Florida Chapter NetworkDedicated to the protection and enjoyment of Florida's ocean, waves and beaches More Details
Wave energy is heating up…Recent mainstream coverage in the Monday Wall Street Journal
In the Second wave energy summit yesterday Chad Nelson and Jim Moriarty met with a group of utilities, financiers, technology companies and enviros. It was great for us to be “at the table” as this alternative energy form starts to break.
Check out our new Wave Energy blog. Click here to go to the blog.
Our wave policy can be found at http://www.surfrider.org/policy_ocean_alt_energy
“In the 1960s, about 80 percent to 90 percent of the corals in the Keys were alive. Today, 94 percent of them are dead. […] The cause is septic drain fields in the low-lying Keys that leach nutrient-rich waste material into the groundwater and the ocean.”
Sand Trap: Another storm, another round of beach erosion, another round of questions about renourishment.
Beach erosion — during Tropical Storm Fay — threatens homes in Vilano Beach. As Tropical Storm Fay danced around the coast this summer, making a record number of landfalls, it also did a number on Florida’s beaches. The storm eroded sand from south Palm Beach and Lantana in Palm Beach County, as well as from south Ponte Vedra and Vilano beaches in St. Johns County. In the latter case, five homes are threatened by erosion. Just a week later, Hurricane Gustav ate into vulnerable beaches on Florida’s Gulf shoreline: Alligator Point in Franklin County and St. Joseph’s Peninsula.
Officials say they’ll spend about $154 million this year on beach restoration, renourishment, sand-transfer and monitoring projects:
Local governments-$81 million
State government-$44 million
Federal government-$29 million
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
All those areas are chronic hot spots for beach erosion, says Mike Barnett, chief of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, and all are candidates for beach-restoration projects. Statewide, about a dozen projects are scheduled for 2009, many involving maintenance of previously restored shorelines, also known as nourishment.
Renourishment sites are supposed to receive new sand every six to 10 years but may need it more frequently after heavy storm periods such as the current one. Much of the sand brought to Honeymoon Island in a $2-million project less than a year ago had washed away by the time Gustav finished its tour, for example.
The projects remain controversial, despite Florida’s 50-year tradition of restoring eroded beaches. Some environmentalists and sportsmen oppose the renourishment efforts because they can harm — or even bury — reefs and sea life. Some see the expensive projects as unwise public subsidies for wealthy beachfront dwellers. “Many millions of dollars flow faster than sand through your toes,” complains Karl Wickstrom, editor-in-chief at Florida Sportsman magazine and a critic of the projects.
Surfrider is about to embark on the removal of the artificial surfing reef that we constructed in El Segundo in 2000. The artificial surfing reef was built as mitigation for lost surfing resources when Chevron built a groin and added sand to the beach north of the El Segundo Refinery. Tom Pratte, a founding member of the Surfrider Foundation, convinced the Coastal Commission to include conditions in the permit for construction of the groin with associated beach fill to include monitoring and mitigation of the nearby surf if it was adversely impacted. After 6 years of independent monitoring the California Coastal Commission determined that the surfing resources had been adversely impacted and they required Chevron to mitigate for the lost surfing. After years of negotiation between Chevron, the Coastal Commission and Surfrider it was agreed that the mitigation would be through the construction of an artificial surfing reef.
The reef was constructed in 2000 and 2001. Surfing and nearshore coastal processes were monitored extensively for 2 years and then annually thereafter.The monitoring results can be found at: this web page. The experimental reef was permitted for a 10-year period ending in 2010. In addition to not improving the surf quality of the break, some of the geotextile bags that make up the artificial reef are beginning to deteriorate. The Surfrider Foundation believes that the removal of this artificial reef is necessary to be consistent with our mission to protect the world’s oceans, waves and beaches.
Because some of the bags are damaged and others are beginning to decompose we want to remove them before the synthetic materials that make up the reef bags are discharged into the marine environment.While the artificial surf reef did nothing to improve the surf in El Segundo, the project highlighted the need for protection of existing surf breaks, and helped the California Coastal Commission recognize surfing breaks as natural recreational resources that are worthy of protection.
Here are some additional details about the artificial reef removal:
1. The removal process will begin on Tuesday, September 30 and finish Friday, October 17th.
2. The removal project is being directed by Coastal Frontiers Corporation, a Los Angeles-based coastal engineering firm with extensive experience in the installation and removal of geotextile containers from the marine environment
3. A professional dive crew from American Marine Corporation will conduct the underwater portion of the artificial reef removal process.
4. Personnel from Morrissey Construction Company will bring the bags ashore and assure of their proper disposalA Frequently Ask Questions (FAQ) on the removal project is attached.
A more detailed project description can be found at: Prattes Reef Project Description document (file is 2.5 MB).
WASHINGTON (September 18, 2008) – Today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Pasadena, California, affirmed a decision that EPA must set standards to control storm water pollution from strip malls, subdivisions and other new development.
EPA and the National Association of Homebuilders had appealed the lower court’s ruling from 2006, but the U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Waterkeeper Alliance. The decision will help to ensure that construction site pollution won’t cause beach closings, waterborne disease, flooding, fish kills and contaminated drinking water supplies. The states of New York and Connecticut supported the conservation groups.
“This decision will go along way towards protecting America’s streams and rivers from the construction and development industry,” said Melanie Shepherdson, staff attorney at NRDC. “The court made it very clear that EPA can’t just shirk its responsibilities to reign in pollution from this industry.”
Excessive sediment, which is often the result of construction activity, is one of the leading causes of impairment of the nation’s waters. Construction runoff threatens rivers, pollutes clean water sources, and leads to excessive plant growth, like algae and nuisance plants, in water bodies.
“For too long EPA has turned away from the real work of protecting our waters. This decision forcefully reminds them of their duty to the American people and our waters,” said Jeffrey Odefey, staff attorney at Waterkeeper Alliance. “It’s time that EPA and the building industry demonstrate real leadership and took the necessary steps to prevent the destruction of our lakes, rivers, and streams.”
To read the court’s decision, go to http://docs.nrdc.org/water/wat_08091801A.pdf.
Ben Geman, E&E Daily senior reporter
Congress must somehow confront offshore oil-and-gas drilling policy in the final days before adjournment, but the Wall Street crisis could pre-empt a substantive energy floor battle and effectively shelve major decisions until a lame-duck session or next year.
Before leaving Washington to campaign for the upcoming election, Congress will act on must-pass budget legislation to continue federal spending beyond the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.
Coastal drilling bans are renewed annually in federal spending bills, but this year, Republicans are pushing relentlessly to let the bans expire. Democrats have been increasingly willing to make at least some concessions on relaxing the bans in order to maintain at least some of the offshore protections.
Democratic leaders have not said how they plan to address the issue through the continuing resolution (CR) to maintain spending at least until a potential lame-duck session.
Most sources on and off Capitol Hill said an effort to ram through a full renewal of the bans is probably off the table, especially now that Democratic leaders have endorsed, however reluctantly, new drilling.
Instead, the question is whether to try and include more limited restrictions or none at all and attempt to revisit the issue at a later date. Indeed offshore drilling could resurface if there is a lame-duck session, when knowledge of who will occupy the White House could affect the issue’s trajectory.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made support for new offshore drilling a major campaign theme in his White House run, while rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has criticized the idea but indicated he is open to some expansion as part of a larger energy compromise. President Bush lifted executive-level moratoria over the summer and wants Congress to scrap overlapping limits lawmakers impose.
A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week that energy provisions may surface on the CR. The House passed a bill last week that allows drilling greater than 100 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the 50-100 mile zone of coastal states agree.
“The book is still open on this,” said an aide to a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. Similarly, on the Senate side, Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Thursday said no decisions have been made.
Durbin also said it was not an “emergency” if the bans are allowed to lapse before revisiting the issue, citing the long time frames for offshore development (E&E Daily, Sept. 19). However, it could be politically difficult to vote in favor of adding new restrictions, rather than simply continuing existing policy, even if that existing policy has only lapsed briefly.
Nonetheless, many say that whatever happens this week is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. “There is nothing between now and the beginning of the next Congress that is irrevocable,” said Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Senate energy debate
While the must-pass spending bill forces at least short-term decisions on continuing, weakening or nixing the bans, a debate on energy legislation — including outer continental shelf policy — is scheduled in the Senate this week as well.An aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday the debate remains on the agenda before lawmakers leave for the election season, and Reid said last week that the House-passed (H.R. 6899) bill would be the vehicle for consideration.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has been crafting a Democratic Senate plan.But a major bipartisan proposal has failed to materialize. The Senate’s so-called Gang of 20 last week shelved efforts to craft a bill that blends drilling, conservation and alternative energy, citing a poisonous pre-election atmosphere. Instead, they hope to introduce legislation after the elections.
Also, Congress plans to take up a $700 billion Wall Street rescue package the Bush administration unveiled Saturday, which will add more pressure to the already-tight agenda before Congress breaks. Some aides said this could curtail or even squeeze out the debate on energy bills.The consulting firm Eurasia Group, in a note Friday, addressed the fast-changing priorities on Capitol Hill.
“The economy and Wall Street turmoil has recaptured the election narrative, displacing energy, at least for the time being. Lower retail gasoline prices in the U.S. through August have helped as well. Congress has a week left to pass energy legislation, but a crowded agenda and continued disagreement over funding complicate prospects for energy legislation,” it stated.
Action is planned on a separate package of the renewable energy tax credit extensions (see related story).