Letter to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission on the General Permitting of bulkheads/revetments in the State's estuaries.

To: NC Coastal Resources Commission

I hope that you are safe and well during these interesting times. Please allow me to raise some concerns regarding the issuance of General Permits for bulkheads along our estuarine shorelines. I am a coastal geologist with 30 years of experience. I have served the State of North Carolina on the Coastal Resources Commission’s own Science Panel. I am also a Licensed Professional Geologist in the state.

The effects of seawalls (including bulkheads) are well understood. On eroding shorelines, the intertidal beach and/or marsh will disappear in front of the wall. In addition, during active storm events, wave diffraction and refraction causes increased scour on adjacent properties. This is the so-called “end effect.” Acknowledging the impacts that seawalls and bulkheads have on shorelines, the CRC and ultimately the NC legislature took unprecedented action to ban the structures from the oceanfront decades ago. It was wise and forward-looking policy.

Seawalls and bulkheads have the same impacts on our estuarine shores. Unfortunately, we have not made the same commitment to protecting these beaches and marshes. In fact, we made it easier to build walls through the General Permitting process. I don’t believe that we really understood the implications of literally walling off our thousands of miles of estuary. I do believe that the time has come to reconsider the wisdom of this approach and the impacts that construction of massive bulkheads may have on adjacent property owners.

The General Permitting process is patently unfair to neighboring property owners. Let’s be clear. If a property owner builds a large bulkhead, and the neighbor either chooses not to build a similar structure, or does not have the resources to do so, the neighbors will be harmed. It is interesting that the process requires that neighbors be notified, and that a signature is requested. But, if no signature is obtained or if the neighbors object, the permit is issued anyway. DCM staff have indicated to me that they are not required to evaluate any potential impacts that the bulkhead will have on adjacent property owners. The General Conditions for a General Permit (15A NCAC 07H .1104d) clearly states that a General Permit shall not be issued if there are unresolved questions concerning the proposed activity’s impact on adjoining properties. DCM staff have informed me that their “training” is to interpret the word “impact” not as the harm caused by the bulkhead; but rather, a simple examination of the footprint of the structure. Does it impinge on the neighbors’ property? This is a gross misinterpretation of the rule. Surely, the General Permitting process was not established to allow an applicant to increase erosion, property loss, and storm exposure on their neighbors when legitimate concerns are raised.

What then, is the recourse if your property will be harmed by a new bulkhead construction or bulkhead expansion under a General Permit? DCM staff clearly indicated to me that filing an appeal and potentially adjudicating the permit is the ONLY recourse. The burden of cost, stress, and time is placed on the harmed neighbor. There has to be a better way. Currently, a property owner may provide DCM with a scientific evaluation demonstrating that a neighbor’s structure has/or will cause increased erosion, and DCM can just ignore it. The response is “Y’all need more than a scientist. Y’all need to get you a lawyer too.” Ok, that wasn’t a direct quote. Neighbors should be able to raise legitimate, science-based objections without having to retain an attorney and without having to navigate a very confusing appeals process.

Finally, I do not want to belabor this point but, DCM permitting staff need to be a bit more sympathetic to the rights of all property owners. I understand that the primary clients of DCM are applicants desiring to protect their private property. As they carry out state rule and regulation the way they have been trained to, I hope they can also put themselves in the place of adjacent property owners who may not want to cause the environmental harm that we know, clearly, bulkheads cause. These property owners simply ask that their neighbors’ activities do not increase the risk to their property.

My recent interactions have led me to believe that at least some DCM staff believe bulkhead building is the first choice for coastal protection in the North Carolina estuaries. That may be where General Permits head us, but it is a problematic direction.

I urge you to investigate and reevaluate the way DCM interprets 15A NCAC 07H .1104d. I have tremendous respect for DCM staff and leadership, but I believe that they are off the mark here. They may argue that they do not have the capacity or expertise to evaluate the impacts to adjacent property owners, but that expertise can be developed. Certainly, the CRC, nor the courts have a higher level of expertise (since appealing to the CRC is the only option). I also believe that DCM grossly over-estimates the number of neighbor appeals they would have to handle. These complaints distract from the obvious meaning of the rule. Yes, General Permits are designed to make things easier on the agency, but they should not strip adjacent property owners of the right to reasonably petition against harm. The current process is not reasonable. It is burdensome. DCM could absolutely handle this with your support.

You should not place this great burden on the potentially injured property owner. That needs to be fixed. And ultimately, you should also reexamine the long-term harm that this easy General Permitting is causing our incredibly important estuaries.

 Thank you for your time and your service to our state.

 Sincerely

Robert S. Young, PhD, PG