Dr. Ford “Bud” Cross said he was “elated” to learn that the nation’s second-oldest federal marine science laboratory is getting a new home to replace its old one on Pivers Island in Beaufort.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced on Aug. 27 that it plans to use $64 million from the 2025 Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act to pay for construction of a new facility for the Beaufort Laboratory.

Cross has a right to be elated.

He was director of the facility from 1986 until his retirement in 2000, the culmination of a career that he began there in 1967 as a fisheries biologist.

“It was great news to all of us who have worked there,” said Cross, who is 86 and lives in Morehead City, where he served for many years on the planning board.

“I didn’t expect it in the current administration.

“I’m tickled pink,” he continued. “It’s a nice sum of money, enough to build something incredibly good, big enough not just for the lab itself but also for the state estuary reserve program.”

Cross said the lab has always done important fisheries research, intended to enhance protection of marine species and preserve economically important commercial and recreational fishing.

“I think we all left a great legacy of service to the community, and I believe that helped in the decision to fund construction,” he said.

The building closed in October 2024 after significant hurricane-related structural damage was discovered during a routine inspection of the building’s foundation.

“Now there’s a great opportunity to have a new facility that can meet today’s needs,” Cross said.

The Beaufort Lab was established in 1899 and predates NOAA by more than 70 years. It has housed what is now known as National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve.

“For more than a century, the dedicated experts at NOAA’s Beaufort Laboratory have produced world-class science that supports our economy, advances national priorities, and enhances coastal resilience,” Dr. Neil Jacobs, NOAA administrator, said in a press release on Aug. 27. “This state-of-the-art facility, located within the country’s second-largest estuary and adjacent to the Gulf Stream, will enable NOAA to continue its groundbreaking research while strengthening collaboration with industry and academic partners.”

Cross has lived a life dedicated to preserving and living with nature. For many years, he and his wife spent part of each fall and early on a 200-acre tract they owned in the frigid, wild Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

“It was just us and the owls and wolves,” he said. It was a quiet, serene life. We had an ATV and used it to clear some of the snow. We hated to sell it, but we were getting older.”

Back in Morehead City year-round now, Cross still conducts research and periodically gets together with mates from his time in the lab.

“There’s about 30 of us,” he said. “We get together for lunch twice each year. It’s a pretty tight-knit group.”

Numerous other lab employees have also served local governments in advisory positions.

One member of the lunch group is Dr. Don Hoss, who began at the lab in 1958. He succeeded Cross as lab director and held the post until his retirement in 2002.

“I think it’s just wonderful,” he said of the funding for the new facility.

“It’s a historic place, and a great research place and there is a need to keep it going.

“I had a great career, and we did a lot of good things.”

Dr. Hans Paerl, a retired professor and researcher at the University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City, welcomed the planned full-scale return of the Beaufort facility.

“We’ve always collaborated,” he said. “In fact, since they closed down, we’ve had some of their researchers in our building.

“There is a lot of overlap with our interests, especially on harmful algal blooms.

“It’s been very good having them here. And this (construction) announcement is great news for the entire marine science community.”

In its Aug. 27 press release, NOAA says the new lab will expand its scope in the following ways:

• Researching, monitoring and forecasting harmful algal blooms.
• Deploying uncrewed systems for underwater habitat mapping and coral restoration.
• Serving as a research hub to support South Atlantic fisheries management and stewardship of marine resources.
• Evaluating the performance of natural infrastructure for coastal protection. Managing the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve and providing opportunities for education, research and compatible traditional uses.

Design and preconstruction work on the new facility is to begin in early 2027. The new structure will be above the floodplain and designed to withstand storms and flooding.

Learn more about the lab

• Listen to an interview with Dr. Don Hoss and Dr. Ford “Bud” Cross recorded in 2018 for a NOAA Fisheries oral history project.
• Explore the Beaufort Lab’s history in the context of its 125th year celebration in 2024.

Since May 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that wetlands must be connected to navigable bodies of water to be protected under the Clean Water Act, the last two administrations have attempted to align the federal definition of “waters of the United States” with the court’s finding.

Most recently, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers announced alternatives to definitions in the draft “Updated definition of ‘Waters of the United States” published Nov. 20, 2025, in the Federal Register.

The agencies are asking for comments on “revised definitions of ‘relatively permanent’ and ‘continuous surface connection,’ and adding a definition of the term ‘perennial,'” in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published Sept. 9 in the Federal Register. The 30-day public comment period ends Oct. 9. The supplemental proposal and information on how to comment can be found on the Federal Register.

“The EPA’s goal is a durable WOTUS definition that follows the law and ends burdensome regulatory uncertainty,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement. The supplemental proposed “reflects our continued commitment to transparency and public input, ensuring we have fully considered a wide range of potential policy options.”

Officials clarified that this additional language does not replace anything in the 2025 document but is to be treated as alternative definitions to consider.

Environmental groups argue that these supplemental draft definitions limit the scope of WOTUS, particularly for isolated wetlands, even more than the initial language in the 2025 proposed rule from last November.

“The proposal would limit federal protections for tributary rivers, streams, and lakes to those with standing or continuously flowing water throughout the year, during ordinary conditions. It would also sharply narrow protections for wetlands, requiring them to have continuous, perennial surface water connections to another protected water or, alternatively, be indistinguishably part of a traditional navigable water, the territorial seas, a jurisdictional impoundment, or a jurisdictional tributary,” the Waterkeeper Alliance said last week.

Waterkeeper Alliance Senior Attorney Kelly Hunter Foster said in the organization’s call to action that if the proposal is finalized, “it would be the most consequential attack on clean water since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.”

WOTUS timeline

There are decades of history, amendments, revisions and lawsuits leading up to this latest move to update the definition of WOTUS.

Congress established in 1948 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the country’s first major law to address water pollution. That act underwent extensive amendments in 1972, becoming known as the Clean Water Act, and gives the EPA and Army Corps federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters” defined in the act as the “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS.

While the Clean Water Act defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” there is no further explanation on they types of waterbodies are considered navigable. Rather, the definition of WOTUS can be found in the code of federal regulations as applied to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps of Engineers and EPA under the Clean Water Act

The agencies established core regulations to define WOTUS in the 1980s, but because of Supreme Court rulings in the 2000s, the scope of protected waters was narrowed. In 2015, the agencies issued a Clean Water Rule to overhaul WOTUS with the intent to clarify regulatory jurisdiction – the first time since the 1980s — but was met with lawsuits around the country, congress.gov states.

The 2015 Clean Water Rule put in place during the Obama administration was rescinded on Oct. 22, 2019, during Trump’s first term, returning WOTUS to the 1980s regulations until the Navigable Waters Protection Rule went into effect June 22, 2020, which also narrowed “the scope of waters that fell under federal jurisdiction,” and was challenged in court, per the EPA.

The Biden administration once in office went through a series of actions to amend WOTUS, landing on the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” that took effect on March 20, 2023. Then the U.S. Supreme Court in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit ruled in favor of the Idaho couple who had been fined for backfilling what the EPA considered protected wetlands on their property. The justices found that “wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a ’continuous surface connection’ to waters of the United States—that is, when the wetlands are ‘adjoining’ covered waters.”

The Clean Water Act’s use of the word “waters” only refers to geographical features described in everyday language such “as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection,” the majority continued.

The ruling did two things: It narrowed the types of wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act, and it made the January 2023 final rule inconsistent. A “final rule to amend” the final “‘Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” went into effect Sept. 8, 2023, to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Shortly after Trump began his second term as president, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin committed on March 12, 2025, to “deliver on President’s Trump’s promise to review the definition of ‘waters of the United States’” and to revise the 2023 definition. EPA and Army Corps jointly issued a memorandum the same day with guidance on the agencies’ views on the proper implementation of the definition of WOTUS, with “respect to adjacent wetlands,” in consideration of the Sackett case.

The agencies followed through and put out for public comment on Nov. 20, 2025, “a proposed rule that would clarify the definition of “waters of the United States” and fully implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Proposed revisions to the 2025 rule

Revisions to WOTUS in the initial 2025 proposed rule “would fully implement” the Sackett decision 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.”

The agencies asked for public comment during the 45-day window that closed Jan. 5 on adding draft definitions for “continuous surface connection,” “ditch,” “prior converted cropland,” “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” and “waste treatment system”; removing interstate waters; revising exclusions for waste treatment systems, prior converted cropland and ditches; and adding exclusions clarifying that groundwater is not considered WOTUS.

After the draft rule was published, officials said they have received around 220,000 public comments asking for clarification and recommending alternatives to what was initially proposed.

In response, the EPA and Army Corps on Sept. 4 announced the “additional regulatory options” for the 2025 proposed rule to “provide greater regulatory certainty and increase Clean Water Act program predictability and consistency by clarifying the definition” of WOTUS, which was published Sept. 9 in the Federal Register.

The agencies are specifically asking for comments on revised definitions in this latest document for “‘relatively permanent’ and ‘continuous surface connection,’ and adding a definition of the term ‘perennial.'”

The alternative definition for “relatively permanent” is “‘perennial bodies of water.’” And would state that “‘A body of water does not lose its relatively permanent status if it dries up as a result of anomalous events such as drought or dry spell. A body of water also does not lose its relatively permanent status if it dries up for no more than a single period of up to 30 consecutive days in any given year as a result of non-anomalous events resulting in a temporary interruption such as low tide or a regularly occurring dry spell.’”

The agencies proposed in the first update to “define ‘continuous surface connection’ to mean having surface water at least during the wet season and abutting (i.e., touching) a jurisdictional water” and the “’wet season’ for continuous surface connection was intended to be implemented as it was for the proposed definition of ‘relatively permanent.’”

In this supplemental proposal from last week, the agencies are requesting comment on an alternative definition of “continuous surface connection” to mean “’perennial surface water in a wetland that is continuously connected with the surface water in the jurisdictional water such that it is difficult to determine where the jurisdictional water ends and the wetland begins. A temporary interruption in the surface water connection may occur as the result of anomalous events such as drought or a dry spell. A temporary interruption in the surface water connection lasting for no more than a single period of up to 30 consecutive days in any given year may also occur as a result of non-anomalous events such as low tide or a regularly occurring dry spell.’”

The agencies propose defining “perennial” as having “in the regulatory text to mean ‘“’having standing or continuously flowing water every day of the year during ordinary conditions’”’ or, alternatively, to mean ‘“’surface water flowing continuously year-round,’ consistent with the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule.”

Officials said they plan to continue reviewing comments on the 2025 proposed rule along with those received during this new comment period that began Sept. 9. The agencies said they will continue to consider the regulatory options proposed in the 2025 proposed rule in tandem with the supplemental regulatory options and any comments received.

Responses to supplemental proposal

Associated Builders and Contractors Vice President of Government Affairs Kristen Swearingen said that the national construction industry trade association “appreciates the Trump administration’s continued work to establish a clear, durable and reasonable definition of WOTUS that brings clarity to ABC contractor members and maintains important water quality protections.”

The Southern Environmental Law Senior Attorney Mark Sabath said that this latest version is “yet another affront to communities that rely on clean water and healthy wetlands. The words have changed, but the result would be the same if this rule is finalized: more severe flooding and greater threats to water quality.”

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall commented that “the new proposed rule “provides a clear understanding of federal jurisdiction, which is critical for farmers who may face severe penalties or even jail time for unknowingly violating the law.”

The National Wildlife Federation argues that the revised proposal “greatly” limits the streams and wetlands that can be protected by the Clean Water Act. “One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck,” Jim Murphy, the associate vice president for legal advocacy, said.

Natural Resources Defense Council’s Director of Freshwater Ecosystems Jon Devine said that this proposal “denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than three quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and flood-prone communities – and the agencies admit it themselves. The proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands.”

“The Cigarette Surfboard” is a documentary about the environmental impact cigarettes can have, and the film about a surfboard created using thousands of butts collected from beaches also serves as a cautionary tale about the damage that pollution has done and will continue to do to the world’s oceans.

“The Cigarette Surfboard” online premiere will span Tuesday through Sept. 27, which is timed in conjunction with International Coastal Cleanup Day Saturday, Sept. 19. As part of the live premiere, and included with the $10 film ticket, virtual Q&A sessions are planned with pro surfers and ocean activists who appear in the film.

The star of “The Cigarette Surfboard” is a surfboard that was made with cigarette butts by the movie’s co-producer, Taylor Lane, who is introduced in the film as an “industrial designer/average surfer.”

Lane created the surfboard in 2017 and entered it into the Vissla + Surfrider Creators & Innovators Upcycle Contest, which was held that year in San Juan Capistrano, California. The Vissla contest features boards made of “upcycled” materials.

Taylor’s cigarette surfboard won first place, and that was the beginning of a remarkable voyage of discovery.

Judkins, who has known Lane since they were college students, began filming the story of the cigarette surfboard, “from the very first beach cleanup. We kind of embarked on this journey together, and we had no idea where it would take us, and that’s the beauty of documentary, you start with an idea, you follow that, you become passionate about it, and it leads you to all sorts of of new and interesting places,” he recently told Coastal Review.

Cigarette butts and the pollution they represent are the film’s focus. As Judkins takes the viewer on a journey that includes talking to professional surfers in Hawaii, Ireland, Fiji and other places around the world, he never loses sight of the “single cigarette butt and the symbolism of that,” he said.

“We wanted to talk about everything,” he said. “We wanted to talk about all of these issues that are plaguing the ocean, all of these solutions that are happening in in response to those problems, but at the end of the day, it all had to make sense in the context of a 90-minute film centered around the cigarette surfboard.”

After winning the upcycle contest, Lane began to think about other ways the cigarette surfboard may be used to serve larger purpose. “Could I use this surfboard to connect with professional surfers, to tell a bigger story about surfers protecting and restoring the health of the ocean?” he wonders aloud in the film.

That first cigarette surfboard was a prototype, the first of 10, and improvements were needed. Lane took it to Hawaii and asked Dr. Cliff Kapono, a molecular bioscientist and professional surfer, to ride it. The board weighed 18 pounds, three times the weight of a normal surfboard of the same size. And, Kapono observed, “It was one of the most difficult surfboards I had ever ridden.”

For Lane, the quest to create a lightweight, professional quality surfboard was its own voyage of discovery. Among other things, he had to invent a machine that would flatten the cigarette butts using what he described as a “funky homemade contraption” that was a modified printing press.

It took him, he said, “years to figure it out.”

But Lane did figure it out, and when he went back to Hawaii and had Kapono ride the new “Ciggy Board,” his reaction was, “Whatever version I’m riding now, it’s insane. I love it.”

With this, Lane and his cigarette surfboards began their travels around the world. In Ireland, he met with Dr. Easkey Britton, a social ecologist and professional surfer. They discussed the ocean’s relationship with society and took a board out to ride some waves.

He journeyed to England and met with Cliff Hines and Steve England, co-founders of the U.K. charity, Surfers against Sewage, which took on waste-disposal practices of the 1990s when raw, untreated human waste was still being discharged into the ocean.

In the film, Hines recalls being told, “You’re just a bunch of surfers. You can go to hell.” That was followed by a trip to court where, he said, “We whipped their asses.”

The film crew also journeyed to Fiji, where professional surfer Hannah Bennett took them to see the plastic pollution covering the island nation’s beaches.

Among the film’s standout segments were interviews with Dr. Tom Novotny, University of San Diego professor of public health and a researcher of tobacco product waste.

“Cigarette butts are the single most picked-up item off of beach and urban cleanups, and that’s been the case for the last 30 years or so,” Novotny says in the film, going on to describe their nicotine filters as, “a piece of litter, but also a toxic, hazardous waste product, both in terms of the plastics as well as the chemicals that are in it. Cigarettes contain about 4,800 chemicals. Two-hundred fifty of these are known to be toxic in some form. Fifty of those are carcinogens.”

It was Novotny who suggested a possible remedy. Cigarette companies like “getting brigades out there to clean up their mess for them,” he noted. But, he said, “What will really work is if we ban the sale of filtered cigarettes.

“It’s a simple solution,” he said.

Simple in concept, maybe, but the political reality turned out to be far different. The film tracks an ill-fated bill in the California State Assembly that would have banned single-use cigarette filters. That bill was never brought to the floor for a vote.

What followed, however, was a more successful attempt, this time, working at the local level. The film follows Lane and others in 2022 as they address the city council in Santa Cruz, California. Judkins told Coastal Review that local governments in Santa Cruz County, the city of Santa Cruz and Capitola, also in Santa Cruz County, have acted, and in these locations, the ban will “go into effect in 2027.”

But political action, Judkins said, wasn’t the initial aim of the cigarette surfboard project. “It was just a couple surfers, a couple friends who had a wacky idea, and we wanted to see it through, and we rode that wave (to see) where it took us.”

MANTEO — On an oceanfront beach where houses collapse and scatter their debris on the shoreline, the remains of their septic tanks sitting for months or even years in the swash and littering the sand adds insult to injury.

Exposed and broken wastewater treatment systems on eroded ocean shorelines in North Carolina have become an intractable public health and safety hazard, but the current regulations, while ineffective, have been stubbornly difficult to update. 

That persistent challenge was illustrated last week during a meeting of the state’s Coastal Resources Commission, when two proposed septic rule amendments were under consideration. But after much wrangling, the measures could not be wrestled to the ground, and the panel decided to table them for further review.

The nut of the problem is how the commission rules should restrict or permit repair and replacement of septic systems that become exposed.

“Under the existing framework, we’re seeing systems fail, be repaired, remain exposed, and subsequently fail again,” Cameron Luck, coastal policy analyst with the Division of Coastal Management, told commissioners during the Aug. 27 commission meeting in Dare County.

“The recurrence cycle is one of the primary issues these amendments are intending to address.”

In his presentation to the panel about the proposed amendments, Luck pointed to images of partly submerged septic tanks and debris from the systems scattered in the sand.

“You can see that as the shoreline is migrated landward, wastewater infrastructure that was once in compliance with setback rules is now exposed directly on the beach,” he said.

Currently, even imminently threatened structures can remain on the beach for up to eight years, barring it subsiding or collapsing, Luck said. The rule doesn’t force immediate removal of exposed systems; typically, the systems were in compliance with setback rules before the forces of erosion ate away the shoreline and the first, second or third lines of vegetation. 

“While Rodanthe and Buxton have provided the most visible and well-documented examples, this isn’t necessarily an issue that’s unique to Dare County,” Luck said. “The underlying concern is continued shoreline erosion.”

As explained in division documents, the proposed amendments to the existing rule would address repeated failures of onsite wastewater systems on the beach “due to shoreline migration,” while maintaining consistency with the state Department of Health and Human Services’ authority over the permitting of the systems. 

Otherwise, the proposals don’t change existing requirements for siting septic or commission standards for new developments within Ocean Hazard Areas. A repair or replacement of systems on the ocean side of vegetation or other appropriate lines would require a Coastal Area Management Act permit, but maintenance work would not need a CAMA permit. 

“Right now, the septic tank is considered part of the house — that’s one of the things that we talked about the last meeting was whether to separate the value of tank to its own entity versus the house,” said Commission Chair Renee Cahoon.

Cahoon later suggested that the commission needs to decide whether to make that change. “Right now, it’s always going to be a repair permit because the value of the house is always going to be worth more than the septic tank system,” she said. “If it’s not, then something’s wrong.”

Another complication to rulemaking is that the vegetation line and the demarcation of the public trust beach are not necessary the same, Cahoon said. In Rodanthe, for instance, “you have third-row houses that are considered landward of the vegetation line, but they’re not really on the beach themselves,” she said. “Whereas the first-row house probably is on the beach.”

In addition to the federal, state and county stakeholders, not to mention the private property owners, year-round residents and businesses in the villages, there are numerous nonprofits and special interest groups that have weighed in on how to improve the rules for the oceanfront water systems. 

Members themselves had a myriad of questions and comments about how to tweak the proposed amendments, and how inclusive or broad the rules should be, and even when failed systems should run out of chances.

“There are innovative systems that can be permitted … not everything is acceptable to repair,” Cahoon said.

And it is certainly unacceptable to allow damaged or abandoned systems to stay for years on a public trust beach.

“You just can’t keep septic tanks on the beach,” she said.

The commission agreed to ask Division of Coastal Management staff to review the amendments and return revised versions in time for the next meeting in October.

Coastal Review will not publish Monday in recognition of Labor Day.

WASHINGTON – Five days a week, John Richards drives the roughly 15-minute commute from his rural Beaufort County home to the Bayview Ferry Terminal or, as he calls it, the “working man’s ferry.”

The half-hour ferry ride across the Pamlico River to Aurora shaves off about 45 minutes that Richards would otherwise have to drive to get to his contracting job at Nutrien. A three-hour roundtrip commute from his home in Pinetown around the river to the phosphate plant would simply not be sustainable, he said.

“Working over there is the best opportunity I’ve got,” Richards said.

Like so many Americans, Richards and his wife feel the pinch at the grocery store and gas pump.

The young couple must now absorb another expense: mandatory ferry tolls.

“It’s like the man sticking it to you again,” Richards said.

The Richards were among a little more than 30 people who flowed in and out of a public listening session North Carolina Ferry Division officials hosted at Beaufort County Community College on Tuesday evening.

It was the first in a series of meetings the division is holding through next week to get public feedback on the new law that mandates tolling all ferry routes by Jan. 1, 2027. Remaining meetings are Sept. 3 at Knotts Island Elementary School, Sept. 8 at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hatteras and Sept. 9 at Ocracoke School.

Related: Officials plan public meetings to address new ferry tolls

The division operates four untolled ferry routes: Bayview-Aurora, Cherry Branch-Minnesott Beach, Currituck-Knotts Island and Hatteras-Ocracoke.

The state budget that legislators adopted earlier this summer is scant on details. Toll-generated revenue may be used only to buy new ferries.

The law does extend an offer to all permanent residents of the state’s 20 coastal counties and active-duty service members the option to buy a $150 annual commuter pass. That cost is per vehicle.

But other details, such as rates for individual trips and how payment systems will be implemented, have yet to be hashed out.

“We’re here to listen” to suggestions on those topics, N.C. Ferry Division Director Jed Dixon said at the meeting.

Residents who attend the listening sessions are given the opportunity to fill out a comment form, which asks questions including which ferry route the person most often uses, how frequently they use that route, how tolls will affect their daily travel, their preferred method of paying for tolls, the highest one-way toll they’d be willing to pay, suggestions regarding passes and accounts, and impacts they expect their community to experience.

Aurora resident Sherri Hollister said the little, historic town she calls home depends on tourists who flock to nearby beaches throughout the summer.

“We’re trying to build up the town,” she said. “If somebody has to pay for a ferry will they come to our town? The ferry is a tourist attraction in and of itself.”

But ferries are also the lifeblood for commuters going back and forth to work, taking their children to school, and going to medical appointments, she said.

“There has to be some kind of relief program for low-income families,” Hollister said of toll rates for permanent residents. “If not, they’re just pushing us away.”

Nearly a dozen coastal counties have adopted resolutions asking Gov. Josh Stein and state transportation officials to waive all tolls ferry system wide for vehicles registered in counties with ferry terminals.

Dare County commissioners on Tuesday joined Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, Currituck, Hyde, New Hanover and Pamlico counties in making that request.

The state ferry division operates 23 ferry vessels, which transport more than 1.4 million passengers each year.

Customers vary by route. For example, 82% of Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry riders are visitors, according to the division.

Meanwhile, 92% of riders on the Aurora-Bayview ferry route are residents, as are 80% of Cherry Branch-Minnesott Beach ferry customers.

“I vowed till my dying day to fight this thing,” Oriental resident Larry Summers said on Tuesday. “The ferries have to be sustained another way.”

He blames state funding cuts on the division’s aging ferry fleet, writing in a local publication that those funding shortfalls “appear to be, largely self-inflicted.”

“They did this to themselves,” he said. “They’ve been cutting the corporate income and individual income tax rates for about 10 years.”

Greg Piner, also of Oriental, wrote in a guest column published by TownDock.net that the simplest solution to fund new ferries is to raise the gas tax by one-tenth of a cent.

He refers to it as the “72-cent solution,” one that would generate enough annual revenue to “allow the Ferry System to focus on what they are trained to do: safely transport as many vehicles as possible every day across the rivers and sounds of North Carolina.”

Dixon said that the division will take a phase approach to implementing a tolling system ferry wide to meet the Jan. 1 implementation deadline.

The division anticipates presenting recommended rates to the North Carolina Board of Transportation at its Oct. 8 meeting. The board is expected to take action on those rates the following month, with a legislative report ready for submittal to Raleigh in December.

MANTEO — Over two days last week, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission and its advisory panel viewed presentations with vivid views of battered oceanfront buildings, severely eroded beaches and remains of various sand barriers and traps designed to hold back ocean forces.

With legislation that would repeal the state’s landmark ban on hardened structures parked in a state Senate committee awaiting further action, the commission had asked its Science Panel and agency staff to provide updated information in a report on the effects of seawalls, jetties and other permanent erosion control structures on the open ocean coastlines.

After months of research and minor tweaking, the final report, “Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines.” was presented to the commission during its Aug. 27 meeting at the Dare County Government Complex. But through each iteration, the analysis remained consistent: Blocking or trapping sand at one area of beach takes sand from another area of beach.

According to the Division of Coastal Management’s recently updated erosion data, 140 miles of the state’s 320 miles of ocean shoreline are eroding at an average annual rate greater than 2 feet; 135 miles at less than 2 feet yearky; and 100 miles of beach is accreting. Some of the highest erosion rates are on the Outer Banks, where 32 oceanfront houses have collapsed in Rodanthe and Buxton since 2020.

“There is such desire — and it’s completely understandable — to stop long-term, chronic erosion,” Science Panel Chair Laura Moore told commissioners during her presentation about the final report. “Yet in some cases, there’s a desire for a solution, but there really isn’t a solution. What we can do is buy time.

“It’s like getting older, right?” she said. “The inevitable is going to happen, but we can make choices that allow us to do what we want to do for longer …  and long-term chronic erosion that’s been occurring for hundreds of years in these particular places is a little bit like that.”

Boiled down to its essence, not much has changed in the rationale since 1984, when North Carolina was one of the first states in the nation to ban the structures. Except now the state is not alone.

“Every state is moving away from hardened structures, but there’s not a complete ban,” Daniel Govoni, N.C. Division of Coastal Management policy section chief, told the commission, summing up a presentation of 17 coastal states’ current policies.

While Govoni said that it was difficult to compare the complexities of permitting erosion control structures, in general, he concluded, they all preferred beach nourishment and retreat, and the majority discouraged the structural measures.

‘What is the intent?’

For a long moment, members of the panel sat silently, pokerfaced. Soon, Commissioner Jordan Hennessy asserted that some measures may still be worth trying: “I think there are processes in other states we can look at,” he said.

Member Joseph Hollowell followed, asking what would happen “if some miracle comes along” that is a hardened structure that is banned in North Carolina.

“What is the intent of the science committee?” he asked. “Is it to formulate a campaign to keep the law as it currently is? Was it to be innovative … creative?”

Commission Chair Renee Cahoon responded that the CRC was “not trying to rewrite the law.” Instead, she said, the panel is trying to understand the options so it can provide recommendations to the legislature.

The commission decided at this point to interrupt the discussion to allow CRC Assistant General Counsel Christy Goebel to provide her overview of the hardened structures law, which began life as commission policy in January 1985. The ban was upheld in court in 2000, and the policy became state law in 2003. Then, in 2011, a law was passed that allowed four terminal groins, which trap sand near inlets or the end of islands, as pilot projects. The opening has since been expanded to allow seven groins.

Even with the law in place, structures have been allowed to protect infrastructure like roads and bridges as well as historic structures.

Today, she said, there are at least 15 hardened structures on the North Carolina shoreline. Sandbags, which have always been permitted as temporary structures, are currently allowed to stay in place for eight years. At least 12 sites currently have large sandbags as protective measures on the beach.

Hollowell then made a motion to support the proposed legislation to “do away with” the current hardened structures ban. That would open consideration of “all kinds of new technologies that seem to be out there,” he said.

