Tuesday were in favor of amending House Bill 442, which Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, filed in March “to restore recreational fishing for flounder and red snapper in North Carolina.”

Iler said to both committees Tuesday that there wasn’t much of a recreational flounder season last year. He was referring to the harvest seasons established by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission, which manages flounder and red snapper fisheries. The commission votes on management plans that determines when those species can be harvested.

As the bill made its way through the House and then to the Senate, its language focused solely on expanding recreational access to southern flounder and red snapper, but that changed Tuesday morning during the Senate’s agriculture, energy, and environment committee meeting. The committee approved the amendment and then referred it to that afternoon’s Senate rules and operations committee, which also voted in favor of the bill.

Sen. David Craven Jr., R-Anson, who also represents Montgomery, Randolph, Richmond and Union counties, introduced the amendment to put North Carolina “on par” with regulations in force in Virginia and South Carolina.

He said that the estimated bycatch, or unwanted species, that comes with shrimp trawling is 4 pounds of bycatch to every pound of shrimp harvested, “which is a lot of other species of fish that’s getting caught in the net, potentially dying,” he said. “This has been an issue for quite some time, and I think it’s time this body addressed it.”

The amendment details the penalties a commercial fishing operation would face if caught “Taking or attempting to take shrimp using a trawl net in any coastal fishing waters other than areas of the Atlantic Ocean located more than one-half mile from the shoreline.”

When Committee Chair Sen. Brent Jackson, R-Pender, opened the floor to elected leaders for comment, Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, was the first to speak. Hanig asked why not wait for the results from an ongoing lawsuit filed in 2020 by the Coastal Conservation Association — North Carolina to ban shrimp trawling and the results of a study commissioned in 2022 on the issue.

“Why the urgency all of a sudden and at the 23rd hour?” Hanig asked.

Hanig said he was also concerned with “what data was used to support the amendment to put the hardworking men and women that work in our fishing industry every day out of a job and completely shut down an entire industry?

“Seventy five percent of the shrimp that are caught in the state of North Carolina are caught where this amendment is affected,” said Hanig.

Craven responded that there was no intent to put anybody out of business.

“I believe these fine folks can trawl a half-mile off the coast of North Carolina,” and continue to shrimp. He added that work had been done on a separate matter to ensure there’s “compensation during that time to make sure that we get these folks transitioned.”

Craven said shrimpers must “understand that they will have a process to move through from doing what they do on a daily basis now to kind of moving and changing into going out in the coastal waters.”

Hanig, with no time to ask further questions, urged the committee to reject the amendment.

“This bill started out as a great step forward, one that restores reasonable access to flounder for both recreational and commercial fisheries. This bill comes from progress, cooperation, long-overdue relief from closures derived from flawed science and outdated rules that hurt both industries,” said Hanig.

“Throwing this trawling ban at the 23rd hour undermines the intent and spirit of the bill. It reeks of the same old sleazy, backroom politics and special interests that caused North Carolina endless wars, endless fish wars,” he continued. It’s “disgraceful what we’re doing to the citizens of North Carolina. This is nothing short of special interest and backroom deals. There’s no question about it. That’s why no one was instructed about this amendment.”

Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, said both the original bill and the amendment were taking what should be collaborative, scientifically based decisions out of that realm.

“I’m always worried about this body overruling, for instance, the Marine Fisheries Commission on the flounder and the snapper,” Mayfield said, noting that there’s a shrimp management plan and shrimp working group that’s been together for years, working on and improving trawling and bycatch regulations.

During both committee meetings, supporters and opponents of the amendment explained their positions.

North Carolina Fisheries Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner said that, as a lifelong commercial fisherman, “I probably don’t have tell y’all we are opposed to this trawl ban amendment.”

Skinner said that because the CCA-NC lawsuit and the study were ongoing, “I just can’t help but think that it’s no coincidence that we’re talking about this trawl ban in the same year, both of those are supposed to come before a judge and before this General Assembly.”

Chad Thomas, on behalf of the nonprofit North Carolina Marine and Estuary Foundation, said that while the state “has been a leader in the effort to reduce bycatch, and although the need to protect critical habitats is well documented, legislative action is necessary to ensure the enhancement of nearly 900,000 additional acres of inshore habitats that are critical to our fish and shellfish populations. After careful review of the available science, our foundation’s conclusion is that the shrimp trawl legislation, as proposed in House Bill 442 would bring a huge step closer to this protection goal.”

Brent Fulcher, a business owner with operations in New Bern and Beaufort, said he doesn’t “understand how you would even think about taking the fresh North Carolina seafood away from the North Carolina consumer, and run the risk to ruin infrastructure for the entire industry and other sister industries.”

Cameron Boltes, a former Marine Fisheries Commission member, said he, as “one of 460,000 recreational anglers in North Carolina,” supported the measure. “The big point of clarification I want to make is that the bill is not a ban on trawling in North Carolina. It’s in alignment with the best management practices used by every other state in the Southeast.”

Earl Pugh, a lifetime resident of Hyde County and a former county commissioner there, said his county, as the second smallest in the state, relied heavily on the seafood industry. Seafood is one of the three major industries in Hyde County, along with agriculture and tourism, Pugh noted.

“A ban on trawling in inshore waters would be devastating to the economy of Hyde County,” he said, adding that it would take away income that fishermen, fish houses and other locals in the industry rely on.

Thomas Bell with the North Carolina Wildlife Federation praised the measure, saying it “addresses a major threat to the long-term health of North Carolina’s fisheries inshore.

“Shrimp trawling severely impacts the fisheries we depend on, killing millions of juvenile fish, degrading essential habitats and putting enormous pressure on our collapsing fish populations, including spot croaker and flounder,” said Bell. “This bill does not completely ban trawling but puts good stewardship of our estuaries first by moving shrimp trawling offshore.”

Coastal Review will not publish Thursday in recognition of the Juneteenth holiday.

OAK ISLAND – When Gigi Donovan looks at the dune fronting a row of largely undeveloped oceanfront lots across the street from her home, she sees a false sense of security.

“We’ve seen this dune go away three times in 12 years,” she said.

The sandy mound that separates the public beach from private lots along a stretch of East Beach Drive wasn’t here just a few years ago. It has been built up and planted with dune-stabilizing sea oats through the town of Oak Island’s efforts to restore its oceanfront shore. 

Now there is enough of it to render at least one of the thin slices of long-vacant beachfront lots suitable for building.

That has Donovan and several of her neighbors worried.

Amber and Dean Russell live a few doors down from the Donovans. When the Russells bought their bungalow in 2022, they went ahead and purchased the beachfront lot directly across the street.

“We bought that just to keep our view,” Amber Russell said. “It’s not safe to build on.”

That’s a sentiment a group of homeowners and residents who live in the area of SE 58^th Street and East Beach Drive have expressed to town officials in the days and months since they received notice that a developer had applied for a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit to build a house on one of the oceanfront lots.

They’ve made countless telephone calls and sent emails to North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff.

They’ve posted handmade signs that read “SAVE OUR BEACHFRONT — No Building on Narrow, At-risk Lots!” along their block of East Beach Drive.

They started an online petition that, as of June 13, had more than 600 signatures.

They’ve dug in their heels and pushed back, calling “for the return to responsible, sustainable environmental development on fragile oceanfront properties” in a plea to Oak Island’s mayor.

But even they acknowledge this fight is an uphill battle, one that is likely to rage on as low-lying coastal areas deal with the effects of sea level rise, more frequent, intense coastal storms and shoreline erosion.

Regulatory flexibility

Last month, a CAMA minor permit was issued for 5515 East Beach Drive. Proposed building plans on the 0.17-acre lot include a 2,856 square-foot house.

Town officials in an email responding to questions said they do not have on file when a home last stood on that lot. Aerial satellite images from Brunswick County show that this particular block of East Beach Drive had more homes along the oceanfront in 1989 than today.

The homes captured by satellite imagery in 1989 were gone in 2003, destroyed by nature or demolition.

Today, houses stand on only two of the oceanfront lots along this block of East Beach Drive.

Oak Island officials said the town does not have an overarching designation determining whether a lot is buildable based on oceanfront construction setbacks.

“For building on an oceanfront lot, the developer would submit information to show compliance with CAMA regulations and receive a permit if they meet said requirements,” an official said in an email.

Back in 2023, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission rubber-stamped Oak Island’s beach management plan, which gives beachfront builders more regulatory flexibility regarding how far back they must build from the sea.

The year before, the commission repealed regulations that allowed coastal communities to use the less restrictive setback measurement line for oceanfront construction, instead requiring builders to measure back from what is referred to as the preproject vegetation line.

