WolfeNotes.com

After Criticism, County Agrees to Exceed DEP’s Minimum 2 inch Twig Replacement Size

DEP can’t see the forest for the basal area of the twigs

DEP surely can’t see the park’s history, aesthetics and users’ enjoyment 

Olmstead they’re not

[Updates below]

[Note: This post focuses on DEP tree replacement regulations and policies, not the merits of the South Mountain project. And yes, I understand that these rules are “stricter” than the “no net loss” standard]

The State House Commission today heard a DEP proposal (see agenda item #11), acting on behalf of Essex County, to divert public park lands as part of a project in South Mountain Reservation, along a 1.6 mile stretch of South Orange Avenue County Rt. 510 (which bisects the park).

The plan involves cutting down 360 mature trees.

DEP’s Green Acres diversion regulations were applied by a state certified forester for Essex County. DEP approved the forester’s tree replacement calculations for those 360 trees. The replacement plan on the SHC agenda was for 8,500 trees of a 2 inch caliper.

DEP diversion rules require:

I don’t know if all reasonable efforts were made to avoid cutting large trees.

I do know that, despite existing regulations that allow DEP to require more compensation when large mature trees are cut, DEP agreed to the minimum requirements and allowed the County to replace those 360 mature trees with 8,500 2 inch trees, not much more than twigs.

I testified to the SHC in opposition to the DEP approved Essex County plan with respect to tree replacement.

I reminded the SHC that this was similar to my prior testimony to the SHC regarding DEP’s sweetheart lease deal with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. for gas pipelines across State Parks and forests.

That prior testimony had an impact. It: 1) convinced the SHC to quadruple (4x) DEP’s negotiated lease price and 2) prompted Senator Smith to sponsor legislation (S826, which is stalled) that would revise the way DEP calculates the value of state leases, to better reflect their true market value.

Similar to the way DEP technical appraisal methods and regulations undervalue state lands that Tennessee gas exploited, DEP’s tree replacement methods greatly undervalue trees.

Trees have many positive features and characteristics that are not considered in DEP’s diversion regulations.

[Note; in a rare moment of professionalism, DEP’s testimony, to their credit, specifically acknowledged that I was correct on this criticism.]

In addition, there are locational factors that strongly influence the ecological, historic, aesthetic, visual, recreational, and land use “value” of a tree.

Trees have market and non-market values.

For example, for obvious reasons, a beautiful mature tree in Central Park is “worth” far more than the exact same tree in a Sussex County forest.

But DEP’s tree replacement regulations do not allow those obvious reasons to be considered. They consider only “basal area” and “caliper”.

South Mountain Reservation – an Olmstead brothers design – is a key part of the oldest County Parks Department in the country.

It serves as an urban greenbelt, dividing some of the most densely populated land in the world.

Thousands of people drive through, walk in, see, enjoy, and use South Mountain Reservation every day.

Clearly, DEP minimum 2 inch twig “tree replacement” requirements are totally inadequate for compensating for cutting mature trees in South Mountain Reservation.

After I made these points clear to the SHC, and urged them to respond the same way they did to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline lease giveaway, a forester representing Essex County rose to speak.

He agreed to go beyond DEP’s minimum 2 inch twig requirements and agreed to plant 4 inch trees – at least 6,500 of them. (It was unclear just when this 4 inch 6,500 tree replacement plan arose. It was not the DEP approved plan on the SHC agenda.)

So, this amounts to about a 50% increase over the DEP approved 2 inch twig plan.

Advocates for Essex County Parks and South Mountain reservation need to monitor the County to assure that this agreement is honored.

Based on the County’s testimony, it is not clear that final plans are in place for this tree replacement work. Additionally, the County indicated that the project was federally funded, so the money to honor this pledge may not be 100% federal funded, which may be resisted by the County.

At any rate, we’ll consider this a small victory and a valuable use of a few hours.

We plan on approaching Senator Smith to see if he is interested in a bill to expand DEP’s tree replacement methods and standards with legislative ones to assure that this doesn’t happen again.

This is more of the kind of abuse we see – certified by a state certified forester – on issues related to cutting trees.

DEP can’t see the forest for the basal area of the twigs.

DEP surely can’t see the park and its history and aesthetics and users’ enjoyment – Olmstead they’re not.

I hope the folks at NJ Audubon et al that support the “Forest Stewardship” bill reconsider in light of exactly these kinds of problems.

