Energy providers wasted no time last year asking the Trump administration to rescind 2024 federal standards for coal ash disposal.

Five days before President Donald Trump returned for a second term in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, 10 power suppliers, including Duke Energy, fired off a letter urging Lee Zeldin, Trump’s then-nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, “decline to defend these unlawful rules.”

Now the EPA is proposing to revise federal regulation for coal ash disposal, a move that would relax the Biden-era national standards for inactive, often unlined basins designed to store a sludgy mix of watered-down fly ash and bottom ash.

Here in North Carolina, where comprehensive coal ash legislation was pioneered, proposed changes at the federal level are not expected to affect, at least for the time being, the state’s robust coal ash management law.

Nor would the proposed federal revisions impact the terms of a 2019 settlement agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Duke Energy, and public interest groups that set closure schedules and monitoring requirements for the power company’s remaining coal ash basins.

“None of that is going to be changed by what EPA is trying to do now at the federal level,” Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Nick Torrey said.

But Torrey cautioned that sites where coal ash has been removed may still contain residual groundwater contamination.

“The federal regulations require monitoring and corrective action for that pollution,” he said. “If utilities can get exceptions and exemptions from those things, that’s potentially concerning. Fortunately, we do have a state process as well that’s dealing with groundwater issues, but it was never meant to be a substitute for the federal standards. There’s more vulnerability that coal ash contamination could be allowed to persist. So, we’ll have to be watching that very closely as things go forward.”

Coal ash, referred to in regulation and industry as coal combustion residuals, or CCR, is the byproduct created when coal is burned for electricity. It contains toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and radioactive elements, according to the EPA.

In early February 2014, some 39,000 tons of coal ash slurry discharged from a collapsed pipe at Duke Energy’s retired Dan River Steam Station near Eden into the river. The spill spread as far as 70 miles downstream.

In the fall of that year, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Act, or CAMA.

CAMA (not to be confused with the Coastal Area Management Act) initially set deadlines for Duke Energy to close a group of basins at four of its power plants by certain deadlines.

EPA in 2015 finalized the federal CCR rule under the Obama presidency. The Biden administration strengthened those regulations in 2024.

By that time, DEQ had finalized a basin closure schedule for all 14 of Duke Energy’s facilities in North Carolina. Following litigation and a settlement agreement between community and conservation groups, DEQ and Duke Energy, a 2020 consent order was approved to govern the cleanup process for the remaining sites.

Duke Energy anticipates officially fully excavating the 12th of its 32 coal ash basins in North Carolina by year’s end. Both coal ash impoundments at the Sutton Steam Plant in Wilmington were excavated by July 2019.

Duke Energy spokesperson Bill Norton confirmed in an email earlier this week that the excavation of ash at its W.H. Weatherspoon Power Plant in Lumberton is complete, well ahead of schedule. The company is in the process of working through the basin’s clean closure certification, a process expected to be completed later this year, Norton said in the email.

“Not yet counting Weatherspoon, we have completed excavation at 11 North Carolina basins and are making strong progress at the remaining 20, with well over half of our basin ash safely excavated in the states,” he stated. “All sites remain on or ahead of schedule for basin closure deadlines as shown here.”

Norton said the EPA’s proposed rule changes will not impact Duke Energy’s proposed coal retirement dates.

“We continue making progress on coal retirements while balancing our regulatory approvals and increased load growth – regulators have made clear that replacement generation must be online and serving customers prior to further coal plant retirements,” he said. “While the potential EPA CCR rule changes have no impact on our proposed coal retirement dates, we appreciate prior changes to in the federal regulations that provided flexibility for our coal facilities, enabling us to maximize the value of existing generation by extending the operational life of these assets to help meet load growth at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Retirement dates are subject to regulatory approval.”

Coal-fired operations at Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County are expected to be shut down no later than Jan. 1, 2040. The retirement of that plant’s coal combustion operations will mark the end of Duke Energy’s coal-fired power generation in the state.

“We are making tremendous progress on meeting all obligations agreed to years ago in our North Carolina settlement with state regulators and environmental groups – that commitment is unchanged, and state regulators have confirmed our plans are protective of public health and the environment,” Norton said.

Beneficial reuse units at the company’s Buck Combined Cycle Plant in Salisbury, Cape Fear plant in Moncure, and H.F. Lee Energy Complex on the banks of the Neuse River in Goldsboro have been reprocessing coal ash at those sites to make it suitable for use in concrete since 2020, he said.

Katherine Lucas, DEQ’s Division of Waste Management public information officer, stated in an email that the agency “is evaluating the proposed changes to determine any potential impacts on ongoing excavation and remediation activities at Duke Energy facilities.”

“In the absence of an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved state permit program, utilities must comply with both federal and state requirements. North Carolina remains a national leader in coal ash management, both in establishing comprehensive regulations and in the scale and pace of closure and remediation efforts. DEQ believes the state’s regulatory framework is at least as protective as federal requirements and does not anticipate that federal changes would reduce existing environmental and public health protections.”

The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule changes through June 12.

The agency is hosting an online public hearing at 9 a.m. on May 28. 

Before accepting the Trump administration’s $1 billion taxpayer buyout, TotalEnergies fostered a campaign that its wind energy project off the coast of Brunswick County would eventually generate enough electricity to power 300,000 homes in the Carolinas.

“Our team is passionate about creating a clean energy economy and the new opportunities it brings to our local communities,” reads an excerpt from TotalEnergies Carolina Long Bay website. “Our partnerships in the Carolinas are making renewable energy a regional priority, building a stronger future for us all.”

TotalEnergies Carolina Long Bay, a wholly owned subsidiary of the France-based global energy company, “will harness the power of offshore wind to generate abundant energy and significant economic growth for the communities of the Southeast.”

The Interior Department’s announcement Monday that TotalEnergies had accepted a federal buyout of its wind energy leases off the New York and North Carolina coasts is a sharp pivot from the company’s previous narrative on offshore wind in the United States.

TotalEnergies’ chief executive officer and chair of the company’s board of directors said in a Department of Interior release that the decision to relinquish offshore wind development in the United States was made because such projects are “not in the country’s interest.”

Instead, TotalEnergies will invest the refunded money in a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Texas and other fossil fuel projects.

The Trump administration lauded it as an “innovative agreement,” one that is a major win for President Donald Trump, who has made offshore wind the biggest bullseye in his target to dismantle renewable energy projects and replace them with fossil fuel and nuclear power.

“Offshore wind is one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a release. “We welcome TotalEnergies’ commitment to developing projects that produce dependable, affordable power to lower Americans’ monthly bills while providing secure U.S. baseload power today – and in the future.”

Shortly after taking office in January 2025, Trump issued an executive order barring new offshore wind leases and requiring reviews of existing and permitted wind projects.

Last December, the Trump administration, citing risks to national security, ordered work to stop in five offshore wind energy areas on the East Coast, including Dominion Energy’s 2.6-gigawatt project based in Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Courts have since allowed all five of the projects to operate for the time being until final judgments are rendered in those cases.

Monday’s announcement drew immediate rebuke from opponents who argue the deal sets a dangerous precedent and limits alternative energy production as Americans face rising electricity bills and concerns mount about the amount of power artificial intelligence data centers use.

“Donald Trump truly can’t leave a good thing alone,” BlueGreen Alliance Vice President of Federal Affairs Katie Harris said in a release. “His never-ending vendetta against offshore wind shows that he either doesn’t understand the affordable energy crisis or that he just doesn’t care. Either way, it’s clear he’s never paid his own electricity bill, and he’s determined to raise bills for working people.”

Southeastern Wind Coalition Senior Program Manager Karly Brownfield said that the agreement “feels really counterproductive” at a time when people are closely watching their energy costs at home and at the pump.

“The whole thing is unprecedented and it’s also completely unprecedented to take a lease payment and then refund it in exchange for investment in the natural gas industry. That has never happened before,” she said in a telephone interview earlier this week. “Whether you’re investing in offshore wind or you’re investing in solar or whatever it might be, it’s not a great feeling to know that just because you have a project that’s permitted or a project that’s received all the stamps of approval that it still runs the risk of the plug being pulled halfway down the line. Certainty is what drives business and the more uncertain we make our energy market the more complicated this is all going to become in the long term.”

North Carolina is investing in natural gas, but the gas turbine industry is facing years-out backlogs on turbine orders. Nuclear power, from permitting to production, can take upwards of 15 years to build.

“And the leg up we had with offshore wind was that these projects were leased. Permitting had started. The sites were secured. There was some sort of headway that was made on those projects,” Brownfield said.

The Carolina Long Bay wind energy area spans a little more than 110,000 acres roughly 22 miles offshore, south of Bald Head Island.

The area is split into two leases.

In May 2022, Duke Energy paid $155 million for what equates to a little more than half of the total wind energy area.

In June of that same year, TotalEnergies Renewable USA paid more than $133 million for the adjacent lease.

Projects in the Carolina Long Bay area were anticipated to generate up to 3 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power about 675,000 homes, and estimated to provide more than $4 billion in net economic impacts.

According to information on its website, Duke Energy was collaborating with TotalEnergies on “early development activities.”

When asked for comment, Duke Energy spokesperson Bill Norton responded to Coastal Review by email, writing in part, “Large offshore wind projects involve substantial capital investments and extensive development timelines. It’s reasonable that policy makers question cost-exposure of such projects to customers. We continue to evaluate next steps as it relates to the Carolina Long Bay lease, which is currently maintained by Duke Energy’s nonregulated subsidiary, Cinergy.”

Duke Energy prioritizes energy sources “proven to be the most cost-effective while meeting the growing needs of our customers,” he wrote. “A diversified energy mix is essential to meeting the moment of high demand under all conditions.”

Offshore wind, Brownfield said, offers just that.

“What offshore wind is really, really good at is providing that really stable and predictable energy during extreme weather, and especially at nighttime, when solar is not really working, or when either gas is really constrained or you’re looking at scarcity pricing,” she said. “And, with wind being a free resource, yes, it’s an upfront investment, but it’s a very predictable cost of the project.”

There are still active leases for a wind project off Kitty Hawk that’s owned by Avangrid Renewables and Dominion Energy.

“As far as I know, Avangrid is still very much firm on engaging in North Carolina and they’re still looking at a longer-term future for their lease,” Brownfield said.

As she sees it, the Interior Department’s agreement with TotalEnergies is perhaps less of a setback to offshore wind energy production in the U.S. but rather increases the need for other energy resources.

“Not saying that we don’t need natural gas. SEWC is a very technology-neutral organization,” Brownfield said. “We don’t want to shoot down other resources by any means. But your grid is a lot more balanced when you’ve got a little bit of everything on it. And, right now, we’re on track for our grid to be about 50% gas by 2034, and that’s a lot of gas.”

This report has been updated for clarification.

Dominion Energy’s 2.6-gigawatt offshore wind project based in Hampton Roads, Virginia, which was ordered by the Trump administration to stop work right before Christmas, has resumed the project and is now on track for completion by early 2027.

But the 26-day shutdown of Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, also known as CVOW, came at considerable cost to the company, its customers and the nation’s energy needs. 

According to its Jan. 30 project update, Dominion tallied the current total project cost at $11.5 billion, reflecting $228 million for increases associated with the suspension, as well as $580 million related to actual/estimated tariffs. Dominion’s update in May 2025 had the project cost at $10.8 billion.

“It’s a terrible time to be restricting any source of new energy and especially sources of new clean energy that can be constructed in places that otherwise have limited ability to add new generation, whether that might be a new gas plant or a new coal plant,” Katharine Kollins, president of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, told Coastal Review.

When fully operational, CVOW’s 176 wind turbines will generate enough energy to power up to 660,000 homes, making it the largest offshore wind farm in the U.S and one of the largest wind energy production facilities in the world. Dominion, which provides electricity to 3.6 million homes and businesses in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina and natural gas service to 500,000 customers in South Carolina, said the wind project is critical to its “diverse energy supply strategy” to meet growing regional demand.

“I think from the wind industry’s perspective, this is an industry that has been operating for over 20 years and has shown that there’s an ability to put a significant amount of new clean energy on the grid every year — when the free market is at play and when they are able to construct in areas where it makes sense to have wind,” Kollins said.

Citing risks to national security, the U.S. Department of Interior issued the suspension order on Dec. 22 to CVOW and four other offshore wind projects in varied stages of development on the East Coast. The following day, Dominion sued the federal government.

In the action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dominion argued, in part, that it had worked extensively with military interests while developing the project to ensure that any concerns about radar, training or operational readiness were addressed. Not only did the agency director lack the “generalized authority” under the lease regulations to order the suspension “at whim,” the lawsuit said, the government did not cite an “applicable trigger” to halt construction.

“Our nation is governed by laws, and a stable legal and regulatory environment is essential to allow regulated public utilities like (Dominion)  as well as other businesses, contractors, suppliers, and workers, to invest and support our nation’s energy needs and associated jobs,” according to the lawsuit.

“Sudden and baseless withdrawal of regulatory approvals by government officials cannot be reconciled with the predictability needed to support the exceptionally large capital investments required for large-scale energy development projects like CVOW critical to domestic energy security, continues the legal document. “That is true regardless of the source of energy.”

Based on a 2022 agreement with regulators on cost-sharing, for project costs beyond $10.3 billion up to $11.3 billion, the company and the customers each pay 50%, and from $11.3 billion to $13.7 billion, the company pays 100%, according to Dominion’s Jan. 30 project update.

Customers in Virginia, but not North Carolina, currently pay about $11 a month to cover CVOW costs, said Jeremy Slayton with Dominion media relations in a Feb. 10 email response to Coastal Review. Cost recovery, which influences rates, is updated annually, he added, and the October 2025 filing is still before the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

On Jan. 16, the court granted Dominion’s request for a preliminary injunction that allowed construction at CVOW to resume while the lawsuit is resolved. Courts have now allowed all five stalled offshore projects to operate for the time being.

“While our legal challenge proceeds, we will continue seeking a durable resolution of this matter through cooperation with the federal government”, Dominion Energy said in a press release.

The company didn’t waste time getting back to work. According to information provided by Slayton, project construction was by late January about 70% complete, with the facility expected to deliver its first power to the grid by the end of the first quarter of this year.

“Our U.S-flagged wind turbine installation vessel Charybdis completed the first turbine installation today,” Slayton wrote in the Jan 27 email. 

So far, he added, all 176 monopole foundations have been installed, and 119 of the 176 transition pieces — the yellow parts that connect the foundations to the turbine towers — are in place.

Also, two of the three offshore substations have been installed, the deepwater offshore export cables installation has been completed and the nearshore export cables installation is about 60% completed. And about 67 miles of an estimated 231 miles of inter-array cables, which carry energy created by the wind turbines to the offshore substations, has been installed.

Onshore electric transmission construction is expected to be completed in early 2026. Before the abrupt stop-work order, CVOW, which started construction in 2024, had expected to flip the power switch on by that date, and be fully operational by the end of 2026.

In addition to the obvious benefit of clean, plentiful energy, the project has brought millions in economic value to the region, including many jobs and dollars while under construction.

“Offshore wind, in particular, provides the United States with a generational opportunity to supply large amounts of affordable, reliable power while spurring investment and creating U.S. jobs,” Dominion argued in its filing.

According to Dominion, the completed project will create 1,100 direct and indirect jobs annually in Hampton Roads, equaling about $82 million in pay and benefits, $210 million in economic output, $6 million in revenues for local governments and $5 million in state tax revenue.

Since Donald Trump’s reelection, the president has focused on dismantling renewable energy-related projects — solar, wind, battery storage, even grid modernization —  in the U.S, and replacing it with fossil fuel and nuclear power. But he has reserved his strongest animus for offshore wind, apparently based on his objection to 11 wind turbines in the water off his Aberdeenshire, Scotland golf course.

Shortly after he purchased an estate there in 2006, according to a July 29, 2025, article published online by the BBC,  Trump “soon became infuriated at plans to construct an offshore wind farm nearby, arguing that the ‘windmills’ — as he prefers to call the structures — would ruin the view.”

He also insisted that the turbine blades killed “all” the birds, but surveys at the site have to date not found a single bird strike. In addition to calling wind energy “a scam,” as quoted in the article, the president regards wind power as “very expensive, very ugly energy”.

Despite Trump fighting the plans through the Scottish courts and ultimately the UK’s Supreme Court, construction of the “monsters” went ahead in 2018.

“It clearly left him smarting and he’s not had a good word to say about wind power since,” the article said.

According to an Audubon study, most bird deaths are caused by striking buildings, especially tall ones with large windows, and cats eating them. On land, building collisions alone are estimated to kill over a billion birds each year in the U.S., the report said.

“On the open ocean, birds can be killed or injured when they collide with ships or offshore oil platforms,” the report stated. “Similarly, offshore wind infrastructure — including turbine blades, towers, electrical platforms, and construction equipment on boats — all pose potential threats.”

The report goes into much detail, but best practices were summed up as “Avoid, Minimize, Offset and Monitor.”

Dominion states on its website that it uses the latest technologies to protect birds and other wildlife, such as time-of-year restrictions, installation of anti-perching devices and acoustic monitoring.

Typically, offshore wind production is generated by three-bladed rotors attached to a ocean-worthy structure that houses a generator insider turbines attached to elevated platforms. Cables from the generator deliver the energy to the bottom of the tower to the underwater transmission cables to onshore power stations. 

But technology has evolved considerably since the first offshore turbine was built in Denmark in 1991.

“As turbine technology continues its rapid evolution — with units now reaching 26 (megawatts) — and floating wind advances toward commercial scale, the industry finds itself at a critical juncture that will shape its trajectory for years to come,” Power magazine reported in a Feb. 9, 2026, article published online.

Global offshore wind capacity reached 83 gigawatts at the end of 2024, the article said, and it appears that the 2025 report will show it was another banner year for the industry, with new construction “positioning the sector for accelerated growth through the decade.”

Significant projects have been constructed or are planned in European and Asia-Pacific regions, the magazine said. Meanwhile, the U.S. offshore wind industry is sputtering, resulting in a severe impact to the market. The International Energy Agency, according to the article, forecasts a 60% downward revision from 2025-2030 for U.S. wind energy, equaling 57 GW of both onshore and offshore capacity “that is now unlikely to be built.”

It appears the U.S, for now, may be left in the dust.

“Offshore wind technology continues its relentless march toward larger, more powerful machines,” according to the article. “The average capacity of turbines installed offshore in 2024 reached 10 MW, according to (the Global Wind Energy Council), a figure that would have seemed implausible a decade ago. Yet, the frontier has already moved well beyond that threshold.”

Still, in the long run, the realities of market forces and the limitations of dirty or destructive energy resources can make an unlimited, clean energy such as wind an unavoidable choice. Offshore projects may be a younger industry in the U.S., but it is considered a powerful renewable resource to tap. While land-based wind projects are less costly, wind speeds are generally higher and more constant offshore, allowing turbines to generate more electricity for longer periods.

In the U.S., solar and wind have often been the most affordable energy resource, but they are also compatible grid partners, Kollins said, with wind at its peak when the sun is not.

“Generally, wind turbines have higher generation factors in the winter and in evenings, and those are two times when solar has less output,” she said, “So if you have a lot of solar on the grid, you can add a lot of wind before you really need storage.”

Once all five of the offshore projects are operating at full capacity, she said, that’s when people will see the benefits of having more electricity produced, when they need it — such as the recent weekend deep freezes along the East Coast.

“These things are going to be generating their full output all weekend when everybody’s got their heat turned on and is using max electricity load,” Kollins said, adding: “Offshore wind is highly correlated with winter storms.”

There is an increasing demand overall for electricity, Kollins noted. And construction of gas turbines and nuclear power is many years down the road.

“These electrons are needed so badly,” she said.  “We are in a period of rapid economic growth, and in order to continue fueling that growth, we need every resource available.

“And offshore wind provides one of the only ways to build a significant amount of new energy generation in the near term.”

TYNER – As neighborhood businesses go, Timbermill Wind is quiet, clean and visually striking. And barely a year from the start of its wind energy production in this rural northeastern North Carolina community, it is already pumping money into local coffers.

At a ceremony held Tuesday at the site of the project’s local operations, Ken Young, CEO of Apex Clean Energy, the operation’s owner, presented a large, ceremonial check representing about $750,000 in net tax payments to Chowan County.

“There’ll be many more like it,” Bob Kirby, a Chowan County commissioner, told a small gathering of local officials and community members.

According to a Timbermill Wind press release, annual payments to the county over the project’s 30-year lifespan are expected to total about $50 million, which will support community needs such as education and emergency services. The infusion of revenue, so far, makes Timbermill the county’s single largest taxpayer, officials said, equaling more in property taxes this year than last year’s top nine taxpayers combined.

With the silver blades of a turbine turning slowly in the background over his shoulder, Kirby couldn’t help boasting that the land-based wind facility was the first of its kind to be permitted in North Carolina.

“There’s a $400 million investment that’s sitting behind me,” he said.

Beyond the benefits to the county and state, Kirby added, Timbermill is also a huge help to local farmers who receive annual payments — the amount is deemed proprietary information — to lease their land to the business.

“The people who own these farms are under unbelievable stress to their way of life,” he said. “For the leaseholders, this sort of thing, that’s a predictable source of income for them.”

While farmers lose access to a small amount of their land, they can continue as usual to farm the land under the turbines.

During a tour of part of the production site, Richard Bunch, a local representative for Timbermill, while standing in front of a turbine, told the group that farmers are able to get relatively close to the side of the tower when they’re working the land, although they can get closer after the corn or other crops is harvested. 

“He’s going to lose a half an acre here, that’s all,” Bunch said.  “And he’ll have income for 30 years.”   

A 6,000-acre tract, bordered by tall trees and owned by timber company Weyerhaeuser, was the first site to be cleared for the project, said Win Dale, a project representative for Timbermill.

“Once they cut every tree down, every stump was removed,” he said, waving toward a large circle of open land surrounding a turbine.

Each “crane pad” at the 45 sites, he said, is an eighth of an acre.

Hunters now have new access roads to the area, where they hunt mostly for deer, as well as some bear and wild turkey, Bunch said.

“They rented this whole tract from Weyerhaeuser to hunt,” he said, adding that he’d heard that they’re quite happy with the change. “Between a company and a hunting group, to be able to say that — that never happens.”

Farmers are also enjoying the easier access to their land, Dale added.

“The roads are like interstates compared to what they were before,” he said.

The towers themselves are 345 feet tall. Counting to the tip of the blades — the project has a total of 135 — each “windmill” is 591 feet tall. Providing a short lesson for visitors, Tyler Finley, facility manager for Timbermill Wind, explained that each tower is divided into five sections. Inside, there’s a ladder running up the middle with a platform at each level. The three blades are attached before they’re elevated to the top. 

“It’s kind of like building a very big Lego,” he said about the assembly process.

When they’re moving, the 242-foot-long blades create a 4-acre sweep area. Shadow flickers that would otherwise pass over homes are mitigated by siting towers away from residential structures.

Finley and other Timbermill representatives said that the blades, which are a composite of fiberglass with an interior metal structure, don’t kick on until the wind reaches at least 7 mph, and they’re capable of pitching from zero to 90 degrees. When winds reach about 50 mph, they’ll flatten to reduce surface area. Feathering of blade pitch provides “aerodynamic braking,” and trailing-edge serrations on the blades help reduce noise.

From the onsite substation, a 6-mile line is connected directly to the Dominion Energy “point of intersection,” Finley explained.

Apex has a power purchase agreement with Google, meaning it provides Google with a portion of the power produced at Timbermill. But the power is obtained from the grid, which collects energy from numerous sources.

“It’s an integrated power market,” Finley said.

Simply put, the energy produced by the wind turbines is eventually sent to a large distribution network, where it is purchased by different customers. The concept is similar to global oil and gas markets, where the location of the energy source is rarely the direct recipient of that energy.

 According to Timbermill, the 189-megawatt wind energy project developed and operated by Charlottesville, Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy generates enough clean energy to power the equivalent of 47,000 U.S. homes.

Timbermill, which came online in Dec. 2024, became the second industrial scale land-based wind farm in the state.

Although it was permitted earlier, numerous delays led to it being behind the 104-turbine Amazon Wind U.S. East wind farm that straddles Perquimans and Pasquotank counties and that started its 208-megawatt operation in early 2017.

The Apex Community Grant Program has awarded more than $120,000 for local nonprofits and support for regional reforestation and other community conservation projects.

Speaking after the event, John Mitchener, 84, a native of Chowan County who had served as commissioner from 2010 to 2018, said he was on the board when “the significant decisions” were made about permitting the wind farm.

He noted that opinions initially seemed to be divided between the folks in the Yeopim area, who reside south of Edenton toward the Outer Banks, and the other side of the county.

“The people who objected the most lived down there, and the people who lived up there objected the least,” he said.

While Mitchener said he couldn’t pinpoint the reason for the differences, he said that he knew it was important to maintain a polite and civil approach.

“Part of my outlook as a public official,” he said, “is to try to have the conversation where you could come back to it.”

And as it turns out, he said, people in the community all seem pretty happy now with Timbermill.

It was the massive scale of destruction in the North Carolina mountains after Hurricane Helene last year that spotlighted how advantageous microgrids — small independent power grids — can be to communities that have suffered disasters.

After horrific flash floods from the storm that hit Sept. 27 inundated many of Asheville’s roads and buildings — and nearly all of its vital utility infrastructure — critical help soon arrived from the New Orleans-based nonprofit disaster service Footprint Project in the form of mobile renewable power.

An estimated 1 million western North Carolinians lost power in the storm. Many were also left without running water, food and shelter.

“We saw the value in what they were doing, in deploying small-scale solar and battery storage to help communities that lacked access to power, water and telecommunications,” North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Executive Director Matt Abele told Coastal Review. “And so we jumped in right away and helped to fundraise for them to be able to expand the amount of work that they were doing in that part of the state.”

Apparently, the practicality and flexibility of the technology also impressed officials with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality State Energy Office, which on Aug. 12 announced a $5 million investment to provide accessible post-disaster emergency power with permanent and mobile microgrids.

“Hurricane Helene showed us that we need to be prepared to withstand severe weather emergencies,” Gov. Josh Stein said in a press release announcing the plan. “That means rebuilding our energy infrastructure with resilience in mind.”

Along with NCSEA and the Footprint Project, the state energy office will collaborate in the project with Land of Sky Regional Council, as well as a network of regional partners.

With as many as 24 stationary microgrids that would be installed across six western counties affected by Helene and two mobile Beehive microgrid hubs, one on the coast, the other in the mountains, the project is intended to fill critical needs in communities statewide.

Essentially four large shipping containers with solar panels on top of the outside and battery storage systems inside, each Beehive — the “Hive” — operates independent of the stationary power grid. Smaller mobile solar-equipped trailers — the “Bees” — are dispatched to affected areas to provide power for essential services such as water filtration stations, charging stations for phones and other devices and hotspots for internet through cellular or satellite connections.

Abele said that NCSEA became familiar with Footprint through its relationship with Green Tech Renewables, a nationwide distributor of solar and battery storage that had partnered with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association and Footprint in responding to Maui wildfires.

Abele said his organization reached out via email to Footprint as Helene was approaching the mountains. As it turned out, the large scale of the damage and the randomness of impacts from the storm really highlighted the value of the Beehives being able to go where needed.

“I think that’s the beauty of having a setup like these Beehive microgrids, where you can charge mobile equipment,” Abele said. “Because only investing in permanent infrastructure, it’s like trying to essentially find a needle in a haystack and predict exactly where the next storm is going to hit, versus having the equipment on hand and ready to go, to be deployed to where that next storm is.”

Green Tech’s Raleigh location had solicited donations of solar panels and other supplies, as well as raised funds to purchase products such as photovoltaic wire and batteries, and trucked it to western North Carolina to support Footprint Project’s work, as described in an article published by Elizabeth Ouzts for the nonprofit news site Energy News Network in October 2024.

According to the article, by late December the group had built about 50 microgrids throughout mountain communities. That was the most ever since it started in 2018 in response to founder Will Heegaard’s experience two years earlier working as a paramedic in New Guinea and struggling to find power to refrigerate blood supplies.

Heegaard, today operations director for the Footprint Project, which he founded with partners Jamie Swezey and Nate Heegaard, said the group is working toward replacing the fossil-fuel-powered generators that have long been serving communities after disasters with battery-charged solar panels. Not only are Beehives and Bees not dependent on fuel supplies, they’re quiet and clean.

“Responders use what they know works, and our job is to get them stuff that works better than single-use fossil fuels do,” he told Energy News Network. “And then, they can start asking for that. It trickles up to a systems change.”

Even if the microgrids don’t outright replace those generators, Heegaard added, they can supplement them, helping fuel supplies last longer.

The state’s grant will provide about two beehives with mobile equipment and permanent installations with fixed solar and battery storage that would be attached to either local government buildings or nonprofit center or other location where people congregate after a storm, Abele said. 

“And so those are all really important decisions in terms of where that investment is being made, to ensure that it is being made in a place that people will go and serve the community appropriately,” he said.

“Because the worst-case scenario is, you walk down a path of investing, and then deploying infrastructure, and then that infrastructure sits unutilized during a natural disaster because it’s inaccessible,” he said.

According to the state, the Land of Sky Regional Council, part of the Appalachian Regional Commission, will soon begin purchasing the Beehive microgrids, and site selection for the microgrids is to begin this fall. The stakeholder engagement for the installation will take place in September, and project completion is anticipated in June 2027.

One of the most significant reasons that solar-powered microgrids like the Beehive hadn’t  found much traction in the U.S. is because of the high cost of batteries, Abele explained.  But now, he said, the price of batteries — similar to what happened earlier to solar panels — has decreased about 92% in the last 15 years, making the much-improved technology affordable.

“We’ve seen sort of a smattering of these projects on an ad hoc basis, but not a comprehensive strategy around deploying this equipment,” he said.

In addition to the proposed Beehives, there have been other smaller microgrid projects in the state, including on Ocracoke and plans in Charlotte.  

“But aside from that, there aren’t a ton of examples that you can point to in other states,” Abele said. “And so I think North Carolina really is going to be a leader in setting the example for recovery after a natural disaster.”

At first glance, the stretch of coast near the Bennett Street beach access point in Kitty Hawk blends seamlessly with the rest of the coastline. 

It’s impossible to tell that, just a few months ago, this sand cradled the lifeless, 19,000-pound carcass of a humpback whale. 

Now, the soft tissue of the humpback lies below the sand. Its skeleton is housed in the neighboring town of Corolla, where students are analyzing remains for a school project, said Marina Piscitelli-Doshkov, stranding coordinator for the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Under the beach, the humpback will join a number of other whales buried along the shore. Since 2016, humpback whale mortalities have increased, along with a rise in the deaths of minke and North Atlantic right whales along the Atlantic coast. 

North Carolina coastal communities are actively debating the cause of the increase in whale mortalities, with concerns surrounding political agendas at the heart of the discussion.

Marine scientists have identified human interaction with ships as the leading cause of these whale mortalities, causing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to attempt tightening vessel speed restrictions.

Fishermen have largely opposed stricter regulations, blaming numerous economic struggles on what they see as a mountain of NOAA rules. 

Others call out the construction of offshore wind turbine facilities as disrupting whales’ migratory paths and hearing, pushing them into waters where fishing and shipping vessels often transit. 

“Everybody’s got an opinion,” said Dewey Hemilright, a commercial fisherman based in Wanchese and a former member of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. 

‘A Huge Shift’

Piscitelli-Doshkov has spent her career working on necropsies of beached mammals for the stranding network.

“I’ve been doing this for 20-plus years,” Piscitelli-Doshkov said. “There’s been a huge shift in the past few years with people — just in general.” 

Five years ago, when the network was called to investigate a whale in the process of shoring and start the process of determining a cause of death — performing a necropsy — no one would show up, she said.

Now, people flock to the scene.

In addition to the political climate surrounding wind energy, Piscitelli-Doshkov attributes the attention that recent whale beachings receive to social media and the spectacles “going kind of viral.”

The network responded to Kitty Hawk Police officers’ report of the juvenile female humpback on the morning of Dec. 27. After the network finished the necropsy, the Kitty Hawk Public Works Department handled the burial. 

“All we could tell on the necropsy was that it was a blunt-force trauma, and that is usually done by a ship strike,” said Piscitelli-Doshkov. 

Whether the whale was alive or dead when it was hit was to be determined after histopathology and diagnostic analyses were run. NOAA must pay for all samples to be researched, so the stranding network was left “just waiting” for the agency to officially approve more tests, she said.

But the network can’t always determine a whale’s cause of death through necropsy. 

Because whales generate so much heat within their internal insulation system, once they die, “they start pretty much cooking from the inside,” said Craig Harms, director of the marine health program at North Carolina State University’s Center for Marine Sciences and Technology. 

Harms, who often works with the network, added that “once you do a post mortem exam, you might be going through a lot of mush.”

‘Barely holding on’

In April 2017, NOAA declared an Unusual Mortality Event, or UME, for humpback whales. The agency defines a UME as a “marked increase in the magnitude or a marked change in the nature of morbidity, mortality, or strandings when compared with prior records”. 

“Most of those increased mortalities are being caused by ship strikes,” Harms said. 

According to NOAA, necropsies conducted on approximately half of beached humpbacks since 2016 showed that around 40% of their deaths involved a ship strike or entanglement. 

NOAA has determined two other whale species — the minke and North Atlantic right — as also experiencing UMEs.

Currently, under NOAA’s North Atlantic Right Whale Reduction Rule — regulations intended to specifically protect right whales — vessels over 65 feet cannot go more than 10 knots in certain areas of the ocean called seasonal management areas.

“There’s only about 360 of these whales left,” Harms said. “And we could very well drive them to extinction within 10 to 20 years if we don’t do something more than what we’re doing.”

In 2022, NOAA proposed to apply the 10-knot speed rule to vessels longer than 35 feet. This suggestion was officially withdrawn Jan. 16 due to “ongoing requests from the public for further opportunity to review and engage with the Agency on the proposal.”

Hemilright said the majority of commercial fishing vessels operate under 10 knots, so recreational fishermen, such as charter boat operators, would suffer most under these speed limitations. 

The speed restrictions make running charters extremely difficult for recreational fishermen, whom Hemilright said have been “devastated” by the regulations. 

“And these are individual, small businesses,” he added. “These ain’t corporations.”

Cane Faircloth, a former recreational fisherman and board member for the North Carolina For-Hire Captains Association, who currently manages a few charter boats, said the reduction rule would mainly affect larger recreational boats.

But many recreational fishermen, he added, are worried that restrictions will continue to apply to smaller and smaller boats. 

“If you start getting into that under 30-foot range, then that hits the majority of boats that are going out in the ocean fishing,” Faircloth said.

It’s not fair, he continued, for speed restrictions to be placed on boats that have never hit or come close to hitting a right whale. Slowing from an average speed of around 25 knots to 10 could double the travel time to fishing waters and hurt business, he said.

Faircloth, a 49-year-old fifth-generation fisherman, said that he has never heard of a recreational fishing boat hitting a whale. 

“I think when those whales are hit, it’s more of your big freighters, big ships,” he said. “Because those big ships, they move as fast as us little boats do, and they take up such a big area — it’s a lot harder for a whale to get away from them than it would be to get away from one of us.”

Between 2022 and 2023, NOAA filed 53 complaints against vessel operators, totaling nearly $1 million in civil penalties. The agency uses satellite technology, portable radar units and active patrols to detect speeding and enforce restrictions. 

While paying a violation can be detrimental to local fisheries, large shipping vessels incur the fees as “just the price of doing business,” Hemilright said.

For big companies, “What the hell’s a $20,000 fine?” he added. 

Where Hemilright sees the largest economic loss for North Carolina’s fishermen under NOAA regulations is competition from imported seafood.

“If every other country had to fish by the same regulations that I have, it’d be a lot more fish in the ocean,” he said. 

According to NOAA, the U.S. imports 70-85% of its seafood.

“We’re barely holding on as an industry, because there’s so many regulations,” Hemilright noted.

‘Doesn’t make any sense’

But fishing charters and cargo shippers aren’t the only entities being blamed for increased whale deaths. Offshore wind turbine facilities have also faced criticism. 

“These facilities are being placed in whales’ migratory paths and feeding and calving areas, and their construction and operations are excessively noisy, which is especially dangerous to whales who rely on sonar, pushing them into shipping and fishing lanes where they suffer deadly boat strikes and fishing entanglements,” Jon Sanders, a research editor for the John Locke Foundation, wrote in a Jan. 3 blog post. 

Harms, however, said humpback, right or minke whales are among the species of whales that do not use sonar. 

Andrew Read is director of the Duke University Marine Lab on Pivers Island in Beaufort and primarily studies longer-living marine species including marine mammals, namely the effects human activity can have.

Read noted that marine scientists such as him and Harms have been documenting whale deaths since before there were offshore wind activities. 

“The science is really clear that there’s no evidence whatsoever that any of these whales are being killed by any activity associated with offshore wind turbines,” he said. 

But Faircloth said he doubts some people performing necropsies “check for the right stuff.” 

While he understands the Dec. 27 whale that washed ashore in Kitty Hawk faced a ship strike, he questions whether its eardrums or communication abilities were affected by the Kitty Hawk Wind offshore turbine being built 27 miles off the coast.

People have linked whale deaths to offshore wind, Read said, to advance a political agenda against the development of green energy sources.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Faircloth said people “are all in on green energy” and don’t want to hear about the harm facilities are doing to the environment. 

Besides Kitty Hawk Wind, another offshore wind project has been proposed 22 miles from Bald Head Island — Carolina Long Bay. The project and location is still being assessed and construction has not started.

Hemilright, who works as a fishery representative to Kitty Hawk Wind, said people who are anti-wind “would do anything that would stop a wind turbine from being built.”

The Kitty Hawk Wind project is in a dead zone, a “pass-through” for fishermen, Faircloth said, but Carolina Long Bay would be encroaching on a bustling fishing area. 

“So you’re going to build this wind farm on one of our best fishing grounds, most productive reefs, habitats that are millions of years old, and you’re going to build a wind farm on it where there’s 13 endangered species — that doesn’t make any sense,” he added. 

Both sides of the offshore wind debate are loud, Hemilright said, and there is an incredible amount of complexity and a wide array of parties involved. 

“If I thought there was a smoking gun, then it’d be easy,” he said. 

This story was updated at 1:48 p.m. Feb. 19 to note that Dominion Energy and Avangrid’s Kitty Hawk Wind website had been removed.

KITTY HAWK — Wind projects that are leased, permitted or under construction in or near North Carolina are likely to survive buffeting by renewed wind energy skepticism from the Trump administration.

Shortly after taking office in January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring new offshore wind leases and requiring reviews of existing and permitted wind projects. Although it was not targeting existing leases, industry supporters have questions about what rules, permits or projects it could impact and the potential for broader impacts through the workforce and manufacturing industries.

“It’s not that companies are moving on as business as usual, but there’s so much uncertainty that they can’t just come to a screeching halt, and then all of this could change in five minutes,” Karly Lohan, Southeastern Wind Coalition’s senior Carolinas program manager, recently said in an interview with Coastal Review. “They have to keep going and figure this out as they go. And realistically, we’re probably not going to know an answer to a lot of those questions, and the true implications of this offshore wind executive action until … we know.”

Lohan noted that the nonprofit coalition she represents is focused on educational outreach about wind energy and does not speak or act as a trade organization for the industry.

A wind project off Kitty Hawk along the Outer Banks that’s owned by Avangrid Renewables and Dominion Energy is not yet under construction, but it still has active leases. The website link above was active at the time this report was published, but appeared to be down Wednesday afternoon. An Internet Archive version of the page was saved Jan. 30.

Dominion Energy’s $9.8 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, or CVOW, project off Virginia Beach is going full speed ahead. The 2.6-gigawatt project is currently about half done and is expected to be completed on schedule by the end of 2026, according to company spokesman Jeremy Slayton.

Duke Energy, along with Total Energies, has leased an offshore area off Southport for a wind farm known as Carolina Long Bay project, but it is in very early permitting stages.

“We are still easily at least six or seven years away from construction for any of those projects,” Lohan said.

The two land-based wind energy projects in North Carolina — Amazon Wind U.S. East in Elizabeth City, completed in 2017, and Timbermill Wind in Chowan County, completed in 2024 — will not be affected by the orders, Lohan said. Duke Energy has expressed interest in future land-based projects in North Carolina, but no information has been released about potential locations or plans, she said.

While Dominion is working to complete its Virginia Beach project, it is keeping its CVOW-South, formerly the Kitty Hawk North project, on hold for the time being, Slayton, the company’s spokesman, said.

“CVOW-South provides us with a potential option for additional offshore wind development,” he said in an email. “Our most recent long-term planning document, the Integrated Resource Plan, forecasts this project, if we pursue it, for the mid-2030s. At this time, we do not have a firm timeline or cost for developing this lease area.”

Dominion Energy came to an agreement in July 2024 to purchase one-third of the Kitty Hawk North project, which is about 27 miles east of Corolla, the northern end of the Outer Banks, and about 38 miles southeast of the Sandbridge community in Virginia Beach.

“Avangrid was willing to sell a portion of the project at a reasonable cost,” Slayton told Coastal Review at the time. “And we believe it was prudent to take advantage of this opportunity to meet the growing needs of our customers with clean energy and also help us achieve the requirements of the Virginia clean Economy Act, which calls for up to 5.2 gigawatts of offshore wind.”

If developed, the project will connect to the grid for CVOW-South at a new substation at Corporate Landing in Virginia Beach, near Naval Air Station Oceana, he said.

Katharine Kollins, president of Southeastern Wind Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group, said that wind power production in the U.S. is behind the mature development of both offshore and onshore wind in Europe, but it has the capacity and resources to build a robust wind energy industry.

“It requires economies of scale in manufacturing, all of the components it requires, economies of scale in construction and development and even in operations and maintenance,” she told Coastal Review recently. “And so what the manufacturers have been saying to advocates in the industry for years is, ‘We need a solid pipeline of projects before we can commit a billion dollars to building a manufacturing facility in the U.S. that can then produce the major components, or an offshore wind turbine that would include your towers, your blades.’ Right now, I think the only thing that we can manufacture in the U.S. is foundations.”

Like any energy production, wind energy is an equation of risk versus benefits, she said. And wind is economical, clean and safe, she added. “You don’t hear anything about wind spills,” she said. Yes, there are bird mortalities associated with strikes, but far, far less than the estimated one billion annual deaths from birds striking buildings.

Kollins said the problem is uncertainty. “You know, uncertainty is not good for investment, and so if you have some significant political uncertainty, that makes it really hard for investors to move forward with any of those components that I was mentioning, whether in components, referencing manufacturing, referencing development, even thinking about leases.

“Like, am I going to go pay $100 million to lease a square of ocean that, then I might have another presidential administration that says, ‘I don’t really like this?’ No thanks,” she said. “It does make it hard to overcome. This is an industry that should be nonpartisan.”

The nation’s burgeoning offshore wind energy industry has created thousands of jobs, boosted work in shipyards and ports, and includes a supply chain that spans 40 states, according to a new report.

Billions of dollars have been invested in things like new and retrofitted vessels for offshore wind developers, ports infrastructure, and the expansion of renewable energy manufacturing facilities that support offshore wind, according to Oceantic Network, a Baltimore-based nonprofit that advocates growing the country’s offshore renewable energy industry and supply chain.

According to the report, “Offshore Energy at Work,” 25 U.S. ports are either taking part in the industry or preparing to support it.

Last February, North Carolina State Ports Authority Executive Director Brian Clark signed a record of decision on a proposed plan to create a multi-use terminal that would support manufacturing and operations for offshore wind and automotive industries at the Morehead City port.

The proposed project entails developing land the port owns on Radio Island. It includes construction of a 300,000-square-foot manufacturing facility with office space for offshore wind, a roughly 60-acre gravel pad for storage, a new rail spur that would tie into the existing rail, roadway improvements, and the installation of a gas line from Morehead City to the island.

The estimated price tag is $250 million to $285 million.

“We have no updates to provide at this time,” Elly Cosgrove, N.C. Ports senior communications manager, said in an email Wednesday. “The Record of Decision signed in February is the latest as it pertains to Radio Island.”

It is unclear how an executive order President Donald Trump signed in his first day back in the White House pumping the brakes on new offshore wind development might affect the ports’ proposed plans, including four lease areas off the North Carolina coast.

Five days after Oceantic Network released its 60-page report, Trump suspended new leases on the entire outer continental shelf. The order will stand until it is revoked.

The order also blocks the federal government from issuing new federal permits to offshore and onshore wind projects, including four lease areas off the North Carolina coast, until the secretary of Interior conducts a “comprehensive assessment and review” of the permitting process.

Oceantic Network joined other renewable energy proponents in immediately rebuking the president’s order, calling the permitting pause “a blow to the American offshore wind industry.”

Trump’s actions threaten thousands of American offshore wind industry-related jobs in shipyards, factories, and ports, and “strand businesses who have reorganized their operations to support the sector,” Oceantic said in a release.

“While under a National Energy Emergency created by an unprecedented rise in energy demand, we should be working to quickly bring generation online instead of curtailing a power source capable of providing base load generation and creating new jobs across 40 states,” Oceantic founder and CEO Liz Burdock said in the release. “We urge the administration to reverse this sweeping action and keep America working in offshore energy as part of its commitment to an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy.”

A spokesperson for Oceantic Network declined to comment further.

In a statement it released following Trump’s order, the Southeastern Wind Coalition called offshore wind “an economic force” in the U.S., investing billions of dollars in reviving previously underutilized ports and creating training programs for the work sector.

“Wind energy is critical to achieving American energy dominance, meeting our growing electricity demand, and creating stable manufacturing jobs across the nation,” Southeastern Wind Coalition President Katharine Kollins said in a release. “Wind energy is a vital part of the global electricity system, and ceding the advancement and development of wind technologies to other nations will only set us back.”

More than 100 companies in the Southeast produce components for the industry, according to the wind coalition.

But at least one of those has turned to the European market to stay afloat.

An official with Nexans, a France-based power and communications cable producer, said in an article published earlier this month that the company’s Charleston, South Carolina, plant — the largest subsea cable manufacturer in the U.S. — is shipping its product to Europe.

Nexans vice president for generation and transmission told renewable energy publication Recharge that high demand for cables in Europe is “a blessing in disguise” for the plant.

Still, all is not all doom-and-gloom for the industry.

In an email announcing the dates and location for the International Partnering Forum, the largest offshore wind energy conference in the U.S., Burdock noted that five commercial-scale, federally approved offshore projects are either under or near construction. Another six projects have received federal approvals.

“Despite misleading headlines, there is no question that the industry is moving forward,” Burdock wrote.

President Joe Biden has permanently closed off much of the nation’s coasts from prospective offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.

The move, announced Monday as Biden wraps up his presidency, includes more than 330 million acres of the Atlantic outer continental shelf, from Canada to the southern tip of Florida, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, as well as the West Coast, and the remainder of Alaska’s northern Bering Sea.

Everyone from coastal advocates to typically opposite-of-the-aisle politicians representing North Carolina coastal communities, which have overwhelmingly opposed offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling, lauded the president’s action.

Wilmington City Councilman and Republican Charlie Rivenbark introduced a resolution opposing seismic airgun testing and offshore drilling off the North Carolina coast to fellow board members nearly 10 years ago.

The board unanimously adopted the resolution, aligning the Port City with dozens of other North Carolina municipalities and counties opposed to then-President Barack Obama’s administration’s plan to open waters off the Southeast coast to oil exploration.

“I would still be opposed to offshore drilling anywhere, particularly along the North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia coasts, and I’m glad President Biden’s doing this on his way out,” Rivenbark said Monday morning. “This to me is almost a nonpartisan issue. I grew up on the coast. I know the other side has got terrific arguments and reasons why, but I just can’t take a chance at an oil spill.”

That sentiment has resonated throughout not only coastal North Carolina, but also across the state over the course of the last several years.

Concerns about the potential for oil spills were specifically cited in the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission’s April 2019 resolution that opposes offshore drilling. 

The resolution, which was adopted unanimously, pointed to impacts from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several scientific studies that raise concerns about seismic testing on marine mammals and fisheries.

“Seismic surveys and offshore drilling are just not compatible with our coast,” North Carolina Coastal Federation Executive Director Braxton Davis said in an email response to Coastal Review Monday. The Coastal Federation publishes Coastal Review.

“Keeping our coast healthy, thriving and free of oil spills is crucial for the survival and prosperity of our communities, and is at the heart of our work at the Federation,” Davis said. “For decades now, North Carolina’s opposition to offshore oil and gas has been largely bipartisan. Even under ideal conditions, drilling operations release a number of dangerous pollutants into the ocean, not to mention the potential for larger spills that can devastate local tourism and fisheries.”

Governors of both Atlantic and Pacific coastal states pushed back on President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to expand offshore drilling during his first tenure in the White House.

In fall 2020, Trump announced he was withdrawing federal waters off the Atlantic Coast from Virginia to Florida from the possibility of drilling for oil and gas. The 10-year moratorium he established ends in 2032.

Michelle Bivins, Oceana’s Carolinas Field Campaigns representative, said Monday afternoon that Biden’s announcement “essentially codifies those protections and makes them permanent.”

“As for Trump reversing this policy once he’s in office, during his last presidency he protected the South Atlantic from the threat of offshore drilling for almost 10 years, following bipartisan support. He knows that coastal economies and businesses depend on healthy, oil-free oceans,” she said.

Shortly after the White House announced the ban Monday morning, the American Petroleum Institute, or API, released a statement calling for the reversal of Biden’s withdrawal the offshore areas from future oil and natural gas leasing.

“American voters sent a clear message in support of domestic energy development, and yet the current administration is using its final days in office to cement a record of doing everything possible to restrict it,” API President and CEO Mike Sommers stated in a release. “Congress and the incoming administration should fully leverage the nation’s vast offshore resources as a critical source of affordable energy, government revenue and stability around the world. We urge policymakers to use every tool at their disposal to reverse this politically motivated decision and restore a pro-American energy approach to federal leasing.”

Two separate but similar letters – one signed by members of the U.S. Senate, the other signed by House representatives – calling late last year for Biden to implement the ban pointed out that presidential withdrawals had not been successfully challenged in court.

Trump in 2017 reversed Obama’s Arctic and Atlantic withdrawals. A district court judge in Alaska ruled presidents do not have authority under the law, in this case the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, to revoke prior withdrawals.

“A large-scale withdrawal of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Eastern Gulf from fossil fuel development while maintain the development of renewable energy solutions would provide durable protections for these critical areas,” according to the Dec. 19, 2024, letter signed by nine U.S. senators.

The areas included in the withdrawal encompass more than 625 million acres, the largest in the country’s history, according to the U.S. Department of Interior.

“President Biden’s actions today are part of our work across this Administration to make bold and enduring changes that recognize the impact of oil and gas drilling on our nation’s coastlines,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a release. “Today, the President is taking action that reflects what states, Tribes and local communities have shared with us – a strong and overwhelming need to support resilient oceans and coastlines by protecting them from unnecessary oil and gas development.”

The withdrawals do not affect rights under existing leases, of which there are about 30 off the southern California coast and about a dozen in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, according to the release.

In fiscal 2023, production in the outer continental shelf resulted in about 675 million barrels of oil and 796 billion cubic feet of gas. Almost all of that production is in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, “where industry has yet to produce on more than 80 percent of the 12 million acres already under lease,” according to the release.

The current leasing program that runs through 2029 includes three potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico planning areas. Those areas are not included in the withdrawal.

The federal agency that identifies offshore wind energy areas is in the early stages of siting another possible commercial lease sale for the East Coast.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management held an open house last week at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City, the first in the multiyear, multistep planning process for Central Atlantic 2. BOEM manages development of the U.S. outer continental shelf energy, mineral and geological resources.

BOEM Project Coordinator Seth Theuerkauf explained that the agency has just begun the work to identify lease areas in the Central Atlantic region.

“We’re at the call area stage, the first step of our process,” Theuerkauf said, adding that what’s really driving the effort is the remaining offshore wind energy needs for North Carolina and Maryland.

Officials on Aug. 22 published in the federal register the call area, which is 13 million acres off the coasts of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, and launched the 60-day public comment period that ends Oct. 21.

BOEM has scheduled open houses over the coming weeks in the other states plus a virtual meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. Oct. 2. Register for the Zoom meeting online. This meeting will feature presentations and offer a chance to comment.

North Carolina has a goal for 8 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040 and need 3 more gigawatts of lease area to meet that goal. This process is intended to try to identify those lease areas – about 185,000 acres — that would help North Carolina meet its goals. Gov. Roy Cooper’s office established the goal in 2021 with executive order 218.

The call stage looks at a broad area, between 3 nautical miles offshore, where state and federal waters meet, “all the way out to 60 meters, which is basically as deep as you can go and have fixed foundations for offshore wind turbines,” Theuerkauf said.

The intent of this stage is to gather as much information as possible to help identify resource or use conflicts in the call area, Theuerkauf said.

BOEM is building the project on the momentum of the wind energy lease sale that took place in August and included two areas, one off Virginia and one off of Maryland and Delaware. The call area for that sale included offshore Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, between the Virginia line and Cape Hatteras.

For the second round, Theuerkauf said the boundaries are being extended.

“The state of North Carolina indicated interest in looking at areas further south from Cape Hatteras, down to that South Carolina, North Carolina border. Again, we’re really looking for enough lease area to meet those state goals. We know there’s a lot of conflict, there’s a lot of usage, military activities, vessel traffic, natural resource considerations. And that’s really the information we’re trying to gain to identify and narrow.”

Some of the activity in the ocean that could conflict with an offshore wind energy area are military training activities and are areas that are important to vessel traffic, called fairways. The Coast Guard is working through the process to identify fairways and once those are established, these paths will be “no-go zones for offshore wind energy.”

Theuerkauf said other conflicts include fisheries, in terms of avoiding areas where there’s higher levels of fishing activity.

In all, “there’s really a whole lot that goes into the process” of determining an offshore wind area, Theuerkauf added. “We’re partnering with NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science to basically build a spatial model that takes all that information into account and is able to tell us on this sort of red-yellow- green scale, where are those areas that are best or worst based on all of that information.”

He said there’s also an expert focused on viewshed considerations. “We typically have applied coastal setback” for viewshed, Theuerkauf said, which is basically establishing a distance that wind energy areas had to be from land. “The state of North Carolina shared that 20 nautical miles is their recommended coastal setback.”

Theuerkauf said the next stage in the process is to identify draft wind energy areas. That process is essentially to narrow down the call area to smaller, less-conflicted areas. Those draft wind energy areas would go back out for public comment.

Along with Theuerkauf to explain the spatial modeling were Bryce O’Brien and Alyssa Randall with NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Randall said they gather lots of data on all possible conflicting uses and categorize that information into submodels to run a suitability model to determine the best spot is to site a lease.

O’Brien said the submodels — constraints, national security, industry, fisheries, wind, and natural and cultural resources — are combined and that’s how they determine the area with the lowest number of conflicts.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, or Marco, Communications Director Karl Vilacoba, said while gesturing to a map of the Central Atlantic region that MARCO has online a free, publicly accessible mapping site that shows “pretty much anything you can imagine at sea, including where vessel concentrations are, fishing grounds, sensitive habitat, real life distributions. People can use the portal to see how all these things relate to each other, and in some cases, conflict with one another, so that people in ocean management worlds can make better informed decisions.”

He said that the portal “gives the public a chance to look at a lot of the same information that the agencies are using to make their decisions.”

MARCO Executive Director Avalon Bristow added that while MARCO is not a program of BOEM, it works in partnership with BOEM and other federal agencies, states and other stakeholders “who are interested in the ocean to present information that might be useful to understand how decision making is made offshore.”

From a fisheries perspective, Thomas Moorman, a scientist with BOEM, said that different types of fisheries-related information is taken into consideration that would affect the suitability for a potential site.

For instance, data from the National Marine Fisheries Service that illustrates where commercial fishermen are going for specific species is incorporated.

“We look at like density of areas where fishing is occurring, and we do that by species,” which helps inform siting an area. “If we think about siting this area, what are the main fisheries that would occur here? And how does a potential sale interact with the fisheries that occur here?” Moorman continued. They take that information to form the question “is this an area where we should or shouldn’t consider for a lease sale?”

BOEM Marine Biologist Jeri Wisman said that when it comes to how offshore wind projects affect endangered species, she spends a lot of time explaining the impacts to marine mammals, particularly the related noise and vessel traffic, and mitigation strategies.

Another consideration, BOEM environmental specialist Lisa Landers explained, that is taken into consideration is how an offshore wind energy lease could impact cultural resources.

With the open houses and public comment period, “We’re looking for information, any recommendations regarding areas that we should avoid — or should we provide consideration to specific setbacks or buffers — anything that should be taken into consideration,” and that includes known shipwrecks, archeological sites “anything that is culturally significant,” Landers said. “Also, we are taking into consideration the visual impacts to historic properties. So, there are national historic landmarks, lighthouses, historic districts along the coast that could be visually adversely impacted future offshore wind energy development.”

To give an idea of what the viewshed would be like, John McCarty, a landscape architect with BOEM, had designed simulations of what the viewshed would look like for wind turbines at different offshore distances. By illustrating the potential visual impacts, McCarty said it gives the public an opportunity to comment on what distance is acceptable for them from a visual standpoint.

Getting the power generated by wind turbines to the shore is another part of the puzzle, particularly what uses exist between a possible lease area and land.

BOEM Renewable Energy Program Specialist Josh Gange said the wind turbines produce energy that is then transferred to an offshore substation. The power is transmitted from there by an export cable buried under the sea floor to a point of interconnection onshore, which is typically another substation, and that’s where that power is then distributed throughout the existing grid.

BOEM economist Jayson Pollock said that overtime as technology evolves, there’s bigger output and more efficiencies are created but, like with anything, there’s tradeoffs. The further away from shore that a project is developed, the higher the cost will be and “I think that’s a very important point.” It costs more money for boats to go the distance, to manufacture longer cables, for example.

Vessel traffic is another conflict taken into consideration. BOEM oceanographer Will Waskes said that the Coast Guard is in the process of codifying fairways offshore for large ships, especially those traveling to and from ports. Once the fairways are formalized through the rulemaking process, the highways for ships will be considered conflicts for wind energy areas.

Jennifer Mundt, the assistant secretary for Clean Energy Economic Development under the North Carolina Department of Commerce, was on hand to answer questions from the state level.

Mundt amplified that the state is appreciative of the “collaborative spirit that BOEM brings” and the effort to solicit feedback from the public. “I think this is really important for a transparent process.”

In a follow-up call, Brian Walch with BOEM’s communication office told Coastal Review that the reception was positive from the 40 or so that attended. They seemed interested in the information and wanted to know more about the lease siting process.

It can take as long as a decade to develop a wind project from when there’s the first review of a possible lease area to when there could be any project actually in operation.

“BOEM is meticulous,” and thoroughly looks through the public comments, Walch said. Adding the team puts a great deal of effort in public outreach, like the open houses. There are four more for this round and “it’s a pretty significant undertaking” to get the staff and representatives in one place but BOEM feels that it is a responsibility to communities and to individuals.

Comments can be submitted until 11:59 p.m. Oct. 21 in writing by using the portal at regulations.gov or by mail to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, Mailstop: VAM-OREP, Sterling, VA 20166.

EDENTON — No ribbon-cutting or silver shovels wielded by a few politicians would represent the scale of North Carolina’s second land-based wind energy operation. Instead, Apex Clean Energy invited hundreds of community members, landowners and government officials to join them Wednesday morning on Chowan County farmland to a sign a prone, 242-foot-long silver turbine blade to kick off Timbermill Wind, a project to generate 189 megawatts of electricity with 45 three-bladed turbines.

After being shuttled in buses to the 6,300-acre site from Edenton United Methodist Church, where a breakfast event was held, folks lined up, chatting amiably while waiting to scribble their names on the blade.

First up, a man in a slate-blue suit and green tie strode up to the blade with a fat blue marking pen in his right hand. Reaching up while contractors watched, he wrote his name in large, looping cursive letters: Roy Cooper. Then, under his name he added “governor” and turned to the crowd, grinning widely. Everyone cheered and the signing commenced. Before long, about 250 different signatures covered the length of the blade.

One name, Sadie B. Eure, stood out just to the right of Cooper’s signature. That’s his mother-in-law’s name, said Donald “Randy” Park, pointing at the blade.

Eure and her late husband, Garland, who had three daughters, operated Eure Seed Farms in Perquimans County, Park said. Sadie Eure owns 300 hundred acres at the Timbermill site and has a lease agreement with the company for the turbines on her land.

Park, a retired farmer who lives in Belhaven, said that most of the farmers who grow crops such as soybeans, corn, cotton or wheat at the site are pleased with the project because they can still farm around the turbines, while also collecting regular payments.

“The majority are,” he said. “There are a few that are unhappy.”

Some don’t like the way the turbines look, he said.

“I don’t think they’re an eyesore,” Park said. And the payments enable farmers to be profitable, especially when the weather is not cooperating.

Eure, who is 93, started leasing her land to Apex about 8 to 10 years ago, Park said, collecting $1,587 a month. He doesn’t know what the monthly rent will be once the facility is operational, “But it’ll be a whole lot more than that.”

“It helps to have an extra income,” he said. “She’ll be passing this on to her heirs, too.”

Chowan County has also benefited from the project and will continue to for its operational life, which is expected to be about 30 years.

“We are in effect greatly expanding our tax base in one fell swoop,” Gene Jordan, chair of the Chowan County Board of Education, told the audience at the earlier event at the Edenton church.

Jordan, who is a farmer, said that the wind energy helps diversify their resources while supporting the community and the landowners.

“My family will be able to host seven turbines,” he said. “I’m optimistic we will be able to farm for years to come.”

In addition to creating 200 jobs and generating about $25 million spent with North Carolina businesses during its construction, the project is expected to provide up to $33 million in tax revenue over its lifetime.

The project, delayed by numerous glitches including the COVID-19 pandemic, took 11 years to complete, which Apex CEO Ken Young said is about twice the time it typically takes to build a large wind farm.

“It’s coming back to life,” he said, comparing it to a cat’s nine lives.

Sprinkling his description of the project during his speech at the church with words like “fortitude” and “blood, sweat and tears,” Young credited his team and its partners. “That spirit and dedication is why we’re here today with a $500 million facility, fully developed, financed and well under construction,” he told the audience.

Apex will own and operate the facility when it is completed later this year, the company said in a press release. Last year, Timbermill announced a power-purchase agreement with Google, which will contribute to the clean energy needs to offset energy usage at its data centers.

“Google is buying the output from this project,” Young clarified in a later interview.

Most of the project’s difficulties, besides the pandemic, were to be expected, said Richard Bunch, Apex project representative and retired director of the Edenton-Chowan Chamber of Commerce. “It was all permitting issues,” he said, adding that there were lots of discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. military that were worked through.

But whatever the bumps in the road, Bunch said Timbermill Wind is an asset for the county.

“It’s tremendous,” he said in an interview after the signing. “The occupancy tax this year is probably going to its highest ever,” he said, citing revenue related to construction. “Fuel sales, rooms, food — it just goes on and on.”

Even after the project is completed, Bunch said there will six or seven full-time staff employed locally by Timbermill.

Dr. Ellis Lawrence, who has served on the Chowan County Board of Commissioners for 14 years, said after the signing that the revenue created by the project is already being reflected in the county’s plan to build a new high school. And the county’s tax base will continue to have an annual infusion of $1.3 million from the project.

“We have watched it go full circle,” he said. “We have dealt with the ups and downs.”

In the beginning, a lot of people were calling in opposition, he said. But now most residents seem to have come around to be in favor of it.

“I was there when it started. I’ve heard it all,” he said. “In the beginning, they were talking about the bird killings, the noise that it would make. This is nothing like that. And the science is behind it. It’s more efficient. This is an alternate source of energy and we need to take advantage of it.”

Cooper applauded local, state and federal efforts working together for the success of the project.

 “When you talk about clean energy, a lot of times people think about climate change,” he said at the church event. “But what it’s really about is great-paying jobs and a cleaner environment.”

Those white blades the length of a city block that have been at the North Carolina Port at Morehead City the last few weeks are destined for great heights.

Vestas, a wind turbine company based in Portland, Oregon, manufactured the onshore wind turbine components, which arrived in mid-March from India on cargo ships, including the 528-foot-long BBC Norway and 529-foot-long Basilisk, at the state’s deep-water port in Carteret County.

The 242-foot-long blades are for the roughly 6,300-acre Timbermill Wind, a 45-turbine energy facility currently under construction in rural Chowan County near Edenton. Timbermill Wind is a project of Apex Clean Energy in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Apex Senior Community Relations Manager Natasha Montague explained Wednesday that turbine components for the project are being delivered from Morehead City to the Riverbulk barge terminal outside of Edenton on the Chowan River. From there, they will then be transported to the wind energy facility site off Bear Swamp Road, north of Edenton.

The turbine installation is to start this summer, and the project is on track to start commercial operations in early 2025, Montague said. “Construction is well underway, with over 150 workers on site.”

The Chowan County location was chosen because it’s a verified wind resource, has existing onsite transmission lines and roads, expansive rural timber and agricultural lands, and it avoids sensitive military and environmental areas, according to Apex.

“The 45 wind turbines at Timbermill Wind will be capable of producing up to 189 (megawatts) of clean, homegrown energy, enough energy to power up to 47,000 homes every year,” Montague said.

There are monthly construction updates on the Timbermill website, she added. Recently, workers have been readying for the turbines to be delivered.

Timbermill Wind is expected to produce more than $80 million in direct economic benefits over the project’s 30-year lifetime,​ plus dependable long-term revenue for local farmers and landowners, Montague added. “Approximately $33 million will be paid in taxes to Chowan County taxing districts, making the project Chowan County’s largest taxpayer.”

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Climate Advocacy Director Chris Carnevale explained to Coastal Review that wind energy is an important resource to use so “we all can have a reliable, low-cost, and environmentally responsible electricity system.”

Carnevale added that wind energy has a key role to play in a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources for providing reliable power 24/7.

“While we in the Southeast have mostly focused offshore for wind energy potential in our region, modern technology has made land-based wind energy, like the Timbermill project, a valuable opportunity that we should be taking advantage of,” Carnevale said. “Land-based wind farms, like Timbermill, not only provide reliable, low-cost power, but also serve as major sources of economic development and funding for rural communities and local residents.”

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources issued the permit for the onshore wind energy facility to Apex in March 2023. State officials said this permit is the first for a facility under a state law passed in 2013 that establishes a permitting program for wind energy facilities.

“Timbermill Wind has been a project of many ‘firsts’, and that’s a big deal. This project was the first in the state to receive approval from state regulators, which has helped to pave the way for future projects,” Southeastern Wind Coalition Program and Outreach Manager Karly Lohan said.

“Timbermill Wind is also the first project in North Carolina that achieved 40% domestic content for its manufactured components, allowing it to qualify for the 10% domestic content adder through the Inflation Reduction Act,” Lohan added. “This is just another example of how land-based wind development can invigorate North Carolina’s manufacturing supply chain and support economic growth across the entire state.”

In August, Apex and Google announced a power purchase agreement for the full 189-megawatt capacity of Timbermill Wind. This commitment, according to the announcement, is to support “Google’s 2030 commitment to powering its operations with carbon-free energy around the clock.”

Currently, North Carolina only has one commercial-grade onshore wind farm in operation: the 104-turbine Amazon Wind Farm U.S. East, powered by Avangrid Renewables, near Elizabeth City. The 208 MW facility, which has more than 500 workers, began delivering power in December 2016, and generates enough energy to power the equivalent of about 61,000 U.S. homes per year.

The Department of Energy has recognized the advantages and disadvantages of wind power.

Benefits are that the industry creates good-paying jobs, wind is a domestic resource that enables economic growth, benefits local communities, and is affordable, clean and renewable.

The challenges include competing with other low-cost energy sources, connecting the energy from the wind facility sites to where it’s needed, turbine noise and appearance, and impacts on wildlife.

According to a Global Wind Energy Council study released Tuesday, the United States is one of the top five markets for new wind installations, along with China, Brazil, Germany and India.

Worldwide, the wind industry has installed what the council said is a “record 117 GW of new capacity in 2023.” The council is a member-based organization made up of companies, organizations and institutions across 80 counties.

 “New installations in the onshore wind market passed the milestone of 100 GW while new offshore wind capacity commissioned last year reached nearly 11 GW, making 2023 the highest and the second-highest year in history for new wind installations for onshore and offshore, respectively,” states the Global Wind Report 2024. “116.6 GW of new wind power capacity was added to the power grid worldwide in 2023, 50% more than in 2022, bringing total installed wind capacity to 1,021 GW, a growth of 13% compared with last year.”

Currently, there are 16 active primary wind manufacturing plants in 12 states, and 450 wind-related manufacturing facilities in the United States supporting more than 20,000 manufacturing jobs.

Since the Inflation Reduction Act became law in August 2022, 123 new manufacturing facilities or facility expansions have been announced, the report states. This includes 12 onshore wind power manufacturing facilities, nine offshore wind facilities, 78 solar facilities, 20 grid-scale battery storage facilities or facility expansions and four grid connection facilities.

“From this total, 44 facilities have either completed or are currently under construction. Once all in operation, these 120+ facilities will support nearly 42,000 new manufacturing jobs.”

Enviva, a wood pellet producer with a huge economic and environmental footprint in North Carolina, is teetering on the edge of financial collapse.

In a continuation of months of bad financial news for the multinational corporation, Fitch Ratings, a global credit-rating agency, last week downgraded Enviva Inc.’s default rating and unsecured debt rating, reflecting a missed interest payment on Jan. 16 of $24.4 million.

“This development follows worsening operating losses and Enviva’s announcement last fall of substantial doubt regarding its ability to continue as a going concern,” Fitch said in its Jan. 19 report. “Considerable uncertainty exists regarding Enviva’s ability to renegotiate uneconomic customer contracts entered into 4Q22 and the company’s related $300 million liability.”

Enviva is now in a 30-day grace period, the report said. If the interest is not “cured” next month, it said, the company is at risk of default and also is vulnerable to further rating downgrades. 

“Obviously, they are in dire straits,” Scot Quaranda, communications director with Dogwood Alliance, an Asheville-based environmental group and major critic of Enviva, said in a recent interview. “They bet on their own future in the futures market and they failed.”

But it’s not yet known what the impact of the Maryland-based company’s fiscal woes could be to the state and the rural communities where thousands of workers are employed.

Bryant Buck, executive director of the Mid-East Commission, which provides support to local governments in Hertford, Bertie, Martin, Beaufort and Pitt counties, said he had not heard that Enviva was having financial difficulty, but he said the potential of job cuts or operation downsizing is a concern.

“Any business loss in Hertford County certainly sparks my interest,” he said. “We want to do everything we can from our role in helping them. We really want to keep our economy going in all of our regions.”

An Enviva spokeswoman declined to elaborate on the company’s situation.

“At this time, we have no further comment beyond the information that is already publicly available on our IR website,” Maria Moreno, Enviva’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in an emailed response to Coastal Review.

According to Enviva’s website, manufacturing plants in North Carolina, which are operated around the clock, seven days a week, are located in Ahoskie, Hertford County, where the permitted annual production capacity is 410,000 metric tons; in Garysburg, Northampton County, with 750,000 metric tons of permitted capacity per year; and in Faison, Sampson County, with 600,000 metrics tons permitted per year. Each of those sites store and ship the wood pellets from the Port of Chesapeake, Virginia.

An additional site in Hamlet, Richmond County, is permitted to produce 600,000 metric tons per year, but those pellets are stored and shipped from the Port of Wilmington.

Other Enviva plants in the Southeast are in Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina and Virginia.

Elly Cosgrove, communications manager at North Carolina Ports, redirected questions about the business’s shipping to the company.

“Enviva has been a long-standing tenant at the Port of Wilmington and remains current on all their payments,” she said in an email response to Coastal Review. “We can only speak to the lease as we are the lease holder.”

As a result of the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive issued in 2009, biomass — such as wood pellets — was classified as a renewable energy. That decision spurred rapid growth of the pellet industry in the U.S., largely in the Southeast.

Enviva describes itself as “the world’s largest producer of sustainable wood pellets, a renewable alternative to coal,” and a “global energy company specializing in sustainable wood bioenergy.” It also characterizes burning wood pellets as “a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.”

But the global environmental community contends the industry is, if anything, a prime example of greenwashing, with its practice of clearcutting forests and creating air pollution.

“I can’t think of anything that harms nature more than cutting down trees and burning them,” William Moomaw, professor emeritus of international environmental policy at Tufts University, said in a July 2021 CNN article.

A November 2022 class action lawsuit against Enviva filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland by stockholders accuses the company of misrepresenting the environmental impact of its business as well as its financial integrity.

“Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enviva had misrepresented the environmental sustainability of its wood pellet production and procurement; (ii) Enviva had similarly overstated the true measure of cash flow generated by the Company’s platform; (iii) accordingly, Enviva had misrepresented its business model and the Company’s ability to achieve the level of growth that Defendants had represented to investors; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

Despite the legal challenge, the company had around the same time announced plans to expand its footprint in the Southeast.

In 2022, Enviva applied to the state to expand production at its Ahoskie site by a third, to 630,000 tons a year.

Environmental justice advocates fought the proposal, saying that the facility was already polluting the air of the small community, which has a large population of Black residents.

In Feb. 2023, the state Department of Environmental Quality issued a modified permit to the facility that made expansion dependent on installation of new air pollution control devices to “substantially reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs. This equipment includes a regenerative thermal oxidizer and a regenerative catalytic/thermal oxidizer.

Ahoskie, which was Enviva’s flagship site, has been operating since 2011. Over the years, the state has provided incentive funds, including grants, to several of the sites.

The most recent report Enviva filed in 2022 with the North Carolina Department of Commerce, a requirement of businesses that receive incentive funds, did not reveal any compliance issues, said communications director David Rhoades.

Still, the department is concerned, he said, with “any employer” and its workers in the state.

“We’re aware of the press reports and we monitor performance on a regular basis,” Rhoades said about Enviva.

Kevin Patterson, interim Hertford County manager, said that the county had not received a required notification of any layoffs at the Ahoskie plant, making it difficult to anticipate potential impacts to the community.

“Until we have an idea of what may or may not happen, it’s hard to know what a projection would be,” he said.

But for the time-being, Enviva’s standing, is on shaky ground.

According to a recent USA Today Network article, the company’s stock price has plummeted from about $87 a share in April 2022 to about 80 cents a share in January 2024. Quaranda, with Dogwood Alliance, said it’s possible that Enviva could completely shut down, or the company could find a way to renegotiate its contracts, among other adjustments.

