NCSBPA to Pilkey

This article appeared in the September 23, 2001 Edition of the Charlotte Observer Newspaper. The NCSBPA response is highlighted in red type.

North Carolina Shore & Beach Preservation Association Answers Orrin Pilkey With Facts

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Charlotte Observer, The (NC),September 23, 2001,Section: OPINION, Edition: ONE-THREE, Page: 6D,Column: For The Record

THROWING DOLLARS AT BEACHES BEACH NOURISHMENT USES PUBLIC MONEY TO SAVE HOMES OF THE WEALTHY

ORRIN H. PILKEY & ANDREW S. COBURN, Special To The Observer

The title of this piece deserves the first comment. North Carolina’s beaches are largely family beaches with comfortable and often quaint single family cottages. While these homes are owned by all sorts of folks from all over the US and Canada, the vast majority are owned by industrious North Carolinians who have been going to the beach for decades and who often rent them to others from all over North Carolina and the US to help pay for maintenance and taxes. Hard working, but hardly wealthy.

North Carolina is in political turmoil over how to handle beach erosion.

Not true. Orrin Pilkey and his trainees constantly try to stir up political turmoil but North Carolinians are moving forward with modern, effective plans to deal positively with the issues of beach erosion and storm damage reduction.

As always, beachfront property owners are in the center of the turmoil, because it's their buildings that are threatened. It is also their buildings that create the problem: No buildings next to the beach, no erosion problem. Natural beaches never need salvation.

Not true. Dredging of inlets and lack of beach maintenance have impacted stretches of beaches where no houses (or other structures) exist, making them dangerously impassable for the beach walkers and fishermen at high tide. Beach walking and sport fishing are widespread public uses of North Carolina beaches.

The beach nourishment juggernaut is roaring out of control. If N.C. Sen.Marc Basnight, D-Dare, has his way, the rush won't stop until every developed beach in the state is nourished.

Not true. We're not aware of anyone (let alone an elected official) who supports nourishing every developed beach in the state. There are many miles of developed beaches that will likely never be part of a long-term nourishment project, nor should they be.

But the cost is high. A recently approved Outer Banks beach nourishment project is estimated to cost $1.8 billion over 50 years for only 14 miles of beach.

Not true. $71.7 million is the initial construction cost for this project. The average annual cost for beach nourishment and the all-important physical and biological monitoring totals $12.6 million/year. If you multiply this average annual cost by 50 years, the cost for nourishment during the life of the project totals $630 million. Adding the total first cost to the total cost for nourishment over the 50-year project life yields an approximate total project cost closer to $701.7 million, not $1.8 billion .

That's a subsidy of more than $30,000 per oceanfront house each year for 50 years.

Not true. The Dare County project provides protection to more than just the front row of development over the 50-year project life. The total number of structures included in the structural data base for the Dare County project was 4,991, 541 of which were commercial structures (motel, businesses, and condos). Approximately one-half of the structures are located within the first two oceanfront rows. In the areas to be protected by the project, a total of 1,148 structures are located on the oceanfront row, 63 of which are large motels and condos. The cost is closer to $2,800 per protected structure, not $30,000. And that does not even count the enormous value to the local and regional economy.

Ironically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' own numbers show that, in the long run, it would be cheaper to buy and remove these Outer Banks beachfront properties than to continue to nourish the beach every three years as planned.

Not true. The Corps estimated that the cost of moving structures off of just the oceanfront row and relocating them to some inland position was about $300 million. This assumed that there would be someplace to move the structures, which obviously is not the case. Also, no costs were included for removing or relocating infrastructure (roads, electric, water, sewer, storm drains, telephone, cable TV, etc.). This was just the first cost, which should be compared to the first cost of constructing the beach project ($71.7 million). With the possibility of continued erosion, most of the second row would probably have to be removed during the 50-year evaluation period. Also, simply moving structures off of the first row would not prevent damage to the second and third rows, these structures would still sustain damage due to storms.

There are other problems with beach nourishment in North Carolina:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently decided to loan Indian Beach and Pine Knoll Shores almost $12 million - nearly half of a special hurricane disaster relief fund allocated to North Carolina - to nourish their beaches. That means dozens of rural communities devastated by the 1999 hurricanes will now be deprived of the chance to rebuild damaged libraries, schools and other essential community facilities.

Not true. The USDA is buying the bonds at a rate of 5.125%. It is a loan at a competitive rate and is in no way a grant. The commitment of these funds will not deprive anyone else. The USDA has met all funding requests for flood and disaster relief and still had these funds available for restoring Indian Beach and Pine Knoll Shores beaches that were certainly impacted severely by Hurricane Floyd. The federal government will make quite a bit of money off of the citizens of these two towns in bond interest payments while at the same time getting the public beaches restored.

