2008 Spring NC Marine TradeWinds Newsletter
There are “must reads” here that may require action on your part, depending on your type of business. All of these articles impact our NC boating industry businesses. If you are aware of more current or accurate information on these or issues we missed, let me know at MBradley@SBTDC.org.
Must Read
NC Boating Business Forums – save the dates and let me know your attendance interest by email at the address above
Public Forum: Transportation of Oversize Trailers - attend
National Discharge Permit ? Make your concerns known
NC Marine Diesel Fuel Tax Problem – we need your info
Stormwater Regulations vs. Working Waterfront Projects
SAVE these dates from 10 AM to 2 PM (complimentary lunch included)
Wednesday, May 7th in Mooresville
Thursday, May 8th in Raleigh
Wednesday, May 14 in Wilmington
Thursday, May 15 in Greenville
NC Boating Industry Services (NCBIS) will offer four “business reality” forums specifically designed for the state’s boat builders and their suppliers. These sessions are designed for you to take away timely and valuable information. They will address strategies and solutions for some of the most challenging issues facing the boating industry given the current economic environment.
Each of the four sessions will run from 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM (with lunch provided). They are scheduled to be held on Wednesday, May 7th in Mooresville, Thursday, May 8th in Raleigh, Wednesday, May 14th in Wilmington, and Thursday, May 15th in Greenville.
The hosts for the sessions will be The University’s business and technology extension service, the Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC), and the NC Industrial Extension Service (IES). The two organizations will team up to address current business issues impacting the industry, facilitate Q&A sessions for you and your supplier network and make presentations on approaches and potential solutions to the challenges you face.
Topics will include a range of “belt tightening” strategies, buyer-seller negotiations and renegotiations, hard decisions, reducing operating and production costs, and a range of new market strategies including expanding sales without increasing advertising costs and product/boat export opportunities, requirements and assistance.
Locations will be finalized in a week or so. You are welcome to attend any one of these events but we would appreciate your formal RSVP (for lunch headcount purposes) to Mike Bradley at mbradley@sbtdc.org or 252/728-2804. The available slots will be held according to reservation date and time.
The Issue: A number of out-of-state and in-state boat owners have been stopped and fined for hauling oversize load (their fishing boats and trailers) on NC highways. This has, or has the potential to have, a very detrimental impact on North Carolina fishing tournament were we draw heavily from out-of-state participants. In addition, as we loose waterfront options for thousands of boat owners who can no longer afford to rent or own in-water boat slips or afford or find a dry slip in a drystack, we are forcing these boat owners to haul their boats around the state for events, fishing, and recreation.
In an effort to understand and address this issue, the Highway Patrol will conduct a public forum on Monday, April 21st discussing the rules and regulations of transporting oversize recreational and commercial boats on North Carolina highways. This public forum is the first ever put on by the North Carolina State Highway Patrol concerning transportation of oversize boats on the North Carolina Highways.
There
will be officials from the US DOT enforcement in attendance. Members
or Staff members of State and Federal Representatives have committed
to attend. The forum will be conducted at 6:00 p.m. at the
Warwick Center, located on the campus of the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington; 601 South College Rd. Wilmington.
The public is invited to attend the event. For additional
information contact Captain George Gray at 919-715-8683. And to
see more that you want on this, go to the
THE HULL TRUTH and view the Carolinas Forum for the thread on “Towing
in NC”.
See example letter found on Hull Truth site.
[From articles posted by the NMMA and BoatU.S.]
The Issue: Unless there is a federal legislative bill passed, every recreational boater in the country will have to obtain a federal or state permit in order to operate their boat. These permits would apply to deck run-off, bilge water, engine cooling water and any other water-based, operational discharge from a recreational boat. NMMA and BoatU.S. wants you to lobby your legislators by going to www.boatblue.org and following the steps.