Hennessy seconded the motion.

But Cahoon objected: “That’s asking this commission to take a political stand, which is not something the commission will do,” she said.

As an alternative, she suggested consulting with the North Carolina Collaboratory, which was established in 2016 by the General Assembly to handle research needs and provide expertise on state issues. “If the legislature passes a bill, they will ask us for direction.”

Commissioner Steve Shuttleworth asked for clarification on the motion.

“I would have a hard time supporting or opposing a motion to support something that I don’t understand what they’re asking us to vote on,” he said. “At the end of the day, my two cents, it’s political. It’s been political for 40 years. Sometimes the legislators go one way, and sometimes, now, they want to go a different way.”

Another commissioner, Katherine Skinner, also questioned whether such a motion was premature, considering that the proposed bill was stalled in committee.

“I feel incredibly uncomfortable backing a bill that has not had full debate in the House and the Senate,” she said. “And we are picking a side that we are not being well-informed on.”

The motion failed in a 6-4 vote, with three members abstaining. Then Hennessy followed with a similar motion, which also failed.

‘Life Is Full of Tradeoffs’

In his presentation on Aug. 26 to the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, titled “Erosion Management Options, Life Is Full of Tradeoffs,” Spencer Rogers, a member of the Science Panel, detailed how waves and currents interact to transport sand to and from the beach. “The beach changes at rates that are far beyond what most people appreciate,” he said.

It is the water depth that controls the height of waves as they head to the beach. With shallower water, friction starts to slow down the wave, Rogers said. When the wave breaks, it forms a smaller wave. Even during a Category 3 storm in North Carolina, he said, the largest wave on land is likely about 6 feet.

Rogers said the wave-breaking phenomenon is critically important in thinking about development on the coast.

“That 30-foot wave is going to break miles offshore, not on your house,” he said.

Even though ocean currents don’t sound very fast — the Gulf Stream, for instance, is considered speedy with its typical 5 mph pace —  but they move tons and tons of sand daily.

On high-energy beaches, such as those on the Outer Banks, the coastal processes that move sand are intensified. That may explain why beach nourishment cannot be assumed to always mitigate the erosion created by hard structures like revetments or offshore reefs.

“The problem with that approach is that almost every place that is likely to come forward with an erosion problem … beach nourishment has already failed,” Rogers said.

Successful beach nourishment requires a moderate erosion rate and regular maintenance, he added. When the erosion rate is too high, which is likely the case in Buxton, “you really can’t afford long-term beach nourishment,” he said.

“And if beach nourishment is successful, you don’t really need a structure,” Rogers said.

The tradeoff between having a beach or protecting a structure works at Fort Fisher, which has an erosion rate of 10 feet and no beach, he said. But the historic structure is protected.

Such a tradeoff, Rogers noted, would no doubt be “more difficult” in locations like Nags Head.

In a letter to the division in support of the Science Panel’s report, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, said the hardened structures policy was a product of years of research and observation of impacts in other states.

“The report does not suggest that hardened structures are a solution without consequence,” wrote Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic, the Coastal Federation’s chief program officer. “Rather, it demonstrates that these approaches involve significant tradeoffs that must be carefully weighed against their limited and localized benefits. At a time when sea level rise, stronger storms, and increasing coastal development are creating unprecedented challenges, North Carolina should continue to lead rather than retreat from the principles that have guided coastal management for decades.”

As the CRC wrapped up its hardened structures discussion on Thursday, several members expressed continued optimism that perhaps new technological advances in erosion-control methods, such as reef balls or offshore breakwaters, could offer reasonable mitigation to chronic erosion. But so far, Moore responded, the future offers no easy or ready solution.

“The Science Panel has reviewed all technologies that are available and there is not anything new and flashy on the horizon,” Moore said. “This is a so well-known, challenging problem that’s been addressed in different ways with differing degrees of success and adverse impacts along coastlines throughout the world for a long time. So there’s just not a magic silver bullet.”

After six years of litigation and a nearly six-week trial earlier this year, a Wake County judge has ruled that the state has failed to manage and protect coastal fisheries.

In his nearly 200-page order issued Aug. 17, Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins Jr. explained that the court, “based on the preponderance of the evidence” finds that the state has “breached its obligations under the public-trust doctrine” as directed in the North Carolina Constitution.

Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina and more than 80 others filed the lawsuit Nov. 10, 2020, against the state for what the nonprofit calls “North Carolina’s ‘abject failure’ in meeting its legal duties to properly manage coastal fisheries resources on behalf of North Carolina’s current and future citizens.”

CCA NC Executive Director David Sneed told Coastal Review last week that although this is the outcome the organization wanted, “this is not a moment for celebration. There is no real victory when our fisheries are depleted. The important thing now is that the magnitude of the problem has been recognized.”

During the trial held Jan. 20 to Feb. 25, Collins heard from witnesses representing both sides of the lawsuit, including fisheries scientists, independent researchers, and current and former staff with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The division carries out the rules and regulations that the Marine Fisheries Commission approves and adopts. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality is the parent agency for the commission and division.

The judge ruled that in the 30 years since the North Carolina General Assembly established the Fisheries Reform Act in 1997, in response to decades of declining abundance, the state has failed to rebuild and maintain healthy fish stocks and protect key habitats.

Sneed said that next steps “are to bring together the general public, scientists, managers, and policymakers to find practical ways to protect and restore North Carolina’s fisheries,” and to fulfill the directive on page 190 of the ruling. “The court ordered both sides to meet and then submit a joint report to the court within 45 days with their views on how the remedy phase of the case should move forward.”

DEQ Secretary Reid Wilson briefed the Marine Fisheries Commission during its Aug. 20 meeting in Raleigh about the judge’s ruling against the state in the case. He explained that staff were reviewing court documents and speaking with their colleagues at the Department of Justice about what happens next.

“There is a next phase, the remedy phase, and I don’t think anyone in this room knows how all this is going to turn out. But obviously, you all on the commission, we at the department, the division, and stakeholders are going to be working together in the coming years, once we have a final answer from the court system about what we’re supposed to do to address what this particular judge found, so that’s going to be a big focus probably for years,” he said.

Based on extensive testimony, the judge ruled that the “State’s failures are not the product of any one decision, but rather, are the product of a systemic, decades-long pattern of risk-prone management dominated by short-term commercial-industry considerations to the detriment of North Carolina’s coastal fisheries and the general public.”

Expert opinions cited in the ruling point to some decisions erring “on the risky side” including the General Assembly amending the Fisheries Reform Act in 2004 to remove the buffer implemented in 1997, which allowed more fish to be harvested. The change put the threshold hovering over the minimum level at which a stock is no longer classified as overfished.

The judge also points to the act’s failing because of gaps in stock mortality data for commercial fishing, bycatch and discards, and a lack of stock assessments for some species, and the interests of the nine-member Marine Fisheries Commission, which votes on the laws for coastal fisheries and fishing.

The appointed board members include two from the commercial fishing industry, one representing the seafood industry, two with the recreational fishing industry, a scientist, and two members at large. “Thus, at least three of the nine seats-a full one-third-are reserved for individuals with a direct financial interest in the private, for-profit harvest of coastal fisheries resources, even though commercial-license holders comprise less than one-tenth of one percent of the State’s citizens,” the judge found.

One witness testified that the way the commission is currently structured, voting is interest based. Another said that commissioners prioritized their sector instead of making informed decisions based on the science and resource-protection materials provided before official meetings.

“The evidence at trial also included numerous examples of instances in which the MFC’s structural defects caused management failures, including where a conservation-oriented measure was recommended by DMF and was defeated at the MFC,” Collins wrote, citing as examples proposed rule changes to commercial fishing gear and harvest reductions.

Collins quoted one witness who said “the MFC has ‘always bowed to the commercial fishing [industry].’”

The North Carolina Fisheries Association attempted to intervene in the lawsuit when it was first filed but was denied. The nonprofit group represents the state’s commercial fishing industry.

Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner told Coastal Review earlier this week that the organization is currently reviewing the ruling and has no comment at this time.

How the state governs coastal fisheries today

Public outcry on the declining stocks in the late 20^th century pushed state lawmakers to restructure how the public-trust resource was managed.

The General Assembly, in recognizing “the need to protect our coastal fishery resources and to balance the commercial and recreational interests through better management of these resources,” enacted the resulting legislation, the 1997 Fisheries Reform Act “to ensure the long-term viability of the State’s commercially and recreationally significant species or fisheries.”

Long-term viability is the legal standard that requires fish stocks to be maintained at healthy, self-sustaining levels and retains a healthy age structure.

Collins writes that the act “was touted as ushering North Carolina into modern fisheries management, and the intended solution for the decline in coastal fisheries abundance observed in the last quarter of the 20th century.” He also notes that the “expectation was that the FRA would be the statutory framework for reversing the long-term trends in declining abundance for multiple managed species or developing precautionary management plans for those fisheries where landings had increased to a point that declines seemed imminent.”

The law authorized the governor-appointed Marine Fisheries Commission to manage and regulate marine and estuarine resources within coastal waters. As part of that framework, the act directed the Division of Marine Fisheries to draft science-based fishery management plans “for all commercially or recreationally significant species or fisheries that comprise State marine or estuarine resources” for the commission to approve and adopt.

The state currently manages stocks through fisheries management plans for bay scallop, blue crab, eastern oyster, hard clam, estuarine striped bass, river herring, southern flounder, spotted seatrout, striped mullet, kingfishes, sheepshead, shrimp and red drum.

“The evidence at trial, however, including from the State’s own witnesses, confirmed that the State is not managing to long-term viability, and instead, is focused on processes, rather than outcomes measured by the long-term viability standard,” according to the ruling. “Given the State’s admissions and the unrebutted expert testimony that not a single one of the 13 state-managed stocks exhibits long-term viability, the State has necessarily failed to meet those affirmative duties.”

The University of North Carolina Collaboratory in January 2026 released its supplemental report on state fisheries management, which the General Assembly had commissioned in 2021, and corroborated the expert testimony, according to the court ruling.

The judge references the study’s findings, notably that the state’s “fisheries are ‘intensely managed,’” and that there are continued challenges in reaching core goals of the Fisheries Reform Act.

Key points in the study, as referred to by the judge, are that the management planning process is slow, the state has failed to manage ecosystems and critical habitats are degrading, the Marine Patrol, the enforcement arm of the division, doesn’t have enough staff to cover the state’s estuarine and coastal waters, and there’s overall dissatisfaction and distrust of state management.

North Carolina Wildlife Federation CEO Tim Gestwicki told Coastal Review in a phone conversation last week that “we have a judge’s ruling that is crystal clear.” In February 2022, the organization filed an amicus brief in support of the CCA NC’s lawsuit.

“The state has failed in its obligation to manage public trust resources, and no gray area, and when the judge says it’s time for drastic changes, that should be a pretty clear signal,” he said, adding that the data has been there a long time.

“When you combine the collaboratory independent study that came out, and you combine this irrefutable judge’s ruling, there is no escape now. Change must occur,” he said. “It’s not the North Carolina Wildlife Federation saying this. It’s not the CCA. It is independent scientists and a long legal journey through which every step the plaintiffs were affirmed. So this is about validation and affirmation that North Carolina has had and continues to have significant deficiencies in managing marine fisheries.”

Weather forecasts in areas of North Carolina this summer have played like a needle on a scratched vinyl record, bouncing backward in a repeating loop: dry and hot, dry and hot, dry and hot.

Well before high temperatures with heat indexes climbing into triple digits smothered the air hanging over portions of the state, coastal counties being no exception, the land beneath our feet was parched.

The North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council, or DMAC, announced at the beginning of this year that the state was experiencing widespread dry conditions, the result of a drought the origins of which trace back to August 2025. About a week into the new year, 15 of the state’s 20 coastal counties were classified as abnormally dry.

By June’s end, Brunswick County Public Utilities customers were placed under mandatory water restrictions. As June turned over to July, drought conditions in that county further deteriorated.

Though the western portion of North Carolina’s southernmost coastal county as of Aug. 18 remained under exceptional drought, the highest drought classification, rain since July has relieved dry conditions marginally but enough to prompt the county to ease water, though not completely lift, water use restrictions.

North Carolina has since last month started to see some notable rainfall, particularly in the western part of the state and northern part of the coast, said Klaus Albertin, DMAC chair and water resources engineer with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources.

“Most areas are starting to see improvements, and a lot of the state, lawns, gardens, agriculture is looking good because we’ve been getting regular rains,” he said. “Not everywhere improves at the same rate. That’s kind of the tough part about the summertime in North Carolina. We’ll get some rains that are really spotty, so you’ll have areas that get 2, 3, 3½ inches, but then, not far away, they may only get a quarter of an inch.”

This helped some state reservoirs recover their water levels faster than others.

Rainfall in the watershed above Jordan Lake, for example, helped that reservoir bounce back to its target water level within a couple of weeks, Albertin said.

Falls Lake, which is a little more than 30 miles northeast of Jordan Lake, hasn’t been as lucky.

“It’s going to take some good rains or a lot of smaller, consistent rains to bring all of them back up to where we’d like to see them,” Albertin said.

As for aquifers, he said, “I would say, instead of weeks you probably are looking at months, and some of it just takes a while for the water to percolate down into the aquifers.”

Gabrielle Chianese, DWR’s Groundwater Resource Branch supervisor, explained that there are portions of the state where groundwater, or superficial aquifer wells, are showing decreases.

“However, the deeper aquifers, the only way the drought really impacts those deeper aquifers is due to higher usage,” including lawn irrigation, she said. “That’s when we’ll see impacts to the lower aquifers. But all of these seem to be recovering very well, especially the ones that the deeper aquifers that are being used more, we are seeing recovery in those so that’s good news.”

She encourages private well water owners to have their well water tested, a service typically provided by county health departments for a fee.

Parts of the state continue to face lingering rainfall deficits despite recent summer storms.

As of Aug. 18, Wilmington, for example, was at a 21-inch rain deficit.

“It just goes to show that we haven’t really had a whole lot of rain, especially in some parts of the state, since last August,” of 2025, said North Carolina State Climate Office Director Dr. Jared Bowden.

And the hot weather much of the state has experienced this summer has only aided and abetted drought conditions.

Intense heat paired with dry conditions creates what is called a “hot drought,” which amplifies the loss of moisture in the soil.

“If you basically dry out the soil then all the energy goes into heating up that surface and then it gets just hotter, so it feels hotter, and that’s because all the energy goes directly into heating the surface rather than evaporation,” Bowden said. “There’s this coupling process as the atmosphere continues to warm and it becomes thirstier that you get these hotter and drier droughts.”

This, he explained, is a fingerprint of the changing climate.

According to the State Climate Office, North Carolina over the last 120 years has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

“This is less than Earth as a whole, which has warmed by nearly two degrees,” the office states.

But warming has accelerated in recent decades, with the period between 2009 and 2018 becoming the state’s warmest recorded decade.

Wetter weather patterns ahead?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in early June confirmed that the globe was officially in an El Niño year. El Niño is a recurring weather phenomenon that forms when the sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean are warmer than average.

And, Bowden said, its impacts are already being felt.

“Hurricanes, like them or not, they do contribute to our climatological rainfall into late fall in particular,” he said. “Basically, El Niño is decreasing the likelihood that we’ll have significant rains from a tropical-like system.”

What does that mean for say, Brunswick County? As we move into peak hurricane season, if the probability for a named storm is low, so too is the likelihood of short-term drought relief.

“But, as you go into the fall, when El Niño picks up in strength, the impacts are for a wetter winter,” Bowden explained.

In fact, in the coming months – October, November and into December – North Carolina could experience similar rain events to those of 2015, when there was in a strong El Niño.

“We had our wettest December on record, and the strong El Niño event of 1997 and ’98, we had our wettest winter on record for the state of North Carolina,” Bowden said. “That’s kind of where we’re headed. Ideally, it’s going to be months of needed rain. I mean, of course, you can get the big hurricane — even that would just really put a dent in something like that — but the odds of that type of event are not as likely. It will probably be more steady rainfall over the winter months that would bring places like Wilmington that are currently, over the last year, in 20-inches-plus deficit to get them back to normal. But, the short term is we might stay dry for a little longer across the state.”

BUXTON — When the only highway on your island is situated between an ocean and a sound, and is built essentially at sea level, water on the road from storm surge comes with the territory. But even weather-savvy Outer Bankers were taken aback by a rain deluge in July that in minutes flooded N.C. Highway 12 with so much water that vehicles were swamped, stalling out and driving off the pavement.

National Park Service officials notified North Carolina Department of Transportation staff for this area, and they were already aware of flash flood warnings that had been issued by the National Weather Service. They were prepared for possible flooding, but no one expected the speed and volume of water that fell on the remote stretch of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge just south of the Basnight Bridge. 

“We really didn’t know if, where, or how much,” explained NCDOT Division Engineer Ronnie Sawyer. “We certainly didn’t know it was going to get to the point where we felt like we needed to close the road.”

Speaking during a community meeting held last week in Buxton to discuss the highway closure, Sawyer described the rainstorm as “an extreme circumstance” that would be difficult or near impossible to plan for. In the 32 years he has worked for the department, he added, he couldn’t recall a time when N.C. 12 had to be closed because of rainwater.

But rainstorms are different now. With climate change, the warmer air holds much more moisture. Flash flooding is when the water level rises significantly in a short period of time. It can happen in minutes or hours, and it doesn’t just happen where there are creeks and rivers, or only during tropical storms, for that matter.

“Where we are, since we’re so close to sea level and flat, it’s almost flash ponding,” Erik Heden, Warning Coordination Meteorologist at the National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Newport told Coastal Review in a later interview.

“It does happen quick,” said Heden. “There’s the flash part, but it just doesn’t go anywhere, and it’s just not really moving.” 

About 6 to 10 inches of rain fell between July 21 and July 24, he said, with the peak on the 24th. Rain fell at a rate up to 2 inches an hour, with reports of a foot or more of water on N.C. 12, leading to the road being closed from the bridge to Rodanthe.

According to the nearest rain gauge in Manteo, 10.49 inches fell over five days. The average rainfall total for July is 5 to 6 inches.  

Heden said the storm was what is called “training,” with multiple rain cells moving back and forth over the same location. “Usually, you get an inch or two of rain, it’s a good thunderstorm, and then it moves on about its merry way,” he said. “When you have something stalled out like that, it allows the storm to move or train over the same area over and over again.” 

What’s important is that people pay attention to weather reports about potential impacts of systems in their area, and not just during tropical storms, Heden said. It’s easy to dismiss warnings when those prior ones don’t happen. But sometimes predictions aren’t possible until a couple of days before the event.

“We had very strong language actually leading up to that,” he said, and a flood warning was issued for a Level 3 out of 4 risk. “So just because it’s not tropical-related doesn’t mean it can’t be bad.”

That risk level means a greater than 40% chance of flash flooding, he said. A Level 1 is at least a 5% chance. Level 2 is a 15% chance. And a high-risk Level 4 carries a 70% chance.

“If I told you had a 40% chance to win the lottery,” he added, ”then you’re going to go buy a ticket.”

Sawyer, with NCDOT, said the department had issued multiple alerts and posted messages on road signs and social media, but with the unpredictable nature of the storm, it was not possible to provide enough warning to people traveling on N.C. 12 through Pea Island. And he vowed to continue to work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on drainage improvements in the the refuge.

Dare County manager Bobby Outten also said the county would discuss details about whether pumping would be practical if needed.

“I can assure you we do not want to close the road,” Sawyer said. “It’s a whole can of worms.”

In the last six years the Atlantic Ocean has demolished nearly three dozen privately owned oceanfront homes in Buxton and Rodanthe.

These collapsed houses represent a broader coastal management challenge, even pushing the commission that makes coastal development rules to reconsider a decadeslong ban on hardened structures built for erosion control, Dr. Reide Corbett said during a recent talk at Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center on Harkers Island.

A coastal oceanographer and geochemist, Corbett, as of July 16, is the new interim dean of the Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences on East Carolina University’s main campus. He spent the last 14 years as head of the Coastal Studies Institute, or CSI, in Wanchese, led by ECU. His talk was one of five in the “Water/Ways” speaker series last month organized to complement the Smithsonian traveling exhibit with the same name that was on display at the time.

“There’s no doubt that we are seeing changes along our shoreline,” and because there’s not just one thing driving coastal change, there’s not one simple solution, Corbett said early in the presentation.

“I’ll go ahead and put quotes around ‘solution’ now because I might not do it throughout the entire talk, because a solution to many of these challenges we face is likely only temporary. It’s not going to solve the problem. The process that is driving many of these changes won’t be solved by one thing.”

The process

North Carolina’s coast is protected by low-lying sand deposits called barrier islands. These mobile landforms that separate the mainland from the ocean are in constant but slow motion toward the mainland. This natural process is how these islands maintain elevation and width.

This is nothing new, “barrier islands have always changed,” Corbett said, but now these mobile landforms are developed. “For better or worse, it is where we are. These coastlines have been changing since there were coastlines. The difference is we have a lot of infrastructure today in the same areas where these coastlines are changing.”

The natural process of erosion on the oceanside and growth on the sound side of the island is being exacerbated by increasing sea levels, development associated with population growth, and storm impacts.

The National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration reported a few years ago that sea level is expected to rise 1 to 1.5 feet by 2050. “To put that in perspective, it took the last almost 100 years for sea levels to change 1 foot in coastal North Carolina,” Corbett said. “And from roughly 2000 to 2050, we’ll expect at least an additional 1-to 1.5-foot rise.”

That is a significant amount, and “When you look at what sea level is doing based on tide gauges up and down our coast, we are right on track to meet that if not surpass that” projection that he said has a 95% chance of happening.

To illustrate, when a house on the Outer Banks gets taken by the ocean, Corbett said the “narrative is ‘often why did people build here? Why would they put their house right there? It’s so vulnerable,’” but when the houses were built in Buxton, for example, in the 1970s and 1980s, there was 100 to 300 feet of beach, or a few dunes, in front at the time. Now, the ocean is on their doorstep.

It’s because these shorelines have been eroding for decades, some at 5, 10 or 15 feet per year every year. Then put a storm on top of that, or this past fall, three storms “one after another after another without any time for recovery, and what you end up doing is deflating the beach, dropping the elevation of that beach, removing significant amount of sand because of the energy in the system.”

There has been roughly a 1-foot rise in sea level since 1975 at this location, and erosion has continued anywhere from 4 to 8 feet per year there. “You put those two things together and this is what you have,” he said.

As Corbett said early in the program, “there’s not going to be a single simple solution for any community” and what may work for one won’t necessarily work for another.

Community questions

Communities need to ask themselves what they are trying to protect. “Is it an individual home? Is it a way of life? Is it an economy? Where are we acting? Where is it most vulnerable? What are we trying to protect? And where is that? You can ask ‘why are we trying to protect that?’ as well if you like. How far are we looking out into the future? Because I think that’s important to consider when acting on a potential solution.”

What can a community do once it decides on a path forward? There area a handful of options, starting with nothing, which Corbett said isn’t really a response. Some areas can be protected. For example, a living shoreline in an estuary could protect infrastructure. Accommodate the change and that might look like houses being raised or a bridge around a very vulnerable location or leave. “Nobody likes to hear the word ‘retreat’ because it seems like you’re giving up. And I don’t disagree with that,” he said, but the idea is to move out of those most vulnerable locations.

Corbett said that hardened structures are “being pointed to a lot today as a way of protection, a solution to the problem. And I think it’s important to recognize the tradeoffs.”

In North Carolina, hardened structures have not been used to control erosion in decades, because of a policy in the 1980s and then a law in the early 2000s.

Corbett noted on the presentation slide that the state law “prohibits the construction of a permanent erosion control structure in an ocean shoreline, including breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty, revetment, seawall or any similar structure. This ban was based on extensive studies and technical data documenting the detrimental impacts of erosion control structures, including 150 years of documented negative impacts of shoreline stabilization on the barrier islands of New Jersey.”

The different kinds of hardened structures come with their own sets of problems. A vertical structure like a seawall might protect what’s behind it but will lead to higher erosion rates on either side of the structure and a total loss of recreation beach in front of it, Corbett said.

The houses actively crumbling have pressed the Coastal Resources Commission to consider potential changes to its laws on hardened structures and charged its science panel, on which he serves, in February to draft a report on the various types of hardened structures for oceanfront and the advantages and disadvantages of each type. The report was first presented during the commission’s June meeting.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management, which carries out the development rules established by the commission, announced that the commission is to hear an update on the report during the Aug. 26-27 meeting in Manteo.

But with all those responses, “I think it’s important to recognize that the processes aren’t changing,” Corbett said.

Buxton has three terminal groins that were built in the 1960s that have deteriorated, and the narrative suggests that the deterioration and large holes in the structure farthest south has led to significant erosion.

“My argument is, it’s not just that. It’s an erosional system. There’s a lot of data to show that even with these groins, there’s a reason we moved the lighthouse,” said Corbett, referring to the Cape Hatteras Light, which was moved in 1999 a distance of 2,900 feet from where it was built in 1870 because of its proximity to the waves. “It wasn’t a stable system. And those groins have been there since the late ’60s. And so, this is an eroding system. And it’s been eroding regardless of whether those groins were there or not. And it will continue to erode whether we rebuild those groins or not.”

Nourishment does protect but is a temporary solution. It’s not changing the process causing the erosion.

Beach nourishment is when sand is taken from a borrow area and pumped onto the beach. The amount of time the new sand lasts on the shoreline is no longer projected to be seven years. Now the project planners are calculating for five years. But that’s not long enough either. The sand from a 2022 beach nourishment in Buxton only lasted two years until more was needed.

Corbett’s hypothesis is that nourishment projects are causing the shoreface to steepen 15 to 20 feet from the shoreline. He said he was considering looking further into this untested theory to see if the nourishment areas are becoming more vulnerable.

Data available on coastsat.space, which uses satellite imagery to map ocean shorelines, shows how the beach is changing and responding to a beach nourishment project.  

For south Nags Head, the first nourishment project was in late 2011 or 2012, and data shows that after nourishment, the erosion rate became significantly faster.

“You place a lot of sand on the beach, it’s unnatural. Yes, it provides a wider beach, but you also increase that erosion rate,” Corbett said. “I’m not saying this isn’t protecting infrastructure” but it doesn’t stop the process.

“Nourishment is a Band-Aid for that real physical process of erosion. It hasn’t slowed the process. It is a temporary solution that has to continue. You don’t do a single nourishment, you develop a nourishment program,” he said. “It’s $20 million today. It’s $20 million in five years.”

Ultimately, Corbett said communities need to decide what they want to protect and if they’re willing to accept the tradeoff.

SURF CITY – If plans go accordingly, this town’s 6-mile-long stretch of ocean shoreline will undergo a major transformation by the end of the decade.

Portions of the beach are expected to be about 50 feet wider than they are today. A newly constructed berm and dune system designed to take the brunt of the ocean’s force during coastal storms and protect the hundreds of homes and businesses landward of the beach will rise from the sandscape.

The federal coastal storm risk management project that the town has been pushing to secure for more than two decades will initially inject about 6.5 million cubic yards of sand onto the ocean beach.

Surf City Mayor Teresa Batts, a lifelong resident, was so over the moon about the announcement earlier this summer that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been permitted to use previously appropriated federal funds to build the project she wrote (admittedly with the help of artificial intelligence) a song about it.

Batts struck up the tune, “sand money, honey,” Monday morning at the close of a signing ceremony in which the town and the Corps officially sealed their historic partnership.

Dozens of people, including current and former congressional leaders, local elected officials and representatives with the Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, gathered for the ceremony that was hosted on the beach next to the Surf City Ocean Pier.

“Before we sign this agreement, I want to take a moment to share, because this day didn’t happen quickly. This day did not happen by accident,” Batts said. “We faced a lot of delays, as many long-term federal projects do. But Surf City remained committed, Surf City remained resilient. I want to be clear that this is not just a town project. It’s not just a Corps project. It’s a project today because of dedication. It’s a project today because of hard work.”

