2019-11-13 MinutesWILMINGTON -NEW HANOVER
13 Nov 2019
Meeting Minutes
PORT, WATERWAY & BEACH COMMISSION
Chairman Barbour called the Port, Waterway & Beach Commission (PWBC) meeting to order at
—4:00. Participant introductions were made; the meeting's attendance sheet is attached. The
October 2019 meeting minutes were approved.
The 2019 Shoreline Mapping results were presented by Moffatt & Nichol staff; a pdf
presentation copy is attached. Report hard copies and thumb drives were provided to three
beach communities, Ft. Fisher Recreation Office and Masonboro Island Reserve Office.
Current Efforts Abbreviated
Carolina Beach (CB) and Kure Beach (KB) Fiscal Year (FY)2019 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction
(CSDR) Projects:
• The US Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) final yardage and costs are being
developed. A November project close out is now anticipated.
The USACE's 2019 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) Maintenance Dredging Contract:
• The (USACE) final yardage and costs are being developed.
The USACE's 2020 AIWW Maintenance Dredging Contract:
• Goodloe was awarded the contract in October.
• The scope remains (approx. 500K cy at multiple AIWW locations, map attached),
including parts of Snow's Cut and the CB Inlet AIWW crossing with disposal on
Masonboro Island.
Should Freeman Beach easements be acquired prior to maintenance dredging
commencement, the easements will be provided to USACE Project Management for
their consideration.
Mason Inlet Relocation Project (MIRP):
• The consent to award will be requested at the 2 December Board of County
Commissioner's meeting.
• The consent to accept a Shallow Draft Inlet grant will also be requested.
Carolina Beach Inlet (CBI):
• An October sidecast Merritt event was expedited by approx. three weeks addressing
post- Dorian shoaling.
• January and March 2020 USACE maintenance dredging events are tentatively
scheduled.
• Current USACE surveys are accessible from the USACE web - address below.
httD: // saw - nay.usace.armv.mil /INLETS /CAROLINA BEACH /Carolina Beach Inlet.Ddf
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA):
On 25 October, a US House of Representatives' bipartisan letter was sent to the Department of
Interior (DOI) requesting an interpretation of CBRA Sec. 6(G). The DOI Secretary and Office of the
Solicitor provided a 4 November response stating "sand from units within the System may be used
to renourish beaches located outside of the System, provided the project is consistent with the
purposes of the Act."
As such, the ongoing Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER) and Post Authorization
Change Report (PACR) paths forward are being re- evaluated based on DOI's 4 November
interpretation.
CB, Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER):
• The Draft FINAL BRER is in USACE Head Quarters under review by the Legal and Policy
Sections.
• Following those reviews, comments and edits if needed, a Director's Report will be
developed from the Appendices of the current rendition.
• The current schedule has an executed Director's Report in April 2020; we anticipate an
earlier action.
• The Town and County were updated 7 November on these developments.
• DRAFT BRER link, hftps: / /www.saw.usace.army.miI /Missions /Coastal- Storm -Risk-
Management /Carolina- Beach/
WB, Post Authorization Change Report (PACR):
• The Agency Technical Review team currently has the PACR; comments and responses
are anticipated in the next ten days.
• USACE guidance, in terms of finalizing the PACR and considering DOI's interpretation,
is anticipated in the next ten days; an update with the Town and County is being
scheduled.
• The current schedule has a DRAFT FINAL PACR to the South Atlantic Division before
Thanksgiving.
• DRAFT PACR link, hftps: / /www.saw.usace.army.miI /Missions /Coastal- Storm -Risk-
Management/Wrightsville- Beach/
WB, Project Information Report (PIR):
• The post - Florence project has received planning dollars for geotechnical, cultural,
environmental and other project elements.
• Construction dollars will be a separate request.
• Potential study and construction effects, from DOI's recent interpretation, are being
evaluated by the USACE.
Public Comment:
• Steve Shuttleworth asked about resilience funding for shoreline surveys. Staff shared results
from a Division of Water Resources conversation regarding post - Florence survey
reimbursements. The NHC 2019 Shoreline Mapping efforts were not storm triggered thereby
not eligible.
• Sue Bulluck noted efforts with the Board of Education and the potential room occupancy tax
(ROT) effects from an early August school start.