The preproject vegetation line is the first line of stable, natural vegetation that is on an oceanfront before a large-scale beach nourishment project begins, one where more than 300,000 cubic yards of sand is placed on the beach.

But coastal communities that create and follow beach management plans approved by the commission may measure setbacks from the vegetation line rather than the preproject line as long as they meet the obligations detailed in their plans. Setbacks are 60 feet from the measurement line.

Coastal Resources Commission approved beach management plans for five coastal towns: Carolina Beach, Kure Beach and Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, and Oak Island and Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County. Once approved, plans must be reauthorized every five years.

Oak Island’s authorized plan calls for placing a total estimated 16.2 million cubic yards of sand on the beach over the next three decades. Under the plan, the beach will be nourished every six years.

Oak Island’s most recent sand nourishment projects were carried out in 2021 and 2022.

A nourishment project originally planned for winter 2024-25 was postponed after the town was informed contractor bids for the project “had far exceeded the amounts expected or budgeted,” according to the town’s website.

The project is again out for bids, and town officials anticipate a contract will be awarded and work will begin later this year.

Risky building

“They’re looking to the renourishment as the permanent solution,” Donovan said.

Dr. Gavin Smith, a North Carolina State University professor who researches hazard mitigation, disaster recovery and climate change adaptation, is not a big fan of beach nourishment.

“I think that overrelying on beach nourishment as a way to protect coastal development is fraught with problems,” he said in a telephone interview earlier this month. “It’s extremely expensive. It can take several seasons or it can take one bad storm and it’s gone.”

Smith pointed out that coastal zones, in particular barrier island, are highly dynamic and subject to significant change.

“Thinking about the construction of a house in a highly dynamic area, I think we need to be really careful,” he said. “Builders and homebuyers need to think about the life of that structure. The conditions that that site might face in 40 or 50 years is worthy of consideration. Individuals need to think about and actually ask a question: While you might be able to legally build in a given place, should you build there? I think that’s something that we all need to perhaps be more aware of.”

It’s time governments at all levels, local, state and federal, “do better,” he said.

“How can we recognize or applaud local governments that have the political will to adopt more stringent standards than the minimums? That’s what many governments adhere to is the minimum standards” Smith said. “Our codes are inadequate in the state, yet that’s what we adhere to in many cases. The National Flood Insurance Program should be viewed as a minimum, not the maximum. In an era of climate change we’re moving toward this idea of nonstationary, which we don’t know what the future holds. So, therefore our codes and standards ought to be that much more rigorous to account for the uncertainty. But instead, we’re relying on old data. We’re relying on old codes and that’s a significant problem.”

Sitting at the kitchen table in her home on a late May afternoon, Donovan mulled the many concerns she, her husband Mark, and their neighbors have raised to government officials.

They worry about whether more lights from new construction will hinder sea turtles from nesting on the shore. They worry about how stormwater runoff from new rooftops, driveways and other impervious surfaces may exacerbate flooding on their second-row lots.

They worry what one unwelcome coastal storm, be it a hurricane of any category or a potential tropical cyclone that packs a punch like the unnamed storm that pummeled Brunswick County last year, might do to the dune and any homes standing on the small land plots just behind it.

“We don’t know. That’s the thing. We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Gigi Donovan said.

In a statement to the town’s mayor last month, the Donovans and their neighbors wrote: “While we cannot control the weather, we can mitigate the damage it causes by responsibly managing the development of oceanfront properties.”

Oceanfront lot development “should be based on comprehensive land-use plans that take into consideration beach erosion, turtle nesting habitat, climate change, protection of private and town property, and preserving the legacy of (Oak Island) as a quaint, family-focused beach community.”

They are appealing to Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon, who determines whether or not property owners can make their case in a hearing before the full commission.

“We are very motivated and stubborn,” Gigi Donovan said in a text message. “If we allow them to plow ahead, steam-rolling any local opposition, our entire island beachfront will be irreparably destroyed.”

Tropical storms have cost North Carolina tens of billions of dollars over the last 40 years.

These weather-related disasters are putting a spotlight on the state’s “flood-risk crisis,” according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, as well as the potential for “the role of a changing climate, including increases in rainfall and sea level rise to worsen the crisis.”

Heightening the threat, in association with a growing population, is that more impervious surfaces are being built, which decreases the amount of rainwater the ground can absorb.

The North Carolina General Assembly, in an effort to better understand and prepare for flood risks across the state, allocated $20 million in 2021 to NCDEQ’s Division of Mitigation Services to develop a flood resilience program, and nearly $100 million to implement resiliency projects in six of the state’s 17 river basins.

Called the North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint, the program is intended to serve as “the backbone of a State flood planning process that increases community resiliency to flooding, shall be a resource for riverine and stream management to reduce flooding, and should support the establishment and furtherance of local government stormwater maintenance programs,” per the 2021 session law.

Stuart Brown, who has been leading the blueprint team for a little more than a year, told Coastal Review in a recent interview that the blueprint’s goal is to make the state more resilient to flooding.

“We’re trying to better understand what floods, how it floods, and what the impacts of that flooding are,” he explained, which began with looking at what information was available statewide on flooding, what information was needed to better understand flooding, and to see what other states and federal agencies were doing to try to address similar issues.

Studies show that around 60 to 70% of flood damage happens outside of federally defined flood hazard areas, Brown continued. “If that is our understanding of floods, then we’re not going to be particularly successful at mitigating that flooding, or doing things that help reduce the damage caused by that flooding.”

To get a more accurate estimate of current and future flood risks, NCDEQ has partnered with state Emergency Management and other agencies to improve existing flood modeling tools.

Being built right now, the improved modeling will consider, for example, changes in precipitation patterns and sea level subsidence in coastal areas, and all of that new information will feed “into our understanding of what our current and future flood risk is,” Brown said.

The improvements to existing flood modeling tools that are to “provide more accurate estimates of current flood risks and project future flood risk to support long-term strategic planning,” as NCDEQ states, are just one part of the blueprint strategy.  

Once the blueprint is complete, it is expected to offer decision-makers, especially in communities with limited resources, help to build site-specific flood mitigation projects and with funding opportunities.

“Traditionally, disaster management focuses on preparedness, response, and recovery. The Blueprint’s focus is on proactive resilience planning and implementation that can reduce the initial impact from future flood events and help communities recover more quickly,” according to the blueprint spring 2025 update.

Blueprint background

Brown explained during a presentation earlier this year that the state has suffered for decades from billion-dollar disasters and the blueprint “represents an opportunity to take a step back from the disaster cycle and invest in the proactive planning and implementation of resilience work to mitigate future risk and reduce the cost and disruption from future flooding.”

He was speaking at the two-day North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute’s annual conference this March in Raleigh. WRRI is a multi-campus program of the University of North Carolina System and provides resources and support to junior faculty and students.

After hurricanes Matthew in 2016 and Florence in 2018, both totaling around $27 billion in damage, the General Assembly, knowing that these types of storms are becoming more frequent, more severe and more costly, recognized that they should look more into investing in resilience, Brown continued.

When the General Assembly tasked NCDEQ in 2021 with developing the statewide flood resiliency blueprint for major watersheds impacted by flooding, it was with the goal “to better equip the state and its communities to manage current and future flood risk.”

The blueprint is imagined as a statewide program, but right now, the project is funded and authorized to work only in the Neuse, Cape Fear, Lumber, Tar-Pamlico, White Oak, and the French Broad, which was added in 2024 prior to Hurricane Helene, Brown said.

Ultimately, the blueprint is to provide a way to explore different options to reduce risk, exposure to and disruption from flooding, building resilience and give local governments “the tools and data and processing they need to support their flood resilience planning,” he added.

Phased approach

Brown said in an interview that the project has several components and is being developed in three phases.

The first phase was completed in March 2024 with the release of the 98-page draft blueprint document and 77-page draft Neuse Basin Flood Resiliency Action Strategy a few months later. 

The draft blueprint was the “first major deliverable and is the outline for how we do this work,” Brown said. “This is the framework for how to do these river basin action strategies. We put that framework in motion.”

A river basin action strategy is tailored to a specific river basin and uses the blueprint tool and public input to outline specific actions for increasing flood resilience.

The draft pilot Neuse action strategy serves as a template for this type of planning going forward, but is currently missing information about vulnerability that the flood modeling improvements are expected to illustrate, Brown said.

Both documents were written using contributions from more than 150 researchers, technicians, government leaders and staff, researchers, and other partners.

Phases two and three are being developed concurrently. Phase two includes building the interactive online tool with community-specific data and project management guidance tailored to the user’s needs. The tool also is a repository for information, modeling outputs and technical reports. Though the online decision-support Blueprint Tool is public now, Brown said the team is “still building functionality.” Once the improved modeling is complete, that new information will be incorporated into the online tool.

