AN INITIAL UPDATE FROM THE VILLAGE SHORELINE PROTECTION COMMMITTEE;

Transcription

1 T h e V il l a g e V o ic e AN INITIAL UPDATE FROM THE VILLAGE SHORELINE PROTECTION COMMMITTEE; The beaches of Bald Head Island are critical to the stakeholders of the island from an environmental, aesthetic and an economic standpoint. Without healthy and sustainable beaches, the vitality of the Bald Head experience and investment is compromised. The purpose of this brief communication is to: - Update BHI stakeholders on the current state of the beaches; Present ent issues which impact success in protecting our shoreline; Detail efforts made to-date date and still on on-going to confront the erosion challenge; Consider what s ahead. WHERE WE STAND: Despite years of work and effort by the Village Council, Village S Staff, taff, and Committee volunteers, the state of our beaches remains fragile. So far, our best efforts have yet to yield the optimal outcomes in many instances due to a variety of reasons. Man-made made erosion due to the creation of the Cape Fear River Channel bby y the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to access the Port of Wilmington remains the key focus. Based on research and studies by scientists, coastal engineers, and other experts, the Channel adversely impacts the beaches closest to it, specifically South Sou Beach, The Point, and West Beach. Moreover, it has interrupted the natural littoral flow of sand from sources west of BHI. Thus, the vitality of those beaches is directly linked to the development and maintenance of the USACE navigation Channel. Moree detailed information is presented in the Mayor s response to Monitoring Report No. 7 on the Village website: The Cape Fear River inlet is naturally a shallow water inlet that has be been en substantially altered by the USACE. The current authorized depth of 44 feet is three times deeper than the natural river channel and the Channel width, 650 feet in some areas, is much wider than the natural river Channel. The Corps expansion of the navigation vigation Channel to deep water levels has added significant instability to the river inletinlet including the neighboring BHI beaches. USACE dredging has stabilized the location of the Channel in one location but has resulted in significant changes and instab instability ility in the movement of sand within the inlet as nature attempts to rere establish equilibrium. That may be impossible considering the current and projected dimensions of the navigation Channel within the narrow opening between BHI and Ft. Caswell. Accelerated man-made made erosion directly attributable to the dredging of the Channel puts our beaches at great risk. The USACE maintains the Channel to specific width and depth dimensions to accommodate ships going and coming from Wilmington and Sunny Point. This dredging, at times only yards from our shoreline, cuts into the toe of the island, greatly increasing the pace and severity of the consequential erosion. As a remedy, the Village, and three other communities, negotiated the Sand Management Plan in BHI also resolved litigation it brought against the USACE with a Settlement Agreement in March, 2005, regarding certain sand placement, ongoing studies, and communication. Under the Sand Management Plan, the USACE agreed to dredge the channel on a six-year year cycle with three dredging events, each two years apart. The Sand Management Plan specified BHI would get sand from the first two successive bi-annual bi dredging events and Caswell Beach and Oak Island would get sand from the third dredging. This arrangement ar was to be reviewed if a problem occurred or upon completion of the cycle. However, lack of federal funds for dredging in 2004 and 2010 have delayed the cycle and it is only now being reviewed at the ten year mark. Also, because of