• Chairman Barbour noted a successful two -day NC Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association
(NCBIWA) meeting at the WB SunSpree Resort and the seating of former USACE Colonel
Baker to the NCBIWA Board.
Adjourned:
Sub -Reach (Profiles)
MIRP F8 - South (5 -14)
MIRP F8 - Mason Inlet (14)
Wrightsville Beach - North /Mason Inlet (1-
Wrightsville Beach - Central (8 -17)
Wrightsville Beach - South (18 -24)
Wrightsville Beach - Masonboro Inlet (25 -:
Masonboro Island - North (1 -6)
Masonboro Island - Central (7 -12)
Masonboro Island - South (13 -22)
Freeman Park - Carolina Beach Inlet (14)
Freeman Park (5 -10)
Carolina Beach - North (1 -5)
Carolina Beach - Central (6 -16)
Carolina Beach - South (17 -23)
Kure Beach - North (1 -6)
Kure Beach - Central (7 -10)
Kure Beach - South 01 -21)
Reach Leng
9,500
2,000
5,631
91923
6,149
2,558
10,002
11,653
17,638
3,110
5,510
2,838
8,248
7,003
6,017
3,731
5,594
Start Point
Beach Road South
Mason Inlet
Mason Inlet
Duneridge Condos
Blockade Runner Beach Resort
North Jetty
South Jetty
Quarter of Island
Half of Island
Carolina Beach Inlet
Carolina Beach Inlet
Freeman Park
Rock Revetment (Periwinkle Lane
Courtyard Carolina Beach Hotel
Atlantic Towers
Kure Beach Fishing Pier
Davis Rd
End Point
Bridge Rd
Beach Rd South
Duneridge Condos
Blockade Runner Beach Resort
North Jetty
Masonboro Inlet (radial transects)
Quarter of Island
Half of Island
Carolina Beach Inlet
Carolina Beach Inlet (radial transects
Freeman Park
Rock Revetment (Periwinkle Lane)
Courtyard Carolina Beach Hotel
Atlantic Towers
Kure Beach Fishing Pier
Davis Rd
Riqqinqs Condos
Fort Fisher - North 1
Riggings
Revetment
IJIIIl1111111J��
Fort Fisher - Cent al(5-13)
8,842
t. FisheCRe\etment
Island
Half oflI
Fort Fisher- South (1449) 1 5.496 1 Half of Island lNew Hanover /Brunswick Co. Line
20
15
10
5
w
w
0
z
z
x 0
c
0
d
-5
10
15
Wrightsville Beach Transect 12
-20 w .... 0.... 0 { { { .... 0. a .... { { a { .... }... a 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000
Distance Offshore (ft)
-2018 2019
Profile Volume Analysis - Profile Calculation Lenses
25
20
Foredune
... ..... ..... ..--
- -. -- - -- -- �..... �..... �..... �..... �..... �... �..... �.....
.......(Landward Most
Dune Crest)
15
6,
pj
9ubaerial Beach
10
t C
(Top of Dune to
MHW=+1.4 ft NAVD88)
5
t`
t
MHW
t
( +1.4 ft NAVD88)
0
�... _ ..................(MHW
.... ..........................
Wading Depth
( +4.4 ft MLLW)
008)
00
to 4 ft NA
>
t: _ .w..w. �..w..w. �..w..w. �..w..w.
— ..
�..w. .w...w. —. �..w. —. �..w. —. �..w. �..w..w. �..w..w.
�..w..w... Wading Depth
z -5
I
(-4 ft NAVD88)
x
6rample
t+ Volume
Outer Bar
( -1 ft MLLW)
o -10
t Above -14ft
(-4 ft NAVD88 to -14 ft NAVD88)
I NAVD88
Outer Bar
( -14 ft NAVD88)
-15
t
Offshore
ffsh
.w..w. (-11 ft MLLW)
t
( -14 ft NAVD88 to -20 ft NAVD88)
-20
-20 ft NAVD88
t
( -17 ft MLLW)
t
Offshore
-25
t
( -20 ft NAVD88 to 30 ft NAVD88)
t
-30 ft NAVD88
-30
t_. .._. .._.._. .._.._. .._.._. .._.._. .._.._. .._.._. .._.
