This special news feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

NEW BERN — Special Deputy Attorney General Mary Lucasse gestured to the projector screen behind her as she began her presentation to a couple dozen last month about the rules governing the last five decades of coastal development.

On the screen, a black-and-white photograph taken over a century ago depicting three, nattily dressed men in a rowboat, gliding across Bogue Sound with the expanse of undeveloped waterfront in the background a reminder of how much North Carolina’s coastline has changed.

When the photo was taken in 1912, the character of coastal North Carolina was “so different than it is today, 100 years later. We didn’t have bridges to the coast, people were not building on barrier islands,” Lucasse explained.

Lucasse joined the state Department of Justice in 2009, and works in the department’s Environmental Division. Her presentation, “50th Anniversary of the Coastal Area Management Act,” opened the daylong Shape of the Coast legal symposium, held in conjunction with North Carolina Sea Grant’s biennial Coastal Conference, Nov. 13-14 at the Riverfront Convention Center.

North Carolina Sea Grant, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of General Counsel and the National Sea Grant Law Center partnered on the symposium that featured speakers on concerns regarding homeowner’s insurance, oceanfront homes, wetlands, sand for beach nourishment and other aspects.

“Development really started on the oceanfront after World War II, and even later than that, and what North Carolina was experiencing was a destruction of wetlands, indiscriminate development, dredging, septic tanks that were improperly sited, declining water quality,” Lucasse said. “And as the population in coastal North Carolina grew, the governor at that time realized that we lacked the public infrastructure and regulations that would allow North Carolina the capacity to handle an increase in population and development.”

The governor at the time, Bob Scott, worked with legislature to put together the Dredge and Fill Act in 1969. Lucasse called the measure “the start” of the state’s work to protect its coastal and the natural resources. The act put limits on dredging and filling of wetlands. Scott also directed a committee to design what would become the Coastal Area Management Act.

When North Carolina was looking to protect its coastal resources, the federal level was doing the same, resulting in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which Lucasse called “an important partner as we protect and manage the coastal resources here in North Carolina.”

CAMA was first drafted in 1973 but there was a lot of pushback from utilities, agriculture and building interests.

“At first, CAMA was opposed by 90% of the coastal legislators,” which she said was in part because coastal stakeholders wanted a larger role in the process. Legislators in response reworked the proposed act to include their feedback.

CAMA was enacted in 1974 and created the Coastal Resources Commission.

The commission adopts rules, establishes procedures for processing and enforcing major and minor development permits, considers variances from coastal development rules and appeals of permitting decisions, and other development rules.

Lucasse has been legal counsel to the commission since 2011, In that role, Lucasse advises members on open meeting laws, meeting procedures, handles public records requests, writes the commission’s final decisions, represent the commission on any litigation, and works with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management. Division staff implement commission rules and issues CAMA permits.

“When I talk about CAMA, I always talk about the fact that this is a balancing statute. This is not about, ‘Let’s do everything we can to only protect natural resources.’ No, we balance the rights of development, the rights of property owners, with the need to protect natural resources,” she said.

CAMA protects the rights of neighbors, the public trust, the right to use ocean beaches, and to use navigable waters, she added.

A large part of CAMA is its land-use planning component. At the local level, the plans provide a blueprint for community growth and are used to guide development. At the state level, the plans review development requests and determine consistency both with state guidelines and federal regulations.

CAMA also gives the Coastal Resources Commission the power to determine areas of environmental concern. In the 1970s, the commission was directed to establish AECs.

They decided that all the barrier islands would fall under that designation, and there was “a lot of pushback for that,” Lucasse said. “They realized that really, the rules of the commission had to focus on critical areas. They began thinking about buffers, ocean beaches, not upland areas, but areas that are critical for protecting the North Carolina coastal resources.”

Now, areas environmental concern include estuarine system areas, ocean hazard areas, public water supplies, and natural and cultural resource areas. Examples are estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, beaches, frontal dunes, inlets and surface water and water supplies.

Another major aspect of CAMA is permitting and enforcement.

“I think of permits as the teeth of CAMA,” Lucasse said, because before any development in an any of the CAMA-designated areas, a permit is required, in addition to any required at the local or federal level.

CAMA grew to include in 1981 the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Program, a way to allow everyone to enjoy the shoreline.

“North Carolina realized that it was very important not only to protect the natural resources, but to allow the public to exercise their public trust rights. And this program was created to identify, to acquire, to improve and to maintain public access ways to public trust resources,” she said, noting that the legislature provided about $2 million in first-year funding.

In the decades since, appropriations have been at just over $1 million a year, she said. “Historically, the requests for funding have exceeded the amount of funding available. But since 1981, the division of coastal management has awarded over 500 grants that total about $45 million.”

Starting in 1982, the state began adding to CAMA reserve sites. Now, there are 10 coastal reserve sites making up the North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve that protects about 44,000 acres along the coast.

“The reserves are really important component,” Lucasse said, adding that the sites allow for stewardship of these natural resources, research and education. Students visit the reserve sites to experience the natural resources.

Lucasse, in her presentation, was joined by Zach Griffith, a second-year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Griffith said that CAMA had undergone significant changes since 1994, including the exemption of floating structures associated with the shellfish industry from regulation, how lobbyists changed how the state interpreted sea level rise policy, the repeal of a ban on terminal groins to now allowing seven terminal groin permits that can potentially be issued.

Changes to a controversial bill that would have allowed development to trump historical and environmental protections went before the Senate judiciary committee Wednesday for discussion, and the measure now features a new provision allowing additional hardened shoreline structures to be built on Bald Head Island.

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico and also representing Carteret, Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington counties, explained during the meeting that the previous language to change Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permitting process rules was being replaced with directives for the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources regarding historically significant land.

