Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
CBRA zone could expand
TIDELAND NEWS
LIZ MACLEAN
Lines are being redrawn by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – and local officials are none too happy.
As part of a pilot project mandated by Congress to assess the costs and feasibility digitizing maps of protected coastal barriers, USFWS is taking the liberty of increasing the area protected through the Coastal Barrier Resource Act.
The act, passed in 1982, removes federal incentives to develop certain coastal areas where loss of life and property damage are most likely while also protecting the natural habitats of coastal fish and wildlife.
“CBRA restricts all federal expenditures for infrastructure,” said Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, shore protection manager for Carteret County.
Private funding for development is not restricted, but no new federal funding, including flood insurance and disaster relief, is to be distributed to a designated CBRA zone. For that reason, any changes to existing CBRA map lines can have a big impact on coastal towns abutting CBRA zones.
“The thing about CBRA is, the lines are the law,” Rudolph said. The only way to change a CBRA line is by an act of Congress. The one exception is a window that occurs every five years for the USFWS to review CBRA designations and make recommendations for expansion.
Initially, 186 CBRA units were formed out of 666 miles of shoreline and 452,834 acres of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
In 1990, CBRA expanded to include Otherwise Protected Area zones where the only restriction on federal assistance is flood insurance.
“Most state and federal parks are Otherwise Protected Areas,” Rudolph said.
Additional CBRA zones were also added, bringing the total protected area 3 million acres and 2,500 miles of shoreline comprising 585 CBRA units and 271 OPAs.
A renewal of CBRA in 2000 tasked USFWS to conduct a pilot study of up to 75 CBRA units to assess the cost and establish a procedure for transitioning from hard copy to digital maps.
Authorization to digitize maps for all units was given in a 2005 renewal of CBRA. An opportunity for public comment on the new maps was also mandated.
Eight CBRA units in North Carolina were included in the pilot project, including two in Carteret County.
The results of the pilot study are a cause of alarm for many coastal areas. Significant changes and expansion are being recommended by USFWS, including the creation of an entirely new CBRA unit called NC-06 around the Hammocks Beach State Park area. This new unit is in addition to an OPA called NC-06P that consists of the park itself.
New CBRA unit NC-06 “is giving us the most heartache,” Rudolph said. This unit includes some areas that were changed from OPA to the stricter CBRA designation.
For example, NC-06 abuts the B. Cameron Langston Bridge. It is possible that any future plans to expand the bridge would be ineligible for federal funding, as would any rebuilding should the bridge ever come down, according to Rudolph.
NC-06 also includes Bogue Inlet. Under CBRA, dredging would be allowed to continue, but any changes to dredging method or utilization of new technology could be restricted. It is also unclear whether sand from Bogue Inlet would be allowed for nourishing the beaches of Emerald Isle, which are not in a CBRA area.
“We’ve seen examples where that’s been a problem,” said Rudolph, who added that CBRA restrictions have many gray areas and it is hard to say for sure what the exact ramifications of the proposed map changes would be.
“We could do the ‘what ifs’ all day,” he said.
Frank Rush, Emerald Isle town manager, also lists the dredging of Bogue Inlet among his concerns regarding the proposed CBRA changes.
“We have some pretty serious concerns about it,” Rush said. Emerald Isle has plans to submit a letter outlining the town’s concerns during the public comment period.
Swansboro is also submitting a letter of concern.
“The pilot study proposes to include dozens of existing docks, piers, marinas and other structures along the long-established Swansboro community harbor,” the letter reads. “We believe that this is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified proposal which could have serious consequences for the conservation and viability of the Swansboro historic district and which has no foundation in habitat protection.”
Cedar Point has submitted a letter as well, with that town’s concerns focusing on the border of NC-06 along the town’s mainland.
“The USFWS overlooked current, major infrastructure projects and potential future improvements located within this proposed unit, and never assessed the ramifications of incorporating these projects into the CBRS,” the town of Cedar Point wrote.
All three of these towns agree that the expansion recommended by USFWS is unwarranted and falls outside the intent of Congress. In particular, the towns ask that NC-06 not be included in the pilot study at all.
Eyebrows are raised at Hammocks Beach State Park as well. While the park itself is within an OPA, Cow Creek Channel, which is used for the ferry that runs between the park and Bear Island, lies within a CBRA zone. Though under CBRA that ferry line can still operate, park officials have expressed concern that if any opportunities for grant-funded maintenance or expansion were to arise, they would be blocked by the channel’s CBRA designation.
“We just want to make sure those options remain available should those opportunities present themselves,” said Brian Strong, head of the natural resources program for N.C. state parks. It would be preferable for Cow Creek Channel to be included in the OPA area rather than the CBRA zone, he said.
The public comment period opened on April 7 of this year and will remain open until Aug. 5. The original end date for public comment was July 6, but on Monday a 30-day extension was issued.
Rudolph encourages everyone who is concerned about the impact of proposed CBRA maps to submit a comment.
“This is a project that’s just supposed to be a remapping project,” Rudolph said. “The more people who are engaged in this, the better.”
Comments can be submitted by e-mail to CBRAcomments@fws.gov or mailed to Coastal Barriers Coordinator, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 860A, Arlington, VA 22203.
Maps and additional information about CBRA and the full USFWS report are available online at www.fws.gov.
Lines are being redrawn by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – and local officials are none too happy.
As part of a pilot project mandated by Congress to assess the costs and feasibility digitizing maps of protected coastal barriers, USFWS is taking the liberty of increasing the area protected through the Coastal Barrier Resource Act.
The act, passed in 1982, removes federal incentives to develop certain coastal areas where loss of life and property damage are most likely while also protecting the natural habitats of coastal fish and wildlife.
“CBRA restricts all federal expenditures for infrastructure,” said Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, shore protection manager for Carteret County.
Private funding for development is not restricted, but no new federal funding, including flood insurance and disaster relief, is to be distributed to a designated CBRA zone. For that reason, any changes to existing CBRA map lines can have a big impact on coastal towns abutting CBRA zones.
“The thing about CBRA is, the lines are the law,” Rudolph said. The only way to change a CBRA line is by an act of Congress. The one exception is a window that occurs every five years for the USFWS to review CBRA designations and make recommendations for expansion.
Initially, 186 CBRA units were formed out of 666 miles of shoreline and 452,834 acres of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
In 1990, CBRA expanded to include Otherwise Protected Area zones where the only restriction on federal assistance is flood insurance.
“Most state and federal parks are Otherwise Protected Areas,” Rudolph said.
Additional CBRA zones were also added, bringing the total protected area 3 million acres and 2,500 miles of shoreline comprising 585 CBRA units and 271 OPAs.
A renewal of CBRA in 2000 tasked USFWS to conduct a pilot study of up to 75 CBRA units to assess the cost and establish a procedure for transitioning from hard copy to digital maps.
Authorization to digitize maps for all units was given in a 2005 renewal of CBRA. An opportunity for public comment on the new maps was also mandated.
Eight CBRA units in North Carolina were included in the pilot project, including two in Carteret County.
The results of the pilot study are a cause of alarm for many coastal areas. Significant changes and expansion are being recommended by USFWS, including the creation of an entirely new CBRA unit called NC-06 around the Hammocks Beach State Park area. This new unit is in addition to an OPA called NC-06P that consists of the park itself.
New CBRA unit NC-06 “is giving us the most heartache,” Rudolph said. This unit includes some areas that were changed from OPA to the stricter CBRA designation.
For example, NC-06 abuts the B. Cameron Langston Bridge. It is possible that any future plans to expand the bridge would be ineligible for federal funding, as would any rebuilding should the bridge ever come down, according to Rudolph.
NC-06 also includes Bogue Inlet. Under CBRA, dredging would be allowed to continue, but any changes to dredging method or utilization of new technology could be restricted. It is also unclear whether sand from Bogue Inlet would be allowed for nourishing the beaches of Emerald Isle, which are not in a CBRA area.
“We’ve seen examples where that’s been a problem,” said Rudolph, who added that CBRA restrictions have many gray areas and it is hard to say for sure what the exact ramifications of the proposed map changes would be.
“We could do the ‘what ifs’ all day,” he said.
Frank Rush, Emerald Isle town manager, also lists the dredging of Bogue Inlet among his concerns regarding the proposed CBRA changes.
“We have some pretty serious concerns about it,” Rush said. Emerald Isle has plans to submit a letter outlining the town’s concerns during the public comment period.
Swansboro is also submitting a letter of concern.
“The pilot study proposes to include dozens of existing docks, piers, marinas and other structures along the long-established Swansboro community harbor,” the letter reads. “We believe that this is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified proposal which could have serious consequences for the conservation and viability of the Swansboro historic district and which has no foundation in habitat protection.”
Cedar Point has submitted a letter as well, with that town’s concerns focusing on the border of NC-06 along the town’s mainland.
“The USFWS overlooked current, major infrastructure projects and potential future improvements located within this proposed unit, and never assessed the ramifications of incorporating these projects into the CBRS,” the town of Cedar Point wrote.
All three of these towns agree that the expansion recommended by USFWS is unwarranted and falls outside the intent of Congress. In particular, the towns ask that NC-06 not be included in the pilot study at all.
Eyebrows are raised at Hammocks Beach State Park as well. While the park itself is within an OPA, Cow Creek Channel, which is used for the ferry that runs between the park and Bear Island, lies within a CBRA zone. Though under CBRA that ferry line can still operate, park officials have expressed concern that if any opportunities for grant-funded maintenance or expansion were to arise, they would be blocked by the channel’s CBRA designation.
“We just want to make sure those options remain available should those opportunities present themselves,” said Brian Strong, head of the natural resources program for N.C. state parks. It would be preferable for Cow Creek Channel to be included in the OPA area rather than the CBRA zone, he said.
The public comment period opened on April 7 of this year and will remain open until Aug. 5. The original end date for public comment was July 6, but on Monday a 30-day extension was issued.
Rudolph encourages everyone who is concerned about the impact of proposed CBRA maps to submit a comment.
“This is a project that’s just supposed to be a remapping project,” Rudolph said. “The more people who are engaged in this, the better.”
Comments can be submitted by e-mail to CBRAcomments@fws.gov or mailed to Coastal Barriers Coordinator, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 860A, Arlington, VA 22203.
Maps and additional information about CBRA and the full USFWS report are available online at www.fws.gov.
 |
 |
|
| High-level working conditions | Child foils man’s grab |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of carolinacoastonline.com.
RSS