North Atlantic Coast

Comprehensive Study:
Resilient Adaptation to
Increasing Risk
MAIN REPORT
Final Report
January 2015
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 1 CHAPTER TITLE
Preface

TOUGH CHOICES FUTURE OUTLOOK

The North Atlantic Coast is a dynamic environment that While the disastrous results of Sandy remain fresh
supports densely populated areas encompassing trillions in the North Atlantic coastal communities, we must
of dollars of largely fixed public, private, and commercial continue with a clear focus on the storm-related science,
investment. Hurricane Sandy made us acutely aware of community planning and other measures that can
our vulnerability to coastal storms and the potential for reduce the risks of natural disasters over the short-term
future, more devastating events due to changing sea and the long-term. As the storm recedes from memory,
levels and climate change. Changing sea levels represent we should resist the temptation to return to “business
an inexorable process causing numerous, significant as usual” and remain focused on the “new normal”
water resource problems such as: increased, wide- of change that represents a responsible and effective
spread flooding along the coast; changes in salinity response to the dynamic coastal environment. In the
gradients in estuarine areas that impact ecosystems; longer term, communities should pursue opportunities
increased inundation at high tide; decreased capacity to reduce exposure to risks in coastal zones in ways
for stormwater drainage; and declining reliability of that support improvements in economic, social, and
critical infrastructure services such as transportation, environmental conditions (e.g., preparedness, resilience,
power, and communications. Addressing these problems and floodplain management). This report represents a
requires a paradigm shift in how we work, live, travel, start in the direction of the new paradigm that accounts
and play in a sustainable manner as the extent of the for new and changing conditions – this will need the
area at very high risk of coastal storm damage expands. attention and commitment of public, private and
This report provides some optimism about the short- commercial interests in order to succeed. We need to
term future through the collaborative and multifaceted continually improve our plans for climate preparedness
adaptation measures proposed. However, a realistic and resilience in order to reduce vulnerability through
view of the long-term challenges facing the area makes it adaptation to climate change (USACE 2014a).
clear that integrated solutions that promote sustainable
communities and ecosystems will be needed. Civic and
business leaders and citizens must innovate and create The NACCS is closely aligned with many
solutions that reduce the loss of life, the economic interagency plans and strategies including the
impacts, and the personal devastation that results recent National Research Council (NRC) report
from coastal storms, while still supporting continued entitled Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and
economic growth and opportunities for all. We have Gulf Coasts (NRC 2014). The report explores
begun to take clues from communities and ecosystems and challenges many existing policies and new
which have successfully adapted over time to changing approaches, for all levels of government that
conditions, by expanding from traditional structural guide coastal storm risk management decisions
risk reduction measures to include more emphasis on and actions. [Link]
nonstructural, natural, and nature-based systems. Given reducing-coastal-risk-on-the-east-and-gulf-coasts
current and projected sea level and climate change
trends, some of our built environment will become
unsustainable for the human systems presently located
there. Coastal communities face tough choices as they
adapt local land use patterns while striving to preserve
community values and economic vitality. In some cases,
this may mean that, just as ecosystems migrate and
change functions, human systems may have to relocate
in a responsible manner to sustain their economic
viability and social resilience. Absent improvements
to our current planning and development patterns that
account for future conditions, the next devastating storm
event will result in similar or worse impacts.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk #-3

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 1 CHAPTER TITLE
Executive Summary

