Tag: Environmental

Resilient Engineering in a Post-Harvey Houston: The SSPEED Annual Conference

October 31, 2019 / odrozd

Sitting in the comfortable conference room, enjoying a lovely 80 degree ‘cold front,’ one could easily forget that, just two weeks earlier, Houston had been hit with the fifth largest coastal storm ever to make landfall in the US. Though it hardly registered on national news, Tropical Storm Imelda brought record setting rain and flooding to large swaths of the city. Because Houston is one of the best cities in the world at emergency response, the effects of Imelda were nearly imperceptible by my visit. But, with two record-setting storms in two years, it has become clear that Houston needs to shift some of its attention away from crisis management and focus instead on long-term recovery and hazard mitigation before the next inevitable record-setter hits. That growing realization brought me to Houston for the annual conference of Rice University’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education, and Evacuation from Disaster Center (SSPEED).

A flooded park near downtown Houston (via Rice Kennedy Institute)

The focus of this year’s conference was Post-Harvey Resilient Engineering, Infrastructure, and Policy. As one might imagine given the broadness of the title, session topics covered everything from flood warning systems to floodplain regulations, toxic contamination, and infrastructure design. The event attracted a similarly diverse range of experts from across the Greater Houston Metropolitan region. In addition to academics – mostly from local institutions including Rice, Texas A&M, and the University of Houston – the conference attendees included consultants, architects and designers, nonprofit activists, and agency representatives from every level of government, from the city to the Army Corps of Engineers. As an outsider, it quickly became clear that everyone knew each other. It turns out that, in a city best known for its propensity to flood on a regular basis, the community of experts working on flooding issues is very close.

What was also readily apparent, though surprising, was that Houston has become a mecca for innovative and holistic resilience-building efforts, despite the city’s well-earned reputation for being ‘anti-planning.’ The projects presented during the two-day event ranged from the hyperlocal, including one effort to estimate the extent of flooding under new climate projections at a neighborhood scale, to the regional, such as one group’s efforts to get a Natural Recreation Area designation for most of the area’s coastline. The ideas put forward included both nature-based restoration and hard engineering solutions like the Galveston Bay Park, which, despite its simple name, is actually an ambitious network of offshore storm surge protection infrastructure.

A schematic of the proposed Galveston Bay Park, one of the significant engineering projects proposed to reduce the potential storm surge impacts going into Galveston Bay (via Rogers Partners)

One of the ongoing themes of the event was the need for new and improved information, both to better understand the risks the region faces and better communicate that risk to the public. Phil Bedient, the SSPEED Center Director and a professor of Civil Engineering at Rice, highlighted the top priorities for the city moving forward. In addition to prioritizing buyouts and building new drainage, detention, and pumping infrastructure to offset development, Dr. Bedient stressed the need to recognize that hazard boundaries are changing. In his words, “the 100-year floodplain is meaningless.” Instead, he argued, the city and FEMA must invest in new hydrologic models and maps that adequately capture the true, 21st century flood risk. Sam Brody, a Marine Sciences professor at Texas A&M Galveston, reiterated Dr. Bedient’s message in describing his lab’s ongoing work to build improved risk identification tools. “The floodplain boundaries,” he stressed, “were never meant to be risk boundaries.”

Models of estimated flood depths in the updated 100-year and 500-year floodplains (updated by SSPEED with new climate and hydrologic data) in the low-income neighborhood of East Houston, showing the high potential for significant flooding across the entire neighborhood (via Rice SSPEED Center)

Another recurring theme was the need for better communication. Toward that goal, Dr. Bedient and other Rice engineers described their ongoing efforts to expand the use of a flood warning system in Harris County so that risk information gets out to the public in a timely manner. His hope is that, one day, we can “warn people about flooding the way we warn them about traffic.” Kyle Shelton, Director of Strategic Partnerships at Rice’s Kinder Institute, went into greater detail on their efforts to engage the public. He stressed that risk communication must be about getting people to understand the inherent risks of where they live, but – at the same time – it must also be about “the small things” to make sure people have time to get their pictures out of their homes before disaster strikes. Dr. Shelton presented several key needs to this end: accurate, individualized information about risk, accessible risk maps, early and in-storm warning systems, coordination and communication of research, and community-scale mitigation efforts. He also stressed the value of tying the discussion about recovery into broader conversations about the issues that people face in their daily lives, including economic opportunity and healthcare. According to Dr. Shelton, “education, engagement, and community-based planning should underpin everything.” The engineers, planners, and designers presenting their specific solutions throughout the conference embraced that mantra to varying degrees.

A final overarching theme of the event was the value of more resilient, integrated, and nature-based infrastructure. Engineers from Rice and the Army Corps discussed their efforts to integrate traditional stormwater planning into other infrastructure planning efforts, particularly around transportation. Similarly, in reference to the Galveston Bay Park project, Rob Rogers of Rogers Partners Architects + Urban Designers, described how 21st century infrastructure “has to be multipurpose and multilayer.” Stephen Benigno, an ecologist for the Harris County Flood Control District, described how his agency was working to incorporate natural infrastructure into their detention basins. The new approach can not only ensure improved flood control over time, but also provide water quality remediation and public green space, all with reduced maintenance costs. Mary Anne Piacentini, president of the Katy Prairie Conservancy, reiterated the benefits of nature-based flood control. Describing her organization’s restoration efforts, Ms. Piacentini described the value of the coastal prairie ecosystems that ring the city to both serve as flood storage and counter the rapidly expanding extent of impervious surface. This is imperative because, of course, “nature works best when you’re working with it, not against it.”

Flooding in the Katy Prairie following the 2016 Tax Day Floods (via Katy Prairie Conservancy)

Jerry Cotter of the Army Corps of Engineers in Fort Worth was blunt that “if we continue to do business the way we’ve been doing it, we’re going to get the same results.” And, as Hurricane Harvey showed, those results can have deadly consequences. Today, Houston faces unprecedented challenges due to years of unchecked development and the growing threat of climate change. As such, the city is clearly going to need some unprecedented solutions. The SSPEED Conference was an opportunity to see what some of those solutions might look like. Ataul Hannan, the Director of Planning at the Harris County Flood Control District, perhaps summed up the entire event best: “Floods are powerful. But so is knowledge.”

Featured image: A flooded Buffalo Bayou heading into downtown Houston (via Rice SSPEED Center)

About the Author: Leah Campbell is a second-year Ph.D. student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, where she focuses on integrating equity and resilience into climate adaptation to address urban flooding. Prior to UNC, she worked in the environmental nonprofit sector in California advocating for progressive water quality and coastal resilience policies.

