The state commission that regulates coastal development will accept comments until Nov. 30 on adding to existing rules a definition for man-made ditches, allowing more colors and sizes of sandbags to protect public roads, and a new general permit for temporary weather monitoring structures on the beach to collect storm data.

The Coastal Resources Commission designates areas of environmental concern, adopts rules and policies for coastal development within those areas, and certifies local land use plans. The Division of Coastal Management, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, act as staff to the commission.

A public hearing is set for 5 p.m. Monday, Oct. 19, in the division’s office at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City. The commission opened the public comment period on Oct. 1.

In addition to adding the proposed definition of man-made ditches, the language would state that man-made ditches may not be considered public waterways or marshland, or designated as an Area of Environmental Concern.

The proposed amendment on sandbag criteria is to allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to have a broader range of sandbags to consider for protecting public roadways.

“These changes are needed due to recurring erosion events prompting NCDOT to look at alternative sandbag designs that increasingly require NCDOT to seek variances from the existing rule,” the division said.

The new general permit to allow temporary structures on the beach to collect meteorological data during approaching storms, is to “address limitations in existing CAMA permitting procedures, which are not designed to accommodate the rapid, location-uncertain deployment of temporary weather monitoring structures needed to collect time-sensitive data at storm landfall,” the division said.

Send written comments by Nov. 30 to crcrulemakingcomments@deq.nc.gov, or NC Division of Coastal Management, Attn: Tancred Miller, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557.

To review all related materials for each proposed rule change, visit the CRC proposed rules website.

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.

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.”

Post has been updated

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has given the green light to the state’s request to no longer require a permit to fix or rebuild certain waterfront structures damaged due to weather or wear.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management submitted its request Jan. 9, 2025, and NOAA issued the approval last week to change the state’s federally approved Coastal Area Management Program, which Coastal Area Management Act rules and regulations fall under.

At the direction of the North Carolina General Assembly during its 2023-24 session, the Coastal Resources Commission, which makes development rules for the state’s 20 coastal counties, began the rulemaking process to drop the requirement for a CAMA permit to repair or rebuild docks, piers and walkways damaged by natural forces, fire or wear, provided modifications are minor and structures meet specific size limits.

NOAA also authorized establishing a measurement line for dune-building and beach-planting projects in municipalities with permitted terminal groin construction, a directive of state lawmakers through the same session laws.

While the rules have changed regarding A CAMA permit, the state recommends contacting a local code official to determine if the existing pier can be safely repaired or altered without plans that are sealed by a registered design professional.

Materials and documents related to the decision may be examined at the DEQ Public Notices page.

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.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, during its meeting later this month in Manteo, is expected to continue discussing oceanfront erosion and how hardened structures built to curb sand loss on beaches may affect the state’s coastal shorelines.

The commission’s Thursday, Aug. 27 meeting agenda includes an update on the Science Panel’s draft, “Report on the Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines,” which includes a number of recommendations related to hardened erosion-control structures and summarizes the tradeoffs associated with those structures and lessons learned from past projects. The meeting Thursday is set to begin at 9 a.m.

The commission will also be provided a history of North Carolina’s laws and rules on hardened structures and receive information regarding other coastal states’ policies on these structures, according to the meeting materials.

The draft report was first presented to the CRC at its June meeting. During that meeting, and afterwards, commissioners had several questions and request for Science Panel Chair Dr. Laura Moore. Members of the commission asked that the draft report incorporate a closer look at other states’ policies, a review of Reef Balls as offshore breakwaters, and the addition of known erosion hot spots along the oceanfront. Reef Balls is the trade name for a type of artificial reef structure.

These requested updates to the draft report come after state lawmakers earlier this summer ultimately passed over a bill to repeal the state’s decades-old coastal hardened structure ban.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council, a 20-member group that provides the CRC with local government perspectives and advice, will kick off the two-day meeting beginning at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 26 with a presentation on the Science Panel’s report. Time has been allotted for open discussion and public comment following the presentation.

The CRC is scheduled to convene at 1 p.m. that Wednesday with an agenda that includes the consideration of a variance request for an additional oceanfront setback in Oak Island, and a presentation on the draft 2026 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP.

Related: Marine Fisheries Commission to meet in Raleigh Aug. 19-20

The commission is scheduled to hold a public comment period beginning at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Members of the public may sign up to speak when they arrive at the meeting.

Staff with the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Marine Fisheries will review the issues papers in the draft 2026 CHPP, request feedback and suggestions from commissioners, and a vote of the commission signaling preliminary support for the plan.

The commission on Thursday is also scheduled to discuss proposed amendments to rules pertaining to upland basins, septic tanks and pier replacement.

Meetings will be held at the Dare County Government Complex, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive. The CRC meeting may also be viewed online.

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.”

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality staff are in the process of updating the state’s long-term strategy to protect coastal habitat, a necessity for a sustainable seafood industry.

According to the strategy called the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, or CHPP, the need for a coastwide habitat plan came about in the 1990s because of growing concerns about fish populations, declining coastal habitats, and deteriorating water quality.

The CHPP was mandated by the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, and the first plan was adopted in 2004 by the Marine Fisheries, Environmental Management and Coastal Resources commissions. The document, which was designed to “achieve the long-term enhancement of coastal fisheries by identifying, protecting, restoring, and enhancing critical fish habitats,” and is updated every five years.

CHPP 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 DEQ’s Division of Marine Fisheries.

The Division of Marine Fisheries staff that make up the CHPP team, with guidance from a steering committee, have been working on the 2026 update. Charlie Deaton, habitat protection supervisor with the division, presented an status update to the Environmental Management Commission during the July 9 meeting in Raleigh.

He said the staff are drafting issue papers for the 2026 update that are broadly organized under three different themes: ecosystem-based management for coastal habitats, seagrass protection and restoration, and planning for multi-decadal wetland change, all of which build on previous editions of the CHPP.

The outlines of these papers are to be presented to the steering committee by web conference 1-3 p.m. Wednesday, the division announced July 15. The full agenda and link to the meeting are on the NCDEQ website.

Deaton said that the last full rewrite of the plan was in 2016. New issue papers were added to the 2016 CHPP as the 2021 update, and “we are continuing efforts on these issue papers and introducing a few more with this edition of the CHPP.”

Deaton reminded members that the 2021 CHPP prioritized submerged aquatic vegetation, or SAV, protection and restoration through water quality improvements. The chapter on seagrasses “had 13 different recommended actions, but the big one that this commission has heard the most about is the recommended water clarity standard to ensure that adequate light penetration allows for seagrass growth.”

According to that document, seagrasses are “critical for healthy fisheries, such as shrimp, blue crab, red drum, and flounder and provides valuable ecosystem functions.” The state has one of the largest seagrass habitats on the East Coast, but water quality impairment coupled with climate change stressors can limit their growth, reproduction, and distribution.

The chapter for the 2026 update on seagrasses will use data from the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Partnership’s recent findings on seagrass decline. APNEP, a partnership of NCDEQ and the Environmental Protection Agency, has been fundamental in CHPP development in some capacity since its inception.

From 2006 to 2020, the state’s estuaries continue to lose more than 1% per year of its seagrass extent, which “might not sound like a lot, but that’s 15% in the time period. And if you look 30 years into the future, that’s another 35% that we would be losing if we continue at this rate. So, it’s a concerning rate of loss,” Deaton said. “We’ve lost 50% of our continuous seagrass meadows, and the losses have been most notable at the deep edge of the seagrass beds. So that implies a connection to water quality and decreased water clarity, light not penetrating deep enough.”

This new seagrass chapter is to build on the 2021 CHPP’s proposal to develop a water clarity standard, which was referred to the Environmental Management Commission’s water quality committee where it’s on hold. 

Turbidity “remains the biggest threat we see to seagrasses, and so it’s something we really want to get some action on,” Deaton said. Staff are also going to work on a permitting framework for active seagrass restoration projects, which could be planting seeds or transplanting seagrasses in areas that no longer have seagrass but should still have the conditions to support it.

The paper is also to explore habitat protections under the Marine Fisheries Commission authority. The commission considered restrictions for shrimp trawling in 2023 but decided against those. Instead, staff was asked to look into what that rulemaking might look like.

For the ecosystem-based management chapter, Deaton said that staff are reviewing how the Division of Marine Fisheries uses mapping and monitoring data to guide species management work. Staff will determine goals and targets on how to better integrate the research, as well as create indicators with data from the North Carolina Collaboratory’s study on 25 years of the Fisheries Reform Act.

“The other half of the ecosystem-based management chapter is advancing strategic habitat areas,” Deaton said, that were identified in the first edition of the CHPP as a priority. “These are areas that are defined as high quality, connected habitats that were identified to protect biodiversity and ecological function through a nonregulatory approach.”

The “Planning for wetland change” chapter concentrates on laying the groundwork for thin-layer placement. Other states are exploring this method to accent natural sediment accumulation by taking dredged material and placing it directly on the marsh in a layer of 6 to 18 inches.

North Carolina doesn’t have a permit for the process, meaning any applications for thin-layer placement must be approved through the Coastal Resources Commission’s variance process for rule exceptions.

“We have a couple projects in the hopper right now that may reach the variance process in the coming year or two and seeing those as potential pilot projects. If they show promise, this is something we could explore to make a little easier to for restoration practitioners to implement,” Deaton said.

“The other half of the sea level rise and coastal wetlands picture is marsh migration,” he said.

A controversial provision that would allow state tax dollars to fund coastal terminal groins has been stripped from legislation moving through the North Carolina Senate.

The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday passed an amended Senate Bill 1001, omitting a section that would permit Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation Funds to be used for terminal groin permitting, construction, or repairs.

A terminal groin is a type of hardened erosion control structure that is built perpendicular to a shore at an inlet to trap sand. North Carolina law prohibits the allocation of state funds for these structures, which were banned for decades until 2011 when legislators repealed the law to allow a handful of beach towns the option to explore building them.

“We’ve worked with our partners, and we resolved any concerns to date,” Sen. Michael Lazzara, R-Onslow, said Tuesday morning.

The amended bill will now go before the Senate Rules and Operations Committee.

Lazzara indicated last week in a meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Energy, and Environment that the language in the bill might be revised.

Lazzara is one of the primary sponsors of that bill and Senate Bill 1009, which aims to overturn the state’s 40-year prohibition on hardened coastal erosion control structures, including breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, revetments, and terminal groins.

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.

Senate Bill 1009 advanced last week to the Senate Appropriations Committee one day before the Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel released its draft report examining the effects of hardened erosion control structures on ocean coastlines.

The 47-page report, which was presented to the CRC last Thursday, was created to provide scientific and technical information for policymakers, regulators and legislators.

Science Panel Chair Dr. Laura Moore, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor in the Department of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, explained to commission members that the report covers the physical and adverse effects, and ecological impacts, of hardened structures.

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.”

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.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, during its meeting June 18 in New Bern, is expected to hear from its science panel their findings on the effects of hard structures on sandy, open-ocean coastlines.

That’s according to the agenda that is posted along with briefing materials on the commission’s website. The agenda and order of individual items on it are subject to change. 

The meeting is to start at 10 a.m. in the DoubleTree New Bern Riverfront at 100 Middle St. The public is welcome to attend in person or streamed on North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s YouTube channel.

The commission, during its November 2025 meeting, directed the science panel to evaluate alternatives for managing oceanfront erosion. They are to present their report during the meeting this month.

Related: Special series on permanent beach erosion control structures study

The commission designates areas of environmental concern, adopts rules and policies for coastal development within those areas and certifies local land use plans. The Division of Coastal Management carries out the commission’s rules and regulations.

The science panel, made up of researchers and government agency representatives, provides the commission with scientific data and recommendations pertaining to coastal topics.

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.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission is to meet next week to consider proposed language amendments for inlet hazard areas.

The meeting for the commission, which establishes policies for the N.C. Coastal Management Program and adopts rules for both the Coastal Area Management Act and the N.C. Dredge and Fill Act, will begin with a field trip to Ocean Isle Beach’s terminal groin at 3 p.m. on April 15. 

The full commission meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. on April 16 at 111 Causeway Drive, Ocean Isle Beach. An in-person public comment period is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. that day. The public may sign up to speak upon arrival at the meeting.  

Members of the public may attend in-person or join the meeting Thursday through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s YouTube channel. 

The commission establishes areas of environmental concern, which are authorized under CAMA, and are the bases of the permitting program for regulating coastal development.

There are three types of ocean hazard AECs: ocean erodible, inlet hazard, and unvegetated beach.

The ocean erodible area is “the area where there exists a substantial possibility of excessive erosion and significant shoreline fluctuation,” and the inlet hazard area is defined as “locations that ‘are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of their proximity to dynamic ocean inlets,” according to the division, which carries out the rules and regulations for the commission.

During the meeting, the commission will consider ocean erodible area and inlet hazard area erosion rates and setback factors.

The division has since 1979 used the same long-term erosion data to determine construction setbacks in inlet and ocean hazard areas, and to establish the landward boundaries of ocean erodible areas of environmental concern.  

The commission’s setback rules are used to site oceanfront development based on the size of the structure according to the graduated setback provisions. In areas where there is a high rate of erosion, buildings must be located farther from the shoreline than in areas where there is less erosion. The size of the structure determines how far back a house must be located away from the shoreline.

Because of limited data and resources, erosion rate setback factors within inlet hazard areas have traditionally been based on the rates of adjacent ocean erodible areas.

“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,” division documents state.

During the commission’s August 2025 meeting, Dr. Laura Moore, the chairperson of the commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards, presented the panel’s recommendations on updated boundaries for inlet hazard areas and ocean erodible areas, and their corresponding erosion rate setback factors.

A subcommittee was appointed at the time to evaluate the possible changes, and presented its recommendation during the February meeting.

Updating ocean hazard area boundaries for inlet hazard areas and ocean erodible areas, along with the associated erosion rate setback factors, requires rule amendments to reference the updated report and maps, documents continue.

Because inlet hazard area boundaries have remained static and adjacent ocean erodible area erosion rates were applied within the inlet hazard areas, the primary amendment has been to the rule “to simply reference the updated oceanfront erosion rate report.  However, this update includes revised IHA boundaries and inlet-specific erosion rates within IHAs, necessitating additional rule amendments to reference the applicable reports, maps, and use standards,” documents explain.

Division staff noted that the 2025 study is consistent with previous update studies, in that inlet hazard area boundaries at undeveloped inlets were not analyzed.

The commission at this month’s meeting is to consider approving rule amendments that reflect the subcommittee’s findings and recommendations and supported by the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, updated inlet hazard boundaries, and updated ocean erodible areas and inlet hazard areas erosion rate setbacks, to include ocean erodible areas landward boundaries.

Division staff are to recommend removing the inlet hazard area designations from Little River Inlet, New River and Brown’s Inlets at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Bogue Inlet at Hammocks Beach State Park, Barden Inlet, Ocracoke Inlet and Hatteras Inlet.

“It is important to note that while inlet hazards are present at these sites, these areas are not being developed,” staff said.

In addition, division staff are to present updates on septic systems within the ocean hazard areas of environmental concern, consider draft rule amendments for human-made ditches requested by a petition for rulemaking, and a permit for temporary weather monitoring structures on the beach in the ocean hazard area of environmental concern.

The full meeting agenda and briefing materials are on the commission’s website. 

First in a series

Something potentially and significantly consequential is underway now in North Carolina that could alter management of the state’s increasingly battered Atlantic coastline.

The state Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel is in the process of finalizing an analysis of beach erosion-control structures, a report that is expected to be submitted to the commission in June. Although the 10-member advisory panel’s study is meant to inform policymakers of their options, some fear – or hope – that it’s the first step toward repealing the state’s longstanding ban on hardened shoreline structures.

“Alarms are sounding in nearly all of our oceanfront counties,” state Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller said at the commission’s meeting in November at Atlantic Beach, referring to threats from accelerating beach erosion. “Nourishment costs continue to rise and the lifespan of many of these projects is painfully short. Infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable, and some communities are very concerned.”

Since September 2025, the Hatteras Island village of Buxton, home of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse and the massive corner of wild beach known as Cape Point, has seen 19 unoccupied oceanfront homes collapse into the surf. In addition to a beach nourishment project, Dare County this summer is planning to restore the only salvageable groin of a 57-year-old groin field in an attempt to prolong the project’s lifespan.

In response to calls from Dare and Hyde counties, among others, to allow more options to address erosion, the division last winter asked the Coastal Resources Commission to review the structures.

“We must approach these challenges with open minds, innovation, and balanced pragmatism,” Miller urged. “We must take a critical view of our past and current practices, embrace what continues to succeed, and replace practices that are no longer working.”

But even the draft outline that the Science Panel submitted at the commission’s February meeting,  titled “Report on The Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-ocean Coastlines,” revealed the complexity involved in redirecting, blocking, deflecting, buffering, or absorbing the power of an open ocean energized by high winds, with forceful longshore and cross-shore currents feeding beaches with sand here, starving them of sand there.

“We’ve broken this into two categories according to how these erosion-management measures function; essentially all erosion-management approaches fall into two categories,” CRC Science Panel Chair Laura Moore told the commission. “One is structures or approaches that trap sand, and the second is structures that that really harden the shoreline.”

While the report will provide details about protective barriers and techniques, she said, it is less about offering remedies than providing information about effects of each option. It will also include comparisons to beach-restoration methods such as nourishment and living shorelines.

Erosion has been a fact of life along North Carolina’s 320-mile-long ocean shoreline for centuries, but before coastal development and tourism went into overdrive, the Coastal Resources Commission, the 13-member body that sets coastal policy in the state, took steps to preserve beaches.

In 1985, after studying the down-shore erosive effects of seawalls, bulkheads, groins, jetties and sandbags, the commission established a policy banning permanent hardened structures on the ocean coast. Sandbags were permitted as temporary structures.

Upheld in court in 2000, the ban was codified as law three years later by the North Carolina General Assembly. Then in 2011, a law was passed that permitted a limited number of terminal groins — sand-trapping barriers built near inlets or at the end of an island. Much of the ban, however, remains the law of the land. Environmentalists and countless coastal scientists have credited the limits on hard structures for preserving the state’s coastal wildlife and beautiful natural beaches, which attract millions of tourists every year. But critics blame the ban for limiting the ability to protect shorelines, as well as private and public property and infrastructure.

No magic, one-size-fits-all formula exists to address erosion, Moore said, and many factors will need to be weighed.

“There are approaches and strategies that can either shift the erosion problem to another adjacent location, or in some cases, we can slow the problem down,” said Moore, who is professor of coastal geomorphology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. “We can create more time to make perhaps bigger adjustments that are likely to be needed going forward.”

With seas rising and Atlantic storms intensifying over recent decades as a result of climate change, erosion on the state’s barrier island beaches has been happening faster and more dramatically, especially along the high-energy Outer Banks coastline, where erosion rates at some locations – as severe as an annual average of 14 feet – are among the highest on the East Coast. Dozens of oceanfront houses on eroded beaches, pounded and undermined by surging surf, have fallen into the sea. At the same time, more Outer Banks inlets and waterways are filling with sand, clogging channels that until the recent past had always been navigable.

But the entire coast has been experiencing its own degree of changing and increasingly destructive conditions, and the pressure has been building to find ways to prevent or mitigate damages at different locations, each with different conditions.

“I would say most of the North Carolina coastline is either barrier or behaves like barrier,” Moore told Coastal Review. “Certainly, subsidence in the north is a factor that’s going to make the relative rate of sea level rise a little higher. But there’s also the shape and the orientation of the shoreline and the wave approach angles and the wave energy and how those drive longshore sediment transport gradients, and how much sand is coming into a stretch of coast versus how much is leaving. Also, a really big factor is how frequently in the past the coast has been nourished.”

The final report is to be centered on sand-trapping and shoreline-hardening structures, Moore said. But it will also look at other widely used erosion management tactics, ranging from avoidance with setbacks or relocation, sand trapping with fences or beach plants, and building the beach with sand nourishment and dunes.

The two-category design of the document is focused on function of the structures, she said, “because there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of coastal erosion management approaches out there, and they all essentially fall into two buckets.” What the panel of volunteer scientists cannot do, she added, is analyze each approach.

“What we are trying to do is provide a better, clearer explanation of how structures function and what their effects are,” Moore said.

Moore emphasized that the science panel’s task is to provide an assessment of structures on the coastline. But she understands the urgency people feel for finding a “solution” rather than a range of options.

“And although we’re not providing recommendations, I do want to highlight that we will be discussing tradeoffs, and I think that’s really important, because whether an approach has benefits or negative effects depends on the perspective and goals of the beholder,” she said. “We certainly know that there are efforts afoot to repeal the ban. And again, it’s not our job to say whether that should or should not happen. It’s our job to lay out in a clear way what the tradeoffs are, given how these different approaches to mitigating erosion function.”

Next in the series: How have hardened structures currently installed on North Carolina beaches performed?

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.”

A string of oceanfront properties on a private island off the southern North Carolina coast will be fortified from erosion with larger than typically allowed sandbags.

During its Feb. 25 meeting in Atlantic Beach, the Coastal Resources Commission granted the owners of 21 properties on the north end of Figure Eight Island a variance to have a sandbag revetment with a 40-foot-wide base and 12 feet high installed to fend off erosion.

The sandbags will also stretch across two accessways owned by the Figure Eight Beach Homeowners’ Association Inc., and join existing sandbag structures at the island’s north end at Rich Inlet.

Properties at the north end of the exclusive island are subject to cyclical patterns of erosion and accretion that occur as the inlet moves, according to information provided to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.

The north end has experienced rapid erosion since 2022 due to an unfavorable configuration of the inlet channel.

Multiple storms that hit the area last fall exacerbated the erosion, which measured at a rate of between 5.3 feet and 11.5 feet per year based on 2020 data.

The homeowners’ association has a permit to dredge Nixon Channel, a project that typically yields about 250,000 cubic yards of beach compatible material. The HOA plans to have that material placed along the north end when the channel is dredged, a project expected to occur in November.

The homeowner’s association explored the possibility of building a terminal groin at Rich Inlet more than a decade ago, but property owners ultimately voted down a special assessment to pay for the project.

The HOA is working with the Army Corps of Engineers for a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Rich Inlet long-term management plan, including a 30-year beach nourishment permit.

During the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission’s meeting Feb. 25-26, members are expected to take action on proposed changes to rules for septic tanks seaward of the vegetation line, permit fee increases, using sandbags to protect public roads, and a general permit to replace existing bridges and culverts.

The public may attend the meeting that is taking place at the Dunes Club in Atlantic Beach, or view the meeting while it is livestreamed on DEQ’s YouTube channel.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council, which provides the commission with local government perspectives and advice, will meet in person first at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 25. The 10-member group is expected to discuss potential inlet hazard area rule amendment options, a summary of sediment criteria rules, and research equipment general permit updates.

The full commission meeting is to set for 1 p.m. Feb. 25 and resume at 9 a.m. Feb. 26. An in-person public comment period is scheduled for 9:05 a.m. Feb. 26.

The full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the CRC website. The order of individual agenda items are subject to change.

Agenda items for the commission’s first day include a variance from Figure 8 Island homeowners on a sandbag extension, and a discussion on oceanfront hardened structures with the science panel.

Public hearings are to follow on noncompetitive use of public beach and coastal waterfront access grant funds, Topsail Island acquisition closing costs, and readoption of rule language for local government land use plans.

When the meeting reconvenes Feb. 26, the commission is to discuss septic tanks, inlet hazard area policy, and oceanfront and inlet erosion rates and setback factors, in addition to the action items they are expected to consider.

The Coastal Resources Commission establishes policies for the N.C. Coastal Management Program and adopts rules for both the Coastal Area Management Act and the N.C. Dredge and Fill Act. The commission designates areas of environmental concern, adopts rules and policies for coastal development within those areas and certifies local land use plans.

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.

Plans for the sprawling, undeveloped, south-end tract on Topsail Island that the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust purchased last year call for its eventual transfer to the state to be managed and preserved in perpetuity.

But first, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management must hear whether the public supports its proposal to use no more than $50,000 in grant funding to cover closing costs related to the trust’s donation of that land to the state.

A public hearing has been scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on Feb. 25 during the Coastal Resources Commission meeting at Dunes Club, 710 E. Fort Macon Road in Atlantic Beach.

The division would tap funds from the state Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Grant on a non-competitive basis to cover closing costs, including deed preparation and recording fees and, if obtained, title insurance.

The Coastal Land Trust finalized its $7.5 million purchase of ‘The Point’ last April.

The proposal to use non-competitive funds would cover costs associated with the state’s acquisition of nearly 100 of about 150 acres the land trust bought last year in Topsail Beach. The Division of Coastal Management “will manage and preserve the property for public benefit and support current and future public access to coastal waters,” according to a release.

“The exact amount of closing costs associated with this property transfer is currently unknown and will be determined at the time of closing based on applicable legal, recording, and administrative requirements,” the release states.

The division has opened a public comment period that continues through April 1.

Written comments may be mailed to Tancred Miller, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, N.C. 28557, or emailed to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov with the subject line Non-competitive Use – NC Public Land Trust.

The panel of scientists that advises the state’s Coastal Resources Commission is to have an online meeting at 11 a.m. Thursday to formulate a plan to write a report on the effects of hard structures on coastlines.

The Coastal Resources Commission’s science panel, which provides the commission with scientific data and recommendations pertaining to coastal topics, was directed at the commission’s November 2025 meeting to evaluate alternatives for managing oceanfront erosion.

Related: Climate change compounds challenge to stabilize beaches

The purpose of this meeting is to develop an outline for the report to propose to the Coastal Resources Commission.

Instructions on how to participate virtually or by phone are on the division’s website.

There will be a listening session for the meeting at N.C. Division of Coastal Management headquarters office at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City.

Interested parties may submit comments by email to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov. Please list “Science Panel” in the subject line.

After more than two years of trying to get the Area of Environmental Concern reinstated for Jockey’s Ridge, a designation that was stripped away in October 2023, the Coastal Resources Commission has finally received the Rules Review Commission’s approval, much to the relief of the nonprofit Friends of Jockey’s Ridge support group.

The Friends’ board of directors wrote in a letter dated Dec. 30, 2025, that it “welcomes the recent decision” by the Rules Review Commission made during its regular meeting Dec. 18 to restore the area of environmental concern designation for Jockey’s Ridge State Park.

Jockey’s Ridge, what is often called the “tallest living sand dune system on the Atlantic Coast” was saved from development in 1973. In 1974, the geographical feature was declared a National Natural Landmark. A year later, in 1975, the General Assembly allocated funds matched with federal funds to create what is now a 420-acre state park in Dare County, with the sand dune system as the centerpiece, according to NCpedia, a resource managed by the state government and N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

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, according to the Division of Coastal Management, which serves as staff to the Coastal Resources Commission.

The to and fro between the two commissions began Oct. 5, 2023, when the Rules Review Commission removed from the North Carolina Administrative Code language that designated Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern and established its use standards, and then returned the text to the Coastal Resources Commission. Removing the rule from the administrative code also removed the rule’s legal authority.

After the Rules Review Commission returned the text in October 2023, the Coastal Resources Commission adopted emergency rules to reestablish the area of environmental concern and use standards that went into effect Jan. 3, 2024, and then on April 25, 2024, approved moving forward with permanent rulemaking. The temporary rules expired May 13, 2024, when the Rules Review Commission objected to the text.

The Coastal Resources Commission then adopted the permanent rule on Nov. 14, 2024, but the next month, on Dec. 19, 2024, the Rules Review Commission objected to the rule “on the basis of failure to comply with the public noticing provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,” which staff said the necessary steps were taken to satisfy this objection, the division explains in past meeting materials.

The Coastal Resources Commission adopted permanent rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concerns with use standards which are nearly identical to the original 1984 standards on Aug. 27, 2025.

“The proposed rule was written in three parts,” staff said in meeting documents. The first is a description, which describes the Jockey’s Ridge and its importance. Second describes the area of environmental concern boundary and where a map of the boundary can be found, and last, use standards.  

The Rules Review Commission objected to the language Oct. 27, 2025, “stating that paragraph (a) ‘Description’”’ is unnecessary and is not the same as a ‘“’designation’”’ as required under” general statute.

The Coastal Resources Commission took up the revised language during its Nov. 18, 2025, meeting, ahead of the rules commission’s Dec. 1, 2025, deadline.

The final rule reads: “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 to” general statute.

“After years of uncertainty for this important protection, we are in full support of this decision which aligns with our mission to protect Jockey’s Ridge,” the Friends board wrote.

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.

Coastal Resources Commission members will hear from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson before settling in for the two-day regular business meeting this month, when they will be updated on the latest rules review objection to designating Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern.

The meeting is set to start at 1 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 19, when Wilson is on the agenda to speak. The meeting will resume at 9 a.m. Nov. 20, ahead of the public input and comment period scheduled for 9:05 a.m. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to three minutes per person. The public may attend the commission meeting in person or join online.

Jockey’s Ridge, the centerpiece of Jockey’s Ridge State Park, is located in Dare County and is home to the tallest living sand dune system on the East Coast, according to North Carolina State Parks.

Development in and around the state park boundaries has been regulated by Coastal Resources Commission rules since the designation of Jockey’s Ridge as a Unique Geologic Feature Area of Environmental Concern in 1984, according to state documents.

During the periodic rules review process in October 2023, the rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an Area of Environmental Concern, or AEC, and establishing use standards were returned to the agency by the Rules Review Commission and removed from the North Carolina Administrative Code.

In response, the Coastal Resource Commission adopted emergency and temporary rules that went into effect Jan. 3, 2024, to reestablish the AEC and use standards. The rules expired May 13, 2024, when the Rules Review Commission objected to the temporary rule.

The commission moved forward with permanent rulemaking on April 25, 2024, and adopted the permanent rule on Nov. 14, 2024. The Rules Review Commission on Dec. 19, 2024, objected to the rule “on the basis of failure to comply with the public noticing provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act” and staff have taken the necessary steps to be in compliance and satisfy this objection, according to meeting documents.

The Coastal Resources Commission on Aug. 27 of this year adopted permanent rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an AEC with use standards that are “nearly identical to the original 1984 standards,” document state.

The Rules Review Commission objected On Oct. 30 to paragraph a “Description,” which they deemed as “unnecessary and is not the same as a ‘designation’ as required” under general statute.

The Coastal Resources Commission must respond to the objection by Dec. 1. Members can either amend the paragraph to address the Rules Review Commission’s concerns or submit a written response indicating that the rule will not be amended.

