EnvironmentalEnvironmental-Conservation Briefing Book 2011
PHOTO CREDITS This page from top: Dawn Weigand, Sandy Adams, Martina Panzer Cover, clockwise from top left: Lynn Gedeon, Sasanne Sande, Carrie Williams, Judith Poppe
Dear Reader Change. Change can be positive. But it can also be challenging. Ohio’s leadership has changed. What does that mean for Ohio’s environment? Our economy continues to change. How does that impact environmental investments and protections? Change also brings opportunities. How can we better harness the energy of our supporters to affect positive change? How can we build on past legislative successes s to continue to conserve our natural resources and protect public health? The coming decade will benefit from the momentum of the passage of Ohio’s landmark energy legislation—which creates investment opportunities in energy efficiency and clean energy— and the Great Lakes Compact—which prevents shipment of Lake Erie waters around the globe. One particular priority for communities will be to fulfill the vision of an Ohio recognized as a green jobs leader.
By connecting access to affordable education with defined career pathways for green industries, we can market and grow Ohio’s green job opportunities. In partnership with a great lineup of non-profit organizations, the Ohio Environmental Council shares a vision of a clean, green, healthy Ohio, and we are pleased to have compiled this year’s Ohio EnvironmentalConservation Briefing Book. Representing tens of thousands of Ohioans, the organizations that contributed to this Briefing Book have prepared a handy guide for agency officials, legislators, and the media, as well as for Ohio’s citizen-advocates. Each section contains background information, public policy recommendations, and contact information from experts in each issue area. Together we can achieve a better Ohio for our families and a prosperous future where our quality of life is built on a foundation of clean water, fresh air, and sustainable land use.
Keith Dimoff Executive Director Ohio Environmental Council
Acknowledgements The following organizations have contributed briefing papers included here: All Aboard Ohio American Lung Association in Ohio Black Swamp Bird Observatory Buckeye Forest Council Environmental Law & Policy Center Enviroscapes Landscape Design Freshwater Future Great Lakes Fishery Commission Green Environmental Coalition Kent State University, Department of Biological Science Miami University, Institute of Environmental Science National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Regional Center The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Chapter Ohio Environmental Council Ohio Network for the Chemically Injured Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter The 2011 Ohio Environmental-Conservation Briefing Book is produced by the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC). It is intended to provide information to the public, legislators, state officials, and media representatives about important environmental and conservation challenges and opportunities in Ohio. Views expressed on a particular issue are not necessarily shared by the OEC, its member groups, or other organizations that have contributed to this book. For a printed version of this book, please contact the Ohio Environmental Council at OEC@theOEC.org or (614) 487-7506. The Ohio Environmental Council is Ohio’s leading advocate for fresh air, clean water, and sustainable land use. We have a widely respected 40-year history of innovation, pragmatism, and success. Using legislative initiatives, legal action, scientific principles, and statewide partnerships, we secure a healthier environment for Ohio’s families and communities.
Please connect with us online! www.theOEC.org www.fracebook.com/OhioEnvironmentalCouncil www.twitter.com/OhioEnviro
Table of Contents Anti-SLAPP Suit Legislation.................................................... 1 Asian Carp.............................................................................. 3 Clean Construction Requirements ………………………………………. 5 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems………………………... 7 Drinking Water Standards Revision.……………………………………. 9 Great Lakes Compact…………………………………………………………... 11 Hydraulic Fracturing (“Fracking”)………………………………………...13 Logging in State Forests ……………………………………………………… 17 Manure Brokering………………………………………………………………… 19 Multiple Chemical Sensitivity………………………………………………. 21 Ohio’s Clean Energy Legislation...……………………………………….. 23 Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers ……………………………………………….. 25 Property Assessed Clean Energy …………………………………………. 27 Public Participation & Transparency…………………………………….. 29 Public Transit Funding………………………………………………………….. 31 Residential Building Energy Codes………………………………………. 33 Utility-Scale Biomass……………………………………………………………. 35 Vernal Pools…………………………………………………………………………. 37 Wetlands………………………………………………………………………………. 39 Wind Power Facilities & Migrant Bird Habitats…………………. 41
List of Ohio’s Environmental-Conservation Groups……………… 43
Anti-SLAPP Suit Legislation THE ISSUE Public participation in regulatory decision-making is essential to the democratic process, especially when the decisions concern issues that could impact human and environmental health. However, public participation is merely an empty concept if the public is silenced and bullied out of participation through the threat of multimillion dollar lawsuits. These lawsuits, commonly referred to as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits, often arise in environmental and property use issues, and are filed in an attempt to silence individuals and organizations who speak out against controversial corporate or development projects. SLAPPs are sometimes difficult to differentiate from any other liability action and frequently contain claims for libel, slander, defamation, malicious prosecution, and/ or abuse of process. The idea is not for the corporation or developer to win the suit, but to use high-dollar amounts to scare the defendants to end their opposition. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. In other words, they want to scare a party into silencing their protests. This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others may refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern. SLAPP suits also obstruct resolution of the public matter at issue by moving the parties from the public decision-making forum to a court of law, where the subject is the effect of the opposition, not the effect of the subject of the opposition on the community.
THE NEED Every year thousands of people are hit with SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officials, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints over violations of environmental and human health laws, "whistleblowing" in corporations, or organizing community members.
Briefing Book 2011
1
In Ohio, just in the past year, SLAPP suits have been filed against individuals and small community organizations who dared to publicly oppose permits for air and water pollution emitting facilities. Ordinary citizens, ordered to federal court and forced to defend a six-figure lawsuit, all for questioning the appropriateness of a pollution source in their backyard. Twenty-six states currently have some form of Anti-SLAPP provisions in law that protect SLAPPed defendants from this injustice, and permitting the quick dismissal of these baseless allegations and permitting defendants recoup fees. Unfortunately, Ohio does not have such protections. protections
Anti-SLAPP laws discourage “Big Business” from using malicious litigation to punish small businesses, advocacy organizations ,and individuals who demand fair and lawabiding business operation by speaking out against corporate abuses of permit and property uses. I t also helps to minimize threatening and frivolous litigation between businesses, and discourages vindictive suits filed by disgruntled employees. As a formidable addition to anti-SLAPP laws, eight states have enacted “SLAPP-back” legislation, as the ultimate deterrent to bad actors and unscrupulous lawyering. “SLAPP-back” allows a defendant who has demonstrated that their speech was constitutionally protected to obtain compensatory as well as punitive monetary damages from the entity that filed the SLAPP suit.
• For the future of free-speech around governmental decisions, Ohioans need tortreform protections from unconscionable use of litigation to silence responsible public debate. The Ohio General Assembly should enact Anti-SLAPP legislation, with SLAPP-back provisions that provide for compensatory and punitive money damages to deter future silencing of a citizen’s First Amendment rights to petition its government and speak freely.
For More Information Trent Dougherty Staff Attorney, Director of Legal Affairs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Trent@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org Also visit the OEC’s Ohio Environmental Law Center at www.ohioenvirolawcenter.org
Briefing Book 2011
•
2
Asian Carp THE ISSUE Environmental DNA testing has detected the presence of Asian carp throughout the Chicago Waterway System and in Lake Michigan. A spawning population of Asian carp also has been detected in the Wabash River, IN, just a half-mile flood plain from the Maumee River. Unless decisive action is taken, it may only be a matter of time before Asian carp make their way to Lake Erie, destroying the recreational and economic value that Lake Erie’s fishery provides Ohio. Asian carp are voracious feeders, requiring large amounts of plankton, making Lake Erie an ideal habitat for these devastating fish. Lake Erie, the shallowest and warmest of all the Great Lakes, is the most biologically productive Great Lake. It produces more fish for human consumption than all of the other lakes combined. Asian carp require a minimum of 62 miles of undammed river length to reproduce; they prefer turbid waters. Several scientists have noted that the timing of spawning is more related to turbidity increase than hydrology. This may be a defense mechanism because the eggs and larvae are defenseless to sight-feeding predators while in the drift. In Ohio, the Maumee, Black, Vermillion, Huron, and Portage rivers meet the required criteria for Asian carp reproduction. All of these conditions suggest that Asian carp would be able to grow, live, and reproduce in the Lake Erie watershed. Asian carp can grow to more than 4 feet long and weigh up to 100 pounds. They can jump several feet out of the water when disturbed by a boat motor. Imagine a 100pound fish leaping out of the water and smacking into someone. In the Mississippi River, adults have sustained broken collarbones, noses, and teeth, as well as being knocked unconscious. Think about what could happen to a child hit by one of these! Asian carp also can dominate aquatic ecosystems by out-competing native fish for food and habitat, like perch, bass, and walleye. As they feed near the base of the food chain, they can cause an entire system to become depauperate (poorly or imperfectly developed). This is particularly concerning because Lake Erie is the walleye capital of the world and supports one of the biggest freshwater commercial fisheries in the world. In Ohio, about a third of the state’s perch quota is allotted to the commercial fishing industry. Each year more than $801 million is generated for Ohio due to recreational fishing in the Ohio Lake Erie basin. If Asian carp invade the Great Lakes, they could devastate Ohio’s $1 billion fishing industry in Lake Erie and permanently alter how recreational boaters, anglers, wildlife watchers, and tourists use and enjoy Lake Erie and its many tributaries. As a result of tourism and travel from boaters, anglers, and wildlife watchers, Ohio gains $10.1 billion in revenue annually and supports more than a quarter of a million jobs. The impact of the Asian carp would be irreversible to the people, wildlife, and economies that rely on Lake Erie.
THE NEED Briefing Book 2011
3
Hydrological separation of the Mississippi River basin from the Great Lakes basin must be a top priority, especially the connection at Chicago and eventual severing of other connections, like connections in St. Mary’s and the Portage Lakes in Ohio. This will achieve our objective of stopping the movement of live organisms between the two basins. The only way to guarantee achieving that objective long-term is by physically separating the two basins - hydrological separation. Any other option (e.g. technology barriers, dead zones, perpetual chemical treatments) will ultimately fail.
To achieve this goal, it is essential that we prevent Asian carp from establishing breeding populations in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie; the most effective way to do that is by hydrological separation. This includes eradicating carp that are past the electric barrier, and ensuring carp do not spread through pathways leading into the Lake Michigan and Lake Erie watersheds. There are multiple management strategies for achieving this objective (poisoning, lock closures, electrofishing, population control, additional technology barriers, etc.), but none of them can prevent establishment alone. These strategies must be applied aggressively, strategically, flexibly, and in a coordinated way to be successful in stopping the carp from establishing breeding populations in the lakes.
