Senator Dayak

S. 1

115th Congress
First Session
In the United States Senate

The SLURP (Sea Level Upward Rising Prevention) Act

A Bill to encourage and outline procedures for the development of living

shorelines and other mechanisms to combat the effects of sea-level rise

Whereas ​the global sea level is rising at an average of ⅛ inch per year and is projected to rise more rapidly due to intensifying
climate change as we progress through the 21st century

Whereas​ more than 40% of the United States population lives in a high-density coastal area or major coastal city that is prone to
flooding, erosion, and other effects of sea-level rise

Whereas​ on approximately 88,633 miles of coast, over 80,000 acres of shoreline and over $500 million in coastal property are
lost each year due to flooding, storm surge, and coastal erosion

Whereas ​22 out of the 24 states considered at-risk for coastal flooding are not adequately prepared to deal with the effects of
sea-level rise and coastal flooding

Whereas ​living shorelines have been found to be more successful than man-made hardened shorelines in reducing erosion,
absorbing flood waters and storm surge waters, and preserving land on beaches and wetlands

Whereas​ living shorelines are beneficial to many species by creating marsh and mangrove habitats for their survival and
increasing biodiversity

Now, therefore, be it hereby enacted that ​in order to mitigate and, wherever possible, prevent flooding, erosion, damage to
property and wildlife, danger, and other effects of sea-level rise, the United States Senate shall

(1) define a living shoreline as a structure that provides protection from erosion and flooding through the usage of natural or
non-invasive materials, such as but not limited to native vegetation, stone, wood, sand fill, oyster shells, and other organic or
recycled materials, rather than through the usage of man-made materials, such as but not limited to concrete and sheet piling,
which create hardened structures and contribute to erosion.

(2) require and approve of the construction and development of living shorelines on parts of the coast that face high levels of
erosion and are especially at risk for flooding, including but not limited to beaches and wetlands in the states of Georgia,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, and Florida;

(3) assign the task of determining what states are most in need of living shorelines because of a high risk for erosion and flooding
and the task of determining what types of living shorelines (natural vegetation, hard materials, or soft materials) are best for each
state’s coast to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; and

(4) establish formulated project grants which award $10,000 in funding for every mile of coastline being given a living shoreline
each to be awarded to four states in the year after the passage of this act, the recipients of which will be determined by which four
states present the most need and the best comprehensive plans for mitigating the effects of sea-level rise and flooding, and the
funds from which can be used for any purpose relating to the mitigation of sea-level rise (further developing living shorelines,
rebuilding infrastructure to make it flood-resilient, or other processes) as states see fit.
 Constituent Notes

Notes:
❏ Remember to use in text citations for your Works Cited
❏ You may need to go back and expand these notes later, depending on which bill you
end up creating and which bills are created by your colleagues.

District/State: ​New Hampshire

Party that last won Seat: ​Democrat
Margin of Victory​: 0.1% — the Democratic candidate won with 48% of the votes, defeating the
Republican candidate by less than 800 votes (“United States Senate”)

Constituent Demographics
Directions:​ Choose at least 3 Demographics or characteristics in your State/District and note the
significance of those demographics.
Demographics Implications for Representative

In terms of race/ethnicity,
the population is made up
the following way: 93.9%
white, 3.5% Hispanic or
Latino, 2.7% Asian, 1.5 %
black, <1% other races
(“QuickFacts”)
Although New Hampshire is majority white, there are communities of
individuals from other ethnicities as well. Although these communities are
small, they are fairly important and, because minority groups are more likely to
vote for a Democratic candidate, most likely contribute to the fact that the state
is Democratic. While a bill written by a New Hampshire senator does not have
to cater specifically to a single minority group — in fact, that might not be
completely logical because the size and situation of the minority groups in the
state alone are not large enough to warrant any major decisions — it also
cannot cater solely to the white population, and must take all racial/ethnic
groups into account.