The project’s origins go back to 2000, when Congress authorized a feasibility study to evaluate a long-term beach restoration project for Surf City and neighboring North Topsail Beach.

Citing money concerns, North Topsail Beach in July 2021 withdrew from the project, a move that initiated additional federal review and approvals.

About three years later, Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., secured language in the Water Resources Development Act 2024 directing the Corps to expedite a report specific to Surf City’s coastal storm risk management project.

This past June, the Wilmington District was given the green light to use previously appropriated Disaster Relief Act of 2019 fund for more than $292 million to build the project.

“From this point forward with the signing of this agreement, it opens the door for construction of the actual project,” Rouzer said Monday. “As anything that is noteworthy, as anything that is worthy, sometimes you have a few hurdles to clear. Sometimes you have a few obstacles you didn’t expect that you’ve got to work through. And so today really marks a great achievement for everyone that has been involved in this project.”

Wilmington District Commander Lt. Col. Kenneth Porter said the signing ceremony, “marks the beginning of the next chapter, turning this project from paper into sand, dunes, and real protection for the people who call Surf City home.”

“Surf City sits on a barrier island, and it’s exposed to the full force of the Atlantic,” he continued. “This community has felt that firsthand. Hurricane Florence (in 2018) alone caused significant damage to the beach structures and infrastructure along this stretch of coastline. Storms like that aren’t a question of if; they’re a question of when. And every year without a coastal storm risk management project in place is another year of unnecessary risk to homes, businesses, and the people who live and work here. That’s what changes today.”

Monitoring the shoreline and continued beach nourishment over the project’s 50-year life will provide a strong defense for generations to come, Porter said.

“This project is projected to prevent significant storm damage every single year, but the true measure of success won’t be found in a budget spreadsheet,” he said. “It’ll be measured in the homes that stay standing, the local businesses that keep their doors open, and the families who don’t have to rebuild their lives after the next storm.”

Corps officials said after the ceremony Monday that they anticipate opening bids for initial construction of the project in the fall of 2027, with work beginning in early 2028.

Construction is expected to take about 16 months and wrap around the spring of 2029.

SURF CITY — There was a time when even a quick summer thunderstorm turned stretches of one of the main drags on the island side of this town into a chain of shallow pools.

Habitual flooding on portions of South Shore Drive, aka N.C. Highway 50, effectively cut off residents and visitors on the barrier island south of the Surf City Bridge from safely accessing the mainland.

“That flooding that traditionally would have occurred there has really not happened in the last four years, which is just astonishing,” Town Manager Kyle Breuer said.

That’s all thanks to a multiphase, nature-based stormwater project that was designed and constructed to divert floodwater off the road and into catch basins.

That project, and the subsequent success thereof, became the catalyst for the town to look at putting similar stormwater controls along streets plagued by historic, chronic stormwater flooding.

Earlier this year, the town hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the completion of the Roland Avenue stormwater project, one that included installing catch basins, an underground filtration system to rapidly clear standing water from the road and replacing a traditional road intersection with pervious pavers.

Roland Avenue was one of five stormwater flooding hot spots identified in Surf City through an islandwide resiliency project created under the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s N.C. Resilient Coastal Communities Program, or NC-RCCP.

NC-RCCP is a product of the state’s 2020 Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Plan, which was the result of Executive Order 80 signed in 2018 by then-Gov. Roy Cooper.

The program provides technical and financial assistance to communities in the state’s 20 coastal counties to support locally driven approaches to finding solutions and prioritizing projects designed to help communities bounce back from flooding and storms.

The multiphase program starts with inviting residents, business owners, and local government officials to identify climate-related risks and assess vulnerabilities in their community. In the second phase of the program, communities use that input, risk exposure and local needs to develop a resilience strategy and identify projects.

Surf City, Topsail Beach and North Topsail Beach officials came together in December 2021 for their first public meeting about an island-wide resiliency project.

They agreed that stormwater street flooding is an issue that affects all three towns. So, they created a partnership that would allow them to development solutions that were consistent from town to town, examine each completed project’s performance, and share those results with one another.

In all, 15 stormwater improvement sites have been identified across the 26-mile-long island.

Last year, Topsail Beach hired a civil engineer and consulting firm to map its stormwater system and study areas that experience chronic flooding. The study was released earlier this year.

North Topsail’s initial stormwater improvement plans focus on two areas deemed the most critical in that town – Island Drive at Gray Street and New River Inlet Road at Richard Peters Park. Projects for those areas are pending.

To date, three of the five projects identified in Surf City, including those on Seahorse Avenue, Roland Avenue and the intersection of Mecklenburg Avenue and North Topsail Drive are complete.

A project planned for intersection of Charlotte Avenue and South Shore Drive was, as of Coastal Review’s Aug. 7 interview with Breuer, out for bid. That project will entail replacing portions of asphalt with permeable pavers.

As for the fifth project, this one along North New River Drive, the town has “not addressed that one quite yet, but we will continue to look at that,” Breuer said.

Town officials also have on their radar Old Settlers Beach, an area commonly referred to as the canals at north side of town, as the likely location of their next stormwater capital improvement project site.

“We’re thrilled about the momentum that we’ve been able to carry through in the execution of the projects to try and start making a difference,” Breuer said. “I think we’ve been able to try and look ahead and try to get ahead of things and having a better understanding of how things are functioning from a stormwater perspective.”

The town has in two years received more than $2 million in grants for stormwater improvement projects through the Golden LEAF Foundation, N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, and N.C. Emergency Management.

“We’ve been really, really pleased that the last several projects there’s really been no town funding that has gone towards that,” Breuer said. “Staff has been very forward pressing on getting the projects done even though we’re a small down and we have limited staff capacity to be able to do that.”

Recognizing that “coastal resilience is not something that we can ignore,” the town in 2024 established a stormwater division and implemented a utility fee for all properties within town limits. The fee is $6 a month for a typical single-family home.

The town has also started implementing stormwater mitigation projects within its mainland borders. Last year, the town’s stormwater division restored ditch lines in the rights-of-way along Little Kinston Road.

“We’ll continue to evaluate certain things on the mainland, but a lot of the development that has occurred on the mainland is still going to be under a state-issued stormwater permit and, at this point, the town is not considering taking over those systems,” Breuer said. “We have discussed potential mechanisms for evaluating that, but that’s going to take a very strong partnership with the entity, like the homeowners association, to bring in an engineer to certify or qualify that that system is up to standards before we take on a major maintenance or liability issue with a system like that.”

Preparing for future hazards by strengthening resilience to natural disasters across the state is one of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s top priorities, Secretary Reid Wilson told a few dozen Monday morning at the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center on Harkers Island.

He, along with Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership, or APNEP, Director Bill Crowell were in the Down East Carteret County community to announce $300,000 through the engagement and stewardship grants program to support the eight projects chosen this year “that advance environmental stewardship and community engagement across the region,” according to DEQ.

APNEP is a collaborative program dedicated to understanding, protecting and restoring the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system.

“We are seeing heavier rainfall, more frequent flooding, even on sunny days. While also, on the flip side, more droughts, more wildfires, and I don’t need to tell people from Down East that these conditions place enormous pressure on people’s lives, on infrastructure, and on our natural systems,” Wilson continued.

He said that maintaining healthy water bodies and estuaries is a critical part of this resilience work. “By protecting and conserving these natural systems, we help strengthen our communities and make them safer and better prepared for what is coming in the future.”

Grant funding is from the Environmental Protection Agency and DEQ, which hosts APNEP, the largest of the National Estuary Program’s 28 estuary partnerships. The region covers 36 counties in North Carolina and 18 cities and counties in Virginia.

Wilson said that through APNEP, the state invests “directly in communities through grants that support local efforts to protect and restore this amazing estuary,” and “will support projects that advance environmental stewardship and promote community engagement.”

DEQ has been awarding these grants for about five years, and “saw incredible boost in the number of applications. We got 29 applications for almost $1.6 million. Both of those, the number and the amount of money, are a record, and it demonstrates a clear need for continued funding of community engagement and outreach, so that we can really engage with communities up and down this watershed.”

And, Wilson continued, many of the grantees are bringing their own money and resources to the table, meaning that “every dollar can go a little bit further to protect this amazing ecosystem.”

Crowell briefly summarized the projects, starting with the Down East Resilience Network, housed by the waterfowl museum. The network has been awarded $29,700 to produce videos documenting stories from across the APNEP region and create opportunities for community interactions through field trips through their project, “Building Coastal Resilience Through Community Knowledge Exchange.”

Wilson described the Down East Resiliency Network during his opening remarks as “a truly remarkable grassroots effort” that brings together academics, community members, and local, state and federal government agencies to solve the challenges that the 13 unincorporated communities Down East face as they live on the front lines of environmental change.

The North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, has been awarded $91,600 for “Planting a Culture of Coastal Stewardship: Native Landscapes and Outdoor Classrooms.”

The project is to expand native landscapes and promote water quality and stewardship throughout nature-based stormwater management projects and education activities across the region, Crowell said.

Carteret Community College, East Carolina University, North Carolina Sea Grant and the Mid-East Commission Council of Governments were awarded $49,178 to develop educational materials and implement the Beaufort County Living Shoreline Academy.

“Moving further upstream toward their headwaters, the downstream connections of the Albemarle-Pamlico, the North Carolina Museum of Life and Science will host a series of educational workshops that will focus on water quality and estuarine habitats and key stakeholders and governance structures that oversee the waters throughout the watershed,” Crowell said. The Durham-based museum was awarded $25,000 for “Downstream Connections in Albemarle-Pamlico.”

The North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh was awarded $57,915 to host School of Rockfish. Crowell explained that the project is similar to APNEP’s Shad In the Classroom program. Students will raise and release juvenile striped bass in partnership with fishery biologists for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, while also learning about water quality and habitats in the watershed.

The North Carolina Estuarium in Washington has been awarded $4,396 for “Walking Workshops on the Pamlico” and “Meet and Eat: The Eastern Oyster,” which includes establishing new learning stations on coastal ecosystems and water quality along the town’s waterfront and boardwalk, and to support an oyster-focused program connecting area educators with oyster farmers at the estuarium.

Scouting America East Carolina Council based in Kinston was awarded $36,850 for Camp Bodie Field Science Academy to support explorers in developing and leading field science programming.

“The explorers will learn water quality monitoring techniques, habitat assessment, shoreline ecology, while serving as trained peers for mentors visiting groups, mentors and visiting groups to the camp and the eco center, along with public schools,” Crowell said.

East Carolina University’s was awarded $4,325 for a project to test different interpretation signs at Bertie Beach on the Chowan River, the Roanoke/Cashie River Center and the North Carolina Coastal Reserve’s Kitty Hawk Woods Reserve. This project is intended to improve trail signs and understanding of science communication strategies in eastern North Carolina.

“The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary System is truly a national treasure. The NEP Citizen Advisory Committee is very pleased to support these projects and partnerships, working to promote engagement and stewardship in the region, and supporting our estuary of national significance,” Crowell said.

Core Sound Executive Director Karen Amspacher, when welcoming representatives from Gov. Josh Stein’s office, DEQ, APNEP and grant recipients, explained that there was never a plan for the “somewhat accidental” Down East Resilience Network that formed soon after Hurricane Florence hit Carteret County in 2019.

“We at the Core Sound Waterfowl Museum never intended to be in the resilience business, but we are, and actually, we always have been. Our changing landscape, our crumbling roads, our soggy ground, our somewhat uncertain futures have caused us to be on the front lines of trying to accept and understand, adapt, plan and hope,” she said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is asking for feedback on identifying areas that may be suitable for commercial aquaculture operations in U.S. waters.

The agency is requesting relevant information on where it should consider future aquaculture opportunity areas, or AOA, which are defined geographic areas that have been evaluated for their potential suitability for commercial aquaculture, according to NOAA officials.

“The AOA identification process takes into account the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of identifying AOAs and siting aquaculture in those locations drawing from extensive scientific review and analysis,” according to a NOAA release. “Public input is critical to this process.”

The public may submit comments through Sept. 14 in the Federal Register via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal and type NOAA-NMFS-2026-2179 in the search box.

NOAA has also scheduled public listening sessions, the next of which is set to take place in English-only throughout the day beginning at 9 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 13.

Sessions in English and Spanish will begin at 9 a.m. on Monday, Aug. 31. The public may find specific times by registering for one of the sessions.

NOAA is asking the public for specific information, including regions in the U.S. where NOAA should consider analyzing for potential AOAs, types of aquaculture those areas may or may not support, water depths and distances from shore, locations where aquaculture gear may overlap with areas used by commercial fishers and protected species, and areas that may be important for subsistence harvest or other cultural resources, and for outdoor recreation or conserving natural resources.

NOAA initially sought input on regions to begin identifying AOAs in 2020. Last year, the agency identified 13 AOAs in the Gulf of Mexico and off Southern California totaling more than 21,000 acres in federal waters.

NOAA reports that an estimated $12 billion in farmed seafood was imported into the country in 2025.

“Aquaculture creates jobs, uplifts coastal economies, and complements wild-capture fisheries,” agency officials stated. “It provides healthy and sustainable seafood to American families—bolstering domestic food security.” 

NOAA is also working to identify AOAs in Alaska state waters.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is pushing forward its proposal to deepen the Wilmington Harbor by an additional 5 feet and widen segments of the shipping lane up the Cape Fear River.

The Corps-prepared final Wilmington Harbor 403 environmental impact statement, or EIS, sticks with a plan to extend the entrance of the federal navigation channel by about 9 miles, deepen the channel from 42 feet to 47 feet and widen portions of it from the river mouth about 28 miles to the Wilmington port. The construction, which is projected to begin in 2030 and take about six years to complete, is estimated to cost more than $1.3 billion.

The North Carolina State Ports Authority says the project is needed to accommodate larger, deep-draft container vessels at the Wilmington port in U.S. East Coast-Asia trade. Deepening the shipping channel would attract more import and export business and boost job growth in the state, ports officials say.

The Port of Wilmington is the 67^th largest port in the nation when measured by total cargo tonnage. In 2022, about 7.6 million tons of cargo, including 6.6 million tons of largely containerized foreign cargo, and 1 million tons of domestic cargo was shipped through the Wilmington Harbor, according to the Corp’s Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center.  

The final environmental impact statement and accompanying letter report, as required under Section 403 of the 2020 Water Resources Development Act, will be formally submitted this month to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for review and then a record of decision, or the final stage of the approval process, will be published in the Federal Register.

Once that office receives those documents, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management may submit objections it raised earlier this year about the proposed project, one the division’s director wrote would have “significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.”

Looking back: Port plan would have ‘significant adverse impacts’

“The FEIS acknowledges the State’s federal consistency objection but does not resolve it,” a Division of Coastal Management spokesperson said in an email responding to a request for comment. “DCM and DEQ will continue to come to the table with the Army Corps and the State Ports to discuss a potential path forward.”

Wilmington District Public Affairs Specialist Jed Cayton explained in an email to Coastal Review last month that federal rules outline how a state agency must reply when that agency objects to a federal agency’s consistency choice.

“The regulation provides several potential paths forward, including not proceeding with the action, attempting to resolve differences with the state, or determining that the federal action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the state’s coastal zone management program,” Cayton wrote. “The Wilmington District is consulting with its higher headquarters to determine the specific course of action regarding the State’s non-concurrence with the USACE’s coastal consistency determination.”

The Corps anticipates that the record of decision will be issued in October.

Division officials argue that the Corps’ draft EIS failed to adequately assess cumulative flooding impacts or thoroughly detail areas where dredged material would be placed, did not sufficiently account for potential effects on fisheries habitat, freshwater wetlands, shorelines, or state, historic and other sites along the Cape Fear River, and did not evaluate PFAS in the lower Cape Fear River sediment.

Residents, environmental organizations and local governments have widely expressed similar concerns, saying that the project will threaten historic and cultural resources along the river, accelerate erosion and exacerbate flooding, destroy habitat, is not economically justified, and will disperse contaminants in the riverbed’s sediment into marshes and onto public beaches.

“The Final Letter Report and FEIS continue to show that this project is unnecessary and extraordinarily damaging to the environment,” Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys wrote in a July 31 letter in response to those documents. “The costs of this harbor expansion continue to climb as the alleged need and purported benefits simultaneously dwindle. On top of the questionable economic considerations, the project would come with a host of permanent harms to the natural environment of the Lower Cape Fear, cherished by locals and tourists alike.”

The letter, written on behalf of more than a half-dozen environmental and nonprofit organizations, including the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, concludes, “Before the Corps finalizes the record of decision, we implore the Corps to reevaluate the economic justifications for this project, complete all required consultations, and address the significant questions regarding the project’s environmental impacts.”

Looming questions, PFAS concerns

The Corps has identified several areas in which it would place material dredged from the channel, including on nearby beaches in Brunswick and New Hanover counties and bird islands in the river. Dredged material would also be used for intertidal marsh restoration, fish habitat enhancement structures, riverbank protection, and back-bay marsh restoration.

About half of the construction dredge material would be placed for beneficial use instead of within federal offshore sites, according to the final EIS.

But worries persist over whether that material is contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that have been discharged into the Cape Fear River for decades by upstream industries.

“Known contamination exists upstream, but it is not known if the sediment proposed to be dredged is contaminated,” the final EIS states. “At the time this EIS was prepared, this concern and the associated controversy remain, and the lack of resolution is hindering resolution of other issues that require state agency approvals and certifications.”

There are no federal or state human health limits for PFAS in sediment.

“The proposed project is not expected to contribute to PFAS contamination or impact drinking water contaminant concentrations. The sediment will be tested in accordance with all applicable requirements, including any new standards that are developed, prior to construction, and the results will be used to guide decisions related to use and disposal options based on the testing results and applicable criteria.”

A peer-reviewed study published by the Royal Science of Chemistry in 2022 confirms the presence of PFAS in the sediment in areas of the Cape Fear River.

The study targeted six PFAS, including legacy chemical compounds PFOA and PFOS, which have been phased out of production and replaced by what are referred to as emerging compounds. For this study, scientists focused on emerging compounds HFPO-DA, commonly referred to as GenX, PFMOAA, PFMOBA and PFMOPrA.

After collecting sediment samples between September 2017 and October 2019, scientists found that the highest concentration of PFAS was found in the sediment at Lock and Dam No. 1, some 39 miles upstream of Wilmington.

The overall trend of the data researchers collected found that PFAS in the Cape Fear River’s sediment “is decreasing as you go down the river,” said University of North Carolina Wilmington Professor Dr. Ralph Mead, program director of the NC PFAS Research Network and one of the study’s corresponding authors.

“There’s PFAS in the sediment, and while the concentration changes, of course, the distribution of PFAS compounds change as you move along the river itself,” Mead said in a recent telephone interview.

“One of the interesting things about the Cape Fear River is, as you move down the river, of course the salinity is going to increase. That salinity increase, depending on the freshwater flow, you can have salty water downtown by the hotels down on the riverfront,” he continued.

This leaves a question that does not yet have a clear answer. If a particle of sediment with PFAS in it floats down the river, will the salt make the particle hold on to PFAS or let it go?

“We all like to think that sediment is the ultimate sink for a lot of organic compounds, but sometimes, if the conditions and water chemistry is right, there can be a desorption that can take place,” Mead said.

He pointed out that researchers also detected a series of unknown fluorinated compounds in their sediment samples that were found by using high-resolution mass spectrometry, which can clearly distinguish tiny mass differences between molecules.

“The significance of this is we do not have standards for any of these compounds,” Mead said. “So, there’s potentially more PFAS present than we know of. I think this all ties back to the idea that there’s a lot of research that’s left to be done. There’s just a lot of questions out there and it’s not just the Cape Fear, there are other waterbodies as well that are impaired.”

Adverse impacts, outstanding issues

The final EIS identifies two “general types of meaningful adverse impacts,” including the destruction of fish habitat during construction and loss of freshwater, forested wetlands in the lower Cape Fear River.

The Corps would compensate for fish habitat loss by improving fish passages at lock and dams No. 1 and 2 more than 35 miles upstream of Wilmington “to enable anadromous fish to access quality habitat upstream of those facilities.”

The proposed plan to offset impacts to freshwater wetlands include preserving high-quality freshwater forested wetlands and upgrading lower-quality sites along the lower Cape Fear.

“Along with the adverse impacts, some beneficial effects would be expected,” according to the final EIS. “The deepened and widened channels would allow the cargo to be transported on a smaller number of larger and more modern and efficient vessels. In addition to the economic benefits, these transportation efficiencies would result in fewer vessel transits through the harbor yielding beneficial effects such as reduced fuel consumption, air emissions, vessel strikes to animals in the channels and shoreline erosion,” when compared to leaving the channel at its current depth.

The final EIS also notes that several controversial issues have been raised about the proposed project.

“Most were addressed and resolved,” the final EIS states.

But other controversial and outstanding issues remain, those “that require more time or additional action to resolve,” including federal review of the project’s impacts to endangered species and their habitat.

The Corps anticipates executing a programmatic agreement with agencies including the N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources’ State Historic Preservation Office “this summer,” Cayton wrote. A programmatic agreement aims to address a project’s impacts on cultural and historic resources.

There are nearly 30 historic sites and properties within the proposed project’s area of potential effects, according to the State Historic Preservation Office.

Those sites include Dark Branch, a community in unincorporated Brunswick County where land remains largely owned by the descendants of previously enslaved residents, and Orton, a sprawling, former rice plantation.

Orton’s owner, billionaire hedge fund manager and conservation philanthropist Louis Moore Bacon, remains firmly opposed to the proposed harbor project, one he argues would threaten the expansive, historic rice field system and earthen dike in which he’s invested tens of millions of dollars to restore.

“The Cape Fear’s West Bank exists today because generations of conservationists, landowners, public agencies and local communities made the deliberate decision to protect one of North Carolina’s most important ecological and cultural landscapes,” Bacon said in an emailed statement to Coastal Review. “It would be a profound mistake to unravel that achievement with proposed Wilmington Harbor Dredging Project, which would threaten permanent harm to protected wetlands, wildlife habitat, historic rice fields built by the hands of enslaved African Americans and the historic Gullah Geechee cultural landscape. Before moving forward with what would be irreversible losses, we should be certain the project’s economic rationale still holds, and that every environmental and cultural consequence has been transparently and scientifically evaluated. Once these resources are compromised, nothing can fully bring them back.”

The busiest, most popular route in North Carolina’s vehicle ferry system — the first and, until recently, the largest system in the country — has been between Hatteras and Ocracoke islands on the Outer Banks. Until the state budget was signed into law last month, no proposal to toll the only vehicle access to Ocracoke Island had made it to the governor’s desk. Now it’s part of a provision in a bill that requires tolls be established and implemented for the state’s four free vehicle ferry routes.

The law provided barely six months to develop a plan, identify funding, build the physical and digital infrastructure and inform the public. Immediately, requests were made to extend the Jan. 1 deadline; letters were written, amendments were offered. And during last week’s North Carolina General Assembly sessions to adjust the budget bill, legislators who pushed the tolling provision refused to budge.

“There’s no way,” said Sen. Bobby Hanig, a Currituck County Republican, in response to Coastal Review’s questions regarding the majority’s refusal to consider an extension. “Everyone involved is working their tail off to make this happen … but it’s going to be impossible.”

As Hanig sees it, legislative leaders insisting on the accelerated schedule for tolling show they are “agenda driven” because so little thought has been put into addressing the impacts on the people who use the ferries, or even on the complexity of tolling the sprawling system that serves diverse needs and populations. For instance, school buses were exempted at the last minute, he said, but what about state-owned vehicles, student drivers, emergency workers, waste management trucks, delivery drivers, essential workers?

“You can tell it’s agenda-driven by how it’s probably the worst-drafted provision in the budget,” said Hanig, adding that he had drafted seven amendments to address the deficiencies, including the implementation date for tolling, but legislators at last week’s session wouldn’t hear any of them.

Even the purported reason for tolling doesn’t measure up, he said.

“You know they’re doing this under the ruse of putting it toward new ferry purchases. Well, the best-case scenario, from talking to people that are working on this is, ‘Probably the best we will net is $5 million a year.’ Well, you know, a sound class ferry costs $60 (million). So do the math.”

Telephone messages and emails to Sen. Vickie Sawyer, R-Iredell, and Sen. Mike Lazzara, R-Onslow, both proponents of the tolling measure and its Jan. 1 implementation, yielded no reply.

At the very least, Hanig said, it makes sense to wait for the state auditor to complete the audit of the Ferry Division that is underway and is expected to be presented to the legislature at the start of the 2027 session in January.

Signed by Gov. Josh Stein on July 7, the budget bill’s ferry provision requires tolls be set to fund vessel replacement and upgrades as specified by the Ferry Division’s schedule. The tolling infrastructure and technology must be covered by funds in the division’s operational budget. In addition, the law included an annual systemwide pass for residents and active-duty military to be set at $150 per vehicle, but provided no exemptions or discounts.

Also, Stein noted after signing the bill that he had found the ferry toll provision problematic. “North Carolina’s ferries for many are not a luxury; they’re an essential part of our state’s transportation system that residents rely on for daily life,” the governor said in a statement. “In many cases, ferries are the only practical way for families to access jobs, schools and health care.”

The Ocracoke Access Alliance, which advocates for the ferries, had sent a letter to legislators asking for the tolling to be delayed for a year to provide a more realistic timeframe to set up a program. Alliance Executive Director Justin LeBlanc told Coastal Review that the group had requested an allowance for a free annual residential pass for full-time residents of Ocracoke, “so that we would have at least one route available to us to be able to go to from our homes for free.”

Neither request was granted.

Until recent years, islanders had successfully fought back each time tolling of the Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry bubbled up in Raleigh. Since the only way to “drive” on and off the island is on a vehicular ferry, islanders contended ferries are to them the same as a highway like U.S. 64, which is not tolled in northeastern North Carolina, is for other state residents.

But this time, LeBlanc said that it was better to work with the state to find a reasonable way to help keep the ferry system operational. As stated in the 2024 Ferry Division Vessel Replacement Study, many of the 23 ferries in the state’s fleet are old, with an average age of 26 years in 2023 and the vessel Silver Lake at 55 years old. In today’s dollars, the ferries, which are categorized from small to large as river class, Hatteras class and sound class, cost anywhere from $25 million to $55 million per vessel.

LeBlanc said that the alliance had suggested rates of $20 per round trip, or $10 each way, for the Hatteras ferry, with adjustments for inflation over time.

“There is no established tolls in the legislation now,” he said.

The bill directs the Board of Transportation to develop the tolls under the Ferry Division’s advisement. Boiled down, LeBlanc said, the toll comes down to how much of ferry vessel replacement costs should be covered by tolls, and what is the replacement schedule?

“Because if you want to try to cover 100% of vessel replacement costs, tolls are going to be exorbitant,” he said.

In addition to the Hatteras-Ocracoke route, the Currituck-Knotts Island, Bayview-Aurora and Cherry Branch-Minnesott Beach routes have to date been free to ride. The Cedar Island-Ocracoke, Swan Quarter-Ocracoke and Southport-Fort Fisher routes, as well as the Ocracoke Express passenger ferry, are tolled. According to the ferry report, the 70-year-old North Carolina ferry system transported more than 1.5 million passengers and 700,000 vehicles in 2023, making it the second-largest state-run ferry system in the U.S., behind only Washington state.

While discussions continue behind the scenes, Ferry Division officials said they are fully engaged in the process and remain committed to providing access to the state’s coastal communities.

“The N.C. Department of Transportation Ferry Division will work closely with the N.C. Board of Transportation and stakeholders to execute the state budget requirement that tolls be established on all ferry routes,” Tim Hass, Ferry Division communications officer, said in an email. “In the coming months, we will begin discussions about the pricing system, method of tolling and other infrastructure that will be required for this implementation.”

Geologist Dr. Stan Riggs quoted the scientist Loren Eiseley, who said, “If there’s magic on this Earth, it’s contained in water,” to the more than 150 gathered Saturday for the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s 23^rd annual Pelican Awards.