[End Note – for those interested in Senator Smith’s reform bill, we previously wrote;

Economic Value of State lands  – S826

This bill grew out of the debacle over the Tennessee Gas Pipeline lease.

I wrote about this set of issues numerous times:

• DEP Report: Highway Right-of-Way Land 8 Times More Valuable Than State Parks and Forests
• Fair Market Value Leases for Energy Infrastructure Could Fund Parks System
• Christie Cuts Sweetheart Deal with Gas Industry
• NJ Subsidizing Oil and Gas Pipelines That Cross State Lands
• NEW JERSEY PARKS LOSE MILLIONS IN UNCOLLECTED LEASE PAYMENTS –  Park Closures Could Be Averted by Reaping Concessionaire and Easement Revenue

According to the bill summary:

[Update  #1 – I am getting some pushback from knowledgeable forestry friends about my characterization of a 2 inch caliper tree as a “twig”. Specifically:

FYI, friend just told me that 2″ caliper trees are about 10-12 years old, 12-14 ft high with a 6 foot canopy, not really a twig. 4″ caliper would be approx 20 feet tall, 12 foot canopy and weigh 1200lbs each – a bear to plant.

I stand by that, in the context of comparison to 100+ year old mature trees that are being cut in an Olmstead designed park.

And none of those details about 2 inch caliper trees takes away from my essential points: the facts that: 1) DEP regulations ignore critically important features and that 2) DEP approved the minimum that their own flawed rules would allow, despite the ability to require more aggressive tree replanting.

or that Essex county agreed to DOUBLE  DEP’s minimum 2 inch caliper.

[Update #2 – The Lorax takes liberties with language.

Is it technically accurate to describe a 2 inch caliper young tree as a “twig”?

Of course not. Friends warn me that I destroy the credibility of my criticism by doing that.

But is it an appropriate way to describe them in the context of DEP tree replacements for cutting mature trees in an Olmstead Park? (particularly when DEP’s so called regulatory tree protection standards basically boil down the beauty of a tree to biomass and basal area.)

I think so, or I wouldn’t have used the word. I’m not writing here for an audience of professional foresters or for a scientific journal.

And yes, I know that about 1,500 trees in the Park were blown down by Sandy – far more than will be cut by this project, some of which will be replanted.

Assembly Balks – Deadline Approaches

“Keep It Green” Coalition Doesn’t Understand Why

NJ Keep it Green, a coalition of park and conservation advocates, called on leadership to move on the bill next week, before the Legislature’s summer recess.

“There’s overwhelming support in the Assembly,” said the group’s chairman, Tom Gilbert, who noted the resolution has 20 sponsors in that house. “Quite frankly, we don’t understand why they won’t schedule a vote on this.”  ~~~ Star Ledger, 6/20/13

[Update: 7/12/13 – the Paterson situation is exactly what I’m talking about and it is a huge political and policy problem that KIG just utterly fails even acknowledge, never mind address:

Paterson council looks to leave county open space program 

During the first 12 years of the county’s program, Paterson property owners have paid a total of $7.9 million in taxes for the open space fund, but gotten back about $2.3 million in projects, according to a report compiled by the municipal finance department. – end update]

Get a fucking clue, Tom – If I were Assembly Speaker, no way you’d get a vote.

Warning, I’m winding up for a full throated rant here, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Today the Senate approved a Resolution to divert $17 billion to fund open space over the next 30 years, by a lopsided vote of 36-2 (see SCR 138) (read the Star Ledger coverage, which is not bad for a change).

Senator Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) was 1 of just 2 Senators with the courage to question the wisdom of the proposed diversion.

Good for her.

The Assembly has yet to post the Resolution for a vote, and the head of the “Keep it Green” Coalition just can’t seem to understand why.

So, along with Senator Beck, as I oppose the measure, let me suggest a few reasons to Mr. Gilbert perhaps why Assembly Speaker Oliver has not posted the Resolution for a vote, and it seems to lack consensus support of the  Assembly Democratic Caucus.

Maybe it’s because NJ has a severe, chronic, structural budget deficit and there seems to be no money to fund anything, while essential services and social safety net programs are being slashed.

Maybe it’s because they’ve studied public finance, and think its bad public policy to fund capital investment from current revenues – maybe they understand that pay as you go is not a financial formula for necessary capital investments and infrastructure.

Maybe, with 9% “official” unemployment (far higher depression level actual real unemployment and underemployment), it’s because open space funding has perhaps the lowest jobs/investment ratio of all public investment?