RECOMMENDATIONS The Ohio General Assembly should pass a resolution urging Congress to: •
•
•
•
Require federal agencies to take every action necessary and possible to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, including closing the two Chicago locks; chemical controls; increased monitoring (eDNA) and speeding up test processing; building power; and constructing hydrological barriers to prevent overflow (flooding) as identified in the Alternate Pathways Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE. Extend and expand USACE’s emergency authority to take action against Asian carp entering the Great Lakes via the Chicago waterway system or other pathways such as the Wabash River via the Maumee River. Support the Stop Asian Carp Act, which would requires the USACE to conduct and expedite a study detailing engineering options in order to determine the best way to permanently separate the Mississippi River Basin from Lake Michigan, also address flooding threats, Chicago wastewater, water safety operations, and barge and recreational vessel traffic alternatives, and examine other modes of transportation for the shipping industry and influence new engineering designs to move canal traffic from one body of water to the other without transferring invasive species. Direct the USACE to expedite construction of any and all barriers to accomplish this hydrologic separation based on risk assessment but not contingent upon the presence of invasive species.
The Ohio General Assembly also should direct the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to coordinate with the USACE in Ohio on aspects of the Alternate Pathways Study to stop of the spread of Asian carp through Ohio and provide related funding as necessary.
Kristy Meyer. Director of Agricultural & Clean Water Programs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506, Kristy@theOEC.org Donald Arcuri, U.S. Advisor at Large, Ohio Great Lakes Fishery Commission Ohio AIS Management Advisory Team 45343 Parsons Rd. Oberlin, OH 44074 (216) 214-6724, donarcuri@juno.com
Jill M. Ryan , Executive Director Freshwater Future P.O. Box 2479 Petoskey, MI 49770 (231) 348-8200, jill@freshwaterfuture.org Marc Smith, Policy Manager National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center 213 W. Liberty St., Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734)255-5413, msmith@nwf.org http://online.nwf.org/site/PageServer? pagename-glnrc_homepage
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
4
Clean Construction Requirements THE ISSUE Diesel engines are efficient, durable, and long-lasting pieces of machinery. Their low maintenance and efficient generation of power and electricity has led to their widespread use in heavy duty buses, trucks, trains, marine vessels, and non-road equipment used in construction and agriculture, and at airports. Yet diesel engines have a downside. Their emissions contain harmful components such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, as well as 40 hazardous air pollutants, including known or probable carcinogens. In fact, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), diesel exhaust presents a lung cancer risk seven times higher than the cancer risk of all other air toxics combined. Exposure to diesel emissions has been linked to serious health effects, including a compromised immune system, aggravated asthma and allergy symptoms, heart and lung disease, cancer, and early death. Ohio is hit especially hard. According to the Clean Air Task Force, Ohioans suffered these diesel pollution health impacts in 2010: • 627 early deaths • 879 non-fatal heart attacks • 18,582 asthma attacks • 723 pediatric asthma ER visits • 73,022 work loss days The combined health impacts of diesel pollution also cost Ohio $5.1 billion in health care costs and lost worker productivity. Ohio’s diesel soot cancer risk is 334 times greater than the U.S. EPA’s acceptable risk level of one in a million.
THE NEED The U.S. EPA has adopted clean emissions standards for all highway diesel trucks made beginning in model year 2007. This is positive. However, an existing 11 million diesel trucks as well and construction vehicles are expected to remain in service and continue polluting at elevated emission rates for up to another 30 years. The non-road diesel vehicle and equipment pollution, including construction equipment, is estimated at 6,032 tons per year of particulate matter and 69,574 tons per year of nitrogen oxide (NOx). In Ohio there are at least 50,000 pieces of construction equipment. Briefing Book 2011
5
The state’s Ohio Diesel Emission Reduction Grant program has aided private and public fleets in installing retrofits and replacing older vehicles with newer ones. However, the demand exceeds current resources. The last round saw 19 applications totaling $18.8 million with a cash match of $4.6 million. The program, however, had only $12.5 million to award, and awarded 16 applicants. In 2010, the program has even less funds ($5 million). The U.S. EPA estimates that, for a similar program at the national level, for every $1 spent on diesel cleanup programs, $13 is realized in health and economic benefits.
Diesel pollution contributes to nearly one-third of Ohio counties failing federal air quality standards for particulate matter (PM 2.5) pollution and soon-to-be new eight-hour ozone standard. Solutions exist through the six “R’s” of diesel cleanup: • • • • • •
Refuel with cleaner fuels. Repower installing new, low-emission engines in older chassis. Replace older vehicles with new lower-emission models. Rebuild or repair by performing routine maintenance and periodic engine rebuilds can keep emission rates at or near original levels. Reduce idling can save money by reducing fuel usage as well as wear and tear on the engine. Retrofiting engines with modern emission control technologies that can cut pollution up to 95%.
RECOMMENDATIONS •
The state should invest $50 million a year in the Ohio Diesel Emission Reduction Grant program. Using U.S. EPA’s estimates, this $50 million investment would yield $650 million in health and economic savings.
•
The state should adopt clean construction requirements to require all construction projects sized $2 million or larger that use public funds to install modern pollution controls or convert to compressed natural gas engines.
•
The state should adopt a stringent no-idling policy for state vehicles and a state law prohibiting excessive idling (similar law in Illinois and in the city of Cleveland).
•
Local governments should adjust construction contracts to prefer clean fleet projects.
•
The Federal government should require all public works projects sized $2 million or larger to use retrofitted engines or compressed natural gas only.
David R. Celebrezze Director of Air & Water Special Projects Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 David@theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
6
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems THE ISSUE A new study’s findings reveal that people who breathe cleaner air live longer; and the cleaner the air, the longer the extension - up to 1.37 years. Studies also indicate that the cost in real dollars of air pollution is exorbitant. For example, California loses $28 billion annually. Historically, Ohio has led the nation in air toxicity; we can safely surmise that people are dying prematurely and our economy is losing money. Wouldn’t it be in our best interest to ensure that major point sources of pollution in Ohio – including power plants, refiners, chemical producers, cement kilns, and other manufacturers – operate with modern pollution controls? Part of modern pollution controls involves Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS). State legislation is needed for CEMS to become part of healthy and responsible business practices because CEMS are not federally required or voluntarily added by companies. CEMS would allow more timely and accurate reporting of emissions. Currently, emissions testing for many facilities is required only at permit renewal every 2.5 years. CEMS also would allow more transparency for surrounding communities and would remove bias from the Toxic Release Inventory, Annual Emissions Statements, and Annual Emissions Fee Reports as these currently are self-reported. Another key to modern pollution controls is the use of the best available technology. It is estimated that using state-of-the-art equipment could reduce airborne mercury emissions by as much as 90% with comparable reductions of other harmful emissions. Continued development of modern pollution controls, installation, and continued maintenance creates a need for more skilled workers in our state and continually improves air quality.
THE NEED Of particular concern in Ohio are emissions from cement plants. In Fairborn, Ohio, the CEMEX plant recently was given permission to the test burning of whole tires as supplemental fuel in their cement kilns.
Briefing Book 2011
7
It is known that tire burning releases many toxic chemicals and leads to the formation of dioxins and furans, pollutants categorized by the U.S. EPA as having no safe levels. In addition, cement kilns generate 22,918 pounds of airborne mercury each year, before the added detriment of burning whole tires. It is estimated that 8% of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have enough mercury in their blood to put a baby at risk for cognitive and developmental damage. With dozens of schools, child care facilities, and nursing homes near the CEMEX plant, as well as a state park, this is a poor location for increased emissions. Regulation of CEMEX and other industries is direly needed. CEMEX does not make use of the best available pollution control technologies at its Fairborn facility and has said publicly that it would not install CEMS without a state mandate.
RECOMMENDATIONS We are asking to be allowed to breathe cleaner air. We are asking for Ohio’s major point sources, including CEMEX, to be regulated more strongly for our health and economic vitality. •
Let the people of Ohio live longer and healthier lives by ensuring that the air we breathe is as free from as much pollution as possible. If pollution is bad for health, regulations limiting that pollution are good for health.
•
Require all major point sources in Ohio to install and use CEMS. CEMS should be installed promptly with data made available in real-time on the internet being a condition of state permits.
•
When permitting major point sources, mandating that best available technology be used as state-of-the-art air pollution controls will have a significant impact on air quality. Updating pollution controls at a specific interval would ensure continued compliance and could be part of the permitting process.
•
Mercury emissions should be immediately monitored and regulated.
•
Finally, do not wait for the U.S. EPA to set standards but allow our state’s regulatory agencies, acting on the best available science, to do what is necessary in their jurisdictions to maintain the population’s health.
For More Information
Briefing Book 2011
Dawn Falleur Green Environmental Coalition P.O. Box 533 Yellow Springs, OH 45387 (937) 767.1036 gec@greenlink.org www.greenlink.org
8
Drinking Water Standards Revision THE ISSUE Tap water from any system has the potential to become contaminated, if not monitored and enforced regularly. While we may have the safest drinking water in the world, we could certainly be doing a better job to make sure our drinking water is free of dangerous chemicals. Currently, there is a lack of easily accessible information about drinking water quality and regulations available to Ohio citizens. The current integrity is threatened by several areas of concern: • Aging public water systems • Funding challenges • No unified management body at the community level • Small public water systems are major violators • The majority of violations have to do with monitoring • Current public water systems cannot keep up with greater amounts of contaminants
Briefing Book 2011
9
THE NEED •
Monitoring violations means no analysis for contaminants was taken whether contaminants present or not.
•
Small water systems (i.e. gas stations, restaurants) usually have issues with aged infrastructure, low budgets and general management knowledge of their water system.
•
Penalties are not immediately assessed; the E.P.A. seeks a civil lawsuit, which is time consuming & labor intensive.
RECOMMENDATIONS Develop education programs for new water systems Increase penalties for monitoring violations Mail reminders of when to monitor more frequently Create an internet monitoring database Create a public rating system of violation history Combine small systems with large systems
For More Information Miami University Institute of Environmental Science 102 Boyd Hall Oxford, OH 45056 (513) 529 5814 ies@muohio.edu
Briefing Book 2011
• • • • • •
10
Great Lakes Compact THE ISSUE The Great Lakes are a world-class treasure, holding 20% of the Earth’s and 95% of our nation’s freshwater supply. They are a sanctuary for a diversity of wildlife and provide unparalleled recreational opportunities. The Great Lakes serve as a vital source of drinking water and provide jobs for millions of people. They truly are among the natural wonders of the world. While the Great Lakes are a vast and precious natural resource, they are very fragile and vulnerable to depletion and degradation. Each year, groundwater recharge, snowmelt, and rainfall replenish only about one percent of the water in the basin. The other 99% is finite and nonrenewable. Thus, in 2008, Ohio joined with seven other Great Lakes states in adopting the Great Lakes Compact—an unprecedented joint agreement providing protections against diversions of water outside of the Great Lakes basin and unwise water use within the basin. Following the passage in each individual state, the Compact was adopted by the U.S. Congress and is now law. The Compact significantly increases protection of the Great Lakes basin waters by, among other provisions: •
• •
Prohibiting the diversion of water out of the Great Lakes drainage basin, except for small diversions to nearby communities suffering public supply shortages; Requiring each state to develop environmental standards for judging new water withdrawal proposals; Requiring each state to develop and implement a voluntary or mandatory water conservation and efficiency program consistent with the state’s goals and objectives.
