Adaptation, Clean Water Act, Clean Water Act, Climate Change, Levee Construction, Levees, Sea Level Rise

Allowing wetlands to migrate inland as sea level rises – state land use issues

by  • 

Titus J, Hudgens D, Trescott D, Craghan M, Nuckols W, Hershner C, et al. State and local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research Letters. 2009;4(4):044008. with supplement

Rising sea level threatens existing coastal wetlands. Overall ecosystems could often survive by migrating inland, if adjacent lands remained vacant. On the basis of 131 state and local land use plans, we estimate that almost 60% of the land below 1 m along the US Atlantic coast is expected to be developed and thus unavailable for the inland migration of wetlands. Less than 10% of the land below 1 m has been set aside for conservation. Environmental regulators routinely grant permits for shore protection structures (which block wetland migration) on the basis of a federal finding that these structures have no cumulative environmental impact. Our results suggest that shore protection does have a cumulative impact. If sea level rise is taken into account, wetland policies that previously seemed to comply with federal law probably violate the Clean Water Act.

This is an important article with detailed maps showing that piecemeal coastal barriers have massive cumulative effect on wetlands, preventing them from migrating inland as sea level rises.

404, Clean Water Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Restoration, Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Policy, EPA, Geoengineering, Levees, Levees

Breaking The Golden Rule: Judicial Review of Federal Water Project Planning

by  • 

Oliver A. Houck, Breaking The Golden Rule: Judicial Review of Federal Water Project Planning, 65 Rutgers Law Review 1-57 (2012)

From the Abstract

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is one of the oldest institutions
of the federal government, and its dams, levees, and waterways have
changed the American landscape. It is also a conflicted
organization, responding both to the President and to the Congress,
and struggles between them over Corps direction date back to the
age of Jackson. The economic and political stakes in these endeavors
are huge. So are their impacts, which have eliminated towns, prime
farmland, native reservations, wildlife species, and entire
ecosystems. The law behind Corps projects is scanty and the
discretion virtually unbridled, but for a single rule: the benefits, “to
whomsoever they may accrue,” are to exceed the costs. As modest as
this requirement may appear, it has become water resource
development’s Golden Rule. And a field of conflict.

Over the years, a growing appetite for new Corps projects invited
gross manipulations of benefits and costs to justify them.
Presidential attempts to rein them in were frustrated by a Congress
intent on funneling yet more Corps work back home. Starting in the
l970s, local communities, sportsmen’s organizations, and others
then turned to the third branch of government for relief, the courts.
While these plaintiffs brought several claims, the most fundamental
was that the benefits did not exceed the costs, not even close. In the
vanguard of these cases was a navigation canal along the Gulf
Coast called Lower Atchafalaya, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black.
At issue was whether the judiciary had any right to review these
matters at all. The case encapsulate the issue, which remains with
us to this day.

What follows is at one level the story of the Lower Atchafalaya
litigation, told as history and led by its actors to an uncertain
conclusion. Behind it, however, is the nature of this remarkable
institution, the Corps of Engineers, and of executive attempts to
control it, leading to President Carter’s proposal to kill as many as
eighty Corps projects at the start of his term, again on benefit-cost
grounds. Including the Lower Atchafalaya project. The two stories
are wound together in time, and in this recitation as well. They will,
among other things, illustrate both the power and limits of law.
They will also illustrate the difficulty in rethinking institutions on
which so many, for many different agendas, have come to depend.

Coastal Restoration, Coastal Restoration Mythology, Levees, Migration and Displacement, River Diversions, Sea Level Rise

Public Relations for Diversions 101

by  • 

Answering 10 Fundamental Questions about the Mississippi River Delta (original link)

This is one of many reports advocating for river diversions. The basic claim is simple:

Diversions will have impacts on vegetation, particularly on
the distribution of some plant species. However, without
diversions and other methods for introducing nutrient rich
fresh water into the ecosystems of coastal Louisiana, the
wetlands will degrade to open water. Thus, the effect of
nutrients is not large enough to offset the larger benefits of
diversions for coastal Louisiana, particularly if diversions are
pulsed to allow a balance of salt and fresh water

Diversions may cause problems for wetlands, but without diversions there will be no wetlands. The unstated premise is that levees will be built to close off the entire coast of Louisiana. These levees will assure the destruction of the wetlands as sea level rises because the levees will prevent the natural process of inland migration of the intertidal zone. The solution is not diversions, which even if successful, can only sustain a small part of the wetlands, but to stop building levees. It is not surprising that the state of Louisiana is pro levee and diversions. They are huge engineering projects that will provide decades of rich patronage to engineering firms. They also provide false assurance to coastal populations that they are safe and do not need to move. Sadly, this will assure that the next Katrina will do even more damage than the last. What is tragic is that national environmental groups are backing this program of levees and diversions. They are blinded by the word restoration and by the huge amount of grant money the state is pouring into every group that backs its plans. The only environmentally sound position is to stop levee construction, promote the natural inland migration of wetlands, and work for policies that help coastal population migrate inland.