( -27 ft MLLW)
-35
110 O r e .r p e r r r u e ... -r r e r ..I1 . e r r I r u r h.... e r r I ... -w r e r ...r. e w h .e r r I w.... e r I r ....r e r e ...r. r I r d1 ... e r r e.... r ....II
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Distance From Baseline (ft)
18
17
16
15
14
-Z 13
1.�
m
m
Sta 41110 - Onslow Bay Outer
March 13, 2018 - bne,5, 2019
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- -- -- - - - - - - -
-200
-180
o -160
0
w` -140
-120
` -100
w
rr
� -80
t
U -60
w
c
y -40
O
N -20
0
20
c
° 40
Q 60
80 `
220 +00 200 +00 180 +00 160 +00 140 +00 120 +00 100 +00 80 +00 60 +00 40 +00 20 +00 0 +00
Station
Shoreline C hange at M HW( +1.4 ft NAV D 88) omv•, Shoreline Change at Berm Height (+5 ft NAV D88)
20
10
0
w
w
0 -10
z
z
x
0
0
i -20
v
-30
-40
-50
2,600
Wrightsville Beach Transect 27
2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200
Distance From Baseline (ft)
-2018 . u2019
25 +00 0 +00
20
10
0
w
w
-10
z
z
x
0
0
-20
v
-30
-40
-50
-200
Freeman Park Transect 2
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600
Distance From Baseline (ft)
-2018 - •2019
-20
c
-10
0 0
°
10
w`
20
30
40
50
60
T 70
s 80
U 90
w
100
0
110
N 120
130
140
150
160
o
w 170
180
a 190
200
230 +00
''C® 22 CB 21J (, >� C8�2A
220 +00 210 +00 200 +00 190 +00 180 +00 170 +00 160 +00 150 +00 140 +00 130 +00 120 +00 110 +00 100 +00 90 +00 80 +00 70 +00 60 +00
Station
Shoreline Change at MHW( +1.4 ft NAVD88) u, Shoreline Change at Berm Height (+5 ft NAVD88)
c
-50
� -40
o_ -30
w -20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
a� 5 0
60
U 70
of 8 0
90
100
s 110
CO 120
130
140
150
0 160
170
v 180
a 190
200
I�¢ 91 wv1�,,, a Id rh J m pr „ pal
7
1v m ' '�"� >mu lylut,^
a
p KB' 116 MB
XS J4 Kp 13 KB 91 i3 ttl KB 09 K8' 08 f c kti - "fM1 4
q'v
K Kil !07" �
1@
10
K036S rv{ l`F'
4
KB 06
rl. (,.., ��IOf�(I " I III�� II� 3'd� ✓� loo �i'0111 ���;, � .. � � c. n +m„ KB 3 KII KB O1 i
380 +00 370 +00 360 +00 350 +00 340 +00 330 +00 320 +00 310 +00 300 +00 290 +00 280 +00 270 +00 260 +00 250 +00 240 +00
Station
Shoreline Change at MHW ( +1.4 ft NAVD88) liv, Shoreline Change at Berm Height ( +5 ft NAVD88)
FFJS
, 1, 1 1 FF�10 "'FF
100
-80
. -60
0
o -40
w`
-2 0
a
N 20
of
c
�a 40
t
U
d 60
c
L 80
O
N 100
120
0 140
160
U
Q 180
200
lea-eational Berm ( +5.0 ft NAVD88) _ +34.8 ft
Mean High Water ( +1.4 ft NAVD88) _ +35.4 ft
550 +00 500 +00 450 +00 400 +00 350 +00 300 +00 250 +00 200 +00 150 +00 100 +00 50 +00 0 +00
Station
Shoreline Change at MHW ( +1.4 ft NAVD88) Shoreline Change at Berm Height ( +5 ft NAVD88)
Volume Change Above -14 ft NAVD88 = +20.9 cy /ft ( +1,166,037 cy)
-50
r
.N 40
/
o -30
w
-20
/
11
of
i
30
r
40
aUi
50
80
,>
w 90
100
1 MAP,
r
r
110
- rr rr /, r/
oQ
550 +00 500 +00 450 +00 400 +00
350 +00 300 +00 250 +00 200 +00 150 +00 100 +00 50 +00 0 +00
Station
+- Volume Change Above MHW
-- --Volume Change Above -4 ft Volume Change Above -14 ft
Volume Change Above -20 ft
Volume Change Above -30 ft
Z
A
v
d
c
R
s
U
d
d
R
L
d
a
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
Average Profile Volume Change by Elevation (2018 - 2019)
7 7 7 R 7 7 R 7
v°1 w z m° w z t° w z a t° w z ° c U)
U L U L L U L Rp U 'O L U m 0 N LL
IL MA LL m w m m w m �^ R �^ m w 00 K_
LL Y w m ` R m
Y R O w LM LK L
O LL O O d
LL LL
c Z
2
O C N L L
d
c
R
s
U
d
d
R
U
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
- 50,000
- 100,000
- 150,000