Background: In past newsletters, this has also been referred to as the bipartisan Recreational Boating Act or Clean Boating Act of 2008 S. 2766. Unless Congress acts soon, every recreational boater in the country will have to obtain a federal or state permit in order to operate their boat. This means yearly fees, bureaucratic red tape, confusing and potentially state-by-state regulations, citizen suits and $32,000 per day penalties for non-compliance. These permits would apply to deck run-off, bilge water, engine cooling water and any other water-based, operational discharge from a recreational boat. Needed is the passing of the Clean Boating Act of 2008. which would fully and permanently restore a 35-year permit exemption for recreational boat incidental discharges, such as weather deck run-off and engine coolant water, and works to protect the health of the nation's waterways by pursuing whether or not reasonable and practicable best management practices need to be put into place for some incidental discharges. “This important bill preserves recreational boating and the boating industry, taking a balanced approached that recognizes that pleasure boat discharges are completely different from land-based industrial facilities and commercial ships”. Both groups would like all boaters to contact their Senators to “take 5 minutes to tell Congress to support S. 2766”. To see more, go to http://www.boatblue.org/. For additional information, contact Margaret Podlich, Vice President, Government Affairs, BoatUS, (GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com, 703-461-2878 x8355) or Mat Dunn, NMMA, (mdunn@nmma.org; 202-737-9760).
The Issue: VA charges 0% state sales tax on marine diesel while NC charges 6.75 % (4.5% state plus 2.25% county). This means that boat owners now have a 21¢ to 25¢ or more per gallon differential to consider when they decide where to purchase fuel. NC fuel sellers, marinas and waterfront communities up and down the NC coast are considering ways to fight this.
Background: The math is pretty simple for the transient vessel owner deciding where to fuel up. Do they fuel up on the VA side of the boarder where there is 0% tax on marine diesel or fill up in NC waters where they will pay 25¢ or more per gallon? Many of these vessels are big sportsfishing boats, cruisers, and yachts holding 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of fuel. This VA vs. NC cost disparity is not a new issue, but the total $ differential based on the high fuel costs have upped the stakes and is having a marked impact on dozens of our waterfront communities from Coinjock all the way down the ICW through Beaufort and on to Wrightsville Beach and Southport.
As of now, recreational boaters are exempt from the motor fuels tax under G.S. 105-449.107 (a) and (c), but they still pay 6.75 percent in sales taxes. The North Carolina Department of Revenue calculates the tax as approximately 13.3¢ per gallon (now 25¢ or more per gallon based on fuel heading to $3.75 and up mark).
Dyed diesel is already sold as exempt from the motor fuels tax, but in case recreational boaters or retail marinas buy or sell clear diesel for off road use, they can apply for a refund using Form GAS-1201: Tax-paid for Motor Fuel Used Off-Highway. Available at: http://www.dornc.com/downloads/gas1201_2007.pdf.
A growing number of NC business owners have been in contact with Senator Basnight's office and his office and the Department of Revenue have been working with a number of small business owners on this issue figuring out how much revenue is actually generated from this tax and drafting a budget provision to provide some relief.
(Thanks to Sandra D. Johnson, Fiscal Analyst, Economy and Taxation Team, North Carolina General Assembly, mailto:sandraj@ncleg.net
The Issue: High demand for few NC working waterfronts. In response to ever increasing demand for working waterfront sites along the coast, we have a mixed bag of successes and restraints. For the purpose of this article update, I am covering only sites on or near navigable waters where “off-road” boats and yachts can be built or renovated and moved into and out of the water. I am not including sites for marinas, drystack facilities, or commercial fishing support or access.
The demand for these sites comes from in-state businesses that need to expand and from dozens of out-of-state and out-of-country builders and restoration businesses that want to establish deepwater facilities to either provide maintenance to their existing east coast customers or they want to build yachts on the east coast to take advantage of the depreciated US dollar conditions.
On the positive side, owners or representatives of over 20 private, county and city, and public/private waterfront sites have contacted me related to developing and utilizing these sites. At the same time, I am currently working with the owners or representatives of 19 national or international companies which have an interest in establishing an east coast deep water site. This number is growing at about two per month.
With the exception of about three to four developed sites with existing CAMA and/or appropriate stormwater permits met, most of these sites face eight-to-12 months to as long as two-years or more of unknown regulatory uncertainty while the “wants and needs” of these companies are debated and considered by the regulators. This is as it should be, but the reality is that few if any of these companies are willing to take the chance by buying property before they can be assured that they can do what they need at the site. So the property owners are either trying to sell for uses that require less regulatory burden (like condominiums) or are taking on the costs of gaining the regulatory permits needed to accommodate the demands of a working waterfront business (or forming partnerships with non-profits or the corporate entity to solve regulatory issues.)
