HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061048 Ver 1_Public Comments_20060801~ix[~e ~rtt6ersi#~
DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
27708
July 27, 2006
Mr. Floyd Williams, State Mining Specialist
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650
l..'! , ~ + r 9.._..' I
_~
~..~t
cur; g g zoos
l~~L~4^}~~ S .. .`~~l 2a [~\.` il~.i~. x",..14
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Avon/Kinnakeet Mine Expansion/Water
Quality Variance Request. The following comments regarding the aforementioned project are
submitted on behalf of the Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines.
After reviewing the document entitled "Avon/Kinnakeet Sand Mine Permit Expansion Application:
EMC recLuest or Exemption from NC Water Quality Standards" we have serious concerns regarding
the environmental and geological impacts of the proposed project, and believe a number of critical
permitting/jurisdictional/regulatory issues remain unresolved. For these reasons, in addition to the fact
that barrier islands should never be mined for sand, it is our professional opinion that this project
receive neither an exemption from NC Water Quality Standards (from the EMC) nor a permit for
expansion (from the NC Division of Land Resources).
Of critical importance here is the potential cumulative impacts that this, and other related, projects are
having -and will continue to have -upon the long-term sustainability of coastal ecosystems along
North Carolina's Outer Banks. It is imperative that the state, when allowing natural resources to be
impacted (as this project will), thoroughly evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of its actions and
decisions. We see no indication that the potential long-term cumulative impacts of the proposed
project have been considered, which is especially critical in light of the fact that neither the US Army
Corps of Engineers nor the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) claims to have regulatory
jurisdiction over the proposed project.
Based on project documentation, however, it appears as though the project will impact an Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC), as defined in CAMA, and is therefore subject to the CAMA Major
Development Permit Process. In addition, § 113-229 of the NC General Statutes states that before any
excavation or filling project is begun in any estuarine waters, tidelands, marshlands, or State-owned
lakes, the party or parties desiring to do such shall first obtain a permit from the Department. Because
this project impacts marshland, as defined in § 113-229, it is also subject to the state permitting
process.
PSD6
PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES
Printed on recycled paper
DCM must reevaluate it's jurisdictional delineation determination, or this project will take
advantage of a regulatory/development loophole that, in theory and possibly in practice,
may allow vast segments of coastal wetlands to be permanently altered and degraded
without any federal or state oversight.
In addition to the environmental and regulatory/jurisdictional problems associated with this
project (discussed in detail in the attached comments) we find no compelling evidence or
reason why the proposed project should receive either a variance from existing state
Wetland Water Quality Standards or a modification to add 11.62 acres of land to an
existing mining permit. The only justification provided in project-related documentation is
reduced sand transportation costs, which, in our opinion, are dubious at best. Alternative,
mainland sand sources should be identified and evaluated before a variance is granted to
impact valuable coastal wetlands.
In conclusion, we believe this project should receive neither a variance from the El`~~C rcr
a permit from the NC Division of Land Resources.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact the Program if you have any
questions or concerns.
Orrin Pilkey
Andy Coburn
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment & Earth Sciences
Durham, NC, 27708
919 684 4238
Comments on the Avon/Kinnakeet Sand Mine Expansion
By Orrin Pilkey (opilkey@duke.edu) and
Andy Coburn (acoburn@duke.edu)
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment
Durham, NC, 27708
919 684 4238
SUMMARY
Barrier islands should never be mined for sand. Removing sand - in any fashion or form on
a large or small scale from the Outer Banks -should not be allowed. The proposed
Avon/Kinakeet sand mine expansion should not be permitted.
Barrier islands are very active sand bodies that need all the sand they can get to respond to
storms, build dunes and marshes and widen or narrow according to the whims of the sea.
In a longer-term sense, sand is essential as these islands respond to sea level rise. Marshes
fringing the back barriers, in particular, should not be mined because of their immense
value to estuarine ecosystems. The proposed Avon/Kinnakeet mine involves the removal
of a coastal marsh.
Mining sand from one part of a barrier island for storm protection and/or response on
another part is an egregiously unsustainable and shortsighted approach; akin to robbing
Peter to pay Paul. The state is trying to do it on the cheap. If sand is needed, it should be
obtained from off-island sources and transported on island by truck or barge.
COMMENTS
The Outer Banks of North Carolina are particularly low and narrow islands with relatively
small sand volumes. In comparison to Bogue Banks and western Shackelford Banks in
North Carolina, the Georgia Sea Islands and the Dutch/German Frisian Islands, the Outer
Banks are downright tiny. This means that removing sand from them can have a relatively
large impact.
Elsewhere, relatively large-scale sand mining has been carried out on a number of barrier
islands in the past. One of the nourishment projects in front of the Cape Hatteras
Lighthouse used sand obtained from the Cape proper, resulting in the elongate pond there.
