Insightful thoughts submitted by attorney and Natural Hazard Mitigation Association President Ed Thomas on the NYT Rhode Island article I mentioned yesterday:

This extremely important article displays a thoughtful approach to 1) the questions of what we should do about sea level rise and beach erosion; 2) the very real problems we face as a society dealing with both gradual and storm-induced erosion; and 3) how the erosion problem fits into public safety.

The locus of the story is the Town of South Kingston, which is famous for a number of reasons:

• It is the town which attempted, with all good intentions, to ban construction on a barrier beach. That ban was held to be a “Taking” in the Annicelli case which I mention in most of my lectures [Annicelli v. Town of South Kingston, 463 A.d 133 (1983)].
• It is one of the two places where a HUD [US Department of Housing and Urban Development] study documented that the National Flood Insurance Program actually induced construction to take place, which would otherwise not have been possible due to local lenders “blue lining” some hazardous areas in which they had previously lost money.
• It is part of the general area in which the US Government, in a book produced by the Federal Writer’s Project after the great New England Hurricane of 1938, indicated that “(t)here are earnest proposals that seaside resorts pass zoning laws.” That book, (New England Hurricane, Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1938) went on to suggest that “the New England Council hopes to persuade owners to build cottages further inland instead of at the water’s edge.” The book further suggested that “(e)rrors of a century’s haphazard building may now be rectified.” The methodology of that rectification was suggested to be federal funds for more substantial reconstruction, “broad uncluttered sand dunes,” and Army surveys of beaches accompanied by jetties and sea walls.

Hopefully, today we would agree with the parts of the book which recommend local zoning and the need to build away from the shoreline; maybe not so much sea walls and jetties.

I do rather wish the NYT article had discussed why folks build where they build, and why it is allowed. Perhaps in another, future article?

The article quotes two of the folks from the State of Rhode Island Coastal Council who take a most thoughtful approach to Coastal Development: Grover Fugate, Executive Director and Janet Freedman, Coastal Geologist.

Have thoughts? Send them our way.

“If we keep doing this [nothing/retreating], Rhode Island will be gone. We’re trying to find a balance. We’re not killing baby seals out here.”

What strikes me most about this is how very common this situation already feels, and how much more common it will become in the near future for so many communities. How long before nobody outside of coastal communities even remarks on a row of buildings falling into the sea?

Also worth noting is that sea level rise isn’t so much as mentioned. Another reminder that, for much of our coast, the present is so overwhelming that the future is, quite literally, unimaginable.

From NOAA:

In the face of continued population growth and increasing economic activity along our nation’s coasts, more devastating storms, and sea level rise, states must balance coastal resource uses (e.g., shorefront development) with preservation of the natural resources that attract such uses and protection of lives and property. OCRM’s “Protecting the Public Interest through the National Coastal Zone Management Program: How Coastal States and Territories Use No-Build Areas along Ocean and Great Lake Shorefronts” looks specifically at where states and territories employ no-build areas (e.g., through setbacks, rolling easements, or zoning) along ocean and Great Lake shorefronts, typically on dry, privately owned land, to protect the public interest.

Just got this, and haven’t had a chance to process it yet, but if you’d like to see what other states are doing, this looks like a good place to start.

You can download a PDF of “Protecting the Public Interest through the National Coastal Zone Management Program” here.

Need a quick video on sea level rise to show your elected officials? Try this.

Watch “Rising tide in Norfolk, Va.” on PBS’s Need to Know.

“It’s not just about aesthetics but safety, and issues of possible flooding and other catastrophes if this project wasn’t done. . . . I’m confident that we’ll get through that [permitting] process, and this summer start the renourishment.’’

From the introduction:

Just as flooding threats need to be factored into coastal community planning initiatives, so too should sea level change. Unfortunately, the “one size fits all” approach does not work.

The level of uncertainty represented in sea level projections is one challenge. Furthermore, universal projections can’t be uniformly applied to all communities because of the many local variables. These variables include subsidence or uplift, and changes in estuarine and shelf hydrodynamics, regional oceanographic circulation patterns, and river flows. Local calculations are needed.

Then add in the local response, where many variables come into play as well. Even if two communities have similar projection numbers, their responses are likely to be widely different because of the external factors specific to their locations that must be considered, such as anticipated local risk, community will, and the type of planning process in which the numbers will be used.
Incorporating sea level change into planning processes involves more than selecting a number. That is why this document advocates the scenario approach.

Using the information provided here, communities can develop a process that incorporates a range of possibilities and factors. With this information various scenarios can be developed, both in terms of projections and responses, to meet the specific circumstances of a community. Moreover, working through the scenario development process provides the data and information that officials will need to make communities readily adaptable to changing circumstances.

“Incorporating Sea Level Change Scenarios at the Local Level” is a “low-tech” companion for a technical report created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The original document, Technical Considerations for Use of Geospatial Data in Sea Level Change Mapping and Assessment, can be found on the following websites:

• NOAA Coastal Services Center
• NOAA Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services
• NOAA National Geodetic Survey

The Center for Climate Strategies Adaptation Guidebook includes a catalogue of adaptation actions, detailed review of state and local adaptation plans and comprehensive methodology and supporting templates for sub national adaptation planning. The Adaptation Guidebook complements the step-based methodology CCS applies to mitigation work, and if applied consecutively, will have progressive impact in advanced climate planning and action.

Interested? More information (including a download link) here.

Via the Natural Hazards Center Natural Hazards Observer

Don’t worry — there’s good stuff in here for those of us living state-side, too.

Added this to our Finding and Using Additional Hazard Information page.