IMPLEMENTING THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT
Briefing Book 2011
11
Now, each state must develop a process for implementing the protections outlined in the Great Lakes Compact. Ohio’s General Assembly must now pass legislation to put into action the programs and protections required by the Compact. These include a permitting program for new or increased water withdrawals and a conservation program for all water users. These programs should be based on the latest scientific information; anything less will fail to fulfill the promise of the Compact and compromise the integrity and economic value of Lake Erie and Ohio’s streams.
RECOMMENDATIONS The Ohio General Assembly must pass implementing legislation that ensures: •
Threshold amounts of water for new or increased withdrawals and consumptive uses are based on sound science – what the ecosystem can handle – not on politics;
•
A science-based assessment tool is developed to evaluate whether new or increased withdrawals will cause significant adverse resource impacts and determine the potential water supply available for use and is continually updated; and
•
Any new or increased withdrawal or consumptive uses include strong water conservation and efficiency components to ensure “Environmentally Sound and Economically Feasible Water Conservation Measures.”
For More Information Kristy Meyer Director of Agricultural & Clean Water Programs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Ave., Ste. 201 Columbus, Ohio 43212 (614) 487-7506, Kristy@theOEC.org Josh Knights Executive Director, The Nature Conservancy Ohio Chapter 6375 Riverside Dr., Ste. 100 Dublin, OH 43017 (614) 717-2770, JKnights@TNC.org Robert T. Heath, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 (330) 569-3385, rheath@kent.edu Jeffrey M. Reutter, Ph.D., Director Ohio Sea Grant College Program, F.T. Stone Laboratory Center for Lake Erie Area Research, and the Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium The Ohio State University Area 100 Research Center, 1314 Kinnear Rd. Columbus, Ohio 43212 (614) 292-8949, reutter.1@osu.edu Rick Graham Izaak Walton League of America, Ohio Division 13217 Patten Tract Rd. Monroeville, OH 44847 (419)465-2283, Rick.Graham@ohiostatebuckeyes.com
Kevin Joyce Executive Director, Black Swamp Conservancy P.O. Box 332 Perrysburg, OH 43552 (419) 872-5263, kjoyce@blackswamp.org
Additional knowledgeable experts Kathryn Hanratty Owner, Enviroscapes Landscape Design P.O. Box 1064 Chardon, OH 44024 (440) 477-5468 enviroscapesdesign@windstream.net Sandy Bihn Executive Director, Lake Erie WATERKEEPER 6565 Bayshore Rd. Oregon, OH 43618-1077 (419) 691-3788, sandylakeerie@aol.com Janet Reeves Registered Nurse, District Three Ohio Nurses Association Board Member, Animal Charity of Ohio Board Member, Animal Charity Humane Society 5491 Tippecanoe Road Canfield, OH 44406-9538 (330) 726-0663, j_net_44406@yahoo.com Marc Smith Policy Manager, National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center 213 West Liberty St, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 255-5413, msmith@nwf.org www.nwf.org/Regional-Centers/Great-Lakes.aspx
Briefing Book 2011
Great Lakes Compact Advisory Board Members
12
Hydraulic Fracturing: The Risks of “Fracking” for Natural Gas THE ISSUE Industrial-scale, high-volume hydraulic drilling in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in Ohio poses a direct and material threat to all Ohioans and our environment. The Marcellus and Utica shale formations that together underlie most of the State of Ohio hold large amounts of natural gas deep underneath the surface. Relatively new drilling technology, high-volume hydraulic fracturing, now makes it possible to reach these reserves to extract the gas for energy production. In a modern equivalent of the gold rush, natural gas producers are actively seeking leases for drilling rights throughout the state. Over 1,000 leases are registered in Stark County alone. Commonly referred to as “horizontal hydrofracking” or just “fracking,” deep-shale natural gas extraction uses high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals to release the trapped gas. After drilling vertically to the depth that reaches slightly above the shale, the drill bit is turned horizontally and pushed into the shale, sometimes as much as 3,000 feet. Small fractures are created in the targeted area with underground explosions and a mixture of sand, water, and chemicals is injected at high pressure into the newly created fractures to further crack the rock and release the trapped gas.
THE NEED The environmental and health impacts from high-volume, hydraulic fracturing in other states are well documented and shocking, with a significant number of spills, blowouts, leaking wells, and other accidents and releases of contaminants. Some of these include: methane and other toxic contamination to ground water and aquifers; radioactive contamination of rivers and streams used for public drinking water supplies, and air pollution. Some of the specific risks and issues inherent in hydrofracking as currently practiced are discussed below. Briefing Book 2011
13
Use of Toxic Chemicals Many of the chemicals known to be used in hydrofracking are highly toxic and have serious short- and long-term effects on human health. Drillers are not required, however, to reveal the chemicals contained in products used for hydrofracking, so they often remain undisclosed and their potential risks are unknown to regulatory agencies and to the public.
Industry spokespersons claim that chemicals used in the fracturing process make up only a small fraction of fracking fluids. Even so, each fracking operation can use up to 20 tons of chemicals to each million gallons of water used each time a well is “fracked.” Waste Disposal Some of the fluids used in the hydrofracturing process, called “flowback” or “processed” water are returned to the surface. Only a portion of this waste may be recycled for later use, leaving millions of gallons of wastewater contaminated with toxic chemicals and gasses, as well as heavy metals and radio nuclides released by the fracking process. The wastes are expected to require a significant increase in the number of new injection wells and disposal to local wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater treatment facilities, however, are not equipped to adequately treat the wastewater before releasing it into Ohio’s waters. Pennsylvania gas drillers have sent at least 260 million gallons to wastewater treatment facilities there. Sampling downstream from treatment facilities that accept fracking wastewater finds radionuclides at 100-1,000 times the levels allowable for drinking water. Additionally, evaporation and aerosols from the liquids held in waste lagoons prior to disposal releases hazardous air pollutants, and toxic wastes from a lagoon could be released into the environment due to a storm or pit liner failure. A single lagoon can be as large as five acres. Gas Migration and Chemical Contamination It is unclear how much of the fluids left underground in the fracking process ultimately find their way to the surface. Naturally-occurring fissures and faults or the presence of a previously unregistered abandoned mine can allow highly contaminated fracking fluids, along with natural and methane gases and radioactive debris to migrate upward and be released into aquifers serving drinking water wells and into the air. Closed natural gas wells can continue to ooze for decades after they have been hydrofracked, with the fluids becoming more toxic with age.
Hydrofracturing requires the use of four to seven million gallons of water for each “frack” and a single well could be fracked multiple times. The water typically is trucked in after being withdrawn from local water bodies. The withdrawal of such huge amounts of water from local resources can significantly impact Ohio’s water resources and infringe upon constitutionally protected property rights in groundwater for an untold number of landowners.
Briefing Book 2011
Excessive Water Withdrawals
14
Air Emissions A 2009 study of air emissions from oil and gas production in the Barnett Shale region of Texas found emissions of greenhouse gasses to be equivalent to the expected greenhouse gas emissions from two 750 MW coal-fired power plants. Childhood asthma rates are high, peaking at 25% among fourth graders – more than three times the state wide average. Residents near natural gas operations in Southern Wyoming report experiencing shortness of breath, watery eyes, and nose bleeds from ozone levels that exceed those found on a bad day in Los Angeles. Local Governmental Control over Industrial Zoning House Bill 232, enacted in 2000, removed authority from Ohio’s local governments, including cities, townships and counties, to regulate oil and gas drilling operations. Communities with close-in drilling operations have experienced industrialization in areas previously reserved for other commercial or residential purpose, displacing other industries and businesses and resulting in economic losses. Inadequate Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework over high-impact, high-risk horizontal hydraulic fracturing at the state level is woefully inadequate, lacking the strong and necessary regulations and enforcement scheme and capacity to protect Ohioans and our natural environment. Recent reforms to the Ohio oil and gas drilling law (Senate Bill 165, enacted in 2010) did not contemplate or incorporate any protections specific to the unprecedented scale and foreseeable risk of horizontal hydraulic fracturing/
Briefing Book 2011
15
Oversight is further weakened since Congress has exempted oil and gas exploration and activities – including hydrofracturing – from regulation under basic environmental protection laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also known as the “Superfund Act”, )the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the National Environment Policy Act. Hydrofracturing specifically is exempted from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
RECOMMENDATION •
The Ohio General Assembly should immediately issue a moratorium ordering the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to withhold approval of new well permits involving high volume, horizontal hydraulic drilling, exploration, or extraction until such time as these drilling practices are demonstrated to be safe for the environment and human health and are properly and effectively regulated.
This map from The Columbus Dispatch shows the number of new natural gas drilling leases registered in Stark County in 2010. NOTE: In the text, we reference 1,000 leases in Stark County, but this map seems to reflect less than 1,000 leases. Natural and methane gasses released by the fracking process can migrate upwards through natural and man-made faults and fissures, carrying with it residues of chemicals used in the fracking process and heavy metals and radioactive isotopes.
Ellen Mee Director of Environmental Health Policy Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Ave., Suite 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Ellen@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Cheryl Johncox Executive Director Buckeye Forest Council 1200 W. Fifth Ave, Suite 103 Columbus , OH 43212 (614) 487-9290 Cheryl@ buckeyeforestcouncil.org www.buckeyeforestcouncil.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
16
Logging in State Forests THE ISSUE Once 95% forested, Ohio is now only 30% forested. Most forests in the state are young, highly fragmented, and riddled with non-native, invasive species. Overall, there is a lack of interior or “deep” forest habitat that would support interior forest and headwater stream species. Similarly, there is a drastic shortage of desirable natural areas for public recreation: Ohio ranks 47th in the nation in public land available for recreation per capita and 7th in population. Fewer than 13% of Ohio’s forests are publicly owned. Despite these facts, Ohio’s state forests are managed primarily for logging purposes. Ohio’s 21 state forests comprise 191,000 acres (0.7% of Ohio’s land base) and the Wayne National Forest comprises 234,000 acres (0.8% of Ohio’s land base). While small in percentage, these public areas are critical because they provide the state with larger tracts of contiguous forestland than typically found on private land. Thus, public lands provide an opportunity to preserve and restore healthy and diverse forest ecosystems, while providing for species habitat and low-impact recreational opportunities.