Maybe it’s because diversion of $17 billion from the State budget plays right into a “starve the beast” and “make government small enough to drown in the bathtub” strategy of right wing zealots like Grover Norquist?

Maybe it’s because they realize that NJ has multi-billion deficits in infrastructure that require new sources of revenue, and that if we keep on going down the “austerity” and “no new taxes” road that the sales tax diversion reflects, then we are doomed.

Maybe it’s because legislators recognize that if we can’t marshall political courage to tell the truth and raise new revenues for a motherhood and apple pie issue like open space funding, then we’re doomed?

Maybe it’s because Legislators realize that land preservation requires not just acquisition money, but rests on a 3 legged stool, and that the planning and regulatory leg of that stool has been cut out by this Governor, as he rolls back land use and environmental regulation, refuses to support coastal land use reforms,  and cripples regional land use protection bodies like the Highlands Council? (all while most KIG coalition members either applaud or are silent)?

Maybe it’s due to a principled belief in fundamental fairness – because poor, middle class, urban, elderly, children, immigrant, disadvantaged, special needs, and countless other people and social groups are being starved – under a false claim of austerity that only serves to avoid tax increases – and are having their budgets slashed, which will be made worse by diversion of $17 billion of sales tax revenues for open space?

Maybe it’s because those same people and groups that are getting hammered by faux austerity pay the lion’s share of the regressive sales tax that would be diverted away from programs that help them and into the pockets of the wealthy and corporations?

Maybe it’s because minimum wage is not a living wage? And we can’t seem to afford an increase in minimum wage? Or food stamps, or women and poor people’s health care, or affordable housing, or libraries and schools and even school lunch programs all are being slashed?

Maybe it’s because income and wealth disparities are increasing dramatically – while this Governor rewards the rich and corporations with tax cuts and subsidies?

Maybe it’s because the regressive nature of the sales tax, compounded by the disproportionate share of the benefits of open space funding going to suburban wealthy landowners and corporations, is grossly unfair and amounts to reverse Robin Hood – eee gads, its class warfare!

Maybe it’s because Democrats can’t stomach the hypocrisy of the fact that while Governor Christie has dismantled environmental programs, the KIG coalition has said nothing about any of that, but instead praised the governor and provided political cover for him?

Maybe it’s because democratic urban districts always have had to fight for scraps of their fair share of the pot of  open space money and that this Gov. has made this historic unfairness far worse by grossly underinvesting in urban NJ, urban parks, and overall urban related open space funding?

Maybe the Democrats are growing a spine and have had enough already?

Maybe, Tom, – just maybe – some of this has occurred to you and your fellow elitist and selfish colleagues in the “KIG” coalition (who seem only to seek the support of urban democrats with your hand out for money, and never show up to protect the public health or environment their constituents live in and shed crocodile tears over “environmental justice”).

(PS – Or maybe they just resent being given no option by the Senate, and know that there are far better options available, like continuing NJ’s 40 year history of Green Acres revenue backed bond funding, or even a small water tax as the revenue source to finance borrowing.)

How many old, defective, poorly maintained railroad bridges are there in NJ?

How many more toxic train derailments are waiting to happen?

Railroad Safety Left in hands of Railroad Under Federal law

State Railroad Planning Reflects a Narrow Set of Priorities

This post began as a brief note on the NJ Department of Transportation (DOT) update of the State Rail Plan with respect to the “Rail Freight Assistance Program”, in the context of the recent Paulsboro Toxic Train derailment.

Because I am no transportation or railroad expert, I had to do a little basic research as background. In doing that, I uncovered some stunning information on railroad safety, which greatly expanded the scope of the idea for my original post.

So, read on, but bear with me as I bounce around this can of worms from federal safety regulation to state transportation planning and capital budgeting – keeping in mind the distinction between roadway bridges and railroad bridges.

Last month, I was disappointed but not surprised to read a NJ Spotlight story, based on US DOT National Bridge Inventory data, that reported that more than 200, or 25%, of NJ’s roadway bridges are obsolete or structurally deficient.

I say not surprised, because prior Reports by the American Society of Civil Engineers suggest the problem is far larger in magnitude. According to the ASCE 2013 assessment, NJ’s roadway bridges are far worse off:

BRIDGES

• 651 of the 6,554 bridges in New Jersey (9.9%) are considered structurally deficient.
• 1,717 of the 6,554 bridges in New Jersey (26.2%) are considered functionally obsolete.