In addition to revisiting the Neuse pilot strategy during phase three, “we’ve also kicked off river basin action strategies for the Cape Fear, Lumber, White Oak and Tar-Pamlico,” he added.

The basin strategy advisory boards are to use the draft blueprint and online tool to develop the other five river basin action strategies.

Staff have been meeting with these advisory boards, and there are plans to meet with different municipalities and counties, all leading to river basin action strategies in Early 2026, Brown said.

Funding, partnerships

The blueprint has an implementation component, Brown explained.

Staff began funding projects last year out of that $96 million allocated in 2021 for priority projects in the six river basins. The money was released after the draft blueprint document was published in March 2024.

NCDEQ partnered with state agencies and local governments to enable dozens of projects worth more than $65 million. The blueprint program invested $25.6 million into these projects according to the April 30 quarterly report to the General Assembly.

“We funded 61 projects so far statewide, that includes many coastal projects among them,” Brown said.

Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico and Pender have all been selected to receive or have received close to $4 million total for stream debris or sediment removal, infrastructure, flood risk reduction, restoration or acquisition.

The state announced funding through the blueprint twice in November 2024 and again in April. Right now, proposals are being accepted for projects that address flood reduction or flood resiliency in key river basins in the state. The deadline is June 30.

“By investing in a more flood-resilient state now, North Carolina will protect and improve the lives and livelihoods of North Carolinians, secure and build upon its thriving economy, expand tourism, support agriculture, forestry, and other working land businesses, fortify transportation infrastructure, protect critical aspects of the military mission, and steward natural resources,” the draft blueprint document states.

Secretary Wilson highlights blueprint

NCDEQ Secretary Reid Wilson has spoken about the blueprint in front of larger audiences since stepping into the leadership role the first of this year, including at the WRRI conference in March and at the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s 2025 Coastal Summit in April in Raleigh.

“We have to engage the public. We have to plan for the future, and again, plan for more severe storms, which is why it’s a wonderful thing that our Division of Mitigation Services is developing the North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint,” Wilson said at the WRRI conference.

He added that the blueprint is the backbone of a planning process to increase community resilience to flooding through all of our river basins and “is the largest statewide flood mitigation investment in state history.”

Wilson explained in April that the blueprint is one step the agency has taken toward resiliency and that the online decision support tool “will enable state and local government agencies to better understand how to build and rebuild to mitigate hazards.”

He continued that while the blueprint team is working with volunteers to develop the six river basins, including those on the coast, “the hope is to expand into all other basins as well. The action strategies are intended to bring together stakeholders to figure out steps to take to make their communities less vulnerable,” Wilson said.

Around the time of a funding announcement, Wilson said “so we’re trying to get the money out the door but in a really smart way, so we know there’s more to do on resilience.”

Just beyond a wooded area that marks Paws Place Dog Rescue’s east-facing property line, signs of neighbors to come dot the horizon.

Rooftops of two-story houses in various stages of construction peek over treetops in a new development cropping up on one side of the rescue’s land in Winnabow, an unincorporated area along U.S. Highway 17 in Brunswick County.

On a recent May afternoon, Paws Place President Lee VanOrmer looked in the direction from where the steady sounds of building filled the air and mustered up her best, glass-half-full shot of optimism.

“That’s more families that can come here and adopt dogs,” she said.

The reality is that the new neighborhood, like so much of the seemingly endless development occurring in Brunswick County, is not one welcomed by existing residents worried that too much building, too fast, is creating problems.

Here in North Carolina’s southernmost coastal county, it’s not uncommon to read local news stories about mounting traffic-related issues, concerns about flooding exacerbated by stormwater runoff and human run-ins with alligators being squeezed out of the once-secluded areas they prefer.

And, by all indications, development here is not going to slow down.

Years of building to come

Since June 1, 2015, the county has approved 123 developments that call for the construction of more than 45,900 housing units, according to information provided on Brunswick County Planning and Community Enforcement’s website.

Only 13 of those developments are 100% complete. Construction of residences in more than half – 75 to be exact – has not begun.

“It is so much,” Brunswick County resident Christie Marek said. “When I started this I didn’t realize how much I was getting into. It’s like the more you try to change something you learn that we’re several years behind homebuilders. It’s like they almost planned on this.”

Marek founded Brunswick County Conservation Partnership, a nonprofit born out of a coalition of residents concerned about their county’s future. The aim of the partnership is to protect Brunswick’s natural resources and advocate for “responsible” development.

That can look like any variety of measures, be it creating wider buffers between a new development and wetlands or adjacent properties, limiting clearcutting, or implementing stormwater mitigation plans to ultimately keep runoff from flowing into and polluting streams and rivers, Marek said.

Marek lives in Ash, a rural, largely agricultural, unincorporated area along N.C. Highway 130 that she refers to as “the country side of the beach.”

“We don’t have a lot of growth out here,” Marek said.

So, when builders asked the county to approve a sprawling, multiuse development of thousands of homes and commercial space next to her small family farm, she took notice.

County officials in March 2024 approved Ashton Farms, a development that will include more than 2,700 single-family lots, 200 townhome lots and a little more than 20 acres of commercial space.

Early this year, the county planning board approved the 645-acre King Tract, an 1,800-home development through farm and forestland adjacent to Ashton Farms.

Residents persistently raised concerns about potential impacts these developments may have on what equate to hundreds of acres of wetlands in the area.

Months before the King Tract was approved, Marek began asking county leaders to adopt a temporary building moratorium.

“I would love to see a moratorium to just halt development until we get a flood study done and wildlife study done,” she said.

Brunswick County commissioners in a split vote last fall turned down that idea.

The county later posted an explanation on its website that local governments are barred from adopting temporary building moratoria.

“State law provides little to no ability for local governments to issue temporary moratoria on development projects within their jurisdiction,” the website states. “This aspect of state law is important to keep in mind whenever the County receives questions or suggestions to put a moratorium on residential development due to reasons like amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or writing or updating plans.”

The website goes on to explain that proposed developments undergo “a thorough review process” and that impacts to infrastructure and water and wastewater systems are addressed before proposals go to the county planning board.

Several projects are either under construction or planned to expand capacity at wastewater treatment plants and the county has “dedicated significant time and resources” to updating its 20-year water and sewer master plans and five-year capital improvement plan, according to the county.

Brunswick County Conservation Partnership has applied for a $1 million grant to study the potential effects, including flooding, overdevelopment in the area may have on everything from wildlife to wetlands to trees.

But as the federal government guts grant programs, Marek said she’s not counting on those funds to come through. The partnership late last year launched an online donation campaign to raise funds to cover the cost of the study.

“It’s not that we want to stop all development,” Marek said. “It’s stopping irresponsible development and that’s what’s going on here.”

Wetter ground

There’s a patch of marsh on the grounds of where Paws Place Dog Rescue has operated the last eight years.

“We could count in the summer on it being dry,” VanOrmer said.

That’s no longer the case.

The kennel where dogs are housed in a sprawling building that sits at the end of a gravel road stretching hundreds of yards off N.C. Highway 87 is on 17 acres classified as being of minimal flood risk.

Yet, since the no-kill shelter opened in spring 2017, flooding and the threat of it has been on the uptick. VanOrmer is convinced that is due, at least in part, to encroaching development, despite assurances from officials that developers have to comply with the county’s stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.

Unprecedented rainfall from two coastal storms that swept the area within the span of less than a decade caused historic flooding.

Paws Place’s 7,000-square-foot building was inundated with 3 feet of water following Hurricane Florence’s record rainfall in September 2018.

U.S. National Guard troops were called in to help evacuate the kennel’s inhabitants at the time to dry ground at a local gas station.

Last September, Potential Tropical Cyclone Eight, more commonly referred to in these parts as the “unnamed storm,” dumped more than 20 inches of rain, destroying dozens of homes, washing out roads and causing millions of dollars in damages.

“We had water come up to the door and we used dog food to keep the water out,” VanOrmer said.

But the two people who rode out the storm at the kennel were trapped by floodwaters that cut off the entrance to the property.

The unnamed storm amplified to the rescue’s board of directors the need for an on-site storm shelter, one a quick walk from the kennel that, as of May 20, housed some 35 dogs.

The rescue had just enough money to pay a contractor to pour an elevated concrete slab that will be the base of the storm shelter.

Now the rescue is racing to raise enough money to finish the shelter, the ground level of which will house lawn equipment and a van. Walls of the second level, which will be climate controlled, will be lined with crates ready for dogs that get moved from the main building during storms.