THE NEED
Briefing Book 2011
The Ohio Division of Forestry (DOF), the agency responsible for Ohio’s state forests, significantly under-reports the costs associated with its logging activities. Moreover, DOF’s accounting practices lack transparency. Hidden behind this lack of transparency is the fact that Ohio taxpayers are not reaping a fiscal reward but rather are subsidizing DOF’s logging of state forests. These findings were revealed in the recently released Shawnee State Forest Economic Study, which was commissioned by the Buckeye Forest Council, the Ohio Environmental Council, the Sierra Club Ohio Chapter, and Voices for the Forest.
17
Among the report’s findings: • Program costs reported by DOF between 1997-2007 for management of state forest timber harvests and logging were not anywhere near actual costs. This skewed accounting makes it appear that timber harvests on state forest land are beneficial to taxpayers when in fact they are a fiscal drag on taxpayers. • In some cases, DOF managers failed to account for the cost of most everything except payroll expenses, excluding such obvious costs as equipment, fuel, and controlled burns to regenerate oak growth—one of the highest valued timber species. • Because of accounting omissions, state payments to counties, townships, and local public schools from the proceeds of state timber sales are actually subsidized by taxpayers through the state general fund. • Private forest owners can easily supply the amount of wood produced by Ohio’s state forests, which would likely stimulate job growth in the private sector. • Felling the wasteful state timber harvest program is an opportunity to reduce the size of government and reduce needless spending.
•
•
Managing state forests for biological and recreational services instead of timber production is a high-benefit commodity that cannot be provided by the private sector or most private landowners. State forests are uniquely situated to provide one of the most endangered ecosystem habitats in the eastern United States: large tracts of unfragmented interior forestlands.
RECOMMENDATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
The General Assembly should require DOF to provide a transparent accounting of the true costs of the state’s timber program. Abolish logging payments to counties, townships, and schools, and replace them with regular, predictable contributions. Instead of running the money through DOF, the Ohio legislature could give it directly to schools in need and provide them with more regular and predictable financial support. Ban commercial logging from Ohio state forests. Ohio should re-purpose the Division of Forestry to focus on the management of services provided by interior forest habitats and increased recreational opportunities on state land. Promote late, not early, successional habitat. DOF currently is putting great emphasis on the need to create more early successional habitat, which is habitat that develops after clearcutting. This type of habitat also results from natural disturbances like ice storms. Due to intense logging, this habitat exists in abundance on eastern forests, while forests that are more than 200 years old register as 0%. To increase carbon storage, stop logging state forests and allow them to grow old. Promote and support reforestation of private lands and add agricultural land to the state forest system for the purpose of reforestation. Do not allow state forest biomass to be used as fuel. Stop all prescribed burning on public forested land. DOF’s current justifications for prescribed burns – halting a decline of oaks that is supposedly due to fire suppression and reducing fuel loads from the 2003 ice storm – are not supported by science and are contradicted by DOF’s previous position that prescribed burning is a harmful practice that has no natural role in Ohio’s forests.
For More Information Cheryl Johncox Buckeye Forest Council 1200 W. Fifth Ave., Suite 103 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-9290 Cheryl@buckeyeforestcouncil.org www.buckeyeforestcouncil.org
Briefing Book 2011
•
18
Manure Brokering THE ISSUE You’ve heard of stock brokers and real estate brokers but until recently, the concept of brokering manure has been unimaginable. Traditionally, farmers have spread manure produced by their livestock on their own land, recycling the valuable nutrients into their soils to support next year’s crop. As industrial livestock facilities have grown in size and become more specialized, the concept of a Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) has developed. On a CAFO, a very large number of animals are confined at a particular location onto which feed is imported and livestock products and manure are exported. Therefore, the amount of manure produced dramatically out-paces the availability of nearby land to properly recycle the manure. This imbalance has dramatically increased the amount of time, equipment investment, and record keeping necessary for an industrial livestock facility to responsibly manage its manure volumes. One way of avoiding these requirements is for the livestock facility to contract their manure distribution through a third-party “manure broker.” Such an arrangement relieves the livestock facility owners and managers from the obligation of record keeping (they need only report that the manure was contracted to a broker). This arrangement likewise avoids the need for investment in equipment for manure distribution, and also of their responsibility/liability for any environmental mishaps. Therefore, the challenge of dealing with the massive accumulations of manure, associated with large industrial livestock operations has increasingly fallen to third-party manure brokers. These third-party brokers are legally separate and independent from the producer of the manure and in most cases legally separate from the ultimate recipient of the manure. They operate under a certification program conducted by the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). Those certified under this program are called Certified Livestock Managers (CLMs). The CLMs are required to keep records, but not required to report these records to the ODA nor are their records regarded to be a part of the CAFO permits that are required by the ODA. This distinction has created a major loophole in the regulatory structure for industrial livestock facilities.
THE NEED Briefing Book 2011
19
When a permitted livestock facility directly supervises the distribution of manure produced by its livestock, they are required to report their management plans to the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) as a part of their CAFO permit. The ODA can directly oversee the specific fields, application rates, and timing and methods of application. ODA has great leverage because its permit approval is essential for operation. Beyond that, ODA has the power to administer fines.
In cases where the facility contracts distribution to a third-party broker, livestock facility operators benefit by simplifying their management challenge, reducing their capital investment in equipment, and avoiding liability for proper disposal. The broker may be required to keep records and follow rules for proper application rates and setbacks, but the ultimate landowner carries legal accountability for the ultimate disposition of the manure, including run-off that may occur from his or her property. This represents a major gap in the chain of accountability, effectively removing manure management plans as a part of the operating permits and making it far more difficult for an agency director to know the environmental impact of a permitted operation. So in cases where a livestock facility may reside in a nutrient-impaired watershed, and an agency director may wish to be assured that nutrients will be exported from the watershed, doing so will now require extensive detective work. Thus, the third-party brokering system hinders the agency’s ability to gain such assurances by relieving the facility manager of the obligation to submit a plan to that effect.
RECOMMENDATION Third-party manure brokers should be deemed to accept sole or shared custody for the appropriate distribution of livestock manure under their physical control. Either the livestock facility owner or the third-party contractor should be responsible for supplying a comprehensive manure distribution report to the Ohio Department of Agriculture detailing the particular location (including soil tests), rates, and date of application and soil and weather conditions. Agencies could therefore be assured of proper manure management.
For More Information Joe Logan Director of Agricultural Programs Ohio Environmental Council (614) 487-7506 Joe@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
•
20
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity THE ISSUE Exposures to toxic chemicals found in everyday life can lead to disabling health conditions including Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), asthma, cancer, depression, and Parkinson’s disease. MCS is caused when exposure to toxic chemicals subsequently results in ongoing intolerance to trace amount of numerous chemicals. Some chemical/environmental barriers include: • Fumes from diesel engines, which contain over 40 different toxins including benzene and formaldehyde; natural gas; gasoline; and other petrochemical emissions. • Maintenance chemicals that include cleaning disinfectants, solvents, carpet shampoos, waxes, and polishes, many of which also contain dangerous inert ingredients. • Improper ventilation and oxygen levels in buildings. • Construction and remodeling chemicals and equipment including wallboard, treated woods, paints, wallpapers, solvents, glues, lacquers, and varnishes. • Pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and insecticides, all of which are dangerous and must be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. • Cigarette smoke. • Carpeting that may be manufactured from dyed and treated materials and utilizes toxic foam padding and toxic glues. Chemical residue left by occupants and chemicals used to clean carpeting contribute to the chemical soup. • Food contaminated with heavy metals, toxic sludge, and pesticides. • Fumes emitted by copy machines, faxes, computers, printers, chlorinated, and triplicate part papers. • Fumes from perfumes, scented deodorants, hair sprays, body lotions, laundry soaps, fabric softeners, dry cleaning, and fragrance emission devices.
THE NEED Regulations, policies, and laws are needed to protect people from the escalating health and environmental impacts and resultant disabilities caused by exposures that are easily preventable. Physicians and health care providers need to be trained in this area to provide appropriate medical care to those who have been harmed. Briefing Book 2011
21
While the law provides for the accommodation of all disabilities, public places typically cannot accommodate those with MCS. Published guidelines are needed and would also benefit those suffering other health effects from environmental exposures. The U.S. Access Board completed a study of Indoor Environmental Quality. The studies, published on the website of the National Institute of Building Sciences, present numerous troubleshooting solutions. Committee members learned that those with MCS react to the same triggers as those with other health conditions. Only the response is different.
Successful accomplishments have included inexpensive retrofitting of hospital rooms for MCS patients, the installation of diesel retrofits on ambulances and school buses, the creation of perfume-free public meetings, and guidelines for modifying rooms to accommodate those with MCS. Public places are out of the question for the chemically sensitive without accommodations for their condition. Retrofitting of diesel vehicles with emission controls and the elimination of unnecessary idling can reduce the impacts on the public’s health. Government offices, retail stores, employers, grocers, restaurants, apartments, hotels, entertainment facilities, and others must be educated to initiate readily achievable protocols that will protect the public. Most disabling exposures were preventable.
RECOMMENDATIONS What can be done to protect the public and accommodate those with MCS? • Require retrofits on all diesel ambulances and other diesel equipment. • Require “no idling” policies for all vehicles. • Legislation to control toxic emissions from lawnmowers and outdoor yard equipment. • Create and enforce perfume-free policy for public meetings and events. • Require safe patient rooms and areas in all hospitals and medical offices to accommodate those with MCS and others who have been sensitized. • Fund education about health risks associated with consumer products. • Provide funding and/or grants for programs that encourage and teach the public to read labels, research ingredients, and choose safer alternatives. • Pass legislation that provides safety measures to protect public health from unnecessary exposures in the workplace, multi-family dwellings, and public buildings. • Provide legislative whistle blower protections and incentives to report those who violate. • Create a commission to study and report to the legislature on the health effects from pesticides, fertilizers, and food additives.
