NC creating another agency to manage the Coast

I don't know folks, depends if you are a half-empty or a half-full type of person. I like the intent and the mission statement of the Beach & Inlet Management Plan, but I could say that about a lot of agencies I deal with on the Outer Banks that seem to encourage red tape too. I am excited to see one particular statement in the article below from the VA pilot, I have highlighted it.



By Catherine Kozak
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 12, 2008
Considering the web of federal, state, county and municipal plans and studies that already exist, it may seem that the last thing North Carolina needs is another bureaucracy to manage its coast.

Even the acronym for the state's first Beach and Inlet Management Plan - BIMP - seems to lack the gravitas of its stated mission: development of a comprehensive regional strategy for management of 326 miles of barrier islands and 19 tidal inlets.

Rather than adding to bureaucratic bloat, the plan is intended to streamline planning, speed permitting, improve coordination, promote pooling of resources and create a clearinghouse for coastal data on beaches and inlets, all on a regional scale.

It will assess ongoing activities, provide the framework for additional work and ultimately develop a long-term approach to sustain the coast.

"What we really want to do with this effort is take what we've learned in the last 30 to 35 years and figure out what to do in the next 30 to 40 years," Steve Underwood, assistant director of the Division of Coastal Management, said at a public meeting on Thursday.

In a later interview, Underwood said the plan may sound overly ambitious, but the goal is to stay ahead of the curve with looming climate change challenges facing the state. Also, conditions in the southern and northern regions of the coast are not the same and should not be managed the same.
Four regions and numerous subregions have been established. Management strategies will be developed for each region, incorporating ecological, economic and sociopolitical factors that could affect inlet and beach management.

"I would argue that we are right out in front in making that approach to coastal management," he said. "I think people are going to have to look at a different way of doing things."

As it stands now, Underwood said, there is no comprehensive plan that prioritizes projects, no long-term funding plan, no sea-level rise plan, no centralized repository for masses of data.

"We also pursue coastal projects on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis without considering the regional implications of those projects on the system as a whole," he said in an e-mail. "This approach leads to a more reactive way of dealing with coastal management issues versus a more proactive approach."

Part of the early impetus for establishing the beach and inlet plan, Underwood said, was frustration with coordinating sediment management projects with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Various factors - cost, sand travel, shoaling - have contributed to loss of sediment in the coastal system, an undesirable consequence when beaches are eroding and sand sources for replenishment are few.

More recently, the Corps and Coastal Management have been working closely together in study and funding of sediment resources, he said.

Coastal Management and the state Division of Water Resources partnered to develop the initial beach and inlet management plan, which was recommended in the state Coastal Habitat Protection Plan in 2004 and mandated by legislation passed in 2000 by the General Assembly.

So far, $1 million has been appropriated for the plan, although $250,000 of it is frozen in the fiscal year 2008- 09 state budget. The final report is to be presented to the legislature in April.

Public input, as well as interagency and local government cooperation, is critical to the success of the plan, Underwood said.

"No one has really come to the table for an overarching plan or an idea for bringing all these groups together," he said.

That could even translate into something as cost- and time-saving as regionwide environmental impact statements, or other management changes.

"I think we can do things a little quicker and be smoother about it because we have this information right there," he said. "There'll have to be tangible, real things."

For more information, visit: www.ncbimp.net

Catherine Kozak, (252) 441-1711, cate.kozak@pilotonline.com