68% of the population ages
16+ is in the civilian labor
force and 7.3% of residents
live below the poverty line
(“QuickFacts”)
The majority of adult residents in New Hampshire are employed, meaning they
likely earn a steady income and have a source of survival. However, there is a
fairly large population of about 32% that is not in the civilian labor force,
which possibly means that they are unemployed. In fact, 7.3% of the state’s
residents live below the poverty line as a result of earning an extremely low
income or no income at all. This means that in writing a bill, a New Hampshire
senator must equally consider individuals of all economic conditions and
income levels. Bills must take into account those of a steady income who are in
the labor force and make sure that they are protected. In addition, bills must be
equally beneficial to those who are not in the labor force — especially those
who live under the poverty line — by ensuring that they are receiving necessary
benefits to better their situation and that they are not being discriminated
against because of their lower socio-economic standing.
 60.3% of the population
lives in urban areas and
39..7% of the population
lives in rural areas (​New
Hampshire ​2)
While the majority of New Hampshire residents live in an urban area, there is a
large population that lives in a rural area. New Hampshire’s percentage of
residents living in a rural area is significantly higher than that of other states on
the east coast, such as Connecticut, which has a 12% rural population, and
Massachusetts, which has a an 8% rural population (“Urban Percentage”). In
writing a bill, these statistics mean that a New Hampshire senator would have
to create provisions that take into account the rural and urban populations
equally and do not give preference to urban residents simply because they are
in the majority. This implies that bill-writing might be harder for the senator
because of the contrasting situations and characteristics in rural versus urban
areas.

19.5% of the population is
under 18 years of age and
17% of the population is
over 65 years of age
(“QuickFacts”)
A plurality of citizens in New Hampshire are minors while the second-largest
age group are senior citizens. Since these two groups are often the ones who
receive benefits and special treatment in certain situations, whether in terms of
welfare or something smaller like discounts from individual businesses, it’s
important for a New Hampshire senator to take them into account when writing
a bill. While the senator should make sure the bill is equally beneficial to those
of all age groups and does not discriminate against those of any age, it is
important for him/her to make sure the two age brackets that make up most of
the state are especially protected by any bills that are written. Again, this might
make bill-writing harder for the senator, because the needs and situations of
children are often very different than those of the elderly.

Committee you are assigned to: ​Environment and Public Works

Committee Topics
Directions: ​Choose 3 current event issues that fall to your committee’s jurisdiction. This is an
opportunity to look at the Committee’s website and see the broad jurisdictions of committees.
Explain the issue and how your state/district feels about the issue.

Issue Explanation for Jurisdiction My Constituents’ Stance (explanation)

Regulation and The regulation — excluding the My constituents are largely in favor of
and control of employment of nuclear energy for creating a permanent disposal facility for
nuclear military purposes — of nuclear waste has nuclear waste in New Hampshire. They
energy/waste from been shown to be an currently are involved in a fight against
a non-military, environmentally-centered issue because specific legislation that might build “more
environmental of the negative effects that radioactive temporary storage facilities around the
standpoint contamination can have on air, people, nation [including New Hampshire] to hold
(“Committee and species (Chang). Since the high-level radioactive waste from nuclear
Jurisdiction”) Committee on Environment and Public reactor sites” (Clifford), and in general, are
 Works deals with legislation that protects
the environment, regulating the
environmental effects of nuclear waste
falls under its jurisdiction.
Flood control and Flooding has been widely shown and
improvements of accepted to be a direct result of sea level
the environmental rise, global warming, and other
aspects of rivers, environmental factors, which is why it is
harbors, and under the jurisdiction of a committee that
deepwater ports oversees environmental legislation and
(“Committee aims to mitigate the effects of climate
Jurisdiction”) change. In addition, flood control,
according to my committee, can involve
the building of dams and other
infrastructure to curb the rise of water
(“Committee Jurisdiction”). The
construction of this type of infrastructure
falls under the category of public works,
the definition of which is works …
constructed for public use… [and]
financed and owned by the government”
(“Public Works”).
Management of The oversight and protection of wildlife
wildlife — is closely tied in with the environment, as
conservation of the endangerment of species can be an
endangered effect of climate change while the
species and invasion of species can be a sign of
management of changes in the environment that need to
invasive species be regulated. Since my committee deals
(“WILD Act”) with legislation that encompasses all parts
of the environment, including mitigating
the effects of climate change on various
species and habitats (“Committee
Jurisdiction”), the management of
endangered and invasive wildlife falls
under its jurisdiction.
against the creation of programs and
facilities that further nuclear waste. This is
most likely because most of my constituents
are Democrats who believe that radioactive
waste is hurting the environment and should
be mitigated; most of them oppose the
typically Republican view of expanding
nuclear energy from both a military and
non-military standpoint (Hopf).
My constituents largely support
infrastructure and other means to control
flooding in New Hampshire and across the
nation, especially on the east coast. They
currently are vying for the construction of
seawalls and the planting of beach grass on
the New Hampshire coast to mitigate the
effects that flooding is bringing to coastal
communities and homes (Moon). They take
this stance of attempting to “reduce coastal
vulnerability and to adapt for future
hazards” (Watters) because they live in a
coastal state and therefore are especially
impacted by flooding and see a firsthand
need for solutions. In addition, they are
mostly Democratic, meaning they view the
general mitigation of climate change and
flooding as an important issue that needs to
be addressed.
My constituents are in favor of creating
legislation to manage endangered and
invasive wildlife, and believe that helping
animal species is an important part of
mitigating the effects of climate change.
This is not only because most of them are
Democrats who are in favor of stricter
climate regulation, but also because they are
first hand observers of endangered and
invasive species. New Hampshire is the site
of the slow endangerment of several loon
and moose species because of increased
temperatures, as well as the invasion of
certain coyote species because of a lack of
hunting restrictions and increased
 aggression. These state-specific situations
have increased the awareness of New
Hampshire residents and have built
“growing public support for [wildlife]
conservation” (Ropeik) in the state.

Bill Notes

Notes:
❏ Remember to use in text citations for your Works Cited
❏ Make sure you have a strong combination of logos and ethos with some well placed
pathos.
❏ These are your notes to build into your lobbying presentation and your debate points in
the floor and on committee. Print a copy for yourself as well as your teacher.
❏ You may format these differently as long as you have all of the elements.

Bill Topic: ​Mitigating the effects of sea level rise (flooding, erosion, damage, etc.) in flood and
erosion prone areas through living shorelines
Stance: ​More money must be put into creating living shorelines and other infrastructure in all
erosion-prone states in order to protect against floods and reduce the effects of sea level rise
(erosion, flooding, damage to buildings, etc.)

Current Federal Legislation

● Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972

○ Provided for the general management of the nation’s coastal resources
○ Outlined three programs for coastal conservation and protection:
■ National Coastal Zone Management Program — established state and
territorial coastal management programs to target land and water issue
■ National Estuarine Research Reserve System — established field
laboratories to research the relationship between estuaries and human
activity
■ Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program — provided
matching funds to state and local governments to ease coastal
conservation costs and/or buy threatened coastal land (“Coastal Zone”)
● Flood Control Act of 1944 and its amendments/follow-up acts
○ Authorized various proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control
projects, especially those that had significant benefits on navigation
○ Required the Corps of Engineers to consult with the Department of the Interior
and the Governors of affected states when commissioning flood control projects
 ○ Put in place several authorizations/logistics for the process to propose and
construct flood control projects
○ Amendments/follow-up acts approved further flood control projects as the need
for them emerged (“Flood Control Act”)
● Water Resources Development Act of 1974 and its amendments/follow-up acts
○ Authorized many water and flood control projects to be studied, developed, and
constructed by the Corps of Engineers
○ Set monetary limits and dictated how much the Corps could spend on certain
projects or types of projects
○ Amendments/follow-up acts, usually passed in even years of Congress,
authorized the Corps to plan and construct further water projects as the need for
them emerged (“Water Resources”)
● Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 and its amendments
○ Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to provide technical and financial
assistance to state and local entities/governments that are carrying out projects
that deal with flood control, the conservation/development/disposal of water,
and the proper use of watershed areas
○ Allowed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide up to 50% of the cost of
acquiring easements on wetlands and floodpains to project sponsors in order to
easily access said wetlands and floodpains to develop and conserve the land
there (“Watershed Protection”)