With the new language, Sanderson said Wednesday, the department would be required, “upon request,” to inform the owner or prospective buyer of property “in an area of environmental concern of anything that may be of archaeological or historical significance,” Sanderson said.

The language also would prohibit the Office of State Archaeology, under the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, to add conditions to a CAMA permit restricting development for three years after its issued, and directs the state agency to apply for funding to purchase properties in an area of environmental concern that has archaeological or historical significance, he said.

The new language replaces, as Sanderson explained it during a June 6 Agriculture, Energy, and Environment committee meeting, an attempt to harness the Division of Coastal Management, which he said had “forced developers to conduct lengthy, open-ended and costly historical and archaeological investigations to obtain a permit or as a condition of a permit.”

The previous language, Sanderson continued on June 6, “to some degree reins in DCM’s historical and archaeological jurisdiction to develop activities that involve actual land disturbance, and so that specifies the circumstances under which an area can be designated as an Area of Environmental Concern based on cultural, scientific or scenic values, or natural systems.”

Cultural Resources Communications Director Schorr Johnson said Thursday that while the new language is an “improvement from the original proposal, the Office of State Archaeology already provides information to property owners and prospective property owners about archaeological resources on their property. The new language attempts to codify that practice while also undermining archaeological protections. We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature on this proposal.”

Regarding the new section on hardened shorelines, Sanderson told the judiciary committee Wednesday that the language modifies the decade-old statute that allowed a limited number of terminal groins as a pilot project along the North Carolina shoreline.

Bald Head Island was the first town to build a terminal groin after a former law banning hardened erosion control structures on the North Carolina coast was repealed in 2011.

The new language defines “terminal groin” as one or more structures constructed at the terminus of an island or on the side of an inlet, or where the ocean shoreline converges with Frying Pan Shoals, and changes the number of permits from six to seven to construct a terminal groin.

Bald Head Island has been working with the Department of Environmental Quality on the provision to allow the village to apply for a permit to build a second groin on the island nearest to Frying Pan Shoals, Sanderson explained.

“Upon passing, the village plans to do robust studies on the best environmental path forward for the new structure,” Sanderson said. “The section would also enable Bald Head Island to eliminate a number of geotextile sand tubes that have to be replaced every five to seven years at great expense to residents and replace them with permanent rock structures that are equal or less in number and size than the existing tubes.”

Southern Environmental Law Center North Carolina Legislative Counsel Brooks Rainey Pearson told Coastal Review in an email Thursday that the section added via proposed committee substitute Wednesday would change the definition of “terminal groin” to allow a new groin on the east end of south beach on Bald Head Island.

“We are against any expansion of the armoring (or ‘hardening’) of the coast, and believe that expanding the number of new groins allowed under state law will effectively open the entire coast to terminal groins on N.C.’s public trust beaches,” Pearson said in the email. “Groins are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and encourage litigation as homeowners on the ‘wrong’ side of the groin lose sand/beach to properties on the ‘right’ side of the groin.”

Bald Head Island Public Information Officer Carin Faulkner said Thursday morning in response for a comment that the village council had not reviewed the proposed language, but village staff plan to present the information during the council’s 10 a.m. Friday meeting, which can be viewed online.

Division of Coastal Management officials said Thursday afternoon that the new provision would make the Village of Bald Head Island eligible to apply for a permit to construct another terminal groin near Frying Pan Shoals and it increases the cumulative number of terminal groins that the Coastal Resources Commission can permit from six to seven.

Sanderson, Lazzara want to ‘rein in’ regulatory authority

When the previous language, which was replaced Wednesday, had gone before the Senate agriculture committee June 6, both Sanderson and Sen. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, said the intention was to “rein in” the Division of Coastal Management and CAMA authority.

The North Carolina General Assembly passed the Coastal Area Management Act in 1974 to guide development on land near coastal waters. The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for CAMA that are carried out by the Division of Coastal Management, under the Department of Environmental Quality. The commission also determines for the 20 coastal counties area of environmental concern, which are those areas that are vulnerable to flooding or erosion, or may have environmental, social, economic or aesthetic values that make it valuable to the state.

State archaeology officials said in a June 10 response that the language was linked to a subdivision being built in Cedar Point where “extensive Native American human burials and an undisturbed Woodland period (1000 BC – AD 1600) village site have been found” and the bill as it was written then “would endanger some of North Carolina’s most significant archaeological and historical resources, including Native American village sites and human burials.”

Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Public Information Officer Michele Walker said Friday that two archaeological sites were found in the 1970s at the tract where Bridge View subdivision is now being developed.

Walker said that the department, through the Office of State Archaeology and the State Historic Preservation Office, is one of 10 state agencies that review CAMA major permit applications. These agencies may recommend specific permit conditions based on the permit review.

In response to the division’s CAMA Major Permit application review, the Office of State Archeology noted that the area of potential effect for the proposed Bridge View subdivision contained these two known and unassessed prehistoric archaeological sites that are adjacent to four other archaeological sites identified in a survey for the neighboring subdivision of the 1990s Magens Bay subdivision, she said.

“During construction at the site, the remains of at least five individuals were inadvertently disturbed in the developer’s Phase 1 area, which is outside the CAMA defined area of environmental concern,” Walker said. “And an initial archaeological survey within the AEC has identified 11 additional human burial sites, each of which may include multiple individuals. This initial archaeological survey included test trenches that, cumulatively, uncovered just over 1 acre of the almost 21-acre area of environmental concern.”

State Archaeologist Chris Southerly told Coastal Review last week that the “initial findings at this site indicate that this area was a pre-contact-era American Indian settlement which was occupied over multiple generations.”