“And water, if you think about it, is everywhere,” Riggs continued. “It’s everything. It’s what we’re made out of. It’s what drives our coastal system. Where the water comes in contact with the land, that’s a high, high-energy environment. Not on a pretty, sunny day, but when the storms come in, you know there’s energy there. There’s wind. There’s water. There’s power, and we have to learn to live with that. Doesn’t mean we pack our suitcases and walk away. We have to understand it.”

Riggs, professor emeritus of geology at East Carolina University, was at the podium inside Carteret Community College’s Joslyn Hall accepting his Lifetime Achievement Award “For Distinguished Leadership and Lifetime Excellence in Coastal Research, Science, and Stewardship.”

He was among the 13 individuals and groups recognized this year by the nonprofit organization’s staff in its office in Wanchese, headquarters in Carteret County, and office in Wrightsville Beach.

“Today we honor extraordinary people and partnerships that are making a lasting difference for North Carolina’s coast through collaboration, dedication, and shared commitment. Our honorees are helping to ensure a healthier coast for generations to come,” April Clark, president of the organization’s board of directors, said early in the program.

Riggs, who has been studying the coastal environment for more than 60 years, told the crowd that he had spent his career working with others to take a holistic approach in understanding the planet. About 15 years ago, he and other researchers representing a range of disciplines began pooling their resources to learn about North Carolina’s coastal systems.

“In 2010, there was a big change in North Carolina,” when some laws put in place in the 1970s and 1980s were threatened, and there was a population surge putting pressure on the coastal system and “we understood the science, but the science doesn’t do a darn bit of good for anybody if it’s just in a scientist’s head. And one of the things that became clear was that we weren’t making the science available to the public.”

He and a group of partners decided to start a foundation called North Carolina Land of Water, or NCLOW, that focuses on the education and application of science and its dissemination to the public. Then, in the late 2010s, he realized that there was a lot of information and data that nobody would ever see.

“So, I decided to sit down and start writing a book. One book led to two books, led to  — all of a sudden, I was up to number 10,” books that “I didn’t know what to do with.”

He then approached a bunch of publishers, but with the first book being around 850 pages, and wanting lots of photos, maps and history, a mixture of everything in the book, these companies “finally pointed their finger at me and said, ‘We’re in a business to make money, and you’re talking about a $200, $300 book,’” he said, in describing the rejections.

“I finally realized that ‘OK, if we’re going to make this happen, we got to do it ourselves’ but then it means we need a team of people who know how to do this,” he said, and a team appeared, leading to the recently published volume 1, “Cape Lookout National Seashore: Paradigm for a Coastal System Ethic.”

Riggs closed with words written by photographer and poet, John Riggs: “If water is life; abundant water is abundant life. And abundant life is abundant Spirit. She not only thrives in these wild places, she dances, she sings aloud, and she rages. My how she rages!”

Coastal historian

Historian Glenn Blackburn, professor emeritus of history at University of Virginia’s College at Wise, was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award “For Excellence in Coastal History and Conservation Writing.”

Blackburn, author of “Saving Great Places” and “A Spectacular Coast and Its Guardians” spent the last two decades researching the Coastal Federation’s growth from when it was founded in 1982 to becoming a leader in coastal protection and restoration.

Blackburn told the audience that he first learned about the organization 20 years ago when learned how the organization spent 10 years fighting the development of an undeveloped island that was habitat to birds and turtles. Then he learned about a fight early in the organization’s history to stop peat mining on the Albemarle peninsula, saving thousands of acres of wetlands.

“Shortly after that, the Stump Sound fight,” when the organization teamed with the community to stop a developer from ruining oysters and fishing in the Onslow County waters.

It “began to hit me,” Blackburn continued. “This is an environmental group that wins. That’s unusual. This is a story that needs to be told. That’s what got me started on these two history books.”

During his opening remarks, Executive Director Braxton Davis shared a list of the organization’s milestones, including that later this year the organization plans to have a grand opening for its new headquarters called the Coastal Protection and Restoration Center and event venue, Pelican Landing, located on N.C. Highway 24.

The effort to raise the funds to build the new center began in 2020, construction began in February 2025, and staff have moved in over the last month.

With the grand opening planned for this fall, the organization recognized its Capital Campaign Cabinet with a Coastal Visionary Award “For Extraordinary Leadership and Commitment to Establishing the Coastal Protection and Restoration Center.”

Chief Development Officer Sarah King, when presenting the award, said the “truly inspirational” group’s steadfast work “allowed us to raise over $10 million to establish new coastal protection and restoration center.”

As part of the Coastal Visionary Award, King recognized honorary chair, Hugh Cullman, who “was actually the very first person that we shared this idea with, and he was so encouraging.”

Vic Medlin, speaking for the family members attending, accepted the posthumous award for Cullman.

“He loved the North Carolina coast,” and “completely believed in the federation’s vision of providing a better place to live, work, and visit, and he believed in that vision, and he showed it in his donations,” Medlin said. “And on behalf of the Cullman family, we’d like to say thank you again.”

Cabinet Chair Charles C. Meeker said the campaign was a team effort and reminded him “that the federation has a lot of friends, friends who care about the federation and its work, friends who are willing to give substantial donations to make the campaign a success.”

Northeast coast awards

Joy Cook “For Leadership and Dedication to Coastal Protection, Recreation and Cultural Resources.”

Now retired, Cook dedicated nearly 30 years to North Carolina State Parks, including nine as superintendent of Jockey’s Ridge State Park, thanked the organization and its staff for being “one of the easiest and most wonderful relationships that I’ve had the honor of working with.”

Jayne Young “For Outstanding Volunteer Service Advancing Coastal Environmental Education.”

The retired educator, who was recognized for volunteering her time supporting coastal environmental education and inspiring students, told the audience that it is “an honor to be recognized for something we just have so much fun doing.” Having been an educator, “you never know the one that’s going to come back to you years later and say, ‘Well, remember when we did this, and because of that, we’re doing this now.’”

Sean Ellis “For Exceptional Volunteer Contributions to Coastal Stewardship and Community Service.”

The organization said Ellis is being recognized for his countless hours supporting the oyster shell recycling program and maintenance projects around the Wanchese office.

Ellis, who was unable to attend, said in a recording that the award means a lot to him, and thanked his family for their support, his friends at the Coastal Federation, and “most of all you, the sponsors and people who are here today, who keep this program going. Thank you for your continued support and confidence.”

Central coast awards

North River Laurel Road Ladies Outreach Committee “For Grassroots Leadership Advancing Coastal Resilience and Community Action.”

Based in Carteret County’s North River, Laurel Road, and Merrimon communities, the grassroots group was recognized for being trusted leaders and advocates who have “united neighborhoods, amplified local voices, and built partnerships that are helping these historic coastal communities respond to increasing coastal hazards,” according to the organization.

President Matilda Stewart and Vice President Mary Ann Monroe told the crowd that they were truly honored to receive the award on behalf of their community, adding that the “achievement belongs to us as a whole group. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned, it is that our big goals are only achieved with the help of others.” 

Jason Vanzant “For Inspiring Future Coastal Stewards Through Education and Partnership.”

The schools in parks specialist for Hammocks Beach State Park was previously a classroom teacher who focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, that has partnered with the Coastal Federation to connect students with nature-based solutions.

Vanzant said that he is both honored and humbled to receive the award that represents so many others, including the staff, rangers and superintendent of the state park.

Thomas L. Kirmeyer and Nan Bowles “For Dedicated Partnership and Commitment to Advance Watershed Restoration.”

The Coastal Federation recognized the couple for demonstrating “extraordinary conservation leadership” for selling their 8.25-acre waterfront property along Ward Creek in Carteret County at half its market value.

Bowles said that when she is asked what she does, “I respond, I’m a member of the marsh community of Ward’s Creek, along with my husband Tom and our dog Spot. We live on the edge of the forest, on the edge of the marsh, on the edge of Ward’s Creek, which flows in two directions, on the edge of North River, on the edge of Back Sound, on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, with water that flows around.

“In the 37-plus years we have lived here, we have gained interconnections with members of the community. Community members such as the other people who live on our road. Leaping lizards, jumping frogs, the mosquitoes who remind us of the importance of, that we can offer respect and honor, even when someone irritates Us. Dragonflies who are skillful at changing direction. Great blue herons who show us how to see the bigger picture. The marsh grass, black needle rush, and vibrant green spartina grass, both of them having strong, firm roots, and the jumping mullet bringing us healthy humor and laughter. And when we dig beneath these interconnections, we discover stories and lessons that have to point us the way to being the best humans we can be.”

Southeast coast awards

Lindsay Addison “For Dedicated Partnership Advancing Coastal Habitat Conservation and Restoration.”

The coastal biologist for Audubon North Carolina has spent more than a decade protecting coastal birds and their habitats.

Addison told the audience that she is appreciative and honored that the Coastal Federation selected Audubon North Carolina’s Coastal Program for this award and recognition.

“I would be remiss if I didn’t say Audubon North Carolina manages 40% of the state’s nesting coastal waterbirds, and the way I feel about that is I feel to be a very fortunate, very lucky observer of these of these birds, these habitats, and in these landscapes,” Addison said, adding birds are an important part of the overall coastal ecosystems, and important indicators of the health of the coast.

Conserve the Point “For Community Leadership in Protecting and Stewarding the South End of Topsail Island.” 

The nonprofit organization based on Topsail Island formed in 2022 to preserve and protect the south end of Topsail Beach, called The Point, from development. In 2024, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust purchased the 150-acre property to save the undeveloped property.

The group’s secretary Nancy Pettens, said on behalf of the board, that the award is a “tremendous honor” that belongs to every donor, every volunteer, everyone who thought this place was worth saving. “Most of all, I think it belongs to the Topsail Beach community, near and far, whose passion and generosity made it a reality for us and for future generations.”

Warren Darrell “For Outstanding Volunteer Leadership in Coastal Resilience and Community Engagement.”

The organization called him an “exceptional volunteer whose passion for learning and sharing coastal science inspires communities across southeastern North Carolina.”

“I love this coast,” Darrell said. “The work of the Coastal Federation helps to mitigate the harmful effects of global warming by absorbing atmospheric carbonate our shoreline from erosion and by providing his biological habitat.”

Coastal media partnership

Coastal Review, which is published by the Coastal Federation, this year recognized the Hatteras Island-based online news service, Island Free Press “For Excellence in Collaborative Coastal Community Journalism.”

The two publications have partnered for the last decade to expand coverage of critical coastal issues affecting Hatteras and Ocracoke islands.

Editor Joy Crist said she and owner Donna Barrett were “beyond honored to receive this award” and thanked the Coastal Federation for “allowing us to cover so many stories that are positive or hopeful in a news cycle that’s busy and sometimes discouraging.”

The state’s long-term strategy to support coastal fisheries by improving and protecting habitat is currently undergoing the required five-year update.

With the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP, steering committee’s approval Wednesday during a web conference, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Marine Fisheries staff are to present over the next few months the draft 2026 amendment to the Environmental Management, Marine Fisheries and Coastal Resources commissions.

The three state commissions that adopt rules for air and water quality, state fisheries, and coastal development, respectively, are to decide at their next meetings on sending the draft chapters out for public comment.

The commissions adopted the first CHPP in December 2004, a directive of the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997. The plan is to provide “information on the habitats’ distribution and abundance, ecological functions and importance to fish production, status and trends, threats to the habitats, and includes recommendations to address threats,” according to the division. The steering committee is made up of members of the three commissions.

Charlie Deaton, habitat protection supervisor with the Division of Marine Fisheries, explained to the steering committee that the four draft issue papers address ecosystem-based management, strategic habitat areas, planning for multi-decadal wetland change, and seagrass protection and restoration.

The 2016 CHPP serves as the base plan and was updated in 2021. The goal for the final adoption of the 2026 amendment is in November, he said.

Division of Marine Fisheries biologist Michelle Brodeur explained that the 2021 CHPP amendment established the foundation to improve monitoring coastal habitats.

Some progress has been made but the actions put forward were largely dependent on acquiring new, long-term funding and “that’s brought us in this cycle to look at alternative ways to incorporate our ecosystem data into our management decisions with the resources that we do have,” Brodeur said.

“In this issue paper, we discuss how DMF currently uses ecosystem data and management and then describe a framework moving forward for using what ecosystem data we do have to inform our decision-making,” she said. Some of the recommendations include determining management goals, determining ecosystem indicators and establishing appropriate thresholds. From there, work through the process of creating a progress report to fulfill “our 2021 CHPP action of providing a public-friendly ecosystem report card for our stakeholders.”

The draft paper on strategic habitat areas, Brodeur continued, looks at confirming that certain locations qualify as the locations described as having high-quality, connected habitats.

The process to identify these areas began in 2006 in order to “protect the biodiversity and ecological function of coastal habitats through non-regulatory approaches,” according to the presentation. Researchers and staff nominated locations from 2009 to 2018, and the sites recommended in the central and Cape Fear area, called regions 3 and 4 in the paper, were evaluated in a four-year study completed in 2021.

The study validates “our initial goals of identifying areas that provide exceptional habitat function by supporting a higher abundance and diverse fish populations,” Brodeur said. The results of the validation study, in combination with the findings that the strategic habitat areas had a more diverse estuary landscape, higher abundance of structured habitats, and less alteration in areas outside of the strategic habitat areas, lend further support for the designation of the nominated areas.

Due to the time and cost of the 2021 study, staff plan to explore the possibility of using existing independent sampling for proposed strategic habitat areas in the northern two regions, which are the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds, Brodeur said.

Fisheries Resource Specialist Derek Detweiler told the handful connected via the web conference that the chapter for planning for wetland change concentrates on thin-layer placement, or TLP, which is a “coastal wetland restoration or enhancement strategy whereby material (often dredged sediment) is intentionally placed on a wetland to increase its elevation while maintaining hydrology and inundation durations necessary for native (targeted) wetland vegetation to persist,” according to DEQ.

Detweiler said thin-layer placement was selected because of its potential to promote sediment accretion and restore impaired habitat by increasing marsh elevation and surface area through what is known as the beneficial use and placement of dredge material.

“For the purpose of this CHPP amendment, TLP is viewed strictly as a tool for the restoration and enhancement of existing wetlands, and not for the disposal of dredge material, not for the creation of new wetlands, or not for the mitigation of other wetland impacts,” he said.

The draft paper goes into extensive detail about the process Detweiler called “relatively unexplored” on a large scale in the state, highlights different case studies across the Eastern United States, includes site assessment and monitoring guidance the Division of Coastal Management developed in 2022, and regulation, policy and permitting aspects.

“We are interested in how TLP is viewed under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act and Dredge and Fill Law,” he said. The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for both CAMA and Dredge and Fill that are carried out by the state Division of Coastal Management, part of DEQ.

Any permit application for TLP would be denied under current regulations but could still be eligible for a variance from the Coastal Resources Commission, he said, adding that the growing interest in the process could lead to a need for rulemaking.

Detweiler noted that the projects in other states have varying degrees of success.

“The most important consideration with successful thin-layer placement is placement thickness relative to the local tidal frame,” he explained, “Ensuring that any elevation you raise within the existing marsh retains an elevation between sea level and mean high water to really promote native species growth within those marshes.” Those factors vary specific to location and the best past forward would be to evaluate projects in North Carolina on a specific case-by-case basis.

The goal for the paper, Detweiler said, is to highlight failures and successes. What they don’t want to do with this section is offer any endorsement of thin-layer placement or imply that the state must have a certain number of these projects completed within the next CHPP cycle.

“We just want to provide that information as an option moving forward because it has sparked interest in the state,” he said. “Commissioners and other stakeholders can use that information to kind of make that decision moving forward for each project.”

Marsh migration continues to be a priority for the CHPP, he added, and continued efforts will build on guidance from the 2021 CHPP, such as continuing to support and collaborate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation on marsh migration planning. The nonprofit Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review

The draft submerged aquatic vegetation, or SAV, protection and restoration chapter considers the progressive loss of seagrasses in North Carolina waters and what can be done to slow the process.

The findings in the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Partnership’s recently updated report to a 2021 study on high salinity seagrass extent to “continued loss of high salinity seagrasses coastwide at a rate of a little over 1% per year, and we’ve lost 50% of our continuous meadows,” Deaton said about the report using data from aerial surveys conducted from 2006 to 2020.

Related: North Carolina’s seagrass habitat continues to decline: Study

“A lot of those are converting from continuous coverage to patchy coverage, and notable losses on the western, deeper side of the seagrass beds, particularly those that blanket the Outer Banks. So, in short, our seagrass beds are disappearing, and they’re becoming patchier over time. And this is a trend that’s been holding up for a while,” he said.

CHPP’s 2021 update proposes actions to protect seagrass, including proposed water quality standards. Researchers determined how clear the water needs to be for sunlight to reach the plants, a necessary part of the photosynthesis process. Getting the Environmental Management Commission to approve the standards is running behind though.

Deaton said the intent is for DEQ staff to continue facilitating “progress on the proposed water clarity standard to protect SAV, and we anticipate this coming back to the EMC sometime next year.”

The second part of the seagrass chapter, Marine Fisheries Habitat and Enhancement Section Chief Zach Harrison said, considers seagrass physical protection. The push to investigate what authority the Marine Fisheries Commission has to protect seagrass was spawned by a request in 2023 to look at trawling. The commission then in 2024 directed division staff to look at more comprehensive seagrass protections that the commission could mandate.

Staff found that the commission’s authority includes impacts to the entire ecology that supports marine and estuarine resources, and that most habitats addressed in the CHPP can be managed by the Marine Fisheries Commission.

Deaton said that the final section of the seagrass protection draft addresses proposed permitting for the growing interest in active seagrass restoration from the private sector.

“We’ve put together in this CHPP the pieces of what we think kind of the most common upcoming SAV restoration techniques might look like,” he said, and details a permitting framework.

“We’re going to call for a work group to continue to explore both some ecological concerns surrounding the practice and potential barriers and identify research needs,” he said. “One of the potential downsides that comes with sourcing from a broader area is increasing the likelihood of an incidental import of an invasive species. So, trying to manage some of those concerns with transplanting will be important moving forward. And additionally, coordinating with aquatic reed control treatments, because the last thing you want to do is restore your SAV bed in an area that might get sprayed for invasives.”

Funding has been cut for a state-run environmental education program and the two-member team that manages the 30-plus year outreach effort, a move widely criticized by educators and environmental groups.

Gov. Josh Stein on July 7 signed the $34 billion 2025-26 budget, the first full budget in more than two years, but it did not include the $275,000 needed to run the North Carolina Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs.

The office’s Environmental Education Program Manager Lisa Tolley and Environmental Education Program Consultant Marty Wiggins told Coastal Review during a conversation last week that, just days before the Fourth of July holiday, they had confirmation that their program and positions had been eliminated.

“We’re trying to figure out the path forward for the program,” Tolley said. “That’s where we are.”

There had been talk about the office within the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality being axed during summer 2025 when the North Carolina General Assembly attempted to draft a budget, but when the process stalled, a mini budget was passed that didn’t address the program.

In addition to establishing the first Environmental Education Certification Program in the nation, the now-eliminated office is a hub of environmental education information that connects educators with resources, events, grants, jobs and facilities through the website, online calendar, and email lists.

In a 12-month window, more than a million have interacted with the office through its website, event calendar and social media, which its website states.

Since finding out that the Office of Environmental Education, often called the O of EE or OEE, was eliminated, the public has been rallying behind the office. They’re showing their support by sharing their stories online and with representatives ahead of the legislature reconvening Monday. That’s when committees are rumored to begin reviewing budget corrections.

The nonprofit Environmental Educators of North Carolina, which collaborates with the state-run program, encouraged the public to reach out to House and Senate members “about how the resources and programs provided by the Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs supports your work, your job training, your classroom, your community, or your business. Ask them to propose a technical correction to the state budget that will reinstate funding to support administration of the EE Certification program and the technical support and resources they provide.”

This is not the first time funding has been in jeopardy. “We have faced this challenge before — in 2011 and in 2017 — and work from the EE Community and supporters saved this vital office, and we can do it again,” the nonprofit states.

Wiggins said Wednesday that he and Tolley both were overwhelmed by the support for the program.

“Several program participants have shared how participating in the Environmental Education Certification program has changed their lives and has helped them find jobs, start their own businesses or create new career pathways. North Carolina has the strongest environmental education community in the country, and we are proud of the work we have done to support educators, schools and communities,” he said.

NCDEQ leadership has spoken out about the program being eliminated. NCDEQ Secretary Reid Wilson explained to the Environmental Management Commission during its meeting July 9 in Raleigh that the budget was overall “very positive for this department,” but there are concerns.

“One, the budget eliminates the Office of Environmental Education and the two employees who work there,” Wilson said, noting that the “incredibly successful and helpful program” had been around for 30 years, “and it is no more. So, we are trying to figure out what to do with that.”

He told the commission that the program has certified more than “1,600 educators and that knowledge has been spread to thousands and thousands of children, K through 12.”

The department also noted its concern in a press release the day prior about the budget eliminating the office, which has a long history of supporting K-12 educators to advance science education, and improving “public’s environmental literacy and stewardship of our natural resources.”

A DEQ spokesperson told Coastal Review that, as of Wednesday, there had been no update on the program’s status.

Tolley explained how the office got its start in the mid-1990s to reduce inefficiencies in the state government. At the time, there were smaller environmental education programs offered throughout the state, and the Office of Environmental Education was set up to streamline access to these resources.

“In the late ’90s, when the fish kills happened on the Neuse River, the staff got an appropriation to do an education campaign on river basins. I was hired to do that, and so the river basin highway signs you see are part of that campaign around the state,” Tolley said.

More program managers were brought in who focused on K-12 education, adult education, and then partnerships with business and community, but over the years cuts have brought the staff down to the two, she said, adding that they have worked really hard “to form partnerships with other groups so that we could operate a large statewide program with just two people.”

Tolley said that the office partnered with 10 other states to develop the custom form to add events to the calendar, jobs board and grants.

“The main program we run is the Environmental Education Certification Program, and that’s for classroom teachers, informal educators like park rangers or those at science centers, science museums, or botanical gardens, to name a few.

“We really are set up to serve teachers and educators throughout the state, and we kind of have used the program to build the capacity across the state for other small counties and big counties to offer environmental ed programming,” she said.

Tolley said last week that there were 600 currently working to earn certification, and there are more than 700 who maintain active status with the program.

The self-paced effort requires educators to complete seven instructional workshops, 50 hours of outdoor environmental education experiences and 30 hours of experiences that promote awareness of the state’s environmental education resources to earn the certification. Certified educators are required to complete 50 hours of continuing education every five years to maintain an active status.

The office also has partnered with the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences to host livestreamed talks, and with the state Department of Public Instruction to cohost gatherings of classroom teachers and nonformal educators like those at science education facilities and offers a K-12 environmental literacy plan for teachers.

The state office collaborates with the Environmental Educators of North Carolina, an organization that has tailored many of the programs and workshops to meet certification requirements.

Wiggins said that, since it’s just him and Tolley, they don’t have the capacity to teach workshops, but the nonprofit has designed what it offers to meet certification program guidelines, “That’s been a great partnership.”

Renee Strnad, Project Learning Tree state coordinator whose office is housed in N.C. State University Extension Forestry, is a past president of the nonprofit. She directs the environmental education curriculum, which provides professional development to K-12 educators to help them implement environmental education in their classrooms.

Strnad was hosting a Sustainable Forestry Teachers Experience workshop Tuesday in Alamance County when she took a few minutes to speak to Coastal Review about how much she values the environmental education office.

“For me, the whole idea that the office serves as this clearinghouse, as a one-stop shop, helps me advertise my programs to educators broadly. It’s very difficult to get information out to teachers directly.”

She added that the office has close ties with the Department of Public Instruction, which ensures that nonformal educators are aware of the newest language or pedagogy that they need to help teachers include environmental education in their classroom. The office serves as a “connection point for all those state agencies that are also trying to reach K-12 educators, kind of that bridge to the Department of Public Instruction,” she said.

Strnad acknowledged that there is criticism about the intentions of environmental education, but the certification program “outlines what good environmental education is, that you’re not taking a stance.”

The educator learns how to offer information that helps people think critically about issues and understand that a solution to an environmental problem in their community might not work in another community because of varied factors. The program also helped legitimize environmental education as a field, and many states have used North Carolina’s EE certification program as a model and a basis for theirs.

“We were the first state in the country to actually do an environmental education certification program, which was mandated by the state with the Environmental Education Act,” in 1993, she said. The environmental education program formalized a way for people to call themselves environmental educators.

It’s sad knowing that the state has this amazing history and other states have looked to North Carolina as a model program, and the funding is completely being cut, Strnad said.

The education team at the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, are all certified. Education Director Sara Hallas, who joined the nonprofit organization in 2008, said that the state program helped shape her as an educator.

“Since I moved here from out of state to start working, it greatly impacted my ability to refine my skills and knowledge about the NC coast and its unique habitats. It was a tremendous resource that helped me build a set of teaching tools when I was just starting my career; these tools are still useful today,” Hallas said in an email. “Additionally, they provide continued support through networking with other EE professionals across the state. The certification is well designed and requires continued education hours, which have helped me stay sharp and continue learning new things! I hope they can find a solution to continue being a resource for North Carolina.”

ROCKY POINT – New Hanover County residents and environmentalists continue their pushback against Martin Marietta’s plan to scale up Castle Hayne quarry mining operations, arguing that the company should further explore other expansion alternatives that would lessen the threat to vital wetlands and water quality.

During a public hearing Tuesday night, more than a dozen speakers pressed the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources to reject the construction supply company’s request for a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certificate to enlarge its Castle Hayne quarry by 358 acres.

“Let me first say that I understand the need for construction materials for a growing area but also know that we have significant natural areas that should and must be protected,” said Roger Shew, a coastal geologist at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and the first to step up to the mic in the hearing hosted at Heide Trask Senior High School in Rocky Point.

The Island Creek and Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain includes significant natural areas, where riverine swamp forests provide high levels of biodiversity, great habitat quality, nutrient absorption, carbon storage, sediment retention, and recreation, he said.

The company would mitigate wetland loss at a 2:1 ratio, either by purchasing riparian wetland credits or paying into the fund that buys wetland areas. Stormwater management measures would also be employed to minimize wetlands impacts and preserve water quality downstream. This would include a 50-foot minimum wooded buffer around wetlands.

Martin Marietta’s preferred plan to expand limestone mining operations would impact 143.46 acres of wetlands of medium and high quality, and 9.7 acres of open water that connect to those classified as primary nursery areas, strategic habitat areas, and essential fish habitat.

Shew said Tuesday that it is likely even more wetlands would be lost because mining requires pit dewatering, which “creates a cone of depression on lower water tables.”

“If mining is done in the lowermost floodplain area, flooding will be even more frequent, and of course sediment can be washed in the surrounding wetlands,” he said.

He and other opponents argue that the company could pursue alternatives that would better protect the environment and maintain profitable mining operations.

Shew suggested that mining operations occur largely outside of the floodplain and instead in upland areas of Castle Hayne and Rocky Point, which would conserve significant wetlands.

He also pointed to the company’s Rocky Point quarry, which sits about 3½ miles away from the Castle Hayne site. The Rocky Point quarry includes upland areas that are not directly connected with the significant riverine swamp forests along the Northeast Cape Fear River, Shew said.

He cautioned that if these areas are mined, land immediately adjacent to Interstate 40 must be designated as a buffer zone to avoid the risk of causing sinkholes.

“I hope you see there are options that may allow us to minimize costs of our significant natural areas, protect our waters, and provide the needed acreage for mines,” he said.

In order to obtain a 401 water quality certification, the Division of Water Resources requires that a project have no practical alternatives, that it minimizes adverse impacts to surface water and wetlands and avoids degrading ground or surface waters and causing indirect degradation that violates downstream water quality standards.

