Study on jetties “bloated,” Coastal Federation says
Virginian-Pilot photo
“It is full of ‘data’ that is useless in terms of evaluating the feasibility of building terminal groins,” Todd Miller, the executive director of the environmental group, said in a statement. “Any data that cannot be used to develop findings and conclusions need to be removed.”
Groins, or jetties, are widely supported by towns and counties battling erosion and shifting inlets along the North Carolina coast, but they are prohibited under state law. There are broad differences on whether they help build up beaches and protect inlets or encourage erosion and environmental damage.
The General Assembly mandated the study so that the Coastal Resources Commission can report back by April 1 with recommendations on whether to consider permitting the structures. It was released Feb. 1.
The draft study by Moffatt and Nichol looked at five terminal groins, including the one on the south end of Oregon Inlet. It compiled economic and environmental data as well as engineering details of their construction.
While the draft report made no recommendations, its purpose under the legislation was to gather data. In examining the economic impact of shifting inlets and erosion, it put dollar values on property at risk over 30 years around several inlets along the coast, but focused only on the Bonner Bridge replacement project at Oregon Inlet.
It contains hundreds of pages of data and charts, much of it highly technical.
The Coastal Federation said it depended on historical data that did not take into account sea-level rise.
Nags Head officials see a terminal groin on the north end of Oregon Inlet as serving a dual purpose: slowing the migration of the inlet south and holding sand on the beach to the north. In a December hearing in Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head Mayor Bob Oakes advocated a second groin as another tool in the town’s beach nourishment efforts.
There is also discussion of a jetty at the south end of South Nags Head, but that would not be likely to fit the technical definition of a terminal groin. The Dare County Board of Commissioners has also supported legislation allowing exceptions to the ban on terminal groins.
Sand buildup south of the groin at Oregon Inlet has been well documented. While the buildup has served to protect the south end of the Bonner Bridge as it was intended to do, Jan DeBlieu, Cape Hatteras coastkeeper for the Coastal Federation, said in the December hearing that the sand has smothered vegetation and habitat.
“The Coastal Federation feels strongly that the best way to control or manage a barrier island is to allow it to be open and natural,” she said at the hearing.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Question says:
Jan DeBlieu, NCCF states “The Coastal Federation feels strongly that the best way to control and manage a barrier island is to allow it to be open and natural.”
Translation: “The Coastal Federation feels strongly (willing to sue) that the best way to control and manage a barrier island is to allow it to be open (no houses, villages, roads, bridges, etc) and natural (no driving on the beach, no development thus no jobs, no access to Pea Island, etc). They have partnered in many lawsuits with the Southern Environmental Law Center, Defenders of the Environment, and other radical groups focused on destroying the rights of Outer Bankers.
Secondly, (the federation) states that the report “depended on historical data and did not take into account sea-level rise.” The Duck Research Pier is one of the “it” places that measures sea-level: been measuring it for decades with the best equipment. The government uses the measurements from Duck Research and other facilities to determine normal water level and sea-level. The change over the decades is insignificant. Why does NCCF discount this historical data? I will check with the pier and post the data tomorrow on the change in sea level at this location. I guess the data that Jan and NCCF wants one to use is from those researches who were found to be manipulating the facts concerning “global warming”.
Bert says:
Unfortunately, the NCCF has lost any real focus on finding solutions. They do not have the interest of the public or public rights in mind. They have joined the other so called “environmental groups” that do not believe people in any capacity should come to the beach. We (people) live here, vacation here, raise families, work and offer tourism that suppports the state. It is my opinion, the NCCF is NOT an enviromental group but rather a special “interest group” that cannot see the people for the turtles, birds and plants. Get a grip NCCF – be part of a solution and not the root of the problem.