“Without any kind of regulatory pressure to do things right, it’s hard to believe that they’ll not do whatever it takes to remain solvent,” he said.

But the industry has always been “a house of cards,” Quaranda said.

“It’s a false premise to cut down a bunch of trees, burn it, and call it renewable energy,” he said.

DURHAM — The sparsely furnished entryway would keep secret what’s happening here if a series of aviation-related diagrams hanging on the walls didn’t reveal some small clue.

The back end of what looks like a large model airplane protruding out of a wall really doesn’t give much away.

Something aviation-related, sure.

But, wind energy? Better still, airborne wind energy that could help the U.S. military reduce its dependency on fuel while operating in remote, undeveloped regions of the world, provide power to disaster-stricken areas, or ease high energy costs on islands where households pay three to four times more for electricity than those on the mainland because of oil import costs?

Those are just some of the ways Windlift’s autonomous tethered drones could be used on the ground.

And Windlift isn’t stopping there.

The startup founded by Rob Creighton aims to eventually go offshore, edging into a market with a product he says is cheaper to build, more cost effective to operate in deep waters further from coast lines and less visually intrusive than wind turbines.

Tiny windmills

Windlift Chief Operating Officer Sean Meyer stands in a large room in the company’s headquarters at one end of a sprawling, strip-mall-esque brick building that sits off a quiet, two-lane road lined by more woods than buildings in Durham.

“As we build more of them we get better at it,” Meyer said, gazing at what looks like a large foam toy airplane glider.

The solid black craft is an airborne power generator, or APG, prototype the small staff here have dubbed “Frank” short for Frankenstein.

The APG stands nose up, secured by a series of cables to keep it from making any sudden, unplanned maneuvers during test hovers.

Frank has a custom-designed wing made to give the craft as much lift as possible.

The APG has four small rotors, two each on its wings, which lift the craft off the ground vertically and fly it to above 200 feet.

What makes Windlift’s autonomous tethered drone a first-of-its-kind is how the rotors function once the APG is airborne.

Unlike other airborne wind energy craft where the force of the drone pulling out the cable is converted to electricity on the ground, each rotor in Windlift’s APGs act like tiny windmills, harnessing wind power and sending that electricity down the tether, which is attached to an anchor on the ground or a floating perch in the ocean.

Flight control software ensures the APG continually follows a tidy figure-eight flight path.

Flying them back and forth across the wind generates considerably more power than flying in one spot, a method proven by California-based researcher Miles Loyd, whose Crosswind Kite Power article was published in 1980 in the Journal of Energy.

The evolution of a biologist

It’s safe to say that Creighton’s path to founding an aerospace engineering company had a few more twists and turns.

His love of the outdoors sparked his desire to learn more about ecology and genetics, a curiosity that landed him in the halls of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a major research institution.

After earning a degree in genetics, Creighton stayed at the university as a biologist working on the Human Genome Project, an international scientific endeavor that generated the first sequence of the human genome.

This was the start of his passion for working in the natural world, one climate scientists were already beginning to warn was being affected by a changing climate.

“I got really worried as I started to learn about climate change,” Creighton said. “I thought, ‘This is going to be the major problem of our time.’ Climate change is going to fundamentally change the places that I love.”

For the record, Creighton did not fully commit to Windlift until he read Loyd’s paper.

“I thought, let’s build a company around this,” he said.

Warmer temperatures and a job offer to his former spouse led the then-couple to move south in 2008.

Creighton would later reach out to Meyer – they’ve known each other since eighth grade – and convinced him to leave Napa, California, to take on the role as chief operating officer in 2021. Meyer’s path to airborne wind energy was about as unconventional as Creighton’s. He co-founded a brewery and winery, was a sommelier, wine experience consultant, and estate director.

By fall 2021, Creighton had scaled up from a handful of equity-compensated, full-time employees to 18 full-time, salaried employees. The company seeks to fill several more positions, predominately engineering jobs.

List of possibilities

The government has already taken an interest in what Windlift has to offer and how APGs might be used to enhance military operations.

Windlift has a five-year, $30 million, Phase III Small Business Innovation Research contract with the Naval Research Laboratory, a Washington-based lab where scientists and engineers research and develop cutting-edge technology to advance Navy and Marine Corps operations.

A little more than $11 million of that grant is footing the bill for the company to refine its prototype and showcase its technology to the Department of Defense.

What makes Windlift’s APGs particularly appealing is their versatility.

The APGs are made of carbon fiber, a material that is five times stronger than steel, yet exceptionally lighter, making them easy to transport from ship to shore and across land to remote areas where there is not a power grid connection. Think back to the lead-up to the Iraq war when U.S. ground troops lived for weeks in temporary tent cities in the Kuwaiti desert.

APGs can, in theory, fly for long periods of time, Creighton said. Maintenance would be minimal. The bearings would eventually need replacing.

Operating them will be a snap. The craft can lift off, fly and return to their anchors with the push of a button.

The craft can be customized by size and could be outfitted with certain technology like radio repeaters, an interest of the Coast Guard.

“At this stage we’re just full of possibilities,” Meyer said.

Out to sea

It’s only been about nine months since the company started exploring the possibility of operating offshore, engaging in early conversations with markets overseas where offshore wind energy is years ahead of the U.S.

Large-scale offshore wind energy production is still in its infancy here in America, where there is little to no infrastructure to support building in the wind energy areas that have in recent years been mapped out and leased to energy companies.

Creighton, who spoke as a panelist last month at the Ocean Innovation Conference hosted by the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, believes Windlift can solve some of the challenges of offshore wind operations.

Kilowatt for kilowatt, Windlift’s APGs use 95% less materials than traditional wind turbines, meaning its cheaper to make than wind turbines.

“Even outside of climate change we’re still going to make electricity a lot cheaper,” Creighton said.

Airborne wind generators can more affordably be located further offshore in deeper waters because they can be connected to a floating base as opposed to a wind turbine mounted to a monopole driven in the sea bed.

Plans are in the works to test an APG offshore at Frying Pan Tower off the southern North Carolina coast. When that may be is still up in the air.

The company hopes to reach utility-scale operability within the next several years.

WILMINGTON – North Carolina has joined nearly a dozen other East Coast states to create a financial compensation program that would cover economic losses within the fisheries industry caused by Atlantic offshore wind development.

The Fisheries Mitigation Project aims to establish a regional administrator to oversee the process of reviewing claims and making payouts collected through a fund paid for by wind developers to commercial and for-hire recreational fisheries industries to mitigate financial loss associated with offshore wind farms.

Kris Ohleth, director of the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind, or SIOW, explained in a telephone interview that the process would operate like that of an insurance claim.

“The regional fund administrator would hold the money, they would accept the claims and evaluate the claims for eligibility and appropriateness and then make a payment to the fisherman based on that claim,” she said.

North Carolina last month became the 11th state to join the project, one of several headed by SIOW.

North Carolina Assistant Secretary for Clean Energy Economic Development Jennifer Mundt said in an emailed statement that the regional initiative “will develop consistent, fair, and transparent compensatory mitigation and compensation procedures.”

Offshore wind development represents a potential $100 billion economic investment and tens of thousands of jobs in the state, she said. Lease areas have been purchased off the state’s coasts of Kitty Hawk and Brunswick County.

“It’s important that we work together to responsibly develop offshore wind in North Carolina so that this new industry augments our existing industries, like the fishing industry,” Mundt said. “We understand that fisheries resources don’t recognize government jurisdictions or the boundaries of a wind energy area. It’s important that we have a consistent compensation structure that works for the entire region.”

The Fisheries Mitigation Project officially kicked off a couple of years ago in an effort to curtail what had so far been a project-by-project, state-by-state approach to address fisheries mitigation from offshore wind development.

Those methods did not work in the cases of South Fork Wind, New York’s first 12-turbine offshore wind farm expected to be operational by year’s end, or for what will be the country’s first commercial-scale offshore wind farm, Vineyard Wind, off the Massachusetts coast.

“Each of those processes arguably went pretty badly for all the stakeholders involved,” Ohleth said. “The fishermen did not feel that there was consistency or transparency kind of across those projects. They weren’t happy with the outcomes. They weren’t happy with the process. The developers were unhappy, the states were unhappy, essentially no one was happy with how it went.”

New York and Massachusetts are among the states that have joined the project. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia also are on board.

Protecting their assets

The goal first and foremost of the states is to ensure wind energy areas and the cable systems that will run from wind farms to land are developed in way that would result in minimal impacts to the fisheries industry.

Kevin Smith, principal engineering geologist with Furgo’s Norfolk, Virginia, office, explained how the Netherlands-based company uses geodata to create mitigative-based designs for offshore wind farms that minimize impacts across industries, including shipping, fisheries and the military.

Speaking at the Global Marine Science Summit hosted last month by the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Center for Marine Science, Smith said offshore wind developers benefit from proactively reducing the chances of incurring what can result in expensive and time-consuming mishaps.

Damaged cables represent the No. 1 insurance claim of offshore wind developments, he said.

Cables cost about $1 million per kilometer, or a little more than a half-mile. It can take 40 to 60 days to repair a cable.

The average cost to repair an inter-array cable, which links individual wind turbines to a substation at sea, ranges between $1.8 million and $12 million.

Repairing an export cable that transmits electricity from a sea-based substation to the shore can cost an average of $10-$30 million, Smith said.

Site surveys of wind energy areas take up to five years and include a cable route study, cable burial risk assessment and burial feasibility study.

Site surveys of wind energy areas take up to five years.

The route of array cables from offshore wind areas south of Bald Head Island in Brunswick County has not been determined, but recreational fishermen in the area remain concerned about the possible impacts of installing monopile wind towers and burying cables on the hardbottom habitat.

Cane Faircloth, a fishing charter captain from Holden Beach and member of the North Carolina For-Hire Captains Association, said local fishermen are the best source to guide planners designing cable systems.

“They’re just trying to sell (offshore wind development) to the fishermen, and we need them to understand that we need partners that are going to listen to us and our concerns and work with us to try to mitigate these issues that we’re going to be facing,” he said.

That North Carolina has joined the Fisheries Mitigation Project, “does say that, ‘Hey, they are listening somewhat,’ and I guess they do realize that there are going to be repercussions,” Faircloth said. “I’m glad that the state is open to taking part in it. Communities are going to be affected, and we need to make sure that we try to mitigate this as good as possible and not just give the wind industry a blank canvas to do whatever they want here because this is our home, and we live in a special place. Let’s try not to mess it up.”

There’s also a concern about insurance.

“What we’ve found with a lot of insurance companies is they don’t cover you if you go into a wind farm area,” Faircloth said. “That’s a big red flag for everybody.”

A spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Insurance said boating insurance policies do not fall under standardized contracts.

“If and how an insurance company offers coverage would fall under the underwriting guidelines of each company,” Barry Smith, the department’s deputy director of communications, said in an email. “We’d recommend boat owners shop around to get the appropriate coverage.”

Such coverage may not yet exist in the United States because the need does not yet exist.

“It’s just all too new and I’ve never even thought about it before,” said Gordon Lay, underwriting manager of ocean marine insurance with Century Insurance Group of Westerville, Ohio.

Developing a mitigation plan

Two working groups — a governance working group and a procurement working group — created by the states are working now on writing a request to solicit proposals from prospective regional fund administrators.

Stakeholders from the states, fishing communities and developers are working together to draft a regional funding program to be released by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

The goal is to release the draft in July.

The firm hired to be the regional administrator will report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority because that state volunteered to take on the role of procurement.

“Overall though (the administrator will) be working for some type of governing structure that has yet to be defined that’s comprised of the 11 states, fishermen and the offshore wind developers in collaboration,” Ohleth said.

What remains unclear now is if the money for the program is paid to the Bureau of Ocean Management, or BOEM, whether those funds may be transferred out of the general treasury.

“We’ll have to figure out exactly how those monies would be transferred in a legal and appropriate way,” Ohleth said.

Gov. Roy Cooper has set a goal for offshore wind to generate 2.8 gigawatts of electricity by 2030 and 8 GW by 2040, enough to power some 2 million homes.

“What happens to solar panels during a hurricane?”

This was one of the first questions asked during a renewable energy symposium in Carteret Community College’s Joslyn Hall the week of Earth Day.

Dar Hubsch, residential project developer for Wilmington-based Cape Fear Solar Systems, responded.

“Being a company based here on the coast, we are well aware that there are environmental challenges,” including salty air, strong winds and storms. Those considerations play a large part in the company’s choice of materials and installation methods, Hubsch explained. He noted that in the business’s 15 years, they’ve been fortunate enough not to have hurricane damage to any of their systems.

“In the case that your system was damaged, just like damage to your roof, it would typically go through insurance and your insurance company,” he said. Adding, “Something people are often surprised to find is that if the system is installed properly, it should actually make the roof more structurally secure and not less.”

Hubsch, Saving Sunshine SC owner Wayne Duris in Newport, and Christian Weidner with Carteret-Craven Electric Cooperative discussed the ins and outs of solar energy during the symposium co-sponsored by the college, Croatan Group of the North Carolina Sierra Club and North Carolina Interfaith Power and Light, a program of the North Carolina Council of Churches. Also among the speakers were those who discussed offshore wind and how the state can benefit from the industry.

Organizer Penny Hooper said the symposium was offered to educate and provide coastal residents with the latest information on wind and solar renewable energy in Eastern North Carolina. Hooper has leadership roles with both organizations and the college.

“Climate change is real and we all need to do our part to understand and support a just transition to renewable energy,” Hooper said.

Before adding solar, check home’s efficiency

Solar energy is created when sunlight activates a solar panel. The electricity generated is converted from direct current, or DC, to alternating current, or AC, as carried by power grids. Excess power will get pushed back to the utility company’s grid if there is no battery system on site. If there is, the excess energy charges the battery and that energy that can be used during power outages or at night, according to co-op officials.

Solar panels alone and connected to the grid do not work during a power outage. During an outage, utilities shut down their power grid to stop the electricity generated by solar systems from feeding the power lines that fell or that line crew members may be working on.

Weidner said he’s been with the energy services group for seven of his 12 years with the utility.

He said that before owners commit to solar, they need to make sure the house or building is as energy efficient as possible.

“The first thing you want to do is make sure you have an energy audit done of your home,” he said, adding that the co-op has energy auditors that can help make a home or building more energy efficient.

The second thing Weidner suggested is to get quotes from three different reputable and professional installers. “If you reach out to a company, reach out to at least three. Other than that, use common sense.”

If you’re considering solar, a good appliance to get is a heat-pump water heater, Weidner said. They cost $1,000 to $1,200 but the savings on energy consumption will pay for itself in seven to eight years.

Incentives are an important part of what makes solar make sense financially for folks, Hubsch explained. The federal tax credit for solar was 30% in 2019 but dropped to 26% in 2020-21. The passing of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act made the residential and commercial solar tax credit 30% again until 2033.

Hubsch said to maximize production and for the best return on investment, install the solar panels on a south-facing roof. But that’s not always possible. “We can generally make a project economically viable if it’s southeast, southwest or even if it’s an east- and west-facing gable roof,” he said.

Duris added that the panels don’t always have to be on the roof, either. He recently set up a customer who wanted solar to offset the cost of charging electric cars. The house is surrounded by high trees, making panel installation on the roof out of the question. They instead decided to mount the panels on the ground.

Ultimately, every home is suitable for solar, Hubsch said, it really depends on the homeowner’s expectations of financial return.

Renewable energy across the state

Carteret Community College Corporate and Community Education Vice President Perry Harker said that when Gov. Roy Cooper signed in 2020 a memorandum of understanding with Maryland and Virginia to advance wind energy, college officials began looking at ways to prepare the state’s workforce.

“Our big push right now,” Harker said is the training required for all wind technicians. The Global Wind Organization technician certification has five components: shipboard firefighting, sea survival, working at heights, manual handling and first aid.

Harker is a member of N.C. Taskforce for Offshore Wind Economic Resource Strategies, or NC Towers, which the Cooper administration established in June 2021. The task force works to identify economic and workforce opportunities related to offshore wind.

Also on the 32-member task force are Cassie Gavin, policy director for North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, or NCSEA, and Karly Lohan, the North Carolina program and outreach manager for the Southeastern Wind Coalition, who both presented during the symposium.

Lohan said that conventional power stations rely on fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil that are burned to heat up water, which produces high-pressure steam that drives the turbine, and, in turn, the electrical generator.

“Offshore wind is the same concept. The difference is the main rotation is achieved through wind, which is a clean and natural resource, and that’s what makes it a renewable energy,” Lohan said.

North Carolina offers advantages for offshore resources, she said, including the deepwater ports in Morehead City and Wilmington, and the state’s manufacturing workforce.

With offshore wind workforce development, there’s more than just work for those who operate and maintain the turbines, there are numerous indirect jobs like project development, operational maintenance, manufacturing, construction, research and training. 

For example, there are more than 8,000 parts of a wind turbine. While the blades and tower would be best manufactured on the coast for logistical and transportation reasons, the remaining parts can be made anywhere across the state.

Even after projects are complete off the North Carolina coast, once the workforce and supply chain are established in North Carolina, the state’s industry can support and maintain offshore wind projects along the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Officials pointed to the North Carolina Ports Authority property at Radio Island as one of the state’s possible advantages. Work is underway to determine what the potential lifecycle could be for the 150 undeveloped acres.  She said that their research shows that while the project would cost millions of dollars, it would create thousands of jobs.

Lohan said that officials expect Radio Island to ultimately be developed, “We would like that to be offshore wind.”

Gavin noted during her presentation that consumers don’t have to choose between a strong economy or clean energy.

“You can actually have both and they can support each other. Clean energy is a major driver to the state’s economy,” she said, adding that polling shows that across the political spectrum, most people generally support clean energy.

As the power sector is fed more by solar and wind, “that means all of the other sectors become cleaner as well,” she said.

Hooper told Coastal Review that feedback she had received on the symposium was positive.

Lohan’s information on the potential for Radio Island’s participation in the offshore wind industry “is crucial to our local population and meshed well with Harker’s talk on positioning the college the trades that will be necessary locally if this comes to pass. There is currently $50 million in the governor’s budget for a feasibility study looking at the environmental impacts of such usage of Radio Island,” she said.

The ports of Morehead City and Wilmington are ideally suited to serve important roles for the manufacturing, installation, and service of offshore wind turbines, which is expected to grow to an over $140 billion industry by 2035, Hooper said.

As momentum to develop offshore wind energy builds in North Carolina, researchers, environmental groups and state and federal government and utility leaders are working to address the challenges of this burgeoning industry.

Many of these stakeholders shared their observations and concerns during a daylong symposium, “The Winds of Change: Tracking the Development of US Offshore Wind Energy,” March 3 in Durham. Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, and Center for Energy, Development, and the Global Environment at the Fuqua School of Business hosted the program at the Washington Duke Inn & Golf Club that was also livestreamed.

Gov. Roy Cooper said during his remarks that the state is resolved to decarbonize the power sector. “The need for reliable clean energy that offshore wind can produce has never been greater.”

The state is doing its part in the fight against climate change with its goal to reduce carbon emissions in the power sector 70% by 2030 with carbon neutrality by 2050, and have offshore wind energy of 2.8 gigawatts by 2030 and 8 gigawatts by 2040, enough to power 2.3 million homes, he said.

Cooper said his administration is applying “for every dollar of competitive federal grants for infrastructure, economic development and grid improvements that we can get our hands on,” and encourages utilities and others to do the same.

“The offshore wind industry and its supply chain represent a potential $100 billion in economic investments across North Carolina, tens of thousands of family sustaining jobs for North Carolinians and clean renewable energy to power hundreds of thousands of North Carolina homes and businesses,” he said.

North Carolina is a leader in the transition, said Duke Energy North Carolina Regulatory Affairs and Policy Vice President Venu Ghanta.

The utility serves 8.2 million retail customers in six states, with 3.6 million of those in North Carolina. A utility customer is considered the account, or meter measuring electricity use. The 3.6 million customers actually amount to about 7 million people, he clarified.

“Across our entire system, more than 40% of the electrons we put in a grid are clean energy, even more so in North Carolina,” he said, adding the utility is going through “the largest clean energy transition in the industry, and that’s because we have a lot of coal to retire. From North Carolina alone that’s 9 gigawatts of coal and we have got to replace that.” The utility has committed to be completely out of coal by 2035.

On the utility side, they’re trying to get the electricity from the turbine to the state’s densely populated regions. In states in the Northeast, dense population centers are near the coast and have a fairly well-established transmission grid.

“Density is very different when you get to the Mid-Atlantic and North Carolina,” Ghanta said. “That population density is here in the Triangle, Mecklenburg County, the Triad — you’ve got to bring the electrons to where it’s actually needed,” he said. “So, there’s significant transmission investments that are needed foundationally to really enable offshore wind.”

The North Carolina Utilities Commission urged Duke Energy to determine the cost of acquiring, developing and delivering the energy from the Kitty Hawk and the two leases at the border of the Carolinas, he said. Duke Energy expects to submit a study by Sept. 1 on the least expensive way to reach that 70% reduction. 

Richmond, Virginia-based Dominion Energy, which serves around 7 million customers in 16 states, began offshore work a decade ago, said Katharine Bond, Dominion Energy vice president for public policy and state affairs.

The company secured a lease about 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach for less than $2 million. The utility created two test turbines, which are taller than the Washington Monument, for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind commercial project. The 176 planned turbines for the project are expected to be about 800 feet tall and each individual blade is longer than a football field. These will serve about 660,000 customers.

From the pilot project, the company learned how turbines in the U.S. perform and how they complement relatively nearby resources. “In our case, the turbines are performing really well. They complement solar but they also require backup when the winds come and go. So again, very valuable lessons learned,” she said.

Bond also noted the challenges of getting the energy to the customer base. “How do we get it to the electric grid so it can serve 660,000 customers? It gets less attention publicly but it’s something we are very focused on.”

The environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council, views offshore wind development “as absolutely critical to meeting our national climate goals,” said Francine Kershaw, senior scientist for the council.

“It promises a healthier Earth, it promises thousands of well-paying clean energy jobs. So, we need offshore wind, we cannot delay in how quickly we need to deploy it out there on the water. But yet, like any type of ocean industry, offshore wind poses some risks to the environment. Ocean life is struggling to adapt to climate change, while also being stressed by decades of overfishing, habitat destruction, ocean noise pollution, so it’s important to launch the new offshore wind industry in a smart way that protects valuable and vulnerable ocean wildlife,” she said.

Ways to protect wildlife includes reducing vessel strike risk and other impacts during project development and operations, and conducting environmental monitoring and research throughout “because we’re moving forward and in somewhat of an uncertain way,” Kershaw said. “It’s so important that we have really rigorous monitoring at every stage of the process, and responsible development also means promoting equity during each stage of the process.”

There’s uncertainty on if and how impacts will happen, but given the vulnerability and legal protection of marine mammals, and particularly North Atlantic right whales, “we need to be proactively managing for this risk even in the face of these uncertainties. And this is a pretty tricky line to walk when you want an industry to advance quickly,” said Kershaw.

Organizations have formed to collect and collate existing data to better plan for offshore wind development, such as the Regional Wildlife Science Collaborative for Offshore Wind.

Director Emily Shumchenia said that the collaborative formed in July 2021 to facilitate efficient and coordinated data collection on the environment and wildlife with respect to offshore wind. Federal agencies, all East Coast states and offshore wind developers, and many national and local nongovernmental organizations fund the collaborative.

The focus is on developing an integrated science plan. The draft is expected to be released this summer, using existing data and research. Through this effort, the collaborative plans to help ensure that “offshore wind is being developed in a responsible way and we’re understanding any potential impacts,” Shumchenia said.

Doug Nowacek, professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment and the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University, is director of another offshore wind study, Project Wildlife and Offshore Wind, or WOW.

The Department of Energy and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management-funded Project WOW was organized to study potential impacts of offshore energy on marine wildlife from Maine to the Carolinas. Nowacek said during the symposium that they had been working with the collaborative to collect data and determine the species that need attention.

Nowacek said potential threats to marine mammals include some of the surveys used for site assessment that require various sound frequencies. He emphasized that the threats are potential because they don’t know what a whale can hear.

“There’s no audiogram. You can’t put headphones on a baleen whale and ask it to raise its flipper when it hears the sound in one ear or the other,” he said.

To buffer noise during construction, the work area could have an air-bubble curtain, depending on the construction conditions and currents. A bubble curtain is a constant stream of air bubbles made by pressurized air that is forced through pipes surrounding the construction platform. Another option is to avoid the times when animals are around.

As for offshore wind development, Nowacek said the primary concern, as he understands it, is a whale becoming entangled in the cables that anchor the floating platforms to the bottom, and a secondary entanglement of ghost gear or other gear getting caught on those cables and then entangling a whale.

“It’s something we need to understand. We don’t really have a great way of estimating what the chances are about or how the animals will respond if they bump into one of those cables or the net that’s on it,” he said.

As for seabirds, rising ocean temperatures from global climate change pose one of the greatest threats to these populations, given that resulting changes in prey distributions have caused mass starvation of seabirds, Holly Goyert, senior wildlife biologist for offshore wind with AECOM, an infrastructure consulting firm, and leader of the Atlantic Marine Bird Cooperative working group for marine spatial planning, said.

However, offshore wind energy “has the potential to positively impact seabirds by improving foraging habitat through artificial reef effects and, of course, reducing atmospheric carbon emissions to stabilize the climate. However, seabirds are vulnerable to two main stressors from offshore wind. These are collision and displacement risk,” Goyert said.

A collision risk is when seabirds fly within the area of a rotating turbine blade, and that risk can increase during high winds or poor visibility. Displacement risk is when areas originally used for foraging or breeding grounds are disrupted.

While some species are known to avoid turbines, which can reduce collision risk, it can increase displacement from foraging areas and lead to habitat loss. On the flip side, wind turbine foundations may start artificial reefs and that could improve foraging habitat, potentially for other species, but if it increases attraction, it could generate increased collision risk.

Unique to wind energy is the difficulty to quantify bird fatalities from collisions because bodies fall into the water and disappear quickly. Emerging technologies have been tested on onshore wind farms such as using cameras and vibration sensors to detect collisions, but have not been verified for offshore.

To reduce potential adverse effects of offshore wind energy on seabirds, especially threatened and endangered species, “this is where the mitigation hierarchy comes into play,” she said. The first step is to not sight projects in high-use areas. If that’s unavoidable, the second step is to minimize risk to birds through best management practices or new technology. The third step is to compensate for losses so that the benefits to birds outweigh the costs. For onshore wind, this has been through mitigation banks, restoration projects or habitat acquisition.

“Mitigation planning is very important to establish a net positive impact of wind energy on birds and it’s only effective with rigorous pre- and post-construction monitoring data to gauge the need for mitigation and to verify the effectiveness of mitigation measures,” she said.

A new political campaign in one northeastern state is pitting whale against wind.

A dozen New Jersey beach town mayors and a congressman from the state are calling for a moratorium on all offshore wind activity in the wake of several whale deaths.

The mayors and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., in a Jan. 23 letter expressed concerns that acoustic surveys may have contributed to the deaths of seven whales along the New Jersey and New York coasts over a 38-day period. The letter was signed after a Jan. 9 press conference by Clean Ocean Action and Protect Our Coast New Jersey, groups that blame the deaths on geophysical surveys that use sonar to map the ocean’s floor.

It’s a correlation whale experts and scientists say is a stretch.

“This notion of a moratorium because of these whale fatalities, there’s no evidence for that yet,” said William McLellan, one of the world’s leading experts on large whale necropsy. “I can say there’s no single case that’s been directly connected to any acoustic or seismic testing. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be investigated or that there shouldn’t be concern.”

How thousands of wind turbines in the mid-Atlantic, habitat for critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, may affect the species has become a routine topic of discussion as North Carolina gears up to become a potential source of offshore wind energy.

Gov. Roy Cooper has set a goal for offshore wind to generate 2.8 gigawatts of electricity by 2030 and 8 GW by 2040, which would power some 2 million homes.

Plans are underway for a 2.5-gigawatt wind farm off the coast of Kitty Hawk. Avangrid, the company that has leased the wind energy area, or WEA, has indicated construction could start in 2026 and power as many as 700,000 homes.

Duke Energy and French company TotalEnergies won leases last May for offshore wind areas south of Bald Head Island. Energy produced at those sites could eventually power up to 500,000 homes.

Last fall, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and the Bureau of Ocean Management released a draft strategy to minimize the impacts of offshore wind development on right whales and their habitat.

Right whales and humpback whales have both been included in what is referred to an unusual mortality event for the past several years.

An unusual mortality event is defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as unexpected stranding events that involve significant die-off of any marine mammal population and demands federal attention.

McLellan, a retired research associate at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and former co-leader of the university’s Marine Mammal Stranding Program, said the unusual mortality event for humpback whales started in 2016.

“The population has increased quite steadily,” he said. “I won’t say dramatically, but it certainly has been a positive increase, which has been very good to see for humpback whales.”

As the population has increased so too have humpback whale strandings, McLellan said.

“It isn’t something that just lit up in the last couple of years,” he said. “I’ll only comment that Congress showed great interest in it a couple of weeks ago, but humpback mortalities have been going on for decades in the mid-Atlantic.”

NOAA Fisheries issued a release last month stating that there no links between the recent whale mortalities and ongoing sonar surveys for wind farms.

“At this point, there is no evidence to support speculation that noise resulting from wind development-related site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales,” the agency states. “We will continue to gather data to help us determine the cause of death for these mortality events.”

About 40% of partial or full necropsies conducted on humpback whales since January 2016 showed evidence of either being struck by a ship or entanglement, according to NOAA.

McLellan said vessel strikes, either sharp or blunt trauma, “is a really common finding in humpback whales.”

McLellan has conducted more than 100 necropsies, or post-mortem examinations, on large whales since 1995. He sits on various take reduction teams, which develop plans to reduce risks of fishing gear to marine mammals, and teams leading the charge in aiding in the recovery of North Atlantic right whales.

“Any right whale, no matter where, we try and tow it in and do a necropsy,” he said. “We’re getting to the point now where every possible effort that can be done to investigate right whales is being done.”

McLellan was part of the team that examined the body of a right whale calf found near the N.C. Port of Morehead City in early January. The calf, only a day or two old, likely suffocated after panicking under a pier near the port, McLellan said.

Researchers are continuing to search for the calf’s mother.

An unusual mortality event was declared in 2017 for North Atlantic right whales. Since that year, 95 whales have either been found dead, seriously injured, or sublethally injured or sick, according to NOAA.

The primary causes of death are vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing gear, “which are long-standing threats to the recovery of the species,” according to NOAA.

Acoustic ecologist Michelle Fournet heads the Marine Bioacoustics and Behavior Lab at the University of New Hampshire.

Fournet said in an email to Coastal Review that she was not available for an interview, but referenced a NJ Spotlight News story in which she was quoted saying there is no known science that seismic sound causes toothless whales, which include humpback and North Atlantic right whales, to strand.

Still, toothless whales can be injured by seismic, sonar and other anthropogenic noise, she said.

“But in order to be taken seriously as conservationists, we need to make sure that we are addressing the right problems at the right time, and right now, we are still trying to figure out how big a problem it is and what the issue is,” Fournet told the news outlet. “That doesn’t discount the fact that noise almost without a doubt is impacting these animals, and that the animals that stranded were probably exposed to high levels of noise over the course of their life. But it’s a complicated problem. One thing that without a doubt is true, is we are never going to take people out of the ocean. So, we have got to figure out a way to come up with solutions that honor the ecology, and also acknowledge the reality of human society.”

Note to our regular readers: Coastal Review will not publish Dec. 23-27. Our next edition will be Dec. 28.

Pender County commissioners have narrowed the areas where solar farms may be developed, a move county officials say is not intended to be unsupportive of the alternative energy source, but gives them time to “properly regulate” it.

Commissioners unanimously amended a portion of Pender’s zoning text Dec. 5, less than a week after a California-based solar company filed a lawsuit against the county for turning down the company’s request for a special-use permit to build a 2,360-acre facility in the western part of the county.

Coastal Pine Solar LLC sought the permit to develop a proposed 200-megawatt farm on timberland within an area of the county zoned rural agricultural, or RA.

The freshly adopted text amendments to the county’s unified development ordinance no longer allow “other electric power generation” to be developed by way of a special use permit in RA, residential performance and planned development zoning districts. “Other electric power generation” includes solar, wind and tidal-generated power.

“Since there’s no special-use permit their only option as far as pursuing a sight plan approval for solar would be to go through the conditional rezoning process,” Justin Brantley, Pender’s interim planning and community development director, said during the board’s Dec. 5 meeting. “At that point the planning board and board of commissioners have far more flexibility approving or denying those projects or requiring specific conditions.”

The amendments also stripped large-scale commercial alternative power generation as a use allowed by right within the county’s industrial transitional and general industrial zoning districts. A special-use permit must now be obtained to develop in those districts.

Brantley said the county’s land use plan “strongly supports” the adoption of specific standards for alternative energy development within the county.

Such standards could include requiring setbacks, buffers, maintenance plans and decommissioning plans. A majority of Pender’s neighboring counties have at least some combination of those special standards in place.

Brantley said Pender residents who’ve spent their lifetimes living in rural parts of the county may not be ready for “that type of change,” or what a large-scale solar farm might bring.

“That’s why we want to explore text amendments that support stronger buffers, requiring a vegetative buffer, nondisturbed, around the perimeter, preservation of wetlands, setbacks from wetlands, that sort of thing,” he said. “Pender County highly values its agricultural heritage here and while we may encourage solar farms to some extent we want to find a balance there to balance those existing agriculture uses and new forms of energy.”

“This is not saying that Pender County does not support solar farms,” said Commissioner Chairwoman Jackie Newton. “It’s just properly regulating” it.

In a court petition filed Nov. 30 in Pender County Superior Court by Coastal Pine’s attorneys, the company states it presented “voluminous written materials, expert reports, and the testimony of five expert witnesses” to show all of the county’s standards had been met to obtain a special-use permit.

That evidence was presented during a Sept. 19 hearing before the board of commissioners.

In the end, commissioners disregarded the evidence, did not base its findings on the county’s special-use permit standards, and misapplied a provision in the county’s zoning ordinance, according to the lawsuit. Coastal Pine presented the county with a decommissioning plan.

The suit also states that one county commissioner, through his own admission during the September hearing, said he’d spoken with farmers “and those conversations had an impact on him.” Coastal Pine’s attorneys call those conversations, which the commissioner disclosed after the public hearing, “improper” and caused him to pre-form an opinion.

“Evidence in zoning quasi-judicial matters is defined and treated the same as evidence in court,” Tom Terrell Jr., an attorney representing Coastal Pine, wrote in an email responding to questions earlier this week. “Opinions are not considered evidence, and judges are not allowed to base their decision on unsworn testimony from the man on the street who has not heard the evidence and whose statements are not subject to cross-examination.”

Terrell, a Greensboro-based attorney and partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, said in a Dec. 19 email he was not aware commissioners had adopted the zoning text amendments.

Coastal Pines asks the court to reverse the board of commissioner’s decision and remand with instructions to issue the special-use permit.

Pender County hosts several solar farms, including a 675-acre, 105-megawatt facility that generates energy to international pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk.

According to the Solar Energies Industry Association latest published data, North Carolina is ranked fourth nationally in solar power with more than 8,000 megawatts of solar installed, enough to power more than 955,000 homes.

The total solar investment in the state is $11 billion.

Proposed central East Coast offshore wind energy areas, including two off the northern North Carolina coast, may be scaled back in size by the time they are finalized early next year. 

Sea scallop fishing, a NASA danger zone, a proposed shipping safety fairway, and marine habitat could further trim eight draft wind energy areas, or WEAs, the federal government is eyeing offshore from Delaware south to Cape Hatteras. 

These areas encompass about 1.7 million acres, a little less than half of the original 3.9 million acres the Interior Department identified as potential wind energy areas. 

Last month, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, opened a 30-day public comment period on the draft WEAs, including one area located about 28 miles offshore of southern Virginia and northern North Carolina and one about 50 miles from those coasts. 

BOEM hosted two virtual meetings last week, giving members of the fishing community and environmental organizations an opportunity to ask questions about and comment on the draft WEAs.

Among some of the concerns raised during the meetings were potential impacts to Atlantic sea scallop fishing off Delaware’s coast and recreational fishing vessel businesses, possible effects on deep sea coral, and impacts to shorebirds and endangered right whales. 

One participant suggested BOEM include exclusion zones for right whales. 

“If these right whales are gone, that’s it. They’re gone forever,” he said. 

A representative with the Maryland Climate Action Network encouraged BOEM officials to move forward with examining the potential for wind development within secondary areas, where conflicts may exist, of the draft WEAs. 

Related: Public comment period opens on draft offshore wind areas

In order to reach the country’s clean energy goals, we’re going to need as many acres as possible for offshore wind development, she said. 

Capt. Cane Faircloth, a resident of Brunswick County and president of the North Carolina For-Hire Captain’s Association, asked BOEM to take into consideration potential impacts to fishermen who hold operator of uninspected passenger vessels licenses. 

Operator of uninspected passenger vessel licenses, also called OUPVs or six-packs, allow recreational charter fishermen to carry as many as six passengers as far as 100 miles offshore. These licenses are the most popular issued by the Coast Guard. 

Peggy Schultz, a representative of Coalition POWER, which stands for People for Offshore Wind Energy Resources, out of Delaware, asked about the viability of deep-water offshore wind farms and whether floating turbines are in the planning stages in the U.S. 

“We really don’t know,” BOEM’s David MacDuffee, chief, projects and coordination branch said. “It really is a big question for BOEM on how viable these areas are.” 

He said floating turbines have been deployed in waters in other areas of the world, but that the technology is still new. 

Bridgette Duplantis, BOEM’s central Atlantic team lead, said companies that have indicated an interest in the proposed deep-water sites have said they expect a “longer timeline” for technology to be developed for areas farther offshore. 

BOEM says it will collect additional information about activities in the draft WEAs with the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, NASA and other ocean users, including the fishing industry before finalizing the areas. 

Once the final central Atlantic Ocean WEAs are selected, those areas will be environmentally assessed through the National Environmental Policy Act process. 

The final WEAs are expected to be published in the first quarter of 2023. The first lease sale is expected to occur about a year later, according to BOEM officials. 

Those lease sales will expand the wind energy footprint offshore of North Carolina. 

Plans are underway for a 2.5-gigawatt wind farm off Kitty Hawk. Avangrid, the company that won the lease sale of that WEA, has indicated construction could start in 2026 and eventually power as many as 700,000 homes. 

And, in May, Duke Energy and French company TotalEnergies won leases for sites south of Bald Head Island to the tune of more than $300 million. 

Energy produced at those sites could eventually power up to 500,000 homes. 

Development of these wind farms will help North Carolina close in on Gov. Roy Cooper’s goal for offshore wind to generate 2.8 gigawatts by 2030 and 8 GW by 2040, which would power some 2 million homes. 

BOEM is accepting comments on the draft WEAs through 11:59 p.m. Dec. 16. Comments may be made by visiting regulations.gov, docket number BOEM-2022-0072. 

President Joe Biden signed into law this week a sweeping measure that promises to address inflation in part by lowering Americans’ energy costs and bolstering the clean energy economy.

The administration said the new law would reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of good-paying, clean energy jobs. The Inflation Reduction Act also removes the Trump administration’s 10-year moratorium on offshore wind energy leasing.

“That is certainly the most impactful provision for offshore wind for the Southeast that came out of the IRA,” Katharine Kollins, president of the Southeastern Wind Coalition, told Coastal Review Wednesday.

The coalition of developers, manufacturers and labor groups sees vast economic potential in adding leases off the North Carolina coast, beyond the current Kitty Hawk and Carolina Long Bay wind energy areas. 

“There’s still a lot of opportunity for additional leases, even off the coast of North Carolina. And without those, we just can’t maximize the opportunity that offshore wind brings to the Southeast. I think this is a very big deal,” Kollins said.

The House approved the measure Friday, 220-207. Rep. Greg Murphy, a Republican from North Carolina’s 3^rd District, called the bill an “irresponsible liberal spending spree” that “wastes $350 billion on Green New Deal priorities” and would have no effect on inflation.

Rep. Deborah Ross, a Democrat representing North Carolina’s 2^nd District, released a statement noting that she had fought for repeal of the offshore leasing moratorium. 

“I’m especially proud that this package includes a measure I have championed since I first came to Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore wind development in the Southeast, enabling new offshore wind energy projects to move forward that will power homes and create new jobs across North Carolina. This historic legislation puts our state and our nation on a path to a better and brighter future for all,” Ross said.

In the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tiebreaking vote Friday with Republicans unanimously opposed.

Biden signed the bill during a White House ceremony Tuesday, calling the measure the most aggressive action taken to confront the climate crisis and strengthen the economy and energy security.

“It’s going to offer working families thousands of dollars in savings by providing them rebates to buy new and efficient appliances, weatherize their homes, get tax credit for purchasing heat pumps and rooftop solar, electric stoves, ovens, dryers,” Biden said. “It gives consumers a tax credit to buy electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles, new or used. And it gives them a credit — a tax credit of up to $7,500 if those vehicles were made in America.”

The White House said that in North Carolina, there were already 103,854 workers employed in clean energy jobs last year. The act will bring an estimated $2.7 billion of investment in large-scale clean power generation and storage to North Carolina between now and 2030. Tax credits for clean energy include bonuses for businesses that pay prevailing industry wages for those positions.

The administration said the law puts the country on track to meet Biden’s climate goals and save every family an average of $500 per year on their energy costs.

The clean energy provisions will benefit rural electric cooperatives serving 42 million people, strengthen climate resilience and protect nearly 2 million acres of national forests, and reduce pollution while creating millions of good-paying jobs making clean energy in America, the administration said.

Included measures are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 1 gigaton by 2030, which the White House said equals 10 times more climate impact than any other single bill ever enacted.

The energy industry sees opportunity, not just in renewables, resulting from the new law. National Ocean Industries Association President Erik Milito said the act also creates a framework for continued development of U.S. offshore oil and gas. 

“No legislation is perfect, but the IRA’s offshore energy provisions will enable continued investment in U.S. energy projects by an industry that is already solving, scaling, and deploying low carbon energy solutions,” Milito said in a statement. 

The association praised the law’s reinstatement of Gulf Coast lease sales for oil and gas that had been blocked.

Kollins, with the Southeast Wind Coalition, said most Americans understand that the country must move toward a cleaner energy future. “And that’s exactly what this bill does. This bill creates a framework where every state in the country can take advantage of the optimal resources that they have for generating clean energy. And as we move toward that cleaner future, I think it’s important that we are placing a strong emphasis on how we do that in the most economically competitive way.”

She said the provisions boost clean technologies and create opportunity for new economies of scale that will over time bring down costs of newer technologies, and that’s been proven with land-based wind and solar generation.

“What we’ve seen in the wind and solar industries over the last decade is, because of some of the early-stage government support, those technologies now stand on their own as the least-cost electricity generation in a number of states where the resource is strong and the supply chain is there. In North Carolina, you can look at solar. Solar generates the cheapest electricity for the state of any resource,” Kollins said.

In addition to solar, Kollins cited the Amazon Wind Farm US East in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties as an example of the benefits renewables bring to local communities. The wind farm that went fully operational in 2017 is the largest taxpayer in the two counties. Kollins said the revenue generated elevates local school systems and improves community services.

“That kind of investment is what really helps rural communities say, ‘Yes, this is this is what we need in our area.’”

Kollins said that removing the 10-year moratorium significantly advances the timeline for offshore wind energy development in numerous ways, particularly in terms of transmission planning, both onshore and offshore, and looking at the mix of resources. But, she said, North Carolina’s seaports need to be investing now in significant upgrades to be able to service the industry and compete with ports in other East Coast states.

Carteret County economic development officials and the North Carolina Ports Authority have touted the authority’s Radio Island property in Morehead City as a potential staging area for offshore turbine construction. Kollins said the authority needs to work more aggressively to lure the offshore industry to North Carolina.

“We’ve heard from a number of companies that the ports authority could do more to ready the ports for the kinds of construction and operations capabilities that will be required to fully support this industry,” she said. “I think we’ve seen a lot of support certainly from the governor’s office in North Carolina — not as much directly from the port.”

Infrastructure investments are also needed to get the power to the land grid. Kollins said that work is underway at the federal level. 

“There’s a lot of discussion and a lot of planning right now by the federal government to look at how we can build a transmission backbone, they’re calling it, so that you don’t have individual lines going from every East Coast project to shore. That’s the most economically or environmentally efficient way to build offshore transmission, if we’re talking about the 30 gigawatts-plus of development over the next few decades,” she said.

Early planning is happening in North Carolina, but Kollins said that states that are further along in the offshore wind development cycle have a significant presence and strategies to ensure that economic benefits go to communities that have been historically negatively impacted by the energy industry.

“The jobs that are based primarily offshore, which are fewer in number than those based onshore, but those that are based primarily offshore have average salaries well over $100,000 a year – clearly family-sustaining wages,” Kollins said. Onshore jobs, including the related manufacturing jobs, also offer good pay, she said. “And I think that this industry is committed to, again, ensuring that they don’t repeat some of the pitfalls that we’ve seen from the more extractive industries in the past.”

The administration noted that climate change disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color. The new law creates a system of environmental justice block grants to address pollution in port communities. It also authorizes projects to protect minority communities from extreme heat, flooding and other climate impacts.

Still, some say more environmental justice protections are needed.

The advocacy group Green Latinos praised passage of the act and its investments in climate, jobs and health, but Green Latinos President and CEO Mark Magaña said the fossil fuel-related “trade-offs” included in the measure are dangerous for Latino communities. More work must be done, he said.

“We are experiencing deadly levels of contamination, pollution, and environmental degradation that will, unfortunately, be exacerbated by the increased fossil fuel exploration, mining, drilling, processing, refining, and transporting that will be realized if the fossil fuel handouts in the bill are not reversed,” Magaña said in a statement. 

WILMINGTON – Heat records have broken across Europe and the U.K., claiming hundreds of lives. Forests in burn-scarred areas of California may not recover because of the severity of wildfires in that state. Cities from the northeastern United States to the west coast are opening cooling centers as a reprieve from heat wave after heat wave sweeping the country.

These are a sampling of extreme weather-related events headlining the news this week.

On Tuesday, the day the United Kingdom broke its highest temperature on record, about 150 people gathered in Wilmington to discuss an alternative energy source that would stop the addition of carbon dioxide, a culprit of global warming, emitted into the atmosphere from more traditional power production.

One theme that emerged at the North Carolina Offshore Wind and Wildlife Solutions Summit is that the impacts of wind energy development off the coast will be a tradeoff to the impacts of climate change.

During the daylong summit, panelists, including scientists, environmental advocates and a commercial fisherman, talked about the need for studies specific to the East Coast and North Carolina to understand how the construction and subsequent operation of hundreds of wind turbines will impact fish, marine mammals, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, birds and bats.

Panelists talked about the rich and widely diverse species that live below and above the ocean’s surface off the North Carolina coast.

Research on how those species may be affected would help frame how to mitigate impacts throughout construction and into operations, including things like lighting installed on the turbines, how cables are placed along or under the ocean floor and the speed at which turbine propellers turn.

“It’s important as we think about the impacts or the effects of wind on wildlife to think about them in two different ways,” said Curtis Smalling, Audubon North Carolina’s director of conservation. “What is the effect? What is the impact of that? Are we losing habitat?”

What are the cumulative effects of thousands of wind turbines towering out of the Atlantic off the U.S. eastern seaboard if all of the wind energy areas, or WEAs, are eventually developed, he asked.

“All of those things play into this,” he said. “Different species use these habitats in different ways at different times. We want responsibly sited (wind farms) when the debate now is what does that mean exactly.”

The National Audubon Society’s 2019 climate report found that two-thirds of America’s birds are threatened with extinction from climate change. The report states that the outcome for 76% of those birds will be different if the rise in global temperature is limited.

North Carolina is currently the southernmost state on the East Coast tapped for offshore wind development.

The Kitty Hawk WEA and Wilmington East WEA are under lease. These areas have the combined potential to generate upwards of 4 gigawatts of power, the equivalent output of four nuclear power plants.

Existing studies on the impacts of offshore wind farms to wildlife are primarily out of Europe, which has been utilizing the technology since the early 1990s.

Duke University is part of a collaboration of researchers working on a comprehensive evaluation of the potential effects of offshore wind development along the East Coast on marine life.

The collaboration, known as Wildlife and Offshore Wind, or WOW, aims to “provide a long-term, adaptive roadmap for efficient and effective assessment of the potential effects of offshore wind on marine life, from siting through operation,” according to its website.

Patrick Halpin, a professor at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, is one of the lead investigators on the research project.

He said that while there are many lessons to be learned from Europe, none include the impacts of offshore wind operations to large, migratory whales.

The coast of North Carolina is an important part of the distribution of North Atlantic right whales, said Bill McLellan, an expert in marine mammal stranding and co-lead of the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Marine Mammal Stranding Program.

The North Atlantic right whale population is down to 336 individuals, he said. There are now a known 80 reproductive females within that population.

“We know the numbers are precise and we know the population is in decline,” McLellan said.

North Atlantic right whales are experiencing an increase in motion noise and there has been a spike in the number of vessel strikes in the whale’s critical habitat, which runs from Florida to North Carolina, he said.

There is concern about how whales may be affected during construction of offshore wind areas and how they will behave around operating wind fields.

“I think right whales could be using those areas,” McLellan said. “There’s a potential that these right whales could find these wind fields fabulous.”

But, he said there’s also the potential the whales will not like the noise wind fields generate.

Habitat altered by the placement of wind turbines and the possible effects to benthic-feeding fish also need additional studies, experts say.

There are areas within both the Kitty Hawk and Wilmington East WEAs crucial to commercial and recreational fishermen.

Scott Baker, a fisheries specialist with North Carolina Sea Grant, said that North Carolina is second only to Florida in the number of for-hire and recreational fisheries.

Where North Carolina shines, he said, is in the diversity of fish found off its coast thanks to its location.

Cape Point, an offshore area around Cape Hatteras, is where two major North American currents come together.

Here the warm waters from the Gulf Stream meet the cool waters from the Labrador Current, an area populated with bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna and swordfish.

Cape Point is within the Kitty Hawk WEA.

Commercial fisherman Dewey Hemilright is a fisheries representative of the Kitty Hawk WEA. He said he thinks the lack of information about the impacts to fish is, “going to hurt us.”

“What we all want to have is more information,” said Roger Shew, senior lecturer in geology at UNCW. “There’s your nature-based system that we really need to be considering.”

Targeting species, looking at the declining species, those that might be threatened, and examining commercial and recreational fisheries will be valuable information to gather, he said.

Audubon North Carolina, National Wildlife Federation, North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, Sierra Club North Carolina, and the Southern Environmental Law Center hosted the summit.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change will not stop North Carolina’s law that requires power-generating facilities to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

But the highest court’s ruling has broader national implications that will be felt most certainly in the Tar Heel State, environmental law experts say.

In a 6 to 3 ruling last month in the case of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court found Congress did not give the agency authority to cap carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions to the point that it would force electric utilities to shut down coal-fired power plants and move to renewable energy alternatives, including wind and solar.

The authority that the ruling stripped from EPA was granted to the North Carolina Utilities Commission last year under House Bill 951.

The measure, which Gov. Roy Cooper signed into law in October 2021, requires the North Carolina Utilities Commission “take all reasonable steps” to reduce CO2 emissions emitted in the state from electricity-generating facilities owned or operated by electric public utilities from 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

The law allows the commission, at a minimum, to consider power generation, transmission distribution, grid modernization, storage energy efficiency measures and technology breakthroughs to achieve compliance.

The legislation gives the commission a wide variety of ways to achieve emissions reductions, explained Ryke Longest, clinical professor of law at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic.

“That section of that bill is doing a lot of work that was objected to by the majority of the Supreme Court opinion of West Virginia versus EPA,” he said. “That includes things like moving from coal fire to solar and saying that you’re going to have to retire some coal plants and you’re going to have to increase solar. That’s all authorized under this law.”

The commission has until Dec. 31 to develop a plan to achieve those CO2-reduction goals.

Don Hornstein, law professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Law in Chapel Hill, responded in an email saying the Supreme Court’s decision does not affect the EPA’s ability to continue regulating coal- and gas-fired power plant emissions of conventional pollutants.

“These power plants are incredibly dirty, forgetting about GHG (greenhouse gases) altogether,” he wrote.

Hornstein referenced the 2006 public nuisance lawsuit then-N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper brought against the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, which owned coal-fired power plants in Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama.

Cooper filed the lawsuit after EPA denied the state’s petition to use the Clean Air Act to force the utility to reduce its air pollution.

A federal judge in North Carolina in 2009 ruled that emissions from three of TVA’s plants in Tennessee and one in Alabama were public nuisances. TVA appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit.

North Carolina asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision, but withdrew the petition for review after TVA agreed to settlement with the EPA in 2011.

The settlement required the company to invest in pollution controls at 11 of its coal-fired plants and $350 million in clean energy and efficiency projects.

“Although that lawsuit was based largely on nuisance law, EPA has huge amounts of power to continue to regulate fossil-fuel plants’ emission of mercury, particulates, other ‘criteria’ and toxic emissions and my understanding is that EPA is already well along that path of forcing such power plants to comply with the existing law, all of which will only increase the price of power from such plants and amplify the cost savings that come from a utility’s switch to solar, wind, and possibly other non-GHG sources of electricity,” Hornstein said. “There’s also nothing in the Court’s opinion that impedes more and more North Carolinians taking a second look at rooftop solar themselves, a round of second-looks that recent changes in NC law has only underscored.”

But the North Carolina law, in Longest’s view, falls short because it does not take into account environmental justice, particularly when it comes to the public participation process.

“The process itself needs to be inclusive and intentionally inclusive and the process the utilities commission uses is none of those things,” he said. “It’s a secure docket that you have to register with the state to have the opportunity to participate on. The orders are written in fairly complicated legalese. You basically have to be a lawyer with some expertise in utilities law even to be able to understand what’s going on, and so I think there is a problem from an environmental justice standpoint, which is that the process itself is not in line with environmental justice in mind.”

In a Jan. 24 letter to the North Carolina Department of Administration, Longest and William Barber, III, a board member of the Department of Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board and director of climate and environmental justice at The Climate Reality Project, noted that 17 people had signed up to the docket since it was opened in October 2021.

Those who signed up were either state officials, electricity producers or large industrial users, according to the letter.

“It is absurd and circular logic to solicit people’s feedback about involvement using a subscription-based docket mechanism,” the letter states. “The only folks who got notice of this request for feedback about the process were those few who were already subscribed.”

Longest said he does not believe the letter has had much of an impact in the process.

Whatever plan the Utilities Commission devises to reach the state’s carbon emission reductions goal, the state cannot avoid the effects of climate change on a broader scale.

Hornstein concluded his email stating that, for North Carolina, “at the coast especially, on the front lines of climate change, our continued vulnerability to unprecedented rainfall storms, hurricanes, sea-level rise, will remain, after West Va v. EPA, only as good as the GHG-reduction efforts of OTHER states, no matter how successful we are within our own borders at GHG reductions. That is the real handicap that West Va v EPA imposed on everyone.”

Clean energy supporters have a chance to speak out against fossil fuels Saturday during this year’s Hands Across the Sand. 

Hands Across the Sand is part of a national movement founded in 2009 by Floridian Dave Rauschkolb. Every year on the third Saturday of May, those who want to draw what organizers call “metaphorical and actual lines in the sand” line up to join hands in silence for 15 minutes.

Dozens of synchronized events planned by local organizers are to take place Saturday in the country, including four in North Carolina. Events are planned in Wrightsville Beach, Emerald Isle, Surf City and Oak Island. 

Although organizers held virtual events the last few years because of COVID-19, supporters will be back in person this year.

Wrightsville Beach

Surfrider Foundation Cape Fear Chapter and Save Our Sea NC are teaming up to host the Hands Across the Sand event Saturday in Wrightsville Beach. 

Participants can meet at 8:30 a.m. on the sand at the Stone Street beach access to stand together along the shoreline for 15 minutes. There will be a group photo taken followed by a beach cleanup. Parking is free at Wrightsville Beach Baptist Church, 601 Causeway Drive, from 8-11 a.m. Marked spaces are not to be used.

Amanda Jacobs, executive board member with Surfrider Foundation Cape Fear Chapter, told Coastal Review Friday that the organization had been involved in Hands Across the Sand since the first event in 2010 and continues to be because it brings “about awareness around the world to the dangers of fossil fuels to our rivers, oceans and waterways.” 

She said she hopes those attending will learn that “our environment, especially where we live on the coast is fragile and our decisions not only impact us but our environment. There are clean energy resources available to us and they are worth seeking out.”

Jacobs explained that during COVID, events were limited to very small groups, and they haven’t been able to host this event for a few years.  “We look forward to hosting again this year,” she added.

During the event, there will be a short talk about Hands Across the Sand and the two wind farm leases off the North Carolina-South Carolina coast auctioned Wednesday, as well as a group photo and a beach sweep. She recommended participants bring “sunscreen and a smile.”

“This event was particularly important during the Trump administration as they were pushing toward more drilling of our particular coast.  In the last two days, the first two wind farm leases have been granted in North Carolina, which is something the Surfrider Foundation is open to exploring,” Jacobs added.

The provisional winners for the two leases in the Carolina Long Bay wind energy area were TotalEnergies Renewables USA, LLC, which bid $160 million and Duke Energy Renewables Wind, LLC, with a $155 million bid, the Department of the Interior announced Wednesday.

Emerald Isle

The Emerald Isle Hands Across the Sand is to promote a clean energy future across the world, show support for improved water quality, reduce plastic pollution on North Carolina’s beaches and “support clean energy to leave our beach cleaner than when we arrived so that we may enjoy them for generations to come,” organizers said.

To be held at the Bogue Inlet Fishing Pier, registration begins at 11:15 a.m. At 11:45 p.m., there will be a brief talk about the event and everyone will begin to line up. At noon, everyone will join hands if comfortable or stand 6 feet apart in the line for 15 minutes. The event will wrap up with a beach sweep until 1 p.m.

To bring awareness to the harm pollution causes, representatives will be at the event from Business Alliance Protecting the Atlantic Coast, Carteret Big Sweep, Citizens Protecting the Atlantic Coast, Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, Unitarian Coastal Fellowship, Croatan Group Sierra Club, Emerald Isle Parrotheads, Emerald Isle Realty, EI Turtle Patrol, Interfaith Power and Light, Island Essentials, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Oceana, South Swell Surf Shop and Surf Rider Foundation.

Sabrina Hylton, director of guest services for Emerald Isle Realty, has been organizing Hands Across The Sand in the Bogue Banks town since 2018.

“I started this at the Bogue Inlet Pier as a personal initiative to get those already on the sand enjoying our beautiful beaches to be aware of their impact,” she said Friday in an interview. “I was not prepared for it to catch on like it has. That first year we had approximately 50 participants down on the sand, in 2019 we had nearly 225.”

After being encouraged by Julia Batten Wax, owner of Emerald Isle Realty, Hylton said she began making connections with others in the area and organizations who have helped promote the mission. She added that Joel Dunn, with the Sierra Club North Carolina Croatan group and Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, has been a tremendous help in organizing supporters and making the flyer.

She noted that the Hands Across the Sand organization decided to host the event virtually the last couple of years due to COVID. For those who want to attend this year, Hylton said any precautions one wants to take for them to feel comfortable are welcome. 

“So many families save all year to spend just one week in our little slice of paradise. We hope that everyone will better understand the importance of keeping our beautiful coastline pristine and will support practices and policies that help protect the coast from things you can see, such as litter, and things that aren’t immediately visible, like climate change,” Hylton said. “Everything we do from trash to noise, to air and water pollution to simply digging holes in the sand impacts our waterways, coastal ecology, as well as the quality and shape of our beaches. ‘Leave only your footprints’ is a great rule of thumb.”

Hylton added that Mike Stanly, owner of the Bogue Inlet Pier, is refunding the parking fees for everyone participating in Hands Across The Sand. “You will be given a ticket when you pay, and directed where to park. Just turn that ticket back in by 1 p.m. to receive your parking fee back.”

Surf City

Participants who want to join in Hands Across the Sand in Surf City are to meet at 102 N. Shore Drive, next to the Surf City Welcome Center, at 11:30 a.m. Saturday. 

“Form lines with us on May 21, 2022 for Surf City beaches, river banks, capitol steps and fields to say NO to fossil fuels and YES to clean energy,” the Facebook event states. Chris Medlin is listed as the contact and can be reached by email at chrismedlin28445@gmail.com.

Medlin told Coastal Review Friday that this is his fourth year organizing, though there was no event last year because of COVID.  

Those new to the event can expect to see a group of people coming together “to show that we are in favor of clean renewable energy.”

He hopes residents understand that “we have the ability and means to stop drilling and seismic testing off our coast and that renewables are the future.” 

Oak Island

On Oak Island, Hands Across the Sand participants should meet at 11:30 a.m. at 4601 E. Beach Drive. Pete Key is listed as the contact and can be reached by email at petejkey@gmail.com.

Floridian Dave Rauschkolb said in a statement that he founded Hands Across The Sand in October 2009 in response to a bill passed in the Florida House of Representatives that would lift a ban on near shore drilling. 

“With the support of sponsor organizations, we rallied more than 10,000 Floridians to join hands on Feb. 13, 2010, to show a united opposition to near shore drilling. The event covered the state’s coastlines, from the Atlantic to the Gulf. As a result of these efforts, the bill was tabled the next month,” he said. “Two months later the BP Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. We then organized a global Hands Across The Sand to urge President Barack Obama to abandon his bid to open the continental United States waters to offshore oil drilling.”

Since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in 2010, Hands Across the Sand has incorporated land issues including hydraulic fracturing, mountaintop clearing and coal. 

Hands Across the Sand is “particularly salient this year with the recent oil spill off the California Coast and President Biden’s plan to open offshore leasing that will expand offshore drilling to almost every square inch of the American coastline and assault on public lands,” according to the 2022 press release.

WILMINGTON – North Carolina is in a prime position to become a hub for offshore wind energy manufacturing and a major contributor to renewable power production on the East Coast, according to state officials and offshore wind energy experts.

The state’s potential to grab a big slice of the offshore wind manufacturing pie was highlighted last week during the inaugural meeting of the North Carolina Taskforce for Offshore Wind Economic Resource Strategies, or NC TOWERS.

Offshore wind manufacturing has the potential to bring an estimated $140 billion to the state and tens of thousands of new jobs by 2035, according to officials, who emphasized that, to make that happen, the time to act is now.

“Even if there were no (wind energy) activity off the coast of North Carolina there’s still a significant opportunity for North Carolina because of all the activity in all the other states,” said John Hardin, executive director of the N.C. Department of Commerce’s Office of Science, Technology and Innovation. “North Carolina is really well positioned to seize a lot of this activity and seize in a gentle, friendly sort of way and make sure we take advantage of the opportunity. North Carolina has the strongest manufacturing economy on the East Coast of the United States. It has the largest share of its GPD, gross domestic product, that comes from manufacturing of any other state.”

Hardin was one of several speakers at the meeting Thursday in Wilmington, home to the state’s largest port, which is poised to reap some of the potential economic benefits of offshore wind energy production.

North Carolina is currently the southernmost state on the East Coast for offshore wind development.

There are two federal offshore wind lease areas – the Wilmington East Wind Energy Area, or WEA, and Kitty Hawk WEA.

Development of the Kitty Hawk WEA, which could power upwards of 700,000 homes, is well underway.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is expected to lease the Wilmington WEA sometime this spring. This area could power more than 500,000 homes.

Both lease areas have the potential to generate upwards of 4 gigawatts of power. That’s the equivalent of four nuclear power plants.

Andy Geissbuehler, an advisory director with BVG Associates, a renewable energy strategic consulting firm based in the United Kingdom, said the state has an edge to managing a piece of future offshore leases.

“We’ve got approximately 20 gigawatts of projects which are active projects with lease areas,” Geissbuehler said, referring to all of the lease areas on the East Coast. “That is relative to a supply chain point of view. Twenty gigawatts, that’s really 20 nuclear power stations, totally clean with free fuel and I think that’s a fantastic opportunity.”

He explained to the task force that operational maintenance is nearly half of the lifetime cost of a typical 1-gigawatt windfarm.

The lifetime of a 1-gagawatt offshore wind farm is about 25 to 30 years, he said. At the end of that lifecycle, a wind farm can be repowered to operate another 25 to 30 years.

“This is a truly local business so I think this is an attractive opportunity,” Geissbuehler said. “Long-term jobs. Local jobs.”

Those jobs cross an array of fields from information technology, control and electrical systems to supplies like secondary steel, wind turbine foundations and the components needed to install those foundations.

Offshore wind manufacturing takes place largely in Europe, limiting currently the supply chain to developers in the U.S.

“Now the developers are saying, if we only had more suppliers, if we only had more ports, if we only had more shipyards,” Geissbuehler said. “It’s never balanced. It’s always a challenge. But I think for North Carolina, now’s really the time to fully engage and I think your task force is the right means to do that.”

NC TOWERS is a group of 30 stakeholders representing state and local governments; sectors of the fisheries, military and tourism industries; and universities that have been directed to advise Gov. Roy Cooper and state policymakers on advancing offshore wind energy projects with a focus on economic development and the creation of jobs.

The task force was established last June under Cooper’s Executive Order 218, which takes aim at addressing climate change through clean energy initiatives.

Cooper emphasized the offshore wind goals set forth in the order, which is to get the state to 70% reduction in carbon over 2005 levels by 2030 and to get to zero carbon emissions from the power sector by 2050.

“Why clean energy?” he said during the meeting. “It is essential to fighting climate change. We know that. It’s also essential because it’s going to put money in people’s pockets.”

He said that more than 100,000 clean energy jobs have been created and billions of dollars of investments have been made in the state.

In December, Toyota Motor North America announced it is locating a new $1.29 billion automotive battery manufacturing plant in Greensboro, where, beginning in 2025, it will be capable of delivering enough lithium-ion batteries for 200,000 vehicles, according to the company’s website.

Greensboro has also been picked as the new site of Boom Supersonic’s first full-scale manufacturing facility. Boom Supersonic, an aviation manufacturer that touts sustainable supersonic travel, is set to break ground at Piedmont Triad International Airport this year, with production beginning in 2024. The company has said it will add more than 2,400 local jobs by 2032.

Cooper noted that North Carolina is in the top five states in solar installed capacity.

“Now we need you in this room today to help us with the next steps, the next ideas, with the next opportunities and with advocacy at the end of the day because time is of the essence when we’re talking about offshore wind,” he said. “The earlier we can get into this the more we can reap the economic benefits from it. It is astounding the amount of clean energy we can produce and the amount of money that can go in the pockets of North Carolinians.”

The task force is to produce an annual report of its recommendations for policies and programs developing offshore wind energy projects; enhancing the state’s supply chain for offshore wind energy; creating and developing the work force to support offshore projects; and ensuring equitable access, particularly for underserved communities, to economic benefits created by offshore wind energy.

Members of the task force were asked to self-appoint themselves to one or more of four subcommittees: economic opportunity and business development; infrastructure and environmental justice and inclusion; outreach and engagement; and workforce, education and training opportunity development.

Department of Commerce Chief of Staff and NC TOWERS Chair Marqueta Welton said that money has not been allocated to the task force, but that the biggest resource of the task force is its members.

“We’re only limited by our imaginations because we can make some things happen,” she said.

The four-hour-long meeting last week ended with a question-and-answer session, one in which some task force members touched on topics that only scratch the surface of concerns raised by residents of coastal counties closest to the offshore wind energy lease areas.

One of those questions was about where energy produced from wind farms off the North Carolina coast will be connected to land.

“It’s a very prudent question,” Geissbuehler said. “We need to look forward and see where are the hurdles ahead of us. Some of these hurdles have a very long lead time to resolve because on the grid we always talk about the interconnection, per say, to be able to connect to a substation. I think that’s a well-known problem I’m sure that will be resolved, but the other challenge is how do we cross the beaches? How do we get under the bridges into the load centers?”

Other members of the taskforce briefly discussed how outreach will be particularly important to the fishing and tourism industries.

North Carolina Fisheries Association Executive Director Glenn Skinner touched on the concerns raised by fishermen about the potential impacts of offshore wind turbines to fish and other marine life.

Mike Blanch, an associate director with BVG Associates, said that concerns about fishery impacts are important to address, but said he is puzzled by such concerns because there is evidence from wind farms off the coast of England that suggest wind farms actually improve the environment.

“They stop dredging. They stop people fishing in unsustainable ways. They’ve actually created sporting areas for certain species,” he said.

Blanch emphasized a need for renewable energy’s impact on climate change.

“It’s important to realize that offshore wind is actually offering something very positive as well,” he said. “There is this wider issue of climate change. If you take one species like the right whale, you might be very concerned about that, but climate change is going to stress all of the species and offshore wind is one way, and there aren’t that many, of tackling the inherit problem of high carbon emissions and so there’s a bigger picture here that I think should help temper worries.”

NC TOWERS’ next meeting is scheduled for May 5.

SOUTHPORT – Steve Stone wasn’t buying it.

“That doesn’t convince me of anything,” Stone said Friday while staring at what could have passed for a solid black sheet of paper during an event in Southport hosted by the advocacy group Offshore Wind for North Carolina.

Stone was studying a visual simulation of what was identified as a starlit night over the Atlantic Ocean as seen from the shore at Holden Beach.

The 11-inch by 17-inch print was propped on an easel at one end of a row of easels, each holding photographs meant to give people an idea of what they might see of offshore wind farms from the vantage point of various Brunswick County beaches.

“My frustration (is that) it’s not credible, in part because of the scale of those pictures,” Stone said later on that frigid morning outside of the Southport Community Building. “If it needs to happen, we just need ways to calm down some of the public’s concerns. Ambiguity scares people.”

The “it” to which he referred is offshore wind turbines, a renewable energy source being considered for development off of North Carolina’s northern and southern coastal areas.

Stone, who last month officially transitioned from his job as Brunswick County’s deputy manager to manager and declared himself neutral on wind turbines off the county’s shore, was an early attendee of the open house.

His sentiments were echoed by some in the small circles of residents and beach town officials who went to the open house hoping to learn more about what a wind farm several miles from the county’s beach shorelines might mean — good or bad — for the area.

Those who spoke to Coastal Review overwhelmingly said they support renewable energy alternatives but expressed skepticism about what they said was a general lack of information. But that’s because decisions are yet to be made.

“I do think maybe what’s most important right now is how early on we are in this process,” explained Jaime Simmons, program manager for the Southeastern Wind Coalition, which commissioned the visualizations. “There is a lot of time. A lot of things are undetermined.”

The federal government has identified two wind energy areas, or WEAs, off the state’s coast for potential commercial wind energy development: the Kitty Hawk WEA and Wilmington East WEA.

The government scrubbed a third area identified as the Wilmington West WEA, which was as close as 10 nautical miles from shore, citing visual concerns.

Brunswick County beach town leaders, as well as county officials, have pushed back on the prospect of wind farms being built within the viewshed, or within sight of shore.

Last year, the Village of Bald Head Island Council adopted a resolution urging the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, to establish a buffer for offshore wind energy leases, allowing them no closer than 24 nautical miles, or about 27 miles, off North Carolina’s southern coast.

That resolution was similar to one the village council adopted in 2015. After the council adopted its resolution in 2021, other Brunswick County beach towns and the Brunswick County commissioners followed suit.

Related: Brunswick officials’ worries over offshore wind unresolved

BOEM has also established a 24-nautical-mile no-leasing buffer for Virginia and the Kitty Hawk WEA. A 33.7-nautical-mile no-leasing buffer has been established to protect the Bodie Island Lighthouse.

The Wilmington East WEA begins at its closest point to land about 17 nautical miles from Bald Head Island.

The coalition’s visual simulations presented during the open house showed three viewpoints on both clear days and days with haze from ultraviolet rays from the three beaches closest to the wind energy area: Bald Head Island, Oak Island and Holden Beach.

The United Kingdom-based company UNASYS, which specializes in large-scale energy transition processes, produced the visualizations using imagery from BOEM.

In most of the images presented to the public last week, the wind turbines were mostly undetectable. In one of the images taken from the shores of Holden Beach, tiny specks along the horizon could be seen, but just barely.

The lease area may hold up to an estimated 122 wind turbines and generate enough energy to power more than 500,000 homes. Turbines modeled in the images are based on the industry standard, which is about 850 feet tall.

It remains unclear where the energy that’s produced offshore will be tied into the power grid on land. Murmurs of speculation about the possibilities — some as far north as New Bern — could be heard among the small groups of people at the open house.

A lease auction of the area is expected to be held sometime in April or May, part of what is about the second year in what is anticipated to be about a 10-year process, Simmons said.

Simmons briefly redirected her attention while speaking with Coastal Review to answer a question from Oak Island resident and recreational fisherman Dave Ries.

“Are we actually going to be able to fish in that area?” he asked.

Simmons responded that the U.S. Coast Guard has said it has no intentions of restricting fishing around wind turbines. Her answer seemed to satisfy Ries.

“That was my primary problem with it,” Ries said, a smile on his face as he turned and headed to a door of the community building nestled on a riverfront street with a view of Bald Head Island.

Members of the North Carolina For-Hire Captain’s Association have far more questions about the potential impacts of wind turbines on fish and bird migrations and the underwater environment.

“We can’t get any information,” said Cane Faircloth, a fishing charter captain from Holden Beach. “It’s almost like it’s taboo. Once they’re up, they’re not going to take them down.”

Faircloth questioned whether sound from the large, spinning rotors would deter fishermen from getting close enough to fish around turbines.

“I think you would be uncomfortable around them,” he said.

Southport resident and fishing charter captain John Dosher raised concerns about how the installation of turbines might affect the ocean floor’s topography.

“I would never be against renewable energies,” he said. “When you’re talking about putting these things down, you’re changing an ecosystem and an estuary. The environment is the biggest thing. What kind of environmental impacts are we talking about?”

The men also questioned how well turbines can withstand hurricane winds and what kinds of infrastructure, including roadways, would be needed to get turbines from land to sea. They wondered about the need for additional boat fueling stations for vessels carrying supplies and workers between a wind farm and land and about the overall efficiency of the turbines themselves.

“It just seems like we have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this,” Faircloth said.

Randy Sturgill, senior field representative with the advocacy group Oceana, said during the open house that the organization would be closely tracking the environmental process.