Southerly said the site “is one of the most significant archaeological sites ever identified in North Carolina and could help us to understand more about these ancient people and their day-to-day lives. It’s important to recognize that this site contains multiple human burial sites – the ancestors of people living in coastal North Carolina today. These once-vibrant people deserve the utmost respect and care of their final resting place.”

Sanderson still could try to harness CAMA

Sanderson suggested at the agriculture committee meeting earlier this month that, during the legislative session most likely to begin in January, lawmakers can review CAMA parameters, “and see which ones are still good, which ones are outdated, which ones need to be changed or updated.”

“We welcome any opportunity to improve on our 50-year history of balancing the protection of coastal resources and the public trust with economic development. We all share a common desire to enjoy a healthy environment and economic growth. We support any reforms that are thoughtful, stakeholder engaged, and that will result in positive outcomes for a healthy coast and for the public,” division officials said Thursday.

It’s been a long time, Sanderson said in noting 50 years had passed since the landmark coastal measure became law. “CAMA has done a lot of great work on the coast, exactly what it was intended for,” but it’s time for a review “and we need to make sure that what we’re doing is still relevant for the coastal area, for the environment and for the people who want to take advantage of our areas.”

Division officials last week in response explained that eliminating its regulatory role does not improve the process for the public, “it simply replaces it with a much slower federal process, and certain permit applications that are now processed by DCM within two weeks could be taken over by the US Army Corps of Engineers and take six months or more to process.”

The division “serves as a permitting clearinghouse for coastal development so that one application to us covers all state and federal permits in most cases. Instead of having DCM guide applicants on necessary permits and standards, applicants will have to figure those out on their own and may inadvertently find themselves in violation of state or federal law due to a lack of awareness.”

The primary goal of CAMA is to balance protection of the public trust — environmental, cultural, aesthetic, recreational use — with private use and economic development, DCM officials said.

“DCM has a 50-year history of finding this balance, coordinating with other state and federal regulatory and resource agencies to continuously streamline the permitting process. This has made NC one of the most efficient coastal management programs in the nation. Some of the HB385 provisions stand to reverse years of progress to the detriment of the public,” officials continued. “Local governments may face heavier burdens on their staff time and resources to manage development activity that is currently handled by the state, including adopting and enforcing new ordinances, and resolving disputes and legal challenges.”

Sanderson also noted about the previous language discussed at the agriculture committee meeting June 6 that the provision would limit CAMA permits to development activities only within an area of environmental concern, and that Division of Coastal Management would be the only agency authorized to review and issue CAMA permits.

Division of Coastal Management officials said their agency collaborates with Cultural Resources staff throughout the permitting process if archaeological work on a project is requested, including after a permit is issued if there is a condition placed on the permit related to archaeological resources.

“Between 2020 and 2023, the Division of Cultural and Natural Resources reviewed 737 projects that were seeking major coastal permits and recommended archaeological work on 13 of those projects,” Walker said. The Office of State Archaeology “has limited to no statutory enforcement authority outside of its commenting responsibilities for environmental permits. Human burials, both marked and unmarked, do have statutory protections.”

The bill as it was previously written would have restricted the Office of State Archaeology, among other state agencies, from being consulted or recommending conditions on permits issued pursuant to CAMA.

“This sets an alarming precedent and could leave the permitting body or official unable to consult archaeological experts within state government when determining a project’s impact on archaeological and historical resources, including unmarked human remains,” she said.

This special news feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

BEAUFORT – The state’s Rachel Carson Reserve protects more than its herd of around 30 wild horses.

The dedicated nature preserve’s five uninhabited barrier islands, totaling 2,315 acres, protect historic downtown Beaufort from the ravages of ocean winds and tides.

“You can see just how vulnerable the town of Beaufort can be during storms coming through that Beaufort Inlet,” Central Sites Manager Paula Gillikin said early Friday afternoon from the boardwalk on Carrot Island, one of the five islands making up the site.

Gillikin was speaking to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality leadership, local, state and federal elected officials, fiscal research and governor’s office budget staff, partners, residents and volunteers, as part of a “Discover the N.C. Coastal Reserve Tour.”

The gathering of about 20 had met earlier that morning at Beaufort Hotel to tour the Rachel Carson Reserve. It was the third stop on a multi-year campaign launched in June 2023 when the Currituck Banks Reserve reopened after repairs. The second stop was at Bird Island Reserve in December 2023.

NCDEQ Chief Deputy Secretary Tim Watkins explained before the tour how 50 years ago, “North Carolina enacted the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, as we all know it.”

“Passing CAMA in 1974 was a bold and important step that was intended to balance economic development and protection of coastal resources through coordination and planning under the umbrella of state and local partnership,” Watkins said. “CAMA was also intended to reflect the will of coastal residents in finding this balance.”

He noted how CAMA was amended in the 1980s to establish the state Coastal Reserve Program, which “provides public access to coastal areas, essential habitat, fisheries and wildlife, and a cleaner healthier environment for all. The reserve sites also strengthen our communities by developing a sense of place and creating opportunities to reconnect and recharge with our natural world.”

Coastal Reserve Program Manager Rebecca Ellin said that the reserve program protects more than 44,000 acres of coastal and estuarine habitats across the 10 sites.

These sites provide essential habitat for wildlife, educational opportunities for students, teachers and the public, living laboratories for scientists to inform the management of the state’s coasts and estuaries, public enjoyment for citizens and visitors and protection of local communities from storms and erosion, Ellin said.

“The reserve program in North Carolina started nearly 40 years ago with the designation of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve. This happened in 1985 via a state-federal partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Estuarine Research Reserve System and the Division of Coastal Management,” she said.

The designation of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve provided an inspirational model for the state of North Carolina to protect additional habitat areas, Ellin continued.

“In 1989, the General Assembly amended the Coastal Area Management Act to do just that and formally established the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, which includes the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve.”

