Guest Commentary

To stimulate discussion and debate, Coastal Review welcomes differing viewpoints on topical coastal issues.

Few public projects have generated as much discussion in southeastern North Carolina as the proposed replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Citizens have raised thoughtful questions about the bridge’s cost, the possibility of tolls, impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, and perhaps most notably, one simple question:
Why does the replacement bridge need to be 135 feet high?

It is an entirely reasonable question.

Recent public discussions, including a white paper published by the Brunswick Forest Residents Civic Association (BFRCA), have suggested that the bridge could be substantially lower if Congress simply eliminated the federally authorized navigation channel north of the existing bridge. Some have argued that doing so could reduce project costs and perhaps even eliminate the need for tolls.

Those ideas deserve thoughtful consideration. Public participation has always been one of the strengths of our democratic system, and citizens should never hesitate to ask difficult questions about major public investments.

As someone who spent more than four decades with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers working in navigation planning, environmental review, and water resources development, I welcome that conversation.

At the same time, I believe an important piece of information has been largely missing from the public discussion.

A federal determination that changes the conversation

Recently, the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed its review of the proposed bridge replacement under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, commonly known as Section 408.

Most citizens have never heard of Section 408, yet it may be one of the most important laws affecting the future of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Section 408 requires the Corps to determine whether a proposed alteration would impair the usefulness of a congressionally authorized federal Civil Works project. In this case, the authorized project is the Wilmington Harbor Federal Navigation Project.

After completing its technical review, the Corps reached a clear conclusion. A replacement bridge providing less than 135 feet of vertical clearance above mean higher high water would negatively affect the usefulness of the federally authorized navigation project.

Under the Corps’ own regulations, once that determination was made, the evaluation of lower-clearance alternatives had to stop.

Whether one agrees with that determination or not is almost beside the point. It is now part of the official administrative record.

That changes the discussion.

The debate is no longer simply about whether a lower bridge might cost less or appear more practical. Before that question can even be answered, another question must first be addressed: Should Congress change the federally authorized navigation project itself?

That is a much broader public policy question than bridge height alone. It involves navigation, interstate commerce, transportation planning, environmental review, economic development, emergency preparedness, and federal law.

Understanding that broader framework is essential if we hope to make informed decisions.

Why this matters

Many residents have moved to southeastern North Carolina only within the past decade. They understandably may not be familiar with the many decades of congressional authorizations, navigation studies, environmental reviews, transportation planning, and public investments that have shaped the Cape Fear River and the Port of Wilmington.

That history matters.

The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge was never simply a highway crossing.
It has always been part of a larger transportation system connecting maritime commerce, regional highways, railroads, emergency evacuation routes, military facilities, and the communities on both sides of the river.

Looking at the bridge by itself is a little like trying to understand an airport by examining only the terminal building.

The bridge, the harbor, the port, and the transportation network all function together.
That is why replacing the bridge is considerably more complicated than choosing a preferred height.

Understanding the federal navigation project

One of the most common misunderstandings in the current discussion involves the nature of the federal navigation project itself.

Many people understandably assume that because relatively few large commercial vessels travel north of the bridge today, the federal navigation channel above the bridge is no longer necessary.

On the surface, that seems like common sense. If the ships are not using the channel, why preserve it?

The answer lies in understanding what Congress actually authorizes.

Federal navigation projects are not created by the Corps of Engineers. They are established by Congress to serve long-term national interests, including interstate commerce, navigation, economic development, and, in some cases, national defense.

The Corps is responsible for administering those projects within the authority granted by Congress. It does not possess unilateral authority to redefine or eliminate them simply because navigation patterns change.

That distinction is critical.

Changes in vessel traffic may certainly justify future studies. They may even support recommendations for congressional action. But they do not automatically change the existing federal authorization.

Transportation infrastructure has always been planned with a long-term perspective. We do not widen highways only after congestion becomes unbearable. Nor do we abandon airports because air traffic temporarily declines.

Similarly, federal navigation projects are intended to accommodate both present and future needs.

That does not mean existing authorizations should never be revisited. It simply means that changing them requires careful analysis rather than assumption.

The relationship between bridge and harbor

The recent Section 408 determination illustrates something that planners have understood for decades. The bridge and the navigation project cannot be evaluated independently. The navigation project establishes engineering requirements that directly influence the bridge.

