After reading all of the Facebook posts, emails, Tweets and News Articles, we compiled this list of great questions that deserve to be answered by the Corps and NPS.


About the CoalitionIf the preferred alternative is adopted, what input, if any, will the public have in the future when the Corps/NPS decide whether to place dredged material at Shackleford Banks?

How frequently will the DMMP be re-evaluated by the Corps?

Where will the dredged material go if it is disposed at Shackleford?

What has the Corps done to evaluate the fate of the dredged material if it is disposed at Shackleford?
Did the Corps perform any modeling?

What impact will disposal of dredged material at Shackleford have on shoaling rates?

Isn’t the cutoff section of the channel the most critical area for navigation?

Doesn’t this section of the channel already experience shoaling issues?

Aren’t the highest erosion rates at Shackleford at the western tip?

Why isn’t dredged material being placed in this location?

How much of the erosion in this area is caused by the navigation project?

Shack Map 1Inlets are dynamic areas. Is it possible that the erosion rates in this area could significantly decrease without any action?

Why did the Corps not consider a terminal groin?

Hasn’t this area accreted over the past 20/50 years?

What about the middle of the island? What are the erosion rates here?

How much of this erosion is caused by the navigation project?

Has this erosion increased in recent years?

What did the Corps do to evaluate the impact of dredged material disposal at Shackleford and offshore of Shackleford on the surf break?

Did the Corps perform modeling?

Wouldn’t the Corps expect this disposal to affect the surf break? Why or why not?

What evidence is there that the erosion at Shackleford that is caused by the navigation project is impacting the ecology of Shackleford Banks?

In determining the allocation of dredged material to be split between Bogue Banks (57%) and Shackleford Banks (43%), how did the Corps and NPS (if at all) consider the differences between these two barrier islands?

Bogue Banks is a developed barrier island with valuable investments in infrastructure and property as well as recreational uses, including the most visited state park. Shackleford is part of the Cape Lookout National Seashore and is managed as wilderness area.

Have the Corps and NPS discussed disposal of dredged material at Shackleford Banks with UNC-IMS and Duke Marine Lab?

Has Shackleford Banks ever received dredged material?

Wouldn’t placing dredged material at Shackleford Banks result in the loss of important research area where a barrier island can be studied in its natural state?
Shackleford Banks
What have the Corps and NPS done to respond to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries’ concerns about placing dredged material at Shackleford Banks and offshore of Shackleford Banks?


Q: Why is the US Corps of Engineers planning to dispose dredged material on Shackleford Banks?
A:  Because the National Park Service changed a long-standing policy of not placing dredged material in areas managed as wilderness areas.
Q: What happens to the sand dredged from the channel now?
A:  According to an interim plan, every three years 100% of the sand that is dredged from the channel is placed on Bogue Banks to offset impacts of the Corps’ navigation project and replenish the developed beaches.  In Years 2 and 3 of the interim plan, sand is disposed of in nearshore and offshore disposal areas where it provides little to no benefits to Bogue Banks.
Q: What happens if the plan is stopped?
A:  The interim dredge plan will stay in effect and no sand will be disposed on Shackleford Banks.
Q: What can we do to voice opposition to the plan?
A:  Now that the hearing and the written comment period has passed, the only way to influence the plan is by contacting your elected officials, especially members of Congress.  You can find the contact information for your Congressman and Senators Hagan and Burr here.

  • Join the Carteret Coalition to Protect Our Shores.  There is no cost to join.  You are only asked to voice your concerns with and opposition to hurting both Shackleford Banks and Bogue Banks for the next twenty years.
  • Attend the public hearing on the integrated DMMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) plan on Wednesday, January 15 from 6 to 8 pm at the Duke Marine Lab auditorium on Pivers Island and indicate your opposition by your attendance.
  • Consider speaking against the plan at the January 15 public hearing.
  • Submit written comments in opposition to the plan to the Corps of Engineers on or before Monday, February 3 so they will be considered during the evaluation and decision process.
  • Encourage friends, co-workers, neighbors and family to oppose the federal plan to despoil the Shackleford Banks wilderness area by joining the Coalition’s efforts, attending the January 15 public hearing and submitting written comments to the Corps of Engineers.

To learn more, call the Carteret Coalition to Protect Our Shores at 252-222-5835.

Q: Why does the Coalition oppose the federal plan and why will it hurt Shackleford and Bogue Banks?
A:  For the past century, the Corps has administered a navigation project known as the Morehead City Harbor Project (MCHP).  The MCHP involves the Corps’ regular dredging of Beaufort Inlet and disposal of dredged material.  The Corps recently issued a draft Dredged Material Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Federal Plan), which includes the placement of dredged material on the beaches of Shackleford Banks and in a nearshore area off the coast of Shackleford.

The Carteret Coalition to Protect Our Shores opposes approval of the Federal Plan as written:

  • Because the effect of placing dredged material on Shackleford Banks provides little to no benefit and would have adverse effect on tourism, wildlife, fishing and the wilderness character of this protected area.
  • Because this plan will adversely affect the economy and well-being of Bogue Banks by diverting sand from Atlantic Beach and Fort Macon Beach where it provides protection from storms and improves beach quality for visitors and residents alike.

The Coalition is not opposed to the navigation project or beach nourishment.  Both are beneficial to the economy of Carteret County and the State.  However, the Coalition does believe that the misuse of dredged material has the potential harm to Shackleford Banks and is likely to hurt the economic future of the County, the region and the State of North Carolina.

Q: What impact will the Federal Plan have on the beaches of Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach?
A:  It will significantly reduce the amount of sand available for nourishing these beaches, and it will likely drive up the cost of nourishing these beaches in the future.  Since 1986, the Corps has placed dredged material on the beaches of Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach at no cost to the State of North Carolina, Carteret County, or the Town of Atlantic Beach to offset the impacts caused the Corps’ activities.  The proposed Federal Plan will reduce the amount of sand available for the Fort and Atlantic Beach and will no longer offset the erosion caused on these beaches by the Corps’ activities.

If more local money is needed to nourish the beaches of Fort Macon and Atlantic Beach, less local money will be available for nourishment of beaches west of Atlantic Beach.

Download the Summary of Coalition’s Position

Download US Army Corps of Engineer’s DMMP/EIS

The Federal Plan as originally conceived did not include disposal of dredged material on Shackleford Banks. But more than two years after the planning process was started, the National Park Service suddenly reversed a long-standing prohibition on disposal of dredge material and requested the Corps to include an option to place beach-quality material on Shackleford Banks.

The Coalition believes disposal of dredged material at Shackleford Banks will not result in any meaningful benefit to the island.  In fact, due to concerns of rapid shoaling, the Federal Plan does not even provide for the placement of dredged material in the most critical area of erosion on the western end of Shackleford Banks.

The Carteret Coalition to Protect Our Shores opposes the Federal Plan proposed by the National Park Service and the Army Corps of Engineers and calls on the public to join its efforts in re-writing the plan to remove the preferred alternative of placing dredged material at Shackleford Banks.

Q: Why is the Carteret County Beach Commission involved?
The Beach Commission was created by the County Board of Commissioner to advise the board on strategies for beach nourishment, and among other duties, to:

  1. Provide information to residents about beach nourishment and its benefits;
  2. Improve public awareness of beach nourishment, programs and issues; and
  3. Advocate for beach nourishment, issues and needs.

The Carteret County Beach Commission is a charter member of the Carteret Coalition to Protect Our Shores and is providing technical and financial support to the Coalition’s efforts.

Download the Maps