The next steps we have are continued work with and for property owners helping them understand the needs and wants for the potential new facility and to encourage the potential waterfront companies’ decision makers to consider partnerships or commitments with property owners so that costs and time requirements for regulatory compliance can be shared.
May 16, 17, & 18, 2008
Bring your family to Downtown Morehead City’s new Family Boating and In-Water Boat Show May 16, 17, &18, 2008 on the Morehead City waterfront at S 9th and Shepard Streets. Exhibits, programs, and power boats, in the water and on-shore, will help your family discover that boating is an activity they can participate in and have fun with while growing closer together.
The boating weekend begins on May 16 at 7:00 pm with a grand opening Gala Celebration of Morehead City’s new docks for visiting boaters. The Family Boating and In-Water Boat show begins Saturday May 17 from 10:00 to 5:00 p.m. and goes through Sunday, May 18 from 11:00 to 4:00 p.m. Tour in-water and on-shore power boats and enjoy band concerts including the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing’s Rock and Roll band.
For information, call Downtown Morehead City Revitalization Association at 252-808-0440 or visit www.downtownmoreheadcity.com
The “take home” from this article is that the EPA supported NMMA suggestions for the final rule on Source Emission Standards for Paint Stripping and Surface Coating and eliminated boatyards, marinas and small boatbuilders with emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) less than 10 tons. www.nmma.org/news/news.asp?id=16971&sid=3.
On January 9, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule to regulate Area Source Emission Standards for paint stripping and surface coating that was significantly revised based on comments submitted by NMMA on behalf of the recreational marine industry. NMMA recommends small boatbuilders, marinas, and boatyards review the chemicals in their surface coatings to determine if they contain one of the five HAPs of concern.
For additional information about the Area Source Emission Standards ruling, please click here, or contact John McKnight ( jmcknight@nmma.org; 202-737-9757).
The Issue: Marina insurance coverage wording designed to keep the business's exposure as low as possible has the effect of potentially raising the cost of boaters using the facility. The information here is “reversed engineered” from an article in NEWS From BoatU.S. on January 17th to their boaters reminding them to review their boater’s coverage and contract agreements with marinas. Read it and understand what it means to your marina and your customer so you both can cover your assets.
The Issue: Efforts are underway the by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to better monitor small vessel activity off our coasts. The DHS Institute has made public a report and recommendations for action following the National Small Vessel Security Summit (NSVSS) that took place last June.
At that meeting, about 260 "stakeholders" from the recreational and commercial marine industries discussed how to proceed with creating a national strategy for thwarting terrorist attacks on US ports using small boats. "Among stakeholders there was general agreement that at the present time it would be relatively easy for a terrorist organization to acquire or commandeer a small vessel to conduct a terrorist attack against the United States," said the report. "Overall, commercial vessels were viewed as less of a terrorism threat than pleasure craft as the recreational boating community was thought to be less regulated and more diffuse than the commercial vessel sector. Another major concern was that, depending on the target, terrorists would be more likely to acquire small vessels to be used in terrorist attacks from foreign countries in close proximity to the United States (i.e. Canada, Mexico or nations in the Caribbean).
While the participants did not agree on every point in the report, especially when it came to national licensing or AIS boat monitoring systems, the organizers drew up a list of recommendations that have been forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security. "DHS needs to develop a coherent National Small Vessel Security Strategy based on a layered security approach," read the report.
The report made these specific recommendations:
DHS should not impose overly restrictive regulatory constraints on small vessel operators or their boats in the areas of licensing, registration, or tracking.
DHS needs to conduct and convey threat and risk assessments on a continuing basis in order to: 1) define the nature of the threat; 2) determine port specific security needs; and 3) clarify the small vessel threat from foreign countries.
DHS needs to take immediate steps to engage the small vessel stakeholder community and ensure their continual engagement, by keeping them informed on issues of safety and security.
Funding is needed to support state, local, tribal, and territorial maritime law enforcement entities.
Law enforcement training deficiencies need to be addressed to meet a variety of safety and security objectives.