But these reports focus on roadway bridges – what’s the state of our railroad bridges? Where could I find that data on railroads?

According to the ASCE report,“New Jersey has 18 freight railroads covering 983 miles across the state, ranking it 40th by mileage.“, but there was nothing reported about the number of or condition of railroad bridges.

A quick Google revealed that – holy shit! –  according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), railroad bridge safety is left up to the railroads! FRA said:

The Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandates that all track owners inspect their railroad bridges at least once per calendar year. Prior to the passage of this legislation, railroad bridge inspections were highly encouraged, but not mandatory. The new statute requires track owners to conduct and then submit risk management reports to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In addition, track owners are required to document their yearly inspections and are also subject to random audits. Owners of structurally deficient railroad bridges can be levied fines of up to $100,000 and information on deficient railroad bridges will be published in the federal registry.

Citizens concerned about the state of railroad bridges in their communities are encouraged to contact the owner of the bridge first. However, the FRA is always available to concerned citizens and can be contacted via email at: RRSWebInquiries@dot.gov 

Imagine that – citizens can contact the railroads with safety concerns, or shoot the FRA an email!

And I thought environmental oversight and safety were lax!

[Note: I will write in the future about a recent NJ DOT Report on railroad infrastructure vulnerability to climate change, but that is beyond the scope of this post).

So, getting back to the original topic of this post – after reading that NJ Spotlight story, in the wake of last year’s Paulsboro Toxic Train derailment, I was curious about how many NJ railroad bridges were similarly obsolete or structurally deficient, and what the funding deficit was to repair or replace those bridges.

So, in light of the fact that the feds leave rail safety up to the private railroads, I was curious about how NJ State programs address this set of issues.

Recall that the Paulsboro toxic train derailment raised not only serious public health, environmental, and safety concerns.

Because the rail line was shut down for so long, there were huge negative economic dislocations, including a strategic threat to the continued existence of the chemcial industry in NJ, a major NJ employer and economic player.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the chemical industry was unable to ship product and threatened to relocate several hundred jobs and shift production to other states if the railroad line were not reopened (see also:  Chemical Blackmail In Toxic Train Wreck).

So, I read with interest a recent relevant NJ DOT Report: STATE FISCAL YEAR 2013 UPDATE REPORT OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE RAIL PLAN:

The Rail Plan includes consideration of “safety” and the “environment” – so, does that Plan include consideration of risks resulting from hazardous chemical cargo shipments across ancient and deficient bridges?

Short answer – no.

The July 2013 Update shows that over the last 6 years, NJ DOT’s “Rail Freight Assitance Program” identified $159 million in “candidate projects”, averaging about $25 million per year, including PRIVATE railroad assistance.

How much of this need was met? How much money went to repair or replace dangerous railroad bridges?  Was there eligible candidate funding identified for the notorious Paulsboro swing bridge, built back in 1873?

The actual FY’14 DOT Capital budget, funded just $10 million of this identified need and THIS NEED DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CHEMICAL RAIL SAFETY.

I word searched the DOT Plan Update and Capital Budget for “Paulsboro” and was shocked by what I found.

Funding need was identified for almost $1 million for Paulsboro refinery improvements. And there was $1 million actually budgeted in FY’13 for the “Rt. 295 – Paulsboro Brownfields Access” project

But, I noticed that there was but no funding provided to repair or replace the notorious Paulsboro swing bridge over the Mantua Creek, which caused the “Toxic Train” derailment last November that forced evacuation of the community and hospitalized almost 100 people.

That bridge is privately owned by a profitable railroad, so it makes sense not to provide public funding. But, the safety of that bridge is a major issue that should be addressed in transportation plans. I could not find that analysis.

So it looks like neither federal or state trasportation agencies are looking at railroad bridge safety, a huge risk in a state like NJ, where people live so close to rail and so much chemical cargo is shipped on ancient rail lines over ancient bridges.