2 insufficient federal funds in the 2007 dredging event, the Village and State were called upon to partially underwrite the costs. Furthermore, in 2009 a serious problem, which had been anticipated, was encountered. Based on the six-year cycle, BHI received sand in 2005 and 2007 (see table below). Year Volume Location /- Mcy Cape Fear Trail to Sea Holly Trail /- Mcy Cape Fear Trail to Coquina /- Mcy Cape Fear Trail to Muscadyne /- Mcy South Beach (Sta to ) /- Mcy South Beach (Sta to ) ,800 cy West Beach (Sta to 34+00) /- Mcy South Beach (Sta to ) Caswell Beach/ Oak Island received sand in Although BHI was due to receive sand again in 2011, by early 2009, our beaches required nourishment. In fact, we now believe, absent any intervening factor such as a structure or Channel relocation our beaches require nourishment at a minimum every two years. Having anticipated we could not go four years without sand nourishment, our Village Council, successfully executed an engineered beach strategy, whereby taxpayers purchased 1.5 million cubic years of sand, financed through General Obligation Bonds. The sand source was nearby Jay Bird Shoals, rather than the Channel itself. This sand countered the severe erosion related to the Corps 2009 dredging effort. But the damage from the 09 dredging was severe, tragically losing some landmark dunes, private property, and public infrastructure. Beyond the much needed protection the engineered beach sand provided our threatened beaches, BHI was to receive its normal two year cycle of sand under the SMP during the early months of However, the USACE did not receive funds under the Federal Budget to pay for this contractual obligation and the available dredging funds went to Channel locations perceived by the Corps, Pilots, and State Port Authority as a greater threat to navigation. Disappointingly, the efforts of our US Senate and Congressional Representatives did not succeed in getting deserved funding through the appropriation processes. This means we are at risk until nourishment reoccurs. ISSUES IMPACTING THE OUTCOME: Sand Supply: A barrier island is, by nature, an unstable body. Every healthy barrier island requires viable and sustainable sand sources for its nourishment and maintenance. The natural littoral flow of sand from Caswell Beach to Bald Head was permanently interrupted and halted by the USACE navigation Channel. Without a sand supply from a natural source of sand, BHI is vulnerable to the ravages of nature and man alike. There are some potential sand sources within feasible distance of our beaches, including Jay Bird Shoals, Bald Head Island Shoals, Smith Island Shoals and even Frying Pan Shoals. These built-up, sand laden shoals serve as natural protectors of BHI, absorbing the energy of wind, tide, currents, and waves. Under normal circumstance, Bald Head Island Shoals would naturally nourish South and West Beaches, but as sediment movement from west to east is interrupted, because of the deepened Channel, the protecting shoals are diminished, resetting the critical dynamics of erosion including the volume and the depth of water, the tidal flow intensity, the water velocity, and the water current. These changing dynamics help explain the carving of sand off of our beaches.

3 T h e V il l a g e V o ic e Groins Geotextile, Timber, and otherwise: BHI does have man-made made structures near The Point and north of the Harbor entrance designed to reduce and retard erosion and to stabilize the beaches. Currently, we have sixteen non-permanent permanent geotextile groins, recently reconstructed as part of the engin engineered eered beach project and four timber groins, soon to be repaired. Additionally, there are a significant number of temporary sandbags buried alongside South Bald Head Wynd to protect Village infrastructure. It is presently unclear whether or not an engin engineered eered permanent structural solution could protect our beaches while making the Channel more navigable by reducing the rate of sand loss. Although this type of hardened terminal groin or jetty is not, as a general rule, allowed in North Carolina by existi existing ng statute, Bald Head Island may have such a structure for navigation Channel purposes. Also, channel jetties exist, and appear to function well, at several North Carolina locations. It is hoped that studies underway will provide the data and modeling with which to examine this option. Section 216 Study: Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorizes the Corps to review existing projects and make reports to Congress when found advisable due to significantly changed physical or economic omic conditions, or for improving the quality of the environment in the overall public interest. The USACE has given us the good news their Initial Appraisal of the Channel has led to the positive finding that a Reconnaissance Study should be conducte conducted. d. That may lead to a Full Feasibility Study of implementing solutions to problems at Channel segments near BHI. This has the potential to offer both the Corps and Bald Head Island solutions to problems related to the Channel. The Reconnaissance Study Study report is expected to issue in December That report will merely determine whether or not there is sufficient federal interest to proceed to a Feasibility Study. Sand Management Plan Modifications: The current Sand Management Plan is being reviewed revi at present by the USACE, with its report to issue in late April 2011, as part of Monitoring Report 8. This is a potentially positive milestone for BHI, if it is determined that changes in sand management should be made to benefit BHI beaches. Sufficient nt data should be available to more precisely inform the judgment of what the Channel s proportional impact is between communities and what adjustments are needed. Other beach communities are stakeholders in this process and will provide input, along with BHI. (Bald Head Island, Oak Island, Caswell Beach, and Holden Beach). Competing Priorities: As we are seeing from this year s absence of federal dredging funding, dredging and management of the Channel near BHI depends on adequate funding. This must be obtained on an on-going on basis through the Federal budget or through the appropriations process. Due to funding scarcity, it is subject to project prioritizing by the Corps. This means the NC Ports Authority and the Corps may judge the need for Channel dredging as less pressing than other projects for which they seek funding, putting them in possible opposition to our Island s interests. Additionally, the amount of sand in the Channel at the time of funding is sought can make a difference, as the Corp does not dredge the Channel in order to give BHI sand; it does so to remove sand that could be a hindrance to navigation. Village Affordability: The financing of the recent engineered beach project demonstrates clearly how expensive it is for our Villagee to underwrite the costs of beach nourishment. It is both expensive and unaffordable on a regular basis. Placing this financial burden on the Government is appropriate, since it is their Channel operated and maintained for national and State interest interestss related to both defense and commerce. The remedy for collateral damage inflicted on our island by such operation and maintenance should be the responsibility of the Corps.

