1 / 21

Environmental Consequences of Protection Schemes

Environmental Consequences of Protection Schemes. CEE 129: Stanford University Project on Engineering Responses to Sea Level Rise Katie Jewett FALL 2010. Overview. Ecosystem Services Impact Assessment Valuation Techniques Case Studies: Port of LA/Long Beach* Port of Providence.

faris
Download Presentation

Environmental Consequences of Protection Schemes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Consequences of Protection Schemes CEE 129: Stanford University Project on Engineering Responses to Sea Level Rise Katie Jewett FALL 2010

  2. Overview • Ecosystem Services • Impact Assessment • Valuation Techniques • Case Studies: • Port of LA/Long Beach* • Port of Providence

  3. Ecosystem Services • Provisioning • Regulating • Cultural • Supporting

  4. Impact Assessment • 1. Measurement • What are the quantitative metrics by which this project will impact the surrounding environment? • 2. Assessment • What are the ramifications of the proposed construction activities? • 3. Valuation • Market and non-market techniques

  5. Non-market Valuation TechniquesNon-market: A method used to value goods not commonly bought or sold • Contingent Valuation • Travel Cost • Hedonic Pricing • Benefit Transfer

  6. Case Study: Port of LA/Long Beach

  7. About the Port • Located 20 miles south of downtown LA • 7500 acres, 43 miles of waterfront • 27 cargo terminals • Dry and liquid bulk, container, breakbulk, automobile facilities • In 2009, moved 8.5 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units)

  8. Plans for SLR? • Dr. Bob Kanter (Managing Director of Environmental Affairs for Port of Long Beach) • Terminals 12-15 ft above mean lower low water (mllw) • Terminals and berthing areas undergo reconstruction approximately every 20-30 yrs • With current uncertainties in the exact predicted figure for SLR, there are no current plans to guide future development, or re-development, of existing port facilities. • USACE • No current plans to update federal breakwaters protecting POLA/LB

  9. EX: Improvement of Berths 136-147 • EIS prepared by USACE and LA Harbor Dept • Project involves dredging, expanding, redeveloping, and constructing new container terminal facilities and associated rail facilities

  10. California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA)--Thresholds Guide for all EIS • Less Than Significant Impact: A less-than-significant impact would be identified when the proposed Project or alternatives would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment, i.e., the impact would not reach the threshold of significance. • Significant Impact: A significant (but mitigable, or avoidable) impact would create a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the proposed Project or alternatives. • Significant Unavoidable Impact: Used when a residual impact that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment--which may or may not be reduced somewhat--could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level through any feasible mitigation measures • Beneficial Effect: creates a positive change • Residual Impact: level of impact after the implementation of mitigation measures • *REQUIREMENT TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES

  11. Threshold of Significance for Water Quality • The effects of a project on water quality, sediment, hydrology, and oceanography are considered “significant” if you have: • Discharges that create pollution, contamination, or a nuisance • Flooding during the projected 50-year developed storm event • Permanent, adverse change to the movement of surface water flow significant enough to produce a substantial change in the current or direction of water flow • Accelerate natural processes of wind and water erosion and sedimentation

  12. Example of Construction Impacts on Water Quality for Berths 136-147 • The level of significance is determined by applying the threshold of significance (significance criteria) presented for each resource evaluation area. • “Impact WQ-1b: Runoff from backland development/redevelopment could create pollution and contamination or cause regulatory standards to be violated in harbor waters.” • CEQA Impact Determination • Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be required for impacts of onshore construction to water quality • Residual Impacts: Would be less than significant

  13. Threshold of Significance for Biological Resources • Is a natural water resource, such as a lake, river, vernal pool, ephemeral stream, marsh, or ocean present on or adjacent to the site? IF YES--> EIS necessary • An impact is “significant” if the project results in the loss of: • an endangered, threatened, protected, rare species or its habitat • locally designated species or their habitat • Interference with wildlife movement/migration corridors • Alteration of existing wetland habitat • Species behavior is disturbed (ex light, noise) enough to diminish their chances of long-term survival

  14. Methodology to Determine Significance • Physical description of the project site and environmental setting • If a marine environment, describe the presence or absence of tidal wetlands, bottom topography and depth, access to open ocean systems, information on existing biota, existence of movement or migration corridors for marine mammals • Statement of potential for existing sensitive resources

  15. Year 2000 Biological Baseline Study • Study objectives: • Chemical/physical characterization by measuring water quality and sediment size • Map eelgrass, kelp distributions • Updated quantitative baseline of: • Benthic invertebrate community, fish populations, riprap habitat, bird use patterns • Compare 2000 baseline to historical baseline studies

  16. Relevant Permitting Agencies • EPA • USACE • City of Los Angeles Harbor Dept (under CEQA) reviews potential development projects within POLA/LB • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • NOAA Fisheries • CA Dept of Fish and Game

  17. Port of Providence • About the Port • 6 berths • Processes over 2000 ships/year • Moves 9 million tons of cargo/year • Petroleum • Salt • Cement • Asphalt

  18. Plans for SLR? • Jim Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst with the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council) • “Private property owners associated with the port facilities as well as the City of Providence have yet to seriously consider the implications of expected sea level rise, never mind any proposal to adapt to that scenario.” • Likely response? • Elevation of port facilities such as piers, bulkheads, fuel offloading stations, etc. and retrofitting the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier to accommodate higher mean water levels

  19. Agency Jurisdiction • Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)--> state • Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM)--> state • USACE--> federal

  20. Conclusions • Need for valuation methods and assessments to accurately capture/reflect marine ecosystem services • EIS “significance threshold” criteria still rather subjective • No significant plans for SLR in either Providence or POLA/LB • Agency jurisdiction overlaps at local, state, and federal levels

More Related