“We’re thrilled to see all the progress to advance clean offshore wind energy,” he responded to Coastal Review in an emailed statement. “As this project moves forward, we’ll be monitoring and engaging with the environmental reviews and seeking to ensure that the highest mitigation standards are required so that offshore wind can advance in a responsible and environmentally friendly way. As these projects move forward, we’re seeking that the highest mitigation standards are required for critically endangered species like the North Atlantic right whale.”

Simmons said there are companies in North Carolina that provide land-based manufacturing, including one that makes fiberglass coatings for wind turbines, and an onshore cable manufacturer.

Turbine manufacturers exist largely in European countries and offshore wind advocates say that coastal areas of North Carolina could secure some of the first such manufacturers in North America.

“There’s a huge opportunity that we’re just on the cusp of,” Simmons said.

Jennifer Mundt, North Carolina Department of Commerce assistant secretary of Clean Energy Economic Development, agreed.

“This is a huge industry that is growing right now,” she said. “The opportunities are boundless.”

Brunswick County beach towns are back to square one in a push to ensure potential offshore wind farms are out of the line of sight from shore.

“Nothing has changed,” said Village of Bald Head Island Councilor Peter Quinn. “We’re still in the exact same situation. Nothing has been addressed.”

The village council first adopted a resolution in 2015 urging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, to establish a buffer for offshore wind energy leases no closer than 24 nautical miles, or about 27 miles, off North Carolina’s southern coast.

In May, councilors once again passed a similar resolution, a move that triggered other beach towns in the county, including Sunset Beach, Ocean Isle Beach, Caswell Beach, most recently, Oak Island, and the county board of commissioners to follow suit.

As opposition mounts along North Carolina’s southernmost coast to wind turbines within the viewshed, or line of sight from shore, the federal government is ramping up proposed plans for what could be the first wind energy farms off the state’s coast. BOEM earlier this month began hosting a series of virtual public meetings as part of the agency’s environmental review of the proposed project’s construction and operations plans.

In all, three wind energy areas, or WEAs, spanning more than 307,000 acres have been identified off the state’s coast for potential commercial wind energy development.

These areas include the Kitty Hawk WEA, Wilmington West WEA and Wilmington East WEA, the latter two of which are off Brunswick County’s ocean shoreline.

BOEM has established a 24-nautical-mile no-leasing buffer for Virginia and the Kitty Hawk WEA. A 33.7 nautical mile no-leasing buffer has been established to protect the Bodie Island Lighthouse.

Meanwhile, the proposed lease sites offshore of Brunswick County are considerably closer to the coast, raising concerns about how the potential for hundreds of wind turbines towering over the ocean and changing the view of the horizon from shore might impact, among other things, tourism.

As it stands, the closest border of the Wilmington West WEA is 10 nautical miles from shore. The Wilmington East WEA would be as close as about 15 miles from Bald Head Island.

Mockup photographs of wind farms within those distances to Brunswick’s shores are on BOEM’s website.

John Filostrat, director of public affairs of BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico region, said in an email response to Coastal Review that BOEM is preparing a proposed sale notice that will identify potential lease areas in the Wilmington East area.

A draft of the proposed sale was discussed in July at a meeting of the Regional Carolina Long Bay Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force.

“BOEM anticipates holding an auction in the Carolina Long Bay region next year,” Filostrat said in the email. “Any potential lease sale would be informed by science and other information collected from the Carolina Long Bay Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force, ocean users, and key stakeholders.

He explained that BOEM’s environmental review process includes potential impacts of wind turbines within viewsheds.

“Visual impacts are one of many resources that BOEM evaluates through its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process,” he said. “BOEM requires all offshore wind project proposals (as detailed in an offshore wind developer’s Construction and Operations Plan) to include viewshed mapping, photographic and video simulations, and field inventory techniques, as appropriate, so that BOEM can determine, with reasonable accuracy, the visibility of the proposed project from shore. Simulations should illustrate sensitive and scenic viewpoints.”

Property owners and visitors to Block Island, a small island a little more than 10 miles south of mainland Rhode Island, have a front-row view of the first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States.

The 840-foot-tall turbines are little more than 3½ miles offshore.

“We’re right at ground zero,” said Block Island property owner Rosemarie Ives.

The 30-megawatt wind farm is operated by Orstead, a Denmark-based company. The wind farm’s five turbines became operational in December 2016. They generate enough energy to power 17,000 homes, according to Orstead.

Block Island, once powered by five diesel generators, is now powered entirely by offshore wind, according to information provided on the company’s website.

The island’s local government board, the New Shoreham Town Council, supported the project. The response among property owners – there are about 1,000 year-round residents on the island – and tourists have been a mixed bag.

Ives and her husband were part of a handful of property owners, including a family on the mainland, thrust into the spotlight as they fought the project.

Three months out of the year, they leave their home on the West Coast to vacation at the cottage, which sits atop the island’s bluffs, offering a panoramic view from south to east.

During a recent telephone interview, Ives described the scene from the cottage, one that has been in her husband’s family since 1924.

“We get to see all five of (the turbines) and they’re not moving one inch today because there’s absolutely no wind,” she said. “I remember the first time we came here in 1967 and I thought, oh my God, this is like nothing else. I think it was almost hypnotizing. It used to be quite majestic. It’s not the same.”

Now, the dark sky that stretched over the ocean is peppered with blinking lights on the turbines.

“You’re not having the experience of seeing the ocean rise above,” she said. “There’s something spiritual, magical about looking out and seeing the ocean and seeing the sky and now you’re seeing these turbines that are right there.”

She describes the process for which the wind farm was approved “complex” and “convoluted,” one that she said inflates the project’s touted benefits.

Ives is a former mayor of Redmond, Washington, for 16 years, to be exact. She chaired the U.S. Conference of Mayors Sustainability Task Force, and was an initial signatory of the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

She refers to her background with an emphasis that she’s not anti-renewable energy.

“I was green way, way before it was politically correct,” she said.

There’s a seemingly similar sentiment among those in Brunswick County asking for the buffer.

When the Holden Beach Property Owners Association adopted in 2018 a resolution asking BOEM for the buffer, its members were intent on making sure it was not worded in a way that could be construed as anti-renewable energy.

“We debated all that and tweaked the wording to make sure we didn’t across as anti-wind,” said Tom Meyers, the association’s president. “We’ve been mostly focused on the view from the beach strand. It’s the lights as much as what we’ll see in the day. We’re all on the same page. When you go out to the ocean and you look out at the night you just want to see the sky. I really wish the town would pass a resolution and take a stand here. Once you’re changing the view from the beach you’re impacting a lot.”

Update: The Brunswick Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution during its Monday meeting.

Offshore wind turbines are back on the radar for southeastern North Carolina local governments.

Brunswick County’s board of commissioners will consider a resolution opposing offshore wind turbines sited fewer than 24 nautical miles of the shoreline, following the lead of a handful of its oceanfront towns, including Bald Head Island, Sunset Beach, Ocean Isle Beach and Caswell Beach.

The board is set to meet at 3 p.m. Monday in the commissioners’ chambers, Sandifer Administration Building, 30 Government Center Drive, Bolivia. The agenda is available online.

It was a consensus among the county board in 2015 not to take any action on a resolution opposing issuing wind energy leases within 33.7 nautical miles of Caswell Beach, which presented the resolution to the county at the time, according to Dec. 7, 2015, agenda meeting minutes.

The Village of Bald Head Island, which unanimously passed a resolution May 21, reignited the campaign to oppose issuing wind energy leases within 24 nautical miles of North Carolina’s shores.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in August 2014 defined three Wind Energy Areas offshore of the state totaling about 307,590 acres for potential commercial wind energy development. The wind energy areas, or WEAs, are the Kitty Hawk WEA, Wilmington West WEA and the Wilmington East WEA. 

The Wilmington West WEA starts 10 nautical miles from shore and the Wilmington East WEA begins about 15 nautical miles from Bald Head Island at its closest point and extends about 18 nautical miles.

The two Wilmington WEAs were realigned due to their proximity and shared attributes, with the planning and leasing process for the South Carolina Call Areas in 2016, according to BOEM. The Regional Carolina Long Bay Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force met July 21.The meeting was held to discuss the next steps in the BOEM leasing process for establishing Wind Energy Areas off North and South Carolina’s coasts.

The resolution on Monday’s agenda for Brunswick County states that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is aware that wind turbines will have “adverse visual impacts” within 24 nautical miles from shore and has already addressed this issue for Virginia and Kitty Hawk. A 24-nautical-mile no-leasing buffer to protect the view has been established for both. There is also a 33. 7-nautical-mile no-leasing buffer to protect the Bodie Island Lighthouse.

After the resolution passed, Bald Head Island Mayor J. Andrew Sayre asked Sunset Beach to take the same steps, which they did, unanimously approving a similar resolution during its June 12 meeting.

In his letter to Sunset Beach, Sayre wrote the previous White House administration put a 10-year moratorium starting July 2022 on new wind energy leases, ending leasing West Wilmington WEA, and East Wilmington WEA.  

“The new administration is likely to end the moratorium and a bipartisan group of NC U.S. representatives has endorsed the administration’s efforts to develop wind energy off the coast of NC,” Sayre wrote.

“The Bureau of Energy Management has not changed the location of these WEAs, which are still within the viewshed of several southeastern NC municipalities, nor fully evaluated the visual impacts,” Sayre continued. “With the likelihood of the wind energy leases in these two nearby WEAs moving forward, the Village of Bald Head Island respectfully requests that the Town of Sunset Beach adopt a similar resolution opposing the issuance of wind energy leases within 24 nautical miles of North Carolina’s shores.”

Sayre is referring to the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act Rep. Mike Levin, D-California, reintroduced in May. He first presented the bill in 2019 to fight the climate crisis and reduce fossil fuel dependence by promoting development of wind, solar and geothermal energy on public lands.

“The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time, and we must drastically expand renewable energy development if we are going to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the worst impacts of this crisis,” said Levin in a statement. “Our public lands have incredible potential for wind, solar, and geothermal energy development, and we must harness that potential as part of our clean energy future. My bill will expedite that critical renewable energy development, create good-paying jobs in communities across the country, and ensure we remain good stewards of our public lands. I’m proud to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to advancing it as soon as possible.”

Gov. Roy Cooper also has recently pushed for the state to move forward with wind energy.

In June, Cooper signed Executive Order No. 218, a commitment to offshore wind power as the state transitions to a clean energy economy.

“Offshore wind power will help North Carolina create jobs and generate economic development while helping us transition to a clean energy economy,” said Cooper in a statement. “North Carolina’s national leadership in clean energy and manufacturing plus our highly trained workforce create a strong business environment for offshore wind supply chain and manufacturing companies.”

The order makes a case for the economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind and directs actions to help North Carolina get a part of the industry’s estimated $140 billion East Coast investment over the next 15 years.

Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith explained during the July 13 meeting, before the board unanimously approved a similar resolution to oppose leases less than 24 nautical miles from the shore, that the resolution was in response to Cooper’s executive order. The town has previously opposed wind turbines that would be visible from the shoreline as potentially detrimental to tourism.

“So this is reiterating again that we have concerns, asking the turbines be out of sight of land. Also, if there’s any transmission lines onshore in our community that we have input on that for any decision,” she said.

Renewable energy production from wind and solar is often faulted for its gaps: Winds are inconsistent and skies aren’t always sunny. Unfortunately, battery storage has lagged in making up the difference.

But a deceptively simple-sounding adjustment could increase their combined capacity during hours of peak demand by as much as 40%, even without the technologies being located at the same site, researchers at North Carolina State University and North Carolina Central University have detailed in a recently released report.

“Our work here suggests that solar power can offer greater benefits to reliability than sustainable energy skeptics suggest,” Jeremiah Johnson, an associate professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at NC State and corresponding author of the paper, said in a June 17 press release. “Investing in both solar power and energy storage systems can unlock reliability value that neither technology would provide on its own.”

When used in tandem rather than deployed separately, the researchers found solar energy and battery storage interact in a symbiotic manner.

“So, what really matters from the system perspective is that you have solar and storage somewhere on the grid and that you’re able to operate them in a way where they sort of mutually benefit each other,” Joseph DeCarolis, a professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at NC State, said in an interview.

The paper, “The Symbiotic Relationship of Solar Power and Energy Storage in Providing Capacity Value, is one of the first analysis that has looked at the advantage of having the technologies working simultaneously, he said. 

“I think a big, big challenge here is utilities system operators, they have to make sure that demand is always met,” DeCarolis said. “The thing that keeps them up at night is what happens during these peak demand periods when everybody wants to stay cool or everybody’s trying to warm up and demand goes really high.”

In the decades before renewables entered the picture, he said, the power grid was supplied by a variety of dispatchable capacity, including nuclear, coal and natural gas. All were fairly easy to control. With wind and solar, it’s more challenging.

“So, trying to characterize the capacity credit of renewable technologies and storage, taking into account these peak periods is really critical because it helps us understand to what degree we can rely on renewables and storage to help meet those peak demands,” DeCarolis said. “And what this study finds is that there’s actually a lot of mutual benefit to operating these technologies together, in unison.”

Researchers studied reliability of renewable energy in North and South Carolina power systems, working with data on power demand and generation sources, according to the press release. Digital models were built to assess power production from the sources during peak demand, with researchers testing varied amounts of solar energy and storage capacity.

DeCarolis, a co-author of the report, explained that utilities such as Charlotte-based Duke Energy typically create a “demand profile” for their customers’ energy daily usage, and then determine how to match that demand in real time with their energy supply. While there is a lot of predictability in demand — when people wake up they turn everything on — and seasonal variabilities that matches output of renewables, the question has been its reliability in meeting spikes during peak demand.

Independent of each other, solar energy and battery storage have their own value in the system, DeCarolis said. Each is assigned a “capacity credit,” which is essentially the fraction of installed power capacity that can be relied on during peak demand. What the researchers found is that the combined capacity credit for solar and storage on the system together is greater than the sum of their parts.

“The good thing about solar is that it matches, particularly the summer peaks, pretty well,” he said. “But it’s not a perfect match. For example, those winter morning peaks, sometimes the electricity is peaking just as the sun is rising.”

It’s a given that no one can control when the wind blows and the sun shines, but what the new research shows is that the utilities can control the efficiency of the technology by synchronizing the output.

Typically, DeCarolis said, system operators will look at the hourly demand for electricity, and then look at the hourly output of solar, and then subtract the output from the demand, resulting in a net demand profile.

“It’s basically factoring in the solar production, and then they’re saying, ‘Okay, now this is the net demand that we need to meet with all the other generating assets that we have on the system,’” he said.

If the demand peak is envisioned as an inverted “U,” he explained, energy production from solar photovoltaics, or PVs, generally corresponds with the peak, in the process making the “U” lower and narrower. But under that scenario, known informally as the “duck curve,” DeCarolis said, adding excess megawatts of solar would be firing at the same place in the curve.

“It doesn’t matter if you have 5 terawatts of solar, you will never affect the demand curve when the sun isn’t shining and all you have is solar,” he said.

A terawatt is equal to 1 trillion watts.

Dispatching energy from battery storage during peak periods, however, is controllable, he said. The downside is it is limited: Its use cannot exceed its capacity. Comparing it to the way people keep track of the power on their cellphones, DeCarolis said that operators take care to make sure that batteries have enough charge available to meet the demand.

And here is where tweaking the same ingredients of the power system recipe can make a greater capacity cake. As the report explained, “the presence of solar PV decreases the duration of daily peak demands, thereby allowing energy-limited storage capacity to dispatch electricity during peak demand hours … storage can be dispatched during hours when solar exhibits diminished output, and solar helps to shorten the durations of peak load that must be shaved by energy-limited storage systems.” That is, by deploying solar and storage at the same time, more dispatched stored energy can be accommodated when needed. 

“Remember, solar is going to reduce the peak but also narrow the peak,” DeCarolis said. “And when it narrows the peak, it actually makes it easier for storage to basically meet the rest of that peak demand.”

 Although the research, which was done with support from the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory, focused on solar energy, power grids function similarly with wind energy, which also is not dispatchable.

The report concluded that the research demonstrated the important distinction between winter and summer peaking systems, showing “significantly different” seasonal capacity values for solar energy.

“These findings are timely as utilities replace their aging peaking plants and are taking energy storage into consideration as part of a low carbon pathway,” the report said.

But will the study change the way the companies use renewable energy on the grid?

“I hope so,” DeCarolis said. “I think the key here is that there should be a coordinated strategy among utilities and policy makers to think about the deployment of these technologies … that could help them maximize their mutual benefit, instead of just treating them independently.

“It’s helpful to think about the advantages they offer when you operate them together.”

A small power plant near Southport fined by the state last year for not complying with air quality standards is shutting down next year.

CPI USA North Carolina LLC plans to cease operating by March 31, 2021, according to a draft special order by consent, or SOC, between the company and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality.

The company’s current SOC, which was granted by the state Environmental Management Commission in 2016, will expire at the end of this year. The consent order was issued after the state determined plant emissions of sulfur dioxide exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

A facility may be given a consent order if it is unable to consistently comply with the terms, conditions or limitations in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit because of problems related to, for example, design of infrastructure.

Under the terms of the proposed order, CPI must reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide it releases into the air and “cease operation of all emissions sources” at the plant and request DAQ rescind its air permit no later than March 31.

The plant has failed to meet state and federal air quality standards over the years, raising concerns of nearby Brunswick County residents who say they’ve become accustomed to wiping down porch railings and outdoor furniture coated by ash from the plant.

Southport resident William North in a recent telephone interview described the black, sticky coating as a “oily soot.”

“If you’re breathing that in and it’s contaminating the soil, that’s unconscionable,” he said. “What they were doing is unconscionable. They definitely downgraded our quality of life around the plant and it was unnecessary. They could have taken care of all of that.”

North was one of several Brunswick County residents who expressed a number of concerns last November to DEQ officials at a public hearing about the company’s application for two NPDES permits – one for wastewater discharge and the other for stormwater discharge.

Residents from Southport and nearby beach towns urged state officials for more oversight at the plant, raising questions about the types of chemicals that accumulate in wastewater and stormwater outfalls at the plant, sufficient monitoring of those chemicals and the potential effects of water and air discharges on wildlife, human health and the environment.

Ann Carey told state officials at that meeting that, before buying her home in Southport, she had never lived in a place where black residue had to be wiped off outdoor surfaces.

“I had heard a rumor about CPI planning to close in March and am very pleased to have that news confirmed,” Carey said in an email. “I have no problem with a one-time short extension of the Air Quality permit to coincide with their planned closure in March.”

Carole Kozloski has also become accustomed to wiping down outdoor surfaces at her Southport home.

She said in a recent telephone interview that she has noticed a difference since the public hearing last year.

“The plant has done a very good job of taking heed to what was said at the public hearing,” Kozloski said. “I don’t know what they’ve done, but I can say it was noticeable. I still see ash but it’s not really as bad in our backyard as it has been previously. It’s definitely still there. It is still a detriment to our neighborhood. They know that they’re not in compliance. They know that it would be very costly to be in compliance, and if they can’t be in compliance they need to close.”

In January 2017, the company received a notice of violation for failing to get a prevention of significant deterioration, or PSD, permit before beginning construction to retrofit the plant’s six boilers with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides controls.

DAQ issued that violation after the facility turned over in February 2016 its first annual emissions report, which showed that actual emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter were “significantly” higher than the company’s projected emissions, according to state records.

The company was fined more than $470,000 in December for failing to obtain the PSD permit and failing to operate the appropriate controls to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

In January, CPI filed a petition in the state Office of Administrative Hearings challenging the civil penalty, arguing it was not required to obtain a PSD permit because of increases in sulfur dioxide emissions and that it had stayed in compliance with state and federal permit regulations.

The company paid the fine the following month.

Under the new proposed order, the commission and company agree to resolve the dispute over the PSD permit requirements as long as the plant tightens sulfur dioxide emissions, requests its permit be rescinded and ends operations of all emissions sources by March 31, 2021.

Leslie Griffith, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Chapel Hill office, said in an email that staff is evaluating the details of the draft consent order, “but we are pleased that DEQ has recognized it’s time for this polluting plant to shut down.”

“Like its sister plant in Roxboro, CPI Southport burns a toxic mix of coal, shredded tires, and treated wood like railroad ties,” she said. “Even though the plant emits as much harmful sulfur dioxide pollution as a much larger coal-fired power plant, it has evaded required Clean Air Act permitting and pollution protections for more than a decade. This SOC requires the Southport plant to shut down by the end of March 2021 and meet tighter emission limits for sulfur dioxide pollution in the remaining months of its operation. The bottom line is a win for the local community and for cleaner energy.”

CPI USA North Carolina LLC, a holding company of Capital Power of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, has operated the plant since 2006.

The 88-megawatt-capacity plant sells electric power to Duke Energy and steam power to Archer Daniels Midland, a food processing company with operations in Southport.

The CPI plant produces about 400,000 gallons of wastewater a day.

The wastewater and stormwater discharge are routed into the same canal used by Brunswick Steam Electric Power Station operated by Duke Energy. A combined 2 billion gallons per day of effluent from the two plants travels from the canal into a pipe buried under the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway before discharging into the Atlantic Ocean about 2,000 feet off Caswell Beach.

“The bottom line is that we are glad to hear that the plant is closing,” North said. “I will welcome the benefits it will bring not only for my generation and my neighborhood, but for the people who will follow us (living) in this area.”

On Sept. 8, President Trump signed an order prohibiting offshore leasing for energy exploration, development or production off the coast of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Trump said Sept. 25 during an event he would add North Carolina and Virginia to the moratorium.

Though not explicitly stated in the executive orders, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has confirmed that wind energy is included in the withdrawal.

“The withdrawal includes all energy leasing, including conventional and renewable energy, beginning on July 1, 2022. No new leases will be issued offshore North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, for a 10-year period beginning July 1, 2022,” Stephen Boutwell, BOEM spokesperson, told Coastal Review Online Wednesday.

Trump signed the memorandum Sept. 25 that states, “I hereby withdraw from disposition by leasing for 10 years, beginning on July 1, 2022, and ending on June 30, 2032: The portion of the area designated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as the Mid Atlantic Planning Area that lies south of the northern administrative boundary of North Carolina,” as that administrative boundary depicted on the Atlantic NAD 83 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Administrative Boundaries map. The memorandum does not appear to include Virginia.

The memorandum also states, “This withdrawal prevents consideration of this area for any leasing for purposes of exploration, development, or production during the 10-year period beginning on July 1, 2022, and ending on June 30, 2032.”

The move to prohibit renewable energy is counter to a June 2017 proclamation from the White House. “Today, our offshore areas remain underutilized and often unexplored.  We have yet to fully leverage new technologies and unleash the forces of economic innovation to more fully develop and explore our ocean economy. In the field of energy, we have just begun to tap the potential of our oceans’ oil and gas, wind, wave, and tidal resources to power the Nation,” according to the proclamation.

The president announced Sept. 8 in Jupiter, Florida, the order to extend an earlier moratorium on offshore drilling on Florida’s Gulf Coast and expand it to Florida’s Atlantic Coast, as well as the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina. North Carolina and Virginia were not included.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced Sept. 21 that he had spoken with Trump who agreed North Carolina would be included in the presidential memorandum withdrawing new leasing for offshore oil and gas developments. Trump did not immediately confirm Tillis’ announcement.

National Ocean Industries Association, or NOIA, President Erik Milito told Coastal Review Online Wednesday that the interest and optimism in Atlantic offshore wind projects cannot be understated, and this includes opportunities offshore of the Carolinas.

“BOEM previously identified three proposed wind areas, not to mention one active lease offshore North Carolina, and four call areas offshore South Carolina. Wood Mackenzie published a report last month on the impact of expected near-term offshore wind leases, and a lease block offshore the Carolinas was included. That lease sale was predicted to support 37,000 jobs annually and $44.9 billion in total capital investment. The market is ready, it is just a matter of access,” he said.

Andrew Hutson, Audubon North Carolina executive director and National Audubon Society vice president, said in a statement Tuesday that “Banning offshore wind despite growing demand makes no sense and will be devastating for North Carolina’s clean energy economy, businesses, and workers. It’s bad news for birds too. When properly sited, wind power not only coexists with birds — it makes wildlife populations and local communities more resilient by cutting down on harmful carbon pollution.”

Sharon Martin, spokesperson for the state Department of Environmental Quality, told Coastal Review Online Wednesday that North Carolina will continue to implement and remains committed to Executive Order 80 and transitioning the state to a clean energy economy, which includes achieving a 70% reduction in power sector GHG emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050.

“The NC Clean Energy Plan is a roadmap of actions to help NC achieve those goals. The state continues to implement the NC Clean Energy Plan, NC Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan, and other aspects of EO 80 and we will continue working to take advantage of the economic and environmental benefits of clean energy, while protecting coastal communities from the threat of offshore drilling,” she said.

According to the Sept. 25 memorandum, “nothing in this withdrawal affects the rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas,” which would include Avangrid Renewables’ Kitty Hawk Offshore Wind project that will be developed more than 27 miles from the Outer Banks.

Kitty Hawk Offshore Wind is a proposed offshore wind energy project to be built in the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area, designated by BOEM. The commercial lease for the 122,405-acre area was awarded to Avangrid Renewables by BOEM in 2017. The company, which has been studying the area since, launched in July an advanced meteorological buoy, according to the clean energy company headquartered in Portland, Oregon.

Once complete, Kitty Hawk Offshore Wind is projected to have a generation capacity of up to 2,500 megawatts, or enough to power about 700,000 homes.

BOEM since 2009 has been responsible for offshore renewable energy development in federal waters. The program began when the Department of the Interior, or DOI, announced the final regulations for the Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy Program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These regulations provide a framework for all of the activities needed to support production and transmission of energy from sources other than oil and natural gas, according to BOEM. These include offshore wind energy, ocean wave energy, ocean current energy and offshore solar.

This isn’t the first roadblock for offshore wind energy production.

In August 2019, the Department of the Interior formally decided to delay Vineyard Wind, the first large-scale offshore wind energy project in the U.S. planned for 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, to conduct a supplemental study.

The decision contrasts with bipartisan support for offshore wind from federal and state officials, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

“The Department of the Interior’s regrettable decision to further delay the review of the Vineyard Wind project undermines the Trump administration’s American energy dominance agenda and a major U.S. economic growth opportunity. Offshore wind development is expected to result in a $70 billion investment into the American energy supply chain,” said Tom Kiernan, AWEA CEO, in a statement at the time.

In February of this year, the Trump administration provided a revised Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Facility permitting timeline. The permits will be issued by the EPA in March of 2021, pushing completion well past the intended 2022 date.

Trump has made false statements about wind turbines in the past, particularly about those on land, stating that if the wind stops blowing, your power will turn off. He has said that turbines kill birds including Bald Eagles and that production of the turbines in China and Germany creates “tremendous fumes.” He said few are made in the United States.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, wind energy is fed into the U.S. power grid via transmission lines that connect a variety of energy sources. “Grid operators use the interconnected power system to access other forms of generation when contingencies occur and continually turn generators on and off when needed to meet the overall grid demand.”

The EPA also states that birds and bats are only occasionally killed in collisions with wind turbines and that bird kills are limited to less than 0.02% of the total populations of songbird species, “and orders of magnitude less than other causes.”

Also, most components of wind turbines installed in the United States are manufactured in the county, according to the EPA.

The Department of Energy did not respond to Coastal Review Online’s request for comment for this report.

The American Wind Energy Association declined to comment.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced this week that President Trump had agreed to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas off the North Carolina coast, but the president has yet to speak publicly on the matter, and his administration says it is still moving forward with permitting for seismic exploration in the Atlantic.

Tillis, whom polls show trailing his Democratic Party challenger Cal Cunningham, announced Monday that Trump had agreed to add North Carolina to a multistate moratorium on Atlantic offshore drilling announced earlier this month.

The president announced Sept. 8 during an event in Jupiter, Florida, an order to extend the moratorium on offshore drilling on Florida’s Gulf Coast and expand it to Florida’s Atlantic Coast, as well as the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina. North Carolina was not included at the time.

Tillis said Monday that he had spoken with Trump who agreed North Carolina would be included in the presidential memorandum withdrawing new leasing for offshore oil and gas developments for the next 12 years.

Also on Monday, the Department of Justice filed a document with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, stating that Trump’s memorandum “has no legal effect” on the status of the applications to conduct seismic surveys in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf that are pending before the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

“If Trump were remotely serious about protecting Florida and the Carolinas from offshore drilling, he wouldn’t be allowing oil exploration along the coast,” Kristen Monsell of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund said in a statement. “This Justice Department filing underscores the appalling emptiness of Trump’s election-year effort to hoodwink voters. Seismic testing’s sonic blasts harm whales and other marine life, and they set the stage for future drilling and devastating oil spills.”

The process for the pending seismic permits requires two sets of approvals, one from the National Marine Fisheries Service for incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the BOEM permits allowing the companies to conduct the seismic surveys.

The ongoing challenge, which is a consolidation of two previously separate cases, claims that the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations, or IHAs, in November 2018. The permits authorizing five companies to harm or harass marine mammals while conducting seismic surveys in waters from Cape May, New Jersey, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, are set to expire in November.

The court has scheduled a status conference for Oct, 1, Monsell told Coastal Review Online in an interview Thursday.

“The agency has been issued a process by which they can extend the effectiveness of IHAs for a year. And so, it’s possible the agency could try and invoke that extension here to have the permits effective for another year, but they haven’t yet done so and their filing was silent on that piece and what their what their intentions are,” said Monsell.

She said the status conference set for next month will include discussion of documents the government is trying to keep from becoming public that point to political interference by officials in Washington, D.C., especially regarding measures that government scientists wanted to include help ensure additional productions were in place for critically endangered North Atlantic right whales.

“So, the rest of the briefing schedule on the case is sort of tied off of when the court rules on whether or not those documents can can come in,” Monsell said.

The groups suing the federal government contend that seismic testing could harm dolphins, whales and other animals. The plaintiffs contend that the seismic testing will occur around the “world’s densest population of acoustically sensitive beaked whales off North Carolina’s Outer Banks.”

Drilling opponents welcomed Tillis’ announcement earlier this week.

The North Carolina Coastal Federation on Wednesday thanked those who had spoken out against offshore drilling.

“Offshore drilling and seismic surveying for oil and gas exploration are not the types of activities that are compatible with our vibrant coastal environment and economy. Thank you to everyone that contacted their local, state, and federal representatives to request they pursue action that expands the moratorium for North Carolina and the entire Atlantic Coast,” the federation said in a statement.

Tom Kies of the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast, which opposes seismic testing and oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast and supports offshore wind, told Coastal Review Online Wednesday that earlier this year he had a virtual visit to Tillis’ office to discuss offshore oil and seismic testing. Kies also serves as president of the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce.

“At the time, we were pleasantly surprised to see the positive response. I’m gratified that both Thom Tillis and Gov. Cooper have the best interests of the North Carolina coast in mind. I’m disappointed, however, that the moratorium doesn’t stop seismic testing,” he said. “And I have a concern that because this is a moratorium by presidential memo, it could rescinded as quickly as it was agreed to. Tourism is the driver in our economy here on the coast and the last thing we need is anything that might affect that.”

He added that he would feel better once Trump confirms the announcement.

On Tuesday, Gov. Roy Cooper noted the lack of confirmation from the Trump administration that it will extend the offshore drilling moratorium to North Carolina’s waters, as stated in Tillis’ announcement.

“It’s good the President finally appears to have listened to the bipartisan voices of North Carolinians who for years have been fighting this administration to stop oil drilling off our coast. I will stay vigilant and ready to resume the fight in the event the federal government makes any move toward offshore drilling,” Cooper said.

The Cooper administration also emphasized that there have been repeated attempts to get the president to protect the state’s coast and economy from the dangers of drilling and oil exploration.

Cooper had urged in a letter dated Sept. 15 that the Trump administration include North Carolina in the moratorium.

In 2018, Trump announced plans to open nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling in his draft five-year program for oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf. He later granted Florida an exemption from that program after objections from Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott.

In early September, a Texas-based company withdrew its permit application to conduct seismic surveys for oil and natural gas off the coast of the Carolinas.

The Sept. 4 letter from WesternGeco LLC Vice President Adil Mukhitov to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, served as formal notice of company’s withdrawal of its application.

The letter was made public before Trump’s Sept. 8 announcement to expand the moratorium on offshore drilling.

The proposed survey area spanned from the northern border of Virginia to the southern border of South Carolina, including the entire coast of North Carolina, per a state Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management document.

DCM denied in June 2019 permits for the company to conduct geological and geophysical surveys in the Atlantic. The state agency determined that the proposal was incomplete, inconsistent with the state’s enforceable coastal management policies, and would harm fish and other marine life and put at risk coastal habitats and the coastal marine economy, according to DCM.

The Commerce Department overruled the state’s objection to WesternGeco’s permit in June.

The merging of 2020’s climate, economic and health calamities has exposed North Carolina’s vulnerabilities to rising seas and rural poverty.

But the multiple crises also clarified that the state’s recovery and its future lie in its proven strengths: clean energy and natural resources.

“I think in North Carolina, there’s a lot of opportunity for clean energy to be an economic driver for the state,” Locke Raper of GridBridge, a Raleigh-based company focused on enhancing reliability, resilience and stability of the electrical grid, said during the virtual North Carolina Clean Economy Summit on Aug. 20.

The event was a kickoff of sorts for the new Southeast chapter of E2, a national, nonpartisan group of pro-environmental business leaders from every sector of the economy.

With its focus on building back “a better, cleaner, more equitable and more resilient economy,” breakout sessions during the summit featured Energy Planning for NC’s Clean Energy Future, Electrifying Transportation, and Building a Resilient NC and Growing our Outdoor Industry.

Founded in 2000, E2 — short for Environmental Entrepreneurs — has 8,000 members in nine regional chapters, centered on the credo that smart climate policy is smart economic policy.

North Carolina has had impressive success in growing green jobs. According to a new report, Clean Jobs North Carolina 2020, produced by E2 and the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, or NCSEA, clean energy jobs in North Carolina — solar, wind, energy efficiency, grid modernization, energy storage, electric vehicles — grew for at least five years in a row and were growing nearly 50% faster than overall statewide employment.

The state ranks No. 2 in the country for installed solar energy, and is exploring increased investment in wind.

At the end of 2019, the clean energy workforce numbered about 130,000, 11 times larger than those employed in fossil fuels, and more than the numbers who work as teachers, farmers or bankers, the report says.

North Carolina ranked among the top 10 states in the country across a variety of clean energy workforce categories and had the ninth largest total number of clean energy jobs among all 50 states.

Although about 19% of clean jobs had been lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the report shows that they have been returning at a steady rate, going from a low of 85,500 workers in May to 91,340 employed at the end of June, and even more in July.

Ethan Blumenthal, a 2018 graduate of University of North Carolina School of Law and a post-graduate scholar at the law school’s Center for Climate, Energy, Environment and Economics, said that the renewable energy industries lifted North Carolina out of the Great Recession that began in 2007.

“Not only do we need it from a climate change standpoint, and just from a social standpoint, but we could use it from an economic standpoint, as well,” he told Coastal Review Online, referring to clean industries. “And so that’s why I absolutely see the renewable energy industry in North Carolina, and the country, only blowing up from here. I really think the sky’s the limit.”

Blumenthal took the leap into entrepreneurial enterprise after analyzing House Bill 589, the 2017 energy bill that completely reset solar regulation in North Carolina.

“And part of that I recognized after talking with advisers and friends,” he said in an interview, “is what I believe to be a niche for a nonprofit solar development company geared towards developing solar for other nonprofits and low and moderate income communities.”

Along with cofounder and law school friend Miles Wobbleton, Blumenthal launched his nonprofit company, Good Solar, in Charlotte in September 2018 with the idea to be the intermediary between the financing industry, the solar development industry and nonprofits, and connecting all of them.

“Part of the challenge, but part of the reason why we thought we could be successful and have a leg up as attorneys is just how complicated the regulatory world is for solar,” he said.

“And personally, I think we’ve done far too little in this country to support small businesses,” Blumenthal added, “and a lot of the solar industry are small businesses that are built in communities.”

Meanwhile, he’s one of six directors in E2’s Southeast chapter, which is focused on work in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia.

“I’m a significant amount younger than most of the other directors,” Blumenthal, 28, said. “A lot of them have a lot of experience in their space and everyone I’ve talked to knows their stuff. I think there’s a breadth of experience.”

Blumenthal said the diverse range of interests and expertise of participants in the Clean Economy Summit shows how E2 can leverage its strength in a broad range of issues.

“Yeah, it’s very different than most nonprofits,” he said. “As a young entrepreneur, I saw a great value in joining what is effectively a network of like minds, whether to get them onboard with Good Solar and what sort of resources I might be able to get from that perspective, or just the sort of experience of learning from them and people that have been there and done that, and been in this space for a long time.”

Another chapter director, Dave Petri, owner and principal consultant with Cynosura Consulting in Mount Airy, has been involved with the outdoor recreation industry for a decade.

With the outdoor industry contributing $20 billion to the state’s economy, he said, there is a lot of new attention on the intersection of “clean tech” and outdoor recreation and their mutual interests.

“I see a huge opportunity helping E2 collaborate with outdoor industries to grow a clean economy,” Petri said in a recent interview. “We both have a common goal to battle the risks of climate change.”

North Carolina is fifth in the nation in outdoor recreational spending, he said.  At the same time, the state is also vulnerable to environmental damage and hazards caused by climate change.

Petri explained that an economy driven by renewable energy and a secure power grid will be more resilient to threats such as extreme flooding, intense storms and heat spikes.

“What we would like to see is less use of extractive energies,” he said, referring to oil and gas and mining industries.

In turn, public lands would be preserved into the future, benefitting its animal and plant inhabitants and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

“Protecting the environment is obviously a goal of the industry and E2 as well,” he said. “We are blessed with such outdoor opportunities. We can be on the beach one day and on the mountains the next day.”

According to the most recent report on the Outdoor Industry Association website, North Carolina’s outdoor recreational industry employed 260,000 people, paying a total of $8.3 billion in wages and salaries.

It also generated $28 billion in consumer spending — more than for financial services and insurance combined — and $1.3 billion in state and local tax revenue.

When Congress passed the Great American Outdoors Act this summer, billions of dollars suddenly became available for land conservation and projects in federal parks and refuges, making it possible for the first time in many years to improve and expand outdoor recreational assets.

Devising nature-based solutions to sea level rise, erosion and flooding, Petri said, needs to be a priority to protect outdoor spaces and build resiliency, including in often overlooked areas with less wealth that never recovered from lost industries and closed businesses.

“Some of these underserved communities don’t have the resources to go after these funds,” he said. “Outdoor recreation can help build an economic engine in some of these communities.”

With its focus on a sustainable economy and smart climate policy, E2’s Southeast network can be supportive in growing of outdoor recreational places, he said.

“I think the biggest thing I would like to accomplish is to raise awareness of what we have in North Carolina,” Petri said, “and how it relates to a thriving economy.”

Access for the pubic to North Carolina’s bounty of outdoor recreational offerings is nearly as important as knowing the sites are there, and what’s available when they get there.

“They go hand-in-hand,” he said. “That’s our infrastructure. That’s where our customers go play.”

Perhaps it’s because he’s too young for cynicism, Blumenthal confessed to be “crazy optimistic” about the clean economy’s future and a fair sharing of it, no matter what’s going on with politics.

“I think inevitably, it’s going to be thrown open, just the economics of it,” he said. “You can feel the momentum going towards this sort of socially just (investment) …

“There’s a way to do it that still benefits everyone,” he said, ”not just the few who have the economic capital to do it up front.”

And E2, he added, will have a role working with legislators in creating updated policies that promote a clean economy, which he said should include economic incentives.

“It’s just a little finger on the scales,” Blumenthal said. “And you can see huge economic results in jobs created. That’s the lesson that we need to keep in mind and we need to take forward as we now try to emerge from yet another recession.”

The imprint on the Gulf Coast of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that took place 10 years ago Monday serves as a warning of the potential dangers caused by offshore drilling.

When the oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico exploded and sank April 20, 2010, 11 workers died and 4 million barrels of oil flowed into the gulf over an 87-day period before being capped July 15, 2010, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

White Oak-New Riverkeeper Alliance Advocacy Coordinator and Crystal Coast Waterkeeper Larry Baldwin told Coastal Review Online that the 10-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon is certainly not a day of celebration like many anniversaries.

“It should instead be a reminder of the tragedy to 11 men, God rest their souls, and also the ongoing impacts from this disaster … a disaster that should never have occurred,” he said.

“Ten years ago, we watched the largest oil disaster in U.S. history unfold in the Gulf of Mexico. A decade later, offshore drilling remains as dirty and dangerous as ever,” Randy Sturgill, senior campaign organizer for Oceana, told Coastal Review Online.

“Instead of learning from the 2010 disaster, President Trump announced a blanket expansion on offshore drilling. The administration is actively working to open North Carolina’s coastline to risky drilling operations while dismantling the few protections put in place as a result of Deepwater Horizon. Taken together, it’s another catastrophe waiting to happen,” he continued.

In January 2018, the Trump administration announced its National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019-2024, proposing to open up 90% of the total OCS acreage and “more than 98% of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in federal offshore areas available to consider for future exploration and development,” according to the White House. The plan was put on hold in April 2019.

“It’s bad for tourism, it’s bad for commercial and recreational fishing, and it’s bad for business.”

Tom Kies, Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast, Carteret County Chamber of Commerce

Tom Kies, president of both the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce and the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast, said in an interview that every single municipality here on the North Carolina coast publicly opposes offshore oil drilling and seismic testing.

“Every time we hear about the current administration’s efforts to open the Atlantic coast to offshore oil drilling and seismic testing, we recall images of Deepwater Horizon and the horrifying effects of that disaster,” he said. “It’s bad for tourism, it’s bad for commercial and recreational fishing, and it’s bad for business.”

Researchers are finding evidence that the spill reaches farther than previously thought and the Gulf Coast is continuing to feel the impacts.

A study released earlier this year by the University of Miami Rosenstiel school of Marine and Atmospheric Science found the toxic and invisible oil spread well beyond the known satellite footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

“The spill was only visible to satellites above a certain oil concentration at the surface leaving a portion unaccounted for.”

Igal Berenshtein, University of Miami Rosenstiel School

The finding published in Science Advances in February show that the spill reached the West Florida shelf, the Texas shores, the Florida Keys and along the Gulf Stream towards the East Florida shelf.

“We found that there was a substantial fraction of oil invisible to satellites and aerial imaging,” said the study’s lead author Igal Berenshtein, a postdoctoral researcher at the UM Rosenstiel School, in a statement. “The spill was only visible to satellites above a certain oil concentration at the surface leaving a portion unaccounted for.”

Claire Paris, senior author of the study and professor of ocean sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School, said in a news release that the results alter well-known ideas about the consequences of oil spills by showing that toxic and invisible oil can extend beyond the satellite footprint at potentially lethal and sublethal concentrations to a wide range of wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.

A report released Tuesday by Oceana looks at the decade since “one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.” The report studies the cause and impacts of the spill, both then and now, and whether the disaster changed the government and industry’s approach to offshore drilling.

The report, Hindsight 2020: Lessons We Cannot Ignore from the BP Disaster, was compiled from government documents, media coverage, scientific studies, reports from nonprofit organizations and interviews with Gulf Coast residents, scientists, business owners and policy experts.

Oceana reports that about 8.3 million oysters were killed, and certain populations of fish, shrimp and squid decreased by as much as 85% as a result of the spill. Additionally, up to 170,000 sea turtles were killed by the spill and 800,000 birds died. For five years, more than 75% of all dolphin pregnancies failed in the oiled area and the endangered Bryde’s whales, decreased by about 22%.

The Gulf Coast’s recreation industry as a whole lost more than $500 million, fisheries closed and the demand for Gulf seafood plummeted, costing the seafood industry nearly $1 billion, and housing markets across the region experienced a decline in prices between 4% and 8% that lasted for at least five years, according to the report.

Sturgill said that Oceana’s report shows how a chain of bad decisions and decades of poor safety culture laid the groundwork for the BP tragedy. “We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. The current administration needs to protect North Carolina’s coast from a dangerous future of spilling and reverse course on all plans to expand offshore drilling.”

One organization has looked at how the North Carolina coast could be affected by expanding drilling offshore.

The Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center released a report in December 2019, “Offshore Drilling, Onshore Damage: Broken Pipelines, Dirty Refineries and the Pollution Impacts of Energy Infrastructure” that looks at onshore industrial infrastructure created for offshore drilling.

Among the concerns raised in the report were the pipelines that run from offshore rigs inland to processing facilities degrading estuary water quality and risk spilling oil, toxic waste polluting drinking water and land, and air pollution from oil refineries.

“We want to visit clean beaches, smell the ocean breeze, and admire the marine life off our coast — not avoid pipelines, choke on pollution from oil refineries, and contend with oil barges,” said Jean-Luc Duvall, campaign director for Environment North Carolina, in a news release. “Drilling off our coast may seem far removed from our homes and businesses, but the onshore infrastructure necessary for drilling creates a pressing threat to the health of our ecosystems and our citizens.”

Deepwater Horizon influenced then and continues to influence today how the Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorneys Catherine Wannamaker and Sierra Weaver shaped the strategies to protect the Atlantic Ocean.

“We learned just days after the spill, while oil was still flowing, that the government was going forward with lease sales, while it was still unable to control the spewing Macondo well,” Wannamaker, a senior SELC attorney, said last week in a news release.

“One of the things we learned working in the Gulf during the course of a spill is that it’s very difficult to stop offshore drilling in an area when it’s been established for 30 years,” Wannamaker added.

SELC and Defenders of Wildlife filed in 2010 the first federal lawsuit after the spill to pause drilling but hit roadblocks, the release states.

“We had always been focused on stopping new offshore drilling in the Atlantic,” Wannamaker said. “But when we worked in the Gulf, we realized just how hard it was to stop lease sales that had been on the books for years.”

That notion has shaped SELC’s legal defense of the Atlantic Ocean, Weaver said.

“This is our chance to save the Atlantic,” Weaver said. “We need to stop it before it starts. We need to make sure that these communities are never facing the type of damage and destruction that the Gulf of Mexico faced. That was enough of a tragedy. We need to learn lessons from that and not repeat it.”

SELC researcher Melissa Whaling in the last few months found that more than 25,000 jobs were lost because of the spill, along with $700 million in wages and in addition to the 11 deaths, tens of thousands of people have become ill or died from their work to clean up the spill. These numbers have encouraged 250 coastal communities and governors of all 14 Atlantic states to lodge official protests to the Trump administration’s efforts to open East Coast waters to petroleum companies, according to the release.

Something we have learned from the disaster, Baldwin said, is that the technology does not exist to safely drill for oil or respond to a tragedy of this magnitude.

“Industry and government are working together to ensure a more coordinated effort to prevent future spills and to respond more effectively if they occur.”

Erik Milito, President, National Ocean Industries Association

“We have learned that the destruction from an incident like Deepwater Horizon on the environment is severe and long-lasting. We have also learned that Big Oil and Big Government have no regard and take no responsibility for the destruction that took place, and continues to take place to this day,” he said.

Baldwin explained that he has friends who were on the front lines of covering the disaster when it happened, and are still witnessing the impacts.

“What we have really learned is that we, all of us, need to fight the attempts to bring offshore drilling, and the associated seismic testing, to the Atlantic coast. We need to stop further attempts to add more drilling rigs to the Gulf, Pacific and Alaskan waters. Say ‘No’ to seismic testing and offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast,” he said.

The National Ocean Industries Association says it represents all facets of the domestic offshore energy and related industries. NOIA President Erik Milito told Coastal Review Online in response to questions about the 10^th anniversary of Deepwater Horizon that nothing is more important to the industry than safety and environmental stewardship.

He said that the advancements of prevention, intervention and incident response capabilities by the offshore energy industry had been remarkable and that the industry had developed new safety equipment and improved safety procedures that are being adopted worldwide. He said more than 100 new or revised industry standards had been issued.

“Industry and government are working together to ensure a more coordinated effort to prevent future spills and to respond more effectively if they occur. Every type and size of company is completely dedicated to producing energy safely and in an environmentally-sustainable way,” he said. “Additionally, the widespread advancement of new technologies, like artificial intelligence and cloud computing, mean than not only are problems solved quickly and more efficiently, but the concerns are identified and solved before they have a chance to become a problem.”

SOUTHPORT – A small power plant in Brunswick County will not be allowed to discharge bottom ash into an outfall that flows into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Caswell Beach.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has issued two final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permits to CPI USA North Carolina, LLC to discharge wastewater and stormwater from its Southport plant.

The renewed permits are effective April 1, but the company has 30 days from the time the permits are issued – in this case March 13 – to request in writing an adjudicatory hearing to challenge the terms of the permits.

No such action had been filed as of March 30, according to a Division of Air Quality, or DAQ, spokesperson.

The final permits include significant changes from draft permits the state sent the company in June 2019, which include increased monitoring for multiple compounds.

The plant, which uses a combination of fuels, including coal, wood and fuel derived from tires, produces about 400,000 gallons of wastewater a day.

A portion of that wastewater includes bottom ash, about 17,000 gallons of which is discharged per year.

Bottom ash, which is the course, incombustible byproduct of coal combustion, was added to the facility’s wastewater since the plant’s last permit renewal.

The plant discharges stormwater and wastewater into Progress Energy’s Brunswick steam electric power station effluent channel, which flows into a pipe that discharges 2,000 feet off the Caswell Beach shore.

The new wastewater permit omits discharge of bottom ash transport water, noting that it has been determined the facility’s mechanical drag system equipment contains the bottom ash, which is temporarily stored in a concrete pit, according to DEQ. Bottom ash from the pit is loaded onto a truck and hauled to a landfill.

The plant will also have to increase its monitoring frequency for 126 so-called priority pollutants Analysis from once per permit cycle to annual monitoring. The 126 priority pollutants are defined in the Clean Water Act as a subset of toxic pollutants that include heavy metals and specific organic chemicals.

The stormwater permit also requires monitoring for creosote, a gummy, tarlike substance used as a wood preservative, and monthly monitoring for the first 15 months of the permit. The plant has to incorporate a hurricane preparedness plan as well.

Chandra Taylor, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said in an email that the permits, “still have room for improvement.”

“Dumping any coal ash, chipped tire pile, and chipped railroad wood pile wastewater into the ocean, when the primary treatment is just a settling basin, is not the best that can be done for the ocean that our residents and visitors play and swim in,” she said.

About 100 Southport residents and representatives from area beach towns in Brunswick County attended a state-hosted public hearing last November where they urged state officials to strengthen regulatory oversight of the plant.

In a statement its president issued earlier this week, the Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or BEAT, thanked the state “for hearing our concerns and responding to each of them exactly how our communities asked them to.”

“We are also pleased that we could serve the community by bringing these critical concerns to the attention of local governmental leaders and the people they serve. None of these changes would have been possible without their involvement. We look forward to working with our community, the NCDEQ and CPI USA to improve their environmental foot print as their air quality permits come up for review in 2020. We are learning that the impacts of air quality issues originating at CPI USA, are potentially more dangerous than the stormwater for the health of our community.”

The plant was commissioned in 1987 and first received a wastewater disposal permit from the state June 1 of that year.

The 88-megawatt capacity plant sells electric power to Duke Energy and steam power to Archer Daniels Midland, a food processing company.

Area residents have been concerned particularly about air emissions from the plant.

Property owners who live near the plant shared stories about how they have to wipe down porch railings and outdoor furniture coated by black, greasy grit emitted from the plant’s smoke stacks.

CPI USA North Carolina LLC has operated the plant since 2006.

In 2008, the plant retrofitted six boilers with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide controls in order to increase wood/biomass firing production, according to state records.

The retrofit was completed in March 2011.

In 2016, the state Environmental Management Commission granted CPI a special order by consent, or SOC, after determining plant emissions exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

A facility may be given an SOC if it is unable to consistently comply with the terms, conditions or limitations in an NPDES permit because of problems related to, for example, design of infrastructure.

CPI submitted in February 2016 its annual projected versus actual report.

That report indicated that the emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter “were significantly higher than projected emissions contained in the original permit application for the boiler retrofit,” according to state documents.

The SOC expires Dec. 31, the effective date of a new or separate SOC, or upon approval and issuance of a permit with revised emission limits requested by the company, whichever comes first, according to the order.

Last December, DAQ slapped CPI with a more than $473,000 civil penalty, citing that the plant failed to operate using the best available control technology for its sulfur dioxide emissions from March 15, 2011 through 2017, according to the civil penalty.

The plant also failed to obtain a “prevention of significant deterioration” permit prior to retrofitting six boilers with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide controls.

Learn more

• See more permit documents

While the proposed plans to “modernize” the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, will fast track the permitting process for infrastructure, such as highway projects, it also opens the door for expedited approval of oil drilling off the North Carolina coast.

President Trump announced Thursday at the White House that his administration has from day one made “fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority.  And we want to build new roads, bridges, tunnels, highways bigger, better, faster, and we want to build them at less cost.

“That is why, for the first time in over 40 years, today we are issuing a proposed new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created these massive obstructions. Now, we’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly. And if it doesn’t pass, it’s going to not pass quickly. It doesn’t have to take 10 years or much longer than that.”

Signed into law Jan. 1, 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to calculate the environmental and related social and economic effects of proposed actions before making decisions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

A fact sheet on the proposed regulations states that NEPA applies to road, bridge, highway and airport construction, conventional and renewable energy production and distribution, electricity transmission, water infrastructure, broadband deployment and public land management.

Trump signed in 2017 an executive order for the Council On Environmental Quality, or CEQ, to review the current NEPA regulations “and modernize and accelerate the Federal environmental review and decision-making process,” per the White House.

CEQ issued last week the notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM, “Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act” made available Friday on the Federal Register for public comments, which will be accepted through March 10.

The proposed changes will give industry executives and lobbyists more control while stripping away the voices of the communities and the citizens who have the most at stake, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“For three years, the Trump administration has launched misguided crusades against this critical environmental protection on the baseless belief that NEPA holds up progress. The opposite is true. NEPA makes big projects better, and saves taxpayers money when it exposes wasteful and reckless political boondoggles,” ” Senior Attorney Kym Hunter, who leads the law center’s team of attorneys defending NEPA, said in a statement.

Hunter explained to Coastal Review Online in an interview Friday that these rules affect any federal action such as the permitting process to build on wetlands on the coast, any time a new plant that would pollute the air or water is proposed, and not just big bridges and highways, but any changes to infrastructure, building and industry. These proposed changes would allow governments and industry to come in with no notice and affect communities without any accountability.

“Your average person takes for granted that when something is going to happen in their community, they know about it before it happens and they’ll have an opportunity to go to a public hearing or submit comments, but that will no longer be the case in some circumstances,” Hunter added.

Trump said Thursday that it can take more than 10 years to get a permit to build a road, if they get a permit at all, and the delays are because of big government.

“Your average person takes for granted that when something is going to happen in their community, they know about it before it happens and they’ll have an opportunity to go to a public hearing or submit comments, but that will no longer be the case in some circumstances.”

Kym Hunter, Southern Environmental Law Center

“For example, in North Carolina, it took 25 years to begin construction of the Marc Basnight Bridge,” he said as he listed projects across the country.

Hunter said that there’s nothing in the more than 100-page document that would have made the Bonner Bridge replacement project move any faster.

The Outer Banks is a complicated place to build infrastructure. Working the through complexities and compromising differing opinions is what took so long, she explained. “There’s nothing here in the proposed changes that would have sped that up.”

According to the state Department of Transportation, discussions to replace the Bonner Bridge began in 1989. ​The draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, which looks at the effect of construction on both the natural and human surroundings, was approved in 1993-94, followed by the release of the preferred alternative that would have the least environmental impact: a parallel bridge. From then until 2010, ​NCDOT continued studying the preferred alternative.

The department in December 2010 completed the final EIS, which was then submitted to and approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and then issued a Record of Decision, the final stage of the approval process. Then, environmental permits to allow the NCDOT begin the project were issued, according to the NCDOT timeline.

In July 2011, the same month a contract was awarded for the project, ​the Southern Environmental Law Center filed the first of two lawsuits, the second was in August 2013, on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge Association. In summer 2015, the parties to the case reached a settlement. Construction began on the replacement bridge in March 2016 and was completed in late 2019.

Bob Woodard, board of commissioners chairman for Dare County, where the bridge is located, attended the NEPA rollback announcement Thursday at the White House.

“It was an honor to be invited to the White House for the President’s infrastructure announcement. It is my hope that the proposed new rule will allow more timely construction of much-needed projects, which not only will improve our economy by creating jobs but will also ensure the safety of our residents and visitors,” Woodard said in a statement.

“It is my hope that the proposed new rule will allow more timely construction of much-needed projects, which not only will improve our economy by creating jobs but will also ensure the safety of our residents and visitors.”

Bob Woodard, Dare County Chairman

Hunter told Coastal Review Online that it was surprising to see the Dare County chairman with Trump during the announcement, considering the county’s stated opposition to offshore drilling and what this proposal would mean for offshore drilling and fast-tracking the permitting process.

“It would fast-track the process and take the public and transparency out of the process,” she explained.

Hunter cited numerous ways that the proposed changes could affect offshore drilling, including limiting the types of projects subject to review, and perhaps most importantly, the effect on climate change.

“One area that doesn’t have to be studied anymore is cumulative impact,” she said about the proposed changes. She noted that climate change is a cumulative impact, which is where multiple projects interact with one problem to cause another problem.

“This rule says you don’t have to look at that, so basically you don’t have to look at climate change,” she said.

The proposal would require examination of only direct impacts. With offshore drilling, that could exclude considering the impact of an oil spill, Hunter continued.

“Industry might argue that under the proposed rule, oil spills would also no longer need to be disclosed or considered because the proposal would limit consideration of indirect impacts,” Hunter said, adding that none of that information would be made available to the public or decision makers.

Hunter said that the proposed changes would allow a project proponent to do the environmental studies themselves without having to disclose any conflict of interest.

A spokesperson with the state Department of Environmental Quality told Coastal Review Online Friday that DEQ staff were reviewing the proposed rule and would need to determine the full impact before commenting.

According to the NEPA fact sheet, environmental impact statements for federal highway projects take an average of seven years to complete and are typically more than 600 pages. The proposed changes include putting a time limit of two years in place to complete an EIS and one year for less-rigorous environmental assessments. The changes also set a page limit and incorporate new standards for information sharing and public outreach.

“These proposed changes must undergo the established public review process for federal rulemaking before they are finalized. NCDOT will need to review all the proposed changes to better understand how these could impact transportation projects moving forward,” said Jamie Kritzer, assistant director of communications for NCDOT.

Hunter also expressed concern regarding the limitations on legal challenges of environmental reviews and the “arbitrary” page and time limits proposed.

“They’re essentially saying you have to do these documents in two years but we’re not going to give you any additional resources, we’re not going to do much to assist you in that,” she said. “These agencies are massively understaffed. The reason these documents take a while is because (agencies) are stripped of staff and resources.”

Other proposed changes include requiring earlier public input solicitation and “comments to be specific and timely to ensure appropriate consideration.” Also, agencies would be required to summarize alternatives, analyses and information submitted by commenters.

Hunter said she thinks all of the proposed changes to NEPA will lead to a lot of confusion.

“While overall, this would allow projects to be fast-tracked, but in the interim, it would create more confusion and slow things down,” she said.

Hunter said that the good news is that all submitted comments must be considered.

“I think there’s going to be a big public outcry and hopefully that will make the rule better or cause them to take a new look at it,” she said.

Comment on the proposed changes

Comments can be submitted by March 10 online, by fax to 202-456-6546, or by mail to Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503. Attn: Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003.

CEQ will host two public hearings in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.

Learn more about the NEPA changes and additional public engagement on the White House website.

WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH – Drilling for oil off the North Carolina coast would pose a substantial threat to the environment onshore, according to a newly released study by an environmental research group.

Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center’s Offshore Drilling, Onshore Damage delves into a series of possible adverse impacts offshore drilling would have on land well beyond state’s beaches.

The report released Wednesday highlights the infrastructure needed on land to support offshore drilling.

Construction of pipelines and potential ruptures of those lines, the possibility of spills at marine and port terminals, construction or expansion of oil refineries, and on-land disposal of offshore waste generated from drilling are “less known, but no less real,” according to the report.

“This report tells that lesser known piece of the story,” said Jean-Luc Duvall, Environment North Carolina’s campaign director.

Duvall spoke Wednesday at the Blockade Runner in Wrightsville Beach, where a small group of opponents to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling gathered for a press conference launching the official release of the report.

The Trump administration wants to open much of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans off the U.S. coast to offshore oil and gas drilling.

Plans to expand offshore drilling were placed on hold earlier this year after a federal judge ruled in late March that President Donald Trump’s 2017 order to revoke the Obama administration’s ban on oil and gas drilling in Atlantic and Arctic was illegal.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling.

Most governors, including North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts oppose the plan.

North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission in April unanimously passed a resolution opposing offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling off the state’s coast. Most coastal cities and towns in the state have adopted similar resolutions.

“There’s too much to risk on one drop of oil to land on our shores,” Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, said to reporters following Wednesday’s press conference.

Butler, who has been outspoken in her opposition to drilling for oil and gas off the North Carolina coast, spoke at the press conference.

“In North Carolina alone, offshore oil and gas development threatens nearly 57,000 jobs and over $2.5 billion in gross domestic product,” Butler said. “To date, more than 42,000 business owners, 500,000 fishing families, and countless elected officials along our coast as well as North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, have come together to reject the risks of offshore oil and gas development. We have seen how the movie ends, we have seen the damage that the BP oil spill had on communities in the Gulf Coast, and we want no part of it.”

Environment North Carolina’s report calls attention to real-life examples of failed pipelines, oil spills at port terminals and the release of oil from storm-damaged structures into the environment.

One such example is the 2015 release of more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil west of Santa Barbara, California, where an onshore, underground pipeline transporting oil from drilling platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel to inland refineries ruptured.

“Oil flowed into the ocean, coated birds and mammals, and forced the closure of two state beaches,” according to the report.

Pacific Ocean waves lapped oil onto beaches some 80 miles south of the spill site. Nearly 100 mammals and more than 200 birds were killed. Local fisheries closed.

Three years after the spill pipeline operator Plains All American Pipeline was found guilty of, among other violations, failing to maintain the pipeline and was fined more than $2 million, according to the report.

The company has applied for permits to replace the ruptured line.

Between 1999 and 2013, more than 40,000 gallons of oil spilled from tankers docked in port in U.S. waters, according to the report.

And, on Grand Bahama island, more than 2 million gallons of oil spilled from onshore oil storage facilities damaged during Hurricane Dorian last August, Duvall said as he displayed a photograph taken after the storm of storage tanks with missing roofs at the facility.

The changing climate, which is producing stronger, more frequent hurricanes, and rising seas, will only exacerbate the threat of spills from onshore energy infrastructure, opponents of offshore drilling say.

The report cites cases of air pollution created from oil refinery operations in states including Texas, which has the largest refinery in the country.

Environment North Carolina’s report concludes with a number of recommendations, including a national, permanent ban on expanding offshore drilling and closing existing offshore facilities and pursing public policies to reduce oil and gas dependence in the country.

“This will avoid the need for new or expanded onshore infrastructure to support increased production of oil and gas, as well as the risks to marine ecosystems and beaches posed by offshore drilling itself,” according to the report. “States should seek to protect coastal areas by blocking construction of new infrastructure or the expansion of existing infrastructure needed to support expanded offshore drilling. States, not the federal government, control permitting and siting decisions for onshore infrastructure. They should use this authority to help protect communities and ecosystems.”

BOLIVIA – Residents from Southport and nearby beach towns urged state environmental quality officials Thursday to strengthen regulatory oversight of a small power plant whose operator is seeking to renew its permits to discharge wastewater and stormwater into a canal that dumps off the coast of Caswell Beach.

One by one, residents at a public hearing hosted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Thursday night expressed a multitude of concerns about the types of chemicals that accumulate in wastewater and stormwater outfalls at the plant, CPI USA North Carolina, sufficient monitoring of those chemicals and the potential effects of both water and air discharges on wildlife, human health and the environment.

“I believe this has to be monitored and kept an eye on and we’re relying on you people to keep us safe.”

Edward Dazewiezri, Oak Island

“Here we have a plant that is almost like a Third World country plant,” Oak Island resident Edward Dazewiezri said to DEQ officials. “It’s burning coal, it’s burning tires and it’s burning wood. We’re measuring total suspended solids, but what are those total suspended solids? I believe this has to be monitored and kept an eye on and we’re relying on you people to keep us safe.”

One of the plant’s outfalls captures discharge that must be tested for 126 priority pollutants, which are defined in the Clean Water Act as a subset of toxic pollutants that include heavy metals and specific organic chemicals.

The draft permit would change the current monitoring of those priority pollutants from grab sampling, which is a single sample taken at a specific time, to composite sampling, which collects samples over time and represents the average characteristics of wastewater.

CPI USA North Carolina is a holding company of Capital Power of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

The company has applied for two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permits. One permit would regulate wastewater discharge and the other would regulate stormwater discharge.

The state has rerated the plant’s draft NPDES as a major permit to discharge more than 400,000 gallons of wastewater per day.

That discharge may include bottom ash – up to 17,000 gallons a year. Bottom ash is the course, incombustible byproduct of coal combustion. It has been added to the facility’s wastewater since the plant’s last permit renewal.

CPI has operated the plant located on the fringes of Southport since 2006.

The plant was commissioned in 1987 and first received a wastewater disposal permit from the state June 1 of that year, according to Derek Denard, an environmental specialist and wastewater permit writer for the state Division of Water Resources.

The 88-megawatt capacity plant sells electric power to Duke Energy and steam power to Archer Daniels Midland, a food processing company.

Denard explained that the plant uses a mechanical drag system to remove bottom ash, which is scooped up, loaded onto trucks and taken to an approved landfill.

“There’s no coal ash stored at this facility,” he said.

The plant’s wastewater and stormwater discharge are routed into the same canal used by Brunswick Steam Electric Power Station operated by Duke Energy, which has a 1.9 billion gallons per-day maximum flow capacity into the canal.

Lauren Garcia, an environmental specialist with the state Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, which oversees NPDES stormwater permit applications, said that during the permit renewal process state officials discovered the plant’s stormwater effluent discharge into the Duke Energy effluent channel, not Prices Creek as originally thought by the division.

A combined 2 billion gallons per day effluent from CPI and the nuclear plant travels from the canal into a pipe buried under the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway before discharging into the Atlantic Ocean about 2,000 feet off Caswell Beach.

The discharge plume was distinctive and easily visible in an aerial photograph displayed on a projector screen in the room where the public hearing was held on Brunswick Community College’s campus.

Pete Key, president of the Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or B.E.A.T., said no amount of bottom ash discharge is acceptable.

Instead, CPI should be required to catch effluent that contains bottom ash and haul it by truck from the site.

He asked state officials to reject the permit applications.

Southport Mayor-elect Joe Hatem said he, like many residents, was unaware CPI was discharging effluent into the canal.

“We still don’t know the full ramifications of what we’re being exposed to,” he said. “The stuff that you’re wiping off your cars, you can’t wipe it out of your lungs, so we have to be vigilant.”

Residue from the sky

Southport resident Carole Kozloski said she is all too familiar with the accumulation of black, greasy grit emitted from the plant that coats everything from her outdoor furniture to the sidewalks in her neighborhood of Harbor Oaks.

“Sometimes on our furniture there’s actually chunks of ash,” she said in an interview days before the public hearing.

Kozloski and her husband live roughly a half mile from the plant.

She and other residents who live near the plant said they must routinely wipe down porch railings, decks, porch steps and driveways.

Two years ago, CPI footed the bill to clean homes in the area after an incident occurred at the plant that released a cloud of black, ashy residue that landed on the properties of Southport residents near the facility.

She told state officials at the public hearing Thursday that the discharges from the plant into the water and air can’t be good for the environment or human health. “I would ask that you strengthen their permit request to better protect our residents and their water.”

During the hearing, Southport resident William North carried with him to the podium a clear, plastic bag filled with black-smudged paper towels used to wipe off the residue falling from the atmosphere onto his and his neighbors’ properties.

“This is what we wipe off our porches every day,” he said as he held up the bag. “It falls from the plant. The chemicals being released by the plant are worrisome.”

“The chemicals being released by the plant are worrisome.”

William North, Southport

While coal-fired production has been decreased by 90% at the plant, about 50% of its fuel is generated from burning wood and tires. The wood, which is chipped on site, has been treated with the preservative creosote, a gummy, tar-like mix of hundreds of chemicals.

Residents who live in neighborhoods roughly a mile from the plant say they’re not sure if the residue comes from burning tires or creosote-coated wood.

“I’ve never lived anywhere where there was so much black residue where it just keeps coming back,” Southport resident Ann Carey said. “There’s a lot of concern about any health issues that it could cause. I want to know, is it something that’s unhealthy and are they operating within whatever guidelines they’re supposed to? I want to know that I’m not endangering myself.”

Donna McGramaghan has owned her home in Southport for 14 years. She became a permanent resident of the city six years ago.

“In the early years they burned coal, and every time I would come for a weekend I had to clean my front porch and my white rockers,” she said. “There was always a film of coal dust on it. Coming from Pennsylvania that seemed very strange. I can tell you that my steps are slippery. If I don’t wash my porch off and wash my steps I could slide down on them.”

In 2016, the state Environmental Management Commission granted CPI a special order by consent, or SOC, after determining plant emissions of sulfur dioxide exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

The SOC expires Dec. 30, 2020.

The Southern Environmental Law Center has requested that the state hold a public hearing on the draft permit.

The state will accept written comments from the public on the plant’s draft NPDES permits from wastewater and stormwater discharge through Dec. 23.

A final decision on the permit will be made no later than Feb. 19, 2020.

Comments may be submitted to Derek Denard, N.C. Division of Water Resources Water Quality Permitting Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617. Comments may also be emailed to PublicComments@ncdenr.gov. Include “CPI” in the subject line of the email.

This story has been updated to include a response from Duke Energy.

The Trump administration moved last week to rewrite part of Obama-era regulations addressing coal ash disposal, which entails risks that a Duke University researcher says are all too familiar in coastal North Carolina.

But a Duke Energy spokesperson said the proposed changes will have no effect on the utility’s handling of the residuals from coal-fired power plants and ongoing closure of coal ash basins. And the utility said Tuesday the researcher is distorting the facts surrounding coal ash at the its Wilmington facility.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Nov. 4 proposed changes to the 2015 regulation of how electric utilities manage their coal combustion residuals, or CCRs, which are also known known as coal ash, fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag, and guidelines for handling effluent from steam electric power plants.

“Today’s proposed actions were triggered by court rulings and petitions for reconsideration on two 2015 rules that placed heavy burdens on electricity producers across the country,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in the announcement.

In 2015, the EPA had hailed the rule as the first national regulation covering the leaking of coal ash-related contaminants into groundwater, the blowing of contaminants into the air as dust and the catastrophic failure of coal ash impoundments. The rule also set out record-keeping and reporting requirements and mandated each coal ash facility to post information to a publicly accessible website.

The EPA said the rule was the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. But there is no scientific merit for the current administration’s regulatory rollback, said Avner Vengosh, a professor at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, whose research focuses on the environmental implications of coal ash disposal and storage.

Together with his students and colleagues Vengosh has been researching coal ash and its environmental effects for about 10 years.

Vengosh told Coastal Review Online that the EPA’s latest decision goes beyond just kowtowing to the industry.

“It’s even more than that. It means that the cost (of contamination and cleanup) is going to be moved to the public, rather than being covered by the industry. I think that is something that the people are not really understanding,” Vengosh said.

The proposed changes would set a new date of Aug. 31, 2020, for facilities to stop placing coal ash into unlined surface impoundments and impoundments located near aquifers or to retrofit them.

Vengosh said any delays of deadlines would lead to more and worsening problems as the companies responsible for the pollution are granted more time to potentially fold, go bankrupt or otherwise avoid their responsibility.

“So, by the end of the day the public will have to deal with it rather than the industry. They’re basically saving the industry from their own doing,” he said. “It’s sad that EPA became so political.”

Vengosh submitted written comments opposing the rule change, saying that his motivation to get involved was related to his scientific research on the environmental implications from coal ash disposal and storage. “Together with my students and colleagues at Duke University, I have been conducting research on the subject of coal ash and its environmental effects for about ten years,” Vengosh wrote.

His research projects have included investigation of the environmental effects of the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee; sources of mercury in river sediments from TVA spill sites; discharge of effluents from coal ash impoundments to waterways in North Carolina; developing isotope methods to detect coal ash contaminants in the environment; leaking of coal ash ponds in the Southeast; radioactivity of coal ash; possible links between hexavalent chromium and coal ash ponds in North Carolina; and leaching of arsenic and selenium from coal ash.

“Overall, I have published 13 scientific articles on different aspects of the environmental effects of coal ash,” Vengosh wrote.

Vengosh said the EPA’s proposal would considerably weaken existing federal regulations, reducing environmental protection and safeguards, and severely exacerbate environmental effects associated with coal ash storage and disposal.

He said the changes would undo important safeguards in the 2015 Coal Ash Rule, including the required comprehensive and long-term monitoring of groundwater in the vicinity of coal ash impoundments, including those no longer in use. The changes would allow states to set different standards for coal ash contaminants in groundwater and make groundwater quality and air quality data less transparent.

Also, the proposal would “backtrack” from the 2015 rule’s requirement that the operators of unlined coal ash ponds in areas where there’s contamination of underlying groundwater install liners or close the storage ponds by a certain date. The proposed amendments would allow state agencies or utilities themselves to decide on closure or installation of liners and make the now-required cleanup of contaminated groundwater “discretionary.”

All coal ash ponds are located near major rivers. That’s because water is needed as a coolant for coal-fired plants, so all coal plants and their coal ash facilities are near waterways.

Vengosh said research, his and others’, has shown that nearly all coal ash ponds leak and contaminate the underlying groundwater and nearby surface water. “Basically, everywhere there is a coal ash pond there is leaking – period,” he said.

He authored a 2016 study that looked at archived water chemistry data from 156 wells monitoring groundwater below all 14 coal ash ponds in North Carolina between 2010 and 2015. The evidence suggested that closing coal ash ponds does not necessarily eliminate the leaking of contaminated water from ponds to the environment.

Coal Ash in the Cape Fear

The coal-fired units at Duke Energy’s Sutton Plant in Wilmington were retired in 2013, when the utility switched to natural gas-fired generation, and the coal units were demolished about four years later. And the utility says that during the first half of this year, it completed excavation of the ash basin at the plant and two others in North Carolina, Dan River Steam Station in Eden and Riverbend Steam Station in Mount Holly.