 

 

Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Restoration, Endangered Species, Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Policy, Levees, Surge Barriers

West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction Study

by  • 

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/About/Projects/WestShoreLakePontchartrain.aspx

This is levee system will protect I-10 as it enters New Orleans from the west. Appendix A  has useful information from Fish and Wildlife about endangered species in Louisiana and how the proposed levee will adversely impact them.

West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction Study
Integrated Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A – Environmental
Appendix B – Engineering
Appendix C – Real Estate
Appendix D – Economics
Appendix E – Plan Formulation
Appendix F – References

Project Area Map

—————

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Project Status Update October 16, 2013

See 1st paragraph, slide 18:

 Why are we being assessed mitigation costs against the project, when the report clearly indicates these wetlands will be lost by 2070 due to subsidence and sea level rise?

This is a recognition that the Maurepas forest area will be lost.

——————

 

Geologic History, Mississippi River, Mississippi River

An Introduction to the Environmental Literature of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region

by  • 

An Introduction to the Environmental Literature of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region

This report is a review of selected environmental literature of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region . This review introduces some of the major ecosystem components and processes, describes oil and gas production activities, and guides the reader to available literature.

The seven chapters in this review and the number of references used for each are as follows : Introduction – 5; Geology – 147 ; Hydrology – 98 ; Climate and Air Quality – 78 ; Plants, Fish, and Wildlife – 277 ; Ecology – 135 ; and Oil and Gas – 70 . The format of each chapter is not always the same, but consideration is given to data deficiencies and research needs . This report may serve as a general reference work and aid in the synthesis of more specialized subject material.

This project was conducted under Contract FWS 14-16-0009-78-090 . Funding was provided by the Bureau of Land Management and 11 .5 . Fish and Wildlife Service . This study is designed to be used in planning for Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development and for coastal zone management needs .

This report should be cited : van Beek, J .L ., D .J . Davis, et al . 1981 . An introduction to the environmental literature of the Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region . U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program . FWS/OBS -79/30 .

404, Clean Water Act, Climate Change, River Diversions, Rulemaking

Draft EPA Rule on the Waters of the United States

by  • 

Draft EPA Rule on the Waters of the United States – reduced size PDF (23 megs)

Draft EPA Rule on the Waters of the United States – original PDF (129 megs)

Supporting document on the connectivity of the waters of the United States

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) publish for public comment a proposed rule defining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States. The purposes of the proposed rule are to ensure protection of our nation’s aquatic resources and make the process of identifying “waters of the United States” less complicated and more efficient. The rule achieves these goals by increasing CWA program transparency, predictability, and consistency. This rule will result in more effective and efficient CW A permit evaluations with increased certainty and less litigation. This rule provides increased clarity regarding the CW A regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” and associated definitions and concepts. EPA’s Office of Research and Development developed a report that synthesizes this scientific literature (from herein, “Report”). The Report is under review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and the agencies expect the rule will not be finalized until that review and the final Report are complete. This proposal is supported by a body of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the connectivity of tributaries, wetlands and open waters to downstream waters and the important effects of these connections on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of those downstream waters. Appendix A summarizes and applies currently available scientific literature that is part of the administrative record for this proposal. Additional data and information likely will become available during the rulemaking process, including that provided during the public comment process, and by additional research, studies, and investigations that take place before the rulemaking process is concluded. At the conclusion of the rulemaking process, the agencies will review the entirety of the completed administrative record and determine at that time whether it supports the conclusions of this proposed rule. The agencies will make any adjustments to the final rule deemed to be appropriate at that time.

…

Adaptation, Coastal Retreat

Managed Coastal Retreat: A Handbook of Tools, Case Studies, and Lessons Learned

by  • 

ManagedCoastalRetreat_FINAL_Oct 30

Original Link

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Climate change will change the way we live. No longer will the environment be a static condition, a certainty upon which other variables depend. Rather, it will be a variable itself, and it will make us plan for the future like never before. Already we are beginning to see the effects of change along our coasts. Rising seas and more frequent hurricanes present a dynamic environment that threatens infrastructure long thought to be safe. Our cities are ill-prepared for the dangers of the next century. Fiscally, we are spending more and more to repair the damage. Long-term planning that accounts for climate change is needed to ensure that money spent today will reduce our future risk.

We have the opportunity to not only build resilience today but also prepare for the future, to build the infrastructure that will be the foundation for our cities in the next century. This will require innovation and new technologies. It will also require tough decisions. Some areas will be too vulnerable, despite our best efforts to hold back the sea. Infrastructure and homes will need to be moved away from the threat and the shore opened up to the public. The political obstacles to this strategy will be severe in many places, but consideration of them should begin now.

Numerous legal tools already exist to assist federal, state, and local governments in conducting managed retreat away from the most vulnerable coasts. Scattered publications, toolkits, and websites describe a broad range of legal, policy, and regulatory tools. These tools have, with little fanfare, been used by communities around the United States to implement managed retreat. This Handbook collects examples, case studies, and lessons learned from some of these early innovators in the hope that their lessons can inform future efforts to limit the exposure of our communities to coastal threats. The key legal issues raised by these examples are also discussed.