A universal hotline telephone number needs to be developed and disseminated so that the boating community can report both suspicious activities and emergency situations.
At this time it is not recommended that AIS technologies be required for vessels under 65 feet in length until the technology is perfected, cost significantly reduced, or until law enforcement has the ability to track and respond to all vessels being tracked in their area of responsibility.
Research into alternative technologies similar to but less expensive than AIS need to be conducted in order to evaluate the usefulness of such technologies in balancing cost with effectiveness in maintaining maritime domain awareness.
More must be done to streamline credentialing to ensure that various jurisdictions accept the same standards, including solutions such as adding a boat operator endorsement to state driver licenses.
A national boat registry should be created so that it can be indexed and searched by federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies.
The federal government needs to enhance international cooperation and intelligence sharing with our foreign counterparts especially with those countries in close proximity to the United States.
To help prevent a radiological or nuclear attack, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies need to be provided with radiological detection devices.
The federal government should develop radiological and nuclear detection devices with a stand-off capability in order to provide detection with minimal impact on small vessel stakeholder operations.
The federal government should strengthen counter-proliferation initiatives with our foreign counterparts to prevent shipments of WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials from ever taking place.
The report noted that a small vessel strategy is currently being developed by DHS. It also said that regional small vessel summits are currently being planned for coastal US cities, as well as locations in the Gulf of Mexico, and heartland regions. (21 January 2008 article in IBI Magazine)
The Summit scope is to focus the southeastern regional maritime stakeholders on a range of discussions and problems involving the small vessel security risk in the southeastern maritime domain. Defining the terms “small vessel” is an essential starting point for bounding the scope of the Summit. For the purposes of this Summit, a small vessel is characterized as any watercraft, regardless of method of propulsion, which is generally less than 300 gross tons, and used for recreational or commercial purposes. Small vessels include commercial fishing vessels, recreational boats and yachts, towing vessels, uninspected passenger vessels, or any other small commercial vessels involved in foreign or U.S. voyages. This definition distinguishes small vessels from large commercial vessels and yachts (generally 300 gross tons and over) that are applicable to security measures already put in place under the authority of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002 and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.
Security risks for small vessels can be broken down into four general categories:
Use of small vessels as a conveyance to smuggle weapons (including, but not limited to, Weapons of Mass Destruction/Effect (WMD/WME));
Use of small vessels as Water Borne Improvised Explosive Device (WBIED) - small, explosive-laden vessels used as "boat bombs" against another vessel, maritime critical infrastructure, or key resources;
Use of small vessels as a conveyance to smuggle terrorists into the U.S.; and
Use of small vessels as a platform for standoff weapon (e.g. Man Portable Air Defense Systems [MANPADS], SCUD platform for launch offshore) attacks on the maritime industry or critical infrastructure.
The Summit format will consist of plenary addresses from the Coast Guard, and other government professionals on small vessel threat and layered security measures. These will be followed up by stakeholder participation on panel discussions and a facilitated discussion working group. The activities are centered on identifying small vessel threat issues and solutions specifically for the southeastern region from the perception of the small vessel stakeholders using a scenario based approach.
The objectives of the Southeastern Small Vessel Security Summit are to focus the broad stakeholder community on a range of issues and to launch continuing interactions regarding management of small vessel security risk in the U.S. maritime domain. The objectives of the meeting are:
Provide a regional forum for small vessel stakeholders to discuss and present their ideas on the development of security measures to mitigate gaps in small vessel management and control in the maritime domain with local federal leadership and coordinators.
Educate regional small vessel stakeholders of security threats in the local U.S. maritime domain.
Communicate with regional small vessel stakeholders on the actions being taken within the region to coordinate a layered security system at the federal, state, tribal, and local government levels, as well as within the regional maritime industry and public.
More details are available on the Summit’s website at: http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1199394950818.shtm
The Issue: NC builders transporting boats through states on the way to selling point states are having their trucks stopped and fines leveled. The states are claiming a `es own property or have any "bricks and mortar" in that taxing state.