There were a handful of past and current elected officials on hand, including Rett Newton, who was raised in Beaufort and is a former town mayor. He said that protecting the Rachel Carson Reserve is “personal for us. It is personal. It may not be personal for Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, or Washington, D.C., but I assure you it is very personal for us.”

Beaufort Mayor Sharon Harker, who is in her second term, added that the reserve has a lot of talents, and the town is working with the state programs to protect the island for future generations. “It’s a classroom, it’s a laboratory, it provides us information so that we can inform policies to be better and proactive caretakers of the island, but the reserve is a gem. It’s part of our character, it’s part of our history.”

Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, who also represents Carteret County, told attendees that the reserve is worth fighting for and worth protecting, “not only for its beauty, but its protection” as a barrier island.  “It’s up to us to save it for the next generation.”

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, was on the coast for the tour, as well. A resident of Greensboro, Harrison said she spends her weekends patrolling the shoreline of the Rachel Carson Reserve and has for 34 years.

She extended her gratitude to those who have made the reserve “such a special place” adding, “I love this place. I’m going to do what I can save it.”

Rep. Celeste C. Cairns, R-Carteret and Craven counties, spoke briefly, stating she is “so proud of this district. It’s impossible to express how much I love it here.”

Gillikin, who grew up in Beaufort and is currently a town commissioner, has been with the reserve program since 2007, and oversees both the Rachel Carson Reserve and Permuda Island Reserve near Topsail Island.

Gillikin said she feels “privileged to coordinate the stewardship of this site and to work with all the passionate community members and commercial users and teachers and advisory committee members. It really is all about people.”

She echoed Newton in that the site is very personal to her, because five generations back, her family owned a lot of the land, and “I never thought that I would come back to Beaufort and be a steward of the land.” She left Beaufort to attend the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

“Their blood, sweat and tears are out there. And mine are too,” she said, clarifying “no big injuries, just some nicks and cuts.”

After the tour, Ellin expressed her gratitude for those who joined, “to celebrate the Rachel Carson Reserve, share their perspectives, and take in its beauty and the diverse roles the reserve plays for ecosystems and people alike.”

About the Carrot Island Living Shoreline Project

Part of the event included a quick peek by boat of the Carrot Island Living Shoreline Project, currently under construction.

A representative of consulting firm Moffatt & Nichol, which is a contractor on the living shoreline project here, told Coastal Review Monday that work began April 12. A joint project between Carteret County and the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, the work includes around 1,475 linear feet of living shoreline, extending along the east side of Carrot Island, which is adjacent to Taylor’s Creek. 

The design features two sills. There is a sill of wave-attenuation units, called ExoForms and manufactured by Natrx, a nature-based resilience and restoration company in Raleigh, and a sill with oyster habitat units called Oyster Catchers, which are manufactured by Sandbar Oyster Co. in Beaufort.

The footprint for the ExoForms is around 11,250 square feet, with a length of 1,250 feet, and the footprint for the oyster habitat sill is about 6,960 square feet, and about 1,270 linear feet.

The sills run parallel to one another with a gap of 10 feet in between. Both are 100-foot segments with 10-foot gaps between the segments to allow water and wildlife to move through.

Plans include planting marsh grass, both Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens, to support stabilization of the shoreline and enhance the ecological value of the project, according to the company.

“The length of shoreline to be protected was chosen to provide maximum benefit to the Carrot Island shoreline based upon available funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the North Carolina Land and Water Fund, and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,” according to the company.

Gilikin said monitoring the project’s performance over time and sharing successes and lessons learned could inform future living shoreline design and estuarine shoreline management in coastal North Carolina.

About the reserve program

The North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve program initiative began in 1982 with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Three sites were dedicated in 1985 to be part of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve: Rachel Carson, Currituck Banks and the Zeke Island reserves. The fourth national site, Masonboro Inlet Reserve, was designated in 1991.

The state initiated the parallel program in 1987. This move, according to NCDEQ, was to protect other coastal areas that could not be incorporated into the national program. The state acquired Permuda Island near topsail Island that year and Buxton Woods in the southern Outer Banks in 1988.

In 1989 CAMA formally established the North Carolina Coastal Reserve Program. In the following years, the state program grew to include Kitty Hawk Woods Reserve in 1992, Bald Head Woods Reserve in 1993, Emily and Richardson Preyer Buckridge Reserve in Tyrrell County in 1999, and Bird Island Reserve, the southernmost site, in 2002.

This special news feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

WILMINGTON – There was no time to waste.

The North Carolina General Assembly’s April 1974 passage of the Coastal Area Management Act triggered demanding deadlines to set the course for managing development along the coast.

Today, the act continues to be referred to as “bold,” one that thrust North Carolina into an elite category whose leaders had the foresight to create something that other coastal states look to as a template for how to do it right.

Yet CAMA’s beginning was as humble as it was ambitious.

“There was zero staff, zero institutional history,” explained David Owens, retired professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina School of Government. “It was a blank slate pretty much.”

Owens, who spent 10 years with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, was among a host of panelists who verbally unfolded CAMA’s history, how it has evolved over the last five decades, and how it has led to the creation of partnerships aimed at conserving unique coastal resources and, in today’s changing climate, helping communities adapt to the effects of rising seas.

From those who were there at the beginning to those who spoke of how the local governments they represent have benefited from CAMA, panelists spoke at the Coastal Resources Commission meeting Wednesday afternoon in downtown Wilmington to commemorate CAMA’s 50^th anniversary.

Owens reminisced on the first 15 years of CAMA, breaking the act’s earlier history into two parts – the first few, building from the ground up years to the subsequent years when officials “put some muscle on the bones that had been there.”