But during Hurricane Florence in 2018, rising water levels in the Cape Fear River breached the plant’s cooling lake, known as Sutton Lake, flushing its contents into the river. In the days following the storm, Duke Energy said water samples from upstream and downstream of the site showed “little to no impact to river water quality” and all results were “well within” state water quality standards.

“There is little difference in river water quality when comparing samples taken upstream above the facility and downstream below the facility,” the utility announced, sharing its test results online.

The 1,100-acre lake is open to the public and the state Wildlife Resources Commission manages a boat ramp there.

Vengosh in June published a paper that concluded there was evidence for multiple spills of coal ash into Sutton Lake, with concentrations of metals that far exceeded state regulations for freshwater lakes. Also, tissue from fish in lake – a popular fishing spot for nearby residents – contain an isotope fingerprint of coal ash, he said.

“Sutton Lake represents a case where the handling of coal ash near drinking water or freshwater resources is causing the mobilization or transport of coal ash into the lake and contamination of the lake. Sutton Lake is really kind of an example of why the 2015 ruling is so important,” Vengosh said.

A Duke Energy spokesperson said in June that Vengosh’s findings were not unexpected and not relevant to anyone’s health and that the wastewater facility performed as designed, serving as a buffer between the coal plant and the Cape Fear River to protect the public and the environment. The company also produced a graphic that noted that levels of selenium, which is often associated with coal ash, in Sutton Lake were far below the state’s recreational human consumption advisory level.

“To me, this was stunning, because they never said it before and the fact that they admitted they put coal ash into the recreation lake, it’s crazy, and I’m actually stunned why nobody sues them,” Vengosh said.

In a response Tuesday, Duke Energy rejected the notion that it had intentionally put coal ash in the lake and dismissed Vengosh’s conclusions.

“Vengosh’s blatant misrepresentation of our statements about Sutton Lake is irresponsible. We operated the Sutton facility in compliance with all permits and approvals and transparently communicated that the Sutton cooling pond was permitted to receive wastewater discharges from the retired steam station, which may have included trace amounts of CCR. This is very different from his previous speculation that we have had significant unreported releases of coal ash into the lake, followed by his implication that we intentionally ‘put’ ash into the lake – an accusation of wrongdoing and a shocking distortion of the facts. Vengosh’s latest fabrication – and subsequent speculation based on a fabrication – is yet another example in a recurring pattern of him seeing things he wants to see and leaping to conclusions not based on facts,” Duke Energy said.

Vengosh said concentrations of coal ash-related metals in Sutton Lake bottom sediment were higher than those measured after the TVA coal ash spills and higher than the Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina.

“People living in the area should be shocked,” Vengosh said. “It’s not the putting of coal ash into a pond that’s designated for coal ash only, it’s putting coal ash into a lake that’s used by the public. Maybe it’s not unique to Sutton Lake, but we don’t know.”

Bill Norton, the Duke Energy spokesperson, said Thursday that the proposed EPA rule changes would not affect the utility or its Sutton Plant.

“While we are still reviewing EPA’s proposal, we do not expect Duke Energy will be impacted because we are already far down the path of closure,” Norton said.

Norton also disagreed with the conclusions Vengosh and his colleagues reached.

“Their paper was fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, in particular because it made broad generalizations, assumptions, and conclusions based on an inadequate study design and a very small, limited data set. It appears that the authors had a conclusion in mind before going through a full and robust research process,” Norton said.

He said decades of fish tissue tests of catfish, sunfish and black bass for selenium, the primary tracer used to detect potential influences from coal ash, have consistently demonstrated selenium levels far below the state’s rigorous recreational human consumption advisory level.

“In regard to flooding, even after Hurricane Florence’s historic storm, several days of testing – including split samples with the state – showed results well within rigorous state water quality standards. Even inside Sutton Lake immediately after the storm, the results for coal ash constituents were well within the strict water quality standards that protect people and the environment,” Norton said. “Most importantly, nearly 40 years of rigorous study and sampling proves the fish are thriving and the lake remains safe to use for recreation purposes like fishing and boating.”

No effect on closure plans

Norton said the proposed CCR rule changes will not impact Duke Energy’s timelines for closure.

“We made the commitment to close all coal ash basins across our system, and that is unchanged. We holistically planned upgrades to safely manage coal ash and comply with both state and federal regulations. Those upgrades included dry ash handling systems, new wastewater treatment systems and new lined landfills. That work was necessary to take ash basins out of service,” Norton said.

Norton described the Sutton site as an example of the company’s progress. Duke Energy completed excavating the coal ash basins at its Sutton facility in June.

“We continue to excavate a small quantity of ash from a low-lying area adjacent to the original plant site, and that work is expected to be complete in the coming months,” Norton said, adding that the utility’s groundwater monitoring will continue with no change in public access to the data from the resulting data.

“In addition to federal compliance, all our work must comply with very strict state groundwater and surface water standards designed to keep the public and environment safe,” Norton said.

Separately, Duke Energy continues to appeal a decision earlier this year by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality requiring its nine remaining unlined coal ash basins on Lakes Norman and Wylie, on the Broad River, and in Stokes and Person counties to be closed by excavation. Duke Energy is challenging the timing of the state’s mandate, saying that DEQ has chosen the most expensive, disruptive and time-consuming closure option for several basins without measurable benefit when compared to other approaches and ignoring the costs that customers will bear. The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing more than a half-dozen community groups opposing Duke Energy in the Office of Administrative Hearings proceedings.

CPI USA North Carolina LLC has operated the power plant in the Smithville township near Southport since 2006. 

… generates electricity from wood, coal, tire-derived fuels

SOUTHPORT – A small power plant in Southport is seeking to renew its state permit to discharge pollutants into a canal that releases effluent off the coast of Caswell Beach.

The plant’s draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit application is an improvement from the current permit, but more needs to be done in identifying what pollutants and how much are being discharged, according to a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“We do plan to make known that this permit is definitely better than the last iteration of the permit, but we also think this permit could be tightened,” said Chandra Taylor, who focuses on water quality in the SELC Chapel Hill office.

The SELC submitted proposed addendums to the permit application Friday, on what was to be the last day of the state Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources’ public comment period. The deadline to submit public comments was extended to Monday.

CPI USA North Carolina LLC has operated the plant since 2006. CPI USA North Carolina is a holding company of Capital Power of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, that has a Raleigh address and was previously called Cogentrix of North Carolina LLC, according to state records. The plant produces about 400,000 gallons of wastewater a day.

A portion of that wastewater includes bottom ash, about 17,000 gallons of which is discharged per year.

“This is a small amount of coal ash wastewater,” Taylor said. “Small, but not insignificant.”

Bottom ash, which is the course, incombustible byproduct of coal combustion, has been added to the facility’s wastewater since the plant’s last permit renewal.

‘Significant changes’

NPDES permits are effective for five years. These permits are required for anyone discharging pollutants through a point source, such as a discharge pipe, into public waters. They include limits as to what can be discharged and require monitoring and reporting of the pollutants released to protect human health and the environment.

According to a June 26 letter from the Division of Water Resources to the plant’s manager, the draft permit includes a handful of “significant changes” from the existing permit, including the plant’s reclassification as a major NPDES permitted facility.

Nonpublicly owned discharges are classified as major facilities based on various criteria, including toxic pollutant potential, flow volume and the impact to water quality.

The draft permit includes the condition that plant site oils, hazardous substances or toxic substances be prevented from combining with site runoff that leads to four internal outfalls on the property.

Weekly pH monitoring of those outfalls is also a requirement under the draft permit.

One of those outfalls, identified as 003, captures discharge that should be tested for 126 priority pollutants, which are defined in the Clean Water Act as a subset of toxic pollutants that include heavy metals and specific organic chemicals.

Outfall 003 leads directly into a discharge canal constructed for Progress Energy’s Brunswick steam electric power station, which flows into a pipe that discharges 2,000 feet off the Caswell Beach shore.

The draft NPDES permit changes monitoring of the 126 priority pollutants from grab sampling, which is a single sample taken at a specific time, to composite sampling, which are collected over time and represent the average characteristics of wastewater.

“DEQ is going to require them to conduct this analysis, but they’re not requiring them to conduct it before issuing the permit,” Taylor said.

By conducting that analysis prior to a permit renewal, the plant could identify those pollutants, the release of which would be prohibited under the updated permit, she said.

Kerri Allen, a coastal advocate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s southeast office in Wrightsville Beach, called the plant’s wastewater treatment inadequate.

“There’s still not an adequate (priority pollutant) list,” she said. “We don’t know exactly what they’re emitting. We want them acting under a new permit immediately.”

The 88-megawatt capacity – enough to power about 58,000 homes – plant sells electric power to Duke Energy and steam power to Archer Daniels Midland, a food processing company.

When reached by telephone, a man at the plant who did not identify himself said the plant manager addressed in the June 26 letter from the Division of Water Resources no longer worked at the facility.

When asked if he or a plant representative wished to comment he responded, “Probably not, but thank you anyway,” before hanging up.

Taylor said the SELC is specifically asking that the plant be required to use the best available technology to treat its wastewater.

“That’s a Clean Water Act requirement that causes polluters to commit to the maximum amount of resources that are economically possible,” she said. “Right now, from what we see in the permit, it appears that the regulator is applying that to only one waste stream and this plant has several waste streams.”

Those waste streams include bottom ash transport water, water associated with runoff from fuel piles and water drained from cooling equipment.

“It is a fact that they’ve been given permission to burn wood that’s been treated with creosote.”

Chandra Taylor, Southern Environmental Law Center

The plant was converted in 2008 to use a combination of fuels: about 10% coal, 50% wood and the remainder a fuel derived from tires, Taylor said.

“It is a fact that they’ve been given permission to burn wood that’s been treated with creosote,” she said.

Creosote is a gummy, tar-like mix of hundreds of chemicals used as a wood preservative.

Runoff from creosote-treated wood chips on the site could be part of the wastewater emitted from the plant, Taylor said.

“There are still threats that we think can be further mitigated,” she said. “That includes looking at getting to essentially no discharge for coal ash discharge water. We’re also asking for greater storm preparedness.”

Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or BEAT, president Pete Key said in an email that when the organization learned the plant was seeking a permanent renewal of its permit, it sought to find out the effects on the environment and ecosystems. The group also learned that local government officials didn’t realize what was happening.

“Once we understood the basic scope of CPI’s operational plan, we shared our concerns with the local leaders in both Oak Island and Caswell Beach, who were completely unaware that CPI’s operation included burning chipped tires, adulterated wood and creosote-soaked railroad ties,” Key said. “No one we spoke with at the local municipal level was even aware what the CPI facility does, or that a permitting process was taking place. We believe that these permitting processes should be a transparent sharing of information, so all the stakeholders know the outcomes for the environment and the people who depend on it for clean water and air. This one seems to have been taking place under the radar and we are happy for the part we played in getting it out in the open. I have been told that both towns are asking the state for an extended discovery period so they can also understand the stakes.”

Special order by consent

In the summer of 2016, the state Environmental Management Commission granted the plant a special order by consent, or SOC.

A facility may be given an SOC if it is unable to consistently comply with the terms, conditions or limitations in an NPDES permit because of problems related to, for example, design or infrastructure.

CPI USA’s Southport plant’s SOC expires Dec. 30, 2020.

Taylor said the problems preventing the plant from complying with its air quality permit need to be remediated.

The SELC is asking the state to hold a public hearing on the draft permit.

Taylor encourages Brunswick County residents to do the same.

“I think that the community can be a strong advocate in making sure (the plant’s) operating as cleanly as possible and pushing for the outcomes that it wants to see with regard to this plant and their own local experience,” she said. “It is their desire that will drive that.”

BEAUFORT – A company recently denied state permits to conduct seismic surveys for oil and natural gas off the North Carolina coast is appealing to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to override the decision.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Coastal Management found in June that WesternGeco’s proposal to conduct geological and geophysical surveys in the Atlantic was incomplete, inconsistent with the state’s enforceable coastal management policies and would harm fish and other marine life and put at risk coastal habitats and the coastal marine economy.

WesternGeco, a Texas-based firm, filed its appeal to the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross July 11, DEQ Division of Coastal Management Director Braxton Davis said Wednesday during a meeting of the Coastal Resources Commission in Beaufort.

The appeal of the state’s decision is allowed under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Division of Coastal Management is working with the state attorney general’s office to map out the legal process and next steps, Davis said during the meeting at the at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Beaufort Lab on Pivers Island.

Davis explained that WesternGeco was the fifth company to seek a federal consistency certification for seismic exploration off the state’s coast. WesternGeco and the four other companies each received from NOAA authorization for unintentional harm to marine mammals under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. WesternGeco’s and the other companies’ Incidental Harassment Authorizations were approved in November 2018.

“And that along with the other four companies that have IHAs,” Davis said, “those are all in court, in litigation right now. So, this fifth company, their permit would be depending on that litigation but also on our federal consistency review.”

In March, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein and state attorneys general from Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia joined the case filed in December in South Carolina seeking a motion for a preliminary injunction to block seismic testing off the East Coast.

The lawsuit claims that the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations in November.

The North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review Online, along with the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, One Hundred Miles, Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation joined to file the lawsuit. The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife, North Carolina Coastal Federation and One Hundred Miles. Earthjustice is representing Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation.

Seismic exploration uses an array of airguns, usually steel cylinders charged with high-pressure air, to emit acoustic energy pulses into the seafloor at a firing pressure of about 2,000 pounds per square inch. The blast generates a signal that reflects or refracts off of the seafloor and subsurface layers with the return signal recorded and later analyzed to create maps that are used to depict the location of any oil or gas reserves below the seafloor.

Opponents and marine scientists say the blasts can disturb the normal behavioral patterns of marine mammals, including dolphins and endangered North Atlantic right whales, and other marine life.

“We remain vigilant in our opposition to activities related to oil and gas exploration off the North Carolina coast,” said DEQ Secretary Michael S. Regan in a statement. “WesternGeco’s proposal for seismic airgun blasting poses too many risks to our commercial and recreational fishing economy, marine life and overall coastal environment and economy that our state cannot afford to take. We will use any available avenues to fight WesternGeco’s appeal.”

Regan’s statement explains that the appeal process allows the company and the state to file briefs presenting their arguments and documentation to Ross for his decision. Federal rules for overriding the state’s decision require Ross to find that WesternGeco’s must further the national interest in a significant manner; that this national interest must outweigh the adverse coastal effects, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and no reasonable alternative exists that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the state’s enforceable policies.

Before any companies can begin seismic testing, they must also receive permits from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Also Wednesday, Davis reminded the Coastal Resources Commission that the next step in the development of the 2019-2024 national leasing program for offshore oil and natural gas could still be released in the near future, with a 90-day public comment period commencing with the announcement.

“It’s not yet known if North Carolina will continue to be part of the proposed program. If it is, proposed lease areas could be identified as soon as this fall with possible lease sales to follow soon after,” Davis said.

The first of three proposals for 2019-2024, the Draft Proposed Program, was released on Jan. 4, 2018, with a 60-day comment period that ended March 9, 2018.

Coastal Review Online Assistant Editor Jennifer Allen contributed to this report.

MANTEO — “We need to not let up, we need to continue and we need to get stronger somehow,” said Mayor Bobby Owens as he tried to drive home a point about the difference between today and the first time he fought offshore drilling off the North Carolina coast.

Owens was chair of the Dare County Board of Commissioners during the late 1980s, when the long battle over Mobil Oil’s plan to drill off the Outer Banks divided the communities along the coast like nothing he’d been through before.

“It made friends out of enemies and enemies out of friends,” Owens told a gathering of coastal mayors at a meeting in Manteo earlier this year. That fight, he said, is very different from the current one.

“Now, I see a big difference,” he said. “There’s a solid block effort against oil drilling off our beaches.”

Since the spring of 2017 when a shift in policy by the Trump administration caused the prospect of offshore oil and gas exploration off the North Carolina coast to reemerge as real possibility, local governments from Currituck to Calabash have steadily weighed in, passing resolutions in opposition and in some cases multiple times.

About 40 of the coastal region’s municipalities and all but two coastal county boards — Carteret and Brunswick — have put their opposition to paper.

One of the latest additions to that list, however, could be a sign that other parts of the state are lining up against new leases as well. In late April, the Asheville City Council unanimously passed a resolution against both offshore drilling and seismic testing.

When the dozen coastal mayors got together to talk about how to expand their message statewide, the support from one of the state’s biggest cities and the mountain region’s tourism capital was seen as a positive sign in an otherwise frustrating effort to get inland recognition. At the meeting, all 12 of the mayors present signed on to a new resolution opposing offshore drilling.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon, who convened the group, said at the conference that despite the groundswell back in the districts, he’d had a hard time convincing lawmakers at both the state and federal level to take a stand. Many were worried about taking on the Trump administration, he said, and others said they were skeptical about policies proposed to address climate change.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Michael Regan attended the meeting along with his top policy staff. Regan acknowledged that some elected officials aren’t signing on because they see it as part of a push by the administration toward alternative energy. But, the secretary said, even without considering clean energy, there’s a strong economic argument that the risk is not worth the return.

“It’s no secret the governor and I believe in a clean energy technology,” Regan told the group. But that, he said, is not the basis of the administration’s main argument, which is centered on the economic trade-offs. “We cannot afford the reality of a major offshore spill disaster spill,” he told the mayors.

As a candidate, Gov. Roy Cooper used his opposition to offshore drilling to pry votes away from incumbent Pat McCrory, who supported exploration efforts, in what turned out to be one of the closest governor races in the country. As governor, Cooper stepped up actions against leasing and testing, joining legal actions with other states.

At the same time opposition along the East Coast picked up steam and Cooper and other governors, including Republicans in South Carolina and Georgia, have said they, too, want an exemption like the one granted to Florida over concerns about the risks to the state’s tourism industry.

Worries about the impact to tourism and the local economy appear to be resonating, especially on a coastline still reeling from a succession of powerful storms.

A recent poll of likely voters in the 3rd Congressional District on perceptions about climate change, offshore drilling and wind energy showed a majority of the heavily Republican-leaning district now says offshore oil and gas exploration isn’t worth the risk.

Drew Ball of Environment North Carolina, which sponsored the poll along with the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce and the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said perceptions on the coast have shifted in the past few years. The succession of devastating storms and a growing acceptance of the science around climate change, he said, has made people more aware of the threats to the local economy.

“I think it’s changed a lot in the past few years,” he said. “It’s a local issue. People recognize that climate change is not just something you talk about.”

It has also helped to cement opposition to drilling.

“They know that a spill off the coast would be devastating,” he said.

Remarkable Turnaround

One way to gauge how a legislature has changed is to look for new initiatives. Another, often more telling, is by looking at what it’s not doing or not doing anymore.

Since the 2016 election, the North Carolina General Assembly has pursued new initiatives in energy policy that have shaped, for better or worse, the prospect of renewable energy in the state. It has delved into deal-making over natural gas pipelines, and the current session has continued a lengthy debate over wind energy, along with a struggle with producers over electricity rate-setting.

Not on that list is anything related to offshore drilling or oil and gas exploration, a remarkable turnaround given the state’s energy priorities fewer than five years ago. In mid-2015 then-Gov. McCrory testified before Congress, criticizing the Obama administration’s decision to set a 50-mile buffer for potential leases as not being close enough to shore. He wanted the line closer in to ensure North Carolina would be in the running.

But within a year of the testimony, push-back on the Atlantic leases led them to be dropped from the administration’s plans. In 2017, with a new administration and renewed political rhetoric about energy independence, the Atlantic Coast leases were put back on the table.

Since then, the odds have shifted back and forth on whether any drilling – or the seismic exploration that would proceed it – is going to happen.

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, again took leases off the table earlier this year following a court challenge. A review of next steps in policy is likely to come after that case is resolved and yet another revival of a leasing plan remains a possibility.

While on the coast, the on-again, off-again prospects for moving forward on leasing and testing continue to spur wariness, the issue is all but off the radar in Raleigh. The legislature remains on record as supporting oil and gas exploration off the coast, but few expect to see much forward movement.

Rep. Holly Grange, R-New Hanover, said offshore drilling isn’t at the forefront in the legislature because few members think anything will happen.

“It’s off the table right now from what I understand,” she said. If it does come back, Grange said she would oppose it. “What I’ve said all along is that we’re the No. 1 energy producer in the world right now and we don’t even need to think about all of that.”

Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, said many legislators are against the idea, but the leadership has declined to bring up legislation aimed at putting that stance on the record. Butler said she expects more communities from the state’s interior to raise opposition.

“It does have broad bipartisan support within the (coastal) community for sure,” she said. “I don’t understand why it’s not universal, but we’re coming along.”

Other legislators said the matter was out of their hands. Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow, said the decision on leasing is now a federal matter.

Brown said he still supports the legislature’s decision to encourage exploration in an extensive rewrite of state energy policy approved in 2012.

“If it makes sense and you could still protect the environment and it creates another opportunity to help the economy of North Carolina then I think you’ve got to take a look at it,” he said in a recent interview. “You wouldn’t be doing your job as a legislator if you didn’t.”

Still, Brown said there would have to be sufficient environmental safeguards.

“There would have to be some pretty good assurances for you to move forward,” he said.

Sen. Paul Newton, R-Catawba, who chairs the Senate Energy Policy Committee, said he also supports exploration.

“If offshore drilling can’t be done safely then it shouldn’t be done. But if you look at the facts, I think a rational person would come to the conclusion that it can be done safely, and if that’s true then shouldn’t we keep all options opened?”

Newton said testing is an important step forward.

“The next logical step is to find out what’s there,” he said. “Are we arguing about nothing or is there a rich reserve there that we ought to consider.”

Newton said that Cooper’s position has made it difficult to move ahead.

“I think it’s a dead option as long as Roy Cooper is governor,” Newton said. “That’s his prerogative as governor but he doesn’t speak for the legislature when he takes that position.”

NORTH CAROLINA COAST – Volunteer coordinators Sabrina Hylton, director of guest services at Emerald Isle Realty, Sue Stone of Emerald Isle and Valerie Johnson of Cedar Point were wrapping up last week final plans for Emerald Isle’s Hands Across the Sand to take place at Bogue Inlet Pier starting at noon Saturday.

“For 15 minutes, we’re going to stand in silence holding hands and want to make the longest chain of humans along the water’s edge to show how many people stand against dirty beaches and dirty fuel,” Hylton said.

“In nonpartisan solidarity,” Johnson added.

A global event, Hands Across the Sand is “an opportunity to join hands and draw a line in the sand against expanding offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands mining, mountaintop clearing and championing clean energy for a sustainable planet,” according to the website.

In addition to Emerald Isle, Hands Across the Sand events in North Carolina will be held at Oak Island, Sunset Beach, Ocracoke, Kure Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Nags Head, Ocean Isle Beach and Fort Macon State Park in Atlantic Beach, all at noon Saturday. Hands Across the Sand events will also be held in most states, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Belize.

“This year’s Hands is most likely the most important event in its history. Specifically here in the Atlantic and especially off the North Carolina coast. We have never been this close to seismic blasting and offshore oil and gas drilling,” Vicki Sturgill, Hands Across the Sand state organizer for North Carolina, told Coastal Review Online.

“In times past, there has always been good turnout. Seems to be more interest as the day approaches, as off the North Carolina coast is ground zero to drill in the Atlantic,” she said.

Hands Across the Sand Founder Dave Rauschkolb said in a statement that he founded Hands Across the Sand in October 2009 in response to a bill passed in the Florida House of Representatives that would lift a ban on nearshore drilling.

“With the support of sponsor organizations, we rallied more than 10,000 Floridians to join hands on Feb. 13, 2010, to show a united opposition to nearshore drilling. The event covered the state’s coastlines, from the Atlantic to the Gulf. As a result of these efforts, the bill was tabled the next month,” he said. “Two months later the BP Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. We then organized a global Hands Across the Sand to urge President Barack Obama to abandon his bid to open the continental United States waters to offshore oil drilling.”

Rauschkolb added that Hands Across the Sand is “held annually to bring awareness about the dangers inherent in securing and burning dirty fuels and to champion a new era of Clean Energy for a sustainable planet for our children and theirs.”

Stone said during the planning meeting that she and Johnson began helping coordinate the Emerald Isle Hands Across the Sand about four years ago, after having been involved in other environmental issues locally and Hands Across the Sand was just one more piece to it.

“We were very active, Val and I and many others with the initial Don’t Drill NC (coalition). We got our town to pass resolutions against seismic and they were very supportive of it. The county commissioners, however, will not even put us on the agenda, and we have appeared there for numerous meetings, public comment, and they ignore us,” Stone said. Johnson added that they filled the Carteret County courthouse to capacity, all wearing blue shirts and carrying signs.

The all-Republican Carteret County Board of Commissioners in November 2015 adopted a resolution in support of offshore drilling under the leadership of then-Gov. Pat McCrory, and “They won’t even change it or reconsider it,” Stone added.

But across the county, Republicans and Democrats and towns including Atlantic Beach, Beaufort, Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores have approved resolutions opposed to offshore drilling.

Johnson explained that the gathering will hopefully increase visibility, educate the public about issues that affect marine life and our beaches and “keeping fossil fuels in the ground.”

Hylton said that the owner of Emerald Isle Realty encouraged her to get involved in Hands Across the Sand this year. She coordinated with Stone, Johnson and the rest of the volunteer committee to plan the gathering endorsed by North Carolina Coastal Federation, SurfRider Foundation Bogue Banks Chapter, Croatan Sierra Club, Crystal Coast Waterkeepers, Crystal Coast Tourism Development Authority, Crystal Coast Hospitality Association, Business Alliance Protecting the Atlantic Coast, Citizens Protecting the Atlantic Coast, Oceana, Interfaith Power & Light and Carteret County Crossroads.

To participate in the Emerald Isle Hands Across the Sand, park at Bogue Inlet Fishing Pier and meet on the beach by 11:30 a.m. Saturday. Participants are to join hands at noon. There will also be a beach cleanup. Contact Joel Dunn at joel@jdunns.com.

On the other end of Bogue Banks in Atlantic Beach, Hands Across the Sand 2019 Fort Macon will begin with a meet and greet at 11:30 a.m. Saturday on the beach. Beaufort Mayor Rett Newton is to speak before holding hands at noon.

This Hands Across the Sand is cosponsored by SurfRiders, Croatan Sierra Club, Crystal Coast Waterkeepers, Green Sanctuary Committee of Unitarian Coastal Fellowship, North Carolina Interfaith Power and Light, Citizens Protecting the Atlantic Coast, CAPE and Carteret County Crossroads. The contact is Lauren Donnachie at lsdonnachie@twc.com.

Brunswick County

Hands Across the Sand Oak Island participants are to meet at the 46^th Street Cabana at 11:45 a.m. Saturday. Organizer Kristen Colleran told Coastal Review Online in an email that participants will form a line, “symbolically drawing a line in the sand against offshore oil/gas drilling and seismic blasting, and join hands at noon for 15 minutes.”

She said there are no vendors or exhibits planned for the event, it is “simply a time for residents and various local environmental groups, such as turtle rescue groups, to gather in solidarity for our coast. We ask that everyone bring family and friends.”

Colleran said that this is her third year as an organizer for the event.

“We believe in acting as stewards of our environment, and this has never been more critical. The Atlantic seaboard is currently targeted with the threat of seismic blasting which, as science and experience show, is exceedingly harmful to our fragile marine environment,” Colleran added. “The federal government may grant permits at any time allowing blasting and incidental harm to marine mammals. The federal government’s plan to open most of the nation’s coastline for offshore oil drilling was just temporarily delayed. The Department of Interior could resume the plan at any time, possibly after the 2020 elections.”

Brunswick County has grown in population by almost 50% since 2010, she said, and the county relies on clean beaches and the marine environment for the economy.

“From tourism to fisheries, to retirement communities, our coastal industries contribute the second highest income to our state’s economy,” she said. “It is up to us to stand up and voice our concerns to those would pilfer our coast for profits derived from what is believed to be a small and short term supply of oil.”

She said that Brunswick County’s board of commissioners have refused to vote to oppose seismic blasting and offshore drilling, despite the fact that 13 of the 19 county towns have passed resolutions in opposition.

“Each month, concerned citizens address the commissioners regarding this issue, and still the commissioners ignore the facts on the documented risk and certain damage of offshore drilling.  Congressman Rouzer and Sens. Burr and Tillis accept financial contributions from the oil industry and refuse to safeguard our coastal economy,” Colleran said. “A few of us in Oak Island have worked together to advertise the event and provide honest sources and contact information for our state and congressional representatives. It is critically important for citizens to contact and challenge their elected officials to educate themselves on this issue and respond to their constituents’ best interest, not the fossil fuel industry.”

Contact Colleran at kritter225@icloud.com.

Hands Across the Sand Sunset Beach participants should meet on the sand by the Sunset Beach fishing pier by noon to join hands for 15 minutes. Participants are encouraged to carpool since parking is limited and can bring homemade signs or wear T-shirts with a message of support.

“The message of the 15-minute gathering is simple: ‘We are joining hands to end our dependence on oil and coal. We are embracing a clean energy future for a sustainable planet,’” said organizer Susanna Bott. “We do not want offshore drilling or seismic testing off our coastline. We want to protect our beaches, our oceans, and marine life.”

She explained that she and her husband Thomas moved to Sunset Beach a little more than four months ago.

“Although we always knew we wanted to live on the coast, we just discovered Sunset Beach last September. Sunset is like no other beach on the Carolina coast and we fell in love with it,” she said. “I knew I wanted to get involved with preserving the beauty and quality of life once we made this our home. I saw a Facebook post about Hands Across the Sand and there was a need for a contact person for each event. I registered the Sunset Beach event and created a Facebook group for interested persons to sign up. I’ve had a great response to date, so we are hoping for blue skies and an awesome turnout.”

Contact Bott at sasconsult@yahoo.com.

Hands Across the Sand Ocean Isle Beach participants are encouraged to meet at the Ocean Isle Beach Community Center at 11:30 a.m. Saturday. Organizers ask that participants do not bring single-use plastics such as cups, straws or bottles to the event. An optional beach cleanup will take place before the event. Contact Laura Ward at lauraward1717@gmail.com for more information.

Hands Across the Sand Holden Beach participants should meet by 11:45 a.m. Saturday at Jordan Blvd Beach Access at 101 Ocean Blvd W. Holden Beach. Contact Dwight and Becky Willis at dwightwillis1952@gmail.com.

New Hanover County

Hands Across the Sand Wrightsville Beach, hosted by Oceana and Save Our Sea, will take place at the Blockade Runner on Wrightsville Beach. Meet at 11:45 a.m. Saturday.

Oceana Senior Campaign Organizer Randy Sturgill told Coastal Review Online, “While President Trump may have delayed plans to radically expand offshore drilling to new areas, coastal communities, business owners and elected officials remain vigilant in their calls to protect our coast until the decision is final. Permitting continues to move forward for dangerous and extremely loud seismic airgun blasting off the East Coast used to search for oil and gas deep below the ocean’s surface. Oceana and its partners are suing the federal government to prevent seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean due to its harmful impacts on marine wildlife.”

He said the folks participating in the Wrightsville Beach gathering are encouraged to wear their Oceana T-shirts, or other environmental group shirts and bring homemade signs. They should also bring water if it’s hot.  Reach Sturgill at rsturgill@oceana.org.

Hands Across the Sand Kure Beach participants meet on beach on the north side of Kure Beach Pier at 11:30 a.m. to form a line along the shoreline. Organized by the Surfrider Foundation Cape Fear Chapter, contact Kevin Piacenza at chair@capefear.surfrider.org.

Piacenza said that their Hands Across the Sand event is being held this year in Kure Beach, which is where the North Carolina offshore drilling opposition movement really started.

He said they will not be hosting a cleanup or any other type of activity, “but will simply focus on symbolically demonstrating opposition by joining hands in line along the shoreline.”

They will have signs and volunteers will be available to answer questions about the latest developments with BOEM’s five-year plan and the letting of contracts for seismic blasting.

Outer Banks

For folks participating in Hands Across the Sand Outer Banks, arrive just before noon at Jennette’s Pier.  Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon and other representatives will speak before joining hands on the beach for 15 minutes and a photo. Event should conclude by 12:45 p.m.

Contact organizer Ivy Ingram at ivyraying@gmail.com or check the Facebook event.

Hand Across the Sand Ocracoke Island participants are to meet at Lifeguard Beach on Ocracoke Island at noon.

“Our Hands Across the Sand leaves only footprints. People come with signs and love for Mother Ocean and respectively stand for 15 minutes in solidarity for others doing the same along the coast,” said Mickey Baker, representing LegaSea. “It’s a surprise to many of the tourist who are settled on the beach for the day and are not aware of the event. Some choose to join us while others sit and watch. It is always an inspiring event.”

Contact Baker at Ocracokemickey@gmail.com.

Learn More

• Oceana’s opposition overview website
• Surfrider’s drilling information site

MANTEO – Even as the Trump administration has put its East Coast offshore oil plans on hold, North Carolina’s environmental officials are rallying the forces to prepare a united front against the proposal.

“We have to remain vigilant in opposition to drilling off our coast,” Michael Regan, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said Wednesday at a roundtable of coastal mayors in Manteo. “Our message has not changed. We sent that message directly to Secretary Zinke and we’re prepared to deliver that same message to Secretary Bernhardt.”

David Bernhardt, who was recently appointed to succeed Ryan Zinke as Interior Secretary, told the The Wall Street Journal in an interview published April 25 that the agency had tabled Atlantic oil lease planning until the outcome of a court case on Artic drilling is decided.

Chairman Bob Woodard & @Townofnagshead Mayor Ben Cahoon are w/ @NCDEQ Sec. Michael Regan today at the “Mayoral Roundtable to Protect North Carolina’s Coast” to continue opposition to offshore drilling & seismic testing. #Dontdrillnc #obx #protectourcoasts pic.twitter.com/GNIRm6Zd9B

— Dare County (@DareCountyGovt) May 8, 2019

The administration in 2017 had proposed opening nearly 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas drilling in its 2019-2024 drilling plan, including nine potential, as yet unspecified, sites off the Atlantic coast.

It’s important that Washington sees North Carolina speaking in one voice against opening up the coast to oil exploration, Regan said.

“This is a much-needed conversation,” he said. “This is one of those issues in public discourse which is uniting us as proud North Carolinians and Americans.”

North Carolina Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans, voted to approve Bernhardt, a former oil industry lobbyist, and currently support the administration’s proposal to open the coast for oil and gas exploration. Burr, however, had been opposed to drilling in the past and spoke out against lifting the oil drilling moratorium that had been put into effect during the George H.W. Bush administration.

“This is one of those issues in public discourse which is uniting us as proud North Carolinians and Americans.”

Michael Regan, DEQ Secretary

“North Carolina’s coasts are precious resources in our environment and for our state’s economy that must be protected,” Burr said in a June 2005 press release.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon said the roundtable was partly spurred when he shared with Regan the value of his monthly meetings with other Outer Banks mayors. The realization, they agreed, was that grassroots engagement starts with conversation, and that engagement with people can affect policymaking.

“Their stories have the power to change the hearts and minds,” Cahoon said.

Nearly all coastal communities have expressed opposition to drilling and seismic testing, citing the risk to the environment and marine life from oil spills and industrialization of the ocean.

It is also a huge economic risk, opponents say. Tourism in Dare County alone garners $1.2 billion a year, and visitors are coming for the great fishing and beautiful beaches, said Dare County Board of Commissioners Chair Bob Woodard.

“We cannot under any circumstance allow offshore drilling off our coast,” he said.  “Folks, this isn’t partisan. Look at the lawsuits from Maine all the way to Florida. There is a mix of Democrats, Independents and Republicans.”

“Folks, this isn’t partisan. Look at the lawsuits from Maine all the way to Florida. There is a mix of Democrats, Independents and Republicans.”

Bob Woodard, Chair, Dare County Board of Commissioners

Woodard said he wants his grandchildren to be able to enjoy the beaches without having to worry about pollution. And the federal government, he added, hasn’t tried to sweeten the deal with promises of shared revenue or more jobs.

But examples of the risk, Woodard said, go beyond the famous Exxon Valdez and BP Deepwater Horizon spills. He cited the Taylor Energy spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which according to numerous news reports, has been leaking for more than 14 years, and continues to leak thousands of gallons of oil a day.

“Let’s keep this from happening,” Woodard said. “Folks, it ain’t worth it.”

The bottom line is that oil is not compatible with an economy and a lifestyle based on clean beaches and water, said Surf City Mayor Douglas Medlin.

“It kills everything,” he said. “We wouldn’t have anything, anywhere. All these families that grew up over all these generations wouldn’t have anything.”

‘Don’t Let This Happen to North Carolina’

Medlin recalled that a “small” oil spill from a Texaco tanker that broke apart during a storm off Cape Hatteras in 1971 resulted in months of oil pollution on the beach. And the Trump administration’s decision last week to ease drilling regulations offered no assurances, he added.

“Not strengthening,” Medlin said emphatically. “Easing!”

Howard Braxton, mayor of Topsail Beach, also recalled a minor oil spill from a grounded boat off Topsail Island about three years ago that blighted the beach.

“We were cleaning it for a week,” he said. “And he didn’t lose that much.”

Braxton said the incident reminded him of a conversation he had had about two years earlier with some folks from Texas, where oil wells are prolific.

“The only thing they said is, ‘Don’t let it happen to North Carolina,’” he recounted.

Plymouth Mayor Brian Roth said that as a retired military officer, he had seen many beaches around the world with “blobs” of oil washing up every day.

“It’s not necessarily just about today – it could be 20 years from now,” he said. “You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.”

In the tiny town of Duck, where the year-round population of 5,000 swells to about 22,000 beachgoers per week in the summer, Mayor Don Kingston said the town has already generated five resolutions against seismic testing and oil drilling since 2006.

“I think we could withstand a hurricane better than an oil spill,” he said.

Other mayors around the table included J. Andrew Syre, Bald Head Island; Ricky Credle, Belhaven; Bettie J. Parker, Elizabeth City; Horace C. Reid Jr., Hertford; Bobby Owens, Manteo; and Tom Bennett, Southern Shores. Steve Murphey, director of the Division of Marine Fisheries and Renee Cahoon, chair of the Coastal Resources Commission, also participated.

Parker, of Elizabeth City and who had previously served on the Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners, said she was instrumental in bringing the Amazon Wind Farm to the county, as well as solar farms.

“I think it’s very important that we focus on clean and renewable energy,” she said.

Pasquotank’s wind farm, which also straddles neighboring Perquimans County, is the first large wind energy operation in the state and the largest taxpayer in both counties.

A bill that is currently being considered in the North Carolina General Assembly would put most of the coast and much of the rest of the state off-limits to wind farms. The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow, contends that the legislation is necessary to protect military operations, but the military is not opposed to wind energy and did not request the bill.

Parker read a letter from Elizabeth City manager Rick Olson emphasizing that oil spills affect more than ocean beaches. A spill would disperse throughout the state’s huge estuarine system, including the Pasquotank River.

“It would turn our beautiful waterfront into a cesspool,” Olson writes in the letter.

While updating the mayors on regulatory matters, Braxton Davis, director of the state Division of Coastal Management, said that the state has the right under the Coastal Zone Management Act to review and weigh in on a drilling plan, but its power is limited when it comes to stopping the federal government from offering lease blocks for auction.

Seismic survey projects, a separate but related process that would scan the ocean floor for signs of oil and gas deposits below, are currently on hold, he said. Applications from five companies have been submitted. Of them, one is going through a federal consistency review and four were found to be consistent with state laws.

Seasoned Fighters

Of the state’s coastal counties, Dare and Hyde are the seasoned veterans of battles against offshore drilling. Back in the late 1980s, Mobil Oil Corp. targeted a huge deposit of oil and gas about 45 miles off Cape Hatteras. Although the area, known as The Point, has never been surveyed, oil experts at the time estimated that the reefs could contain as much as 6 trillion cubic feet of oil or natural gas. At about 1.5 billion barrels of oil, the deposit is believed to be one of the largest off the East Coast.

But scientists say The Point, located at the confluence of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current, is an ecosystem wilderness with some of the most abundant numbers of marine and bird life in the world.

By the time Mobil submitted its proposal in 1990 to drill an exploratory well at the site, Outer Banks residents, along with local, state and federal elected officials and environmental nonprofit groups, had already united in full-throated opposition to the plan. A series of legislative maneuvers and lawsuits ensued, and Mobil Oil eventually withdrew its proposal.

In September 1997, Chevron USA notified the state that it was interested in drilling a well in the same area that Mobil Oil was targeting, despite the company’s own estimate that the chance of finding enough hydrocarbons in the frontier area for production was just 2 percent.

Outer Banks opposition quickly regrouped and to the surprise of many, in 1999 Chevron relinquished its leases, saying it would instead focus on interests that offered less risk and more profits.

Then about 10 years later, offshore drilling again became a political goal. In 2008, the moratorium on drilling in the Atlantic was lifted, but no lease sales have happened off North Carolina since the Chevron proposal. Some believe that the oil industry is still interested in The Point.

Owens said that he was “involved deeply” in the Mobil showdown, when he was serving as the chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners.

“It made friends out of enemies and enemies out of friends,” he recalled. “It was a battle. Now I see a big difference. There is a solid block against it. This is a representative group. We’ve got the whole coast of North Carolina sitting here.”

Federal officials say North Carolina will benefit from a new partnership that brings together local and regional fishing interests with federal regulators to collaborate on the science and process of offshore wind energy development.

The National Marine Fisheries Service announced Tuesday that it had signed an agreement with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, or RODA, to collaborate with fishing interests on offshore wind energy development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service is the primary federal regulatory agency in charge of marine life and habitats. BOEM, part of the Interior Department, issues leases for energy development. RODA is a membership-based coalition of fishing industry associations and fishing companies.

The 10-year memorandum of understanding says that NOAA, BOEM and RODA have mutual interests, including the responsible planning and development of offshore wind power and other offshore development that could affect fisheries, habitats and the industry they support. The agencies and the coalition agreed to collaborate and forge further agreements on issues of mutual interest.

The collaboration agreement comes at a crucial time in wind energy development, said Chris Oliver, assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries. “This Memorandum of Understanding will help achieve NOAA Fisheries’ strategic national goal of maximizing fishing opportunities while supporting responsible resource development.”

The NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Office’s geographic scope spans fisheries from Maine to North Carolina. NOAA described fishing as an integral part of the region’s culture and economy going back hundreds of years, and said that offshore wind is an abundant, domestic energy resource near major areas of demand on the coast. Wind is an alternative to long-distance transmission or development of electricity generation in these land-constrained regions, the agency said.

“Any development on the Outer Continental Shelf must consider how these activities can affect current ocean users and the marine environment,” said BOEM Acting Director Walter Cruickshank. “That is why working with federal, state, and local agencies, fishing communities, and the public is such an essential part of our renewable energy program. We look forward to working with NOAA and RODA through early and constant communication to ensure that the most recent information is available to decision makers.”

Project in the Works

So far, only one company is working to develop wind energy off the North Carolina coast.

In March 2017, BOEM held an auction for the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area off the coast of North Carolina. Avangrid Renewables, LLC bid more than $9 million and was the winner of lease OCS-A 0508, which covers 122,405 acres. The lease went into effect Nov. 1, 2017. In May 2018, BOEM approved a request to extend the preliminary term for the lease from Nov. 1, 2018, to Nov. 1, 2019.

Paul Copleman, communications director with Avangrid, said fisheries interests are being considered as the company moves toward development off the North Carolina coast.

“Over the past six months, we have met with fisheries stakeholders and others to discuss our plans to survey the Kitty Hawk wind energy area more than 24 nautical miles off the coast of North Carolina’s Outer Banks,” Copleman said in an email response. “Those meetings and conversations will continue as surveys progress and data are shared with all stakeholders, fisheries included. We are still very early in our due diligence, environmental studies, and meteorological analysis. We anticipate submission of the Site Assessment Plan in the third quarter, which would clear the way to deploy meteorological ocean buoys in early 2020. If all goes well moving forward, we could be online in 2025.”

Fishing Industry Concerns

Under the agreement, RODA is to work with NOAA Fisheries and BOEM to compile, develop and deliver the best available science and information necessary to address offshore development, fisheries management and ecosystem health.

“The fishing industry has expressed its concern about the potential impacts of rapid large-scale wind energy development to coastal communities and sustainable fishing practices,” said Annie Hawkins, executive director of RODA. “This agreement paves a way forward for fishing communities to give meaningful input to federal regulators in determining the future of our ocean resources.”

“The fishing industry has expressed its concern about the potential impacts of rapid large-scale wind energy development to coastal communities and sustainable fishing practices.”

Annie Hawkins, executive director, RODA

Hawkins told Coastal Review Online that the agreement will allow those involved in fishing to stay informed on offshore development without having to attend countless meetings.

“We have members in North Carolina and members with the North Carolina Fisheries Association,” she said, adding that the agreement “documents that we’re working together with these agencies to protect regional fishing interests. It helps provide that level of coordination and working with these agencies lets us take better approaches on how they take data and make decisions, which hasn’t been done in any comprehensive way.”

The process will help fishing interests in all states included in the agreement by bringing into the conversation issues such as economic effects, displacement and restricted transit areas offshore.

“It can be hard to identify who to talk to if you’re a developer or if you’re BOEM,” she said. “This way they can work through our channels without fishermen having to go to infinitely more meetings. We can work with the fishing industry and we have been working with the agencies to do that in a reasonably efficient and inclusive way.”

Hawkins said RODA’s membership is “really all across the board” on the issue of offshore wind development. “We have people who don’t want to see wind farms and we have people who want to work with wind farm developers, but they want to make sure (decisions are) based on good science. There’s much that isn’t known, and we can work together to develop better scientific information.”

Working together to engage local and regional fishing interests early and often throughout the offshore wind development processes will help develop a collaborative regional research and monitoring program and lead to scientifically sound decisions, NOAA said.

“This unified approach will help ensure the best possible science and information is used to inform offshore energy development planning, siting, and operations,” said Jon Hare, science and research director for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. “Tapping into the expertise and the knowledge of the fishing industry is essential to this process.”

Engagement, Research, Monitoring

The federal government has 15 active leases covering nearly 1.7 million acres of the outer continental shelf for potential offshore wind development. Collectively, these leases could generate more than 19 gigawatts, or 19 billion watts, of energy. NOAA said that’s enough to power more than 6.5 million homes.

NOAA Fisheries manages more than 42 species important to commercial and recreational fishing as part of 14 fishery management plans. In 2016, about 4,600 vessels landed more than 1 billion pounds of key fish species, supporting roughly 140,000 seafood jobs. The region is also vital for numerous endangered and threatened marine species, including the North Atlantic right whale.

“NOAA is committed to assessing the impacts of offshore wind energy projects on these resources,” said Michael Pentony, regional administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. “The development of offshore wind energy projects must be done in ways that support the protection and sustainable management of our marine trust resources, fishing communities, and protected species.”

In addition to planning, siting and developing offshore wind power, the agreement cites collaboration on regional research and monitoring to ensure decisions are based on the best available science.

NOAA said the collaboration with BOEM, states and fishing industry interests throughout the renewable energy leasing process will help improve compatibility of offshore wind with other ocean uses and create an effective regional research and monitoring program that will help improve understanding of potential ecological, economic and social effects related to offshore wind development.

CHARLESTON, S.C. – A group of conservation organizations this week asked a federal judge to block the start of any seismic exploration for oil and natural gas off the East Coast until after a pending legal challenge is heard in court.

The groups, which include the North Carolina Coastal Federation, publisher of Coastal Review Online, filed Wednesday in federal court in Charleston, South Carolina, a motion for a preliminary injunction to block seismic surveys from beginning until after a separate lawsuit is resolved.

Sixteen South Carolina coastal communities and the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce filed that lawsuit in December seeking to prevent seismic testing. That challenge has since been merged with that of the conservation groups, and 10 attorneys general from East Coast states, including Josh Stein of North Carolina, have intervened in the combined lawsuits.

The seismic companies that applied for permits and two industry groups, the American Petroleum Institute and the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, intervened on behalf of the federal government to defend the permits.

The conservation groups also include the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, One Hundred Miles, Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation. The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife and One Hundred Miles. Earthjustice is representing Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation.

The motion for a preliminary injunction contends, among other things, the Trump administration’s approval for five companies to harm marine life with seismic operations violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The conservation groups say that without an injunction, seismic exploration could begin before the case, over which Judge Richard Gergel presides, is resolved. That would put at risk dolphins, whales and other animals as seismic air guns create one of the loudest sources of noise in the oceans, according to the groups.

“The government failed to consider the combined effects of overlapping and simultaneous surveys, which are greater than the effects of individual seismic-blasting boats,” the groups said in an announcement released Wednesday. “The government erroneously determined that only a ‘small number’ of whales and dolphins would be harmed. Should it go forward, this blasting will irreparably harm marine species, from tiny zooplankton — the foundation of ocean life — to the great whales.”

The issuance of permits was delayed earlier this year during the partial government shutdown over border wall funding. Gergel has since lifted the stay he imposed to prevent the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from issuing seismic permits during the shutdown.

The National Marine Fisheries Service in November 2018 issued multiple incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, to five companies that applied to incidentally, but not intentionally, harass marine mammals during geophysical survey activities in the Atlantic Ocean from Cape May, New Jersey, to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The effective dates for the authorizations are to be determined but must not be later than Nov. 30 of this year.

The filing also claims seismic testing could irreparably harm the remaining population of North Atlantic right whale, a critically endangered species. The groups cite research showing there are only about 400 right whales remaining in the Atlantic. Also, seismic testing’s effects would be concentrated on the world’s densest population of acoustically sensitive beaked whales off the Outer Banks.

Wildlife Federation: Abandon Drilling Plan

Also this week, conservation groups and eastern North Carolina elected officials weighed in on the Trump administration’s new five-year plan for offshore drilling, pointing to the risks posed to the environment and coastal economies and citing adamant local opposition.

The administration says it seeks to maintain the nation’s position as “a global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience for the benefit of the American people,” according to the draft 2019-24 proposed National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program released Jan. 4, 2018. It proposes dramatically expanded drilling off the nation’s coastlines. This includes the Mid-Atlantic planning area from Delaware to the North Carolina-South Carolina line.

“The potential costs to wildlife, our communities, and our way of life are too high. This bipartisan and bicoastal outcry should serve as a wake-up call, and spark a reconsideration of the planning underway now.”

National Wildlife Federation

In a letter dated Feb. 18 to Interior Department Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, the National Wildlife Federation and more than two dozen of its affiliates, including the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, urge the administration to abandon its plans for expanded offshore drilling and instead work with governors and residents of coastal states. The letter contends that the environmental risks are too great in coastal regions that depend on oceans and marine wildlife to support billions of dollars of economic activity and sustain tourism, outdoor recreation and fishing.

“Republican and Democratic leaders from coastal states have stood united in opposition to the unilateral pursuit of maximum offshore oil and gas drilling,” according to the Wildlife Federation’s letter. “The potential costs to wildlife, our communities, and our way of life are too high. This bipartisan and bicoastal outcry should serve as a wake-up call, and spark a reconsideration of the planning underway now.”

The Wildlife Federation writes that coastal wetlands and dunes protect communities and shelter birds and mammals. “That’s why every single governor from Maine to Florida and from Washington to California opposes offshore drilling off their coasts,” according to the letter. The group urges the secretary to reconsider the department’s stated commitment to opening nearly all coastlines to oil and gas development.

Oceana Responds to Tillis

Earlier this month, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., requested additional information on the recent decision to open the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf for review under a new oil and gas leasing program.

Tillis’ letter to Bernhardt and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the assistant secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the Department of Commerce, requests more information about the plan to ensure there are adequate protections for North Carolina’s coastal communities. Tillis also invites the administration officials to visit North Carolina “for listening and education sessions across our coastal counties on the topic of offshore energy exploration.”

The ocean advocacy group Oceana joined with officials from Dare and Carteret counties this week in a response to Tillis’ letter. The letter, provided to Coastal Review Online by Randy Sturgill of Oceana and published Tuesday in the News & Observer, was signed by Sturgill, Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon, Beaufort Mayor Rett Newton, Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard, Environment North Carolina Director Drew Ball and Outer Banks Surfrider Foundation co-chair and small business owner Matt Walker.

The letter praises Tillis’ “newfound interest” in how drilling and seismic testing could affect tourism and commercial fishing, but notes that “the information he seeks has been available for quite some time.” The groups go on to cite state figures on coastal tourism, which supports more than 30,000 jobs and generates more than $3 billion in annual revenue in North Carolina, and commercial and recreational fishing – an additional 22,500 jobs and $787 million in revenue each year.

“Where offshore drilling exists in the U.S, between 2001 to 2015, there were over 700 offshore petroleum spills that discharged at least 4.93 million barrels. One of the primary causes was hurricanes. The fact is, drilling is inherently risky and there is no way to guarantee against spills,” according to the letter.

A scathing new report from the Rachel Carson Council examines the wood pellet biofuel industry, specifically the industry leader’s operations in North Carolina, and its “severely adverse” environmental and health effects.

Wood pellet producer Enviva called the report misleading and factually incorrect.

The report, “Clear Cut: Wood Pellet Production, the Destruction of Forests, and the Case for Environmental Justice,” highlights what it calls “the fallacies and economic and political injustices surrounding the industry,” specifically Enviva and its North Carolina operations. The council released the report Jan. 7, a week before Enviva secured a state air quality permit to produce more pellets than originally planned at its plant under construction in Hamlet in Richmond County.

Founded in 1965, the Rachel Carson Council is a national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to carry on her work that focuses on environmental justice, climate change, toxic waste and chemicals and industrial farming, according to the group’s website. “Clear Cut” is the Rachel Carson Council’s fourth report.

“North Carolina is unique because it houses more Enviva facilities than any other part of the country,” according to the report, which notes that the soon-to-be four wood pellet plants in the state are among the largest in the world with an annual production capacity of about 2 million tons, or more than 15 percent of the total U.S. annual production capacity. “This level of production, though, has put a severe strain on the environment and communities in North Carolina.”

The “Clear Cut” report says that the industry is driving massive clear-cutting of U.S. forests in the Southeast and harms the health of surrounding communities. The report describes “the unjust economics” and political forces allowing the industry to continue its adverse effects.

“‘Clear Cut’ demonstrates that the industry is unnecessary and harmful, particularly to poor communities of color,” according to the council.

Enviva Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer Jennifer Jenkins, in response to Coastal Review Online’s request for comment, called the report “an agenda-driven piece designed and written to discredit the environmental and economic benefits of the forest products industry.

“The piece is full of misleading and argumentative claims that are supported not by peer-reviewed literature, but by informal reports from the organizations themselves that perpetuate these false claims.”

Rachel Carson Council President and CEO Bob Musil said the report authors “paid very serious attention” to the science related to wood pellet production and its use as biofuel as well as the “human story” associated with the industry.

“It wasn’t agenda driven because the Rachel Carson Council, like Rachel Carson, follows the science,” Musil said. “We’re working with people who over the years have been paying very close attention to the wood pellet industry because they live there, they work there in these communities. What’s important is, in any big solution to any energy question, we all need to make sure that the people who live and work in and around these facilities have a say in what’s going on in terms of environmental justice. We offer instructions on how to get involved.”

Enviva produces pellets at three North Carolina facilities: one in Ahoskie, which began operations in November 2011; another in Northampton County, near Gaston, Roanoke Rapids and Garysburg; and a third in Sampson County, near Faison and Clinton. The fourth pellet facility planned for Hamlet is set to commence operations early this year.

Jenkins, while not addressing the specifics in the report, characterized the biomass industry as an integrated part of the forest products industry. “The forest products industry, inclusive of timber income, is responsible for $29.4 billion of economic activity in the state of North Carolina, is one of the state’s largest exports and accounts for 145,000 jobs,” Jenkins said in the company’s response.

Enviva exports the pellets via its terminal at the North Carolina Port of Wilmington, as well as ports in Alabama, Florida and Virginia. Most pellets are destined for the United Kingdom, which under renewable energy directives from the early 2000s had large carbon-reduction goals but few options for renewable energy in replacing its coal infrastructure. Wood pellets can be burned to generate electricity with coal in coal power plants or without coal in converted coal power plants to achieve the U.K.’s carbon-reduction commitments, the report notes.

“Though touted as a clean, environmentally safe alternative to fossil fuels, wood pellets are a carbon-intense, destructive and polluting industry based in flawed carbon accounting in international agreements,” according to the report. “Wood pellet material sourcing leads to massive deforestation of critical habitats, and Enviva alone is responsible for 50 acres a day of clear-cut land. Pellet production facilities release dangerous air pollutants including particulate matter and volatile organic compounds putting surrounding communities at higher risk for health complications.”

Environmental Justice Communities

Enviva operates seven processing plants in the southeastern United States that produce 3.5 million metric tons of wood pellets yearly. Half of the company’s plants are in North Carolina and all of those are in environmental justice communities, including the one under construction.

“These communities directly suffer three-fold from wood pellet production,” according to the report. “First, as wood pellet plants source within a 70 mile radius, the communities experience higher rates of tree loss leading to lower air and water quality and increased risk of flooding. Second, wood pellet production plants in North Carolina until recently have skirted Clean Air Act requirements, freely emitting dangerous pollutants into the communities. Third, and finally, these communities sit on the coastal plain of North Carolina and are under direct threat from climate change which wood pellet production and consumption contribute to.”

Enviva mills the wood, dries it and forms the pellets in a press. “During the extrusion process, the lignin in the wood plasticizes forming a natural ‘glue’ that holds the pellet together after production,” according to the company.

Wood pellets, according to the report, release carbon dioxide and pollutants when first chipped in mills. When oven dried and compressed to form the product, volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are released.

The company’s Hamlet plant was initially permitted to produce up to 537,625 oven-dried tons, or ODT, per year of wood pellets using up to 75 percent softwood. The new permit authorizes increased production to 625,011 ODT per year with the installation of new milling and pollution-control equipment.

The report notes that nearly half of Hamlet’s 6,000 residents are black, Hispanic and Native American, and about three in 10 residents live below the federal poverty level. The Hamlet plant is next to a neighborhood where four out of five residents are black and more than a third live below the federal poverty line.

Jenkins said the report falsely portrays the process and status of air permitting and Enviva’s compliance efforts. She said Enviva is currently awaiting issuance of air permits for the installation and operation of state-of-the art equipment to significantly reduce airborne emissions.

“After the installation of these controls, almost all of our facilities will be minor sources of emissions. We are also seeking to expand our production and utilize more softwood to meet our growing customer requirements in conjunction with reducing and controlling air emissions from our facilities,” Jenkins said.

She said that in the few instances where Enviva’s facilities will remain major sources of emissions, the company has applied for or obtained permits that require the installation of equipment to reduce air emissions in accordance with all federal and state laws and regulations.

“Enviva chooses its particular site locations because we see a great opportunity to grow our business, to create employment in economically disadvantaged areas and to assist in the positive growth of local communities,” Jenkins said, adding that the report fails to mention the company’s community engagement efforts and the positive impact in the communities.

Enviva’s North Carolina operations directly employ about 350 workers. For every job created at an Enviva facility, more than two additional domestic jobs are created in the community, Jenkins said.

Enviva supports about 2,500 private landowners who choose to maintain their property as sustainable, working forests rather than converting it to commercial, agricultural or residential development, Jenkins said.

Enviva’s North Carolina operations generate more than half a billion dollars in investment and support more than 1,100 direct and indirect jobs, Jenkins said, adding that the company expects that number to grow by 25 percent in 2019. Enviva’s 2017 payroll totaled more than $20 million and the company contributed nearly $3.5 million in tax revenue and generated nearly $500 million in economic activity in North Carolina.

The report claims the economic growth comes at the expense of surrounding communities. Opponents have called for a state study of the environmental justice implications for the Hamlet facility.

Deforestation Claims

The company harvests wood from what it describes as low-grade wood fiber, or wood that’s unsuitable for other uses because it’s too small or has defects, disease or infestation, as well as tops, limbs or parts of trees that can’t be made into lumber. It also uses weaker or deformed trees felled to promote the growth of higher value timber, known as “thinnings,” and mill residues such as chips, sawdust and other wood industry byproducts.

But each of these sources is at some point reliant on the practice of clear-cutting forests or cutting down all of the trees in a given area of land, according to the report. “Nevertheless, many still consider the industry as ‘green’ since it claims that it predominantly uses sources that would otherwise be thrown away.”

The report says that by 2015, it had become clear that residual wood waste would not be enough to supply the wood pellet market. “So, Enviva had to turn to whole wood sources. The corporation primarily consumes pine trees found in softwood forests as well as a mixture of bottomland and upland hardwood trees. The softwood tree supply is often sourced primarily from pine plantations that are abundant in North Carolina, but the bottomland and upland hardwood trees generally come from older growth, biodiverse regions critical to the environmental health of North Carolina. Unfortunately, nearly half of all bottomland hardwoods lie within the sourcing perimeters of Enviva’s three operational plants in North Carolina,” according to the report.

The report states that, given increasing demand in European and Asian markets, Enviva will increasingly need to clear-cut forests, threatening the state’s human population and biodiversity, exacerbating flooding and putting at risk ground water and surface water quality.

“Forests are critical in mitigating the threats of climate change, and it is more urgent than ever to invest in nature to protect our country against the damage that Hurricane Florence and storms like it pile onto our most vulnerable communities in years to come,” according to the report.

Jenkins responded that Enviva accepts only the lowest-quality wood from a harvest and only wood from working forests, while the rest of the wood goes to other forest products markets. She called the report’s harvest statistics unsupported and misleading. Enviva does not agree to purchase wood coming from land that will not stay as forest, she said.

“Every year in the Southeastern United States overall, and indeed in Enviva’s supply areas, forest inventory and carbon stocks increase year over year. In other words, for every ton that is removed from the forest through harvest, more than one ton grows back,” Jenkins said, adding that forest inventory has doubled since 1953. That can be attributed to robust markets for forest products, which encourage landowners to invest in their forests, Jenkins said.

“Floodplain forests are precious, and we agree they should be protected,” Jenkins said. “We have robust systems in place to ensure that we do not take from sensitive forests, and we have made substantial investments in forest conservation via our Enviva Forest Conservation Fund. We should note that landowners have choices, however, and so our decision to walk away rarely keeps the forest standing.”

Global Effects

Privately owned Enviva was founded in 2004 to develop a cleaner energy alternative to fossil fuels, according to the company’s website. “In particular, we wanted to offer electric utilities a fuel to replace coal, enabling them to generate power without interruption while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.”

The Rachel Carson Council’s report states that burning wood pellets releases 65 percent more carbon dioxide than coal per megawatt hour. “Industrial-scale production of wood pellets is entirely unnecessary to combat climate change,” according to the report, and it steers subsidies and resources away from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

The U.K.’s Drax Power Station, which receives much of Enviva’ s pellet production, burns 13 million tons of wood pellets to generate electricity each year, emitting up to 23 million tons of carbon dioxide, according to the report. “Such a huge amount could only be sequestered if 60 million tree seedlings were planted and allowed to grow for a full decade. Instead, each year these emissions are compounded by additional burning, pushing carbon neutrality further out of reach for the industry.”

Jenkins, in her response, referred to her blog on Enviva’s website, where she states that bioenergy provides significant and immediate greenhouse gas savings, compared to coal. “This effect is most appropriately calculated at the landscape scale, which is the scale at which forests are managed: every year 2 percent of the forest in the SE US is harvested while the remaining 98 percent of the forest continues to grow and store carbon. In fact, every year there is more wood stored in the forest than there was the year before, and so any emissions from harvest are more than compensated – immediately – by sequestration. When bioenergy is used to replace coal, we’re reducing GHG emissions even further by allowing that coal to stay underground.”

According to the report, the Drax Power Station’s transition from coal to wood will ultimately increase CO₂ emissions, but because of what the report calls “accounting errors” in the EU Energy Directive, Drax avoids tens of millions of dollars in fees for pollution, while receiving hundreds of millions in subsidies.

Europe accounts for more than 75 percent of global wood pellet demand, of which a third goes to power plants to be burned for electricity generation. Japan and South Korea are among the countries increasingly incorporating wood pellets into their renewable energy mix.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the Trump administration continues its push to open more U.S. coastal waters to offshore drilling, House Democrats introduced this week a barrage of bills that together would block new drilling for oil and natural gas on nearly all of the outer continental shelf.

Seven Democrats in the House each introduced anti-drilling measures Monday, the same day that lawmakers from nine states filed bills in their legislatures blocking or limiting new drilling off their coasts.

The wave of opposition comes amid the federal government shutdown over the border wall fight that appears to have halted the permitting process for proposed exploration for oil and natural gas off the East Coast, one of few aspects of the petroleum industry affected by the impasse, Bloomberg reported.

Bills in Congress

Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., reintroduced a measure he first put forward in June 2018, the Defend our Coast Act of 2019, which two North Carolina congressmen, Republican Walter Jones and Democrat David Price co-sponsored last year.

“I am re-introducing the Defend our Coast Act as my first bill of the 116^th Congress because I am determined to do everything I can to protect our coastal communities,” McEachin said in a statement. “History has shown us that offshore drilling accidents can threaten public health, military operations, and marine life. The potential toll from a spill — in terms of damages, injuries, deaths, and other harms — is incalculable. Offshore drilling has no place off the coast of Virginia. Our jobs, tourism, ecosystems, and local economies are not worth the risk that comes with offshore drilling. We need to invest in clean renewable energies that do not damage our one Earth.”

Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., also an original co-sponsor of McEachin’s bill, said offshore drilling is a “direct threat” to her district. “It has the potential to hurt our environment, our military, and our economy. As a 20-year Navy veteran who trained off the Virginia coast, I know that having to dodge oil platforms would disrupt operations, impact readiness, and undermine our national security. And as an oceanfront small business owner, I know what offshore drilling could do to Virginia’s shorelines, tourism industry, and aquaculture. I’m proud to work across state lines and party lines to ensure that we can ban offshore drilling in the Hampton Roads region and beyond.”

The suite of legislation also includes the following:

• Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, introduced the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, or COAST, Anti-Drilling Act of 2019.
• Joe Cunningham, D-S.C., introduced the Coastal Economies Protection Act of 2019.
• Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., introduced the California Clean Coast Act 2019.
• David Cicilline, D-R.I., introduced the New England Coastal Protection Act of 2019.
• Kathy Castor, D-Fla., introduced the Florida Coastal Protection Act of 2019.
• Jared Huffman, D-Calif., introduced the West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2019 and the Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act of 2019.

State Efforts

Introduction of the bills was timed to coincide with similar state-level legislative announcements Monday by the nonprofit National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, or NCEL. Legislators from Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island announced Monday bills that would limit any new offshore drilling capabilities off their coasts.

“These state legislators are committed to protecting the coastlines of the United States, and the safety and livelihood of their constituents,” said NCEL Director Jeff Mauk. “They understand the economic and environmental importance of our coasts and are standing together against this proposal.”

In addition to worries about oil spills and their effects on the environment and coastal economies based on tourism and recreation, the state legislators said offshore drilling means more greenhouse gas emissions that exacerbate the effects of climate change on their constituents.

“In Georgia, we understand that climate change is real and that we are elected at the state level to protect good jobs, clean water, and breathable air,” said Georgia Rep. Park Cannon.

New Jersey was the first state to ban offshore drilling within state waters in 2018. Similar measures soon followed in Delaware, Maryland, California and Florida.

“With global climate change continuing to accelerate, expanding offshore drilling is the last thing we should be doing,” said Maine State Representative Mick Devin. “Not only will it pose an unacceptable risk to marine life and all those who depend on it for work, but it will also perpetuate our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, threaten our way of life and endanger countless species.”

Legal Action

Also on Monday, South Carolina’s Republican attorney general announced he had joined a lawsuit filed in December by 16 South Carolina municipalities and the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce to block seismic testing off the East Coast.

“Once again the federal government seeks to intrude upon the sovereignty of the state of South Carolina,” S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement. “Such action puts our State’s economy, tourism and beautiful natural resources at risk. We are bringing suit to protect the State’s economy and the rule of law.

“We understand the need to have a long-term, reliable energy supply. However, any comprehensive energy strategy must comply with the rule of law. While oil and gas exploration could bring in billions of dollars, doing it without adequate study and precautions could end up costing billions of dollars and cause irreversible damage to our economy and coast.”

The lawsuit states that seismic surveys “would irreparably harm marine life, in large numbers and with a large impact, and the communities and businesses that use and enjoy this marine life and rely on it for their economic livelihoods.”

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein in December joined attorneys general from eight other states in a lawsuit conservationists had filed against the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, and federal officials challenging incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, approved last year for five companies that applied for seismic testing permits off the East Coast.

NMFS granted the companies’ applications for IHAs in November 2018.  The attorneys general claim that approval of the permits violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

The opposition efforts come as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management readies its Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The draft of the program was released in January 2018 and would have opened more than 90 percent of American waters to oil and gas development. Its release prompted governors from several coastal states to request exemptions, including North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper. Only Florida has been granted an exemption, so far.

BOEM’s proposal is expected to open at least portions of the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico and some Alaskan waters to leasing.

Oil Industry Cites Support

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association representing the natural gas and oil industry, speaking this week during the group’s ninth annual State of American Energy address in Washington, D.C., told more than 400 government, labor and industry leaders that the results of a poll conducted late last year show strong support for increased development of oil and natural gas resources.

According to the poll, 84 percent of respondents support increased development of the country’s energy infrastructure, 83 percent see natural gas and oil as important to the future and 78 percent of voters support increased production of natural gas and oil resources.

The survey was conducted Nov. 27- Dec. 4, 2018, by telephone by The Harris Poll among 1,000 registered voters across the U.S., with a sampling error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Even as the18-month moratorium on land-based wind energy projects in North Carolina is set to expire at the end of the year, rural Tyrrell County has likely lost out for good on hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue from a proposed wind farm that was planned before the ban.

“We were one week away from the project developer having a public meeting in Tyrrell County so people could view maps and see where it would have been,” county manager David Clegg said in a recent interview. “Up until this moratorium, we had a contractor ready to construct wind mills in Tyrrell County.”

Known as the Little Alligator, the $200 million project that was being planned would have had 29 turbines erected on private land owned by timber company Weyerhaeuser.

Clegg said the wind project would have provided much-needed economic development in the coastal county, one of the poorest in the state, adding about $300,000 to the tax base.

The developer, RES Americas, is apparently no longer interested in Tyrrell County. “We have no plans to pick the project back up,” Alicia Rivera, marketing and communications manager for the company, said this week in an email.

A measure added during closed-door negotiations to House Bill 589, a popular bill that authorized homeowners to lease, rather than purchase, rooftop solar panels, the moratorium forbids the state Department of Environmental Quality from issuing permits for new and expanded wind power projects.

At the time, state Sen. Harry Brown, a Republican from Jacksonville and the Senate majority leader, said the moratorium was needed to allow the legislature to do more study on the potential impact of wind turbines on military operations in the state. An appropriation of $150,000 was provided for new maps detailing military parameters.

Brown, a longstanding opponent of wind energy, did not respond to emailed and telephone messages seeking comment. He was one of 10 state legislators who had signed a letter to the Trump administration seeking to shut down the Amazon wind farm in 2017, claiming the 104 turbines affected Navy radar operations in Virginia.

Clegg said he was a member of the panel that worked for two years on the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and Dare County Range Joint Land Use Study, or JLUS, that was approved in May 2017. The study looked at the military operations in the area and potential conflicts, including wind farms. If there were problems with any operations, Clegg said, the military would shut them down if necessary.

“You have people apparently choosing to intervene on behalf of the military, when the military is not stating a problem.” Clegg said. “Why does the Department of Defense have to be protected by a state official in North Carolina?”

But the North Carolina General Assembly was not persuaded that the panel was protecting the military interests, despite the military’s approval of the JLUS study.

“I made it clear we had the definitive maps,” Clegg said. “We reached out to the members of both the House and Senate and tried to explain what we felt that the joint land use study showed, and what it meant to Tyrrell County.”

State Sen. Erica Smith, a Democrat who represents Senate District 3 that includes Tyrrell, said in an email that the mapping overview that was ultimately produced earlier this year by contractor AECOM is currently available in a digital version only for legislators to review upon request at the Department of Commerce.  The legislator would have to provide the GIS, or geographic information system, location and GPS coordinates to input into the software, and then the platform would identify all military operations and whether there were conflicts. The general public is not allowed access to the maps, she said.

“In essence, there are no printable maps available for the public nor for members,” Smith said. “However, members of the General Assembly can access the database and receive information based on inputs.”

In an interview before the Thanksgiving holiday, Smith said that her understanding was that the moratorium would be allowed to expire, at least in part because its stated purpose – to provide time for additional study – had been fulfilled by the new maps. But she said the new maps were not needed, and the Republican leadership was unmoved by her arguments that Tyrrell County would lose “a once in a lifetime” economic development opportunity and that the military had no problem with the current maps.

“It’s very frustrating when you have those kind of policy makers,” she said. “The military did not request this. It was unwarranted and really unfair and almost bordering on unethical. It seemed to be based on the whims of one senator’s political prerogative, as opposed to doing what is best for North Carolina.”

Smith was also concerned about the long-term damage the moratorium has had on the wind energy development in North Carolina.

“This industry needs certainty, and this (policy) does not provide certainty,” she said.

Although another proposed project in Chowan County was delayed by the moratorium, Timbermill Wind is still on track to start operations by late 2020, according to Senior Development Manager Don Giecek.

The project recently received substation and transmission rights of way permits from the county and is in the process of obtaining state and federal permits, Giecek said in a Nov. 30 email. Developer APEX Clean Energy began work on the project in 2013 and has already paid more than $500,000 in lease payments to local landowners.

“Timbermill Wind will also benefit Chowan’s economy in the near term with construction jobs and local purchasing of materials and services,” Giecek said. “In the long term and in addition to the annual leaseholding, the project promises to bring sustained tax revenue to Chowan County for local governments and schools, as well as 30 years of local purchasing, employment and investment.”

Amazon Wind Farm US East in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties, the state’s first land-based wind farm, went fully operational in February 2017. In addition to the company’s initial $400 million investment, farmers are being paid a total of $320,000 a year in annual lease fees, and the counties are collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax revenues a year, which will increase 1.5 percent annually over the 30-year life of the project.

Amazon developer, Avangrid Renewables is currently working on proposed development of the state’s first offshore wind project off Kitty Hawk. According to communications manager Paul Copleman, the company is in the early stages of the environmental studies and meteorological analysis and design for the site. He said the site assessment plan is expected to be submitted in the third quarter of 2019, and if all goes well, the project could be online as early as 2025.