“Really, the situation has become, we need an evacuation-type scenario,” VanOrmer said.

She said $95,000 in pledges have been made to the rescue, closing in on its $150,000 goal. VanOrmer said she hopes construction will begin in early June with the building being finished before September.

Next door, homes will likely continue to be erected in the new neighborhood of Saltgrass Landing, plans of which call for nearly 260 residences.

Another large housing development is planned adjacent the Paws Place property across Town Creek, which winds to the Cape Fear River.

“Unfortunately, we can’t seem to stop development,” VanOrmer said.

With national forecasters expecting above-normal activity for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, officials are reminding the public to prepare now before a storm hits.

Meteorologists are predicting a 60% chance of an above-normal season, 30% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 10% chance to be below normal, National Weather Service Director Ken Graham said during a news conference held Thursday morning at Jefferson Parish Emergency Operations Center in Gretna, Louisiana.

Graham was joined by Acting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Laura Grimm and Jefferson Parish President Cynthia Lee-Sheng to announce the season that begins June 1 and ends Nov. 30.

“We’re really looking at an above-normal season once again,” Graham said, explaining that the forecast is between 13 to 19 named storms. Storms are named when they reach 39 mph. In 2024, there were 18 named storms.

Of those 13 to 19 storms expected this year, six to 10 are forecast to become hurricanes, which is when winds reach 74 mph, and forecasters expect three to five major hurricanes, or Category 3 and above, with maximum sustained winds of 111 miles an hour or greater, Graham said.

“The average: 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, three major (hurricanes), so above the average,” Graham said.

Hurricane categories are ranked from 1 to 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Category 5 is the strongest with winds greater than 157 mph.

Hurricanes are not just about the category, Graham said, adding that only 1 mile an hour separates the different categories. “You’ve got to focus on the impacts,” particularly the dangers of water such as storm surge and flooding.

Graham explained that the strongest hurricanes are the ones that develop the fastest.

“Every Category 5 storm that’s ever hit this country was a tropical storm or less three days prior,” Graham said. “The big ones that hit this country are fast,” and you have to plan early.

“Everything’s in place for an above average season,” Graham explained, including warmer surface temperatures.

With some of the factors associated with hurricane season, “we’re not really seeing any changes in the numbers or even the strengths when it comes to the warming of the planet,” but “we’re seeing heavier rainfall rates,” he said.

“That’s the biggest evidence that we see associated with the tropical season,” Graham continued about the heavy rainfall. “We’ve got to be really prepared for that,” especially as more people move to the coast.

In response to questions from reporters Thursday morning about staff changes at NOAA, Grimm explained that “weather prediction modeling and protecting human lives and property is our top priority.”

She added that “we are fully staffed at the hurricane center” and “we are really making this a top priority for this administration, for NOAA, for the Department of Commerce. We are very supportive of our national weather staff.”

Though Graham reiterated Grimm’s statement about staffing, he later said the administration “had some folks go, but we’re going to make sure that we have everything that we have on the front lines. Every warning is going to go out.”

Graham said that budget cuts at NOAA are not going to affect hurricane forecasting this year and that the center is working on some long-term solutions for staffing.

In North Carolina

Dare County Emergency Management Director Drew Pearson told Coastal Review in an email Thursday that he echoed “Ken Graham’s statement in the NOAA release where he says ‘This outlook is a call to action: be prepared. Take proactive steps now to make a plan and gather supplies to ensure you’re ready before a storm threatens’.”

Graham’s “words are true even when the predictions are for a less active season. No matter how many storms are being predicted, everyone needs to be prepared for that one storm that will put them in harm’s way,” Pearson continued.

“I would be remiss if I didn’t encourage everyone to never focus on just the category of a tropical storm,” he said. “Any storm system is dangerous and can bring life threatening impacts from storm surge, rainfall flooding, wind, tornadoes and rip currents. Just the other afternoon we had a tornado in Wanchese during a severe thunderstorm.”

North Carolina Emergency Management’s Chief of External Affairs and Communications Justin Graney also pointed out that it only takes one storm.

“We really want North Carolinians to know that it doesn’t matter if they’re calling for one storm this season or 45 storms, it only takes one to impact our state and only one storm to impact your community and your home. We want everybody to be prepared for hurricanes,” he said in an interview.

Graney said in coastal North Carolina, “storm surge is the number one killer” in tropical storms and hurricanes, “because the water levels will rise very rapidly.” Wind damage is also a concern, depending on the strength of the hurricane.

“It’s important to note, too, that the category of storm is misleading. People find a false sense of security” in the storm category, which is only based on the wind speed. “The storm may have substantial impacts beyond that,” he said.

Graney pointed to Hurricane Florence in 2018, a Category 1 storm when it impacted North and South Carolina. “But because of the rainfall amounts, we saw significant flooding, same with Hurricane Matthew. There shouldn’t be a sense of security with people when they say, ‘that’s just a Category 1 hurricane, we’ll be fine.’ They need to take them seriously, no matter what it is.”

Another concern for eastern North Carolina is inland flooding.

Residents need to be aware of what is happening to the streams and rivers in their area, adding that the region could see the same areas flood twice. The initial flooding from storm surge, rainfall and runoff, and, depending on the track of the storm, “you may see additional flooding several days after the storm, so it’s important to make sure you’re aware of those hazards,” he said.

Graney urged residents to make sure the information they rely on is coming from local media, the newspaper, National Weather Service and other trusted sources to make the best decisions to protect themselves and their loved ones.

“The next thing you want to do after being informed is, we want to make sure that you have a plan and that you’re prepared,” Graney said. “We want everyone that lives in coastal North Carolina to be familiar with the Know Your Zone Initiative, which is a storm surge-based evacuation map that is used by local emergency management to facilitate evacuation.”

He said to visit the website, type in the address and it will show your zone for if you need to evacuate.

Grady said that putting together a disaster kit at home is also extremely important. “We need to make sure North Carolinians are prepared to self-sustain for three to seven days per person in their home.”

There’s some resources at readync.gov “to help you and your family prepare at home, because it’s important, and it doesn’t have to be a huge financial undertaking. It can be done gradually. Right now, we have time. We can do this in parts, to build a disaster kit at home. So that’s not a huge financial hit to you and your family,” he added.

Warning Coordination Meteorologist Erik Heden at the National Weather Service office in Morehead City said in a telephone interview that coastal North Carolina is “one of the higher risk areas in the country. We never want to scare people, but we do live right by the ocean, and it’s beautiful most of the time of the year, but it’s just something we need to be prepared for when you live in an area like this.”

Heden also stressed that residents shouldn’t focus on the category but on the impacts, which include wind, storm surge, inland flooding, rip currents and tornadoes.

He said Thursday now is a good time to make that hurricane plan and stock up because there’s plenty of supplies available. “If you’re researching (your plan) on a beautiful May day like today, you’re going to make really good decisions where, if you’re trying to scramble at the last minute, you’re not going to make as good of a decision while being under stress.”

National Weather Service Meteorologist-in-Charge for the Wilmington office Steven Pfaff said that while there have been numerous hurricanes over the decades that have caused serious flooding, the coast is overdue for a high-impact, wind storm.

“When you look at statistics, every 23 years, Cape Fear should see a Category 3 or 4,” he said in a phone interview, “And here we are coming up on 29 years since Fran,” referencing Hurricane Fran that hit in 1996.

“You’ve got a segment of the population that has been through a lot of hurricanes, but not the wind aspect of it,” Pfaff said, referring to storms with winds over 100 mph. “We have a lot of people who’ve lived in the area since Fran that haven’t been through something like Fran, so it’s going to be new to them as well.”

Coastal Review will not publish on Monday, May 26.

Eastern and coastal North Carolina are home to some truly enormous trees. Towering bald cypresses with buttressed trunks, ancient live oaks with branches spreading out almost endlessly. The kinds of trees that leave people stunned. And though the person beholding the tree might not know it, the magnificent thing in front of them could be, or one day become, a champion.

Designated giants

The “Champion Tree” designation is a simple concept with a big purpose. The idea is to find the largest individual specimen of any given tree species, which is then named the champion of that species. The purpose goes far beyond measurements and rankings, however.

As first envisioned by the American Forestry Association in 1940, the Champion Tree Program, previously called the National Register of Big Trees, was intended to identify and conserve the nation’s largest remaining trees, which were at risk during an era of economic expansion and aggressive timber harvesting. It was also hoped that the program would increase the public’s appreciation for trees and encourage community science in forestry.

Today, anyone can nominate a tree for the National Register of Champion Trees, the annual publication of the Champion Tree Program. Nominated trees are reviewed and measured by an expert under the supervision of the University of Tennessee’s School of Natural Resources, which assumed official responsibility for the Champion Tree Program in 2024, and the champions are thereby sorted out for each species.