One of the big political debates that sprouted during CAMA’s first weeks centered on appointments to the Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, a then-newly created commission that would be responsible for designating areas of environmental concern or areas of natural importance, to protect from uncontrolled development, adopting development rules and policies within those areas, and verify local coastal land use plans.

What qualifications were they looking for in commission members? How would they be appointed? Officials had to determine the answers to those questions and ensure the first sitting members were on the commission in six weeks.

For the first three years, the commission met two days each month, rotating their meetings up and down the coast. Within that time and starting with a staff of two, the commission adopted guidelines for local land use plans, identified areas of environmental concern and hosted public hearings on those areas, and adopted development standards. Nineteen of the state’s 20 coastal counties adopted land use plans.

State staff gradually grew to roughly a dozen people, and in March 1978, the CAMA permit program was launched.

Into the early to mid-1980s, the CRC beefed up CAMA’s foundation, improving planning guidelines to make them more useful and helpful for local governments. The board took another look at oceanfront development standards established for areas of environmental concern, formulated a method on how to get solid beach erosion rates, and examined social and economic impacts associated with these designated areas.

CAMA programs expanded to include land acquisition, which led to public beach accesses and estuarine system and acquisition programs for natural areas, which led to the purchase of state reserve sites.

CAMA has been amended several times over the years. Today, DCM has more than 50 full-time employees and issues about 3,000 permits each year.

Panelists who spoke Wednesday highlighted various successes DCM has achieved, including 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regional general permits specific to North Carolina that streamline the permitting process, collaborating with other organizations to create and implement nature-based solutions such as living shorelines to combat erosion, and guiding local governments in implementing climate resiliency and adaptation programs.

Through the CAMA program, local governments have received more than $45 million to create or improve 420 sites to provide public access to beaches and coastal waters, said North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Elizabeth Biser.

“Fifty years of CAMA has helped to preserve a healthy environment, foster economic opportunity, and protect our public trust resources for the future,” Biser said. “All of these have led to a high quality of life for coastal residents, a coast that draws visitors and their economic benefit, and a living laboratory to introduce students at our public schools to the natural world and the wonders of science. We should all be proud of the accomplishments this partnership has made through CAMA’s history.”

“CAMA has done many, many, many things positive for coastal North Carolina,” Sen. Norm Sanderson, R-Pamlico, said. “It’s also very, very connected to the economic health of this state and the safety of the people who live here. It’s not about our generation. It’s about what we leave for the next generation and the next generation.”

Hyde County Manager Kris Cahoon Noble explained that CAMA affects daily decisions of that local government.

“It is the act that has protected our most precious coastal resources,” she said.

Fresh challenges

The future of coastal management will look different in the years to come as an onset of fresh challenges emerges thanks to rapidly growing populations in the state’s 20 coastal counties, the onset of more intense coastal storms and nuisance flooding associated with sea level rise.

“The changes over the next 50 years aren’t going to look the same as the last 50,” DCM Director Tancred Miller said.

The Coastal Resources Commission is currently locked in a battle with the North Carolina Rules Review Commission over more than a dozen rules that affect day-to-day decisions within the division.

Thursday closed the public comment period on 16 of 30 longstanding rules objected to by the Rules Review Commission last fall and then removed from the North Carolina Administrative Code.

The commission voted in December to classify and adopt the 16 rules as “emergency,” which effectively got them back into the Administrative Code.

DCM had received 171 comments as of Monday, all of which urge the CRC to adopt the rules as temporary, a measure that would keep them in the Administrative Code for one year or until they are reinstated as permanent rules.

The rules include one that designates Jockey’s Ridge State Park as an area of environmental concern and dictates that sand blown from Jockey’s Ridge onto neighboring properties must be returned to the park.

The coastal commission and DEQ filed a lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court against the rules commission and Snyder to settle the deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore the rules.

The commission has scheduled a special called meeting at 11 a.m. March 13 to decide whether to adopt the temporary rules.

This special commentary feature is part of Coastal Review’s 12-month observance of the Coastal Area Management Act’s 50th year.

When first considered 50 years ago, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was the most controversial environmental legislation considered in the state. It was then and remains the state’s only attempt to forge a state-local government partnership for regional resource management. Many observers in 1974 thought that if not repealed, this new law would collapse from the weight of its overly ambitious design.

Yet CAMA is still with us. This article reviews how the law came to be, how it has worked, and the challenges it faces moving forward.

Adoption

Gov. Bob Scott first proposed a state coastal program in 1969. Given the complexity of developing a “comprehensive and enforceable plan” for the coastal zone, in 1971 a 25-member Blue Ribbon Committee with diverse interests was created to develop legislation. It took the committee two years to develop a draft bill that served as the framework for CAMA.

In early 1973, the administration of newly elected Republican Gov. Jim Holshouser supported moving forward with the bill. It was introduced by the Democratic chairs of the House and Senate committees that would consider the bill, Rep. Willis Whichard of Durham and Sen. Bill Staton of Lee County. Coastal local governments quickly expressed reservations about the state taking over traditional local powers relative to land use management. So, the sponsors decided to conduct a series of hearings in the coastal area between the 1973 and 1974 legislative sessions to further refine the legislation.

After these hearings and much deliberation, the bill was revised to that strengthened the role of local government and move most policy decisions to a Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) composed of citizens with a broad range of differing interests and expertise (rather than with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as originally proposed). A Coastal Resources Advisory Committee with strong local representation was added to bolster local involvement. The bill still faced strong opposition from some in the development community, from private property rights advocates, and some coastal local governments. Most coastal legislators remained in opposition. But with strong bipartisan support from Gov. Holshouser and Lt. Gov. Jim Hunt (who at that time was the presiding officer in the Senate), and after several legislative near-death experiences, the bill was enacted on April 11, 1974.