4 Future Expansion of Navigation: If the Channel is deepened and widened in order to accommodate future Federal navigational requirements, it is likely that inlet instability, Channel shoaling, and beach erosion will worsen, if not remedied. Relocation of the Channel further away from BHI or a precisely-engineered marine structure could lessen the impact but these approaches may have other consequences not understood at this point. Computer modeling efforts might provide insight to these solution options. Environmental Impact: The area surrounding the navigation channel is a pristine environmental treasure: thousands of acres between the developed portion of BHI and the Ft. Fisher Recreation Area are protected areas controlled by preservation orders. The Wilmington Harbor Project, including the expansion and re-alignment of the Channel in 2000, had known adverse environmental impact to BHI beaches that, ten years later, is still being mitigated by the Corps. The implication of the Channel relative to the environment is an important concern. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE TO PROTECT THE ISLAND: In the face of a daunting and complex situation, one with dozens of elements to understand and manage, the Village has taken an aggressive approach to protect our shoreline, including the following measures: Shoreline Protection Manager Position: Chris McCall, Assistant Village Manager, was appointed Shoreline Protection Manager earlier this year. He acts as a liaison with the USACE, works with our coastal engineering consultant, as well as with our attorneys and lobbyists. Additionally, Chris oversees all beach-related projects, stays in effective contact with the many State agencies with jurisdictional authority, and works to keep the Village Council and the Village Shoreline Protection Committee informed on all matters related to the beach and its protection. Village Shoreline Protection Committee: The Village Shoreline Protection Committee (VSPC) is a standing committee charged by the Village Council to lead the efforts to protect our beaches. Comprised of seven volunteer members, Mayor Sayre and Councilman Douglas as liaison members, and Shoreline Protection Manager, Chris McCall, the committee meets twice monthly and on an as needed basis. The VSPC consults with and advises the Village on issues affecting the beach and has aggressively explored a wide variety of approaches to our erosion problem. Pursuit of Funding / Influencing Opinion: The Village engaged the services of two separate lobbying organizations for both State and Federal issues. Working with these consultants and with the Village legal team, we aggressively pursued FY2011 funding for dredging and other shoreline protection related purposes. Funds for operation and maintenance dredging, although included in the USACE budget request, was not part of the Presidential budget created by the Office of Budget and Management. Similarly, efforts by our elected Congressional and Senate representatives did not produce appropriations that would fund the government contractual obligations to maintain the Channel. On a more positive note, through the efforts of Senator Hagan, $600,000 is currently ear-marked for funding important Channel studies. As the final budget has not yet been approved, this appropriation is not a certainty. In addition to these efforts to be included in the budget and in that absence, in an appropriation, the Committee is working with the Village Finance Committee to find alternative funding through State and county sources. Going forward, stakeholders should expect to be urged to contact those individuals and organizations who might support our island s interests. Such grass roots lobbying can be an effective tool. Negotiations with USACE: Continuing discussions with the Army Corp of Engineers have produced mixed results. Ongoing and cooperative efforts include the study of concerns about the Channel through Section 216 and potential modifications to the Sand Management Plan. However, there are significant conflicting views on causation, contractual obligations, and solutions. If meaningful success is not achieved through continuing negotiations, more forceful legal remedies will be considered on a timely basis.