Other action items include to consider approving:

• The Topsail Beach Management Plan.
• Variance requests for artificial turf in the 30-foot buffer at Carolina Beach, and for sandbag alignment and size on Ocean Isle Beach.
• Proposed amendments to rules on septic tanks seaward of the vegetation line, and on alternative sandbag design use to protect public roads.

Also on the agenda are updates on the boundary recommendations, erosion rates and setbacks for Inlet Hazard Areas, information on the 2025 hurricane season, and have a discussion on threatened structures.

The in-person only Coastal Resources Advisory Council will meet ahead of the commission at 10 a.m. Nov. 19 at the hotel.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials are available on the commission’s website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

The Coastal Resources Commission on Wednesday afternoon unanimously adopted a rule that restricts development within Jockey’s Ridge State Park.

The rule the 13-member commission adopted mandates how and where sand may be moved within the park and establishes the park’s area of environmental concern, or AEC, boundaries.

AECs are areas of natural importance that the division designates to protect from uncontrolled development.

Under the rule, a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit is required if more than 10 cubic yards of sand is moved in one year within the AEC. Sand that is removed must be placed within an area of the park designated by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in consultation with the state Department of Natural Cultural Resources’ Division of Parks and Recreation.

And, sand within the AEC cannot be altered or prevented from moving freely by development activities “except when necessary” to maintain or construct a road, residential or commercial structure, accessway, lawn, garden, or parking area unless approved by the park’s management plan.

The rule will now go to the state Rules Review Commission for approval.

In the fall of 2023, that commission removed the rule along with more than a dozen other CRC-adopted longstanding rules from the North Carolina Administrative Code and kicked them back to the coastal commission, a move that triggered a legal fight between the two commissions.

Earlier this year, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled all 30 rules be returned to the administrative code.

The coastal commission adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.

OAK ISLAND – When Gigi Donovan looks at the dune fronting a row of largely undeveloped oceanfront lots across the street from her home, she sees a false sense of security.

“We’ve seen this dune go away three times in 12 years,” she said.

The sandy mound that separates the public beach from private lots along a stretch of East Beach Drive wasn’t here just a few years ago. It has been built up and planted with dune-stabilizing sea oats through the town of Oak Island’s efforts to restore its oceanfront shore. 

Now there is enough of it to render at least one of the thin slices of long-vacant beachfront lots suitable for building.

That has Donovan and several of her neighbors worried.

Amber and Dean Russell live a few doors down from the Donovans. When the Russells bought their bungalow in 2022, they went ahead and purchased the beachfront lot directly across the street.

“We bought that just to keep our view,” Amber Russell said. “It’s not safe to build on.”

That’s a sentiment a group of homeowners and residents who live in the area of SE 58^th Street and East Beach Drive have expressed to town officials in the days and months since they received notice that a developer had applied for a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit to build a house on one of the oceanfront lots.

They’ve made countless telephone calls and sent emails to North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff.

They’ve posted handmade signs that read “SAVE OUR BEACHFRONT — No Building on Narrow, At-risk Lots!” along their block of East Beach Drive.

They started an online petition that, as of June 13, had more than 600 signatures.

They’ve dug in their heels and pushed back, calling “for the return to responsible, sustainable environmental development on fragile oceanfront properties” in a plea to Oak Island’s mayor.

But even they acknowledge this fight is an uphill battle, one that is likely to rage on as low-lying coastal areas deal with the effects of sea level rise, more frequent, intense coastal storms and shoreline erosion.

Regulatory flexibility

Last month, a CAMA minor permit was issued for 5515 East Beach Drive. Proposed building plans on the 0.17-acre lot include a 2,856 square-foot house.

Town officials in an email responding to questions said they do not have on file when a home last stood on that lot. Aerial satellite images from Brunswick County show that this particular block of East Beach Drive had more homes along the oceanfront in 1989 than today.

The homes captured by satellite imagery in 1989 were gone in 2003, destroyed by nature or demolition.

Today, houses stand on only two of the oceanfront lots along this block of East Beach Drive.

Oak Island officials said the town does not have an overarching designation determining whether a lot is buildable based on oceanfront construction setbacks.

“For building on an oceanfront lot, the developer would submit information to show compliance with CAMA regulations and receive a permit if they meet said requirements,” an official said in an email.

Back in 2023, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission rubber-stamped Oak Island’s beach management plan, which gives beachfront builders more regulatory flexibility regarding how far back they must build from the sea.

The year before, the commission repealed regulations that allowed coastal communities to use the less restrictive setback measurement line for oceanfront construction, instead requiring builders to measure back from what is referred to as the preproject vegetation line.

The preproject vegetation line is the first line of stable, natural vegetation that is on an oceanfront before a large-scale beach nourishment project begins, one where more than 300,000 cubic yards of sand is placed on the beach.

But coastal communities that create and follow beach management plans approved by the commission may measure setbacks from the vegetation line rather than the preproject line as long as they meet the obligations detailed in their plans. Setbacks are 60 feet from the measurement line.

Coastal Resources Commission approved beach management plans for five coastal towns: Carolina Beach, Kure Beach and Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, and Oak Island and Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County. Once approved, plans must be reauthorized every five years.

Oak Island’s authorized plan calls for placing a total estimated 16.2 million cubic yards of sand on the beach over the next three decades. Under the plan, the beach will be nourished every six years.

Oak Island’s most recent sand nourishment projects were carried out in 2021 and 2022.

A nourishment project originally planned for winter 2024-25 was postponed after the town was informed contractor bids for the project “had far exceeded the amounts expected or budgeted,” according to the town’s website.

The project is again out for bids, and town officials anticipate a contract will be awarded and work will begin later this year.

Risky building

“They’re looking to the renourishment as the permanent solution,” Donovan said.

Dr. Gavin Smith, a North Carolina State University professor who researches hazard mitigation, disaster recovery and climate change adaptation, is not a big fan of beach nourishment.

“I think that overrelying on beach nourishment as a way to protect coastal development is fraught with problems,” he said in a telephone interview earlier this month. “It’s extremely expensive. It can take several seasons or it can take one bad storm and it’s gone.”

Smith pointed out that coastal zones, in particular barrier island, are highly dynamic and subject to significant change.

“Thinking about the construction of a house in a highly dynamic area, I think we need to be really careful,” he said. “Builders and homebuyers need to think about the life of that structure. The conditions that that site might face in 40 or 50 years is worthy of consideration. Individuals need to think about and actually ask a question: While you might be able to legally build in a given place, should you build there? I think that’s something that we all need to perhaps be more aware of.”

It’s time governments at all levels, local, state and federal, “do better,” he said.

“How can we recognize or applaud local governments that have the political will to adopt more stringent standards than the minimums? That’s what many governments adhere to is the minimum standards” Smith said. “Our codes are inadequate in the state, yet that’s what we adhere to in many cases. The National Flood Insurance Program should be viewed as a minimum, not the maximum. In an era of climate change we’re moving toward this idea of nonstationary, which we don’t know what the future holds. So, therefore our codes and standards ought to be that much more rigorous to account for the uncertainty. But instead, we’re relying on old data. We’re relying on old codes and that’s a significant problem.”

Sitting at the kitchen table in her home on a late May afternoon, Donovan mulled the many concerns she, her husband Mark, and their neighbors have raised to government officials.

They worry about whether more lights from new construction will hinder sea turtles from nesting on the shore. They worry about how stormwater runoff from new rooftops, driveways and other impervious surfaces may exacerbate flooding on their second-row lots.

They worry what one unwelcome coastal storm, be it a hurricane of any category or a potential tropical cyclone that packs a punch like the unnamed storm that pummeled Brunswick County last year, might do to the dune and any homes standing on the small land plots just behind it.

“We don’t know. That’s the thing. We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Gigi Donovan said.

In a statement to the town’s mayor last month, the Donovans and their neighbors wrote: “While we cannot control the weather, we can mitigate the damage it causes by responsibly managing the development of oceanfront properties.”

Oceanfront lot development “should be based on comprehensive land-use plans that take into consideration beach erosion, turtle nesting habitat, climate change, protection of private and town property, and preserving the legacy of (Oak Island) as a quaint, family-focused beach community.”

They are appealing to Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon, who determines whether or not property owners can make their case in a hearing before the full commission.

“We are very motivated and stubborn,” Gigi Donovan said in a text message. “If we allow them to plow ahead, steam-rolling any local opposition, our entire island beachfront will be irreparably destroyed.”

MANTEO — Amidst the tedium of a generally uneventful two-day meeting of the state Coastal Resources Commission last week, embers of prior tensions flared anew when Commissioner Jordan Hennessy contended that the panel had not properly authorized its lawsuit seeking to restore a protective environmental rule for Jockey’s Ridge.

The commission voted 9-3 against a motion Hennessy had advanced to withdraw from ongoing legal battle against the Rules Review Commission. Only Coastal Resources Commissioners Robbie Yates and Steve King voted with Hennessy, who took issue with how the lawsuit had been authorized.

“The crux of the issue here is that there was never a formal motion made, never a formal second made, or a formal vote to file a lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission,” Hennessy told the panel May 1 during the second day of the meeting. “And for something of that significance, I think it should have had a vote of this full commission to file suit against another state agency.”

After claiming he had been “stonewalled” by the commission and its legal counsel Mary Lucasse in seeking information, Hennessy, who was appointed to the board in 2023 by then-Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey, made a motion to direct counsel to “go ahead and withdraw that lawsuit.”

In her terse response, Lucasse detailed her answers to Hennessy’s “multiple requests,” including providing records of her authorization to bring the case.

“And then, as you know, information has been given about the lawsuit at every single legal update that we’ve had since then,” she continued. “I’ve kept you advised, and this commission has continued to be aware of and approve the steps that council has taken with that litigation from the beginning.”

The Coastal Resources Commission filed the lawsuit in late 2023 after 30 rules it had approved through a required periodic rules review process were removed from the Administrative Code, a move made shortly after the Rules Review Commission that fall kicked them back to coastal commission. The lawsuit asked the court to reinstate all 30 rules.

The 10-member Rules Review Commission, which is appointed by leaders of the GOP-controlled North Carolina General Assembly, argued those 30 rules were vague or inconsistent with state statutes. 

After filing the lawsuit, the Coastal Resources Commission voted to temporarily restore 16 of the rules state Division of Coastal Management officials said were critical to day-to-day operations.

One of those longstanding rules designated Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern, or AEC.

In April 2024, State Geologist Kenneth Taylor confirmed that Jockey’s Ridge is a unique geologic formation that qualified it as an AEC.

A public hearing on a proposed amendment to the coastal commission’s rule governing the Jockey’s Ridge AEC was held at the end of its April 30 meeting, with four people speaking in support of the proposed amended rule. The proposed rule is nearly identical to the original 1984 rule, which protects the landmark from incompatible development and sand loss. Public comment is open through June 2.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon, one of the commenters, delivered a sharp rebuttal of the Rules Review Commission’s rationale for abruptly revoking the AEC protection in 2023, asserting the Coastal Resources Commission’s “righteous” role in protecting Jockey’s Ridge while condemning the “absurdity of the process” in which the coastal commission had been forced to spend valuable time and resources.

“But now, ideological forces that value unrestrained and excessive commerce supported by industries that are biased against environmental regulation want to erode your authority,” Cahoon told coastal commissioners.

In February, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled in the coastal commission’s favor, and the rules commission appealed. It’s unclear how quickly the dispute can be resolved.

Related: Judge restores state’s 30 erased coastal development rules

“The CRC’s actions relating to the rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an AEC and establishing use standards are related to the rules that are part of the RRC’s appeal of the Superior Court’s March 3 amended order (of the lawsuit,)” the coastal commission said last week in an email response to Coastal Review.

“The appeal has not yet been docketed in the Court of Appeals,” the email stated. “After Appellant RRC files the record for the appeals, the parties will submit briefs to the COA (Court of Appeals.) Only after the appeal is fully briefed will the Court of Appeals decide whether to schedule oral argument. The time required for the Court Appeals to issue an Opinion varies greatly from a few months after an appeal is fully briefed to more than a year.”

Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon, also in addressing Hennessy’s contention, said that the lawsuit was a direct result of the legislature’s budget provision that allowed the the codifier of rules to withdraw the rules. The rules pertinent to the Jockey’s Ridge AEC designation, “just disappeared from existence — 30 or more at a time,” she said.

“It made a major impact on the people that we serve in the state of North Carolina and the 20 coastal counties,” Cahoon said. “This was a decision that was not taken lightly. It was not taken unadvisedly, and it was taken in response to, basically, the disappearance of rules.”

Hennessy is a former top aide to Republican Sen. Bill Cook who represented Dare County in the legislature. He later became a businessman with county affordable housing development contracts and dredging project contracts about which a federal grand jury sought county records and subpoenaed six county commissioners late last year.

Hennessy also questioned that it took nearly a year for the lawsuit to be filed after it was authorized as well as the expenses incurred dealing with the protracted legal action.

“It’s by law that we have to go through the rules review process,” he said. “If you don’t like it, ask the legislature to change the law, but it’s to the point of that the legislature has had to appropriate two and a half or a quarter of a million dollars to the Rules Review Commission to defend its lawsuit against us.”

Commissioner Lauren Salter responded that the state Division of Coastal Management staff tried to “resolve (the Rules Review Commission’s) nitpicking issues” repeatedly, and it wasn’t the Coastal Resources Commission that picked the fight.

“We sought relief for the people of North Carolina, so that they would know what rules were in play and not lose rules overnight,” she said. “That’s why the lawsuit was filed after 307 days. We tried everything.”

Coastal towns and large homeowner associations representing beachfront properties now have the choice to install a controversial alternative to sand fencing on ocean-facing shores.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission last week amended a rule to allow those entities to apply for a permit to place wheat straw bales on ocean shorelines as a means to protect and build up beachfront dunes.

The rule, which will now go to the state Rules Review Commission for final approval, limits the use of wheat straw bales to government organizations and HOAs with more than 1 mile of oceanfront shoreline.

Use of wheat hay bales is restricted to those groups until the state gains a better understanding of their impacts to wildlife, including sea turtles, shoreline environment, and their efficacy.

In a 7-5 vote in favor of the rule, some on the Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, reiterated concerns that have been repeatedly raised in recent years by wildlife officials and environmental organizations.

Those groups, including the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. Audubon, North Carolina Wildlife Federation and Southern Environmental Law Center, argue additional studies need to be done to understand the potential impacts of wheat straw bales to shoreline habitat and the animals that rely on that habitat.

“I just would like to say I think we’re opening ourselves up to a lawsuit,” Commissioner Lauren Salter said during the CRC’s April 30 meeting in Manteo. “I think Southern Environmental Law Center is going to definitely pursue it based on the comments that we received.”

The effectiveness of wheat straw bales on an oceanfront shore was initially tested as an alternative to wooden sand fencing in 2015 on Figure Eight Island, a privately owned island north of Wilmington.

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management issued a Coastal Area Management Act permit to two properties to initial a pilot study on the New Hanover County island.

The bales eventually became covered with sand, but, within a few months, they were washed away in a storm, according to the division.

Wheat straw bales were not allowed on a North Carolina beach again until 2023, after Ocean Isle Beach officials requested approval to place them on a portion of the town’s oceanfront shore.

Ocean Isle Town Administrator Justin Whiteside reminded commissioners last week that the town made the request because sand fencing was hard to acquire in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Town officials noted the pilot project on Figure Eight Island and wanted to mimic it, he said.

“It was successful in some areas,” on Ocean Isle, Whiteside said. “Then we did have a storm and some of it washed away. Others, it’s still covered up and, as far as I’m aware, it’s still there just all covered up with sand.”

Division officials have said they do not expect a significant uptick in the use of straw bales because they tend to cost more than traditional sand fencing and they would need to be replaced more frequently than fencing.

Coastal Resources Commissioner Jordan Hennessy last week said that his position on the rule amendment remained the same as those he had expressed during a previous meeting.

Hennessy questioned whether the rule, by omitting private property owners from being able to apply for a permit to install wheat straw bales, is constitutional.

“I’ll be voting against the rule because I don’t believe it’s constitutional,” he said.

The CRC’s legal counsel, Mary Lucasse, advised that the rule amendment is not unconstitutional.

“I don’t see anything unconstitutional that’s jumping out on me, and I don’t actually understand your argument, commissioner, as to why you think it’s unconstitutional,” she said. “We do a lot of rulemaking that focuses on situational things, and we sometimes try things, as we did with (wheelchair-accessible) mats, with local governments being able to do it first, and we have not drawn any challenges to that based on constitutionality or other things, and I don’t see an issue in that.”

Under the amended rule, wheat straw bales cannot impede public or emergency vehicle access or be installed in a manner that endangers nesting sea turtles, which is similar the sand fencing rule.

Installation of wheat straw bales will require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Wildlife Resources Commission through permit application review. Ties or bindings on bales must be removed to reduce debris and the possibility of wildlife entanglement.

Straw bales will be limited to 10-foot-long sections, which is the same requirement for sand fencing, and can be no wider than 2 feet or higher than 3 feet. Bales can not be more than 10 feet waterward of the first line of stable, natural vegetation, erosion scarp or toe of a frontal dune.

Sections of straw bales, sand fencing, or Christmas trees, which may also be used to trap sand, must be spaced 7 feet apart. Nonfunctioning, damaged bales or stakes that have moved from their alignment must be repaired or removed from the shore.

Special Deputy Attorney General Mary Lucasse announced Thursday that she had accepted a new position at the North Carolina Department of Justice and would no longer serve as legal counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission.

During the regular meeting of the state commission that establishes coastal development rules held Wednesday and Thursday in the Dare County Government Center in Manteo, Lucasse explained her decision before giving the legal update common at these meetings, adding that this would be her last as commission counsel.

“I’ve been promoted to work with the Board of Elections, and this is my last meeting. It’s been an utmost pleasure to learn from staff and to learn from the commission over the last almost 15 years that I’ve worked with you,” she said.

Looking back: Coastal commission lawyer: CAMA a 50-year ‘balancing act’

Lucasse assured the commission that while her replacement from the Department of Justice hadn’t been determined, “under the statute, the attorney general does provide an attorney to serve as your counsel.”

She added that although the task isn’t completed, she’s begun the process of transferring the commission’s cases to other lawyers.

Commission Chair Renee Cahoon thanked Lucasse for her years of hard work and dedication.

“It’s been a pleasure working with you over the past 15 or so years,” Cahoon said. “We wish you all the best in your new role at the Board of Elections. That should be interesting and challenging as well.”

Lucasse has been in Department of Justice’s environmental division since 2009.

In addition to the Coastal Resources Commission, she has provided legal representation to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Management Commission, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Board for the Licensing of Geologists, and other boards and commissions as assigned, according to the National Association of Attorneys General.

Lucasse earned her bachelor’s in history from Calvin College in 1981 and graduated in 1986 from the University of Maryland School of Law. Her experience also includes civil litigation in the Maryland Office of the Attorney General and private practice in Honolulu, Hawaii.

When the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission meets later this month in Manteo, members are expected to hear from the public their thoughts on reinstating protections for Jockey’s Ridge.

The commission meeting is to begin at 1 p.m. April 30 and resume at 9 a.m. May 1 in the Dare County Government Center. The public hearing on Jockey’s Ridge is scheduled for 4 p.m. April 30.

A public comment period is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. May 1. Comments may be limited to 3 minutes per person. The public can attend in person or view the meeting on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s YouTube channel.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will have an in-person meeting at 9 a.m. April 30, before the commission’s regular meeting begins.

Related: Jockey’s Ridge protections one step closer to approval

The commission designated in 1984 Jockey’s Ridge, an expansive sand dune system within Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Nags Head, as a unique geologic feature area of environmental concern.

During the periodic rules review process, the Rules Review Commission in October 2023 dropped 30 rules, including the Jockey’s Ridge designation, giving as reasons a lack of statutory authority, unclear or ambiguous language, that it was unnecessary and failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The rules were then removed from the state administrative code.

In the time since, the Coastal Resources Commission has been going through the rulemaking process to reinstate the “unique geological feature” that is the centerpiece of Jockey’s Ridge State Park as an area of environmental concern.

The public hearing for the proposed permanent rule is a step toward restoring the area of environmental concern designation for Jockey’s Ridge in Nags Head.

In addition to the public hearing, members are to consider approving beach management plans for Ocean isle Beach and for Carolina Beach, and to vote on the fiscal analyses on a proposal to allow nonpermanent structures on decks and boardwalks on urban waterfronts, and on proposed amendments to ocean hazard area exceptions.

Commissioners plan to hold discussions on human-made ditches and ways to provide information to potential buyers about specific properties and ocean hazard areas of environmental concern.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the the NCDEQ website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

NEW BERN — The commission that makes decisions about coastal development is moving ahead with public comment on proposed language to reinstate Jockey’s Ridge protections previously in place for decades.

During the Coastal Resources Commission’s first meeting of the year, which was held Wednesday and Thursday in the DoubleTree New Bern Riverfront, members unanimously approved setting a public hearing for a proposed permanent rule that would restore the area of environmental concern designation for Jockey’s Ridge in Nags Head.

What is often referred to as the largest sand dune system on the Atlantic Coast, the geological feature is the centerpiece of Jockey’s Ridge State Park, which was established in 1975. The Coastal Resources Commission designated Jockey’s Ridge in 1984 as a “Unique Geologic Feature Area of Environmental Concern” and put laws in place to manage activities in and around the park boundaries.

Daniel Govoni, policy analyst with the Division of Coastal Management, reminded the commission Thursday afternoon that it must go through the permanent rulemaking process because, during the periodic rules review, the designation for Jockey’s Ridge was removed from the North Carolina Administration Code. The division acts as staff to the Coastal Resources Commission.

The Rules Review Commission dropped in October 2023 the rule language, along with 29 other rules, in large part because of the wording. The Rules Review Commission’s objections centered on what it described as a lack of statutory authority, unclear or ambiguous language, that it was unnecessary and failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

“As the CRC explained in its verified complaint objecting to the removal of its rules from the North Carolina Administrative Code, ‘the removal of the rules at issue deprives DCM of the ability to determine whether a permit is required or available to protect a fragile coastal natural and culture resource areas, placing in immediate danger the stability of natural sand dunes in the coastal zone due to improper sand removal and development, including at Jockey’s Ridge,’” a division representative explained Friday in an email about the effort to get the rules reinstated.

The commission last year adopted emergency and temporary rules reestablishing Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern. The commission went through the permanent rulemaking process, approved the fiscal analysis, held a public hearing and then adopted the permanent rule in November 2024.

In December, the Rules Review Commission objected to the permanent rule again, claiming that the division didn’t follow the rules for a public notice.

Govoni said the division has now complied with the public hearing rules and can move forward with the public hearing.

While work was underway to reinstate these protections, the Coastal Resources Commission had a lawsuit in the works against the Rules Review Commission about the 30 rules that were removed from the code in the fall of 2023.

Related: Judge restores state’s 30 erased coastal development rules

Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman ruled on Feb. 12, “in the light most favorable to Defendants, that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law” and that the “Rules Review Commission is ordered to approve Plaintiffs’ 30 rules.”

The defendant was ordered to return the 30 rules to the code. If there is an appeal, the Rules Review Commission “can identify those rules as ‘Under Appeal’ or words to that effect.”

During the meeting Thursday afternoon, the Coastal Resources Commission’s legal counsel, Mary Lucasse, shared that the Rules Review Commission had decided to appeal but didn’t know the time frame. She said that the trial had been scheduled for March 10 but that it was later changed.

Reid Wilson honors Mike Lopazanski

The commission was able to take a quick break from the agenda Thursday morning to welcome North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Reid Wilson and recognize former Division Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski with the Order of the Long Leaf Pine Award.

Commission Chair Renee Cahoon introduced NCDEQ Secretary Wilson, who she said “brings a wealth of experience in environmental protection, land conservation and government and nonprofit leadership.”

“I’ve been in this job for two months, and I’m loving it every single day,” Wilson told the commission, adding NCDEQ covers “everything from the coast to the mountains and in between.”

Wilson was on his way to Morehead City to visit the divisions of Coastal Management and Marine Fisheries headquarters there when he stopped in New Bern.

Wilson praised department staff for helping him transition to NCDEQ after serving from 2021 to 2024 as secretary of the state’s Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. Gov. Josh Stein appointed Wilson to the NCDEQ secretary position and is waiting to be confirmed by the Senate.

“The Department of Environmental Quality benefits every North Carolinian’s life, every single day, in a lot of ways,” Wilson said, explaining that the agency protects air quality, water quality and human health and helps advance economic prosperity by funding water infrastructure projects “and not only making sure that people have safe drinking water, but that our rivers are clean, and also building the capacity of the business to come and grow and for those communities to thrive.”

Wilson commended the Coastal Resources Commission members for their dedication to protecting the coast. “I think all of us view our coastal resources as this incredible treasure,” he said, “and you all play a key role.”

While Wilson had the podium, he presented Lopazanski with the Order of the Long Leaf Pine. Lopazanski retired in December as deputy director of the division after more than 30 years in state government.

“This is the state’s highest honor society, and it is a huge accomplishment,” Wilson said. He thanked Lopazanski for his work to coordinate key acquisitions for the N.C. Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve system, and with the Coastal Resources Commission “to adopt common sense and science-based rules. Thank you for your dedication to your job and to the coast and to the people North Carolina.”

Before Wilson and his staff resumed their trip to Carteret County, he told Coastal Review that while the two departments are similar in size, staff and number of divisions, a difference is that Natural and Cultural Resources has 100 sites around the state that it oversees, whether it’s the zoo, parks or historic sites, while NCDEQ has around 10 offices around the state and they’re offices or labs.

“But the other thing that’s different is that our work at DEQ affects everybody. Making sure the air and the water and the land are clean and healthy,” he said. “So our work is in every county, in every town, whether it’s a drinking water plant or Brownfields cleanup or a permit for a business to come in and create jobs.”

When it comes to the ongoing uncertainty that surrounds federal funding, Wilson said his people “don’t actually know yet” about any particular programs within the agency that will be impacted.

“Every day we’re monitoring whether we have access to these federal grants,” he said. “I can’t tell you which ones are available, but we’re checking it every day and waiting to see how the Trump administration responds to various court orders that would require the release of these funds.”

Also during the meeting

Members approved a variance request from at The Shoals Club on Bald Head Island for a sandbag structure double the size of the allowed 6 feet by 20 feet. Petitioners requested permission to build a 12-foot-by-40-foot sandbag structure at the site in Brunswick County that’s subject to erosion.

The other variance from a petitioner to build in the setback in North Topsail Beach was put on hold while more information is collected.

Amendments to two different rules for ocean hazard areas were approved as well as the periodic review schedule for the Coastal Area Management Act land use planning public comment and final report.

Nelson Paul, who petitioned for a rule to add to the definition of estuarine waters “All the waters’ described herein includes man-made ditches” but withdrew his request because he plans take a different approach.

The board heard during public comment on a proposed rule to allow hay bales be used as sand fencing concerns from an attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center and a biologist form the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission that the bales would impede sea turtle nesting and could introduce invasive species.

This story has been updated.

A judge has ordered that more than two dozen longstanding rules used to guide coastal development and protect resources be placed back into the North Carolina Administrative Code.

All 30 rules removed from the code in fall 2023, shortly after the N.C. Rules Review Commission kicked them back to the Coastal Resources Commission, must be plugged back into the code, Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman ruled last week.

Pittman also affirmed that the Coastal Resources Commission and Department of Environmental Quality have the authority to, through rulemaking, create enforceable guidelines and policies, adopt rules that give context to or aid in understanding those and other rules, and that “adverse environmental impact” is not an ambiguous term used in rulemaking.

“The NC Coastal Resources Commission is pleased that the trial court has agreed with its position that the Rules Review Commission’s objections to thirty of the CRC’s rules were without foundation,” the CRC stated in an email Tuesday afternoon. “The CRC looks forward to a return of its rules to the North Carolina Administrative Code as these rules are important components of this State’s coastal management program.”

Related: Process to restore Jockey’s Ridge protections continues

Should the Rules Review Commission appeal, the state codifier of rules may “prominently notate and identify as ‘Under Appeal’” the 30 rules “or words to that effect,” Pittman wrote in his Feb. 12 decision.

Pittman’s ruling comes more than a year after the coastal commission and the state’s lead environmental agency filed a complaint asking the court to resolve a deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore the rules.

The coastal commission adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.

The Rules Review Commission’s objections to the rules in 2023 were largely based on technical wording.

After filing the lawsuit, the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management and the coastal commission worked to temporarily restore 16 of the rules division officials described as critical to day-to-day operations.

Some of those rules pertain to enforcing protections for coastal landmarks including Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Nags Head and Permuda Island off the shores of North Topsail Beach in Onslow County.

Last November, the 13-member Coastal Resources Commission unanimously adopted a proposed permanent rule identifying Jockey’s Ridge, the tallest active sand dune on America’s eastern sea board, as a unique geological feature area of environmental concern, or AEC. The designation received overwhelming public support and protects the dune from, among other things, sand mining.

AECs are areas of natural importance that the division designates to protect from uncontrolled development.

The coastal commission submitted 132 readopted rules to the Rules Review Commission.

Historically, when the Rules Review Commission objected to a rule, the agency that submitted the rule had to request the rule be returned to make changes. If an agency did not make that request, the objection would be merely noted in the rule and that rule would remain in the Administrative Code.

That changed with the adoption Oct. 3, 2023, of the state budget that includes language giving the rules commission authority to send rules it objects back to agencies.

Shortly after the law went into effect, the Rules Review Commission voted in a special called meeting to return 30 of the Coastal Resources Commission-approved 132 rules.

The 10-member rules commission reviews and approves state agency-created rules. The North Carolina General Assembly appoints commission members, half of which are on the recommendation of the Senate pro tem, and the other half on the recommendation of the House speaker.

“The court did the right thing in reserving the legislatively-controlled Rules Review Commission’s arbitrary repeal of long-standing, common-sense rules that are essential to North Carolina’s coastal communities as they face increasingly intense storms and sea level rise from climate change,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Julie Youngman stated Monday afternoon in response to a request for comment.

The law center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which supported restoration of the rules. The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

In addition to protecting Jockey’s Ridge State Park and archaeological remains on Permuda Island, the rules the judge ordered to be returned to the code designate and manage categories of coastal resources, dictate policies for shoreline erosion control and development of ocean-based energy facilities, and guide permitting for coastal development.

NEW BERN — The state commission that establishes rules and policy for coastal development is expected to, during its February meeting, consider its next step in the permanent rulemaking process to redesignate Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission is scheduled to begin its regular meeting at 3 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 26, and resume its unfinished business at 9 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 27, in the DoubleTree New Bern Riverfront, 100 Middle St.