"The state tax nexus issue is huge,” said Scott Gudes, vice president of government relations for NMMA. “It’s not just about the boating industry. It affects a number of industries. Several states have suddenly decided they are going to tax manufacturers based on business activity in states in which they don’t have a brick or mortar presence. A number of boat manufacturers have had their boats impounded at a state line and been told, ‘You have to pay us $40,000’ or more. It’s literally highway robbery. There are at least two pieces of legislation being put forward to try to address it.” The NMMA has worked to educate the House Small Business Committee on the need to hold fair and open hearings on the Business Activity Tax and state tax nexus issues and their increasingly negative impacts on small U.S. businesses.
As states have grown increasingly aggressive of pursuing vague tax nexuses, following the Supreme Court’s denial to hear two pivotal cases on the issue, NMMA has heard from a growing number of manufacturers that have been caught up in state schemes to assess taxes on businesses that do not have “bricks and mortar” presences in those states.
The interstate commerce issues are significant. With no “bright-line” test to prevent states from crossing borders, and essentially taxing money from out-of-state businesses, the adverse impact to small business growth is quite severe. Changing state tax enforcements and standards create a patchwork of shifting standards difficult for small businesses to plan for.
NMMA anticipates a hearing in the Small Business Committee in the middle of February, and introduction of the House companion bill to Senator Schumer’s (D-NY.) Business Activity Tax Simplification Act, in early February. For more information please contact Bryan Zumwalt (bzumwalt@nmma.org; 202-737-9750)
The federal budget for 2009 released by President Bush last week is a discouraging step backward for one of the nation's most critical waterways, according to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association. The $2.2 million in the White House budget for the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the ICW through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida "ignores serious navigation risks that commercial and recreational users of the 1,200-mile water highway face every day, and threatens its very future,” the association said, in a statement.
“The budget is a token amount, given that the Army Corps needs approximately $30 million to properly maintain the waterway,” said David Roach, AIWA chairman and executive director of the Florida Inland Navigation District. “The nation's waterways have been ignored for far too long, and the American people already suffer the consequences of neglecting critical infrastructure. The lack of maintenance funding will be catastrophic to the economies of every state along the waterway unless Congress steps in and dramatically increases the president's proposal as it did last year.” Roach said the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway brings over $18 billion annually to the state of Florida alone. Studies have shown that the four other states also gain tremendous economic benefit from the waterway, he said. (See the article in the 2/15/2008 Soundings site.)
From ATM (www.appliedtm.com)
Feb. 5, 2008
Charleston, S.C. — Over one-third (38%) of respondents to a survey of marina managers by Applied Technology & Management, Inc. (ATM) currently have at least some dockominiums at their marina. In addition, survey findings indicate that dockominium conversions are likely to increase.
Dockominiums, defined in the survey, “boat berths that are owned or leased for 50 years or more,” bring in significant revenue for marinas, but some have criticized the practice for its potential to drive middle- and working-class boat owners out of the marina market. For the most part, however, marinas that have converted to or added dockominiums are happy with the results.
Among the survey’s findings:
· 23% of respondents are considering adding (or converting to) dockominiums in the future.
· 15% of respondents have rackominiums (owned drystack berths).
· 18% of respondents have dockominiums for megayachts.
Another key finding of the survey is that a shortage of slips is fairly widespread. About 71% of respondents said there was a perception of a slip shortage in their area for at least certain-sized vessels. Most respondents were from the Southeast (34% were from Florida), but a number of marinas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic area also reported local perception of a slip shortage.
“These findings highlight the need for communities to ensure that boaters continue to have access to the water,” says Sam Phlegar, Senior Vice President and Director of ATM’s Marine Division. “Many cities and towns will have to devise plans to expand opportunities for boaters to berth their vessels in order to accommodate existing and rising demand.”
For a copy of the full survey report, contact Linda Rodgers at lrodgers@appliedtm.com.
The Washington Wave
Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will take over as the new Co-Chair of the U.S. Senate Boating Caucus. Senator Burr takes the place of Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to co-chair the caucus along with Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) following Lott’s recent retirement.
Senator Burr has served in the U.S Senate since January 2005, and before that election represented North Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives for a decade. As a former businessman, Senator Burr is a strong advocate for job growth, pro-manufacturing policy and economic development, and environmental stewardship. Senator Burr serves on a number of Senate Committees, including the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and the Veteran’s Affairs Committee where he serves as the ranking member.