Toni Temple President Ohio Network for the Chemically Injured P.O. Box 29290 Parma, Ohio 44129 (440) 845-1888
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
22
Ohio’s Clean Energy Legislation THE ISSUE Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) is Ohio’s landmark clean energy legislation. Passed in 2008 by a 132-1 margin (Republican-controlled House and Senate, combined) and signed into law by former Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, SB 221 created one of the strongest renewable energy and energy efficiency standards in the country. Due to the high level of power production and usage in the state of Ohio1, once the 12.5% renewable energy requirement is fully implemented by the year 2025, Ohio will produce the second highest amount of renewable energy in the country, behind only California. This, along with Ohio’s large manufacturing sector, has the potential to transform Ohio’s economy. This important transition is already beginning. According to PEW, Ohio has experienced the 4th highest level of green job growth in the country. Ohio is now the second largest producer of solar panels in the country2 and, with a new facility in Toledo coming online soon, will be the largest producer in 20113. Several clean energy manufacturing operations have relocated to Ohio precisely because of our renewable energy standard. Equally impressive is Ohio’s energy efficiency standard. Ohio utilities must achieve a cumulative 22.5% energy savings by the year 2025%. Again, if properly implemented, Ohio will have the second strongest total efficiency achievements in the country, behind only California4. Ohio is on the right path – and our clean energy law is attracting significant investment: A total of 1,093 MW of wind generation alone has been permitted by Ohio’s Power Siting Board5. Companies, like Spain’s Isofoton and Prius Energy S.L. are moving manufacturing operations to Ohio6. Ohio is becoming a national leader in energy efficiency. Already, the majority of Ohio’s investor-owned utilities have increased efficiency program budgets by massive margins; hundreds of millions of ratepayer dollars are being directed into cost-effective programs, instead of existing generation, which in Ohio is primarily coal fired. In 2009 alone, the first year of the energy efficiency standard, energy efficiency programs saved enough power to serve 43,000 homes, valued at approximately $398 million7. The savings from a single utility in 2009 and 2010 were valued at $631 million. If you subtract the $162 million the utility spent implementing the program, customers of that utility saved a staggering $469 million in just two years8. Additionally, three of Ohio’s four investor-owned utilities have easily met energy efficiency targets, bringing extensive savings to all customer classes9. Briefing Book 2011
23
____________________________ Ohio is the 4th largest consumer of power behind Texas, California, and Florida. (2007 Data from EIA) Ohio consumes 161,771 million kwh per year. Ohio is the 7th largest producer of power in the country. 3.5% of all energy consumed in the U.S. is generated in Ohio. (2010 Data from EIA). Ohio’s renewable energy and environmental energy laws are tied to consumption, not generation. 2 According to “The Clean Energy Economy” report, PEW June, 2009. 1
3
Solar Energy Industries Association, 1st Quarter 2010 data; Willard and Kelsey Solar Manufacturing
4
Assuming Florida and Texas do not pass and implement similar renewable energy standards.
5
PUCO report to Energy and Public Utilities Committee of Ohio State Bar Association, Jan. 28, 2011.
THE NEED Some are calling for a re-evaluation of this successful legislation. Such a counterproductive move could not come at a worse time, when considering Ohio’s economic recovery and slow return to growth. The renewable energy industry is leading the charge, increasing jobs at a pace unrivaled in other parts of the economy. Additionally, Ohio’s energy efficiency provisions are saving customers’ money. Because of SB221, Ohio is taking a major role in one of the biggest growth industries in the world. Clean energy companies, which include makers of electric cars, solar panels and biofuels, commanded 23% of all venture capital dollars in 201010. Venture capital dollars are coming to Ohio because of this legislation, and jobs and new manufacturing are the result. So what will happen if this essential legislation goes away? • Ohio residential, industrial, and commercial customers will pay much more for energy in Ohio. ⇒ Ohio’s energy efficiency requirements have saved consumers over half a billion dollars already. If this essential requirement goes away, consumers will pay more – much more. • Ohio is becoming a remarkable leader in green energy research and development. Abandonment of our clean energy legislation would smother our Northwest Ohio solar manufacturing hub, our Northeast Ohio wind manufacturing hub, and other new expanding industries like fuel cell production. • Utilities will be able to invest easily in large central generating plants at huge expense forgoing more prudent investments in energy efficiency and distributed generation.
RECOMMENDATION •
Let SB221 continue to work! SB221 is saving customers money and creating jobs. A legislative move that would work to undercut this essential legislation will stifle one the few bright spots in Ohio’s economic picture. SB 221 is about innovation, growth, and, most importantly, lower bills for all consumers: residential, commercial, and industrial.
____________________________ Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Huge Solar Panel Farm Coming to Southeast Ohio,” October, 5 2010.
6 7
2011 Ohio Utility Scorecard, Environment Ohio. AEP report to Ohio Collaborative, February 23rd, 2011. 9 Only the FirstEnergy companies have shown resistance to the energy efficiency targets. FirstEnergy applied for a waiver of its 2010 efficiency obligations in late January 2011. 10 Venture Investment in Clean Tech Companies Rose in 2010, Reuters, March 15, 2011. 8
Nolan Moser Staff Attorney, Director of Energy & Air Programs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Nolan@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
24
Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers THE ISSUE Wood-fired boilers, also called hydronic heaters, burn wood to heat liquid that then heats and provides hot water to homes, buildings, and swimming pools. They are usually located outside the buildings they heat in small sheds with short smokestacks. The smoldering fires create heavy smoke and the short smokestacks release this pollution close to the ground where it lingers. Some people also burn green wood, producing even more smoke, or burn household trash or other debris, which can release harmful chemicals. The recent increase in the use of outdoor wood boilers is of particular concern to public health and environmental agencies because the cumulative stack emissions from these appliances are usually significantly higher than other EPA-certified wood burning appliances and, unlike wood and pellet stoves, are currently unregulated. Emissions from wood-fired boilers can cause serious health problems including increased respiratory symptoms, increased hospital admissions for lower respiratory infections, worsening asthma, and a decreased ability to breathe. Research has shown that fine particulate matter, like that released from wood-fired boilers, contributes to human health problems including cardiovascular disease, chronic lung conditions, and premature death. Those most at risk from wood-fired boiler pollution are children, the elderly, and those with diabetes, lung disease, and heart problems.
THE NEED The use of wood-fired boilers is increasing as people look for ways to reduce heating costs. Ohioans have purchased more than 20,000 outdoor boilers since 1990. Sales continue to increase. High fuel costs make wood-fired boilers an appealing purchase and sales are likely to continue to increase in the foreseeable future. Outdoor wood-fired boilers emit much more pollution than other stoves and furnaces used for heat.
Briefing Book 2011
25
In fact, one outdoor wood-fired boiler can emit as much soot, or fine particle pollution, as : • 2 heavy-duty diesel trucks; • 22 EPA-certified indoor wood stoves; • 45 passenger cars; • 205 oil furnaces; OR • 8,000 natural gas furnaces
RECOMMENDATIONS The Ohio EPA should adopt the model regulation created by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. These regulations require new wood-fired boilers to meet reasonable emissions standards to protect the public’s health and prohibit the burning of materials that would produce toxic chemicals. The model regulations require existing boilers that do not meet prescribed emissions standards to make adjustments to protect the health of neighbors, including: •
Installing a boiler at least 500 feet from a property line, and
•
Having a permanent smokestack that is five feet higher than the peak of any roof structure within 150 feet of the boiler.
David R. Celebrezze Director of Air & Water Special Projects Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 David@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Shelly Kiser Director of Advocacy American Lung Association in Ohio 1950 Arlingate Lane Columbus, OH 43228 (614) 279-1700 Skiser@ohiolung.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
26
Property Assessed Clean Energy THE ISSUE In July 2009, Ohio enacted Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) legislation (House Bill 1). Under Ohio’s original PACE financing law, local municipalities and townships can assist property owners in financing solar improvements such as photovoltaic (PV) or solar-thermal systems. In June 2010, Senate Bill 232 was enacted and broadened the scope of PACE financing to include generated systems such as wind, biomass, and gasification systems as well as energy efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to real property. Once implemented on the local level, these bills will allow Ohio residents and businesses to make investments in energy efficiency and small- and medium-scale solar and other clean energy technologies to homes and commercial and industrial property with low-cost, low interest loans. Under the laws, participating municipalities and townships must establish a Special Energy Improvement District (SID) to facilitate solar improvement financing. Any municipality choosing to establish a SID is authorized by law to issue bonds and apply for state or federal money to fund such programs. Once the homeowner’s system is approved by the city, a program administrator pays the installer for the system that the homeowner purchases. A check is forwarded directly to the installer and there is no upfront payment for the homeowner, except possibly a deposit. Property owners who take advantage of PACE financing and use municipal financing to install solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, gasification, or energy efficiency improvements must agree to a special assessment on their property tax bill for up to 30 years in order to pay for the financing, which can include up to 100% of the cost of energy improvements.
THE NEED Like all assessments, projects with PACE assessments in arrears have a senior lien to mortgage payments in the event of a default. In other words, in the event of nonpayment of the assessment, the respective local government has the ability to foreclose on the property in the same manner as for nonpayment of taxes. Proceeds from a foreclosure would be used to pay off the PACE assessment before the mortgage. Briefing Book 2011
27
Based on the first lien priority status over a mortgage, in July 2010, the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA) issued a statement raising its concerns and directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not to underwrite mortgages for properties with a PACE assessment. The FHFA also directed mortgage lenders to redline communities with PACE programs by tightening lending standards.
Municipalities and townships interested in creating such districts and providing financing for property owners must circulate a petition for eligible property owners to opt in to the program. Once the petition is complete and property owners have opted in, the local government must approve a special energy improvement district via ordinance or resolution. A special improvement district board of directors must be created (if one did not already exist) to implement the program. Each local municipality must determine specific eligibility criteria, the maximum loan amount and interest rates, and other loan terms. The loans are low interest. Ohio’s community financing laws have been successful, but only make solar investments eligible for the special improvement district treatment. We need to expand the program to include low cost energy efficiency and other clean energy investments. RECOMMENDATIONS
•
•
PACE encourages energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in our homes and businesses by providing low-cost, long-term financing. Because basic energy efficiency measures can significantly cut energy costs, annual energy savings typically will exceed the cost of PACE assessments. It is important that Ohio residents and businesses have the opportunity to take advantage of PACE financing and install energy improvements such as weather sealing, insulation, new windows, and solar installations. Also, property owners participating who own a qualifying advanced- and renewable-energy project may be eligible for a variety of federal tax credits. Overall, the potential benefits of the successful implementation of a PACE program in Ohio are considerable. Numerous lawsuits have been filed across the country seeking to uphold the validity of PACE programs. Also, the federal PACE Assessment Protection Act of 2010 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives (H.B. 5766) and United States Senate (S. 3642). These bills were introduced to ensure that FHFA underwriting standards are consistent with, and facilitate the use of, PACE programs. Ohio must develop a coalition to help fight to reinstall PACE programs. We can promote the benefits of PACE financing and request that legislatures sign on to a resolution cracking down on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
For More Information Tara C. Santarelli Staff Attorney Environmental Law & Policy Center 1207 Grandview Avenue, Suite 201 Columbus, Ohio 43212 TSantarelli@elpc.org www.elpc.org
Nolan Moser Staff Attorney, Director of Energy & Air Programs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Nolan@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
•
28
Public Participation & Transparency THE ISSUE Transparency is a necessity when governmental decisions impact human and environmental health. A transparent government, however, must not act as if it’s in a fish bowl, open for the people to see but still shutting out the people from direct participation. Transparency must incorporate a dialogue where ideas are communicated clearly and effectively, participation is afforded to all who seek it, and state agencies are accountable to its citizens. The goal of participation is to improve the quality, legitimacy, and capacity of environmental assessments and decisions. Studies show that effective participation leads to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives, and can enhance trust and understanding among parties.