The sand was dumped on the beach where it completely disappeared within 2 years. The
beach on Edisto Island, South Carolina was nourished in the 1950s using very shelly and
muddy sand obtained from the backside interior of the island. Hunting Island State Park
was nourished in 1991 by excavating a large channel in the center part of the island. The
resulting artificial beach on this rapidly eroding island was completely gone within 3 years.
Now the retreating shoreline on Hunting Island is coming close to connecting to the
dredged channel, which, if it happens, will result in an instant landward shoreline hop of
several hundred feet. Effectively, the same thing could happen behind Avon when
shoreline erosion along the backside of the island runs into the pit. In all of these examples
the permanent loss of sand from the barrier island was not worth the very short-term fix
provided by using the sand to briefly halt erosion.
The sand proposed to be mined from the Avon/Kinnikeet Sand Mine (as well as sand that
has been mined in the past) will, in large part, eventually be lost to the lower shoreface or
inner continental shelf during storms. This will lead to a significant reduction in island
sand volume, especially considering that the mining process will be repeated again and
again in the future. The proposed quantity of sand to be mined in the Avon/ Kinakeet mine
is apparently sufficient for only a single year's needs. Additional mining will be required
each time the Outer Banks are struck by a hurricane.
Sand is money in the bank for barrier islands - it is both an insurance policy and a safety
net. Sand is needed to allow the beach to recover after storms and to respond to sea level
rise. A reduction in sand volume increases the possibility of island overstepping or
collapse in the long teen (on a generational time scale).
When there is less sand and less land area to absorb wave energy and storm surges, the
response of the island to large storms will become more "severe," especially as far as
development is concerned. Narrowing an island and deepening its backbarrier boundary
(which the mining will do) will immensely increase the possibility of inlet formation,
especially during storm surge ebb as water from a flooded Pamlico Sound rushes seaward
in response to a change in storm wind direction.
The value of coastal wetlands is widely recognized by scientists, well understood by a
large segment of the public and duly recognized in state and federal environmental
protection rules. The State of North Carolina, through its Sea Grant program, has invested
much effort in educating the public about the value of coastal marshes. Wetlands adjacent
to Pamlico Sound produce nutrients essential for life and the food chain in the sound. The
marshes also provide habitat for a variety of terrestrial and marine organisms, some of
which spend their larval stages in and near such marshes. Wetlands also provide a buffer
against backside storm erosion and serve as an efficient filter for pollutants.
In the past, both the state of North Carolina and the US Army Corps of Engineers have
gone to great effort to save salt marshes from destruction. The much-publicized destruction
of salt marsh near the Atlantic Beach post aff ce amounted to several hundred square feet.
The Avon/Kinakeet mine will destroy nearly 600,000 square feet of wetlands. This is
environmentally unacceptable and violates any reasonable public policy of sound coastal
management. The hypocrisy of the state in educating the public about the value of coastal
marshes, while supporting their destruction in the proposed mining operation, is most
offensive.
The Highway 12 Problem
The maintenance of State Highway 12 along the Outer Banks has proven to be ever more
costly ever more environmentally damaging to one of the nation's treasured national
seashores. The time has come to once again reexamine whether State Highway 12 should
remain in a fixed location. A new approach is needed.
Whenever sand is overwashed across the highway, the elevation of the seaward-most
portions of the islands is increased. This rise in elevation is part of the island's response to
sea level rise. In other words, this is sand that the island is storing for future use. The NC
DOT, however, dutifully pushes all this sand back to the beach, thereby taking away any
newly gained elevation in order to make the highway useable again. But if elevation gains
from past storms were allowed to stay in place, and if the state were to use an alternative to
asphalt -such as gravel or airport runway matting -the road could be quickly and
affordably raised and replaced each time the island rises. And as the road gained elevation
during each storm, the frequency of road burial by sand would decrease dramatically.
Holding the highway in place is very damaging to both the ocean side and the sound side
of the Outer Bank's islands, and with each decade, the damage seems to increase
measurably. The ocean side is not allowed to retreat, and when storm overwash occurs,
sand is bulldozed back to the beach -often destroying marsh in the process. Chances are
that what is occurring here is what has already been documented on South Carolina and
New Jersey islands. As the upper part of the shoreface profile (the beach) is held in place,
the lower profile continues to retreat as before. This process steepens the shoreface on a
decadal time scale and eventually leads to much faster loss of nourishment and artificially
emplaced dune sands. The damage to the sound side, of course, is loss of island width and
loss of the all-important fringing wetland. Can we lose 10-plus acres of wetlands each year
for decades to come? Of course not.
Jurisdictional/Regulatory Issues
Although the proposed mine expansion will severely impact coastal wetlands, the US
Army Corps of Engineers has concluded that the project does not have a regulated impact
on jurisdictional waters or wetlands and, therefore, does not require a Section 404 permit.