As to the radar effects at the Amazon project, Coble said in an email that the results of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study affirmed “our cooperative work with the Navy on this matter and appropriate siting” of the turbines.

With Gov. Roy Cooper’s recently announced goal to reduce the state’s carbon emissions, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are poised to expand statewide, said Katharine Kollins, president of Southeastern Wind Coalition .

Costs for both wind and solar development have both dropped dramatically in recent years, she said, but right now solar is ahead of wind competitively in costs.

For the Southeast, wind resources are comparable to those in Europe, which in 2017 were 3.5 cents to 5.5 cents per subsidized kilowatt-hour. But turbines have to be taller in the Southeast than the Midwest, where wind power in 2017 cost 1.5 cents to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. When the federal tax credit is completely phased out in 2019, Kollins said she that future location of wind production will depend on progress of increased efficiencies and cost cutting in the industry.

But the reality is that wind and solar industries already employ twice as many people as the coal industry, and jobs in the industry pay well. Last year, wind technician was the fastest growing job in the nation, with an average salary of $80,000 a year.

North Carolina lawmakers, for the time being, may have “successfully scared off” some wind power developers, Kolliins said, but she said that the conditions for wind energy development are still favorable in North Carolina.

“I think the public sentiment for renewables is higher,” she said.  “I think North Carolina’s wind prospects for land are decent, but very good for offshore.”

Learn More

• Understanding Wind Energy Potential in the Southeast
• Southeastern Wind Coalition’s 2017 annual report

CARY — The sun was shining and sheep were grazing under the solar panels at the SAS Institute as Gov. Roy Cooper took to the podium to announce an array of initiatives that underlined a change of course on climate change for a state once roundly mocked for defying its existence.

Cooper’s Oct. 29 executive order, signed on the spot right after he delivered his remarks, calls for agencies to integrate climate change mitigation into programs, sets up a new interagency council to address the issue, increases energy and water conservation and use of zero-emission vehicles.

It states unequivocally in its introduction that North Carolina will support the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and sets a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gasses by 40 percent by 2025.

The governor called on greater cooperation between government and the private sector to build out clean energy infrastructure in North Carolina.

“A strong clean energy economy combats climate change while creating good jobs and healthy environment,” the governor said.

Cooper’s announcement was another example of the sharp change in direction on energy policy from his predecessor, Pat McCrory, who backed onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and declined to take up a climate change strategy. He found a willing partner in avoiding the issue in the General Assembly, where many legislators have been openly skeptical and occasionally hostile to assertions about climate change and rising seas.

On Friday, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality released for public review a draft statewide inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, a detailed accounting of greenhouse gases from human activity in key source categories from 1990 to 2017. The inventory also projects North Carolina’s greenhouse gas emissions out to 2030 based on expected changes in fuel use, land use, population, historical trends and other factors.

Molly Diggins of the North Carolina Sierra Club said the actions Cooper is taking are significant because they are putting state action on climate change back into the public eye at a time of heightened concern and interest driven by repeated natural disasters.

“It’s a breakthrough,” she said. “The governor and his administration have put in place a framework for planning and taking action going forward and that has been missing.”

That renewed conversation is coming at a pivotal moment as the state confronts the combined recovery efforts of multiple storms.

In stop after stop in eastern North Carolina, the governor and other top state officials are stressing that adapting to climate change and hurricane recovery are intertwined.

“With historic storms lashing our state we must combat climate change, make our homes, businesses and infrastructure more resilient and lesson the impact of natural disasters to come,” Cooper said.

In his remarks at SAS, Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Michael Regan, a Wayne County native who has spent much of the last two months east of Interstate 95, said the state must change the way it considers climate science in its policies.

“Too many North Carolinians are vulnerable to sea level rise, increased flooding and the increased intensity of severe weather events and, as we saw during Hurricane Florence and Tropical Storm Michael, so are our roads, our ports, our railways and our water quality,” he said.

“The communities hit the hardest have the most to gain from the transition to a clean energy economy and a more resilient infrastructure investment in North Carolina.”

In an interview afterward, Regan, who took over a department that had scrubbed climate science from its website, said as DEQ moves forward on policies and regulations it can’t avoid the realities of rising seas, stronger storms and changing floodplains.

“What you’ll see from this administration in the policies that we’ll put forth is an accurate characterization of what the science is telling us,” he said. That includes a hard look at sea level rise. DEQ, he said, “is taking into account the science and the data that are leading us to better understand and quantify the significant impacts from sea level rise.”

Among the items in the executive order is a mandate for state agencies to evaluate the impacts of climate change on programs and operations and integrate mitigation and adaptation practices into them.

Cooper told reporters that the strategy means more buyouts and funding for adding freeboard to homes and businesses in floodplains and a focus on infrastructure resilience that includes fixes for flooding on I-40 and I-95 and reducing failures at wastewater treatment facilities.

The plan does not include any specific funding or policy request of the General Assembly. Cooper said those will come, but he wanted to jump-start the effort.

“There are a lot of things that we are going to be able to do even without General Assembly or congressional action, but we certainly will have a legislative agenda as we move forward.”

The administration outlined a $1.5 billion Hurricane Florence recovery plan in early October based on a damage estimate of $13 billion. That amount has jumped significantly, and a new estimate released last week puts the new total at $17 billion. Damage estimates for Tropical Storm Michael, which was bearing down on the state as the Florence plan was released, have yet to be released.

Last month, the General Assembly approved $400 million in appropriations for a new Hurricane Florence Disaster Recovery Fund and set aside $395 million for another round of future spending. With the legislature scheduled to return Nov. 27, further appropriations could be approved this year, but the bulk of recovery funding is likely to come in next year’s regular session, which opens in early January.

So too are the debates on policy changes in the wake of the disaster, which legislators have been reluctant to take on so far this year. The list already includes controversial changes to floodplain management and further mitigation requirements for public water systems, large-scale hog and poultry operations and coal ash basins. With the new executive order, Cooper has indicated that he will also make energy policy and greenhouse gas reduction a focus.

Both Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, and House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, said they were interested in seeing concrete proposals, particularly on energy policy.

Legislators have struggled to find a balance between traditional power producers and the state’s growing demand for renewable energy. Compromise legislation passed in 2017 after a breakdown in talks between stakeholder groups included both long-sought reforms supported by solar advocates and a moratorium on wind energy projects.

Berger said any changes to energy policy have to make economic sense.

“While arbitrary platitudes might satisfy far-left donors, our state’s energy policies have to account for the real costs they impose on the public,” Berger said. “I support an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes renewables, but I don’t support programs that have minimal positive impact and can only sustain themselves with taxpayer and ratepayer money from those who can least afford it. The key is to find solutions that actually work in the private market, and I’m open to any and all ideas that help get us there.”

Moore said he approves of steps in the governor’s plans to improve energy efficiency in state government but cautioned that major energy policy changes will require bipartisan support.

“State officials should do everything in our power to increase the efficiency of government buildings and motor fleets to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and the environment, so I’m open to reviewing specific strategies and proposals that would achieve those goals on behalf of North Carolinians,” Moore said in a statement to Coastal Review Online. “Effective energy reform requires bipartisan cooperation, like the Competitive Energy Solutions Act passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor in 2017, so we must continue to work together towards other commonsense reforms that secure a sustainable and affordable future to benefit North Carolina families and businesses.”

Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, one of the main budget writers for the House and a clean energy advocate, said he believes attitudes are changing among his colleagues.

“After hurricanes Matthew, Florence and Michael, I suspect lots of people are beginning to wonder whether climate change is something that needs to be addressed,” he said. “It is too soon to say whether constituents’ concerns might cause legislators to reconsider their views on climate change. However, there has been much more attention paid to the resilience issue in the most recent disaster relief package relating to Florence than was evident when addressing Hurricane Matthew disaster relief.”

McGrady said he wasn’t surprised to see Cooper’s announcement and agreed that the state needs a strategy for climate change.

“Governor Cooper was simply honoring a commitment to address climate change,” he said “The McCrory Administration had no plans to address climate change, but Cooper said his administration would be different. Since I believe North Carolina needs to plan for climate change, particularly sea rise, I’m supportive of setting greenhouse gas reduction goals.”

Diggins said it’s clear that intensity and frequency of the storms in North Carolina has had an impact on the public debate, but translating that into changes in policy won’t come easy.

“It’s made it a little harder to take a position that we don’t need to be concerned about changes in our climate,” she said. “Whether time passes and that feeling goes away we don’t know yet. Whether or not there will be sufficient changes either in representation or attitude in the legislature remains to be seen.”

GRANDY – After two years of legal action and an 18-month ban on solar farms in rural Currituck County, not only has a new facility now been permitted, the county is in the process of revising its zoning to allow solar projects under certain conditions.

San Francisco-based Ecoplexus plans to start construction in January of an 18-megawatt solar array on 58 acres in Grandy. Situated off U.S. 158 at the former Goose Creek Golf Course site, it will be the county’s third solar farm, in addition to those in Moyock and Shawboro.

In May 2016, although approved by the county planning board, the Currituck County Board of Commissioners denied Ecoplexus’ permit, in part over concerns from adjacent neighbors about noise, drainage and visual impacts. The company sued. During the interim, the board voted in February 2017 to ban any additional solar projects.

In December, after two appeals, a court ruled that the application met the standards of the land use plan and ordered the county to issue the permit.

Meanwhile, other solar companies, including Arizona-based First Solar and North Carolina-based Sun Energy, have contacted the county to inquire about the status of the text amendment to the unified development ordinance the county is working on that would again re-authorize solar farms, said Laurie LoCicero, Currituck County’s planning director.

Some of the conditions in the draft proposal would limit sites to 200 acres and include specific measures to control glare, noise, environmental safety, landscaping, drainage and visual attractiveness. The revised language is expected to go to the planning board this month, and then to county commissioners in October for a yes-or-no vote to adopt.

“I think in general there’s still some concerns about solar in the county about conversion of farmland to solar,” LoCicero said. “On the other hand, people are wanting to have the use on their land.”

Although a county spokesman had expressed “disappointment” in the court ruling, saying the site was not an appropriate location, county manager Dan Scanlon said this month that the commissioners’ position was not based on being “anti-solar.”

“They wanted to make sure we have language to protect the community and the landowner,” he said.

But Michael Wallace, Ecoplexus Vice President Southeast Development, said in an interview from his Durham office that the company has worked closely with the planning department to address concerns.

“The county has been great to work with,” he said.

Conditions in the use permit the county commission approved on July 23 include that the solar panels are rated to 150 mph wind speed and racking systems are engineered to withstand a 120 mph, 3-second wind gust.

Also, there must be a 300-foot setback from residential zones and a 100-foot setback from other property lines; a maximum height of 15 feet for fixtures and 24 inches for unwanted vegetation; monitoring wells installed for groundwater; a decommissioning plan in place; no chemicals used to control weeds; restriction of pile-driving to daytime hours during the week; and quiet pumps used for dewatering activities.

As to stated fears about the panels creating essentially a huge mirror at the site, Wallace said the technology is designed to absorb light, not reflect it. Although there may be a glint sometimes, he said in general the array is not bright and never creates heat or pollution.

Wallace said the facility, which is expected to be operational by late April or early May 2019, will produce enough energy to power 2,900 homes. It will have 55,000 silicon modules, which are typically 40 by 78 inches and blue in color. The electricity generated will go into the grid, he said, which doesn’t preclude – or guarantee – it being used locally.

“Electricity will take the path of least resistance,” Wallace explained. “The place where it’s needed first, it’s going to go in that direction.”

Lease agreements with the property owner are usually 30- to 40-year terms, he said, and the agreement with the utility that buys the power usually is for 10-20 years. Although the solar equipment is designed to last 40 years or so, it’s uncertain whether the technology at that point would be outmoded.

Wallace said that the Grandy solar farm is the company’s first project in Currituck, but Ecoplexus has more than 30 projects “in the development pipeline” in North Carolina, with a “handful” completed. It is ranked as the sixth largest solar project developer in the U.S., he said, totaling nearly 6 gigawatts in 146 projects.

According to the Solar Energy Industry Association, North Carolina in 2017 ranked second in the nation, behind California, with a total of 4,411.7 megawatts of installed solar – 1,220.7 of those megawatts installed just last year. Jobs in the industry numbered 7,622 last year, the seventh most in the country, with solar investment in North Carolina totaling about $6.5 million – $1.34 million of that just last year.

In the last five years, according to the association, the cost of solar has plummeted 53 percent, making it comparable to natural gas.

The state’s appeal to solar developers can be attributed in part to its regulatory support, particularly the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, or REPS, approved by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2007, said SEIA’s Southeast state affairs senior manager Maggie Clark.

The REPS required electric utilities to have increasing percentages of its power generated by renewable energy, including wind and solar, up to 12.5 percent in 2021, when the level is then maintained.

With energy produced by waste from swine and poultry operations later added to the mix of renewables, Clark said, the portfolio became one of the most unique in the nation.

Also, in 2008, legislators passed a law that exempted 80 percent of the appraised value of non-residential solar systems from local property taxes.

But there have been a few bumps since Republicans took control of state government in 2010, notably some “big fights” over rolling back REPS in 2013-2014.

“I would say that North Carolina policy makers and regulators have implemented transparent rules of the road for solar,” Clark said.

State Sen. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort, who represents Currituck County and other northeastern counties where solar has grown significantly, has proposed legislation that would repeal the solar tax exemption on the contention that the tax break is unfair to other businesses.

But Clark said that considering that solar projects are typically built on farmland, which also is tax exempted, a county that would collect, say, $200 to $300 per acre in annual property taxes for a farm would collect $600 to $800 an acre on that same land with solar.

And unlike most other development, she added, the county does not have to shell out for additional roads, municipal sewers or schools for solar farms. Plus it can’t be overlooked that the private property owner is being paid a regular fee for the leased land.

“I totally understand the local government’s desire to regulate,” she said.

But last year, she added, House Bill 589 put more control of solar projects in the hands of Duke Energy, including terms of the purchase and sale of the electricity. Dominion Power, which customer base is in the northeastern part of the state, was exempted from the law, she said.

Still, even regulated monopolies such as Duke and Dominion say they are open to adding more solar-generated power to the grid, she said. Leasing of rooftop solar, although a much smaller share of the market in North Carolina, was recently authorized, which will reflect savings in a customer’s monthly electric bill, rather than years down the road. Also, for the next few years, rebates are now available for rooftop solar investments.

“I think we’re seeing utilities become more innovative,” Clark said. “But there’s a lot they can do to become more progressive.”

Battery storage technology – long the holy grail with renewables because of its intermittent energy production – is advancing in leaps and bounds, Clark said, a development that will ensure the continued growth of solar power.

The coastal plain of North Carolina, however, may have already had its day in the sun. The flat, expansive land is ideal for solar, she said, but it’s not the only game in town.

“I think that part of the region is well developed, and you’ll see things transitioning to the western part of the state,” Clark said. “It’s not going to be very common to see many projects moving forward in the eastern part of the state. Everything is moving west.”

Reprinted from Outer Banks Voice

After two years of wrangling with Currituck County and the courts, Ecoplexus, a company that develops solar farms, finally has a use permit allowing it to replace a defunct golf course in Grandy with an array of solar panels.

Currituck County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Monday to approve the use permit for the planned solar farm, which will be at the site of the old Goose Creek Golf Course.

A ruling in March by the North Carolina Court of Appeals mandated that the board issue the permit, overturning a previous ruling by Currituck Superior Court. The project has been adamantly opposed by neighbors of the golf course, and a few Grandy residents spoke out against it again Monday.

However, county attorney Ike McCree and members of the board made it clear that the county didn’t have a choice.

“There isn’t an option that the board of commissioners has to approve or disapprove this project,” Chairman Bobby Hanig said during Monday’s meeting.

“We have to approve this project. All we can do is put limitations on what the project can be, and what they have to do to conform,” he added.

The Court of Appeals’ decision allowed the board to add certain conditions, which were included in Commissioner Paul Beaumont’s lengthy motion to approve he permit.

Those conditions include the following:

• Setbacks, or the distance from neighboring property lines, must be 300 feet from residential property, and 100 feet from commercial property.
• The maximum height of the solar panels will be 15 feet.
• The property must be screened from view between the solar farm and residential property by shrubs, canopy trees and understory trees.
• Less opaque screening may be used along other neighboring property lines.
• Grass and weeds must be kept below 24 inches tall.
• The panels must be constructed to withstand high winds from heavy storms and hurricanes.
• Although not a requirement, Ecoplexus plans to create a pollinator garden between the solar farm and the commercial property facing Carotoke Highway.

A major concern has been the disposal of the solar panels once the farm is taken out of commission. The permit requires that the equipment have at least a 115 percent salvage value, and the company must provide a decommissioning plan and a decommissioning performance guarantee prior to receiving a building permit.

In addition, certain drainage issues must be addressed with the county engineer. Parts of the golf course and adjacent properties are already subject to flooding during storms, but the company may not be able to remedy flooding on adjacent properties if it’s not caused directly by the solar farm.

Kim Hamby, an engineer for Ecoplexus, told commissioners that while she couldn’t promise that the work done by Ecoplexus would improve all of the drainage issues in the area as some are unrelated to the golf course, she could promise that the solar farm wouldn’t make it worse.

Because the company’s plans include reducing the amount of impervious surface, such as pavement, on the grounds of the solar farm, Ecoplexus won’t be required to comply with the county’s stormwater manual.

Hard surfaces will cover less than 10 percent of the site, County Planner Laurie LoCicero explained, which means the site doesn’t have to meet the requirements in the manual.

One way the company will reduce the amount of impervious surface, which doesn’t allow water to soak into the ground, is by taking up 2,200 square feet of cart paths, LoCicero said.

One of the biggest complaints raised by the neighbors of the county’s first solar farm, near Moyock, regarded construction noise and dust. The concerns raised about that project, a 2,000-acre solar farm that is the largest in the eastern United States, led to a two-month moratorium on new solar projects in January 2017.

Ecoplexus has agreed to take several steps to reduce the amount of construction noise and dust generated by the project in Grandy.

Construction will be limited to between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. said Mike Fox, an attorney representing Ecoplexus, and the buffer will be in place before construction begins. Dust from the project will be minimized.

Fox couldn’t promise that construction would take place only on weekdays but said the company would limit construction on the weekend to times when it was necessary to meet a deadline.

Commissioner Paul Beaumont was concerned about the noise generated, sometimes for eight hours a day, when pilings are being pounded into the earth. As a compromise, Fox said pilings wouldn’t be driven on the weekends.

“We will be a good neighbor,” Fox said. “Obviously if anyone has any concerns, let us know, and we will take care of them.”

LoCicero pointed out that working after hours would be a code violation, and if the company couldn’t adhere to the agreement, it could be fined.

McRee added that the county could place a stop-work order on construction if the company doesn’t comply with the conditions of the use permit.

Ecoplexus first applied for a use permit in April 2016. During several community meetings and public hearings, neighbors asserted that the solar farm didn’t belong in the residential neighborhood, would lower their property values, increase flooding and possibly pose public safety hazards.

In May 2016 the board voted to deny the permit. The board found that the solar farm was detrimental to public safety and wasn’t in harmony with the surrounding area, county McRee said during Monday’s meeting.

The company appealed the decision to Currituck Superior Court, which sided with the county. Ecoplexus appealed that decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which overturned the Superior Court’s ruling.

This story is provided courtesy of the Outer Banks Voice, a digital newspaper covering the Outer Banks. Coastal Review Online is partnering with the Voice to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast.

JACKSONVILLE – State Environmental Secretary Michael Regan continued to reiterate his message this week that Gov. Roy Cooper’s administration has pledged to protect the state’s coastal economy and environment from offshore drilling and seismic testing.

Regan, who heads the Department of Environmental Quality, met Tuesday with about a dozen Onslow county officials and leaders for an offshore drilling listening session, organized by DEQ, at the Onslow County Government Center. He also met Wednesday with local leaders in Wilmington for an offshore drilling listening session and in February in Kill Devil Hills and Ocracoke with the public, elected officials and leaders, all to address concerns and questions about the Trump administration’s draft National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, or National OCS Program, for 2019-2024.

“Right now, we’re in the midst of public comment and I hope that each and every one of you will take advantage of the public comment period and leverage your voices,” Regan told the Onslow County officials in attendance.

Public comment deadline for the National OCS Program is Friday.

“Gov. Cooper, Attorney General Josh Stein and I have made it clear from the very beginning, from the onset, that offshore drilling threatens our coastal economy and our environment, yet it offers very little benefit to North Carolina directly,” Regan said, adding that coastal tourism generates about $3 billion annually, supports more than 30,000 jobs and commercial fishing brings in hundreds of millions of dollars of income. “So, we can’t afford, in my opinion and the opinion of the governor, to endanger our economy and our environment.”

Regan explained that he was there to listen. “I’m here to do something that the Trump administration has decided not to do,” he said, which is to go to the communities and talk with citizens, elected officials and business leaders about “what offshore drilling and seismic testing could potentially mean for the economy and the environment of North Carolina.”

Dan Tuman, mayor of North Topsail Beach, was among those who spoke, asking about the Cooper administration’s recent conversations with Interior Secretary Zinke.

Regan replied that the governor made it clear to Zinke that he saw no benefit to the state in the plan.

“We walked Secretary Zinke through all of our concerns, many of those concerns mirrored the concerns expressed by Florida, which at the time there was some conversation that that state would be exempt,” he said. “Secretary Zinke indicated that Florida was not exempt and would have to go through the process, so our goal was to make sure that we highlighted the concerns of offshore drilling and seismic testing off of our coast.”

Regan said that Zinke appeared receptive at the time to their concerns and to their requests for additional time for public comment meetings on the coast, rather than the lone North Carolina session held Feb. 26 in Raleigh. Regan continued that they left the meeting feeling that the request would be honored but, “It appears that time is running out and that request will not be honored.”

Tuman also asked about national interests, such as President Donald Trump’s concerns about global markets, national security and energy independence.

Regan answered that the governor strongly supports national security and energy independence but the amount of offshore gas and oil that potentially exists off the coast here is too little to affect the economy or national security.

“What you actually do is lessen North Carolina’s competitiveness on the global stage by endangering our coastal economy,” Regan said. “What we would say is that a danger to our economy is more important, just as important, in terms of national security than the few benefits that oil might present.”

Regan said Zinke had agreed that just because the administration thinks offshore drilling is a good idea, it’s not necessarily a good idea everywhere.

“I’ll quote Secretary Zinke by stating that he indicated that he is a small-government Republican who doesn’t believe that the federal government should tell state and local what they should do with their resources, so we take him at his word,” Regan said.

Mark Price, one of three Onslow County commissioners at the meeting, asked why the Cooper administration was opposed to seismic exploration as a first step to determine if there are significant reserves of oil and natural gas off the North Carolina coast.

Regan explained that seismic testing is “a very intrusive process” and too risky. “Seismic testing can cause a lot of harmful damage to our ecosystem,” he said.

Those risks outweigh any potential for economic gain in the state. Currently, there’s no guarantee that if offshore oil and gas were discovered off the North Carolina coast that the state would get a share of any royalties or other direct economic gain.

“So, we’re in a position where we have to incur all of the risk, but it doesn’t look or appear that we would receive any benefits if there were any to be had,” Regan said.

Regan explained that researchers have identified an area that’s 30 to 50 miles off the coast where they think petroleum reserves may be, but North Carolina lacks the infrastructure already in place in other states. But more importantly, the risks to coastal resources are too great.

He added that when you look at Deepwater Horizon or any kind of offshore drilling catastrophe, the state would probably never recover from that kind of disaster.

“We’re very rich in resources and we have lots of industries that rely on those resources, lots of families and businesses that have been passed down for generations. This is a significant transaction cost that I am not comfortable with, and the governor is not comfortable with, putting North Carolina’s economic future and environmental future at stake.”

Walter Yurek, a North Topsail Beach alderman, asked about the end users for any oil produced. Regan replied that it would be sold on the international market, which again could be risky business with little if any benefit to the state.

“This is not a good deal for North Carolina,” Regan said.

Onslow County Commissioner Royce Bennett cited a 2013 North Carolina State University study by Mike Walden that estimates offshore oil would benefit North Carolina to the tune of $1.9 billion and 17,000 employees, and produce $160 million in revenue for the state, versus potential environmental costs of about $92 million a year.

“That’s a pretty significant positive impact,” Bennett said.

Regan said that he saw the study but disagreed with its assumptions.

“That’s playing Russian roulette with all of the people along the coast, with the assumption that there is a price tag on our precious coast and our precious natural resources. So, I disagree with the assumptions there but I also disagree with the premise that we can make enough money to repair any potential damage,” Regan said.

Onslow County Commissioner Paul Buchanan agreed that protecting the state’s coast was key. He noted that tourism was vital to the coastal economy and added that as a former scuba diver, he had visited wrecks that are part of the “Graveyard of the Atlantic” off Morehead City.

“We can’t afford for those wrecks to be devastated by any type of drilling,” Buchanan said. “I don’t think seismic will help it either. I’m totally against it. We have to protect our coast.”

Regan said a coalition of coastal governors, local officials and business interests could be effective in influencing senators and representatives in Washington.

“This is what we’re saying up and down the coast: This is a bipartisan issue. There’s a unified voice that the congressional representatives at the federal level need to hear,” he said. “There’s strength in you all’s voices, so we’ve been asking all the chambers, all the individual citizens and publicly elected officials to please reach out directly to our federally elected officials and just convey from your individual perspectives why this is a bad idea. I think the diversity of voices and experiences will not fall on deaf ears.”

Regan said he was optimistic and that the fight was “far from over.” Having entire coastal communities engaged in the process was important because there’s a lot at stake, he said.

“It’s important that they not only hear from the elected officials in Raleigh but from those who would be impacted most by offshore drilling and seismic testing,” Regan said. “We encourage all North Carolina citizens to provide comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that comment period ends March 9, so get those so get those comments in.”

RALEIGH — The first buses from the coast rolled in a little after 3:30 p.m. and about a hundred New Hanover and Brunswick County residents disembarked, chanting “Protect our coast.”

Through a Monday afternoon drizzle, more than 400 coastal residents joined by dozens of others from around the state, shuttled between dueling events showcasing the worries and possibilities surrounding oil and gas exploration off the North Carolina coast.

The two events, an open house hosted by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, and a boisterous rally hosted by a coalition of environmental groups, including the North Carolina Coastal Federation, were held on opposite sides of the same hotel with no indoor way to get from one to the other.

It wasn’t the only disconnect evident between coastal communities opposed to reopening the Atlantic Coast to drilling and the Trump administration, which last year abruptly announced a revival of the idea, only a year after it was taken off the table by the Department of the Interior.

Working his way through BOEM’s information booths at the Hilton North Raleigh/Midtown, New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple said he doesn’t get how the risks to the state’s booming tourist industry are worth the reward of even the most optimistic estimates of what might be found.

“We’re going to go through this huge risk for such a minimal return,” Zapple said. There are no royalties coming, he continued, and any infrastructure would likely go out of state, to Norfolk or Charleston. “Where’s the return for North Carolina? It’s just isn’t there.”

Zapple said the new push for offshore exploration adds to the stress of a region already dealing with the GenX issue.

“We have had more than our fair share of environmental issues that have come up and continue to come up,” he said.

The lack of a case for reopening the Atlantic leasing program was reiterated by speaker after speaker at the Don’t Drill NC rally a few ballrooms away.

Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Michael Regan thanked the crowd for making the trip and said the mantra of Gov. Roy Cooper’s administration will remain “not off our coast.” He said the state would continue to push for hearings on the coast, something Regan and the governor pressed Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on during a meeting at the executive mansion earlier this month.

“Interior Secretary Zinke and BOEM didn’t come to you but you brought it to them,” Regan said.

The secretary said the state would continue to push for an exemption like the one granted Florida and is prepared to take the Trump administration to court if necessary.

Dana Hirschman, senior deputy attorney general with the Department of Justice Environmental Division, said the department was reviewing previous offshore drilling battles.

“There is a lot of institutional knowledge at the Department of Justice,” he said. “It’s not the first time we’ve seen this, it comes up every few years. We are aware of what’s been done in the past and we’re exploring all legal options available to us.”

Hirschman said whatever happens will ultimately depend on what course the federal government takes.

“We hope the federal administration will revisit this and respond to the widespread public opposition in North Carolina and will take this off the table. But if they do not, the attorney general stands ready to do what is very necessary to protect our coastal resources and our coastal communities.”

BOEM officials said the turnout in Raleigh was one of the largest crowds so far in the series of information sessions in coastal states.

John Filostrat, a BOEM spokesman, said the possibility of a coastal-area information session is being considered, but that a decision would likely come in the fall, after the formal proposal.

Despite large numbers of opponents, not everyone in attendance disagreed with the Trump administration’s move.

Wearing his Halliburton jacket as he worked through a comment form at one of BOEM’s public terminals, Mark Cares, a former employee of the company who now works as a field engineer, said the country needs to increase its energy independence. It would add jobs and bring prices down, he said.

If the United States could once again be the largest producer and exporter of energy, Cares said, “this world would be a safer place. It would be a lot freer and it would be independent.”

But several speakers at the rally disagreed with the idea that the only path to energy independence involved offshore drilling.

Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, one of a handful of elected officials at the rally, said there are other technologies and strategies that don’t involve putting the coast at risk.

“We as climate change believers know that there are better energy solutions, renewable sources of energy not the fossil fuels of the past,” she said. An oil spill, she said, would not only cost billions in lost revenue, “But more importantly, it would cost us a way of life that money cannot buy.”

Industry Advocate Touts ‘Turning Point’

Responding Monday to the expected show of opposition at the BOEM meeting, the North Carolina Petroleum Council released a statement that offshore energy “could be a turning point” for rural areas in terms of jobs, infrastructure and better schools.

“Interior’s offshore leasing proposal is a crucial development for North Carolina’s economic and energy future. Being able to access more energy resources off the coast of our state could create more reliable and affordable energy for North Carolina’s consumers and families,” said David McGowan, director of the council.

McGowan said the move is needed to update 30-year-old data on offshore petroleum reserves.

North Carolina Petroleum Council: #Offshore energy resources key to North Carolina’s economic future and energy self-sufficiency https://t.co/cXDfR0I9lI @davidmcgowan3 pic.twitter.com/UrXg98O3vL

— API (@API_News) February 26, 2018

RALEIGH — The federal government and Gov. Roy Cooper’s administration remain on course for a legal battle over the push to open the East Coast to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling.

After a weekend meeting with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Cooper said he had reiterated his request for an exemption similar to one given to Florida, telling Zinke the state would sue if the Trump administration moves ahead with oil and gas exploration off North Carolina’s coast. Cooper also called on residents to get involved and keep up the fight.

“I call on the citizens of North Carolina to be loud about this issue,” Cooper said during a press conference after the Saturday morning session with Zinke.

Cooper was joined in the discussion at the executive mansion in Raleigh by representatives of the coastal region, who he said conveyed concerns to Zinke about the potential risks to the coast’s unique environment and an economy based on tourism and fisheries.

“I think he heard loud and clear from a cross section of North Carolina that we do not want offshore oil and gas drilling off the coast of North Carolina,” Cooper said. “We’ve been saying since this summer ‘no way, not off our coast.’”

Watch Governor Cooper’s remarks after meeting with @SecretaryZinke and representatives from coastal communities: pic.twitter.com/vPFqotWn6n

— Governor Roy Cooper (@NC_Governor) February 3, 2018

On Friday, Zinke met with South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who also asked for an exemption to the proposed leasing program. Since the announcement last summer that Atlantic Coast waters would be reopened to oil and gas leasing, states have been lining up to seek exemptions. The pressure grew in January when Zinke granted Florida an exemption on the grounds that the state’s economy was too heavily dependent on coastal tourism.

Cooper said North Carolina deserves the same exemption extended to Florida and said the state would take the federal government to court if it is not granted.

State Attorney General Josh Stein, who also attended the meeting, said Zinke told the group every governor on the East Coast is opposed to the program. Stein echoed the governor’s threat.

“If we are unsuccessful in convincing the secretary to exempt North Carolina from this offshore drilling program, we will take him to court to protect our coast, our coastal economy and our people,” Stein said.

Cooper also asked for the comment period on the Trump administration’s proposed five-year plan announced Jan. 4 that would open almost all U.S. offshore waters to seismic exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas to be open for an additional 60 days and that public hearings in Wilmington, Morehead City and Kill Devil Hills be added to the schedule. The only public meeting planned in North Carolina is set for Feb. 26 in Raleigh as an “open house” information session, not a public hearing.

“He seemed receptive to that,” Cooper said of the request.

Joining Cooper and Stein for the meeting with Zinke were Department of Environment Quality Secretary Michael Regan; Coastal Resources Commission Chair Renee Cahoon; Stan Riggs, coastal and marine geologist at East Carolina University; Nags Head Mayor Pro Tem Susie Walters; Atlantic Beach Mayor Trace Cooper; Dare County Commission chair Bob Woodard; New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple; Tom Kies, president of Carteret County Chamber of Commerce; and Capt. Dave Timpy, a retired Army Corps of Engineers specialist in coastal engineering who runs a charter fishing business in Wilmington.

Timpy said his goal was to explain that the currents off the North Carolina coast would distribute an oil spill not just to the beaches, but into the uniquely rich fishery between Frying Pan Shoals and Cape Lookout.

“These are the hard-bottom areas that a lot of fishermen catch flounder on, king mackerel on — a tremendous, diverse marine habitat,” Timpy said. “What I tried to explain to the secretary is that if you have an oil spill in these areas and they become coated like they did in BP Horizon they’ll get destroyed. It’ll be a total disaster. There’s no way to restore them. There’s no going back and it would be devastating to this area.”

Atlantic Beach Mayor Trace Cooper said he appreciated Zinke’s willingness to listen.

“This is far from a done deal,” he said. “They’re genuinely interested in listening and I think the fact that they listened in Florida is promising.”

At the same time, Mayor Cooper said, the department should allow coastal residents more of an opportunity to comment on the new proposal. “If you say you’re here to listen then you need to have the meetings in the places where the people who will be affected live. So, having some meetings on the coast is just common sense.”

Legislative Leaders Seek Collaboration

Zinke also met Saturday with members of the North Carolina General Assembly leadership.

Rep. Ted Davis, R-New Hanover, who attended the meeting, told the Raleigh News & Observer that he had conveyed his concerns about offshore drilling and that Zinke had assured him that a public hearing would be held on the coast.

House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, in a statement released after the meeting, did not stake out a position on the offshore program, but pointed instead to recently passed legislation on renewable energy as an area where the state and federal government can work together.

“We expressed to Secretary Zinke that the North Carolina House will maintain a collaborative approach to our state’s energy policy,” Moore said in the statement.

Thanks to NC Speaker Tim Moore and members of the state legislature for today’s discussion on offshore energy. pic.twitter.com/Iwb2B6sa7T

— Secretary Ryan Zinke (@SecretaryZinke) February 3, 2018

The attitude toward offshore oil and exploration in Raleigh has made a remarkable reversal since 2013 when offshore testing and the potential for hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Piedmont were touted as the state’s new energy future by then Gov. Pat McCrory. McCrory said at the time the state could reap millions of dollars in royalties from offshore drilling, although that would have required a major change in federal royalty policy.

Cooper said Saturday that royalties would likely never materialize and said Zinke offered no incentives for the state to support the plan.

“There is very little evidence that North Carolina would gain much economically from offshore drilling,” Cooper said.

Seismic Pressure

Supporters of offshore exploration pushed back against completely writing off the seismic exploration proposal.

On Twitter, David McGowan, executive director of the North Carolina Petroleum Council, said the most recent tests off the coast are more than 30 years old.

“Right now, Gov. Cooper & other opponents want to make a decision without all the scientific data and other the relevant facts available to inform the decision making process. Once we have all the data, it may be clear the resource isn’t there or isn’t economical,” McGowan wrote.

Right now, Gov. Cooper & other opponents want to make a decision without all the scientific data and other the relevant facts available to inform the decision making process. Once we have all the data, it may be clear the resource isn’t there or isn’t economical. #ncpol

— David McGowan (@davidmcgowan3) February 3, 2018

Cooper said there “was a little argument back and forth” Saturday with Zinke on seismic exploration.

DEQ Secretary Regan had on Saturday made a case against the process, which uses powerful blasts from arrays of air guns to locate oil and natural gas beneath the seafloor, citing concerns about the dangers biologists say it poses to marine mammals.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, proposed last June to issue five permits that would allow the oil and gas industry to conduct the controversial seismic surveys for oil and natural gas off the East Coast from the New Jersey-Delaware border to central Florida.

In December, DEQ asked the four companies that had received conditional approval to conduct seismic testing to submit additional information on seismic testing taking into account newer scientific studies on potentially harmful impacts to marine life.

“Our formal legal request was based on new information – recently published scientific studies on the impacts of seismic testing on fish behaviors, zooplankton (including fish larvae), shellfish, and crustaceans among other concerns,” Sarah Young, spokesperson for DEQ explained in an email response to Coastal Review. Young said the new studies show that the proposed surveys will affect North Carolina’s marine resources in ways that are substantially different than originally described in the applications.

Young said DEQ is also reviewing new technologies that reduce the potential damage from current air gun configurations.

“While arrays are designed to focus sound downward in the vertical direction, a substantial amount of acoustic energy is propagated in a horizontal direction, providing no information regarding the geological characteristics under investigation. This excess energy can become trapped and travel long distances in the water column, and both short- and long-range potential impacts have been noted,” Young said.

The governor said DEQ was preparing more information to submit during the comment period.

WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH – “This is what Washington needs to know. If North Carolina is not exempt from offshore drilling, we will sue the federal government. Not off our coast,” Gov. Roy Cooper told a roomful of elected officials and local leaders Monday during a press conference at Blockade Runner Beach Resort.

Cooper was responding to the recent announcement that Florida would be exempt from the Trump administration’s proposed five-year plan announced Jan. 4 that would open almost all U.S. offshore waters to seismic exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas.

Cooper said Wrightsville Beach is one example of the communities along North Carolina’s 300 miles of coastline and 22 barrier islands that together generate $3 billion in tourism annually and support more than 30,000 jobs in eastern North Carolina.

“As governor, I know what’s at stake here. I’m going to fight to keep our coast safe. Now, we’ve listened to the experts. We know that opening our up coast to drilling will put our economy, our environment and our coastal communities at risk with little potential for long-term gain. Offshore drilling is just a bad deal for our state,” Cooper said.

The Obama administration had taken much of the East Coast out of consideration in 2016 based on factors that included potential conflicts with the U.S. Defense Department and commercial interests, market dynamics, limited infrastructure and opposition from many coastal communities. Then, in April 2017, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reversing Obama’s decision and, in June, the administration opened the public comment period for a new, five-year energy leasing program for the outer continental shelf.

Cooper in July vowed to oppose efforts to open the state’s offshore waters to drilling. “I traveled to Atlantic Beach to give them North Carolina’s answer. No way. Not off our coast.”

Earlier this month, Cooper petitioned the Interior Department to grant North Carolina an exemption similar to the one the Interior secretary had announced on Twitter for Florida.

After talking with @FLGovScott, I am removing #Florida from the draft offshore plan. pic.twitter.com/lZIfdCDNOR

— Secretary Ryan Zinke (@SecretaryZinke) January 9, 2018

“We recently learned that (Interior) Secretary Ryan Zinke made a trip to Florida and decided to exempt that state from the plan. The reason? Coastal tourism, along with local and state opposition. So, last Friday, I called Secretary Zinke myself to say, ‘What about us? What about North Carolina?’” Cooper explained Monday. “We have coastal tourism. We have local and state opposition. We want to be exempt, too.”

That exemption may not be final, Walter Cruickshank, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management director, said Friday during a congressional hearing, according to reports. But the possibility could open the door for other states seeking an exemption to sue, legal experts have said.

Cooper said, “Now for months, we have let Washington hear our concerns loud and clear.” More than 30 localities, numerous coastal businesses and trade organizations have filed and passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling. “And today, New Hanover County commissioners have joined that course.” New Hanover County Commissioners approved before Cooper’s visit during its regular meeting Monday morning a resolution opposing offshore drilling.

In August, Cooper continued, the Department of Environmental Quality submitted formal comments to the federal government detailing its opposition to seismic testing, “which we know is the first step toward offshore drilling. But unfortunately, the Trump administration has only exempted Florida so far.”

Cooper then announced North Carolina’s plans to sue the federal government if not exempted from the offshore drilling plans.

Risk Part of the Equation

“Let’s go over the facts here,” Cooper said. “First, no offshore drilling method is 100 percent safe. The risk of catastrophic events like oil spills will always be part of that equation. And we know that oil spills bring devastating, long-term damage to every place they touch.”

Second, he continued, is that there is little evidence offshore drilling would be able to deliver a financial boon to the state. He feels the state is unlikely to get much work, revenue sharing or state port business from offshore drilling.

Third, North Carolina has seen tremendous advancement in renewable energy technology, with the state being ranked No. 2 nationwide in solar energy capacity, Cooper said. With becoming more energy efficient, he asks why risk drilling in the ocean when we have cleaner fuels.

“Finally, can we trust this administration to make and enforce offshore drilling rules for the oil and gas industry? Will this administration make sure that the best safeguards are in place? I don’t think so,” Cooper said. “And we’ve seen it already. Just last month, the Trump administration began to roll back safety regulation for offshore drilling that were put in place in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf.”

Cooper reiterated that local governments, businesses and communities had taken a formal position against offshore drilling and that a bipartisan group of the state’s congressional delegation was also opposed. “And as governor, I’m going to continue leading the resistance.”

“But I need you to help protect our coast. Now is the time for the people to raise their voices,” Cooper urged those in attendance before explaining that the public comment period on the offshore drilling plan ends March 9 and comments can be made online or by mail.

“You call Secretary Zinke, too, and you tell him you that you want your voice heard and that you don’t want offshore drilling off North Carolina’s coast,” Cooper said. “This place, our coast, is a part of who we are as North Carolinians. We must protect our land, our waters and our livelihoods. Let’s let them hear it all the way to Washington. Not off our coast here in North Carolina. Not off our coast.”

Cooper recounted that during his conversation with Zinke, the secretary said he understood the concerns of North Carolina’s coastal communities and they agreed that Zinke would visit coastal North Carolina to listen to community leaders, business leaders and recreational and commercial fishermen.

“We’re going to fight through this entire process, showing why North Carolina should be exempted and I hope that he will listen to North Carolina’s concern like they did Florida,” Cooper said.

Local Voices Raised

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Secretary Susi Hamilton, a Wilmington native and former legislator representing the district, introduced Cooper at the event and spoke about the economic risks the state faces from offshore drilling.

“I know how important our beaches and coastal waters are for tourism, for our economy, and for jobs and quality of life. North Carolina’s beautiful coast draws more than 10 million visitors each year, which adds more than $4 billion to our state’s economy, and supports thousands of jobs throughout the coastal counties,” Hamilton said. “The majority of North Carolinians have stated their opposition to drilling for oil and gas off of our coast. Today, I add my voice to theirs and I am pleased to say our governor does as well.”

Local officials also expressed their opposition, including Wilmington Mayor Pro Tem Margaret Haynes.

“I think it’s wonderful that the governor came here to Wrightsville Beach, which is sort of the epicenter of southeastern North Carolina, and our tourist industry is so important – and just our economic development here – that just we can’t afford some negative impact from offshore drilling,” Haynes said.

She added that Wilmington has twice passed resolutions opposing not only offshore drilling but also seismic testing and, “So, the city is united in its opposition to this kind of potentially detrimental operation.”

Bruce Holsten, chair of the Cape Fear Economic Development Council and the citizen-led Save Our Seas NC that advocates for no drilling, said the governor’s visit and reaffirmed stance come amid growing bipartisan opposition and similar public sentiment.

“All acknowledge that there is no safe way to drill for oil without putting critical local and state coastal tourist economies at risk,” Holsten said in an email response. “Having worked in the mining industry around the world for many years, I can affirm that the requisite safeguards to ensure the absolute safety of our ocean and coastal waters from accidental spills does not exist. With that knowledge alone, this discussion should have ended long ago.”

Lynn Shoemaker, a founder and member of WoW!-Women Organizing for Wilmington, was among the representatives from area organizations at the event. She said the group was pleased to learn that after two years of trying, New Hanover County Commissioner Rob Zapple’s resolution opposed to offshore drilling was finally heard and that it passed unanimously. The resolution was passed Monday morning during the New Hanover County Commissioner meeting.

“We have to do better more often to put Mother Earth and the welfare of The People before dirty for-profit industries. Those industries’ officers are often also big campaign donors for the elected officials who will support under- and deregulation of the same companies that want to poach, drill, and contaminate our natural resources,” she wrote to Coastal Review Online in an email response. “If ever there was an example of why we need to get big money out of political campaigns, this is it.”

Shoemaker added that more families will be harmed than helped if offshore is allowed. Coastal voters will remember in November, she said.

“It’s not only men who stand to potentially lose their jobs. Women work in the fishing industry as well -and they dominate the service industry supported by tourism,” she said. “NC women and our families won’t forget this fight, and we will take our voices to the polls!”

GenX Contamination

Cooper, during his remarks, also addressed the issue of GenX and other emerging compounds discovered last year in the Wilmington area’s drinking water, which is drawn from the Cape Fear River. Cooper said families deserve clean drinking water, calling it a “basic right.”

Cooper explained that the state Department of Environmental Quality had revoked Chemours discharge permit and that GenX levels in samples analyzed were now consistently below public health goals.

“So, that’s positive,” Cooper said. “But what we also know is that now around the Chemours plant, we found GenX in well water, so we know there are other issues at play. In addition, there are other emerging chemicals that need to be studied and need to be lifted up so that we can know how to respond to those as well.”

Cooper also addressed the North Carolina General Assembly’s funding for DEQ, noting that at least 70 jobs in the department’s Division of Water Quality had been cut in recent years.

“We know that it is critical for the Department of Environmental Quality, which has the ability to revoke permits and has the ability to take these companies to court. They need the inspectors, they need the scientists, our Department of Health and Human Services needs the health officials to work together to make sure that people do have clean water,” Cooper said.

Learn More

• Submit Public Comment
• Interior Department at 202-208-3100

Reprinted from the Outer Banks Sentinel

DARE COUNTY – State and local opponents of offshore drilling say they are struck, if not surprised, by the sheer magnitude of the Trump administration’s sweeping new offshore drilling plan announced last week. And they are promising a fight.

Outer Banks Surfrider Foundation Vice Chair Matt Walker said, “We were all pretty much prepared to see some far-reaching impacts, but this is on such a huge scale that it represents about as big a threat as we can imagine.”

Dare Board of Commissioners Chairman Bob Woodard said that the board’s longstanding opposition to offshore drilling and seismic testing “has not changed and we remain strongly opposed to this.” Speaking at the board meeting Jan. 8, Woodard encouraged the other board members to “look at this new plan. We as a board may need to take a look at passing another resolution against it. I still take the position that ‘we take all the risk, but get none of the reward.'”

Oceana Senior Campaign Organizer Randy Sturgill called the plan “insane” and a “radical offshore free-for-all. One thing is for sure. They will not get the Atlantic without one hell of a fight!”

The new plan for developing the National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2019-2024 was announced Jan. 4 by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. It proposes to make more than 90 percent of the total OCS acreage available for exploration and development. By comparison, the current program approved by the Obama administration puts 94 percent of the OCS off limits.

The plan calls for 47 potential lease sales. Nine are in the Atlantic region, with three of them in the Mid- and South Atlantic, which includes North Carolina. The proposal also includes all federal waters, which begin 3 nautical miles off the coastline and extend out for 200 miles.

Zinke announced proudly that the program “proposes the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history.”

Surprising to many observers was the inclusion of seven potential lease sales off the Pacific coastline from California to Washington. There had been no federal lease sales on the Pacific or Atlantic coast since the 1980s.

The new policy was set in motion last April, when President Trump signed an executive order overturning a 2016 Obama Administration ban on offshore drilling in portions of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans and the decision that there would be no offshore drilling leases in the Atlantic Ocean for the 2017-2022 period.

This was followed in November by the introduction of a legislative package endorsed by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources designed to “streamline” and speed up granting seismic testing permits and expediting both onshore and offshore oil and gas drilling.

While the legislation has not yet advanced to the House floor, its committee endorsement sent another signal that the Trump Administration was serious about pushing new offshore drilling leases.

During a telephone press conference Jan. 4, Zinke touted the benefits of his plan, stating that it is “better for the environment to produce energy here with responsible regulation.” He added that “as far as the economy goes, clean, reliable, abundant and affordable energy is what’s driving the economy.”

And, in what seemed to be an effort to contrast this administration’s offshore drilling policy with that of its predecessor, Zinke declared, “There is a clear difference between energy weakness and energy dominance.”

Support for the new plan followed quickly from the International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), which represents seismic testing companies. IAGC President Nikki Martin called the announcement “a win for the American people,” adding that, “Today’s announcement demonstrates that this Administration is thinking beyond today and taking into account the energy needs of a growing economy forfuture generations.”

The American Petroleum Institute, another supporter of the new plan, cited a Harris Poll survey that reported that 77 percent of voters support more oil and gas development, with 68 percent specifically supporting more offshore drilling.

Dare County Commissioners Chairman Woodard, however, pushed back against claims of widespread voter support for more offshore drilling, calling them “absurd.”

“There is no truth to that at all,” he asserted, “particularly not here on the Outer Banks.”

Gov. Roy Cooper joined a number of other East Coast governors in opposing the plan unveiled by Zinke. “Offshore drilling represents a critical threat to our coastal economy,” Cooper said. “Protecting North Carolina families and businesses is my top priority, and we will pursue every option to prevent oil drilling near North Carolina’s beaches, coastal communities, and fishing waters.”

Kill Devil Hills Mayor Sheila Davies, who has taken an active role in opposing offshore drilling, said that, “Given the direction the administration has been going, I’m not surprised by this, but I am extremely disappointed.”

“As a town, and hopefully partnering with the Surfriders and other groups,” Davies continued, “we will make our voices heard loud and clear once again. We won’t give up fighting.”

New Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon said he is personally “opposed to both offshore drilling and seismic testing,” stating that, “New drilling off the Atlantic shore, where existing tourism economies already employ millions of people and contribute massively to state coffers, seems especially foolhardy.”

Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce President Karen Brown said she and the chamber are “disappointed with the new proposal” and will continue to work with the “business community, elected officials and the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast (BAPAC) to have our voices heard, the facts presented and work toward a positive outcome.”

Next up in the leasing process is a 60-day public comment period that started Monday, Jan. 8. People may post their comments online at regulations.gov. There will also be a public forum hosted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in Raleigh on Feb. 26.

Walker, of the Surfrider Foundation, said he objects to the scheduling of North Carolina’s only public forum in February in Raleigh: “They’re holding meetings only in state capitals. So, they’re going to be extremely difficult for people to get to. It’s obviously not designed to get input from the people who will be most affected.”

Acknowledging the need for strong and united action from both Democrats and Republicans, Walker emphasized, “This is going to require a lot of heavy lifting on the part of all concerned citizens from both sides of the aisle – real concerted political pressure – to push this back.”

This story is provided courtesy of the Outer Banks Sentinel, a weekly Dare County newspaper that is published in print every Wednesday and headquartered at 2910 South Croatan Highway, Nags Head. Aside from the print paper, the Sentinel also produces a continually updated digital version at www.obsentinel.com.

BOLIVIA – Brunswick County commissioners pushed back to the planning board proposed changes that would tighten regulations on solar farms in the county.

In a unanimous decision Monday night during their regular monthly meeting, commissioners said they felt uncomfortable limiting the size of solar farms to 50 acres, a move that would impede the rights of private property owners, according to several people who spoke during a public hearing.

Some of the commissioners also questioned a proposed requirement that solar farm operators update a decommissioning plan every three years.

A decommissioning plan details how equipment will be removed from a site once it is no longer in operation, how the property will be restored once that equipment is moved and a financial guarantee ensuring the responsible party can cover associated costs.

Residents and a solar energy representative said mandating three-year updates would create an undo burden on the industry.

Keith Herbs, executive vice president of United Renewable Energy, an Alpharetta, Georgia-based solar project developer, said he agrees that a decommissioning plan should be required in cases where there is a change of ownership, but that updating a plan every three years would be onerous.

United Renewable Energy has been involved with nine solar farm projects in Brunswick County, three of which were approved earlier this year.

“The solar projects we do provide a lot of benefits to the economy,” Herbs said. “They create stable income. The projects themselves are quiet, odorless. They don’t create additional traffic. They increase the tax base. I do feel that the current proposed amendment misses the mark in some respects.”

Last month, the planning board approved two more solar farm sites.

Solar farms in Brunswick County, including two the planning board approved last month, range anywhere from less than 5 acres to 40 acres, according to Mike Hargett, Brunswick’s planning director.

Like many rural counties in North Carolina, which the Solar Energy Industries Association ranks second in the nation for solar energy capacity, Brunswick County is trying to figure out how to best incorporate solar farms with current and future development.

“I’m certainly not interested in restricting anyone’s property rights,” Brunswick County Commissioner Chairman Frank Williams said. “It’s concern for the unknown. We felt like we had a responsibility to at least discuss it.”

County officials want to ensure the county does not end up littered with non-operating solar farms, he said.

A handful of county residents who spoke at the public hearing Monday on the proposed UDO amendment support the solar energy industry.

Leland resident Sandy Ford, a member of the Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or BEAT, said during the public hearing that the county needs to move forward with renewable energy.

“We have an excellent opportunity because we need jobs in Brunswick County, something that is cutting-edge jobs, and I think that’s in solar energy,” she said.

BEAT member Dale Todd issued a statement on behalf of the organization that supports “governmental actions at all levels, which promote and encourage the production and usage of renewable energy sources.”

Commissioner J. Marty Cooke said his family owns land that is the site of a roughly 35-acre solar farm outside of the county.

He said that, while he doesn’t believe solar energy is particularly productive, it’s profitable for property owners.

“I think having a cap is unreasonable,” Cooke said of limiting the size of solar farms.

Mandating three-year decommissioning plans is “terribly unreasonable,” he said. “I think if the property goes offline, I think that’s when you need to have that decommissioning aspect. I think it has to be specific.”

Commissioner Mike Forte agreed with Cooke.

“If it changes hands, we have to revisit that with the new owners,” Forte said. “I think that other counties are looking at what we’re doing. I don’t want to be the one that restricts property rights and I would hope that we would come up with a model that the other 99 counties say, ‘wow, we did get it right.’”

The general consensus among commissioners was to leave in place other proposed amendments, including setbacks and buffering guidelines.

The proposed setback requirements include the following:

• 200 feet from thoroughfare roads.
• 100 feet from residential districts.
• 100 feet from institutional uses.
• 50 feet from commercial districts.
• 25 feet from industrial districts.
• A minimum of 500 feet from scenic byways.

Other regulations would require solar farm developers to minimize grading and tree removal; avoid natural heritage areas; keep a minimum of 100 feet away from rivers and streams and a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands; and avoid the use of herbicides as much as possible.

It is unclear when the Brunswick County Planning Board will review and vote on another set of proposed changes to the UDO.

Commissioners have the discretion to hold another public hearing before deciding whether to adopt an update to the proposed UDO amendment.

WILMINGTON – Although ostensibly about offshore drilling, two speakers at a public forum held here Tuesday presented different views of the ocean itself.

For Jean-Michel Cousteau, environmentalist and son of legendary explorer Jacques Cousteau, the ocean is something that connects all humans. And for John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil Co. and founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, the ocean is a natural resource that should be mapped to better understand where – and how many – oil deposits are underneath.

“To Drill or Not To Drill?” was the inaugural event hosted by The Public Square, a collaborative civic effort to educate locals about important issues. An estimated 950 people filled the lower level of the Wilson Center at Cape Fear Community College to hear the speakers who used their lifetimes of experience to discuss offshore drilling.

“Every time you drink water, you drink the ocean,” Cousteau said. “It is a part of all of us.”

Cousteau is the founder of the Ocean Futures Society, a nonprofit conservation and education organization that is meant to give a voice to the ocean. In his presentation, he said that there is still much we don’t know about the ocean.

“We’ve made a lot of mistakes, and we are just starting to understand the consequences of those mistakes,” he said, mentioning the effects of human activity on plants, animals and the climate. “We have to be sure to do everything we can to stop using the world’s oceans as a universal sewer.”

Citing the intense energy demands of the U.S. and the rest of the world, Hofmeister said that society shouldn’t remain unaware of what oil deposits are under the sea, including off North Carolina’s coast.

“We owe it to ourselves to explore what’s there, to better understand this resource,” Hofmeister said.

For decades, offshore drilling has been off-limits on the East Coast, largely because of environmental concerns and infamous oil industry accidents like 1989’s Exxon Valdez and at the Deepwater Horizon in 2010. Earlier this year, though, the Trump administration moved to expand offshore oil and gas drilling.

Those who support such efforts point to benefits such as greater energy independence for the country and more jobs for the coastal communities.

Gov. Roy Cooper has already stated his opposition to offshore drilling for North Carolina. And while some coastal county boards, such as Carteret and Brunswick, have passed resolutions in favor of offshore energy exploration, many coastal communities oppose it because of potential negative effects on tourism and fishing, which are vital to the coastal economy.

Both speakers at the forum discussed the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which resulted in almost 5 million barrels of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico. Cousteau said he has seen the effects on marine life, such as dolphins. Hofmeister criticized the use of dispersants, which he said made the situation worse. While there are risks associated with the extraction of oil, he said, the lessons learned should be used to develop better practices in the industry.

“Every single aspect of our modern lives relies on energy. We need more, not less,” Hofmeister said. “We have to know what’s there. We, as a society, can’t remain ignorant. We have to pursue every possible source. In the future, it will remain critical to the economic well-being of society.”

Hofmeister acknowledged that the exploration of offshore oil resources would likely take at least a decade. The search will also be a costly endeavor. Shell Oil Co., for example, spent $7 billion on an exploratory well in the Arctic, and later abandoned the project. Cousteau argued that a better use of that money would be investing in sustainable and renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and possibly harnessing the power of ocean currents.

“There is a point when there will be no more oil left,” Cousteau said. “What happens then?”

Hofmeister disputed the notion that there have been adequate advances in renewable energy to meet the world’s energy demands.

“Time is of the essence,” he said. “We need to think in terms of time and need, for the immediate term, near term and long term.”

Both speakers addressed the risks associated with seismic exploration, which is used to determine the best locations for test wells. Seismic technology in marine environments is controversial because of its negative effects on whales, dolphins and fish. Cousteau said that the seismic blasts can interrupt communications between migrating whales, which takes place over hundreds of miles. Hofmeister agreed that the process can be damaging to marine life.

“We are fully aware of the potential negative impacts,” Hofmeister said, adding that many concerns can be addressed in the environmental studies that must be completed before any of the exploration and drilling efforts begin.

“If we are to pursue this, we must take the time to do it right. But there are also trade-offs that have to be made. We have to make those decisions,” Hofmeister said.

Cousteau described the variety of ocean-related issues he’s seen and been a part of during his 75 years of marine exploration and scuba diving, including the problem of plastics in the ocean and the increased intensity of coastal storms. But, he said he has an optimistic vision of society’s ability to do better.

“We can work together. Every one of use breathes the same air. There are no politics here. We are talking about the future of our planet,” Cousteau said. “If you protect the ocean, you protect yourself.”

News anchor Jon Evans of WECT-TV moderated the event with the stated goal that every person there would learn something about the offshore drilling issue.

The North Carolina Coastal Federation helped underwrite the forum.

The Public Square, a collaboration between Cape Fear Community College, University of North Carolina Wilmington and Cape Fear Realtors, was founded to educate and foster civil discourse on issues with local ramifications. The group plans to offer another program next spring.

BOLIVIA – A new set of recommended rules governing solar farms in Brunswick County would cap the size of solar panel fields and tighten setbacks around them.

Revisions to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO, were unanimously approved Oct. 9 by the Brunswick County Planning Board.

The changes the planning board is recommending to the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners also include a requirement that solar energy farm operators submit to the county an updated decommissioning plan every three years.

The county currently requires a decommissioning plan for solar farm properties that are transferred from one owner to another.

A decommissioning plan details how equipment will be removed from a site once it is no longer in operation, how the property will be restored and a financial guarantee ensuring the responsible party can cover the costs associated with equipment removal and property restoration.

The new rules will not go into effect unless adopted by county commissioners, who are likely to hear from those in the solar energy industry who spoke out last week against the proposed changes to the planning board.

Commissioners initiated the discussion about revamping the county’s UDO solar farm requirements, including limiting the size of solar fields.

“There has been increased activity in this area,” said Brunswick County Planning Director Mike Hargett. “The commissioners have a general concern about the size of these sites.”

In response to that concern, the planning board voted to limit solar farms to no more than 50 acres, enough land to accommodate solar farms up to 45 acres and the required setbacks.

That recommended cap is 15 acres more than the 35-acre limit proposed by county planning staff.

The revisions approved by the planning board include the following setback requirements:

• 200 feet from thoroughfare roads.
• 100 feet from residential districts or residential uses.
• 100 feet from institutional uses.
• 50 feet from commercial districts or uses.
• 25 feet from industrial districts.
• A minimum of 500 feet from scenic byways.

Under the planning board’s recommendations, the UDO is reworded to urge solar farm developers to minimize grading and tree removal from a site. The proposed wording also strongly encourages developers to use native, low-growing grasses and flowers either before or after panel installation, and avoid completely cutting off wildlife corridors.

To date, nine solar farms have been approved for construction and operation in the county. Six farms approved in 2015 are less than five acres each.

Three solar farms recently approved span between 13 and 17 acres.

As solar panel fields continue to crop up, largely in rural areas of North Carolina, counties are grappling with how to best incorporate solar farms with current and future development.

In Brunswick County, solar farms are allowed as a “limited use” in areas zoned commercial-intensive, rural industrial and industrial general. Solar farms are also allowed by special-use permit in rural residential areas.

Representatives of the solar energy industry who spoke to the planning board earlier this week said the current UDO requirements are sufficient.

“The existing UDO is extremely robust,” said Keith Herbs, executive vice president of United Renewable Energy, an Alpharetta, Georgia-based company that builds and maintains solar photovoltaic and energy storage systems. “The UDO that is currently in place is very well thought out.”

The company is the developer of four solar farms currently under construction in Brunswick County. This past summer, United Renewable Energy received permits for three more projects in the county, Herbs said.

Placing a size limit on solar farms restricts the landowner from being able to make a decision on how to best use the land, he said. He urged the planning board to review proposed solar farms on a case-by-case basis.

Herbs said he understands the concept behind establishing a decommissioning plan, but requiring three-year updates, he said, seems redundant on projects that may last 25 to 30 years.

“I think where we feel it can be a little onerous is in terms of identification of who is responsible and timing,” Herbs said.

He said he was not familiar with similar stringent decommissioning plans for other industries such as cellular towers.

Solar farms have a significant scrap value that would almost offset any removal costs upon decommissioning, Herbs argued.

“Part of it has to do with the nature of the business itself,” Hargett said of the decommissioning plan. “It changes. It’s an evolving kind of technology. If the material loses its value it may be that we would need to change the amount of the financial guarantee. Our research does not put faith in the salvage value, frankly.”

Mike Fox, a Greensboro-based attorney representing Cypress Creek Renewables, a solar farm development company with offices throughout the country, said he has seen local governing boards and communities struggle with similar questions and concerns raised in Brunswick County.

“I’m always comfortable with the process of the SUP (special-use permit),” he said. “I would really encourage you not to limit yourself in the future going forward. I would just encourage you to use your existing UDO provisions to control the size.”

Tim Hayes, a manager of engineer, procure and construct, or EPC, projects with Cypress Creek Renewables, said the company will own and operate its solar farms for the long term.

If, for whatever reason, the company discontinues operations, it would recycle the equipment, he said.

“These are very valuable assets,” Hayes said. “We’re not going to abandon this equipment.”

Hargett acknowledged that there is much to be learned about the evolving technology.

“We realize that there’s a lot of moving parts with this,” he said. “There’s a lot that’s not known and a lot that will change. We are committed to solar energy. We have tried to do as best we could as planners to respond to all the various concerns.”

Reprinted from the Tideland News

SWANSBORO – Green Power energized the crowd last week when Queens Creek Elementary School in Onslow County cut the ribbon on a 5-kilowatt solar array. Not only was the event the culmination of a years-long project, it was also a first step toward the future of energy generation.

On a picture-perfect fall day, school and energy industry officials gathered in the shadow of the solar array to celebrate the project.

Elaine Justice, principal of the school that houses kindergarten through fifth grade, said the idea of solar-generated power at the school was born several years ago among a group of fourth- and fifth-grade students, now in high school. She invited three of those students, Kasey Butler, Christian Davis and Erica Miller, to cut the ribbon.

“These students challenged their teachers, their peers and, mostly, their principal, to set us on this path,” Justice said as she asked Davis and Miller to come forward. Butler was unable to attend.

Before they cut that ribbon, though, Queens Creek was celebrated for its push to become a “green power” school in North Carolina.

Queens Creek, already recognized by the Catawba College Center for the Environment as an NC Green School of Excellence, learned in April 2016 that it was selected an NC GreenPower Solar School. Selection by the nonprofit group NC GreenPower meant the school was in line to receive grants from the State Employees Credit Union and NC GreenPower that would pay for two-thirds of the cost to buy and install the array, about $27,000.

The solar array will provide power for the school cafeteria, according to Justice.

“We believe that by using it for the cafeteria, it will make a big difference in our electric bill, because the equipment in there is such a power drain,” she has said.

In her welcoming remarks, Beth Folger, deputy superintendent for Onslow County Schools, said she was impressed by the school’s accomplishment.

“I’m going to speak from the heart,” she said. “I’m excited about the idea that was hatched by the teachers and staff at Queens Creek.”

Not only will the solar array provide savings in the cost of electricity for the school, estimated at $657 annually, it will provide students learning opportunities involving real-life issues, Folger said.

“They are going to solve real-world problems,” she said. “This makes learning come alive.”

Raleigh-based NC GreenPower is a nonprofit organization focused on improving the state’s environment by supporting renewable energy, carbon offset projects and providing grants for solar installations at kindergarten through 12^th-grade schools.

NC GreenPower was formed and is administered by Advanced Energy, a nonprofit that focuses on energy efficiency for residential, commercial and industrial markets, motors and drives and electric transportation. The organization is supported by contributions from people and businesses across the state.

The group’s Solar Schools program provides matching grants for 3-5 kilowatt solar educational projects at schools, complete with a weather station, real-time monitoring, curriculum and training for teachers. The program partners with the State Employees Credit Union Foundation to offer a $10,000 matching challenge grant to awarded public schools that increase their systems to 5 kilowatts.

In his remarks, Robert Goodson, chairman of NC GreenPower Board of Directors and senior vice president and chief operating officer of the North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives, said that Queens Creek becomes the state’s eighth NC GreenPower Solar School.

“These schools advance the idea of renewable energy,” he said. And, Goodson added, five more schools are expected to join the group by the first quarter of 2018. “Those 13 represent our pilot.

“We’re just so pleased we’ve been able to form a partnership with your school.”

Another coastal North Carolina school, Perquimans County Middle School in Winfall, was one of the five selected this year.

Jeff Clark, chief executive officer with Jones-Onslow Electric Membership Corp., which supplies power to Queens Creek, said he kept up with the project’s progress through a friend, Doris Tursi. Tursi, a Queens Creek teacher who recently retired, was regularly in conversation with Clark, he said, urging the project forward.

“It’s been a long time getting here,” he said.

There was great joy when he was finally able to tell Tursi that the project would be happening.

“They represent the future,” he said of efforts like the school’s solar array. “Projects like this are going to transform our future.”

Already, Clark noted, North Carolina produces more solar energy than all but one other state in the country. And as the journey toward renewable energy continues, Queens Creek’s project is one step on that journey.

“We are taking that step today,” Clark said. And, he added, “Jones-Onslow EMC wants to be part of that journey.”

As the ribbon was prepared to cut, Justice made it clear that the two students who would help, Davis and Miller, represent all the students that pushed for the project, all the students who will enjoy its benefits and all the students who have “the green dream.”

“What a great day,” Rick Stout, Onslow County Schools’ superintendent, said in closing. To the cheers of the students surrounding the solar array, he said, “Way to go, Queens Creek! We are excited about innovation.”

Learn More

• NC GreenPower Solar Schools
• Catawba College Center for the Environment

This story is provided courtesy of the Tideland News, a weekly newspaper in Swansboro. Coastal Review Online is partnering with the Tideland to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast. You can read other stories about the Swansboro area here.

WILMINGTON – Wood pellets are often marketed as an energy source that’s a better alternative to fossil fuels, but environmental groups worry about ties between the industry and loss of biodiversity, deforestation, faulty trade policies and climate change.

At a forum last week in the Warwick Center on the University of North Carolina Wilmington campus, speakers focused on the effects of the wood pellet industry in North Carolina. They said that wetlands and mature forests are at risk here, industry logging is hurting water quality and wildlife and increasing heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere.

“Forests aren’t a big part of the conversation about climate change, but they need to be,” said Danna Smith, founder of the Dogwood Alliance, one of the forum sponsors, along with the Cape Fear Sierra Club and Clean Air Carolina.

Demand for wood pellets has increased rapidly in recent years, said Robert Abt, a resource economist at North Carolina State University. Abt noted the decline in traditional timber markets and pine plantations, and how, thanks to an increasing demand from Europe, the wood pellet industry has grown here in the Southeast with the construction of 19 facilities across the region and more on the way.

“The first one in North Carolina was Enviva’s Ahoskie,” said David Carr, general counsel with the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Virginia office, referring to the Maryland-based company’s Hertford County facility that began manufacturing wood pellets in November 2011.

Enviva, which produces 3 million metric tons of wood pellets annually and touts itself as the world’s largest producer of wood pellets, was mentioned frequently during the forum. The company has three wood pellet plants now in the state, with operations also in Northhampton and Sampson counties. At least one more facility is proposed, near Hamlet in Richmond County.

Debra David, with the group Concerned Citizens of Richmond County, also spoke at the forum. She said her community, which is already dealing with many other environmental issues, wasn’t given a chance to speak against the proposed plant in Hamlet.

Related: Enviva Pledges to Protect Forests

The law center has been following the wood pellet industry closely. “It’s based on two flawed assumptions,” Carr said. The first is that the wood pellets are made from waste wood. The second is that as a fuel source, these pellets are carbon neutral. “Both assumptions are incorrect.”

The law center estimates that the pellets are 80 percent hardwood, and that the industry requires the logging of 70 square miles of forest a year, Carr said.

“There’s a myth of American eco-fuel,” said Peter Deane, who has been campaigning against use of wood pellets as a volunteer activist with the Biofuelwatch environmental organization in the United Kingdom. Dean, who traveled to the forum from London, has called the European governments’ support of wood pellets as renewable energy a fraud.

Deane said there is a perception that more sustainable solutions, such as wind power, aren’t the answer and that wood pellets are a “green,” or more environmentally friendly choice. Based on the assumption of carbon neutrality, however, European governments are subsidizing the use of wood pellets.

Forisk Consulting of Watkinsville, Georgia, a business management consulting firm that analyzes forest supplies and wood demand, estimates the global demand for wood pellets will grow at a rate of about 15 percent annually for the next five years before stabilizing at 27.5 million metric tons. This estimate is based on power plants converting from coal to biomass, for example, and an increased interest from countries in Asia. Europe will continue to account for 73 percent of the demand, though, by 2021.

The U.K. will continue to be the largest importer, according to Forisk, with demand expected to increase by 3.3 million metric tons by 2021.

“The U.K. offers $1 billion a year in subsidies,” said William Moomaw, a climate scientist with Tufts University of Medford, Massachusetts. “Without those, it would be far more expensive to use wood pellets for energy.”

Wood pellets are an attractive choice, though, for existing coal plants because they are easily modified to wood pellet use. No one from the wood pellet industry spoke at the forum, but industry supporters say that they are helping lower greenhouse gases and the subsidies will encourage foresters and landowners to re-plant trees.

“But bioenergy is not carbon neutral,” Moomaw emphasized. “We are not doing the accounting well.”  Using wood for fuel is projected to produce higher levels of atmospheric carbon than fossil fuels for decades, he said.

“When we cut down trees for this, we lose all of the other services they offer,” he said, noting that healthy forests improve soil and air quality and help with flood prevention. “Forests stand ready to take up additional carbon dioxide, as they’ve done for 300 million years.”

The industry’s effects, however, go beyond those concerns. Speakers at the forum said logging and wood pellet production threaten the unique ecosystem of North Carolina and the diversity of reptiles and amphibians, as well as other plants and animals that live here.

The North American Coastal Plain, which includes eastern North Carolina, is considered one of the global biodiversity hotspots. Alvin Braswell, who is retired from the North Carolina Museum of Natural History, showed photos of healthy forests that can support animals including bog turtles, glass lizards and the threatened Carolina gopher frog.

The wood pellet industry is another threat to areas already facing other pressures, including development in a state with a growing population. “It also happens that this area is one that is highly imperiled,” said Alan Weakley, an ecologist with the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

To combat this, the Southern Environmental Law Center is pushing for clear standards for more appropriate sources for biofuel, including wood waste, smaller diameter “thinnings,” or trees removed to promote healthier forests, and use of crops such as switchgrass. The organization would also like to help establish protections for national forests, wetlands and old-growth forests.

“We’d also like to address some of the assumptions about the industry,” Carr said. This should include a better understanding of the science and impact on the environment and a more sensible policy regarding wood pellets, he added.

Moomaw said that it would be necessary to adjust public perception of the value of forests, beyond what products can be extracted from them, and to establish a strong carbon trading market to help achieve lower carbon dioxide emissions and solar energy programs.

“We need to offer subsidies to keep those trees standing,” he said.

Learn More

• Southern Environmental Law Center: Biomass Energy In the South
• Dogwood Alliance
• Enviva

Reprinted from the Outer Banks Sentinel

Several companies developing wind farm projects in northeastern North Carolina are taking a wait-and-see approach after Gov. Roy Cooper recently signed a bill with an 18-month moratorium on such projects, but then issued an order allowing “behind the scenes work” to continue during that moratorium.

In late July, Cooper signed House Bill 589 that contained good news for solar energy developers, including a competitive bidding process and a new solar leasing program. But it also contained the 18-month wind farm halt, a reduced version of a four-year moratorium that had been introduced by North Carolina Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown, R-Onslow.

Legislators say the moratorium is intended to allow time for them to more thoroughly study potential effects of wind turbines on area military facilities and operations.