Climate Change is Reshaping U.S. National Parks

January 17, 2019 / odrozd

Standing in awe in California’s Yosemite Valley or in the shadow of Denali, deep in the Alaskan interior, it is easy to imagine that the 60 national parks of the United States are pristine wildernesses. However, what many don’t realize, is that the national park system actually encompasses over 400 units, including historical sites, battlefields, and scenic trails. Even the 60 sites that include ‘National Park’ in their name – think Acadia in Maine, Virginia’s Shenandoah, or the ‘Mighty Five’ parks in southern Utah – are less untouched than we’d like to imagine. The wolves that are so integral to the ecosystem and tourist experience in Yellowstone, Wyoming were brought there less than 30 years ago from Canada after a 70-year absence from the park. The inhospitable Grand Canyon, deep in the deserts of Arizona, provided a permanent home to Native Americans for at least 4,000 years before it became a park. And, since 2000, the largest restoration project ever undertaken in the US has been underway in the endless expanse of the Everglades in south Florida. The truth is, our national parks have never been able to avoid, and in many cases have benefited from, human intervention. However, with climate change, these iconic landscapes are now facing new threats stemming from human activity that may permanently alter the parks and our relationship to them.

Because of their active management, relatively intact ecosystems, and the presence of long-running scientific experiments, national parks have served as valuable laboratories to understand the myriad impacts of climate change. They’ve also given scientists and visitors alike a front row seat to those impacts as these landscapes change before our very eyes. In Alaska, melting permafrost, rapid coastal erosion, and disappearing sea ice are destroying archaeological sites and disconnecting native people from their historical subsistence lifestyles (some Alaskan parks are open to hunting by Alaskan natives). In Glacier National Park in Montana, only 25 of the park’s titular glaciers remain, compared to 150 in the late 1800s. Scientists project that all of the remaining glaciers could be gone in just 15 years. And in California’s Sequoia National Park, average annual temperatures are expected to rise by 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, threatening most of the 65 groves of Sequoia trees that exist in the entire world.

Photo: Glacier National Park’s Boulder Glacier in 1932 (top) vs. 1988 (bottom). Boulder Glacier is no longer considered an active glacier. Photo Credits: (top) Glacier National Park and (bottom) Lisa McKeon via Climate Central.

While the specific impacts of climate change, and the severity of those impacts, vary geographically, most parks are expected to experience, unsurprisingly, some warming. In fact, the acreage managed by the National Park Service has warmed faster since 1895 than the rest of the United States. For example, since 1948, the average annual temperature in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which spreads across Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana and includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, and winter is on average 10 days shorter a year. In mountainous parks like Yosemite and Glacier, rising temperatures have also changed the timing and availability of the winter snowpack, with more precipitation falling as rain than as snow. In fact, snowpack in the northern Rockies region today is at its lowest level in eight centuries. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of catastrophic flooding during the spring melt season and terrible drought in the late summer. Increases in summer temperatures are expected to shift visitation patterns, with more tourists coming in the fall and spring shoulder seasons rather than in the peak of summer. Currently, the Park Service estimates that the main visitor season will grow by 13 to 31 days across all of the parks. While that change may be an economic boon from gateway communities, it could stretch existing services thin as park managers attempt to accommodate more people over a longer season.

In 2016, Climate Central, the nonprofit climate news service, released a report analyzing the impact of rising summer temperatures on parks in the Lower 48, assuming greenhouse gas emissions remain steady. They found that summer temperatures could be up to 12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in some parks by 2100. They also found that there’ll be a dramatic increase in the number of extreme heat days, which is especially problematic for summer visitors. The most significant increase in extreme heat days will be felt in Texas’s Big Bend National Park, where the average number of days above 100 degrees will increase from 17 a year (from 1991-2010) to 113 in 2100. Arizona’s Saguaro National Park will similarly experience an increase from 39 to 127 days a year. Meanwhile, the number of days over 90 degrees in North Carolina and Tennessee’s Great Smoky Mountains, the most popular national park in the country with over 11 million visitors in 2017, could increase from 10 days to three months a year by 2100. At this rate of warming, summer time in Acadia National Park will feel more like that in southern Maryland, while Ohio’s Cuyahoga Valley will feel more like the Gulf Coast of Texas.

These increases in air temperature will increase the temperature of streams and rivers, affecting downstream commercial and recreational fisheries, and lead to an expansion in the range of invasive species and pests. For example, without the cold flow of glacier melt every summer, the western glacier stonefly, unique to Glacier National Park, is inching towards extinction. Bull trout throughout the mountain West are also struggling with warmer temperatures and an explosion of invasive lake trout populations. Meanwhile, invasive plants like cheatgrass have moved in en masse, pushing out more fire tolerant and nutritious native grass species. Warmer temperatures and extended drought have also led to infestations of mountain pine beetle across the West, particularly in high elevation forests that lack natural defenses against the pests. Over the past 30 years, the pine beetles have chomped over 46 million acres of forested land, infecting almost all of the pine trees in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park and 80% of the whitebark pines in Yellowstone. Widespread tree morality not only increases the risk of wildfires, by providing more dry fuel to burn, but it also takes away an important food source for species like grizzly bears, which rely on pine cones as a staple of their diet.

Map shows the impact of Pine Bark Beetle infestations in the West from 2000-2014. Image Credit: Karen Minot via MotherJones

Rising temperatures and the expansion of grasslands also provide the perfect conditions for devastating wildfires. Across the country, the average annual number of fires larger than 1,000 acres has more than tripled since the 1970s. In the northern Rockies, specifically, it has gone up more than 10-fold. Fire season is now 105 days longer than in the 1970s, with some fire managers claiming that there really isn’t a discrete fire ‘season’ anymore. With these changing conditions, fires like the catastrophic Yellowstone fires of 1988 and the 2013 Rim Fire in California, which burned almost 80,000 acres of Yosemite, are likely to become all too common.