North Carolina is home to more than 60 boat manufacturers that generate over 7,000 jobs. In 2006, North Carolina was the 4th largest U.S. marine market with $649 million in new boat, engine, and accessory sales and services. There are more than 370,000 registered recreational boats in North Carolina. See" http://www.nmma.org/government/federal/bc.asp
For more information, or to register, please visit the 2008 American Boating Congress website at www.nmma.org/abc/, or contact Duncan Neasham (dneasham@nmma.org; 202-737-9763).
The Issue: Boat owners and a lot of business owners get confused on the various taxes that can be paid by owners. While researching the marine diesel sales tax issue, I found an article that made simple the often complicated issues of taxes on boats that are paid (or not paid) by boat owners across the country (including NC). The article was by J. Dirk Schwenk entitled “How to avoid paying taxes on your boat...legally!” and it was in the Wednesday, 13 February, 2008 Dozier’s Waterway Guide. Here are some of the salient points.
“There is no federal vessel tax (and may the federal luxury tax stay good and dead!), so taxes are imposed at the state and local levels. Generally, there are three taxes of concern to boat owners: sales tax, use or registration tax, and personal property tax. Sales tax is imposed, if at all, at the time of purchase. Use tax is imposed by sales tax states on goods that were not taxed at the time of purchase. Personal property tax is an annual tax, payable every year, on property that is kept within a jurisdiction.
Schwenk went on to focus on sales tax. “It is hard to keep track of all of the state taxes, and nearly impossible to keep track of all of the county and municipal taxes. Not only are they all different, but they also all subject to change. BOAT/US provides a good general comparison of state taxes on its website www.boatus.com/gov/state_boat.asp but I understand that it is being updated now after several years without revision.”
Why use this article here? Boat buyers are getting savvy about how and where they buy their boat, what they pay – including taxes – and a lot more. In the current market it is important to know what your customer knows so you can refine your offer.
http://www.waterwayguide.com/resources.php
Marine Electrical Certification Class
NC MARTEC (Marine Training and Education Center at Carteret Community College) in Morehead City will be offering an ABYC electrical certification class May 6 – May 9, 2008. This is a four day course designed by ABYC to help to prepare attendees for the 200 question exam. It is a refresher for basic material and electrical fundamentals. The four day classes will start at 8AM and run through 5PM. The total cost is only $150 – a real savings as the course is subsidized by a special Community College Industry Grant.
To register: contact the Corporate & Community Education at 252-222-6200. For more information contact Sean Prendergast, Marine Systems Instructor at 252-222-6278.
After 38 years with the NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Mike Street retired and, more importantly, was awarded membership into the Order of the Long Leaf Pine – one of the state’s most prestigious awards. It is presented to individuals who have a proven record of extraordinary service to the state. At Fisheries, he held the title of Habitat Protection Section Chief. Mike has long demonstrated strong interest and support for working waterfronts and has offered to help us look at qualifying projects. We look forward to working with him.
The Issue: The hot potato topic of how newly approved changes in coastal stormwater regulations will actually affect coastal developers, county and municipality tax revenues, and economic development makes presidential debate and discussion seem mild. And, after reading the NC Working Waterfront Access Update article above, it brings to question how these "proposed to the legislators" recommendations will impact our efforts to create new working waterfront marine industrial parks along our coast.
The objectives of the new rules are more than praiseworthy, but some of these rules so groan to slow near-water development that they appear to many in the coastal counties to approach "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". And they come at a time when we finally seem to get getting somewhere with new money for more boat ramps, more municipal and state public waterfront projects, and most importantly, new working waterfront projects designed to attract working waterfront businesses and new jobs. The toll that these rules appear to impose on many of these projects appears to be significant - to the point that the ability of a business to meet the non-pervious land requirement, and still cash-flow the project with likely business revenue streams, seems dubious.
Latest News: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/coastal.htm
NC Rules Review Commission Approves the EMC Amendments to the Coastal Stormwater RuleOn March 20, 2008, the North Carolina Rules Review Commission (RRC) approved the amendments to the Coastal Stormwater Rule. The text of the rule that was approved by the RRC is presented below.
However, before these new rule amendments can become effective they are still subject to review by the General Assembly during the 2008 Legislative Session, which begins on May 13, 2008. The Legislative review is the last step in this rulemaking process.