As of last year, when the most recent national register was published, North Carolina boasted 10 national champion trees, two of which are in the coastal plains: a pond pine in Bladen County, and a silky camellia in Gates County.

In order to find champions within their borders, state forestry services eventually established their own champion tree lists, such as North Carolina’s, which took shape under the auspices of the North Carolina Forest Service in the 1970s.

This means that North Carolina has a state champion tree for each species native to the state, and any state champion tree that is not bested in size by one of the same species in another state can be named the national champion.

Looking for the big ones

For 25-year-old Luke Ferreira, a big-tree hunter originally from New Bern, the sense of appreciation and the scientific mindset that spurred the original Champion Tree Program are always close at hand when he goes looking for giants.

“In some of the pretty remote places we go, I wonder, has anybody ever even seen this tree before?” Ferreira said in a telephone interview. “That’s what makes it worth it to me. Sometimes you come across something that takes your breath away.”

Ferreira, who now lives in Clayton, frequently ventures back to eastern North Carolina to look for and measure large trees.

“I’d say we definitely have more champions or potential champions east of I-95 than west of it,” he said.

When Ferreira finds a large tree, he calculates its size according to the method prescribed by the national Champion Tree Program. Each inch of a tree trunk’s circumference, as measured 4.5 feet above the ground, counts as one point, as does each foot of the tree’s height. The average spread in feet of the tree’s crown is divided by four, and this score is added to the point score for trunk circumference and height, yielding the overall score by which tree sizes can be compared.

Using these methods, Ferreira determined that a water hickory he and a friend discovered in a Craven County swamp was championship material. They nominated it to the state champion list, which prompted the N.C. Forest Service, following its protocols, to send out a county ranger to verify the tree’s dimensions. The ruling? With a 210-inch circumference, a height of 124 feet, and a 71-foot crown spread, it was the new state champion water hickory.

It should be noted, however, that those measurements yield 352 points according to the official Champion Tree Program method. The current national champion water hickory is listed at only 330 points, so Ferreira says he will be nominating the tree to the national list soon.

It might sound straightforward, but in reality, measuring tree sizes is a tricky business. The National Register of Champion Trees publishes a Measuring Guidelines Handbook that is 86 pages and includes two appendices and countless diagrams, so it may deter some beginners.

Luckily for Ferreira, trees aren’t just his hobby, they’re also his profession. Ferreira is a safety coordinator with Bartlett Tree Experts, so he has plenty of experience identifying, measuring and even climbing trees.

“I use a reel tape to measure the crown spread and the circumference, and then we use clinometers for height,” Ferreira said, referring to a device that calculates the height of distant objects with the help of a little trigonometry. “But if the tree isn’t too remote, I will sometimes tape drop it, where I climb up and drop the tape all the way down.”

Dying down, growing back

North Carolina’s big-tree database was taken offline in recent months before being made accessible again in early May. Andrew Pleninger, urban and community forestry program head at the N.C. Forest Service, oversees the state’s champion tree list. Pleninger said that the access issues stemmed from coinciding technical difficulties and the regular, laborious review such a program requires.

On the technical side, Pleninger said the web application hosting the database with the champion tree list was malfunctioning, prompting him to take it offline. Meanwhile, he and his staff have been working to reinspect all the existing state champions, to make sure everything on the list is accurate and up to date — a task delayed by staff shortages.

“It’s a good, popular program, and I’d like to continue to support it,” Pleninger said by telephone. “Tuning it up is one of our tasks right now.”

Maintaining champion tree registers with any kind of regularity is surely a large undertaking. Hundreds of trees, some of them in isolated mountain hollers or remote and unnavigable swamps, have to be checked to make sure none have fallen to storm, disease or axe.  

As Ferreira put it, “Once something becomes big enough to be a champion, it’s already close to the end of its life anyway.”

Even the loss of a limb can cost a tree its champion status. In a cemetery in Clinton, there stands a flowering dogwood that as recently as 2021 was the undisputed national champion.

“I was amazed at how big it was,” Pleninger said of the graveyard sentinel, which was once 33 feet tall and boasted a 40-foot crown spread. “I saw pictures of it before I went, and I thought, this is not a dogwood.”

However, the old tree has since lost one of its two main limbs, reducing its size significantly. It is no longer the national champion, and is likely not even the largest flowering dogwood in North Carolina anymore. However, a recent visit to the cemetery off of N.C. Highway 24 in Sampson County proved that the tree is still alive and still impressive. Time and decay may have robbed it of its title as champion, but it’s not yet too old to bloom in spring.

Caring for champions

The graceful leviathan at the heart of Wilmington’s Airlie Gardens isn’t just North Carolina’s state champion live oak, it’s probably one of the state’s best-known trees. It has served as a backdrop for hundreds of weddings and many thousands of photos, and it is frequently the object of concerned check-ins from the public.  

“The number one question we get after every storm is, ‘how’s the Airlie Oak?’” said Janine Powell, Airlie’s director of donor relations. “After Hurricane Florence, the first thing we did was put a picture of her up, and you could see Spanish moss and branches all over the lawn, but she’s still there.”

In an interview conducted in the shade of the sprawling oak, which is thought to have sprouted sometime around the 1540s, Powell spoke affectionately of the tree, as if it were a grande dame. That sense of care is reflected in the way Airlie Gardens looks after their champion.

When a large branch sagged to the ground in 2019, arborists from Bartlett Tree Experts were hired to thoroughly evaluate the Airlie Oak’s health and recommend measures to protect it for future generations. A customized brace to stabilize the sagging limb, support cables for the other limbs, a grounded copper wire to protect the tree from lightning strikes, removal of Spanish moss to let in more light, aeration and fertilization of the soil. The list of treatments the tree has received reads like a testament to the love of its caretakers.

“It’s amazing how much it revitalized her,” Powell said. “She just looks better. If I look at photographs from 2014 to now, oh my gosh.”

When asked what it means for Airlie Gardens to contain a state champion tree, Powell didn’t hesitate. “For the Gardens, it means the world to us,” she said. “Just knowing that it’s been around for so long.”

To raise funds for the care of their champion and the rest of their grounds, Airlie Gardens has partnered with Penderlea Farms to sell saplings grown from the acorns of the Airlie Oak.

These “historic live oaks,” according to Powell, are intended to help educate the public on the natural shape that live oaks require to be resilient (and beautiful) in their natural coastal environment.

Through the recognition of a specific remarkable tree, they are encouraging people to think about all trees a bit more deeply. Appreciation, protection, education — they’re all there, the original hallmarks of the Champion Tree Program.

Reprinted from our longtime collaborator, North Carolina Health News, to complement our ongoing series on federal budget and staff cuts and the dismantling of programs and services affecting life and lives here on the North Carolina coast.

People who have been struggling to clean up decades of industrial pollution in the lower Cape Fear River basin are expressing their dismay and anger at a federal delay announced Wednesday on a crackdown on so-called forever chemicals that have fouled their drinking water.  

That day, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to extend the timeline for water utilities to reduce the maximum safe levels for human consumption for a select group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as PFAS.

In 2024, under the Biden Administration, the EPA finalized the first-ever enforceable standards for six PFAS compounds: PFOA, PFOS, HFPO-DA (GenX), PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. At that time, water utilities had until 2029 to comply with the new standards. 

A year later, the Trump Administration’s newly appointed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would uphold standards set for PFOA and PFOS — legacy PFAS that persist in the environment despite no longer being manufactured. But Zeldin also announced he would rescind and re-evaluate rules for the other four, including GenX. 

GenX is the common name for the substance produced at the Chemours Fayetteville Works plant; it was discharged into the river’s water for decades until researchers revealed their presence in 2017. 

Additionally, the new federal timeline gives utilities until 2031 to comply with the standards, extending the original 2029 deadline.

“We are on a path to uphold the agency’s nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water,” Zeldin said in a news release. “At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance.”

While Zeldin’s statement appeared aimed at reassuring the public that the EPA is taking control of the situation, to critics, it sounded like a betrayal — signaling, in their view, a retreat from more robust protections from substances that have become known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment.

‘Not forward-thinking’

“Overall, PFOA and PFOS are chemicals of the past, though they are still present in drinking water sources. So removing them will get a lot of others,” said N.C. State University epidemiologist Jane Hoppin in an email. “But the other four are chemicals of the future, particularly GenX, so removing these rules would not be forward-looking.”

In 2017, Hoppin headed a team of researchers and launched the GenX Exposure Study, which revealed that most of the people from the Cape Fear River Basin who participated in the research have PFAS in their blood.