Likewise, the bridge affects navigation, freight movement, emergency response, regional mobility, and economic development.

This relationship is not unique to Wilmington. Throughout the country, ports depend upon highways. Highways depend upon bridges. Bridges support freight movement.
Freight movement supports regional economies. Each component influences the others. That is why transportation planning increasingly views infrastructure as interconnected systems rather than isolated projects.

When citizens ask whether a lower bridge is possible, they are really asking whether the entire transportation and navigation system should operate differently. That is an important discussion. But it should be recognized for what it is. It is not simply a bridge design question. It is a regional planning question.

Where current discussion raises important questions

One reason the current public discussion has been valuable is that it has encouraged citizens to look more closely at decisions that will shape our region for generations. Those questions deserve thoughtful answers.

The cost of replacing the bridge is substantial. Taxpayers have every right to understand why a particular alternative has been selected and whether it represents the best long-term value.

Questions about tolls are equally understandable. Thousands of Brunswick County residents depend upon this crossing every day. Any recurring toll would affect commuters, businesses, retirees, and working families throughout the region.

Neighborhood impacts also deserve careful consideration. Transportation projects influence homes, businesses, churches, historic districts, and community character.
Every reasonable effort should be made to minimize unnecessary impacts while meeting legitimate transportation needs.

These are not obstacles to progress. They are exactly the kinds of questions responsible citizens should ask.

Public involvement has improved countless infrastructure projects throughout this country. Engineers identify technical issues. Environmental scientists evaluate ecological consequences. Transportation planners assess mobility. Residents contribute local knowledge that professionals may overlook. Good public policy benefits from all of these perspectives. The goal should never be to determine which side wins the argument.

The goal should be to make the final decision better because every important question has been asked — and every answer has been grounded in evidence rather than assumption.

That is the standard our community should expect as this discussion continues.

Where I reach different conclusions

While I believe the recent public discussion has been healthy, I reach different conclusions on several important issues.

The first concerns the assumption that eliminating the federally authorized navigation channel north of the bridge would naturally result in a lower bridge and substantially lower project costs.

Perhaps it would. But no one can responsibly make that claim without first completing the technical, environmental, legal, and economic analyses necessary to support it.
Changing a congressionally authorized Federal Navigation Project is not simply a matter of drawing a new line on a map.

Congress certainly possesses the authority to modify or even deauthorize portions of an existing navigation project. However, exercising that authority has historically required far more than a legislative amendment. It would require detailed engineering studies, navigation analyses, environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), economic evaluation, consultation with affected federal and state agencies, and careful consideration of the long-term interests of interstate commerce, military readiness, and the Port of Wilmington.

That process exists for good reason. Federal infrastructure projects are intended to serve not only today’s needs but also those of future generations.

The Corps’ recent Section 408 determination illustrates precisely why that process matters. Unless and until Congress changes the authorized navigation project, the Corps has concluded that a bridge with less than 135 feet of vertical clearance would impair the usefulness of the existing federally authorized navigation project. That determination does not prevent Congress from changing the project in the future, but it does establish the legal and engineering framework within which today’s bridge replacement must be evaluated.

The idea of ending the federally authorized navigation project at the bridge or eliminating the authorized navigation channel north of the bridge has become part of the public discussion. Congress unquestionably has the authority to modify or even deauthorize portions of a federal navigation project. The more important question, however, is not whether Congress can do so, but whether Congress should.

Such a decision deserves far more than a simple legislative amendment or a reaction to current navigation patterns. It would require comprehensive engineering, navigation, environmental, and economic analyses, together with consultation among federal and state agencies, the maritime industry, local governments, and the public. It would also require careful consideration of the long-term interests of the Port of Wilmington, regional transportation, interstate commerce, military readiness, and public safety.

That is not an argument against changing the navigation project if future studies ultimately demonstrate that such a change serves the public interest. Rather, it is an argument that decisions of this magnitude should be based upon a complete technical and public policy record — not upon a single objective such as reducing bridge height or construction costs.

The discussion should therefore begin not with the question, “Can we build a lower bridge?” but rather with the question, “Should the nation modify a congressionally authorized navigation project that has served the Cape Fear River for decades?”
Those are fundamentally different questions.

The question of tolls

One issue on which my position is unequivocal is tolling.

I do not support tolling the replacement Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. My opposition, however, is not based solely on the financial burden tolls would place on local residents. It is based on a broader principle of fairness.

