Sea level rise is an inescapable reality that our region now lives with and will continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. Even if we successfully hit statewide targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the longevity of the CO2 already in the atmosphere locks us into increasing and accelerating sea level rise. New York State, New York City, and New Jersey (through Rutgers University) have each developed their own, regional sea level rise projections, taking into account local geographies, that inform policy decisions. The sea level rise estimates used by USACE are well below these region-specific estimates. Even relatively small differences in projections could drive different or differently designed interventions. Additionally, projects in the study are designed to meet criteria related to flood risk reduction for a 50-year period spanning the years between 2045 and 2095. Using a sea level rise estimate in line with local estimates, raises the probability that projects implemented by USACE will fail to perform for the entirety of the 50-year period; such a failure would represent a significant misappropriation of taxpayer dollars and leave communities and infrastructure vulnerable to flooding sooner than anticipated.

This study came about in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012, a storm that took the region by surprise and resulted in significant destruction and loss of life in communities, as well as damage of critical infrastructure from a coastal storm surge as high as 14 feet. It is not surprising that the response to a storm like Sandy would be to study how to prevent damage from such a storm from ever happening again. But, as we’ve learned in the years since Sandy, coastal storm surge is but one climate impact of many that our region needs to adapt to.

Understanding that a multi-hazard approach to climate impacts is necessary, the US Congress in 2020 passed WRDA (updated in 2022), which, among other measures, directed USACE to revise regulations on the assessment of sea level rise effects and inland flooding, as well as to formulate alternatives that maximize the benefits of projects that address multiple climate risks simultaneously, including riverine flooding, tidal flooding, extreme precipitation, higher high tides, groundwater rise, subsidence, sea level rise, and other drivers of flood risk.

Our region faces all of the threats described above. We’ve lived through Sandy (coastal storm surge) and have endured Ida (extreme precipitation and inland flooding). Our groundwater is rising, posing a risk of flooding from below, and we’re still in the process of finding the best ways to keep polluted stormwater and wastewater from overflowing into our waterways. At the same time, sea levels are rising, putting us on a path to flood events at each high tide in the not too distant future. We simply cannot choose one of these risks to focus on, while ignoring the rest, particularly when there is a window of opportunity to study approaches and make investments, backed by Federal dollars.

A number of the proposed interventions put forward in Alternative 3B could successfully manage a few climate threats (e.g. shore-based measures in low-lying areas that are not located behind a proposed storm surge barrier), but others simply do not address multiple hazards, and worse, some might exacerbate one risk while attempting to address another (extreme precipitation flooding in the basin behind a closed surge barrier during a storm with high surge and heavy rainfall). Additionally, the measures for flood protection proposed in areas protected by surge barriers (risk reduction features), are designed solely for flood events that fall below the threshold for closing the surge barriers (7 foot storm surge). It is likely that these measures may not be adequate for what are likely to be increasing and higher tidal flood events. And using lower than recommended sea level rise projections could lead to a shorter than useful life of these features. State-sponsored planning efforts, such as NJ DEP’s Resilient Northeast New Jersey plan could be used as a guide for USACE to address multi-hazards and could benefit from Federal funding for implementation.

Where surge barriers are offered as interventions in Alternative 3B, fewer and less protective shore-based measures are proposed behind them, along with proposed measures for induced flooding that would be caused by closing the barriers . Eliminating surge barriers from the alternative would likely require additional or more aggressive treatments along the shorelines at risk from flooding, though would no longer require induced flooding investments. It may be that the scale and scope of shore-based measures required to address the same level of flood risk across the same geographies absent surge barriers would cost more than taxpayers are willing to support, but RPA recommends that USACE propose an alternative approach within 3B that demonstrates what this would look like, particularly in areas behind the surge barriers that close off Northern New Jersey and Jamaica Bay. Such alternatives should include shore-based measures, nature-based solutions, and non-structural interventions including buyouts.

4. Expand the Emphasis on Environmental Justice and Social Vulnerability.

USACE has taken improved steps towards addressing issues of equity and justice in their approach, but still fall short of necessary action. Equity and justice were one of multiple factors included in one of four screens (national economic development, regional economic development, environmental quality, and other social effects). In the screens carried out for Alternative 3B, social vulnerability and environmental justice as topics scored particularly poorly for Alternative 3B, compared to some of the other alternatives. Aside from these particular screens, it’s fair to say that USACE has not determined an effective way to evaluate issues of equity and justice into their analyses of different alternatives. RPA joins other advocates in encouraging USACE to place greater emphasis on ensuring that communities with less accumulated wealth, and who have been marginalized and victims of systemic racism, be better accounted for in the benefit-cost ratio and screens like Economic and Regional Economic Development, which fail to adequately capture the value of protecting and advancing justice for these communities. Further, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and other climate-related events, many frontline (and other) communities took planning into their own hands and developed resilience plans across a spectrum of topics. In partnership with Rebuild by Design, EDF, and multiple community organizations, RPA developed an interactive map of resilience plans developed at the community scale. These efforts should be evaluated by USACE to ensure that the goals described in these plans are reflected in the future phases of this study.

There has been a momentum shift over the past decade or so toward nature-based solutions for flood management, including within USACE itself. Additionally, Section 116 of WRDA 2020 explicitly requires the prioritization of natural and nature-based features and ecosystem services in cost-benefit analyses. Most alternatives in this Study include proposals for nature-based features, though with limited use or description. It would be unrealistic to suggest that nature-based features can provide the same level of flood risk reduction as a fully engineered approach, but given the increasing demand for such approaches, RPA suggests that USACE take the opportunity of this study to fully and clearly model what level of flood risk reduction that nature-based features could afford, and where these approaches would work best. Communities and stakeholders that are calling for increased nature-based features would benefit from this knowledge and, through engagement, could decide their preferences. Additionally, where more engineered shore-based measures are implemented, we recommend that more hybrid-like approaches (e.g. vegetated slopes, dunes, integration of green infrastructure, etc.) be chosen, or integrated where feasible.

Of all the myriad proposed measures included in Alternative 3B and every other alternative, none can claim to be 100% effective at eliminating the risk of flooding, but for one: acquisition (buyouts). Yet, buyouts are not seriously considered as a tool in the study (beyond those necessary to construct some of the proposed interventions). The decision for any resident that lives in harm’s way to leave their home is a very personal and challenging one, and in our region, buyout programs are 100% voluntary. Reaching that conclusion requires close engagement over multiple years with an entity with the ability to provide the funds to acquire homes. Both New York State, through its Office of Resilient Homes and Communities, and New Jersey, through its NJ DEP Blue Acres Program, have in place programs that have bought out flood-prone homes. As a Federal agency with the ability to carry out acquisitions, RPA recommends that USACE should work closely with both states and New York City to identify those areas most prone to repetitive loss to consider buyouts as a viable alternative to shore-based measures. The state programs could then work closely with these identified areas over the coming two decades (in parallel with the time of construction) to reach agreement on terms of a buyout. Such an approach would reduce the need for engineered solutions and the maintenance required to sustain them, fully reduce the number of residents at risk in those areas, and provide ecosystem benefits on land returned to nature.

It’s something of a misnomer to refer to this study as resulting in ​“a plan” or ​“a project” when in fact it is multiple dozens of plans and projects that add up to a cohesive whole. In carrying out the study, USACE describes how the region was divided into ​“64 reaches based on waterbody and county limits.” Engagement around the Tentatively Selected Plan, while robust, still fell far short of the kind of engagement that would be needed for such a large area. Moving forward, RPA recommends that USACE should consider breaking the study into smaller sections - perhaps the same 64 reaches, or a more reasonable number - for future engagement and project design. It may also make sense to phase the study according to near-term and longer-term actions. These steps will allow for more robust feedback and a more iterative process to delve deeply into a complex vision that could dramatically alter communities and ecosystems throughout the region. It is very likely that taking this step could add both time and budget to the study, and RPA suggests that USACE should work closely with the Congressional Delegation to seek the necessary time and resources to get this study done effectively. If done thoughtfully, this approach could help to speed up implementation of some of the actions by identifying high-priority or lower-cost actions in each of the reaches that could be implemented in early phases.

New York and New Jersey (the non-federal sponsors), and New York City (a non-federal partner) have all been critical in providing resources and advising USACE through these first phases. But, given the commitment of resources that will be required of the states, and the greater familiarity with the communities, the environment, and the stakeholders that represent them, these entities should be empowered to play a greater role in shaping the outcome of the plan, and engaging residents. RPA suggests that a more formal partnership with clear responsibilities be reached between USACE, the states and New York City (as an equal partner) to develop a plan that best represents each entity’s vision for their residents. This might include reincorporating portions of the study area that were left out of Alternative 3B (The Raritan region in New Jersey, and portions of the Hudson River in New York), as well as assets like LaGuardia Airport.