The public can attend the meeting in person or watch online. The in-person public comment period is at noon Feb. 27.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council is scheduled to meet first at 1 p.m. Feb. 26, also at the DoubleTree.

The full agenda and related documents are on the Division of Coastal Management website. The division, which acts as staff to the commission, is under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

Jockey’s Ridge rules

Jockey’s Ridge in Nags Head was established as a state park in 1975 to protect the distinctive dune system from development. The Coastal Resources Commission in 1984 designated Jockey’s Ridge as a “Unique Geologic Feature Area of Environmental Concern” and has since had laws in place to manage activities in and around the park boundaries.

During the periodic rules review process in fall 2023, the Rules Review Commission, in an effort to defang coastal development rules based on now-court-refuted interpretation of state law, removed from the state administrative code the designation of Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern.

Related: Judge restores state’s erased coastal development rules

The Coastal Resources Commission then adopted emergency and temporary rules to reestablish Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern and use standards that went into effect Jan. 3, 2024. The emergency rules expired May 13, 2024, when the Rules Review Commission objected to the temporary rule.

The Coastal Resources Commission moved forward with permanent rulemaking on April 25, 2024, and adopted the rules Nov. 14, 2024. The Rules Review Commission objected Dec. 19, 2024, citing a failure to comply with the public noticing rules.

According to the division, staff have taken the necessary steps to rectify the objection and recommend the commission approve scheduling a public hearing as part of the permanent rulemaking process.

“The proposed permanent rule designates Jockey’s Ridge as an AEC with use standards which are nearly identical to the original 1984 standards,” with minor changes proposed for clarity, according to the division.

Public hearing on straw bales

A public hearing is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Feb. 26, on proposed rule language and notice of text for the “Installation and Maintenance of Wheat Straw Bales for Sand Fencing.”

The proposed new rule is “to provide greater flexibility to local governments, large oceanfront homeowners associations, and government agencies in allowing the use of wheat straw bales for dune protection in addition to sand fencing,” according to the division.

Other items

Members are expected to take up variance requests Feb. 26 for properties in Carolina Beach, North Topsail Beach and at The Shoals Club on Bald Head Island.

A closed session is scheduled for Feb. 27 on an objection by the Rules Review Commission.

Staff are to present requests to move forward with amendments to two different rules for ocean hazard areas of environmental concern, and consider approving the periodic review schedule for the Coastal Area Management Act land use planning public comment and final report.

A petition for rulemaking to add to the definition of estuarine waters “All the waters’ described herein includes man-made ditches” is to be presented as well. Division staff do not support the request, according to the documents.

Information items include presentations on the history of the commission’s ocean hazard setback program, a review of the major permitting process, and an update on litigation.

RODANTHE – The North Carolina Department of Transportation is set to begin work Friday rebuilding dunes and placing sandbags on a severely erosion-threatened stretch of N.C. Highway 12 here.

Department officials are calling the $400,000 project on an 1,100-foot stretch of highway “a temporary solution to protect the highway from ocean overwash caused by extreme tides and storms.”

Officials said the project near the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge visitor center is meant to mitigate the type of overwash that caused the highway to be closed for a period in mid-November. They said it would also add a layer of protection for the road itself, helping to prevent the type of undermining that could damage the pavement and cause a long-term shutdown of the only roadway link between the mainland and Hatteras Island.

“We know this is only a temporary fix,” said N.C. Department of Transportation Division Engineer Win Bridgers. “But it’s vital for us to do everything we can to keep N.C. 12 open and accessible while we seek a more permanent solution.”

The sandbag project will take about a week to complete, with alternating single-lane closures in the area while the work is ongoing.

The Coastal Resources Commission in December approved a variance from Coastal Area Management Act development rules to allow the sandbag placement.

The November storm had washed away 1,000 feet of dune and exposed the highway’s pavement high surf. Roadway flooding and pavement drop-off produced hazardous traffic conditions, prompting the temporary road closure.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation can begin work on a temporary solution to protect a stretch of N.C. Highway 12 in Rodanthe that frequently experiences overwash, coastal flooding and erosion — but NCDOT officials are looking for a more permanent fix.

Earlier this week, the Coastal Resources Commission unanimously approved NCDOT’s variance request to repair 1,300 feet of primary sand dune and install 1,100 feet of sandbags on the oceanside right-of-way near the visitor center for the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. A variance, once granted, allows coastal development that would otherwise be prohibited by commission rules.

“We hope to start the project sometime in mid-January, and it will take roughly one week to complete,” NCDOT Communications Officer Tim Hass told Coastal Review Tuesday. He said that during the project, which should cost about $400,000, there will be temporary single-lane closures in the area on N.C. Highway 12.

After a storm last month forced transportation officials to close N.C. 12 near the refuge’s visitor center, NCDOT submitted to Division of Coastal Management staff on Nov. 24 a request to modify the existing Coastal Area Management Act permit issued in 1999 that allows for maintenance work along the Outer Banks highway.

The division is under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and acts as staff to the commission. Division staff make permit decisions based on commission rules.

Division staff on Dec. 4 issued a modification to NCDOT’s existing CAMA major permit but “conditioned out those aspects of the proposed sandbag structure which did not meet the Commission’s Rules, including the size and color of the sandbags, the size of the sandbag structure, and the impacts to existing dunes,” documents state.

If the division denies a permit request because the proposed project is outside of development rules, the petitioner can request a variance from the commission to allow the work, which is what NCDOT did, leading to the special-called meeting held Monday morning by web conference.

NCDEQ Assistant General Counsel Christy Goebel explained that NCDOT owns and maintains the public right-of-way easement through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge on Hatteras Island in Dare County.

“As we know, N.C. 12 provides the only roadway connection between the mainland and Hatteras Island. Beach erosion, dune loss and risk to Highway 12 have been particularly severe near the refuge visitor center,” she said.

The area has been identified as a “hot spot” since at least 2002 and is characterized by low topography and low elevations. The 2020 average annual erosion rate at the visitor center hot spot is 7.5 feet per a year, and the total width of the island there is between 3,500 and 5,800 feet, though much of that area is the refuge ponds. The space between the ocean and refuge ponds that N.C. 12 passes through is as narrow as 245 feet.

“Because of storm and tidal events, and the geomorphology of this area, the hot spot is susceptible to shoreline erosion, overwash, coastal flooding, the loss of beach and dunes, and sand cover. These circumstances can undermine the integrity of the road, making travel by the general public unsafe and forcing DOT to close the road,” Goebel said.

The Nov. 15-17 storm that severely damaged the primary dune along N.C. 12 by the refuge’s visitor center prompted NCDOT’s move to put in the temporary sandbag structure.

Goebel said that ocean overwash removed around 1,000 linear feet of dune, exposing the highway’s pavement edge to the high surf. Roadway flooding and pavement drop-off produced hazardous traffic conditions, and NCDOT temporarily closed the road to all traffic. NCDOT temporarily rebuilt the primary dune as maintenance work after the storm, under the existing CAMA permit.

Goebel said that NCDOT proposed using temporary sandbags for the project that would be white, trapezoid-shaped, woven polypropylene, an alternative to the traditional tan sandbags. Plans call for the sandbags to be placed in two adjoining rows parallel to the seashore.

The row closest to the ocean would be 6 feet high with an 8-foot base, and the row closest to land would be 4-foot high with a 6-foot base. The rows will be adjacent to each other and have a combined base of 14 feet. Both rows will be placed 2 feet below the roadway and 10 feet away from the pavement.

NCDOT plans to bring in sand to fill the sandbags and cover the sandbags after they are installed with a 6-foot-high and 20-foot-wide dune. “Sand would not be dredged from the swash zone on the beach, and there would be no wetland impacts,” Goebel said.

About 950 square feet of the protective dune will extend below the normal high-water line, as well.

Existing rules require the sandbags be tan, between 3 and 5 feet wide and 7 to 15 feet long when measured flat, with a base width no wider than 20 feet and total height no more than 6 feet. Rules also dictate that no primary dunes can be removed or located, and no part of the dune should be placed below normal high water line.

This type of sandbag has been granted variances twice before. The commission allowed for this type of sandbag to be used at the north end of Ocracoke Island, but that project didn’t come to fruition because of funding, and again in February 2022, for the north end of Rodanthe, she said.

Goebel said that division staff agrees with NCDOT “that construction of the sandbag structure and the dune and the use of the alternative bags will secure public safety and welfare, and it will preserve substantial justice as it will allow the petitioner to protect 12 in the short and midterm with alternative sandbags, while continuing to work towards a long-term solution for transportation along Hatteras Island.”

Special Deputy Attorney General Colin Justice reiterated to the commission that NCDOT officials believe there are benefits to using the alternative sandbags.

Justice, who represents NCDOT and works for the North Carolina Department of Justice, said officials believe these sandbags will be more durable. Installation will happen faster than traditional sandbags and cause less of an impact because of the way the bags are filled from the top. No hydraulic pump across the beach to fill traditional sandbags is necessary.

“We think that applying the rule strictly would prevent NCDOT from being able to do this repair as effectively, as quickly and for minimizing impacts the setback requirements,” he said.

The Division of Coastal Management’s NCDOT Project Coordinator Stephen Lane said Monday that NCDOT is looking at long-term solutions for the hot spot, and has obtained funds to study “long-term comprehensive solutions to try to keep Highway 12 open for the future,” he said.

Lane is referring to the $1.8 million grant announced earlier this year to study the 11-mile stretch of N.C. 12 between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe on Pea Island. “The project will identify future construction projects, streamline environmental reviews, include public engagement and establish detailed, long-term plans for keeping the roadway passable during and following major storm events,” officials said in the at the time.

NCDOT Division 1 Engineer Win Bridgers states in the permit modification request dated Nov. 24 that the sandbag project is a temporary solution for maintaining N.C. 12 on the Pea Island refuge.

“NCDOT has recently been awarded a PROTECT Planning Grant from (Federal Highway Administration) to conduct a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) study that includes comprehensive resiliency planning, alternatives development and evaluation, and robust public engagement for NC 12 on Pea Island,” Bridgers wrote. “Also known as Solving Access for NC 12 in Dare County (SAND), this project will establish a solid foundation for future project development and construction, with the goal of streamlining subsequent environmental review, accelerating project delivery, and securing the long-term resiliency of NC 12.”

He said that NCDOT anticipations the SAND project will determine short-term and long-term solutions for maintaining N.C. 12 on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.

“When those solutions are implemented, NCDOT would remove the temporary sandbags when no longer needed to protect the roadway of NC 12. With the stronger material and design, the Permashield bags can be more effectively removed when they are no longer needed. NCDOT anticipates quicker and more complete removal of Permashield sandbags as opposed to the challenging removal of traditional sandbags,” Bridgers said.

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.

This report has been updated.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission will hold a special meeting at 10 a.m. Monday by web conference to hear a variance request from the N.C. Department of Transportation.

According to the agenda posted at the commission’s website, the request involves sandbags at Pea Island in Dare County. The request materials were not yet posted as of Friday morning. A variance, when granted, allows development that is otherwise prohibited by commission rules.

The Department of Environmental Quality announced Thursday that the meeting will be limited to that lone agenda item.

The public may join by computer or phone. Visit the commission website to see agenda materials, once available, and information on how to access the meeting.

Officials noted that times indicated on the agenda are subject to change.

Log on to the webinar using webinar number, or access code, 2427 740 8580, and password: crcspec1224, or 27277321 when dialing from a phone.

Those interested may also join by phone at 1-415-655-0003, using webinar number (access code): 2427 740 8580.

Also, a listening station will be set up at the Division of Coastal Management headquarters office at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City.

The commission sets the rules and policies carried out by the Division of Coastal Management under the state Coastal Area Management Act, the Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel will meet next to continue reviewing inlet hazard area boundaries.

Inlet hazard areas, or IHAs, are shorelines especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding where inlets can shift suddenly and dramatically. 

Ten of North Carolina’s 19 active inlets are developed, including Tubbs, Shallotte and Lockwood Folly in Brunswick County; Carolina Beach, Masonboro, Mason and Rich in New Hanover County; New Topsail and New River in Pender County; and Bogue Inlet in Carteret County. Hundreds of acres of land at those inlets are designated IHAs.

The panel, which is an advisory board to the Coastal Resources Commission, identified a need to update these areas after the panel was formed in the late 1990s.

The commission sets rules on the size and location of buildings within IHAs.

Since the 1990s, the science panel has discussed how to best predict inlet erosion and accretion rates at IHAs and recommended updated boundaries.

The panel is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. Dec. 5 by video conference. 

A listening station will be set up at the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management headquarters office at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City.

The public may submit comments to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov. “Science Panel” should be noted in the subject line.

Thorough research needs to be done on how wheat straw bales might affect oceanfront habitat before the state allows them to be used as an alternative to sand fencing, a state wildlife official said.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has repeatedly stated its concerns in recent years about straw bales being used as a tool to protect and build up oceanfront dunes, Maria Dunn said in a recent meeting of the state Coastal Resources Commission.

Dunn, who is with Wildlife Resources Commission’s Habitat Conservation Program, said that the agency understands the desire to try and maintain shorelines, but pointed out what she said are “significant differences” between traditional sand fencing and bales.

“We have not objected to traditional use of sand-fencing material as long as installation was done in a manner to effectively collect wind-blown sand and not impede or block areas of the shore for public use and wildlife habitat,” Dunn said at the coastal commission’s Nov. 13 meeting. “Appropriate installation includes the location along the appropriate area of the beach profile, orientation and alignment of fencing, distance between fencing, and length of fencing down the beach profile.”

The proposed rule change the coastal commission approved in April establishes specific guidelines for where and how bales may be placed on a beachfront.

But the potential impacts to shoreline habitat and the animals, including endangered species and plants, that rely on that sandy habitat, remain grossly understudied, Dunn said.

“It was asked if research was available on how bales impact wildlife resources on habitats on ocean shorelines,” she said. “But since they are not permitted on any other Atlantic shoreline’s state shore there is no research or data available to share with you.”

The rule amendment was introduced as a way to help save permittees from waiting for sand fencing to become available during times when it is in high demand.

But unlike traditional sand fencing, straw bales could potentially introduce invasive and nonnative ocean shoreline plant species to shores, influence sand temperatures and, when initially installed, take up 48 times the area that traditional sand fencing uses, Dunn said.

Under the proposed rule amendment, bales cannot be placed in sections more than 10 feet long, 2 feet wide and 3 feet high and ties or binding must be removed from the bales. A permittee must repair or remove damaged, nonfunctioning, or bales sections or stakes moved from the alignment in which they were authorized.

Only local governments, state and federal agencies and large, oceanfront homeowners associations would be permitted to use bales.

A state Division of Coastal Management official told the Coastal Resources Commission in August that the division does not expect a significant uptick in the use of straw bales because they tend to cost more than traditional sand fencing, would need to be replaced more frequently than fencing, and the verdict is still out on how efficiently bales trap sand.

Ocean Isle Beach became the first in the state to test straw bales on a portion of its ocean shore in 2023.

Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith told Coastal Review in late August that the bales worked well, were cheaper than sand fencing and easily accessible during a time when the town could not get sand fencing because of high demand.

Dunn said that the town’s pilot program was monitored by little more than photographic documentation and some surface temperature readings.

There was no designed, controlled experiment comparing different bale installments to traditional sand fencing to see which application best collected windblown said, she said.

“We would recommend that such an experiment is designed with input from state and federal agencies to determine the best type of sand management tools to collect sand for dune structure while minimizing impacts to wildlife resources,” Dunn said.

Smith said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon that she never saw a Wildlife Resources Commission representative visit the island to check sand temperatures at turtle nests or conduct other monitoring.

“On any decision we have to make we can always say ‘what if,’” Smith said. “She has no evidence of some of those what-ifs. I don’t think anybody wants to do any environmental damage.”

The town is working on a dune project that will begin sometime this winter. Since the proposed rule amendments have not been made formative, the town has opted to use traditional sand fencing “to move our project along and get it permitted,” Smith said.

Sand temperatures play a significant role in determining the sex of sea turtles in a nest. Dunn said that a half-degree variation can change how many males or females are within a nest and possibly whether a nest remains viable.

Temperatures were not taken at sea turtle nest cavity depths in Ocean Isle Beach, she said.

“We don’t want to artificially create more females,” said Deb Allen, Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization coordinator. “We need a balance of males to females.”

Allen pointed to studies that show when nests incubate at higher temperatures it can affect the physical and cognitive abilities of hatchlings, slowing them in their ability to make it from the shore to the ocean.

“We want them to come out of that nest and we want them to crawl to that ocean as fast as possible,” she said.

The coastal commission in August unanimously approved the fiscal impact analysis of the proposed rule. The fiscal analysis measures how a rule may affect a government’s revenue and expenditures to help prepare for or prevent budget shortfalls.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, and Office of State Budget and Management also approved the fiscal analysis.

A public hearing on the proposed amended rule was held Oct. 30 in Morehead City. The public comment period on the rule ends December 2.

The division has not yet received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, according to its public information officer, Christy Simmons.

The wildlife service did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

Division officials anticipate that the amended rule will become effective April 1, 2025.

The state’s Coastal Resources Commission has unanimously adopted a proposed permanent rule to protect the tallest active sand dune on America’s Eastern Seaboard from, among other things, sand mining.

During their quarterly meeting Thursday morning in Ocean Isle Beach, commissioners unanimously approved a permanent rule identifying Jockey’s Ridge as a unique geologic feature area of environmental concern, or AEC, a designation that has received overwhelming public support.

The rule will once again go before the N.C. Rules Review Commission, which removed the AEC designation in early October 2023 after its members questioned whether the massive dune is a unique geological formation.

The coastal commission, also referred to as the CRC, adopted more than a dozen emergency and temporary rules after the Rules Review Commission returned 30 longstanding rules to the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management.

Those rules were also removed from the N.C. Administrative Code by state Codifier of Rules Ashley Berger Snyder. Snyder is the daughter of North Carolina Senate Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham and Guilford.

She was later named along with the rules commission in a lawsuit brought by the coastal commission and Department of Environmental Quality. That case is still pending in Wake County Superior Court.

Until last fall, when the Rules Review Commission objected to a rule, the agency that submitted the rule had to request the rule be returned to make changes. If an agency did not make that request, the the objection would be merely noted in the rule and that rule would remain in the Administrative Code.

But the state budget adopted Oct. 3, 2023 included language that gives the rules commission authority to send rules it objects to back to agencies. 

Two days after that budget went into effect, the Rules Review Commission voted in a special called meeting to return 30 of 132 rules the CRC submitted for review.

The CRC adopted 16 emergency rules that went into effect Jan. 3. Those rules expired May 13 when the rules commission objected to them. 

Jockey’s Ridge, which is within Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Nags Head, was first designated as a unique geologic feature AEC in 1984. The CRC has, by the administrative rules, regulated development activities in and around the state park’s boundaries since that time.

The proposed permanent rule is largely identical to the original 1984 standards, according to coastal management officials.

The proposed rule mandates that the removal of more than 10 cubic yards of sand per year from Jockey’s Ridge will require a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit.

The rule also specifies that any sand that is removed must be placed within the state park and that development within the AEC “shall not alter the movement of sand” unless necessary for road maintenance, accessways, lawns, residential or commercial structures, gardens, parking areas, or allowed by the Jockey’s Ridge State Park Management Plan.

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission members, during the their November meeting, are expected to consider adopting rules to reinstate Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern.

The two-day meeting, which will also include an update on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, from Superintendent Dave Hallac begins at 3 p.m. Nov. 13 at the Ocean Isle Beach Town Hall, 111 Causeway Drive. The public may attend the meeting in-person or watch by web conference. The meeting is expected to reconvene at 9 a.m. Nov. 14.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will meet in-person only Nov. 13, at 1 p.m., also at the town hall.

An in-person public comment period is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 13.

Development activities in and around Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Nags Head have been regulated since 1984, when the commission designated the sand dune system as a unique geologic feature area of environmental concern.

In October 2023, the Rules Review Commission returned during the periodic rules review process the rules designating Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern. The rules were removed from the state Administrative Code. The commission then adopted emergency and temporary rules reestablishing the area of environmental concern and use standards, according to division documents.

The emergency rules went into effect on Jan. 3, and expired May 13, when the Rules Review Commission objected to the temporary rule. The commission decided to go ahead with permanent rulemaking on April 25, which designated Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern with use standards that are nearly identical to the original 1984 standards.

The Division of Coastal Management held a public hearing Oct. 15 at Jockey’s Ridge State Park. There were 17 oral comments all in support of the redesignation, and the division received 32 written comments also in support.

Also during the meeting Nov. 13-14, the commission is expected to consider adopting a handful of rules related to the permitting process, the fiscal analysis for the existing bridges and culverts replacement general permit, and consider oceanfront setback variances in Avon, Nags Head and Oak Island, riparian setbacks in Holden Beach, and impervious surface limits in Figure Eight Island  

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the commission’s website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

The science panel that advises the state Coastal Resources Commission is showing with a new report how the findings of a 2022 federal-level report projecting that sea levels will rise by more than a foot by 2050 apply to North Carolina.

Released in mid-October, the “North Carolina 2024 Sea Level Rise Science Update” is the product of the science panel following the commission’s 2022 charge to present any new or significant data and research on sea level rise projections.

The commission was put in place in 1974 when the North Carolina General Assembly adopted the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA. The 13-member commission designates areas of environmental concern, adopts rules and policies for coastal development within those areas, and certifies local land use plans. The state Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management staff enforces the commission’s rules.

The U.S. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood Hazard Scenarios and Tools Interagency Task Force wrote “Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States,” that was published in February 2022 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Among the task force members are scientists from NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency.

“In recent years, confidence regarding the expected amount of sea level rise by 2050 has increased,” the science panel recaps from the 2022 technical report in its October 2024 update. Regardless of how much warming occurs by 2100, trajectories evaluated by the 2022 sea level rise technical report indicate sea level rise of 1 foot to 1.4 feet by 2050, relative to sea level in 2000.

“The actual amount will depend on future greenhouse gas emissions, and how much ice is lost from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets,” the science panel continues in its update. “Projections for sea level rise beyond 2050 are less certain because they depend even more strongly on future greenhouse gas emissions and rate of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. However, rates of sea level rise are expected to further increase toward the latter half of this century.”

On the science panel, Dr. Reide Corbett is the dean and executive director of the Integrated Coastal Programs at the Coastal Studies Institute on the East Carolina University Outer Banks Campus.

He told Coastal Review that sea level rise projections continue to improve as new data becomes available and as the scientific community gains a better understanding of global processes changing sea level on different spatial and temporal scales. 

The state’s science panel used the best available and most recent data to provide this 2024 Sea Level Rise Update, Corbett continued, adding that “It is critical that our communities are working with the most informed projections as they develop actionable plans for building more resilience across our coast.”

The strongest and most significant message Corbett said he sees coming from the 2024 update and other recent reports is that North Carolina must plan for at least a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2050. There is little deviation in this value whether projecting from tide gauges or using numerical models, Corbett added

“This is a reality that we need to start planning for today,” he said. “A 1 foot rise in sea level will significantly increase the number of days coastal North Carolina will experience high tide flooding. Communities need to start building these challenges into their land use plans, stormwater plans, and communicating the risks to residents.”

Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller explained to Coastal Review that the science panel is defining sea level rise as an increase in the average height of the sea with respect to a specific reference.

Relative sea level is the combination of three primary factors: the global sea level, vertical land movement and oceanographic effects. These parameters are usually discussed in terms of their rates of temporal change, commonly expressed in millimeters per year, he said.

“Along the North Carolina coast, sea level is rising and the rate of rise varies depending on the location. There are two primary reasons for this variation along different parts of our coast: vertical land motion and the effects of ocean dynamics,” Miller continued.

He explained that this recent update emphasizes that tide gauge observations and modeling for all scenarios are nearly the same out to 2050, “indicating we are solidly on track for at least one foot of sea level rise by 2050.”

Miller noted that 2050 is just 25 years from now.

“To prepare for this, requires community involvement, planning, mitigation, and adaptation to start now,” Miller said.

To help better plan for sea level rise, the Coastal Resources Commission charged its science panel in 2022 with providing periodic updates to support what it called “informed planning and decision making.”

The charge includes a request for the science panel to review every year any “new and significant scientific literature and studies that address the range of implications of sea level rise at the State, sub-regional, and local scales.” If there’s enough new information to warrant an update, the panel is to present these findings to the commission.

Miller said for the science panel to follow through with the directive, the team of scientists held a series of meetings earlier this year to share and discuss any recent data related to sea level rise.

“Given that the painstaking work of preparing sea level rise projections based on the latest science has already been carried out” by the task force, the science panel recaps the key messages detailed in the 2022 technical report. The science panel also gives a brief summary of the regional sea level rise projections most relevant to North Carolina, and provides updated sea level rise projections and assessment of high-tide flooding frequencies for Duck, Beaufort and Wilmington, all based on data from the 2022 technical report.

The science panel sent out a draft of the sea level rise science update for comment this spring.

The document underwent a handful of changes based on public feedback, including the addition of a paragraph listing some of the key impacts of sea level rise, and adding the names of the different scenarios in the 2022 technical report — low, intermediate-low, intermediate, intermediate-high, and high — and referred to these throughout for clarity.

“The five sea level rise scenarios span the range of sea level rise that can be expected under the emissions and warming scenarios considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report,” or IPCC, the science panel states in its update. The IPCC was created by the United Nations to assess climate change-related science.

“We also added text to explain how these scenarios relate to the emissions pathways and warming scenarios used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report,” the new update continues. And provided more detail on the longer-term scenarios out to 2100.

The science panel did note in its update that, although summarizing the latest science on how these impacts will affect the state “is well beyond the scope of the Sea Level Rise Update Charge to the Science Panel, we refer interested parties to the coastal aspects of the 2020 Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Plan, and associated or similar documents (and updates), for a more comprehensive discussion of sea level rise impacts, based on the latest science, to facilitate effective adaptation and mitigation planning.”

The first report the science panel, along with six additional contributors, issued was in March 2010 titled “North Carolina Sea Level Rise Assessment Report,” at the direction of the commission. The science panel recommended the report be reassessed every five years.

In April 2012 the panel issued a follow-up addendum to the report in response to questions from the commission.

That report was met with pushback from certain groups, resulting in a June 2012 law that put restrictions on how the sea level data was collated and used by state agencies and local governments.

The panel released an update in 2015 of the 2010 report.

“The next update was scheduled for 2020. However, due to the COVID pandemic, the 2020 update was postponed. In 2022, the CRC issued a revised charge to the science panel,” Miller said.

The division continues to accept public comments on the newly released update. Send comments to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov. List “2024 Sea Level Rise Science Update” in the subject line.

“Comments regarding the final report simply serve as an opportunity for citizens to provide thoughts on the finished work and will be provided to the panel for review,” Miller said.

Update 2 p.m. Friday: The Coastal Resources Commission special meeting scheduled for Monday to review comments and consider the adoption of temporary rules has been canceled. The meeting will not be rescheduled.

Original post:

The commission that directs coastal development is to meet next week to review comments and consider adopting temporary rules that would allow local governments to put in place measurement lines for dune building.

The Coastal Resources Commission will hold the special, virtual meeting at 10 a.m. Monday. Anyone can join the meeting online or listen by phone. There will be a listening station at the N.C. Division of Coastal Management headquarters office at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City.

At the August commission meeting, members approved the temporary amendments authorizing the establishment of measurement lines, provided the local government has been granted a permit to construct a terminal groin, and works with the Division of Coastal Management.

The measurement line would represent the existing location of the first line of stable and natural vegetation that is covered by the dune building and beach planting project, according to the division.

The full agenda and briefing materials are to be available on the commission website at least 48 hours before the meeting. Times indicated on the agenda are subject to change.

The Division of Coastal Management is under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. The division carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, the Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties, applying the rules and policies set by the Coastal Resources Commission.

The commission that establishes rules for coastal development held a public hearing Tuesday in Nags Head as part of its process to reinstate protections for Jockey’s Ridge.

The state’s Rules Review Commission removed in October 2023 the area of environmental concern, or AEC, designation, because it questioned whether Jockey’s Ridge is a unique geological formation.

The Coastal Resources Commission has proposed a rule to redesignate Jockey’s Ridge as an AEC, “as well as use standards to protect the AEC from incompatible development and loss of sand,” according to the website.

The Division of Coastal Management, which takes direction from the Coastal Resources Commission, is accepting public comment until Nov. 4 on the proposed rule.

Comments can be submitted to Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave. Morehead City, NC 28557 or to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov. Include “Jockey’s Ridge” in the subject line.

Jockey’s Ridge is the tallest active sand dune along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. The protections put in place since 1984 stemmed from concern that commercial sand mining could have a negative impact on the integrity of the dune system and surrounding environment, according to the division.

All 17 who spoke out at the hearing in the conference room at the state park asked that the AEC protections be reinstated during the meeting, according to an Outer Banks Voice report.

Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon told the about 40 who attended the public hearing that the AEC protections had been “dropped without even our knowledge or consent by a … power (the RRC) to just arbitrarily set the rules. So we’re trying again for the fourth or fifth time to be adopt this,” the Voice reported.

After the hearing, Cahoon continued her criticism of the Rules Review Commission to the Outer Banks Voice, suggesting nepotism was at play, and noting that the chair, Jeanette Doran, is the “President of the Senate’s daughter” and the commission has “the power to drop bills.”

Division of Coastal Management’s Policy & Planning Section Chief Daniel Govoni told the Voice that the meeting was to allow division staff to prepare a summary of comments and submit those to the Coastal Resources Commission for consideration during its Nov. 13-14 meeting in Ocean Isle Beach.

BEAUFORT — The state Coastal Resources Commission is pushing ahead a proposed rule change to allow wheat straw bales to be placed on ocean shores as a means of protecting dunes.

The commission, which adopts rules and policies for coastal development in North Carolina, on Wednesday unanimously approved the fiscal impact analysis of the proposed rule during its quarterly meeting.

The fiscal analysis, which measures how a rule may affect a government’s revenue and expenditures to help prepare for or prevent budget shortfalls, has also been approved by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and Office of State Budget and Management, or OSBM

The proposed rule change may save local governments, state and federal agencies and large, oceanfront homeowners associations, or HOAs, the headache of waiting for sand fencing to become available during times when it is in high demand, according to Heather Coats, Division of Coastal Management, or DCM, beach and inlet project coordinator.