Please return to this website in the future for further news and updates regarding this rule change.
Additional information is available via the following methods:
And to see a summary of the new rules, click on: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/documents/CoastalStormwaterRule_11x17Pamphlet.pdf
Below is an example of the in-print discussions on this issue.
Washington supports their fight with state
By MIKE VOSS
Contributing Editor – Washington Daily News (Click to see the March 31, 2008 article)
"Coastal counties in North Carolina have an ally in their fight against new stormwater-runoff rules — The City of Washington.
During the City Council’s meeting Monday, the council endorsed the counties’ battle with state officials over the new rules. It also instructed City Manager James C. Smith and Mayor Pro Tempore Doug Mercer to “stay in the loop” in regard to the fight against the new stormwater rules.
Changes to the stormwater rules are the result of a 2005 study by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. That study determined the stormwater regulations in place then were not protecting water quality in the state’s coastal areas. Officials in coastal counties want the General Assembly to re-examine the science used to develop that study and make sure that environmental benefits of the new rules would offset the potential cost of “stymied development.” Coastal counties contend the new stormwater rules will slow down development in coastal areas.
Mercer, who serves as chairman of Beaufort County’s Planning Board, said waters in the coastal areas should be protected. If protecting water quality is such a good thing, counties, cities and towns upstream should abide by the same regulations, Mercer said. The new rules should apply to all counties that affect waterways, he said.
Mercer credited the coastal counties with bringing attention to the matter.
“The counties have taken the lead on this,” Mercer said.
Councilman Archie Jennings said the city “needs to be a part of that,” referring to the coastal counties’ fight against the new rules. Jennings also said coastal counties should not be the only counties handed the responsibility of protecting the state’s coastal waters.
“It’s an upstream issue just as much as it’s a downstream issue,” Jennings said.
Jennings said someone could argue that upstream entities have more effects on coastal water quality than downstream entities.
In February, the council decided the city must convince state officials they should not, as Jennings put it then, “make coastal counties take out what others put in” those waterways.
After all, council members have said, by the time the Pamlico River and other waterways reach the coastal areas, upstream counties, cities and towns have added their stormwater runoff to those waterways. They are contributing to the problem, but they don’t face the strict stormwater regulations imposed on the coastal counties, council members noted."
And, an example of the almost daily emails on the topic
STORMWATER RULE OVERHAUL: The Economic Impact On Eastern North Carolina
The Environmental Management Commission has proposed rules for all twenty of the State’s Coastal Counties within an arbitrary boundary that designates counties as subject to the unrelated Coastal Area Management Act. Beaufort County is among the twenty counties included in this arbitrary boundary. A hue and cry has gone up from county and city officials throughout the region who have protested loudly that these rules have the potential for drastically reducing investment in eastern North Carolina, the poorest region of the State. In Beaufort County, substantial residential development opportunity exists due to increased waterfront demand. At least one major developer has commented privately to county officials that he could not continue his development if the North Carolina General Assembly allows the current rules to take effect. This article is an interview with Dave Inscoe, Executive Director of the Carteret County Economic Development Commission in Morehead City, North Carolina. Mr. Inscoe has been heavily involved in this debate because of the substantial amount of waterfront property in Carteret County.
Mr. Inscoe, can you tell us briefly what the proposed rule changes do?
They essentially require a substantial reduction in stormwater runoff using a variety of a very expensive “fixes” to solve a problem that isn’t really there. In your County, which has far less shellfishing waters than Carteret County, you will not be impacted as drastically but you will still have reduction in properties values and a huge increase in the cost of development. These new rules require, among other things, cisterns to catch rainwater, “rain gardens” which are the proposed distribution point on any given piece of property for the stormwater collected, and an increase in the amount of land between these stormwater retention areas and the water table which will require substantial fill in most cases in eastern North Carolina. Our investigation shows that it can reduce the amount of developable land by more than fifty percent, particularly on tracts that benefit from the presence of wetlands, and that the cost according to some estimates for a simple single family home could increase as much as $48,000.
Won’t this be worth it to reclaim the huge amounts of shellfish waters that have been lost to pollution?