THE NEED Transparency in State Legislation Much of the activity that goes into the creation and passage of state legislation happens in standing committees. However, the testimony from witnesses, and the questions asked by legislators, witnesses’ answers, and commentary from witnesses and legislators is not transcribed nor in any way made available to the public. Such “legislative transparency” is vital not only to inform the public of the activities of their government, but to memorialize the true intent of legislation, and keep legislators accountable for what they say (or sometime what they do not say) during this vital part of the legislative process. Further, floor session debates, which provide legislators the opportunity to explain why they are voting a certain way on legislation needs to be codified and widely disseminated in order to help keep lawmakers accountable. Transparency in Agency Decision-making Concerning executive agency decisions, too often, the public is provided an opportunity to comment on regulatory changes and permits only after a draft decision is made. For a decision that the agency has taken 6 to 12 months to decide, the public has 30 days to read, seek counsel, and provide meaningful comment.
Briefing Book 2011
29
Public and stakeholder involvement as early as practical in the process would allow the agency to conduct a complete and objective analysis, limit unnecessary legal action, and foster community understanding on sometimes controversial issues. Participation, too, is only effective if the public is adequately notified. Notice of regulatory actions is routinely given through newspaper publication and sometimes by online posting. It is impractical to assume that citizens will be adequately informed only through a newspaper posting.
The agency must be accountable to all parties interested in regulatory changes and permits. Despite well-intentioned efforts, agencies often do not provide adequate responses to community comments or explanations for decisions made in final actions. For the benefit of the parties who took the time, effort, and limited resources to comment on a proposed action, and the validity of the decision-making process, the decision maker must explain why the comment was or was not considered in the final decision.
RECOMMENDATIONS Legislative Transparency The General Assembly must amend its rules and/or pass legislation to allow for: • Transcription of all legislative committee hearings, including: testimony, questions from legislators, answers, and commentary; • Transcription of legislative floor sessions and debates; • Dissemination of these transcripts on readily available websites or otherwise easily accessible by the public; • A mechanism to codify legislative intent for all legislation; Executive Agency Transparency • The Ohio General Assembly should conduct a robust accounting of the best and most productive modes of informing and involving the interested public in decision-making. Ohio must pass one clear and concise law on transparency and public participation processes for all decisions by executive agencies dealing with human and environmental health impacts. • The Ohio General Assembly should require each state agency to publish its responses to any oral and written testimony received, acknowledging the comment and the agency’s official reasoning for or against incorporating it into the permit or regulation at issue. • State agencies must take all practical measures to involve stakeholders and community members throughout the decision-making process. The Ohio General Assembly should review current rules and statutes on public participation, and eliminate any potential barriers to full and effective public involvement. • Technology should be utilized to provide real-time transparent and accurate information on permit processing status. Such a permit tracking system should be readily available and easily identifiable online, and should track permits from the moment an application is received.
Trent Dougherty Staff Attorney, Director of Legal Affairs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Trent@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
30
Public Transit Funding THE ISSUE Up to half of Ohio’s population faces increasing mobility challenges - challenges that will only worsen in the coming years as our population ages and as an energyhungry planet competes for declining petroleum supplies. Ohioans’ access to jobs, health care, education, and shopping is threatened unless our state’s transportation funding policies are changed to offer more choices and less petroleum dependency. Instead, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT is reducing its already tokenlevel public transportation budget to more meager levels that will further isolate Ohioans from jobs, make travelers more vulnerable to gas price spikes and shortages, worsen the state’s “Brain Drain,” and sentence the poor, disabled, and elderly to house arrest. Indeed, 99% of ODOT’s budget is for roads, even though a 2006 analysis by an ODOT transition team revealed that up to 77% of ODOT’s budget can legally be spent on buses, trains, bikes, and walking – transportation other than simply more cars and trucks. Gov. Kasich’s administration apparently wants ODOT to step backwards to serve the Ohio of the 1950s and 60s when driving was increasing and fossil fuel was cheap. In late-2010, ODOT’s Transportation Review Advisory Committee recommended spending $646.2 million for Tier I new-capacity highway projects over 2012-13. Instead, a fiscally responsible moratorium should be placed on all highway expansions and pulling back the public’s tax dollars to help communities expand public transit, rail freight and passenger services, and safe bike/pedestrian routes. And, emphasis should be placed on maintaining existing roads and bridges rather than build more new roads which ODOT cannot afford to sustain. In the past year, ODOT used $10 million in non-gas tax state funding to leverage $40 million in federal funds for transit. However, All Aboard Ohio points to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics which estimates 4% of gas taxes come from nonhighway users (agriculture, marine, state, county, and municipal activities, industrial and commercial use, and construction vehicles, etc). In Ohio, where taxes collected from motorists must, by state constitutional law, be spent on highways, that could mean that more than $40 million of state gas tax revenues may be flexible for use in non-highway transportation. Combined, the $50 million would be enough to leverage another $200 million in federal funds for Ohio’s transit needs. This is just one of many ideas for raising the necessary funds to provide a more appropriate level of transit funding for Ohioans.
THE NEED Briefing Book 2011
31
If the State of Ohio provided at least $250 million per year to public transportation, it would acknowledge 21st century transportation priorities and realities: •
•
That would raise Ohio, the 7th-most populous state, to 12th in the nation in per-capita investment in transit (SOURCE: American Public Transit Association). Ohio ranks 12th in the nation in transit use (SOURCE: ODOT).
•
• • •
Hundreds of Ohioans jammed ODOT statewide public hearings in 2008, with requests for increased transit investment being a dominant theme (SOURCE: ODOT). More transit investment will respond to citizens’ basic needs as 8.5% of Ohio households have no car (SOURCE: Census). To meet that need, 8.5% of ODOT’s biennial budget should go to transit - $210 million per year (SOURCE: ODOT). A more robust figure of $250 million per year for transit operating and capital assistance would acknowledge that nearly 3 million Ohioans must share cars (living in 1.2 million one-car households), and 2 million Ohioans are 65 years or older (SOURCE: Census).
Yet this does not account for dramatic changes in the transportation market that ODOT will ignore with its FY2012-13 budget request: •
•
•
•
Generation Y (ages 21-30, the largest demographic group in American history) represents just 14% of miles driven vs. 21% for the prior, smaller generation in 1995 (SOURCE: Kiplinger Business Research). The second-largest group, the Baby Boomers, started turning 65 years old in 2011 and will become less physically able to drive as often or as far. They will represent 20% of Ohio’s population in 2020 (SOURCE: Census). America imports two thirds of its oil and an equal amount is used for transportation. U.S. motorists’ fuel consumption alone accounts for 11% of global oil production (SOURCE: USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics). Global oil use outpaces new oil discoveries, with the world using about 12 billion more barrels per year than it finds (SOURCE: International Energy Agency).
RECOMMENDATIONS The Ohio General Assembly should:
•
Establish a legislative task force to identify the mobility and accessibility challenges and needs confronting Ohioans over the next 20 years. Recommend long-term, stable investment strategies to address Ohio’s mobility and accessibility needs with more travel choices and alternatives to traveling that enhance our quality of life. For More Information Ken Prendergast Executive Director All Aboard Ohio 12029 Clifton Blvd., Suite 505 Cleveland, OH 44107 (216) 288-4883 kenprendergast@allaboardohio.org
Briefing Book 2011
•
32
Residential Building Energy Codes THE ISSUE Building energy codes lay out the minimum requirements for insulation, windows, HVAC equipment, lighting, and other building attributes for energy efficiency. Energy codes are designed to protect property owners from high energy bills. Stronger energy codes also protect the environment and public health by reducing our reliance on dirty energy sources. While Ohio is leading the U.S. in green job development and our low-income weatherization program is one of the best nationwide, we also have some of the weakest residential building codes in the Midwest. Dozens of environmental organizations, consumer advocates, businesses, and public interest groups have joined together to call for more energy efficient codes in Ohio. The national model code for residential construction is the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which is created by the nation’s leading home builders, engineers, architects, consumer advocates, building officials, and consumer advocates. Ohio’s current code is weaker than the 2006 IECC, even though ICF International estimated that most homes built to the 2009 IECC would cost less during construction than Ohio’s current code while saving consumers at least $220 annually in utility bills. In 2008, Ohio also reclassified the climate zone designations, by extending lower efficiency standards to an additional 27 counties or 30% of Ohio’s total population. The new climate zones are an arbitrarily, harmful, and unnecessary change from zones defined and vetted by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Briefing Book 2011
33
THE NEED A strong residential energy code: • Immediately lowers energy costs to the homeowner, creating a positive cash flow from Day One. • Reduces the cost of construction because better insulated homes require smaller furnaces. • Protects homebuyers from high energy costs, reducing risk of foreclosure. • Supports Ohio jobs for the design and manufacturing of insulation and other efficiency technologies, and provides Ohio a competitive edge in these industries • Reduces health and environmental effects of increased energy consumption. • Allows the State of Ohio to obtain free or low-cost training for code officials and builders from the U. S. Department of Energy. • Allows consumers to spend the money saved on energy bills in other sectors of Ohio’s economy.