But the division does not expect a significant uptick in the use of straw bales, she said, because they tend to cost more than traditional sand fencing, would need to be replaced more frequently than fencing, and the verdict is still out on how efficiently bales trap sand.

The cost for a 10-foot section of wheat straw bales ranges between an estimated $30 to $72, according to information gathered by DCM staff with input from the OSBM. A 10-foot section of traditional sand fencing costs an estimated $12 to $24.

Commissioners approved the proposed rule change at their April meeting.

Only local governments, state and federal agencies and large, oceanfront HOAs are permitted to use straw bales under the proposed rule, which includes additional review requirements by wildlife agencies because little is known about their potential impact to nesting sea turtles.

Under the proposed rule, bales cannot be placed in sections more than 10 feet long, 2 feet wide and 3 feet high. A minimum of 7 feet must be between each section. Ties or binding have to be removed from the bales.

Ocean Isle Beach became the first in the state to test whether straw bales might be an effective alternative to sand fencing after the Coastal Resources Commission last year granted the town a variance allowing straw bales to be placed at six areas on the eastern end of the Brunswick County island.

Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith told Coastal Review in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon that the bales have “worked well,” were cheaper than sand fencing and easily accessible during a time when the town could not get sand fencing because of high demand.

“Most of them covered up fairly quickly,” she said. “In my opinion, it’s more environmentally friendly.”

This fall the town will begin a dune construction project along the east end of the ocean shore from the area of High Point Street to the east of the East Fourth Street beach access, shortly beyond the terminal groin.

Smith said town officials have not decided whether to use straw bales or sand fencing once construction, which will include vegetating the dune, is complete.

“Today we have no project planned to do either one, but when we get through hurricane season that may change,” she said.

The proposed rule change will now go to a public hearing. If it receives final approval, Division of Coastal Management staff anticipate that the rule amendment would become effective April 1, 2025.

The coastal commission also tackled other rulemaking measures on Wednesday, one of which also pertains to Ocean Isle’s dune construction project.

That proposed rule will align with a law passed earlier this year by the North Carolina General Assembly that allows any beach towns that receives a permit to build a terminal groin to establish a measurement line for dune building projects.

The line would “represent the existing location of the first line of stable and natural vegetation” included in a dune building and beach planting project, according to the division.

The current rule establishes a line from where the ocean hazard setback is measured for a stretch of unvegetated beach.

Under the proposed rule, the line would have to be set in coordination with the division, be applicable for no less than two years after a project’s completion, and would apply in areas of a beach significant impacted by erosion and overwash from a storm.

The commission’s approval of this rule as “temporary” allows Ocean Isle Beach to move forward with its dune construction project. Division staff recommended the commission adopt the rule as permanent.

Commissioners also approved pushing ahead with making permanent a rule that deals with general permitting for bridge and culvert replacements in estuarine waters.

Cathy Brittingham, division transportation project coordinator, explained that a rule pertaining to the Coastal Area Management Act general permit for replacing bridges and culverts was mistakenly changed a couple of years ago.

As it stands, the permit has a 120-day expiration date, well below the time it takes to replace a bridge.

The proposed rule amendment would reinstate the expiration date of two years and would require an applicant, which in these cases are predominately the North Carolina Department of Transportation, to provide a project narrative and dates plats of existing and proposed developments in an application.

The commission also approved amending a rule to allow a property owner to rebuild docks and piers damaged or destroyed in storms, fire, or normal deterioration to its pre-damaged condition without having to obtain a CAMA permit.

The General Assembly earlier this summer passed a law setting forth this rule. The permit exemption does not apply to docks and piers wider than 6 feet, larger than 800 square feet, or those adjacent to a federal navigation channel.

Once rules are adopted by the coastal commission as permanent, those rules then go to the Rules Review Commission.

The Rules Review Commission last October objected to 30 of the coastal commission’s longstanding rules, a move that subsequently got the rules removed from the state Administrative Code.

In March, the coastal commission re-adopted more than a dozen of those rules coastal management officials said are crucial to day-to-day operations as temporary as a means to get them back into the code for one year or until they are reinstated as permanent.

The coastal commission and DEQ filed a lawsuit against the rules commission. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Note: Coastal Review will not publish Monday in observance of Labor Day.

The commission that determines development rules and policies for the 20 coastal counties meets later this month to consider changes to align existing development rules with recently passed state laws, including new looser requirements for replacing or repairing damaged or destroyed docks.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, during its meeting set for 3 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 27, at the Beaufort Hotel, is also expected to consider four variance requests. The commission meeting is set to resume at 9 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 28.

The public may attend at the hotel at 2440 Lennoxville Road in Beaufort or watch online. A full agenda and related materials are on the commission’s website. Times for agenda items are subject to change.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management serves as staff to the Coastal Resources Commission. The division carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties using rules and policies of the commission.

Two of the three rule changes on the agenda were directed by state lawmakers.

One previous rule had required a permit to replace damaged or destroyed structures. Earlier this year, the General Assembly eliminated that requirement.

“In the case of fixed docks, floating docks, fixed piers, or floating piers damaged or destroyed by natural elements, fire, or normal deterioration, activity to rebuild the dock, pier, or walkway to its pre-damaged condition shall be considered repair of the structure, and shall not require CAMA permits, without regard to the percentage of framing and structural components required to be rebuilt,” according to the new language.

Additionally, a replacement dock can be enlarged by as much as 5 feet or 5%, whichever is less, and its height may be increased without a permit. The change does not apply to docks and piers more than 6 feet wide, greater than 800 square feet of platform area, or adjacent to a federal navigation channel.

The other legislative directive is to allow for a measurement line to be established for dune-building projects related to permitted terminal groin construction.

A third rule change on the agenda is to adjust a deadline for a permit typically used by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to replace existing bridges and culverts.

The commission is expected to consider a variance request related to a soundside walkway wider than permitted at an event site in Nags Head. The division had previously authorized most of the proposed work at the site through a major permit application, except the proposed boardwalk. The boardwalk is part of a larger project for the town and Dare County Tourism to add public amenities to the site on Roanoke Sound with existing asphalt parking, as well as a gazebo, decks, ramp, office building, pier, platform, slips, and onsite septic systems. Petitioners requested permission to build a 10-foot-wide boardwalk over portions of coastal wetlands. The permitted width is 6 feet.

The other variance requests on the agenda include one from a restauranteur on the Wilmington waterfront looking to enclose a porch with vinyl wall panels, and there are two requests from oceanfront property owners in Pender County.

Also during the meeting, the division staff is to present a periodic review of the CAMA and Dredge and Fill Act permitting process with a focus on the major permit process. The committee is also expected to consider approving the fiscal analysis for the installation and maintenance of wheat straw bales for land fencing.

The commission is to hear from a subcommittee appointed to review the third-party hearing request process. This process allows any party except the permit applicant or NCDEQ secretary to challenge the commission’s decision to grant or deny a permit.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will have its in-person only meeting before the commission at 1 p.m. Aug. 27 in the hotel. Also in-person only, the public comment period is at 5 p.m. Aug. 27. The chair may limit comments to three minutes per person.                                                    

A set of coastal development rules temporarily placed back in the state code will be up for public comment and possibly reinstated as permanent by year’s end.

The Coastal Resources Commission, during a special meeting Tuesday, unanimously approved a rule that sets permit fees for minor and major development applications, approved the fiscal impact analyses on that and several other rules the commission adopted as temporary earlier this year, and re-designated Jockey’s Ridge State Park as an area of environmental concern.

The fiscal impact analysis measures how rules may affect a government’s revenue and expenditures to help prepare for or prevent budget shortfalls.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and Office of State Budget and Management have determined that reinstating the rules will not substantially impact the economy and have little to no impact on state or local governments.

Commissioners postponed a vote this week to amend a rule that would allow beach towns to use wheat straw bales as an alternative to traditional sand fencing, which is used to protect oceanfront dunes.

The state Division of Coastal Management’s fiscal analysis on the amendment to that rule is currently under review by the state budget and management office. Coastal management officials determined in their analysis that the amendment will have little to no fiscal impact.

The commission in March adopted more than a dozen rules state coastal management officials argue are crucial to day-to-day operations as temporary as a means to get them back into the state Administrative Code for one year or until they are reinstated as permanent rules.

In all, 30 of the coastal commission’s longstanding rules were removed from the code last October after they were objected to by the Rules Review Commission, a decision that prompted an ongoing lawsuit the coastal commission and DEQ filed against the Rules Review Commission and the state codifier or rules.

State Division of Coastal Management officials have been working with the rules commission to tweak wording in the remaining 14 rules that the Coastal Resources Commission did not temporarily adopt earlier this year.

One of the temporary rules that has garnered much attention centers on keeping Jockey’s Ridge an area of environmental concern, a designation that protects it from uncontrolled development and mandates that any sand that spills over from the massive dune onto neighboring properties must be returned.

The popular state park in Nags Head first received the designation in 1984.

“Let’s hope that this rule will go through without a whole lot of conflict,” CRC Chair Renee Cahoon said shortly before the commission went into closed session.

The commission took no further action following the closed session.

The rules will go to public hearing between Sept. 18 and Nov. 4, Division of Coastal Management Public Information Officer Christy Simmons said in an email.

The rules will go before the coastal commission at its November meeting for possible adoption and returned to the rules commission. That meeting is scheduled Nov. 13-14 at Ocean Isle Beach Town Hall.

Division of Coastal Management officials anticipate the rules will be reentered into the code as permanent effective Jan. 1, 2024.

The Coastal Resources Commission’s next scheduled regular meeting is set for Aug. 27-28 in Beaufort at the Beaufort Hotel, 2440 Lennoxville Road.

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 story is part of a reporting partnership with The Outer Banks Voice.

Jordan Hennessy, a member of the state Coastal Resources Commission, has threatened to sue a candidate for Dare County commissioner for defamation, The Outer Banks Voice reported.

The threat against candidate Katie Morgan came two weeks after the Dare County Board of Commissioners terminated its housing partnership with Coastal Affordable Housing, a company in which Hennessy is principal, and voted to return to the state $35 million in funding for affordable housing. Craig Schauer, an attorney for Hennessy accused Morgan in an April 23 letter of “false and defamatory statements” and threatened litigation if the matter is not resolved “immediately and satisfactorily.”

Morgan is running as the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Commissioner and Board Chair Bob Woodard and has been critical of the county’s partnership with Hennessy’s firm.

Schauer cited four statements Morgan had made about Hennessy and his company as “false and defamatory.” He also blamed Morgan for the county’s April 9 cancellation of the housing partnership, writing that, “Due to your public mischaracterizations of Coastal Affordable Housing and Mr. Hennessy, the Dare County Board of Commissioners have terminated negotiations with Coastal Affordable Housing and returned the $35 million loan from the State.”

That letter specified two “remedies” to resolve the situation. One called for Morgan to post a public retraction of the “false accusations” concerning Hennessy and Coastal Affordable Housing and another required her to donate $5,000 to the Community Care Clinic of Dare “as a gesture of your support for the local community.”

If these steps weren’t agreed to, the letter stated, “Mr. Hennessy and Coastal Affordable Housing will file suit against you.”

In an email to the Voice, Morgan stated that “This letter has caused me immense anxiety along with undue emotional and financial stress for me and my family … As I am currently running an active campaign, my intention has always been to highlight what I believe are poor decisions and partnerships made by our local officials. The fact that I am being singled out as the sole party responsible for all Dare County Commissioners to vote unanimously to send the money back is laughable.”

Neither Hennessy nor Schauer responded to the Outer Banks Voice’s requests for comment.

Hennessy, a former aide to State Sen. Bill Cook, is prominently involved in a number of local issues. Aside from his roles with the Coastal Resources Commission and Coastal Affordable Housing, he is a top officer at EJE Dredging, which owns and operates the Miss Katie Dredge.

That April 23 letter triggered a series of exchanges between Schauer and Morgan Attorney L. Phillip Hornthal, III. On April 30, Hornthal wrote that Morgan “steadfastly denies that she has made any defamatory comments, and that most of the comments you reference are directed at Dare County and not Mr. Hennessy … She believes your clients are attempting to chill her free speech and prevent her from asking tough questions about the business of Dare County …”

Hornthal said that Morgan is “willing to consider correcting her statement that your clients have ‘billed’ Dare County $5,000,000 to date,” since the pre-development contract between Dare County and Coastal Affordable Housing indicated that the firm would be eligible for up to $5 million in expenses, but had only invoiced the county for about $664,000 to date.

On May 2, Schauer responded by stating that to resolve the matter, Morgan had to issue a correction and apology, along with a video of her doing so, using language Schauer included in that letter. The statement and video, he said, “must be posted on Ms. Morgan’s Facebook account (both her campaign and personal page) and Instagram account, as well as any other social media accounts on which she made the defamatory statements.”

That produced a May 6 letter from Hornthal in which he outlined a response that Morgan would be willing to make, stating that it would be “a social media post correcting her earlier post concerning the $5 million payment by Dare County…in the form of a written post,” but not in a video format. It would include a statement that she is not aware of any “unlawful” actions by Hennessy or CAH.

Hornthal added that “if a lawsuit is filed, we believe that the claims will be summarily dismissed and your client ordered to pay Ms. Morgan’s attorney’s fees.”

In her email to the Voice, Morgan said that she has heard nothing further from Schauer or Hennessy since then, adding that “I am totally willing to do the post outlined by my lawyer. I have intentionally been waiting to see what their lawyer said before I do it … I’ve never been in this type of situation before and it is paralyzing.”

Public comments are being accepted on the Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel’s draft sea level rise update.

The Science Panel provides the commission with scientific data and recommendations pertaining to coastal topics. The commission directed the panel in 2022 to “conduct an annual review of any new and significant scientific literature and studies that address the range of implications of sea level rise at the State, sub-regional, and local scales …”

Periodic updates using current data are vital to help inform planning and decision-making, according to the commission’s charge to the panel.

The draft sea level rise update is available for review online.

Comments are being accepted until 5 p.m. July 3. Submit comments via email at DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov with “Draft Sea Level Rise Update” in the subject line; or by mail to NCDEQ Division of Coastal Management, Attn: Tancred Miller, Division Director, 400 Commerce Ave. Morehead City, NC 28557.

The Science Panel says it will consider all public comments before finalizing the proposed draft report.

Updated 10:30 a.m. Wednesday: The Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee adopted the amendment during its meeting Wednesday morning in Raleigh.

Original post 11:45 a.m. Tuesday:

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, has proposed language that would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to implement its longstanding rule protecting Jockey’s Ridge until the commission can adopt a permanent rule that again defines the massive dune as an area of environmental concern.

Hanig said Tuesday during the Senate Agriculture, Energy and Environment Committee meeting in the Legislative Building in Raleigh that he would formally introduce the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 426 for committee consideration Wednesday.

The proposed language is in response to an ongoing dispute between the Coastal Resources Commission and the state Rules Review Commission, which last year rejected 30 longtime coastal rules, including protections for Jockey’s Ridge in place since 1977.

The CRC is responsible for adopting coastal management rules. The RRC is charged with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies.

“Currently there’s a lawsuit between the CRC and RRC regarding several emergency declarations that were put in place and Jockey’s Ridge is caught in the middle of it,” Hanig said Tuesday during the committee discussion. “Currently Jockey’s Ridge is not protected from any type of construction or anything like that. So, we got to make sure we take care of Jockey’s Ridge.”

Hanig’s measure would direct the Coastal Resources Commission to implement its previously adopted rule establishing minimum use standards for development in the Jockey’s Ridge area environmental concern until the CRC adopts permanent rules.

The language would also require Department of Administration to hold a public hearing before granting an easement on state property for disposal of spoil materials dredged from navigable waters or dumping rights of spoil materials in the county where the proposed easement is located and consult with the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, effective Aug. 1.

It would also “clarify” language regarding surfaces excluded from consideration as “built-upon area” for purposes of state or local stormwater programs. It would also add artificial turf installed over pervious surface to the list of surfaces that are not considered built-upon area.

MANTEO — In an effort to address objections from the commission that last year nulled 30 state rules, including the environmental designation for Jockey’s Ridge, and to maintain temporary rule protections, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission unanimously voted Thursday to send an amended rule and findings from the state geologist back to the state Rules Review Commission.

“We’re trying, but there’s no guarantee that the Rules Review (Commission) will in any way change their mind,” CRC Chair Renee Cahoon said after the vote during the second day of the two-day meeting at the Dare County Administration Building. “We hope that the supplemental findings and the fact that we’re fighting so hard will make a difference.”

The findings, she said, are based on a letter received this week from State Geologist Kenneth Taylor affirming that Jockey’s Ridge meets the qualifications that define an Area of Environmental Concern, including being a unique geologic formation.

The CRC is seeking to restore the AEC designation to Jockey’s Ridge State Park in a permanent rule to replace the one tossed by the 10-member Rules Review Commission, which is appointed by the leaders of each chamber of the North Carolina General Assembly.

Jockey’s Ridge in Dare County is the tallest living sand dune on the East Coast, according to the nonprofit Friends of Jockey’s Ridge organization that supports the state park created in 1975 at the site once targeted by developers.

The Division of Coastal Management staff is proposing an amended rule to redesignate Jockey’s Ridge as an Area of Environmental Concern, along with a set of use standards to protect the AEC from incompatible development and loss of sand.

The proposed amended rule would include protective-use standards for the AEC to prevent incompatible development and sand loss, according to division staff. At the same time, the CRC intends the revised rule to alleviate the Rules Review Commission’s stated objections by limiting rule content to the Jockey’s Ridge AEC designation and its particular use standards.

The Rules Review Commission had objected to 30 existing CRC rules. Last year, new legislation prevented the CRC from responding to the objections and the state codifier removed them from the N.C. Administrative Code. The CRC then reinstated 16 of those rules through emergency rulemaking and proposed temporary rules, to which the rules commission objected.

“This is unchartered territory for us,” Cahoon explained. “In the past, any rule that came up for periodic review, we worked with the Rules Review Commission.”

The Coastal Resources Commission was caught off guard during last year’s state legislative session, she said, when the General Assembly gave the rules codifier the ability to eliminate existing rules. Objections were also issued against numerous other state agencies’ rules.

“No more notification — just absolutely unfettered power to drop the rules,” Cahoon said of the change.

Area residents and Jockey’s Ridge supporters have come out in force in favor of the AEC redesignation, which in part ensures that sand will not be removed from the dune and protects it from unsuitable development.

“You can’t get this back,” resident Taylor Conyers told Coastal Resource Commission members during the public comment portion of the meeting Thursday, adding that she was speaking on behalf of other younger residents. “You can’t get Jockey’s Ridge back once it’s encroached upon. Like, it’s gone.”

As Daniel Govoni, policy analyst and federal consistency coordinator with the Division of Coastal Management, detailed in his presentation Thursday, the proposed rule is divided into three areas: description, boundary and use standards.  

“If we approach this rule as a brand-new rule and, instead of going into all the other processes, it would have three sections,” Govoni said.

Commission member Jordan Hennessy had previously requested staff to prepare proposed rule language for the panel to review.

Hennessy, who has attracted attention for, among other actions, attempting to oust Cahoon as chair at the start of his first commission meeting, spoke out in support of the AEC for Jockey’s Ridge. 

“It’s a gem, a treasure to the state,” said Hennessy.

The commission, during the meeting, also approved starting the permanent rulemaking process, which takes about a year, to replace six other rules that were deleted over Rules Review Commission objections.

The process would require additional public comment periods and public hearings.

The panel of scientists that advises the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission will continue its review of inlet hazard areas boundaries during a web conference on Wednesday.

The 2 p.m. meeting will be the latest round of efforts by the CRC Science Panel to update decades-old inlet hazard area, or IHA, maps.

IHAs are shorelines especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding where inlets can shift suddenly and dramatically. Erosion rates are more similar and evenly parallel along a straight shoreline. That’s not the case at inlet shores, which curve around.

After initially forming in the late 1990s, the Science Panel identified a need to update the state’s IHAs. Since then, the Science Panel has discussed how to best predict inlet erosion and accretion rates at IHAs and recommended updated boundaries.

Updates were proposed in 2010, but discussions on those were sidelined by a state-implemented terminal groin study and a study of oceanfront erosion rates.

The CRC in 2015 unanimously approved rule amendments and redrawn boundaries for IHAs, but Division of Coastal Management officials later withdrew those citing the need for additional review on rules pertaining to size and location of buildings allowed within inlet areas.

Ten of North Carolina’s 19 active inlets are developed, including Tubbs, Shallotte and Lockwood Folly in Brunswick County; Carolina Beach, Masonboro, Mason and Rich in New Hanover County; New Topsail and New River in Pender County; and Bogue Inlet in Carteret County.

The public may listen to the meeting by computer or phone.

Join webinar # 2422 033 0197 via Webex | Password: science2024 (72436232 from phones)

Join by phone: 1-415-655-0003 | Access code: 2422 033 0197

A listening station will be established at DCM headquarters at 400 Commerce Ave. in Morehead City.

Interested parties may submit comments by email to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov. List “Science Panel” in the subject line.

The division carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, the Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties, using rules and policies enacted by the Coastal Resources Commission. The division also serves as staff to the commission.

Reprinted from Outer Banks Voice

As the Coastal Resources Commission and North Carolina Rules Review Commission head to court over regulatory language for coastal development and use, Jockey’s Ridge State Park is in danger of losing its Area of Environmental Concern protections.

The Area of Environmental Concern, or AEC, protections, among other things, prohibit removing sand that has migrated off the dune and allows the state to periodically move that sand back within park boundaries. The AEC also has provisions prohibiting some types of development in close proximity to the park.

There is increasing frustration with the rulings of the Rules Review Commission about what would constitute acceptable language for AEC protection.

Coastal Resources Commission is scheduled to hear an update Thursday during its meeting in Manteo on the Rules Revision Commission’s April 8 objection and hold a discussion in closed session.

Related: CRC to consider variances, hear rulemaking update

The Rules Review Commission determines the language that is used by regulatory agencies. It has ruled that some 30 regulations that govern how the Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, operates are vague, imprecise or inconsistent with its mandate. Those rules have been removed, including the AEC protections for Jockey’s Ridge.

The Coastal Resources Commission attempted to create temporary rules for the Jockey’s Ridge AEC in March, but the Rules Review Commission rejected those rules earlier this month, using the word “unique” 16 times in the five paragraphs written rejecting the AEC rule.

Although there were other descriptions and language the Rules Review Commission rejected, the word unique was associated with almost every objection.

Rules Review Commission counsel Brian Liebman wrote in part that the Coastal Resources Commission “does not define what degree of exclusivity transforms an ordinary geologic formation into a ‘unique’ geologic formation and does not define the coastal area in which these formations must be found.”

The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation describes Jockey’s Ridge as “an excellent example of a medano, a large, isolated hill of sand, asymmetrical in profile and lacking vegetation.”

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon pointed out that there is nothing else like Jockey’s Ridge on the East Coast of the United States, and by that definition, it is unique.

“Jockey’s Ridge, as far as I know on the East Coast of the United States is unique…How many words do you want to use? There’s not another one like it. And it is in fact unique,” he said.

Speaking for herself, former Nags Head Commissioner and Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon, also voiced frustration.

“It’s just mind-boggling that all of a sudden, there’s verbiage use that’s not acceptable to a new Rules Review Commission that has been accepted for every 10 years by previous Rules Review Commissions and that were accepted by the initial Rules Review Commission when we made the rules,” she said.

The Coastal Resources and Rules Review commissions are currently in court over the wording that can be used in rulemaking. The Coastal Resources Commission is responsible for writing the language that is used in its regulations. The Rules Review Commission determines if the language is sufficiently clear and not open to interpretation.

“Because this matter is pending litigation, we are unable to comment,” Nazneen Ahmed, Press Secretary for Attorney General Josh Stein, wrote in an email to the Outer Banks Voice.

An attempt by the Coastal Resources Commission to put into effect temporary rules consistent with what had been in use for some time, was disallowed by the Rules Review Commission.

For Mayor Ben Cahoon, it leaves the town of Nags Head in a difficult position. The town, he said, will do all it can to support and protect Jockey’s Ridge, but there is a real limit to what a municipality can do.

“We’ll do what little bit it can do by ordinance…in the interim, until it’s all resolved,” he said. “But I see at some point, as frustrating as it is, we have to realize it’s out of our hands until either these two agencies come to agreement or the court or the legislature weighs in somehow.”

This story is provided courtesy of the Outer Banks Voice, a digital newspaper covering the Outer Banks. Coastal Review is partnering with the Voice to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast.

Post has been updated

Coastal Resources Commission members are scheduled to discuss during closed session at their meeting next week the Rules Revision Commission’s April 8 objection to temporary rules, including protections for Jockey’s Ridge.

The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. Wednesday, April 24, at the Dare County Government Center in Manteo, and resume at 9 a.m. Thursday, April 25. A public input and comment period is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. April 25. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to three minutes per person.

The public may attend the meeting in-person or join the web conference online.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will meet at 1 p.m. Wednesday, also at the government center. This meeting will be in-person only.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the CRC website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change

Commissioners will hear Wednesday afternoon presentations on sea level rise impacts, sea level and high tide flooding predictions, sunny day flood monitoring and water level monitoring.

When the meeting resumes on Thursday, commission members are to hear updates on the Resilient Coastal Communities Program, and consider variance requests for a private dock in Kitty Hawk and urban waterfront use in Wilmington.

Staff are to then present recommendations for permanent rulemaking, as well, including for work plats, or project plans, standards, the application process and public notice requirements. Staff will also make recommendations for major development and dredge & fill applications, permit conditions and mitigation projects, the Jockey’s Ridge Area of Environmental Concern, and wheat straw bales for sand fencing installation and maintenance.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, the Dredge and Fill Law and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties, using rules and policies of the Coastal Resources Commission.

More than a dozen rules state coastal management officials say are crucial to day-to-day operations will remain on the books for now.

The Coastal Resources Commission on Wednesday unanimously adopted the 16 rules as “temporary,” a move that will keep the rules in the state Administrative Code for one year or until they are reinstated as permanent rules.

The lead-up to Wednesday’s vote, which was cast during a special called meeting, had Mary Lucasse, special deputy attorney general and counsel for the Coastal Resources Commission, at times seemingly defend a case already in the courts.

Commissioner Jordan Hennessy, who was newly appointed to the commission last year, peppered Lucasse with questions as he referenced an ongoing lawsuit the coastal commission and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality filed against the Rules Review Commission and state Codifier of Rules Ashley Berger Snyder.

“Are we following all the rules and laws of the state when it comes to the temporary rules and permanent rulemaking process because the statement says that the CRC fails to show that the notice and hearing requirements of temporary and permanent rulemaking are contrary to public interest,” Hennessy said.

He was referring to comments included in a letter Snyder sent Lucasse a couple of days after the coastal commission adopted the rules as “emergency” late last year as a means to quickly get them back into the state code.

“In my opinion the Coastal Resources Commission is doing that,” Lucasse responded. “And, as you know, there’s a dispute between two equally positioned agencies about how to interpret laws. That’s what codifier has indicated. I don’t agree with her. Other people don’t agree with her. It doesn’t really matter because between the two of these equal agencies, if we think we’re following the law and we move forward doing that, then it will have to be determined by a court here in North Carolina because that’s how disputes are decided.”

When Hennessy read from the lawsuit later in the meeting, Lucasse said he “appeared to be taking that at face value” and that that was not appropriate.

“I’m asking questions to try to get better educated on this and I’d appreciate if we can just stick to that and answering the questions,” Hennessy responded.

Snyder, who is the daughter of North Carolina Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham and Guilford, removed 30 of the coastal commission’s longstanding rules last October after those rules were objected to by the rules commission.

State Division of Coastal Management officials have been working with the rules commission to tweak wording in the 14 rules that have not been temporarily adopted.

The now-adopted temporary rules enforce certain protections for coastal landmarks including Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Nags Head and Permuda Island off the shores of North Topsail Beach in Onslow County.

Some members of the coastal commission questioned why the state’s coastal management division needed the rule that designates Jockey’s Ridge as an area of environmental concern, or AEC, since the landmark is also offered federal protections. AECs are areas of natural importance that the division designates to protect from uncontrolled development.

“If it’s determined to be a natural landmark by the U.S. Department of Interior why will we need a rule to protect it?” Commission Robbie Yates asked.

The rules allow the coastal commission to have jurisdiction and set rules that are consistent within the coastal management’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, program, Lucasse said.

And the rule in question dictates that sand blown from Jockey’s Ridge onto neighboring properties must be returned to the park, another commissioner noted.

“Given the winds that we have down here, Jockey’s Ridge is protected so that when the sand blows away it gets put back into the resource, not taken away and disposed of, for example, on the beach or somewhere else,” Commission Chair Renee Cahoon said.

An overwhelming majority of nearly 230 comments submitted to the division over the course of more than a month supported the temporary rules. Environmental organizations, the Southern Environmental Law Center and a handful of beach towns from North Topsail Beach to Duck supported the rules. More than 600 signatures were included in a petition submitted by the N.C. Conservation Network.

Yates further pressed Lucasse, asking how one might argue that the rule pertaining to Jockey’s Ridge is a matter of public safety.

“The legislature has said that it’s very important for them to balance development and to protect the national natural resources at the coast,” Lucasse said. “Your commission, you and the people that have sat in the chairs before you, have gone through a very thoughtful process of designating areas of environmental concern in order to protect the natural resources at the coast. I think that this is a situation in which your coastal program has been lessened and the welfare of the people who have depended, as the legislature has designated this commission to do to protect those natural resources, means that we’re in a situation where there’s a need for this temporary action in order to protect public health, safety and welfare.”

But Commissioner Steve King questioned whether having multiple layers of jurisdiction is beneficial for the public.

“To me that is de facto definition of bureaucracy and I’m not sure how that weighs in the public interest to have that kind of process,” King said.

He said he would be looking at the permanent rules, saying what will be, in his opinion, a “complete investigative audit of rulemaking process and permitting making process.”

Hennessy said he would support the temporary rules “for now,” but that he would like to see some changes made to the rules before they become permanent.

Cahoon said there will be ample time for commissioners and the public to comment further on the rules.

A 2023 law that shifted gubernatorial appointment powers of North Carolina’s environmental and coastal commissions does not violate the state constitution, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled.

The Wake County Superior Court judges late last week concluded that the state’s executive branch, including the governor, agriculture commissioner and insurance commissioner, holds a majority of appointments to the Environmental Management Commission, Coastal Resources Commission and Wildlife Resources Commission, as well as two other boards, under the new law.