This four-year effort to develop CAMA modelled what has been a defining feature of coastal management in North Carolina – proceeding cautiously but ambitiously and only after a great deal of discussion and consensus building amongst affected interests.

Judicial and Legislative Challenges

The threat of judicial invalidation was a serious immediate concern. The three principal legal challenges were that application of the law to coastal counties rather than making it a statewide program rendered it a “local law” prohibited by the state constitution, that the broad authority granted to the CRC constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative discretion, and that the development regulations would be an unconstitutional taking of private property. In 1978 the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law on the local act and unlawful delegation claims and held the takings claim was premature.

There have since been nearly 30 state appellate court decisions regarding CAMA. Most have dealt with the process for making individual permit appeals to the courts, the details of specific enforcement orders, and the occasional interpretation of development standards and variance rules as applied to individual applications. No cases have found that CAMA rules unconstitutionally constrain private property rights, notably upholding decisions to deny permits for fill for a road in wetlands and for construction of shoreline erosion control structures.

The threat of legislative repeal of the law did not materialize. That is not to say there has not been ongoing legislative opposition. In the early 1980s a prominent coastal legislator threatened to “gut CAMA like a fish on the wharf in Wanchese” and unsuccessfully sought to eliminate most of its budget. While the General Assembly has continually tweaked and refined the law, most of the legislative changes strengthened or refined the details of the law rather than weakening it. Budgetary support has waxed and waned over the years, but as part of broader trends affecting all environmental programs.

Program Accomplishments

CAMA has successfully met most of its lofty goals.

Land use planning. When CAMA was enacted only a small handful of coastal cities or counties had land use plans and local development regulations. That was not surprising given the rural and small-town nature of much of the coastal region. So, building local institutional planning capacity was an early focus of CAMA. By 1993 all 20 coastal counties and 67 municipalities (including 59 cities with populations under 5,000) had adopted plans and had them approved by the CRC.

The state’s planning guidelines have evolved over time to promote local attention to key policy areas, including addressing storm hazards and rebuilding, beach access, coastal water quality, and more resilient and sustainable development patterns. Greater flexibility has been granted to local governments to tailor planning to their particular circumstances. While the quality of individual local plans still varies a good deal, the level of citizen and local government engagement in addressing future land use and development has moved from nearly nonexistent to robust. This would have happened for only a few local governments without the CAMA planning mandate and the substantial state and federal funding provided to prepare and implement local plans.

Development standards. The second early focus of the program was developing a permit program for critical coastal environmental areas. In 1977 the CRC designated coastal waters and wetlands and about 3% of the coastal land area as its permit jurisdiction. While the areas have been tweaked and modestly expanded several times since, the scope of CAMA permit jurisdiction has been accepted and noncontroversial. Initiatives to consolidate and streamline permit processing have been adopted over the years, including exemptions for minor development and expedited general permits for routine work.

The standards for development have prevented unwise and harmful development while not deterring beneficial and desirable development. The wholesale filling and excavation of coastal marshes taking place in the 1950s and 1960s was halted. Piers, bulkheads, and marinas are built without destroying critical fisheries habitats or interfering with public use of coastal waters. “Living shorelines” and other innovations for dealing with estuarine shoreline erosion are being encouraged. Redevelopment of urban waterfronts and enhancement of the state’s ports proceeds in a responsible fashion.

The standards adopted for development in ocean hazard areas are one of the more significant program accomplishments. Oceanfront setbacks have prevented construction of new structures that would shortly be in danger of falling into the ocean. When these setbacks were enacted in 1979, it was estimated there were nearly 800 existing oceanfront lots that could not meet the new setback requirements. The doubled setback later adopted for large structures further reduces future losses, particularly when major storms strike the coast. CAMA standards prohibit the construction of oceanfront bulkheads that would eventually destroy the public beach. These measures, which would not exist without CAMA, have been critical in preserving the attractive ocean beaches that are a beloved state treasure and essential to the tourism industry.

Beach and water access. The General Assembly significantly improved CAMA by adding an ocean beach access program in 1981 and extending it to estuarine shorelines and waters in 1983. These laws declared, and the courts subsequently confirmed, that the public has a right to free use of ocean beaches and public trust waters. These programs provided the walkways, dune crossovers, piers, parking, and restrooms needed for people to get to and use these public resources. Since an initial $1 million beach access appropriation in 1981, the state has provided over $50 million in grants to support nearly 500 access projects. This extensive access program has been a rousing success.

Preservation of natural areas. As with beach access, CAMA did not originally include a program for preservation of natural areas that were not already under public ownership. That was rectified when the state secured approval for a four-site National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1982. Additional sites were added in the mid-1980s as state protected areas. The General Assembly formalized this initiative with the adoption of legislation establishing a state coastal reserve program in 1989. There are now 10 coastal reserve sites containing over 44,000 acres, assuring the long-term preservation of important natural areas for research, education, and public enjoyment.

Challenges

Coastal management is never “solved.” The appropriate balance between competing legitimate public interests in development and conservation is always in flux. New issues and challenges emerge. Old conflicts and controversies are resurrected. Interest groups on all sides continually jockey for some new advantage.

Two additional factors will make resolution of ongoing coastal issues more challenging in the coming decades.

The state’s population, which was under 5.5 million when CAMA was enacted, is now over 10.5 million and is expected to top 14 million by 2050. While coastal population growth in the 1960s created the need for CAMA, the coming decades will see even greater growth. Six of our oceanfront counties are projected to have population increases of over 25% by 2050. Accommodating this growth will put significant pressures on natural resources and public infrastructure. Many of our beach towns are nearly built out at the current low-density levels desired by residents and visitors alike. Securing affordable housing and maintaining the traditional character and charm of coastal communities will be difficult. At the same time, six of our coastal counties are facing population losses of over 10% by 2050, which poses different but no less significant challenges for these more rural coastal areas.