RECOMMENDATIONS • Ohio should adopt the 2009 IECC and set in place policies to require the adoption of the IECC immediately after a new version is published every three years. • Ohio should adopt the climate zone map created by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Jennifer Miller Sierra Club Ohio Chapter 131 North High Street Suite 605 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 461-0734 jennifer.miller@sierraclub.org
Nolan Moser Staff Attorney, Director of Energy & Air Programs Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 Nolan@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
34
Utility-Scale Biomass: A Critical Threat to Ohio’s Forests THE ISSUE Power companies in Ohio have set their sights on burning trees for electricity as a way to get a few more years out of their oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. Utility-scale biomass proposals represent the greatest threat Ohio’s forests have faced since the late Industrial Revolution, when nearly the entire state was clearcut to fuel iron furnaces. Ohio has included “trees” in its definition of renewable energy sources, and utilities appear willing to exploit this to the maximum extent possible. Under Ohio’s renewable energy laws, utilities can receive certification from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to collect renewable energy credits (RECs) for burning wood fuel. Utilities can then sell RECs for profit, or use them to help satisfy state requirements to generate 12.5% of their electricity from “renewable” sources by 2025. If utilities can rely on biomass energy from forest resources to satisfy their renewable energy requirements, they have less incentive to invest in truly renewable energy options, such as wind and solar. In effect, the state is subsidizing burning our forests and is disincentivizing truly renewable, sustainable forms of energy as well as promotion of efficiency and conservation. Ten Ohio coal-fired power plants are either certified or awaiting renewable energy certification to generate approximately 2,100 megawatts (MW) from burning wood. Nearly 30 million tons of trees would be required to fuel them each year. That would be 645% of Ohio’s annual tree growth. Tree burning on this scale could cut and burn through all Ohio’s forestlands within a decade and completely deforest the state within two decades.
THE NEED Trees are targeted for fuel materials, over agricultural crops and waste because old coal boilers experience many problems from burning agricultural crops. But burning wood for electricity is terribly inefficient; biomass incinerators generally operate at 25% efficiency. That is, for every 100 trees burned, only 25 are converted into energy. Moreover, wood fuel actually releases more CO2 than coal or natural gas per unit of energy generated.
Briefing Book 2011
35
At the stack, carbon emissions from wood-fired biomass facilities are 50% greater than from coal, and 300 – 400% greater than from natural gas. However, stack emissions are only part of the lifecycle carbon emissions of forest harvesting, which include fossil fuels used for harvest and transport, lost carbon sequestration, and soil disturbance following logging. For instance, studies have shown that a replanted clearcut actually gives off more CO2 than it absorbs for as long as 30 years.
There currently is no agency oversight on biomass fuels or their production and transport. The PUCO has stated that “the use of forest resources as biomass energy is conditioned upon sustainable forest management operation,” but the agency has not established any standards to evaluate, let alone ensure, this claim is true. The Ohio EPA, likewise, has stated that it does not have the authority to inspect biomass fuel content or even to consider the air pollution that results from burning various types of biomass fuel. The evidence is clear, from industry reports and permits, that so called “renewable energy” biomass incinerators emit a lethal mix of toxic chemicals into our air and water – this includes particle pollution (PM 2.5), mercury, lead, formaldehyde, benzene, dioxins and greenhouse gases. Leading medical organizations including the American Lung Association, Massachusetts Medical Society, North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Medical Association, and Physicians for Social Responsibility oppose incentives for biomass incinerators because they present an “unacceptable health risk.”
RECOMMENDATIONS •
• •
The Ohio General Assembly should eliminate the use of whole trees and whole treederived fuel as eligible for Renewable Energy Credits (REC) in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The Ohio General Assembly should restrict RECs to woody biomass derived from manufacturing wood waste and invasive species management in the OAC. Utility companies should be required to have all biomass fuel materials certified as being derived from manufacturing waste wood before receiving renewable energy
_________________________________________________________________ 1
Spelter, Henry;Toth, Daniel. 2009. North America’s wood pellet sector. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, p. 6. 2 See Center for Biological Diversity’s December 2008 Comments on Timber Harvesting Plan: Swamped (4-08-020-CAL) www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/.../Swamped_THP_Comments.pdf for a literature review of this and related issues.
In the Matter of the Application of Bay Shore Unit 1 for Certification as an Eligible Ohio Renewable Energy Resources Generating Facility, Case No. 09-1042-EL-REN, Entry on Rehearing (June 16, 2010).
For More Information Cheryl Johncox Executive Director Buckeye Forest Council 1200 W. Fifth Ave, Suite 103 Columbus , OH 43212 (614) 487-9290 Cheryl@ buckeyeforestcouncil.org www.buckeyeforestcouncil.org
Briefing Book 2011
3
36
Vernal Pools: Ohio’s Hidden Wonders THE ISSUE Healthy wetlands are a vital component of our communities. Ohio is a water-rich state (“Ohio” means “Good River,” after the Ohio River) and it is appropriate that the state formally designate wetlands, in particular the vernal pool, for official recognition. Having a state wetland designation acknowledges the important role wetlands play in slowing flood waters and increasing property values, and highlights the unique natural landscape of Ohio. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that fill up with snow melt and rain water in spring and usually dry up in mid-to-late summer. They can be as small as a few feet across or as large as several acres. However, each has been shaped and molded over decades or even hundreds of years.
THE NEED Vernal pools are different than other bodies of water, such as streams, rivers, and other wetlands. Because vernal pools dry up, they do not contain predatory fish. This makes vernal pools valuable amphibian reproductive areas. Vernal pools can be found in all 88 counties in Ohio and provide habitat for a plethora of animals including migratory birds, turtles, snakes, frogs and toads, salamanders, and hundreds of invertebrates. Some of Ohio’s rare and endangered species, such as the blue spotted salamander and the spotted turtle, call vernal pools home or rely on them for their habitat. Current efforts are under way by nonprofit organizations such as the Ohio Environmental Council and the Ohio Vernal Pool Partnership to monitor and document Ohio’s vernal pools. On any given night in the spring, thousands of animals utilize these special places for breeding, eating, and sleeping. Scientists continue to research and reveal vernal pools’ unique ecosystem. For example, the eggs (called “cysts”) of the fairy shrimp that inhabit vernal pools can lay dormant in the ground for more than a decade before hatching. Briefing Book 2011
37
Fairy shrimp are the fresh water cousin to the brine shrimp.
Vernal pools are also home to a unique group of salamanders, the unisexual ambystoma. These “mole” salamanders burrow into the ground. They engage in the rarest act for an animal: that of nature-cloning. Scientists are still studying these rare animals, which rely exclusively on vernal pools for their reproductive survival. Vernal pools not only benefit wildlife, but people as well. As wetlands, they slow flood waters that otherwise would damage private property and public infrastructure. Vernal pools also filter sediment from entering streams and rivers. According the Ohio EPA, sediment is the number one waterway pollutant. Vernal pools support the many animals that eat mosquitoes and their larvae, including frogs, toads, salamanders, dragonflies, and birds. Vernal pools also provide an excellent teaching tool for educating young people about life cycles, geology, and hydrology.
RECOMMENDATIONS •
The Ohio General Assembly should pass legislation that recognizes the vernal pool as the official state wetland and prohibit any impacts to vernal pools until a comprehensive database of vernal pools is created. This modest effort would draw much new public recognition and appreciation of these important, but quickly disappearing, natural wonders.
•
The Ohio EPA should adopt strong protections for vernal pools. Because of their small size, they usually are overlooked or clumped into low quality wetlands.
David R. Celebrezze Director of Air & Water Special Projects Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 David@theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
For More Information
38
Wetlands THE ISSUE Ohio once had approximately 5 million acres of wetlands throughout the state. These dynamic ecosystems provide a plethora of benefits to our communities and are critical contributors to our overall well-being. However, since the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, we have destroyed more than 90% of those wetlands. Ohio ranks second (only to California) in percentage of wetlands lost. As a result, we must put a premium on our remaining wetlands. Wetlands provide many benefits to our state and our communities. Wetlands store and slowly release flood waters that would otherwise cause damage to private property and public infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, buildings, etc.), and contribute to underground water aquifers during times of drought. They allow suspended materials in the water to filter out to the bottom before entering in our rivers and streams. According the Ohio EPA, sediment is the number one waterway pollutant in Ohio. Urban wetlands are usually ranked as “low quality” based on biological diversity. However, their physical and chemical functions are highly valuable because they filter out pollutants that otherwise would reach our rivers and streams. These wetlands play a vital role in the urban setting. Wetlands remove carbon from the air and sequester it. When a wetland is destroyed, the carbon is released and carbon sequestration ceases. A report by the Ohio State University revealed that a one-acre wetland in a temperate zone (like Ohio) can store about 1,250 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. In addition, wetlands provide habitat for thousands of species that rely either completely or partially on wetlands for their life cycles. They also provide opportunities for photography, canoeing, fishing, hunting, and education, and an opportunity to escape the stressful day-to-day life in the city for individuals and families. Wetland types include vernal pools, marshes, fens, bogs, and swamps.
THE NEED Despite these many benefits, wetlands continue to be damaged or destroyed. The Ohio EPA’s 401 wetland and stream permit program does not address all of the benefits that are lost when a wetland is impacted and does not require a natural inventory prior to permitting. Once the wetland is impacted, the wildlife disappears or is displaced, sometimes moving closer to residential areas, causing conflicts with human populations. Briefing Book 2011
39
RECOMMENDATIONS •
The Ohio General Assembly should pass legislation that requires a natural inventory for all 401 applicants to be performed by the applicant. This inventory should reflect the true diversity of a site and not a one-time visit. The inventory should document all birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates (critical links in the food web) and should reflect nocturnal, ephemeral, and diurnal species. This will help to ensure that the mitigated wetland will replace all the original wetland’s values and functions.
•
This legislation also should give the Ohio EPA the authority to develop the system in which a permittee shall collect the data. The Ohio General Assembly should allocate the resources needed for this inventory.
•
The Ohio General Assembly should pass legislation placing a moratorium on wetland impacts in the watersheds of impaired rivers and streams. This would allow the state’s actions to bring these waterways up to the targets of swimmable and fishable water quality.