“Decades of industrialization and development of the Cape Fear River Basin limits the river’s ability to absorb the impacts of a quarry expansion in its direct floodplain,” said Page Turner, conservation biologist, chair the Cape Fear Audubon Society conservation committee and North Carolina Wildlife Federation conservation manager. “Loss of these wetlands and contamination of the waterway has a direct impact on the water quality of the Cape Fear River and should not be permitted.”

The Alliance for Cape Fear Trees Executive Director Isabelle Shepherd described the river as one that is “already carrying an enormous burden.”

“It receives runoff and pollution from the most densely populated parts of our state, from textile manufacturing, industrial discharge, wastewater treatment plants, concentrated animal feeding operations, and countless other upstream sources,” she said. “By the time that water reaches us, our wetlands and the trees within are among the last natural filters standing between those pollutants and our communities. When we remove wetlands, we remove one of nature’s most effective and irreplaceable water treatment systems. Once these wetlands are evacuated, they cannot simply be rebuilt elsewhere.”

Megan Teachey issued an ultimatum at the hearing, saying that she will pursue a court order known as a writ of mandamus against the Division of Water Resources to enforce its legal obligations if the division does not perform an independent aquifer impact study and verify state ownership of the affected submerged lands.

“The state does not own these waters,” she said. “It holds them in a strict fiduciary trust. Blasting, dredging and injection of industrial chemicals into our aquifer is happening without legal authority. This is a direct offense against the common people and the public trust that we are owed.”

New Hanover County resident Kelly McConnell expressed concerns that the proposed expansion of the Castle Hayne quarry would exacerbate flooding in the area.

“This area is already at high risk and this risk is increasing,” she said. “There are alternatives available that do not impact the wetlands as much and do not impact water quality. I appreciate the need for additional mining. Do it if truly needed, but with much less environmental impact.”

Fellow resident Margie Gewirtzman, her young daughter standing next to her side, said she is particularly concerned for the health of her daughter and other children who live in the area of the quarry.

“Everything that has been said here today sounds really dangerous for my daughter,” Gewirtzman said, adding that once wetlands are destroyed, they will not be the same.

“And it’s so perfect right now. How could we destroy it?” she asked.

The division is accepting written comments on Martin Marietta’s request for a 401 water quality certification through Aug. 13.

Comments may be submitted online. Refer to project No. 20260387, version 1, project name “Castle Hayne.”

Comments may also be submitted by mail to Stephanie Goss, 401 Permitting, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699-1617.

MANNS HARBOR – Just weeks after the first community meeting was held here to discuss an upcoming project to construct long-sought wildlife crossings under a section of U.S. Highway 64 by the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, the North Carolina General Assembly passed its budget that included — much to the surprise of some — millions in recurring funds statewide for wildlife crossings and habitat connectivity.

For conservationists who have for years advocated for the passages as necessary safety measures for human and animal alike, it was fantastic news.

“We’re extremely excited about the $10.2 million in the state budget for wildlife crossings!” Ron Sutherland, chief scientist at the nonprofit Wildlands Network, said in an email.

“We knew there was bipartisan support for the measure, but it has been so hard to predict anything coming out of the state legislature for so long.

“From what we can tell, this is now the largest commitment by any state on a recurring basis for wildlife crossings,” he added, “so we’re grateful for the leadership on this issue.” 

Recently, Sutherland, among others, had worked to help raise $6.25 million in matching funds toward the U.S. 64 project that included an anonymous donation and contributions from Wildlands Network, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. Last year, the North Carolina Department of Transportation was awarded a $25 million grant from the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program established by the 2021 $1 trillion federal infrastructure law.

According to the department, the proposed $31.25 million project would construct 11 wildlife passages of various sizes, with corresponding fencing along 2.5 miles of U.S. 64 from the east end of East Lake on the Dare County mainland to west of Robertson Landing Road. The preliminary design and environmental review process is targeted for completion in 2027. The project, which is included in the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, is slated to begin in 2028 and be completed in 2031.

At the public meeting on June 23 in Manns Harbor — a small community near East Lake — Matt Seymour, NCDOT’s project manager, explained that most of the project, built on swampy land and much of it adjacent to canals, would involve construction of underpasses, which would require elevating the road. Some crossings would provide small wooden bridges and little tunnels for animals. Fences along the road, fronted with vegetation, would serve as guides to lead the animals to the passages.

“Planning and design will also consider construction access, maintaining traffic flow on this critical route, and minimizing impacts to nearby canals and swamps, private property, utilities, wetlands, historic sites and community resources,” NCDOT said on its online project site.

Several residents in the audience expressed concerns about locating crossings too close to private property.

“The bigger ones, where we’re anticipating bear and wolf, they won’t be in residential areas,” Seymour responded.  “We have to be sure we’re strategic with the fencing.”

Seymour said that NCDOT is working closely with staff from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on designing the crossings, as well as listening to concerns and suggestions from residents who coexist with wildlife in the area.

“The Service is a project partner and collaborator on the wildlife crossing grant,” Rebekah Martin, manager of the Coastal North Carolina National Wildlife Refuge Complex, wrote in a later email. “We are particularly involved in planning, permitting coordination, and refuge-level decision-making to ensure the project meets refuge purpose and mission requirements while benefitting both public safety and wildlife.”

Notably, the Alligator River refuge is populated not only by thousands of wild animal species, ranging from tiny salamanders to massive black bears and — yes — alligators, it is the only habitat in the world with endangered wild red wolves. Many thousands of the refuge creatures, including numerous rare wolves, have been among the annual victims of vehicle traffic. 

Swerving to avoid deer carcasses on the dark road, veering around huge alligators that emerge in headlights and bracing when an animal is accidentally hit have been regular survival tactics for local drivers on U.S. 64, which crisscrosses more than 158,000 acres of protected refuge lands. The highway also cuts through the 1.7 million-acre recovery area of private and public lands in Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell and Washington counties that have been intensively managed for the red wolves by the refuge since 1987.

But U.S. 64 in Dare County also serves as a major travel corridor back and forth to the popular Outer Banks beaches, as well as a critical hurricane evacuation route, with millions of vacationers driving through areas thick with animals moving through the landscape and dashing across roads.

Over the last decade, in fact, vehicle strikes are the leading cause of mortality in red wolves, according to the Red Wolf Essential Survival Crossings Under Evacuation Route (RESCUER) project report.

Although the latest population is not yet available, red wolves number about two dozen or more in the management area.

“Installing wildlife fencing to reduce (collisions) along with multiple wildlife underpass structures to provide habitat connectivity for species including the critically endangered Red Wolf, black bear, white-tailed deer, mesomammals, small mammals, and herpetofauna is an essential mitigation measure to address impacts from US 64 through Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge,” according to the report.

Numerous hot spots for wolf mortality that had been identified by recent research, according to the report, are targeted in the first phase of the proposed wildlife crossings project along U.S. 64.

Looking back: Conservation group’s US 64 study finds ‘remarkable carnage’

Looking ahead to the additional wildlife crossings made possible by the recurring state funding, Sutherland said that the money will be spent statewide, including in Western North Carolina, and likely on the highest-priority projects for protecting both wildlife and human safety.

“It is too soon to know if new crossings for US 64 will be in the mix or if the state is going to focus on other regions given the existing $31 million project for 64,” Sutherland said in an email, responding to questions from Coastal Review. “I suspect there may be some enthusiasm for repairing the existing three crossings further west on 64 between Plymouth and Roper — the crossings are fine but the fencing is buried in the tree line and apparently full of holes for wildlife to sneak through.”

Dozens of people from across the country warned at a public hearing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal federal drinking water limits for “forever chemicals” erodes public trust and endangers millions of Americans.

Those who spoke Tuesday during the online hearing the EPA hosted that lasted more than seven hours resoundingly opposed the agency’s plans to strike down enforceable standards for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and push the deadline in which water utilities must comply with limits for related compounds PFOA and PFOS by two years.

“These are dangerous to our health and incredibly persistent in the environment,” said Kathy Westman, a registered nurse and member of the Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments, a global nursing organization. “Nurses witness firsthand the health impacts and harms. PFAS can increase risk of certain cancers, alter endocrine responses and impact pregnancy outcomes as you all know. You can’t make America healthy while allowing toxic chemicals to flow. Please protect our citizens.”

Westman was among a host of healthcare professionals, researchers, waterkeepers, lawyers, environmental advocates, retirees, high school and college students, and private citizens who urged the EPA against rescinding current federal standards for PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA, commonly referred to as GenX. They spoke from their offices and homes from the Carolinas to California, Maine to Florida, and Texas to Illinois.

They concurred that extending the deadline for water utilities to comply with enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031 would only further delay drinking water safeguards for Americans.

The Trump administration argues that giving drinking water systems the flexibility to opt in for the two-year extension would give them more time to sample source water for contaminants, test new controls, and train their workforce to manage those controls. And, the argument continues, rescinding current federal standards for PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS and GenX is necessary to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Under the proposal, the EPA would provide nearly $1 billion in new funding to states to address PFAS in drinking water and another $1 billion through the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities program.

Opponents of the proposal argue that it is contrary to the message the EPA is trying to send by providing that funding.

Madhvi Chittoor, a 15-year-old climate activist and United Nations child adviser from Colorado, said rolling back PFAS protections “sends us in the wrong direction.”

“The hazard index is important because people are exposed to complex, multiple PFAS mixtures and removing it ignores the cumulative risk that families,” she said. “Weakening these protections shifts the burden from polluters to families and local water utilities, while disproportionately impacting low-income communities. That is not environmental justice.”

The EPA now categorizes nearly 15,000 different PFAS.

PFAS are used for the ability to repel water, stains and grease to produce a host of consumer goods, including food containers, waterproof gear, stain-resistant carpet and makeup.

They are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.

Some of the known human health effects of exposure to PFAS include weakened immunity, low birth weight in newborns, thyroid disease, and certain types of cancer.

Dr. Jamie DeWitt, a former associate professor at East Carolina University and now professor at Oregon State University, was a member of the EPA’s PFAS science advisory board that reviewed the science behind the maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, for PFAS established under the current rule.

“I can say with confidence that the rules for these four PFAS were based on the best available science,” she said. “The only guarantee the public has of being protected from these PFAS in their drinking water, including communities impacted by high levels of these chemicals and populations especially vulnerable to these chemicals, is to let the rules stand. The agency has an obligation to protect the public’s health from hazardous contaminants in drinking water, and rescinding the rule is really the unlawful thing to do. Let this rule stand to ensure that the public is protected.”

For more than two decades, DeWitt has been studying the toxicity of various PFAS, including those found in the Cape Fear River.

Chemours, a DuPont spinoff, directly discharged PFAS, including GenX, from its Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County for some four decades.

Just last month, the U.S. Justice Department announced a proposed $450 million, multistate settlement agreement with Chemours over PFAS pollution.

Critics argue that, other than a $22.5 million civil penalty to be paid over three years to the EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the settlement terms fail to directly put money toward reducing PFAS discharges.

Gov. Josh Stein said that he expects the settlement will have little, if any, meaningful impact in North Carolina, where state-led sampling found that in 2024 more than 300 public water systems serving more than 3 million residents contained PFAS levels above the EPA-established maximum levels.

Stein recently signed a $34.4 billion state budget that boosts funding for PFAS-related initiatives through the Department of Environmental Quality. This includes $45 million for PFAS water infrastructure projects, $10.2 million for the Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund to sample private wells and supply alternative water, and $3 million for DEQ staffing, water testing and sampling.

Dr. Micah Nishigaki, a family medicine physician in Texas, said the current federal drinking water standards for PFAS are critical to public health.

“We’ve known for decades now how PFAS are linked to liver diseases, low birth weights, certain cancers, damage to the nervous immune systems, and higher cholesterol levels,” she said. “These pollutants lurk in our water, which millions of us drink and use for our daily needs. The 2024 PFAS ruling estimated that with these current regulations we can prevent tens of thousands of illnesses and thousands of deaths. That means less people needing to be hospitalized, less chronic illnesses worsened by these toxins, reduced strain our overburdened health care system, and fewer death certificates of loved ones who suffered from the effects of these pollutants that we would have to sign. Weakening these regulations wouldn’t do anyone’s health good.”

Marc Boom, senior director of public affairs with the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization made up of more than 750 former EPA staff and political appointees, said the EPA should be moving faster to protect people from PFAS, not weaken standards, “before communities ever receive the benefits.”

“Families across the country have already waited years for protections against these forever chemicals,” he said. “This proposal would make them wait even longer. The central problem is that the EPA is not following the science. EPA is not saying these PFAS are safe. They are not showing that the health risks have gone away.”

Trevor Hickman, an environmental and process engineer from New Jersey, asked the EPA to stick by its current regulation to make water utilities comply with enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS by 2029.

“I think it all just boils down to the fact that it’s much easier to remove these chemicals at the source in the drinking water rather than deal with the ramifications down the line,” he said. “We’re talking about spending 10, 20, 100 times as much money in the coming years instead of dealing with the problem now. And putting it off two additional years is putting two more years of chemicals into our water, into our land and cleaning them up once they’re there is so much more difficult. To everyone in the EPA, I think you know what the right thing to do is, and I think that when you go to sleep at night, if you make the right decision, you’ll rest easy.”

Lawmakers on Thursday sent their approved and long-awaited budget to Gov. Josh Stein, who on Tuesday signed the $34.4 billion spending plan, one that includes notable coastal environmental spending and policy provisions, as well as a blow for commuters who rely on the state ferries that have long been free to ride.

Republican leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly unveiled the measure, Senate Bill 257, on Tuesday, June 30. Despite short notice and the exclusion of Democrats in negotiations, the bill passed both chambers last week with bipartisan support. It’s the state’s first full budget in more than two years.

On Thursday, Stein told reporters he would carefully weigh its provisions, some of which further diminish the governor’s appointment powers.

“North Carolinians expect their elected officials to come together across our differences to deliver for people,” said Stein in a statement released upon signing the budget, in which he also added that the budget addresses serious concerns such as clean, safe water and disaster recovery.

Stein said the budget “makes meaningful investments” in community colleges and increases salaries for teachers and public safety officers. But the measure “has real flaws” and “unconstitutional and wrong-headed provisions,” the governor said.

“The legislature slashed more than 1,000 state government positions, making it harder for us to keep people safe and healthy,” Stein said in the statement.

The budget includes a provision mandating that the North Carolina Department of Transportation begin charging tolls on the state’s four free vehicle ferry routes. The measure does not set fare amounts. This prompted Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, and Sen. Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico, to cast preliminary “no” votes earlier last week, but both senators voted affirmatively in the final tally. Sanderson had been successful in striking down proposed ferry tolls during his tenure in the legislature.

Coastal environmental advocates were largely pleased with the bill’s coastal provisions, including those pertaining to water, wastewater, and stormwater projects. Among these are Flood Blueprint and other resiliency projects, creation of a state-nonprofit partnership with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, publisher of Coastal Review, to remove abandoned and derelict vessels from waterways, measures to protect wildlife and natural lands, and efforts to study and address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, pollution.

“This is a very strong budget for North Carolina’s coast,” said Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis. “From investments in removing derelict vessels and improving stormwater management to addressing PFAS, the legislature and governor have reinforced their bipartisan commitment to making our coastal waters cleaner and safer. These investments will also strengthen the coastal economy by protecting the natural resources that support our communities, businesses, and way of life.”

The nonprofit Coastal Federation was also more fully empowered to establish and administer a stormwater retrofit pilot cost-share program and award grants, including to support a temporary position in the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. This position would be to provide compliance assistance for existing stormwater permitholders.

The Coastal Federation was also awarded a $1 million grant for its Center for Coastal Protection and Restoration in Carteret County. That project will be completed this summer.

The budget incorporates language from Senate Bill 1053, the 2026 Water Safety Act, introduced by Sen. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover, and with Sen. Danny Earl Britt Jr., a Republican representing Hoke, Robeson and Scotland counties, and Sen. Val Applewhite, a Democrat representing Cumberland County, as cosponsors.

This section defines “emerging contaminants” as PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and establishes an Emerging Contaminant Mitigation Fund under the Division of Water Infrastructure seeded with $45 million nonrecurring under the Department of Environmental Quality to support efforts to offset the compounds’ negative effects on municipal and county public water and wastewater systems. The fund will also go to support detection, reduction, and prevention of exposure to PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and related research and development. Another $10 million is to cover costs of emergency drinking water supplies resulting from emerging contaminants.

“For nearly a decade, families in the Cape Fear region have carried the burden of PFAS contamination they did nothing to create,” Lee said in a statement in response to Coastal Review. “This budget delivers the most significant state investment yet in confronting that problem: a new $45 million Emerging Contaminant Mitigation Fund to help local utilities test for and treat PFAS, more than $10 million in additional help for families on private wells, and a statewide sampling initiative to trace these compounds back to their sources. The fund is also built for the long haul, because when polluters settle in court, those dollars will flow directly into cleaning up our water. Add the moratorium on new water transfers out of the Cape Fear basin, and this budget treats clean water as exactly what it is: a public health imperative and the foundation of our region’s future.”

The budget authorizes the State Water Infrastructure Authority to award grants from the fund on a priority basis to public water or wastewater system operators to cover costs associated with sampling, treatment, emergency response, remediation and technical assistance to eliminate PFAS and 1,4-dioxane discharges.

About $7.68 million in federal infrastructure money is budgeted for grants for projects addressing emerging contaminants. And $16.5 million in federal Clean Water Act Emergency Response funding will go toward grants to help wastewater systems address emergencies.

The budget appropriates $1 million in recurring funds to DEQ for positions and operating costs associated with the increased need for emerging contaminant research and response. The department may create up to five positions for this purpose. An additional $7 million in nonrecurring funds are provided for the collection of samples for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane research to be conducted by the North Carolina Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina, as directed in the Water Safety Act language.

The Collaboratory is appropriated $15 million for research, development, and remedial activities associated with PFAS and its effects on firefighters. This includes funding of a partnership with the Office of the State Fire Marshal and North Carolina State University to develop and implement a pilot program for deep-cleaning firefighter protective gear to mitigate PFAS exposure and remediation activities related to PFAS at or near fire stations.

The Collaboratory, in cooperation with DEQ, is to conduct a two-phased study to identify and quantify measurable industrial PFAS discharges in the state, first, by collecting samples from publicly owned treatments works and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitholders and then sampling other significant dischargers. The final Phase 1 report is due to DEQ, the Environmental Management Commission and the Environmental Review Commission no later than March 31, 2028, and Phase 2 no later than March 31, 2029.

The Collaboratory must also conduct a study of PFAS contamination in biosolids.

The Collaboratory is further directed to conduct a Cape Fear River Basin study with $1.5 million appropriated for that purpose through the end of the decade, when a report is due, and conduct a study of long-term water supply needs in river basins experiencing high rates of growth.

Of the total $4.5 million in Collaboratory operating funds, $170,000 nonrecurring is to support the FerryMon water quality monitoring program that employs sensors mounted to state ferries, and $160,000 nonrecurring for the ModMon river monitoring, a Neuse River Estuary modeling and monitoring project.

DEQ’s total appropriation, net of $295.5 million in receipts, is $111.9 million.

Abandoned vessels

The budget directs the Wildlife Resources Commission to contract with the Coastal Federation to remove and dispose of commission-identified abandoned and derelict vessels with priority given to those in public waters. This refers to vessels left for more than 30 days in a wrecked, junked, or substantially damaged or dismantled condition, docked, grounded, or beached upon the property of another without owner consent.

The measure also provides for expedited vessel abatement during declared emergencies and liability protection for removal work absent gross negligence.

Lee told Coastal Review that owner protections are “built in” to the legislation. After a 30-day notice period, such vessels are deemed forfeited. Funding for removal is to come from boating registration fees, 10% of the total, which is estimated to generate about $1.01 million.

“Our coast has lived with abandoned and derelict vessels for too long,” Lee said. “This budget finally builds a standing program to get them out of our waters, with a dedicated funding stream and the Coastal Federation as the state’s partner on removal.”

The Coastal Federation launched its first coordinated, large-scale, marine debris cleanup in 2019 and has worked with the Wildlife Resources Commission on abandoned boat removals since 2021. The organization’s larger clean water effort dates back much earlier.

“Several of the investments included in this year’s budget strengthen programs that have been central to the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s mission of protecting and restoring the coast for decades,” Federation Chief Program Officer Ana Živanović-Nenadović told Coastal Review Tuesday. Noting the bipartisan support of coastal conservation, she explained how reducing amounts of polluted stormwater runoff keeps estuarine waters clean, supports shellfish harvesting and sustains healthy fisheries.

“Funding for abandoned and derelict vessel removal improves public access and navigation while restoring habitat. Together, these investments will deliver lasting benefits for North Carolina’s coastal ecosystems, communities, and economy,” she said.

Resilience spending

The budget appropriates $4.5 million for projects defined in the Flood Resiliency Blueprint, a planning tool geared to increase community resilience to flooding, and $850,000 for time-limited, associated DEQ positions. Another $250,000 is appropriated to the Resilient Coastal Communities Program to convert two temporary staff positions to permanent. This program administered by the Division of Coastal Management provides financial and technical assistance to help local governments in the 20 coastal counties become more resilient to flooding.

Other provisions

Lee said the budget also modernizes the state’s beach and inlet management planning with a required four-year cycle of planned maintenance and resiliency projects and with DEQ’s updated plan due July 1, 2027. The measure provides roughly $11.5 million combined for coastal storm risk management at Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach.

The budget eliminates two Department of Environmental Quality positions assigned to the Environmental Justice initiative. It also eliminates the state Office of Environmental Education.

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, released a statement in which he said he was “glad” Stein had signed the bill into law and that he “recognizes how vital this budget is for the people of North Carolina.”

The North Carolina Democratic Party also released a statement, noting that after more than 1,000 days, the state finally has a budget that addresses some of the most urgent needs. “While this budget isn’t perfect, it takes real steps in the right direction,” party officials said.

As the Manns Harbor Bridge over the Croatan Sound nears its 70th birthday, it’s getting what North Carolina Department of Transportation Resident Engineer Pablo Hernandez recently called “the first major renovation that I’m aware of in my 28-, almost 29-year career here in Dare County.”

The bridge, he added quickly, needs work, but overall, “the fact is that we got almost 70 years out of it without a tremendous amount of maintenance investing.”

Hernandez also added that the work that had been done, mainly minor concrete repairs and a paint job about every 25 to 30 years, “but the current project seems to be the most complete.”

When the William B. Umstead Bridge, as it is officially known, opened to traffic in December 1956, Outer Banks newspaper the Coastland Times described it as “a fine Christmas present for the Southern Albemarle region,” adding that it “will make possible a lot of holiday visiting, particularly on the Dare County mainland.”

The bridge connects mainland Dare County with Roanoke Island and the Outer Banks. This delivered 20th century amenities to the isolated hamlets and towns of mainland Dare County that had yet to be electrified. With the bridge carrying connections for electric power and telephones, “some eight families will have electric lights for the first time” in the sleepy fishing village of Mashoes. And in the longstanding, unincorporated Manns Harbor community, “the bridge makes possible modern telephone,” the Coastland Times reported.

Although the bridge may appear to be in surprisingly good shape, it is a solid 40 years beyond its expected lifespan, and when the $33.75 million project began in summer 2023, uncertainty remained about the extent of repairs needed.

The original price tag has risen: “Estimated projections of total costs are currently around $45 million,” Hernandez wrote in an email. “We are doing what we can to control the costs but not to the detriment of the structure.”

“Until you’re there, you don’t know what you’re going to find, just like with an old house,” Hernandez said, “you start renovating it, and things need attention.”

The project is a blend of modern materials and traditional, often hands-on applications. Resurfacing the deck, for example, was completed using an epoxy that included an aggregate material to provide a textured surface. During the application process, the bridge was closed for nine months.

“All of those layers of the epoxy, as well as the aggregate to provide the textured surface, were all applied by hand, so over 300,000 square feet of bridge deck was rolled and squeegeed with these four separate layers of epoxy,” Hernandez explained.

The decision to apply the new surface in this way, instead of using “specialty trucks and pavers,” was in part because of the bridge’s 70-year-old design and the weight of the materials. “We don’t put a lot of what we call dead load on the bridge,” said Hernandez.

Other factors were also considered. “The deck was in surprisingly solid, good condition,” Hernandez said, “so there was no need to remove an inch just to put back another inch.”

The epoxy used is a viscous material that seals any cracks that may have developed.

Hernandez said the bridge design has a “certain robustness to begin with. It’s kind of like building a a deck on your house when you use a six-by-six post or an eight-by-eight or four-by-four post.”

Home to purple martins, pre-dedication damage

The bridge has for years been home to thousands of purple martins during summer. Hernandez, in response to Coastal Review’s query, was emphatic that the birds’ droppings had not damaged the bridge. He pointed out that the aerobatic birds roost on the bridges steel beams and atop the caps, concrete members that support the steel beams and are only there at night.

“From my experience, we have not seen a tremendous amount of bird droppings,” he said. Hernandez cited as evidence one night when he was with the Purple Martin Society conducting bird surveys. “We provided a boat and there were hundreds of thousands flying around. I don’t think anybody got nailed (with droppings).”

The most recent work has been below the bridge deck and the view down there is concerning. On the north side of the bridge, toward the mainland side, an entire piling is missing. In its place, iron girders support this part of the bridge. A March 1957 storm took out the piling before the bridge was officially dedicated the following month.

A grain barge, the C. W. Curlett “struck the bridge when it got out of control, said to have been due to the failure of one of the two motors. It swung down and struck the North side of bridge, shattering one of the huge concrete piles, so that the reinforcing steel inside it was exposed and bent,” the Coastland Times reported.

Just to the east of the bridge’s center rise, workers have been lowered to assess its condition. One worker taps the concrete with a hammer while another makes notes of their observations.

“They are listening for a hollow or dull sound,” Hernandez explained. “This indicates a deteriorated concrete layer.  If it is solid, it will have a distinct sharp, pinging sound.”

Repairs to the concrete pilings are now the project’s focus. The concrete is showing its age, largely because of the limited materials available in 1956, as compared to current designs. The bridge pilings, Hernandez said, were only “mildly” reinforced. “It just has reinforcing bars in it.”

The reinforcing bars, or rebar, is exposed through cracks in the concrete. Repairs involve removing any rust from the iron and replacing the concrete. Although there is visible rust on the rebar, the one-inch bars are still in good shape with only basic maintenance needed to clean the rust and repack the concrete.

Hernandez compared the Manns Harbor Bridge pilings to those supporting the nearby new Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, aka the Alligator River Bridge, a project to replace the early 1960s-era structure that Hernandez also supervises. The pilings there are prestressed, by “basically taking a very dense and durable cable and stretching it, pouring concrete around it, and then letting that elastic force come back in (and) help squeeze the concrete together, so you get a denser piling that can go through a lot more cycles without any kind of cracking.”

Looking back: State awards $450M deal to build new Alligator River bridge

The cracks in the Umstead Bridge were not unexpected after seven decades. Temperature variations and cycles of freezing and thawing in a marine environment will cause the material to develop small fissures. Once air reaches the rebar, the iron begins to rust. Conversely, below the surface of the water, in what is considered anaerobic conditions, “the concrete is dense and sound, and the rebar is protected from water and oxygen,” Hernandez replied in an follow-up email. “The majority of the deterioration of the concrete and rebar is in the splash zone where there his ample oxygen to facilitate the corrosion process of ferrous metals.”

Repacking the piling concrete is one of the most labor-intensive, hands-on parts of the project. After removing the damaged concrete and cleaning the rebar of rust, barges form a protected area around the work zone under the bridge. On a barge deck, workers mix Speed Crete Blue Line, a product described by Hernandez as a “rapid-setting underwater concrete repair mortar.” According the manufacturer, Euclid Chemical, the product will set in three to five minutes after coming in contact with water.  

Three divers are also employed in the repairs, reaching into buckets of mortar, pulling out a handful and pushing it into the voids and continuing the process until the piling is back to its original specs.

The mortar creates an airtight seal, protecting the rebar inside the piling. Then the pilings get an additional layer of protection.