To mitigate the effect of the wind moratorium, Cooper then signed an executive order directing the Department of Environmental Quality to continue recruiting wind energy investments and to “move forward with all of the behind the scenes work involved with bringing wind energy projects online.”

“I want wind energy facilities to come online quickly when this moratorium expires, so our economy and our environment can continue to benefit,” Cooper stated.

The Timbermill Wind project in Chowan County and the Little Alligator wind farm in Tyrrell County had been on track to receive all their needed permits within a year. The moratorium will delay that process until at least the end of 2018.

Kevin Chandler, Apex’s senior manager of federal affairs, said the company is “disappointed by the moratorium. It is anti-innovation and anti-business, and the wind study proposed is unnecessary, given the level of state and federal review already required for wind projects.”

But given “the [Cooper] administration’s willingness to work with companies on permitting while the moratorium is in place, we anticipate continuing to explore options for Timbermill Wind,” he added. “However, if the moratorium is extended or if the study leads to anti-clean energy zoning, we will reconsider that position.”

The British energy firm Renewable Energy Systems, or RES, is developing the Little Alligator project. RES spokesman Scott Dunaway did not rule out continuing work on the project, but said: “RES must reassess the state’s interest in our project and the risks associated with its development permitting.”

Avangrid Renewables, whose $400 million Amazon Wind Farm project just outside of Elizabeth City is now in operation and will not be affected by the moratorium, was guarded in its response.

“With regard to HB 589, we remain focused on our onshore development in Perquimans and Pasquotank counties,” said Avangrid Communications Manager Paul Copleman.

Early this year, Avangrid’s project became fully operational, but only after a group of state lawmakers, including the legislative leadership, tried unsuccessfully to derail the wind farm by petitioning the Trump Administration to halt it, citing national security concerns.

Indeed, the assertion that wind farms could interfere with military operations, including radar facilities, has been frequently cited by those trying to halt such projects. During the attempt to stop the Amazon project, however, media accounts quoted Navy sources as saying it would not interfere with military operations.

There was no response to a request for comment for this story from the Navy.

But Rep. Bob Steinburg, a Chowan County Republican representing much of northeastern North Carolina, was a staunch supporter of the Amazon Wind Farm outside of Elizabeth City. Steinburg said he strongly opposed the moratorium.

“There is no one anywhere in the military who has gone on record stating that they have any problems with wind energy,” he said. Wind farm opponents are “using the military as a straw man … I am totally pro-military and I would never support any renewable project that was going to impede the ability of our military to function in any way.”

Noting that the Amazon Wind Farm is located in his district, as are the planned project sites for the Tyrrell and Chowan counties, Steinburg said he is upset over the loss of badly needed revenue for Tyrrell and Chowan counties.

“Renewable energy is a foregone conclusion going into the 21st century and it will continue to grow and prosper,” he added. “So we need to do all we can to encourage the consideration of all renewable energy as part of the overall energy policy for our state and our country.”

Learn More

• Timbermill Wind
• Renewable Energy Systems

This story is provided courtesy of the Outer Banks Sentinel, a weekly Dare County newspaper that is published in print every Wednesday and headquartered at 2910 South Croatan Highway, Nags Head. Aside from the print paper, the Sentinel also produces a continually updated digital version at www.obsentinel.com.

WILMINGTON – Gov. Roy Cooper’s message last month to Washington echoed throughout a state-hosted public hearing Monday night on the proposed federal offshore leasing program.

The North Carolina governor’s stern statement “not off our coast” or a variation thereof reverberated throughout the two-hour public hearing attended by about 175 people.

An overwhelming majority spoke in opposition to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling, expressing concerns about how such activity would result in oil spills, destroy the coastal economy and irreparably harm the environment.

“I’ve heard the argument many times ‘let’s update the seismic geological and geophysical data because what we have is old and we don’t know what’s out there,’ ” said Hampstead resident Jack Spruill.

Standing at a podium at the front of a sprawling room in the New Hanover County Government Center, Spruill followed that statement with the adage, “You better not go a courtin’ if you’re not prepared to get married.”

“I’m concerned about all aspects of this issue,” he said.

The one facet he chose to focus on during his three-minute allotted time to speak was onshore infrastructure.

Spruill lived in southern Louisiana for eight years. He spent half of those years as a Navy Reserve officer attached to a destroyer based in New Orleans.

It was in The Big Easy where Spruill said he saw the onshore infrastructure that supported offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Probably the simplest thing to talk about is pipelines,” he said. “Pipelines have to be buried in south Louisiana, just like they would have to be buried in North Carolina. It can’t come ashore through our inlets. All of our inlets are too unstable and we have to dredge them. Which one would we pick to have the pipeline come ashore?”

Spruill was one of more than 35 North Carolina residents, business owners and area elected officials who spoke at the meeting where attendees were repeatedly asked to refrain from applauding as a show of respect for everyone.

The hearing was the first of three the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, is hosting along the coast this week to gather public comments about the five-year national outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program.

The program would open the door to oil and natural gas exploration in the Atlantic Ocean from 2019-2024.

Seismic testing, the process of determining how much oil and gas are underneath the ocean floor, is controversial in itself.

These tests use air guns to send sonic waves that penetrate the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

The blasts of sound may cause physiological distress and disturb the normal behavior patterns of marine mammals, according to marine mammal experts.

Oil and gas industry representatives argue that strict federal regulations and testing oversight protect marine mammals. And, they say, new geological and geophysical technology could further reduce the effects on marine wildlife.

Both points were raised Monday by North Carolina Petroleum Council Executive Director David McGowan at the hearing.

McGowan, a Wilmington native, was the first of a small handful of people who said they support the federal leasing program.

He urged the crowd to engage in “thoughtful dialogue” and “fact-based” debate.

McGowan said he’s proud to represent an industry that directly and indirectly supports more than 145,000 jobs in North Carolina. That number came from a 2014 American Petroleum Institute “Onshore Oil and Gas Vendor Identification Survey.”

As he walked from the podium, people in the audience shouted “No! Never!” and “Sit down!”

Some of the speakers who followed McGowan retorted that the industry was supporting enough North Carolina jobs without offshore exploration and drilling.

Cooper announced July 20 he does not support drilling off the North Carolina coast. He already has submitted anti-drilling arguments to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The governor has until Aug. 17 to respond to the federal five-year leasing plan.

Several who spoke against offshore exploration and drilling expressed frustration that they were defending the same arguments they had expressed a few years ago.

Shortly before leaving office, President Barack Obama declared Atlantic and Arctic waters off-limits for offshore drilling.

President Donald Trump in April issued an executive order to resume federal reviews of a half-dozen geological and geophysical, or G&G, applications to explore the Atlantic.

“We’ve already been through this fight once,” Carolina Beach resident Scott Veals said. “We don’t need this off our coast. We need to have something in place that says this is the way it is and we’re not going to change it.”

More than 30 coastal communities in the state have passed resolutions opposing offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling.

The list includes Kure Beach, which became the 100^th community on the East Coast to adopt an anti-drilling resolution. The town council passed the resolution in 2016 after the former mayor was ousted for signing an oil industry lobbying letter supporting offshore exploration.

“It’s just not a good idea and the town still has the same opinion on offshore drilling,” Councilman Joseph Whitley said.

Wilmington resident Scott Hunt said he had not planned to speak at the public hearing until one of the speakers equated employees in the oil and gas industry to an increase in crime and sexually transmitted diseases. Hunt said those comments prompted him to share his 10-year experience as an employee in the offshore industry where he primarily conducted seismic surveying.

“I hate public speaking,” he said. “I really don’t do this. I never had any of the experiences with damage to the environment, damage to marine life, any of that. I just want to say I think we should give it a fair shot. Certainly, accidents happen, but we’re not going to shut down airports because we occasionally have a plane crash.”

Wilmington resident and physician Dr. Robert Parr verbally painted a picture of chronic oil spills from leaking rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

“There’s approximately 30,000 wells in the Gulf that are gushing oil, dripping oil,” Parr said. “So, while we’re here today talking about this the water is being contaminated. Drip, drip, drip.”

He addressed a common theme throughout the hearing – that this community is in the middle of a fight about the recently revealed contaminant Gen-X in the Cape Fear River.

“We have water in New Hanover County and all along the Cape Fear that is poisoned,” Parr said. “We were promised that that wouldn’t happen.”

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Director Braxton Davis said the public hearings will be summarized and released following the Aug. 15 deadline for residents to submit written comments.

The next public hearing will be  5 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Crystal Coast Civic Center in Morehead City. The final hearing will be hosted 5 to 7 p.m. Thursday at the Dare County Government Complex.

Learn More

• Five-year program 

WILMINGTON – Many of them have been down this path before.

Advocating, educating, petitioning – all to create a unified voice of opposition to oil and natural gas exploration and drilling off the North Carolina coast.

For some of the locals heading up the newly formed Save Our Sea, or SOS, a community-based organization, this is another round in a not-so-long-ago fight.

Now, however, they’re armed with the knowledge gleaned when under former President Barack Obama’s administration the federal government considered opening the Atlantic to seismic testing and the possibility of offshore drilling.

This time, in an area where the success of keeping a cement manufacturing giant from moving in is still fresh, they’re emboldened, bringing to the table the lessons learned from their successes, mistakes and missteps.

“I’d like to think if there was a lesson to learn from that eight-year battle, we really have become a community that is incredibly informed, engaged and, most importantly, empowered,” said Kayne Darrell.

Darrell was forefront in Stop Titan Action Network, the grassroots group that lead a fervent fight for nearly a decade to stop Titan America from opening a cement manufacturing plant in Castle Hayne.

“Literally, we spent eight years listening to people saying we were wasting our time,” she said.

Darrell is among several locals who’ve joined forces to create Save Our Sea in answer to a call earlier this summer from environmental organizations to form citizen-based groups opposed to offshore drilling.

More than 100 people attended that early June meeting, one spearheaded by environmental advocacy groups, including Oceana and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, in the weeks following President Donald Trump’s reversal of the federal government’s denial of six seismic testing permit applications.

The Trump administration earlier this year directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, to develop a new, five-year program for offshore oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic from Delaware to Florida.

That exploration entails a process known as seismic testing, which uses airguns to shoot sonic waves to the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

This method of testing is controversial because the use of sound may disturb the normal behavioral patterns of marine mammals such as right whales and dolphins.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, in June opened a 30-day public comment period on incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, which regulate the number of “takes” of marine mammals allowed during seismic testing. That comment period was extended to July 21.

NMFS reviews all proposed seismic activities for incidental “takes,” which are defined as the inadvertent harming, killing, disturbance or destruction of wildlife that may occur during such testing.

The geological and geophysical, or G&G, industry maintains that there are mitigation measures in place to reduce the effects of sei smic blasting on marine mammals. Opponents, including marine mammal experts, argue seismic testing disrupts the mammals’ communication and may cause physiological distress, altering the animals’ migration patterns, feeding and reproduction.

SOS is a group that wants to send the message to elected representatives that the coast of North Carolina “shouldn’t be exploited,” said David Cignotti, another of the groups’ founders.

“We would like to see our state concentrate more on jobs with clean, renewable energy,” Cignotti said. “In all likelihood, any oil or gas jobs won’t stay here. We know that if they drill, there will be spills. I think you can put out a simple message. I think the statistics are on our side.”

Cignotti is a former mayor of Wrightsville Beach. During his time as mayor, he openly opposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic.

“I think we already have put a lot of work in on this issue,” he said. “Now we’re just re-galvanizing this issue and working to try and change the president’s mind. I think it’s going to be real important that we continue to work together.”

Wrightsville Beach is one of 125 communities up and down the East Coast that have since 2013 passed resolutions opposing offshore oil and natural gas exploration and drilling.

SOS organizers say the group will likely work, on occasion, with the Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or BEAT, a citizen-led environmental advocacy organization, in the fight against offshore oil and gas activities.

Members of both groups traveled to Atlantic Beach July 20 to hear Gov. Roy Cooper give a short speech about where his administration stands on the issue.

His message: “Not off our coast.”

Cooper’s words have since been plastered on social media in which groups like SOS and BEAT so heavily depend upon to spread their message.

SOS organizers say they plan to schedule their first public meeting in August. The date will be announced on the group’s Facebook page.

ATLANTIC BEACH – Flanked Thursday by mayors of a half-dozen eastern North Carolina communities, Gov. Roy Cooper cited the threat to the “robust coastal economy” from proposed offshore drilling and seismic exploration for oil and natural gas off the state’s coast and pledged to lead the renewed fight against it.

During an appearance at Fort Macon State Park, Cooper framed his opposition in terms of protecting the state’s coastal environment and economy that it supports from the “unacceptable risks” offshore drilling and exploration could bring, risks that the governor said would outweigh any benefits to the state.

“I can sum it up in four words: not off our coast,” Cooper said to enthusiastic applause from those gathered in the education and visitor center, including representatives of various environmental groups, local officials and others opposed to offshore drilling and seismic exploration.

“We have consulted with experts and we’ve examined carefully what we know about this,” Cooper said. “It’s clear that opening North Carolina’s coast to oil and gas exploration and drilling would bring unacceptable risks to our economy, our environment and our coastal communities and for little potential gain for our state.”

President Trump signed an executive order in April aimed at removing restrictions on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Alaskan coasts put in place during the final months of the Obama administration. In June, the Trump administration opened the public comment period for a new, five-year energy leasing program for the outer continental shelf, a move toward opening East Coast waters to oil and gas exploration and drilling. The program for oil and gas development sets a schedule for proposed oil and gas lease sales off the coast.

Public comments on the proposed program continue to be accepted through Aug. 17. Friday is the deadline for public comments on incidental harassment authorizations during seismic surveys as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Cooper said Thursday that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality would submit formal comments opposing offshore seismic testing.

Cooper’s announcement marks a complete reversal for the executive branch on state energy policy. His predecessor, Pat McCrory, had championed offshore exploration even suggesting at one point that drilling in state waters, those within 3 miles offshore, would be worth studying.

While highlighting the threat to the coastal economy, including the $3 billion generated annually by coastal tourism, the more than 30,000 jobs it supports and the $95 million commercial fishing industry, Cooper described the risk in personal terms.

“I grew up a few hours east of here in Nash County and, like many other North Carolinians, I have wonderful memories of coming here with my parents and my brother, staying up the road there at the John Yancey Motor Hotel and, because it didn’t have a restaurant, walking over to the Sea Hawk for breakfast that morning,” Cooper said, referring to the former oceanfront lodging in Atlantic Beach that was renamed in 1993 and eventually closed.

The governor said the state park and surrounding area are “steeped in history” with an unspoiled coastline that he and others had long enjoyed.

“This place is part of who I am, as it is for many of you, whether you grew up in this state or the state attracted you to come and live here,” Cooper said. “Here in North Carolina, it’s pretty clear that our coast is part of our identity.”

It was a message similar to the one delivered by Atlantic Beach Mayor Trace Cooper in his introduction of the governor. “I’m here to talk to you today not just as mayor but also as a citizen of the coast and as a businessperson. I own and operate businesses in both the hospitality and real estate industries and, along with fishing, those are really the pillars of our economy here on the coast of North Carolina,” the Bogue Banks town’s mayor said. “That clean, natural environment is what attracts literally millions of people to our coast every year.”

The governor said there is no offshore drilling method that’s 100 percent safe and the risks of catastrophic events such as oil spills come with the industry.

“Oil spills bring devastating long-term damage to every place they touch,” Gov. Cooper said.

Cooper noted that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 cost more than $60 billion in cleanup and economic recovery, an amount equivalent to the state budget for more than two years. The risk comes with little promise of financial benefit to the state. North Carolina is unlikely to get the jobs, revenue sharing or state port business that drilling proponents have touted.

“That’s a bad deal for our state,” Cooper said.

The Interior Department earlier this month announced reduced royalty rates for Gulf Coast states to encourage drilling by oil companies that have been reluctant during a yearslong period low oil prices. Revenue sharing with Atlantic coast states is not allowed by federal law.

The environmental risks to North Carolina are greater, Cooper said, with the current push for deregulation in Washington. “They are slashing funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior. That means fewer safeguards for the environment and ultimately offshore drilling,” Cooper said. “It is simply not worth it.”

Cooper also cited improving renewable technologies and the abundance and lower cost of natural gas in recent years.

“Our state is a national leader in solar energy, an area that has boosted our economic recovery. Natural gas is cheaper and plentiful now. We simply don’t need to take the risk of drilling for oil off of our coast because there are too many reliable energy options,” he said.

The governor acknowledged the more than 30 coastal communities that have passed resolutions opposed to offshore drilling and seismic testing and the more than 200 businesses and community groups that have come out against the proposal. Cooper also noted that a bipartisan mix of the state’s congressional delegation and legislative members had voiced opposition as well.

“I am proud to lead this effort,” Cooper said.

The board of commissioners in Carteret County, which is home to Fort Macon, is one of two coastal North Carolina county boards that passed resolutions in favor of offshore drilling. Brunswick County is the other. The Carteret County Chamber of Commerce, the county’s largest business organization, has since approved a resolution opposed to offshore drilling and seismic testing in the Atlantic.

Tom Kies is president of the Carteret County chamber and vice-chair of the Business Alliance to Protect the Atlantic Coast, or BAPAC, a multi-state business organization opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast. Kies was pleased the governor came here to make the announcement.

“His aides told me, before he arrived, that BAPAC had been in no small part an influence in the decision-making process,” Kies said. “In the governor’s speech, he specified how important tourism is to this coast and how many jobs it supports. He pointed out the economic risks to both tourism and commercial fishing. This is precisely the story that BAPAC has been telling.”

Conservation groups were also quick to praise the governor’s announcement.

“We want to thank Gov. Cooper for taking a bold and necessary step toward protecting our state’s coastline from the environmental and economic threats posed by offshore drilling. We look forward to working together with his administration and the communities along the North Carolina coast to protect our beaches, wildlife and local economies from harm,” North Carolina Conservation Network Executive Director Brian Buzby said in a statement issued shortly after the governor’s appearance.

Audubon North Carolina also applauded the announcement and cited the economic benefit the state enjoys from birders who visit the coast.

“Migrating birds count on our coast each year to feed and nest, particularly along the Outer Banks,” said Audubon North Carolina Executive Director Heather Hahn. “North Carolina’s birds, beaches and people should not have to live in fear of an oil spill.  The bottom line – birds and oil don’t mix.”

North Carolina Petroleum Council Executive Director David McGowan issued a statement in response to Cooper’s announcement, saying the policy stifles scientific and geological research that’s vital to government, educators and the business community.

“Today’s announcement takes North Carolina in the wrong direction and misses a significant opportunity for our states’ workers, consumers, businesses, and economy,” said McGowan. “The oil and natural gas industry supports over 140,000 jobs in North Carolina, contributes over $12 billion to our state economy, and impacts businesses all across the state. Our state is uniquely positioned to add thousands of additional jobs and increase local revenue through safe and responsible offshore energy development – all of which is disregarded by Governor Cooper’s announcement.”

Learn More

• Submit comments on incidental harassment authorizations
• Submit comments on the proposed five-year energy leasing program

CRO legislative reporter Kirk Ross contributed to this report.

WILMINGTON – Like a general rallying troops before war, environmental advocates made clear the fight against seismic testing in the Atlantic may be tough, but winnable.

“The battle for the Atlantic has begun and we are going to win this battle,” said Randy Sturgill, the Southeast campaign coordinator for Oceana, a national conservation group that has been among the leaders in the fight against offshore drilling in the mid-Atlantic. “This one is really going to take you getting down and really getting into the trenches and fighting. What we want to do is ignite that here tonight. Welcome to the fight.”

Sturgill led off a meeting Tuesday hosted by various environmental groups hoping to garner residents throughout the Cape Fear region to form a citizen-based group opposed to offshore drilling following President Donald Trump’s reversal of the federal government’s denial of six seismic testing permit applications.

Their first order of business: write the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, about the negative effects seismic air gun blasting may have on marine mammals. The agency reviews all proposed seismic activities for incidental “takes” — the inadvertent harming, killing, disturbance or destruction of wildlife — anticipated during such testing.

On Monday, NMFS opened a 30-day public comment period on incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, which regulate the number of “takes” of marine mammals allowed during seismic testing.

Mike Giles, a coastal advocate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation’s southeast regional office, called the 91-page notice “complex.”

The federation, along with the other environmental organizations that hosted the Tuesday night event, including Oceana, and the local chapters of the North Carolina Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, is offering to help residents who want to comment on the proposed assessments.

The meeting, which drew more than 100 residents, including members of various community organizations such as the recently formed Brunswick Environmental Action Team, or BEAT, was the first in what is expected to be a series of informational meetings about the potential environmental and economic impacts of seismic testing.

For many in the large meeting room of the New Hanover County Northeast Regional Library, this ensuing fight will be the second time around.

Several people indicated they were part of a collective voice of opposition that arose in 2013 after the Kure Beach mayor at the time signed an oil industry lobbying letter supporting testing for offshore oil.

It was a move that marked the southern North Carolina coastal area as the ground zero of a public uprising against offshore drilling, one Sturgill calls the “homegrown resolution revolution.”

In 2016, Kure Beach, led by a new mayor, became the 100^th municipality to oppose offshore oil drilling.

In all, 125 communities up and down the East Coast have passed similar resolutions opposing offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling.

Environmental advocates say then-President Barack Obama listened to that opposition, ordering the U.S. Department of Interior in January to deny all six applications from seismic testing companies aiming to test for oil and gas reserves within the Outer Continental Shelf.

On May 10, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order forging ahead Trump’s agenda to explore energy resources in the Atlantic.

The 50-mile buffer from the coast established during the Obama administration no longer exists.

This means testing could take place “within earshot” of coastal residents, Giles said.

Seismic testing uses air guns towed behind ships to send sonic waves that penetrate the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

The controversy around these tests is that the use of sound may disturb the normal behavioral patterns of marine mammals such as right whales and dolphins.

The background noise created from the blasts make it harder for marine mammals to hear each other, their young and predators, according to marine mammal scientists. This noise disrupts communication, may cause physiological distress, alter the animals’ migration patterns, their feeding and reproduction.

“This seismic testing, it happens 24 hours a day, just about all year,” Giles said. “It’s constant. This is just a bad idea. They’re going to continue to blast these seismic air guns over and over and over again up to two to three years.”

If granted, the current applications would allow vessels that conduct seismic testing to overlap testing areas, which means testing would be conducted in the same areas multiple times, increasing further the number and duration of blasts, opponents say.

Commercial fishing, ocean-dependent tourism, and commercial shipping and transportation will be impacted by seismic testing, Giles said.

“The costs are great,” he said. “What do we want our coast to be? That’s the question we’ve got to answer. If they drill, they will spill, and the costs are too great for our coasts.”

Doug Wakeman, a retired professor of economics at Meredith College’s School of Business, and member of the federation’s board of directors, briefly addressed the 2013 report Quest Offshore Resources Inc. of Texas prepared for the American Petroleum Institute and National Ocean Industries Association.

The Quest report forecasts North Carolina would benefit the most in the oil and gas industry jobs – a projected 55,000 by 2035 – of any state along the Eastern Seaboard with an estimated $4 billion increase in economic activity.

The report doesn’t take into account the current price of oil, which has significantly dropped since the report was compiled, Wakeman said.

“I think we can charitably call it propaganda parading as science,” Wakeman said of the Quest report. “Basically you can take anything in that report and disregard it.”

That’s just what residents like Bruce Holsten plan to do.

Holsten, chairman of the Cape Fear Economic Council, was one of a handful of residents who volunteered at the Tuesday night meeting to take on leadership roles, helping offshore drilling opponents organize and write letters to their local, state and federal representatives.

“This is an economic issue, big time,” he said. “We’ve got to stop that blasting. You stop the blasting, nothing happens.”

Learn More

• Read the Official Notice, Submit Comments
• Incidental Harassment Authorization Applications

WASHINGTON – The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, proposed Monday to issue five permits that would allow the oil and gas industry to conduct controversial seismic surveys for oil and natural gas off the East Coast from the New Jersey/Delaware border to central Florida.

NMFS, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and also known as NOAA Fisheries, on Tuesday published in the Federal Register notice of five proposed Incidental Harassment Authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as required for permitting of seismic exploration. The public has 30 days beginning Tuesday to comment on the proposed authorizations, which allow for a one-year period the incidental taking of marine mammals during the surveys. A “taking” is defined under the act as unintentional but not unexpected harassment, capture or killing of a marine mammal and is illegal without authorization.

The actions follow President Trump’s executive order of April 28, a move to reverse the previous administration’s order that permanently protects large portions of the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean from offshore drilling.

Seismic blasting for oil and gas exploration is the first step of a broader plan to subject the Atlantic Ocean and other coastal areas to offshore drilling, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit environmental organization that held a press briefing Monday on the proposal to permit seismic testing along the Atlantic coast.

Michael Jasny, NRDC’s director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project, said during the briefing that the action was “a big step toward drilling off the East Coast.”

Five companies have applied for permits to crisscross the Atlantic coastal and ocean waters, trolling with an array of industrial-sized air guns that create blasts as loud as explosives, pounding the water for months on end, as Jasny characterized the process.

“And this is only the beginning. Next year would see more seismic tests with leasing and drilling and more seismic likely to follow. Drilling represents a major threat to the environment and to coastal communities,” Jasny explained. Adding, communities along the coast would always be faced with the risk of oil spills, damage to beaches and ecosystems, along with the threats from sea-level rise along the coast resulting from climate change.

“Seismic testing is the precursor to drilling. But seismic alone is a serious assault on our coast and ocean,” Jasny said.

Gail Adams-Jackson, vice-president, communications and external affairs with the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the seismic industry’s trade organization, described the process differently, emphasizing in an email response to CRO that seismic surveys are not “testing.”

“Nor do we utilize cannons or ‘blasts’ that are comparable to dynamite nor any other chemical explosive or 100,000 times louder than a jet engine. The sound produced by explosives or jet engines, which is still louder than a seismic source, is a by-product of a process that generates a lot of heat and chemical pollution that are absent from seismic air sources. Seismic air sources are the cleanest, most energy efficient means of putting sound into the underlying rock to generate geological imagery,” Adams-Jackson said in the email.

The oil and gas and geophysical industries maintain that after more than 50 years of worldwide seismic surveys and more than 15 years of peer-reviewed scientific research, there is no evidence that sound from properly mitigated seismic surveys has had any significant effect on marine life. The seismic industry says it’s committed to operating in an environmentally responsible manner.

Adams-Jackson told Coastal Review Online, “Because surveys are temporary and transitory, they are the least intrusive way to explore the earth’s geology and its dynamic processes which impact human lives.  Modern seismic technology is similar to ultrasound technology used in the medical profession for imaging the human body; both technologies use sound to produce images.”

She continued, “While the IAGC and its members appreciate the recognition of the potential that sound from seismic surveys might have adverse environmental consequences, and we remain committed to taking expensive and elaborate measures to reduce those potential effects. We fund independent credible scientific research to search for actual effects. Further, no one, including the fossil fuel opposition, has been able to offer tangible, replicable, scientific evidence of any adverse effect. We encourage anyone to offer evidence, not speculation, that sound from geophysical surveys do in fact present ‘any impacts on marine mammal populations.’”

Others disagree.

Jasny, during the press briefing, referenced a study performed two years ago by 75 scientists warning of “significant long-lasting and widespread harm” to fish and marine mammal populations off the East Coast should seismic testing be introduced.

Doug Nowacek, a marine scientist with Duke University, has studied for decades marine biology and acoustics, including man-made ocean noise along with that from seismic air gun surveys. He is also one of the 75 marine scientists who participated in the study and spoke during the NDRC briefing

“I am deeply concerned about the service’s proposal and about the effects that the enormous amount of air gun activity it would permit and would have on marine life,” Nowacek began during his portion of the briefing.

“Sound and hearing are of transcendent importance to many ocean lifeforms, including marine mammals and fish. It is essential to much of what they do in the water and essential to their ability to survive and reproduce. Noises out of the ordinary, that being louder than the normal background levels of sound, can disrupt this vital behavior,” Nowacek said. “Many years of science confirms this basic point. Adverse effects can include displacing animals from their habitat, changing their foraging patterns, compromising their predator avoidance, disrupting their feeding behavior, and for whales, silencing them or otherwise causing them to alter their vocal behavior.”

Nowacek explained that a recently published paper reviewed more than 20 years of peer-reviewed study on the adverse impact of human-produced noise on wildlife, including marine mammals. The review concluded that noise can and does impact individual fitness, and alters the structure of ecological communities.

“So, what are the effects of these air guns on marine life?” Nowacek asked.

He used the example of a baleen whale, many of which are considered endangered under U.S. law. “Baleen whales use the same sound frequencies used by air guns to communicate with each other and to explore their environment. Peer-reviewed scientific research has demonstrated repeatedly that the sound produced by air guns can disrupt the behavior of baleen whales over enormous distances, silencing them or causing them to abandon their habitat.”

Also of concern along the Atlantic Coast is the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. There are fewer than 500 remaining, and all recent data points toward the species being in decline.

“We know from passive acoustic monitoring that these whales use much of our East Coast waters for much of the year,” Nowacek continued. “And of utmost importance are the mother-calf pairs. Most of the right whale calves are born in the waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, and we know from other baleen whales that mother-calf pairs use very quiet vocalizations to maintain contact and to mediate nursing behavior.”

Nowacek said there’s concern that further increases in man-made noise from seismic surveys and other sources could disrupt this vital behavior of these whales and separate calves from their mother of this critically endangered species.

He said researchers have also documented significant effects of air guns on toothed whales such as dolphins and porpoises and other scientific studies have reported that air gun surveys can change the behavior of fish.

“A recent paper on marine policy that I was part of documented the abandonment of a reef during a seismic survey. Seismic surveys have been shown to cause stress responses in fish that substantially reduce catch rates in some commercial fish species. As a result, … both the South Atlantic and mid-Atlantic fisheries management councils, created by Congress to help manage fisheries, have issued statements opposing the proposed seismic exploration along the Atlantic Coast,” he said.

“In short, air gun surveys affect a wide range of marine species from whales, to fish to invertebrates. The types of behaviors effected are often essential to survival and reproduction and seismic surveys disrupt them, in some cases, at very large spatial scales. Yet the National Marine Fisheries Service in its proposed authorization appears to treat air gun exploration as though its potential impact were restricted to a small area and it fails to consider the aggregate effects of many surveys that it is proposing to permit in future years. I remain deeply concerned about the impact on this region if the surveys are allowed to go forward as proposed.”

Adams-Jackson in her statement said, “The true and ultimate measure of the consequences of our interaction with the marine environment is in the health of the population.  And, we have 50-plus years of seismic occurring in the presence of healthy, stable or growing populations of marine mammals, turtles and other protected species in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere around the world which suggests that behavioral effects of seismic in the Atlantic will be similarly inconsequential.”

Another Blow for the Seafood Business?

Rick Baumann founder and owner of Murrells Inlet Seafood in South Carolina, said during the press briefing he has participated during the last 50 years in all angles of the seafood business, seeing changes from the perspective of a harvester, wholesaler, retailer and restaurateur.

“The company I founded, Murrells Inlet Seafood, is located in the seafood capital of South Carolina. The entire economy of the village is dependent on fresh local seafood,” Baumann said. “It should be obvious to anyone who looks at this issue seriously that seismic blasting and offshore drilling are a real threat to our way of life and our ability to provide fresh seafood to the public.”

Baumann explained that it’s already very difficult to survive in the commercial fishing industry.

“We comply with many government regulations about what, when and how much can be harvested, knowing that we must protect the resources, which sustain our professions. With sustainable fish populations obviously the goal of these regulations, it is very difficult for us to understand how the U.S. government would even seriously entertain the prospects of seismic blasting and offshore drilling in our ocean,” Baumann said. “So why would the government even think about allowing the filthy and accident-prone oil business to proceed with this dangerous procedure that so greatly effects the same wildlife that we all seek to protect with the restricted fishing regulations? The American seafood industry is struggling to survive. We don’t need our fishing stocks displaced, injured or killed … .”

Baumann added that virtually every coastal fishing village, town and city have adopted resolutions through their elected leaders to oppose seismic blasting and offshore drilling and the Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic that represents many thousands of businesses from Maine to Miami and more than 500,000 commercial fishing families, is adamantly opposed to seismic oil as well because of the harm it will do to coastal economies.  The fishing industry does not want to see the Atlantic resources everyone wants to save being blasted to disruption and death.

“We advocate for the future of our livelihood by working with the government to rebuild our fish stocks and clean up our estuaries and oceans. Allowing the oil industry to proceed with seismic blasting is a reckless and flawed approach to sustaining recreational and commercial fishing resources and the vast economies that depend on them,” Baumann said.

Adams-Jackson said that “more than five decades of activity around the world demonstrates there is no evidence that physical harm can occur from exposure to seismic air pulses. That experience also shows that seismic activities, tourism, fishing and fisheries can and do coexist successfully.  One example is in the Gulf of Mexico where oil and natural gas activities are common, the fishing industry supports more than 120,000 jobs and produces about $980 million worth of seafood every year in the midst of a thriving and growing tourism economy.”

Learn More

• NRDC
• Michael Jasny’s blog
• International Association of Geophysical Contractors
• Information on public comment

JACKSONVILLE – The prospect of seismic testing in search of oil and gas resources off the North Carolina coast is once again on the table.

The Department of Interior earlier this month rescinded the January denial of permit applications from six seismic testing companies aiming to conduct surveys in the Mid- and South-Atlantic outer continental shelf.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order May 10 that  forges ahead President Donald Trump’s agenda to explore energy resources in the Atlantic.

Secretarial Order 3350 reverses former President Barack Obama’s order in January to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, to deny permit applications from companies seeking to conduct geological and geophysical, or G&G, activities off the East Coast from Delaware to Florida.

“That decision underestimated the benefits of obtaining updated G&G information and ignored the conclusions of BOEM’s Atlantic G&G Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, which showed that no significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of these seismic surveys,” according to a release from the Interior Department.

This statement is contradictory to comments made by former BOEM Director Abigail Ross Hopper, who, in a written directive denying the applications, expressed concerns about the potential harmful effects of seismic testing on marine mammals.

Seismic testing uses air guns towed behind ships to send sonic waves that penetrate the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

Seismic operations are controversial because the use of sound may disturb the normal behavioral patterns of marine mammals.

“As far as the impact goes, the chances of an animal being outright killed by seismic air gun arrays are slim,” said Doug Nowacek, a professor at the Duke Marine Lab and one of the world’s leading experts on marine mammals. “The effects that we worry about mostly is producing sound in their environment and that’s the sensory mode they use.”

Seismic air gun blasts create background noise, making it harder for marine mammals to hear each other, their young and predators.

Not only does this background noise disrupt communication, it may cause physiological distress, altering the animals’ migration patterns, feeding, and, even reproduction.

The Atlantic Ocean hosts a diversity of mammals, about 30 or so that include humpback and North Atlantic right whales and dolphins. These species, as well as sea turtles, are among those that could be affected by the use of airguns conducting seismic operations.

The G&G industry maintains that there are mitigation measures in place to reduce the effects on marine mammals.

The Trump administration has directed BOEM to develop a new five-year program for offshore oil and gas exploration, though it is unclear how long the permitting review process may take.

“Under the executive order from the president, he did ask that we streamline the process or find ways to streamline,” said Connie Gillette, BOEM’s chief of public affairs. “I think it’s not unreasonable to say that it could be a year or two years. There’s multiple things that have to happen. It just takes a while.”

Before applications get the all-clear they must be approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s, or NOAA, fisheries. The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, reviews all proposed seismic activities for incidental “takes” — the inadvertent harming, killing, disturbance or destruction of wildlife — anticipated during such testing.

Permits and authorizations for the “take” of a protected species are required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, the future of which is uncertain under the current administration.

Incidental harassment authorizations, or IHAs, may be released in the coming weeks, during which time the public will have the opportunity to comment.

IHAs typically contain a variety of mitigation measures.

“Some of those hopefully should be time-area closures, including Cape Hatteras,” Nowacek said.

He describes this area where, in a typical day, you can expect to see four to five different species of whales, various sea turtle species and hammerhead sharks, as “the marine equivalent of the Serengeti.”

Environmental groups, including Oceana, which has been a leader in campaigning against seismic testing, have begun again to rally in opposition to prospective seismic testing in the Atlantic.

A representative with the American Petroleum Institute did not respond to a request for comment.

International Association of Geophysical Contractors, or IAGC, President Nikki Martin lauded the Trump administration’s decision to reopen permit application reviews.

“Offshore seismic surveys have a long history of providing an accurate assessment of our nation’s oil and natural gas resources in an environmentally safe manner, critical to informing an effective national energy strategy and future OCS leasing decisions and plans,” Martin stated.

The IAGC represents more than 125 G&G companies.

The industry defends offshore energy exploration methods, saying there’s no scientific evidence that links the sound from air gun blasts to the deaths of whales and other marine life.

Industry officials argue that existing G&G survey data, collected more than 30 years ago, is outdated.

In her directive to deny seismic testing permit applications, Hopper wrote that there are currently moves to develop “quieting” technology for seismic surveys.

BOEM in 2014 hosted a workshop that including government, industry, environmental groups and researchers to “gain a better understanding of these emerging technologies.”

“The most promising alternative to airguns appears to be marine vibroseis technology,” Hopper wrote.

Vibroseis reduces the loud “shot” of air gun surveying by spreading the energy used to create the sound over a longer duration.

“The economic feasibility of this technology remains to be proven and the potential environmental impacts tested,” Hopper wrote. “There is no silver bullet. However, by engaging industry and the regulators, I expect technologies will be developed that can produce data that is commensurate to that being produced by currently available airgun seismic survey techniques, but with much less environmental impact.”

Such technology “should absolutely be part of the equation,” Nowacek said. “I think it would be irresponsible for BOEM and NMFS to not evaluate the new technology like vibroseis. What people need to understand is that it’s not just a one-time thing. They go out there and, if they find some areas that look promising, they’re going to want to shoot seismic every three to five years.”

The G&G companies that have applied to conduct seismic testing in the Atlantic would be overlapping the same test areas, particularly off the coast of Cape Hatteras, he said.

“Why don’t we just have one survey and then everyone buys the data as they need it?” Nowacek asked. “That is what we mean by wise use of resources while mitigating the impacts to the environment.”

Learn More

• Secretarial Order 3350
• President Trump’s executive order

KITTY HAWK — With a bid of $9 million dollars for the lease to develop the Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area, or WEA, Avangrid, a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola SA, has secured the rights to develop one of the largest areas on the East Coast. With a theoretical potential of 2,000 megawatts, the Kitty Hawk WEA could generate enough energy to power a million homes.

Avangrid, which declined an opportunity to comment for this report, already has a toehold in northeastern North Carolina. The Amazon Wind Farm in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties, which generates 200 MW, or 200 million watts, became fully operational in February.

Located 26.5 miles northeast of Kitty Hawk, the offshore wind energy area spreads across 122,405 acres, or 191 square miles, of ocean.

The process of moving from lease purchase to production of utility-quantity energy is complex, time-consuming and expensive. It includes on-site tests to confirm that the theoretical potential of the area matches real-time measurements and multiple environmental studies.

To date, no federally leased WEA has gone from lease to full production. The only permitted offshore commercial wind energy site along the Eastern Seaboard is the Block Island Wind Farm, 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island. From pilot project to completion took seven years, and that site is relatively small, producing 30 MW of power from five turbines.

If the Kitty Hawk WEA does advance from test site to production, to fully develop the wind resource would require 240-250 turbines, based on current technology.

The density of turbine placement would be determined by the size of the blades and efficiency. Walter Musial, manager of offshore wind at the National Renewable Energy Lab, said the turbine industry is approaching the limit of efficiency in capturing the kinetic energy in wind.

“Logically, you can never extract 100 percent,” Musial said. “There’s a fundamental principle called the Betz Limit – 59 percent. There’s no way you can extract more energy than that.”

Eight MW turbines are the industry standard at this time; the Vestas V164 uses an 80-meter, or 262-foot, blade and the Adwen AD-180 is 88.4 meters, or 290 feet. Blades of that size and efficiency, about 50 percent, limit the number of turbines that can be used efficiently.

“Wind hits the front row and what passes through the front row is diminished in its quality,” Musial said. “You have to give it (the wind) distance to replenish itself. That means (about) one turbine every two square kilometers (or 1.24 square miles).”

Bringing Energy to the Grid

Towering 500-600 feet above the ocean, the engineering and construction hurdles that will be encountered in placing turbines in an environment as unforgiving and harsh as the Atlantic Ocean are considerable. Yet the turbines, as expensive and difficult as it may be to build them, represent just the tip of the iceberg in bringing that power to the grid.

Engineers and planners will have to confront these challenges when designing an underwater transmission system to get the power generated offshore to land. There are also regulatory issues. And then there’s the capacity of land-based systems to handle 2,000 MW and get it to the grid.

Because full transmission of power is likely a minimum of seven to eight years away, regulations may change, and new materials and technology could affect how energy produced offshore is transmitted.

Nonetheless, some things appear certain.

First, it is doubtful that offshore energy will be transmitted directly to North Carolina, meaning the state would likely miss out on revenues.

Virginia is part of the PJM Energy Market, which procures electricity and distributes it, based on load demand, among all or parts of 13 states and Washington, D.C. North Carolina is not part of PJM’s market and the state is more heavily regulated. That makes a difference, said Andy Keeler, head of public policy and coastal sustainability at the UNC Coastal Studies Institute in Wanchese.

“I’m assuming anyone that develops this is planning on connecting with PJM and selling this into the merchant market,” Keeler said. “If you sell on that, you can sell at a market price. If you sell it into North Carolina, then you would be selling in a regulated state and it would have to go through the Utilities Commission and it would be a total pain in the butt.”

It also appears unlikely that the Outer Banks has the capacity to handle the amount of power the offshore turbines could produce. Although the nearest substation to the WEA is a Dominion North Carolina Power site in Kitty Hawk, neither the substation nor the transmission lines connecting it to the grid are now capable of handling 2,000 MW.

A study in 2012 by the North Carolina Transmission Planning Collaborative and PJM, examined where wind energy generated off the North Carolina and Virginia coasts would connect to the grid. The study did not include Kitty Hawk in its findings.

The study did find that a substation in the Landstown section of Virginia Beach, Virginia, was capable of handling 2,000 MW, “without major upgrades … of the local transmission system.”

There are other possibilities.

Dominion Power, which operates in North Carolina and Virginia, holds the lease rights to  the Virginia Beach WEA about 24 miles north of the north end of the Kitty Hawk WEA. However, that project is currently on hold. If it does get back on track, the solution may be to connect the Kitty Hawk WEA to the Virginia Beach WEA and integrate the energy at the Landstown substation. That would require upgrades to the PJM system, according to the 2012 study.

If the Virginia Beach WEA option is not available, a 60-mile submarine cable would have to be used, which opens the possibility of a direct current, or DC, transmission line instead of alternating current, or AC, which is how energy is usually transmitted within a grid.

There is less loss of energy in DC transmission than AC, and the submarine cable for DC is lighter in weight and easier to install. Some estimates put the savings at 30 percent by using a DC submarine cable instead of AC.

That savings is offset by the cost of converting DC power to AC.

ABB is a Swedish-Swiss company with that works extensively in connecting offshore energy to power grids. Jiuping Pan, a corporate researcher at ABB, works in the company’s Raleigh office and he has written extensively about the use of AC and DC submarine transmission.

“The big trouble with AC and DC is DC is more efficient but incurs more expense at the connections,” he said. “The DC solution … is for long distances. It’s for 150 kilometers (90 miles) or more.”

If that is the case, the Kitty Hawk WEA will connect using an AC cable, but there is a caveat in the crystal ball.

“There is some research and development that could be available in the next five to 10 years,” Pan said. “The DC could be better.”

Learn More

• The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s North Carolina page
• Avangrid Renewables

EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA — Thanks to Google Earth, it’s easy to see Eastern North Carolina’s rural versus urban dichotomy in the route of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Loosely following the path of the Interstate 95 corridor, the pipe would cross 178 miles of mostly small farming communities that suffer struggling economies and limited opportunity. Wealth here is in land, history and culture.

For the most part, the pipeline cutting through Northhampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson counties bypasses cities, saving urban dwellers from loss of their homes and the hazards of an underground duct carrying volatile gas being installed in their neighborhoods.

As political headwinds are shifting back in favor of fossil fuels, opponents of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline are challenging claims about the safety and economic benefits of natural gas to Eastern North Carolina, pointing to methane leakage and decreased value of property subdivided by pipeline easements.

“There could be environmental impact for the coastal region too,” said Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, a nonprofit clean energy watchdog.

“Just the very nature of the state hydrology – it’s not just the large rivers. It’s streams, wetlands.”

Residents throughout the state would stand to be affected by increases of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, he added, as well as potential harm to watersheds, private wells and protected natural resources.

But pipeline proponents say natural gas could bring another kind of riches: jobs, industry and economic growth – all long stagnant or out of reach in the region. Transported 600 miles from West Virginia gas shale through Virginia into North Carolina, the prospect of a plentiful, reliable supply of the fuel has been welcomed by most of the elected officials and business advocates in the eight counties.

A collaboration of Duke Energy, Dominion Resources, Piedmont Natural Gas and Virginia Natural Gas, With the proposed $5 billion project, with a 1.5 billion cubic yard per day capacity, if approved, is planned to be in service by late 2019. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, better known as FERC, issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in December 2016. Comments on the proposal will be accepted through April 6.

The pipeline would cross into North Carolina at Northampton County near Pleasant Hill and end in Lumberton. Construction could start as soon as Nov. 2017.

John Chaffee, president and CEO of NC East Alliance, a nonprofit economic development advocate serving 28 counties in eastern North Carolina, said that the availability of pressurized natural gas would attract more industry and manufacturing to a region that has long needed an economic shot in the arm. Although there is natural gas available, piped in from the Gulf of Mexico, it has inadequate pressure.

“We’re at the end of the distribution line,” he said, adding that it is not enough to sustain large industry.

Chaffee, a 40-year veteran of economic development in the region, acknowledged that some property owners will be unhappy with the pipe’s location through or near their land, their home or their community. But unfortunately, he said, highways, power plants and other public infrastructure come with tradeoffs.

“The downside is that some people will have their lives disrupted,” he said of the pipeline. “In eastern North Carolina, as a whole, I think the benefits outweigh that.”

According to Dominion, the 2-year construction project would bring nearly $700 million in economic activity to the region and create more than 4,000 good-paying jobs. In addition, the pipeline would bring work for local construction supply and service industries.

In the first 20 years of operation, Dominion projects that the pipeline would generate $1.2 billion in capital investment in the state, save $130 million in annual costs for electric and gas customers and pay a total $28 million annually in property tax revenue to communities.

Another benefit, he said, is that natural gas is cleaner than coal and does not require the massive start-up costs of nuclear. It also does not leave behind toxic coal ash or radioactive waste, respectively.

Chaffee agrees with numerous policy makers who promote natural gas as a  “bridge” between dirtier fossil fuels oil such as coal and clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.

“It’s a better complement to renewable energy,” he said. As a backup, it can be turned on quicker than coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

“We support its development,” Chaffee said about renewables. “We think when done properly, in an organized fashion, it’s a very good rural economic development strategy. Wind energy and solar energy provide a boost to those counties’ tax base.”

Still, a growing number of residents and property owners are skeptical about the pipeline. They worry about losing property value from having it divided by easements that restrict building. They worry about compromising sacred ancestral land. They worry about explosions, methane pollution and harm to waterways and animals.

Critics also warn that the amount of natural gas is overestimated, and the pipeline could run dry in the near future.  Most of the pipe would be 36-inch diameter, buried under 3 to 5 feet of ground.  It would run deeper under streams and railroads.

“They’re attempting to use my property as economic sacrifice for their corporate profits,” said Marvin Winstead, a small farmer and former educator in Nash County. “It would ruin my farm.”

Winstead said he has declined to accept the right of way offer from the utilities, because it would undermine the his future ability to subdivide his land, making it lose considerable value.

“If that pipeline goes across,” he said, “it’s forever locked into farmland.”

But some scientists NC Warn has worked with say there are considerable risks to a natural gas pipeline beyond land use.

“There’s a real uncertainty about the supply of gas over time,” Warren said. “This assumption that this going to be automatically good for North Carolina’s economy needs to be scrutinized.”

David Hughes, a shale gas expert from Canada, said that the amount of underground natural gas that can produced by fracking is exaggerated by 50 percent or more.

Hughes, currently a scientist with the Post Carbon Institute, said that most shale wells dry up quickly.

“If natural gas production declines, as is currently the case,” he said, “and drilling rates cannot be maintained due to poor economics, fuel prices could skyrocket, putting (electricity customers) at risk of shortages and price spikes.”

A Cornell University scientist, Robert Howarth, also disputed the value of natural gas as a “bridge” fuel.

“The problem is that natural gas is composed mostly of methane,” Howarth said in a 2016 video, “and methane is just an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, more than 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

“So if we leak a little bit of that methane into the atmosphere when we develop gas, it’s simply disastrous.”

Warren said it would be a different story if more gas power was the only option available. North Carolina has one of the largest commercial solar industries in the nation, and interest is high in land-based commercial wind power.

But the state’s utilities are one of the few in the country that maintain near monopoly-control, he added, and the Republican-controlled legislature has introduced numerous bills attempting to hobble the renewables industries.

Members of the North Carolina Alliance to Protect Our People and The Places We Live, or APPPL, had organized a walk from the Virginia-North Carolina border along the 200 or so miles of the proposed pipeline route to raise awareness about the project. It began March 4 and ended Sunday in Hamlet in Robeson County. The statewide coalition was formed in late 2016 to protest the pipeline.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is also a social justice issue, said Ericka Faircloth, Clean Water for North Carolina organizer for water and energy issues. Much of the gas line, she said, runs through historically African-American and indigenous communities.

For instance, the population in Northhampton County, where the pipe enters North Carolina, is 59 percent black, she said, compared with about 22 percent statewide. (The county will also be the site of a gas compressor, which opponents say is vulnerable to methane leaks and explosions.)  Halifax County is 50 percent black, and Robeson County is 38 percent Native American – the statewide average is 1.2 percent – and 25 percent black.

“It’s very disruptive and it’s very dangerous,” said Faircloth, a member of an indigenous community in Scotland and Robeson counties.  The Chmura economic report showed that only 18 permanent jobs would be created in North Carolina, she added.

In some places, she said, the proposed pipeline would pass just several hundred feet from houses and trailers, raising concerns about safety if there was a fire or an explosion.

Few residents she has encountered outright favor the pipeline.

“Some of them are neutral and they’ll say things on the line of, ‘I don’t really want it, but what choice do I have?’,” Faircloth said.

Pipeline crews require a 110-foot-wide strip of land to work during construction, according to Dominion. The permanent right of way would be reduced to 50 feet. Landowners retain ownership, but are barred from planting trees or building on top of the right of way.

Of the 1,000 or so properties the pipeline would cross in North Carolina, about half have already signed agreements with the utility company, said Dominion NC spokesperson Aaron Ruby.

But Ruby said “it’s way too premature” for eminent domain – a law that allows property to be taken, with compensation, for public projects – to be an issue. The authority does not even exist, he said, until a project has received full federal approval.

The pipeline will allow large quantities of natural gas to be transported long distances to be distributed by local gas utilities to customers, Ruby said.  It is not intended, he added, to be available for local communities or individual homeowners to tap directly.

Ruby said that buried pipelines are “by far” the safest way to transport natural gas, compared with rail and truck.

Many steps are taken to ensure the safety of the pipeline, during and after construction, he said. The pipeline itself is built with ½-inch to ¾-inch thick steel pipe, and the pipe is coated with epoxy to protect against corrosion. Before the pipeline is put into service, welds are X-rayed, and the lines are pressure-tested. Afterward, it is continuously monitored in real-time with sensors located inside the pipe. Any problems can be isolated to the individual pipe section and remote-controlled shut-off valves allow immediate response – an ability lacking in older systems.

There is also a robotic device called a “smart pig” that uses ultrasound technology to inspect the entire length of the pipeline every seven years.

More than 6,000 miles of potential routes were evaluated, with at least 300 adjustments made, before the proposed route was selected, he said. Demographics and socioeconomics of a community had nothing to do with the route selection, he said.

Ruby said that the lack of natural gas infrastructure is a prime reason that the region has struggled economically.

“That’s why this project,” he said, “is so critically important to Eastern North Carolina.”

Learn More

• Atlantic Coast Pipeline Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Chmura economic report
• Clean Water for North Carolina

RALEIGH — Legislation that would make major changes to state energy policy, including sweeping revisions to solar energy regulations, is taking shape and could be introduced as soon as this month.

Changes could include approval of third-party energy sales and streamlined permitting for solar projects. Under current rules, only utilities can directly sell energy in North Carolina.

Word that the work of a large stakeholder group of industry and environmental advocates convened in early 2015 to tackle a number of energy issues would likely yield new legislation this session came in a keynote speech Friday by Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, at the University of North Carolina Institute for the Environment’s Clean Tech Summit in Chapel Hill.

In remarks on the challenges of developing a bill, McGrady said that, if successful, the effort could result in significant changes in rules governing solar energy and other green energy sources as well as resolve long-running disagreements on the state’s renewable energy and energy-efficiency portfolio standard, or REPS.

McGrady said the stakeholder group, which by design did not include any legislators, was due to report March 1, but the group did not reach consensus on all issues.

An attempt at a draft bill circulated last week by legislative staff working with the group was not favorably received, he said.

“When that draft bill was shown to the groups who had been part of the collaborative process, everyone got their shorts in a wad,” McGrady said in his remarks. “Surprisingly though, in a very short period of time, the outline of an energy bill is emerging.”

Several participants in the process interviewed by Coastal Review Online said the details in the legislation are changing almost daily, but that a framework for the legislation had been worked out and the bill could be introduced as early as next week.

McGrady and others said that after years of work an agreement is possible in several core areas dealing mainly with modifying policies that affect the state’s burgeoning solar industry.

North Carolina ranks second in the nation in solar production, behind California, but the state faces growing competition from other states.

Rep. John Szoka, R-Cumberland, said he is cautiously optimistic that about the prospects for the legislation.

“I think there’s been a lot of good cooperation between Duke (Energy), the co-ops, the renewable folks,” Szoka, a co-sponsor of the legislation, said. “I think everybody involved in the process got some good, open, honest conversation about all the issues they’ve been discussing and I think that they can come to an agreement.”

McGrady said to keep the industry growing and competitive with other states the bill would likely allow third-party energy sales and leasing agreements that are currently prohibited in North Carolina.

It would also set up a process for community solar projects, streamline project permitting, set more aggressive solar procurement goals for the state and create “green source riders” to allow businesses to subscribe to shares of an off-site solar facility.

Yet to be struck is a final deal on changes to the state’s REPS program, McGrady said. The program has been a point of contention not just between the Republicans and Democrats, but also within the GOP caucus.

Taken as a whole, the package would represent the largest set of changes to energy policy since the legislature passed Senate Bill 3 in 2007. Among other strategies, that bill set goals for the state REPS program, requiring a gradual increase in the amount of energy produced by renewable sources.

The REPS program has been a focus of intense debate in recent years. During the past two sessions, bills to either roll back the requirements or eliminate them altogether have been narrowly defeated.

McGrady said that the initial draft included a rollback in REPS, but that the stakeholder group “wasn’t going there.”

“I don’t think we will either,” McGrady said of a REPS rollback, but he added that there will be some changes, including a potential reduction of property tax abatement for solar systems. The North Carolina General Assembly in 2008 enacted legislation that exempts 80 percent of the appraised value of a solar energy electric system from local property taxes.

Szoka, co-chair of the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee, which is the bill’s likely first committee stop, said the legislation would address most of the key questions on renewables, but might not include everything the stakeholder group has considered.

“It won’t have every aspect that everyone wants addressed,” Szoka said. “But I think it will have the majority of them. The ones that will be left out, I think we can deal with as separate, independent pieces.”

Although participants in the stakeholder process have declined to discuss specifics in the pending legislation, there was a general sense of optimism that a comprehensive plan could be put together.

Allison Eckley, spokesperson for the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, or NCSEA, said the bill would be a significant step forward.

“Ten years ago, legislators brought stakeholders together, including NCSEA, to discuss and negotiate a broad range of energy issues, which ultimately resulted in overwhelming, bipartisan support and passage of Senate Bill 3 in 2007 by the North Carolina General Assembly,” Eckley said. “We look forward to similar opportunities to help shape and update our state’s energy goals and policies for the next five to 10 years.”

Duke Energy spokesperson Randy Wheeless said the stakeholder discussions have been helpful in finding a way forward on contentious energy policy issues.

“We are talking with many stakeholders on renewable energy issues in North Carolina,” Wheeless said. “Duke Energy believes a collaborative legislative approach is in the best interest of our customers and the state.”

Szoka said while the bill attempts to get at a number of tough issues, he does not expect it to solve everything nor for it to be wildly popular.

“I think probably the proof that it’s a good agreement is that nobody will like the bill,” he said.

Learn More

• North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association
• Senate Bill 3 from 2007

With much of the Atlantic and Arctic waters no longer up for grabs for offshore drilling, the U.S. is on the right track to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2040.

That’s according to a study, prepared by Seattle-based researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute in cooperation with the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a think tank working to limit future greenhouse emissions, that shows any future drilling of oil or gas in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans would push global warming to 4 degrees or beyond.

“The only way (offshore) drilling makes sense is if we fail on climate and force high oil prices on our children and go backwards on the promise of clean energy, which is already knocking on our door,” Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council told reporters during a December press call.

World leaders agreed last year in Paris to the 2-degree threshold. And just before leaving office, President Obama, using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, permanently withdrew about 115 million acres of federally owned land in the Arctic and about 3.8 million acres of the Atlantic Ocean from new offshore oil and gas drilling leases.

Now there’s speculation that President Trump could move to undo Obama’s decision. Oil industry advocates are hopeful for such a reversal, which would likely require congressional action and almost certainly face legal challenges.

The drilling ban in the north and mid-Atlantic Ocean extends from New England to Virginia. Waters off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina were pulled previously from Obama’s five-year energy plan, but that ban will expire in 2022.

“Protecting and preserving our Arctic and Atlantic waters embraces the promise of (a) clean energy future,” Matzner wrote following the announcement of the drilling ban last month. “It embraces the notion that we will succeed in meeting the challenge of climate change, not turn backwards on progress or shirk our responsibilities to future generations.”

Michael Lazarus, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute and co-author of the report, said during the December press call that although the Paris Agreement was adopted last year, the U.S. now ranks first in the world in oil and gas production, with one-fifth of the total coming from lands and waters the federal government leases to private producers.

But to keep global warming below 2 degrees, Lazarus said U.S. oil production would need to drop to nearly half its current levels by 2040 and that new leases on offshore oil and gas just wouldn’t make sense.

“It’s clear that Arctic and Atlantic resources are way too expensive and don’t really make sense and are consistent in a future … that is more like 4 degrees and perhaps even 5 degrees (of global warming),” he said.

Lazarus explained two related risks of continued U.S. offshore oil development: “carbon lock-in” and “stranded assets.”

Carbon lock-in occurs when carbon-intensive investments become difficult to walk away from in the long term – for economic, institutional and/or political reasons. Because offshore oil has very high upfront costs, but relatively low operating costs once platforms are in place, Lazarus said investments in this infrastructure are particularly susceptible to carbon lock-in.

At the same time, if global demand for oil declines, as would be expected on a 2-degree pathway, offshore oil investments could easily become “stranded” – meaning they fail to achieve the expected returns, potentially creating economic losses for investors and local communities.

“We found in our study that projects dependent on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic, the Pacific, Arctic, appear to require on average break-even oil prices of at least $140 per barrel,” he said. “That’s quite a bit over today’s prices and that’s $50-per-barrel higher than would be cost-efficient if oil demand follows the 2-degree pathway based on the various studies we looked at (for the report).”

“So, indeed, only with demand more consistent with global warming of about 4 degrees or higher and no further climate policies or ramping up of ambition, only then would oil prices be high enough to yield some additional offshore oil from new drilling – only some.”

Dan Lashof, chief operating officer at the nonprofit NextGen Climate America, posed the question, “Is it feasible to transition our economy away from fossil fuels quickly enough to live within a 2-degree carbon budget?”

“The answer to that question is: absolutely yes,” Lashof told reporters.

NextGen is an advocacy group that works to put low-carbon energy sources on par, competitively, with fossil fuel interests.

“Until recently, the prospect of transitioning to a 100 percent clean energy economy would have been considered aspirational at best, particularly when it comes to oil, which, after all, currently powers more than 95 percent of our transportation system,” Lashof said. “But that really has changed in the last couple of years both in terms of the analytical rigor demonstrating the ability to make that transition and the real-world evidence in the marketplace that this is feasible an already underway.”

He cited as an example California, where state law now calls for 50 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy by 2030 and requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.

Lashof also noted the Tesla’s long-range electric car, Model 3, which got 400,000 preorders in the weeks of its unveiling, and the Chevy Bolt, the price tag for which is about average for new cars sold in the U.S.

Likewise in North Carolina, the town of Boone unanimously passed on Dec. 15 a resolution calling for 100 percent clean energy in North Carolina by 2050.

“The reality is that the technology is here to make the transition to clean energy – the climate data only gets worse month-by-month, showing that we must make that transition,” Lashof said. “And as we make that transition, it only makes sense to put off limits offshore oil from the Arctic and Atlantic – that we cannot afford to burn and stay within any reasonable climate budget.”

Learn More

• Read the Report
• Stockholm Environment Institute
• Carbon Tracker Initiative
• NextGen Climate America

MOREHEAD CITY — A group of business leaders representing interests up and down the East Coast, including chambers of commerce, restaurant associations, commercial fishing groups and real estate organizations, are urging President Obama to use a provision of federal law to try and permanently block seismic surveying for oil and natural gas off the Atlantic coast.

Tom Kies, president of the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce in Morehead City, was part of a delegation from the newly formed Business Alliance for Protecting the Atlantic Coast that met Monday with federal officials in Washington. The group, which also included representatives of the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce, hopes to get the president to use his executive powers before leaving office to “withdraw from disposition” any parts of the Atlantic outer continental shelf not already leased for oil or gas drilling. The move, according to the group, would create a permanent ban on offshore drilling that cannot be rescinded.

The alliance says seismic testing and any subsequent drilling, could put fishing, tourism and recreation economies at risk. The businesses oppose seismic testing and the industrialization that would come with offshore drilling. The meetings in Washington were productive, Kies said.

“We had our stuff together,” Kies said Tuesday. “We had facts, we had figures.”

The new group says more than 12,000 businesses and 400,000 commercial fishing families are represented in a letter to the president calling on him not to proceed with allowing seismic exploration. The letter asks the Obama administration to deny all current seismic air gun testing permits for oil and gas in the Atlantic.

“President Obama needs to finish the job protecting coastal economies and use his authority to permanently protect the Atlantic Coast,” the group said Monday.

Along with Kies, the group that met with the Department of Interior and the White House Council on Environmental Quality included:

• Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.
• Laura Wood-Habr, vice president of the Virginia Beach Restaurant Association and a restaurant co-owner.
• Vicki Clark, president of the Cape May, New Jersey, County Chamber of Commerce.
• Sandra Bundy, broker-in-charge, B&P Inc., a real estate development firm in Bennettsville, South Carolina.
• Karen Brown, president of the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce.
• Pat Broom of the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce and president of Phoenix Restoration, a general contractor.
• Tonya Bonitatibus, executive director of the Savannah Riverkeeper for Georgia and South Carolina.
• Kerry Marhefka of Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, a commercial fishermen’s association, and Abundant Seafood of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

The alliance says it is dedicated to protecting the long-term health and economic vitality of the Atlantic seaboard through the responsible stewardship of the coastal and ocean waters.  The group contends that seismic testing is a dangerous process that creates one of the loudest manmade noises in the oceans. Those blasts threaten the ocean ecosystem, on which nearly 1.4 million jobs on the East Coast rely – jobs that create more than $95 billion in gross domestic product, mainly through fishing, tourism and recreation, according to the group.

The Obama administration earlier this year reversed its previous decision to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic. Coastal advocates worry the Trump administration, once in office, could restart the process and add the Atlantic back to the next five-year plan.

The nine alliance representatives were joined by three representatives of Oceana, an international organization focused on oceans. Oceana has also been working to prevent the expansion of U.S. offshore drilling.

“We were with the environmental group Oceana, who helped set up the appointments. They said that it had gone as well as any other lobbying they’d ever seen,” Kies said.

Frank Knapp, of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, said the groups held three meetings in Washington: one with Interior Department and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, officials, another with the White House Council on Environmental Quality and one with Commerce Department officials.

“There’s a provision of the law that appears to give the president authority to make a declaration that there will never be in the future any seismic testing or drilling off the Atlantic coast,” Knapp said Wednesday.

The groups want Obama to use Section 12(a) of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Act to permanently protect much of the Atlantic  from future drilling. The provision, which grants presidential authority to remove unleased lands of the outer continental shelf from consideration, has been used in the past, including in 2014 to protect Bristol Bay, Alaska, and in 2015 to protect parts of the Arctic Ocean.

Knapp said the tactic had been questioned, but the presidential authority had never been challenged. It’s the best option available, he said.

“Take advantage of it and let the courts decide, that’s what we’re asking for,” Knapp said. “If we don’t do it, chances are pretty good we’re going to see some seismic testing killing animals and scaring tourists away. Even if there is some skepticism that we can’t do this, he (Obama) should do this and let the challengers take it to court. There’s no provision to rescind in this statute and that’s the key.”

There’s a new urgency, activists say, with the election of Donald Trump as president.

Billionaire Democratic Party activist Tom Steyer is also using the tactic. Steyer’s San Francisco-based NextGen Climate organization characterized the effort as a way to stand up to Trump’s “dangerous agenda” of lifting barriers to the fossil fuel industry.

Some environmentalists say the move could backfire, prompting Republicans to repeal the provision so it can’t be used in the future.

The American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association that represents the country’s oil and natural gas industry, says the risks of seismic exploration to marine life have been overstated. API says seismic operators go to great lengths to prevent potential effects on marine life. Steps include monitoring animal movement and behavior patterns prior to exploration with areas of concern closed to seismic surveys. The surveying process begins with a “soft-start” where the intensity of the sound is gradually increased to full operational levels to allow animals that may be sensitive to the noise to leave the area.

“If visual observers or acoustic monitoring devices detect sensitive marine life in the vicinity at any time during the survey, then all operations stop immediately and are restarted only when the area is clear,” according to API.

API says advancements in seismic technology have helped find, drill and produce oil and natural gas with the least possible risks to the environment.

But any new East Coast drilling would bring greater risks to the environment, Knapp said.

“Every drilling procedure leaks,” Knapp said. “This is the most important decision that will ever be made about the Atlantic coast. Once seismic is allowed, drilling will be next. There’s no going back. Either preserve the economy we all love or we’re going to become the Gulf Coast with wells that leak and fish that die. That’s how important this decision is.”

Learn More

• Read the alliance’s letter to President Obama
• History of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA – People who drive electric cars will soon have more places to stop for a recharge around here.

Duke Energy recently awarded grants to Jacksonville, Oriental, Swansboro and CarolinaEast Health System in New Bern to cover the costs of installing electric vehicle charging stations. It’s part of a program to encourage adoption of electric vehicles by improving infrastructure needed to support their use. Jones County, Kinston, Wayne County and Goldsboro also received grants.

The deadline to apply for the program was in September. Duke Energy has yet to formally announce all the award winners, but some individual towns and cities have been notified.

Randy Wheeless, a spokesman for Duke Energy, said the company was pleased with the response to the grant program.

“We will end up with around 50 award winners. Right now, we’re just alerting cities and towns that they won and how much,” Wheeless said Thursday.

That’ll be enough for about 200 new public charging stations statewide. With a growing number of electric vehicles on the market for consumers to choose from, boosting the number of charging stations available to the public is key, Wheeless said.

“If we’re advocating more EV adoption, I think one of the barriers is how many charging stations are in the state,” he said.

The grant program stems from a $5.4 million legal settlement in 2015 with the Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department of a lawsuit filed in 2000. The EPA and environmental groups alleged Duke Energy had violated federal Clean Air Act provisions by making modifications to five North Carolina power plants without also making required upgrades to air pollution controls. The Supreme Court found in favor of the EPA and Duke Energy agreed to settle rather than fight the lawsuit. The utility maintained it had complied with federal law, but agreed to pay a $975,000 fine and donate $4.4 million to environmental projects, including the installation of electric vehicle charging stations.

Duke Energy said in July its $1.5 million program will increase the number of public electric vehicle charging stations in North Carolina by 30 percent. The company’s EV Charging Infrastructure Support Project is to provide $1 million to help municipalities install public charging stations. Duke Energy will pay the total costs up to $5,000 per charge port, $20,000 per site or $50,000 per city under the program.

“Over the past decade, Duke Energy has supported the development of several hundred electric vehicle charging stations in North Carolina,” David Fountain, Duke Energy’s North Carolina president, said at the time. “Adoption of EVs depends on a robust infrastructure for consumers.”

In addition, Duke Energy is providing $500,000 to cities and towns for the construction of electric bus charging stations, funding the total costs up to $250,000 per entity.

The grant program provides leeway for the awarded cities and towns to choose locations to install the charging stations as they see fit, Wheeless said.

There are about 4,750 electric vehicles registered in North Carolina but only about 700 public charging ports around the state.

The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that there will be more than 700,000 electric vehicles in North Carolina by 2030 with 37,000 on the road in eastern North Carolina.

The New Bern-based East Carolina Council, the regional council of governments and planning organization serving Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Onslow, Pamlico and Wayne counties, has also been involved in promoting plug-in electric vehicle use and increasing the number of charging stations.

Judy Hills is the council’s executive director. Hills said the council began at the outset of the Duke Energy program to make sure communities knew about it.

“We really made a concerted effort to get the word out,” Hills said.

The council’s efforts to promote electric cars have also included forming a committee back in February to develop a plug-in electric vehicle readiness plan for the region surrounding the U.S. 70 corridor, which passes through many of the counties the council serves. This committee is now wrapping up its work, with a draft report set to be released soon.

The money for the planning effort came from an Economic Development Administration grant.

The promise of economic growth is often a good motivation for elected officials to get behind a project. Research has shown that installing a charging station at a business can increase customer traffic and shopping time. Businesses can also promote the stations to differentiate themselves from competitors. Municipalities with charging stations may also attract new businesses that value sustainable technology and innovation, according to the council.

Here on the coast, offering charging capabilities can also help lure environmentally conscious vacationers and visitors. But the response to these efforts has at times been only “lukewarm,” Hills said.

The council presented an electric vehicle drive event in Kinston on Sept. 17 to help promote the array of new electric cars on the market, but the event wasn’t well attended. Hills said there’s still an attitude in the region that electric vehicles are “for somebody else, not for me.” That will change with time, she said.

Part of the resistance is because this part of the state doesn’t have the air pollution other, more urban areas have. A key point for driving electric cars is that they don’t pollute, Hills said. Another aspect is the demographics of the eastern part of the state, where there may be a little more reluctance to embrace new technology.

“I think as technology adopters go, we sometimes seem to be a little behind the curve. Areas where people more readily adopt new technologies are way ahead of us,” Hills said.

But new products, including cars with longer-lasting batteries, and the addition of charging stations will encourage adoption and change minds.

“As those changes come about, more people will consider it when they buy a new car, or even a used car,” Hills said. “Also, changes in the environment and other things happening in the world may make that decision more attractive going forward. It may take us a little longer but I think we’ll get there.”

Hills cited a recent report that showed purchases of electric vehicles increase in areas after charging stations are installed there. That’s where the Duke Energy program can provide a big boost, she said.

“It’s hard to ask a government to make an investment in something that has a limited use. You have to think, what makes a government want to invest in this?” Hills said. “And so, this money that Duke has available for that will certainly go a long to helping move that along.”

The council is set to be recognized Tuesday for its efforts at the sixth annual Plug-in NC Summit in Raleigh.

Plug-in NC is a statewide program that promotes electric vehicles through education, outreach and consulting that has been working since 2011 to establish North Carolina as a leader in electrified transportation. The program provides resources for the public, including informational webinars and an interactive map to help drivers of electric vehicles locate charging stations available for public use.

Learn More

• Plug-in NC
• The East Carolina Council’s Plug-in Electric Vehicle Initiative

BEAUFORT — A new guide, co-written by a Duke University professor, has been released in an effort to help energy companies and governments reduce the potential harmful effects of underwater seismic surveys on marine life.

Doug Nowacek, a professor at the Duke Marine Lab whose research focuses on the effects of sound on ocean animals, said the guide, published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, is intended as a practical tool for those who use intense impulses of compressed air to search for oil and gas under the sea floor.

“We were trying to be really pragmatic,” said Nowacek, who co-authored the guide with Brandon Southall of Southall Environment Associates Inc. and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

“If you live on the coast of North Carolina, that can be a little hard,” Nowacek said, given current sentiments. “But if it (seismic surveying) is going to happen, our thought was, we should help those who are going to do it do it as responsibly as possible, with the fewest possible impacts.”

In seismic surveys, air guns towed behind ships emit bursts of sound under the water over long periods of time and large distances. Onboard sensors then measure the sounds’ return echoes to reveal details of the sea floor and its underlying geologic structure.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, founded in 1948 in France and now based in Switzerland, works in nature conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. It is involved in data gathering and analysis, research, field projects, advocacy, lobbying and education. The union’s mission is to “influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable,” according to its website.

The guide, “Effective planning strategies for managing environmental risk associated with geophysical and other imaging surveys,” came out in early September. While the Obama Administration this year pulled the Atlantic Ocean out of the 2017-22 offshore oil and drilling plan, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, has not pulled the plug on seismic testing.

The work on the guide grew, in part, from two papers Nowacek previously wrote, one in 2013 and the other two years later. The union, Nowacek said, thought the work was good, but “not very accessible” for individual managers. So the idea behind the new guide, he said, was to create something that could be used by companies preparing to do a seismic survey.

To that end, Nowacek and Southall engaged in a comprehensive review of literature on the subject. “Our guide is based on the best available science and methods,” Nowacek said. “It draws on observations of operations and associated monitoring and mitigation efforts over several decades of geophysical and other industrial surveys.”

Nowacek had the draft of the guide reviewed by anonymous experts, as well as by peers, including representative of non-governmental organizations and industry.

The new guide recommends the assessment of the potential risk of various surveys on marine life and emphasizes that surveys must take into account the specific circumstances related to the site. Key factors for consideration include the life history and population status of local species, environmental features and history and nature of other operations in the area.

