Should North Carolina Pass Senate Bill 110 to Allow Terminal Groins in Coastal Waters?
Current Topics in Coastal Biology – Topic 3
East Carolina University
Spring 2011
Abstract - Class
A terminal groin is a hardened structure built at the end of a landmass or an adjacent inlet, perpendicular to the coastline, to protect the landmass from erosion.Senate Bill 110 reverses existing State law by allowing terminal groins to be constructed, with the caveat of developing an environmental impact statement, an inlet management plan, and mitigating negative impacts.Current State budget constraints call for these terminal groins to be constructed using local government or private funds. There is no mechanism or budget for enforcement or regulation of terminal groins, or for ongoing problems caused by terminal groin construction.Terminal groins may help mitigate local erosion problems but add to erosion problems in adjacent areas (e.g., downdrift erosion).This bill does not fully address beach renourishment with regard to downdrift erosion caused by the terminal groin.Terminal groins disrupt biological processes of beaches and adjacent waters; some communities will be negatively affected but others can be enhanced.S.B 110 does not establish criteria for removal of terminal groins and taxpayers are not willing to pay for associated costs not addressed in the bill.Terminal groins may negatively affect visitor perceptions as a result of reducing aesthetics. The majority of NC coastal scientists publicly oppose terminal groins.On a positive note, the properties at risk from erosion generate revenue via tax dollars and terminal groins may improve fishing for recreational and commercial fishermen; groins can stabilize economically important inlets.owever, However, based on these conclusions, we recommend that Senate Bill 110 should not be passed in its current form.The State should re-examine current permit regulations for development along the coast allowing properties to be built in potentially hazardous areas.In order to allow these groins, amendments from the House to S.B. 110 should include the mechanism for removing problem groins and for beach renourishment of the downdrift area.Also, more research on the biological effects of terminal groins, and additional cost benefit analyses of beach renourishment efforts, should be conducted.
______
1This review paper presents the views of the students enrolled in the Current Topics in Coastal Biology course and in no way reflects the views or position of East Carolina University.
Introduction –Justin Bohannon, Barryn McLaughlin, Kyle Whaley
A terminal groin is a sediment management structure that reduces beach erosion by retaining a predetermined amount of sand before it reaches the inlet. Once the sand fills in in front of the terminal groin it continues on its normal flow around, through or over the terminal groin. Terminal groins are designed to be relatively unobtrusive and built as low to the water line as possible so they are not seen.There are currently two terminal groins which are already in place in North Carolina, one at Oregon Inlet and the other protecting historic Fort Macon. Currently the state of North Carolina has a bill in senate that would allow terminal groins to be placed on the coast to help alleviate the beach erosion problems threatening homes and businesses along the coast (Inlet Solutions, 2011). There are both positive and negative side effects associated with this bill. Without the terminal groins approximately $1.5 billion in homes and commercial properties may be at risk from beach erosion in the next 30 years (Burrows 2011). The only solution to the beach erosion problems allowed in North Carolina are temporary sandbags which are unsightly to tourists and have to be removed after their effective lifespan (Town of Holden Beach 2009).
Terminal groins are instrumental in reducing beach erosion by keeping sand from washing away and reduce the amount of beach nourishment required to maintain sand on beaches.This is important to maintain the wide, sandy shoreline that makes North Carolina a lucrative tourist destination (Gunn 1988).They also serve to keep sediment from washing into inlets and creating shallow areas which give boaters problems when trying to navigate the potentially treacherous North Carolina coast.The two terminal groins in North Carolina have proven successful and have not resulted in the negative impacts predicted by many (Save Our Sand 2010).They are much more attractive than the sandbags which are currently the only beach hardening structures allowed by law in North Carolina.Along with Oregon, North Carolina is among the last remaining states prohibiting terminal groins.The current proposal allows for removal of terminal groins if they prove ineffective and requires an Environmental Impact study in order to approve any terminal groins, as well as periodic assurance that the groins are effective and not harmful (NCDCM 2010).
North Carolina's current ban on terminal groins has resulted in a general lack of lawsuits related to erosion control structures. In contrast, the state of Florida which permits coastal hard structures is awash in constant lawsuits (property owner versus property owner, community versus community) (Coastal Care n.d.). This leaves many coastal management decisions up to the courts. This poor method of public beach management is one that we have largely avoided in North Carolina. If terminal groins are built along the North Carolina coast, rest assured that there will be lawsuits and legal battles related to those structures and the erosion that they may, or may not have caused.Because the S832 does not define the size or specific design of a terminal structure, the bill leaves the door open to building structures that go well beyond a simple groin (Inlet Solutions 2011). The design proposed for Figure 8 Island is not a terminal groins as much as it is an inlet shoreline seawall. Structures like these would destroy the natural function of the adjacent inlets. The science overwhelmingly supports maintaining the state’s ban on hard structures. Terminal groins are an archaic technology. They will harm property owners downstream.