- 200,000
- 250,000
- 300,000
- 350,000
- 400,000
- 450,000
- 500,000
- 550,000
Cumulative Volume Change by Elevation (2018 - 2019)
® Change Above +1.4
Change Above -4
❑ Change Above -14
❑ Change Above -20
® Change Above -30
M
N U
LL
r :
O
Z
y
L
N
LL
0
N
L
m
U
W
r
O
L N
L
V
m m
m
LL O
LL
LL
7
Y
Y
7
Y O
U
c O d O c O O 15
U
m LL O O O m m
C O O
o a`O a 5
c
U U 0 O
R a1
L ..
v w
R
m C
w o
R
N
L
=� O
�z
a
c
O
LL
a
K
M
L
'O
V1
LL
w
M
FY20 AIWW_MAINTENANCE DREDGING
1-
f .. �, '
,a ,f. ,
' .I. )U
„w F HE Z) N
/ HR
• r
a t
l
"r
BIRM INILETCRMING
" d'- f
TO JACKSONVILLE TANGENTS
\CHANNEL
NEW RIVER INLET CROSSING
\ \f CAROLINA BEACH INLET
CROSSING
1 l
SNtlVJ5 CNT
Vll C', „
Issue Solicitation: July 2019
Bid Opening: August 2019
vv
Awarded: October 2019
TLOCINJOOOB FOLLY INLET CROSSING
Goodloe Marine Inc.
(Congress of #!fir Unifrb *tatrs
was4ingtun, BT 20515
October 25, 2019
The Honorable David Bernhardt
Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Bernhardt:
We write to you about an interpretation of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
that could jeopardize public and private infrastructure, small businesses and regional economies.
The interpretation unnecessarily results in increased ecological impacts as well as increased
Federal expenditures. In 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( "Service ") issued an
interpretation of a 1994 Solicitor's Opinion that has caused several ongoing coastal storm
damage reduction (CSDR) projects from moving forward, even though these projects meet all
the appropriate requirements of the CBRA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We
believe that correcting the 2016 interpretation and the underlying 1994 Solicitor's Opinion is
consistent with our infrastructure focus and small business support while retaining CBRA and
NEPA regulatory compliance.
In 1982, the CBRA was enacted into law and established the John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System (System) to "minimize the loss of human life; wasteful expenditure of
federal revenues; and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with
coastal barriers" in coastal areas along the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. One objective was to ensure the proper balance of ecological,
community and economic considerations on undeveloped coastal barriers. As such, CBRA
prohibits new federal financial assistance in System "units" with exceptions outlined in Section 6
of the statute (16 U.S.C. 3505). While the original intent of the law is laudable, the current
interpretation has unintended consequences, particularly as they relate to CSDR projects that are
partially federally funded, resource management and economic impacts.
In our congressional districts, coastal storm damage reduction projects carried out by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in partnership with our respective states have been
stalled, and their costs have ballooned, because of a 2016 interpretation of a 1994 Department of
Interior Solicitor's Opinion (FWS.CW.0380) by the Service that essentially states that sand from
a System unit cannot be placed on a non -CBRA shoreline. This decision suddenly prohibited
sand recycling from certain System units - despite the Service in 1996 having previously allowed
sand recycling from these same System units per CBRA's exceptions.