Some of the guide’s key recommendations include:

• Having a systematic, risk assessment-based means of conducting effective monitoring and mitigation;
• Reducing the survey area and sound source transmissions to the minimal size necessary;
• Using the smallest source (e.g., smallest number/size of air guns) necessary to accomplish the exploratory goal;
• Avoiding redundant surveys in the same area;
• Pursuing alternative, lower energy sources;
• Ensuring transparency and dialogue with interested stakeholders as well as open access of environmental data in a reasonable time frame.

All of those, Nowacek said, are good precautions for marine mammals, which depend so much on hearing for navigation and for feeding, as well as for pinnipeds, turtles, fish and possibly other marine creatures able to hear the loud sounds produced by seismic surveys.

But the recommendations, he said, could also benefit the companies  doing the surveys by reducing conflicts with environmental and conservation stakeholders. It could save time, and time is important when companies are planning extensive surveys that cost considerable amounts of money.

Nowacek said the guide tries to present this risk-assessment as just another part of responsible planning for a project, not as a sore thumb that sticks out, but as something that managers could, in a sense, “sell” to superiors who make the decisions.

Southall put it this way in a press release: “Undertaking a structured approach for planning and conducting environmentally responsible seismic surveys and other forms of seabed mapping is now more feasible than ever thanks to the lessons learned from previous operations, sustained research, and improvements in technology. This guide will help managers and policymakers navigate this process.”

The guide, Nowacek said, also includes a comprehensive extensive online resources that will continue to be updated.

In the news release, Carl Gustaf Lundin, director of the union’s Global Marine and Polar Programme, praised the guide.  “The noise from seismic surveys can disrupt the essential life functions of marine species, such as breeding, nursing and foraging,” he said. “It is therefore critical to turn down the volume and ensure the surveys are conducted in an environmentally responsible way. The new IUCN guide will help in achieving this.”

Seven companies have pending applications for seismic testing in the Atlantic, according to the BOEM website.

A bill has been introduced in Congress, aimed at protecting the Atlantic from such activities. The Atlantic Seismic Airgun Protection Act is sponsored led by Sens. Cory Booker, D-NJ, and Robert Menendez, D-NJ and by Reps. Don Beyer,D-VA, and Frank LoBiondo , R-NJ in the House.

It would impose a moratorium on geological and geophysical activities related to dangerous oil and gas exploration along the East Coast.

Grassroots efforts against seismic testing have also continued. More than 1,100 elected officials, roughly the same number of businesses and fishing groups have publicly opposed offshore drilling and seismic testing. Many towns in coastal North Carolina have adopted resolutions of opposition.

Nikki Martin, president of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, wasn’t very impressed with the guide. Her trade group represent companies that acquire or process geophysical data, equipment manufacturers, industry suppliers and consultants.

“The IUCN guidance appears to rely on only one source of management information and fails to consider a breadth of regional and international sources of environmental management information,” including the United Kingdom, NOAA, Brazil, Ireland and New Zealand, she said. “The authors of this particular ‘guidance’ are not sufficiently expert in all necessary subjects needed for a well-informed decision-making and planning document.

Martin said not enough time was provided for comment and experts were not convened to offer technical input” Martin added. “It is especially important to take into account the experience of five decades of seismic exploration in the oil and gas industry and more than a decade of dedicated research into potential effects of seismic surveys on the environment,” she said

Nowacek said he and Southall considered every national and international source of management information. “We recognize that nobody can be an expert in everything, which is why we solicited input from industry, NGO and government folks who represent varying expertise and experience,” he said.

To Learn More

• Read the guide
• International Union for Conservation of Nature
• International Association of Geophysical Contractors

As the U.S. and other countries have ramped up development of bio-energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, demand is rising for trees for wood pellets, or biomass, and agricultural products for liquefied biofuels.

A recent multi-year study by researchers at North Carolina State University and the U.S. Geological Survey, detailed in two papers printed in August in the journal “Global Change Biology Bioenergy,” indicates that the increased demand could come with a cost: a loss of forested land, especially mature pinelands, and because of that, less habitat for wildlife.

Nathan Tarr, one of the researchers and a co-author of one of the papers, “Projected Gains and Losses of Wildlife Habitat From Bioenergy-induced Landscape Change,” said the team didn’t go into the study with a preconceived notion of what they’d find, but like most scientists, they had a suspicion.

“We wanted to better understand the potential impacts of bio-energy demand in North Carolina and the southeastern U.S.,” he said. “It really hadn’t been done before.”

Tarr, who is a research associate in the Biodiversity and Spatial Information Center, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, at NCSU, said that as a scientist, he didn’t want to draw any conclusions about whether the study should have implications on development of biofuel resources in North Carolina; those decisions are for policy-makers and resource managers, he said. But the work by the research team “clearly points out that as demand for the resources increases, there are trade-offs to consider,” he said.

And those trade-offs are important not only for the forests in the state and the region, but also for the economy. Enviva Holdings is building a wood pellet export facility at the Port of Wilmington, which has been estimated by state officials to have a potential for $1.25 million in annual revenue.

When it becomes operational, according to reports, the Wilmington terminal is expected to sustain up to 70 jobs, and to add about $16.9 million annually to the local economy and pay annual state and local taxes of about $425,000.

Enviva is a Maryland-based manufacturer and supplier of wood pellets to buyers in the United Kingdom and the entire European Union. It currently operates two wood pellet mills in North Carolina — one in Ahoskie, and one in Northampton.

And with U.S. production of wood pellets expected to increase from 3 million tons annually a few years ago to more than 10 million annually in the near future, North Carolina’s vast pine forests figure to make it an even bigger player in the industry.

In their study, the researchers, led by Robert Abt of the NCSU Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, simulated landscape changes from 2010 to 2050 under five scenarios of woody biomass production for wood pellets and liquid biofuels in North Carolina.

Scenarios included harvest of natural and planted forests  and planted woody crops grown on marginally productive forestland.

Generally, the work concluded that meeting demand for biomass from conventional forests resulted in more total forestland compared with a baseline, business-as-usual scenario.

“However,” the report writers added, “the remaining forest was composed of more intensively managed forest and less of the bottomland hardwood and longleaf pine habitats that support biodiversity.”

The results show that the regions most likely to be affected by bio-energy production are also critical for biodiversity, a challenge in terms of sustainability.

Tarr said there were four more specific conclusions:

• Species that inhabit newly regenerating forests may benefit from bio-energy demand.
• Species that rely on a single, mature type of habitat – such as bottomland hardwood forests – are at risk if that type of habitat is harvested for bio-energy.
• Bio-energy demand could exacerbate habitat loss for species that are losing habitat to urbanization.
• Species with small ranges deserve special consideration because they can be more sensitive to landscape changes related to bio-energy harvesting.

What it all points out, Tarr said, is that future of bio-energy development and production in the region comes with trade-offs that are often complex.

“None of the biomass sources that we looked at were good or bad for all species, nor was a single mix of biomass sources consistently the best or worst for all species,” Tarr said.

The models showed that increasing the amount of forests harvested in the state resulted in projected losses of habitat for the prothonotary warbler, a tiny bird beloved by birders, but harvesting forests increased habitat for the yellow-breasted chat. The warbler likes mature forests; the chat likes regenerating ones.

According to the researchers, “The area of forest in the region was relatively stable through much of the 20^th century, because the amount of forest converted to urban land uses over time was offset by reforestation of agricultural land. In recent years, the reforestation of agricultural land in the region has lessened, and the net result has been the loss of forestland over time.”

The region was recently designated a global biodiversity hot spot, and according to one of the papers, the use of biomass for energy hinges on its sustainability. Minimizing overall loss of forests and biodiversity and maximizing the area of habitat have been suggested as criteria for sustainable bio-energy production.

“Results from the scenarios we examined suggest that simultaneously achieving the best outcomes for these sustainability criteria under a single biomass production future may not be possible,” according to the report.

However, there may be a middle ground. To avoid the negative effects on critical habitats, restrictions on biomass harvesting in longleaf pine and bottomland hardwoods will be necessary.

Jennifer Costanza is lead author of one of the papers on the work, “Bioenergy Production and Forest Landscape Change in the Southeastern United States.” She stressed the potential the study cites for replacement of natural forests with “managed” ones that don’t provide the same level of habitat for rare species. The endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, for instance, prefers old longleaf pine trees, generally at least 80 to 100 years old, over very open areas maintained by frequent fires.

“What we found is that we need to pay very close attention to the potential for the loss of natural habitat,” Costanza, a research assistant professor of forestry and environmental resources at NCSU, said in an interview. “And the greatest potential for loss is in the area with the greatest biodiversity.” In other words, planting forest to harvest for energy could result it more actual forested land, but less good habitat.

“If there is potential to threaten natural habitat, it should be avoided,” Costanza said, and production of biomass for energy purposes would be best concentrated in places that are already cut.

“This highlights the importance of setting priorities for wildlife conservation,” said Matt Rubino, co-author of “Projected Gains and Losses of Wildlife Habitat From Bioenergy-induced Landscape Change.”

Rubino, a research associate in the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at NCSU, noted in an NCSU News story that, “Because any mix of biomass sources is likely to benefit some species and harm others, it is important to identify which species are priorities for conservation so that policies can be designed to minimize negative impacts on those species.”

Abt said he’s not particularly worried about how the wood pellet industry will affect forests on a regional scale, across the Southeastern U.S., because it’s less than one-tenth of the pulp-paper demand on the same general resource.

But, he added, “everything is local,” and if you live in the northeastern part of North Carolina, you might view the industry as a great thing if you are a forestland owner or if you think of it strictly in terms of job creation, but there’s a concern, on that local scale, about clear-cutting that might occur.”

Kent Jenkins Jr., vice president of communications for Enviva, said the company is committed to conservation and to alternative energy.

“Enviva has invested heavily in North Carolina because of its abundant, healthy and growing forest resources and its strong communities and great workforce,” he said.

Enviva, Jenkins said, is committed to the sustainability and growth of U.S. forests. He said independent scientists and policy-makers have concluded that wood pellet production does not pose a threat to forest health or harm biodiversity.

He noted a recent study by Chris Moorman, coordinator of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology and also a forestry professor at NCSU, that found that wood pellet production does not harm biodiversity in Southern pine forests.

Moorman and his students looked at the wood biomass left over from logging operations and used to make wood pellets and found that removing it didn’t affect the populations of small animals, such as mice, toads and birds at clear-cut loblolly plantations.

However, Moorman has previously said clear-cut logging is known to affect biodiversity by displacing forest-dwellers such as deer and nesting birds.

Jenkins said Enviva takes steps to protect the forests and natural habitats where the company works.

“We produce wood pellets using wood that is left over from a traditional saw timber harvest that cannot be used for high-value products such as like furniture and lumber. We meet the standards of major forest sustainability organizations,” Jenkins said.

Enviva also has also developed sustainability initiatives that go beyond what the company is required to do.

The company does not accept wood from four environmentally sensitive forests that were independently identified by a number of academic and conservation organizations. The company has a “track and trace” system that identifies the source of every truckload of wood used.

Also, the Enviva Forest Conservation Fund, a 10-year, $5-million program, was set up to protect bottomland forests in the North Carolina-Virginia coastal plain.

In 2016, the company has awarded a total of $500,000 to four conservation organizations to assist in acquiring sensitive forestland.

NAGS HEAD – It’s been six years since the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management proposed siting wind energy production off Kitty Hawk, and now the agency is preparing to actually offer leases in offshore blocks more than 20 miles from the beach.

An online auction for the lease sites is expected early next year.

Virtually no one at a public information meeting held Wednesday at Jennette’s Pier seemed particularly concerned about the prospect.

“This is a really important pivot in the process here,” said facilitator Bennett Brooks, with the Consensus Building Institute.

Of the 43 people who attended the session, only one person, Manny Medeiros, a frequent critic of wind energy, spoke out in opposition to wind turbines spinning above the ocean off the northern Outer Banks.

Medeiros, a Kitty Hawk resident and real estate agent who is also a vocal climate change skeptic, claimed that European wind operations are losing money and asked why offshore wind energy is being pursued in the U.S.

“Everyone knows that wind energy is the biggest blunder of our time,” he said.

Responding, Jim Bennett, BOEM program manager, said that the U.S. has learned a lot from Europeans’ experience.

“When Congress passed the law, they based it on free-market principles,” he said. “If the determination is that it’s not viable, if there are no developers interested, then the government is not going to go forward with it.”

Shaped like a ragged corner, the proposed 122,405-acre area is located 24 nautical miles from Currituck Beach and about 32 nautical miles from Kitty Hawk. A nautical mile equals about 1.15 standard miles. The wind energy area is the same one that was announced in August 2014, divided into 21.5 blocks, or lease units.

Two additional wind energy areas off Wilmington have since been realigned with BOEM plans for South Carolina wind areas.

The state Division of Coastal Management is currently evaluating whether the Kitty Hawk project is consistent with state coastal regulations.

If a lease is awarded, the developer would be allowed to conduct a site assessment that would determine whether the site would support commercial wind energy development. The assessment would be conducted between 2017 and 2022.

Various maps on placards lined the meeting room overlooking the ocean, depicting numerous conflicts with birds, sea turtles, military interests, vessel traffic and fishing. Chatting with people prior to start of presentations, Brian Krevor, environmental protection specialist in BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs, pointed to one map showing the distance from the shoreline to the closest wind turbines. The row of narrow towers, which could range from 450 to 600 feet in height, would be virtually invisible, he said, especially in the summer when humidity makes the skies hazy.

“You theoretically could see it from there, but you’re really at the limits of human visual acuity,” he said.

Krevor said that earlier concerns about blighted views and conflicts with vessel travel had been resolved by meeting with stakeholders during the planning process and methodically analyzing options. The current map has been cleared with the Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Defense, he said.  Initial plans had the blocks starting as close as six miles from the beach, but were later adjusted at the town of Kitty Hawk’s request to place them no closer than 20 miles from shore. And the National Park Service’s concern about the project’s proximity to the Bodie Island Lighthouse resulted in another reduction in size.

The proposed Kitty Hawk area is situated about 20 miles south of a wind energy lease awarded in Virginia.

One person at the meeting questioned the high relative cost of offshore wind, compared with land-based wind and other energy sources.

Will Waskes, BOEM project coordinator, said that as the scale of construction of offshore wind goes up, the price of parts and labor can be expected to decrease.

“Pretty much everybody is working to drive down that cost,” he said.

Ken Jobe, a Beaufort resident with Citizens Climate Lobby, asked about the value and quality of the wind resource off Kitty Hawk.

But that is a question with no easy answer, Waskes said. In general, the industry believes that there is good wind data. Specific measurements of wind speeds that would spin turbines high in the air, he said, are not yet available.

Wind resources would be measured by a contractor after a lease sale is awarded, he said. The developer would tailor the turbine height and type to the resource, and a construction plan would have to be submitted to BOEM for approval.

So far, $16 million in lease sales have been issued by BOEM for 11 commercial offshore Atlantic wind facilities, nine of which were competitive – two each off New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Rhode Island-Massachusetts; and one off Virginia.

A five-turbine project off Block Island in Rhode Island, which is mostly in state waters, is set to start operating this fall – making it the first U.S. offshore wind facility to produce energy. Sightseeing tours of the project are already being conducted, according to local news reports.

Several BOEM representatives declined to project which offshore wind project will be most likely the next to come online. Lots of factors can come into play, they cautioned, including local support or opposition, legal challenges and regulatory and construction glitches.

Specifics about staging equipment and the location of the sub-surface power cable will also be known only after the construction and operations plan that meets regulatory requirements is submitted, Waskes said in answering another person’s question about infrastructure.

“You’re a little ahead of the game,” he said. “Ultimately, it will be the developer who picks the location.”

The proposed lease sale, announced Aug. 12, would be for a single lease that can only be awarded to one entity. But regulations allow the assignment of all or a portion of the lease to other entities. The online auction is anticipated to be held in January or February 2017, with a lease sale to be awarded to the highest bidder.

The notice also requests that prospective qualified bidders affirm their interest in offshore commercial wind development off Kitty Hawk. It also allows for additional bidders to submit their qualifications before the Oct. 17 deadline. Public comments will be accepted in the same period.

So far, BOEM has qualified five developers to bid on all or portions of the area: Apex Clean Energy, EDF Renewable Energy, Green Sailene, Dominion Power North Carolina and Fishermen’s Energy.

A final sale notice, issued after a review period, will be published to announce the date and time of the lease sale. After leases are issued and the construction plan is approved, BOEM will prepare an environmental analysis. The lessee has up to 25 years to develop a plan.

Bennett said that the Kitty Hawk project fits the United States’ strategic vision for increased wind development, while decreasing dependence on fossil fuels to meet the nation’s energy needs.

“We are hopeful that this will contribute to the administration’s Climate Action Plan,” he said. “Offshore wind is an important component to achieving this goal.”

Submitting Comments

The 60-day public comment period ends Oct. 17 and comments may be submitted by electronically or by mail.

• Submit comments electronically. In the entry entitled, “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter BOEM-2016-0045, then click “search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments.
• Mail or deliver in an envelope labeled “Comments on North Carolina PSN & RFI” to:
  BOEM Office of Renewable Energy Programs
  45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP
  Sterling, VA 20166

To Learn More

• BOEM’s North Carolina renewable energy programs

TRENTON — Solar power and agriculture may not seem related, but in coastal North Carolina, the two are becoming intertwined as an increasing number of farmers lease their land to solar developers. This trend, which provides economic benefits for the farmers, has communities and some state officials worried about the potential environmental and agricultural effects.

The issue came to a head last week in a courtroom in Trenton in Jones County. About 25 residents gathered for a hearing organized by the North Carolina Utilities Commission for a proposed five-megawatt solar installment between Mallard Cove Landing Road and Trent Farm Road.

Most who spoke during the hearing were opposed.

“People do not want to live next to something that looks like a prison,” said Andy Gower, who lives near the proposed site.

In addition to the aesthetics, nearby residents said the project could affect their property values and possibly their health, but Douglas “Doug” Soltow, who owns the land where the project would go, said the concerns weren’t real and that he still hopes to profit from solar.

“It’s hard to stop progress, you’ve got to have progress,” he said.

Soltow plans to lease his land to Strata Solar, a Chapel Hill-based developer. According to the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, there are more than 550 megawatts of energy being produced by 402 solar systems in Eastern North Carolina. About 85 of these developments are utility scale, producing five megawatts or more of power, as proposed for Soltow’s land. The number of these particular developments is expected to increase with new proposals popping up on agricultural land in coastal counties including Onslow and Pender.

A megawatt is a million watts of electricity. That’s enough to power 750 to 1,000 average houses.

New Source of Income

A farmer’s motivation for leasing land for solar development is fairly simple: Leasing can be more lucrative and stable than farming, with less expense and labor. However, like any development, solar installments are subject to oversight and regulation, and they often spark controversy.

For some farmers, the economic incentive of solar is too good an option to pass up.

“It’s a business,” said Soltow, who would not say how much he would make by leasing his land for solar, except that it would be more than he makes from farming. Life as a small farmer is uncertain, he said.

“A lot of small farmers go under,” he said.

One reason for the rise of solar in North Carolina is the state’s Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard adopted in 2007, which requires that 12.5 percent of the state’s energy needs must come from renewables. Under this standard, Duke Energy and other power companies must source energy from renewable sources in order to receive state incentives.

In response, private developers began building large-scale solar developments and selling the energy back to utilities, including Duke Energy.

Soltow said he still intends to continue with agriculture on part of his land, but that leasing the remaining portion to solar provides financial stability crops can’t.

For solar developers, agricultural land is ideal. Cody Shadley, a project developer at Pine Gate Renewables, which is working on two sites in Onslow County, said agricultural land is ideal because it tends to be cleared of trees, away from floodplains and flat.

“Land that is high, dry and flat, that makes a pretty good foundation for a solar farm,” Shadley said.

Guido van der Hoeven, a senior professor and extension specialist in the Agricultural and Resource Department of North Carolina State University, said he’s heard it’s possible for farmers to make $750 to $1,400 an acre leasing solar. Harvesting crops such as soybean or corn can yield much lower, or even negative, returns.

“They may think it might be worth taking 20 acres or 30 acres, or whatever, out of crop production to ensure that (they) have an income stream of the lease rate for solar,” Van der Hoeven said.

Peter Ledford, a policy director with the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said that many of the proposals on farmland are five-megawatt farms, as opposed to smaller ones, because the leases last a long time and provide a longer period of stable income.

“The solar developer generally enters into a lease anywhere between 15 and 30 years,” Ledford said, “and the guaranteed income stream for that to the farmer exceeds what they might be able to make from growing crops on their land, or they just want to diversify that guaranteed income.”

There are other benefits for farmers. Soltow, for example, said he will have to do very little to manage the property.

Shadley of Pine Gate Renewables said the company takes care of the operations, maintenance and cleanup of the solar farms, and that representatives drop by once or twice a month to inspect the sites.

“We’re consistently monitoring the project, the life of the project, up until it gets to the decommissioning of the site,” he said. After which, he said, the panels will be removed by the company and the land will be returned to its tillable state if the lease is not extended.

Agricultural, Environmental Effects

Various state agencies must weigh in during the permitting and processing of solar farm applications. The permitting process can take years, depending on the number and kinds of permits needed. Soltow said he’s been waiting a year and a half.

Pine Gate Renewables has proposed a similar project near Maysville in Onslow County. As part of the state clearinghouse process for the Utilities Commission’s approval, a copy of the plan was passed to the North Carolina Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. In a letter, the department stated concern about the loss of productive farmland to development of any kind.

Joseph Hudyncia, the department of agriculture’s director of environmental programs, wrote the letter. He said in an interview that the loss of agricultural land in North Carolina was “alarming,” but noted that farmers may need to lease parts of their land for solar to make a living.

“Some farmers have gone that route and it’s worked out well for them as a form of diversification,” he said.

Hudyncia added that the solar industry had been receptive to working with other groups. The North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association and the department of agriculture are collaborating on a report that will show that solar has removed only about a tenth of 1 percent of the state’s agricultural lands.

That fraction may not grow too much larger. Van der Hoeven said developing solar on many agricultural lands could be difficult, as transferring the energy to the power company’s grid requires infrastructure that isn’t available in many rural areas.

The state Wildlife Resource Commission expressed fears about how utility-scale solar developments affect wildlife and habitats. Some Trenton residents shared similar worries.

“In general, the NCWRC supports solar facilities located in open areas,” according to a letter signed by Maria Dunn, a coastal habitat coordinator with the commission. “However, the conversion of forests and wetlands to support solar development is causing increasing concern due to the loss of wildlife habitat, the fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and vegetative manage needed post-conversion for wetland and other forested areas.”

Dunn said in an interview that those worries extend to any kind of development, although she added that for solar, agricultural land is preferred to property that hasn’t been cleared.

Shadley agreed, noting that Pine Gate Renewables also prefers agricultural property for the same reason.

Shadley said Pine Gate Renewables follows management practices designed to protect the coastal environment. The company follows guidelines and suggestions recommended by state agencies and also reaches out to communities to address their concerns.

“We want to be a good neighbor; we’re not trying to rock the boat,” Shadley said. “We want to add value to the community.”

ELIZABETH CITY   Energy and food producers are not often so simpatico when sharing the same turf, nor are farmers always so pleased about big corporations co-opting their land.

But at a July 17 open house at Amazon Wind Farm U.S. East, North Carolina’s first land-based wind farm, farmers extolled fat monthly lease checks, millions of dollars in economic investment and a windfall in local tax revenue collected from developers while they pretty much go about farming as usual.

“This seems to be the best of both worlds,” Joe Winslow, chairman of the Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners, said, the sun glinting off a sleek rotor blade lying on the ground behind him.  “You can farm around it and yet you can produce power.”

Winslow said he and other county officials spent about a year researching wind farms – talking, traveling, reading, interviewing, inspecting – before deciding to move forward with the project.  And all signs, he said, point to it being the right move.

The county is already reaping financial awards from the project, he said. Although there has been some opposition to the project, most of it came late in the process from people outside the area.

“The local people support it,” he said “It’s a very positive thing for the area. It’s helped our local economy tremendously.”

Already, the project has put $2 million into local businesses, Winslow said, not including hotel occupancy rates last winter that went from the usual 15 percent or so to 97 percent.

“The thing that intrigued me about it – because it is an intrusion onto your property – I’m retired and I definitely needed the income,” said Henry Winslow, one of 75 landowners and others affiliated with the project who attended the open house to sign a rotor blade as a symbolic stamp of approval. He’s not related to  Joe Winslow.

The trade-off is having dozens of wind turbines planted for at least 25 years among fields of wheat, corn, rapeseed and soybeans, each reaching 492 feet into the sky when the tip of the blade is straight up.

Four cylinders are stacked on top of each other, towering to 305 feet. A rectangular cell then tops the cylinders, and the rotor, or nose cone, it placed on the top.  Finally, the 182-foot white fiberglass rotor blade is installed on the rotor.

“I’m not against oil or any other energy,” Winslow, 67, said, explaining why he’s a fan of wind power. “I like it because it’s quiet and it’s clean.”

For each of the six turbines that will be erected on his property, he will be paid $6,000 a year. Each tower requires an acre of land.

And there is another big benefit from the project.

“Excellent roads,” Winslow said. “They’ll keep me out of the mud.”

Since the groundbreaking last July on 22,000 acres of farmland straddling Pasquotank and Perquimans counties, about 60 miles of hard-packed dirt roads have been carved through the fields, and staging areas have been constructed. The project’s first phase will include 104 wind turbines that generate up to 208 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 61,000 homes.

The electricity will be sold to online retail giant Amazon to power current and future cloud data centers.  Paul Copleman is a spokesman for Portland, Oregon-based developer Avangrid Renewables, until recently known as Iberdrola Renewables. He said that there are about 60 different leases involved in the project, ranging from multiple turbines to a construction easement.  All are for at least 25 years.  Between the two counties, he said, tax revenue totals about $520,000 annually, and it will increase each year.

Typically, the investment in a project the size of Amazon Wind would be $375 million, Copleman said. That figure more accurately accounts for industry standards than previously-stated cost estimates, he added.

All the components for the third turbine were at the site on the day of the blade-signing, ready to be erected.  Several trucks were lined up elsewhere along the dirt roads, waiting to drop off loads of cylinders or blades. The rate of assembly and installation is “obviously a coordinated dance,” Copleman said, that is influenced by delivery times, weather and other factors.

“We’ll start to ramp up the pace,” he said. “We’ll be doing a few a week, once the components are on site.”

Commercial operation of the windfarm is expected to start by year’s end, Copleman said.

From the edge of the road near where the open house was held, looking toward the distant horizon over vast fields of corn, two white wind turbines could barely be seen poking into the sky. But from U.S. 17 outside Elizabeth City, the turbines are easy for drivers to see.

As the site first utility-size wind project in the state, the county has led the way for others in the region, said Joe Winslow, Pasquotank’s commission chairman.  When Amazon agreed to buy the power, the project suddenly attracted tons of attention for the area, he said, making the rural counties benefactors in the growing national trend of tech giants, such as Amazon and Google, that purchase renewable energy.

Winslow said one reason the area became attractive was because Ohio recently put new regulations in place that made wind power development less attractive.  The developers then looked to North Carolina.

Steve Harris, an Elizabeth City native who has farmed for 30 years, said he first heard about the project about eight years ago, when he received a post card inviting him to meet with company representatives. Today, he is leasing land for 11 turbines.

“Ironically,” he said, “we always joked back here when we were farming, we always said it would be good for a wind farm.”

Being able to farm around the turbines, Harris said, makes the wind technology much more attractive to farmers than solar farms, which cover land.  “I think they look pretty neat, myself,” he said. “They’re going to be spread out.”

Apex Clean Energy is currently seeking conditional use permits to build a 105-turbine windfarm called Timbermill Wind on timber and farm land in Perquimans and Chowan counties. The Chowan County Planning Board last week voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the project to the Board of Commissioners, according to Apex spokesman Kevin Chandler.  He said that Apex’s application exceeds the counties’ minimum requirements for sound, shadow flicker and setbacks in their ordinances.

Of the 27 landowners in Chowan who have entered lease agreements with Apex, Chandler said, 14 are hosting turbines. In Perquimans, six landowners have lease agreements; of them three are hosting turbines. The project, estimated to cost up to $500 million, would number 48 turbines in Chowan and 57 in Perquimans.

Chandler said it is not possible at this point to say what fees landowners would be paid.

For James White, the Amazon Wind Farm made sense from the time he first heard about it 10 years ago. White, whose family farms 220 acres and has 25 acres of pasture for 65 cattle, said he was one of the first farmers approached by Iberdrola and he was immediately onboard.

“I thought it was like a pipe dream then, because there was nothing like that at the time,” he said. “Knowing how around here, they don’t really like progress, I never thought it would materialize.”

He is leasing land for two turbines, and a 17-acre block for two substations.

“It’s bringing a lot of money into the county,” he said. “It’s giving us recognition. It’s a tourist attraction – I’m absolutely bringing tourists here left and right. I think it’s fantastic.”

White said he doesn’t understand the anger some have had toward the project and similar wind farms.

“It’s good for the environment,” White said. “I think they’re beautiful. They’re just majestic. I think after a while people in the community aren’t going to notice them. After a while, it’s going to be part of the normal landscape, just like cell towers.”

A bill known as the “Military Operations Protection Act of 2016” that breezed through the state Senate this week appears to have little to do with protecting the military, at least according to the Pentagon.

After starting out as yet another bill to reduce or eliminate regulations when filed in April 2015 in the state House, HB 763 was transmogrified this month by the state Senate into a bill that supporters contend will protect military planes that could be endangered by wind turbines when flying low-altitude training missions. Others consider it a wind turbine killer, disguised as a shield to protect vital military interests in the state. The Pentagon was never asked if it needed the protection.

“I think it can have devastating effect because it would eliminate large swaths of North Carolina from (wind) development,” said Henry Campen Jr., a partner with Raleigh-based Parker Poe law firm, which represents three wind-energy companies seeking to develop in eastern North Carolina.

Millions of dollars in tax revenue and other benefits for some of the poorest areas in the state where wind farms are being planned, or seriously discussed – Washington, Tyrrell, Perquimans, Chowan and Beaufort counties – would be threatened by the legislation, he said.

Officials with the Department of Defense, the government entity in charge of numerous North Carolina military bases with aviation activities – Fort Bragg, Pope Army Airfield, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and Coast Guard Sector Wilmington, had no clue that the state was looking out for something the DOD had no problem with.

Indeed, the DOD is “supportive of the state’s existing legislation that affords military installations in the state the opportunity to provide input on potential impacts from proposed wind energy projects,” Lt. Col. James B. Brindle, a DOD spokesman, said this week. “However, we have not officially been engaged or involved with North Carolina regarding the latest proposed revisions to state law.”

A map that accompanies the bill prohibits wind farms in most of Eastern North Carolina and in much of the rest of the state. The bill would also mandate that any structure 200 feet or taller within a five-mile buffer around military bases undergo state review by the new state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Part of the department’s charge, according to the bill, would be to ensure the accuracy of the restricted areas delineated in the map.

As it is now, however, the map presented by state Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow, misrepresents the areas that would be barred for wind turbines, said state Rep. Bob Steinburg, an Edenton Republican who represents six counties in northeastern North Carolina.

In the Senate committee meeting last Thursday, he said, Brown framed the bill as saving the state from losing its military installations – one of the most important economic drivers in the state – because of land-based wind turbines.

“Sen. Brown is essentially saying, ‘If you don’t vote for this, you’re anti-military,’” Steinburg said.

Steinburg said he is a strong supporter of the military. But he also supports economic development in the counties he represents, which includes some of the poorest in the state. The legislation also could leave the state vulnerable to lawsuits, he added.

“We’re talking about massive investment in eastern North Carolina,” he said. “In Tyrrell, Chowan and Perquimans, we’re talking about $700 to $800 million in investment, between the three of them. Tyrrell is the ultimate example – an infusion of capital in a county like that is like manna from heaven because the tax revenue will continue to come in after the project is completed.”

According to the map shown at the meeting, he said, it looked like planned projects in Chowan, Perquimans, Beaufort and Washington counties would be prohibited. But when he looked later at the map, he noticed a disclaimer printed on the bottom that said: “These maps, data, GIS (and so forth) do not, in any applicable way, allow the use for determining placement of tall structures such as wind turbines …”

The map, the disclaimer went on to note, is separate from the map that’s being developed for an ongoing study of land uses around Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, a bombing range in Dare County and all associated military training routes and airspace.

That map, Steinburg said, shows the planned wind production areas in white, meaning they were acceptable for development. But the bill’s map has those areas “shadowed out,” and the disclaimer was not there, he said.

“People in the committee should have been shown the disclaimer at the bottom,” he said. “We don’t want to do anything to upset the military. But what I want is for all of this to be open.”

State law already requires that base commanders be consulted on projects, and the DOD has strict permitting requirements, Steinburg said, leading him to believe there may be other motivations cloaked in the guise of military protection. He added that he is not aware of any request from the military for the measure.

“There are already protocols in place,” he said. “I think there are people that are anti-renewable energy.”

Brown hasn’t responded to emailed questions.

Sen. Bill Cook, a Beaufort County Republican who is a retired power company executive, voted in favor of the bill, which passed the Senate 33-14.

Cook, who represents northeastern North Carolina, was one of the sponsors of another bill introduced in May – subsequently referred to the committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House – that would require wind and solar farms to have a minimum buffer of 1.5 miles from neighboring properties and be concealed by landscaping. The wind turbines noise levels would also be limited to 35 decibels, equal to the sound of a whisper.

The proposed bill would add “layers of red tape” that would scare off developers, Allison Eckley, communications manager at the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association, said in an email.

“The provisions in the bill give the N.C. Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services new oversight and veto power over the wind permitting process,” she wrote, “interferes with contracts between private citizens and developers, and contains confusing language which will prevent current projects in the state from moving forward.”

In addition to restricting locations of wind turbines based on military installations, the proposed bill would also require a review by the state Department of Health and Human Services on potential health effects of noise, shadow and flicker from turbines. If health officials don’t certify that the project won’t affect human health or if they don’t respond, state permits would be denied.

In an article yesterday in North Carolina Health News, department spokeswoman Alexandra Lefevre said that no similar reviews are required by the health department on power plants, including coal-fired and biomass combustion plants. Dustin Chicurel-Bayard with the Sierra Club, the article said, characterized the additional requirements as a “ploy” designed to discourage wind energy development.

Can the noise of a wind farm near your home ruin your quality of life? A newspaper in England took a decibel meter to a wind farm and a host of residential areas to find out.

“Unfortunately, we’ve seen several attacks on the clean energy industry,” Chicurel-Bayard told North Carolina Health News. “(The measure) would create regulatory burdens and more red tape specifically for the wind industry and no other form of energy production.”

A wind turbine project called “Timbermill Wind” planned by Apex Clean Energy in Perquimans and Chowan counties could potentially be blocked if the bill becomes law as written. The company has submitted conditional-use applications to both counties, and recently held public information sessions, reportedly with mostly supportive feedback from residents, about the project, which would site up to 150 turbines on 15,000 acres of timber and farmland.

Apex did not respond to telephone messages seeking further information.

According to a June 22 article in “Triangle Business Journal,” the similarly-sized Amazon Wind Farm – which in under construction and won’t be affected by the proposed legislation – will be the largest taxpayer in both Perquimans and Pasquotank counties. Such projects also can provide stable revenue for farmers, the article said.

Using the Amazon farm as an example, the Journal said that 60 property owners are paid $5,000 a year, per turbine. And farmers can still farm around the turbines.

There is also significant interest in wind development in Tyrrell County, which has the lowest annual growth in the state and is consistently ranked as one of North Carolina’s poorest counties.

David Clegg, Tyrrell county manager, said the county recently passed “one of the most sophisticated” wind energy ordinances in the state and would welcome wind development with open arms. Although he said it is too early to identify the potential developer, he said that a wind project could bring $100 million to the county.

“This bill would shut those proposals down,” he said. “This rush to pass this bill right now is absolutely devastating to counties in northeastern North Carolina that need economic development.”

About one-third of Tyrrell’s 735 square miles is owned by the state and federal governments, Clegg said. Another third is agricultural, and the remaining third is unbuildable. That leaves a sparse population trying to make do with sparse numbers of jobs in a very rural county.

“Our entire county’s annual budget is $7 million,” he said, “and 3,645 people can only pay so much tax. (A wind project) would be a game-changing event for Tyrrell County.”

Clegg, who said he didn’t learn about the bill until the night before the vote, said the military map is essentially indecipherable.  Tyrrell is one of numerous counties that has been working cooperatively for a while with Seymour Johnson on development of a joint land-use plan, he said, and as part of that process he has seen plenty of detailed maps. At the very least, he added, the state should wait until that pending study is completed by year’s end.

“It’s difficult looking at that bill and looking at that map and even knowing what we’re looking at,” he said. “Our whole point has been that there is a process in place right now that will address everything from Goldsboro to Manteo, so why don’t we let that go forward?  There’s got to be a reasonable and rational analysis of this bill,” he said.

Steinburg said it is unclear when the bill will go to a House conference for a vote. “My problem is, I’m not convinced that this a concern of the military,” he said. “It’s almost like it’s a solution looking for a problem.”

To Learn More

• House Bill 763
• DOD report: The effects of wind farms on military readiness
• Report: Siting wind farms near military bases
• Amazon wind project
• Timbermill wind project

Fish might not have fancy communication equipment like whales and dolphins, but they do have their specialized ways of navigating through an ocean filled with predators and mobile food sources. And these honed adaptive responses could potentially be harmed by seismic air guns.

But as the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management continues to review the effects of proposed seismic surveys on marine mammals in the Atlantic, an environmental advocacy group is putting out alarms that the tests’ potentially ill effect on fish will be glossed over in the review process that is close to completion.

“There are fisheries impacts that are not very well understood, and now is the time to do these reviews,” said Zachary Lees, ocean and coastal policy attorney for Clean Ocean Action, a New Jersey-based nonprofit group.

Eight companies are currently seeking to conduct seismic surveys in areas off the southern Atlantic coast between Delaware and Florida to look for oil and natural gas resources. Although oil leases in the Atlantic have been canceled until at least 2023, the federal government is moving forward with mapping the sea floor for hydrocarbon deposits.

After approving a final programmatic environmental impact statement, or PEIS, on seismic surveys in 2014, BOEM was made aware earlier this year of new information on protected marine mammals that triggered additional review.

As one of the final steps in the ongoing review process, Incidental Harassment Authorization, or IHA, permits must be approved by BOEM before any seismic work can move forward. The IHA permits would cap the number of “takes” of legally protected whales and dolphins allowed each year per species. Although the term refers to the animals that lawfully can be injured or killed, that figure also includes the numbers of animals that are disturbed – such as having to move away from a vessel.

But as BOEM works to finish the IHA review, Lees said, it is also currently conducting a site specific environmental review, authorized under the 2014 environmental statement, that he argues should rightfully include formal consultation with the federal National Marine Fisheries Service. As it stands now, Lees added, the final PEIS concluded that all effects on fisheries would be minor or negligible, despite a dearth of research on acoustic impacts on fish.

The problem appears to be, Lees said, that in the PEIS, an in-depth analysis is put aside in anticipation of the site specific review to be done later. But Lees said he is concerned that when the site review is finally done, it will simply fold in the prior environmental review work and the accompanying conclusions, essentially rubber-stamping prior reviews that lacked updated data on seismic’s effects on fish.

“In our view, it seems to be a very cursory glance so they can check a box and continue with an environmental assessment,” he said.  “They have to a do a site-specific analysis. It’s just a question of what kind of analysis.”

According to Lees, the sole analysis in the PEIS of acoustic impacts on fish consist of 22 pages in the appendix that states “the extent of data is exceedingly limited and equivocal” and that “clear statements” on the effects of sounds on the behavior of any species are not yet possible.

Lees said that if BOEM does only the less rigorous environmental assessment, rather than the in-depth review involving consultation with the agencies on biological and other impacts, the public and the scientists will be deprived of its last opportunity to review and comment on the seismic surveys.

In a May letter to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Lees urged the panel to ask BOEM to perform a full EIS for each survey application, to formally consult with the fisheries agencies and to open the documents to a public comment period and public hearing.

“These fisheries scientists over there should play a large role in this,” he said.

Caryl Fagot, BOEM spokeswoman at the Gulf of Mexico regional office, said that the site specific review process requires an EA, which incorporates conditions, recommendations and mitigations agreed to as part of the previous PEIS. It is then reviewed by “subject matter experts” to ensure environmental compliance before the permit application is approved.

If BOEM determines that there could be adverse impacts to fish, an assessment of “essential fish habitats” will be sent to staff at the National Marine Fisheries Service to review, Fagot said.

The service works with the regional fishery management councils to identify the essential habitat for every life stage of each federally managed species using the best available scientific information. Essential fish habitat has been described for about 1,000 managed species to date.

Either agency could request a formal consultation, she said, but it would only be done between the agencies and is not a public process. The fisheries service, however, would have the option of including the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic fishery management councils in the consultation, she said.

Fagot said she does not know where the site specific review is in the process, or whether a formal consultation has been or will be sought on fisheries effects. BOEM, however, remains willing, she said, to work with the councils and attend their meetings, if requested, to provide information.

We do try to be transparent,” she said.

Rick Robins, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council chairman, said on Monday that the site-specific review process issue would be raised with BOEM representatives who are making a presentation on wind energy this week at the council’s bimonthly meeting.

But Robins said that he expects that the council would reiterate its previous opposition to seismic testing.

In its comments submitted to BOEM in May 2014 on the programmatic environmental statement, the council expressed concerns that the extensive time and area of seismic tests, called geologic and geophysical projects or just G&G in the business, could affect spawning and foraging habits of even fish that are able to move out of the way. For less mobile fish, such as scallops and squid, the comments continued, there are studies that show dire consequences, including mortality.

“After many years of working to rebuild mid-Atlantic fisheries to sustainable levels, the potential impacts of G & G activities on these rebuilt resources is extremely troubling,” the comments said. “The general lack of information included in the PEIS relative to the impacts of G & G activities on fish, marine mammals and the surrounding eco-systems are of serious concern.”

Robins said that he intends to ask BOEM to allow the site specific process to be opened for public review and input. As it is, he said, not enough is understood about how different fish respond to seismic activities.

“I think if this is going to move forward in our region,” he said, “there should be more research.”

Even with a comparably small academic-led seismic project done off New Jersey last summer, fishermen said they saw a significant drop in fishing, said Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action.

A public process needs to be tied to the fisheries evaluation in the seismic surveys review, she said.

“There are laws protecting fish – Lord knows the fishermen know how restrictive the limits are on them,” Zipf said “Yet there doesn’t seem to be any restrictions on these industrial activities that are a cause for concern.”

To Learn More

• Clean Ocean Action
• BOEM
• Essential Fish Habitat
• Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council

A group of 28 scientists and research program directors, including four from North Carolina, recently signed a letter earlier calling on President Obama to suspend seismic activity in the Atlantic Ocean because of “profound concern” about the effects the tests could have on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Meanwhile, the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce recently re-affirmed its opposition to seismic testing first stated in 2015 and is now calling for an outright ban on air gun surveying off the N.C. coast.

Five companies are now seeking federal permits to harass marine mammals, one of the final steps in the federal approval process to conduct seismic exploration. Air gun surveys are known to have large-scale effects on baleen whale species, which includes the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Adding More Stress?

The scientists who signed the letter, marine biologists with specific expertise on the right whale, said the species is among the most endangered whales on the planet, with only about 500 individuals remaining. The whale has been federally protected for 40 years under the Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection acts, but its recovery “has been painfully slow,” according to the letter dated April 14 and signed by Doug Nowacek, Andy Read and Caroline Good of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and William A. McLellan of the biology and marine biology department at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, among others.

The scientists say the latest data show the right whale population is no longer increasing but may now actually be declining in numbers. Its decline is thought to be directly linked to the disproportionately high level of human activity occurring along the whales’ East Coast range, resulting in entanglements in fishing gear, underwater noise impacts and exposures to other chronic stressors.

“Adding another major stressor to their environment in the form of seismic surveys would, we believe, substantially increase the risk that the population will slip further into decline and would jeopardize its survival,” according to the letter.

The effects of seismic tests on whales can include disruption of foraging and reproduction activities. “Most recently they have been linked to significant reductions in the probability of calf survival in western Pacific gray whales, another endangered baleen whale population,” according to the scientists’ letter.

Groups favoring seismic testing in the Atlantic dispute the scientists’ claims. One such group, the N.C. Energy Forum, which supports expanded development of the state’s oil and natural gas resources, took to Twitter on Friday to “debunk the myth” that seismic activity is harmful to marine life. But the group’s message was nothing new.

#debunkthemyth – BOEM says #seismicsurveys will have NO measurable impact on marine life https://t.co/IqBlvLnBZD

— NC Energy Forum (@NCEnergyForum) April 29, 2016

The Tweet included a link to an open letter penned in August 2014 by William Brown, chief environmental officer with the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Brown’s letter addressed what he called “misconceptions” about seismic effects on marine mammals, with a set of questions and answers titled “The Science Behind the Decision,” which refers to BOEM’s environmental study issued in February 2014.

“To date, there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical (G&G) seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal populations or coastal communities,” according to the document.

The bureau is the federal agency that regulates energy exploration and production in U.S. waters.

A ‘Responsible Approach’

The scientists, in their letter, said any meaningful environmental assessment of air gun surveys in the Atlantic must include “a conservative, quantitative evaluation of its cumulative impacts on the whales’ health and reproductive rates over time, which the Interior Department has not done.”

A “responsible approach” would defer any such analysis until after The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s right whale status review scheduled for 2017, according to the scientists.

The letter follows a similar plea from 75 marine scientists in March 2015 to reject the Interior Department’s environmental analysis and its decision to permit seismic surveys in the Atlantic based on the threats to marine mammal and fish populations.

“That request is all the more urgent in light of the new information now available on the vulnerability of North Atlantic right whales,” according to the most recent letter.

Six Applications on File

The National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries, has received six Incidental Harassment Authorization applications related to proposed geophysical surveys in the Atlantic, including the five for proposed seismic surveys. The sixth application from a company called TDI Brooks of College Station, Texas, is for a different type of survey, using multi-beam sonar echo sounders.

NOAA provided four of the applications for public review and comment in 2015, including those for TDI Brooks; Spectrum Geo Inc., TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. and ION GeoVentures, all of Houston, Texas. At the time, NOAA received a fifth application from the geophysical services firm Western Geco of West Sussex, England, that was not yet complete.

“We are developing proposed authorizations for four applications that will undergo public review and comment,” Jennie Lyons, a NOAA Fisheries spokeswoman said last week. “These four will include Spectrum, TGS, ION, and Western Geco. We returned the TDI Brooks application as incomplete, based on public comment.”

The Western Geco application was not complete at the time of the initial public review period, Lyons said. It was not included with the applications made available to the public, but it’s now deemed complete and “is not substantively different from the other applications.”

Lyons said NOAA received in January a sixth application from Paris-based CGG, which has offices worldwide including the U.S., that is still under review. The CGG application does not differ substantively from applications previously available for review, Lyons said. The application will be available for review along with any proposed authorization, should it be determined complete.

Business Group Opposed

The Carteret chamber first stated its opposition to offshore drilling and seismic testing in a resolution approved Sept. 5, before the Obama administration in March removed the Atlantic outer continental shelf from the draft proposed five-year leasing program for 2017-22. “Offshore exploration … and associated seismic blasting … represent a direct threat to the coastal environment of North Carolina, by creating the risk of pollution and by causing harmful effects to marine mammals, turtles, fish, migratory birds and other aquatic life,” the chamber stated at the time.

Citing the scientists’ letter, the chamber last week called on the Interior Department to move swiftly to ban seismic surveys in the Atlantic. The group said the tests could wipe out the remaining population of right whales.

“While we are grateful the Obama administration listened to part of the message – the risks of pollution to potentially destroy tourism and the environment – the Chamber remains opposed to seismic blasting,” said Bucky Oliver, chamber chairman. “The scientific data show seismic blasting causes underwater, industrial-level noise impacts that are stressful to right whales. The effects are hazardous to the health and fitness of these whales and impairs their reproduction, as is documented by a drastic and dramatic drop in calving rates since 1998.”

Oliver echoed the scientists’ letter, saying the responsible move would be to halt seismic tests until after NOAA completes its whale status review in 2017.

The chamber also voiced its support for a U.S. Senate bill introduced last week that would “prohibit any and all seismic activity” off the East Coast. New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, are sponsors of the Atlantic Seismic Air Gun Protection Act, which would create a moratorium on geological and geophysical activities related to oil and gas exploration off the East Coast.

The chamber said it would encourage Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, both Republicans, to co-sponsor and support the moratorium bill.

Mike Wagoner, chamber president, also posted a comment last week on the organization’s website, noting that the “Right whale is near and dear to Carteret County” and that blasting “could wipe out the remaining population” of the species. Wagoner suggested that county leaders join a “community-wide effort to protect the whales,” which are featured on the county’s official seal.

The seal, or coat of arms, was registered in 1977 with the College of Arms.

“It may also be a fiscally prudent act by today’s Board of Commissioners to join in the movement to save the right whales,” Wagoner writes. “The going rate charged by the College of Arms for a new Coat of Arms, as advertised on its official website today, is 12,100 British Pounds Sterling, the equivalent of $17,410.57 in U.S. currency.”

Learn More

• Read the scientists’ letter
• Carteret County Chamber reaffirms opposition to seismic blasting
• BOEM’s record of decision
• Atlantic permitting process

Reprinted from the Tideland News

Offshore leases for oil and natural gas off the N.C. coast are almost surely off the table through at least 2022, but seismic testing is not, and conservation groups are waiting to see if they’ll need to continue to fight.

The Obama administration’s decision to remove the East Coast from the next proposed offshore leasing plan would seem to relieve the immediate need to blast sound waves through the ocean floor to find likely sources of fossil fuels. But none of the companies that have sought the seismic permits have withdrawn their applications with the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, yet.

“We haven’t received any indication yet that they plan to do that (withdraw),” John Filostrat, an agency spokesman said recently. “They might well just want to see what’s out there.”

As a result, opponents of the testing are in wait-and-see mode. But they’re hoping, and even doing a little planning.

“Now that offshore drilling won’t be considered in the Atlantic for years, there is absolutely no reason to move forward with seismic air gun blasting, which would put our fisheries and marine mammals in harm’s way,” said Claire Douglass, spokesperson for Oceana, the international conservation group that led the opposition against including the East Coast in the proposed leasing plan.

But, she added, Oceana is still pondering what to do, and is working behind the scenes, talking to federal officials and members of Congress. Some members, including Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Republican who represents coastal North Carolina, have already opposed the tests.

Currently, eight applications to conduct seismic testing are winding through the federal permitting process. The National Marine Fisheries Service, part of NOAA, is considering issuing authorizations that will allow the ships used for the testing to harm or harass, or “take” in language of the law, whales and other animals protected under federal laws.

While there have been reports that NMFS could act within weeks on some of those permit applications, Filostrat said it’s also possible that those decisions might not be made “until summer or even later in the year.”

North Carolina has already determined that four permit applications are consistent with the state’s coastal-management laws. Positive “consistency reviews” are needed before NMFS and BOEM reviews could begin. The N.C. Division of Coastal Management granted in April 2015 the permits for Spectrum Geo and GX Technology. Within two months, the division approved CGG Services and TGS for seismic surveying.

One other, TDI-Brooks, didn’t require a consistency determination because the firm uses sonar, not seismic guns.

Many of the most prominent marine mammal scientists in the world, including Doug Nowacek of the Duke University Marine Laboratory in Beaufort, have argued against seismic testing, which they believe can disrupt the mammals’ communications and alter migration patterns, feeding and, potentially, even mating. For some mammals, such as the endangered right whale, those disruptions could be devastating to the population.

Nowacek said recently that he doesn’t foresee “whales and dolphins dying and floating to the surface and washing ashore” if the testing occurs. He remains worried, though, about the considerable number of incidental takes typically allowed as a part of the practice elsewhere.

He’s especially worried about the right whales, and that although the now-dropped East Coast drilling plan banned wells inside 50 miles, seismic testing would be allowed within three miles of shore, plenty close enough to cause problems for the dolphins that frolic in our waters.

Two regional fishery management councils, the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic, have also expressed great concerns in official letters to BOEM, saying testing would affect benthic ecosystems, fish habitat and fishermen. The councils, combined, manage fisheries in federal waters, from three to 200 miles offshore, along most of the East Coast.

The industry has countered that there is no scientific evidence that directly links seismic sound waves to the deaths, stranding or other harm to whales and other marine creatures. It notes that it has conducted similar tests around the world with few incidences.

Nowacek, who through his work has close ties to people in the oil industry, doubts the testing firms will proceed, but concedes there’s no way to know for sure.

“It’s hard to imagine the oil companies paying for it, when (Atlantic) drilling is out of the 2017-22 plan and there’s no guarantee it will be in the next plan,” he said. “The (testing) companies could do it on their own, but who are they going to sell it (the resulting data) to?”

Filostrat said there are some potential buyers – the data can be used to help site offshore wind turbines, to locate sand deposits for mining and beach projects and for pure science – but said oil companies might be interested anyway, because they think in times much longer than five or even 10 years. Conceivably, they might pay for the data and then hold on to it until the times change and there is more demand and support for drilling.

Congress, he noted, could even mandate that the East Coast be placed back in the 2017-22 plan. And a new president who takes office in January 2017 could also do that or could simply put it back in the next plan.

Douglass said that while Oceana was grateful the Obama administration listened to coastal communities on the drilling issue, “I hope they will continue to listen and stop seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic.”

Forty-three East Coast local governments adopted resolutions opposing seismic testing, she said, and 52 adopted resolutions against testing and drilling.

Filostrat said that no matter what happens next, the process, so far, has worked well.

“Dealing with the public was good and informative,” he said. “A lot of smart, well-informed and concerned residents made their voices heard. I personally went to at least a dozen public meetings, and the commitment was impressive. In the end, the (U.S.) Interior (Department) Secretary (Sally Jewell) made a tough call.”

The official interior department press release explained it this way: “Many factors were considered in the decision to remove this sale from the 2017-2022 program including: significant potential conflicts with other ocean uses such as the Department of Defense and commercial interests; current market dynamics; limited infrastructure; and opposition from many coastal communities.”

Learn More

• Science: A Review of the Impacts of Seismic Air Gun Surveys on Marine Life
• BOEM draft environmental study

This story is provided courtesy of the Tideland News, a weekly newspaper in Swansboro. Coastal Review Online is partnering with the Tideland to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast. You can read other stories about the Swansboro area here.

Opponents of drilling off the N.C. coast are celebrating today, after federal officials said yesterday that Atlantic offshore waters are no longer being considered in the five-year plan for oil and natural gas leases.

“Today is an incredible day for the oceans,” said Randy Sturgill, senior campaign organizer for the southeast with the environmental group Oceana, a leader in the opposition movement.

Gov. Pat McCrory, maybe the the state’s biggest offshore drilling cheerleader, charged that President Obama was bowing to left-wing activists by removing the Atlantic from the proposed leasing plan, while oil industry executives said he was acting against the wishes of voters and political leaders.

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, announced the decision. Speaking to reporters in a conference call, Jewell and Hopper said factors considered in the decision included potential conflicts with other ocean uses, including the U.S. Defense Department and commercial interests, market dynamics, limited infrastructure and opposition from many coastal communities.

“In the Atlantic, we heard from many corners that now is not the time to offer oil and gas leasing off the Atlantic coast,” Jewell said. “This includes many local communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing, tourism and shipping activities. When you factor in conflicts with commercial and national defense activities, market conditions and opposition from local communities, it simply doesn’t make sense to move forward with the Atlantic lease sales in the near future. As a result, this one potential lease sale in the mid- and south-Atlantic that was evaluated in the draft proposed program has been removed.”

Jewell said comments from residents of coastal communities were “very significant” factors in the decision.

More than 110 East Coast municipalities have formally opposed to Atlantic offshore drilling, according to Oceana.

Leading the Opposition

The N.C. Coastal Federation was also part of the opposition and organized a public forum on the potential effects of drilling and seismic exploration held in July 2015. Ladd Bayliss, a coastal advocate with the federation, applauded the decision.

“BOEM made it very clear that this bold move to remove Atlantic waters from their drilling plan was a result of meaningful and diverse public opposition,” Bayliss said. “It’s pretty empowering to participate in the public process and actually see the results of such a composite effort in a tangible time frame. Meetings, letters, phone calls, emails, resolutions – they really do make a difference. Like my Dad said about Mobil’s proposal to drill off the Outer Banks in the late ’80s, ‘When we are all blessed with such a resource; one that is long term, it seems unwise to pursue its exploitation for a short-term gain.’ ”

Other environmental groups expressed similar sentiments.

Matt Walker, co-chairman of the Outer Banks chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, said that the overwhelming opposition to Atlantic drilling was a great illustration of coastal residents and officials coming together “to protect their own” – their livelihoods, their environment and their quality of life.

Dare County, he said, was one of the first local governments in the state to oppose the lease sale.

Tourism is a multi-billion-dollar industry in North Carolina, and Dare is one of the top destinations in the state for tourists because of its clean, unspoiled beaches.

“This is a victory for the people of the Outer Banks,” Bob Woodard, chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners Chairman, said in a prepared statement.  “I am proud that our community took a strong and united stand against offshore drilling.”

Walker said the notoriously dirty business of oil and gas production never made any sense off the Atlantic coast. But with North Carolina’s long coastline, it would be even more vulnerable to crushing environmental and fiscal damages from a spill.

“It was always a false premise that this was a good idea,” he said. “This decision was going to be as bad for Raleigh as it would be for Kill Devil Hills.  I hope people who live inland are also breathing a sigh of relief, because they stand as much to lose.”

Walker said that drilling opponents should now focus their energy on getting the moratorium that was lifted in 2008 put back in place to ensure the battle won’t have to be renewed in five years when Atlantic leases could be offered again.

Sturgill said that opponents couldn’t match the oil lobby funding, so they gathered supporters by “burning up” the Internet and Facebook.

“It’s proof that good ol’ grassroots organizing makes a difference,” Sturgill said.  “We took that, built upon that. We never really changed our strategy.”

Local opposition from residents and community leaders – thousands of letters, petitions, phone calls, public comments – worked its way up the bureaucratic ladder all the way President Obama’s office, Sturgill said.  It was a bipartisan effort, with 110 municipalities on the East Coast passing resolutions opposed to drilling. Only two counties in North Carolina – Carteret and New Hanover – passed measures in support.

Surfrider made anti-drilling lawn signs available for residents to post in their yards, and both Oceana and Surfrider paid for banner planes with anti-drilling messages to fly over areas holding big outdoor events.

“At this particular point, it’s a big thank you for all of the people who had the courage to stand up,” Sturgill said. “We’re all neighbors. We all share the same ocean.”

Process ‘Worked as Intended’

The Defense Department submitted information during the process that the entire proposed Atlantic lease sale area was “conflicted,” Hopper said. She said the scope of military activity in the area had grown since the time of the last evaluation in 2010.

“The way in which it changed is that more of the area actually is conflicted now,” Hopper said.

Jewell said conflicts with NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia were also a material factor in the decision, which she said could only be undone if Congress in a future administration reworks the five-year program to add the Atlantic back in. The steps toward yesterday’s decision worked as intended, with “robust” public input and many stakeholders, she said.

“We have certainly heard from coastal communities, generally about their opposition,” Jewell said. “This is not a big reversal. Basically, this is exactly how the process is intended to work.”

The proposed list of leasing areas could narrow further or stay same but it cannot grow, Jewell said. The new proposed five-year lease plan announced yesterday evaluates 13 potential lease sales in six planning areas – 10 potential sales in the Gulf of Mexico and three potential sales off the coast of Alaska.

Hopper said the Interior Department’s request for the military assessment was recently fulfilled and taken into account, along with other input.

“There was tremendous interest in the Atlantic and generally it was expressing concern, from every source,” Jewell said. “It’s not like we were just waiting for the Department of Defense to weigh in. This has been something that has had multiple public meetings over a prolonged period of time, over a year, and an assessment of all those comments led to this decision.”

Jewell said the market conditions cited were based on broader aspects of the industry over a five-year time span.

“Current oil prices were not a material factor in the decision that we made today,” she said.

Missed Opportunity?

Gov. Pat McCrory has touted the jobs drilling would bring and the revenue it would generate for the state.  Obama, he charged, was bowing to the wishes of his leftist supporters.

“President Obama’s total reversal can only be described as a special political favor to far-left activists that have no problem importing energy resources from countries hostile to the United States,” McCrory said in a prepared statement. “What’s more troubling is the President is closing the door before he even knows what resources can be harnessed in an environmentally sound way. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s deal could ultimately cost North Carolina thousands of new jobs and billions in needed revenue for schools, infrastructure, dredging and beach re-nourishment.”

Oil industry representatives, said keeping the Atlantic closed to oil exploration amounts to a missed opportunity.

In a statement from the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, president and CEO Jack Gerard said that the administration is going against the will of voters and state political leaders. According to a Feb. 2016 Harris Poll conducted for the API, 67 percent of registered voters polled in North Carolina support increased production of domestic oil and gas, and 22 percent are opposed. A poll of residents of oceanfront counties done for Coastal Review Online in July found that 46 percent opposed offshore drilling, while 42 percent favored it.

“The decision appeases extremists who seek to stop oil and natural gas production which would increase the cost of energy for American consumers and close the door for years to creating new jobs, new investments and boosting energy security,” Gerard said. “This decision stunts the safe and responsible path to securing the domestic energy supplies future generations of Americans will need.”

Hopper said a single lease sale would have had only negligible effects on the nation’s oil production. “In terms of ensuring that there is energy security even without this lease sale, we have done that.” she said.

Before the program is finalized and before any lease sales occur, the Interior Department will consider another round of public input on the proposal and its accompanying draft environmental study.

Learn More

• Read the draft proposed program

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is preparing to offer leases for wind power off North Carolina at the same time that oil prices are at rock bottom. Expensive offshore wind energy seem like a fool’s pursuit, that is until the future is taken into account.

Land-based wind generation has gotten so cheap, it is nearly competitive with traditional power sources. The nascent U.S. offshore wind industry, however, is navigating in unchartered waters right now, both literally and figuratively.

By summer, a proposed sale notice will be published by BOEM, detailing the area or areas that will be auctioned off Kitty Hawk or Wilmington, according to Tracey Moriarty, an agency spokeswoman. Until then, she said, the location of available wind blocks is not known.

Despite steep upfront costs for offshore wind development, trends in renewable energy make it a good bet that costs will decrease as the industry matures.

“I think the whole continental shelf has good conditions to work in and build in,” said Paul Gallagher, the chief operating officer of Fishermen’s Energy, a company in New Jersey interested in offshore North Carolina wind. “Every state has adequate wind resources to sustain development to make it successful. The question is whether the market will sustain those projects.”

Gallagher said cheap natural gas makes it very difficult for offshore wind to be competitive. President Obama’s recent proposal to put a $10 tax on each barrel of oil, he added, could help even the playing field if Congress agrees.

But as Gallagher and other wind proponents have argued, the true cost of carbon emissions to society is rarely accounted for; nor are the long-term benefits of clean, renewable power.

With the federal government seeking to decrease carbon pollution, he said, incentives for offshore wind production are appropriate.  The federal government late last year renewed a 2.3-cent-per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit for wind power that will gradually decrease until it ends in 2020.

“It’s a first project, so you’re doing everything with everybody who hasn’t done it before – so there is a premium to be paid,” he said of the Atlantic projects.

“It does need some supports. It needs some subsidies.”

North Carolina is the latest East Coast state considered by BOEM for offshore wind farm development. The agency last year established three prospective lease areas totaling about 307,590 acres, one off Kitty Hawk and two off Wilmington. A revised environmental assessment released in September found no significant environmental or socioeconomic effects from issuing leases.

Five developers have been qualified by BOEM to bid on all or portions of the areas: Apex Clean Energy, EDF Renewable Energy, Green Sailene, Dominion Power North Carolina and Fishermen’s Energy.

More companies would be able to come in between publications of the proposed sale notice, which is followed by a 60-day comment period, and final lease notices, said Brian Krevor, environmental protection specialist in BOEM’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs.

Much of the concern expressed in public comments about North Carolina offshore wind proposals, he said, concerned impacts on the view from the beach of turbines, which can be 600 feet tall. Navigation issues and effects on wildlife were mostly addressed earlier in the process. The recent revision excluded areas where endangered right whales migrated off Wilmington.

“It is a very long and deliberative process,” Krevor said, “and we’ve spent a lot of time on those areas to try to eliminate these conflicts.”

Sales can be held just days after the final notice is published, he said, and leases can be issued to areas as small as 1/16^th of a block, which are three-mile squares.  Bidders can lease contiguous blocks, partial blocks or entire blocks. After leases are issued, a developer must submit for approval a construction and operations plan. The agency would then prepare an environmental analysis for the proposed project. The lessee has up to 25 years to develop a plan.

So far, four companies are interested in all of Wilmington East and Wilmington West areas. Four are interested in all of Kitty Hawk, and one company is interested in a smaller subset of blocks.

Numerous other Atlantic coast offshore wind projects are in various stages of the permitting process, including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. According to the agency, BOEM has awarded nine commercial wind leases, generating more than $14.5 million in high bids for more than 700,000 acres in federal waters.

Block Island, in Rhode Island, recently started construction and is on track to become the first U.S. offshore wind farm. South Carolina is the most recent addition and is at the very early point in the public engagement process.

Often, BOEM is in the dark as much as anyone as to the likely outcome of bidding. “We normally, truly, don’t have a clear picture sometimes until a proposed sale notice closes,” said Will Waskes, project coordinator with BOEM.

But he declined to characterize the overall sentiment towards proposed projects off North Carolina. “We don’t really speculate on that for any of these projects,” Waskes said. “We’re regulatory agencies. We try to develop it in a responsible way.”

Gallagher, with Fishermen’s Energy, said that things heat up with developers about four months before a lease auction. Speculative planning is not the nature of the industry, he said. “It makes sense before an auction to really sharpen your pencils,” he said.

Charlie Smith, executive director of the Utility Variable-Generation Integration Group, a multi-national energy group focused on economic and reliable solar and wind generation, said that a recent analysis by investment firm Lazard found the cost of renewable energy has plummeted, in particular land-based wind power and solar energy.

“That is what’s driving the tremendous interest in wind and solar across the country,” he said. “This is unprecedented. It’s a revolution taking place technologically … I’ve been in the energy business for 45 years, and there’s never been a more exciting time to be in the business because of renewable energy.”

With more complicated regulations and technology requirements, offshore wind development costs about three times more than land-based wind, Smith said. “The cost will go down as the experience goes up,” he said.

Land-based wind generation, meanwhile, has been improved dramatically, Smith said, by building taller towers with longer rotors that more efficiently capture more wind.

“Not only is wind the lowest cost source of clean energy in the country today,” Smith said in a recent presentation in Southern Shores, “wind power is the lowest cost source of energy in the country today, period.”

And Smith is referring to mostly unsubsidized wind power costs.

“A lot of modern wind turbines have the potential to create a lot of energy at a lower coast than even coal,” said Jason Hoyle, a research analyst at Appalachian State Energy Center at Appalachian State University in Boone.

Amazon Wind Farm, on 22,000 acres straddling Perquimans and Pasquotank counties, is on-course to be completed by year’s end, said Paul Copleman, spokesman for developer Iberdrola Renewables.

A lawsuit filed in October against the state Department of Environmental Quality’s review of the project is not expected to affect the project’s plan, he said.

Once it is completed, the $400 million Amazon project would be the state’s first commercial-scale wind farm, with 104 turbines generating up to 208 megawatts of electricity.

But even with its higher costs, wind-energy production off the Southeast U.S. coast is a good value beyond its environmental benefits, said Chris Carnevale, coastal climate and energy manager for nonprofit Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

When electric utilities are running at peak demand at the height of the hot summer months, they tap into more expensive and inefficient sources like combustion natural gas turbines to supply the extra power.

Those hot summer days coincide with the hours that wind turbines, helped by a natural dynamic known as the “sea-breeze effect,” run most efficiently, he said. The phenomenon results from cool air rushing inland as warmer air rises.

“So offshore wind peaks when utilities are firing up their most,” Carnevale said. “It can be way, way cheaper than the utilities firing up (natural gas) peaker plants.”

In fact, the power produced by offshore wind could allow utilities to avoid the need entirely to build such plants, Hoyle added, bringing down capital overhead and production expenses for the power companies.

“The actual cost to generate power at different hours, he said, “that’s not visible to the retail customers. That’s visible to only the utility companies.”

North Carolina has comparably low electricity costs, Hoyle said, but those costs are rooted in a vertically integrated monopoly system that is not as transparent or competitive as wholesale markets used in other states like California.

“There are trade-offs,” he said.

Carnevale said that it is the right time for the state to embrace wind power, including development in the Atlantic.

“Ultimately, we need to transition our energy,” he said “I would be really proud to have offshore wind towers off our coast.”

Seismic survey planning work in an enormous area off the southern half of the Atlantic coast has been put on hold while federal fisheries managers review new information about potential harm to sea turtles and marine mammals.

Air-gun blasts are used to find oil and gas deposits under the ocean floor, but some biologists say that the concussive noise can disturb feeding, breeding and navigational behavior of protected whales and dolphins. New research has indicated that negative effects may affect larger numbers of animals for longer periods than previously understood.

“We are encouraged that both the National Marine Fisheries Service and BOEM (the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) have taken the time to review the new science and really gain a new understanding of the eco-system in the Atlantic,” said Ingrid Biedron, marine biologist for Oceana, a nonprofit group opposed to the seismic exploration.

Eight permits accepted by BOEM are currently undergoing review by the fisheries service, said John Filostrat, a BOEM spokesman. Incidental Harassment Authorization, or IHA, permits must be approved by the service before BOEM can move forward. The permits, which allow a certain number of whales and dolphins to be harmed or killed – “takes” is the euphemism used in federal law — each year per species, are a critical step in approval of the seismic survey work.

“If they issue an IHA, then we continue our review and coordination process,” he said. “If the IHA was denied, then BOEM denies the permit.”

Filostrat said the current pause in planning should not be regarded as a glitch.

“This is part of the process and we’re going through it,” he said, adding he could not put a timeline on its anticipated completion.

The required environmental review for the proposed seismic work was finished in July 2013, but the need for additional review by the fisheries service was triggered recently by several proposals that would alter management rules for numerous marine species under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Proposed changes include designation of critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles; expansion of critical habitat for the north Atlantic right whale; and adding, upgrading or removing ESA listings of the bigeye thresher shark, scalloped hammerhead shark, common thresher shark, the porbeagle shark, smooth hammerhead shark, humpback whale, Caribbean electric ray, green sea turtle and dwarf seahorse.

At the same time, the agency is also reviewing updated information on the density of marine mammals in the area where the tests will be done, as well as other recent studies about the effects of seismic noise on marine mammals.

“We always welcome new science,” Filostrat said.

One 2015 study on the bowhead whale’s response to air gun noise found that the pulsing sounds changed the way the animals communicate but to what extent is unknown.

According to the report, the study “has shown an unexpectedly complex change in bowhead whale calling behavior – first an increase, followed by a plateau, and then a decrease – to perceived levels from air gun sounds. “

The authors of another study released last year concluded that the amount of baseline data on seismic effects is insufficient for regulators to reach accurate conclusions about the risks to marine life.

“The process for permitting surveys must take these data needs into account,” the report said, “and be adjusted accordingly, and perhaps even paused while such information is gathered.”

Recent research has also shown that the numbers of estimated takes of marine mammals in the study area stretching from Delaware to Florida– an area about twice the size of California – is far more than BOEM had estimated in its 2013 environmental study because it relied on outdated information or inaccurate impact thresholds.

Scientists said in October that marine mammal takes may have been underestimated three-fold to as much as 15-fold.

Annual take estimates for most marine mammal species cited by BOEM typically numbered in the thousands, with bottlenose dolphins having the highest incidence.

In a letter signed by 75 marine scientists sent in March to the White House, high-volume air guns were blamed for disruptions in “activities essential to foraging and reproduction over vast ocean areas,” and for increasing stress and mortality for endangered whales and dolphins.

But the estimated 20 million seismic shots proposed in the Atlantic, the letter said, could also have serious effects for many years on all the animals in the area.

“Seismic surveys have been shown to displace commercial species of fish, with the effect in some fisheries of dramatically depressing catch rates,” the scientists wrote.

The noise can interfere with breeding, cause hearing loss, degrade predator responses, and disrupt breeding behavior and embryonic development in different species.

BOEM’s 2013 report noted 39 species of marine mammals within the target area, although four species of seal and the manatee are probably not currently in the “area of interest.”

Ben Laws, a NOAA Fisheries biologist who works under the Marine Mammal Protection Program, said there are five requests from different companies for authorization from his department, three of which were made available for public review in August.

Laws said that new density information being reviewed will compare the take numbers of individual species to the abundance of the overall population. He said that he expects the review will be completed in the first quarter of the year.

“We take it one step at a time,” he said.

The next step is publishing the proposed authorizations, which will detail the method of taking, specified activity, potential effects and proposed mitigation. There is a 30-day comment period.

Kellie Foster-Taylor, NOAA Fisheries biologist and national Section 7 coordinator, said that as part of the proposed listings, green sea turtles have been broken out into distinct populations within critical habitat. Also, humpback whales in the Atlantic where the testing will take place are proposed to be de-listed. The proposal would break the humpback into 14 distinct populations. Of them, four would be listed as endangered, four as threatened, and 10 would be de-listed. Another proposal would expand critical habitat for the right whale in the Atlantic.

Foster-Taylor said that fisheries biologists are studying, in part, how far the propulsive sound of the seismic blasts travel, as well as its potential effects. The agency is going back to review the biological opinion “to see that nothing has changed,” or to respond to new scientific information.

“Anytime you have sound involved, it’s complex,” she said.

Mitigation measures proposed by BOEM in its 2013 report included exclusion zones, closures of certain areas at certain times, passive acoustic monitoring and observer programs.

Biedron, who is an expert in whale acoustics, said that a lot is at stake for marine animals in whether seismic blasting is allowed to take place in the Atlantic. For instance, she said, the area under consideration includes the only known calving area in the world for the north Atlantic right whale, of which only 500 remain.

“Even the loss of two or three animals could endanger the health of that population,” she said.

Overall, cumulative and overlapping impacts on marine species, Biedron said, must be considered with use of such powerful and frequent blasts in the animals’ environment.