Consequently, the project is also exempt from the Section 401 state permitting process.
Furthermore, the NC Division of Coastal Management has stated that the proposed project
is not subject to DCM jurisdiction.
While there appears to be a legitimate conflict at the federal level -the wetlands, but not
the activity that will impact the wetlands, is subject to federal jurisdiction - we believe the
proposed project is located within an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) and therefore
falls under the jurisdiction of DCiy1.
According to the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) an AEC is an area of natural
importance: It may be easily destroyed by erosion or flooding; or it may have
environmental, social, economic or aesthetic values that make it valuable to our state.
Areas are classified as AECs to protect them from uncontrolled development, which may
cause irreversible damage to property, public health or the environment.
AECs are also the foundation of the state-permitting program for coastal development -
any activity involving construction, excavation, filling or other land disturbance within an
AEC is considered development and requires authorization under CAMA.
There are four categories of AECs:
1. The Estuarine and Ocean System
2. The Ocean Hazard System
3. Public Water Supplies
4. Natural and Cultural Resource Areas
Coastal Wetlands, a sub classification of the Estuarine and Ocean System AEC, are
defined as any marsh in the 20 coastal counties that regularly or occasionally floods by
lunar or wind tides, and that includes one or more of 10 plant species. According to the
document entitled, "Avon/Kinnakeet Sand Mine Permit Expansion Application: EMC
request for Exemption from NC Water Quality Standards" produced by RJG&A
Environmental Consultants, the proposed project will impact 6.16 acres of coastal
wetlands, which appears to place the project within an Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC), under the jurisdiction of DCM and subject to the CA1t~iA Major Development
Permit Process.
Regardless of whether the proposed project is located within an AEC, § 113-229 of the NC
General Statutes (Permits to dredge or fill in or about estuarine waters or State-owned
lakes) states that before any excavation or filling project is begun in any estuarine waters,
tidelands, marshlands, or State-owned lakes, the party or parties desiring to do such shall
first obtain a permit from the Department. Marshland is defined as any salt marsh or other
marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or
not the tidewaters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses).
Because the proposed project intends to excavate marshlands, it is therefore subject to
§ 113-229 and the state permitting process.
Neither a water quality exemption, nor a permit for mine expansion, should be issued until
all regulatory/procedural/ jurisdictional issues can be fully rectified.
ect Justification
The report produced by RJG&A Environmental Consultants provides no justification for
why an exemption from existing NC water quality standards should be made, other than
claiming there is a, "strong public need" for the project and stating, "Not identifying a
supply of US Park Service-approved sand for dune restoration in the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore would make maintenance and repair of NC 12 between Oregon Inlet
and Hatteras inlets impossible."
Both statements are fallacious. Not only does the report not establish a strong public need
for the project, it fails to present any public need. Many, perhaps dozens, of successful
maintenance operations have been completed along this stretch of Highway 12 over the
past several years, including after Hurricanes Dennis and Isabel.
The financial claims presented in the document are also highly dubious. Although
economics are a valid concern, the actual costs/benefits associated with the proposed
project remain unclear -only one alternative sand source is used as a comparison, and the
document fails to quantify the environmental costs of the proposed project in terms of
indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts.
The document, for example, says material from a mine in Currituck County was used to
close the breach opened by Hurricane Isabel at a cost of between $18 and $19 per cubic
yard, and that it would cost upwards of $30 per cubic yard today. We can find no
documentation to support either claim. According to the Outer Banks Task Force, the US
Army Corps of Engineers and several other state and federal agencies, almost 500,000 yds3
of sand was taken from the federal ferry channels behind Hatteras Island to close the
breach. The final cost of the project, including the cost of rebuilding the road, was $6.5
million, or $13/yd3.
It is clear that the "need" for this project has nothing to do with sand compatibility or
availability, and everything to do with reducing the costs associated with transporting sand.
An exemption to state v~ etlands rules sr~ould not be granted until a full and accurate
accounting of environmental and economic costs and benefits has been completed and
evaluated.
Alternatives
There are other less environmentally-damaging sources of sand. Mainland sand should be
readily available from extant sand pits in Currituck County and other nearby sources. If
these prove too costly, the DOT should hire a competent consulting geologist to find its
own sand resource for future needs. Sand on the lower coastal plain is found in abundance
in ancient stranded barrier islands left behind from a higher sea level. Sand is also available
on the continental shelf off Avon (but will require additional prospecting and sampling to
delineate). The Diamond Shoals are awell-known source of high quality beach-compatible
sand that, if engineered correctly, could be mined with little impact on shoreline wave
patterns (although the high wave energy here will add to the cost of shoal dredging).
A claim is made, but not documented, that the Oregon Inlet bridge can't handle dump
trucks filled with mainland sand. Of course this would depend on the size and load of the
trucks. But if trucks really are a problem, sand can be barged or pumped directly to the
Outer Banks.