“After we do the concrete piling, we come back with an epoxy-saturated carbon-fiber sheet of fabric and wrap that around the piling shell,” Hernandez said.

The bridge is considered one of the state’s “high-value bridges,” Hernandez said, referring to bridges within a $50 to $70 million range replacement cost.

Hernandez noted an NCDOT assessment of the bridge that asked, “Could we invest in a significant bridge preservation effort to get another 20, 30 or 40 years of life out of those structures?”

The repairs, Hernandez said, are going well, but the work originally slated for a Nov. 26 completion date that is “around the corner,” is unlikely to wrap up as scheduled. “Unfortunately we’re not going to be complete with the concrete repairs.”

A construction materials company’s proposal to expand its limestone quarry in northern New Hanover County threatens more than 140 acres of mostly high-quality wetlands and vital fish habitat, environmental groups say.

Martin Marietta’s preferred plan to enlarge its Castle Hayne quarry would permanently destroy 143.46 acres of pristine wetlands and 9.7 acres of open water that connect to those classified as primary nursery area, strategic habitat area, and essential fish habitat, the groups argue.

The proposed expansion of the 1,700-acre quarry that sits between the Northeast Cape Fear River and Holly Shelter Road could also decrease natural flood defenses, environmentalists say.

Advocates are pushing regulators to deny the company’s first-choice plan, arguing that other options Martin Marietta has identified to source limestone to meet the demand of future construction needs carry fewer ecological consequences.

They’ll get their chance to voice their concerns on water quality impacts from the proposed 358-acre expansion in northern New Hanover County during a public hearing hosted by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources on July 14. That hearing is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Heide Trask Senior High School auditorium, 14328 N.C. 210 in Rocky Point. Speaker registration will open at 5:30 p.m.

More than half a dozen environmental groups have asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny Martin Marietta’s Clean Water Action Act Section 404 permit application. A federal 404 permit regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

In a May 22 letter to the Corps, those groups, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, Cape Fear River Watch, Carolina Wetlands Association, Coastal Plain Conservation Group, North Carolina Sierra Club, North Carolina Wildlife Federation, and Save Sledge Forest, said Martin Marietta’s permit application does not include a thorough analysis of the project’s impacts to environmental resources, including wetlands.

Those groups also argue that the company’s other project alternatives, including expanding mining operations at the company’s Rocky Point quarry, would be “less damaging” to wetlands and waterways.

“Where Martin Marietta is proposing to expand its Castle Hayne quarry, it’s just closer to so many sensitive and high-quality waters,” said Julie Youngman, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The Rocky Point quarry is not very far away. It could provide the same value to the local community and provide the same source of building supplies, but still cause far less environmental damage. I think that’s what all of us are focused on ‘why aren’t you thinking about that location.’”

Martin Marietta’s application details six potential project alternatives, alongside a no-action alternative.

The possible expansion of the company’s Rocky Point quarry, which sits about 3½ miles away from its Castle Hayne site, would destroy a little more than 152 acres of wetlands and 13.28 acres of freshwater ponds, according to environmental groups.

“At first glance, this alternative would result in the net loss of more wetlands than Martin Marietta’s preferred alternative,” the May 22 letter states. “However, the quality and function of the wetlands at the Rocky Point or any other major waterway. Unlike at the Castle Hayne Quarry, an expansion of the Rocky Point site would not pose the same concerns about runoff and water quality. Likewise, this off-site alternative is not located near important fish habitat or a nationally significant floodplain.”

The letter urges that any expansion of the Rocky Point quarry be conditioned on Martin Marietta maintaining a 100-foot minimum internal buffer zone to protect adjacent wetlands from the direct effects of mining activity.

“The Cape Fear River in New Hanover County is already suffering from enough sources of degradation that if an additional one could be avoided, the state and federal agencies should think hard about doing so,” Youngman said. “The Castle Hayne community is also shouldering more of an environmental burden than maybe is fair between a proposed development and various industrial operations around them. They don’t need more mining to cause more water quality and noise and traffic hardship for them.”

Later this month, lawyers for several Castle Hayne residents are expected to go before the New Hanover County Board of Adjustment to appeal Hilton Bluffs, a proposed 1,800-home development covering 600 acres of a 4,000-acre tract that includes Sledge Forest. The forest includes ancient trees, vast wetlands, and riverine habitat.

If Martin Mariett’s preferred alternative to expand its Castle Hayne quarry is approved, the groups are urging regulators to require the company to produce an environmental impact study.

DWR is accepting written comments on the proposed expansion through 5 p.m. Aug. 13 using an online form for project No 20260387, version 1 with the project name listed as “Castle Hayne.” Mailed written comments may be submitted to Stephanie Goss, 401 Permitting, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699-1617.

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission will hear about the progress to update the state’s plan that outlines strategies to protect and restore critical ecosystems coastal fishery habitats.

The 15-member commission is to hear an update on the 2026 amendment to the N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP, from N.C. Department of Environmental Quality staff. The commission is responsible for adopting rules that protect, preserve and enhance the state’s air and water resources implemented by several divisions within DEQ.

The plan, adopted in December 2004 by Environmental Management, North Carolina Marine Fisheries and Coastal Resources commissions, provides information on coastal habitat distribution and abundance, ecological functions and importance to fish production, status and trends, threats to the habitat, and recommendations to address those threats. The CHPP is updated every five years.

The full commission is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. July 9 in the ground floor hearing room of the Archdale Building in Raleigh. The meeting will be livestreamed. The meeting number is 2439 266 6247 and password ncdeq. The meeting may also be accessed by telephone at 1-415-655-0003, password 62338.

Commission committee meetings are planned to begin the day prior at 9 a.m. July 8 in the Archdale Building and available to stream using Webex and by phone using the same telephone number, meeting number and passwords.

Agendas for the committees and the full commission are available on the EMC’s website.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is offering competitive grant funds to support projects that will help the public access coastal waters.

Applicants eligible for fiscal year 2027 funding through the North Carolina Boating Infrastructure Grant, or BIG, Program include public and private marina owners and operators, local governments, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education and other entities that own or operate boating facilities in the state’s 20 Coastal Area Management Act counties.

The BIG Program is funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, which provides funding for public access through constructing, renovating and maintaining boating infrastructure that serves transient recreational vessels 26 feet or longer.

Eligible projects may include transient docks, piers, gangways, mooring buoys, breakwaters, wave attenuators, utilities, restrooms, showers, pump-out facilities, dinghy docks, signage and other boating infrastructure. 

Applicants may apply for one of two funding opportunities. Federal funding of up to $300,000 is available through Tier 1 awards that apply to projects within North Carolina. Tier 2 awards are nationally competitive and provide funding up to $1.5 million.

Applicants are encouraged to review eligibility requirements, applications instructions, submission information and additional program information on the North Carolina Boating Infrastructure Grant Program website. Applications must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Friday, August 28.

Division officials will evaluate and rank eligible applications then submit the highest-ranked proposals to the Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration.

The division, which is under the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, is scheduled to host an informational webinar from 3-5 p.m. July 15 to review the application process, eligible projects, program requirements, evaluation criteria and answer questions. Those who would like to attend the virtual meeting may register online.

Questions about the BIG Program and the application process may be directed to NCBIG@deq.nc.gov. 

Duke Energy has agreed to ax its wind lease off the coast of Brunswick County, instead pledging to reinvest funds into grid enhancements and additional power generation.

The U.S. Department of Interior announced Monday that the Charlotte-based company will terminate its offshore wind lease in the Carolina Long Bay wind area roughly 22 miles offshore, south of Bald Head Island.

“This settlement allows Duke Energy to refocus $129 million in ways that directly benefit our customers and communities in the Carolinas,” Duke Energy Carolinas’ Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe stated in a release. “Under this agreement, Duke Energy will reinvest nearly $129 million in additional generating capacity, which may include advancing new nuclear and natural gas generation, and grid enhancements to strengthen reliability, support continued growth in the Carolinas and keep costs as low as possible.”

Related: Carolina Long Bay wind energy firm takes Trump buyout

The company’s decision leaves the more than 110,000-acre Carolina Long Bay wind energy area now tenant-free, as driven by President Donald Trump’s push to dismantle renewable energy projects and replace them with fossil fuel and nuclear power.

In March, TotalEnergies accepted a $1 billion federal buyout of its wind energy leases off the New York and North Carolina coasts, including roughly half of the Carolina Long Bay wind energy area. The France-based global energy company said it would invest the refunded money in a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Texas and other fossil fuel projects.

Duke Energy paid $155 million in May 2022 to lease the other half of the offshore wind area.

“President Trump’s vision of unleashing affordable, reliable American energy for our country’s communities and using common sense to put the American people first is being implemented,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum stated in Monday’s announcement. “Duke Energy will now be able to convert a national security concern into projects that will lower the costs for its customers in North Carolina and surrounding states.”

Projects in the Carolina Long Bay wind energy area were estimated to generate up to 3 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power about 657,000 homes, and provide more than $4 billion in net economic impacts.

Though the now-dead projects were years away from providing offshore-generated electricity to land-based power grids, advocates of wind energy argue it is a stable, predictable source of energy.

“We are disappointed to see another offshore wind farm opportunity taken off the table for North Carolina,” Southeastern Wind Coalition President Katharine Kollins said in a release. “At a time when electricity demand is surging and grid reliability is under increasing strain, we need to add energy options, not remove them. It is unfortunate that the federal government continues to pick winners and losers in the energy space, especially when we’ve seen strong performance from the four existing offshore wind farms currently operations in U.S. waters.”

There are still active offshore wind leases along North Carolina’s northern coast, off the shores of Kitty Hawk. Those leases were purchased a few years ago by Avangrid Renewables and Dominion Energy, the latter of which is wrapping construction of a 2.6-gigawatt project nearly 30 miles east of Virginia Beach.

Courts have recently overturned the Trump administration’s actions to quell offshore wind development in the United States, including an order last December to stop work in five offshore wind energy areas on the East Coast, including Dominion Energy’s Hampton Roads, Virginia-based project.

But those rulings have not hampered the administration from continuing to target offshore wind projects.

Since announcing its deal with TotalEnergies, the Interior Department has solidified similar agreements with a handful of other companies to terminate their leases off the coasts of California, Maine, New Jersey and New York.

In early June, New York’s attorney general was joined by state attorneys general from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in challenging TotalEnergies’ federal buyout.

Chris Herndon, chapter director of the North Carolina Sierra Club Chapter, in a statement urged state Attorney General Jeff Jackson to “review the legality of this ‘deal,’ and consider joining other states in challenging the Trump administration in court.”

“Duke Energy and Donald Trump are worsening the energy affordability crisis that’s plaguing North Carolina families and small businesses throughout the state,” Herndon said in a release. “It’s a disgrace that Duke Energy would walk away from an affordable, reliable offshore wind project that our state was counting on to create family-sustaining wages for workers and fixed-price clean electricity to power our state’s economy.”

Pasha Feinberg, an offshore wind strategist with the international nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, called Duke Energy’s agreement with the federal government a “lose-lose proposition.”

“We need more electricity, not less,” Feinberg stated in a release. “Canceling clean energy projects is self-defeating. Paying off companies so they will abandon them is just ludicrous. The Trump administration is wasting our money paying companies not to produce energy. It’s long past time for the Trump administration to end its war on new energy so that customers’ bills won’t keep rising and our nation can meet its growing electricity demands.”

Despite last week’s abysmal report from the state auditor of the funding prospects for the long-planned Mid-Currituck Bridge, the proposed project connecting the Currituck County mainland to its northern Outer Banks beaches will remain officially alive in the state transportation plan, at least for the time being.

The auditor’s Rapid Response Special Report issued June 22 painted a dire fiscal picture: The current $1.2 billion projected cost of the bridge had more than doubled since it was approved in 2019, the project’s borrowing capacity based on toll revenue had plummeted by about 42%, and a funding shortfall of $702 to $832 million would be nearly impossible to fill.

The audit also found that the transportation department had discovered that between 2012 and 2019, the traffic volume, population growth, and tourism growth on the Outer Banks region had all been significantly less than originally projected. In response, projected daily vehicle counts had to be reduced at all the locations that were measured.

“The people of Currituck County following this project have been dragged along for 30 years,” State Auditor Dave Boliek said in a press release. “What the team at the Office of State Auditor found is that despite spending money, no dirt has been moved. Taxpayers are more than $60 million in the hole on a 30-year project that certainly remains far from completion.”

Meanwhile, the agencies working on the bridge, North Carolina Turnpike Authority and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, said they remain committed to the project, which still has $173 million allocated for it in the State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP, the state funding document.

“While the project’s current funding gap presents a real challenge, the transit authority and NCDOT continue to work closely with our regional and state partners as well as federal stakeholders to identify and pursue every available funding pathway, including federal discretionary grant programs, toll revenue and public-private partnerships, which is a key next step for the project,” Turnpike authority Chief Communications Officer Logen Hodges said in a June 26 email, responding to an inquiry from Coastal Review. “We look forward to continued collaboration with our local and regional partners as we work to continue advancing this critical infrastructure project.”

The budget difficulties portrayed in the audit were not a surprise — transportation officials had presented the details about the bridge project shortfalls and options during a Feb. 18 meeting with the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization, or ARPO, and its two boards, the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee and the Rural Transportation Coordinating Committee. ARPO was also informed that it had until April 17 to notify them whether to keep the STIP funds for the bridge, or ask for them to be released to be used elsewhere in the 14-county Division 1.

The Albemarle Commission, a regional planning and development body for northeastern North Carolina, has served as the lead planning agency for the ARPO since May 2002, according to its website. Since then, the RPO has been working cooperatively with NCDOT on development of long-range regional transportation plans, providing related data and prioritizing projects for the STIP.

On April 15, the Albemarle RPO, which serves Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell and Washington counties, voted to keep the $173 million earmarked for the Mid-Currituck Bridge for the next year, allowing time to pursue alternative funding sources. It would also allow consideration into whether the project would potentially score high enough to submit in the next STIP prioritization cycle.

Since the release of the audit, the panel has not yet had its regular meeting that would provide an opportunity to discuss the findings, Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Chairman Lloyd Griffin, who is also a Pasquotank County commissioner, said in an interview. But for that matter, the April vote had a built-in reaction to the project’s worrisome budget chasm.

“I think the response from the RPO is that we’re giving it one year,” he said. “After that time, it would go back to discussion … We would have to see where the other counties come together on that.”

In other words, if the money wasn’t forthcoming, he said, the RPO could vote to have the STIP funds redistributed. Or, depending on the funding status, they could decide to have the project reapply for scoring.

“However, Boliek was very specific about the feasibility of obtaining additional funding,” Griffin said, referring to the unlikelihood of the rural project scoring well enough in the competitive process that carves up funding largely based on population and traffic numbers.

“If there are no funds this year, then we’re just going to have to say, ‘Hey look, we’re just going to have to move on with the STIP,’” he said. Division 1 is the largest transportation district in the state, he added, and those Currituck bridge funds sitting now in the STIP are “a lot of money” that should be put to good use one way or another.

Ever since the bridge was first identified as a need in 1975, the project has had a series of challenges, including inconsistent political and financial support. Supporters have maintained from the beginning that the bridge, which would connect the Currituck mainland at Aydlett to Corolla, on the Currituck Outer Banks, was critical for hurricane evacuation, as well as a shortened route that would relieve summertime bumper-to-bumper traffic from the Wright Memorial Bridge in Kitty Hawk along N.C. Highway 12 to Corolla. 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, saving as much as an hour for some travelers.

But opponents contend that it would only make traffic to the resort area worse, and year-round communities on both ends of the bridge lack the infrastructure needed to deal with the additional traffic or visitors. Environmental groups also say that the bridge would cause pollution and harm wildlife and submerged aquatic grasses in the Currituck Sound and surrounding habitat areas.

Two legal matters challenging the bridge, the most recent of several cases filed over the years, are still pending, said Julie Youngman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a Chapel Hill-based nonprofit, in a recent email responding to questions from Coastal Review.

Representing No Mid-Currituck Bridge, a group of residents opposed to the bridge, and the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit, a petition for a contested case hearing was submitted to the state Department of Environmental Quality in November, she wrote. The petition challenged the state Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit the state had issued, she said, arguing that the bridge would disrupt the communities on both sides of the bridge with increased traffic and development and have negative effects on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

That petition was pending in the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings, but it has been stayed, pending resolution of another petition that was submitted to the state in December challenging the CAMA permit issued by the Coastal Resources Commission.

“We are asking the Currituck County Superior Court to rule on whether the CRC exceeded its authority when it purported to limit the issues we could raise,” Youngman wrote in the email. “Once we get resolution on this issue, the permit challenge can proceed in Office of Administrative Hearings.” The second matter is set to be heard at the Dare County Courthouse during the week of July 27, 2026, she added.

Youngman said “enough is enough” and NCDOT must either acknowledge that it is not going to be able to build the $1.2 billion bridge, it will release the $173 million STIP funds, or it has to explain how it will manage to fund the bridge’s construction.

“Much of the information presented by the state auditor echoed concerns raised by SELC and our clients over the past decade,” Youngman said. “In its initial analysis of the bridge, NCDOT severely overestimated the amount of traffic and growth that would come to the region in the future. Since that time, the price of the bridge has increased dramatically, while the forecasts of toll revenue have decreased. As a result, there is simply no viable financial path forward for the bridge.”

The SELC agrees that traffic congestion on the south end of Currituck County and northern beach communities in Dare and Currituck counties needs to be addressed, whether it’s with a traffic circle (roundabout) or management of pedestrian crossings or other strategies. But Youngman said that for a proposal that over its lifetime has already expended $61 million of tax dollars, “with nothing to show for it,” it’s high time to switch course. 

“We are disappointed that despite all the past waste of money, time, and other resources, NCDOT is continuing to press agencies to issue permits and expend resources litigating those permits in court,” Youngman wrote.

“It is beyond time to put this project to bed and to focus all our energies on solutions for the Outer Banks that are actually viable and can be much more quickly set in motion.”

A coastal land conservation group has reached an agreement with a developer to permanently protect a sprawling tract of land in New Hanover County featuring ancient forests, vast wetlands, and riverine habitat.

The North Carolina Coastal Land Trust announced Thursday a tentative purchase and sale agreement with Charlotte-based Copper Builders to preserve more than 3,200 acres of Sledge Forest.

“This is one of the most significant conservation opportunities in New Hanover County in a generation,” Coastal Land Trust Executive Director Harrison Marks said in the press release. “More than 3,200 acres, a landscape larger than Carolina Beach State Park, will be permanently protected in the heart of one of the fastest-growing counties on the North Carolina coast. That is what this agreement means.”

The fate of the deal hinges on the construction of Hilton Bluffs, a controversial 1,800-home development covering 600 acres of the privately owned 4,000-acre tract. The project, conditionally approved by the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee in March, continues to face heavy backlash among locals and thousands of activists backing the Save Sledge Forest movement.

“We appreciate what Coastal Land Trust is trying to do here, but we believe that this approach just doesn’t go far enough,” Castle Hayne resident and Save Sledge Forest cofounder Kayne Darrell explained Thursday during a telephone interview. “This community is steadfast in our belief that no development at all is best for our community and Sledge Forest. This agreement does not in any way change Copper Builder’s proposed Hilton Bluffs development of 1,800 homes on 500-plus acres. That remains exactly the same. And while conservation of these unbuildable wetlands in Sledge Forest is important, it does nothing to reduce the impacts of that development in this small, rural community.”

In the announcement last week, the Coastal Land Trust stated it “is not taking a position” on whether Hilton Bluffs should be approved.

“Its commitment is straightforward: if the project proceeds as currently approved, the Coastal Land Trust will ensure that more than 3,200 acres are permanently protected, publicly accessible, and managed to the highest conservation standards,” the organization stated.

Sledge Forest is home to ancient trees, including 500-year-old bald cypress, longleaf and loblolly pines more than 300 years old and some of the Southeast’s largest remaining Atlantic white cedar.

The forest is designated a North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Nationally Significant Natural Area, sheltering 13 imperiled plant species and several at-risk animal species. Last year, the forest was added to the Old-Growth Forest Network’s national list of threatened forests.

Sledge Forest is also part of the Northeast Cape Fear River floodplain, one of the largest landscape corridors in the southeastern part of the state.

“What we would be conserving is really the heart of the property,” Marks explained Thursday in a telephone interview. “It is the most ecologically important area of this entire tract.”

Under the terms of the agreement, Copper Builders will donate 1,200 acres to the Coastal Land Trust at no cost. The nonprofit will purchase 2,000 acres through a bargain sale.

“The bargain sale certainly helps matters,” Marks said, adding that the organization will apply for grants and that “some kind of fundraising is likely.”

Thousands of people have viewed and shared on social media a video clip and story of waterside tours of the forest.

Darrell highlighted the “extraordinary response” the videos had generated from people across the country. Within days of the videos posting, another 1,000 people had signed Save Sledge Forest’s petition, she said.

As of Friday afternoon, the petition had more than 15,500 signatures and counting.

At its meeting next month, New Hanover County Board of Adjustment is expected to hear appeals from adjacent Castle Hayne property owners regarding the proposed subdivision.

They argue that Hilton Bluffs would add thousands of additional vehicles on rural roads that cannot accommodate them, strip the landscape of hundreds of acres of trees and increase the threat of flooding, disrupt the surrounding ecosystem, and potentially compromise a state-designated inactive hazardous site on adjacent property.

“We intend to remain focused on the legal appeal of our county’s erroneous conditional approval of the Hilton Bluffs project,” Darrell said. “We’re going to continue to move forward with this appeal process and we’re going to do so with confidence and determination. We’re prepared to challenge this development as long as it takes.”

Brunswick County Public Utilities customers must restrict the times and days in which they use irrigation systems or face possible fines.

The county is now under extreme drought conditions, according to the most recent update from the North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council. Drought conditions are “contributing significantly” to rising irrigation demands and “the availability of source water from the Cape Fear River,” according to a county release.

To prevent the need for additional water restrictions, particularly as the Fourth of July holiday weekend approaches, the county announced it has moved to a stage 2 mandatory water conservation alert.

The alert applies to residents in unincorporated areas of the county, Boiling Spring Lakes, Bolivia, Calabash, Carolina Shores, Caswell Beach, Navassa, Northwest, Sandy Creek, Shallotte, Southport, St. James, Sunset Beach, and Varnamtown.

Customers of Bald Head Island, Holden Beach, Oak Island and Ocean Isle Beach utilities, which receive their water from Brunswick County Public Utilities, are under the same restrictions.

“Brunswick County asks these customers to diligently use water wisely,” according to a county release. “Demand for water has exceeded 90% of the available production and distribution capacity. As Independence Day approaches, water demands are expected to increase.”

Water customers may not use their irrigation systems on Mondays. Customers with odd address numbers and non-addressed facilities may irrigate on Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays.

Those with even address numbers may use their irrigation systems on Wednesday, Fridays and Sundays.

Irrigation systems may only be used between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. This includes irrigation for residential lawns, landscaping, athletic fields, and golf courses that do not use private groundwater wells or reclaimed water.

A complete list of prohibited uses of water is available online.

Brunswick County Public Utilities will notify properties that may be out of compliance with the mandatory irrigation schedule “or other required actions” through the ReadyBrunswick notification system or contact information associated with the property’s utility account.

Calls or messages through the BrunswickReady system will be made from 910-253-1977.

Those who do not comply may be assessed with fees up to $300 and disconnection of their water service. Habitual offenders of the alert may receive penalties of up to $5,000 and water disconnection.

County officials will continue monitoring drought conditions and water usage to determine whether to move to the next water shortage warning stage. A stage 3 water shortage warning prohibits the use of automatic sprinkler systems for residential and commercial lawn and landscapes.

The alert does not apply to customers of Brunswick Regional – H2GO, private groundwater well users, or those using highly treated reclaimed wastewater.

Residents may directly contact their water service provider with questions or Brunswick County Public Utilities at 910.253.2657 or utilityadmin@brunswickcountync.gov.

Additional information and updates may be found at brunswickcountync.gov/WaterWise.

WILMINGTON – Officials and environmental groups in North Carolina are blasting Chemours’ proposed $450 million federal settlement over PFAS pollution, saying the deal will do little for the state.

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday announced the multistate agreement, touting it as the federal government’s first comprehensive settlement over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances pollution.

Under the terms of the settlement, Chemours is expected to pay the Environmental Protection Agency and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection a $22.5 million civil penalty over three years, and pump in $90 million over 15 years “to further reduce PFAS emissions and enhance certain existing off-site drinking water programs,” according to a company release.

The company will spend an estimated $60 million installing pollution controls for surface water discharges and air emissions at its West Virginia plant, cover an estimated $280 million in costs to provide clean drinking water for more than a decade to residents of communities around its facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey, and “evaluate options and implement corresponding controls to reduce releases of PFAS and other toxic chemicals from its facility in North Carolina,” according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Gov. Josh Stein expressed doubts about whether North Carolina, one of three states named in the agreement, will actually receive any portion of those funds.

“It’s entirely possible that North Carolina doesn’t get a dime from this federal settlement,” Stein said Wednesday afternoon during home visit with a Wilmington-area family that uses a state-funded water filtration system to remove PFAS from their drinking water.

“The settlement that they just announced today will not have any meaningful impact for the state of North Carolina or the people of North Carolina,” he said. “It may help West Virginia, it may help New Jersey, but it really doesn’t do much for North Carolina.”

Clean Cape Fear Co-founder Emily Donovan agreed.

“If Chemours is unable to control its own pollution for follow the law without a constant stream of lawsuits, then maybe it has no business making toxic forever chemicals,” she stated in a release. “We’re not sure who this favors. It isn’t those of us in North Carolina who have been dealing with nearly half a century of PFAS pollution from the Fayetteville Works facility.”

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Jean Zhuang said the settlement is devoid of meaningful enforcement and “appears designed to shield Chemours from real accountability.”

“The Department of Justice has wrapped a sweeping set of allegations involving drinking water contamination affecting millions of Americans into a resolution that largely asks the company to monitor itself and develop plans, while surrendering its claims tied to contamination from multiple facilities across multiple states,” Zhuang stated in a release. “At the same time DOJ is resolving its litigation on such lenient terms, Chemours is actively challenging federal PFAS drinking water standards in court, seeking a massive expansion of its North Carolina facility, and continuing to release extremely high concentrations of ultra-short-chain PFAS – chemicals it knows are likely ending up in drinking water for roughly half a million North Carolinians.”

Public hearing set on standards

Wednesday’s announcement comes as the Environmental Protection Agency rolls ahead with a proposal to strike down the nation’s first-ever health standards for PFAS, chemical contaminants found in the drinking water sources of millions of North Carolinians.

The agency is scheduled to host a virtual public hearing on July 7 regarding its plans to rescind and reconsider current federal standards for HFPO-DA, commonly referred to as GenX, PFNA, PFHxS and PFBS. The agency also wants to push the deadline in which water utilities must comply with enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS, chemicals that are no longer manufactured, by two years from 2029 to 2031.

Meanwhile, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission is considering monitoring and minimization rules for discharges of PFOS, PFOA, GenX, and 1,4-dioxane, which the EPA classifies as a likely human-carcinogen, into the state’s surface waters. The proposed rules have been widely criticized for lacking specific discharge limits and penalties for PFAS dischargers found to be in violation of the rules.

Stein said he is “not happy” with the EPA’s and commission’s proposals.

“These are both unfortunate steps that do not give the people the assurance that they deserve that their drinking water is clean,” he said.

Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant in Bladen County for decades directly discharged GenX and other chemical compounds into the Cape Fear River, the drinking water sources for tens of thousands of residents in the Cape Fear Region.

Stein pointed out that Chemours, under a 2019 consent order with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and Cape Fear River Watch, has already been required to mitigate discharges and emissions of PFAS from its Fayetteville Works facility.

“What we need help from Chemours today, and the settlement doesn’t address this point, is we need Chemours and DuPont to pay to help us clean up the pollution that exists in our communities,” he said.