“We would encourage policy makers to explore alternative options,” she said.

Related Content

• Groups Say Seismic Survey Study Obsolete
• Extent of Seismic Tests Makes Feds Pause
• Scientists Urge Halt to Seismic Permitting

Learn More

• Bowhead whale study
• Scientists call for “prudent planning”

Reprinted from the Tideland News of Swansboro

Thirty-three members of Congress, including Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones of coastal North Carolina, signed a letter in December expressing deep concerns about the use of seismic air guns for oil exploration off the East Coast.

The bipartisan group, which also includes Democratic Rep. David Price, who represents, parts of Alamance, Orange, Durham, Wake, Harnett, Chatham and Cumberland counties, sent the letter as speculation grows about whether the Obama administration will allow the testing, and then, potentially, drilling for oil and gas off North Carolina or other south Atlantic states.

North Carolina’s Randy Sturgill, senior organizer for Oceana, an international group coordinating opposition to seismic testing and drilling, said the letter is encouraging, in part because it shows strong bipartisan opposition congressmen who are not typically considered environmentalists.

“(It) also makes clear this is not just an environmental issue, this is an economic issue,” Sturgill said. “The numbers speak for themselves. The coastal economies represent 1.4 million jobs and over $95 billion in GDP. Why would we want to mess that up?”

He remains hopeful the administration will stop testing and drilling.

“The Obama administration has made it clear that they are listening to the public and are paying attention to coastal governors and local governments directly affected,” he said. “The question I have is, why isn’t our governor listening to us?

Eighty-six percent of coastal municipalities in North Carolina have passed resolutions against offshore drilling and seismic testing, Sturgill added. “The only people that seem to be supporting seismic blasting and drilling are the oil interests and the Gov. (Pat) McCrory. Makes you wonder who Gov. McCrory is listening to, the people who elected him or Big Oil?”

Oceana, Sturgill said, was particularly pleased that Jones and Price signed the letter, demonstrating bipartisan support in the state.

The leading signatories on the letter were Rep. Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina, and Rep. Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia.

The letter, to Abigail Hopper, director of the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, goes as far as urging her to withdraw and rewrite its environmental reviews for seismic blasting and to withhold any permits for this activity until new scientific studies have been taken into account. It’s very similar to a letter previously written by marine scientists from around the world, including Doug Nowacek of the Duke University Marine Laboratory on Pivers Island in Beaufort.

“Seismic air gun exploration is an enormously disruptive activity in the ocean,” the letter states. “A significant body of peer-reviewed science demonstrates that seismic air gun testing results in massive displacement of fish, causes catch rates of some commercial fish to plummet, and disrupts vital feeding and breeding behaviors in endangered whales.

“Opposition to seismic air gun testing is widespread and growing,” the letter continues. “Close to 90 towns, cities, and counties along the Atlantic coast have passed resolutions opposing seismic testing and/or offshore oil drilling. The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have taken formal positions in opposition.”

It refers to the March 2015 letter from the scientists, who cited “significant, long-lasting, and widespread impacts” on the region’s fish and marine mammal populations should it proceed, and noted that BOEM’s preliminary study “failed to analyze these recognized large-scale impacts of seismic surveys on fish and marine mammals, and to develop alternatives that sufficiently protect wildlife and our coastal economies.”

The politicians’ letter also signaled concern about drilling.

“… We note with deep concern that seismic air gun testing is the first step in the process of offshore oil drilling,” it states. Seismic testing and oil drilling will put the coastal economy and way of life at risk, due to industrialization of the coast, daily impacts and regular spills from oil drilling activities, and possible catastrophic accidents like the Deepwater Horizon disaster.”

Two regional fisheries management panels, the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fisheries Management councils, also voted recently to oppose seismic testing. The panels are responsible for managing fish stocks in federal waters, which extend from three to 200 miles offshore.

Specifically, the councils took action to update their policies related to non-fishing activities in order to ensure that fisheries in the region are protected from other ocean uses, such as oil and gas exploration and development. Under federal law, the councils are given a voice in the management of ocean resources in their jurisdictions, which stretch from New York to Florida.

Claire Douglass, Oceana’s campaign director, applauded the panels “for taking action to protect the long-term health of the regions’ fisheries in the face of looming threats.

“These policies should be a wake-up call to the federal government, highlighting the threats of offshore drilling exploration and development on fish, fish habitat, and everything that relies on a healthy ocean ecosystem,” she said. “Commercial fishing and other coastal industries would suffer from routine leaks, as well as the looming risk of a BP Deepwater Horizon-like oil disaster along the East Coast.”

This story is provided courtesy of the Tideland News, a weekly newspaper in Swansboro. Coastal Review Online is partnering with the Tideland to provide readers with more environmental and lifestyle stories of interest about our coast. You can read other stories about the Swansboro area here.

Learn More

• Read the entire letter and Rep. Mark Sanford’s press release
• Read the marine scientists’ letter

Also Related

• Groups Say Seismic Survey Study Obsolete

An oil industry lobbying group is fighting back against mounting resistance in coastal communities to proposed Atlantic offshore oil and gas drilling with a multi-state advertising blitz touting the potential benefits, but environmental advocates aren’t backing down.

Print ads promoting offshore energy development as safe, responsible and economically beneficial began running Oct. 28 in North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina newspapers, including the Wilmington Star-News. Radio advertisements with a similar message started earlier in the month. Opponents say the ads are misleading.

Randy Sturgill of Southport, the southeast campaign coordinator for national conservation group Oceana, called the ad campaign a “desperate attempt to stem the tide of growing opposition” to drilling on the Atlantic outer continental shelf, or OCS, off North Carolina and other states.

“The information in the ad is from a flawed report, an old flawed report,” Sturgill said of the ads paid for by the American Petroleum Institute and its state affiliate, the N.C. Petroleum Council, or NCPC. “They’re still using numbers that have time and time again been proven to be inaccurate. They are grasping at straws. It’s smacks of desperation.”

David McGowan, NCPC’s executive director, said in a press release announcing the campaign that the petroleum industry already supports more than 140,000 jobs in North Carolina. Oil and natural gas development in the Atlantic OCS could create an additional 55,000 jobs for North Carolinians, he said. It would also help drive down energy costs for consumers and raise nearly $4 billion in state tax revenues by 2035 if the state succeeds in getting a revenue-sharing agreement with the federal government.

“North Carolinian voters embrace safe, responsible offshore energy development,” McGowan said. “With new technologies, offshore energy development is safer than ever and continues to drive coastal U.S. economies while existing with tourism and fishing. This opportunity is important to North Carolina’s future, expanding job opportunities and a key engine for the state economy.”

McGowan declined the opportunity to respond to critics of the campaign, including Sturgill. “At this point, we are going to let the press release serve as our public comments on the ad campaign,” he said.

The press release echoes the projections that appear in the ads, which are tailored for the individual states. However, the ads disclose that the figures come from a 2013 report by Quest Offshore Resources, a Texas-based company that does research for the industry.

Sturgill said the report had been widely discredited. He pointed to a more recent study by Doug Wakeman, an economics professor at the Meredith College School of Business in Raleigh and a member of the N.C. Coastal Federation’s board of directors. Wakeman contends the report’s employment and economic projections are questionable.

“It’s a matter of where they actually expect to be most successful in terms of drilling,” Wakeman said in June. “The place where the most attractive oil deposits are is fairly well north along our coast. Does that mean oil production and those jobs would go to more to places like Virginia Beach and the Norfolk area?”

Future oil prices are also a critical factor in trying to determine the economic benefits of drilling for the state, Wakeman explained. Higher prices not only mean greater profits for the oil companies, he said, but they also encourage drilling in economically marginal places.

When oil sells at $120 a barrel, as it did a couple of years ago, deposits that are expensive to drill, such as those in the deep-water Atlantic, are profitable, Wakeman said. They become less profitable as the price drops.

The Quest report and industry proponents suggest untapped natural oil and gas resources in the Atlantic could prove to be huge – 1.34 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2035. The Quest report was released in December 2013 before the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, announced its proposed leasing program for the mid-Atlantic. The 2017-2022 offshore oil and gas leasing program unveiled in January includes a 50-mile barrier and one lease sale in 2021 in federal waters off the Atlantic coast stretching from Virginia to Georgia.

Quest’s report does not consider the 50-mile buffer. It assumes leasing in the mid and south Atlantic would begin in 2018 and does not include the single lease sale cap. Those restrictions have an effect on the numbers in the Quest report, which has been routinely cited by politicians, including Gov. Pat McCrory.

Wakeman said the report assumed that the amount of oil that would be found with new technology would mimic what’s been found in other places. The economic projections in the report can be regarded as “likely overestimates,” he said.

In terms of lower prices, consumers may not notice a difference at the pump. Though nearly all domestic oil is kept in the U.S., the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties, or OPEC, still sets gas prices. Consumers in Alaska, which has the lowest gas tax in the country, still pay about 50 cents more per gallon than in North Carolina. Gas prices in other oil-producing states, including Texas and Louisiana, aren’t much cheaper than what North Carolinians pay today.

Stanley Riggs, an East Carolina University geologist and an expert on the North Carolina coast and its offshore waters, is also critical of industry projections. During a recent talk sponsored by the Sierra Club in Morehead City, Riggs noted that numbers cited by the industry were the same almost 30 years ago, in 1988, when a moratorium on drilling was put in place.

Sturgill also noted that in citing the potential economic benefits for the state – “with smart legislation (drilling) could generate almost $4 billion in revenue for the state in the next 20 years,” the ad states – the study assumes the federal government will share royalties from lease sales and production with the states. Such an agreement exists only on the Gulf Coast and that program is out of favor, with federal officials working to eliminate it.

A revenue-sharing bill for the East Coast states has been introduced, pushed by McCrory and the state’s pro-drilling Republican senators, Thom Tillis and Richard Burr. But the Obama administration’s Interior Department is opposed because the measure would add to the federal deficit.

Carteret County Shore Protection Officer Greg “Rudi” Rudolph recently told the county’s beach commission that if a revenue-sharing were to pass, he believes the president would veto it. Obama is proposing that offshore revenue sharing in the Gulf be used instead for “broad natural resource, watershed and conservation benefits for the entire nation.” It’s part of his $4 trillion budget, unveiled in February.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was widely quoted as saying revenue sharing for select Gulf Coast states should be re-examined to provide “a fair return to the taxpayers across the whole United States.” She said the Land and Water Conservation Fund would be a good place for the money to go. Others have noted that the revenue sharing for the Gulf was enacted only after Hurricane Katrina devastated the area in 2005, and was largely seen as an effort to help repair the area’s economy.

The industry ad also states that, “71 percent of North Carolinians agree (that) safe and responsible offshore oil and gas development works for North Carolina,” but Sturgill said that level of agreement is doubtful.

Numerous coastal towns – including Emerald Isle, Morehead City, Beaufort and Atlantic Beach in heavily Republican Carteret County – have responded to local opposition to drilling by adopting resolutions. Wilmington, Carolina Beach and others are on record as opposing offshore seismic testing and drilling. More than 85 East Coast communities have approved similar resolutions. Opponents cite the potential damage to the tourist and fishing industries. Sturgill mentioned other polls which disagree with the industry’s numbers.

Sturgill said opposition has continued to grow. He said the anti-drilling movement has “exploded,” with the pace of resolution-adopting growing rapidly and the sentiment spreading inland, all the way to the state’s mountains.

“It’s not just coastal residents who care about the coast and what happens to it,” he said. “People all across the state view the coast and its natural resources as treasures. They don’t want to see the infra-structure that goes with the oil industry at our coast. They don’t want to risk the loss of those treasures for a small number of jobs and a very limited supply of oil. It’s not worth it.

“People are seeing through the industry’s blatant propaganda,” Sturgill added. “They know there is plenty of credible evidence out there to put to rest the industry’s claims. They’ve seen it.”

Learn More

Drilling Pros: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Poll: Drilling Foes Edge Out Supporters

Environmental groups are urging federal regulators to take a closer look at the effects of proposed seismic surveys to find oil and natural gas off the East Coast, saying the existing environmental study doesn’t reflect the best available science. They also claim that the the expected harm to marine mammals from the sound waves used in the tests has been grossly underestimated.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, in a 12-page letter also signed by the N.C. Coastal Federation, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, the Southern Environmental Law Center and a dozen other groups, requests a supplemental environmental review of the proposed seismic surveys set to be conducted through 2020. The letter was emailed Monday to Gary Goeke, chief of the Environmental Assessment Section at the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM.

The environmental groups say BOEM’s environmental study “no longer provides a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts, informs decision-makers and the public, or adequately minimizes adverse impacts to the environment.”

The federal law requires that the latest information be considered, even when an environmental impact statement has been finalized. BOEM’s report was completed in March 2014.

“What we are seeing with this new research is significant, and has the potential to change the assumptions that BOEM originally made with the EIS from 2014,” said Ladd Bayliss, a coastal advocate with the N.C. Coastal Federation. “This new information has to be factored into the discussion, especially when considering the potential far-reaching and cumulative impacts of seven seismic surveys that could occur in the mid- and south-Atlantic regions.”

The federation and other groups say density estimates of marine mammals, all whale, dolphin and porpoise species, were too low in the study and outdated and inaccurate data were relied on to determine the zones of effect on marine mammals from the noise associated with seismic air gun blasts.

“In the mostly dark ocean environment, marine mammals depend on sound to find each other, breed, feed, navigate, and avoid predators—in short, for their survival and reproduction,” as described in the letter.

Since BOEM’s publication of the environmental study, at least two scientific studies have become available that bear directly on BOEM’s estimate of marine mammal impacts and the expected environmental effects of the proposed survey activity.  The new studies include a January report by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab and a peer-reviewed paper published in September in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment by researchers including Doug Nowacek, an associate professor at Duke.

Basic Assumptions

The new science focuses on two fundamental assumptions in the analysis of how seismic blasting will affect the marine environment, explained Michael Jasny, NRDC’s director of marine mammal protection.

“There is now new information about how many marine mammals will be in the water where seismic exploration is taking place and there is new information about at what point they will be significantly impacted,” he said. “The new science shows that not only did the agency get its answers to those questions wrong, it shows that in getting the answers wrong it grossly underestimated the scale of impact.”

Jasny said new information shows that marine mammals would be affected by seismic blasting as much as three times more frequently than BOEM had anticipated.

BOEM’s final environmental impact statement released in 2014 estimates that the planned seismic surveying activities in the Atlantic will result in as many as 138,000 injuries to marine mammals and in 13.5 million disturbances of marine mammals, including disruptions in vital behaviors such as feeding, mating and communicating.

“The new information indicates that BOEM may have underestimated the number of impacts by a factor of 15 or more,” Jasny said.

Part of the difference is BOEM’s estimate of marine mammal density in the survey areas and the estimates in more recent studies, but also at play is the area of ocean that would be affected by the blasting.

“BOEM, in trying to determine the area of impact, drew a circle around each air gun array but the science is showing the circles they drew are far too small,” Jasny said.

The estimated area of impact is roughly five to 15 kilometers around each air gun array, in BOEM’s report. New science indicates at least some species, such as baleen whales, are affected at distances of hundreds of kilometers from the  arrays.

“Multiple studies are showing that air guns silence baleen whales, impacting behavior vital to their feeding, breeding and migration at distances far from the area. BOEM drew its circles far too tightly around the ships. In so doing, it interpreted an activity that really alters a fundamental aspect of the marine environment over very large areas of water space, indeed over much of the region where industry would be operating. That’s no longer tenable scientifically,” Jasny said.

The main flaw is that the bureau had relied on studies done in the 1980s that became the standard for determining impacts through the late 1990s. Jasny said that’s “practically the stone age” as far as ocean research is concerned.

“There has been a flood of important science that extends far beyond the limited perspective of what was available in the early 1980s when those studies were done,” Jasny said. “As the authors of one study put it, the study that BOEM relies upon is outdated and inaccurate.”

Determining at what point mammals are affected is fundamental to the process, Jasny said.

“BOEM has an obligation under federal law, to supplement its environmental impact statement to reflect the new science,” Jasny said. “Otherwise it will have in effect analyzed the wrong activity, and its assessment of impacts and its considerations of alternatives will be out of proportion with what science is telling us are the likely effects.”

‘Significant, Long-lasting, Widespread’

In March, ocean scientists from around the world sent a letter to President Obama urging a halt to planned oil and gas exploration program off the Atlantic coast because of the “significant, long-lasting and widespread impacts on the reproduction and survival” of threatened whales and commercial fish populations. In the letter to the president, the 75 scientists from Cornell, Duke, the New England Aquarium, Stanford, the University of North Carolina and other U.S. and international institutions said that the seismic blasts, from high-volume air guns that fire every 10-12 seconds, are nearly as loud as conventional explosives and have “an enormous environmental footprint.”

The letter was the first time a group of prominent scientists had said that the harm from seismic blasting would be significant and long-lasting for entire populations of marine life off the U.S. coasts.

“They said that without revision, changing the EIS, it would be simply unsustainable. Science that has emerged since March only confirms those concerns,” Jasny said.

Some of the scientific work was overdue, including marine mammal density studies begun several years ago that were anticipated by the scientific and environmental communities.

The “area of interest” studied in the environmental review is home to 39 species of marine mammals including six endangered species, the North Atlantic right whale; blue whale; fin whale; sei whale; humpback whale; and sperm whale. The government’s new modeling shows far greater population densities than BOEM anticipated.

BOEM acknowledges marine mammals have the greatest vulnerability to seismic air gun surveys and BOEM’s report recognized that when this new density information was produced, it would become the best available science and would require revision of the environmental analysis.

“What’s new is a summary of an analysis of those recent papers and synthesis of those recent papers, culminating in the clear conclusions,” Jasny said. “The standard BOEM has been using is simply wrong.”

Noise Travels

The BOEM study sets a threshold for risk to marine mammals at 160 decibels. New science indicates a much lower threshold, centered at 140 decibels. Because of the way noise travels through water 20 decibels is a huge difference.

“The difference is logarithmic,” Jasny said. “A 10-decibel increase represents a tenfold increase in acoustic intensity. It’s like the Richter Scale, as you go up, you’re multiplying, not adding.”

He said the resulting environmental footprint of all proposed seismic blasting would be like a small town affecting an area the size of a state.

“According to BOEM’s EIS and judging by the applications received, you’re likely to have multiple arrays active at any given time and the amount of water covered by each of these surveys is enormous. The three applications presently pending represent more than 90,000 miles of survey lines. That’s significantly long-lasting and widespread,” Jasny said.

 Related Content

• Extent of Seismic Tests Makes Fed Pause
• The Skinny of Seismic Surveys

To Learn More

• Letter to BOEM
• Duke Research Published
• BOEM final EIS

Exploration for oil and natural gas in the Atlantic Ocean will cover more territory than any previous modern-day seismic testing, giving pause to environmentalists and federal regulators.

With such an expansive area of ocean floor to survey, companies currently seeking permits to conduct seismic surveys in the Atlantic will likely be working over long periods of time, raising the potential to exposing marine mammals and other aquatic life to extended periods of acoustic blasting.

“That’s why we’re just trying to take a very careful look at these requests,” said Ben Laws, a fishery biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service in Silver Spring, Md. “You have a much larger survey in terms of the number of miles that they have to cover. With these much larger areas these folks are interested in working for a full year.”

The sheer scale and span of time seismic survey companies want to work in the Atlantic prompted NOAA, which issues seismic operations permits, to provide an unusual 30-day public review and comment period on the applications. The deadline for comments was Aug. 28.

So far five applications have been submitted for Atlantic seismic survey permits. Seismic operations are controversial because the use of sound sources may disturb marine mammals by disrupting their behavioral patterns, according to critics.

The Atlantic Ocean hosts a diversified species of marine mammals, about 30 or so that include large whales, including humpback and North Atlantic right whales, and dolphins.

These species, as well as sea turtles, are among those that could be affected by the use of air guns conducting seismic operations.

NOAA fisheries’ decides whether to authorize incidental “takes” – the inadvertent harming, killing, disturbance or destruction of wildlife – anticipated to occur during such testing.

Permits and authorizations for the “take” of a protected species are required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which protects all marine mammals, and the Endangered Species Act.

Under the act to protect marine mammals, this means examining how seismic surveying will affect overall each species or the individual population.

“When we look at the number of takes, which is in this case the exposure of an animal to sound, that number of takes has to be small,” Laws said.

There is no definitive number of takes to quantify “small.”

Fisheries experts establish what they deem an acceptable amount of takes by looking at the total number of estimated takes and comparing that to the population of each specific species.

Their conclusions will be based on various existing studies on the impacts of seismic testing on marine mammals and other ocean life.

“As in any case we look at the available scientific information,” Laws said. “Basically our standard is to use the best available scientific information. There’s a number of studies out there in the peer-reviewed literature and agency review reports and it is on a larger scale.”

The areas sought for seismic surveying in the Atlantic are substantially larger than testing sites in other seas such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.

The National Science Foundation funded a much publicized and highly controversial seismic survey this past summer off the New Jersey shore. The operation was intended to collect and analyze three-dimensional images of sediments dating back 60 million years to study sea level rise impacts.

That operational area spanned about three square nautical miles.

One of the survey applicants planning to work in the Atlantic initially sought to operate in an area spanning more than 50 square miles. “We have worked with that company to reduce the size of that survey,” Laws said.

Seismic testing uses air guns towed behind ships to send sonic waves that penetrate the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

There are different types of seismic surveys. Two-dimensional surveying is a regional means of collecting data with a single air gun array. This type of surveying can cover large areas in a short time. Two-dimensional surveys were conducted from 1966–1988 in all areas of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, but technology has greatly been enhanced since those tests were performed.

A majority of the permit applicants want to run two-dimensional surveys.

There are steps that may be taken to lessen the risk of harm to marine mammals and other marine life such as sea turtles. The NMFS require seismic operators to use ramp-up and visual observations while conducting surveys.

The public will have the opportunity to review proposed incidental take authorizations. That will be the next step in the permitting review process, Laws said.

Members of the public that read the proposed authorizations will be allowed to provide relevant information – not comments opposing or supporting offshore oil and natural gas development – on the affects of seismic activity on marine life.

A decision on whether to issue the permits could come by the end of the year.

To Learn More

• Seismic survey applications for North Carolina
• Environmental impact statement for Atlantic surveys

Related Content

• The Skinny on Seismic Surveys
• What’s All the Noise Over Seismic Surveys?
• Opinions Split on Offshore Seismic Testing

BEAUFORT – To put this in some kind of human frame of reference: Imagine a crowded bar and a bad rock band so loud you can’t make a pass at the girl on the bar stool next to you. Doug Nowacek, a marine ecology and bioacoustics expert at the Duke University Marine Laboratory in Beaufort, is pretty sure that’s what whales and other sea creatures that rely on sound to communicate or navigate are faced with when high-decibel sound waves are used in the ocean to test for oil and natural gas.

Further, Nowacek and other experts said in a recently published paper, that the sounds from seismic guns can “mask” the sounds that whales and other creatures in the water rely upon to navigate, find food and avoid predators. And research increasingly indicates that’s not just a short-term problem; long-term exposure – and seismic testing can go on for months, 24 hours a day, seven days a week – can cause severe stress and disorientation.

Think about living beside a jackhammer that doesn’t stop hammering. What would you do? Move? And what if that jackhammer is in the area where your main food supply is located, or in the hospital room where you’ve gone to give birth?

All of this, Nowacek and the other authors say in the paper points to the need to monitor and control seismic testing like other kinds of pollution. Joining Nowacek are scientists from Cornell University; Humu Labs, a Massachusetts-based company that sells computer platforms for researchers; the University of St. Andrews; the Wildlife Conservation Society; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the University of California at Santa Cruz; and Southall Environmental Associates.

Published in the September issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, the paper says that the need for worldwide monitoring and controls is becoming more obvious because we’re opening up new waters – the Atlantic, for example, and the Arctic, where sea ice is rapidly melting – not only to seismic testing, but also to noisy shipping.

In a nutshell, the paper states that:

• Marine seismic surveys produce intense sound impulses to explore the ocean floor for energy sources and for research purposes;
• Environmental reviews of seismic surveys are seldom undertaken at scales necessary to meaningfully assess, mitigate and monitor their impacts;
• Managing exposure of marine animals to these sounds requires additional attention and data;
• Current exposure threshold criteria fail to account for the best available science and the cumulative effects of simultaneous seismic surveys and prolonged, repeated exposures;
• Increasing marine seismic surveys, especially in ecologically sensitive areas, require multi-institutional and international collaboration to effectively manage risks; and
• Ocean noise should be addressed by revising an existing treaty on ocean pollution or negotiating a new one that more comprehensively evaluates the associated risks, benefits and procedures.

A key problem, Nowacek said in a recent interview, is the arbitrary decibel level the federal government uses to assess the likelihood of a sound or sounds harming marine mammals.

“They say 160 is harmful but 159 is not,” he said. “And each decibel is a magnitude of 10. We know that the bowhead whale, a cousin of the (endangered) right whale starts responding at 95 decibels.”

Right whales pass through the area where there is likely to be seismic testing off the Carolinas, Nowacek said, and they do so after giving birth in waters of Georgia and Florida. The mother and the young stay close together in the calving grounds, but not much is known about how close they stay together as they move north. But if they are far enough apart, and their communications are made impossible by seismic or other noise, Nowacek said, the calves’ chances of survival “are low,” like the chances of any nursing mammal separated from its mother.

What’s the chance of that happening? “Is it 50 percent? More?” Nowacek asked rhetorically. “Maybe, maybe not. But we don’t know.”

The point, he said, is that all the experts know for sure that decibel levels at 160 or above can be and likely is harmful, but not so much is known about the impacts of exposure of lower decibel levels, especially over an extended time period. The 160-decibel threshold has been traced back to 1999, Nowacek added, and while there’s no doubt it was an attempt to find a reasonable number at the time, it’s 16-year-old science, at best.

He cited effects on other mammals at decibel levels below 160:

• Harbor porpoise feeding buzzes decreased 15 percent with exposure to seismic air guns at 130–165 decibels.
• Blue whale call rates increase with exposure to seismic “sparkers” at 140 decibels.
• Fin whale call rates decrease and migratory disruption occurs when exposed to seismic air gun surveys at 175 to 285 kilometers distance at noise levels below shipping noise.
• Seismic survey activity disrupts the breeding display, or singing, of humpback whales.
• Blue whales ceased calling upon exposure to air gun signals of 143 decibels.

And with at least five companies seeking seismic permits for waters off North Carolina, it’s almost certain that testing would go on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for months. Further, Nowacek said, the area thought to be the most popular spot for testing, and the most likely spot for drilling off North Carolina – east of Cape Hatteras – is also one of the largest gathering points in the world for marine mammals, sea turtles and birds.

“None of us (authors of the paper) are Chicken Littles, running around saying the sky is falling,” Nowacek said of himself and his co-authors. Rather, they’re saying that lower decibel levels likely have impacts that at least result in “harassment” of the mammals, and harassment at the very least is potentially harmful.

In practical terms, what this would mean, according to Nowacek, is that the impact circles – the size of the zone around the seismic ships in which impacts are likely, would be larger at a lower decibel level. And that means more mammals would likely be within those circles at any given time.

At the very least, the paper states, “An integrated program for monitoring, mitigating, and reporting would facilitate development of a knowledge-based understanding of potential risks and solutions; the establishment of such a program would necessitate coordination and prudent planning. Efforts to monitor the undersea acoustic environment and manage the impacts of noise generated by human activities have reached a critical juncture.”

The European Union, the paper notes, recognizes ocean noise as an indicator of environmental quality and is in the process of developing targets for achieving “good environmental activities.”

Nowacek and other marine mammal experts, including fellow Duke researcher Andy Read, included some of the concerns expressed in the paper in their official comments to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is evaluating the seismic companies’ applications for permits. In particular, they stressed the need for NMFS to consider cumulative impacts.

And in the paper, Nowacek and his co-authors recommended a framework that in the future would make such considerations the norm.

“Given the transboundary scale and numerous sources of anthropogenic sound in the world’s oceans – including noise from marine seismic surveys, which are ubiquitous and increasing in abundance – we believe that a responsible path forward should focus on the creation of legally binding international commitments,” they wrote. Successful precedents mostly involve international protocols and conventions for air pollution and or pollution from ships, they wrote, but “various international authorities, such as the convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on Migratory Species, now classify ocean noise as a pollutant.”

As for now, he said, President Obama and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, have the authority to remove specific areas from the list of waters whether seismic testing and oil and gas production are allowed, and did so in Alaska, in 2014.

The administration removed more than 52,000 square miles of Bristol Bay and nearby waters – an area roughly the size of Florida – that the president called one of the country’s great natural resources, “something that’s too precious for us to be putting out to the highest bidder.”

While everyone realizes that for some time into the foreseeable future, some oil will be necessary, Nowacek said, there’s currently a glut, and the president and the interior secretary could clearly make the same assessment and decision about some Atlantic waters, including the area off Hatteras in North Carolina.

Learn More

Article summary

MOREHEAD CITY – Two Carteret County town boards took official stances this week opposing offshore oil and gas development and related seismic-blasting activities off the N.C. coast, joining a growing list of municipal governments standing opposed.

Beaufort and Morehead City join 18 other cities and counties in the state that have passed resolutions against offshore drilling or seismic testing, according to a list compiled by Oceana. The international environmental group opposes offshore drilling. In addition to the state’s other port city of Wilmington, towns on the list include Sunset Beach, Caswell Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Surf City, Manteo, Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head.

More may be added. Carteret County commissioners are expected to consider a resolution next week. In Brunswick County, Southport’s town board tonight will consider adding its opposition to drilling to a resolution it passed last year against seismic testing.

The Morehead City council approved a resolution Tuesday during the board’s monthly meeting. The resolution was proposed by a group calling itself Concerned Citizens and was modeled on a resolution approved in July by Wilmington’s city council. Beaufort commissioners approved a similar, town-crafted resolution on Monday during that board’s meeting.

Both Morehead City and Beaufort’s town boards voted unanimously to approve the measures, but three members of the Morehead City council balked at first on Tuesday, saying they needed more information. Discussion continued for about 45 minutes. The hesitation surprised Penny Hooper, Concerned Citizens organizer.

“They were not as prepared to take the vote,” Hooper said. “I thought the two sister communities would have talked, that Beaufort would tell Morehead City what they were doing.”

Diane Warrender, a Morehead City councilwoman, said she and council members George Ballou and Bill Taylor were pressured to vote by the two others, Harvey Walker and Demus Thompson, who both said it was time to act. Warrender said she acquiesced to avoid being vilified in a municipal election year.

“We hadn’t planned to vote on it last night. It was not an action item. It was on the agenda just for them (Concerned Citizens) to express their view,” Warrender said yesterday. “I have questions I don’t know the answers to. I made the statement that I felt I was being backed up against the wall and if I didn’t vote for it I was going to be the bad guy. I don’t doubt we would have voted for it at a later time. I just did not see the urgency.”

Thompson said yesterday there was a sense of urgency, especially to send a message to Carteret County’s board of commissioners, which is set to consider a similar resolution when it meets Monday in Beaufort.

“We had a room full of people. Harvey and I knew they were coming, I don’t know why the others didn’t,” Thompson said. “I love my area so much I don’t want anything to happen to it. I felt it was important enough to go ahead and take a vote and I wanted the county to know we were for protecting the coast.”

Hooper said Thompson and Walker “saved the day” in the Morehead City vote. “There was no intent to steamroll this thing,” she said. “They had questions about the other side but there is no other side. There’s nothing good about this for Morehead City. Carteret County is being asked to bear all the risks with none of the rewards. There are no rewards.”

Oceana’s Randy Sturgill applauded the voted in Morehead City and Beaufort. “Opening up the Atlantic to offshore drilling is a dirty and dangerous business; there are countless risks with little to no reward,” he said. “We encourage local residents and their elected officials to continue to speak out against this short-sighted plan to open up the Atlantic to dirty and dangerous drilling. Governor McCrory and the federal government should be listening.”

Meanwhile, Emerald Isle Manager Frank Rush said he declined to put a resolution against offshore oil drilling on the agenda for his town’s board of commissioners meeting Tuesday because the commissioners needed time to discuss the effects of changes in sales tax distribution that are being considered in the state legislature. However, the board, during its regular monthly meeting in the town hall, did allow some comments on the resolution a group of offshore oil opponents had wanted to present.

Speaking during the public comments section at the beginning of the meeting, Sue Stone, an Emerald Isle resident and spokesperson for the group, said she and the others – there were about 10 there – wanted Emerald Isle to stay “clean and green.”

“We have a large group of citizens here and we will mobilize for you on the sales tax issue … and we’re willing to delay our resolution for that now,” Stone said. “We appreciate that this town works to get things done, that you put politics aside and work for what’s best for the town.

Oceana says more than 70 East Coast communities have now formally opposed seismic air gun blasting, offshore drilling or both, including those in North Carolina. In addition, more than 90 members of Congress, roughly 500 local and state officials, more than 160 conservation and animal welfare organizations, as well as the Billfish Foundation, the International Game Fish Association, the Southeastern Fisheries Association, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, have all publicly opposed offshore oil exploration. In March, Oceana and others delivered more than half a million petitions opposing offshore development to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Also in March, 75 leading marine scientists sent a letter to President Obama on the effects of seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean, stating that “the magnitude of the proposed seismic activity is likely to have significant, long-lasting, and widespread” effects on fish and marine mammal populations, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, of which only about 500 remain.

“These efforts could destroy our coastal economies and communities for decades to come,” said Sturgill. “If allowed, this plan would open the East Coast to industrial offshore drilling for the first time in U.S. history. Offshore drilling in the Atlantic would lead to a coast scattered with oil and gas rigs, the industrialization of coastal communities and the looming threat of a Deepwater Horizon-like disaster.”

Portions of this story are reprinted from the Tideland News in Swansboro

NEW BERN ­­– Public support for oil and natural gas drilling off the N.C. coast has been strong, according to an industry public opinion poll, but the rationale behind the “drill, baby, drill” fervor may be empty as a dry well.

That’s according to Laura Taylor, director of the Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy and professor of agricultural and resource economics at N.C. State. She was one of the presenters who spoke at the N.C. Coastal Federation’s recent forum, Shaping Our Economic Future: Offshore Drilling in N.C., held July 31 in New Bern.

Taylor, in her presentation, explored the economic and other benefits that have been touted as reasons to pursue offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast. Enhancing the nation’s energy independence, lowering energy prices and creating jobs are the big three reasons often cited, but what’s the reality?

“We cannot be independent of a globally traded commodity,” Taylor said, referring specifically to petroleum products, for which prices are set on international markets.

Taylor said claims that increased domestic production of oil and natural gas would insulate the United States from certain trading partners and protect the nation from price shocks on international markets are “straw man arguments.” That’s because the U.S. supply is so small, relative to global production.

Likewise with natural gas, the amount of technically recoverable gas in Atlantic offshore reserves is expected to be a relatively small part of the market at probably less than 1.5 percent of the total. Also, within the United States, natural gas prices tend to vary regionally with prices in New England and South Atlantic states running higher than mid-Atlantic and other states and the overall U.S. average. But international markets for natural gas are changing, with prices in North America in the past decade falling lower and lower relative to prices in Europe and Japan.

Similar to the arguments ongoing since the 1970s in support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, in Alaska, proponents say moving forward with drilling off the N.C. coast would create jobs and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

An American Petroleum Institute poll conducted earlier this year showed an overwhelming number of those questioned, 85 percent, agreed that increased production of domestic oil and natural gas could help strengthen America’s energy security. Also, 79 percent of respondents agreed that producing more domestic oil and natural gas could help strengthen America’s national security by lessening the negative effects of political instability occurring in other parts of the world. Eighty-six percent of those polled agreed that producing more domestic oil and natural gas could help lower energy costs for consumers, but public opinions don’t jibe with the reality of energy markets, Taylor said.

“We are already largely independent as far as natural gas,” Taylor said, adding that the United States is both an exporter and an importer of natural gas, with exports “growing dramatically since the advent of horizontal drilling.”

With regard to petroleum, the United States is producing 73 percent of its demand, according to preliminary 2014 numbers the U.S. Energy Information Administration released in February.

“We’re producing more and more of what we consume,” Taylor said, adding that OPEC is no longer the major source of U.S. imports.

If the motivations driving the push to drill are to insulate the United States from certain trading partners and provide protection from price shocks, then a certain level of success has already been achieved, Taylor said.

The United States has since about 1994 imported crude oil and petroleum products in decreasing amounts from member countries in the Organization of Petroleum Countries, or OPEC, and more and more from non-OPEC countries. Of the nearly 3.4 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products imported into the United States, Canada is the leader, providing 36.7 percent of total imports – about three times the amount imported from Saudi Arabia. Mexico provides about 9.1 percent and Venezuela about 8.6 percent of total imports. Other countries, such as Iraq, Russia and Kuwait, each contribute less than 4 percent of the total.

In terms of global crude oil reserves, which are estimated at 1.66 trillion barrels, and 2014 global production of 93 million barrels per day or 34 billion barrels per year, the most optimistic estimates of oil in the Atlantic outer continental shelf planning area amount to about one-half of 1 percent of global reserves, Taylor said. A more realistic estimate puts the Atlantic OCS reserves at less than a tenth of 1 percent of global reserves, according to figures from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

The most likely estimates of ANWR reserves, about 5.7 billion barrels, amount to about 3.4 percent of U.S. daily consumption of 19 million barrels. If ANWR were fully developed, optimistic estimates put the effect on West Coast gas prices at a 2- to 3-cent per gallon drop, Taylor said. Taylor also disagrees with the prevailing opinion that more domestic drilling will lead to significant job creation here. Ninety percent of those polled believe more U.S. jobs would result from increased production of domestic oil and natural gas.

According to 2013 estimates, the estimated number of jobs in North Carolina resulting directly from oil and natural gas production off the coast is about 20,000 by 2035. Another 35,000 new jobs would be created as an indirect result, in other industries that spring up or existing industries that add staff in response to the economic growth.

Compared to current employment figures, which rank health care as the largest employer at nearly 585,000 jobs, the positions directly resulting from oil and natural gas industry growth would max out near the bottom of employment list as ranked by size. That’s fewer jobs than exist in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting employment sector, which currently employs about 29,500.

In coastal North Carolina, the tourism industry is already comparable to mid-level predictions for oil and gas industry economic output 21 years from now, said Lee Nettles, director of the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau and another invited speaker at the federation’s forum. Nettles said the projected growth in the N.C. coastal tourism industry by 2035 is comparable to the highest economic benefit estimates for oil and gas industries, which top out at around the $5 billion mark by that time.

Also, the number of projected tourism jobs in coastal counties by 2035, based on current trends, is greater than the mid-level projection of oil and gas jobs by that time, he said.

Nettles said promises of economic benefit from oil and gas come at the peril of a proven tourism industry.

“Oil and gas is a threat disguised as an opportunity,” Nettles said.

Other economic considerations for the state include the possibility of sharing in the federal revenues from offshore oil and gas production. “Revenue sharing has long been seen as the biggest economic benefit,” Taylor said, adding that revenues of $855 million per year are projected for 2035.

Lawmakers from North Carolina, including Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, and other East Coast states are pushing for a revenue-sharing agreement, but the Obama administration is opposed to new or expanded offshore revenue sharing.

NEW BERN — Petroleum industry officials have repeatedly dismissed claims that seismic surveying for offshore gas and oil can have ill effects on marine mammals, but coastal scientists say loud man-made noises change animal behavior and more work needs to be done to be sure sensitive species aren’t harmed by seismic survey activity.

Offshore seismic surveys are performed aboard vessels that transit the ocean along grid patterns. Each boat tows an airgun that releases compressed air into the water to create sound waves and arrays of sensors that detect the reflected sound waves as they bounce off subsurface rock layers at the bottom of the ocean. The information collection is used to create 3-D maps that scientists analyze to pinpoint likely oil and natural gas reserves and the safest and most efficient drilling locations.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries offices, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, recently filed notice on four requests from companies that are planning seismic surveys of the Atlantic Ocean for oil and natural gas. For the surveys to begin, these companies must get permits to incidentally harass animals protected by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The act generally prohibits “taking” of marine mammals in U.S. waters by any person and by U.S. citizens in international waters. NMFS defines “taking” as harassment, hunting, capture or killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal. The Marine Mammal Protection Act defines the term “harassment” to mean “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,” which has the potential to injure or disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding or sheltering.

NMFS said it would consider input from the public in making its final determinations to issue or deny the permits, which are also based on the expected effects on marine mammal populations. The agency may authorize the incidental taking of “small numbers” of marine mammals if the taking will have no more than a negligible effect on the species or stock, but the questions remain: How many is too many and what is considered negligible?

‘No Documented Evidence’

Oil industry representatives often cite a 2014 statement by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, that seismic surveys in the Atlantic outer continental shelf leasing area will have no measurable effect on fish or marine mammal populations. BOEM said “there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from airguns used in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal populations or coastal communities.”

BOEM’s responsibilities include managing the nation’s offshore resources to ensure that exploration and development activities are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner. That includes developing environmental documents throughout the five-year lease-sale processes under the terms of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. BOEM says its environmental stewardship uses the best available science. According to BOEM, seismic surveys in the Atlantic “should not cause any deaths or injuries to the hearing of marine mammals or sea turtles.” William Brown, chief environmental officer for BOEM, has said claims to the contrary are “wildly exaggerated and not supported by the evidence.”

Others, including members of a panel of scientists that was a part of the N.C. Coastal Federation’s daylong forum, Shaping Our Economic Future: Offshore Drilling in N.C., held Friday in New Bern, say studies have shown that loud noises can affect marine mammals as individuals. More research is needed to determine whether those effects are severe enough to reduce marine mammal stocks, the scientists said.

“Does noise affect wild animals? It has known effects on humans,” said Doug Nowacek, an associate professor at Duke University and a member of the science panel at the forum.

Nowacek said the majority of studies have found effects on individual fitness from noise, including altered vocal behavior, reduced abundance in noisy habitats, changes in vigilance and foraging behavior and changes to the structure of ecological communities.

“Sound can and does impact wildlife,” he said. “Seismic airguns are the loudest sound source humans use in the ocean and noise continues between pulses.”

The effects of that continued noise between pulses are where regulatory environmental studies have, so far, come up short, Nowacek said, adding that studies have also underestimated the size of the area affected by pulses.

“There is a fundamental mismatch between the BOEM analysis and the potential area of impact,” Nowacek said.

The American Petroleum Institute says the sound from offshore seismic surveys is comparable to the sound of a sperm whale echo-locating for prey. They report that the sound is also similar to naturally occurring and other man-made ocean sound sources, including wind and wave action, rain, lightning strikes, marine life and shipping operations. Survey operations are normally conducted at a speed of about 5 knots or 5.5 mph and, as a result, the sound does not last long in any one location, according to API.

Nowacek said an experiment in 1991 known as the Heard Island Feasibility Test showed that low-frequency sounds travel extremely well throughout the world’s oceans. During that test, an acoustic source lowered from a ship near Heard Island in the southern Indian Ocean was used to transmit coded signals that were detected by hydrophones throughout the world’s oceans.

The long distances low-frequency sounds can travel combined with the ecological sensitivity of the area marked for seismic surveying could be enough to affect a number of species already of concern, including various whale species, scientists said.

Diverse Marine Life

Andy Read, a marine biology professor at Duke University and another member of the science panel at the forum, said knowledge of marine mammals offshore of the continental shelf break in the mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic is “very poor” and that more research is needed. He said the waters of the proposed lease program and seismic survey areas support a diverse group of whales and dolphins. The group includes seven species of baleen whales, 23 species of toothed whales and four species of sea turtles. Ten of these 34 species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The North American right whale is one of the species of most concern. Read said its status is “precarious,” with only 476 known to be alive in 2011 and three documented deaths so far this year.

“Seismic exploration creates another stress,” Read said.

Earlier this year, NMFS proposed expanding the designated critical habitat for the endangered North Atlantic right whale to include areas that support calving and nursing. The rule would expand the critical habitat to nearly 30,000 square nautical miles, including northeast feeding areas in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank region and calving grounds from southern North Carolina to northern Florida.

The migratory corridor for North Atlantic right whales follows the Eastern Seaboard, including waters off the N.C. coast. The whale’s historical association with the central N.C. coast is reflected in the official Carteret County seal, which includes images of two right whales.

Read also expressed concerns regarding Cuvier’s beaked whales, sometimes called “goose-beaked whales,” and pelagic bottlenose dolphin, both of which are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Cuvier’s Beaked Whales are deep-diving whales particularly susceptible to some man-made sounds, Read said. Off Cape Hatteras, they make dives to depths of up to 2,800 meters and with durations of up to 98 minutes.

Many pelagic bottlenose dolphins make their home off Cape Hatteras, an area of high species diversity because of the confluence of the warm Gulf Stream and the colder waters of the Labrador Current.

Meanwhile, Brown noted in a March publication, “Science Notes,” that the highest numbers estimated for taking of a particular species are for the bottlenose dolphin, as also noted in the bureau’s environmental review of seismic surveying activities in the Atlantic. That review estimated potential for Level A takings – potential injury – of up to 11,748 individual bottlenose dolphins a year from airgun surveys and potential for up to 1.15 million Level B – potential disturbance or behavioral disruption – takings. The numbers were “highly overestimated to err on the side of protection,” according to Brown.

Brown also says more research is needed.

“Since 1998, BOEM has invested over $50 million on protected species and noise-related research, including marine mammals. We have also convened workshops for acoustic experts to help us identify questions for future research. But BOEM needs to keep looking – hard and well – for adverse effects of offshore oil and gas activities on the environment, including sound. And we have asked our environmental studies program to make this a priority,” according to Brown.

ELIZABETH CITY — In a remarkable convergence of happenstance and politics, this conservative Southern river town has become a prime example of the innovative energy technology that the Obama administration is now aggressively pursuing.

Three weeks before Obama’s announcement on Monday about stricter carbon standards for power plants, the Amazon Wind Farm U.S. East, the first commercial-scale wind farm in the state, broke ground on 22,000 acres of farmland near Elizabeth City and Hertford, in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties, respectively.

“I think that this is a just another piece of evidence that shows that clean energy policy is working for North Carolina,” said Maggie Clark, government affairs associate for the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association. “It really does go back to being an economic development success story.”

Built and operated by Iberdrola Renewables at Desert Wind, the $400 million project’s first phase will include construction of 104 turbines that generate up to 208 megawatts of energy.  The power will be sold to online retail and technology behemoth Amazon as renewable energy credits that will offset electricity used at its cloud data centers in Ohio and Virginia.

“That was the cherry on top of the sundae,” said Wayne Harris, director of the Elizabeth City and Pasquotank County Economic Development Commission, referring to the Amazon deal of which he learned the night before the groundbreaking on July 14.

Overall, he said, the Iberdrola announcement has been a “pinch me, I’m dreaming” moment.  Not only will there will be 250 jobs created to build the wind farm, which is expected to begin generating power by December 2016, Harris said, it will also require 10 permanent positions to operate it. The company will also get a 94 percent tax rebate in the first year and a projected 25 percent discount after 15 years.

But there are significant financial dividends for the two counties: 62 landowners will be paid about $6,000 a year for each turbine on their land, with increases in future years. Iberdrola will also pay $5,000 per tower – 54 in Perquimans, 50 in Pasquotank – in taxes each year, with 1½-percent annual inflation rate increases.

“That’s $250,000 a year to Pasquotank, which makes Iberdrola comfortably the largest taxpayer in Pasquotank,” Harris said, adding that Perquimans will enjoy a similar windfall.

In North Carolina’s rankings of the economic well-being of its 100 counties, Pasquotank and Perquimans have each consistently been rated a Tier 1 county, the bottom rung, based on population and poverty. In 2015, of all N.C. counties Pasquotank ranked No. 26 and Perquimans No. 64 in economic distress, with the lower number being worse.

Support for Clean Energy

Although the Iberdrola-Amazon announcement preceded release of Obama’s carbon-reduction mandate, the wind farm coincides with the president’s goal to encourage use of clean energy sources. The new Environmental Protection Agency rule will require power producers by 2030 to reduce carbon emissions 32 percent below the levels they were a decade ago.

Gov. Pat McCrory has been supportive of renewable energy development in the state, and he spoke at the event last month.

“The Amazon Wind Farm is a significant step toward diversifying North Carolina’s energy resources,” McCrory said. “Bringing onshore wind production to North Carolina is part of my ‘all of the above’ energy strategy. By diversifying our energy resources, we can provide affordable reliable, and secure sources of energy that are environmentally clean and safe.”

While Iberdrola is now a done deal, some state legislators have tried to pass a bill that would freeze renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards that many believe have encouraged development of solar and wind projects in the state. State law currently requires utilities to produce at least 12.5 percent of their electrical power with renewable energies by 2021.

“Right now, as a state, we’re at 6 percent and the utilities are on the path to compliance,” said Clark. “The bill (H-332) would essentially freeze it at 6 percent.”

In a controversial move in May, Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, deemed that the bill had passed in committee, despite a voice vote that appears to show that it failed. But Rucho refused to allow a show of hands.

No further action has yet been taken on the bill, Clark said. But Clark said that the state is sending mixed signals that could spook continued investments in renewable power sources.

In recent years, North Carolina has become one of the leaders nationwide in development of utility-scale solar energy, and there is interest in numerous wind projects.

“It’s quite a bit of money coming into the state,” she said. “We look to the legislature to attract economic development into our state and for that, we need policy certainty.”

In addition to Amazon, she said, Apple, Google and Facebook each have interests in renewable energy in North Carolina. “I think that this is really telling that large multinational companies are choosing clean energy,” Clark said.

In a letter sent to the General Assembly in June, 11 business leaders in the state asked that the Renewable Energy Investment Tax Credit, which is scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, be continued.

“Access to renewable energy technologies can be difficult for companies like ours in highly regulated electricity markets such as North Carolina,” the letter said. “Nonetheless, these technologies allow our company to meet our financial and sustainability goals and are important to our success in North Carolina . . . The (tax credit) makes these technologies accessible, improving North Carolina’s business climate.”

Clearing the Hurdles

Paul Copleman, spokesman for Iberdrola, said equipment is expected on the ground in a couple of weeks to improve existing roads and develop access roads for tower locations. Turbine delivery will not happen until next year.

Copleman said that the company is hopeful the second phase of construction, installation of an additional 46 turbines, will be scheduled in a few years, after the company and the Defense Department complete a study of the potential effects of wind-power turbines on Navy radar. Copleman said that the company believes that the military’s concerns have been addressed in the first phase design and that there will be no effect on radar.

“That will be an important understanding that we will need to get our arms around before moving to Phase II,” he said.

Copleman said that Iberdrola has secured all necessary state and federal permits for the project, and has worked with “an alphabet soup of agencies and entities” to mitigate effects on birds, bats and the environment surrounding the project.

“That’s one of the reasons it took five years to get to this point,” he said.

Iberdrola was stalled for a while in trying to find the right buyer for the large amount of energy – about 670,000 megawatt hours – the farm is expected to produce annually. That’s enough to power 61,000 homes for one year, according to a press release from Amazon Web Services.

Copleman said the company persisted because it viewed the undeveloped location as attractive and viable.

“It’s the intersection of a consistent, steady wind with access to transmission lines, a supportive community and participating landowners,” he said.  “We’re excited to have reached this point and we’re looking forward to a longstanding relationship. We’re looking at this as a very long-term investment.”

The towers, which with a blade pointing straight up will stand about 500 feet tall, will be visible from the Tanglewood Pavilions off Halstead Boulevard and the U.S. 17 bypass, Harris said.  The project area is about 15 miles from the Albemarle Sound and 30 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.

But with “extremely generous setbacks” in the vast farmland, Harris said noise is very unlikely to be an issue with the turbines.

Harris said Elizabeth City is happy to host the first commercial wind farm in the state. He welcomed the attention the groundbreaking event received from more than 120 media outlets.

“The only thing that came close was in 2007, when Ron Paul rented a blimp,” he said.

SILVER SPRINGS, Md. — Federal regulators are taking the unusual step of providing a 30-day public review and comment period before acting on applications related to proposed seismic surveys for oil and natural gas off the Atlantic coast. A decision on whether to issue the permits could come by the end of the year.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries offices, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, announced last week that it had filed notice on four requests for permits to incidentally harass animals protected by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. Companies that are  planning seismic surveys of the Atlantic Ocean for oil and natural gas have made the requests.

NMFS, which oversees the conservation and protection of marine mammals under the act, said in the announcement that the initial public review comment period is not typical for the issuance of permits, “but it is required for more complex actions.”

Comments and information must be received no later than Aug. 28 and should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to ITP.Laws@noaa.gov.

The decision to hold a public review and comment period was not required by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency responsible for leasing U.S. waters for energy production. The unprecedented scope of the proposed operations was one factor in the complexity that triggered the decision.

“We felt for a variety of reasons it would be a good idea to have this period” said Benjamin Laws, a NMFS biologist at the Office of Protected Resources in Silver Spring, Md.

NMFS said it would consider input from the public in making its final determinations to issue or deny the permit that is also based on the expected effects on marine mammal populations. The agency may authorize the incidental taking of “small numbers” of marine mammals if the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock.

Typically the decision process to issue or deny permits typically takes six to nine months, but may take longer for projects that are more complex, which Laws said is the case in this situation.

“Our target for that (a decision on the permits) is the end of this calendar year” he said Tuesday. “We knew off the bat it would take quite a bit of work to review those applications and work with the applicant companies.”

Laws said the target date was the first timeline that his agency had discussed and represents a “timeline we think is reasonable. We’ll do our utmost effort to adhere to it but also do what we need to do and take the time needed.”

NMFS said behavioral disturbance of individual marine mammals by seismic surveys is well documented, meaning that protection act authorization is required.

Jennie Lyons, a NMFS spokesperson, said authorization of incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals is granted when the disturbance is deemed to be of negligible effect, but when the anticipated effects threaten the overall populations or stocks of listed species there’s additional scrutiny. The potential effects increase with the scale of the proposed survey activity.

“This group of actions is not typical as the proposed surveys are very large in scale and complicated,” according to the announcement. The proposed surveys are much larger than the typical academic seismic survey – up to 17 times – and involve much larger acoustic sources that produce more noise.

“Marine mammals don’t like the noise and they avoid the area,” Lyons said. “This group of actions is not typical because of the scale and complexity, which is unprecedented in U.S. waters.”

NOAA has received applications from Spectrum Geo Inc. of Houston, Texas; TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., which has headquarters in Norway; ION Geo Ventures of Houston; and TDI-Brooks International Inc., based in College Station, Texas.

All requested permits would be for the maximum one year from the date of issuance, with the exception of ION Geo Ventures, which has asked that its permit be valid  from July through December 2016.

Seismic tests use sound waves to penetrate deep into the ocean floor. The reflected waves give scientists a profile of the underlying geology and clues as to best places to looc for oil and natural. Anyone who has ever gotten a diagnostic ultrasound test, is familiar with the concept. Seismic tests are now a standard tool in the search for oil and gas and have greatly reduced the chances of drilling  dry holes.

Four applicants propose to conduct 2-D marine seismic surveys using air-gun arrays, and TDI-Brooks also proposes to conduct more sophisticated profiling – not using air gun arrays.

Seismic testing is controversial because the use of sound sources such as those described in the applications may disturb marine mammals by disrupting their patterns of behavior, such as migration according to critics. It may also cause auditory injury. These risks warrant the protection act authorization process, according to NMFS, but steps to lessen the risk may be taken.

“In a lot of these cases there are observers out there and if they see marine mammals they will stop the activity,” Lyons said, adding that such a measure is merely example and not a recommendation specific to the applications under review. Laws agreed.

“No package of mitigation is proposed at this time,” he said.

The starting point for review includes BOEM’s requirements and the bureau’s environmental impact statement, along with what the applicant companies have proposed. That’s where the consideration of input received from the public comes into play.

“We think the public comment period will be productive,” Lyons said. “We’re committed to a careful review and that’s why we’re doing a public comment period. We’ll go back and forth with the applicant until such time as we feel the application is complete, then it goes online. If we get to the point of a proposal, then there’s a 30-day comment period.

NMFS is particularly interested in information addressing the following topics:

• Best available scientific information and appropriate use of such information in assessing potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat.
• Application approaches to estimating acoustic exposure and take of marine mammals.
• Appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for these activities.

Comments indicating general support for or opposition to oil and gas exploration and development are not considered relevant to the request for information and will not be considered, according to NMFS.

NEW BERN — T­­he N.C. Coastal Federation and a panel of experts are set to explore later this month the changes and the risks offshore oil and gas development could bring to North Carolina.

The federation will host a forum, Shaping our Economic Future: Offshore Drilling in N.C., 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 31, at the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center. Planned discussions will delve into the economics, environmental implications and expected effects on coastal communities. Invited speakers include researchers, regulators, elected officials and coastal residents from the Gulf of Mexico to Currituck Sound. Registration, including lunch and break refreshments, is $20.

Ladd Bayliss is a coastal advocate with the federation and a forum organizer. She said the idea is to engage the public and provide a connection to those in decision- and policy-making positions.

“What we’re trying to do here is present information that is meaningful to those on the coast who will feel the effects. It’s to link people who live and work on the coast or are curious about the coast with high-caliber people who have experienced the offshore oil industry in their daily lives,” Bayliss said.

In putting together the list of invited speakers, diverse backgrounds and experiences were sought, Bayliss said. Various industries and fields will be represented, including scientists, regulatory officials, elected officials and others who have personal experiences with the oil and gas industries.

“The goal is for this to be a conduit of information to those actively involved in the decisions,” Bayliss said. “We want local decision-makers there and we are structuring it to allow the public adequate time and opportunity for questioning. We’re really trying to ensure that we can educate the public with correct information on the issue.”

The forum isn’t an entirely new approach for the federation, which has  used  similar public events to focus attention on the pollution problem related to large-scale hog farms in eastern North Carolina and on wind and other forms of alternative energies. Several hundred people attended those events. This time, the goal is to attract as least as many interested people from the region but also those from other parts of the state.

“We hope the forum bridges the gap between coastal communities and the central and western parts of the state because it (oil and gas development) really is going to affect the entirety of our state. It appears to be a coastal issue but it is something the whole state needs to pay attention to,” Bayliss said.

The forum will use information from scientific research as a starting point for discussion, especially when it comes to the potential risks to the N.C. coast and its existing tourism and commercial seafood industries. Questions to be posed include: If a spill occurs, what happens then?

The answers, Bayliss said, should be based on research that’s already done or provide direction on the type of research that still needs to be done. The forum will include local, state and federal perspectives, she said. Slated for discussion is the example of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and its effects on communities along the Gulf of Mexico.

“We’re not trying to sugar coat anything, we just want to give an accurate picture of what could happen and how it could affect the economies we already have in place. We’ll have some of the best researchers in the state on those topics,” Bayliss said.

The agenda includes Greg “Rudi” Rudolph, a geologist who heads the Carteret County Shore Protection Office. He will discuss what offshore drilling could mean for the N.C. coast. Rudolph said his presentation will cover the “rules of engagement” involving the outer continental shelf leasing process and the geology of North Carolina’s coast – where to look for oil and why.

“The structure of the continental shelf is very uneven and the oil and gas deposits therefore are also very uneven. The bulk of the oil and gas potential off Manteo is going to be Jurassic material that has decomposed and it’s going to be within the 50-mile buffer. That’s why the governor is talking about reducing that buffer to 30 miles,” Rudolph said.

He added that the ocean depths beyond 50 miles are also at the extreme, as compared to existing Gulf Coast drilling operations. That factor could make North Carolina’s offshore resources less attractive.

“Once you get beyond 50 miles you’re in over 10,000 feet of water. The deepest wells in the Gulf of Mexico are about 10,000 feet and they (the oil companies) don’t like to start deep and creep inward,” Rudolph said.

Rudolph said he will also discuss the state revenue-sharing component, “which obviously for me, wearing my local-government hat, is real important.”

Rudolph’s office monitors beach re-nourishment issues and is funded with revenue from the county’s five percent occupancy tax on hotel and motel rooms, inns and condominium rentals – money paid by visitors. Carteret County’s tourism generates more than $300 million in annual revenues and supports more than 3,000 jobs. The value of the tourism industry is one of the economic considerations to be explored during the forum, along with the promise of a state share of oil revenues.

Absence of revenue sharing could be a deal-breaker, Rudolph said, because the state would need the money to pay for infrastructure demands of the new industry here, and currently there is no revenue-sharing agreement in place.

“The Obama administration has signaled they don’t want one in place. That means Congress is going to have to put something in. From the local perspective, no revenue sharing means no drilling. It’s important not only for the economy but also to accommodate the infrastructure demands that might be coming our way,” Rudolph said.

Rudolph said many of the topics he plans to cover could serve as a launching point for discussion during the remainder of the forum.

Doug Wakeman, a Meredith College economics professor, will moderate a discussion of the economic implications of oil and gas exploration and development. Two reports produced in 2013 are the basis for much of the discussion of benefits to the economy from Atlantic offshore drilling.

One of those reports, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association, estimates a $4 billion addition to the state’s economy and 55,000 new jobs by 2035, but those estimates are based on assumptions regarding revenue sharing and future oil prices, which are uncertain.

The other report by Michael Walden of  N.C. State University predicts similar outcomes but also notes the potential costs to North Carolina from development of energy resources, including the greatest potential cost: coastal damage from a spill. The potential annual average on-shore costs from possible environmental damage could reduce property values in the affected counties by between $636 million and $4.7 billion, according to the Walden report.

Wakeman is expected to discuss the contrast between the uncertainties of drilling and the known values of tourism and fisheries in the coastal counties likely to be most affected.

Lee Nettles, executive director of the Outer Banks Visitor’s Bureau, is to discuss the implications for small coastal communities with tourism economies.

Mike Giles, coastal advocate with the N.C. Coastal Federation, is to moderate a discussion of the environmental implications of oil and gas exploration and development with Len Pietrafesa, professor emeritus, Department of Marine Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at N.C. State University; Steve Ross, research professor, UNC-Wilmington Center for Marine Science;  Lawrence B. Cahoon, professor, UNC-Wilmington Department of Biology and Marine Biology; Charles “Pete” H. Peterson, joint distinguished professor, UNC Institute of Marine Sciences;  Doug Nowacek, an associate professor of conservation technology in the Nicholas School of the Environment and the Edmund T. Pratt Jr. School of Engineering at Duke University; and  Andy Read, a professor of marine biology at Duke University.

Coastal Review Online Editor Frank Tursi will moderate  a discussion, Pulse of the N.C. Coast, which Bayliss said will include input from six people who live and work at various locations along the N.C. coast on how it relates to what they do.

Slated to participate in the discussion are Willo Kelly, head of legislative affairs with the Outer Banks Association of Realtors in Nags Head; Mac Gibbs, a retired Hyde County N.C. Cooperative Extension agent; Carolina Beach Mayor Dan Wilcox; commercial fisherman Morty Gaskill of Ocracoke Island; Deborah Maxwell, New Hanover County NAACP president; and April Clark, operator of Second Wind Eco Tours and Yoga of Swansboro.

Renee Orr, chief of the Office of Strategic Resources with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – the federal regulatory body overseeing the Outer Continental Shelf leasing, exploration and development plans – is to discuss the federal review of potential for exploration in the Southeast Atlantic.

Donald van der Vaart, secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, will discuss the state of North Carolina’s assessment of offshore drilling. DENR is the state agency responsible for ensuring safe and responsible development of potential resources. The state has more than 64 million acres of outer continental shelf acreage – the most on the East Coast.

Also on the agenda are what Bayliss calls “boots-on-the-ground” participants who have experienced the changes the oil industry can bring to an area. One is Robert Fritchey, a commercial fisherman from south Louisiana and author of Wetland Riders, a book that publisher New Moon Press says explores  the culture, environment and economy of the coasts, the seafood industry, consumer advocacy, political and environmental journalism and rural conservation.

Another is Peg Howell, a former Chevron employee, who is slated to discuss infrastructure implications of oil and gas industries.

For more see our special reporting series: Offshore Drilling and the N.C. Coast.

WILMINGTON – Paul and Pat Kelly aren’t likely to change their minds opposing offshore drilling, but they are eager to learn about how the ocean floor will be examined for possible energy production off the N.C. coast.

The couple traveled from their Raleigh home to downtown Wilmington on Tuesday to glean as much information as they could about seismic testing during a public meeting hosted by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM.

“We were hoping to find out something on where the wind turbine process stood,” Paul Kelly said. “I think what we learned today is that the search for oil and gas reserves is a more intense process on the environment.”

The Kellys spent more than an hour talking to various BOEM representatives about the permitting process for geological and geophysical surveys, how those surveys are conducted, their potential effects on the environment and sea life and what the federal government will do to protect the environment.

These meetings are unique to BOEM, said Michael Celata, deputy regional director.

“This is not a normal process for us,” he said. “The Atlantic’s a frontier area. We felt it was important to come out and allow the public to ask questions. I think generally people are just trying to understand the process.”

Seismic testing uses air guns towed behind ships to send sonic waves to the ocean floor. How those waves are reflected from the bottom gives hints to the location and extent of oil or natural gas deposits below the surface.

This method of testing is highly controversial because of what numerous scientists say are harmful environmental affects, particularly to marine mammals and sea turtles.

The Obama administration approved in July the use of seismic testing from Delaware to Florida. BOEM has since received 10 applications from companies to conduct testing.

Four of those applicants want to test off North Carolina’s coast and more applications are expected, according to state regulators. People got a chance to voice their opinions about the applications at a public hearing Thursday in Morehead City.

The N.C. Division of Coastal Management hosted that hearing as part of its review of the application. The state must determine if the testing is consistent with its coastal management policies.

A majority of the applicants want to conduct two-dimensional surveys, a regional means of collecting data with a single air gun array. One applicant is asking to do three-dimensional surveys, which study more concentrated areas with multiple air guns.

Applications must include an extensive amount of information and detail the equipment and vessels a company is going to use, said John Johnson, supervisor of BOEM’s Data Acquisition and Special Projects unit.

Each permit is good for 60 days and can be extended up to five times allowing the process to stretch out one year, he said.

Testing would occur anywhere from three miles to upwards of 200 miles offshore.

Seismic acquisition companies sell the data they collect to oil, gas and other energy-producing companies.

Unlike offshore drilling, which the petroleum industry touts as a major economic boom, surveying will not be much of a benefit to state or local economies. Crew boats and helicopters run supplies to the survey vessels, which would come from other areas of the country.

“Generally the boats that do the surveys, they stay off shore 120 days if they can,” said Ken Wells, president of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors of Houston, Texas. “Generally they’ll be 50 miles off the coast and beyond. In terms of direct spending it’s fuel, it’s groceries, it’s a little bit out of the ports.”

That’s a fact Carolina Beach resident Ryan Nolan was unaware of after leaving the meeting, which left him with more questions than answers.

“I thought it would be more like a town hall meeting where we would sit down and hear from both sides,” Nolan said. “I definitely felt like it was above my pay grade.”

He was armed with a small stack of fact sheets placed on tables lining a meeting room inside the Hilton Riverside Hotel overlooking the Cape Fear River. Guests of the “outreach meeting” circled the room walking from one station to the next to talk to BOEM representatives and state coastal management officials.

A row of laptop computers was set up on a table for guests to submit comments. The public was also invited to write their comments on cards.

BOEM made clear it is not interested in whether people are in favor of or are opposed to seismic testing, but it is seeking input of a scientific or environmental nature.

That frustrated Nolan, who is opposed to the testing and offshore drilling.

“It’s really far-reaching what they’re proposing,” he said. “I’m going to go online and read the applications and make my comments then.”

Kallie Costa, who attended the meeting with Nolan, said she doesn’t see the point in seismic testing.

“If they don’t find anything, but they still harm the environment, what’s the point?” she said. “This is a more serious issue than I realized. It’s something I wasn’t aware of until now.”

The permitting process is lengthy – one BOEM officials would not speculate on a timeframe. The Interior Department has proposed one lease sale for the Atlantic coast in 2021.

BOEM’s Wilmington stop was one of a series of public meetings the agency is hosting along the Atlantic coast.  A second BOEM meeting will be held in Nags Head on April 27 at the Ramada Plaza Nags Head Oceanfront, 1701 S. Virginia Dare Trail. The first 90-minute meeting starts at 3 p.m. and the second at 5 p.m.

One of the flashpoints in the debate over developing possible offshore oil and gas centers on seismic surveying, an effective but controversial method used in the search for energy deposits.

Three public meetings will be held along the coast this month, with the first scheduled for today in Wilmington, about using “air guns” off the N.C. coast.

Here’s a primer to help you understand what all the noise is about.

What is seismic surveying?

It’s an exploration method that uses pulses of sound that are projected into the earth’s crust. As the sound rebounds, the pulses are analyzed and from that data images of the layers of sediment, rock and hydrocarbons up to 10,000 feet below the surface can be created.

The technology is used to search for hydrocarbons on land and in marine environments. It is also used by doctors when giving utrasound examinations to pregnant women.

Is this a new technique?

Not really. Land-based seismic surveying has been in use since the 1920s, although the early methods used to create the pulses of sound would be considered downright primitive by today’s standards—the survey team would set off dynamite at the bottom of a shaft they had drilled.

Marine seismic surveying was developed in the 1960s. Technology had advanced to the point that a method of sending a bubble of sound to the bottom of the ocean had been developed and the returning sound waves could be interpreted by the improving computer technology.

How does marine seismic surveying work?

An array of “air guns” are towed behind a ship and at timed intervals a pulse of sound is directed to the seabed. The term air gun may not be quite correct, though, according to Stanley Labak, an expert in marine acoustics with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM. That’s the federal agency that regulates offshore energy exploration and production

“Air gun is the terminology in the industry since its inception . . . in the early ‘60s. But it’s not really a gun. It’s a chamber that has pressurized air in it and at a set time they release that air and it forms a bubble and it creates sound,” he said.

The pulses of sound penetrate the ground and as the echoes of the sound come back to the ship they are analyzed. From the data the returning pulses of sound create a remarkably detailed map of the earth beneath the ocean floor.

Why is it needed?

Currently, there is no alternative technology that maps the seabed and the resources that may there. To potential bidders planning to participate in BOEM’s planned sale of oil and natural gas leases off the N.C. coast, the information seismic surveying can provide is considered critical.

Why are some people opposed to it?

Because all marine mammals and many other species of marine life use sound to communicate and navigate the oceans, many people are worried that the sound coming from the air guns will harm whales, dolphins, sea turtles and fish. The pulse of sound is very loud, typically between 200-300 decibels. To put that in perspective, normal conversation occurs at about 60 decibels; the noise of a passing truck is about 100 decibels; and the roar of a jet at takeoff is around 180 decibels.

Is there any evidence that any of these fears are real?

Here is where it gets a bit confusing.

There are no peer-reviewed studies that have shown a definitive link between seismic surveying and injured or dead marine life. However, there have been a considerable number of incidental events where seismic surveying has occurred that coincides with changes in behavior in marine life and large increases in dead animals.

Advocates for seismic surveying point out that the wave length of the sounds are well below threshold of what almost all marine mammals can hear—higher frequencies will not penetrate beneath the seabed. They also argue that very little sound escapes from the air gun pulses, noting that the more focused the pulse is the more accurate and useful the rebounding echo will be.

Opponents observe that laboratory tests on marine life subjected to sounds similar to those emitted during seismic surveys are adversely affected and there is a considerable body of evidence pointing to injured and dead marine life occurring during seismic surveying.

A 1996 study in Norway showed a marked decrease in fish catch over a 2,000 square-mile area following seismic surveying. There are also, worldwide, well-documented beachings of whales and dolphins concurrent with survey activity.

Am I likely to hear the booms while walking the beach or fishing offshore?

Highly unlikely, although anything is possible. Because the seismic surveying that is being contemplated is so far offshore—a minimum of three miles for oil and gas—there is no possibility that the sound would travel back to the shore. If a seismic survey was done closer to shore and in shallower water, it is possible that the pulse could bounce off the bottom and be heard along the shoreline.

What’s being proposed for North Carolina?

The continental shelf off the North Carolina coast is clearly in the bullseye of where oil and gas are thought to exist.

There are two basic types of seismic surveying: two dimensional and three dimensional. A 2D survey is really an outline of an area where the possibility of oil or gas is thought to exist. A 2D survey consists of a ship with a single pulse source sailing a grid pattern. The survey information is less detailed but also takes less equipment and expertise to interpret.

The 3D array, which provides more detailed information, requires multiple air guns on towlines behind the survey ship.

There are permit requests for 2D- and 3D-surveys in N.C. waters.

Have state and federal permits been issued?

Getting a permit to engage in what’s called “geological and geophysical,” or G&G, surveying is a time consuming and detail-oriented process. Because the areas under consideration are not within the three-mile jurisdiction of the state, there are no state permits required.

However, the state has a federally approved coastal management program. That allows the state to review any action that requires federal permits to make sure it’s consistent with state laws and regulations. BOEM couldn’t immediately issue permits for seismic testing if the state officials determined that it would violate the state program.

BOEM in February of 2014 issued a so-called Record of Decision outlining what the government will be seeking in a G&G permit application. A detailed recital of mitigations and precautions, the document is 12 pages long.

No seismic surveying permits have been issued, although there are currently four permit requests. Petroleum Geo-Services has requested a 3D permit. Spectrum GEO, WesternGeco and GX Technology have asked for 2D permits.

The 3D permit request is the only such request on the Eastern seaboard.

When will it start?

It’s difficult to say when or even if seismic surveying will begin. It is possible that BOEM will move quickly after the public hearings and seismic surveying could begin as early as this summer. It is also possible that the concerns of the public and problems with the permit applications will slow the process down, or bring it to a halt.

Public Meetings Scheduled for April

People can learn about offshore seismic testing at three public meetings this month along the N.C. coast. Two are sponsored by the federal Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, or BOEM, and one by the state Division of Coastal Management, or DCM.

Today in Wilmington: Hilton Wilmington Riverside, 301 N. Water St. One meeting starts at 3 p.m. and the other at 5:30 p.m. Each lasts about 90 minutes. Sponsored by BOEM.

Thursday in Morehead City: Crystal Coast Civic Center, 3505 Arendell St. The meeting starts at 5 p.m. and lasts four hours. Sponsored by DCM.

April 27 in Kill Devil Hills: Ramada Plaza Nags Head Oceanfront, 1701 S. Virginia Dare Trail, Kill Devil Hills. One meeting starts at 3 p.m. and the other at 5:30 p.m. Each lasts about 90 minutes. Sponsored by BOEM.