Source: http://eartotheground.typepad.com/weblog/2009/02/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 17:25:51
Document Index: 564350203

Matched Legal Cases: ['§706', '§401', '§1341', '§402', '§1342', '§1362', '§402', '§404', '§1344', '§1344', '§404', '§404', '§404', '§1344', 'art 230', '§230', '§230', '§404', '§ 230', '§401', '§ 320', '§404', '§ 328', '§ 122']

Ear To The Ground: February 2009
California's State Water Resources Control Board issues another draft of its proposed enforcement policy
A prior post in March, 2008 noted that the SWRCB had issued a draft of its new enforcement policy. [A redline showing the changes proposed at that time can be found at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2008/feb/0219_10policyredline010808.pdf.] The Board has now released a new draft of its proposed rewrite of the Enforcement Policy. A redline showing changes to the existing policy has not been provided. As such, interested readers should review the entire new draft, which fortunately is only 29 pages plus 10 pages of appendices. The latest version can be found at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/enforcement/docs/enf_policy121808_2_for_distribution.pdf.
Posted at 02:28 PM in CWA/Porter-Cologne | Permalink
California's DTSC releases policy recommendations for State's Green Chemistry Program
As noted in the prior post of 8/5/08, DTSC released six reports containing various recommendations about California's green chemistry initiative. A brief overview of the recommendations was set forth. DTSC has now released its “Green Chemistry Policy”. The final policy contains six recommendations: Expand DTSC’s pollution prevention program. The recommendation expands the industrial sectors covered by the current program, and seeks to reorient the program to emphasize “green chemistry” in lieu of “source reduction”. Industry participation would be “voluntary”. However, the program seems to anticipate an expansion of the current mandatory source reduction reports filed under the current program by businesses generating wastes above specified amounts. As noted in the prior post, efforts would be made to expand the Green Chemistry workforce, and the education and training of the public and new and existing personnel. As noted in the prior post, an online product ingredient network would be created. The objective is to encourage informed choices about products bought and used. As noted in the prior post, an online toxic clearinghouse would be created. This web-based portal would provide information on hazards and toxicological end-points for all chemicals, including chemical compounds and nanomaterials. Accelerate the quest for “safer products”. A lifecycle analysis would occur during the design phase of a process to encourage manufacturers to use less toxic alternatives. The analysis would be applied in some manner to all manufacturers, importers, and retailers of products sold in California that contain a “chemical of concern.” AB 1879, signed into law in 2009, establishes the process of identifying “chemicals of concern” and creating the lifecycle analysis. [See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1879_bill_20080929_chaptered.html; the legislation was described in a prior post.] Cradle-to-Cradle. “Market forces” would be used to accelerate innovation and the selection of more sustainable non-toxic choices for consumers. A “green scorecard” would be provided with products describing the product’s environmental “footprint”, which would reflect information from the aforenoted toxic clearinghouse on chemicals. The Policy recognizes that it needs executive, legislative, and administrative action to be implemented, and notes that more specific measures to bring the recommendations into being would be developed over the next two years.
The Policy can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GREEN_Chem.pdf and its appendices at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/CGCI-Appendices.pdf. The related news release, frequently asked questions, and summary of recommendations can be found, respectively, at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/PR12-120908_GreenChem.pdf, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/FAQs_greenchem.pdf, and http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/Summary_sheet.pdf. Posted at 02:09 PM in CAA, CWA/Porter-Cologne, Nuisance, RCRA/HWCA, Recycling, Toxic Torts | Permalink
California's Office of Planning & Research releases draft CEQA guidance re GHG emissions
Prior posts have noted that SB 97 [see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_97_bill_20070824_chaptered.html], which enacted Section 20183.05 of the California Public Resources Code, required the development of Calif. Environmental Quality Act guidance on GHG emissions for purposes of assessing when such emissions must be reviewed as part of the EIR process. The task was assigned to the Governor's Office of Planning & Research. As noted in a prior post, last June OPR issued a "Technical Bulletin" to provide interim advice on the issue. [See http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.]