As part of ongoing environmental remediation efforts in the state, Chemours has been required to test tens of thousands of private drinking water wells for PFAS contamination throughout the Cape Fear Region. The company must provide temporary drinking water supplies to households with wells that contain levels of PFAS above concentrations established by environmental and health officials until a new, permanent supply, whether through a home filtration system or hook up to a public water system, is provided at the company’s expense.

Although the well water at the home of Brenda and Vance Moore tested positive for PFAS, levels of types of those contaminants in their drinking source did not rate the thresholds that make Chemours responsible for providing alternative water supplies to them.

Thousands of North Carolinians are in the same situation, state officials, including Stein and N.C. Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson, explained Wednesday during their visit to the Moores’ home in Porters Neck, an unincorporated community in northern New Hanover County.

“My question is we’re 10 miles from the river,” Brenda Moore said about the Cape Fear. “How did these chemicals get here?”

Moore, a breast cancer survivor, said she can’t definitely prove that her illness, or her daughter Lauren’s skin and thyroid problems, stem from drinking PFAS-contaminated water for years. Still, “you wonder,” she said.

PFAS are a group of chemicals used to make water-, stain- and grease-resistant consumer goods. The EPA now categorizes nearly 15,000 PFAS, most of which have yet to be studied for their potential effects on human health. But some of the known human health effects of PFAS included weakened immunity, low birth weight in newborns, thyroid disease, and certain types of cancers.

The Moores qualified for funding through the Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund, which reimburses residents for water treatment systems or, where feasible, public waterline connections when their wells are contaminated.

The North Carolina General Assembly in 2006 created the fund to improve the state’s response to drinking well water contamination and help low-income households receive safe drinking water.

In 2022, DEQ opened the program statewide, allowing residents with PFAS-contaminated private drinking water wells to receive assistance in cases where an individual or company is not held responsible for the pollution.

The program funded the approximately $3,500 reverse osmosis filtration system installed under the Moore family’s kitchen sink in October 2023.

Stein said North Carolina will continue its legal actions to get compensation from Chemours and its affiliated companies for responding to PFAS pollution.

“There is a lot of pollution that already exists throughout southeastern North Carolina and the polluters should be the one to pay and clean it up, not us, the people, and that’s why I took them to court and that action is continuing,” he said.

If the Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel’s draft report to the state last week was a master class in explaining ocean beach erosion processes along the state’s 320-mile Atlantic Coastline, there may have been some state legislators who were wishing they could cut class.

Lawmakers hustled to get a proposed bill lifting a four-decade ban on oceanfront hardened structures moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee days before Science Panel Chair Dr. Laura Moore, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor in the Department of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, presented the 47-page draft, “Report on the Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines,” to the commission during its regular meeting Thursday in New Bern.

Senate Bill 1009, which would lift the ban on hardened structures such as breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, revetments, and terminal groins, was advanced by the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday to the Appropriations Committee.

Another, related bill, Senate Bill 1001, also was referred to the same committee. The measure would allow use of state funds for permitting, building, or repairing terminal groins, which are sand-trapping walls built perpendicular to the shore at inlets.

Moore, along with her colleagues on the nine-member Science Panel, is a coastal scientist who has done extensive research on the North Carolina coast. The draft report the panel produced, divided into sections — an introduction to shoreline changes and dynamics, and some erosion management practices; effects of sand-trapping and -blocking structures; case studies of some structures and lessons learned; coastal erosion policies of other states; and finally, some recommendations based on best science and engineering — but offered no easy solutions to address the alarmingly severe erosion along parts of the coast, or ways to protect coastal infrastructure.

The report is intended to provide scientific and technical information for policymakers, regulators and legislators.

“Section two is really the meat of the report, and this is where we talk about the effects of structures that trap sand and structures that harden the shoreline … the purpose, the physical effects, adverse effects, ecological impacts,” said Moore. “We frame all of this largely in terms of trade-offs, because there are benefits and there are costs. And really, it’s all about trade-offs.”

Pointing to a slide illustration of a section of coast showing sand moving in and out of an area, Moore explained that whether there is accretion or erosion is a result of the way wave processes and shoreline orientation in the offshore seabed are directed at various sections of beach, and whether more sand is moving in or out.

“When I teach this in class, I tell my students, ‘this is just like your checkbook,’” Moore told the commission. “If you are adding more money in than you are spending, then you have a positive balance, and you’re in the black. And if you are taking out more money than you are actually adding to your checking account, you’re going to be in the red. In this case of the shoreline, we’re going to be eroding.”

Moore said it is not the big hurricanes that lead to the dramatic destruction now most evident on Hatteras Island in Dare County, where 32 houses in recent years have collapsed into the ocean in Rodanthe and Buxton.

“I’ll say that storm impacts are probably what tend to come to mind first for those who are thinking about the problems we need to address along the coast,” she said. “However, it is long-term chronic erosion that makes homes and infrastructure vulnerable to storm impacts. Most of our coastline has been naturally eroding over the long term to varying degrees, with some locations having very high natural background erosion rates, such as the northern flank of Cape Hatteras, which eroded at rates greater than 20 feet per year between 1852 and 1946 and for the many centuries preceding that time.”

But, Moore added, oceanfront construction rules are generally based on a 30-year setback, although buildings last longer than 30 years. Another complication is that large storm impacts are reaching farther landward, an impact that will be seen more in the future, she said, and sea levels are expected to be about a foot higher by 2050, compared with 2000. Along with other climate impacts, “mitigating erosion and protecting or trying to reduce risk to infrastructure will unfortunately become more and more challenging,” Moore said.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Buxton resident Brian Harris, representing the Hatteras Island village’s civic association, asked the commission to support the proposed legislation and “a responsible, modern approach” to erosion control. While calling Buxton’s devastation “not just a failure of nature, but a failure of man,” he urged the commission to seek a bipartisan approach and work with partnerships for innovative solutions.

“Coastal policies drafted 40 years ago were never meant to be a suicide pact for our coast,” Harris said. “Hatteras and Ocracoke are now in state of emergencies, and as North Carolinians, we can all just simply do better.”

But with decades of flashing lights from early users of seawalls and groins, illustrated by New Jersey’s skinny beaches in front of seawalls, coastal scientists have warned that sand barriers and traps rob beaches of sand by creating down drift erosion or blocking sand travel onto the shoreline.

“North Carolina lawmakers have kept this policy in place for generations because these structures don’t work,” said Zach Wallace, Audubon North Carolina Policy Director, in a June 11 prepared statement. “They rob sand from other parts of the beach, making erosion worse and putting habitat and coastal communities at greater risk. It’s like balancing a budget by moving debt onto someone else’s books.”

In its recommendations at the end of the report, the science panel urged careful consideration of the adverse impacts and use of experts before moving forward on any proposed projects, which are nearly always expensive, long-term commitments. Even urgent situations such as the house collapses on Hatteras Island cannot change the realities of a hardened coast.

“The Buxton case study illustrates that groins can temporarily change where erosion occurs, but they do not eliminate the underlying erosional processes,” as one recommendation stated. “Further, attempting to maintain an intended shoreline position requires regular nourishment and hardened structures deteriorate over time and can be damaged during storms, necessitating repeated structural repair and emergency measures.”

North Carolina lawmakers pushed forward a pair of bills Wednesday that, in tandem, would repeal a decades-old ban on hardened coastal erosion-control structures and secure state funding for terminal groins.

Senate Bill 1009 aims to erase the state’s 40-year prohibition on hardened structures, including breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, revetments, and terminal groins.

A provision in amended Senate Bill 1001 would allow state funds to cover permitting, building, or repairing terminal groins, rock- and steel-constructed wall-like structures built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas of high erosion.

Both measures were advanced Wednesday morning to the Senate Appropriations Committee, but not without pushback. The next step for these bills is unclear as the Senate Appropriations Committee does not meet regularly.

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Energy, and Environment voted on the bills Wednesday morning, Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, questioned how state rules may be written to equally protect oceanfront properties facing severe erosion and adjacent properties that may be negatively affected by erosion-control structures.

Asking rulemakers, in this case the Coastal Resources Commission, to write such rules would be “asking them to pick winners and losers,” Mayfield said.

“It’s the vast majority of downstream, I say downstream, I don’t know if it’s called something else on the coast, but downstream properties are disadvantaged when these sorts of structures go in,” she said.

Hardened erosion-control structures have long been controversial because they capture sand that travels down the beach nearshore, 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.

Sen. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, one of the primary sponsors of the bill to lift the hardened structures ban, responded to Mayfield by asking whether the many homes destroyed by landslides and floods caused by Hurricane Helene in 2024 should not be permitted to be rebuilt.

“It’s the same thing on the coast. We’re losing a lot of homes due to these erosions and anything that we could do to mitigate that is just responsible, the same that we’re addressing that in western Carolina. I think these natural storms have a lot of erosions, whether it’s in the west or the east and people are affected by it,” Lazzara said.

Mayfield said she appreciated the analogy, but that thousands of homes will not be rebuilt in western North Carolina “because the land that they were on doesn’t exist anymore.”

Furthermore, she said, Hurricane Helene was not a once-in-a-lifetime storm, but rather a “once-in-a-10,000-year storm.”

“But that’s not what happens on the coast, right?” she continued. “On the coast, we have storms much more frequently, not nearly as intense, but much more frequently, much more flooding on a regular basis. And, again, I acknowledge that there are houses standing in the water right this very moment, and we need a solution to that, because having them fall down and disintegrate in the water is not the right answer, but also, using these structures to try to protect homes – Mother Nature is undefeated. I’ll just say that.”

Republican Sen. Bob Brinson, who represents Beaufort, Craven and Lenoir counties, pointed out that Senate Bill 1009 also would direct funding to the North Carolina Collaboratory to update the state’s Beach and Inlet Management Plan. That plan was last updated 10 years ago.

He told the committee that sand nourishment, a method by which sand is typically removed from nearby inlets or offshore and placed on the beach to build up eroded ocean shorelines, is not always an appropriate erosion-mitigation measure.

“As I addressed last week, beach nourishment also is getting more and more expensive and not lasting as long,” Brinson said. “And so, in repealing the hardened structure ban, it’s giving our state the opportunity to explore other options rather than saying ‘no’ or ‘never’, it’s ‘how about this’ and ‘how about’ because it will be site specific.”

Some members of the committee asked whether other alternatives have been explored to address problems associated with escalating erosion along portions of the state’s coastline. On the Outer Banks, more than 30 homes have toppled in recent years on ocean beaches that vanished because of erosion.

“We shouldn’t keep banging our heads against the wall, doing the same thing over and over again,” Mayfield said. “That’s not helping. Homes will continue to be put at risk. Businesses will continue to be put at risk. I think it’s time to start looking for permanent solutions to problems we’re seeing on the coast and the only way that I can see to do that is to have a permanent buyout fund. You know, government works best when it steps in to where the private market doesn’t work, and the private market doesn’t work on the coast right now.”

Brinson said the repeal does not focus solely on homes, but also public infrastructure, including the erosion and overwash-embattled N.C. Highway 12.

“This gives the CRC the authority to drop rules for these hardened structures, which will be informed by the Beach and Inlet Management Plan that we’ve tasked the Collaboratory to do, and also the science board under the CRC and their report that’s coming out,” he said.

The science advisory panel’s report, intended as a guide for coastal managers and policymakers to tackle the escalating erosion along the state’s coastline, is on the CRC agenda for discussion Thursday in New Bern.

“Our constituents are tired of hearing ‘no, you can’t do this,’ and ‘no, you can’t do that.’ Repealing this ban gives the state the ability to say, ‘here’s what you can do,’” Brinson said.

Nearly 15 years have passed since the North Carolina General Assembly repealed the law banning permanent, hardened erosion-control to grant a handful of beach communities along the state’s southern coast the option to pursue installing a terminal groin at an inlet area.

Since then, Bald Head Island and Ocean Isle Beach have been the only local governments to fund and build terminal groins on their beaches.

As the law stands, state funds may not be used for terminal groins.

A provision in Senate Bill 1001 would allow money from the Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation Fund to be tapped for costs associated with the permitting, construction or repair of a terminal groin. In order to receive funds, terminal groin projects would have to meet specific requirements, including a determination that the structure would benefit public lands and that costs to build or repair a groin will “not include the costs of financial assurance or costs of implementation of any component of the applicable inlet management plan.”

Lazzara indicated Wednesday morning that the language pertaining to state funding for terminal groins in Senate Bill 1001 may be revised.

Coastal Review will not publish Friday in recognition of the Juneteenth holiday.

The coast is forecast to experience high temperatures this week and extreme heat “of this magnitude can be dangerous to your health,” warns North Carolina Division of Public Health.

The division’s Climate and Health Program alerted coastal counties Tuesday through its Heat Health Alert System to expect a maximum heat index, or the “real feel” from the combined heat and humidity, of 96 to 108, depending on the county. The heat health alert system incorporates meteorological data, such as how rare the high temperatures are compared to historic records, and data on heat-related illnesses, such as when people show up in the emergency departments. 

Temperatures this high this early in the heat season, which is May 1 to Sept. 30, can be especially dangerous because people, institutions, and daily routines have not fully adjusted to summer conditions, Heat Policy Innovation Hub Director Dr. Ashley Ward told Coastal Review. The hub is part of Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability.

“Our bodies acclimatize over time, so the temperature can pose a greater health risk in May or June than the same temperature later in the summer. People may also be less prepared behaviorally,” Ward said. “They may not be checking heat alerts yet, or they may not have adjusted their work schedules. Many underestimate how quickly heat illness can develop.”

Looking at the long term, the early season heat is a signal to treat heat less like a short-term weather event and more like a season-long public health risk.

“The concern is not that very hot days are occurring, but that the heat season is becoming longer, nights are staying warmer, and communities have less time to recover from one event to another,” Ward continued.

State Resilience Office’s Resilience Policy Adviser Andrea Webster said that anyone, regardless of age or physical condition, can experience a heat-related illness, which occurs when the body overheats from exposure to high temperatures.

“In 2025, there were more than 5,700 heat-related visits to emergency departments across the state, according to NCDHHS’s heat health tracking system. That number is far higher than the annual counts from the previous five years,” she said in an email response.

At-risk populations include those without access to air conditioning or working or exercising outdoors, as well as those who are pregnant, living with disabilities or underlying health conditions.

“Heat illnesses and deaths are 100% preventable. To stay safe, our residents and visitors can stay hydrated, take regular breaks in the shade and in air-conditioned spaces, and pay attention to the signs of heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and other heat-related illnesses,” she said. “Also remember that young children cannot, or cannot fully, communicate that they may be experiencing heat stress. Infants and children rely on others to keep them cool and hydrated when it’s hot outside.”

Webster also pointed out that as temperatures increase, more energy is needed for air conditioning and that can strain the power grid.

“In addition, we are in the middle of hurricane season, when the chance of power outages is higher than other months of the year. To be prepared, residents can have several air-conditioned spaces in mind where they can go in case of a power outage,” she said. “This might be a community center with a back-up generator, the home of a friend or family member a town over, a movie theater or shopping mall. If transportation is a challenge, call a friend or local services for help.”

Ward said that while coastal communities may have sea breezes that moderate some of the daytime temperatures, they also face high humidity and warmer nights.

“There are also many activities in coastal communities that occur outdoors, both work and play,” Ward explained. “I would also pay close attention to tourists who are visiting the region, and who may not be acclimatized to the humidity and heat. Those who are arriving from cooler regions of the state or the country will be at increased risk for heat-related illnesses.”

The extreme heat can compromise water quality as well.

“High air temperatures can warm shallow waters, estuaries, sounds, and nearshore environments, especially during periods with limited mixing or prolonged calm conditions,” Ward said. “Warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen, which can stress or kill fish and shellfish. Heat can also worsen any existing water quality issues, particularly when combined with runoff, wastewater issues or drought.”

One major concern is harmful algal blooms.

“Warmer waters can favor algal growth. This further reduces oxygen in the water and creates conditions that make it impossible for the aquatic ecosystem to survive. Some blooms create toxins that are harmful to people and pets, creating issues for recreation and commercial fisheries. These have large impacts on coastal economies,” Ward added.

What’s driving this weather?

Ward said that while no single hot day can be explained only by climate change, it is the background condition in which heat events occur.

“People experience heat through a combined effect of temperature, humidity, sun exposure, wind, exertion, and nighttime recovery. A day that does not look extreme by air temperature alone can still be dangerous when humidity is high and the body cannot cool efficiently,” she said. Also, warmer nights matter because they reduce the body’s ability to recover after daytime heat exposure. 

“The climate change connection is not just ‘hotter afternoons.’ It is a shift toward longer heat seasons, more humid heat in the Southeast, more dangerous heat index values, warmer nights, and a greater strain on health systems, workers, schools, utilities, and community services,” she said.

North Carolina State Climate Office Assistant State Climatologist Corey Davis explained to Coastal Review Tuesday that at this time of year, a typical weather pattern has high pressure set up just off the coastline.

“This is the ‘Bermuda high’ that we love to hate because it funnels in moist air from the south, which gives us that classic North Carolina humidity,” Davis said.

Late last week, he continued, the state was in a variation of that pattern, with the high pressure centered more to the south, over the Gulf Coast.

“In that setup, we weren’t getting the direct feed of moisture from the south, but instead, we were in more of a westerly circulation around the north side of that high pressure system,” he said, adding that westerlies typically mean dry air since there just aren’t many moisture sources out in that direction. “That’s why last Friday had some unseasonably hot temperatures in the upper 90s, but also unseasonably low afternoon humidity values below 50%.”

Behind the cold front that moved in Tuesday of this week, normal temperatures are expected, and that will be followed by another warmup coming by the end of the week.

“In that case, we’re looking at high pressure sliding in from the west, which will again bring the sort of dry heat like we had last Friday and Saturday,” Davis said about June 11-12.

“This weekend, that high pressure may be sitting right over us, which means sinking air that blocks any potential for pop-up showers and thunderstorms. Even though the usual Bermuda high pattern can be uncomfortably muggy, at least it tends to bring daily rain chances,” he added. “In a pattern like we’ve been in, and like we’re heading into later this week, we don’t have the humidity, but that means it gets even hotter with even lower rain chances.”

He said another factor keeping humidity down and temperatures up, is the ongoing drought in the state. After the hot weather so far this month, any lingering moisture from that rain event over Memorial Day weekend is long gone, and without as much moisture in the soils and surface water sources, there’s not as much transpiration, or when plants absorb moisture then releases the extra, and water vapor in the air.

Essentially, at this time of year, if it feels dry outside, that’s because it is. “Moisture in the air and in the ground is all running low,” he said.

As for what the rest of the summer looks like, meteorologists are watching a few patterns.

In the seasonal outlook last month from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center showed much of the region with slightly elevated chances for above-normal temperatures this summer.

“That sort of forecast matches what we’d expect with high pressure to our south or east, so I’d say this summer will probably look familiar, but maybe with some hotter and less humid stretches like we’re in now,” Davis explained.

Additionally, precipitation chances at this time of year usually come from pop-up afternoon showers and storms, and those tend to be less widespread and more hit-or-miss.

“Better rain chances could come from any tropical systems, and we are starting to see the Atlantic come to life especially down in the Gulf, but it’s tough to tell if or when any systems could affect us in the Carolinas,” he added.

Davis said the other main pattern they’re keeping a close eye on is the developing El Niño. 

“NOAA confirmed last week that we are officially in an El Niño pattern, which makes this an early starting event. That gives it more runway to strengthen this summer, and that’s a big reason why a lot of forecasts are showing this being a strong event by later in the year,” Davis said.

“Because of how it strengthens upper-level winds, El Niño events tend to see increased wind shear across the tropical Atlantic and fewer storms forming. That could hurt our chances of seeing any significant tropical rainfall this year,” he continued. “But by the fall, we expect to see El Niño’s usual atmospheric impacts with a stronger jet stream anchored to our south, and that tends to bring more storm systems in our direction. That means we should eventually get into a wetter pattern, but that might not happen until October or November.”

Based on that forecast and how entrenched the drought already is, it’s very likely that the state will still be dealing with drought conditions and its impacts by the end of the summer, which means a difficult growing season for farmers, potential water restrictions as water supplies and groundwater stores wait for a better recharge later in the year, more favorable wildfire conditions along the coast. He gave the Rose Bay Canal fire in Hyde County as an example.

“I hope we get some better rain sooner rather than later to prove me wrong, but there’s a big concern that with how this summer has started, it will be a tough one to weather in the Carolinas,” Davis said.

While state lawmakers consider two bills that would eliminate the state’s longstanding ban on hardened structures along the ocean shoreline, a report providing details about the effects and effectiveness of coastal erosion-control structures is expected to be presented this week during the regular meeting of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.

The commission, which meets at 10 a.m. Thursday at the DoubleTree in New Bern, had assigned to its science advisory panel in February the task of creating the document that is intended as a guide for coastal managers and policymakers to address increasingly destructive erosion along the state’s 320 miles of coastline — dramatically illustrated in recent years by more than 30 houses on the Outer Banks falling into the ocean.

Two measures in the North Carolina General Assembly, Senate Bill 1008 and Senate Bill 1009, had not advanced as of the time this story was published, with some legislators expressing caution about taking action prematurely.

“I guess I’m a little concerned about putting the provisions of these two bills in place before that study comes out,” said Sen. Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, Wednesday during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Energy, and Environment. “My instinct is, ‘Let’s just see what happens there, see what they say, see what that leads us to do that’s different than what’s here.’”

Impacts of climate change on long-term erosion rates are also a factor to consider, said Wake County Democrat Sen. Lisa Grafstein, noting that the topic may be covered in the CRC Science Panel report.

Sen. Bob Brinson, R-Beaufort and also representing Craven and Lenoir counties, told the committee while introducing the bills that while coastal communities suffer direct economic and personal losses from severe erosion, the general public is also affected. Alluding to safety concerns from fallen house debris spreading along public lands and waters, he said that there are also losses to the local tax base and tourism revenue as well as to visitor access to the seashore.

The two bills are different sides of the same coin, that is, the stated goal of allowing the option to build hardened structures that are now banned, if deemed appropriate.

The primary sponsor of the bills is Sen. Bobby Hanig, a Currituck County Republican who also represents Dare County in Senate District 1, which includes the Outer Banks’ beaches in both counties. Hanig did not respond to messages left on his cellphone seeking comment.

Senate Bill 1008 would establish a pilot program that authorizes construction of shoreline-stabilization projects at locations where oceanfront houses are at imminent risk of collapse. A limited number of projects would be evaluated and recommended by the North Carolina Collaboratory, which the General Assembly authorized in 2016 to apply scientific scrutiny to projects in the state that may serve the public good.

Senate Bill 1009 would eliminate the prohibition of temporary or permanent erosion-control structures and create regulations to ensure the structures “will not result in significant adverse impacts to private property or to the public recreational beach.”  In addition, the bill would require funding the Collaboratory to update the state’s 1,000-plus-page Beach and Inlet Management Plan, which was last fully updated in 2016.

Brinson told committee members that whatever pilot projects are approved would include strict limitations and monitoring requirements and would not be funded by the state. Still, in defending the need to eliminate the ban to allow the erosion-control structures, he cited the hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars spent in maintaining and repairing N.C. Highway 12 on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. But Brinson was referring to areas where virtually none of the typical hardened structures would work for long — if at all. Even if seawalls or other structures were affordable at those locations, the intensity of the coastal conditions would either soon undermine or pummel the structures, or create worse situations at the site or downstream.

Sandbags, which are considered temporary structures under coastal law, have been widely used for decades on the Outer Banks and coastwide. In a sign of the increasingly difficult challenges created by rising seas, shifting channels, and steeply and rapidly eroding beaches, today’s larger and tougher sandbags also often fail to hold back destructive surging surf for long. Protective coastal management measures have been evolving toward more nature-based solutions such as living shorelines, as well as combined measures, such as beach nourishment and one or more of various types of structures, according to an April 2025 study, “Challenges and lessons learned from global coastal erosion protection strategies,” published in the journal iScience.

And while erosion-control structures may buy time, coastal scientists warn that consequences are not always quickly evident. For instance, in one of the few success stories Brinson noted among the handful of existing hardened structures on the North Carolina coast, the terminal groin at Oregon Inlet also has had a significant, albeit slower moving, negative impact.

While providing the intended protection of the Bonner Bridge, now the Marc Basnight Bridge, and the tie-in to N.C. Highway 12, the groin has also caused a hazardous shoal to grow into the navigational channel, which is at risk of becoming much narrower and deeper as it is pushed closer to the groin. That could present a huge issue to Dare County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which share responsibility and costs of maintaining channels in the inlet, the only sound-to-sea passage between Virginia and Hatteras.

North Carolina’s ban on hardened structures first went into effect in 1985, when the Coastal Resources Commission put rules in place restricting their use to very few instances, such as protection of historic structures. After a court ruling upheld the ban, it was put into law in 2003.

In a recent social media post, Rob Young, the director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, wrote that the both political parties in the General Assembly voted in favor of the law because they recognized the harm the structures had done in other states, as well as in North Carolina.

“It was, and still is, good science and good policy,” Young wrote. “Seawalls destroy beaches and increase erosion on neighbors’ properties. Seawalls on individual parcels create a nightmare for coastal managers.”

But Young pointed to the provision in Senate Bill 1009 that would “ensure” no adverse impacts to public and private property, creating “an impossible standard to meet,” he noted.

“The bill would open the door to a coastal management free-for-all,” he wrote.

SNEADS FERRY — Nearly a dozen abandoned marine vessels left to rot in North Carolina’s coastal waters are expected to be removed by July.

Crews this week pulled a dilapidated commercial fishing trawler and a sunken cabin cruiser from Wheeler Creek, a working waterway nestled off the New River in Sneads Ferry.

Mainstream Commercial Divers Inc., an underwater construction, maintenance, inspection and commercial diving company headquartered in Murray, Kentucky, also removed two rusted, battered barges from waters in the Onslow County fishing village.

On Monday, crews removed two vessels from the waters around Carolina Beach. Removal of the stranded commercial shrimper Claire Skye is scheduled for later this year. The vessel, currently stranded in Stump Sound near Morris Landing Clean Water Preserve in Holly Ridge, cannot be moved until its resident osprey chicks leave their nest built atop one of the trawler’s outriggers.

This marks the latest wave of abandoned and derelict vessel, or ADV, removals spearheaded by the North Carolina Coastal Federation through a $450,000 grant from the BoatUS Foundation, a nonprofit that focuses on safe, accessible recreational boating for all Americans and promotes environmental stewardship.

The Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, was awarded the grant earlier this year to oversee the removal and disposal of 12 ADVs littering waters in Carteret, Chowan, New Hanover and Onslow counties.

Ted Wilgis, the Coastal Federation’s marine debris program manager, said Wednesday that the organization is actively working to remove another 30 ADVs.

“There’s probably another 10 to 20 more that we know of that we can’t get funding for,” he said, noting that money the organization has received through a four-year, $4.5 million federal grant, state appropriations, and BoatUS Foundation for ADV and marine debris removal is expected to run dry by late summer.

Along with seeking state funding for ADV removal, the organization is working with state lawmakers on legislation to establish a formal North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission abandoned and derelict vessel program, grant liability immunity to the commission, it’s agents and contractors, and other state agencies during removal operations, and permit emergency removals during declared emergencies.

“There are hundreds of vessels out there that haven’t been investigated yet,” Wilgis said. “There are areas where there are a lot of vessels that are kind of in a limbo state. There’s a big demand for removals and, especially in this economy, there’s going to be more and more.”

Unwanted and derelict vessels are often left by owners who can no longer afford to maintain them. During severe storms, some vessels break from their moorings and are either left adrift only to sink in tidal areas or strand in marshes, on shorelines or in reefs.

ADVs obstruct waterways and pose serious pollution risks because of their potential to leak fuel and other hazardous materials such as hydraulic fluid and oil. Most recreational boats are made of fiberglass, which can break down over time in the water.

ADV removal is usually a painstaking process that in some cases can take up to a couple of years to complete, depending on the location and condition of the vessel. Removal can cost anywhere from a few thousand dollars for smaller recreational vessels to more than $100,000.