Biological Considerations – Victoria Autry,Hillary Huffer, Meghan Lell
North Carolinas barrier islands are constantly at the mercy of the wind and the waves.These natural processes govern the outline of North Carolina’s coast; the shoreline is constantly changing shape and size. In North Carolina there is a longshore current that runs from north to south. This longshore current naturally erodes away the north end of the barrier island and deposits new sand at the southern end of the island.Storms and strong winds can also have an effect on the movement of the barrier islands; in most cases, high winds will push the islands closer to land (Jack, 2009).Currently, besides the two groins already in place at Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon, North Carolina uses sandbags and beach nourishment as the only form of coastal maintenance from these erosion contributors. These are temporary solutions and as legislation considers implementing permanent structures like terminal groins, biological effects from these beach hardened structures must be considered.
In 2009, Session Law 2009-470 was mandated for the CRC to do a study on terminal groins. This study was designed to monitor terminal groins already existing on the coast of North Carolina and other shoreline inlets with similar properties. The CRC study found “that the structure sides of the inlets were eroding prior to construction of the terminal groins; and after construction, the shorelines on the structure side were generally accreting;” it also shows that the other side of the island did not have a clear cut pattern (NCDC 2010). The “noise” of the other management plans such as dredging and nourishment has an impact on the erosion and accreting as well. The study did show that the placement of a terminal groin as well as practicing beach nourishment stops the natural process of beach migration referred to as overwash. Preventing overwash can cause a habitat loss for both breeding and non-breeding shorebirds and organisms that live in the intertidal and near shore intertidal habitats. However, losing these habitats can create an opening to more hard-bottom habitats (NCDCM 2010). The overall results, including the effects terminal groins have on the environment, were inconclusive.
The CRC could not make a recommendation that promoted or rejected the use of terminal groins.“The Commission has concluded that the general impacts of the groins, as reported in this study, tend to be lost in the “noise” of other inlet management activities”. (NCDCM,2010). With more than one management plan underway during the study, it was hard to distinguish what management activity or combinations of management activities were responsible for the study’s findings. There were only a few definitive outcomes that could be made from the effects of terminal groins.The definitive outcomes from the CRC study are that terminal groins are “expensive to remove” and, that they “were typically found in areas where the greatest amount of dredging activity occurs” were two of them (NCDCM 2010).Studies done by Bull et al (1998) found that fine sediment accrued due to groins and that trying to achieve a normal shoreline was difficult due to tidal flows and the scouring effect. Hall and Pilkey (1991) found that beaches with groins were statistically narrower than unstructured beaches. According to their study, Beaches with groins had an average width of 18 m while unstructured beaches had an average width of 55 m (Hall and Pilkey 2009). Also, Pilkey and Wright (1998) found that the beaches for stabilized areas were narrower than un-stabilized beaches.
Beach hardening can affect marine life as well as the health of the shoreline via sediment transport.Concerns that hardened structures could potentially interfere with the passage of larvae and early juveniles from offshore spawning grounds into estuarine nursery areas may be offset by other positive results (NCDCM 2010).Fanini et al (2009) found that groins can increase species abundance and diversity. Pinn and Corkill (2005) concluded that groins can serve as important habitat for flora and fauna. Additionally, they found that the older groins had higher species richness than newer groins.They established that gravel used to construct groins could serve as important habitat for some species. Rheophilic fish are a particular species that Bischoff (2001) found where groins served as an important habitat.Conversely, the groins had an ill effect on sandhoppers.
In conclusion, studies regarding groins have found that there are many consequences and even a few benefits of implementing beach hardening.Negative aspects of terminal groins are that “they deprive downstream areas of sand”, as well as interfere with the longshore currents natural movement of the barrier islands (Dean, 2009). These structures can also “hurt wildlife that depends on the natural movements of inlets to renew habitat and replenish food sources,” as well as removing beach-nesting bird’s habitat (Audubon North Carolina). However, positive aspects are that terminal groins have been shown to protect inlets from erosion for a couple of miles down the coastline and, that they can increase the abundance of species in nursery areas and hard bottom habitats (NCDRM, 2010).