There are thousands of unique PFAS in the environment, according to experts. They’re present in multiple products to help make them slippery and resistant to oils, water and solvents, including some cosmetics and apparel, microwave popcorn wrappers, dental floss, firefighting gear and some firefighting foams.

PFAS exposure is associated with a range of adverse health effects, such as increased cholesterol levels, kidney and testicular cancer, pre-eclampsia in pregnant women and decreased vaccine response in children, among other conditions.

“The EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and pressure by the water utilities, and in doing so, it’s sentencing millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come,” said Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook in a statement.

Cook’s organization has worked throughout the country to document environmental problems.

“The cost of PFAS pollution will fall on ordinary people, who will pay in the form of polluted water and more sickness, more suffering and more deaths from PFAS-related diseases,” he said. 

Kelly Moser, senior attorney and leader of the Water Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center, echoed this sentiment. “When this administration talks about deregulation, this is what they mean — allowing toxic chemicals in drinking water at the request of polluters,” she said in a release.

Living with PFAS

It has been a tumultuous eight years for thousands of North Carolinians living in the Cape Fear River Basin since the presence of  the forever chemicals was first announced in 2017. Among those affected are residents whose drinking water wells are contaminated, likely because of PFAS that were incinerated at the Fayetteville Works plant and drifted far and wide in emissions from the factory. 

Despite a 2019 consent order — established among Chemours, Cape Fear River Watch and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — aimed at assisting residents with PFAS-contaminated wells, living with PFAS is a daunting challenge.

Jamie White, administrator of the Facebook group “Grays Creek Residents United Against PFAS in our Wells and Rivers,” which works to raise awareness about PFAS contamination, expressed the group’s frustration after the EPA’s latest announcement.

“Well, it shocked us all, first off — and when I say all I speak for the group,” White said during a call with NC Health News. “Number one, we have worked for eight years to get the limits lowered, to bring awareness to everybody, because our wells are contaminated.”

“(The EPA) extended the public water facilities another two years (before) having to have the chemicals cleaned out of their water systems — another two years of contaminating the public,” she said.

Jane Jacobs (EagleHeart), a tribal leader of the Tuscarora Nation, an Indigenous community with many members in the Cape Fear River Basin, criticized the lack of action to protect vulnerable communities.

“My children, my grandchildren, need to be protected from all of the poison, not some of the poison,” Jacobs said. “If somebody was pointing a gun at my kid right now, am I going to protect him from one bullet or all of the bullets?”

Jacobs also highlighted the disproportionate impact on her community. 

“Being a bipoc community, we face a lot more environmental hardships than most people do,” she stated. “We have to drink the tap water. We don’t have money for filters, so for the people in my community, this affects us 10 times worse because we don’t have the money to protect ourselves.”

Looking ahead

While many expressed disappointment over the EPA’s decision, the environmental community remains hopeful that more stringent rules could eventually prevail at the state level — though it may take time. 

One significant obstacle is the Environmental Management Commission, which is responsible for developing regulations to safeguard, preserve and improve the state’s air and water resources. Since 2022, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has been working with the commission to establish regulations for PFAS and 1,4 dioxane — a cancer-causing pollutant that’s also been found to be widely discharged by industrial companies and ultimately flow into the Cape Fear River.

However, a series of delays have stalled progress, preventing the process from advancing to the public comment period — the next step toward establishing maximum contaminant levels for PFAS at the state level.

The most recent Environmental Management Commission meeting, on May 7, ended in another delay after the Office of State Budget and Management raised concerns about the proposal’s fiscal analysis.

Possible remedies

Despite the setbacks, several people at the meeting expressed relief, including Haw Riverkeeper Emily Sutton.

“There’s not actually any checks or enforcement to make sure that the plans that are drafted are effective, and so this (plan) doesn’t do anything for our downstream community members,” Sutton said. 

She also criticized the fiscal analysis requested by the Office of State Budget and Management.

“The fiscal analysis that they’ve asked for also is flawed. It doesn’t include information about the financial impacts for downstream communities who are bearing the burden of this pollution. (The fiscal analysis) is looking at how much this is going to cost polluting industries. That’s not our concern. Our concern is the health of our community members.”

Southern Environmental Law Center’s Moser agrees that the commission’s proposal falls short of the outcome environmental groups demand. 

“The EMC is siding with polluters and considering adopting rules that were written by polluters,” Moser said. “That could allow industrial facilities to release PFAs indefinitely into North Carolina’s drinking water sources and even increase the toxic water pollution that they are putting into our waterways.”

Sutton and Moser and their colleagues are closely monitoring Senate Bill S666 — the Water Safety Act — proposed by North Carolina Senate Majority Leader Michael Lee, R-New Hanover. If passed, the bill would deliver the state-level regulatory action environmentalists are pushing for.

“ (The proposed bill) directs the EMC to set regulatory limits on PFAs, and that is what our hope is,” Sutton said. “We don’t trust that this commission will hold polluters accountable, and unfortunately, the Department of Environmental Quality has to abide by what they are directed by the EMC.”

Moser pointed out that a potential remedy exists to address the water pollution problem: “It’s more important than ever that states like North Carolina, EPA and wastewater treatment plants use their current authority under the Clean Water Act to require that industry stops their pollution at the source before discharging it into our waterways.” 

The Environmental Management Commission is scheduled to meet again in July, while the EPA is expected to update federal PFAS standards by late 2025, with finalization anticipated by spring 2026. Amid these ongoing challenges, Jacobs offered a rallying cry to fellow environmentalists: “We just need to keep pushing. We need to keep fighting.”

BUXTON — As anyone who owns an old house knows, repair projects often reveal unfortunate surprises. Such is the case with the first complete restoration of the 155-year-old Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, but the remedy will be considerably more complex.

Halfway into the $19.2 million project, potentially dangerous cracks in critical structural components of the tower’s ironwork have been discovered deep in the tower’s upper wall, creating inevitable project delays and unbudgeted cost increases.

In an update on the project provided Thursday during a virtual presentation, Lindsay Gravel, project manager for North Brookfield, Massachusetts-based contractor, Stone & Lime Masonry Restoration Services Inc., detailed recently uncovered degradation of iron support brackets near the top of the 198-foot-tall lighthouse.

Signs of deterioration had been first detected in 3D scans done in August, and engineers decided that further investigation was warranted inside the wall, Gravel told a small group of media.

“After we did this first round of exposure, we had the architectural and engineering team come out on site, and they had some concerns,” she said. “So with the shoring in place, we decided it was beneficial to expose the entirety of these brackets, each and every one.”

Out of the 16 brackets, 13 were severely cracked on the interior flange, and 15 had cracks on the exterior elbow, which engineers determined to be a structural concern. Looking deeper, more cracking was found in the interior web.

“So this has a large crack in this exterior component,” Gravel said, pointing to a slide showing the bracket. “And this is where the observatory deck plate sits on top. So this is where visitors will be walking, which is why these brackets are such a large component of the lighthouse for visitor safety.”

Gravel later added that each of the brackets weigh 2,200 pounds, while each deck plate weighs 1,000 pounds. “So 16 of those brackets, and 16 of those deck plates, it’s a lot of weight up there,” she said.

Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac said that the National Park Service has not yet determined what the additional work will cost. After a structural engineering model is developed to determine the cause of the cracking, recommendations will be devised for proposed repairs.

“And once we know what that repair prescription looks like, we will develop an estimate to do that work,” he said. “And then once we know what that total is, we’ll determine how we’re going to fund it.”

While he was not happy about the kink in the restoration plan, Hallac emphasized that he is pleased with the overall work.

“We actually have not seen a lot of unknowns in this project,” he said.

The project, which began in late 2023, was initially supposed to be completed in about 18 months.

The unexpected is to be expected during restoration of historic structures, Hallac said, and he lauded Stone & Lime for their expertise.

“They have made incredible progress on this project and done a really good job of working with us as a team to work through the challenges that have come up,” he said. “Because no project on a structure like this that’s unique and over 150 years old is going to move forward without some surprises.”

During her comprehensive review, Gravel provided a brief history of the lighthouse, followed by a head-spinning recitation of the work that has been completed, is underway, and is upcoming.

An overview

First, 25 levels of scaffolding were installed around the lighthouse. Then coatings on the exterior, including the famed swirled black-and-white day mark, and interior, including stairs, hand railings, landing beams, window sills, were removed. Metal components were primed to prevent rust. Mock-ups of new day marks were developed to test how they weather in different lighting.

Also about 700 bricks have been replaced, and 75 bricks repointed with natural cement, the historic stockade fence that went around the keepers’ buildings is being installed, the ornamental fence that had once encircled the lighthouse is being replicated, and landscape plantings have been installed.

