CFE agenda 100917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

following 3 criteria: (a) requires any other state or federal action, (b) involves construction on over more than 60,000 square feet, or (c) involves alteration of more than 20 acres of land or water.37 All other projects — a house for example - within an AEC would require a "minor permit. "3n Local governments are delegated authority by the CRC to issue minor permits.39 There is one provision in CAMA that could potentially exempt wind generating facilities or transmission lines from requiring a CAMA major permit. The statutory definition of "development" provides an exemption for energy facilities under certain circumstances: "Work by any utility and other persons for the purpose of construction of facilities for the development, generation, and transmission of energy to the extent that such activities are regulated by other law or by present or future rules of the state Utilities Commission regulating the siting of such facilities (including environmental aspects of such siting) ... [shall not be deemed to be development]. "4o Current Utilities Commission rules do not, I believe, regulate siting enough to trigger this exemption; however how possible future Environmental Management Commission rules would interact with CAMA is an area that would need further exploration. 2. Apphcation of CA L4 in the Coastal Plain. On land, the CAMA permitting structure covers very little area in the 20 coastal counties.4i Unless it is being proposed very near the sound or ocean such that it falls within the boundaries of an AEC, a wind facility on the coastal plain would likely not trigger a CAMA permit, and thus be subject only to local zoning and ordinances. The statute does allow for CRC permitting jurisdiction in areas that "affect" AECs, although it is unclear how this standard would be determined for wind farms or if it includes, for instance, consideration of effects on birds.42 CAMA establishes a cooperative program between local and state governments in which the state acts primarily in a supportive standard - setting way." 43 It requires counties to prepare local land use plans,44 and requires these plans to be consistent with state guidelines;45 it conversely requires CAMA permits to be consistent with local land use plans.46 It is unlikely, however, that individual county land use plans in North Carolina address wind power specifically.47 Thus, although most of the coastal wind resources are located on the water, it is feasible that a major wind facility could be sited on coastal land with no specific requirement for state permitting through CAMA, and no environmental review or public notification. 3. Apphcation of CAMA in State Waters. In general it is safe to assume that all state waters in the coastal counties fall under the Areas of Environmental Concern;4s thus a wind facility in the sound or nearshore would require a CAMA major permit. Additionally, and, as discussed above, a wind facility in the water would trigger environmental review under NCEPA due to the fact that it involves state (submerged) land, requires a state permit, has potential impacts on the environment, and would involve excavation of materials from aquatic environments for a non - navigational project and thus exceed DENR's minimum threshold for exemption.49 However, here we come to a possible regulatory barrier to coastal wind development in North Carolina. The CRC rules implementing CAMA prohibit development of structures that are not "water dependent" in the estuarine waters of the state. 50 Water - dependent structures include docks and boat ramps, but not currently wind turbines. In 2005, a CRC subcommittee provided an informal ruling that wind turbines would not be considered water - dependent structures and voted not to amend the rules to allow such facilities.51 An additional barrier is a CRC rule prohibiting any development that would impact or relocate oceanfront dunes or vegetation; this could prohibit running transmission lines from an offshore wind farm to land in North Carolina. 52 This prohibition applies only to the Ocean Erodible Area of Environmental Concern and thus transmission lines from wind turbines behind the dunes in the sound would not trigger this prohibition.53 CAMA does contain a procedure for applicants to request a variance from the rules, though the standards are rigorous. The applicant must show that the prohibition causes unnecessary hardship, that conditions are peculiar to the specific property, and that the variance would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the rules. 54 It is not clear that a wind development could successfully receive a variance. If the CRC does not grant Appendix C 187