Even though federal money is involved, the nourished beach serves no public need, since the public will be unable to access it.

Not true. There are public access points in the proposed beach restoration project area, in both towns, plus a 25 acre state park in the Salter Path part of the project area. And of course, the entire beach is public.

The so-called "sea turtle habitat restoration project" on Oak Island makes it the first beach anywhere nourished by the Army Corps of Engineers under the category of "habitat restoration." Because of the corps' lack of supervision, dredge operators spewed large quantities of rock on the beach.

Not true. There is no fact to support the statement that USACE did not properly supervise the dredge operators thereby allowing the "spewing" of large quantities of rock. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources unequivocally states that the amount of rock is "minimal" and that the material placed on the beach "meets all applicable requirements."

If sea turtles were the real concern, the money spent on Oak Island would instead be spent on Florida beaches, where thousands, instead of about a hundred, turtles nest each year.

Not true. Sea turtles are the real and only concern of this project. Labeling the project "so-called" directly contradicts both the name of the project and the well-documented research that went into the undertaking. Several years of evaluation of many different alternatives led to the decision that nourishing the beach was the best, least expensive way to restore the lost habitat. Removing houses was considered as an option -- it would not have achieved the objective and was far more expensive. North Carolina sea turtles are just as valuable as Florida turtles. They are different populations. The US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service all agreed on the need for the project and all participated in developing the project.

We doubt if many in Oak Island were as concerned with "restoring habitat" as with getting an essentially free beach nourishment project to save what houses Hurricane Floyd had spared.

Not true. Oak Island citizens paid over $1.6 million dollars directly, added to the $5 million federal share and the $2.99 million state share for this $9.6 million project. Hardly free!

Beach nourishment proponents now propose to link shoreline retreat and mountain air pollution. Trying to gain legitimacy for beach nourishment by attaching it to a real environmental problem is disingenuous. Air quality in North Carolina's mountains is indeed a serious environmental problem. Shoreline retreat, on the other hand, is a natural phenomenon in response to sea level rise, and is only a problem for a small number of beachfront property owners.

Not true. Both issues pertain to quality of life for North Carolina's citizens. The erosion of the air due to man's activities is no different from the erosion of beaches due to man's activities, one of those being inlet dredging which is hardly a natural phenomenon. Healthy air and healthy beaches are both worthwhile goals.

The problems caused by shoreline retreat can be solved at much lower cost to taxpayers by moving buildings.

Not true. Studies have shown that moving buildings to comparable sites is more expensive than nourishing beaches. If relocating or buying-out buildings was so economically feasible, many more communities would do it. We are not aware of any coastal community in the United States that has taken Pilkey's advice.

The flames are being fueled by a recent state legislative research commission that focused exclusively on protecting beachfront property rather than on the concerns and interests of the state citizenry as a whole. The commission's final report was so biased on beach nourishment that it was virtually unacceptable in terms of cost estimates and failure to consider environmental problems. Legislation based on the work of this flawed commission is in the state legislative hopper.

Not true. Contrary to the Pilkey/Coburn assertions, the record of the Committee's hearings is replete with the testimony of those who questioned the use of beach nourishment as a means of addressing shoreline migration. Indeed an examination of the Hearing record will show that noted East Carolina University coastal geologist Dr. Stan Riggs, not known for advocating shoreline development or stabilization, was one of the Committee's first speakers. And there were many others. Pilkey was not among them although he was invited, according to co-chairman Ray Sturza, on 3 separate occasions and the issue was apparently not important enough for him to include the Committee meetings on his schedule.

North Carolina needs a long-term look at the future of its beaches by an objective body.

Finally we agree on something. The North Carolina General Assembly will take up House Bill 418 in the spring of 2002 which will provide for exactly this, a long term look at the future of North Carolina's beaches.

Meanwhile, we should require public access on all beaches nourished with public funds and require density restrictions and zoning on such beaches.

Federal and State laws already require public access on beaches nourished with Federal and State funds. And why should coastal towns be treated differently from any other towns receiving infrastructure help partially using Federal and/or State funds? Density and zoning are local government matters and should stay that way.

Beach nourishment is nothing more than a way to save the homes of the wealthy who were stupid enough to build along an eroding shoreline.

Orrin Pilkey is renowned for his fanatical zealotry but to refer to any citizens of North Carolina as "stupid" suggests that he has really gone over the edge now. It seems likely that Duke University may have to take a hard look at his program and position there.

Orrin H. Pilkey is director and Andrew S. Coburn is a research associate in the Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. Contact them at the Division of Earth & Ocean Sciences, Duke University, 103 Old Chemistry Building, Durham, N.C. 27708.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------