Relevant Executive or Judicial Decisions

● Executive Order 11988, signed by Pres. Carter

○ Required that each government/federal agency take action to reduce the risk of
flood loss and determine what course of action to take when dealing with
floodpains, or low-elevation/flood-prone areas
○ Required that government agencies evaluate all of their flood-related actions in
regard to the effect on floodpains
○ Required that in the case of new construction in a floodpain, “accepted
floodproofing and other flood protection measures shall be applied” (Executive
Order No. 11988)
● Executive Order 13690, signed by Pres. Obama, and the proposition of a new Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard
○ Amended several propositions of Executive Order 11988 to make them more
specific and updated based on recent scientific findings
○ Developed a more specific course of action to evaluate how to best reduce the
risk of flooding in floodpains as well as to evaluate how to best build
infrastructure to reduce the effects of flooding in floodpains
○ Required, in general, that the federal government “take action, informed by the
best-available and actionable science, to improve the Nation's preparedness and
resilience against flooding” (Executive Order No. 13690)
● United States v. James
 ○ Held that the Flood Control Act of 1928 granted immunity to the United States
in terms of holding liability for flood damage that might occur despite the
construction of a flood control project
○ However, held in a final decision that the U.S. was not exempt from wrongful
construction of flood control projects and had to aim to complete flood control
projects with the full intent of shielding an area from floods/flood waters
(​United States v. James)
● Central Green Co. v. United States
○ Similarly to ​United States v. James​, held that the Flood Control Act of 1928
granted immunity to the United States in terms of holding liability for flood
damage that might occur despite the construction of a flood control project
○ Determined that immunity from liability for damages from floods and flood
waters included immunity from liability for damages that resulted from water
being released intentionally for flood control purposes, meaning that the federal
government can create flood control projects that involve releasing water
(​Central Green Co. v. United States​)

Bill Provisions National Benefits/Justification State/District Benefits/Justification

Approve the construction
and development of living
shorelines — which, in a
separate provision for
formatting consistency, can
be defined as mechanisms
such as man-made marshes,
rock and wood sills, and the
planting of natural
vegetation on coastlines
(“Living Shorelines”) — on
parts of the coast that are
facing high erosion rates
and flood risks, including
but not limited to beach and
wetland areas in Georgia,
Massachusetts, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, New Jersey, New
York, Florida (Koebler)
According to the results of the latest
U.S. Census, the United States
contains 88,633 miles of shoreline
(qtd. in Harrington), and because of
constant climate change and rising
sea level rise, over 80,000 acres of
that shoreline is lost per year and
“events such as storm surges, high
tides, strong waves, heavy
precipitation, increased river flow,
and tsunamis cause damaging coastal
floods [annually]” (“Coasts”). These
floods and disasters result in up to
$500 million in coastal property loss
each year (“Coastal Erosion”),
largely because coastal land is not
equipped to adequately handle sea
level rise. With the implementation
of living shorelines on portions of
U.S. coasts that need them most, loss
from erosion and flooding will be
greatly mitigated, coasts will become
more resilient against the effects of
severe storms, and the country will
New Hampshire is one of the U.S. states
that is directly bordered by the Atlantic
Ocean and has 18 miles of coastline.
Although it is one of the states with the
least amount of ocean coastline, it still
faces significant damages from severe
storms, flooding, and erosion because of
its proximity to the water. During a major
storm in mid-2017, the state was left with
damages that totaled to more than $11.5
million and “60 roads were damaged,
about a dozen homes were surrounded by
water and about 600 people were
evacuated” (Associated Press). New
Hampshire is one of the states that is not
adequately equipped to deal with the
effects of flooding and erosion and its
residents and infrastructure could be
saved by living shorelines. In addition,
the state has several species of coastal
plants, such as American beachgrass, that
would have a better chance of thriving if
developed through involvement in living
shorelines (“Coastal Habitat”).