Last year’s Paulsboro derailment has been followed by a series of high profile rail accidents, including last months Baltimore train derailment which involved hazardous chemicals and caused a major explosion and fire

According to a lawsuit filed by local police and emergency responders, that bridge is over 140 years old and had failed scores of insepctection reports and received numerous violations:

The bridge in question had a significant history of failure. A similar derailment and collapse occurred in the same place on August 23, 2009. Even after purported repairs to the bridge, nearby residents reported to Defendants that they heard strnge noises coming from the bridge, including a loud “bang” when no train was on it. […]

During the year leading to November 30, 2012, the defendant received at least 23 “trouble tickets” reporting that the Paulboro Gridge had malfunctioned. […]

Since October 27, 2012, approximately one month before this accident, the defendants received at least nine such “trouble tickets” reporting improper operation of malfunction of the bridge in question.

The bridge was allowed to reopen to more hazardous chemical cargo shipments without being repaired or replaced, and before a NTSB accident investigation is completed.

Immediately after the accident, NJ Senator President Sweeney and recently passed US Senator Lautenberg have vowed to have the bridge repaired or replaced.Lautenberg had introduced federal legislation in 2011 to upgrade rail safety, but his bill went nowhere.

In March, I was relieved to read that the south Jersey Courier-Post  reported Damaged Paulsboro bridge will be replaced

The railroad bridge damaged during a train derailment and chemical spill Nov. 30 in Paulsboro will be replaced.

A new swing bridge over Mantua Creek is expected to be operational by September 2014, according to a spokesman for the bridge’s owner, Conrail. In the meantime, the current span will remain in use but the waterway that passes underneath will remain inaccessible to boaters until construction is complete.

But, despite numerous failed inspections and violations, the bridge didn’t seem to be on anyone’s radar screen, including the NJ DOT’s Rail Freight Assistance Program.

How many other old, defective, poorly maintained railroad bridges are there in NJ? How many more toxic train derailments are waiting to happen?

Like I said, I am no transportation expert.

But someone needs to explain the planning justification for identifying the need for private railroad projects as candidates for state funding, while ignoring 125 year old bridges that have caused serious accidents, all while hazardous cargo continues to be shipped through hundreds of NJ communities, putting  the safety of millions of NJ residents at risk.

 

You can’t make this stuff up

 

“Waist deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on”  ~~~ Pete Seeger (listen)

NJ Natural Gas “Resiliency Strategy”:

Natural gas infrastructure is underground and protected    

Really? Who knew?

Ahem ..  wait a minute, but what about this?

New Jersey Natural Gas to snuff gas fires on barrier islands

 

BRICK — The natural gas fires that have burned for days along the ravaged barrier islands, spanning from Bay Head south to Seaside Park, and also Long Beach Island, are about to be snuffed by New Jersey Natural Gas, the company said this afternoon.

and this:

Flames rage anew in Mantoloking, NJ, barrier island town ravaged by Sandy (watch NBC video)

 

and this

Rebuilding Brick barrier island put on hold for gas line repairs

 

BRICK — The arduous task of rebuilding along the barrier island in Brick Township will be halted next week, officials said.

For five days beginning Monday, residents and contractors will be prevented from getting on an approximately three-mile portion of the island as repaired natural gas lines are pressurized, officials said today.

and this:

Barrier Island Closed to Vehicles Dec. 8 to 18 for Natural Gas System Repairs

 

and this:

Natural gas fuels fire in small New Jersey town devastated by Sandy

 

I could go on – but think I’ll stop now.

We’ll let the experts push on.

Echoes from California – from sea to shining sea:

Full text below (link here).

This 2008 Order produced the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy

NJ has nothing of the kind and has been didling or going in reverse under Gov. Christie.

We now suffer the catastrophic consequences, which will only grow greatly over time.

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-13-08

 

WHEREAS climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources; and

WHEREAS California is a leader in mitigating and reducing its greenhouse gas emissions with the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order S-01-07), the 2008 Senate Bill 375 and the Renewable Portfolio Standard; and

WHEREAS these efforts, coupled with others around the world, will slow, but not stop all long-term climate impacts to California; and

WHEREAS California must begin now to adapt and build our resiliency to coming climate changes through a thoughtful and sensible approach with local, regional, state and federal government using the best available science; and

WHEREAS there is a need for statewide consistency in planning for sea level rise; and

WHEREAS California’s water supply and coastal resources, including valuable natural habitat areas, are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise over the next century and could suffer devastating consequences if adaptive measures are not taken; and

WHEREAS the country’s longest continuously operating gauge of sea level, at Fort Point in San Francisco Bay, recorded a seven-inch rise in sea level over the 20^th century thereby demonstrating the vulnerability of infrastructure and resources within the Bay; and 