OPR has now released draft changes to the CEQA "guidelines" [meaning the CEQA regulations]. The guidelines and comments submitted at the various workshops can be found at http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html. The process will continue, and one can anticipate that the final regulations will likely be implemented by the end of 2009.
Posted at 01:28 PM in CAA, Global Warming | Permalink
California's Sacramento Air Districts move on plan to meet new 8-hour ozone standard
Prior posts have described the interplay from the theoretically superseded CAA one-hour ozone standard and the "new" 8-hour ozone standard. A joyous mess might be a good summary description. The five air districts that cover various portions of the Sacramento, California, metropolitan area are working together to adopt a plan to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. [For a map of the region, see http://www.airquality.org/cleanairplan/map.shtml.] Generally, the plan will impose new requirements on stationary sources and will commit the Sacramento-area Council of Governments to enact measures to limit auto emissions by improving transit alternatives and moving traffic more efficiently. The region is currently designated as a "serious" non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. As a "serious" region, compliance must be had by 2013. Thus, the districts have asked EPA to designate the region as a "severe" non-attainment region; this requires compliance by 2019. Because attainment has to be demonstrated during the preceding year to the compliance date, compliance must be effectively achieved by 2018. The draft plan also functions as a "reasonable further progress plan", as long as there is improvement each year pending attainment.
An overview of the issues for the Sacramento region can be found at http://www.airquality.org/cleanairplan/background.shtml. A copy of the plan and supporting documentation can be found at http://www.airquality.org/notices/CAPUpdate/8hrAPandFEIRHearingsJanFeb2009.shtml.
Posted at 11:12 AM in CAA | Permalink
Judge's ruling impairs ability of California's South Coast Air Quality Management District to issue permits for essential public welfare and health services
SCAQMD Rule 1309.1 [see http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg13/r1309-1.pdf] was adopted several years ago to provide facilities deemed essential to health and welfare (e.g., hospitals, police stations) access to otherwise expensive offset credits which are necessary for new construction and expansion. The rule was subsequently amended in response to concerns over the lack of credits available for vitally need new electricity generating facilities. Environmental groups sued to invalidate the latter amendment. The Superior Court ultimately ruled that the Air District violated CEQA when it adopted amendments to Rule 1309.1 and when it adopted new Rule 1315 [see http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg13/r1315.pdf]; the latter established an accounting process for adding additional credits to Rule 1309.1 while simultaneously complying with CAA requirements. The Court's ruling barred the amendments to Rule 1309.1 and the addition of Rule 1315 until new CEQA documentation was prepared. [An overview of the California Environmental Quality Act, its processes and procedures, can be found at http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html. It should be noted that, in contrast to NEPA, CEQA has a much more substantive impact on the ability to choose amongst options.]
Following the ruling the SCAQMD informed the Court that it had stopped distributing credits to generating facilities, but requested the ability to continue to transfer credits to essential public services. Bizarrely, the Court refused the request. The District has appealed the Court's fundamental decision, and has employed a consultant to prepare the CEQA documentation. Because of the denial of the request for interim authority, the SCAQMD issued a memorandum noting the problems created and announcing a moratorium covering a major portion of its permitting program. [See http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/permitmoratoriumletterandfaq.pdf.]
Because of the interplay between Rules 1309.1 and 1315, the reach of the moratorium is broad. For example, on facilities that emit (following a modification) less than 4 tons per year of criteria pollutants. Also, certain specific equipment additions and modifications are affected (e.g., routine equipment additions to printers, service stations, and auto body shops). As a result, in lieu of having access to Rule 1309.1 offsets, firms will have to purchase credits on the open market. In the South Coast such credits are expensive. The AQMD alleges that open-market purchases of credits will run $390,000 to add one printing press and $500,000 for an auto shop spray booth. There are a number of facilities that are not impacted by the moratorium (e.g., those providing their own credits, projects in which the emission of criteria pollutants increases less than 0.5 lbs. per day, facilities seeking to install air emission equipment unrelated to any emission increase). A further complication is the uncertainty of the ruling on historically established offset credits. Does the ruling invalidate credits back to August, 2007, or perhaps September, 2006?
Stay tuned for more fun and games.
Posted at 10:18 AM in CAA | Permalink
The Fourth Circuit grants deference to the Corps, and thus finds that CWA Section 404 permits can be issued for stream segments connecting valley fill from mountaintop mining with downstream sediment ponds
“The mountaintop removal method of surface coal mining, pioneered in West Virginia, involves the blasting of the soil and rock atop a mountain to expose coal deposits below. While mining operations are ongoing, the overburden is hauled or pushed into adjacent valleys. This excavated overburden is known as ‘spoil.’ Once the coal has been extracted, efforts are made to re-contour the mountaintop by replacing the removed overburden, but stability concerns limit the amount of spoil that can be returned to the area. In its natural state, the spoil material is heavily compacted; once excavated, however, the loosening of the rock and soil and incorporation of air causes significant swelling. As a result, large quantities of the blasted material cannot be replaced, and this excess spoil (‘overburden’) remains in the valley, creating a ‘valley fill’ that buries intermittent and perennial streams in the process...Much of the impact of a valley fill project is felt by headwater streams. Headwater streams are small streams that form the origin of larger streams or rivers, and may be intermittent or ephemeral. Intermittent streams receive their flow from both surface runoff and groundwater discharge, while ephemeral streams rely on major rain or snow events for their flow. The precise role of headwater streams in overall watershed ecology is a matter of some debate in this litigation, as we discuss more below, but all parties agree that these streams perform important ecological functions.” The use of this technique has been extremely controversial in recent years, resulting in numerous lawsuits.
In 2005, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition sued Aracoma Coal Co. shortly after the U.S. Army Corps issued a Section 404 permit for a project of the type noted above. [404 permits can be project specific or general. See Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Bulen, 429 F.3d 493 (4th Cir. 2005).] As other permits were issued to other companies involving other sites, plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint to include those 404 permits also. In 2007, following trial, the District Court rescinded the permits. An appeal followed. In Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition et al v. Aracoma Coal Co. et al, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2904 (4th Cir.: 2/13/09), the Court of Appeals addressed the issues raised. Although the Court addressed numerous issues in its holding, this post will focus primarily on those holdings that address CWA issues because a) they were key to the resultant ruling, and b) most if not all of the media reports that I have seen on the case have overlooked these key CWA issues. The Court initially noted that it reviews de novo District Court's findings based on the administrative record, and that the NEPA and CWA issues are reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act ("a reviewing court must set aside the action if it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).
The coal companies all had a permit issued to them pursuant to the Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"). Although the disposal of excess spoils is within the jurisdiction of a SMCRA permit, the Court noted that having such a permit is not sufficient to allow a mine operator to construct a valley fill in conjunction with its mountaintop removal activities; for such activities, the appropriate permit under the CWA must also be obtained.
Therefore, the mine operator must make or obtain a total of three showings and/or permits to satisfy all of the CWA requirements. First, a mine operator must comply with CWA §401 (33 U.S.C. §1341) by providing the permitting agency with a certification from the proper state authority (in this case the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection) stating that any discharge from the mine site will comply with all applicable water quality standards. Second, the mine operator must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit pursuant to CWA §402 (33 U.S.C. §1342) if the project involves the discharge of a pollutant from a point source within the mining operation into navigable waters. [The CWA defines "navigable waters" as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." 33 U.S.C. §1362(7)]. As the Court noted, the release of treated waters from sediment ponds back into a stream, for example, require a CWA §402 NPDES permit. Finally, surface mining projects that intend to dispose of excess spoil from their mining operations in “jurisdictional waters” must obtain a CWA §404 (33 U.S.C. §1344) permit from the Corps. [Section 404 permits allow "the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites." 33 U.S.C. §1344(a).] The Corps uses §404 permits to authorize the fill activity itself, as well as the construction of downstream sediment ponds. In issuing §404 permits, the Corps follows the §404(b)(1) Guidelines ("CWA Guidelines") promulgated by EPA pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1344(b)(1), and incorporated by the Corps into its own regulations. See 40 C.F.R., Part 230. The Guidelines prohibit discharges that "will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States." 40 C.F.R. §230.10(c). A discharge contributes to significant degradation if it has "significantly adverse effects" on human health or welfare, on aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, or on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(c). The 404 permit review process also has a public comment component.
After deciding that the NEPA process was adequate, the Court turned to the CWA issues. “Under the CWA, the Corps' Guidelines instruct that a project should not receive a §404 permit ‘unless it can be demonstrated that [the project] will not have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystems of concern.’ 40 C.F.R. § 230.1(c). In each of the four challenged permitting decisions, the Corps found that no cumulatively significant impacts would occur...The district court found the Corps' cumulative impact analysis faulty because it presumed that the Corps' determination relied improperly on mitigation to eliminate adverse impacts. The district court is correct that ‘mitigated to insignificance’ analysis does not suffice to demonstrate an absence of cumulatively significant impacts.” However, the Court noted that this case is different because of the nature of the project analysis that is undertaken as part of the SMCRA and CWA Section 401 process. "A §401 certification is considered conclusive, and no independent analysis of the certification is required. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(d)...The SMCRA permitting process also requires the director of WVDEP to prepare an assessment of the probable cumulative impact of all anticipated (past, present, and future) mining on the hydrologic balance in the area of the mine and make a finding that the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area." In the context of a review under the APA, one can see how these findings would prevent the type of attack that plaintiffs sought to raise. "Because the Corps has analyzed cumulative impacts in each of the challenged permits and has articulated a satisfactory explanation for its conclusion that cumulative impacts would not be significantly adverse, we find that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in conducting its required cumulative impact analysis."
The key CWA issue that was the primary focus of plaintiffs' challenge was whether stream segments connecting valley fills to down-stream sediment ponds are properly classifiable under the CWA as "waters of the United States" and thus not within the Corps' authority to allow. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the stream segments were part of a unitary waste treatment system, and thus could be covered by the §404 permit. When push came to shove, this conclusion was really a question of Chevron deference. The District Court found that the rationale provided by the Corps was a post hoc rationalization created for the purpose of the litigation.
The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the Corps’ regulations exclude from the definition of waters of the U.S. "waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA." 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8). What gave the Court this opening was the interplay between Corps and EPA regulations. EPA’s regulations provided in the past that "[t]his exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States . . . nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States." 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. This would, on its face, certainly mean that the "stream segment as part of a unitary waste treatment system concept" was without legal support. However, significantly, that sentence was suspended by the EPA in 1980. See 45 Fed. Reg. 48620 (July 21, 1980). At the time, EPA indicated that it intended to promptly issue a revised definition, but it never did. Thus, the Court could state, with a straight face, that “Without that definitional sentence for the term ‘waste treatment system,’ it is not obvious from the plain language of the regulation what the term is intended to cover. Because the Corps' definition relies on the EPA definition, and because the EPA definition is ambiguous, the intent behind the Corps' ‘waste treatment exception’ is ambiguous.” Thus, the opening for Chevron deference. The Court reviewed prior positions taken by EPA on the issue, agency letters, and agency memo's, and came to the conclusion that unitary waste treatment system concept was a defensible interpretation of the regulations. Additionally, the Court noted: "Even if the Corps' 'waste treatment system' argument was a post hoc rationalization when it was first raised, once the Corps reconsidered and reissued the permits on voluntary remand, the justification was no longer post hoc and it is entitled to deference." Thus, the stream segments were not "waters of the United States", and could be part of a Section 404 permit. As such, the rulings of the District Court were reversed.