Extensive work has also been done on many of the 269 lighthouse steps, parts of which had signs of corrosion, Gravel said. After a small crack was detected in one stair tread, the 255 stairs up to level 10 were surveyed, as well as some others. More than 100 stair treads will be repaired, and 44 treads, four brackets, 200 bolts, 120 nuts and 75 spindles will be replaced.

Gravel showed a photograph taken high up on the spiral staircase, with a missing step providing a dizzying peek of the black hole at the bottom — a view most lighthouse climbers would prefer to avoid.

“It’s not every day that you get to see the lighthouse with a missing tread in it,” Gravel said.

By incorporating the project’s modeling and precision molds created for components, Gravel said the technology helps the contractor’s team streamline its workflow, prevent errors and accurately capture the as-built conditions.

“This result is a high modern, high value approach that supports long term preservation efforts and leaves a detailed digital record to use for the future,” she said.

In 1999, the lighthouse was moved 2,900 feet inland to protect it from the Atlantic Ocean that swirled at its base. Although the dramatic and successful move protected the tower from being taken by the ocean, the historic 1870 lighthouse structure itself was not restored. But after the move, there were projects done to replace degraded stair treads, according to an email from the Park Service, responding to questions from Coastal Review.

After a chunk of metal fell in 2001 from a bracket on the lower staircase, the lighthouse got more attention.

Most of the stair treads were replaced in 2002 and 2008, the Park Service wrote. The current project will install tread replacements to replace those that were not originally replaced and those that are damaged, according to the information. The stair system’s spindles and bolts that hold them and the treads onto the stair stringers have corroded over time and “will be repaired or replaced based on their condition,” the email said.

Cracking in a couple of brackets had been known from investigations in the 1980s, the email said.

“At that time, architects and engineers recommended leaving the damaged lighthouse brackets alone because the load paths — the way that forces on the metal was routed from the top of the lighthouse to other areas — had likely been reestablished through the masonry following the cracking,” the email said. “In other words, any downward forces on the structure from the weight above was now being held up by the bricks in the limited areas where the cracked brackets were observed.”

Though potential cracking was anticipated, the email continued, the extent could not be known without removing multiple layers of brick.

“With substantially more cracking being observed now, bracket repairs or replacements will be necessary for the long-term structural integrity of the tower.”

Typically, about 1,500 visitors a day between April and October climb the lighthouse, the tallest brick beacon in the nation. The lighthouse is likely not going to reopen before 2026, or later depending on the bracket repair timeline. Meanwhile, Cape Hatteras National Seashore is currently developing new plans for climbing, the Park Service said.

“We expect that at least the same number of people will be able to climb annually,” according to the email. “There may be fewer people in the lighthouse at a time to help reduce crowding, but we expect at least the same number of people to be able to climb annually through expanded climbing opportunities throughout the day and year.” 

The Cape Hatteras Light Station store, restrooms and portions of the grounds remain open to visitors.

North Carolinians whose raw drinking water sources are contaminated with chemical compounds will have to wait at least another two months before proposed rules establishing monitoring requirements for dischargers go out for public comment.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee unanimously voted earlier this week to wait to present to the full commission draft rules for monitoring and minimizing discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and 1,4-dioxane into the state’s surface waters.

Committee members said Wednesday that while they had hoped to present the draft rules to the commission this month, the N.C. Office of State Budget and Management, or OSBM, needs more time to review and approve regulatory impact analyses of those proposed rules. A regulatory impact analysis, or RIA, is an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits associated with a proposed regulation.

“Only yesterday morning did the department receive comments from OSBM on PFAS and didn’t receive anything yet on 1,4,” Committee Chair Steve Keen said Wednesday afternoon. “Though this was launched to the public through the (Department of Environmental Quality) website two weeks ago, nothing from OSBM until yesterday.”

Committee Vice Chair Michael Ellison alluded to staffing issues at DEQ as one possible reason for the lag in the proposed rules being ready.

“We have heard that some of the economic analysis required for an RIA has been impeded because the department lack sufficient staff trained in economics and that there has been an economist on maternity leave, all of which is fine and wonderful, but this has been going on for over a year,” Ellison said.

Ellison suggested the department turn to universities in the state for help.

“We have had presentation after presentation about the near ubiquitous nature of PFAS in our surface waters statewide and we know they’re there, but we really don’t know all the places that they’re coming from other than Chemours, and we don’t know what tools are available,” he said. “And this draft rule was a step, a critical step, toward this committee, and ultimately the full commission, developing a rule to protect the health and safety and environment of North Carolina and I would hope that the department takes this continuation and makes good use of the time before our next meeting and can get the RIA approved.”

The draft rule for monitoring and minimalizing PFAS targets three chemical compounds: PFOS, PFOA, which are classified as likely carcinogens, and GenX, a compound specific to Chemours Fayetteville Works plant in Bladen County.

The chemical manufacturing facility knowingly emitted GenX and a host of other PFAS into the environment, including the Cape Fear River, the ground and air for decades.

But it is hardly the only industrial polluter discharging such chemical compounds into the environment in North Carolina.

Hundreds of industries in the state pay wastewater treatment plants to take their industrial waste. Those treatment plants do not remove PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, which the Environmental Protection Agency also classifies as a likely carcinogen, before discharging their effluent into the environment, including waterways that are the raw drinking water sources for hundreds of thousands of residents.

Downstream drinking water utilities were notified one week ago that elevated levels of 1,4-dixoane had been discharged from the Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant into Hasketts Creek, which drains into the Deep River in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Brunswick County, Fayetteville Public Works Commission and the city of Sandford were notified May 3 that the samples the plant collected April 25 from discharge detected a concentration of 826 parts per billion or ppb, according to a DEQ release. The state Division of Water Resources collected a sample that same day with results detecting a concentration of 730 ppb.

“DEQ, using EPA toxicity calculations for lifetime exposure, has determined that the average monthly 1,4-dioxane concentration protective of downstream water supplies is about 22 ppb for the Asheboro discharge,” the release states.

There is growing public outcry among residents, local governments and water utilities downstream of industrial polluters calling for state regulations to stop discharges at the source.

Critics of the proposed rules argue they do not require industries to reduce their PFAS discharges.

During the Water Quality Committee meeting, Keen said the initial game plan was “to create a narrative” on how the state can identify dischargers, what those dischargers are doing, and how they’re doing it, “and minimize it, if not get rid of it.”

“But the foundation was to start by monitoring and minimizing it,” he said. “That was the motion by this committee and that’s where we began officially. We want to get the right numbers for all of the river basins. We want to know what those are. Now, how do we do it? We have to go through OSBM. We have to get the regulatory impact analysis that has the fiscal note and a lot of things tied to it that’s going to give us answers.”

DEQ’s Division of Water Resources Director Richard Rogers reiterated that staff was under a tight deadline get the rules drafted.

“We will continue to work and hope we can continue to work cooperatively with the committee in this process,” he said.

In comments made early in the full commission’s Thursday meeting, Chair JD Solomon explained to the board that the draft rules were not ready to be put to a vote to go out for public comment because of the RIA.

“Regardless of what did last year or what we’re doing this year, we have to get the cost benefit right,” he said. “I will say everybody did work on it. It is what it is and we just have to resolve to come back in July with the fiscal notes in place and have those debates and whatnot.”

The full commission’s next scheduled meeting is July 10. Committees meet one day prior to the commission.

In an update to the Groundwater and Waste Management Committee on Wednesday morning, DEQ Environmental Program Analyst Jared Wilson said that more than 9,000 homes are expected to be added to those eligible for private water well testing for PFAS.

Well testing has expanded into 10 counties in the vicinity and downstream of Chemours’ plant.

“To date we have not found the edge of contamination,” Wilson said.

State Division of Waste Management Director Michael Scott told committee members that decades of air emissions of PFAS from the Chemours plant infiltrated the ground and migrated to private drinking water wells more than 30 miles away.

“How many plumes do you have in North Carolina that are 35 miles wide?” Solomon asked.

“One,” Scott answered.

MANTEO — Amidst the tedium of a generally uneventful two-day meeting of the state Coastal Resources Commission last week, embers of prior tensions flared anew when Commissioner Jordan Hennessy contended that the panel had not properly authorized its lawsuit seeking to restore a protective environmental rule for Jockey’s Ridge.

The commission voted 9-3 against a motion Hennessy had advanced to withdraw from ongoing legal battle against the Rules Review Commission. Only Coastal Resources Commissioners Robbie Yates and Steve King voted with Hennessy, who took issue with how the lawsuit had been authorized.