Allow the staff of the U.S.
Department of the Interior,
headed by the Secretary of
the U.S. Department of the
Interior, to determine what
coastal areas are most in
need of living shorelines
and what specific
mechanisms — hard
material, soft natural
vegetative material, or
another form of living
shoreline construction —
are best suited for the
conditions of those specific
areas
Award project grants of $1
million each to four states
— these states could or
could not be ones that have
already received approval
for a living shoreline project
on part of their coast — that
present the most need and
best and/or most intensive
plans for curbing the effects
of sea level rise, flooding,
and erosion. These grants
can be used for any specific
purposes related to
mitigating the effects of sea
save money in the long run. In
addition, living shorelines will allow
for additional benefits like better
habitats for coastal species, the
survival of shoreline vegetation, and
higher populations of fish (“Living
Shorelines”).
The U.S. Department of the Interior
is in charge of most public lands in
the U.S., including coastal areas in
states (“History of the Interior”).
Allowing the Secretary of the DOI to
make all decisions about living
shoreline construction and
implementation of living shorelines
would allow for uniformity in the
entire nation and ensure that all states
where living shorelines are needed
receive the same process of
evaluation and implementation. In
addition, allowing an expert
department to make decisions would
guarantee that living shorelines are
implemented in the best way possible
for each state so that the effects of
flooding and erosion are mitigated as
much as possible in the entire
country.
This creates an incentive for all
states, especially those with major
bodies of water and/or those situated
on coasts, to develop a
comprehensive plan for flood and
erosion damage mitigation. Despite
the looming threat of sea level rise
and the visible evidence of increased
storm damage, flooding, and coastal
erosion, “only fifteen states currently
have climate adaptation or resilience
plans” (“State Action”). Providing
the prospect of money and assistance
to actually implement desired
programs, as well as the freedom to
New Hampshire, being one of the states
that is in dire need of living shorelines,
deserves to undergo a fair evaluation to
receive the most efficient and beneficial
forms of living shoreline construction and
implementation. By allowing the U.S.
DOI to evaluate the state’s coastlines,
New Hampshire is more likely to receive
adequate funding for and insight about
the correct forms of living shorelines for
its beaches and wetlands. Entrusting the
Secretary of the Department of the
Interior with nationwide decisions on
living shorelines benefits each individual
state, New Hampshire included, in
addition to benefiting the nation as a
whole.
On an A to F grading scale, New
Hampshire is ranked at a D for coastal
flooding preparedness. Although the state
is at high risk for flooding and erosion
because of its position directly next to the
Atlantic Ocean, “aside from an
adaptation plan developed specifically for
the transportation sector, the state has
taken far less action than the majority of
coastal states to prepare for sea level rise”
(“America’s Preparedness”). It’s clear
that New Hampshire needs to increase its
plans to combat the effects of sea level
rise, especially flooding and erosion, and
providing the prospect of a project grant
level rise as long as they are
outlined in the presented
plan, including but not
limited to further
development of living
shorelines, construction of
flood-resilient infrastructure
on beaches and wetlands,
planting of
floodwater-absorbent
vegetation
use federal funds as needed for each
individual state’s circumstances and
condition, will make states more
likely to put a detailed set of steps
and processes in place. Giving states
a potential reward for flood
preparedness and prevention, is
equivalent to giving them a higher
chance to attempt to create living
shorelines, rebuild infrastructure to
make it more flood resilient, and
further “flood-proof” their states in
general
might encourage the leaders of New
Hampshire to actively do so. This would
be beneficial to New Hampshire because
it would increase their chances of
mitigating the effects of sea level rise on
state coasts, as there has been a clear and
proven relationship between creating a
detailed plan on an issue — in this case, a
plan on reducing flooding and erosion —
and executing a successful operation —
in this case, the results of the anti-flood
mechanisms themselves (​Developing and
Maintaining​ i)

Additional Persuasive Points about the Bill:

● Sea levels are rising ⅛ of an inch, or 3 mm, each year and are projected to rise more
rapidly as climate change accelerates (“Sea Level Rise”)
● About 40% of the population lives in a major city or county that is situated on or near a
U.S. coastline (“What Percentage”)
● Out of the 24 states that are considered at-risk for coastal flooding, 22 are not adequately
prepared to deal with the effects of flooding, erosion, and storm surge (“Coastal
Flooding”)
● Living shorelines provide protection from storm surge without having to “create a barrier
between land and water, as happens with hard shoreline stabilization structures like
seawalls and bulkheads” (“Living Shorelines”)
● Living shorelines are more resilient than bulkheads against severe storms, erosion, and
flooding. Bulkheads have been shown to contribute to seaward erosion on beaches and
wetlands by obstructing natural marsh migration. A 15-foot living shoreline, on the other
hand, can absorb more than 50% of energy from an incoming wave (“Living Shorelines
Support”) and therefore “experience less damage from severe storms, are more resilient
than hardened shorelines… [and] have higher populations of… living organisms
important for… recreational and commercial purposes” (“Living Shorelines”)
● In a study conducted in 2005 in the Middle Peninsula area of Virginia, field evaluations
of 36 tidal marsh living shoreline structures were conducted. The results showed that
these marshes “significantly reduced wave height and erosional energy… Wave height
was reduced by 50% within the first 5 m of marsh and 95% after crossing 30 m of marsh”
(Subramanian et al.), proving that living shorelines do create flood control improvement
in the coastal United States
● Living shorelines are extremely cost effective — at the most, a shoreline involving stone
or sand fill is $500 per foot and “​the value of ecosystem services provided by living
 shorelines help offset these costs indirectly over time” (“Living Shorelines Frequently
Asked”). Bulkheads, seawalls, and other invasive flood control structures, on the other
hand, can cost up to $1,000 per foot and are not nearly as effective (Blankenship)
● Shorelines are eco-friendly in their construction itself — most are built using only natural
materials like oyster shells and native plant species (“A Living”)
 Works Cited

"America's Preparedness Report Card: New Hampshire Coastal Flooding." ​States at Risk​,

Climate Central,

www.statesatrisk.org/report-card/new-hampshire/coastal_flooding_grade. Accessed 27

Feb. 2018.

Associated Press. "Flooding, Storm Damage Estimated in Excess of $11.5M." ​New Hampshire

Public Radio​, 7 July 2017, nhpr.org/post/flooding-storm-damage-estimated-excess-115m.

Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Blankenship, Timothy K. "To Repair or Replace a Bulkhead: That Is the Question." ​Coastal

Systems International​, Apr. 2004,

www.coastalsystemsint.com/pdf/Media/Bulkhead_Converted.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb.

2018.

Chang, Samantha. "Nuclear Waste Environmental Effects and Regulation." ​Stanford University​,

24 Feb. 2015, large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chang1/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

Clifford, Mike. "More Radioactive Waste Rolling through New Hampshire?" ​Public News

Service​, 31 July 2017. ​Public News Service​,

www.publicnewsservice.org/2017-07-31/environment/more-radioactive-waste-rolling-thr

ough-new-hampshire/a58747-2. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"Coastal Flooding." ​States at Risk​, Climate Central,

reportcard.statesatrisk.org/hazards/coastal-flooding. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

"Coastal Habitat Restoration." ​University of New Hampshire​,

seagrant.unh.edu/CoastalHabitatRestoration. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

"Coastal Zone Management Act." ​Office for Coastal Management​, NOAA Office for Coastal

Management, coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/. Accessed 26 Feb. 2018.

"Committee Jurisdiction." ​U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works​,

www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committee-jurisdiction. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans​. Federal Emergency Management

Agency, Nov. 2010. ​Federal Emergency Management Agency​,

www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1828-25045-0014/cpg_101_comprehensive

_preparedness_guide_developing_and_maintaining_emergency_operations_plans_2010.

pdf. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Executive Order No. 11988. ​Federal Register​. ​National Archives​, U.S. National Archives and

Records Administration,

www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html. Accessed 25

Feb. 2018.

Executive Order No. 13690. ​Code of Federal Regulations​ Vol. 3. ​The White House​,

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishing-

federal-flood-risk-management-standard-and-. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"Flood Control Act of 1944." ​U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service​, U.S. Department of the Interior,

www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/flood.html. Accessed 26 Feb. 2018.

Harrington, Rebecca. "We Have No Idea How Big the U.S. Coastline Really Is?" ​Business

Insider​, Business Insider Inc., 13 Oct. 2015,

www.businessinsider.com/how-big-is-the-us-coastline-2015-10. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

"History of the Interior." ​U.S. Department of the Interior​, www.doi.gov/whoweare/history/.

Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Hopf, Jim. "The Party Platforms on Energy and Nuclear." ​ANS Nuclear Cafe​, 18 Sept. 2012,

ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-energy-and-nuclear/#sthash.QooD

7DeG.dpbs. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

Koebler, Jason. "10 States Most at Risk of Flooding." ​U.S. News​, U.S. News and World Report,

14 Mar. 2012,

www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-states-most-at-risk-of-flooding?slide=5. Accessed

27 Feb. 2018.

A Living Shoreline constructed in Panama City, Florida using plants and oyster shell. ​Florida

Living Shorelines​, floridalivingshorelines.com/what-is-a-livingshoreline/. Accessed 28

Feb. 2018.

"Living Shorelines." ​NOAA Habitat Blueprint​, U.S. Department of Commerce,

www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/living-shorelines/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

"Living Shorelines — Frequently Asked Questions." ​Center for Coastal Resources Management​,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/faq.html. Accessed

27 Feb. 2018.

"Living Shorelines Support Resilient Communities." ​NOAA Habitat Blueprint​, U.S. Department

of Commerce, www.habitatblueprint.noaa.gov/living-shorelines/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Infographic.

Moon, Jason. "On N.H.'s Coast, Preparing for Future Storms with Grass, Sand and a Bit of

Time." ​New Hampshire Public Radio​, 8 Nov. 2017,

 nhpr.org/post/nhs-coast-preparing-future-storms-grass-sand-and-bit-time#stream/0.

Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

New Hampshire: 2010​. Report no. CPH-2-31, Government Printing Office, Aug. 2012. ​United

States Census Bureau​, U.S. Department of Commerce,

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-31.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"Public Works." ​Merriam-Webster​, Merriam-Webster, 15 Feb. 2018,

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public%20works. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"QuickFacts New Hampshire." ​United States Census Bureau​, U.S. Department of Commerce,

www.census.gov/quickfacts/NH. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

Ropeik, Annie. "Moose, Loons Are Climate Change 'Canaries in Coal Mine,' Say N.H.

Conservationists." ​New Hampshire Public Radio​, 22 Feb. 2018,

nhpr.org/post/moose-loons-are-climate-change-canaries-coal-mine-say-nh-conservationis

ts#stream/0. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"Sea Level Rise." ​National Geographic​, National Geographic Society,

www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/. Accessed 27

Feb. 2018.

"State Action on Resilience." ​Center for Climate and Energy Solutions​,

www.c2es.org/content/state-action-on-resilience/. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

Subramanian, Bhaskaran, et al. ​Evaluation of Living Shoreline Techniques: Current

Understanding of the Effectiveness of Nonstructural and Marsh Sill Approaches​. Living

Shorelines Summit. ​Virginia Institute of Marine Science​,

www.vims.edu/cbnerr/_docs/ctp_docs/ls_docs/06_LS_Eval.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018.

United States, Supreme Court. ​Central Green Co. v. United States​. 21 Feb. 2001. ​Justia​,

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/425/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018. No. 99-859.

United States, Supreme Court. ​United States v. James​. 2 July 1986. ​Justia​,

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/597/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018. No. 85-434.

"United States Senate Election in New Hampshire, 2016." ​BallotPedia​,

ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2016. Accessed 25

Feb. 2018.

"Urban Percentage of the Population for States, Historical." ​Iowa State University: Iowa

Community Indicators Program​, Iowa State University of Science and Technology,

www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"Water Resources Development Act." ​U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service​,

training.fws.gov/courses/csp/csp3132/resources/WRDAs/WhatisWRDA.pdf. Accessed

26 Feb. 2018.

"Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act." ​National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration​, U.S. Department of Commerce, 20 Sept. 2012,

coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/WatershedProtectionandFloodPreventi

onAct.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb. 2018.

Watters, David. "NH Communities Respond to Sea Level Rise." ​Sea Coast Online​, GateHouse

Media, 27 July 2017,

www.seacoastonline.com/news/20170727/nh-communities-respond-to-sea-level-rise.

Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

"What Percentage of the American Population Lives near the Coast?" ​National Ocean Service​,

U.S. Department of Commerce, oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html. Accessed

27 Feb. 2018.

"WILD Act." ​U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works​,

www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/wild-act. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.