There has been an understandable pressure on the state program since the mid-1980s to focus its efforts and attention on improving the permitting program that it directly manages. However, as those who crafted CAMA clearly understood, the permitting program alone will be inadequate to meet this coming growth challenge. Renewed funding and attention to the collaborative state-local land use planning built into CAMA will be necessary.

The second factor that will increasingly challenge CAMA success is the accelerating impacts of climate change in general and sea level rise particularly. Accommodating new development and protecting natural resources will be more difficult given more frequent and widespread flooding and storms, increasing habitat loss, threats to transportation and utilities infrastructure, and the near-certain eventual need to address major post-storm recovery and rebuilding. While meaningful attention is now being given to adaptation and resilience issues, going well beyond “business as usual” will be essential to deal with these longer-term impacts. The integrated use of regulation, planning, acquisition, and public education that is built into CAMA provides the opportunity to do this.

Keys to Continued Success

Legislative support and funding have always been and will continue to be fragile. Those disappointed by policies adopted by the CRC seek to persuade the legislature to intervene, a perennial practice that will no doubt continue. Building continuing and constructive legislative engagement is necessary for program success.

The question of who makes the key program policy decisions was one of the most hotly debated issues 50 years ago and continues today with debate on how the CRC should be composed and who should appoint its members. How that is resolved is critical as the program will thrive only with quality appointments. The CRC members’ expertise, judgment, dedication, and leadership are indispensable elements for program success.

Broad public engagement and education, which was absolutely essential to creation of the program and its early success, is all the more difficult with the loss of local newspapers, fractured electronic media, and increasingly rigid partisan and ideological polarization. Building a shared understanding of the impacts of and threats to coastal development is necessary to build the consensus needed to address coming challenges.

The guiding principle for those crafting CAMA and responsible for its early successes was an abiding dedication to long-term protection of the coast for the beneficial use and enjoyment of all its residents and visitors. In the early 1980s, then-CRC Chair Parker Chesson would often remind the CRC, CRAC, staff, and public at the end of long and sometimes fractious discussion, “We’ve heard from everybody and now it’s time to decide what is in the best long-term public interest.”

Adherence to that admonition, along with a lot of hard work by a lot of good people, will be necessary if we want to have a 100-year celebration of the enactment of CAMA.

This historical profile is presented as part of Coastal Review’s 2024 yearlong examination of 50 years of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, including the science that helped to inform and the advocacy and leadership that resulted in passage of the landmark 1974 legislation, as well as the coastal environmental challenges yet ahead.

Robert Dolan and Paul Godfrey didn’t meet the way scientists often do, at a conference or sharing a drink after a long, technical talk. Instead, they met on a wind-blown beach near Cape Lookout, part of the long, winding bands of sand we know as the Outer Banks. It was 1971.

Godfrey, a quiet but creative botanist, and his wife Melinda, a pathbreaking marine biologist, had been digging cores along transects in the sand and mud for a research project trying to determine the history of the remote, 28,000-acre Cape Lookout National Seashore. Each layer of sand, peat and mud was like a chapter in a book, they recalled, secrets revealed here, surprises there, building to an unexpected ending.

Dolan, a coastal geologist who specialized in sedimentology, was also digging cores, near Cape Hatteras. He had arrived there almost on a lark in 1959 searching for a topic for his doctoral dissertation. “Why not study the Outer Banks?” one of his professors at Louisiana State University suggested. At the time, little was known about the chain of islands’ geology; some scientists even theorized the Outer Banks must be anchored to a coral reef, which prevented the islands from washing away. Ever confident and always up for an adventure, Dolan packed the family wagon, collected his wife and young daughter, and off they went. A decade later, he was still studying the islands and publishing seminal papers when it was suggested he meet Paul Godfrey and his wife, who were doing similarly impressive work a couple of hours away by boat on the undeveloped Core Banks.

Dolan and Godfrey knew one another from their work and contacts in the National Park Service, which manages the seashores. But they had never spoken, let alone met. Paul and Melinda took Dolan and several park service officials to see their cores, which Melinda had cleverly engineered with PVC piping.

Paul Godfrey, now 83, and living on a nature preserve in Western Massachusetts, recently recalled: “I think Bob was really intrigued. All of the species we identified as being adapted to the coast, he picked up on that right away. He saw we were coming to similar conclusions. The islands weren’t fixed in place like people thought. Nor were they washing away. They were fine, healthy, moving and adapting, the same way humans do.”

“The islands weren’t fixed in place like people thought. Nor were they washing away. They were fine, healthy, moving and adapting, the same way humans do.”

— Paul Godfrey

After their meeting, Dolan and Godfrey began to work together on various projects while they consulted for the park service and held down jobs as young professors at the University of Virginia and the University of Massachusetts, respectively.

Their collaborations would forever change the way coastal scientists looked at barrier islands and prompt the National Park Service to reverse its decades-old policy of trying to hold the islands in place by constructing artificial sand dunes, engineering the beach, bulldozing sand around after storms, even fertilizing the grass and shrubs by plane.

It all sounds so simple today — allow water, wind and storms to naturally sculpt the islands — but it was a revolutionary idea in the early 1970s, even heretical. Many villagers had grown accustomed to the park service protecting them and keeping open N.C. Highway 12, the only route on and off the islands. Even today, decades later, the politics are challenging, with the park service expected to provide a buffer between the ocean and the ever-larger and more expensive vacation homes that line the eroding shoreline and fuel the Banks’ billion-dollar tourism economy.