“Our Constitution does not create a unitary executive,” the Wake County judges ruled. “The General Assembly’s power to organize and reorganize the executive branch and to prescribe the functions, powers, and duties of executive officials, including for members of the Council of State, encompasses authority to divide between the Governor and other constitutional executive officers the power to appoint members of statutory boards and commissions.”

But judges John Dunlow, Dawn Layton and Paul Holcombe III also ruled that a portion of the law gave legislators too much control over the Board of Transportation and the Economic Investment Committee.

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s partial victory is being challenged by GOP House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger, whose attorneys filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on Friday, according to the Associated Press.

Cooper sued lawmakers last year two months after the Republican-led General Assembly passed the law last August. The law also restructures appointments to the Commission for Public Health and the Residential Code Council.

The Residential Code Council changes become effective Jan. 1, 2025. That council, which will consist of 13 members, will be tasked with reviewing and considering proposed revisions, amendments and appeals to the state residential code.

Seven of the members will be appointed by the governor. The General Assembly will select the rest of the members, three of which will be recommended by the House speaker and three by the Senate leader.

The Coastal Resources Commission is a 13-member panel that adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the state Coastal Management program. Under the new law, six of the commission’s members are appointed by the governor, six are chosen by legislators and one is appointed by the state insurance commissioner.

The commissioner of agriculture appoints two people to the 15-member Environmental Management Commission, while the governor selects seven members and the General Assembly appoints six.

Earlier last month, the same superior court judge panel struck down a previous court ruling from a single judge that temporarily blocked that commission from dropping its lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission.

The rules panel rejected in May 2022 a proposed rule by the Environmental Management Commission setting new state standards for 1,4-dioxane, a likely human carcinogen.

The Coastal Resources Commission is moving forward with a lawsuit it and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality filed against the Rules Review Commission last November in Wake County Superior Court.

The complaint asks the court to resolve deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore 30 longstanding rules to which the Rules Review Commission had objected and kicked back to the Coastal Resources Commission last October.

In December, the Coastal Resources Commission adopted 16 of the rules as “emergency” to get them put back into the North Carolina Administrative Code.

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management officials say the 16 rules affect day-to-day decisions within the division.

The commission is holding a special called meeting at 11 a.m. March 13 to vote on whether 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.

To view the meeting by video conference join webinar #2430 941 5858 via Webex and use password CRC2024 (2722024 from phones). To join by phone call 1-415-655-0003 and use access code 2430 941 5858.

A listening station will be made available at the Division of Coastal Management headquarters at 400 Commerce Ave. in Morehead City.

The science panel that advises the state’s Coastal Resources Commission has scheduled a virtual meeting to pick up its review of Inlet Hazard Areas boundaries that began during its Nov. 27, 2023, meeting and discuss recent studies and data on sea level rise.

The meeting is to begin at 2 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 29, and is open for public listening either online or call 415-655-0003 and use access code 242 570 64312. Comments can be submitted to DCMcomments@deq.nc.gov with “Science Panel” in the subject line.

The Coastal Resources Commission, known as the CRC, sets rules and policies for the 20 coastal counties, which the Division of Coastal Management, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, carries out. The science panel provides the CRC with scientific data and recommendations pertaining to coastal topics.

Inlet Hazard Areas are areas of environmental concern that are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of their proximity to dynamic ocean inlets, according to the “Inlet Hazard Area Boundary, 2019 Update: Science Panel Recommendations to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.”

The panel during its November meeting began the discussion on Inlet Hazard Areas because of the three-part charge issued by the CRC to reevaluate every five years its IHA methods and boundaries, incorporating data collected since its 2019 study, reassess its 2019 recommendations and consider alternative methods for calculating oceanfront shoreline change rates. They are to present the draft reports including proposed boundaries and erosion rates in summer of 2024.

The panel discussed the background of IHAs, the work that has taken place since the ongoing effort began in the late 2000s, complications, and possible alternatives, such as using different approaches for the inlets experiencing the most erosion. They will continue this discussion.

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.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality is kicking off a yearlong, 50th anniversary celebration of the N.C. Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, as part of the Coastal Resources Commission’s Feb. 21-22 meeting in Wilmington.

The Division of Coastal Management, under NCDEQ, carries out CAMA, the Dredge and Fill Law, and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in the 20 coastal counties, using rules and policies established by the Coastal Resources Commission. The Coastal Resources Commission was created in 1974 when the General Assembly adopted CAMA.

“The Division of Coastal Management will honor the 50^th anniversary of the NC Coastal Area Management Act by reflecting on the impact of this important legislation to our state and especially to coastal North Carolina,” Division of Coastal Management Director Tancred Miller told Coastal Review. “We will start by focusing on what 50 years of the law has accomplished with an afternoon of distinguished panelists from local, state and legislative partners. We look forward to sharing more about continuing our yearlong celebration in the months ahead.”

Related: Emergency coastal rules draw little notice during hearings

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council meeting will take place at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 21, followed by the anniversary celebration at Aloft Wilmington at Coastline Center, 501 Nutt St., Wilmington. The Coastal Resources Commission meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 22.

The anniversary celebration will start at 1:30 p.m. with a welcome from Miller, NCDEQ Secretary Elizabeth Biser and Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon.

Panel discussions will begin at 1:45 p.m. with a review the history of CAMA. At 2:30 p.m. will be a panel on CAMA regulatory framework, followed at 3:30 p.m. with the local governments and partnerships panel. Programming will wrap up after the 4:30 p.m. legislative panel with Reps. Charles Miller, R-Brunswick, and Carson Smith, R-Onslow, and Sen. Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico. The anniversary celebration will wrap up with a reception at 5:30 p.m.

The commission during its Feb. 22 meeting will consider a beach management plan for Kure Beach, hear an update on the public comment period for the proposed temporary rules.

A public comment period is scheduled for 10:45 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 22. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to three minutes per person.

The full agenda and list of panelists for the anniversary event can be found on the website.

The public comment period on more than a dozen proposed temporary rules that guide state coastal matters has been extended through February.

Written comments on 16 rules the Coastal Resources Commission late last year reinstated as emergency rules will be accepted until 5 p.m. Feb. 22, which is also the date in which the commission is scheduled to hold its first meeting of the year.

“All comments received via email and mail will then be considered during review of the proposed rules,” North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Public Information Officer Christy Simmons stated in an email.

Related: Emergency coastal rules draw little notice during hearings

The commission voted at a specially called meeting in December to adopt the rules, which division officials say are critical to day-to-day operations, as “emergency” as a way to get them back into the administrative code.

Their vote overrode the decision of the state Codifier of Rules Ashley Berger Snyder to remove 30 of the coastal commission’s longstanding rules after those rules were objected to by the Rules Review Commission in October.

Last month, Division of Coastal Management staff hosted three public hearings to receive comment on the proposed temporary rules. Fewer than 20 people turned out for the hearings, which were held in Dare, Carteret and Onslow counties.

Written comments may be submitted by email to Angela.Willis@deq.nc.gov or by post to: Tancred Miller, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC  28557. List “Temporary Rules” in the subject line.

The Coastal Resources Commission is set to meet Feb. 21-22 at Aloft Wilmington at Coastline Center, 501 Nutt St., Wilmington. An agenda for that meeting was not available when this report was published.

Tancred Miller will step Monday into his new role as director of the Division of Coastal Management.

The division, under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, works to protect, conserve, and manage the state’s coastal resources.

Officials said Wednesday afternoon that Miller, currently chief of the policy and planning section, is becoming director as outgoing director Braxton Davis takes on his new role Thursday as executive director the nonprofit North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review.

“2024 is an exciting time in North Carolina’s coastal management program. It’s a time for us to reflect on the accomplishments that the program has had in keeping our coast vibrant, productive and beautiful over the last 50 years, and to look towards future opportunities and partnerships to protect our coastal environment and economy over the next 50,” Miller said in a statement. “I look forward to the opportunity to serve as division director and am lucky to be working alongside some of the finest people in all of state government,” said Miller. 

Miller joined the division in 2003 as a policy analyst and was promoted to strategic planning manager, then in 2020 became chief of the Policy and Planning section. He has served as the division’s lead on resilience in addition to duties in rule development, fiscal analyses, five-year strategic plans, and federal funding for special projects.

In 2021 his work on the local, regional, State and national levels earned him DEQ’s Distinguished Employee of the Year Award, the highest recognition among all awardees.

“Tancred’s history with the Division, his expertise in coastal policy and planning, as well as his leadership on local, state and national initiatives will continue to elevate North Carolina’s nationally recognized coastal management program” DEQ Secretary Elizabeth S. Biser in a statement.

Miller has led the division’s efforts to build the Resilient Coastal Communities Program, which focuses on addressing the needs of coastal communities with technical and financial assistance for planning and project implementation. He secured $5 million in competitive grant funding from the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and the program has been awarded $12.5 million in state appropriations.

“Tancred brings a consistently positive and thoughtful approach to coastal issues. His hard work, willingness to listen, and balanced approach to issues have earned the respect of our staff, the Department, and our partners and stakeholders,” Davis said.

Miller facilitated the state’s 2020 Climate Science Report and the development of the 2020 Climate Risk Assessment & Resilience Plan. He has also served in various leadership roles within the State, including serving as a DEQ designee on Governor Cooper’s Climate Change Interagency Council and on the N.C. Sea Grant Advisory Board, and in national initiatives, including as a board member for the Coastal States Stewardship Foundation and serving on a National Academies panel on climate communications.

Miller earned a bachelor’s from Morehouse College in business administration and a master’s degree in environmental management from Duke University. Miller worked in consulting and nonprofit organizations before joining the division.

Update Jan. 26: The Coastal Resources Commission has extended the public comment period on proposed temporary rules to 5 p.m. Feb. 22, the Division of Coastal Management announced Thursday. The previous deadline was Feb. 1.

Written comments can be sent by email with “Temporary Rules” in the subject line to Angela.Willis@deq.nc.gov or by mail Tancred Miller, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557.

Original post published Jan. 12:

SNEADS FERRY – Rules the state’s lead environmental agency says are critical to its day-to-day operations drew little to no public comment during a series of hearings hosted in three coastal counties this week.

Fewer than 20 people turned out for public hearings the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management held Tuesday and Wednesday in Dare, Carteret and Onslow counties.

Even fewer spoke on the record to share their thoughts about 16 rules the Coastal Resources Commission agreed last month were too important to be pulled from the state Administrative Code. The commission was created to adopt rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, and the Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.

The commission voted at a specially called meeting in mid-December to classify the rules as “emergency” and adopted them as a way to fast-track getting them back into the Administrative Code.

The commission’s vote overrode the decision of state Codifier of Rules Ashley Berger Snyder to remove 30 of the coastal commission’s longstanding rules after those rules were objected to by the Rules Review Commission last October.

Snyder, who was appointed in 2021, returned a telephone call to Coastal Review Thursday but declined to answer questions.

“We do not comment on any pending litigation,” Snyder said, referring to an ongoing lawsuit the coastal commission and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality filed in November against her and the Rules Review Commission.

Snyder is the daughter of North Carolina Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham and Guilford.

The Division of Coastal Management is accepting written comments on the 16 emergency rules through Feb. 1.

All comments are to be shared with the Coastal Resources Commission during its first meeting of the year, Feb. 22, in Wilmington. The commission is expected to decide whether to adopt the 16 rules as temporary in order to keep them in the Administrative Code where the rules would remain through to about April.

If adopted, the temporary rules would then be kicked back to the Rules Review Commission for reconsideration.

Division of Coastal Management Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski said Wednesday during the last of the three public hearings the division held this week that staff had been working with the rules commission to tweak wording in the 14 rules that were not adopted as emergency rules.

Those rules are important, he said, but the 16 emergency rules “were the ones we thought were critical.”

Among those rules is one that designates Jockey’s Ridge State Park as an area of environmental concern, or AEC, and dictates that sand blown from Jockey’s Ridge onto neighboring properties must be returned to the park. AECs are areas of natural importance that the division designates to protect from uncontrolled development.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon, one of the few people who commented during the series of hearings, emphasized the importance of the rule to preserving the park.

“Coastal North Carolina has largely avoided corresponding coastal environment-changing disasters due to CAMA and its establishment and regulation of AECs,” he read from a prepared statement at the hearing held in Dare County on Tuesday. “The establishment of an AEC requires a closer examination of proposed activities and interventions, and gives everyone time to fully consider the consequences of particular actions.”

He noted that Jockey’s Ridge is the only state park that lies fully within a town’s boundaries.

“It is very special to us. Please help us protect it,” he said.

Until recently, when the Rules Review Commission objected to a rule, the agency that submitted the rule had to request the rule be returned to make changes. If an agency did not make that request, then the objection would be merely noted in the rule and that rule would remain in the Administrative Code.

But the state budget adopted Oct. 3 of last year includes language that gives the rules commission authority to send rules it objects to back to agencies. The budget also appears to give the state codifier of rules, in this case, Snyder, new authority. It remains unclear, however, whether that new authority includes stripping longstanding rules from the books.

Two days after the budget went into effect, the Rules Review Commission voted in a special called meeting to return the 30 of 132 rules the Coastal Resources Commission submitted for review.

The coastal commission and Department of Environmental Quality sued, asking a Wake County Superior Court judge to resolve the deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore the rules.

According to the complaint, on Oct. 26, 2023, Snyder explained via email to DEQ’s rulemaking coordinator that, “because readoption of rules in the periodic review process requires that all rules be readopted as if they are new rules, the RRC had to approve preexisting rules for those rules’ ‘entry’ into the Code. As described further in the attached email correspondence, the Codifier asserted that the thirty rules at issue were removed from the Code because the rules had not been approved by the RRC and were subsequently returned to the agency.”

Note: Coastal Review will not publish Monday in observance of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

Reprinted from WOBX

In recognition of over 30 years of unwavering dedication and outstanding service to Nags Head, Dare County, and the State of North Carolina, former long-time elected official Renée Cahoon has been bestowed with the prestigious Order of the Long Leaf Pine.

The award, considered to be North Carolina’s highest honor for state service granted by the Office of the Governor, was presented to Cahoon during the Wednesday Nags Head Board of Commissioners meeting.

Since its creation in 1963, The Order of the Long Leaf Pine has been awarded to individuals whose exemplary service, extraordinary achievements, and substantial contributions to their communities and to the State, make a significant impact in North Carolina.

Cahoon has played a pivotal role in the managed growth and resulting success of Nags Head. Her three decades of service have left an indelible mark on the community, with a legacy characterized by tireless advocacy, visionary leadership, and a commitment to the betterment of the lives of the town and its neighbors on the coast.

During the presentation, Gov. Roy Cooper provided a video tribute in which he thanked Cahoon for her decades of service and for her work as chair of the state’s Coastal Resources Commission. A member since 2002, Cooper named Cahoon as the Commission’s chair in 2017, a position she still holds.

Throughout her career, Cahoon has been a driving force behind numerous initiatives aimed at “keeping Nags Head, Nags Head,” working to preserve the town’s values as a family-oriented beach community.

“Although there has been significant change in the community and throughout the Outer Banks, Nags Head remains true to itself largely due to Renée’s contributions,” said Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon. “She has been a driving force in resisting the pressure for Nags Head to become more intensely developed, as can be seen in other beach communities along the east coast.”

This story is provided courtesy of WOBX. Coastal Review is partnering with the media company covering the business news of the Greater Outer Banks to provide readers with more stories of interest along our coast. 

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission is kicking off the new year with a series of public hearings on more than a dozen rules its members recently voted to reinstate after another state commission rejected them.

The hearings will center around 16 rules the commission adopted earlier this month as what officials call “emergency” rules in order to get them back into the state Administrative Code.

The rules are among 30 the state Rules Review Commission kicked back to the the coastal commission, a state rulemaking body, in October over objections based primarily on technical wording. With the action, the state’s codifier of rules pulled them from the Administrative Code.

About a month later, the Coastal Resources Commission filed a lawsuit against the Rules Review Commission and the codifier of rules. The state Division of Coastal Management officials noted that the coastal management rules had been in place for years and serve to protect vulnerable coastal cultural resources.

The public can comment on the 16 rules at one of three in-person public hearings on the following dates and locations:

• 1 p.m. Jan. 9 at the Dare County Government Center, 954 Marshall C. Collins Dr., Manteo in the board of commissioners’ room.
• 1 p.m. Jan. 9 at the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City in the upstairs conference room.
• 1 p.m. Jan. 10 in room No. 5 in the Onslow County Public Library, 1330 N.C. Highway 210, Sneads Ferry.

Registration begins at 12:30 p.m. at each of the hearings.

Written comments may be submitted to Angela.Willis@deq.nc.gov or by mail to: Braxton Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557. List “Temporary Rules” in the subject line.

Comments must be received by 5 p.m. or postmarked by Feb. 1 when the comment period closes.

The Coastal Resources Commission anticipates voting on the temporary rules during its February meeting.

More than a dozen longstanding coastal rules now part of a lawsuit between two state-appointed commissions will be temporarily reinstated.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission during a special called meeting Wednesday morning adopted 16 emergency rules that, by being classified “emergency,” will be entered into the state Administrative Code by early January and without public input, a concern raised by at least one member of the commission.

Mary Lucasse, the commission’s legal counsel, and North Carolina Division of Coastal Management staff explained that, without the rules in place, vulnerable coastal cultural resources lose certain protections and the commission is limited in how it can fulfill its legislatively charged duties.

The Coastal Resources Commission adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act, and establishes policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.

“What we have is a situation that the Division of Coastal Management cannot rely on those rules to issue permits for development for coasts, for development in the coastal counties and to make enforcement decisions,” Lucasse said. “You can’t comment on federal consistency, or DCM on your behalf, based on these rules so what’s happened is that we have lost rules and the loss of those rules seriously impacts the system’s ability to manage the Coastal Management Program, which is given to the commission by the legislature at your purview.”

The removal of these rules, which have been around for many years, strips protections for coastal lands and waters and is a threat to public safety, she said.

The emergency rules are among 30 rules the Rules Review Commission objected to based predominately on technical wording and kicked back to the Coastal Resources Commission in early October. Shortly after the Rules Review Commission’s decision, the state’s Codifier of Rules Ashley Snyder pulled the rules from the Administrative Code.

Lawsuit seeks rules restoration, resolution

The Coastal Resources Commission and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality responded by filing a lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court in early November.

The Nov. 3 complaint asks the court to resolve the deadlock over legal interpretations between the two commissions and restore the 30 rules.

“DCM receives permit applications almost daily, and the lack of these thirty regulations will immediately cause an impact to any applications relying on these rules,” the lawsuit states.

Lucasse on Wednesday said that she and DEQ officials selected the 30 rules to be placed back on the books as soon as possible based on the division’s use of them on a day-to-day basis.

“These 16 rules are the ones that staff feels there’s public safety reasons that you need to move forward immediately and get these back in the code so they can use them,” she said. “The other 14 will be resolved through the litigation.”

She and Division of Coastal Management Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski specifically pointed out that the emergency rules are needed to continue to protect places of significant cultural and ecological resources, including two places unique to North Carolina – Jockey’s Ridge State Park in Dare County and Permuda Island Reserve in Onslow County.

The Coastal Resources Commission submitted 132 readopted rules for the Rules Review Commission to review.

Lopazanski said that division staff had worked through many of the technical changes the Rules Review Commission requested, but that the rules commission continued to object to 30 of the rules.

The objections hinge on what the rules panel considers to be vague and ambiguous language, a need to clarify procedures and definitions, and references addressing statutory authority, according to Lopazanski.

Objections to rulemaking authority

The Rules Review Commission is a legislature-appointed, 10-member body created by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1986 that could object to, but not veto, proposed rules. A series of amendments made to the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act in the mid-1990s shifted more power to the commission.

In 2003, rulemaking agencies were granted the right to file for court-issued judgments in cases where the commission vetoed proposed rules.

If the rules commission rejected a rule, the agency that submitted the rule had to request the rule be returned to make changes. That changed on Oct. 3 of this year with the adoption of the state budget. Language in the budget gave the rules commission additional powers, and now it’s essentially challenging the Coastal Resources Commission’s rulemaking authority.

During a special called meeting two days after the state budget went into effect, the Rules Review Commission voted to return the 30 rules to the Coastal Resources Commission. The Rules Review Commission argued that language in the proposed rules did not meet the definition of a “rule” per state statute.

DEQ and the Coastal Resources Commission argue that the rules do meet the definition because “they establish guidelines, objectives, standards and policies” for defined areas of environmental concern, or AECs, as set forth by the General Assembly.

“These rules are not newly adopted and since the 1970s and 1980s have been part of the Code pursuant to the very same statutory authority,” according to the lawsuit.

The structure of the Rules Review Commission has, for years, been subject to lengthy legal debates, and its decisions have been challenged numerous times over the years. Since the turn of the century, both the Environmental Management Commission and North Carolina State Board of Education have sued the Rules Review Commission.

In August 2020, Gov. Roy Cooper filed a lawsuit challenging legislative control of the rules commission. The governor dropped his lawsuit in October 2022.

Public hearings set on ‘stopgap’ rules

The Coastal Resources Commission will consider adopting the 16 rules as “temporary” during its Feb. 22, 2024, meeting. If approved, the temporary rules will be forwarded to the Rules Review Commission for reconsideration.

Coastal Resources Commission member Lauren Salter explained to fellow commission members that the emergency rules are a “stopgap” until the board can push temporary rules through to the Rules Review Commission and that the public is not being shortchanged in being allowed to comment on the rules.

The emergency rules have “been in place for a very long time,” she said. “This is just the most expedient, fastest way to bridge the gap between those things and I’m having trouble understanding the concern with public review since (the rules) did go through a great deal of public review. That’s how we got here.”

Public hearings on the proposed temporary rules will be hosted Jan. 9 and Jan. 10 in Onslow and Dare counties and in Morehead City.

Once the emergency rules are codified, they may be in place for up to 60 days.

This story is part of a new reporting partnership with The Outer Banks Voice.

BEAUFORT – Newly appointed members took seats for their first Coastal Resources Commission meeting here Thursday – also the first since state lawmakers changed the rules regarding its makeup — and four members promptly and unsuccessfully attempted to replace Chair Renee Cahoon.

The board, along with the Environmental Management Commission, was one of the state regulatory commissions that a three-judge panel deciding Gov. Roy Cooper’s legal challenge to Senate Bill 512 on Nov. 1 allowed to proceed with new appointments that the law took away from the governor. The superior court judges gave Cooper a partial victory but did not rule on appointments to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission or the state Building Council.

The 7-4 vote to reinstate Cahoon, whom Cooper had appointed as chair when that was still state law, came after new commission member Jordan Hennessy’s motion to delay a vote on the chair until after the entire board had been seated. Members Larry Baldwin, James Yates and Robert High joined Hennessy in opposing Cahoon.

Mary Lucasse, the commission’s legal counsel, halted that move, saying that a quorum being present was all the authority needed to proceed with the election and other business on the agenda.

Hennessy told Coastal Review during a break in the meeting that his desire to delay election of a chair was because other new appointees were absent.

“We have two new commissioners that were just appointed along with myself who weren’t here, and they asked for a virtual connection to this meeting and that wasn’t provided. I feel like that when 15% of our commission who are new appointees are not able to be here that they should be able to have a say in their leadership position,” Hennessy said.

The commission sets policies for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and adopts rules for the state’s Coastal Area Management Act and the Dredge and Fill Act.

Cooper had vetoed the bill that stripped the governor’s appointment powers Aug.24, but the GOP-controlled legislature overrode that veto Oct. 10. Cooper immediately challenged the measure’s constitutionality in court.

Previously, the governor appointed nine members but the new law took away three, gave the North Carolina General Assembly two additional appointments for a total of six, and gave the state insurance commissioner one.

Hennessy, a former aide to then-Sen. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort, and a CEO/managing partner with EJE Dredging Service, was Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey’s appointee.

Hennessy told Coastal Review that he looked forward to being of service to the commission. Asked about his relevant coastal management expertise, he said he had “various different experiences of working with local governments on various different projects.” He noted his six years working in the General Assembly, an Outer Banks dredging project and some real estate projects.

Cahoon, during a lunch break, told Coastal Review that she was honored by the commissioners who supported her in the vote. But she declined to comment on those who didn’t. Cahoon said building consensus was the biggest challenge she expected in her renewed role as chair.

“Blending the board, in terms of getting everybody working together,” she said. “It’s important to make sure everybody’s had their orientations and understand the CAMA program and that we’re here for the people of the coastal North Carolina and trying to protect the coast of North Carolina while being still fair to all the property owners.”

Cahoon said she was optimistic that regardless the outcome of any future legal challenges, “I think we’ll all be fine. We all just have to learn to know each other.”

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission meets Thursday, Nov. 9, in Beaufort.

The meeting is set for 9 a.m. at the Beaufort Hotel, 2440 Lennoxville Road. A public comment period is scheduled for 11:45 a.m. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to 3 minutes per person.

The commission is expected to consider for adoption permit fee increases.

Commissioners are also expected to take up the state Rules Review Commission’s objections to coastal development rules and other rules including those regulating floating structures such as floating upweller systems associated with shellfish aquaculture.

“The RRC has objected to these rules on the basis that portions of the rules are either unclear, ambiguous, or lack statutory authority,” according to a memo from Division of Coastal Management Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski.

The rules panel also specifically objected to language in specific use standards for Ocean Hazard Areas adopted to include amendments related to the use of beach mats for dune crossovers and enhanced handicap access. In both cases, the objection centered on the use of the long-used term “significant adverse impact,” Lopazanski writes.

“This term has been used in your rules since the inception of the program and is a key phrase, when used by one of the review agencies in comments on a CAMA (Coastal Area Management Act) permit application, that may require alteration of a proposed development activity or a denial of the permit. The phrase has been used as a “term of art” and has been used by the General Assembly in various statutes, in other state regulations, in federal regulations, and by appellate courts to analyze negative impacts in various cases. This term has been used in your rules for decades and the RRC has approved its use repeatedly, most recently with readoption of the rule in 2020. However, the RRC now objects to “significant adverse impacts” because your rules “… provide no definition this term, provides no examples to elucidate the meaning of the term, or any other guidance that would allow the regulated public to determine whether a particular project is in compliance with this Rule and the laws undergirding it.”

The commission is also expected to hear a variance request from Brian and Susan Shugart of Oak Island regarding denial of a permit to expand their pier based on the water depth at the site. The couple seeks a variance from the commission’s rules to develop their proposed dock expansion as proposed in their permit application.

Prior to the commission meeting, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council (CRAC) meets at 3 p.m. Wednesday at the same location.

Both meetings are open to the public.

A full agenda is online.

Correction: The Sept. 21 meeting was specially called solely to a permit variance and hold public hearings for other rules currently in development. Members will not be discussing or addressing any Rules Review Committee objections to CRC proposed rules, including those related to marine aquaculture, although information relevant to the committee’s objections were included in a draft agenda for the meeting at the time of publication.

Coastal Resources Commission members, during their in-person meeting Sept. 21, are expected to hear a permit variance and hold public hearings for other rules currently in development.

The specially called meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the Riverfront Convention Center, 203 S. Front St., New Bern. The draft agenda is available on the Division of Coastal Management’s website.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is set for Nov. 8-9 in Beaufort.

The state Rules Review Commission has objected to rule changes made late last year that allow for a floating upweller system to be permitted as a platform at a private docking facility or permitted marina.

Floating upweller systems, or FLUPSYs, are structures used in mariculture to grow shellfish until large enough to survive in a shellfish lease.

The amendments will not appear in the state code unless resolved, according to agenda documents. Most of the objections relate to unclear or ambiguous language in sections pertaining to “significant adverse impacts.”

The review board’s objections to the recently adopted rules pertaining to floating upweller systems, or FLUPSYs, were not only that the language was unclear or ambiguous, but also that the Coastal Resources Commission lacks authority to regulate such structures.

According to meeting documents available at the time of publication, there are other, “upcoming amendments that will likely receive objections for similar reasons.” The note references proposed amendments on the agenda for the Sept. 21 meeting.

A public hearing is scheduled for 1:15 p.m. on amendments to rules on minimum growing season for vegetation, general permit time period extension, exception for lots platted post-1979, and permit fee increases.

The commission is also expected to consider oceanfront setback variances for two properties in Carolina Beach, one owned by the Riso Trust and the other by North Pier Holdings LLC, a Wilmington-based company formed last year by Caleb Kratsa.

The division, under the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality, implements the commission’s rules and issues Coastal Area Management Act permits.

Updated Friday morning to include new information on the proposed single-use family subdivision.

NEW BERN – In a unanimous vote, the Coastal Resources Commission decided Thursday not to endorse a nomination from the public to expand protective environmental buffers around a sensitive Beaufort watershed.

The denial came during the commission’s meeting at the Riverfront Convention Center.

Staff with the Division of Coastal Management, which implements commission rules, had recommended that the nomination not move forward.

The Beaufort Citizens Alliance had on March 13 submitted to the division its nomination to designate the Gibbs Creek watershed as a coastal complex natural area of environmental concern, or AEC, under the category of fragile natural or cultural resource AEC.

The alliance argued that Gibbs Creek, as the last remaining mostly undeveloped tributary tidal creek watershed in Beaufort’s jurisdiction, warranted the protection.

In addition to the fragile natural or cultural resources area, the commission designates estuarine and ocean system, ocean hazard area, and public water supplies as areas of environmental concern. Of the four AECs, natural or cultural resource areas are the only type that allows for public nomination.

The division is required within 60 days of a nomination being submitted to hold a public meeting with petitioners, landowners, the local government and commission members. The meeting was May 8 in Morehead City.

Next in the process was to present the preliminary evaluation to the Coastal Resources Commission for endorsement, which took place Thursday.

With the commission’s vote against endorsing the nomination, the process is over.

Staff noted in the preliminary report that there are existing protections for the site under the North Carolina Dredge and Fill Act, Coastal Area Management Act, Coastal Resources Commission rules, and “other state and federal regulations that would apply to any future development of the site.”

The alliance had maintained that the existing 75-foot AEC buffer was “insufficient for protecting the natural functions of the tidal creek watershed.”

It said that Gibbs Creek meets the definition and criteria for Outstanding Resource Waters, and the same regulations should be applied, including the 575-foot buffer from normal high water. Outstanding Resource Waters are determined by the Environmental Management Commission.

Additionally, the alliance had asked for 100-foot undisturbed vegetative setbacks to federally managed waters. The preliminary evaluation notes that the Division of Water Resources implements vegetative setback rules determined by the Environmental Management Commission on the state level and Army Corps of Engineers on the federal, not Division of Coastal Management.