WHEREAS global sea level rise for the next century is projected to rise faster than historical levels with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicting that global sea levels will rise by between seven to 23 inches this century and some experts predicting even higher rises; and

WHEREAS while climate models predicting global sea level rise are generally understood and improving, less information is available for sea level rise projections specific to California that accounts for California’s topography, coastal erosion rates, varying land subsidence levels and tidal variations; and

WHEREAS billions of dollars in state funding for infrastructure and resource management projects are currently being encumbered in areas that are potentially vulnerable to future sea level rise; and

WHEREAS safety, maintenance and operational efforts on existing infrastructure projects are critical to public safety and the economy of the state; and

WHEREAS the longer that California delays planning and adapting to sea level rise the more expensive and difficult adaptation will be; and

WHEREAS the California Resources Agency is a member of the California Climate Action Team and is leading efforts to develop and implement policy solutions related to climate change adaptation regarding current and projected effects of climate change; and

WHEREAS the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is responsible for managing the state’s water resources to benefit the people of California, and to protect, restore and enhance the natural and human environments; and

WHEREAS California’s coastal management agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and California State Parks are charged with managing and protecting the ocean and coastal resources of the state; and

WHEREAS the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Public Interest Energy Research Program has funded research on climate change since 2001 including funding the development of preliminary sea level rise projections for the San Francisco Bay area by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography/University of California at San Diego.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately:

1.    The California Resources Agency, in cooperation with DWR, CEC, California’s coastal management agencies, and the OPC, shall request that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene an independent panel to complete the first California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report and initiate, within 60 days after the signing of this Order, an independent sea level rise science and policy committee made up of state, national and international experts.

2.    By March 31, 2009, the OPC, DWR and the CEC, in coordination with other state agencies, shall hold a public workshop to gather policy-relevant information specific to California for use in preparing the Sea Level Rise Assessment Report and to raise state awareness of sea level rise impacts.

3.    The California Resources Agency shall request that the final Sea Level Rise Assessment Report be completed as soon as possible but no later than December 1, 2010.  The final Sea Level Rise Assessment Report will advise how California should plan for future sea level rise.  The report should include: (1) relative sea level rise projections specific to California, taking into account issues such as coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, El Niño and La Niña events, storm surge and land subsidence rates; (2) the range of uncertainty in selected sea level rise projections; (3) a synthesis of existing information on projected sea level rise impacts to state infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; and (4) a discussion of future research needs regarding sea level rise for California.

4.    The OPC shall work with DWR, the CEC, California’s coastal management agencies and the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct a review of the NAS assessment every two years or as necessary.

5.    I direct that, prior to release of the final Sea Level Rise Assessment Report from the NAS, all state agencies within my administration that are planning construction projects in areas vulnerable to future sea level rise shall, for the purposes of planning, consider a range of sea level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100 in order to assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea level rise.  However, all projects that have filed a Notice of Preparation, and/or are programmed for construction funding the next five years, or are routine maintenance projects as of the date of this Order may, but are not required to, account for these planning guidelines.  Sea level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with appropriate local information regarding local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, storm surge and storm wave data.

6.    The Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency shall work with the California Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare a report within 90 days of release of this Order to assess vulnerability of transportation systems to sea level rise that will include provisions for investment critical to safety, maintenance and operational improvements of the system and economy of the state.

7.    By June 30, 2009, the California Resources Agency, through the Climate Action Team, shall coordinate with local, regional, state and federal public and private entities to develop a state Climate Adaptation Strategy.  The strategy will summarize the best known science on climate change impacts to California (led by CEC’s PIER program), assess California’s vulnerability to the identified impacts and then outline solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency.  A water adaptation strategy will be coordinated by DWR with input from the State Water Resources Control Board, an ocean and coastal resources adaptation strategy will be coordinated by the OPC, an infrastructure adaptation strategy will be coordinated by the California Department of Transportation, a biodiversity adaptation strategy will be jointly coordinated by the California Department of Fish and Game and California State Parks, a working landscapes adaptation strategy will be jointly coordinated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and a public health adaptation strategy will be jointly coordinated by the California Department of Public Health and the California Air Resources Board, all as part of the larger strategy.  This strategy will be facilitated through the Climate Action Team and will be coordinated with California’s climate change mitigation efforts.

8.    By May 30, 2009, OPR, in cooperation with the California Resources Agency, shall provide state land-use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts.

This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order.

So pick your poison, folks: