Last Thursday representatives of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) concluded an overview presentation of their mitigation programs to the Environmental Management Commission in defense of credit stacking by expressing a red herring message of fear that without the ability to sell the same piece of mitigation twice,
mitigation costs will be higher
and that some areas of the state could
run out of buffer and stream sites
I’m confused. DWQ just threw away several hundred thousand dollars and caused an immediate and future degradation to water quality and they’re concerned that correcting the policy that led to this might cause mitigation fees to go up?! That’s almost as ridiculous as their implication that running out of degraded streams and buffers would somehow be a bad thing.
The tone of these comments by DWQ staff force a reasonable person to ask: is DENR more concerned with subsidizing the cost of development at the expense of the environment than actually protecting the environment? A skeptic would ask if DENR management is more concerned with protecting it’s empire of programs and divisions than the environment. And a cynic would merely point out that the Endless Employment Project and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program share the same acronym.
Thursday’s presentation was given at the bequest of EMC Chair Stephen Smith in response to the recent publicity regarding DENR, DWQ, EEP, and EBX that questioned whether roughly a million dollars of mitigation fees required by DWQ, collected by EEP, and awarded to EBX actually did anything to protect the environment. According to the NC Program Evaluation Division the answer to that question is clear,
DWQ’s decisions related to this controversy resulted in actual and potential future losses to the environmental integrity of the Neuse River basin. — Program Evaluation Division, NC General Assembly
What’s not so clear is why DENR’s been making policy decisions that degrade the environment as opposed to protect it. Their public explanations thus far have been premised as simplified versions of complicated issues. The EMC rule makers need to understand that DENR’s not telling them the whole story. The most notable omission is that EEP has been charging mitigation fees to developers based on the costs of providing unstacked mitigation credits, their nutrient offset program was at a huge deficit of compliance, and they seem to have used retroactive credit stacking, shielded by a process called “direct purchase” to help balance their books.
It’s time for DENR to stop treating everyone from policy makers to legislators like children and start telling the whole story. A good place to start would be explaining why DWQ Buffer Interpretation/Clarification #004 was written, and whether it was intended to help every public and private mitigation project that has subsequently taken advantage of it, or just the needs of a certain Canadian mining company. The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Everybody makes mistakes, what’s important is that we learn from them.
Trying to get around all this monkey business, and as a bit of a Curious George myself, I went to the Man in the Yellow Hat (an industry veteran) who reminded me that at its root, DWQ was a permitting agency. This DWQ summary, and the Rationale and Methodology for Flexible Buffer Mitigation for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. help explain the connection between the proposed Consolidated Buffer Rule, the 800 pound gorilla sitting silently at the back of all these public policy meetings, and DENR’s hesitancy to correct their mistake.
PCS Phosphate is currently pursuing a permit to make what could be the largest single impact to water quality in the state of North Carolina and they’re using the Consolidated Buffer Rule to help do it. But DWQ’s most recent version of the Rule was not only a fix for PCS, but also a fix for DENR’s recently publicized policy problems. Lucky for the environment, it has been temporarily tabled. Maybe next time it’s presented they’ll stop monkeying around and call it what it is, The Rule to Help PCS Get Its Permit and Help DWQ Cover Its Ass. Just goes to show that the Man in the Yellow Hat knows what he’s talking about, at its root DWQ is a permitting agency.
However, this still doesn’t help explain the DENR Assistant Secretary’s response when asked by members of the ERC on December 17th if the recent controversial policy decisions by her department had any impact on PCS, because she appeared to have no idea that there was a connection. That’s a little ironic, considering she has served as legal counsel to the state’s mining commission, the Southern Environmental Law Center is currently challenging the PCS permit and DWQ has been working for several years on a new Rule to help PCS meet their buffer mitigation requirement.
Maybe she didn’t get the MEMOs, or like Peter Gibbons in Office Space maybe she just ignored them. When I recently heard DENR had engaged the UNC School of Government to do an ‘outside, third party’ review of EEP and its practices I was encouraged. But then I heard that the Dean of the School was married to the DENR Assistant Secretary. Sheesh.
The real world ain’t like school and it ain’t like the movies, and sometimes it makes me sick. As historian Howard Zinn’s book demonstrates in both title and text, You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train. Letters and MEMOs are important and policy decisions have real and immediate consequences that can’t be brushed over by studies and simplified examples.
For the time being it’s looking more and more like the dead fish in the Neuse aren’t the only thing putrid effecting our waters. In case they missed the other ones, I hope the DENR hierarchy gets this most recent memo from concerned advocates and this time decides to do something good for the environment.
2.9 Wetland and Buffer Mitigation. Wetland mitigation may not overlap with riparian buffer mitigation. When wetland mitigation is implemented in a riparian zone using buffer restoration techniques that could also generate riparian buffer mitigation, a decision must be made as to which type of credit will be claimed from the project. A specific area on a project can generate either wetland mitigation credits or riparian buffer mitigation credits. Portions of a project can be designated as generating riparian buffer mitigation credits and portions generating wetland credit, but these areas cannot overlap.
2.10 Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation. Nutrient offset mitigation is required to be stand alone mitigation in order to generate nutrient offset mitigation. Any area being used for nutrient offset mitigation cannot be used to generate stream, wetland, or buffer mitigation credits. Similarly any area being used to generate riparian buffer mitigation credits cannot be used to generate nutrient offset mitigation.
Quite a find on my porch this morning. The state’s paper of record revealed a long-stewing controversy in the obscure but important world of compensatory environmental mitigation policy. [EBX paid twice for wetlands work, December 8, 2009] RS’ principal competitor, Environmental Bank and Exchange (EBX), sold nutrient mitigation credits to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program subsequent to the site being banked, restored and previously paid for by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for wetland mitigation credit. In industry parlance — we call this a “double-dip.”
When Pam and the kids and I visit our family in Beaufort, North Carolina, I often take the opportunity to hire a small plane at the friendly Michael J. Smith Airport to take photos of nearby RS sites. I did so yesterday and enjoyed nearly perfect conditions. Here are some pictures of the Bear Creek, Jarman’s Oak and Lloyd wetland and stream mitigation sites. (As regular readers will recall, I flew Bear Creek earlier this month. But I returned this time WITH my stabilized lens).
I also flew the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s North River Restoration Site, about which I have provided some background below.
Note: If you “click through” the photo box you can more easily read captions and navigate the photos.
Below are some photos of North River Farms, which is being restored by the North Carolina Coastal Federation. This project is near and dear to RS’ heart. RS owned the option to purchase this 6000 acre farm in the 90’s. Determining that the farm had significantly more restoration potential than could be used as mitigation in the watershed (unless Cape Canaveral were relocated to the NC coast), we contacted the NCCF and suggested they take our option and make an application for its restoration to the then newly formed NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund.
The rest is history. The project is now one of the largest coastal restoration projects in the nation. We retained 390 acres within the farm, for which RS was recently awarded a grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service to restore and protect. Brassgrill and I will blog in the future and tell you more about this project.
This should be interesting:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program invite your participation in a Webinar on Dec. 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the Webinar is to provide the latest status of EEP’s conversion to the new federal mitigation rule, including the review of specific provisions of the draft instrument.
If you wish to participate in the Webinar, you must register your interest with EEP by Dec. 7. Participants will be sent information on how to access the meeting via the Internet and telephone. To sign up, please send an email to Eric Ellis of EEP ([email protected]) by Dec. 7, and please feel free to share this announcement with others that you think would be interested.
Director of Communications
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
When is Credit Stacking a Double Dip?
The issue of reusing a restored environmental asset will come up again and again as new environmental markets emerge.
by Alice Kenny