5 T h e V il l a g e V o ic e Timber Groin Repairs: The Village, in partnership with BHI Ltd and the Harbor Association, has started the process of repairing the wooden groins oins placed on west beach, north of the entrance to the harbor. These protective devices have deteriorated markedly and the permit is being secured and the repair logistics arranged to restore their effectiveness. Dredging Bald Head Creek: As there is no funding for the Corps maintenance dredging of the Channel this cycle, depriving BHI of beach nourishment, the Village is in the final phase of securing the necessary permits to dredge no more than 100,000 cubic yards of sand from the mouth of Bald Head C Creek. reek. This amount of sand is only a fraction of what we otherwise would expect from cyclical SMP nourishment. However, it could be helpful in an emergency situation to limit the damage from storm storm-related related erosion threatening homes or infrastructure. Opposition to the NCIT: Following a thorough review of the likely impact upon BHI of the North Carolina International Terminal (NCIT), a mega--port port at Southport, including consultation with all key BHI groups, the Village joined several other area beach comm communities unities in opposition to the proposed NCIT. Communications: The Village has appointed a standing Communications Committee to facilitate better and more effective communications with all stakeholders. Efforts are underway to develop an e listing for each BHI property owner that will become the key link for electronic communications. Improving this direct link between the Village and its stakeholders will help maximize our chance for success in protecting our shoreline. WHAT S AHEAD? Winter 2011: First, without the sand we expected from the cyclical nourishment this winter, we face a difficult period, forcing us to rely on good fortune to keep damaging storms away or to a minimum. While we have had mild winters in the past, reality suggests we ccould ould have some damage to both private property and public infrastructure. The severe erosion of winter 09 was caused not by seasonal storms as much as by the dredging of the Channel mere yards from our shore, with sand placement at Oak Island/ Caswell Beach Be under the terms of the SMP. It is some consolation, but not much, that no such dredging into the toe of our island will happen this winter. Bald Head Creek: As mentioned in this article, the Village expects to have a permit to dredge the entrance to Bald ald Head Creek, harvesting no more that 100,000 cubic yards. This is roughly 1/15th of the sand we would otherwise expect to receive from our normal cyclical nourishment and will be of limited remedy to address hot spots as they appear. Shoaling: The Corp of Engineers mission fixes their attentions on maintaining the Channel for commercial and defense shipping, not on placing sand on depleted beaches flanking the Channel. Our review of the publicly available data suggests the Channel is reaching its ssaturation aturation point for sand density, beyond which it hinders navigation and poses a threat to shipping. If that point is reached prior to the next normally scheduled dredging, the Corp would have to respond quickly in an expedient emergency manner, by by-passing ing normal process and funding sources. Conceptually, such a status could bend to our favor with our beaches being a preferred destination of sand removed by hopper dredge on an urgent basis. But such a sequence of events cannot be relied upon.

6 Section 216 of WRDA: The USACE has given us the good news their Initial Appraisal of the Channel has led to a positive finding that further study is needed. Accordingly, the next step in the process is to move forward with a Reconnaissance Study which may lead to a Feasibility Study. This Section 216 process offers legitimate hope for a meaningful middle-to-long term solution. The Corps has advised the Village that it has the funds necessary to complete the Reconnaissance Study. Additionally, money identified in a $600,000 appropriation, secured through the efforts of Senator Hagan, may fund other important studies related to our shoreline protection. While the time frame from start to finish may be five years or more, implementing a solution to the beach erosion problem makes this a positive development. SMP 10 Year Review: The ten year review and related modifications to the SMP are other potentially positive developments in this effort. We expect to be given some glimpse into the Corps thinking early in Of course, improving the terms of a contract that can be easily avoided by failure to fund the dredging obligation still leaves us vulnerable without a permanent remedy such as a structured solution or moving the Channel. Recognizing the importance of securing O&M funding annually, the Village has intensified its lobbying efforts with sharper and better strategies informed by our experience. We are working on timely basis to be funded under the President s budget put together by the Office of Management and Budget, considering such inclusion a preferred result to competing for appropriation or ear-marked money. In either case, economic realities and trends suggest no easy access to money going forward. Alternative Funding: Another summary point to mention is the effort to seek alternative funding from the State of North Carolina and from Brunswick County. Considering the essential economic contributions made by the beach communities, in general, and Bald Head Island, in particular, supporting these economics engines is a matter of self-interest to the State and county. Suffice it to say, there is a tremendous inequity between funding rendered to Brunswick County by Bald Head Island and what is returned. A strategy to present our case effectively is being considered. Legal Action: The final point to share relates to any legal action undertaken by the Village to protect its interests. As is publicly known, the Village, through its attorneys, has provided appropriate notice to certain parties of the potential to file suit and this remains an option. However, it is not appropriate to share details of such tactical thinking in this particular news piece. All of the individuals drawn together in this effort remain committed to do all they can to protect the shoreline of Bald Head Island and to preserve and enhance the quality of the Bald Head Island experience for its stakeholders. Your input and support throughout this process is very important, and you are encouraged to keep abreast of the issue and activity through the Village website, By going to the section for the Village Shoreline Protection Committee, you can read the minutes of the Committee meetings, all of which are open to the public, and other documents. You can express your views easily by to any of the Committee members directly or by village@villagebhi.org.