The Handbook is organized into five sections. Each describes a potential tool, provides examples and information, and then present the lessons learned for that tool. The tools described herein are not the only tools that can or should be used. In fact, significant innovation will likely be needed to address the novel challenges posed by climate change. The tools presented here are simply a selection of those that have been implemented and that can inform future actions.

Climate modification, Geoengineering

Geoengineering the climate – Science governance and uncertainty

by  • 

Geoengineering the climate – Science, governance and uncertainty

Shepherd, JG. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society, 2009.

The continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is driving changes in the Earth’s climate. The long-term consequences will be exceedingly threatening, especially if nations continue ‘business as usual’ in the coming decades. Most nations now recognise the need to shift to a low-carbon economy, and nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a ‘plan B’—to seek ways to counteract the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions by ‘geoengineering’

Many proposals for geoengineering have already been made—but the subject is bedevilled by much doubt and confusion. Some schemes are manifestly far-fetched; others are more credible, and are being investigated by reputable scientists; some are being promoted over-optimistically. In this report, the Royal Society aims to provide an authoritative and balanced assessment of the main geoengineering options. Far more detailed study would be needed before any method could even be seriously considered for deployment on the requisite international scale. Moreover, it is already clear than none offers a ‘silver bullet’, and that some options are far more problematic than others.

This report is therefore offered as a clarifi cation of the scientifi c and technical aspects of geoengineering, and as a contribution to debates on climate policy. The Society is grateful to all the members of the Working Group, and especially to John Shepherd, its chairman. We also acknowledge the valuable inputs from the Council’s review group, and the expert support, throughout the exercise, of the Society’s Science Policy team.

National Flood Insurance Program

Standard Flood Insurance Policy Forms

by  • 

http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/standard-flood-insurance-policy-forms

Standard Flood Insurance Policy Forms

Main Content

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers three Standard Flood Insurance Policy forms. These forms provide policyholders with a description of their coverage and other important coverage information.

Dwelling Policy Form

The Dwelling Policy Form may be issued to homeowners, residential renters and condominium unit-owners, owners of residential buildings containing two to four units.

In communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regular Program* or Emergency Program** the dwelling policy provides building and/or contents coverage for:

  • Detached, single-family, non-condominium residence with incidental occupancy limited to less than 50% of the total floor area;
  • Two- to four- family, non-condominium building with incidental occupancy limited to less than 25% of the total floor area;
  • Dwelling unit in residential condominium building;
  • Residential townhouse/rowhouse
  • Manufactured mobile homes

General Property Policy Form

The General Property Policy Form may be issued to owners or lessees of non-residential buildings or units, or residential condominium buildings that are uninsurable under the Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (RCBAP).

In communities participating in the NFIP Regular Program* or Emergency Program** the General Property Policy provides building and/or contents coverage for these and similar “other residential” risks:

  • Hotel or motel with normal guest occupancy of 6 months or more;
  • Apartment building;
  • Residential cooperative building;
  • Dormitory;
  • Assisted-living facility.

And non-residential risks:

  • Shop, restaurant, or other business;
  • Mercantile building;
  • Grain bin, silo, or other farm building;
  • Agricultural or industrial processing facility;
  • Factory;
  • Warehouse;
  • Poolhouse, clubhouse, or other recreational building;
  • House of worship;
  • School;
  • Hotel or motel with normal guest occupancy of less than 6 months;
  • Licensed bed-and-breakfast inn;
  • Retail;
  • Nursing home;
  • Non-residential condominium;
  • Condominium building with less than 75% of its total floor area in residential use;
  • Detached garage;
  • Tool shed;
  • Stock, inventory, or other commercial contents.

Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (RCBAP) Form

The Residential Condominium Building Association Policy Form may be issued to condominium associations to insure eligible residential condominium buildings.

In participating NFIP Regular Program* communities only, provides building coverage and, if desired, coverage of commonly owned contents for residential condominium building with 75% or more of its total floor area in residential use.

 

*Regular Program– The final phase of a community’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. In this phase, a Flood Insurance Rate Map is in effect and full limits of coverage are available under the Act.

**Emergency Program-The initial phase of a community’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. During this phase, only limited amounts of insurance are available under the Act.

Last Updated:
06/13/2012 – 14:33
404, Clean Water Act, EPA

EPA – Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters

by  • 

Draft Report – 12 Meg

Draft Report – 6 meg

This report reviews and synthesizes the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the connectivity or isolation of streams and wetlands relative to large water bodies such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. The purpose of the review is to summarize the current understanding about these connections, the factors that influence them, and the mechanisms by which connected waters, singly or in aggregate, affect the function or condition of downstream waters. The focus of the review is on surface and shallow subsurface connections from small or temporary streams, nontidal wetlands, and certain open-waters. Specific types of connections considered in this review include transport of physical materials such as water, wood, and sediment; chemicals such as nutrients, pesticides, and mercury (Hg); movement of organisms or their seeds or eggs; and hydrologic and biogeochemical interactions occurring in surface and groundwater flows, including hyporheic zones and alluvial aquifers.