Wetland loss due to development
For More Information David R. Celebrezze Director of Air & Water Special Projects Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Avenue, Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 487-7506 David@theOEC.org www.theOEC.org
Briefing Book 2011
An Ohio wetland
40
Wind Power Facilities & Migrant Bird Habitats THE ISSUE Every spring and fall, many millions of birds migrate long distances between nesting grounds in Canada or the northern United States and wintering grounds in the southern U.S. or the tropics. These birds mostly fly at night and spend the days resting and feeding within stopover habitats. Within North America a few areas are major stopover habitats, critically important to the survival of large numbers of birds. One such region involves a series of sites along the south shore of Lake Erie, in the northwestern part of Ohio known as the Lake Erie Marsh Region. The stopover areas that support migratory birds and bats in the Lake Erie Marsh Region also support wind resources of great interest to the wind power industry, which now proposes to build wind turbines nearby. Cumulative effects of wind turbines on migratory birds and bats (e.g. direct mortality, avoidance, and disturbance to stopover and breeding) have not been addressed scientifically at a major stopover location nor are there regulations enforcing sound scientific reviews of development actions. The Lake Erie Marshes are recognized as having global significance to migrating birds under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and North American Landbird Conservation Plan. The regional data collected by the Black Swamp Bird Observatory for landbirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors, supports and expands the importance of the region to migrating birds. The Lake Erie Marsh Region is the only documented annual stopover site for the federally endangered Kirtland’s Warbler. The Lake Erie Marsh Region represents the greatest density of nesting Bald Eagles found in the lower 48 states. The sheer numbers and diversity of bird species concentrating in the Lake Erie Marsh Region, bring tens of thousands of birders to northwest Ohio every spring and fall, providing a significant annual boost to the local economy—estimated conservatively at $20 million during just the first half of May—which represents just a portion of the economic development potential of the region through ecotourism that includes hunting and fishing.
Briefing Book 2011
41
There is a lack of scientific research regarding the cumulative effects of direct and indirect mortality on populations in major stopover habitat from wind turbine placement. Post-construction monitoring of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area located along a major migration corridor for raptors in California has shown the highest number of raptor kills in the world. Studies like these, however, have been and are being conducted in areas where birds are in active migration where they are usually flying at heights above the top of the turbines and have not taken into consideration avoidance, disturbance, and other behavior effects that may be identified with preconstruction research. Migration into and out of stopover habitat, like the Lake Erie Marsh Region, changes the flight path equation because each individual bird, of every migrating species, drops in and takes off from these stopover habitats. Compounding the problem is the fact that the arrival and departing flights for most of the migrating birds are during predawn or dusk, when visibility is poor and obstacles present the greatest threat. Similarly, there is a lack of scientific research regarding the importance of the Lake Erie Marsh Region for migratory bats and potential consequences to species populations including the endangered and federally protected Indiana Bat.
Substantial loopholes and gaps exist in wildlife protection laws regarding the placement of commercial wind turbines. No regulations exist on the placement of midsize turbine projects under five megawatts in size. As a result, irresponsible developers can almost unilaterally construct mid-size turbines, nearly anywhere, with little to no consideration of the impacts to Ohio’s critical habitat, heritage, or its loss of important ecotourist revenues to local, regional, or state economies.
THE NEED Renewable energy sources are an important part of the reduction of greenhouse gases and potential global climate change mitigation. Wind power is a major component of any renewable energy portfolio. Ohio law (The Ohio Renewable and Advanced Energy Portfolio) requires electric distribution utilities and electric services companies to secure a portion of their electricity supplies from alternative energy resources. At least 25% of the electricity sold by each utility or electric services company within Ohio must be generated from alternative energy sources by the year 2025. This places the burden of generation of renewable power on the power companies. These mandates result in considerable concern and danger that all environmental impacts will not be investigated and accounted for in the attempt to comply. Considerable data exist to indicate that bird and bat concentration areas have inadequate protection in place to ensure against a net loss of environmental values in certain regions. The Lake Erie Marsh Region depends upon a massive ecotourism base that could be at threat with poor placement of wind turbines. This multi-million dollar ecotourism enterprise, which is highly significant to the economic well being of the western lakeshore counties, and as long as it is healthy, will continue to generate significant tax revenues for Ohio, cannot be ignored as Ohio moves towards wise implementation of renewable energies in the state. Sound environmental review, inclusive evaluation of all cost/benefits, and development of alternative options such as consortium stakeholders with larger turbines in low risk areas can best serve Ohioans’ interest in these challenging times.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For More Information Kim Kaufman, Executive Director Black Swamp Bird Observatory 13551 W SR 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 419-898-4070 kimkaufman@bsbo.org www.bsbobird.org
Briefing Book 2011
That the Ohio General Assembly and Governor’s Office: • Implement a three-year moratorium on the building of any wind turbines greater than 100 foot tall within the area of greatest concern: specifically, within three miles of the Lake Erie and Sandusky Bay shorelines in Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Erie Counties. • Expand the voluntary Wildlife Review Guidelines (under the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife) to include all turbines greater than 10 kilowatts and/or taller than 100 feet at blade tip and be mandatory in the Avian Concern Zones as designated by the Department of Natural Resources.
42
Ohio Environmental-Conservation Groups
Briefing Book 2011
43
1000 Friends of Central Ohio Akron Garden Club All Aboard Ohio Alliance For Regional Transit American Community Gardening Association American Farmland Trust American Rivers Audubon Ohio Audubon Society – Canton Audubon Society – Cincinnati Audubon Society – Clark County Audubon Society – Columbus Audubon Society – Firelands Audubon Society – Miami Valley Audubon Society – Tri-Moraine Audubon Society of Greater Cleveland Aullwood Audubon Center & Farm Black Swamp Bird Observatory Black Swamp Conservancy Blanchard Township PEARLS Breakneck Creek Watershed Coalition Buckeye Environmental Network Buckeye Forest Council Buckeye Trail Association B-W Greenway Community Land Trust Center for Farmland Preservation in NE Ohio Central Ohio Green Education Fund Central Ohio Watershed Council Chagrin River Land Conservancy Chagrin River Watershed Partners Cincinnati Nature Center Citizens for Clean Air & Water Citizens of Putnam County for Clean Air & Water Clark County Audubon Society Clean Air Conservancy Clean Fuels Ohio Clean Water Network Cleveland MetroParks Clinton StreamKeeper Association Consider Biking Council of Ohio Audubon Chapters
Crown Point Ecology Center The Dawes Aboretum Delta Institute Duck & Otter Creeks Partnership Ducks Unlimited Earth Day Coalition EarthWatch Institute East Fork Watershed Cleveland EcoVillage Environment Ohio Environmental Defense Environmental Health Watch Environmental Law & Policy Center Enviroscapes Landscape Design Firelands Audubon Society Firelands Land Conservancy Flora-Quest Food Matters Columbus Franciscan Earth Literacy Center Franklin Park Conservatory French Creek Project Freshwater Future Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries Friends of Arcola Creek Friends of Big Creek Friends of Big Walnut Creek Friends of Conneaut Creek Friends of Hocking River Friends of MetroParks Friends of Minnow Creek The Friends of Old Woman Creek Friends of Pike Run Friends of the Crooked River Friends of the Earth Friends of the Hocking River Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed Friends of the Scioto River Friends of Wetlands Friends of Whiskey Island Gallipolis Bass Busters Garden Club of Cincinnati Garden Club of Ohio Gates Mills Land Conservancy GCO Environmental Council Grand Lake St. Mary’s Lake Improvement Association Grand River Partners
Greater Cleveland Partnership Greater Ohio Campaign Great Lakes Fishery Commission Green City Blue Lake Green Columbus Green Creek Wildlife Society Green Energy Ohio Green Environmental Coalition Green Ribbon Initiative Greenways of Greater Dayton Hocking Voice Indian Lake Watershed Project Innovative Farmers of Ohio Izaak Walton League of America – Akron Men Izaak Walton League of America – Black River Izaak Walton League of America – Buckeye All-State Izaak Walton League of America – Capitol City Izaak Walton League of America – Cincinnati Izaak Walton League of America – Delta Izaak Walton League of America – Ely Izaak Walton League of America – Fairfield Izaak Walton League of America – Fremont Izaak Walton League of America – Hamilton Izaak Walton League of America – Hocking Izaak Walton League of America – Ken Amsbary Izaak Walton League of America – Lawrence Izaak Walton League of America – Martin L Davey Izaak Walton League of America – Medina Izaak Walton League of America – Monroeville/Huron Izaak Walton League of America – Mount Healthy Izaak Walton League of America – Ohio Division
Native Plant Society of Miami Valley Nature Center at Shaker Lakes The Nature Conservancy Ohio Chapter NEOGAP NEFCO New Albany Community Nature Preserve Nimishillen Creek Watershed North Central Ohio Land Conservancy Northeast Ohio Watershed Council Northwest Neighborhood Alliance Northwest Ohio Greenway Coalition Northwest Ohio Watershed Council Ohio & Erie Canalway Coalition Ohio Alliance for the Environment Ohio Bass Federation Ohio Bicycle Federation Ohio Citizen Action Ohio Coastal Resource Management Project Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association Ohio Environmental Council Ohio Farmers Union Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Ohio Green Living Ohio Greenways Ohio League of Conservation Voters Ohio NEMO Ohio Network for the Chemically Injured Ohio Parks and Recreation Association Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy Ohio Smallmouth Alliance Ohio to Erie Trail Ohio Wildlife Center
Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice Old Woman Creek Research Reserve Olentangy River Valley Association Pheasants Forever Policy Matters Ohio Portage River Basin Council Protect Our Earth’s Treasures Raccoon Creek Partnership Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Raven Rocks. Rivers Unlimited Rocky Fork Creek Watershed Protection Task Force Rural Action Scenic Ohio Shawnee Nature Club Sierra Club – Northeastern Ohio Sierra Club – Ohio Chapter SOAR Energy Southeast Ohio Watershed Council Southern Ohio Smallmouth Alliance Southwest Ohio Watershed Council Stillwater Watershed Project Stratford Ecological Center Tecumseh Land Trust Three Valley Conservation Trust Tinkers Creek Land Conservancy Tri-County Protect Our Water Coalition Tri-Moraine Audubon Society Trout Unlimited Trust for Public Land U.S. Sportsman's Alliance Voice for the Forest West Creek Preservation Committee Western Lake Erie Waterkeeper Association Western Reserve Land Conservancy The Wilds
Briefing Book 2011
Izaak Walton League of America – Seven Mile Izaak Walton League of America – Tallawanda Izaak Walton League of America – Tiffin-Seneca Izaak Walton League of America – Wadsworth Izaak Walton League of America – Wayne Kent Environmental Council Lake Erie Charter Boat Association Lake Erie Nature & Science Center Lake Erie WATERKEEPER Lake Improvement Association Lake MetroParks League of Ohio Sportsmen League of Women Voters – Ohio League of Women Voters – Perrysburg Little Beaver Creek Land Foundation Little Cuyahoga River Conservancy Little Miami, Inc. Little Miami River Partnership Local Matters Loveland Greenbelt Community Council Marianist Environmental Education Center Maumee Valley Heritage Corridor Medina Summit Land Conservancy Miami Conservancy District Miami County Park District Miami Valley RCD Council Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Mill Creek Restoration Project Mohican Protection Group Monday Creek Restoration Project Moxahala Watershed Restoration Committee National Wildlife FederationGreat Lakes Regional Center
44