Combined, these changes will shift what biologists call the ‘green wave.’ The green wave is not just a college mascot, but an important ecological process whereby plants become green at different times at different elevations, driving the hibernation, reproduction, and migration patterns of animals. A change in the green wave, coupled with changes in water availability, may alter how and when animals migrate through the landscape. Already, drought conditions are shifting the annual migration of Yellowstone’s elk. Meanwhile, an increase in icy conditions (from more rain-on-snow events) will make it more difficult for the caribou herds in Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park to dig for food in winter. In many states, national parks provide a refuge for large animals that are threatened by hunting and development outside of park borders. This is especially true for animals with long migration routes like the pronghorn (who have the longest land migration in the continental US) or bad reputations like wolves, that can be shot by hunters when they follow their elk prey beyond park boundaries. These uncertain changes to migration patterns will diminish the capacity of parks to provide safe havens that ensure these species and others can thrive.

The remote, high-elevation and forested parks of the West are not the only ones under siege. These same threats – invasive species, warming temperatures, changes in water availability – are affecting parks in every state. At the same time, parks protecting coastal and wetland ecosystems are also struggling with the additional burden of sea level rise. For example, New York City’s Gateway National Recreation Area – the only park service unit one can reach by subway – is preparing for sea level rise of 3 feet by 2100. That level of rise would put roughly $1.5 billion of assets at the nearby Statue of Liberty National Monument at risk. Those parks are having to find a way to adapt to the slow onset rise of sea level, while also shelling out millions for recovery from the devastation of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Managing steady sea level rise, coupled with an increased risk of saltwater intrusion and a more intense hurricane season, is a challenge all the parks on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, including Florida’s Biscayne National Park and Louisiana’s Jean Lafitte, will have to confront.

Climate change is likely to permanently alter the landscapes of our iconic national parks across the country. And in most cases, ecosystems are transforming so rapidly that many species don’t have the time or capacity to adapt. The Park Service is already having to rethink the entire paradigm around which we manage national parks and preserve the plants, animals, and human communities that call them home. Increasingly, park managers are turning to scenario planning and other innovative approaches to account for the vast uncertainty they face, both in terms of how these ecosystems and the federal government will respond to change. If anything, though, the threats of climate change will make the park system more vital than ever. Vast tracts of undeveloped land and robust, well preserved green corridors between protected areas will leave more physical space for species to migrate and adapt in response to changing conditions. National parks can and must continue to serve as refuges for species already stressed by development and habitat loss for whom climate change could otherwise be a death sentence. While these landscapes will change, they may, with the proper adaptation strategies and proactive response of local, state, and federal government, continue to remain iconic landscapes for generations to come.

Learn more about what impact climate change will have on individual national parks and what the National Park Service is doing about it here.

Featured Image: Sequoia National Park by Tuxyso / Wikimedia Commons, via Climate Central

About the Author: Leah Campbell is a first-year Ph.D. student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, where she focuses on equitable climate adaptation and disaster mitigation. Prior to UNC, she worked in the environmental nonprofit sector in California after receiving her B.S. in Geophysics and Environmental Science from Yale in 2015. Outside of academics, Leah enjoys folk music, long road trips, and anything that gets her outside.

References:

Kahn, B. 2016. Climate Change is the National Parks’ Biggest Challenge. Climate Central. http://reports.climatecentral.org/nps/overview/

Kahn, B. 2016. The Future of National Parks is Going to be a Lot Hotter. Climate Central. 24 Aug. 2016.

Climate Central, 2016. Climate Change is Tipping Scales Toward More Wildfire. Climate Central. 23 June. 2016.

Gonzalez, P., F. Wang, M. Notaro, D.J. Vimont, and J.W. Williams. 2018. Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in United Sates national parks. Environmental Research Letters 13.

Holloway, M. 2018. Your Children’s Yellowstone Will be Radically Different. New York Times. 15 Nov. 2018.

Oatman, M. 2015. Bark Beetles are Decimating our Forests. That Might Actually be a Good Thing. Mother Jones. May/June 2015.

Building with Big Cats in Mind

November 13, 2018 / odrozd

Most of us like animals. Maybe not spiders or rats (those poor guys get a bad rap), but adorable bobcats or soaring eagles? Something in these creatures captivates us in an often-unconscious way. This intrigue comes from our biophilia, or ‘love of life,’ which refers to the innate tendency of humans to be drawn to other life forms. Not only do we feel an affinity toward other species, but because we evolved in tandem with nature, we need them for our physical and mental well-being. In fact, studies show that greenspace can improve mental health, particularly through stress reduction, stimulating physical activity and facilitating social cohesion.¹

Despite its positive effects, we rarely plan nature into our urban lives. In fact, as human societies build and develop, we seem to plan other creatures out, sometimes pushing them to the very edge of extinction. During a recent stint on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, I witnessed how human land consumption suffocates Sumatran tigers. Plantations producing palm oil, which is used in everything from shampoo to ice cream, have exploded across the island. This burning of tiger habitat, along with unorganized expansion of human populations and poaching of wild animals, has left us with less than 400 Sumatran tigers total. As top predators, these tigers uphold delicate ecosystems that provide people with many life necessities. Plus, as my friend from West Sumatra explained, tigers represent an important grandmother-like figure for certain Sumatran cultures. Losing Sumatran tigers is not just bad for tigers; it is bad for people, too.

Land devastation in Sumatra. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

We see the negative impacts of pushing predators out of our lives in the United States as well. Pumas (also known as mountain lions or cougars) used to roam across the Eastern US, happily munching on deer and maintaining balanced ecosystems. However, as we developed most of the land in this half of the country, pumas were forced to retreat to a few strongholds in the west. Naturally, deer populations went berserk with their newfound independence and started breeding like rabbits. This imbalance not only created hordes of angry gardeners, but the increase in deer numbers also costs human lives. The heartbreaking damages caused by deer-vehicle collisions now make deer the most dangerous large mammal in North America. If we brought pumas back, they could eat enough of these ungulates to prevent about 155 human deaths and $2.13 billion in costs every 30 years.²

Singapore’s Supertrees. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

We can change how we develop to integrate nature. In fact, as we face a rapidly changing climate and the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event, we will have to. Examples of biophilic development and planning already exist. In Singapore, steel Supertrees create vertical gardens covered by over 162,900 plants and include canopies filled with environmentally sustainable functions (such as solar cells).³ Spotted hyenas and people coexist in the Ethiopian city of Harar, where hyenas actually help keep the city clean by eating meat waste. The Living Building Challenge, a sustainability certification program and design framework for our built environment, urges planners to create places that imitate nature’s clean and beautiful functioning. It even includes a biophilic environment imperative to “nurture the innate human/nature connection.”⁴

As we continue to build our cities and develop our societies, let us remember to plan for the well-being of humans and all other beings. We often think there exists some hard line between humanity and nature, and that each must fit into its own box for sophistication’s sake. But humans are animals; we are part of nature. Let us make it our duty to plan healthy and functional living spaces for all living things . It is not just the logical thing to do; it is the moral thing to do.

About the Author: Lucrecia Kaye Aguilar is a wildlife conservationist studying big cats and human-wildlife coexistence. Passionate about wildlife since childhood, Lucrecia completed her Bachelor of Science in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at Rice University before receiving the Thomas J. Watson Fellowship to explore big cat conservation around the world. She works to help prevent the extinction of big cat species and the detrimental effects of wildlife declines on people. Currently, Lucrecia is with cheetahs, leopards, and lions in southern Africa. You can find here on Instagram, Twitter, and on her blog.

Featured Image: A male lion with his cubs in Botswana. Photo Credit: Lucrecia Aguilar.

1. Vries, S. D., Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 26-33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030

2. Gilbert, S. L., Sivy, K. J., Pozzanghera, C. B., Dubour, A., Overduijn, K., Smith, M. M., . . . Prugh, L. R. (2016). Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Conservation Letters, 10(4), 431-439. doi:10.1111/conl.12280

3. Supertree Grove: Facts & figures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from http://www.gardensbythebay.com.sg/en/attractions/supertree-grove/facts-and-figures.html

4. Health & Happiness Petal Intent: Living Building Challenge. (2018, April 20). Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://living-future.org/lbc/health-happiness-petal/

Lessons Learned from the Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic’s First Annual Environmental Justice Symposium

April 12, 2018 / odrozd

The Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic recently held its first annual Environmental Justice Symposium, which took place on February 9th 2018 at the Duke University Law School. The theme of the symposium was access to water and sanitation in underserved communities and was an effort to bring to light some of the most prominent environmental justice issues afflicting underserved populations. The symposium included a panel discussion and several breakout sessions.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The concept of environmental justice also means that people are involved in developing safeguards that protect them and their communities against industrial and commercial operations that may be damaging to the environment in which they live. EJ includes issues like water quality, which was the main topic of this symposium, health, and pollution, among others.

27709964_10155291629021847_6815747987880786912_o

Panelists discuss their experiences working on water quality EJ issues across the country. From left to right they include: Catherine Flowers, Colin Bailey, and Omega Wilson. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.

The Panelists

The panel discussion included Catherine Flowers, Omega Wilson, and Colin Bailey, environmental justice community organizers who operate in different areas of the United States and focus on water and sanitation services. Catherine Flowers is the executive director and founder of the Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise which leads projects for the improvement of infrastructure in low-income communities in Alabama. Her work is focused primarily in rural areas. Ms. Flowers is also involved in the Equal Justice Initiative which aids poor communities with legal advice to uphold environmental justice principles. Colin Bailey works for the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) as their executive director and managing attorney in California. Mr. Bailey and the EJCW have been influential in defending California’s notable Human Rights to Water policy that was passed in 2012. Omega Wilson helped found the West End Revitalization Association, a non-profit organization that works on improving access of marginalized communities to amenities that are foundational to public health. Mr. Wilson’s work takes place all over the Southeast.

Key Takeaways

In response to a question regarding the influence of the political environment on advocacy endeavours, the panelists made several interesting points. Ms. Flowers responded by stating that she has perpetually straddled the fence between republican and democrat but that many people focus on EJ issues in urban areas, generally of democratic constituencies, although rural areas experience injustice as well. Thus, a key takeaway is that there should be a greater emphasis on the needs of rural communities, as well. Mr. Wilson responded that there is always a political agenda and that this agenda is not always accepting of EJ advocates, whom are often seen as “troublemakers” at various levels of city governance. In essence, the panelists explained that the political environment does have an impact on EJ issues and that allies are not always allies as everyone has their own particular interests.

A second question posed by the moderator asked what role impacted communities have in the fight for environmental justice. The panelists responded by saying that listening to individuals in these communities is key as their experiences may be counter to the “official narrative” of a particular situation. Additionally, panelists suggested that advocates and organizers should focus on building relationships with these community members, as well. They said there is a need to develop trust with people in EJ communities by involving people who are recognized and already trusted within the community. Mr. Wilson described an example in which his organization was trying to collect water samples for water quality tests; however, it was difficult to get people to let random organizers into their homes to test their water. Therefore, building trust, especially through the involvement of community members themselves, is crucial. Mr. Bailey made a similar point about the need to build capacity at the community level so that knowledge grows and disseminates within the community.

27788053_10155291585836847_440835930086540090_o

Participants gathered together in groups to discuss the regulatory barriers and solutions to solving some of the most prominent EJ water quality issues. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.

Regulatory Approaches Breakout Session Notes

One of the breakout sessions at the symposium was about the regulatory barriers and solutions to the water quality challenges faced by underserved communities. Among the barriers that the breakout group discussed was a lack of enforcement of environmental regulations in environmental justice communities, which in turn yields greater contamination and reduced environmental quality of resources such as water. The group also discussed the general lack of water quality testing in these communities. This lack of monitoring can allow environmental issues to worsen since it is difficult to regulate and impose penalties if there is no monitoring or water testing being done. Participants also described how there are EJ communities in which the pipe systems have deteriorated over the long term with very little maintenance; at this stage, corporate businesses can easily buy these underserved and undervalued parcels and benefit greatly, sometimes to the detriment of existing communities.

Successful regulatory approaches to EJ issues are varied. One participant suggested that local, rather than statewide, mandates and regulations may be more effective at grasping the nuances and issues of the local environment. Others suggested increased scrutiny as it pertains to companies–such as power plants, oil refineries, and hog industries–locating in environmentally sensitive areas, along with greater transparency in legislation and the corporate influence in policy making can help address these issues. Additionally, grants, rather than long-term loans, could be utilized to implement water infrastructure improvements in EJ communities. An important point that came from this discussion was the potential criminalization of civilian regulation violators, which can have real consequences on individuals’ lives; ensuring that existing members of the community are aware of the regulatory requirements is essential, especially as advocates encourage better monitoring and enforcement.

Conclusion

The Environmental Justice Symposium was an opportunity for participants to better understand and unpack some of the implications, barriers, and solutions that characterize issues of environmental justice. Of particular interest was the water quality, inequality, and marginalization challenges that the panelists at this symposium grapple with in their respective communities and regions. The panelists brought to light the implications that the political environment can have as they navigate EJ endeavours and the role that community members play in these efforts. Audience members were also able to brainstorm and discuss some of the regulatory barriers and solutions to environmental injustices throughout the nation.

About the Author: Kathia Toledo is a candidate for the master’s in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There, she is pursuing the Land Use and Environmental Planning Specialization. Kathia is particularly interested in the dynamic between varying urban landscapes, sustainability, and planning. She graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill with a Bachelors of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies and a minor in Urban Planning. Her hobbies include creative endeavors like urban sketching and photography, biking on the American Tobacco Trail, and exploring new cities and towns.

Featured Image: Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic’s First Annual Environmental Justice Symposium. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.

Grace Lake and the Sinkhole of 1986: A Remediation Plan and 30-year Saga of Grass Roots Involvement

March 21, 2018 / odrozd

Central Florida, encompassing the area between Daytona and Tampa, contains numerous lakes—and many sink holes, which occur due to the weakening and collapse of the supporting layer of limestone beneath the ground surface. In fact, it is understood that a majority of the lakes in this area (“sink hole alley”) were formed as sink holes appeared and filled with ground water from the large underlying aquifers.

In April of 1986, a sinkhole appeared at the edge of a small lake known as Grace Lake, located next to Interstate 4 about 20 miles north of Orlando. The initial depression and opening was around 10 ft. in diameter, and it was able to reduce the 14 acre lake to a small pond in a matter of days. As described here, it would then take 31 years for the sink hole to naturally plug itself, but, in the interim, lake residents would spend countless hours trying to find ways to restore the lake, and learned much about urban planning and the importance of community involvement in the process.

Early view of Grace Lake Sink Hole. Photo Credit: Mark Kamrath

In the beginning, in the immediate aftermath of the sinkhole’s appearance, residents did everything from using a shovel and dumping yard debris to fill the sinkhole (then, 10 feet in diameter) to contacting the local home owners’ associations and the county government. Residents held meetings and tried to come up with a solution, but no one could come up with a structured approach to filling the sinkhole and restoring the lake.

For a couple of years, the lake did fill and there was hope that the sink hole had repaired itself. However, in 1988, the sinkhole reopened and grew in size, causing the lake to again disappear. This time, and for nearly three decades, only the heavy annual rains associated with the rainy season (June through October) would cause the lake to partially fill, only to drain again as the level of the Floridan aquifer went through its annual cycle.

During this period, there was stepped-up levels of grass-roots activity aimed at getting the attention of the local government (Seminole County) authorities to address the situation. Not only were the residents disturbed by the loss of their lovely lakeside environment, and property values, but there was, fortunately, much more to it on a larger scale.

Since Grace Lake is part of the Seminole County storm water drainage system, and receives considerable runoff from the Interstate, the continuous drainage of the lake directly into the aquifer, a primary source of drinking water, was felt to be a serious concern. This environmental and public health issue was to become the main driving force behind the effort to restore the lake. (Note: In Florida, drainage of ground water into the aquifer is not that uncommon, and is part of the aquifer recharging process, but allowing a large sink hole to act as a “drainage well” in a drainage basin next to a busy interstate highway, as was the case here, was believed to be a violation of the relevant water management regulations.)

In 2001, local residents contacted the Seminole County Department of Public Works and the St Johns River Water Management District to learn more about the lake’s health and to inquire about a way to restore it. Contact was also made with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Transportation. During this process, residents met with engineers, hydrologists, and other experts and came to the conclusion that more study of the lake was needed.

In 2004, after much discussion, about 30 residents of the North Ridge and North Cove subdivisions, which are located around the lake, raised enough money to commission a geotechnical study that would assess the lake’s hydrology and propose an engineering solution to remediate the sinkhole and restore the lake. That study was conducted by Devo Engineering of Orlando. It concluded that the repair of the sink hole was technically and economically feasible, and recommended a rather straightforward method to plug it.

Armed with their engineering study, residents returned to both Seminole County and the St. Johns River Water Management District asking for them to act. For one reason or another, the county engineers did not feel that it was their responsibility. The Water Management District told us that the first step in the process of implementing the engineers’ recommendations, whoever was going to do it, was to file an application for an “Environment Resource Permit”. So, as instructed, the necessary paperwork was obtained, and the application process was started, making use of the talents of a recently retired engineer in the local group. However, it was not long before it became clear that the type of data and analysis, including computer modeling of the local drainage basin, as was required to complete the application, would be out of reach for the small group of local residents involved.

It also became evident that, one way or the other, the local group would have to find a way to effectively apply pressure on the county officials so that they would accept the sink hole, and the drainage of raw untreated runoff from the lake into the aquifer, as their responsibility. It was then that one of the home owners, who was well-connected to local political circles, was able to get the attention of key county officials. This, in turn, cleared the way for a contingent of residents to appear before the Board of County Commissioners to present their case, and, at the end, obtain some indication that the county would take over the permitting process, and take on the job of repairing the sink hole and restoring the lake.

After some delay, and regular “reminding” by local residents, the county hired their own engineering consultants to conduct the necessary modeling and come up with a design for the repair. Initially, the county’s approach was much more complicated and expensive than originally recommended by the residents’ engineer. It provided for concrete structure with an overflow gate that was intended to maintain a maximum lake level to avoid downstream flooding. But, after further analysis and several design iterations, the county engineers finally adopted the original relatively simple and cheaper approach to plugging the sinkhole, and finally budgeted the funds to implement the fix.

Overall, this process took approximately 10 years to complete, due to numerous delays, an economic recession, budget cuts, and other factors, including, it is believed, reluctance on the part of the county storm water engineers to lose a substantial amount of storm water storage volume, which the sink hole had provided by causing the lake to empty in the first place. It turns out that such reticence to giving up that much valuable storage volume was well founded.

During the period of 2013-2015, the county legal department put an additional hurdle in the way of progress by requiring signed easements from each home owner located on the one side of the lake where there didn’t already exist a county “drainage easement”. Unfortunately, the process of obtaining these easements became totally bogged down, and, even with a door-to-door campaign to convince reluctant home owners to sign, again caused a long delay in the project.

However, an unexpected change in project management at the county level resulted in a rethinking on this legal requirement, and the need for the easements was finally rescinded in the fall of 2015.

At the same time, in October-December, 2015, as Grace Lake was expected to recede (as it had been doing regularly for some 27 years prior), so that the work could commence, it was surprisingly observed that the level of the lake hardly went down at all. In fact, as some unusual heavy fall rains fell, Grace Lake even reached its historical outfall level, where it overflows though a conduit under the Interstate roadway. This conduit leads to a portion of the lake that was cut off from the main body of the lake when the interstate was built in the 1960s. This, in turn, caused flooding of a local church school’s soccer field, which happened to be installed in this cut-off part of Grace Lake. As might be expected, a consequence of this was that much blame was placed on the county for “fixing the sink hole and causing the flooding”. Of course, this happened in spite of the fact that the work to repair the sink hole never started.

At this point, the county, with the help of lake residents, began to monitor lake levels closely, and, since the lake water level hardly fell in spite of the return of the dry season, it was determined at the start of the summer, 2016, that the sinkhole had naturally plugged itself, and the project was removed from the list of active county capital improvement projects.

At the end of the summer of 2016, and near the official end of the hurricane season in Florida, Hurricane Matthew arrived dumping 9 inches of rainfall over night, and, with Grace Lake being nearly full at the time, it again caused threats of downstream flooding. Once again, complaints arose that the county was at fault for not preparing adequately for such an event. The loss of storm water storage volume that Grace Lake once provided caused all downstream retention ponds to reach unprecedented levels, and near flooding conditions.

Then, during the summer of 2017, continuous heavy summer rains caused Grace Lake to reach its outflow level by the end of July. So, the lake offered no help to the storm water drainage system when, on September 10, Hurricane Irma arrived with its record levels of rainfall. Grace Lake water levels peaked at more than 4 ft. above its outflow level, flooding many yards around the lake and causing flooding to downstream retention ponds, yards and streets. In one downstream neighborhood, residents had to drive through a foot or more of water flowing across the road to get to their homes. And once again, the county was called upon to help, and pumps were use to move water from one pond to the next in an attempt to alleviate the flooding.

All of this because the Grace Lake sink hole had repaired itself, and removed many acre-feet of storage for the storm water.

Not only that, but the return of Grace Lake has led to a new set of problems for residents and various agencies to grapple with, especially in regard to the appearance of hydrilla and other noxious aquatic weeds that would eventually choke the lake if left untreated. Debate among residents occurred in regard to the best way to treat Grace Lake following various environmental guidelines. The most heated debates concerned the degree to which the recommended herbicides should be used safely, combined with the introduction of a limited population of sterile “grass carp” to control the weeds. Eventually, enough resident support was obtained to form an MSBU (Municipal Services Benefit Unit) to pay for the Seminole County Lake Management Program to treat the lake, but only after much effort to educate residents about its benefits and the County Commissioners voted to approve the MSBU.

So, 30-plus years after the appearance of the Grace Lake sink hole, and the beginning of a decades-long saga of ground-roots involvement with local government agencies to repair it, Grace Lake is currently near full, under treatment for aquatic weeds, and is part of the Florida Lake Watch program at the University of Florida.

Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger

About the Authors: Harry Jaeger and Mark Kamrath

Harry Jaeger is a retired engineer, born, raised and educated in New York City, moved to Florida 30 years ago with relocation of his job with Westinghouse Power Generation from Pennsylvania. He has been involved in Grace Lake sink hole story for 25+ years, and was instrumental in development of program with local county to that lake for invasive species of aquatic weeds.

Mark Kamrath is a Professor of English at the University of Central Florida. He moved to Orlando 21 years ago from Nebraska. He joined the Northridge Home owners association as part of an effort to remediate Grace Lake. He enjoys Florida’s local springs and many beaches, and likes to travel abroad when he is not doing research or teaching.

Featured Image: Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger.

Where does the UNC campus get its energy?

January 30, 2018 / odrozd

The Renewable Energy Special Projects Committee (RESPC) is a branch of student government that funds renewable energy projects on campus. The group is funded by the green fee, a $4 fee assessed on all UNC students. In November 2017, several RESPC members toured the UNC Co-Generation plant on West Cameron Street with Time Aucoin, the Regulatory Compliance Coordinator at the plant. Many students do not realize that this facility produces much of the University’s energy. The Co-Generation plant keeps UNC’s energy exceptionally cheap ($0.05/kWh compared to the NC average of $0.12/kWh). Given that the University has its own plant, what are the implications for disincentivizing alternative energy sources?

The co-gen plant has a special use permit for operation, which is reviewed every 12-18 months by the Town of Chapel Hill. On site, there are two coal silos that have the capacity to hold 5,000 tons of coal each, but approximately 8,000 tons are kept on site at any time (in total). There is one additional silo with 10,000 tons on hand. These surpluses are not actively used, but kept on site in the event of lack of supplies. The plant would be able to operate for 30 days without any supplies.

One of the main focuses of the tour in November was the ways in which the co-gen plant is working to limit the environmental impacts of energy production.

The buildings where energy is produced have a negative draft, ensuring that no coal dust is released into the atmosphere. The plant also takes other safety measures to avoid environmental contamination. The baghouse houses six enormous nomex (same material used to make fireman suits) bags, which catch the toxic ash, called “fly ash,” from the burning process. These bag houses last about 6 years, and cost approximately $250,000 each to replace. The University replaces one bag every year. Inside the bags, the temperature is ambient to prevent condensation, and thereby acid rain. Fly ash is kept on site in a silo until shipment to Virginia.

“I’m glad to see the co-gen plant is taking measures to be responsible and control emissions, but climate change is a serious concern of students and coal is a generation method we’d like to move away from,” said Environmental Finance Center Student data analyst Erin Danford, after the tour.

The co-gen plant cannot sell electricity, it can only subsidize the University’s use.

The University uses approximately 100,000 lbs of steam per hour. The co-gen plant produces steam for the hospital for sterilization purposes. Approximately 80% of the steam that the University provides for the hospital comes back as hot water, usually around 180 degrees. The plant takes advantage of this heat by removing contaminants with a magnet, and reusing the water to create more steam. Since the water is already hot, it requires less energy to create steam. Co-gen staff are currently working to get a reverse osmosis machine so that they can remove contaminants from OWASA gray water for more sustainable steam production.

For the future, the plant is working on a coal reinjection program to reduce coal use and transition to gas and potentially biomass. On May 1, 2010, Chancellor Holden Thorp announced that the University would be coal-free by 2020, but it is unclear whether this goal will be seen to fruition. Information on progress toward this goal or how plans to achieve this goal were scrapped are difficult to find. Aucoin suggests that the University will only ever move away from coal if it is “financially prudent for students.”

“Coal is not clean nor sustainable, and I’d like to see our University taking greater steps to move towards renewable energy,” said Danford.

The co-generation plant is integral to the daily operations of the University, and more students and staff should learn about its role. “The tour was pretty interesting in terms of learning about the industrial side of energy and what goes on in the factories,” said RESPC member Jonathan Gonzalez.

Other articles about the UNC Co-Generation Plant by The Daily Tar Heel, The News & Observer, and Sustainability @ UNC.

Feature Image: CC0 MichaelGaida

About the Author: Olivia Corriere is an undergraduate student from Ann Arbor, Michigan, majoring in Environmental Studies (Sustainability Track) and minoring in Geography. She is particularly interested in the implementation of sustainable practices of all kinds in the daily lives of the public. During Summer 2017, she interned with the Huron Waterloo Pathways Initiative with the Karen’s Trail campaign. In her free time, she enjoys running, creating music playlists, and spending time in coffee shops with friends.

Editor: Katy Lang

Piecing the Fragments Together: Approaches to Green Infrastructure Implementation In Cities

December 12, 2017 / odrozd

Using design and engineering, there are many ways that buildings, plantings, or other structures can absorb stormwater runoff, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve air and water quality in a city. These practices are called green infrastructure (GI).

GI can help cities save money and improve environmental quality for ecosystems and humans. Stormwater runoff, particularly in combined sewer system cities where runoff and sewage share infrastructure, can lead to higher water treatment costs, flooding, and loss of water quality and ecosystem well-being. It can reduce runoff loads by creating more permeable surfaces, which slow the velocity of runoff and filter pollutants out of water before it seeps into groundwater sources or goes into streams and rivers. Higher urban temperatures compared to the surrounding landscape, termed the urban heat island effect, can have negative health and safety implications especially in the most vulnerable populations that inhabit our cities. Higher temperatures on the already hot summer days can elevate the risk of stroke for the elderly and affect the youngest. GI strategically utilizes vegetation in most of its applications, which cools a space through evapotranspiration. Vegetation found in GI can also filter city air and improve overall air quality. It can also serve as a carbon sink for our intensive transportation demands and resulting emissions. Finally, GI can beautify a city through well-designed rain gardens, green roofs, urban wetlands, and other structures.

Figure 1. Bioswales in New York City are a part of a larger GI initiative led by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Bioswales are landscape features that remove pollutants from surface stormwater runoff. Photo Credit: DEP Flickr page.

However, to achieve large scale GI applications, cities need take a more collaborative approach. Currently, cities tend to use a fragmented approach to GI, which is inefficient and yields limited results, because of the lack of strategically placed infrastructure. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that one way to incorporate GI is to designate a GI district downstream from a high density development. Incorporating this type of district, however, likely requires a high level of collaboration between different stakeholders and not a fragmented approach. The entities that play a role in this fragmented arena are educational and research organizations, city planning and water management departments, as well as other departments that carry out the day-to-day functions of a city. Research and education materials on GI and its benefits are produced by one entity, while general city plans are developed by another department, and yet another department develops a stormwater management plan. Ideally, these components should be a part of a collaborative effort, which, while maintaining individual department boundaries, would bring their outputs together to create a holistic approach. Research and outreach materials should inform stormwater and city planning and general city plans should consider future stormwater management and its potential dependencies on GI. There are various distinct and successful approaches to widespread GI implementation that serve as examples for other cities to follow when devising a strategy to conduct GI in a more robust manner. New York City and Los Angeles are examples of cities that have a more integrated and widespread GI networks, while Houston is an example of a less vigorous GI effort, but it is starting to move towards this collaborative approach.

New York

Compared to the 10 largest cities in the U.S., New York has one of the largest amounts of rainfall, which results in a heightened demand for water treatment. Backed by the then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg, PlanNYC is a comprehensive climate adaptation plan that brought together organizations of diverse backgrounds to foster a “Greener, Greater New York,” mainly focusing on the “physical city, and its possibilities to unleash opportunity.” The plan’s creators “have examined the tangible barriers to improving our daily lives: housing that is too often out of reach, neighborhoods without enough playgrounds, the aging water and power systems in need of upgrades, congested roads and subways. All are challenges that, if left unaddressed, will inevitably undermine our economy and our quality of life.” To start, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the organization that manages the plan, set forth initiatives such as the Greener Greater Buildings Plan, Clean Heat Program, Million Trees Program, and the Green Infrastructure Plan to complement the larger scale plan. Additionally, the Center for Clean Air Policy provides financial measures that inform the city about the costs and benefits of the Green Infrastructure Plan. Several GI projects have already resulted from this comprehensive plan, including the Bluebelt System in Staten Island and a GI project at the Bronx Botanical Garden.

Los Angeles

Located in a relatively arid region, Los Angeles only receives approximately 12 inches of stormwater on a yearly basis. Unlike New York City, Los Angeles needs to use its GI to retain water in rain barrels and cisterns for later use. According to Christopher Economides from the Columbia University Water Center, 87% of the city’s water comes from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, from which the city purchases water. The remaining 13% of the city’s water comes from groundwater sources. Having to purchase such a large amount of water deters the city from spending in other essential services, such as education and healthcare. To lower this expenditure and to have better control of their water management, the City of Los Angeles implemented the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which focuses on pollution reduction from runoff, and The Green Streets program, which promotes GI on the street level to recharge groundwater resources. Los Angeles’ current political climate favors GI implementation efforts, which is not surprising as successful projects serve as evidence of the continued benefits for the city. Successful projects include the Rio De Los Angeles State Park’s constructed wetlands and the South Los Angeles Wetlands Park, which has the capacity to filter 680,000 gallons per day. Despite these successes, the Columbia University Water Center rates the vigor of GI intensiveness in Los Angeles a 5 out of 10, which is a moderate rating on a scale that considers a variety of factors, including whether or not a city has a long term GI agenda, implementation of GI projects, existence of a green roof program, and urban wetlands (see figure 3). However, GI implementation has the potential to become more rigorous in Los Angeles, which would help the city prepare for the 1.7 million person increase in population that the California Department of Finance predicts by 2060. This is a significant increase in population, as it is over one third of the 3.976 million current residents of the city, all of whom will require water.

The City of Los Angeles has the potential to prepare for this heightened water demand. The Community Conservancy International found that approximately 40% of the the stormwater runoff that needs to be cleaned of pollutants could be achieved through GI implementation projects on current public lands. This unrealized potential speaks to the point that the city needs to take a greater leadership role in GI efforts which would help reduce water expenditures, improve water quality, and reduce the urban heat island effect for the whole city.