The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is not simply a local bridge. It is one of southeastern North Carolina’s most important transportation assets.

Every day it carries commuters between Brunswick and New Hanover Counties. It serves as a principal hurricane evacuation route for thousands of residents and visitors. It supports military readiness through its connection to Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point. It carries a substantial share of the freight traffic serving the Port of Wilmington, one of North Carolina’s most important economic engines.

The replacement bridge will also provide something the existing bridge has never offered: a safe, dedicated pedestrian and bicycle connection across the Cape Fear River. That addition will reconnect the two counties in ways that encourage walking, cycling, recreation, tourism to our fledgling Eagles Island Park, and healthier transportation choices, while creating new opportunities for residents and visitors to experience both communities. It is an investment in quality of life as much as in transportation.

These combined benefits demonstrate that the bridge serves far more than motorists. It serves commerce, public safety, emergency preparedness, military logistics, recreation, tourism, and community connectivity throughout the Lower Cape Fear region.

The economic benefits generated by the Port extend far beyond Wilmington and Brunswick County. They benefit manufacturers, agricultural producers, retailers, businesses, and consumers across North Carolina.

When infrastructure supports statewide commerce and statewide economic prosperity, it should be viewed as a statewide responsibility. That is why I believe the Town of Leland acted wisely in adopting Resolution R-26–032, encouraging equitable participation by the North Carolina State Ports Authority in funding the replacement bridge.

The resolution does not suggest that the Ports Authority should finance the entire bridge. Nor do I. Rather, it recognizes a principle of sound public policy: When major public infrastructure produces broad statewide benefits, the costs should be shared equitably among those who benefit.

The port depends upon the transportation system. The transportation system depends upon the bridge. The bridge, in turn, supports statewide commerce, local communities, military readiness, emergency preparedness, and regional mobility. Those relationships are inseparable.

Accordingly, I believe discussions regarding project financing should include the State of North Carolina, the North Carolina State Ports Authority, and other beneficiaries of statewide commerce — not simply the commuters who happen to cross the bridge each day.

A bridge that serves the economic interests of an entire state should not be financed primarily on the backs of local motorists.

Planning for the next century

Another issue often overlooked in public discussions is time.

The replacement Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is not being designed solely for today’s traffic. It is expected to serve southeastern North Carolina for the next 75 to 100 years.
No one can predict exactly how the Port of Wilmington, regional population, freight movement, military requirements, or transportation technology will evolve during that period.

History teaches us that infrastructure frequently shapes economic growth rather than simply responding to it. The interstate highway system transformed American commerce. Container shipping transformed global trade. Ports expanded because transportation systems were built with future opportunities in mind.

Likewise, the pedestrian and bicycle facilities planned for the new bridge recognize that transportation needs evolve. Communities increasingly value safe, multimodal connections that improve mobility, encourage recreation, reduce reliance on automobiles for short trips, and strengthen relationships between neighboring communities.

Current navigation patterns are certainly relevant. But they are only one part of a much longer planning horizon. Responsible infrastructure planning requires us to think not only about today’s conditions, but about the needs and opportunities of future generations.

What every citizen should expect

Whether one supports the current bridge proposal, favors a different design, opposes tolls, or believes Congress should revisit the navigation project, every citizen should expect the same thing from government. Transparency.

Citizens deserve to understand why particular decisions are being made. They deserve to see alternatives evaluated objectively.

They deserve to understand the assumptions underlying cost estimates, traffic forecasts, environmental analyses, and funding proposals.

They deserve clear explanations — not slogans.

Likewise, public agencies should welcome informed questions.

Some of the best improvements to public infrastructure projects have come from citizens asking questions that professionals had not fully considered.

Public involvement strengthens projects. It should never be viewed as an obstacle.

At the same time, informed public discussion carries its own responsibility. Questions should be answered with documented evidence.

Engineering judgments should be supported by technical analysis.

Legal conclusions should be grounded in applicable law.

Public policy decisions should reflect long-term public interests rather than short-term political pressures.

When those principles guide the discussion, everyone benefits — even when reasonable people ultimately disagree.

Building the future together

The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge debate is about far more than bridge height. It is about how southeastern North Carolina prepares for the future.

Reasonable people will continue to disagree about navigation requirements, project costs, neighborhood impacts, and funding mechanisms. Those disagreements are healthy.

What should unite us is a commitment to making decisions based upon evidence rather than assumption, thoughtful analysis rather than speculation, and long-term public benefit rather than short-term convenience.

The recent Section 408 determination does not end this discussion. It does, however, remind us that major infrastructure decisions are shaped by decades of congressional authorizations, engineering analysis, environmental review, and transportation planning.
Understanding that framework allows us to ask better questions and make better decisions.

If North Carolina recognizes the Port of Wilmington as a statewide economic engine — and I believe it should — then the transportation infrastructure that allows that port to function should likewise be recognized as a statewide responsibility.

The replacement Cape Fear Memorial Bridge will connect neighborhoods, counties, businesses, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency responders, military installations, and one of North Carolina’s most important seaports. It will serve the people of this region for generations.

It should unite our communities — not divide them over who should bear the cost. That is not simply a transportation policy. It is a matter of sound planning, regional partnership, and fairness.

Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of Coastal Review or our publisher, the North Carolina Coastal Federation.

Update Feb. 5: The Fort Raleigh National Historic Site shoreline stabilization public meeting has been rescheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 12. The comment period was extended to Feb. 21 because of the weather-related meeting postponement.

Update 8:45 a.m. Jan. 23: National Park Service officials announced Wednesday night that the shoreline erosion public meeting, originally scheduled for Thursday has been postponed because of hazardous weather conditions. A new date will be announced.

Original post:

For the first time in close to 50 years, National Park Service officials are looking to stabilize the eroding shoreline at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site that, if not addressed, could jeopardize the cultural and natural resources stewards of the 355-acre site in Manteo aim to protect.

Park service staff are considering three different structures to protect the about a mile of shoreline and invite the public to share their thoughts through Feb. 7.

Established in 1941 on the north end of Roanoke Island where the Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke sounds converge, Fort Raleigh is the last known location of the 116 English settlers that disappeared in the late 1580s, referred to as the “Lost Colony.”

Before Sir Walter Raleigh led English expeditions to the “New World” in the late 1580s, the land was home to Carolina Algonquians. During the American Civil War in the 1860s, formerly enslaved people established the Freedmen’s Colony on the island nestled between Manns Harbor and Nags Head.

The alternatives detailed in the public scoping newsletter include a rock revetment against the shoreline escarpment with fill material to create a slope; a 5- to 10-foot-high rock berm with a 20- to 40-foot-wide base at the toe of the existing slope on the beach possibly backfilled with natural materials; or a site-specific combination of the two along the mile stretch.

Comments can be submitted electronically or by mail to: Superintendent, 1401 National Park Drive, Manteo, NC 27954. The comment period began Jan. 8. A public meeting on the project is set for 6 p.m. Thursday at the site’s visitor center, 1500 Fort Raleigh Road, Manteo.

Project documents indicate that erosion has been an issue since the park was established. Wooden groins were built in the 1940s along the shoreline, and in the 1960s, an offshore breakwater was installed.

In the late 1970s, around 1,500 feet of riprap was placed near the Dough Cemetery, which dates to the mid-19^th century and faces the Croatan Sound, and along the shoreline around the Lost Colony Waterside Theater, where “The Lost Colony” dramatization of the 1580s interaction between the Algonquian and English has been performed nearly every summer since 1947.

Mike Barber, public affairs specialist with the National Park Service, said that 1979-80 work was the last shoreline-stabilization project at the cemetery and theater, and no maintenance of existing shoreline-stabilization measures has taken place to since, as far as anyone seems to know.

“Erosion along the remaining exposed shoreline, including 4500 feet of unstable, undercut cliffs as high as 25 feet, poses a serious threat to potential archeologically significant sites and park facilities,” the scoping newsletter states. “Without action, the erosion will most likely continue, causing continued loss of park lands, vegetation, archeological resources, and ultimately park facilities such as roadways, parking areas, and buildings.”

Barber expounded that, right now, mature trees near the shoreline are falling, and potential archeological resources may be washing away without intervention.

Barber said that the Waterside Theater parking lot, Pear Pad Road and the utilities that run along it as well as the National Park Service employee housing on the southern side of the road are along segments of shoreline that have not been stabilized and are the most vulnerable.

The three alternatives were determined using data from previous related studies, evaluating existing topographic conditions, and assessing existing jurisdiction, and “A preferred alternative has not been selected to date,” he said.

He added that the environmental assessment “is being developed to analyze the impacts of each alternative to guide the selection of a preferred alternative based on environmental impacts to the historic site’s natural and cultural resources.”

An environmental assessment evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action and is required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Barber said that the environmental assessment is expected to be released for public review this summer with a goal of publishing the final version before the end of the year.

Barber said that if all goes as planned, it may be several years before project work begins.

“Prior to starting a project to stabilize the shoreline, we will need to finalize — with public feedback — the environmental assessment, enter into a contract to design the stabilization based on the selected alternative, and hire a contractor to perform the stabilization work,” he said.

Michael Flynn, physical scientist for the National Park Service, explained that while they don’t have an estimate of shoreline change since the 1940s, a1972 study reported that the northern end of Roanoke Island may have receded by as much as 928 feet from 1851 until 1970, losing around 7.25 feet a year, and 158 feet from 1903 to 1971, or around 2.32 feet a year.

More recent shoreline change rate data is provided within a park service technical assistance report published in 2010. That report describes the segmentation of the shoreline that took place because of stabilization methods employed between 1950-1980, Flynn said.

The report cites a 2003 study that estimates erosion rates for unmodified bluff segments between highly modified sediment bank shorelines is as high as 21 to 23 feet a year between 1969 and 1975, which motivated the riprap placement in 1980.

Natural rates of erosion along unmodified segments are estimated to be between 2 and 3 feet a year, with more severe rates of erosion located down drift of stabilization methods, Flynn explained.

Flynn said that the park is generally planning for a foot of sea level rise in the next 30 years based on the Sea Level Rise Technical Report released in 2022. He said park officials recognize that sea level rise will increase the frequency and magnitude of flooding and storm surge, exacerbating erosion and its impacts to resources and infrastructure.  

“Specific sea level rise scenarios used for engineering designs will be selected following the completion of the (environmental assessment),” he said.

The Department of the Navy and the Coast Guard have submitted a draft environmental impact study to carry on longstanding offshore training activities along the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and portions of the Caribbean Sea.

A 60-day public comment period on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement/overseas environmental impact statement, filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, began Friday.

Military officials prepared the draft statement to update and replace federal regulatory permits and authorizations set to expire November 2025 for offshore training.

The draft supplemental environmental impact statement “evaluates the reasonably foreseeable effects on the human environment of Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard training and testing activities conducted within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area.”

The study area includes the western Atlantic Ocean along the East Coast of North America, the Gulf of Mexico and portions of the Caribbean Sea. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental effects of their proposed activities.

The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard plan to conduct training, research, development, testing, and evaluation activities that include the use of active sonar and explosives within existing range complexes, testing ranges and other areas offshore. Those activities will also be conducted at Navy pierside locations and port transit channels, near civilian ports, and in bays, harbors and inland waterways, such as the lower Chesapeake Bay.

Officials said the training activities “are generally consistent with those analyzed in the AFTT EIS/OEIS completed in 2018 and are representative of training and testing that has been conducted in the AFTT Study Area for decades.”

Since the 2018 impact statement was completed, “the best available science has been updated, the regulatory environment has changed, the Study Area has changed, and what is known about our impacts has been refined,” officials said. The updated information has been incorporated into the new draft analysis.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service is a cooperating agency for the supplemental impact statement.

A NEPA website includes more about the project, and the public can view the draft supplemental statement and submit comments there. The documents are also available for review at the Onslow County Library, 58 E. Doris Ave., Jacksonville.

In-person open house public meetings are scheduled but none in North Carolina. However, virtual public meetings via Zoom are also scheduled for 6-7 p.m. Oct. 22 and 2-3 p.m. Oct. 24. There, people can learn about the project and ask questions.

Public comments may be submitted electronically via a form at this website.

Mail written comments to: Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Atlantic, Attention: Code EV22SG (AFTT EIS Project Managers), 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278.

All comments must be postmarked or received electronically by 11:59 p.m. Nov. 21 for consideration in the final supplemental impact statement.

A coalition of 17 environmental groups, including four from North Carolina, is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of changes to federal rules sought by the Trump administration they charge will gut environmental review.

Attorneys for Clean Air Carolina, MountainTrue, the Haw River Assembly and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, along with groups from Virginia, South Carolina and Alabama, filed a motion Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Charlottesville asking for a preliminary injunction to stop a major rule rewrite for the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

The coalition says the NEPA overhaul was rammed through without proper review under the Administrative Procedure Act and if allowed to take effect would erase major wetlands protections, ignore environmental justice concerns and eliminate consideration of cumulative impacts, including climate change.

Kym Hunter, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a lead counsel in the case, said the rule is being rushed into place and is written in a way that could affect both new projects and those that are already under review under the old rule.

“The rule will go into effect on September 14, 2020 and in addition to applying to new projects can apply to projects already in process,” Hunter said Wednesday in an email response to Coastal Review. “In many cases the changes will mean that a project is no longer subject to NEPA so we won’t even know what is happening.”

The motion cites several projects in North Carolina that are either under NEPA review or are soon to likely to be, including a port expansion and railroad realignment in Wilmington, the Mid-Currituck Bridge, N.C. 12 work, Chatham Parkway in a sensitive area of Chatham County and the Catawba Crossing Project in Gaston County.

A draft of the new NEPA rule, which includes 66 pages of changes, was proposed Jan. 10 by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In the 60-day comment period that followed, it drew more than 1 million comments. On July 15, four months after the close of the comment period, the council issued a new rule that very closely the mirrored the original.

Administration officials, including the president, have pushed for the changes.

In a Jan. 10 announcement in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Trump cited the Marc Basnight Bridge as an example of projects that took too long to build.

“We’ll not stop until our nation’s gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again,” Trump said. “It used to be the envy of the world, and now we’re like a third-world country.  It’s really sad.”

At the same ceremony, Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Mary Neumayr insisted that the new rule wouldn’t hurt environmental protections.

“The proposed rule would provide for a faster process while ensuring that agencies analyze and consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to address significant impacts,” she said. “Nothing in the proposal would eliminate the protections that Congress has enacted to safeguard our environment and the American people.”

The conservation groups challenging the rule say it will do exactly that and more, asserting that what is being billed as streamlining and “cutting red tape” in reality excuses agencies from considering long-term effects and cumulative effects, including those around climate change.

According to a brief in support of the injunction also filed Tuesday, “The elimination of the requirement to study indirect and cumulative effects will also lead to a host of other impacts being ignored, such as how multiple individually small impacts to wildlife habitat may force a species closer to the brink of extinction, how the cumulative combination of air pollution sources can exacerbate health problems in already-burdened low income communities, and how the indirect impacts of new development that results from the access created by a new highway may lead to air and water pollution, wetland degradation, increased traffic congestion, and more flooding.”

The challenge also warns that the new rule will lead to less public transparency and public input since the public relies on the NEPA process for information and updates on projects.

NEPA studies begin for rail project

Wilmington announced this week that the NEPA process had formally begun for a proposed route for a new freight line and crossing over the Cape Fear River near the state port. The plan is designed to eliminate the rail loop route through the city and improve rail service at the port.

Aubrey Parsley, director of the rail realignment project, said the Federal Railroad Administration, the lead agency for the project review, had yet to issue guidance on the new rule. Parsley said he did not expect it to change community outreach and review.

“The proposed rule changes have not affected our community outreach efforts yet. Public outreach has been a cornerstone of this project since the very beginning and it will continue to be. That said, we’re still learning about the proposed rule changes and are awaiting some further guidance from our lead agency, the FRA,” Parsley said, adding screening criteria for the project is still being developed.

Hunter said there will broad consequences of rushing the rule through.

“The rules apply to over one hundred federal agencies and implementation is going to be utter chaos,” she said. “Because we believe the rules will ultimately be declared illegal we think it is important the rules be enjoined before they start.”

Among the consequences is that the rule ultimately will lead to more delays and legal challenges.

“The Rule dislodges forty years of stable, established legal precedent,” according to the brief.

While the proposed plans to “modernize” the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, will fast track the permitting process for infrastructure, such as highway projects, it also opens the door for expedited approval of oil drilling off the North Carolina coast.

President Trump announced Thursday at the White House that his administration has from day one made “fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority.  And we want to build new roads, bridges, tunnels, highways bigger, better, faster, and we want to build them at less cost.

“That is why, for the first time in over 40 years, today we are issuing a proposed new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created these massive obstructions. Now, we’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly. And if it doesn’t pass, it’s going to not pass quickly. It doesn’t have to take 10 years or much longer than that.”

Signed into law Jan. 1, 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to calculate the environmental and related social and economic effects of proposed actions before making decisions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

A fact sheet on the proposed regulations states that NEPA applies to road, bridge, highway and airport construction, conventional and renewable energy production and distribution, electricity transmission, water infrastructure, broadband deployment and public land management.

Trump signed in 2017 an executive order for the Council On Environmental Quality, or CEQ, to review the current NEPA regulations “and modernize and accelerate the Federal environmental review and decision-making process,” per the White House.

CEQ issued last week the notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, “Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act” made available Friday on the Federal Register for public comments, which will be accepted through March 10.

The proposed changes will give industry executives and lobbyists more control while stripping away the voices of the communities and the citizens who have the most at stake, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“For three years, the Trump administration has launched misguided crusades against this critical environmental protection on the baseless belief that NEPA holds up progress. The opposite is true. NEPA makes big projects better, and saves taxpayers money when it exposes wasteful and reckless political boondoggles,” ” Senior Attorney Kym Hunter, who leads the law center’s team of attorneys defending NEPA, said in a statement.

Hunter explained to Coastal Review Online in an interview Friday that these rules affect any federal action such as the permitting process to build on wetlands on the coast, any time a new plant that would pollute the air or water is proposed, and not just big bridges and highways, but any changes to infrastructure, building and industry. These proposed changes would allow governments and industry to come in with no notice and affect communities without any accountability.

“Your average person takes for granted that when something is going to happen in their community, they know about it before it happens and they’ll have an opportunity to go to a public hearing or submit comments, but that will no longer be the case in some circumstances,” Hunter added.

Trump said Thursday that it can take more than 10 years to get a permit to build a road, if they get a permit at all, and the delays are because of big government.

“Your average person takes for granted that when something is going to happen in their community, they know about it before it happens and they’ll have an opportunity to go to a public hearing or submit comments, but that will no longer be the case in some circumstances.”

Kym Hunter, Southern Environmental Law Center

“For example, in North Carolina, it took 25 years to begin construction of the Marc Basnight Bridge,” he said as he listed projects across the country.

Hunter said that there’s nothing in the more than 100-page document that would have made the Bonner Bridge replacement project move any faster.

The Outer Banks is a complicated place to build infrastructure. Working the through complexities and compromising differing opinions is what took so long, she explained. “There’s nothing here in the proposed changes that would have sped that up.”

According to the state Department of Transportation, discussions to replace the Bonner Bridge began in 1989. ​The draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, which looks at the effect of construction on both the natural and human surroundings, was approved in 1993-94, followed by the release of the preferred alternative that would have the least environmental impact: a parallel bridge. From then until 2010, ​NCDOT continued studying the preferred alternative.

The department in December 2010 completed the final EIS, which was then submitted to and approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and then issued a Record of Decision, the final stage of the approval process. Then, environmental permits to allow the NCDOT begin the project were issued, according to the NCDOT timeline.

In July 2011, the same month a contract was awarded for the project, ​the Southern Environmental Law Center filed the first of two lawsuits, the second was in August 2013, on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge Association. In summer 2015, the parties to the case reached a settlement. Construction began on the replacement bridge in March 2016 and was completed in late 2019.

Bob Woodard, board of commissioners chairman for Dare County, where the bridge is located, attended the NEPA rollback announcement Thursday at the White House.

“It was an honor to be invited to the White House for the President’s infrastructure announcement. It is my hope that the proposed new rule will allow more timely construction of much-needed projects, which not only will improve our economy by creating jobs but will also ensure the safety of our residents and visitors,” Woodard said in a statement.

“It is my hope that the proposed new rule will allow more timely construction of much-needed projects, which not only will improve our economy by creating jobs but will also ensure the safety of our residents and visitors.”

Bob Woodard, Dare County Chairman

Hunter told Coastal Review Online that it was surprising to see the Dare County chairman with Trump during the announcement, considering the county’s stated opposition to offshore drilling and what this proposal would mean for offshore drilling and fast-tracking the permitting process.

“It would fast-track the process and take the public and transparency out of the process,” she explained.

Hunter cited numerous ways that the proposed changes could affect offshore drilling, including limiting the types of projects subject to review, and perhaps most importantly, the effect on climate change.

“One area that doesn’t have to be studied anymore is cumulative impact,” she said about the proposed changes. She noted that climate change is a cumulative impact, which is where multiple projects interact with one problem to cause another problem.

“This rule says you don’t have to look at that, so basically you don’t have to look at climate change,” she said.

The proposal would require examination of only direct impacts. With offshore drilling, that could exclude considering the impact of an oil spill, Hunter continued.

“Industry might argue that under the proposed rule, oil spills would also no longer need to be disclosed or considered because the proposal would limit consideration of indirect impacts,” Hunter said, adding that none of that information would be made available to the public or decision makers.

Hunter said that the proposed changes would allow a project proponent to do the environmental studies themselves without having to disclose any conflict of interest.

A spokesperson with the state Department of Environmental Quality told Coastal Review Online Friday that DEQ staff were reviewing the proposed rule and would need to determine the full impact before commenting.

According to the NEPA fact sheet, environmental impact statements for federal highway projects take an average of seven years to complete and are typically more than 600 pages. The proposed changes include putting a time limit of two years in place to complete an EIS and one year for less-rigorous environmental assessments. The changes also set a page limit and incorporate new standards for information sharing and public outreach.

“These proposed changes must undergo the established public review process for federal rulemaking before they are finalized. NCDOT will need to review all the proposed changes to better understand how these could impact transportation projects moving forward,” said Jamie Kritzer, assistant director of communications for NCDOT.

Hunter also expressed concern regarding the limitations on legal challenges of environmental reviews and the “arbitrary” page and time limits proposed.

“They’re essentially saying you have to do these documents in two years but we’re not going to give you any additional resources, we’re not going to do much to assist you in that,” she said. “These agencies are massively understaffed. The reason these documents take a while is because (agencies) are stripped of staff and resources.”

Other proposed changes include requiring earlier public input solicitation and “comments to be specific and timely to ensure appropriate consideration.” Also, agencies would be required to summarize alternatives, analyses and information submitted by commenters.

Hunter said she thinks all of the proposed changes to NEPA will lead to a lot of confusion.

“While overall, this would allow projects to be fast-tracked, but in the interim, it would create more confusion and slow things down,” she said.

Hunter said that the good news is that all submitted comments must be considered.

“I think there’s going to be a big public outcry and hopefully that will make the rule better or cause them to take a new look at it,” she said.

Comment on the proposed changes

Comments can be submitted by March 10 online, by fax to 202-456-6546, or by mail to Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503. Attn: Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003.

CEQ will host two public hearings in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.

Learn more about the NEPA changes and additional public engagement on the White House website.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, put out a notice Tuesday  that it is seeking public comments on potential changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, The Hill reported.

CEQ is the federal agency that oversees NEPA, which requires federal agencies to consider how its proposed actions will affect the environment.

The notice was published Wednesday in the Federal Register.  CEQ, in the notice, does not propose any rules or changes, rather it lists 20 questions related to the NEPA process and the scope of NEPA review. The public will have 30 days or until July 20, to comment.

The agency said in the notice  that CEQ has only once in the last 40 years amended the regulations, though it has issued several guidance documents. Because of the time since NEPA implementing regulations were issued, CEQ is looking for feedback on potential revisions to update the regulations.

The move to change NEPA was spurred in August 2017 when President Trump signed an executive order said to streamline the permitting process for highways, bridges and other infrastructure projects.

“NEPA is our nation’s bedrock environmental law, but it is also fundamentally a law about transparency,” said Southern Environmental Law Center attorney Kym Hunter in a release.  “For almost fifty years, NEPA has ensured that major decisions affecting the environment are not made behind closed-doors, but that all impacts are fully disclosed to the public, and that alternative solutions carefully examined. The Trump administration wants to take us back to a time where corporate polluters call the shots, communities are paved over without any input, and federal money is spent willy-nilly without any real plan or foresight.”

In a press release from the Congressional Western Caucus responding to the White House addressing NEPA regulations, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said, “Issued in 1978 and amended in 1986, the Executive’s NEPA regulations governing the law’s implementation have barely been touched since they were first put in place. Given how much we have learned about how the law plays out in practice since then – and how impactful these regulations are – this fact borders on outrageous.

“Accordingly, we look forward to working with the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality and other relevant federal entities to ensure that NEPA is implemented in a maximally efficient way. This restrictive law has been made far more onerous by executive decisions to bureaucratize rather than streamline its implementation, and it bodes well for our great companies and economy to see the President taking action here.”

Comments should be submitted on or before 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. To comment, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments to Docket ID No. CEQ-2018-0001.