Well, that’s the picture that the proponents paint. First, we need to understand that there are about 1.5 million acres of water in North Carolina classified as saltwater shellfish areas. Of those 1.5 million acres, according to the Shellfish Sanitation and Recreation Water Quality Section, NC DENR, only about 64,000 acres are actually permanently impacted. There may be some seasonal variations due to very high rainfall, but for the most part 64,000 acres is less than five percent of all shellfish waters. And, quite frankly, there hasn’t been any huge increase in that number in the past twenty years. In 1988, there were 31,362 acres closed, or subject to closure. In Carteret County, for example, the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation and Recreation Water Quality Section of DENR data show that there has been less than 0.55% increase in areas subject to closure in the past twenty years even though a number of housing units have increased thirty-six percent. In addition, I would like to point out that shellfish waters that are closed does not mean, as many people assume, that oysters are being killed. In fact, the oysters are thriving in many of these so-called closed areas, they just can’t be consumed. The truth of the matter is that these closures are occurring because of the presence of fecal coliform bacteria, which is commonly correlated with septic tank usage, and domestic and wild animals. Most of the closures are in areas where development has been in place for decades. Stormwater controls, on the other hand, are normally used to restrict the discharge of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous into the waterways. So, in effect, the proponents of this are using one problem, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria in some of our waters, to institute broad based stormwater controls over a huge area. There are absolutely no scientific studies to show what reductions in fecal coliform bacteria we might expect if these rules are implemented
Mr. Tom Reeder, who is an official with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), has commented in a Washington Daily News article, “Stormwater runoff is a pollutant, simple as that…we found that our existing rules are lax and don’t control and treat enough of it. They aren’t designed to reopen closed waters but to protect the status-quo so that as our Coastal Region becomes more developed we won’t see all of North Carolina’s waters closed to swimming and fishing in the future.” Is this true?
That’s probably an excellent example of the obfuscation Mr. Reeder and other officials in DWQ are using to attempt to impose growth controls on eastern North Carolina. Quite simply, he makes a statement that existing rules are lax but he does not say why they are lax, where they have failed, or what, if any, contributions they have made to improve water quality. We must remember that much of this fecal coliform is coming from homes that were built decades ago, close to the water, and which are using septic tanks in relatively sandy soil. It might seem appropriate to suggest that the State needs to help provide waste treatment facilities, including sewer lines, to eastern North Carolina communities on the water to actually reduce some of the septic tank waste that is undoubtedly leaching into the river, but not from stormwater. And, further, Mr. Reeder is suggesting that these existing rules weren’t designed to reopen closed waters. The new rules he’s proposing won’t open any closed waters either, because they don’t address the problems of existing septic tanks, especially those that were constructed with lax standards decades ago.
What could the State of North Carolina do to remedy the problem of closed shellfish waters?
First, it is imperative to note that we are still talking about less than five percent of the total shellfish waters. Secondly, we need to understand that the major cause of decrease in oyster harvesting in North Carolina is largely due to a virus in the native oyster population, a virus that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem that Mr. Reeder is proposing to fix. This virus is killing oysters miles into the sound where there is little fecal coliform. Thirdly, we need to assess the entire impact of water discharge into the waterways of North Carolina and that means starting upstream. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that all of the pollution in our waterways comes from those of us who live on the coast. Discharges from the populated Piedmont need to be fixed before they get to the twenty coastal counties. That fix needs to start upstream, where the population is immense compared to the coastal counties. The State of North Carolina does not need to be sanctioning restrictions on economic development in the poorest area of the State. It needs to find ways to accommodate that growth by assuming the highest water quality entering our county boundaries from the west. And, that means assisting coastal counties with more funding for waste treatment plants, which are the only way to actually reduce the existing amount of fecal coliforms.
NC Coastal Marinas in Contingency Plan
The USCG MSU Wilmington is part of a Coastal NC Area Committee which is preparing the Area Contingency Plan for oil and hazmat incident response. "This plan is written for and by marine industry, stakeholders and government agencies such as NC EM, USF&W, US Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers to name a few. The plan's scope is to identify and establish information and policy for oil spill/hazmat response within coastal NC. They have established a subcommittee to gather data pertaining to boat ramps, pollution equipment staging areas and public beach access to incorporate into the area contingency plan.