For example, the congressionally authorized New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends
Inlet to Cape May Inlet project had previously accessed System unit NJ -09 as a borrow site
multiple times with the consent of the Service. Yet the 2016 Service interpretation suddenly
prevented access to the borrow site, despite the environmental benefits of the project, and
increased project costs by at least $6.5 million, stalling the required periodic nourishment. As a
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
result of the determination by the Service that sand cannot be beneficially used from CBRA
units, specifically NJ -09, to benefit land immediately adjacent to but not located within the
CBRA unit, Stone Harbor and North Wildwood are directly impacted to such an extent that they
are facing loss of their economic ability to meet the USACE's Project Cooperation Agreement
requirements. Moreover, the significant environmental benefits of CSDR projects such as
improved wildlife habitat conditions that have occurred over the past several years are being
jeopardized directly as a result of the Service's 2016 decision. Likewise, similar challenges exist
with the CSDR projects at Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach, NC. These projects have
used passive - infill inlet borrow sites in CBRA zones for decades. If forced to use offshore
borrow sites instead because of the Service's interpretation, these projects would incur greater
environmental impacts and costs to the federal government.
CSDR projects not only protect public and private infrastructure, but often have the
added benefit of enhancing the environmental condition e.g. turtle and shorebird usage. These
projects meet both NEPA and CBRA's goals to "minimize the loss of human life; wasteful
expenditure of federal revenues; and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources
associated with coastal barriers." A CSDR project typically dredges sand from an approved
borrow site and deposits that sand within a defined and approved shoreline template imitating a
nature based infrastructure system therefore, meeting the exception definition under 16 USC
3505(a)(6)(G) of "Nonstructural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic,
enhance, or restore a natural stabilization system." Beaches represent a natural stabilization
system and a CSDR is simply a restoration of that natural stabilization system. Furthermore,
evidence shows that CSDRs have contributed and benefited "the study, management, protection,
and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats, including acquisition of fish and
wildlife habitats and related lands, stabilization projects for fish and wildlife habitats, and
recreational projects" as defined in 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(6)(A).
In our reading the statute, we feel that the current NEPA compliant inlet borrow sites meet
the spirit and intent of CBRA. Therefore, we ask for your favorable consideration to allow
continued use of these inlet borrow sites as allowed exceptions under CBRA. In light of our
reading of the statute, we have a question for the Department of Interior to consider.
1. Does the Department take the view that, if otherwise consistent with the purposes of the
Act, Sec. 6(G) of CBRA applies to any "non - structural projects for shoreline stabilization
that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore a natural stabilization system," including
those outside of a system unit?
Thel -lonorable Garret Graves
U.S. HOUSe of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Graves:
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
NOV () li, 2019
Thank you I "or your letter dated October 25, 2019, regarding the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBR). In Your letter, you asked the flollowing:
Does the Department I ' ofthe Interior] take the view that, if otherwise consistent with the
purposes ofthe Act, Sec. 6(G) of" C131ZA applies to any "non-structural projects jects lor
shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore a natural
stabilization system," including those outside of a system unit'?
The answer to ),our question is yes, application of the statutory exception is not limited to within
a unit.
In particular, you raised concerns with a 1994 legal memorandum interpreting a section of tile
law that provides exceptions to limitations on Federal expenditures for shoreline stabilization
proJects. You note this flawed interpretation ofthe law has prevented a number of coastal storm
damage reduction proJects that would further tile purposes of the statute as declared by Congress.
Based on the concerns raised in, your letter and those of'other members, of Congress, I asked the
I)epartment of the Interior's (Department) Office of tile Solicitor to review the 1.994 opinion
referenced to determine whether section 6 of CBRA permits Federal funding for utilizing sand
removed from a unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System) to renOUrish beaches
located outside the System. After considering the plain language of the law and the legislative
history, the Office ofthe Solicitor determined that the exemption in section 6 is not limited to
shoreline stabilization projects occurring within the System. I personally reviewed the matter
and agree.
In 1982, when Congress passed CBRA (which. established theJolm I -I. Challec Coastal Barrier
Resources System),, it found that coastal barriers contain significant Cultural and natural
resources—including wildlife habitat—and function as natUral storm protective bUff± rs.
Congress found that coastal barriers are generally unsuitable for development, To achieve the
purposes of the Act, "to mininnize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of l"ederal
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal
barriers," CBRA prohibits new Federal financial assistance inceirtives that encourage
development of coastal barriers. Section 6 ofthe Act establishes exceptions to this restriction,
including "fri]onstrUctural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to rnimic,
enhance, or restore a natural stabilization system." Within the Department, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlit-'e Service is responsible flo• maintaining and updating the official maps of the System.
The 1994 legal inertiorandurn interpreting section 6 that you ret�reneed in your letter contained
no analysis but summarily concluded that the exemption for shoreline stabilization projects
applies only to projects, designed to stabilize the shoreline of a System unit and not to projects, to
renourish. beaches outside the System, even when those projects benefit coastal barriers within
the System. Closely evaluating the text, I do not find this was a permissible reading ofthe
statute. The language is not arnbigUOUS.
Even if some ambiguity could be identified in section , after reviewing the language ofthe Act
and the legislative history, the more reasoned interpretation is that Congress did not intend to
constrain the flexibility of agencies to accomplish the Cf RA's broader Purposes of protecting
coastal barrier resources by requiring beach renourishment to occur "solely" within the System.
Thus, even to the extent the statutory language could be considered arnbigLIOUS, it should be
interpreted in a way that ftirthers Congress' stated purpose of protecting coastal barrier resource.",,.
As a consequence, sand Froin units within the System may, be used to renourish beaches located
outside ofthe System, provided the project is consistent with 'the purposes of the Act.
Thank you ffir highlighting the issues in your letter. The Department is committed to ensuring
that we do not needlessly burden people or communities beyond the Parameters Congress has
determined to be appropriate. I welcome the OppOrtUrIttv to discuss these efforts with you going
forward.
A similar letter has been sent to each of your cosigners, and I have directed the U.S. F'ish and
Wildlifie Set-vice to bring its communications into compliance with the statute.
Sincerely,
Secretary of the Interior
T Or
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
NOV 0 4 2019
The Honorable David Rouzer
U.S. House oil Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Router:
Thank You for your letter (fated October 25, 2019, regarding (lie Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA). In your letter, You asked the following:
Does the Department [of the friteriorl take the view that, if otherwise consistent with the
purposes ofthe Act, Sec. 6(G) of CBRA applies to any "scan - structural projects liar
shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore a natural
stabilization systern," including those outside ofa system unit?
The answer to your question is yes, ap lication ofthe statutory exception is not limited to within
a unit,.
In Particular, You raised concerns with a 1994 legal rnemoratidU111 interpreting a section ofthe
law that provides exceptions to limitations on Federal expenditures for shoreline stabilization
projects. You note this flawed interpretation ofthe law has prevented a number of coastal storm
damage reduction projects that would further the purposes of the statute as declared by Congress.
Based on the concerns raised in YOUr letter and those ofother members of Congress, Lasked the
Department of the Interior's (Department) Office ot'the Solicitor to review the 1994 opinion
referenced to determine whether section 6 of (,BRA permits Federal funding for utilizing sand
renioved from, a unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System) to renourish beaches
located outside the System. After considering the plain language of the law and the legislative
history, the Office ofthc Solicitor dacri-nined that the exemption in section 6 is not limited to
shoreline stabilization projects occurring within the System. I personally reviewed the inatter
and agree.
In 1982, Nvhen Congress passed CBRA (which established the John 1-1. Chatlee Bai
Resources System), it found that coastal barriers contain significant cultural and natural
resources—iuC1ud1ng wildlife habitat--and function as natural storm protective buffers.
Congress found that coastal barriers are generally Unsuitable for development. To achieve the
purposes of the Act, "to minimize the loss of human lifle, wasteful expenditure of Federal
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlifie, and other natural resources associated with coastal
barriers," CBRA prohibits new ]Federal financial assistance incentives that encourage
development of coastal barriers. Section 6 of the Act establishes exceptions to this restriction,
including "[n]onstructural projects for shoreline stabilization that are designed to mimic,
enhance, or restore a natural stabilization, system." Within the Department, the trj'S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for maintaining and Updating the official maps ofthe System.