Social and Policy Considerations -- Liz Brown-Pickren, Jessie Hathaway, Coley Hughes
The social impacts of terminal groins may vary among stakeholders. Commercial fishermen may benefit from better protected channels through the barrier islands to fishing towns or, as has happened in Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, the combination of groin induced and natural sand accretion fills the inlet regularly and once funding for dredging is discontinued the fishermen are separated from their livelihood in the ocean (Riggs and Ames 2009).Recreational fishermen may welcome jetties and groins that serve as fishing platforms because they offer habitat to marine life and access to channels (Johnson and MacLeod 2010) but may object to the possible disruption of existing marine habitat.Surfers have appreciated structures that enhance wave action (Ranasinghe and Turner 2006) but some structures have degraded previously excellent surfing beaches, for example in El Segundo, California and Upham Beach, Florida (Anonymous 2011).
Beaches provide leisure and amenity values to coastal property owners (Landry et al. 2003).Property owners in at risk erosion areas may benefit from groins in preventing the beach from disappearing from their property. However, property owners further downstream may be subject to increased erosion. “Shoreline engineering protects the interests of a very few people who are responsible for the erosion to begin with, often at a very high cost in federal and state dollars. (Pilkey et al. 1998).”
Senate Bill 110 does not declare that state taxpayers will not pay for any costs attributed to the placement, up-keeping or removal of terminal groins. North Carolina taxpayers may object to protecting private structures with public money, whether this is a perceived cost or ongoing costs to repair the damage done by each groin. Liabilitymay become a serious legal issue if local governments are given the authority to build hazardous structures in navigable waters. Because there is a history of law suits associated with hardened structures, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) is concerned that the judges will be forced to make policy. Some examples of lawsuits include boats running into them, swimmers drowning in rip tides caused by the interruption of ocean flow and homeowners losing sand in front of their homes.“Dangerous rip currents can result when a current traveling along the shoreline encounters a structure such as a groin or jetty and is forced offshore” (NCCF no date).
Tourists want nice wide sandy beaches and prefer them without structures. The activities associated with beach use (swimming, fishing, sunning, etc.) is directly related to beach width and erosion management choices, including the presence and nature of engineering structures (Landry et al. 2003). While groins enhance the width of the beaches in some places, they rob the sand in other sections of the coast. Groins can also be seen as interrupting natural beauty.
The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), under the direction of the North Carolina General Assembly, found that terminal groins, in combination with beach re-nourishment, can be effective at controlling erosion at the end of barrier islands. Terminal groins’ principal purpose is to minimize and control down-drift sediment losses and beach erosion by catching shifting sand along the shoreline, whichprotects homes, business and other coastal properties from being taken by the sea and also provide the wide, sandy beaches the tourists prefer at the cost of minimal armoring.
The North Carolina General Assembly is charged with protecting the coast whileaddressing the concerns of the general population.A recent feasibility study to determine whether terminal groins would be effective was commissioned by legislation.Out of 23 sites evaluated, only five were found to be improved by utilizing hardened structures (Miller 2009).Similar legislation continues to rise up year after year at the general assembly and is an important talking point for anyone living on the coast.
One concern associated with terminal groins is the pressure that interested parties put on politicians to vote in their favor.While politicians work to develop policies that protect our beaches, they are being lobbied to serve the needs of a small group.This “pay to play” process allows wealthy property owners to receive benefits such as influence over legislation(USSEC 2010).The amount of money a person can pay should have no relationship with policy recommendations.Private property owners who are provided the right to protect their investment can ultimately skew legislation in favor of a few while disregarding the needs of the general population.
A final concern is that once hardened structures have been approved and are established, local communities will have to change their policies. Research has shown that terminal groins can cause erosion downdrift and be detrimental to other property owners(Town of Holden Beach 2009).In response to these issues, local government will spend time and money reevaluating current policies to address issues and concerns resulting from the installation of terminal groins and local governmentsmay not be able to keep pace with the environmental changes caused by terminal groins.
Economic Considerations – Jake Pridgen, Dan Zapf, Jeff Dobbs
Over seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks every year (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce 2011).These tourists come to visit the beaches and while they are there they spend a significant amount of money, spending which is the backbone of the Outer banks economy.The economy of the Outer Banks is structured to support tourism, with over half of the jobs suited toward the tourism industry (Kleckley 2011).Jobs in the accommodation/food service industry accounted for 20.7% of jobs, the retail industry accounted for 18.3% and real-estate/rental leasing accounted for 11.7% (Kleckley 2011).Without beaches the Outer Banks would lose its economic base.Hardening structures may help to reduce beach erosion.