This case demonstrates, as noted in prior posts, how difficult it is to reverse a well-papered Corps decision on permits. However, one can reasonably anticipate that EPA will shortly begin the rule-making process to reinstitute the old definition of a waste treatment system, which if done will render moot this opinion. It will also stop any future mountaintop removal methods of coal mining, at least in those circumstances where a stream segment is necessary to connect valley fill with downstream sediment ponds or other waste treatment facilities.
Posted at 11:27 PM in CWA/Porter-Cologne | Permalink
Caught with fingers in cookie jar, CWA convictions of father and son for falsifying and concealing facts re wastewater discharges from treatment facility are upheld
The Holdens, father and son, superintendent and operator, respectively, were convicted of a falsifying and concealing facts pertaining to wastewater discharges by a treatment facility in Tennessee. The facility generated suspicion when its reported lab results failed to conform to the normal pattern one woudl expect of a wastewater facility; a joint EPA and State inspection found that the plant's lab apparently had not been used for some time and was littered with broken equipment. Sampling showed huge deviations from the NPDES requirements. At trial, the Holdens sought to use evidence of the lab operator's marijuana dependency, claiming their lack of knowledge of lab operations. The District Court ruled that the defense could only introduce evidence of drug use as it related to lab operator's ability to perceive the events that were the subject of his testimony and testify about them at trial. It thus excluded evidence of his treatment because it occurred nine years prior to the charged conduct. In doing so, the court explained that the treatment was "too remote in time" to be probative and "lack[ed] a causal relationship" with his testimony at trial. The Holdens also objected to the admission of part of statements made to investigators under the rule of completeness doctrine. The District Court found a lack of a timely objection. The Holdens objected to testimony about a 1995 inspection when Mike Holden, the plant superintendent, was also at the facility; they argued that it was improper propensity evidence. The District Court found it properly admitted. Finally, the Holdens argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict Larry Holden, the son.
In U.S. v. Holden, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3525 (6th Cir.: 2/24/09), the Court of Appeals addressed these issues. As to the marijuana usage by the lab operator, the Court reviewed for abuse of discretion. Since the evidence was introduced only to impeach the lab operator's general credibility, it was not improper to exclude the evidence, especially given its remoteness in time. The Holdens also sought to admit the treatment record under FRE 612 (refreshing recollection); since the document was not relevant to the witnesses description of running the plant, it was properly excluded. The Holdens also raised an objection based on 6th Amendment confrontation. The Court noted that the District Court is allowed wide discretion, and that it permitted extensive impeachment by showing drug use by the lab operator during the time period at issue. Thus, a 6th Amendment issue was not found to exist.
As to the 1995 inspection, the evidence was held admissible to rebut the Holdens' defense theory that the lab operator fabricated the evidence; it was not admitted to show that the Holdens were inclined to such crimes. There was no FRE 404(b) violation.
As to the completeness argument, the Court of Appeals reiterated the lack of timely objection. However, the Court also noted that the better view was to allow correction at a later time. Thus, the question was whether the error was harmless. The Court found the material sought to be admitted was hearsay, and thus inadmissible. The statements which were actually admitted were inculpatory, and thus admissible under FRE 801(d)(2). What Mike Holden sought to do was to create a misleading impression, which rendered the language he sought to insert as hearsay.
Turning to the lack of evidence argument, the Court noted the importance of the reports made to the regulatory process, and found that a rational factfinder could conclude that Larry Holden willfully made false statements. The convictions were upheld. Posted at 03:31 PM in CWA/Porter-Cologne | Permalink
U.S. Supreme Court denies appeal of D.C. Circuit's reversal of Bush Administration "Clean Air Mercury Rule"
As noted in a 3/24/08 post, the D.C. Court of Appeals overturned an attempt by the Bush Administration to deregulate mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants, and to establish a cap-and-trade system in lieu of emissions standards. The dispute goes back to 2000, when the EPA under President Clinton concluded that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate coal- and oil-fired power plants under a strict provision of the Clean Air Act that would force them to install the best available control technology. But the Bush administration reconsidered the conclusion in March 2005, and promulgated a cap-and-trade system called the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Following the D.C. Cir. ruling, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, an organization of electric utilities and trade associations, filed writ of cert. with the U.S. Supreme Court; the Bush Administration urged the Court to review the matter. The Obama Administration subsequently withdrew the request.
The U.S. Supreme Court has now denied cert. (Docket 08-352). As a result, the EPA will now promulgate new mercury regulations. As noted in prior posts, mercury is a neurotoxin; the nature of its toxicological impact is well established [see http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~VEfQzK:1:human and http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html].
Posted at 02:06 PM in CAA | Permalink
Legislation establishing an ocean acidification interagency research committee now part of S. 22, which has passed the Senate
Past posts have noted the growing concern about ocean acidification, and its impact of a variety of marine biota. Senator Lautenberg has sponsored legislation to establish an interagency research committee on the issue. It was included in S. 22, which is aimed at land preservation. S. 22 has passed the Senate. [For the status of S. 22, see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-22; a summary of S. 22 can be found at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-22&tab=summary.]
As noted in prior posts, oceans naturally absorb CO2, and as the amount increases the pH of the ocean changes. Increased acidity is believed to be a particular threat to animals and plants with hard, calcium-based exteriors (e.g., shellfish, corals). [For more information on ocean acidification, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification.] Posted at 11:29 PM in CWA/Porter-Cologne, Global Warming | Permalink
The USGS and EPA climate change assessment reports foresee possible major ecosystem changes and rising sea-levels, the latter particularly impacting the Mid-Atlantic region
The Federal Climate Change Science Program has been releasing reports on the changes that might be anticipated from global warming. The Bush Administration initiated 21 syntheses and assessments, starting in 2003. The USGS released its report in mid-January. It noted that climate change may trigger abrupt and irreversible changes in ecosystems, leading to insect outbreaks [some of which have been noted in prior posts], wildfires, and declines in forest lands [more on this in future posts]. "One of our biggest concerns is that once an ecological threshold is crossed, the ecosystem in question will most likely not return to its previous state," said USGS Associate Director for Biology Susan Haseltine. "The existence of thresholds should be a key concern of scientists and natural resource managers." [See http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2110&from=rss_home.] Being even-handed, the USGS noted that some effects could also be caused by human actions, such as the over-consumption of water supplies in areas experiencing drought. "... human actions may increase an ecosystem's potential for crossing ecological thresholds. For example, additional human use of water in a watershed experiencing drought could trigger basic changes in aquatic life that may not be reversible. Researchers and decision makers need to develop the tools necessary to predict the effects of specific ecological disturbances and to understand early warning signals of impending ecological thresholds." The report also concludes that although not enough is known about ecological thresholds, researchers do already know that ecosystems will differ significantly in their respective thresholds. "More vulnerable ecosystems, such as those that already face stressors other than climate change, will almost certainly reach their threshold for abrupt change sooner." EPA, Forest Service, NOAA, DoE, and NSF contributed to the report. The USGS report can be found at http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-2/sap4-2-final-report-all.pdf.
Also issued was a report by EPA which assessed the threat of rising sea levels to the Mid-Atlantic region. The report noted that the Mid-Atlantic region is likely to be significantly impacted by changes in sea-level. The lowlands, which are well populated, which abut the ocean, estuaries, and tidal rivers are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rises expected to occur during this century. The adverse effects will include submerging lowlands, eroding beaches and barrier islands, converting wetlands to open water, increased coastal flooding, and increased salinity in estuaries and freshwater aquifers. The primary cause of sea-level rises is the expansion of ocean water due to temperature increases and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. Because ongoing geological changes will influence the nature of the changes, the report recommends coastal mapping be a component of any future program to better understand what may happen in the future. NOAA and USGS contributed to the report. The report can be found at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/final-report/default.htm.
Posted at 11:16 PM in Global Warming | Permalink