“The crux of the issue here is that there was never a formal motion made, never a formal second made, or a formal vote to file a lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission,” Hennessy told the panel May 1 during the second day of the meeting. “And for something of that significance, I think it should have had a vote of this full commission to file suit against another state agency.”

After claiming he had been “stonewalled” by the commission and its legal counsel Mary Lucasse in seeking information, Hennessy, who was appointed to the board in 2023 by then-Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey, made a motion to direct counsel to “go ahead and withdraw that lawsuit.”

In her terse response, Lucasse detailed her answers to Hennessy’s “multiple requests,” including providing records of her authorization to bring the case.

“And then, as you know, information has been given about the lawsuit at every single legal update that we’ve had since then,” she continued. “I’ve kept you advised, and this commission has continued to be aware of and approve the steps that council has taken with that litigation from the beginning.”

The Coastal Resources Commission filed the lawsuit in late 2023 after 30 rules it had approved through a required periodic rules review process were removed from the Administrative Code, a move made shortly after the Rules Review Commission that fall kicked them back to coastal commission. The lawsuit asked the court to reinstate all 30 rules.

The 10-member Rules Review Commission, which is appointed by leaders of the GOP-controlled North Carolina General Assembly, argued those 30 rules were vague or inconsistent with state statutes. 

After filing the lawsuit, the Coastal Resources Commission voted to temporarily restore 16 of the rules state Division of Coastal Management officials said were critical to day-to-day operations.

One of those longstanding rules designated Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern, or AEC.

In April 2024, State Geologist Kenneth Taylor confirmed that Jockey’s Ridge is a unique geologic formation that qualified it as an AEC.

A public hearing on a proposed amendment to the coastal commission’s rule governing the Jockey’s Ridge AEC was held at the end of its April 30 meeting, with four people speaking in support of the proposed amended rule. The proposed rule is nearly identical to the original 1984 rule, which protects the landmark from incompatible development and sand loss. Public comment is open through June 2.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon, one of the commenters, delivered a sharp rebuttal of the Rules Review Commission’s rationale for abruptly revoking the AEC protection in 2023, asserting the Coastal Resources Commission’s “righteous” role in protecting Jockey’s Ridge while condemning the “absurdity of the process” in which the coastal commission had been forced to spend valuable time and resources.

“But now, ideological forces that value unrestrained and excessive commerce supported by industries that are biased against environmental regulation want to erode your authority,” Cahoon told coastal commissioners.

In February, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled in the coastal commission’s favor, and the rules commission appealed. It’s unclear how quickly the dispute can be resolved.

Related: Judge restores state’s 30 erased coastal development rules

“The CRC’s actions relating to the rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an AEC and establishing use standards are related to the rules that are part of the RRC’s appeal of the Superior Court’s March 3 amended order (of the lawsuit,)” the coastal commission said last week in an email response to Coastal Review.

“The appeal has not yet been docketed in the Court of Appeals,” the email stated. “After Appellant RRC files the record for the appeals, the parties will submit briefs to the COA (Court of Appeals.) Only after the appeal is fully briefed will the Court of Appeals decide whether to schedule oral argument. The time required for the Court Appeals to issue an Opinion varies greatly from a few months after an appeal is fully briefed to more than a year.”

Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon, also in addressing Hennessy’s contention, said that the lawsuit was a direct result of the legislature’s budget provision that allowed the the codifier of rules to withdraw the rules. The rules pertinent to the Jockey’s Ridge AEC designation, “just disappeared from existence — 30 or more at a time,” she said.

“It made a major impact on the people that we serve in the state of North Carolina and the 20 coastal counties,” Cahoon said. “This was a decision that was not taken lightly. It was not taken unadvisedly, and it was taken in response to, basically, the disappearance of rules.”

Hennessy is a former top aide to Republican Sen. Bill Cook who represented Dare County in the legislature. He later became a businessman with county affordable housing development contracts and dredging project contracts about which a federal grand jury sought county records and subpoenaed six county commissioners late last year.

Hennessy also questioned that it took nearly a year for the lawsuit to be filed after it was authorized as well as the expenses incurred dealing with the protracted legal action.

“It’s by law that we have to go through the rules review process,” he said. “If you don’t like it, ask the legislature to change the law, but it’s to the point of that the legislature has had to appropriate two and a half or a quarter of a million dollars to the Rules Review Commission to defend its lawsuit against us.”

Commissioner Lauren Salter responded that the state Division of Coastal Management staff tried to “resolve (the Rules Review Commission’s) nitpicking issues” repeatedly, and it wasn’t the Coastal Resources Commission that picked the fight.

“We sought relief for the people of North Carolina, so that they would know what rules were in play and not lose rules overnight,” she said. “That’s why the lawsuit was filed after 307 days. We tried everything.”

Coastal towns and large homeowner associations representing beachfront properties now have the choice to install a controversial alternative to sand fencing on ocean-facing shores.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission last week amended a rule to allow those entities to apply for a permit to place wheat straw bales on ocean shorelines as a means to protect and build up beachfront dunes.

The rule, which will now go to the state Rules Review Commission for final approval, limits the use of wheat straw bales to government organizations and HOAs with more than 1 mile of oceanfront shoreline.

Use of wheat hay bales is restricted to those groups until the state gains a better understanding of their impacts to wildlife, including sea turtles, shoreline environment, and their efficacy.

In a 7-5 vote in favor of the rule, some on the Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, reiterated concerns that have been repeatedly raised in recent years by wildlife officials and environmental organizations.

Those groups, including the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. Audubon, North Carolina Wildlife Federation and Southern Environmental Law Center, argue additional studies need to be done to understand the potential impacts of wheat straw bales to shoreline habitat and the animals that rely on that habitat.

“I just would like to say I think we’re opening ourselves up to a lawsuit,” Commissioner Lauren Salter said during the CRC’s April 30 meeting in Manteo. “I think Southern Environmental Law Center is going to definitely pursue it based on the comments that we received.”

The effectiveness of wheat straw bales on an oceanfront shore was initially tested as an alternative to wooden sand fencing in 2015 on Figure Eight Island, a privately owned island north of Wilmington.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management issued a Coastal Area Management Act permit to two properties to initial a pilot study on the New Hanover County island.

The bales eventually became covered with sand, but, within a few months, they were washed away in a storm, according to the division.

Wheat straw bales were not allowed on a North Carolina beach again until 2023, after Ocean Isle Beach officials requested approval to place them on a portion of the town’s oceanfront shore.

Ocean Isle Town Administrator Justin Whiteside reminded commissioners last week that the town made the request because sand fencing was hard to acquire in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Town officials noted the pilot project on Figure Eight Island and wanted to mimic it, he said.

“It was successful in some areas,” on Ocean Isle, Whiteside said. “Then we did have a storm and some of it washed away. Others, it’s still covered up and, as far as I’m aware, it’s still there just all covered up with sand.”

Division officials have said they do not expect a significant uptick in the use of straw bales because they tend to cost more than traditional sand fencing and they would need to be replaced more frequently than fencing.

Coastal Resources Commissioner Jordan Hennessy last week said that his position on the rule amendment remained the same as those he had expressed during a previous meeting.

Hennessy questioned whether the rule, by omitting private property owners from being able to apply for a permit to install wheat straw bales, is constitutional.

“I’ll be voting against the rule because I don’t believe it’s constitutional,” he said.

The CRC’s legal counsel, Mary Lucasse, advised that the rule amendment is not unconstitutional.

“I don’t see anything unconstitutional that’s jumping out on me, and I don’t actually understand your argument, commissioner, as to why you think it’s unconstitutional,” she said. “We do a lot of rulemaking that focuses on situational things, and we sometimes try things, as we did with (wheelchair-accessible) mats, with local governments being able to do it first, and we have not drawn any challenges to that based on constitutionality or other things, and I don’t see an issue in that.”

Under the amended rule, wheat straw bales cannot impede public or emergency vehicle access or be installed in a manner that endangers nesting sea turtles, which is similar the sand fencing rule.

Installation of wheat straw bales will require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Wildlife Resources Commission through permit application review. Ties or bindings on bales must be removed to reduce debris and the possibility of wildlife entanglement.

Straw bales will be limited to 10-foot-long sections, which is the same requirement for sand fencing, and can be no wider than 2 feet or higher than 3 feet. Bales can not be more than 10 feet waterward of the first line of stable, natural vegetation, erosion scarp or toe of a frontal dune.

Sections of straw bales, sand fencing, or Christmas trees, which may also be used to trap sand, must be spaced 7 feet apart. Nonfunctioning, damaged bales or stakes that have moved from their alignment must be repaired or removed from the shore.