Figure 2. Wetland in Los Angeles Historic State Park. Photo Credit: Los Angeles State Historic Park.

Houston

Unlike Los Angeles., Houston receives a significant amount of rain– 49.8 inches per year. With this amount of rain, intense GI implementation might seem like a given, particularly after the large-scale flooding events brought about by Hurricane Harvey. Organizations like the Conservation Fund and Environment Texas urge Houston to implement GI in order to become more resilient to storm events like Harvey. However, although their ReBuild Houston Program seeks to “improve the quality of life and mobility for residents of the city by rebuilding our drainage and street infrastructure,” it mostly foregoes GI and plans for grey infrastructure. The Houston Stormwater Management Program collaborated with ReBuild Houston to improve stormwater management, yet GI implementation is not a part of the plan. There are other efforts, such as the Clean Waterways organization that generate tools and learning materials to educate the public, however, there is little to no municipal support or involvement for GI implementation or education initiatives. Likely because there are few financial or regulatory incentives to implement GI. A study by Environment Texas found that Houston ranks fourth among the five largest cities in Texas in terms GI policies, fifth being the worst. Los Angeles and New York City have clear collaboration strategies and GI implementation is referenced in a variety of planning tools, such as stormwater management plans and green infrastructure plans– a strategy that would help Houston have a more rigorous GI implementation approach.

However, there are signs that Houston may move toward GI planning and implementation. Plan Houston is a new comprehensive plan that focuses on various physical aspects of the city. According to the the new Plan Houston steering committee, one of their top priorities for the FY 2018 is to “establish a regional approach to detention, including an impact fee based on floor area ratios and/or sectors or watersheds. Some existing parks may be used for detention as well as recreation.” In addition, the steering committee recommends that “more resources should be spent on outreach; it must not be an afterthought. This includes developing a coordinated approach among departments, targeting issues people care about and establishing focus groups to reach more people and get more detailed input.” Both priorities reference the need for GI, collaboration, and community outreach. This language suggests that Houston intends to move forward with improvement of flood management through stormwater detention, but there is still insufficient reference to GI, which certainly needs to play a greater role.

Figure 3. Rating of GI implementation in 11 cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Houston.. Photo Credit: Columbia University Water Center.

Successful and widespread GI implementation in a city is dependent upon a variety of factors. A collaborative approach, rather than a fragmented one, is key. Multiple city departments need to be on the same terms when planning for stormwater management and GI implementation. This collaboration, in addition to a high level of political support, as seen in New York City, give cities a good standing to successfully adopt GI on a broader scale.

Feature Image: The Highline in NYC. Photo Credit: Time Out.

Economides, Christopher. “Green Infrastructure: Sustainable Solutions in 11 Cities across the United States.” Columbia University Water Center. (2014): 1-44. Web.

Chau, Haan‐Fawn. “Green Infrastructure for Los Angeles : Addressing Urban Runoff and Water Supply Through Low Impact Development.” (2009): 1–136. Print.

About the Author: Kathia Toledo is a candidate for the master’s in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There, she is pursuing the Land Use and Environmental Planning Specialization. Kathia is particularly interested in the dynamic between varying urban landscapes, sustainability, and planning. She graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill with a Bachelors of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies and a minor in Urban Planning. Her hobbies include creative endeavors like urban sketching and photography, biking on the American Tobacco Trail, and exploring new cities and towns.

Seven Things Planners Need to Know About Airports

January 6, 2016 / odrozd

Planners who aren’t familiar with their local airport can easily overlook the facility. Here is what you should know:

Our aviation system is expansive: At any given time, there are around 7,000 aircraft in the air over the U.S. which are being served by airports of varying sizes and roles. Only 12 percent of the public airports that receive federal funding are primary commercial service airports, meaning that our aviation system is largely composed of facilities mainly used by general aviation aircraft.

Photo Credit, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

The airport was probably here first: Many airports in the U.S. have existed since the 20s, 30s or 40s. Over time, many communities have allowed incompatible land uses to encroach into areas around their airport, often resulting in the airport being villainized for operating as it was established to do.

The average citizen contributes very little to the airport: Around 3,300 airports in the US receive federal funding through the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Eligible projects receive from 75% to 95% of project cost from the federal government; the remainder is paid for by the state transportation or aviation department and the locality. Federal AIP funds come from user fees and fuel taxes, not tax dollars from the general public. The same is often true for the state funding match.

Federally-obligated airports must have an approved development plan: Airports who accept AIP funds are obligated to keep their Airport Layout Plan (ALP) up to date. The ALP, a product of the master planning process, depicts the proposed development plan over a 20-year period and beyond. Planners should take into account the 20-year and “Beyond 20 Years” phases of development when making land use decisions. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to projects depicted on the ALP.

Airspace and Safety Basics: There are myriad airspace surfaces and FAA-established design standards; two of the most often cited are the 14 CFR Part 77 “imaginary” surfaces, and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The Part 77 surfaces protect airspace and should be incorporated into the local zoning ordinance to prevent heights and land uses that would interfere with pilot visibility and safety (for example, tall cell towers or reflective solar panels). Remember that the approach path extends well beyond the boundaries of airport property.

The RPZ is a trapezoidal area off of each runway end. For their protection, no people or property can locate within the RPZ. FAA recommends that airports own the land within each RPZ.

FAA Form 7460-1 is required by law for development proposed in proximity to any public-use airport. These should all be tied to the local permit review process to prevent incompatible projects from being approved.

Conceptual Drawing of Selected Airspace Surfaces, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc.

A well-equipped airport is an economic development engine: The airport is a utility, and the user wants to come and go as safely and as efficiently as possible. Generally, lower visibility minimums make an airport more attractive to potential businesses, corporate visitors, and tourists. As the visibility improves, the RPZ on each runway end expands, meaning that the airport must secure more land to ensure pilots have adequate margins of error for takeoff and landing.

Land Use Compatibility is the Responsibility of the Locality: Zoning is arguably the most powerful tool to protect airspace and prevent land use incompatibility. Planners should discourage noise sensitive uses like residential from locating near an operating airport. Industrial, manufacturing, and some commercial uses are a better fit. When making land use decisions for your community, take into account the “Beyond 20 Year” phase of development on the ALP. If the airport plans to extend the runway in Year 21 through a future high-density residential area, compatibility issues are sure to follow.

About the Author: Mary Ashburn Pearson, AICP, is an airport planner and environmental Project Manager at Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. She lives in Richmond, Virginia.