Category Archives: Coastal Development

The Fate of the Coal Ash Management Commission

March 19, 2016. An earlier post discussed the N.C. Supreme Court decision in McCrory v. Berger. In brief, the court ruled that laws giving the General Assembly  power to appoint a majority of the members of the Coal Ash Management Commission (CAMC) and two other state commissions violated the N.C. Constitution’s provisions on separation of powers.  (See the earlier post for more detail and a link to the court’s opinion.)   The decision means the Coal Ash Management Commission cannot take any further action until the General Assembly amends the CAMC’s  appointment statute  to be consistent with the court’s decision and new appointments are made.  The most likely solution would be to give the Governor power to appoint a majority of the members;  the law could be amended as early as April of this year when the legislature convenes again.

Multiple news outlets have now reported that the McCrory administration has taken steps to effectively disband the Coal Ash Management Commission in advance of the April legislative session.  The Charlotte Observer’s Bruce Henderson reported that the Governor’s Office informed CAMC executive director  Natalie Birdwell  that the commission is “no longer a legal entity”.  The same Charlotte Observer article reports that the move by the Governor’s Office to shut down the commission’s work will dissolve contracts with independent experts retained by the commission to provide an outside review of  the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) proposed risk classification of coal ash ponds.

A few observations about the Governor’s decision to shut down the Coal Ash Management Commission:

The Governor’s action  wasn’t required by the decision in McCrory v. Berger.  The court did not find anything unconstitutional in the creation of a Coal Ash Management Commission to oversee decisions on closure of coal ash ponds and coal ash disposal.  The court  only held the method of appointing CAMC members  to be  unconstitutional.  The N.C. Supreme Court has found commission appointments statutes unconstitutional in the past and the solution has been to amend the statute to change the appointment scheme.  In 1982, the N.C. Supreme Court  ruled in Wallace v. Bone  that the General Assembly violated the N.C. Constitution’s separation of powers provisions by designating four seats on the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for active members of the legislature.  In response, the General Assembly amended the EMC appointments statute to replace the legislators serving on the commission with citizens appointed by the General Assembly.  Nothing in the court’s decision suggested the EMC must be dissolved and that did not happen; nothing in the decision questioned the validity of past EMC actions.  The decision in McCrory v. Berger likewise  does not hold that actions already taken by the Coal Ash Management Commission — such as hiring staff and entering into contracts  for services —  are void or voidable.

Another separation of powers case still pending in  Wake County Superior Court challenges appointments to the Mining and Energy Commission  (MEC) and specifically asks the court to void the MEC’s past rulemaking actions.   But to date, no  court has ruled that the presence of unconstitutionally appointed members invalidates a commission’s  past acts. The MEC case directly  raises the issue for the first time and could lead to a decision affecting future separation of powers cases. In the meantime, the McCrory administration has chosen to go further than the decision in McCrory v. Berger  requires to  undo the existing organizational, staff and contractual arrangements supporting the Coal Ash Management Commission.  (It isn’t clear whether the McCrory administration’s position on the CAMC  would carry over to support for the plaintiffs seeking to invalidate the Mining and Energy Commission’s past rulemaking actions on similar grounds.)

The General Assembly’s next move may depend on continued legislative interest in providing oversight for DEQ’s coal ash decision making.  In 2014, the General Assembly created the Coal Ash Management Commission to provide independent oversight for DEQ decisions related to coal ash disposal and closure of existing coal ash ponds. At the time, legislators expressed concern about relying entirely on DEQ’s judgment because of controversy surrounding early McCrory administration decisions on coal ash enforcement and a pending federal investigation of relationships between state regulators and Duke Energy. The question is whether those concerns still exist and,  if so,  how the legislature will react to the Governor’s unilateral move to disable the commission. The General Assembly can resolve the separation of powers issue and revive the CAMC by simply changing the CAMC appointment provision to  allow the Governor to make a majority of the appointments.

By forcing the Coal Ash Management Commission to start over, the Governor’s action may make it impossible for the commission to meet its first critical deadline –risk classification of coal ash ponds. The Coal Ash Management Act gave the CAMC final authority to determine the appropriate risk classification of each coal ash pond; the risk classification will determine how quickly the ash pond must be closed and whether the coal ash must be excavated and disposed of in a lined landfill. Only coal ash ponds classified as Low Risk can be closed out by dewatering and capping the ash in place.  Under the law, the CAMC must make a final decision on risk classification of a coal ash pond within 60 days after DEQ sends the commission a proposed risk classification. If the commission does not act within 60 days, DEQ’s proposed risk classification becomes the final classification by default.

Timelines in the law will  require DEQ to submit proposed classifications for all of the coal ash ponds to the  Coal Ash Management Commission by mid-May.  Some proposed classifications may be ready sooner. Even if  new appointments to the CAMC can be made under an amended appointments statute by that time, the Governor’s action means the newly appointed commission will have to reassemble a staff, re-engage consultants and revive basic  operating systems to function.  Unless the General Assembly extends the time for the CAMC to review and act on proposed risk classifications,  the DEQ proposed classifications may become final by default before the commission can act.

After the ash ponds have been classified, the next major set of CAMC decisions under the Coal Ash Management Act  involve approval of final closure plans for each coal ash pond.  The closure plans determine whether coal ash will be excavated and removed from the site or capped in place and  includes approval of technical specifications for final disposal of coal ash. The closure plan may also involve approval of a beneficial reuse project as an alternative to landfill disposal. The law directs the CAMC to make the final decision on  approving a final closure plan based on a recommendation from DEQ.  The law again gives the CAMC a limited time to act on each recommended closure plan; if the commission does not act within the time allowed, DEQ’s recommended closure plan becomes final by default.

If the General Assembly does not intervene to protect the Coal Ash Management Commission’s ability to carry out its responsibilities, the practical result could be a significant change in the way the Coal Ash Management Act works. Delaying the commission’s ability to act in time to affect DEQ’s decisions on closure of coal ash ponds will have the practical effect of ceding all  decision-making back to DEQ.  The original concept of providing  independent oversight of those decisions through the Coal Ash Management Commission will be lost.

2015 in Review — Legislation

January 12, 2016. Some trends in environmental legislation:

Limiting Local Government Authority. After several years of legislation limiting the regulatory authority of state environmental agencies, the General Assembly turned to local government.

♦   Senate Bill 119  (Session Law 2015-264)  may have the practical effect of  eliminating local government  authority to regulate shale gas operations under  zoning, land use, stormwater, health,  and sedimentation control ordinances.  In 2014,  Session Law 2014-4  preempted local ordinances that  “would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, or use of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing for that purpose”.   But the 2014 law created a presumption that local zoning and land use ordinances applicable to other types of development  (such as zoning, setbacks, buffers  and stormwater standards) could also apply to shale gas operations.

Senate Bill 119  rewrites  the 2014 provision to completely  preempt  local ordinances.  The new Oil and Gas Commission (replacing the Mining and Energy Commission) now has power to preempt the application of  local development ordinances even if  the ordinance would not preclude shale gas development or conflict with state standards.  Although the presumption  in favor of zoning and land use ordinances still appears in the law, the 2015 amendments direct the Commission to preempt a local ordinance at the request of the shale gas developer if the  drilling operation has received  state/federal permits and the Commission finds that exploration and development

…will not pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk to the surrounding locality and that the operator has taken or consented to take reasonable measures to avoid or manage foreseeable risks and to comply to the maximum feasible extent with applicable local ordinances.

In effect,  the Oil and Gas  Commission can set aside any  local ordinance and substitute its judgment about risk for that of local elected officials. Preemption of local ordinances could have several implications —

1. Complete preemption of local ordinances may  leave gaps in basic regulation of shale gas activities  since state standards do not address a number of   issues normally dealt with by local government such as noise,  traffic, solid waste disposal (trash — not drilling waste), and open burning.

2.  The law potentially allows preemption of local  stormwater ordinances needed to  meet state water supply watershed protection standards; comply with federal stormwater permits; or  minimize flooding.    The Environmental Management Commission has adopted stormwater rules  for shale gas operations, but those  rules expressly recognize that additional stormwater standards may apply to a particular operation and reserve the right to apply those standards — whether implemented by DEQ or by a local government.  The new preemption language in Senate Bill 119 does not recognize the possibility that local stormwater ordinances may be required under state or federal law.

3.  The provision  raises a question about implementation of  sedimentation control requirements through local sedimentation programs. The state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act allows cities and counties to take over implementation of the sedimentation program. In areas with local programs, sedimentation control requirements are set and enforced through local ordinances.  Nothing in Senate Bill 119 prevents the Oil and Gas Commission from preempting a local sedimentation ordinance.

♦  House Bill 44  included two provisions limiting local government authority to adopt or enforce other types of development ordinances —

Section 2 bars  local governments from enforcing a “voluntary” state environmental rule,  but defines “voluntary” rule in a creative way to include any state rule  that has  been repealed;  has been adopted, but is not yet in effect; or has been “temporarily or permanently held in abeyance”.  The last category would cover the  Jordan Lake water quality rules that have been delayed by legislative action.  Preventing  local enforcement  of existing Jordan Lake stormwater ordinances  may have been the main purpose of the provision, but it could also raise questions about the enforceability of other local ordinances. No one has  attempted to catalog all of the local ordinances that include requirements that once appeared in a now-repealed state rule or are proposed to be included in a new state rule that has not yet been adopted.   The House Bill 44 provision seems to assume that local environmental ordinances always follow  state regulatory action; it  ignores direct grants (by the General Assembly) of local government authority to  adopt ordinances to protect  public health and the environment.  For more on the implications of this provision,  see an earlier post.

Section 13  limits local government authority to adopt riparian buffer requirements.  The bill defines “riparian buffer”  to mean any setback from surface waters —  which could include a setback imposed for flood control.  (The definition seems broader than other  language in the provision  specifically referring  to  riparian buffers for water quality protection.) Under the bill, a local government cannot adopt and enforce a riparian buffer ordinance for water quality protection  that  goes beyond requirements of state or federal law or the conditions of a state or federal permit unless the EMC  approves the ordinance.

Shielding Evidence of Possible Environmental Violations

♦  House Bill 765  (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015)  creates a new legal  privilege for information contained in an environmental audit report. (Companies use environmental audits  to identify  compliance problems;  opportunities for waste reduction;  and operational changes to reduce environmental impacts.)   Information covered by the privilege does not have to be shared with regulators and cannot be used by  regulatory agencies to document an environmental violation in  a civil enforcement case.   The privilege does not apply in a criminal  case, but the vast majority of environmental enforcement actions rely on civil rather than criminal penalties. See the section on environmental audit privilege/self-disclosure immunity in this earlier post for more on the scope of the privilege.

♦   House Bill 405    allows an employer to take legal action against an employee who 1. enters a “nonpublic” area of the workplace;  2.  takes photographs, makes recordings, or copies records without permission; and 3.  uses those documents “against the interest of the employer”.   The employer can sue the employee  for  monetary damages,  including legal fees and a $5,000 per day penalty.   Animal rights activists referred to House Bill 405  as the “Ag-Gag” bill — a term used for legislation targeting activists who go undercover on farms and in  processing facilities to document animal cruelty violations. But House Bill 405 is not limited to agricultural workers or documentation of animal cruelty. The bill could also be used to punish an employee who documents  illegal dumping of hazardous  waste and shares the evidence with regulators or the media.  See an earlier post for more on House Bill 405.

Lessening the Consequences for Some Environmental Violations.

♦  House Bill 765 grants immunity from civil penalties and fines for environmental violations that are voluntarily disclosed to state regulators.  The bill defines “voluntary” disclosure;  immunity would not apply to violations  documented  through information the company has a legal duty to report under state or federal law, for example. The bill limits how often a person (or company) can claim self-disclosure immunity — no more than once every two years; twice in a five-year period; and three times in a ten-year period.  The bill never defines “civil penalties and fines”, leaving a question about the breadth of the immunity.  For example, the bill is silent on whether “civil penalties and fines” includes natural resource damages such as  fish kill damages assessed for a wastewater spill. For a more detailed comparison to past state and present U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement policies on self-disclosed violations, see an earlier post.

♦  A provision in the budget bill (S.L. 2015-241) limits the total civil penalty for ongoing  violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to $25,000 if: 1. the violator had not previously been assessed a penalty for a sedimentation violation (which does not necessarily mean the person has not previously violated the law); and 2. the violator addresses damage caused by the violations within 180 days.  Previously, the law allowed the Department of Environmental Quality to assess a maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation, per day for continuing sedimentation violations. The fact that the meter on civil penalties could run until the violator addressed the problem created a powerful incentive for quick response — even though DEQ rarely assesses the maximum penalty. Quick action to correct a violation  translates to  less stream damage from uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation.  The recent amendments have the somewhat perverse effect of assuring the violator that  sedimentation violations can go uncorrected for nearly six months without resulting in an increased penalty.  The provision also means that committing numerous sedimentation violations on the development site will result in the same penalty as a single violation.  The new cap on continuing violation penalties also applies to penalties assessed by local sedimentation programs.

♦ House Bill 765  amends existing state laws to allow broader use of “risk-based”  cleanup  of environmental contamination. In a risk-based cleanup, the person responsible for environmental  contamination is not required to fully restore contaminated soil and groundwater. A risk-based  cleanup plan relies on a combination of limited remediation and land-use controls (such as deed restrictions) that prevent exposure to contamination  remaining on the site after the partial cleanup.  Groundwater cleanup costs represent a significant consequence of violating environmental laws — often exceeding penalties assessed by regulators — so  allowing a  more limited cleanup reduces the cost of violating the law.  (It also means the groundwater may remain contaminated and unusable for a very long time.)

House Bill 765 extends the benefits of lower cost, risk-based cleanup to several categories of  contaminated sites that had been  excluded  under  the state’s  2011  law  allowing risk-based remediation of  industrial contamination. Two of those categories broaden the use of risk-based remediation in ways that may undermine incentives for present environmental compliance:

—  New contamination incidents.  House Bill 765 repeals statute language  limiting use of risk-based remediation to contamination  reported  before the 2011 risk-based remediation law went into effect.  In 2011, allowing risk-based cleanup of industrial sites was seen as an incentive for remediation of properties with longstanding contamination  —  often resulting from activities that had been lawful at the time. Remediation costs remained  a significant incentive for present-day compliance with environmental standards. Removing the date restriction means that a  risk-based cleanup will now be an option for new contamination incidents resulting from activities violating current environmental laws.

—  Sites contaminated by petroleum releases from above-ground  storage tanks (ASTs).  There has long been a risk-based cleanup program for petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs),  but UST operators also have to meet extensive regulatory standards to  prevent future pollution incidents.  House Bill 765 gives AST owners  the benefit of risk-based cleanup without regulatory standards to prevent future releases.

Eliminating or Streamlining State Permit Requirements for Environmental Infrastructure

♦ The state budget (S.L. 2015-241)  includes a provision that changes landfill permitting, allowing issuance of a single “life of site” permit to cover construction and operation of a landfill that  often has a 30-year lifespan.  State rules had previously  required review and approval of the entire landfill site before construction, but also required each 5 or 10-year phase of the landfill to have a construction and operation permit.   Landfill construction will continue to be done in phases for economic and practical reasons,  but the “life of site permit” eliminates state compliance review for each new  phase of the landfill.   The change also seems to close the door on  new permit conditions for construction or operation of later landfill phases in response to scientific or  technological developments. The budget provision does not set minimum landfill inspection requirements in place of the 5 and 10-year phased permit reviews.

♦ House Bill 765 creates a new private permitting option for septic systems and other small on-site wastewater systems now permitted by local health departments. The provision  allows  a property owner to hire an engineer and soil scientist to approve the location and design of the system. The local health department will receive information about the system, but the engineer’s approval substitutes for a permit. It isn’t clear that  the laws allows the health department to prevent construction of an engineer-certified system based on inconsistency with state siting and design standards.

Skepticism about State Water Quality Rules. The 2015 General Assembly continued to focus on water quality rules and particularly those affecting real estate development activities — such as stormwater standards, wetland and stream mitigation requirements, and riparian buffer protection rules.

♦ The state budget includes a special provision further delaying implementation of the Jordan Lake water quality rules for  another 3 years or one year beyond completion of the Solar Bee pilot project (whichever is later). See an earlier post  here on the  2013 legislation creating the pilot project. The rules had been developed by the state’s Environmental Management Commission to address poor water quality  caused by  excess nutrients reaching the lake in wastewater discharges and  runoff from agricultural lands and developed areas.  Since adoption of the rules, the legislature has taken repeated steps over several legislative sessions to delay compliance deadlines in the rules. This session,  the  legislature also barred local government enforcement of stormwater ordinances adopted to comply with the Jordan Lake rules.

♦ House Bill 765  limits  regulatory authority and mitigation requirements for isolated wetlands and intermittent streams. (Isolated wetlands are wetlands that fall outside federal permitting jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act because the wetlands lack a connection to “navigable waters”.)  These provisions continue a several-year legislative trend toward limiting  protections for wetlands and waters to the minimum required under federal law.

♦ Some proposals to significantly roll back other water quality rules (particularly stormwater and  riparian buffer rules) failed this session, but became the subject of legislatively mandated studies. Among the studies required before the April 2016 legislative session: a study of coastal stormwater rules; a study on the feasibility of entirely exempting linear utility projects (such as pipelines) from  environmental standards;  and an Environmental Review Commission study of the  state stormwater program.

Expanding Use of Erosion Control Structures on Ocean and Inlet Shorelines

♦ A   provision in the budget bill  (S.L. 2015-241)  changes state rules on use of sandbag  structures on the oceanfront.  Rules adopted by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission have limited use of protective sandbag structures to situations where a building faces an imminent erosion threat. (These sandbag  structures are substantial in size and can have many of the same long-term impacts as permanent seawalls; the rules do not apply to sandbags used to prevent water from entering a building during a flood event.)   The budget bill changes the standards to allow an oceanfront property owner to install a sandbag  structure to align with an existing sandbag structure on adjacent property without showing an imminent erosion threat to a building on their own property.

♦ The budget bill also increases the number of terminal groin structures that can be permitted at the state’s ocean inlets from four to six and identifies New River Inlet for location of two of the additional structures. See an earlier post  for more on earlier legislation allowing construction of terminal groins as a  pilot project. The latest provision continues a several-year trend of reducing regulatory requirements for approval of terminal groin projects and increasing the number of projects that can be permitted.

N.C. Environmental Legislation 2015: The Budget

October 9, 2015. Now that the General Assembly has adjourned, a look at legislative actions affecting the environment. First, the state budget for 2015-2017.

Among the most significant impacts:

♦  REORGANIZATION.   The Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Program — originally intended to protect and restore water quality and identify important natural areas — have been separated from the environmental protection programs in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The budget transfers the CWMTF, Natural Heritage Program, Museum of Natural Sciences, state park system, N.C. Aquariums and N.C. Zoo from DENR to a newly organized Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The move combines conservation  and ecological education programs with state historic sites and cultural resources. The new department appears to be organized around management of the programs as public attractions rather than as research and education partners to state environmental protection programs.  As a result of the reorganization, DENR becomes the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Whatever the merits of the move for facilities like the Museum of Natural Science and N.C. Zoo,  the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and Natural Heritage Program do not  fit the new department’s basic organizing principle. Unlike the “attractions”,  the  CWMTF and Natural Heritage Program provide no public facilities and exist primarily to protect  water quality and identify important natural resources.

The General Assembly created the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) in 1996 to fund projects to prevent water pollution and to restore water bodies already impaired  by pollution.   CWMTF’s  non-regulatory approach complemented water quality rules  protecting state waters.  Originally,   CWMTF grants funded acquisition of riparian buffers to reduce polluted runoff into streams and rivers and  extension of sewer lines where failing  septic  systems threatened surface water quality.  In moving CWMTF, the 2015 budget severs its connection with other state efforts to restore and protect water quality.  The move follows 2014  legislation diluting the original CWMTF  focus on  water quality protection by authorizing use of the Trust Fund for acquisition of historic sites and buffers around military bases.

The  Natural Heritage Program researches, classifies and inventories the state’s natural resources, including endangered and rare plant and animal species. Information collected by the program can be used to document the conservation value of property and to assess the environmental impacts of projects requiring state and federal environmental permits.  The program has a much closer working relationship to the environmental  protection programs that remain in DENR than to public attractions like the N.C.  Zoo and Aquariums. (Note: The 2013 state budget eliminated the Natural Heritage Trust Fund which had been a source of funding for conservation of important natural areas;   the CWMTF  has become the funding source for those projects as well.)

♦  LANDFILL PERMITTING. The budget changes landfill permitting, allowing issuance of a single “life of site” permit to cover construction and operation of a landfill that may have a 30-year lifespan.  State rules had previously  required review and approval of the entire landfill site before construction, but also required each 5 or 10-year phase of the landfill to have a construction and operation permit.  Moving to a “life of site” permit  reduces the number of permit reviews for each landfill operation, changing the permit fee schedule and cutting funding for the state’s solid waste management program by 20%.  The change also reduces state oversight of landfill operations.  Landfill construction will continue to be done in phases for economic and practical reasons,  but the “life of site permit” eliminates state compliance review for each new  phase of the landfill.   The change also seems to eliminate the possibility of imposing additional permit conditions for construction or operation of later landfill phases in response to  technological developments  or new knowledge  of  risks to groundwater and other natural resources. The  budget provision does not set minimum inspection requirements in place of the 5 and 10-year phased permit reviews.

The bill also creates a legislative study of local government authority over solid waste collection and disposal, including ordinances on solid waste collection;  fees for waste management services; and potential for privatization.  The study suggests the General Assembly may focus next on reducing local solid waste regulation.  That will be a somewhat different discussion, since solid waste disposal has long been a local government responsibility so  local fees and ordinances have a direct connection to city/county collection and disposal services.

♦  LEAKING PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS. The budget eliminates a state fund for cleanup of petroleum contamination from small  petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) such as home heating oil tanks.   The Noncommercial UST Trust Fund has assisted property owners with the cost of soil and groundwater remediation caused by leaks from farm, home and small commercial USTs.  The budget allocates additional money to the Noncommercial UST Trust Fund to cover pending claims, but  limits use of the Fund to  cleanup costs associated with leaks reported to DENR by October 1, 2015.  All claims for reimbursement of those costs must be filed by July 1, 2016.

The budget provision also prohibits DENR from requiring removal of petroleum-contaminated soils at noncommercial UST sites that have been classified as low risk.  The  problem —  risk classifications  have been based on groundwater impacts;  a low-risk classification does not mean that contaminated soils on the property pose no health hazard. Current UST  rules require remediation of contaminated soils to levels safe for the intended land use (residential versus nonresidential) without regard to the overall risk classification of the site.  Soil remediation standards have been based on the potential health risks associated with exposure to petroleum-contaminated soil. Adverse health effects may include increased cancer risk since petroleum products contain a number of carcinogens. The budget provision may allow petroleum-contaminated soils to remain on residential properties at levels putting children at particular risk of adverse health effects.

♦ JORDAN LAKE WATER QUALITY RULES. The budget allocates another $1.5 million (from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund) to continue the 2013 pilot project to test use of aerators to improve water quality in the Jordan Lake system. The budget also has a special provision further delaying implementation of the Jordan Lake water quality rules for  another 3 years or one year beyond completion of the pilot project (whichever is later). The rules had been developed by the state’s Environmental Management Commission to address poor water quality  caused by  excess nutrients reaching the lake in wastewater discharges or in  runoff from agricultural lands and developed areas. See an earlier post  here on the  2013 legislation creating the pilot project.

♦ COASTAL EROSION CONTROL.   A special provision in the budget also changes state rules on use of sandbag seawalls and terminal groins in response to coastal erosion.  State coastal management rules have only allowed use of  temporary sandbag seawalls to protect a building facing an imminent threat from erosion. The same rules prohibit construction of the seawall more than 20 feet seaward of the threatened building. (These sandbag seawalls are substantial structures built on the beach in response to oceanfront erosion; the rules do not apply to sandbags used to prevent water from entering a building during a flood event.) The budget bill allows an oceanfront property owner to install a sandbag seawall to align with an existing sandbag structure on adjacent property without showing an imminent erosion threat to any building on their own property.  Since the bill allows construction to align with the adjacent sandbag seawall, the new seawall  may  also be more than 20 feet seaward of any  building. The irony here — a property owner may want to install a sandbag seawall in these circumstances  out of concern that the adjacent sandbag seawall may itself cause increased shoreline erosion.

The budget bill also increases the number of terminal groin structures that can be permitted at the state’s ocean inlets from four to six and identifies New River Inlet for location of two of the additional structures. See an earlier post  for more on earlier legislation allowing construction of terminal groins as a pilot project. Note: No terminal groins have been completed under the original pilot program, so the state does not yet have any data on the actual impacts of these structures.

♦ RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDIT.  The budget bill allows the state’s 35% tax credit for renewable energy projects to sunset on December 31, 2015. A separate bill provides a “safe harbor” for renewable energy projects already substantially underway by that date. Those projects may qualify for a one-year extension of the tax credit. See Senate Bill 372 for more on conditions that apply to the safe harbor extension.

The NC Senate: Budget 2015

June 18, 2015.  Yesterday, the  N.C. Senate  took a first vote to approve a Senate version of House Bill 97  ( 2015 Appropriations Act).   The Senate received H 97 from the House of Representatives on May 22. The Senate  released its  alternative draft of the appropriations bill three days ago and quickly moved H 97  through Senate appropriations committees.  The Senate takes  a very different approach to funding state government than the House, but the Senate version of H 97 also contains many more “special provisions” — changes to existing law that go beyond finance and appropriations.  Some of the more significant environmental provisions in the Senate budget bill  (not by any means a complete list) below.

First, the Senate revisits the organization of state natural resource programs.  Sec. 14.30 of the Senate bill would combine  DENR’s natural resource programs (Division of Parks and Recreation, State Parks, Aquariums, the N.C. Zoo and the Museum of Natural Sciences) with cultural resource programs (such as the Museum of History and state historic sites)  in a new Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.  DENR would become the Department of Environmental Quality. Sec. 14.31  requires the two departments to study  whether  the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program,  state Coastal Reserves, the Office of Land and Water Stewardship,  the Office of Environmental Education and Public Affairs, the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Wildlife Resources Commission should also be moved to the new Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

Other changes proposed in the Senate bill by subject (parenthetical descriptions are mine) :

COAL ASH

Sec. 29.18 (Beneficial use of coal ash) requires the Utilities Commission to report to several legislative committees by January 2016 on “the incremental cost incentives related to coal combustion residuals surface impoundment for investor-owned public utilities” including:

(1) Utilities Commission policy on  incremental cost recovery.

(2) The impact of the current policy on incremental cost recovery on utility customers’ rates.

(3) Possible changes to the current policy on incremental cost  recovery  that would promote reprocessing and other technologies that allow the reuse of coal combustion residuals stored in surface impoundments for concrete and other beneficial end uses.

Although a bit opaque, the Senate seems interested in the possibility of allowing electric utilities  to recover (through charges to consumers) the costs associated with making coal ash in surface impoundments available  for beneficial use.  Duke Energy has previously told legislators  that much of the coal ash in North Carolina impoundments  would require additional processing to be usable in concrete manufacturing.

COASTAL ISSUES

Sec. 14.6 (Use of sandbags for temporary erosion control) amends standards installation of sandbags for  erosion control on ocean and inlet shorelines. State rules now allow installation of sandbags only in response to erosion that imminently threatens a structure. The Senate bill allows a property owner to install sandbags to align with existing sandbag structures  on adjacent properties without showing an imminent erosion threat on their own property.

Sec. 14.10I (Strategies to address beach erosion) requires the Division of Coastal Management to study and develop a strategy “preventing, mitigating and remediating the effects of beach erosion”.

ENERGY 

Sec 14.29  (Federal energy grants) prohibits DENR from applying for grants from two federal programs – the State Energy Program Competitive Grant Program and the Clean Energy and Manufacturing Grant Program.

FISHERIES

Sec. 14.8, Sec. 14.10A and Sec. 14.10C  (measures to increase shellfish restoration and cultivation)

Sec. 14.8  directs the Division of Marine Fisheries to work with commercial fishermen,  aquaculture operations, and federal agencies to open additional areas in Core Sound to shellfish cultivation leasing.

Sec. 14.10A  directs DMF and the Division of Coastal Management to cooperate in  development of a new, expedited  CAMA permitting process for oyster restoration projects. The provision  also  authorizes DMF to  issue scientific and educational activity permits to nonprofit conservation organizations engaged in oyster restoration.

Sec. 14.10C Amends G.S. 113-202 to allow a lease for use of the water bottom to also cover fish cultivation or harvest devices on or within 18″ of the bottom. (Devices or structures not resting on the bottom or extending more than 18″ above the bottom will continue to require a water column lease.)

Sec. 14.10F (Joint fisheries enforcement authority) repeals the Division of Marine Fisheries authority to enter into a joint enforcement agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The joint agreement allows DMF  to receive federal funding to enforce federal fisheries regulations in state waters.

SPECIAL FUNDS

Sec. 14.16  continues a recent trend of eliminating “special funds” that hold fees or other revenue dedicated for a specific purpose outside the state budget’s General Fund. The Senate bill eliminates special funds for mining fees,  stormwater permit fees, and UST soil permitting fees and moves the fee revenue into the General Fund.

STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION

Sec. 14.23 (Limiting the state’s role in providing stream, wetland, riparian buffer and nutrient mitigation)  requires DENR’s Division of Mitigation Services to stop accepting fees in lieu of mitigation in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Cape Fear River basins within 30 months.  The provision then allows DENR (with the Environmental Management Commission’s agreement) to also eliminate the state in-lieu fee programs in all other river basins after June 30, 2018.

DENR’s  in-lieu fee program allows a developer to pay  a fee for mitigation  required as a condition of state and federal development permits. DENR  then contracts with private mitigation providers for the necessary mitigation. Payment of the fee transfers responsibility for providing the mitigation from the developer to DENR. Under a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state’s in-lieu fee program can be used to satisfy stream and wetland mitigation required as a condition of federal Clean Water Act permits.

Eliminating  the State in-lieu fee program seems to eliminate the fee-for-mitigation approach as an option for developers. The burden would be back on the developer to find acceptable mitigation through a private mitigation bank or to plan and manage an individual mitigation project.  The change may slow some development projects that can now move  ahead based on the Corps of Engineers’ agreement to accept payments to the state in-lieu fee program as satisfying  federal mitigation requirements.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

Sec. 14.16A (Elimination of the Noncommercial UST Trust Fund) phases out the state’s Noncommercial UST Trust Fund which reimburses property owners for the cost of cleaning up contamination from leaking underground petroleum storage tanks. The Noncommercial UST Trust Fund has  benefitted homeowners with soil and groundwater  contamination caused by home heating oil tanks and property owners  with contamination caused by USTs  used to store fuel for personal use — as on a farm. Under the Senate provision, the Noncommercial Fund could only be used for leaks reported before August 1, 2015 and claims for reimbursement filed by July 1, 2016. The Noncommercial Fund  would be eliminated for any petroleum releases  reported or claims made after those dates.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Sec. 14.20 (Life of site landfill permits) amends G.S. 130A-294 to replace the current  5 or 10 year landfill permits with a “life of site” permit to cover landfill operations from opening to final closure. The provision would require permit review every five years.

Sec. 14.21 (Study of local government authority over waste collection and disposal services) directs the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission to study local authority over solid waste management including local fees; ordinances on waste collection and processing; cost to local government to provide solid waste services; and efficiencies or cost reductions that might be realized through privatization.   Solid waste collection and disposal services are entirely financed and provided by local governments;  many already contract with private entities for waste collection or landfill management.  It isn’t clear what the study might lead to since the legislature doesn’t have a role in  providing or financing local waste management services.

Sec. 14.22  (Privatizing landfill remediation) directs DENR to privatize the assessment and remediation of at least 10 high priority pre-1983 landfill sites. For several years, DENR has received a percentage of the state’s solid waste disposal tax  to fund assessment and cleanup of  contamination associated with landfills and dumps that closed rather than meet environmental standards that went into effect in 1983. Some legislators have expressed concern about the slow pace of remediation (and the resulting high fund balance). Note: Most state-funded remediation programs have a slow ramp-up in spending since it takes time to set up a new program and assess the sites.

WATER QUALITY

Sec. 4.5  (Nutrient management) earmarks $4.5 million from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for a  DENR study of “in situ strategies beyond traditional watershed controls” to mitigate water quality impairment. The provision specifically mentions impairment by “aquatic flora, sediment and nutrients”, suggesting the study may be a continuation of the legislature’s effort to replace watershed-based nutrient management programs with technological solutions.

In 2013, the General Assembly suspended implementation of watershed-based nutrient management rules in the Jordan Lake watershed and funded a pilot project to test the use of aerators to reduce the impacts of excess nutrients on water quality. Sec. 14.5 allows extension of  the  pilot project contracts for another two years and delays implementation of the Jordan Lake watershed rules an additional two years or one year beyond completion of the pilot project, whichever is later.

Sec. 14.25 (State Assumption of permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) directs DENR to  hire a consultant to plan and prepare a state application  to assume the  federal permitting program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.   Sec. 404 requires a permit to fill waters or wetlands that fall under Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The U.S. Corps of Engineers issues Sec. 404 permits,  but a state can assume Sec. 404  permitting authority under certain conditions.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees  404 permitting and would have to approve a state program. In a state that assumes Sec. 404 permitting, EPA retains authority to review  permit applications; a permit cannot be issued over an EPA objection.

Although several states have explored the possibility of assuming Sec. 404 permitting authority, only Michigan and  New Jersey have approved Sec. 404 programs. Individual states have reached different conclusions about the costs and benefits for a number of reasons. One may be cost — there are no federal grant funds to support a state 404 permitting program.   The Clean Water Act also prohibits state assumption of permitting in  tidal waters; water bodies used for interstate and foreign commerce;  and wetlands adjacent to both categories of waters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would continue to have permitting authority in those waters and wetlands.

Sec. 14.26 (Transfer Sedimentation Act implementation to the EMC) eliminates the Sedimentation Pollution Control Commission and transfers responsibility for implementation of the Sedimentation Act to the Environmental Management Commission.

Once the Senate takes a final vote on House Bill 97, the bill goes to a conference committee to resolve the (considerable) differences between Senate and  House versions of the bill.  Few of the environmental provisions described above appear in the House version of the bill — although that doesn’t necessarily mean all of the Senate additions will be opposed by the House in conference negotiations.

Regulatory Reform 2015 — The Senate Bill

March 26, 2015. The Senate has introduced the first regulatory reform bill of the 2015 session – an annual rite of spring. Senate Bill 453 includes a number of environmental provisions. The most significant:

Another attempt to  create an  environmental audit privilege and immunity for violations reported as a result of an audit.  The audit and self-reporting provisions in the bill appear to be identical to those proposed by the Senate in  2014, but not included in the final  Regulatory Reform Act of 2014. See an earlier  post  about the 2014 regulatory reform bill for a description of the environmental audit/self reporting provisions making a reappearance in 2015.

Sec. 4.3 of the bill  eliminates several environmental reporting requirements.  Most of the reports to be eliminated  have become unnecessary, but the bill  also proposes to  repeal  the requirement for DENR to report  on  environmental  permit processing times.  The report on One-Stop and Express Permitting, under G.S.  143B-279.15, has  allowed legislators to track permitting times in DENR programs that issue development permits.  Given the legislature’s strong interest in environmental permitting, the report  seems an odd candidate for repeal.

Sec. 4.4   would allow more construction of sandbag seawalls and revetments on the oceanfront.  Under coastal management rules,  sandbags can only be used if the building on the property is actually threatened by erosion and the sandbags must be installed within 20 feet of the building’s foundation. The bill removes both limitations. It would allow an oceanfront property owner to build a sandbag seawall  if there is a similar sandbag structure on the adjoining lot even if the  building  on their own lot is not threatened by erosion. The bill also  allows the  sandbags to be installed further seaward of the building foundation without putting a  limit on how far seaward the sandbags can be placed.

Sec. 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 eliminate reports on electronics recycling;  Sec. 4.9 calls for a study of the electronics recycling program.   By eliminating the reporting requirements, the state would lose information on the volume of electronics being  recycled annually. The study language suggests some legislative concern about the current electronics recycling program without identifying any specific problem.

Sec. 4.12  expands liability protection for the owners of contaminated property in a way that may shield some polluters from cleanup responsibility. The bill amends the  state Brownfields redevelopment  law  (which provides incentives  for redevelopment of  contaminated property) to make “brown fields redeveloper” in state law mean the same thing as “bona fide prospective purchaser” under a federal law regulating hazardous substances.  The Senate bill  would also repeal existing language in state law that does not allow  a person  who caused or contributed to  the contamination to receive liability protection and other benefits under the state Brownfields Act.

The  changes  could be a problem because the definition of “bona fide prospective purchaser” in the federal  law (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation  and Liability Act  or “CERCLA”)   has been defined to mean a property owner who  innocently purchased property contaminated by a “hazardous substance”.  Under  CERCLA, “hazardous substance”  refers to a specific list of chemicals associated with  acute or chronic health effects;  simple possession of  a threshold quantity of one of the listed chemicals  may trigger a federal reporting requirement.  The CERCLA “hazardous substance” list is not intended to cover all  pollutants and contaminants that may  cause harm  if released to the environment.  For example, petroleum products are excluded from the federal definition of a “hazardous substance” although  gasoline  leaked into soil and groundwater presents both a health and environmental risk.

The Senate Bill 453 change could  allow  a property  owner  who actually caused  environmental contamination to get  liability protection and other benefits under the state Brownfields law  (such as reduced property taxes) just by showing the contamination was not caused by a  hazardous substance regulated under CERCLA. That   could seriously undermine state remediation programs and give undeserved benefits to people who actually caused environmental contamination and should have an obligation to clean it up.

Note: The change may have implications for coal ash sites, although that seems to be a more complicated question. Some of the constituents of coal ash are listed “hazardous substances” under federal law. But  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s  decision to regulate coal ash as a solid waste rather than a hazardous waste may take coal ash itself out of the category of “hazardous substances”.  Although it is not entirely clear, it is possible that the Senate Bill  453 change would allow a utility to take advantage of the state Brownfields  law to get  liability protection  on a coal ash site.

A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Change, Part I: Temperature

January 30,  2015. Controversy over EPA’s proposed carbon reduction rule (see an earlier post)  has again focused attention on the  climate change debate.  This post will look at global  temperature trends as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA).

The most recent temperature data. In  2014, the average combined land and sea surface temperature on Earth reached the highest level since modern record-keeping began in the 1880s.   The latest temperature data can be found in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)   2014  Global Climate Report here. Similar results reported by  NASA can be found here. Although NOAA and NASA use somewhat different baselines and methods, the two agencies reached very similar results. NASA calculated an increase of 1.4 ° (F) over the historical baseline; NOAA found an increase of 1.24° (F). Both found that higher ocean temperatures made a slightly greater contribution to the total increase than land surface temperatures.

The  chart below has been adapted from a NOAA Chart showing the ten warmest years on record based on the global average temperature. All of those years, with the exception of one, have occurred since 2000.  The third  column shows the increase in temperature by reference to the historical average (1880-2014).

Rank (1=Warmest) Year Increase (Fº)
1  2014  +1.24
2 (Tie) 2010/2005  + 1.17
4 1998  +1.13
5 (Tie) 2013/2003  +1.12
7 2002  +1.10
8 2006  +1.08
9 (Tie) 2009/2007  +1.06

Some temperature fluctuation from year to year can be accounted for by El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling) trends in the Pacific Ocean, but the 2014 high occurred under neutral El Nino conditions.  Find the original NOAA chart and other information about NOAA’s  2014 temperature analysis here.

NOAA also provides a bar chart showing the trend in global temperature over the entire period

Comparison to past temperature variation on Earth. Scientists have estimated average global temperature during past warming and cooling  periods based on a variety of natural records — glacial ice, tree rings, geological formations, and fossils. There have been periods in the past when Earth’s average temperature was much higher than it is now.  But once Earth cooled down from a hot rock to  a planet capable of supporting life,  the warming event that followed the last ice age occurred  very slowly.  See NOAA’s  introduction to  climate history here.   The overviews of historical climate studies provided by NOAA and by NASA’s  Climate Observatory  put  context around recent temperature increases:

♦  Earth’s average temperature varies from year to year in response to many influences,  but in recent  decades, the cooler years have represented “noise” in an overall upward trend.

♦ Earth’s climate has been relatively stable for much of the history of human civilization (the past 10,000 years).

♦ The last significant warming period (which  began around 11,000  years ago) led to an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature of between 7° – 12° F.  That warming occurred very gradually  over a period of about 5,000 years and then another cooling trend began.

♦  The current warming trend began in the 20th century and temperature increases are happening  10  times  times faster than the last  ice age  warming period. (NASA).

For more detail on climate history, both the NASA and NOAA  sites provide links to the scientific studies used as references.

Do these increases in global temperature matter?  An increase of 1.4° F over the average global surface temperature seems — and is —  small, but  even small increases can affect patterns of plant and animal life.  In 2012,  the  U.S. Department of Agriculture released an updated U.S.  plant  hardiness zone map.  The map divides the U.S. into  zones based on the average annual low temperature;  going from north to south, each zone on the map represents  a 10° increase in the average low temperature. By comparison to the 1990 map, the new map shows a half-zone shift (or  5° F) toward the warmer zones. USDA has been careful to say the data sets for the 1990 and 2012 maps differed in a number of ways — the new map reflects data from more  locations and use of more sophisticated technology as well as additional years of data.  But the shifts are consistent with the general trend in global temperature data since the 1980s and suggest that farmers and gardeners  may already be seeing changes affecting plant life.

While a  1.2°- 1.4° increase in the average temperature over 30 years may already be affecting   the environment, concern about rising global temperature really focuses on the future. Two of the greatest concerns:

1. The rapid pace of warming and the unknown stopping point. Earth’s last major ice age warming event took place over a period of 5,000 years and at a time before modern human civilization and reliance on large-scale agricultural production.   Earth’s current  warming  is occurring  at a much faster rate (as much as 10 times faster), increasing the risk that plant and animal life may not be able to adapt quickly enough to changing temperature regimes. While Unites States agriculture has not been harmed by  the  1.2 – 1.4 ° (F) increase in recent decades,  it could be much more difficult to maintain agricultural productivity in the face of continuing, rapid temperature increases.  Other, warmer,  parts of the globe will be much more vulnerable to agricultural disruption because of temperature increases. Temperature increases can also   affect other human food sources like fisheries.

2. The chain-reaction effect of rapid warming on other parts of the human environment. The chain reaction talked about most often:

Higher global temperature ⇒ melting of land ice ⇒more rapidly rising sea levels ⇒ flooding of coastal areas.

The potential for accelerated sea level rise gets attention because of the direct risk to human populations. In 2010, 39%  of the population of the U.S. lived in a shoreline county;  more than half of the population lived within  50  miles of an ocean shoreline. (Source: U.S. census data as reported in NOAA’s State of the Coast Report.)  As a result, accelerated sea level rise could affect some  of the most highly populated areas in the United States.

Note: NASA’s Vital Signs of the Planet website provides visualizations of  changes in the extent of sea ice and land ice.

How reliable is the data?   Temperature records date back to the 1880s and the amount and quality of the data has only gotten better.  NASA describes the records used in the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences temperature calculations this way:

The GISS analysis incorporates surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. This raw data is analyzed using an algorithm that takes into account the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the calculation. The result is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

Next: The role of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gasses in raising global temperature.

N.C. Senate Budget 2014: Environment

The most significant changes:

Oregon Inlet. The single largest allocation of new money ($15 million) would fund an effort to acquire  federal lands surrounding Oregon Inlet and the erosion-threatened  segment of N.C. Highway 12 on Hatteras Island.  The lands targeted for acquisition now make up parts of  Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.  The newly acquired lands would be designated as a state park, but the special budget provision tied to the funding describes the purpose of the acquisition as managing “existing and future transportation corridors” on the Outer Banks.  An earlier post describes the cost (as of 2013) of maintaining Highway 12  in the face of high erosion rates and inlet movement.

Continuing  erosion and storm damage have  made it increasingly difficult to maintain Hwy  12 within the  original right of way.  Going outside the right of way means working on federal lands. The National Park Service and federal wildlife refuge  managers have worked with the state to reach agreement on a number of  previous Hwy 12 maintenance and relocation projects, but conditions have now deteriorated to the point that future projects could involve much more significant impacts to lands in the national seashore and wildlife refuge. Some of the proposed maintenance and relocation options for Hwy 12 also conflict with  the conservation purposes  of the federal  lands.  Management plans for national seashore and wildlife refuge give high priority to maintaining a natural, unobstructed shoreline and  protecting wildlife habitat.

The bill directs the state Department of Administration to begin negotiating an agreement to acquire the federal lands by purchase or exchange of state land for federal land. If efforts to negotiate an agreement fail, the bill directs the department to begin  efforts to acquire the lands by condemnation next year,  Not surprisingly,  the budget provision allows use of some of the funding for litigation expenses. The budget cobbles together the $15 million allocation by transferring a total of  $7 million  from two specific  DENR  fund accounts ($3.5 miilion from each);  appropriating $5 million in new money;  and earmarking an additional $3 million in capital reserves.  One of the two DENR fund accounts  appears to be a Marine Fisheries fund for license revenue;  the budget provision identifies the  fund by  number and  title (the “Advanced License Sales Fund”).

The bill also has language (similar to a provision in the Senate regulatory reform bill) authorizing the Governor to  waive  state coastal development permits and environmental impact statements for projects needed to maintain transportation access to Hatteras Island. As noted in an earlier post, waiver of state environmental review may not actually shorten the permitting process –the Governor’s action cannot affect  federal permits needed for the Hwy 12 projects  and  the state and federal permit reviews have been coordinated for many years to streamline  review. On the other hand, waiving state permits for the project will remove any influence the state might otherwise have on the federal permitting process — taking state environmental permitting staff out of the negotiation entirely,

Coal  Ash. The Senate has proposed to appropriate $1.75 million to DENR to support activities related to regulation of coal ash, including 23 new staff positions. The staff positions would be allocated among the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (7 total positions – 2 in stormwater and  5 in  dam safety); Division of Waste Management (2 positions); Division of Water Resources (8 positions) and the DENR Secretary’s Office (6 positions). Funding is contingent on passage of Senate Bill 725 (Governor’s Coal Ash Management Act) or similar legislation,

Shale Gas.  The Senate budget appropriates an additional $1.17 million dollars for shale gas activities. Most of the funding ($973,324) would be used for additional geological and geophysical analysis of the shale basins in the state. The remaining funds have been identified for marketing and promoting  the state’s shale gas resources ($100,000); digitizing data ($50,000); and doing more chemical analysis of gas wells  ($50,000).

Transferring Interest Income from DENR Special Funds. DENR has a number of interest-bearing special funds. Some were created to provide a  source of revenue for conservation programs; others receive a combination of fees and tax revenues to fund cleanup of environmental contamination. The Senate budget would transfer all of the interest earned by these funds to the state’s General Fund, reducing the funds available for the originally intended purpose and allowing the legislature to reallocate the interest income for other uses. The conservation  funds affected include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund; the Marine and Estuarine Resources Conservation Fund; the Ecosystem Restoration Fund; the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund; and  the N.C. Marine Resource Fund.

The environmental cleanup funds affected by the transfer of interest income include the Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Fund;  the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund;  the Non-Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund;  the Inactive Hazardous Sites Fund; the Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund;  and a fund supporting the state  Brownfields program for redevelopment of contaminated sites.  Some of the special funds receive revenue from fees and taxes  imposed on a particular commercial activity (such as dry-cleaning and operation of petroleum underground storage tanks)  to address contamination associated with the activity. The proposed transfer would  allow use of the interest income on those fees and taxes for unrelated purposes.

The state Brownfields program (which assists in the redevelopment of contaminated sites)  operates entirely on federal  funds and fees paid by the prospective developers.  The program receives no state appropriations, so the special fund provides the only source of operating funds.  A number of the  environmental cleanup funds (including the Commercial UST Fund) have been chronically underfunded and transfer of the interest income will only further reduce the resources available for assessment and cleanup of contamination.

Marine Fisheries. It is hard to find a plan behind the many changes to the marine fisheries budget. The bill increases a significant number of commercial and recreational fishing  license fees and fees for fish dealers, while slightly  reducing  fees for commercial fishing vessels.  The budget reduces  funding for fisheries conservation by transferring interest income from several special funds to the General Fund and transferring $3.5 million from one  license fee fund account to  a fund  to acquire property on the Outer Banks.  At the same time, the bill eliminates  appropriations for  the At-Sea Observers program (necessary under a state-federal agreement keep some N.C. fisheries open by monitoring the impact on  endangered sea turtles) and shifts  the costs of the program to license fee revenue.  The bill also directs a portion of the higher commercial fishing fees to a new  Commercial Fisheries Resource Fund. The result of all of the moving pieces seems to be higher fees, reduced appropriations, and at the same time a transfer of fisheries fee revenue to other purposes.

2014 Regulatory Reform

May 21, 2014. Yesterday, the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee approved a 62-page regulatory reform bill that many committee members did not see until it was handed out at the beginning of the committee meeting.  Today, the Senate Finance Committee  gave  Senate Bill 734  (Regulatory Reform Act of 2014) a favorable report and the bill will go to the Senate floor tomorrow for an initial vote. Some of the most significant environmental provisions:

More legislative review of environmental rules.   In 2011, the General Assembly, returning to an idea from the 1980s,  put strict limits on  adoption of state environmental rules that are more stringent than federal rules on the same subject.  The   law  has  exceptions only for rules needed  to address a “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety or welfare” and rules required by state law, federal law, state budget policy or a court order.   (An earlier post  talks about  the practical difficulties and policy implications of  chaining  state environment standards so tightly to federal rules.)   Section 1 of Senate Bill  734  goes another step and  requires legislative review of  any  rule adopted under one of the  exceptions, possibly delaying the effective date of the rule for months.   The state’s Administrative Procedures Act normally requires legislative review of a rule only if 10  or more people send letters objecting to the rule.  Under Senate Bill  734,  ten letters of objection would still be needed to  get  legislative review of  a rule change that weakens environmental standards, but  the legislature would  automatically review any rule that  goes beyond minimum federal environmental standards.

Eliminate citizen appeals of toxic air pollution  permits. Sec. 2.2 limits citizen appeals of air quality permits to  decisions  involving a national ambient air quality standard. The problem is that “national ambient air quality standard” does not even cover the universe of federal air quality rules.  National ambient air quality standards cover six pollutants  (carbon monoxide,  lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and ozone) that cause environmental and health problems when levels  reach a certain level in outdoor air.   But the Clean Air Act  also regulates a much longer list of  hazardous air pollutants or “air toxics”  associated with   cancer risk, infertility, birth defects  and other acute environmental and health effects. Mercury and benzene are examples of air toxics.  There are no national ambient air quality standards for air toxics; those pollutants are regulated under a different set of rules that require  a high level of pollution control on every regulated air toxic source. As  written, Senate Bill 734 would   bar  citizen appeals of  air quality permits issued for facilities that emit air toxics.

Emergency Authority to Waive Coastal Development Permits. Sec. 2.5 gives the governor the authority to waive Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permits and environmental impact statements  for emergency repairs to a highway “that provides the sole road access to  an incorporated municipality or an unincorporated inhabited area bordering the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound, where bridge or road conditions as a result of the events leading to the declaration of the state of emergency pose a substantial risk to public health, safety, or welfare”. The description fits Highway 12 in Dare County — the  perennially endangered road on  Hatteras Island. (See an earlier post for the history – and cost — of maintaining Highway 12.) The idea of waiving state permits for rebuilding damaged segments of Highway 12 after a storm has some appeal — but may not have the desired effect. Aside from eliminating any state review of  project  impacts, waiving the CAMA permit only puts the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entirely in  control of the permitting process.

Environmental Audits/ Self-Reporting. Sec. 3.6   of the bill does two significant things: 1. Protects internal company  environmental “audits” from disclosure to regulatory agencies; and 2.  Provides immunity from civil penalties to a company that voluntarily self-reports a violation.

Limited immunity from penalties can make sense if limited to situations where the violator has  self-reported a recent, unintended violation. The Senate Bill 734 audit/self-reporting provision has not been limited to those situations and potentially provides the benefit of confidentiality and immunity to violators who have committed  longstanding, continuing violations of environmental laws. Under the bill, the violator can use a recent environmental audit to cover numerous  past  violations and acquire immunity by “self-reporting” those violations.  Although the bill does not give immunity for willful and intentional violations or violations resulting from criminal negligence, it would deny regulators access to internal environmental audits that may document  the intentional behavior.  In the worst case, the provision could be a gift to violators who gambled for years on their ability to evade enforcement.

It is difficult to ignore the implications for   violations  at coal ash impoundments. Under the bill, a company  inspection of a coal ash impoundment could be treated as  a confidential “environmental audit” and  withheld from state regulators. And the owner/operator of the coal ash impoundment   may  get immunity from civil penalties by  self-reporting violations that had gone on for years.

Other sections of the bill incorporate legislation  recommended by the Environmental Review Commission (described here).  Senate Bill 734 actually goes beyond the ERC recommendation on isolated wetlands and proposes to eliminate permit review of  isolated wetlands impacts of less than an acre in both the eastern and western parts of the state.  The bill  continues a recent pattern of  weakening  open burning  rules by limiting local government authority to regulate open burning.  The bill also proposes to shift rulemaking authority for the waste management and drinking water programs from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission.

Budget Cuts in the N.C. Coastal Management Program

January 30, 2014.  Caught between state and federal budget reductions, the state’s Division of Coastal Management (DCM) eliminated five positions effective  December 31, 2013 including the land use planning director and federal consistency coordinator.  DCM carries out the state’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)  — a joint state-local program to reduce  property damage and injury from coastal hazards; protect public access to the state’s beaches and waterways;  and manage the impacts of  development on sensitive coastal resources.  With the support of Republican Governor Jame Holshouser, the N.C. General Assembly adopted CAMA in 1974 shortly after  Congress enacted the federal Coastal Zone Management Act  to encourage creation of state coastal resource protection programs.  Over the next several decades,  North Carolina became a national leader in coastal policy even as   the state’s  coastal counties experienced an explosion of development activity.

DCM was forced to eliminate these two positions and three others (the Assistant Director for Permitting and Enforcement,  an IT support position and a policy analyst)  after several years of state and federal budget reductions. Federal grant funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act had been flat for over a decade while salaries, benefits and indirect costs increased. The last federal funding cycle  reduced the state grant by 5.9%. At the same time, state appropriations  have dropped  35% since 2009 and permit receipts  fell by  approximately  30%  as the recession slowed development activity.

More on the impact of eliminating the land use planning and coastal consistency positions:

Land Use Planning Director. One  goal of the Coastal Area Management Act  was to plan coastal development with an eye toward conditions that make the coastal area uniquely hazardous and uniquely productive. To work, it had to be a joint state-local effort and CAMA made local land use planning a key part of the state’s coastal management program.  Budget  cuts in previous years  forced the elimination of a long-standing DCM grant program that provided  financial assistance to coastal cities and towns for land use planning.  Ongoing budget cuts have now made it necessary to eliminate the  CAMA land use planning director. The director supervised  DCM’s  planning efforts and worked directly with local government planners.    Supervisory responsibilities for the  planning program has  shifted to DCM’s policy director.

Federal Consistency Coordinator. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal  activities affecting  the coastal area to be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with the state’s approved coastal management  program.  (To be enforced through the CZMA consistency requirement, a state program must be approved  by the  Office of Coastal Resource Management in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) The approved North Carolina coastal management program  includes development standards adopted under CAMA, but also includes local land use  policies, water quality standards, and other state laws and rules concerning coastal resources.   As a practical  matter, the federal consistency requirement  gives the state an opportunity to review and comment on proposed federal activities and federal permit decisions affecting the North Carolina coast.   In many cases, federal consistency review is the only  way  the state  can influence the federal action.

You can find a list of  the types of federal actions and permits DCM  reviews  here.    North Carolina has most often used  consistency review to request accommodation for state needs rather than to block a federal action entirely.  The state used consistency review  to press the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put sand from federal navigation dredging projects back on N.C. beaches rather than dumping the sand offshore.  In 1991,  the U.S. Secretary of Interior upheld a North Carolina consistency objection to a federal  permit that would have allowed  Mobil Oil  to deposit drilling waste from an exploratory well onto a commercially important fishing ground off the Atlantic coast. The CZMA consistency requirement also became one of the most important legal tools in North Carolina’s  unsuccessful effort to prevent Virginia from constructing  a pipeline to take water from Lake Gaston to  the City of Virginia Beach.

Loss of the federal consistency coordinator comes at a particularly bad time given the increased  activity around  coastal energy development.  Offshore oil and gas  development  most often occurs in federal waters that are beyond the state’s jurisdiction. (Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, state jurisdiction  only extends  3-miles from shore.)  Without  direct permitting or enforcement authority,  the  state’s only influence over offshore energy activities may be through  consistency review of federal lease and permit decisions.  Since those federal decisions can advantage or disadvantage the different Atlantic coast states, even supporters of offshore oil and gas development may need a way to advocate for North Carolina interests.  Consistency review  also gives the state an  opportunity to influence  federal leases and permits for  onshore and offshore wind energy facilities.

In both 2012 and 2013, the General Assembly  funded new positions in  DENR’s Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources to support work on energy development.   At the same time,  DCM budget cuts have resulted in the loss of a position critical to the state’s influence on offshore energy development activities.    As of January 1, 2014,  federal consistency review  will be divided between two DCM staff  who  review  CAMA major development permits. If activity around offshore energy development  continues to pick up,  the state will need to  reinvest in the federal consistency process to have a voice in how that development happens.

The N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, Sea Level Rise and the Military

October 24, 2013. Governor McCrory has made appointments to  the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC).  Six  new appointees  join four existing CRC members whose terms end June 30, 2014 and one legislative appointee, leaving two legislative appointments still to be made to fill  out the 13-member commission. The press release  on the Governor’s appointments can be found here. A complete list of  current members and contact information  can be found here.

The State of Sea Level Rise Policy in North Carolina.  The new Coastal Resources Commission will  be walking into an ongoing debate over whether — and how —  the state should plan for sea level rise.  You can find an introduction to sea level rise  here.  In March 2010, the  CRC’s  Science Panel on Coastal Hazards  released  a  report on sea level rise on the North Carolina coast.  The Science Panel  reviewed data from several studies of sea level in North Carolina and found that the rate of sea level rise on the North Carolina coast  increased  significantly in  the 20th century.  The Science Panel’s N.C. Sea Level Rise Assessment Report  concluded that the data pointed to a likely  1 meter (39 inch) increase in sea level by 2100.  The 39-inch  projection  represented the middle of three sea level rise  scenarios considered by the Science Panel and would be  consistent with simply continuing the recent relationship between temperature increase and relative sea level rise in North Carolina.  The Science Panel issued a brief  addendum  in April 2012 responding to questions about the methods used in the  2010 report.

For comparison: A number of studies have found that the rate of sea level rise along the North Carolina coast  remained at a fairly consistent  4 inches per century for  hundreds of years before turning upward  in the 20th century. Over the last fifteen years,  sea level on the North Carolina coast  has risen an average of 0.12 inches per year —  or  a rate of  over 12 inches per century.

The Coastal Resources Commission began debating adoption of a  sea level rise policy soon after receiving the Science Panel report.  As developed in a series of public meetings,  the draft policy focused on use of the Science Panel’s sea level rise projection as a planning benchmark. One planning consideration will be location and maintenance of  public infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, water supplies, roads and bridges. Even  an increase of twelve  inches per century can be significant  in coastal areas where  low land elevation, wave action and increased shoreline erosion magnify the flood impact of rising water levels.  (In the next section, you will find a link to  a  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  sea level riser viewer that allows you to see the  land area flooded at different increases in sea level.) The draft policy  did not  propose  any new regulation of private development.

Both the Science Panel report and CRC discussion of a draft sea level rise policy generated opposition  from  coastal  developers, realtors and some local government officials. That opposition led to legislation,  Session Law 2012-202, barring any state agency other than the Coastal Resources Commission from adopting a rate of sea level rise for regulatory purposes and preventing the CRC from taking any regulatory action  before July 1, 2016.  In the meantime, S.L. 2012-202 directed the Science Panel to provide an update of the 2010 report on sea level rise by March 1,  2015.

In response to concerns about  the Science Panel’s  projection,  the CRC removed references to any specific rate of  sea level rise from the draft policy.  In August 2012, the CRC voted  to send the  policy out for public comment as a proposed rule.  The policy then got caught up in a debate  over the appropriateness of  going through rulemaking on a policy that had no regulatory impact.  At the end of  the Perdue administration, the sea level rise policy  remained in rulemaking  limbo. One question for the newly appointed Coastal Resources Commission will be whether  to  revive discussion of planning for sea level rise on the North Carolina coast.

Overlapping the Science Panel’s work,  in 2009 the N.C.  Division of Emergency Management (DEM) began a Sea Level Rise Impact Study  under a  $5 million grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The  DEM study was designed to look at the impact of different sea level rise scenarios on  natural  resources  and the built environment.  In 2012, the DEM study also met opposition. Political pressure  reportedly  caused DEM to back away from using the Science Panel’s projection (a  39-inch  elevation in sea level  by 2100)  as the worst case scenario in the Impact Study.  (See a May 2012  story by Charlotte Observer reporter Bruce Henderson.)  I have not been able to confirm the range of sea level rise scenarios to be included in the final Sea Level Rise Impact Study.  DEM had  planned  to complete the study by the summer of 2013, but  has not yet released a report. You can find the DEM webpage for the study here.

New Information on Sea Level Rise.  While North Carolina’s sea level rise planning efforts  have stalled, other scientific and planning organizations  continue  to collect sea level rise data, project sea level rise impacts and  develop plans to adapt to rising sea levels.

A  NOAA website showing the potential effect of sea level rise now includes the North Carolina coast.  Maps developed by NOAA’s  Coastal Science Center show  areas  inundated as sea level rises. You can find the sea level rise viewer  at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer/.  To see a visualization of sea level rise on the North Carolina coast, choose North Carolina under the “zoom in”  function on the right-hand side of the webpage.  Once the  aerial photo of the state appears, use the sea level bar on the left-hand side of the webpage to select a  sea level. The bar ranges from current sea level up to 6 feet above  current levels.  With each increase in sea level, the map  shows the land  area  flooded by the encroaching waters of the Atlantic Ocean and coastal sounds.

The most recent report of the International Panel on Global Climate Change, issued in September,  estimates global mean sea level will rise between10 and 32 inches by the end of the century. Those numbers represent an increase over mean sea level rise projections included in the 2007 IPGCC report.   Yale Environment 360, a  publication of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, just published a helpful summary of the new  IPGCC report  on sea level rise here. Sea level does not rise at the same rate on all coastal shorelines, however,  and the N.C. Science Panel report explains why  relative  sea level rise on the North Carolina coast will likely be higher than the global mean sea level.

Coastal Military Bases and Planning for Sea Level Rise.  North Carolina has  a number of    military installations  in the coastal area.  In 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) Quadrennial Defense Review for the first time identified global climate change as a national security concern because of the potential impact on U.S. military installations around the world.  DOD had begun to focus on  the impact of sea level rise on coastal military bases even earlier out of concern that  changes associated with sea level rise (more rapid coastal erosion, rising water tables and salt water intrusion in aquifers)  have the potential to impact  military infrastructure and training facilities.  A 2008  National Intelligence Council assessment concluded that 30 U.S. military installations were at risk of damage from rising sea level.

Some DOD sea level rise assessments have looked specifically at  N.C. military installations. A  2009  sea level rise risk assessment for  DOD  modeled shoreline changes at coastal installations in N.C.  in response to different rates of sea level rise. The consultant’s report  used the Air Force Dare County Bombing Range as an example of the results — between 58% and 100% of the land area of the bombing range could be lost to shoreline changes in response to projected rates of sea level rise. DOD’s environmental research arm, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), has several  projects underway to evaluate the impact of climate change and sea level rise on  U.S. military installations.   One SERDP project involves  N.C’s Camp Lejuene Marine Corps Base in Onslow County. You can find a description of the SERDP projects here.

Going in Different Directions?  Setting aside debate about the cause, the U.S. Department of Defense has chosen to assess the vulnerability of coastal military installations to sea level rise and actively plan for those impacts.  The practicality of managing  sea level rise at existing military installations  may  become a factor in future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions.  The military’s  response to sea level rise  could have significant implications for North Carolina since seven of the state’s eight military installations are located at the coast.  (Fort Bragg is the one exception.)  But as DOD moves to understand and  plan for  sea level rise, N.C.’s political leadership has turned away from sea level rise planning.  Given the large economic footprint of the state’s military installations (see a 2013 report for the N.C. Department of Commerce), state leaders have increased efforts to support  the military presence in the state.   Right now, those efforts don’t  include cooperative planning  for  sea level rise, but that may become important.