Division staff said the nomination did not include the entire watershed area that drains into Gibbs Creek, only the four parcels initially proposed for development of a single-family subdivision. They said that the properties had not “remained essentially unchanged by human activity.” They have historically been used for farming, and currently are being used for business and residential purposes that may have impacted the area.

Division staff had not determined whether the required standards of “more than local significance” or that the natural features “distinguish the area designated from the vast majority of coastal landscape” had been met because the site characteristics are common to tidal creek systems along the coast.

And, staff said, the commission and staff did not have the authority or expertise to consider requests to reclassify waters that are officially designated under the federal Clean Water Act.

Staff explained that for Gibbs Creek to be reclassified as Outstanding Resource Waters, the petitioner needs to submit a separate petition to the Environmental Management Commission.

Coastal Review learned Friday morning that the stormwater permit application for the first phase of Salt Wynd Preserve, the proposed development for the four parcels of land on Gibbs Creek, was returned to the applicant June 6 as incomplete, according to a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality representative.

This is not the first hurdle for the proposed development.

Because approvals for both the preliminary plat and final plat have expired with the town, the developer, Beaufort Agrihood, will have to reapply for approvals.

Beaufort town manager Todd Clark said during the May 8 meeting that the property has not been annexed because the annexation was predicated on the sale of the property to Beaufort Agrihood Development, and that sale has not been recorded.

The Coastal Resources Commission, when it meets June 15, is expected to consider whether a rarely tried resident-led effort to extend an area of environmental concern for a Carteret County watershed should be pursued.

The Beaufort Citizens Alliance group nominated Gibbs Creek, a tidal creek watershed in the North River estuary, to be designated as a natural and cultural resources area of environmental concern, or AEC, as a way to encourage responsible development of the 86 mostly undeveloped acres surrounded by the creek, but not prohibit development entirely. The last AEC nomination was in 1994 for a site in Brunswick County, which was not approved.

The prospective developer says the nomination is an obstruction of private property rights.

The nomination was spurred by plans for the proposed 81-lot Salt Wynd Preserve subdivision. The developer went through the proper steps with the town, officials told Coastal Review, but some approvals have expired, and the family that owns 42 of the acres said they have no active contract with the developer.

If the commission approves the nomination, a management strategy can be put in place for Gibbs Creek, which is classified as SA High Quality Waters and open to commercial shellfish harvest. In this case, the applicants are asking that the watershed be afforded the same protections as outstanding resource waters, ORWs, which require an AEC that extends landward 575 feet from the normal high-water mark with a 25% limit on impervious surfaces. The nomination also proposes a larger buffer around all vegetative areas of federal wetlands.

One of the applicants, Dr. Jud Kenworthy, told Coastal Review in an interview that they feel Gibbs Creek and North River qualify as ORWs, though they’re not designated as such by the state. Kenworthy is a retired National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research biologist and has been a Beaufort resident since the 1970s.

“We think that this particular watershed deserves the same sort of protective buffers that an ORW gets, given the enormous social and economic value of the creek as a nursery and the North River as a recreational and commercial fishery,” he said. 

ORWs are determined by the state Environmental Management Commission and go through a different process than AEC nominations. 

Gibbs Creek watershed is currently considered a coastal shorelines AEC, which extends 75 feet landward from high water. Within that 75-foot area, there is a 30% limit on impervious surfaces and a 30-foot buffer that extends from high water where only water-dependent structures can be built. 

Kenworthy said he and the other applicants seek a bigger buffer than 75 feet, especially for the any waters deemed waters of the United States.

There are four types of AECs, though the natural and cultural resources designation is the only one that can be nominated by the public. These are areas with environmental, natural or cultural resources of more than local significance that could suffer damage from uncontrolled or incompatible development. 

Submitting the nomination begins a five-step process with the commission and Division of Coastal Management. Once the division receives the nomination, a preliminary evaluation must be held within 60 days. This took place May 8 in the Morehead City train depot. 

Related: State to hold meeting on nomination to protect watershed

About 50 attended the meeting to hear the division, the Beaufort Citizens Alliance, town staff, the commission and its advisory council members, and landowners speak. There was no public comment period.

Mike Lopazanski, policy and planning section chief for the division, explained that if the commission does not endorse the AEC nomination, the process ends. If the commission does give the go-ahead, the division will create a detailed review of the proposed site to present to the commission at a future meeting. From there, the commission will then consider the formal designation, hold public hearings and then make the final decision.

Lopazanski said that in his 33 years there, he has not seen an AEC nomination approved. 

Kenworthy, who spoke on behalf of the nominees, said North River is important as a recreational and commercial fishery resource for the community, tourism industry, hunting and wildlife. Because his property is on Gibbs Creek, across from the proposed development, he has been able to study the watershed for 22 years.

“There’s a lot of reasons that these tidal creeks need as much protection as they can get. There are extensive wetlands here that are really storing lots of carbon. They’re providing habitat for fish and wildlife. They’re acting as primary nursery areas,” Kenworthy said, adding that the creeks are also an oasis for wildlife.

“Our proposal for the AEC is really to build a buffering capacity around the edge of that landscape,” he continued, adding that the request is not to prevent development on that property, rather to put in place protections that minimize the potential effects from development. 

During her presentation, Beaufort Agrihood Development Director Beth Clifford explained that she owns about 10 acres. The other property owners, which had representatives at the meeting, are the Bertie Eubanks Neely family, which owns 42.39 acres, and the Pearl G. West Trustee that owns 33.76 acres, according to Carteret County GIS.

Agrihood put together the plans for the proposed 81-lot subdivision. “I am not interested in damaging our ecosystem. That is not my interest. The entire property was designed to maintain and actually enhance a better ecosystem,” Clifford said, adding the development plans were based on legislation currently in place.

“We will not increase more than 10% of the entire flow of water that’s on this property, less than 10% will come off of our property by the way that we have done excellent engineering work to assure the sanctity of this natural area,” she added, and it will be retained and treated before it leaves the property.

Regarding the AEC nomination, Clifford said that there will be no adverse impacts to public lands, and the area does not contain environmental, natural or cultural resources of more than local significance. She closed by saying the applicants’ intentions are “prejudicial and absolutely against private ownership property rights.”

Ron Shaw, on behalf of the Eubanks family, said the preference would be, “Immediate revocation of the current application as written due to procedural errors of facts as the information provided in the application is no longer accurate.”

He said that there is “no active purchase contract with Beth Clifford, she has failed to complete the purchase of the Bertie Eubanks Neely tract of 42-plus acres of land within the timeline of the contract. Additionally, the Eubanks family is currently entertaining new offers of purchase on that tract of land.” 

The nomination application was in response to the current Salt Wynd development moving forward, and the statements in this application “grossly and negatively affect the future sell opportunity the Eubanks family may wish to entertain,” Shaw said.

Shaw said that Kenworthy has a strong personal interest in the AEC because his home is directly across from the proposed development. 

Roberta West, trustee of the Pearl West property, read from prepared notes, which were submitted to the Division of Coastal Management.

“This all began not with a concern for nature, but with a desire to prevent this development – for the perceived personal benefit of only a few Howland Rock residents,” she said. 

West accused the applicants of trespassing on her property and questioned their scientific approach for “collecting items without an unbiased knowledgeable observer present.” West said she would have helped but, “now that I know your malicious intent, I might have shot you in the knees — I’m joking — And then I could have thrown you into that ditch. That’s just how I feel about it.”

Kenworthy told Coastal Review in a follow-up interview that he is not an opponent of development.

“What I am is an advocate for responsible development,” he explained. 

“I think I was portrayed the other day as a NIMBY (not in my back yard),” he said, referring to the May 8 meeting. “From the start of our interest in the Gibbs Creek watershed, I’ve always advocated for responsible development — not to stop it, just have it be something that is as compatible as possible with the environment to protect that watershed, and that creek and all of its value.” 

Kenworthy said the alliance had studied statutes and ordinances to find ways to protect the watershed, which is how they discovered that the public could nominate this type of AEC.

“When you think about and look at the scope of AECs and what they are, it’s another tool to use to minimize the impact of a development or any activity or any land use in a watershed that would affect public trust resources, and the status that it is now,” he said, adding he hopes the public learns that they can have a say using the right tools.

“This isn’t a fight to the death over one subdivision. It’s bigger than that. It’s what can you do as a resident or citizen? What are your options to be sure that your public trust resources are being managed appropriately? and that the folks in these state agencies are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, And I think that’s important,” he said.

He added that he did not trespass. Over his 22 years studying the watershed, he had permission from previous residents to access their property.

Next steps for the alliance are to keep an eye on the status of the development application and to continue to monitor permitting processes, and to attend the commission meeting when the nomination goes before the members.

Clifford, in a follow-up email response, told Coastal Review that the AEC nomination is “pernicious and prejudicial” and fails on merit on the two requirements for this type of AEC. 

“It does not demonstrate that the area contains resources of more than local significance and that the development is uncontrolled or incompatible and would result in major or irreversible damage,” she said. “The properties in question are part of the North River watershed and provide stormwater swales to offsite, treated and untreated stormwater to gain passage to the North River. The project will provide more surface area for treating the existing stormwater, while building the most environmentally sensitive project proposed in Beaufort to date.”

About two years ago, there was a proposed 400-unit project for the 86 acres that was denied by the town planning board. A few months later, Beaufort Agrihood Development proposed the 81-lot subdivision, Salt Wynd Preserve. 

Broken into two phases, the town and developer have been going through the approval process since late 2021. The planning board on May 16, 2022, approved the preliminary subdivision plat for Phase 1. Town commissioners approved on Oct. 10, 2022, the final plat to subdivide the 37.06-acre tract into 47 single-family residential lots. The town also approved annexations of both phases, on the condition that Agrihood had possession of the properties.

Because the final plat was not filed with the Register of Deeds within the required 60 days, or by Dec. 10, 2022, the approval expired. 

The preliminary plat for Phase 1, which had a 12-month approval, expired Tuesday, meaning that the developer will have to reapply and go through the process again for phase 1 approvals.

Beaufort town manager Todd Clark said during the May 8 meeting that, with respect to the Beaufort Agrihood Development Project, the developer did proceed through the appropriate development approvals following prescribed town ordinances.

However, the property has not been annexed because the annexation was predicated on the sale of the property to Beaufort Agrihood Development, and that sale has not been recorded. That means the review and planning processes must start over again.

Clark noted that the AEC nomination had not been presented to the town planning board or commissioners, and therefore the decision-makers neither support nor oppose the nomination.

“The three property owners continue to work together on all contractual matters,” Clifford told Coastal Review when asked what the announcement regarding the 42-acre Eubanks property means for the future of the development.

A Division of Coastal Management representative told Coastal Review Thursday that the request by the Eubanks family does not change anything regarding the nomination or its process.

The nomination and review process does not depend on who owns the property or any specific development proposal currently under consideration. The intent of any underlying property owner to pursue, or not pursue, new development does not affect this process, according to the division.

Any AEC nomination should be based on unique natural or cultural resource areas that, in the petitioner’s opinion, are deserving of additional protections above existing state rules, according to the division.

The state released this week an online manual to help local governments in coastal counties with the basics of development requirements.

The comprehensive land use planning technical guide, “Comprehensive Land Use Planning in Coastal North Carolina — Guidance for Local Governments,” is available on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management website.

The guide complies with the Coastal Resources Commission land use planning requirements and offers an optional and much broader comprehensive plan that integrates Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA requirements, officials said.

“The availability of this comprehensive guide in an online format continues DCM’s modernization of our processes and materials in order to better serve our local governments and the community,” Division Director Braxton Davis said in a statement.

Each land use plan includes local policies that address growth issues such as the protection of productive resources such as farmland, forest resources and fisheries, desired types of economic development, natural resource protection and the reduction of storm hazards.

The plan was developed in partnership with the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Dr. Mark T. Imperial and Dr. Kirsten Kinzer.

MANTEO – Advocates say would-be homebuyers and current oceanfront property owners in North Carolina have long needed clearer rules and updated information as climate change increases the risks of damage and flooding.

Two unrelated, but long-sought actions taken last week by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission seek to clarify two persistent issues: septic systems on the public beach, and residential flooding.

With two dozen or so septic tanks and their various parts scattered on the beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore last year after the collapse of three large beach houses into the ocean in the village of Rodanthe, gaps in regulations and enforcement became glaringly self-evident. Concerns also were renewed that some owners of the damaged or destroyed properties seemed to be uninformed about the risk of beach erosion, storm tides and flood damage.

The commission, which met Thursday in Manteo, voted unanimously to approve an amended septic rule. Although the changes did not address all the complexities of ocean shoreline septic issues, they specify what is allowed in repairing or moving septic systems on an eroding ocean beach, and are the first update since the recent spate of beach house collapses.

According to the updated rule, if a septic system on the oceanfront is battered by storm tide, repairs can be done in place without a permit. Otherwise, the replacement or relocation of any septic system seaward of the vegetation line needs a permit.

“The idea here is we’re trying to get them off the public beach,” Division of Coastal Management Deputy Director Mike Lopazanski said during a presentation at the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee meeting Wednesday in Manteo. The panel advises the commission on local government matters.

Ocean beaches from the foreshore to the low-tide line are in the public trust in North Carolina. That part of the beach within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is also public land, National Park Service property. The relevant state statute defines the public trust beach as the wet sand area that “is subject to regular flooding by tides and the dry sand area of the beach that is subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides other than those resulting from a hurricane or tropical storm.”

Lopazanski said the amended septic rule also directs the Division of Coastal Management to make allowances for areas impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms, where septic systems may be damaged by overwash or burial of the vegetation line. The systems, which the general statute defines as the septic tank, the pump tank and the ground absorption field, can still be repaired or relocated to restore their function and avoid impacts to the public trust beach, he said.

In decisions to repair or relocate, components are considered separate structures. If they cannot be repaired in place, they would be subject to erosion-rate-based setbacks that apply to other oceanfront structures. Septic systems will not be permitted separately when an owner seeks a permit to build in a coastal zone.

Also, National Flood Insurance Program staff clarified that public funds are not available for moving septic systems, Lopazanski said. Flood insurance payouts are not considered public funds.

A public hearing on the amended rule is expected to be held in early fall.

Flood history disclosure

After another presentation by Department of Environmental Quality Assistant General Counsel Christine A. Goebel about a petition for rulemaking with the N.C. Real Estate Commission that is proposing to add information about a property’s flood history and flood risk to the real estate disclosure form, the commission agreed to send a letter in support of the changes to the Real Estate Commission.

Outer Banks Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director Donna Creef said that the Outer Banks agents were concerned about access to flood information, some of which may be available only to engineers. Flood history also may not be available to a broker, or be limited by privacy strictures. She noted that buyers should be advised of the value of having a flood insurance policy, no matter the requirement in the designated flood zone.

Coastal Resources Advisory Committee member Spencer Rogers, a coastal erosion specialist who retired last year after 40 years with N.C. Sea Grant, recommended including the beach erosion rate in disclosures. He suggested including information about a provision in state law that requires a builder to move a property that is imminently threatened for a period of eight years. The threat could be mitigated by beach protections such as sandbags or beach nourishment. Rogers said that to his knowledge, the requirement had never been applied.

The commission agreed to add the additional information to the letter of support for the disclosure requirement changes.

The rulemaking petition was filed in January by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of five nonprofit organizations and asks the Real Estate Commission to update the disclosure form with five additional questions that would require a seller or the seller’s agent to disclose the flood information.

As it’s now written, the Real Estate Commission’s disclosure statement — the sole required disclosure document by sellers to prospective buyers — does not include information about flooding.

“The current Disclosure Statement does not solicit adequate information related to a property’s flood history and flood risk,” the proposed rule amendment said. “A home that has flooded once is likely to flood again. Providing homebuyers with information about the potential flood risk that comes with a home will enable buyers to take appropriate steps to mitigate damages, including by purchasing flood insurance.”

According to the petition, North Carolina experienced 4,382 flooding events between 1996 and 2021, resulting in 72 deaths and nearly $1.7 billion in property and crop damage.

“Many North Carolina counties have experienced increased catastrophic flooding in recent years, with some experiencing multiple major flooding disasters,” according to the document. “Since 1977, North Carolina has seen 29 major federal disasters declared for events that caused major flood damage in one or more counties.”

In her presentation, Goebel said that a study in 2021, “North Carolina Coastal Hazards Disclosures in Real Estate Transactions,” by then-third-year University of North Carolina law student Anderson Tran, recommended that North Carolina build on the disclosure form used by Texas, which was called one of the best in the country.

The proposed rule changes were published in the March 15 North Carolina Register. Comments will be accepted through May 15, and the proposed effective date is July 1.

MANTEO — The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, during its meeting here Wednesday, is expected to consider adopting rules on floating upweller systems used in shellfish aquaculture, structures known as FLUPSYs, and hear an update on proposed rule amendments for oceanfront septic tank permitting.

The meeting begins at 9 a.m. in the Dare County Government Complex, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive. A public comment period is scheduled for noon. The Coastal Resources Advisory Council meets at 3 p.m. Tuesday.

FLUPSYs, which include floating tanks that allow water to flow through, act as incubators to protect baby shellfish from predators until they grow big enough to survive on a shellfish lease.

With this amendment, FLUPSYs would be considered floating structures and only permitted as a platform at a private docking facility or a permitted marina.

The amendment includes platforms in the calculation of square footage of shading impacts and clarifies that FLUPSYs are part of the allowance of shading impacts associated with docking facilities. Shading impacts are when a structure, like a dock or floating platform, prevents sunlight from reaching underwater plants. When that happens, plant production can be diminished.

FLUPSYs are different than the floating processing facilities and platforms at a shellfish lease site that the CRC considered last year. In September, they decided to keep the existing rule that would deny permitting floating structures in open waters, though the applicant has the option to submit a variance request.

The commission also is expected to consider the following:

• Adopting amendments to rules regarding beach mats used for accessibility.
• The areas of environmental concern nomination process.
• Timing on reevaluating Inlet Hazard Area boundaries.
• Proposed amendments to oceanfront setback rule exceptions.
• Proposed fee increases for permits.

A full meeting agenda and materials can be found on the CRC website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

OCEAN ISLE BEACH – This Brunswick County beach town may be the first in the state to test whether bales of hay and pine straw are an effective alternative to sand fencing.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission on Thursday granted Ocean Isle Beach a variance that will, with conditions, allow the town to place hay and pine straw bales at six areas on the eastern end of the island.

The town has agreed to monitor the bales and report back to the state Division of Coastal Management, or DCM, on their effectiveness at trapping sand to boost dune building and how well or not they weather coastal storms.

Ocean Isle officials must consult with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before the division may issue a permit. Both wildlife agencies raised concerns about the use of bales as a sand management tool when the town applied for a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA permit, last year.

Officials with those agencies question the potential impacts to habitat, including that of nesting sea turtles, as the bales decompose, and the possibility of bales being a haven for nesting insects.

The Wildlife Resources Commission last June stated that any impacts of bales on the beach are undetermined and should “be vetted prior to allowance.”

“The direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts bales may have on these resources coast wide is unknown and should be discussed in more detail prior to the inclusion of bales as a management tool by the NCDCM. No information has been found regarding bale use on ocean shorelines in other states, so previously studied examples cannot be compared,” according to the Wildlife Resources Commission.

The Coastal Resources Commission, which held its first meeting of the year in Ocean Isle Beach, agreed that while the town must consult with the Wildlife Resources Commission and Fish and Wildlife Service, the town will not be bound by concerns raised by those agencies.

Ocean Isle hopes the bales will build up dunes along what is now a flat stretch of beach leading up to sandbags placed in front of waterfront homes to hold back erosion at the east end of the island.

In 2005, the town installed 1,800 feet of sandbags along east end and in 2012 added another 400 feet. The town covered the bags with stockpiled sand to try and create starter dunes after a terminal groin was built last April on the island’s east end at Shallotte Inlet.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council, an advisory board to the commission, visited Wednesday the more than 1,000-foot-long groin, the second to be built in the state after the General Assembly in 2011 repealed a 30-year ban on hardened erosion control structures on ocean beaches.

A terminal groin is a wall-like structure built perpendicular to the ocean shoreline and designed to reduce erosion at inlets. Engineers who met with members of the council at Ocean Isle’s terminal groin last week said that the structure appeared so far to be working as designed, but that it is too soon to determine whether it’s a success.

The lack of a dune system behind the groin leaves the east end of Ocean Isle vulnerable to storms.

Ocean Isle’s town attorney Brian Eades displayed pictures taken during and after Hurricane Ian swept up the East Coast last fall that showed ocean overwash on private properties and into streets at the island’s east end.

In the months prior to that storm, the town had tried, unsuccessfully, to buy sand fencing for the east end.

In this post-pandemic market of supply chain issues and inflation, the time it takes to get sand fencing is lagging and the cost to buy has risen.

“It’s a hardship and it’s a hardship unique to this town,” Eades told commissioners.

He said concerns raised by wildlife agencies are speculative and not supported by a peer-reviewed study. Eades also said he does not see the difference between needles from bales being on the beach and pine needles from dead Christmas trees, which are placed on some beaches to build up dunes.

In May 2015, some property owners of two lots on Figure Eight Island, a private island in New Hanover County, installed bales without state authorization. That August, the Division of Coastal Management issued a CAMA minor permit authorizing the use of hay bales in lieu of sand fencing.

The hay bales were on the beach only a few months before they were washed away by storms, according to the Division of Coastal Management.

If permitted, bales will be placed at six street-end sites along the shore under the same requirements as wooden slat and wire sand fencing.

Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon said, based on how the bales perform, they could “add something to the tool box.”

“We’ll never know until we try something,” she said.

Monitoring will include photographic documentation on a monthly basis, following the durability of the bales, and placing signs on the beach notifying the public that the bales are a pilot project.

In other Coastal Resources Commission business:

• The Coastal Resources Commission received additional information about proposed amendments to inlet hazard areas, or IHAs. IHAs are shorelines at inlets, which can shift suddenly and dramatically, making them especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding. The state is in the process of updating the fiscal analysis for the proposed redrawn IHA boundary maps. Though construction is allowed in these areas, there are building size limits and setbacks that must be met. The public will have more time to comment on the proposed amendments, including a public hearing, before the commission makes a decision.
• The commission discussed amendments to proposed rules on beachfront septic systems. One of the proposed rules would allow oceanfront property owners who can repair a septic tank without having to relocate it from having to obtain a permit. The commission also discussed setback requirements for property owners that have to replace their septic tanks.

The commission is scheduled to meet April 26-27 in the Outer Banks.

The state Coastal Resources Commission, when it meets next week in Ocean Isle Beach, is expected to consider proposed rule changes to address permitting questions and concerns about the repair, replacement and relocation of onsite wastewater treatment systems and septic tanks on the public beach, where they are subject to repeated overwash and erosion damage.

The commission is to meet at 9 a.m. Feb. 23 at the Ocean Isle Beach town hall, 111 Causeway Drive, Ocean Isle Beach. A public comment period is scheduled for 11 a.m. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to three minutes per person.

Also next week, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council is to meet at 1 p.m. Feb. 22 at the Ocean Isle town hall. Following the advisory council meeting, its members, commissioners and Division of Coastal Management staff plan to take a field trip to the terminal groin that was completed in April 2022 at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach.

Both meetings and the field trip are open to the public.

In Rodanthe on Hatteras Island, where the rate of beach erosion is among the most severe on the state’s coast, storms have caused at least two dozen septic or wastewater system failures and discharges onto the public beach during the past year. Several systems were repaired and then washed out again.

Division staff have proposed amendments that would clarify that replacement of a septic tank or drain field seaward of the vegetation line or measurement line will require a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permit. The change identifies the two components of a septic system as separate structures for repair or replace determinations. If either structure cannot be repaired in place, they would be subject to erosion-rate-based setbacks that apply to other oceanfront structures.

Also, septic tanks and drain fields relocated with public funds must meet the appliable ocean hazard setback. If private funds are used, the systems may not be replaced or relocated within the public trust areas of ocean beaches.

“This area is in constant flux due to the action of wind, waves, tides, and storms and includes the wet sand area of the beach that is subject to regular flooding by tides and the dry sand area of the beach that is subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides other than those resulting from a hurricane or tropical storm,” according to division documents. “The landward extent of the ocean beaches is established by the common law as interpreted and applied by the courts of this State. Natural indicators of the landward extent of the ocean beaches include, but are not limited to, the first line of stable, natural vegetation; the toe of the frontal dune; and the storm trash line.”

Staff said the proposed definition will allow the division to address areas where the siting of septic tanks and drain fields often become problems, most notably on the wet sand beach that is subject to regular flooding and the dry sand beach that is subject to irregular flooding.

It also will allow the division to make allowances for areas affected by hurricanes and tropical storms where septic systems may be damaged by overwash or burial of the vegetation line, but can still be repaired or relocated so as not to affect their function or impact the public trust area.

“Addressing this factor (storm overwash) was one of the primary comments received by the Division,” according to documents.

The staff also proposes an amendment to require that when structures are relocated, all debris and ancillary structures must be removed. “It has been the Division’s experience that old infrastructure, including septic tanks, are not always removed upon the relocation/removal of a primary structure.”

Contrary to what was proposed during the commission’s meeting in November, division staff are not proposing changes to rules based on the cost to repair. If a septic tank or subsurface drain field must be replaced, a CAMA permit will be required.    

Rules dispute

The commission is expected to discuss the state Rules Review Commission’s objections to coastal management rules that were readopted in 2022 and that the review panel has since deemed lacking in statutory authority, unclear or ambiguous, unnecessary or failing to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Coastal Resources Commission disputes the review commission’s position and says the rules are necessary. A closed-session discussion may be held.

Variance requests

In other business, the commission is expected to consider requests from Carolina Beach for a variance from oceanfront setback rules to allow the town to build a new bathhouse. The division in October had denied the town’s CAMA minor permit application as the proposed bathhouse does not meet the setback under the applicable static line exception rules.

Ocean Isle Beach also seeks a variance from sand fencing rules for an Ocean Hazard Area of Environmental Concern to allow the town to use straw bales as sand fencing near its terminal groin because of supply chain issues for traditional wooden sand fencing.

The issue involves six town-owned street ends at the east end of town that are used as beach access points. The town, following completion of its terminal groin, had covered existing sandbags with sand and planted vegetation at the street ends.

Last summer, the division denied the town’s CAMA minor permit application based on concerns expressed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Wildlife Resources Commission about impacts to nesting sea turtles.

Public hearings

The commission is expected to hold public hearings for proposed amendments to the following rules:

• 15A NCAC 7B State Guidelines for Land Use Planning – Enforceable Policies.
• 15A NCAC 7K .0207 and 7H .0308 Structural Accessway – Beach Mats.
• 15A NCAC 7M .0600 Floating Structure Policies and 7H .0208 Piers and Docking Facilities – Floating Upweller Systems.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the commission website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

The Coastal Resources Commission recently approved rule changes that allow for a floating upweller system to be permitted as a platform at a private docking facility or permitted marina.

Floating upweller systems, or FLUPSYs, are structures used in mariculture to grow shellfish until they reach a specific size to survive in a shellfish lease.

The commission also approved during its Nov. 17 meeting in Beaufort the required fiscal analysis for the rule change and language clarifying that floating upweller systems are part of the allowance of shading impacts considered in the permitting process.

The commission had been working on floating upweller systems policy for the last few years, having paused to consider floating processing facilities or platforms sited within a shellfish lease, according to Division of Coastal Management documents.

At the September meeting, the commission decided not to amend the floating structure policies to allow for structures within a shellfish lease. The commission instead opted for those requests to be made through the variance process.

The commission first approved in November 2020 the proposed rule amendments for FLUPSYs and the corresponding fiscal analysis. A public hearing took place May 2021.

Though the amendments were approved by the commission, the rules never went before the Rules Review Commission for final approval because of the continued discussion on floating structures, documents state.

The decision in September allowed for division staff to move forward with the proposed FLUPSY rules presented at the November meeting.

The long-drawn process of updating maps at coastal inlets and building rules within those areas will stretch well into the New Year.

Proposed updates to the state’s inlet hazard areas, or IHAs, will be tweaked again and up for discussion at the state Coastal Resources Commission’s February 2023 meeting.

If the commission at that time approves rule amendments proposed by Division of Coastal Management staff, it will kick off another round of the state rulemaking process, giving everyone from property owners to developers more time to express their opinions on the matter.

Related: Coastal commission delays vote on clarified septic rules

IHAs were established at developed inlets along the state’s coast more than 40 years ago to tighten building rules in these areas where shorelines are especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding.

“So, because they’re the most dynamic places we have on the coast, that’s where we typically see our erosion hotspots, that’s where we end up with sandbags and emergency orders and long-term impacts to inland habitats and beach uses and economic impacts. Those are the most hazardous spots,” Division Director Braxton Davis said at the commission’s Nov. 17 meeting.

IHAs are designed to control density and structure size at inlets.

Commission members during their September meeting unanimously approved updated maps and rules for these areas, wrapping up decades of discussions on how to best predict inlet erosion and accretion rates.

But shortly after that mid-September meeting, division staff discovered that the way the new rule was written cut out an exception that would allow homes of up to 2,000 square feet to be built in areas where the new erosion rate-based setbacks in the IHAs would prevent construction of new houses.

The division later that month withdrew the updated rules from the Rules Review Commission, which reviews and approves rules adopted by state agencies.

The division hosted a series of workshops in late 2019 through early 2020 in communities that will be affected by the rule updates and extended the public comment period for the proposed amended rules.

Property owners, developers and town officials continue to raise concerns about some of the proposed amendments and the map updates.

Davis told commission members that most of the letters he had read were from property owners whose lots were in an IHA and who worried that they would not be able to rebuild their homes if destroyed or damaged more than 50% by storms, fire or other causes.

“And that is just not the way that rule reads,” he said. “In fact, all of the existing homes would be grandfathered under the rules the same way that they’re grandfathered across the entire oceanfront in North Carolina.”

However, there are restrictions to rebuilding.

“You have to have at least 60 feet of distance between the oceanfront vegetation line and where the structure is,” Davis said. “You can’t expand the footprint and so there’s some conditions.”

North Carolina has 19 active inlets. Ten of those are developed, including Tubbs, Shallotte and Lockwood Folly in Brunswick County; Carolina Beach, Masonboro, Mason and Rich in New Hanover County; New Topsail and New River in Pender County; and Bogue Inlet in Carteret County.

Hundreds of acres at those inlets are designed IHAs.

At least some Ocean Isle Beach property owners are pushing back on the proposed map for Shallotte Inlet, arguing that erosion at the island’s east end is being curtailed by the terminal groin built there last spring.

The terminal groin, a wall-like structure made of rocks placed perpendicular to the shore at inlets to reduce erosion, was built well after the proposed updated maps were recommended for the commission’s approval.

Steve Johnson lives at Ocean Isle’s east end. He was one of a handful of people who spoke during the commission’s meeting earlier this month in Beaufort about the proposed IHA rule amendments and updated maps.

“The current plan was designed in 2019,” he said. “It is 2022, three years later. We’re not talking about the current state of reality on any design, specifically Ocean Isle. Why in the world would we implement rules on something that is not current reality.”

Ocean Isle property owner Cherri Cheek agreed.

“The map created several years ago affects many homes and properties on Ocean Isle Beach,” she said. “Studies for creating these maps need to be performed in the present and take into consideration our present-day beach renourishment and the completion of the terminal groin before causing the property rights of our citizens to be in danger. The map does not change the dynamics of nature, but it does take away the property rights of our tax paying citizens. The tax repercussions to our town and our county are huge.”

Ocean Isle Beach Assistant Town Administrator Justin Whiteside said that adding another 152 acres of property in the existing IHA would exceed the $1 million impact threshold set by the state.

The state’s goal is to update the IHAs every five years.

This post has been updated

BEAUFORT — The state Coastal Resources Commission, when it met earlier this month, put off until next year any decision on proposed new septic system rules for oceanfront structures, changes drafted in response to recent sewage spills from erosion-compromised homes on the Outer Banks.

The commission met Nov. 17 in Beaufort and took the Division of Coastal Management staff’s recommendation to wait until February to allow for more public input and to hear from an interagency group that first met in August. The group is made up of state and federal officials and others working to address problems related to erosion-threatened structures and to discuss proposed rules governing replacement and relocation of septic systems seaward of the oceanfront vegetation line.

Three houses have fallen into the ocean this year on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in Rodanthe, one in February and two on May 10. Since then, park officials have identified 33 exposed septic systems and drain fields along the erosion-prone stretch of public beach. Park service officials have been working with 24 owners to get them to move their houses.

Related: A cycle of septic repairs, washouts on park service beaches

Division Director Braxton Davis is heading up the interagency group and asked the commission to delay a vote on the proposed rule changes. Davis said he expected to return in February with new information.

“Over time, even with setbacks for new construction, ocean shorelines can erode to the point where structures are located out on the public beach and are imminently threatened by erosion, including septic systems in some areas,” Davis told Coastal Review in an email response after the meeting. “This is a concern for the Division and for other agencies and local governments. Delaying action until the February CRC meeting allows staff the opportunity to consider the public input we’ve received to date.”

The proposed changes include clarifying existing rules, including one stipulating that any new septic system must meet the oceanfront setback of the primary structure. Another change would clarify that a septic system relocated with public funds must meet the oceanfront setback, while a system that is moved with private money that does not meet current ocean setbacks are to be relocated the maximum possible distance landward of its current location.

Division Policy and Planning Section Chief Mike Lopazanski said during the meeting that the septic system needs to be landward of the house, or farthest away from the ocean on the property, and not alongside the house.

Division staff proposed amending the “development allowed within the oceanfront setback” rule to add relocated or repaired/replaced septic systems. This rule allows certain types of development seaward of the oceanfront setback but does not include septic systems.

Another proposed amendment would specifically state that septic systems are to be considered separate structures in making “repair versus replacement” determinations and clarify that a building, a septic tank and a drain field or secondary treatment system are each to be considered separate structures.

The interagency group is set to meet in December, Lopazanski said.

“One of the things we’d like to do, once I get some reaction from you all, is bring this rule language to them as a way of addressing this particular issue with erosion-threatened structures,” Lopazanski told the commission.

Rules on the size and location of buildings allowed at many of North Carolina’s inlets will once again be up for discussion by the state Coastal Resources Commission after state officials withdrew amendments approved by the commission last month.

Following years of discussion, debate and multiple public hearings, the Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, unanimously approved rule amendments for Inlet Hazard Areas, or IHAs, and redrawn boundaries of those areas during its Sept. 15 quarterly meeting.

The amended rules were filed Sept. 23 with the state Rules Review Commission to be reviewed during that commission’s November meeting. Staff with the state Division of Coastal Management, or DCM, withdrew the updated rules Sept. 29 from the Rules Review Commission, which is tasked with reviewing and approving rules adopted by state agencies.

“The 2019 Fiscal Analysis for IHA rules was correct at the time it was written and approved by the CRC, but subsequent changes to other CRC rules removed a specific provision while the IHA rules were still being considered that would have provided certain exceptions in situations where erosion rates increased within newly designated IHAs to the point that this would ‘preclude the placement of permanent buildings,’” division spokesperson Christy Simmons said in a Sept. 30 email.

The proposed rule amendments are to be presented to the CRC at its November meeting.

“Depending on the Commission’s direction, this could result in additional amendments that would require further rulemaking procedures, including an updated Fiscal Analysis and the opportunity for public comments/public hearings,” Simmons said.

The CRC Science Panel, an advisory board to the commission, identified a need to update the state’s IHAs when it was initially formed in the late 1990s. Since then, the Science Panel has discussed how to best predict inlet erosion and accretion rates at IHAs and recommended updated boundaries.

Updates were proposed in 2010, but discussions on those were sidelined by a state-implemented terminal groin study and a study of oceanfront erosion rates, according to Ken Richardson, DCM shoreline management specialist.

“We know that inlets are kind of where the action is,” CRC board member Bob Emory said during the commission’s Sept. 15 meeting in Wilmington. “We’ve been studying it off and on pretty doggone thoroughly for 20 years. The science panel and their methodology is science-based and with each iteration it has improved over the years. I believe we’ve been thoughtful about the regulations that we’ve adopted to apply in these proposed inlet hazard areas. I think we’ve really arrived at a very good place having watched the evolution of this over the last few years.”

IHAs are shorelines especially vulnerable to erosion and flooding where inlets can shift suddenly and dramatically.

Erosion rates are more similar and evenly parallel along a straight shoreline. That’s not the case at inlet shores, which curve around.

“As a result, the CRC has adopted inlet setback requirements based on calculated inlet erosion rates rather than continuing to apply the adjacent (Ocean Erodible Area) erosion rates to IHAs. The CRC is continuing to implement limits on structure size and density within the IHAs,” Richardson said in an email responding to questions.

Ten of North Carolina’s 19 active inlets are developed, including Tubbs, Shallotte and Lockwood Folly in Brunswick County; Carolina Beach, Masonboro, Mason and Rich in New Hanover County; New Topsail and New River in Pender County; and Bogue Inlet in Carteret County.

Hundreds of acres of land at those inlets are designated IHAs.

The proposed size of IHAs has been reduced at some inlets but, overall, updated boundaries would include more acreage, Richardson explained in the email.

“Collectively, IHAs are reduced by approximately 470 acres at Tubbs, Mason and New Topsail Inlets; and increased by approximately 1,800 acres for all others combined,” he said.

Under the proposed boundaries, about 4,778 acres will be included in IHAs. A little more than 150 acres of that does not fall within existing Ocean Hazard Areas, or beaches, frontal dunes, inlet lands, and other areas susceptible to excessive erosion or flood damage.

“In other words, approximately 97% of the land area inside the proposed IHAs is already part of one of three existing (areas of environmental concern) that make up the current Ocean Hazard Area, and already within the CRC’s jurisdiction,” Richardson said.

The amended rules would only apply to new development.

Proposed amendments would allow structures built in an IHA prior to the updated boundaries to be grandfathered in, a move that addresses concerns voiced by property owners who have structures larger than 5,000 square feet.

Newly constructed buildings in IHAs cannot exceed 5,000 square feet.

Richardson told the commission that the plan is to review IHA erosion rates and boundaries on a similar schedule with oceanfront erosion rate updates, which occur about every five years.

That review process will include studying new methodologies for predicting erosion rates.

WILMINGTON – Shellfish growers are not going to easily get government approval to place floating structures on which they can do their work in their lease areas.

State officials earlier this month determined that floating platforms in shellfish lease sites will be the exception, allowable only through a variance approved by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.

State Division of Coastal Management Director Braxton Davis explained during the commission’s Sept. 15 quarterly meeting that while the division support’s North Carolina’s growing shellfishing industry, floating platforms need to be regulated to protect all users of public trust waters.

“I myself have signed off on an awful lot of shellfishing leases,” he said.

Allowing floating structures to go unregulated could lead to acres of platforms dotting public trust waters along the coast, he said.

One such structure known as a floating upweller system, or FLUPSY, is becoming popular among oyster growers because it protects growing, juvenile shellfish in open water until they are large enough to survive in an open sanctuary.

At its February meeting, the commission paused further talks on draft regulations for floating structures in order to get input from the N.C. Attorney General’s office on whether the commission has the authority to govern floating structures used by shellfish growers.

Special Deputy Attorney General Mary Lucasse explained to the commission that she determined it had the authority to regulate floating structures under language specific to the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA.

“The question is what does it mean when we look at our CAMA exception,” Lucasse said.

CAMA defines floating structures as development, which is defined as “Any activity … involving … the construction or enlargement of a structure; … or placement of a floating structure in an area of environmental concern.” Estuarine areas of environmental concern, or AECs, are in sounds where shellfish leases are typically located.

The North Carolina General Assembly defines floating structures as those supported by a means of flotation, without a permanent foundation, and used by humans.

“It doesn’t matter whether or not somebody’s going to drive a boat across this particular lease,” Lucasse said. “What matters are we’re protecting the whole estuarine area for the public.”

The North Carolina Shellfish Growers Association argues that shellfishing is exempt from CAMA’s definition of development because aquaculture is a form of agriculture.

“We, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, believe that aquaculture is considered to be a form of agriculture,” Joe Hudyncia, an environmental programs specialist with the department, said to commissioners.

Chris Matteo, the association’s president, said during the September meeting that his organization’s lawyers had not had ample time to respond to the attorney general’s legal opinion.

He did not respond to a request for an update following the meeting by press time.

Matteo said that the General Assembly had made clear that it strongly supports the growth of the shellfishing industry in the state. The state leases only submerged farm land in areas where there is no meaningful natural supply of shellfish.

“Oysters are the kidneys of our estuaries and my colleagues and I are planting tens of millions of them in North Carolina waters,” Matteo said.

Limited workspace, affordable waterfront land, ample dock space and boats tailored to an individual shellfish grower’s needs are difficult for small farmers to secure, he said.

“The industry standard equipment shellfish farmers use, a grading machine that separates oysters by size, does not fit on standardized boats or skiffs,” Matteo said. “These are the main reasons growers choose to build their own barge, which the Division of Coastal Management does refer to as a floating structure.”

Intensive aquaculture, though more productive in a smaller footprint of an estuary, requires more gear and more floating workspace.

Farming on a moving surface using heavy gear is inherently dangerous, Matteo said. Floating structures can be wider than skiffs and other boats and are generally more stable work platforms and safer for farmers.

“It can also shield a farmer from the sun, wind, rain, cold, heat and unexpected weather events,” Matteo said. “Having a shelter from the elements is life-changing for a farmer.”

Shore-based floating structures are permitted at marinas and private properties with the approval of a CAMA permit.

A shellfish grower wishing to put a floating structure within an open lease area will have to apply for a CAMA major permit, which would automatically be denied. Once denied, the shellfish grower would then be able to request a variance to the permit, which would either be approved or denied by the commission.

Davis said this process will serve as a test phase and that Division of Coastal Management could eventually come to the commission with a recommendation on whether or not to support floating structures.

WILMINGTON – State rules on where septic tanks can be located on oceanfront properties are likely to change in the coming months.

The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Thursday gave the green light to Division of Coastal Management Director Braxton Davis to move ahead with proposed changes to existing rules, including setbacks and permit requirements.

Davis indicated those recommendations will include clarifying that an oceanfront property owner must obtain a permit in order to place a septic tank displaced by a storm or tide event back in its original location.

The proposed amendments would prohibit septic tanks from being placed seaward of the first line of oceanfront vegetation.

Davis will present recommended changes at the commission’s November meeting.

Discussions have been taking place for months as to how federal, state and local governments can address a problem coastal experts say is only going to get worse with rising seas and climate change.

In February, encroaching waves toppled three oceanfront homes in Rodanthe, leaving debris strewn for miles along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

“Even when houses don’t collapse they are constantly shedding debris due to the wrath of high tides and the ocean,” Cape Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Dave Hallac said at the commission’s quarterly meeting Thursday in Wilmington.

As he spoke, he scrolled through pictures on a large projector capturing the aftermath of the homes that collapsed in early February, a time in which there were no coastal storms.

The destruction left a debris field stretching about 15 miles on the national seashore, where everything from fiberglass shards, tens of thousands of roofing tiles, drywall, carpet and other construction materials littered the beach.

“Even the kitchen sink, which is meant to be a bit of a joke, but it’s not,” Hallac said, referencing a photograph of a sink on the sand.

Though property owners paid for a contractor to clean the debris, the park has had to dig into its coffers to pay for cleanup. The park purchased a $40,000 beach rake, which is being used this week to pull materials off the beach.

The debris has affected access to the national shore. People have been injured by stepping on boards and nails. Surfers and swimmers have been hit by debris floating in the Atlantic Ocean.

More than 3 million people visited the Cape Hatteras National Seashore last year, the highest number on record, Hallac said. Nearly 160,000 people used the parks’ overnight campgrounds and 55,000 beach driving permits were issued.

Along with the problem of debris left behind from collapsed homes are septic tanks that have been exposed and relocated by waves.

Hallac shared with the commission that during an interview with a New York Times reporter following the collapse of a Buxton home in May, an exposed septic tank broke open.

“We actually had to leave the area because the smell was so bad,” he said.

Though Hurricane Earl was 830 miles off Rodanthe’s coast last weekend, churning waves exposed a newly installed septic system, which broke open and discharged raw, untreated sewage on the beach throughout the night.

“This is not an uncommon event and it does not take a significant storm to cause these problems,” Hallac said. “This is a problem that is likely to become more significant. We are dealing with significant issues from sea level rise.”

A 1986 survey found that more than 700 oceanfront structures in the state at that time faced short-term erosion risk, Davis said.

While many of those homes are gone, the numbers are about the same today. 

Davis said that North Carolina has some of the strongest oceanfront setbacks in the country. Coastal rules dictate that the bigger the structure, the farther away from the ocean it must be built.

“Even with really strong oceanfront setbacks we’re going to end up over time with houses on the beach,” he said.

Permits issued by the division or local governments must include a condition that a private home be moved within two years after it becomes imminently threatened.

That rule has not been enforced, Davis said, because natural beach recovery, beach renourishment, or permitted temporary sandbag structures typically occur within that time period.

Davis said the rule lacks clarity and is challenging to implement because of frequent changes in property ownership and worries about litigation.

The sea level is predicted to rise between 10 to 14 inches by 2050. Moderate flooding events are expected to increase tenfold by that time.

Hallac said some progress is being made as officials work with the owners of 24 homes in Rodanthe. Four homes had been relocated — the latest moved Wednesday — and permitting was underway to move another two.

Local, state and federal officials have been working together to get homes threatened by the ocean moved before they crumble into the sea.

The Division of Coastal Management, National Park Service and Dare County officials recently formed an interagency group to determine the authority of federal and state agencies to take protective actions on their jurisdictional shoreline.

The working group is to lay out a variety of immediate and long-term solutions to solving the problems facing some oceanfront properties and the communities they’re in.

“We need partners in thinking it through,” Davis said. “We’re talking about something that’s not going away. Coastwide, we’re going to see it.”

The group is discussing ways to educate homeowners, looking at the inventory of parcels that may be available for relocated homes, real estate disclosure requirements and the liability of property owners.

“It’s a situation from which I see no escape,” Commission Chair Renee Cahoon said.

The homeowners association for a half-developed, rapidly eroding 10-lot subdivision on the east end of Sunset Beach now has approval to add on to an existing sandbag wall put in place two years ago to protect the only road in, after the state Division of Coastal Management had denied a permit.

During its online meeting Wednesday, the state Coastal Resources Commission approved the Palm Cove Homeowners Association’s request for a variance, reversing the division’s denial last year of a Coastal Area Management Act Major Permit.

The division in December denied a permit to add sandbags to make the wall 5 feet wider, or 25 feet wide, and 6 feet taller, or 12 feet above mean high water, because it would be larger than rules allow.

Commission Chair Renee Cahoon voted in favor of the variance, but said she worried that approval would lead to further development in the subdivision. A single private road built in 2005 bisects the 10 lots, four of which have houses with another house currently under construction.

“Are we then encouraging more development of the other five lots while they’re searching for an answer in an area that has a 29-foot erosion rate per year? Hopefully not.” she said.

Todd Roessler, the homeowners association’s attorney, responded, saying he hoped not too.

“With that water coming up against the sandbags. I would hope a prudent landowner would make an informed decision at this point,” he said.

He said that the association was considering a long-term solution, namely, realigning the channel to move it away from the shoreline.

The commission’s approval came with conditions recommended by division staff, including that if any long-term erosion-control measures were to be put into place, then all sandbags above grade and exceeding size limitations must be removed within six months. Also, rather than using mean high water as a measurement for the additional sandbags, the road bed must instead be used as the reference elevation, limiting the sandbag wall to a maximum height of 2.5 feet above the road surface.

The votes were unanimous for three of the four criteria for the variance, but commission members Craig Bromby and Lauren Salter, without comment, voted no on the fourth criteria, which included the conditions.

Palm Cove was subdivided in 2004 and is bordered by the Eastern Channel of Jinks Creek to the north, Tubbs Inlet to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, and residential lots to the west.

In December 2019, residents saw that erosion on the Jinks Creek shoreline was compromising a fire hydrant by the road. The county subsequently removed the hydrant, which the homeowners association claimed was improperly done and left a depression that made the area more vulnerable to erosion.

To protect the road, the association requested a permit in early 2020 to build the current sandbag wall. The 6-foot by 20-foot wall extends 1,000 feet east-west along Jinks Creek.

According to a report by an engineer contracted by the homeowners association, Coastal Planning & Engineering of Wilmington, the road and right-of-way continue to be imminently threatened by erosion.

The report also notes that erosion along the Palm Cove shoreline worsened between 2019 and 2020, with the estuarine shoreline receding by about 29 feet. That’s compared to the previous four years’ average of about 16 feet per year.

Update 11 a.m. Monday: An item was added to the commission’s agenda for its meeting Wednesday. The board will consider beach bulldozing amendments.

Original post:

The state Coastal Resources Commission meets at 1 p.m. June 8 by web conference to consider a variance request to add oversize sandbags to an existing structure in a 10-lot Sunset Beach subdivision.

The public may join the meeting online or phone by calling 1-415-655-0003. Use access code 2432 940 8070 and password 1234. The sandbag variance is the only action item on the agenda.

Petitioners, the Palm Cove homeowners association and owners in the 10-lot subdivision, are seeking the variance. Located on the east end of Sunset Beach, five of the lots are developed with homes. An access road built in 2005 bisects the subdivision.

Erosion along the northern shoreline of the project area has increased in recent years. In early 2020, a 6-foot by 20-foot sandbag wall about 1,000 feet long was permitted and developed along this shoreline as a temporary measure, according to the Division of Coastal Management.

The existing sandbag revetment runs east to west along the eastern channel of Jinks Creek.

The division denied the application in December because the proposed sandbag structure would be larger than rules allow, leading to the petitioner asking for this variance.

Division staff say granting the variance would be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the rules, but recommends that the commission consider adding conditions that any sandbags that are above grade must be removed within six months following the completion of any future project to address erosion in the area — such as a channel realignment — and that the sandbag wall be limited to an overall maximum height of 12 feet, regardless of the location of mean high water.

Kure Beach has the state’s go-ahead to place a mat for wheelchair users at three varying beach accesses throughout the season.

The Coastal Resources Commission during its regular meeting April 28 in Manteo approved the variance to place the Architectural Barriers Act/Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant beach accessibility mat at accesses at 99 Atlantic Ave., 110 Atlantic Ave., and 140 Atlantic Ave.

The town plans to use one mat and vary the location of that mat between May and September.

The town applied Feb. 21 to the Division of Coastal Management for a Coastal Area Management Act minor development permit for the proposed use of the mat. The division denied the application March 8 because of an inconsistency with two rules, which is why the commission was voting on the variance during the meeting.

The intent is for the beach mats to facilitate greater beach access for individuals with mobility disabilities, to foster greater sense of independence for those individuals and enhance opportunities for public beach access, Alyssa Wright, assistant general counsel, explained to the commission during the meeting.

Jim Eldridge, town attorney, added that the mat is flexible, durable, nonobtrusive, easy to remove and easy to install.

The commission had previously approved accessible beach mats for other towns including Carolina Beach.

The state Coastal Resources Commission is expected to consider allowing accessible beach mats in Kure Beach when it meets April 27 in Manteo.

The commission is also expected to consider several amendments to rules, including the general permit for beach bulldozing and the elevation of structures.

The meeting is set for 9 a.m. Thursday at the Dare County Government Complex. A public input and comment period is scheduled for noon. At the chair’s discretion, comments may be limited to three minutes per person.

Kure Beach is asking for a variance request to use Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant beach-accessibility mats at the end of three beach access points. The mats would be in place from May through September to provide access for individuals with mobility issues.

The commission in 2021 approved similar requests from Carolina Beach and Topsail Beach.

The commission is also to consider approval of amendments to beach management plans, shoreline access polices and structural boat covers. Also on the agenda is an overview of North Carolina’s estuarine shoreline rules and stabilization as well as Virginia’s, proposed changes to Coastal Area Management Act land use planning program consistency determinations, and proposed extension of the general permit timeframe.

The Coastal Resources Advisory Council, which advises the commission, meets the day before at 2 p.m. The meeting Wednesday is also at the government complex.

In addition, two public hearings on Inlet Hazard Area updates are scheduled. The first is at 11 a.m. Wednesday at Hyde County Government Center, 30 Oyster Creek Road, Swan Quarter; and at 4 p.m. Wednesday at the Dare County Government Center, 954 Marshall C Collins Drive, Manteo.

The commission’s proposed updates intend to minimize the loss of property and human life by establishing development setbacks between structures and the Atlantic shoreline, according to the state Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management, which provides staff to the commission, implements rules and issues CAMA permits.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials can be found on the commission website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

The Coastal Resources Commission has given the state Department of Transportation approval to build a turnaround area for traffic where the existing part of N.C. 12 will come to a dead end after the Rodanthe “jug handle” bridge opens to vehicles, and to protect the turnaround from erosion, it is allowing construction of an unusual sandbag wall.

During its meeting Thursday in Beaufort, the commission granted the department a variance from state coastal management rules that prohibit the construction as planned.

The Rodanthe bridge, which is expected to open to traffic next month, bypasses the vulnerable section of N.C. 12 often called the “S-curves” or the “Rodanthe hot spot.”

Once the handle-shaped span is complete — it extends over the Pamlico Sound from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and ties back into the existing highway at Rodanthe — NCDOT plans to relocate the N.C. 12 designation to the bridge and remove the existing roadway and the temporary sandbags that now run parallel to the highway through the refuge.

Last fall, NCDOT applied to modify the Coastal Area Management Area major permit for the project. The permit had only authorized NCDOT to build a paved driveway south of the refuge on existing N.C. 12, but not a turnaround area. The Division of Coastal Management denied NCDOT’s application because the proposed work is inconsistent with the commission’s oceanfront setback and sandbag rules. NCDOT then applied for the variance.

“Due to its location, DOT believes the Turnaround Site would be exposed to similar erosion, overwash, or other severe weather and tidal events typically experienced in the Rodanthe Hot Spot without protection from the proposed temporary sandbag structure on the north end of the Turnaround Site, running perpendicular to the existing sandbags running along existing NC 12,” according to the variance request. 

NCDOT Communications Officer Tim Hass with Division 1, which includes the Outer Banks, described for Coastal Review Friday the process ahead, now that the department has the approval it had sought.

“After the Rodanthe jug-handle bridge opens to traffic, the turnaround will be installed on old N.C. 12 to allow traffic to reverse direction where the road will dead end just south of the boundary of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. NCDOT will remove approximately 1.8 miles of pavement from the refuge in the area bypassed by the jug-handle bridge. NCDOT will install sandbags and a dune to protect the turnaround,” Hass explained.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Assistant General Counsel Christine A. Goebel explained to the commission Thursday that beach erosion, dune loss and damage to N.C. 12 have been particularly severe in the Rodanthe S-curves hot spot. The hot spot, which includes the southern end of the refuge, is characterized by low-lying land that transitions from sound shoreline and marsh to a flat beach and the ocean all within a few hundred feet.

“The Rodanthe hot spot is susceptible to shoreline erosion, overwash, coastal flooding, the loss of beach and dunes and sand cover. These circumstances can undermine the integrity of the road, making travel by the general public unsafe and forcing NCDOT to close the road,” she said.

Goebel also refreshed the commission on the work leading up to the request. In 2002, NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA, along with other state and federal agencies, expanded the scope of an environmental study that originally started out as the “NC 12 Replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge.” The expanded study looked at N.C. 12 from the southern end of Bodie Island across the Oregon Inlet and through the refuge to Rodanthe, or about 14 miles, including the S-curves.

In December 2010, FHWA announced plans for the N.C. 12 replacement of Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, and approved construction of the first phase of the project.

Goebel said that the Division of Coastal Management on Sept. 19, 2012, issued a Coastal Area Management Act major permit authorizing NCDOT to build the Bonner Bridge replacement. That work was completed in February 2019, when the 2.8-mile Marc Basnight Bridge, which spans Oregon Inlet, opened to traffic.

When the permit was issued in 2012, the final design was not complete for the next phases of the project. As a result, the CAMA major permit has been modified numerous times since to authorize subsequent phases of the project and related changes.

NCDOT was able to award a contract for design and construction of the jug-handle bridge in 2016, when the document recording proposed N.C. 12 improvements was issued. The document includes plans to remove 1.8 miles of N.C. 12 in the refuge and maintain the existing secondary state road for the turnaround. NCDOT also said it would transfer 19.27 acres of existing N.C. 12 easement back to the refuge to be restored to a natural state.

In September, NCDOT filed a request to modify the CAMA permit to build the paved turnaround and install the temporary sandbag structures on existing N.C. 12 south of the refuge boundary to protect the turnaround, Goebel said.

NCDOT proposed installing about 1,400 square feet of new asphalt on the landward side of the existing roadway to provide a safe turnaround for traffic within NCDOT’s existing right of way. NCDOT also proposed installing a temporary sandbag structure across the removed roadway bed, perpendicular to the shoreline, to protect the turnaround from erosion damage.

The temporary sandbags are white, trapezoidal-shaped and made of woven polypropylene and are to be placed in two adjoining rows perpendicular to the shoreline at the end of where existing N.C. 12 will end. One bag will be 50 feet long, 6 feet wide and 4 feet high and placed next to the turnaround. And next to it, a 50-foot-long, 8-foot-wide, 6-foot-tall sandbag will be placed, she said. Goebel reminded the commission that this type of alternative sandbag structure is like those for which the commission granted a variance in 2020 for use in Ocracoke, but that that sandbag wall was never built.

NCDOT’s permit modification request was denied by the division in a letter dated Oct. 25 because the proposed project didn’t meet the minimum 60-foot oceanfront setback and because the proposed sandbag structure would be perpendicular to the shore rather than parallel and white instead of tan, as required by commission rules. Further, the proposed size doesn’t meet allowed specifications.

NCDOT Special Deputy Attorney General Colin Justice said the existing CAMA permit included a paved driveway at the north end but did not include an area for travelers to safely turn around.

The project is expected to disturb about 6,000 square feet of land.

The narrow part of the island has some of the highest erosion rates on the North Carolina coast, Justice said, adding that the beach is flat and susceptible to overwash on both the ocean and sound sides. This resulted in numerous closures of the area in recent years.

The Coastal Resources Commission last week adopted a new charge for its science panel to report any new sea level rise data and research annually, rather than update every five years its 2010 report on sea level rise.

During the commission’s meeting in Beaufort Hotel in Beaufort Thursday, Tancred Miller, policy and planning section chief with the Division of Coastal Management, explained to the commission that the science panel held a virtual meeting Feb. 3 to discuss the new directive on reporting sea level rise information to the commission. The science panel provides the commission scientific data and recommendations related to coastal topics.

Related: CRC may change how it receives sea level rise updates

The panel members reviewed the charge and made some edits to clarify what they felt was within their expertise, Miller told the commission Thursday. Essentially, the science panel every year will look at any new data, reports, implications, recommendations and bring any necessary updates to the commission.

The commission adopted the following charge that will go back to the science panel:

The issue of sea level rise is of great importance to the State, its policy makers and the citizens of North Carolina. Periodic updates using current data are vital to help inform planning and decision making.

The Commission therefore requests that the Science Panel meet annually to determine whether any new scientific literature and/or data have become available that have implications on sea level rise projections, or associated inundation-related hazards at the State, sub-regional, and local scales. 

If the Panel feels sufficient new information is available to warrant a report, or new analyses, they will present their findings to the Commission and the public in the form of oral presentations and/or written briefs/fact sheets. In this case, the Panel review will include any key data or information gaps that should be prioritized for additional collection/study and/or funding opportunities.

Christy Simmons, the division’s public information officer, told Coastal Review Monday that the science panel has requested the commission determine the range of implications of sea level rise on which the panel should focus.

More than decade ago, the commission asked the science panel to develop a sea level rise report. The first report was released in 2010 and an updated report in 2016. The panel was working on the 2020 update but hit some snags due to COVID-19 and waiting for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, numbers. During that time, the state Department of Environmental Quality released the 2020 North Carolina Climate Science Report.

The report was updated in 2016 and work was underway on the next update when the suggestion to go from every five years to annually was broached at the commission’s September 2021 meeting.

Miller, during the September 2021 commission meeting, mentioned that an update on the sea level rise report was due. In the time since the 2016 report, Gov. Roy Cooper’s Executive Order 80 signed October 2018 directed the state to produce a climate science report and resiliency plan, which was released in 2020, plus there are new websites looking at tidal gauges and historic and projected reports on sea level changes.

Because of the new information available, the science panel could provide annual updates on the most current reports and information available to identify North Carolina’s needs and trends instead of a sea level rise update, according to the September meeting minutes.

The division, under the state Department of Environmental Quality, provides staffing services to the commission, implements its rules and issues Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permits.

Interested parties may submit comments at the meeting or by email to DCMcomments@ncdenr.gov. Please list “Science Panel” in the subject line.

The Coastal Resources Commission, when it meets Thursday, Feb. 10, in the Beaufort Hotel, may revamp how it receives updates on sea level rise research.

The commission’s science panel held a virtual meeting Thursday to discuss a revised charge, or directive, from the commission asking the panel to review any new and significant scientific literature and studies on sea level rise annually rather than every five years. The panel discussed the charge, suggested some changes and if it all comes together in time, will go before the commission at the next meeting.

The science panel, a group of volunteer coastal geologists and engineers, provides the commission with scientific data and recommendations related to coastal topics.

The commission, more than a decade ago, tasked the science panel with creating a sea level rise report to be updated every five years for the next 30 years. The first report was released in 2010 and an updated report in 2016.

The panel was gearing up to work on the 2020 update but was delayed due to COVID-19 and was waiting for new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, numbers. While in the holding pattern, the 2020 NC Climate Science Report was released, Tancred Miller, policy and planning section chief with the Division of Coastal Management told Coastal Review. The division, under the state Department of Environmental Quality, provides staffing services to the commission, implements its rules and issues Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, permits.

The commission decided during its September 2021 meeting to change the charge and ask the science panel for an annual review “because there are a number of other sources now for comparable sea level rise assessments and projections, including the 2020 NC Climate Science Report,” Miller said.

Related: CRC to consider variance for new N.C. 12 sandbags

The commission members “felt the panel’s time would be better spent keeping them up to date on significant developments, rather than duplicating other work,” Miller said about moving to an annual review rather than a five-year update.

The new draft charge reads as follows:

The issue of sea level rise is of great importance to the State, its policy makers and the citizens of North Carolina. Periodic updates using current data are vital to help inform planning and decision making.

The Commission therefore requests that the Science Panel conduct an annual review of any new and significant scientific literature and studies that address the range of implications of sea level rise at the State, sub-regional, and local scales. This review should include any key data or information gaps that should be prioritized for additional study and/or funding opportunities.

The Panel should present their findings to the Commission and the public on an annual basis, in the form of oral presentations and/or written briefs/fact sheets.

Science panel members suggested a few edits to the charge during the meeting, particularly “the range of implications of sea level rise,” which Miller said will likely be clarified.

“If the panel settles on a charge they are comfortable within the next few days, we will present it to the CRC next week,” Miller said. “They seemed to be in consensus on the nature of changes and questions, so it’s just a matter now of wordsmithing.”

He added that the panel is not scheduled to meet again.

Interested parties may submit comments at the meeting or by email to DCMcomments@ncdenr.gov. List “Science Panel” in the subject line.

North Carolina officials are asking for public comment on whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s proposal to issue commercial offshore wind energy leases off the Wilmington coast is within the parameters of North Carolina’s Coastal Management Program. 

The deadline to submit comments is Feb. 23.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management said Monday it is evaluating BOEM’s Consistency Determination. The evaluation is to consider if issuing as many as three commercial wind energy leases and approving site assessment activities, which include the installation, operation and decommissioning of up to six meteorological buoys within the Wilmington East wind energy area, is consistent with the enforceable policies of the state’s Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, and rules of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.

The consistency determination does state that ‘the lease, by itself, would not authorize the lessee to construct or operate any wind energy project” on the outer continental shelf.

Send comments to Daniel Govoni, Federal Consistency Coordinator, 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557, or by email to DCMcomments@ncdenr.gov.  Write “Wilmington East WEA” in the subject line.

Officials said all comments would be considered in developing the state’s consistency response and that notice of the decision would be provided upon request.

Related documents

• Wilmington East WEA CZMA table
• Wilmington East Consistency Determination document
• Wilmington East Consistency Determination letter signed

From a Carteret County News-Times report

BEAUFORT — More than two-and-a-half years of effort to update the county’s Coastal Area Management Act land-use plan will culminate Monday during its regular meeting when the Carteret County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing and possibly vote to adopt the plan.  

The meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the commissioners’ boardroom, 302 Court House Square, Beaufort. The public is invited to attend and review the nearly 200-page document meant to guide growth and development in the area.

According to a news release from the county advertising the public hearing, once adopted by commissioners, the plan will be submitted to the director of the state Division of Coastal Management for certification. Submit written comments up to 30 calendar days after adoption by mailing the DCM district planner, Rachel Love-Adrick, at 400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557.

The CAMA land-use plan is “intended to provide a framework that will guide local government officials and private citizens as they make day-to-day and long-term decisions affecting development,” according to the document. “The (LUP) serves as an overall ‘blueprint’ for the development of Carteret County that when implemented, results in the most suitable and appropriate use of the land and protection of the county’s natural resources.”

The plan is used by local, state and federal agencies in CAMA permitting decisions and project funding and development.

The 2021 version is an update to the previous land-use plan adopted by commissioners April 20, 2009, and certified by the Coastal Resources Commission Dec. 20, 2010.

Development of the new plan began several years ago in accordance with CAMA and Coastal Resources Commission requirements. A series of public outreach meetings were held in March, June and December 2019, during which residents could review maps and draft policies and interact with the County Planning Commission, which prepared the 2021 update. The planning commission recommended adoption of the plan during its November meeting.

The draft 2021 CAMA land-use plan update is available online at carteretcountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9859/CAMA-LUP-Cart-Co-Sept-15_2021-Draft-3-1, Carteret County courthouse and the County Planning and Development Department at 402 Broad St., Beaufort.

Reporters Mike Shutak and Brad Rich contributed to this report.

This story is provided courtesy of the Carteret County News-Times, a twice weekly newspaper published in Morehead City. Coastal Review Online partners with the News-Times to provide our readers with news of the North Carolina coast.

The Coastal Resources Commission has approved the 2021 amendment to the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.

The unanimous decision came Wednesday during the commission’s meeting in Atlantic Beach.

The commission’s vote to approve was the first of three needed to pass the amendment to the plan, which is an ongoing effort to improve coastal fisheries through habitat protection and improvement efforts.

Related: Resilience, natural approach basis of habitat plan tweaks

The second, the Environmental Management Commission, is scheduled to meet Nov. 17-18. The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission, the third and final, is expected to vote during its Nov. 17-19 meeting.

Related: Panel with stakes in clean water adds to coastal habitat plan

The 2021 plan amendment recommends protecting submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands, abiding by environmental rules, wastewater infrastructure solutions to improve water quality, and habitat mapping. The draft amendment also includes Appendix A, early public comment submitted by an independent stakeholder workgroup led by the North Carolina Coastal Federation and The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The plan, approved in 2004 by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries, Environmental Management and Coastal Resources Commissions unanimously, is to be updated every five years.

State regulators are cracking down on where property owners may install artificial turf near coastal waterways.

During the meeting of the Coastal Resources Commission Wednesday, Sept. 15, Robb Mairs, minor permits coordinator with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s Wilmington office, said the use of artificial turf within the state’s 75-foot coastal shorelines area of environmental concern, or AEC, and associated 30-foot buffer “suddenly emerged” this year.

The seemingly new trend has raised concerns about certain materials used to install artificial grass, the different types of material used to make artificial turf, whether those materials are pervious or not, and how their proximity to coastal waters may affect water quality.

Coastal Resources Commission rules restrict development within the 30-foot buffer to water uses, including docks, piers, boat ramps, bulkheads and accessways. There are some exceptions to the rules, such as pile-supported signs, elevated, slatted wooden boardwalks, crab shedders, decks and grading, excavation, and landscaping as long as it excludes wetland fill — unless required by permit in a shoreline-stabilization project.

However, the state does not have standards for artificial turf being installed within that buffer, Mairs explained.

Coastal AECs include wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas and estuarine and public trust shorelines.

The 30-foot buffer within those AECs is considered by state coastal officials to be particularly crucial in protecting water quality.

Division of Coastal Management officials this past May first caught wind of artificial turf being installed within the 75-foot AEC in Wrightsville Beach, according to Christy Simmons, division spokesperson.

“That case was resolved through an enforcement action and the shoreline buffer was restored,” Simmons said in an email.

Since then, the division has been reviewing cases in Corolla in Currituck County, Topsail Beach in Pender County and Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, she said. In some of those cases, artificial turf will have to be removed, at least from within the 30-foot shoreline buffer.

“In the limited enforcement cases we’ve had so far, we’ve only required removal of the artificial turf and have not assessed any civil penalties,” Simmons said.

As division permit officers are handling these cases, they’re fielding a growing interest from property owners and landscapers asking about placing artificial turf within the coastal shoreline AEC.

Part of the debate about regulating artificial turf within the AEC goes to the question whether fake grass and the materials used to install it are impervious.

Coastal Resources Commissioner Neal Andrew said at the commission’s Sept. 15 meeting that he’d seen some of the artificial turf that has been installed in Wrightsville Beach.

“It appears water does drain through this material and therefore appears to act as a pervious surface,” he said. “I personally don’t see an issue with it being outside that 30-foot range.”

Division Director Braxton Davis said it had yet to be determined whether artificial turf is pervious and that any such determination may have to be concluded on a case-by-case basis.

Mairs said the problem is that some components of artificial turf appear to be inconsistent with standards set by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and state Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, or DEMLR, state stormwater section.

DEMLR staff say they would have to decide case-by-case whether artificial turf is pervious.

Any such determination would not preclude DEMLR’s regulations that require vegetated setbacks from surface waters in coastal stormwater permits. The rules mandate that the area within the buffer remain vegetated unless one or more exceptions in the rules have been met.

Artificial turf is not an exception.

Buffer rules in the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse rivers do not include artificial turf in their table of uses.

Division of Water Resources officials advised that artificial turf appears to contradict the intent of the rules to preserve the buffer as a function for removing nutrients.

Water resources officials have expressed concerns about the potential of small plastic fibers, and rubber or silica beads sometimes mixed into soil under the turf during installation getting into nearby waters and potentially violating state water quality standards.

Larry Baldwin, vice chair for the Coastal Resources Commission, said that if artificial turf is installed for the purpose of stormwater infiltration, design could make a difference, especially if it were to cut down on potential nutrient runoff if turf is used replace fertilized grass.

“I’m kind of torn on this in terms of what’s better for water quality,” he said.

Commissioners voted 10-1, with Baldwin dissenting, to prohibit the installation of artificial turf within the 30-foot buffer.

“I think if we’re all concerned about water quality I’m going to make it as simple for staff as possible and protect the last line of defense for our waters,” said commission Chair Renee Cahoon.

Commissioner Craig Bromby said the commission should look further into the matter.

“I think we can maintain the status quo and endorse (the division’s) interpretation, but I think this needs looking at,” he said.

This is the fourth in a multipart special reporting series on coastal water quality. Read more.

An amendment to North Carolina’s Coastal Habitat Protection Plan is now approved for public review, and thrust into the forefront of proposed modifications to the long-standing document are ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change and unregulated sources of stormwater runoff to those habitats.

“This year we’re doing something a little differently in that we’re doing an amendment rather than a revision to the source document,” said Jimmy Johnson, coastal habitats coordinator with the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership. “We were comfortable with the source document as it was written in 2016. We wanted to specifically focus on some other issues that we felt needed to be made a priority and so we decided to do an amendment rather than revising the source document.”

The Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, often referred to as CHPP and pronounced “chip,” was born out of the 1997 Fisheries Reform Act, a comprehensive management plan for fish and shell species. The goal of the plan is to protect, restore and conserve coastal habitats that sustain coastal fisheries.

The Coastal Resources Commission voted Wednesday to approve public review of the amendment and a related appendix with input received during an early public comment period facilitated by the North Carolina Coastal Federation and The Pew Charitable Trusts with the Coastal Habitat Steering Committee’s approval.

Pew Charitable Trusts Officer Leda Cunningham said Pew encourages the public to support the plan during the comment period and learn how they can contribute to conservation efforts.

“North Carolina is a special place in terms of coastal habitat and the CHPP is a really solid plan that prioritizes collaboration for protecting and restoring that habitat,” she said. “It’s going to take many of us pulling together to achieve common goals of sustainability and resiliency.”

The CHPP officially began in 2005, shortly after it was first adopted in late 2004 by the state’s three regulatory commissions with oversight on coastal issues: Environmental Management Commission, Coastal Resources Commission and Marine Fisheries Commission.

The Marine Fisheries and Environmental Management commissions approved the amendment for public review during their respective meetings earlier this summer.

The plan is reviewed every five years by environmental officials within the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, the divisions of which must work together to implement the recommendations set forth in the CHPP. It identifies six coastal habitat types: wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, soft bottom, shell bottom and water column, which is the space between the water’s surface and the bottom.

Casey Knight, a coastal habitats biologist with the state Division of Marine Fisheries, explained how, this time around, officials are focusing on specific issues, identifying concerns related to those issues, researching ways to mitigate the impacts of those issues on coastal habitats, and using that research to implement rules and regulations to reduce those impacts.

The priority issues include the following:

1. Submerged aquatic vegetation, protection and restoration through water quality improvements.
2. Wetland protection and restoration through nature-based solutions. This one tackles the development of living shorelines over hardened structures and, as Johnson puts it, letting “nature be nature” by leaving natural wetlands undisturbed.
3. Environmental rule compliance to protect coastal habitats. This issue addresses the need for additional field representatives to routinely conduct compliance checks and issue notices of violations. “We just don’t have enough of those positions to do the work and so that is just trying to get the existing rules we have on the books enforced better and complies with better,” Knight said.
4. Wastewater infrastructure solutions for water quality improvement. Wastewater and stormwater underground collection systems are old and in need of repair throughout the state. But, the situation in the coastal region is exacerbated by the threat of sea level rise. “It’s fairly frequent that we read about spills and pipes rupturing and spilling wastewater into the estuaries and streams and creeks,” Johnson said. “It’s an expensive proposition and the problem in eastern North Carolina is so many of these smaller communities just don’t have the money to be able to retrofit or to repair their infrastructure and so we’re calling attention to that.”
5. Coastal habitat mapping and monitoring to assess status and trends. Mapping and monitoring the work currently being done to protect coastal habitats will help officials make more educated decisions on how to carry forth protection and restoration efforts. “Without the proper amount of monitoring and assessing of things that are already being done on the ground now we need to be able to know in which direction to move in the future and the only way to do that is map and monitor the work that’s being done now,” Johnson said. 

Issue papers have been created to address each of these priorities. And, though they’re specific issues, they’re all tied in two common denominators – water quality and climate change.

“One thing we did see with the source document is that it did not really cover climate change in the aspects of coastal resiliency in the manner that we speak of it today,” Knight said.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper issued Executive Order 80, a commitment to tackle climate change and build the state’s green energy economy, in October 2018, two years after the CHPP’s was last updated.

The order led to DEQ’s creation of the North Carolina Climate Risk Assessment and Resilience Plan, a climate adaptation plan released in June 2020. Through the development of that plan, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, a research institute of the University of North Carolina system, created the North Carolina Climate Science Report.

“We’ve taken a lot of that information, specifically coastal information, and created another chapter that will be part of this amendment called climate change and resiliency and that speaks to a lot of compounding issues that go along with sea level rise,” Knight said.

More frequent, heavier rain events associated with climate change and rising sea levels are exacerbating issues relating to water quality issues, with wide-ranging impacts across all coastal habitats.

During heavy rain events, rainwater gets sucked into underground wastewater pipes, overflowing systems. Heavy, frequent rainfall creates more unregulated stormwater runoff, which makes its way into coastal habitats. This runoff equates to higher levels of nitrogen in those habitats.

“We’ve done a decent job of dealing with point source pollution, but now we’ve realized that some of those gains are being outweighed by all of this nonpoint,” Knight said. “By creating and looking further into water quality standards for some of these nutrient indicators we will be able to definitively say the water quality standard here is not being met and what actions can we start taking to make sure that those standards are met.”

An overabundance of nitrogen in water causes eutrophication, a process where rapid algae growth depletes oxygen levels in the water.

Algae growth blocks the light submerged aquatic vegetation needs to survive and grow. SAV provides food and shelter for coastal fish.

“We also acknowledge that water quality improvements for SAV are going to be beneficial to most other habitats and the animals that use them,” Knight said. “Through that issue paper we are hopefully looking at developing additional water quality standards around some of these nutrient indicators or factors that could be actionable and see hopefully a difference within the next period of the CHPP review in the next five years.”

The wetlands issue paper includes ongoing research on how to help marshes keep up with the pace of sea level rise.

“If we can’t keep the marshes keeping up with sea level rise then we’ll lose the marshes altogether and that’s the last thing we need,” she said. “So, we need to plan for the migration of those marshes inland. We need to protect the areas that these marshes are potentially going to migrate to as sea level rises.”

One way to do this is potentially through a method called thin layer deposition.

Thin layer deposition takes material dredged from coastal waterways that is not suitable to be placed on an ocean shoreline and sprayed, in a thin layer, onto a marsh, giving the marsh “a little more meat at their roots,” Knight explained.

“As the tide comes in and washes over it should be bringing more sediment to them so they need that sediment to survive, which is a double-edged sword when we talk about sediment in other ways as far as water quality concerns,” she said. “We don’t like the ideas of sediment, but we’re talking about that nearshore kind of over wash during that tide change that they need just to kind of push that extra layer of sediment onto their bank just to make sure that they continue to rise as the sea level comes up and that tide pushes in farther. There’s a lot of permitting issues involved in that too that we’re going to hopefully work through. We need to be able to have the research that proves that it’s viable and feasible and then we can start moving toward some of the permitting barriers that we have there.”

Research is ongoing as to how much is the right amount to spray onto marshes.

The benefits of living shorelines and their adaptation to sea level rise as compared to hardened shoreline structures are continuing to be researched as well.

The discussion is now turning from whether they are a better shoreline protection alternative to bulkheads to how the state can incentivize property owners and companies to choose living shorelines over bulkheads.

“Leaving those big wetland buffers and creating things like living shorelines instead of bulkheads that have lawns right up to the edges of the waterway, that’s going to be key in helping kind of buffer those floodwaters both coming from hurricanes when they’re pushing water in, or these heavy rain events when they do occur,” Knight said.

The state is expected to take public comments on the proposed amendments in October.  

Coastal Resources Commissioner Larry Baldwin noted on Wednesday the months of work and stakeholder efforts to address particular water quality concerns that produced the amendment.

“I think we got it about as good as we can. I like it because it’s not heavy regulatory. It’s trying to coordinate many different groups and funding to be able to improve water quality, which I think is a good thing, Baldwin said.

Johnson said the hope is that an updated CHPP will be adopted by the end of this year or early 2022.

“We have tried to incorporate all of those main issues into what we’re trying to do,” he said. “We’ve pulled in a lot of information from other plans and the document that we have, it’s a pretty remarkable amendment that we have come up with. We just need to realize that we need to keep on the land the things that were intended to be on the land and not let them get into the water. That’s the best that we can possibly do and if it’s buffers or wetlands or whatever to make that happen then we need to do all we can to enforce that.”

The state Coastal Resources Commission has granted the town of Topsail Beach permission to install beach mats for wheelchair users at three handicapped-accessible beach access sites during the summer months.

The action came during the commission’s regular meeting Wednesday at Beaufort Hotel. The commission sets policy for the state’s coastal management program and adopts rules regarding coastal development.

“We’re pleased to roll out this blue carpet and to welcome those who are disabled to our beaches to enjoy it,” said Steve Coggins, an attorney who represented the town in the variance request.

The town applied in April for the Coastal Area Management Area minor permit to install the mats for use from May through September. The mats are 5 feet wide and are between 80 feet and 100 feet long. The division in May denied the permit because the mats do not comply with two oceanfront setback rules.

Topsail Beach then sought the variance to continue placing the beach mats for wheelchair access to the dry sand beach, as they’ve done each summer since 2019.

Floating structures

The commission also heard from the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic, assistant director of policy, on floating structures, which are structures like pilings, gear anchors and floating platforms associated with shellfish leases and may require a CAMA permit.

The commission in recent years has seen increased interest in the floating structures. The division requested new guidance on how limitations detailed in a general policy can be incorporated into a supportive management strategy for the expanding shellfish industry while limiting effects on public trust waters. Under state policy, floating structures are not allowed in coastal public trust waters except in permitted marinas, and all floating structures must conform with local regulations for on-shore sewage treatment.

Records of shellfish farming in North Carolina date back at least 150 years, Zivanovic-Nenadovic said in noting the cultural and historical significance of aquaculture.

She explained that the North Carolina General Assembly in the last few years had given weight to encouraging the development of private, commercial shellfish cultivation in ways that are compatible with other public trust uses.

About five years ago, the state mandated a stakeholder group look at ways to foster development, which the federation headed up. The North Carolina Shellfish Mariculture Strategic Plan set the goal to grow the industry to $100 million in market value by 2030. Now the industry is between $3 million and $5 million. The General Assembly passed legislation based on recommendations in the plan, she said.

In addition to leading the stakeholder process, the federation developed a feasibility study to learn the industry’s logistical needs, finding that the top impediment to existing growers and the top barrier to entry for new growers is access to prime growing water. This is mainly due to the high cost of waterfront property. Growers also lack work areas, and the federation seeks to establish a hub for shellfish farmers to work and helped develop a low-interest loan program.

Some of the main activities performed on floating structures include harvesting oysters, culling and packaging for market and tagging the bag — all of which must be done under shade.

While this can be done on land, it’s not practical, she said, because of a lack of public access to the water and access to storage and refrigeration in rural areas.

Based on conversations with growers, Zivanovic-Nenadovic said it was determined that a movable floating structure able to fit an oyster grader, power washer and a work area is the biggest need. Benefits include work area, protection from the elements and better product shading.

The commission asked the division staff to research and pursue options to help the growers while also protecting the public trust areas.

The state Coastal Resources Commission when it meets next week in Beaufort is expected to consider a variance request from Topsail Beach to allow wheelchair mats at three beach accesses in the Pender County town that have wheelchair ramps in place.

The meeting is set for 9 a.m. Wednesday, June 16, at the Beaufort Hotel, 2440 Lennoxville Road. The meeting will not include the option to attend via the internet. An agenda and related documents are available online.

Officials in Topsail Beach say they want to improve and enhance access from the bottom of the wheelchair ramps to the ocean. The town has been placing the mats on the beach since 2019 for wheelchair users to access the dry sand beach.

In May, the division denied the town’s CAMA minor permit application requesting to install the mats each May and leave them in place through September. The division in its denial said regulations required any development, including beach mats, to be landward of the oceanfront setback and the mats are not an allowed exception in the setback area.

Division staff support granting the variance, according to agenda documents, and noted that rulemaking related to beach mats is ongoing. The public comment period ends Monday and the rule changes could be ready for adoption during the commission’s meeting in September.

The town says it has consulted with state and federal wildlife authorities and agreed to provisions including that the mats would not extend beyond the oceanward toe of the newly developed berm and that “every effort” would be made to monitor any potential impact to turtles and turtle nesting “and take the necessary steps as advised by both agencies.”

Earlier this year, the commission granted Carolina Beach in New Hanover County a variance allowing the seasonal installation of mats on a stretch of beach designated an ocean hazard area of environmental concern because of excessive erosion.

Floating structures policies

The commission is also expected to discuss state and local policies pertaining to floating structures and how they apply to such structures used in shellfish cultivation.

State Division of Coastal Management officials seek the commission’s guidance on how to incorporate limitations on floating structures in a “supportive management strategy for the expanding shellfish industry while limiting public trust impacts.” The limitations also include those adopted by local governments through their Coastal Area Management Act land use plan policies to regulate floating homes.

“While these policies don’t specifically address floating structures on shellfish leases, it is clear that local governments are concerned about the potential for occupancy of these structures in public trust areas,” said Division of Coastal Management Policy and Planning Section Chief Mike Lopazanski in a memorandum included in the agenda packet for the meeting. “Gear and structure-intensive aquaculture in other states has not been without controversy, with most vocal groups being waterfront property owners concerned about viewshed and interference with other public trust uses including navigation and fishing.”

A representative of the North Carolina Coastal Federation is expected to speak regarding increased interest in floating processing facilities for shellfish leases and how floating structure policies may apply.

In 2020, the commission discussed floating upweller systems, or FLUPSYs, as related to the floating structure policies and approved amendments to incorporate to allow siting of FLUPSYs in permitted marinas or associated with private docking facilities, subject to limitations. The division has seen other floating structures, specifically shelters for equipment and processing operations associated with the lease, placed within open water leases.

“The Division views these structures from the perspective of balancing many interests and concerns, including public trust rights, potential resource impacts (e.g. from shading or grounding), use of permanent moorings, riparian property rights, aesthetics, and the rapid expansion and growth potential in the commercial cultivation of shellfish,” Lopazanski states in the memo.

Other business

Also on the agenda is the continuation of a discussion from the commission’s March meeting regarding inlets that were excluded from the Coastal Resources Commission science panel’s recommendations on updating Inlet Hazard Area boundaries. The excluded inlets include serving the Morehead City and Wilmington ports and shorelines that are publicly owned, with a low potential for future development.

The agenda also includes the following:

• Rulemaking recommendations regarding amendments pertaining to permit modifications.
• Rule implementation related to structural boat covers.
• Discussion of CAMA land use plans – future land use map.
• Consideration of fiscal analyses for proposed rule amendments pertaining to elevating structures, changes that codify existing policy.

With all of the necessary permits now in hand, Sunset Beach plans to begin dredging area creeks and canals later this year. But a small group of people who oppose some portions of the project continues to raise environmental concerns as they explore what may be a last-ditch effort to stop the planned dredging of South Jinks Creek. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, or CRC, Chair Renee Cahoon denied two Sunset Beach property owners’ requests for a hearing to challenge a state-approved modification to a Coastal Area Management Act, or CAMA, major permit the town was granted in 2019. Her March 23 decision leaves those property owners with one option: take the matter to superior court. Richard Hilderman, one of the property owners who last month requested a third-party hearing to appeal the modified permit, said that because of cost and time, it isn’t likely he and other property owners will file a lawsuit. “I was hoping that some environmental group would get involved in this and that’s what I’m still hoping for,” said Hilderman. “That is what we’re trying to pursue right now.” He declined to discuss which environmental groups he had contacted. The town received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 14. That same day, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or NCDEQ, notified Sunset Beach officials that the town’s request for an extension for the dredging project grant, which was to expire June 30, has been approved, changing the contract end date to June 2023. Under the terms of the federal permit, the project must be finished by April 12, 2026. Only a permittee, which in this case is the town, may appeal that permit. The town in an April 26 email notice to property owners explained its next steps, which include opening bids for dredging the feeder channel, finger canals, the bay area, and Mary’s and Turtle creeks. Officials expect the project will be advertised sometime between May and June with an anticipated start date of Nov. 16, according to the email. Last month, the town council voted 4-1, with Councilwoman Jan Harris opposed, to award a more than $1.5 million contract with Coastal Dredging LLC to put sand dredged from South Jinks Creek to a nearshore area along about a 2,000-foot stretch of shoreline seaward between Third and 13^th streets beginning Nov. 16, as long as the town received the federal permit necessary to proceed with the project. Original plans called for placing the dredged material along a stretch of oceanfront between Fifth and 12^th streets. Town officials had to explore other disposal site options after beachfront property owners, who would have been affected by the project, said they would not grant the town property easements. By then, Sunset Beach had acquired a CAMA major permit. In their request for a hearing to appeal the modified permit, Hilderman and Rich Cerrato argued the town had not proven dredged sand placed in the nearshore site will remain within the shoal system from which it would be removed. “My appeal was not the overall dredging project. My appeal was offshore placement,” Hilderman said. In her 19-page decision, Cahoon wrote that Hilderman and Cerrato did not provide proof that the disposal site is not within the active nearshore area of Tubbs Inlet, information that the petitioners need in order to meet statutory requirements for a hearing. Cahoon also wrote that since Hilderman and Cerrato do not own oceanfront property or land adjacent to the project areas, neither were able to show they will be directly affected by the project. Hilderman argues dredging and subsequent placement of material from South Jinks Creek will potentially degrade the environment within the barrier island on which he lives. “We’re trying to protect the environment and that’s what this is all about,” Hilderman said. “Why do you have to live on the canals or physically own property on Sunset Beach to protect that environment? I think citizens, we’re totally being ignored. We’re disrupting Mother Nature’s path. She’s going to create consequences.” The town’s project includes dredging roughly 3 miles of waterway. The 2019 CAMA major permit authorized the project with the condition that the maximum dredging depth be 2 feet below mean low water, which is consistent with a state rule prohibiting canals and boat basins from being dredged deeper than connecting waters. The CRC granted a variance to the permit allowing the town to dredge about 18 acres, including South Jinks Creek, to a depth deeper than the connecting waters along its eastern border. The variance allows dredging about 10,650 feet of South Jinks Creek, the bay area and the feeder channel, to a depth of no more than 6 feet below mean water. A series of finger canals would be dredged to 5 feet below mean low water. Ted Janes, Hilderman’s neighbor, has been a longstanding opponent of the project. “We are part of a small core group of folks who are desperately fighting to protect an entire salt marsh ecosystem that depends on Jinks Creek for its health and future existence,” Hilderman said in an email. “Our interest is limited to and aimed solely at protecting the ecosystem and its life-giving asset, Jinks Creek (Mother Nature’s purpose and gift to us).” An update on the project is expected to be provided during the council’s first regular May meeting at 6 p.m. Monday.

The state Coastal Resources Commission is expected to hear an update this week on erosion issues at the South Dock ferry terminal on Ocracoke Island.

The commission, when it meets at 9 a.m. Wednesday by video conference, is also expected to consider a variance request by a North Topsail Beach homeowner’s association on a permit extension for an existing, oversized sandbag structure.

The public may join the meeting by video conference or by  phone at 1-415-655-0003. Use access code 185 441 7339 and event password 1234.

In addition the variance request from Topsail Reef Homeowners Association on a permit extension for an existing, oversized sandbag structure, the CRC is expected to consider rules for oceanfront development/beach management plans and a fiscal analysis related to Inlet Hazard Areas proposed use standards.

Rulemaking recommendations regarding amendments to shorefront access and to permit modification rules and consider fiscal analysis for rules and permit procedures governing the elevation of oceanfront structures on pilings are also on the agenda.

A full meeting agenda and briefing materials is on the CRC website. Times indicated on the agenda for individual items are subject to change.

Submit written comments before the meeting to Angela Willis at angela.willis@ncdenr.gov. Write “PUBLIC COMMENT” in the subject line.