“It varies on where it is and how long it’s been out there,” Wilgis said.

BoatUS Foundation launched a national initiative supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program to remove hundreds of ADVs from coastal waterways. The project also includes the development of a national database to track ADVs.

More than $7 million in grants have been awarded to cover the costs of direct ADV removals in Alaska, Guam, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, Maine, the U.S. Virgin Islands and North Carolina, according to BoatUS Foundation Project Coordinator Michael Moore.

The organization is hosting in early December its Turning the Tide Summit, a four-day event where government agencies, environmentalists, marine professionals and recycling and waste management experts from across the country will gather to discuss ways to responsibly and sustainably remove and dispose of ADVs and boating-related debris, and share new technologies and innovative recycling programs.

More than 450 ADVs have been removed from North Carolina’s coastal waters either through the Coastal Federation’s marine debris removal program, local governments, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management or the Wildlife Resources Commission, Wilgis said.

In 2020, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized and funded the commission to inspect, investigate and remove ADVs associated with Hurricane Florence and other coastal storms. The agency also publishes a database that identifies ADVs and prioritizes their removal.

Beach towns and coastal counties have also in recent years taken steps authorizing their law enforcement agencies to remove abandoned vessels within their jurisdictions.

This story has been updated to correct the name of Duke University’s Jackson Ewing.

As part of a potential coupling of two regionally powerful electric utilities, a proposed agreement between Virginia-based Dominion Energy and Florida-based NextEra Energy includes a small corner of North Carolina territory in the state’s northeast. But Dominion’s main attributes lie over the border to the north, with its access to a slew of data centers in Virginia as well as what will be the nation’s largest offshore wind energy operation off Hampton Roads.

NextEra Energy, already the nation’s largest electric utility by market value, announced last month that it had reached a $67 billion, all-stock deal with Richmond-based Dominion Energy to essentially absorb its business.

“It’s too soon to tell if this will be overall good thing for North Carolina,” Director of Energy and Climate Policy Jackson Ewing at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, told Coastal Review in a recent interview. “There are several reasons to think that it might be.” But, he added, the opposite may also be true.

As the regulatory process plays out, including securing approval from the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the details and consequent ramifications of the massive deal will become more evident.

“The combined company will be more than 80% regulated, serve approximately 10 million utility customer accounts across Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina and own 110 gigawatts (GW) of generation across a broad mix of energy sources,” the companies said in a joint press release on May 18.

With a market value of about $190 billion, NextEra’s marriage to Dominion, which is valued at about $59.4 billion, would become the “world’s largest regulated electric utility,” according to the release, allowing the business to “drive affordability in the long term by leveraging scale and … efficiencies as the company makes smart investments on behalf of its customers to meet growing power demand.”

The agreement still requires approval from the companies’ shareholders as well as federal and state regulators.

“We have not received any filing,” Lucy Edmondson, chief counsel with the public staff at the North Carolina Utilities Commission, told Coastal Review in late May.

Once it is filed, she explained, the commission would issue a procedural order that issues a docket number. At that, the details of the process moving forward would be publicly available online to view in the docket. By law, the cost-benefit to customers would be investigated, and the commission typically would schedule public hearings.

Although Edmondson said that there is no legal requirement on how long the process should take, the companies said in their announcement that they expect the transaction to close in a year to 18 months.

Ewing, with the Nicholas Institute, agreed that when scale is increased in utility industries, gains in efficiency can follow. For instance, the ability to streamline processes across a larger scale can lead to operational efficiencies, he said, and those can lead to cost savings for customers.

“So, with the larger scale, it’s certainly possible that the merged NextEra-Dominion entity could put more investment into modernizing the grid and developing clean energy sources,” he said. “NextEra has a really well-established track record of building out utility-scale renewable energy. With a greater capital base, potentially lower borrowing costs, and with more influence over their supply chains, you could have some dividends that come from that.”

On the other hand, Ewing said, negative consequences could be lying in wait down the road.

“When scale increases, you also risk having utility policies and approaches that are less appropriate for a particular small service territory,” he said. “In the case of Dominion, just being the northeastern part of North Carolina, this is going to become a relatively small piece of a much larger puzzle with the merger.”

In other words, Ewing elaborated, being a little fish in a big pond could decrease opportunities to innovate development of infrastructure tailored to the local environment or limit creation of programming that responds to those particular customers.

Dominion Energy North Carolina currently provides electricity to about 130,000 customers in much of the northeastern area of the state, including parts of Dare, Pasquotank, Currituck, Hertford, Pitt and Washington counties, among others.

As part of the proposal, $2.25 billion in bill credits would be spread, after the deal closes, over two years to Dominion Energy customers in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, according to the announcement.

The newly reorganized power provider would also fund an additional $10 million annually in charitable support for five years in communities within the three states. And it promised to continue “robust” utility assistance programs for customers facing hardship.

Additionally, Dominion Energy would continue to operate with the same moniker, relative to each of the three states, such as “Dominion Energy North Carolina.”

But the titles at the top will change. John Ketchum, the current chief executive officer at NextEra will become chairman and CEO of the combined company, and Robert Blue, the current CEO at Dominion, will become president and CEO of regulated utilities and a member of the board of directors.

In light of industry-wide electric bill increases, critics have noted bloat in CEO salaries. According to an April 21 article in Energy & Policy Institute that analyzed CEO salaries at investor-owned electric and gas utilities, in 2025 Ketchum was paid $24.2 million, the third highest salary, and Blue was paid just over $16 million, the 10th highest.

Even absent bumps in the regulatory road, electric utilities have been in the crosshairs of public ire as consumer’s power bills continue to climb upward. Mixed in the dismay with growing costs, data centers, which are typically large facilities that can be noisy and often strain local resources such as water, are popping up in communities, sometimes without residents’ previous input or even knowledge.

Nationwide, data centers, which are critical to power the boom in artificial intelligence, or AI, have become such a huge public concern that famed citizen activist Erin Brockovich has gotten involved, creating a website, brockovichdatacenter.com, to collect reports from consumers.

Virginia has some of the highest numbers of centers in the country. Numerous public reports estimate that there are more than 600 data centers in the state, mostly in Northern Virginia. According to an Oct. 25, 2025, article in Inside Climate News, citing a report from Cushman & Wakefield, as of last June, the state had 6,247 megawatts of data centers and an additional 2,610 megawatts under construction.

The existing centers are not the only asset the Florida company will gain in the proposed utility coupling.

When Dominion’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, aka CVOW, is completed in 2027, the 2.6 GW project will become the largest offshore wind farm in the United States. With 176 turbines, the project would generate enough energy to power as many as 660,000 homes and is expected to save customers about $3 billion in fuel savings in its first decade, according to Dominion.

While the result of NextEra’s environmental stewardship remains to be seen, Ewing said that an important point in its favor is the company’s record as an aggressive developer of renewables.

“Their integration with the supply chains for renewable energy and batteries and their capital base will allow them to build that out more aggressively than Dominion would have been able to,” he said. “And so there it is kind of a shot in the arm to big renewable and battery storage builds, which is positive for the environment.”

On the flipside, he said, large utilities tend to seek significant centralized control. For instance, NextEra has been resistant to compensating rooftop solar users in Florida for the energy it produces, and he expects that approach could carry over to North Carolina.

“It’s not dismissed those things out of hand, but it has not given many of the consumer advocates what they wanted in terms of compensation on that metering,” he said. “And it has been much more on the side of, ‘Well, the utility controls the grid, we’re responsible for this infrastructure, we don’t want to socialize those costs.’”

NextEra is also showing more of an appetite to build natural gas plants, Ewing said. Still, those types of sites take about five years to come online, where renewables can usually produce energy quicker and at less cost.

“So that’s the thing we all need to be watching, is how that actually progresses in reality in coming years,” Ewing said.

The Division of Marine Fisheries wants to bring the public into the blue crab stock assessment development process.

The division’s stock assessment scientists plan to review what a stock assessment is and how this data set is developed during a WebEx meeting from 6-8 p.m. Thursday, May 28. Register online to attend the webinar or attend the listening location at the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Central District Office in Morehead City.

The Marine Fisheries Commission, which puts in place rules, policies, and management measures for fisheries, adopted the original North Carolina Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan in late 1998, Amendment 1 in 2004, and Amendment 2 in 2013, according to the division’s website. The division, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, acts as staff to the commission.

A review of the management plan was scheduled for July 2018, but the commission decided in August 2016 to begin a formal review, assess the status of the blue crab stock and identify more comprehensive management strategies, and began developing amendment 3.

As part of that amendment, the division used data from 1995 to 2016 for a benchmark stock assessment, which is a comprehensive assessment conducted every five years by reevaluating data and modeling methods. Results indicate that the state’s blue crab stock was classified as overfished in 2016, according to the division.

The 2018 benchmark stock assessment shows the state’s blue crab stock is overfished, which means that the population size is too small, and overfishing is occurring, or the removal rate is too high.

Amendment 3 was adopted in February 2020 to rebuild the blue crab stock. All Amendment 3 management measures have been fully in place since January 2021.

The division attempted to update the stock assessment in 2023, but staff and external peer reviewers had concerns with model specifications and the results and decided not to use the update to manage the species.

Existing data from division sampling and monitoring programs indicate a continued decline of blue crab stock.

The division’s stock assessment team is going through data now to develop a new benchmark stock assessment and gave an update to the Marine Fisheries Commission during its business meeting May 14 in New Bern.

Stock Assessment Program Manager Matt Damiano explained that part of his motivation to hold the webinar at this stage in developing the assessment is because a member of the fishing community brought to his attention that historically, the only public-facing part of the division’s process has been the peer-review workshop, when the stock assessment is essentially done.

“This webinar is something of a halfway point to where I would like to go with our stock assessment process, which is to make it more public facing,” he said, adding that he has been planning the webinar for several months.

Damiano said that he and Stock Assessment Scientist Matt Zink, the other member of the program’s team, have made progress on the stock assessment update.

“We have been able to analyze all the sources of data that we’re interested in including in the stock assessment, that essentially involves Matt and I digging through the data and determining whether it is usable and what it is telling us,” he said, adding that they’re using data collected through different programs.

The estimated pattern for 1974 through 2024 has fluctuated quite a bit, as marine populations tend to, and saw the highest abundance during the 1990s followed by a marked decline in blue crab abundance after around 2010.

“There have been some modest increases toward the end of that time series, but overall, there is a negative trend for the last 14 years,” Damiano said.

During the same time, the size of blue crabs in the Pamlico Sound have gotten smaller in general, while blue crab size in Albemarle Sound has been stable.

The fishery-dependent data from fish houses points to the size structure being stable, “which is likely more a function of people bringing a really stable set of sizes of crab to market than it is having to do necessarily what’s going on in the population,” Damiano said.

“Another interesting feature is when we looked at abundance over space, it has declined most in the Pamlico Sound, but the Albemarle Sound is still essentially the one big hot spot for blue crab,” he added.

“If you are fishing in Albemarle Sound, things may seem better than they actually are for the population,” but Damiano stressed that “two things can be true at the same time. You can be doing very well if you’re fishing in a particular area, but the population throughout the whole state can still be moving in a different direction.”

Damiano told the commission that for the webinar May 28 he plans to give a brief review of what a stock assessment is and spend some time on what happened with the peer review of the 2023 updated stock assessment.

“I get a lot of comments on why that did not pass peer review and wasn’t recommended for use and management,” Damiano explained, but those who reviewed the assessment left a “clear roadmap for how to improve it,” he said. “It’s those exact steps that they recommended that Matt and I have been taking with this stock assessment and that’s going to give a lot of context to why we did the analyzes we did, and why we’re considering the methods we are for the stock assessment.”

Damiano added that while the peer reviewers did not recommend the model for use in management, and the division decided to heed that advice, “I think the peer review was actually a success in that sense, because they identified really clear problems that we need addressing in the next model.”

The peer reviewers were Dr. Jie Cao, assistant professor at N.C. State’s Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, or CMAST, and Dr. Yan Li, at Duke Cancer Institute Biostatistics Shared Resource at Duke University.

In an interview before the commission meeting, Damiano, who has been with the division about a year, pointed out that the only opportunity for the public to really engage with a stock assessment during the peer review, which is at the end of the process.

“That’s the only workshop that’s technically open to the public, and so I am trying to change that kind of incrementally as I learn what the communication needs are related to stock assessment. And it starts with this webinar,” he said.  

“We’re trying to create a space where we can be transparent about the work that we’ve done so far on the blue crab stock assessment, which is still ongoing, and solicit some feedback from the people,” such as their concerns about population, other sources of data to consider and give the public background for “some of the choices that we’re making while we’re doing the analysis. Really, it’s more just me trying to show my work and begin the dialog where we previously really haven’t had.”

He added that he hopes the webinar opens a line of communication that wasn’t there before.

The below-normal activity predicted for the 2026 Atlantic hurricane season doesn’t give North Carolinians a pass on preparation this year.

“For the Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting a below-normal season for 2026, with roughly a 55% chance of being below normal, a 35% chance of near normal, and a 10% chance of above normal,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Administrator Dr. Neil Jacobs said during a media conference Thursday morning from NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center at Lakeland Linder International Airport in Lakeland, Florida.

“This equates to eight to 14 named storms with winds at or above 39 miles an hour. Of these, three to six hurricanes with winds at or above 74 miles an hour, and one to three major hurricanes, that’s your Category 3 to 5 with winds at or above 111 miles an hour,” he added.

Jacobs is referring to the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale, which categorizes maximum sustained wind speeds for tropical storms. Categories 1 and 2 are windspeeds between 74 and 110 mph, categories 3 to 5 are major hurricanes with speeds from 111 to 157 or higher, according to NOAA. Hurricane season begins Monday, June 1, and ends Nov. 30.

“Even though we’re expecting a below-average season in the Atlantic, it’s very important to understand that it only takes one,” Jacobs said, adding there have been Category 5s that made landfall in the past during below-average seasons.

During the news conference Thursday morning, Jacobs said that “what’s driving this forecast is largely an El Niño event. There’s a 98% chance of El Niño conditions occurring later this season, and an 80% chance that this El Niño will be moderate to strong.”

NOAA National Weather Service Director Ken Graham, who spoke after Jacobs, reiterated that “it just takes one,” and urged the public during the press conference not to “let words like ‘below average’” change the way you prepare.

“Now’s the time to start thinking about your hurricane preparedness,” Graham said. “Early preparedness is absolutely everything. Period. End of story. The actions that you take today really get you ready for the hurricane season.”

Especially a season like this, “there’ll never be a Hurricane Just-a. We’ll never make that a name. There’s no such thing as just a Cat 1, just a tropical storm, just a Cat 2. That is absolutely not the case,” Graham said. “It doesn’t matter what it is, you got to look at the size, the forward motion, little wiggles matter on the impacts. Even the smallest storm, if it’s slow enough and big enough, it’s going to create catastrophic flooding and storm surge.”

Graham said that the public needs to pay attention to every single one of the storm “systems, and the actual impacts, not the category, not the name, but the actual impacts associated with that storm, and that includes the tornadoes, heavy rain, damaging winds, even the high surf and rip currents, as well, including storm surge.”

Erik Heden, warning coordination meteorologist in the National Weather Service’s Newport office, said in an interview with Coastal Review that just because the forecast calls for a below-normal season, residents shouldn’t let their guard down.

“Just because the outlook says it’s going to be a low year doesn’t mean we won’t be impacted,” he said, adding “It just takes one storm. The graphic says a 55% chance below-normal year, but if we get one storm, it really doesn’t matter what the prediction was, it could be a big deal for us.”

Heden also warned in the interview against making decisions based on the category of the storm.

“Categories are only wind,” he said. Wind is to be respected, but the other storm impacts are more likely to be more frequent in terms of issues in our area.

“Water is what kills people. About 85% of people that die in hurricanes, it’s water related — nothing to do with the wind. but it’s, it’s things like rip currents, storm surge, and flooding. Those are the three things that would get us if we get a storm.”

Two years ago, the Southeast faced a potential tropical cyclone that didn’t have a name. No. 8 resulted in almost 20 inches of rain in the Wilmington area, and last year Tropical Storm Chantal produced six to 10 inches of rain in Raleigh.

Steven Pfaff, meteorologist-in-charge for the National Weather Service’s Wilmington office, in an email to media partners Thursday morning, also expressed concern that the forecast for below-normal activity can cause messaging challenges because people may misinterpret what it means for any potential local impacts.  

“All it takes is one storm to define a hurricane season regardless of the outlook,” his emphasis, “Given southeast NC’s and northeast SC’s hurricane history our communities must prepare the same way every year,” Pfaff continued. “Now is the time to prepare for hurricane season, and remain vigilant this summer and fall.”

Jacobs said during the press conference that for official forecast guidance, go to hurricanes.gov.

“June 1 is almost here. Be ready, have a plan, listen to your state and local emergency managers. Preparation is essential. You can learn more at ready.gov,” Jacobs added.

Heden told Coastal Review that the best way to stay informed in eastern North Carolina is to remember “if it’s the weather you love, it’s weather.gov,” where there’s up-to-date information, as well as on the office’s website, Facebook or X.

Coastal Review will not publish Monday in observation of Memorial Day.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving ahead with plans to strike down the nation’s first-ever health standards for chemical contaminants found in the drinking water sources of millions of North Carolinians.

The proposal, announced Monday, comes just shy of the one-year mark from when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said he would eliminate and reevaluate enforceable standards for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, including the compound branded GenX. The agency also wants to push the deadline in which water utilities must comply with enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS, chemicals that are no longer manufactured, by two years from 2029 to 2031.

In what it describes as a “comprehensive PFAS strategy,” the agency explains in a five-page release that drinking water systems would be given the option to opt in for the two-year extension, giving them more time to sample source water for contaminants, test new controls, and train their workforce to manage those controls.

The agency states that the proposed rule to rescind current federal standards for HFPO-DA, commonly referred to as GenX, PFNA, PFHxS and PFBS, would follow the letter of the law in establishing regulations for drinking water standards. The Trump administration argues that the Biden administration failed to follow the proper statutory requirements under the Safe Water Drinking Act when it established the drinking water standards for those four chemical compounds.

Under the proposal, the EPA would provide nearly $1 billion in new funding to states to address PFAS in drinking water and another $1 billion through the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities program.

“The Biden administration cut corners and failed to follow the law,” Zeldin said in the release. “We are fixing that error with standards water systems can actually implement and that will hold up to scrutiny, while addressing PFOA and PFOS, two the best-studied PFAS with well-documented health impacts.”

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in the release that PFAS contamination is “a serious public health challenge that demands rigorous science, clear standards, and practical solutions. Across HHS, we are advancing gold-standard research to better understand PFAS exposure, toxicity, and long-term health impacts on Americans.”

Critics of the proposed rules immediately hit back, calling the announcement a “PR stunt” to try and shade the more than 100 million people across the country whose drinking water sources have been contaminated by PFAS.

“Zeldin and Kennedy are trying to sell potions out of the back of a covered wagon,” Dr. Anna Reade, Natural Resources Defense Council Director of PFAS Advocacy said in a Monday release. “The millions of Americans demanding safe drinking water are not going to fall for their hocus pocus. By repealing and delaying PFAS standards, EPA is abandoning communities in desperate need of drinking water protections, especially those who live near polluting industries.”

News of the proposed rules particularly smacked the Cape Fear region where residents, environmental organizations and public water providers have banded together to fight for regulations that would put the onus on dischargers to keep PFAS out of drinking water sources.

Almost nine years have passed since the Wilmington StarNews broke the news that Chemours, a DuPont spinoff, had for decades been directly discharging PFAS, including GenX, from its Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River. GenX is specific to Chemours’ Bladen County plant more than 70 miles upstream from Wilmington.

Today, more than 1,000 residents living near the Cape Fear River Basin are participating in a study where researchers measure the levels of GenX and other PFAS in people’s blood.

PFAS are a group of chemicals used for their ability to repel water, stains and grease to produce a host of consumer goods like food containers, waterproof-gear and makeup.

These chemicals are ubiquitous because they do not naturally break down in the environment.

The EPA now categorizes nearly 15,000 PFAS, an overwhelming majority of which have yet to be studied for their potential effects on human health.

Some of the known human health effects of PFAS include weakened immunity, low birth weight in newborns, thyroid disease, and certain types of cancers.

“Our community was ground zero for the discovery of GenX in public tap water, impacting over half a million water users across ten counties in southeastern North Carolina,” Clean Cape Fear Co-Founder Emily Donovan stated in a Monday release. “The United Nations Human Rights Council investigated our contamination crisis and publicly named chemical companies like DuPont and Chemours, along with state and federal regulators, for failing to protect us from business-related human rights abuses. We believe today’s announcement perpetuates those abuses. It does not fix our growing PFAS contamination crisis. It stops monitoring it. You don’t cure a fever by breaking the thermometer.”

Related: Public hearings set on proposed wastewater discharge rules

Earlier this month, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission wrapped a series of six public hearings hosted throughout the state on proposed monitoring and minimization rules for discharges of PFOS, PFOA and GenX, and 1,4-dioxane into the state’s surface waters. The EPA classifies 1,4-dioxane, which is primarily used as a solvent in industrial manufacturing, as a likely human-carcinogen.

An overwhelming majority of people who spoke at those hearings argued that the proposed rules would do little to protect drinking water sources because the rules do not set specific discharge limits or penalties for PFAS dischargers found to be in violation of those rules.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality is accepting written comments on the proposed rules through June 15. Most of the thousands of written comments already submitted to DEQ concur with those made at the public hearings, according to department officials.

Public water utilities that serve residents in the Cape Fear region have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to treat PFAS from their raw water sources.

The Biden-era PFAS drinking water standards established in 2024 are in litigation in a lawsuit brought by chemical companies and water utility associations. A decision on that case, which is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is not expected before sometime next year.

“By abandoning and delaying enforceable limits on dangerous industrial chemicals like GenX and other PFAS, the agency is putting polluters’ profits over people and sending a clear message that corporate interests matter more than human lives,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney and Water Program Leader Kelly Moser stated in a release. “This reversal is a slap in the face to every community that has fought for clean drinking water. EPA’s decision isn’t grounded in science or law – it’s a political choice that endangers families throughout America.”

The EPA will accept written comments on the proposed rules for 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register. The rules will be published at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 and Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2025-9654.

The agency has also scheduled a virtual public hearing for July 7. Those who wish to speak must register online.

Questions related to the public hearing may be directed to PFASNPDWR@epa.gov.

The North Carolina Coastal Land Trust is hosting its 16th annual Flytrap Frolic on Saturday, June 6, in Wilmington.

Participants of the free event will receive an education on the types of carnivorous plants that grow in southeastern North Carolina, why they grow there, and how they trap their prey.

The event will be held 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. at the Stanley Rehder Carnivorous Plant Garden, 3800 Canterbury Road, where garden guides will help guests find carnivorous plants in the garden and answer questions.

There will be carnivorous plant-themed games, arts and crafts, and face painters, educational tables with partners from Halyburton Park, Carolina Beach State Park, The North American Sarracenia Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy.

A limited number of ethically sourced flytraps will be sold on a first-come, first-served basis to benefit the Coastal Land Trust.

Anyone who would like to volunteer at the event may sign up online.

BUXTON — Large amounts of underground oil contamination left behind decades ago at a former beachfront U.S Naval facility may finally be gone after the recent completion of an intensive seven-month excavation project, but additional sampling will still need to be done in the fall to confirm that petroleum is no longer a threat.

By month’s end, Army Corps of Engineers contractors, after removing tons of tainted soil and untold gallons of polluted water, will have restored dug-up areas off Buxton Beach and removed the heavy equipment.

“We’re hoping to be out of your hair when the tourists get in your hair,” joked Hillary Weber, program manager for contractor Bay West, at the April 30 quarterly update held in Buxton.

In a presentation at what is officially known as the Restoration Advisory Board, or RAB, for the Buxton Naval Facility Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) property, Weber provided details about the latest challenge in the decades-long effort to clean up the former Navy base, with sporadic, reoccurring incidents since September 2023 of petroleum odors, sheen and shoreline tar balls on the eroded beach and nearshore ocean area after storms.

In the wake of a report of sheen by Cape Hatteras National Seashore last August, the Corps’ Savannah District awarded a contract for petroleum containment, limited soil removal, and monitoring, and then another contract in September for removal of petroleum-contaminated soil.

“It takes quite a bit of effort to get to this site,” Weber said. “A lot of man hours were put in in September and October to get us ready for a successful season.”

Inherent project challenges weren’t helped by heavy rain that saturated the site in November, she said. Still, the first load of soil was able to be removed starting in December.

“Our goal was to minimize our footprint before the holidays,” Weber told the RAB members and a small audience at the Cape Hatteras Anglers Club building. By January, “we really hit our stride,” she said, with excavation at the areas of highest impact.

The site demobilization was originally scheduled to be completed by May 7, but the exit was delayed until just before Memorial Day to allow more time to bring in additional sand to restore the site.

Although Weber reported that 17,000 cubic yards of affected soil and 315,000 gallons of water were removed, Sara Keisler, the Corps’ Savannah District FUDS Program manager, said in a later interview that those numbers were merely estimates. But the exact amounts, which have specific contractual maximum volume limits, were still being calculated, she added. 

“So the intent of this action was to remove a majority of that contamination that potentially could be eroded away and washed out to sea,” Keisler told Coastal Review. “And that’s what we accomplished during this this response action.”

All told, Keisler confirmed, the project consumed about 31,500 labor hours, required 10 “pieces of yellow iron” — heavy equipment — and removed an estimated 275 feet of asbestos pipe, 5 million pounds of concrete, and 2,800 pounds of infrastructure debris.

As Keisler explained, the contaminated soil was sent to a regulated hazardous waste landfill in Canada. The Emelle, Alabama, Subtitle-C landfill that the Corps used in 2024 to dispose of earlier excavated soil from Buxton was not currently available, she said.

Much of the Corps’ time and resources have been dedicated to cleaning up the former top-secret submarine-monitoring facility, which operated from 1956 until 1982 through a special-use permit with the National Park Service, the property owner.

Starting in 1989, the Corps, the federal entity designated to clean up FUDS properties, removed above-ground storage tanks. Next, the FUDS office handled removal of below-ground storage tanks. Subsequent years involved testing, sampling, removing, and monitoring contaminated soil and/or water at various areas of the 50-acre site.

There was a lull, except for some monitoring, after September 2009, when the Corps determined that no further action was warranted. But in September 2023, severe shoreline erosion associated with a series of storms exposed chunks of buried infrastructure and evidence of even more petroleum contamination. Since then, the Corps has spent parts of every year investigating and cleaning up the site.

In the fall, another contractor will sample soil and groundwater within the project area to determine if and where any additional petroleum contamination remains.

Much of the petroleum contamination removed in the recent excavation had been at the site of a former heating plant, Keisler said, which lines up to where there was a previous fuel pipeline.

“That was where the bulk was that we were able to find,” she said. But because the extent of the contamination at that location in the polygon used to delineate areas at the site wasn’t initially known, a modification had to be made to the contract.

“The comprehensive sampling contract was awarded prior to this response action that we’re working on right now,” Keisler said. “When we awarded it, we were basing it upon other data. Then we had to award this response action because we were actively seeing releases again.

“And so, because in that whole polygon, the soil was all mixed up,” she elaborated, “because we were digging it and removing and putting new soil in. We went and modified that contract so that it would be a more evenly dispersed amount of borings across the entire polygon so that we would get the data we need, since the site conditions change due to that response action.”

If further remediation is required, the Corps would have to address it in an additional response action, she said.

Meanwhile, once funding is obtained, the Savannah office plans to return to Buxton for yet another project, known as “a Military Munitions Response Program,” which would address lead contamination at the former small arms range. Compared to decades of environmental cleanup of petroleum and other dangers, remnants of some ammunition almost may seem innocuous. 

“It’s located on the southwest side of that pond,” Keisler said. “It’s a very small area. It’s got a whole bunch of growth on it. It’s not accessible.” 

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.”