The 1994 legal memorandum interpreting section 6 that you ret'crenced in your letter contained
no analysis but surnmaHly concluded that the exemption for shoreline stabilization pro�Jeets
applies only to projects designed to stabilize the shoreline of a Systern unit and not to prcjects to
renourish beaches outside the System, even when those projects benefit coastal barriers within
the System.. Closely evaluating tile text, I do not find this was a permissible reading of the
statute. The language is not ambiguous.
Even if some ambiguity could be identified in section 6, after reviewing the language of the Act
and the legislative history, the more reasoned interpretation is that Congress did not intend to
constrain the flexibility of agencies to accomplish the CB RA's broader purposes of protecting
coastal barrier resources by requiring beach renourishment to OCCLII—SOlely" within the System.
Thus, even to the extent the statutory language could be considered arnbiguous, it should be
interpreted in a way that furthers Congress' stated purpose of'protecting coastal barrier resources.
As a consequence, sand frorn units within the System may be used to renourish beaches located
outside of the System, provided the project is consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Thank you for highlighting the issues in your letter. The Department is committed to ensuring
that we do not needlessly burden people or communities beyond the parameters Congress has
determined to be appropriate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these efforts with you going
forward.
A similar letter has been sent to each or your cosigners, and I have directed the U.S. Fish and
Wildlif"c Service to bring its communications into compliance with the statute.
It,
The Flonorable ,Jc lTVan Drew
U. S. I louse of Representad ves
Washington, DC 20515
THE SECRETARY OF 'THE INTERIOR
Dear Representative Van Drew:
WASHINGTON
NOV () 11, 2019
Thank YOU for your letter clated October 25, 2019, regarding (fie Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA). In y0L]l- letter, you asked the following:
Does the 13epartment I of the Interior] take the view' that, i I otherwise consistent with the
purposes ofthe Act, Sec. 6(G) of'CBRA applies to all), "non-strucan-al projects for
shoreline stabilization that are designed to rnimic, enhance, or restore a natural
stabilization systern," including those outside of as system Unit?
"]'lie answer to your qUCStion is yes, application of the statutory CXCepti011 is not. I imited to within
a unit.
In particular, you raised concerns with as 1994 legal inernorandurn interpreting a section ofthe
law that provides exceptions to limitations can Federal expenditures for shoreline stabilization
pro.jects. You note this flawed interpretation ofthe law has prevented as nualber of coastal storm
daillage reduction protects that would further the PLUPOSCS ofthe statute as declared by Congress.
Based oil the concerns raised in your letter and those of'other members of Congress, I asked the
Depatinlent ol'the Interior's (I)epartment) Office of'the Solicitor to review the 1994 opinion
referenced to determitie whether section 6 (WCBRA permits 1'ederal funding for UtiliZing sand
reft)(Wed From as unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources ystein (System) to r✓nOUrish beaches
located outside the Systeili. After considering the plain language of the law and the legislative
In Z=
history, the Officc ofthe Soticitor detertnined that the exemption in section 6 is not limited to
shoreline stabilization pro�jccts occurring within the System, I personally reviewed the matter
and agree.
In 19 2., when Congress passed CB" (which established the John 11. ( "hake C,oastal Barrier
Resources System), it found that coastal barriers contain significant cultural and natural
resources--inClUding wildlife habitat—and Function as natural storm protective bUffCl-s.
C,ongress f"OLIfid that coastal barriers are generally unsuitable for development. To achieve the
Purposes ofthe Act, "to minimize the loss ofhunian life, wasteful expenditure ofFederal
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal
barriers," CBRA prohibits new Federal financial assistance incentives that encourage
development of coastal barriers, Section 6 ofthe Act establishes exceptions to this restriction,
including; "J'11'10nstrUdUral projects Im- shoreline stabilization that are designed to nurnic.,
enhance, or restore anatural stabilization system." Within the Depairtrnent, the tr'.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is responsible for maintaining and updating file official 1,11aps ofthe Systern,
'The 1 994 legal memorandum interpreting section 6 that you referenced in your letter contained
no analysis but suininarily concluded that the exemption I "or shoreline stabilization proJects
applies only to projects designed to stabilize the shoreline of a System Unit and not to projects to
renOUrish beaches outside the ystern, even when those projects benefit coastal barriers within
the System. Closely evaluating the text, I do not find this was a permissible reading of the
statute. 'I"'he language is not ambiguous.
I.-I'ven ifsorne ambig-Ltity Could be identified in section 6, after reviewing the language of the Act
and the legislative history, the more reasoned interpretation is that Congress did not intend to
constrain the flexibility of agencies to accomplish the CBRA's broader purposes of protecting
coastal barrier resources by requiring beach renourishment to occur "solely", within the ystern.
Thus, even to the extent the statutory language could be considered ambiguous, it should be
interpreted in a way that furthers Congress' stated PLII'I)OSC of protecting coastal barrier resources.
As a consequence, sand from units within the System may be used to rerIOUrish beaches located
outside of the System, provided the project is consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Thank you for highlighting the issues in your letter. The Department is coninnitted to ensuring
that we do not needlessly burden people or communities beyond the pararneters Congress has
determined to be appropriate. I welcome the opportunity to disciiss these efforts with you going
forward.
A similar letter has been sent to each Of Your cosigners, and I have directed the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to bring its communications into compliance with the statute.
,5ecretary of one inteilor
PORT, WATERWAY & BEACH COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE
WILMINGTON -NEW HANOVER
PORT, WATERWAY & BEACH COMMISSION
Agenda
13 November 2019, 4:00 PM
New Hanover County, Government Center
Finance Conference Room. 500
4:00 Call to Order
Welcome /Introductions
Request approval of the October meeting minutes (emailed 10 Oct 2019).
Presentation: 2019 Shoreline Mapping Program Overview by Moffatt & Nichol (approx. 40 minutes)
Current Efforts Abbreviated:
Carolina Beach (CB) and Kure Beach (KB) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) Projects
• US Army Corps of Engineers' ( USACE) final volumes and costs are pending (1,057,267 cubic yards (cy) placed on CB and 824,216 cy
placed on KB).
• Contract close -out anticipated in late November.
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) 2019 Maintenance Dredging Contract
USACE's final Mason Creek crossing volume /cost are awaiting contract closure.
AIWW 2020 Maintenance Dredging Contract
The USACE's 2020 AIWW contract was awarded to Goodloe Marine, Inc.
o CB Inlet AIWW crossing's beneficial placement site is Masonboro Island.
Mason Inlet Relocation Project (MIRP)
• Bids were opened on October 28th, NHC Board of Commissioners will consider staffs award request on November 18th
• A NC Division of Water Resources Shallow Draft Inlet (SDI) Grant contract is circulating internally for consideration /execution.
Carolina Beach Inlet (CBI)
• A Fall 2019 scheduled maintenance event was expedited by approximately three weeks (Oct 15th — 18th) addressing post- Dorian shoaling.
• NC inlet surveys are posted at
https: / /www.saw. usace.army.m il/ Missions /Navigation /Hydrographic- Surveys /Inlets - Crossings/
CB, Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER)
• The Final BRIER (1 Nov) is under review by Head Quarter's Policy Section; a Director's Report is anticipated in April 2020.
• The USACE provided the Town of CB a study update on Nov. 7th; emphasis was given to the Final Draft's benefit cost ratio.
• A similar KB update is soon to be scheduled.
WB, Post Authorization Change Report (PACR); "Florence" Project Information Report (PIR)
• The PACR's final agency technical review is underway, inclusive of the offshore mandate.
• The PIR has received design funds; a proposed design /assessment schedule is under development.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
The Department of Interior's Secretary Bernhardt and its Office of the Solicitor have determined (4 Nov) "... after reviewing the language of the Act
and the legislative history, the more reasoned interpretation is the Congress did not intend to constrain the flexibility of agencies to
accomplish the CBRA's broader purposes of protecting coastal barrier resources by requiring beach renourishment to occur `solely'
within the system," "As a result, sand from units within the system may be used to renourish beaches located outside the system,
provided the project is consistent with the purposes of the Act."
This interpretation should impact both the BRIER and PACR preferred alternative narratives.
The Fall 2019 NC Beach Inlet and Waterway Association meeting is November 12th and 13th at the Holiday Inn SunSpree Resort
on Wrightsville Beach.
Public Comment:
Adjourn