~

They made an unlikely pair. Robert Dolan grew up in Southern California and was an avid surfer and self-described beach bum at a time when surfing was considered novel and daring in the Golden State. Following a stint in the Navy, he earned undergraduate and master’s degrees in the Earth sciences at Oregon State University. He then headed south, to Baton Rouge, to work on his doctorate in coastal geology at Louisiana State University. Various profiles of Dolan, including one in John Alexander’s 1992 book, “Ribbon of Sand,” described him as confident, exuberant, passionate and adventurous.

Paul Godfrey grew up on a small farm in central Connecticut where he developed an abiding respect for nature. Melinda: around water on Cape Cod, where she learned how to handle boats and measure her own confidence in a world dominated by men. The future couple met in graduate school at Duke University, where Paul was pursuing a PhD, Melinda a master’s. One day, Melinda walked into a call on soil composition affectionately called “Dirt.”

“It was all men,” Paul recalled. “Melinda walked in and all these men were saying, ‘What is she doing here?’” They became lab partners and later Paul followed Melinda to Beaufort, where she worked as an assistant in the school’s renowned marine lab. “It was how I got interested in the coast. Melinda taught me. She was pretty, too,” he laughed.

After arriving on the Outer Banks, Dolan settled his wife and young daughter in a Nags Head cottage about 200 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. In the early morning of March 7, 1962, Dolan awoke to find the ocean rushing under their cottage. Another cottage, seaward of his own, had broken loose and was crashing toward them.

“In record time, I packed my personal belongings and research gear into a four-wheel-drive vehicle and headed for high ground,” he wrote 25 years later in an editorial for the Journal of Coastal Research.     

Dolan had wanted to study the effects of powerful storms on barrier islands. Here was his chance. After delivering his wife and daughter to higher ground, he returned to take measure of the damage. The Ash Wednesday Storm, a three-day nor’easter featuring five high tides, each one higher than the last, was one of the strongest storms to ever strike the Outer Banks. It flooded or flattened scores of homes, crumpled a pier where Dolan had recently installed a tidal gage, and washed away a 30-foot aluminum tower he had built to take photos of the beach.

But the storm also answered some of his research questions. For example, it showed that the massive artificial dunes that Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps workers had constructed during the Great Depression to “stabilize” the islands were no match for the storm surge and waves. It also demonstrated how the storm washed large fans of sand across the road to the middle of the island, elevating it, a form of coastal adaptation now known as overwash. As long as man didn’t interfere, barrier islands would heal themselves even after epochal storms, Dolan concluded, shifting sand inland, slowly rebuilding foredunes, widening the marsh along the tidal inlets and sounds.

Dolan had also used a machine to dig 140 cores to study sand samples and test the theory that the islands were anchored to coral reefs. He dug and dug. But all he found was sand, layer after layer, one older than the last — a clear indication that the islands weren’t fixed in place, but were moving. Always moving.

Paul and Melinda Godfrey arrived at similar conclusions near Cape Lookout. Melinda had ingeniously found a way to use PVC piping to take deep samples of sand and mud. She and Paul then pored over each layer, studying the shells, clams and plants for hints that helped to date the formation of the island. The wider and deeper they dug, the more surprises they found: snails near the beach that only could have come from the marsh; shells near the marsh that only could have come from the beach. It was their eureka moment, “powerfully proving,” Godfrey said, “that the islands were moving, slowly rolling over themselves as they inched their way toward land.”       

~

Dolan had begun writing up his findings in research papers for the National Park Service while becoming increasingly vocal about the threats that rampant development posed to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. In 1972, he was joined by Paul Godfrey in a paper questioning the park service’s decades-old practice of spending millions of dollars on dune-building and beach-engineering after storms. The service’s practices gave “the false impression of safety and stability offered by the [artificial] barrier dunes,” they wrote. “As the system is stabilized, man builds roads and utilities that establish a `line-of-development’ which soon becomes a ‘line-of-defense.’”

As you might imagine, the criticism made for some tense moments between the researchers and the park service. “But to their credit, they came around,” said Godfrey. In 1973, Director Ronald H. Walker announced that the park service would no longer try to hold the line against the forces of nature. “There is just no way the National Park Service can continue to fight nature,” he told reporters. “We’ve spent all of this money; tried various ways to control the situation, but none of them has worked.”

“There is just no way the National Park Service can continue to fight nature. We’ve spent all of this money; tried various ways to control the situation, but none of them has worked.”

— Ronald H. Walker, Director, National Park Service, in 1973

The policy shift was the direct result of the work of Dolan, who died in 2016, and Paul and Melinda Godfrey showing that the Outer Banks were “dynamic natural landscapes” that will adapt and repair themselves after storms, losing sand in some places but gaining it in others as part of the natural evolutionary process of barrier islands.

Despite their warnings, developers and governments continued to add thousands of vacation houses and investment properties along the shifting shorelines – scores of which quickly were threatened by rising seas and storms. In the last few decades alone, county, state and federal taxpayers have spent tens of millions of dollars renourishing beaches, building and rebuilding artificial dunes, and constructing multimillion-dollar bridges to bypass storm-damaged roads.

In 2021, the park service adopted a revised sand management policy to help speed up the permitting process, allowing state workers to repair dunes and scrape sand off of N.C. 12 and other applicants to seek sand management permits within national seashore boundaries. But even that may not be enough to satisfy property owners and politicians.

Recently, U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy, a Republican representing North Carolina’s 3rd District, drafted language directing Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac “to identify potential long-term, cost-effective sediment management activities to minimize the impacts of beach erosion.”

The spending bill provision and ever-evolving policy could place the National Park Service back in the beach-building business.

Footnote: Dolan and the Godfreys continued to study the Outer Banks for decades, bringing hundreds of eager students to dig cores, study the ecology and geology, and experience the unfiltered beauty of the Banks.