OVERVIEW Provided further, That the Secretary shall conduct the

study in coordination with other Federal agencies,
Hurricane Sandy originated in the southwestern and State, local and Tribal officials to ensure
Caribbean Sea on October 22, 2012 (Blake et al. consistency with other plans to be developed, as
2013). On October 29, 2012, the remnants of Hurricane appropriate: Provided further, That using $500,000
Sandy in the form of a post-tropical cyclone made of the funds provided herein, the Secretary shall
landfall near Brigantine, NJ. Because of its tremendous conduct an evaluation of the performance of existing
size and timing during high tide, the storm drove a projects constructed by the Corps and impacted by
catastrophic surge of water into densely developed Hurricane Sandy for the purposes of determining
areas of New Jersey and New York. As a result, there their effectiveness and making recommendations for
was considerable loss of life, extensive damage to improvements thereto: Provided further, That as a part
development, and massive disruption to communities. of the study, the Secretary shall identify institutional
and other barriers to providing comprehensive
On January 29, 2013, President Obama signed into law protection to affected coastal areas and shall provide
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, of 2013 (Public this report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Law 113-2), to assist in the recovery in the aftermath House of Representatives and the Senate within 120
of Hurricane Sandy. Public Law 113-2, Chapter 4, days of enactment of this division…
directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as
follows:
REPORTS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS
Provided further, That using up to $20,000,000 of the
First Interim Report, Second Interim Report,
funds provided herein, the Secretary shall conduct
Performance Evaluation Study and Comprehensive
a comprehensive study to address the flood risks
Study available at: [Link]
of vulnerable coastal populations in areas that were CompStudy.
affected by Hurricane Sandy within the boundaries
of the North Atlantic Division of the Corps: Provided
further, That an interim report with an assessment The Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of authorized Corps projects for reducing flooding of 2014 (Section 3026 and the Joint Explanatory
and storm risks in the affected area that have been Statement of the Committee of Conference), signed
constructed or are under construction, including by President Obama on June 10, 2014, provided
construction cost estimates, shall be submitted to further clarification to USACE.
the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than
March 1, 2013: Provided further, That an interim PURPOSE
report identifying any previously authorized but
unconstructed Corps project and any project Devastation in the wake of Hurricane Sandy revealed
under study by the Corps for reducing flooding and a need to address the vulnerability of populations,
storm damage risks in the affected area, including infrastructure, and resources at risk throughout
updated construction cost estimates, that are, or more than 31,200 miles of the North Atlantic coastal
would be, consistent with the comprehensive study region. This study can be used by States and local
shall be submitted to the appropriate congressional communities to identify their flood risk, and plan and
committees by May 1, 2013: Provided further, That implement strategies in collaboration with others, to
a final report shall be submitted to the appropriate reduce that risk now and into the future. Such risk
congressional committees within 24 months of the management can include nonstructural and structural
date of enactment of this division: Provided further, strategies, ranging from the wise use of floodplains
That as a part of the study, the Secretary shall identify and evacuation planning to natural and nature-based
those activities warranting additional analysis by the features (NNBF) and blended solutions.
Corps, as well as institutional and other barriers to
providing protection to the affected coastal areas:

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Force (MOTF) Hurricane Sandy Impact Analysis.

THE GOALS OF THE NACCS ARE TO: Additionally, the USACE Hurricane Sandy Coastal
Projects Performance Evaluation Study included
Provide a risk management framework, an assessment of 13 USACE coastal storm risk
consistent with the National Oceanic and management projects in northern Massachusetts
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/USACE
and Maine, and noted that Hurricane Sandy was
Infrastructure Systems Rebuilding Principles; and
generally less than a 20 percent flood with negligible
Support resilient coastal communities and damages to project features. Based on minimal
robust, sustainable coastal landscape systems, impacts and the authorization language that defined
considering future sea level and climate the study area as areas affected by Hurricane Sandy,
change scenarios, to manage risk to vulnerable Maine was not included as part of the NACCS study
populations, property, ecosystems, and area. Regardless, as the Maine coastline is primarily
infrastructure. affected by nor’easters and periodically by tropical
storms and hurricanes, stakeholders and communities
could apply the study results to address coastal storm
WHAT IS THE NACCS? risk as well as utilize the various products generated
as part of the NACCS.
The North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study
(NACCS) provides a step-by-step approach, with Managing short-term and long-term risk across
advancements in the state of the science and tools local, regional, Tribal, State, and Federal agencies,
to conduct three levels of analysis (available at nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academia,
[Link] Tier business, and industry requires collaboration, data
1 is a regional scale analysis (completed as part of sharing, overcoming barriers, advancing the state of
this study), Tier 2 would be conducted at a State or the science, and developing new partnerships and
watershed scale (conceptual Tier 2 evaluations were incentives for a renewed era of coastal storm risk
completed in each State and the District of Columbia management and action. Comprehensive action and
and can be found in State and District of Columbia monitoring to assess system responses are imperative
Analyses Appendix), and Tier 3 would be a local-scale to increase resilience and manage risk from future
analysis that incorporates benefit-cost evaluations of storms and a changing climate, including sea level
coastal storm risk management plans. change. Resilience as defined by the Infrastructure
Systems Rebuilding Principles (established by NOAA
QUICK FACTS and USACE) is the ability to adapt to changing
conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from
Floods are the most common and costly hazard disruptions due to disasters.
affecting communities and the hazard that is most
predictable (FEMA 2013a). The Infrastructure Systems Rebuilding Principles
(NOAA and USACE 2013), which were developed
Concepts of resilience include: anticipate
(prepare, avoid); resist (withstand); recover
following Hurricane Sandy, provide the foundation
(bounce back); and adapt (evolve, transform). for a framework to address flood risk to vulnerable
coastal populations and include:

Using the tiered analyses will enable communities to • Working together in a collaborative manner across
understand and manage their short-term and long- multiple levels of governance (including Federal,
term coastal risk in a systems context. The NACCS Tribal, State, and local) and with relevant entities
addresses the coastal areas defined by the extent outside of the government to develop long-term
of Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge in the District strategies that promote public safety, protect and
of Columbia and the States of New Hampshire, restore natural resources and functions of the coast,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New and enhance coastal resilience;
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia. Maine was not included in the study • Improving coastal resilience by pursuing a systems
because minimal impacts from storm surge were approach that incorporates natural, social, and built
documented as part of the Federal Emergency systems as a whole; and
Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Modeling Task

ii NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Promoting increased recognition and awareness of • Resilience can be encouraged through the use of
risks and consequences among decision-makers, a coastal storm risk management framework and
stakeholders, and the public. continued commitments to advance the state of
the science with respect to sea level and climate
The NACCS is not a major Federal action and change, storm surge modeling, ecosystem goods
does not include designs, evaluations for specific and services, and related themes.
projects, or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation. • Strategic and comprehensive monitoring is required
to fully assess and adapt the coastal system to
avoid future damages. Monitoring information must
FINDINGS, OUTCOMES, AND be made available to the public in a timely manner
that allows rapid decision-making by public and
OPPORTUNITIES private partners.
Key findings, outcomes, and opportunities of the • Pre-disaster planning and mitigation can save
NACCS include the following: communities approximately 75 percent of post-
storm costs (NRC 2014).
• Flood risk is increasing for coastal populations and
supporting infrastructure.

• Improved land use, wise use of floodplains, COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT
responsible evacuation planning, and strategic FRAMEWORK FOR VULNERABLE COASTAL
retreat are important and cost-effective actions.
POPULATIONS
• Communities should adopt combinations of
solutions, including nonstructural, structural, natural The Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework
and nature-based, and programmatic measures to (the Framework) is a process to address flood risk to
manage risk, where avoidance is not possible. vulnerable coastal populations and was developed
to be customizable. The Framework is intended to
• Communities must identify their acceptable level of be implemented at smaller watershed scales by
residual risk to plan for long-term, comprehensive, incorporating State and local priorities, refined data
and resilient risk management. sets, and site-specific analyses.

• Many opportunities exist to improve risk Specifically, the Framework (Figure ES-1) guides
management, including enhancing collaboration, users in identifying existing and future risks and
building new partnerships, and strengthening pre- vulnerabilities, comparing risk management measures,
storm planning. and considering a full array of solutions. In addition to
the Framework itself, technical products by USACE
• Addressing coastal risk requires collaboration and others are provided for each step of the process
among local, regional, Tribal, State and Federal (Table ES-1).
entities, NGOs, academia, business, and industry.

Metropolitan Transit Authority employees worked around the clock to remove seawater from a flooded subway tunnel in
Manhattan, NY on November 5, 2012
Source: [Link]

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NACCS Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework

(Repeat initial five steps for each Tier 1, 2, and 3 Evaluations)

INITIATE ANALYSIS
Identify Stakeholders, Partners, and Authorities
Identify Constraints and Opportunities
Formalize Goals

STEPS COMPLETED AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL BY THE NACCS

Determine Spatial and Temporal Scale of Analysis

CHARACTERIZE CONDITIONS
Define Physical and Geomorphic Setting
Compile Flood Probability Data
Establish Baseline Conditions and Forecast Future Conditions

ANALYZE RISK AND VULNERABILITY

Map Inundation and Exposure
Assess Vulnerability and Resilience
Determine Areas of High Risk

IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Assess Full Array of Measures
Consider Blended Solutions
Develop Performance Metrics
Establish Decision Criteria

EVALUATE AND COMPARE SOLUTIONS

Develop Cost Estimates
Assess Benefits
REPLICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK AT REFINED SCALES

SELECT PLAN
ADDITIONAL STEPS TO BE COMPLETED IN FUTURE

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

���N Complete Pre-construction Engineering and Design
Consider Operation and Maintenance Issues
Establish Adaptation Thresholds
Develop Strategic Monitoring Plan

EXECUTE PLAN

MONITOR AND ADAPT

Measure Performance and Benefit Production
Assess Resilience
Adaptively Manage

Figure ES-1. NACCS Framework Steps

iv NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1. NACCS Framework and Products

Technical
Products1
Advanced by
the NACCS to
Further the State
Framework Step of the Science Value Added
Visioning Sessions Identifies specific problems, needs, and opportunities for each focus
Initiate Analysis Report & Focus area.
Area Analyses
Institutional & Identifies six themes and each theme’s institutional and other barriers,
Other Barriers successes, and opportunities for action. Results are documented in
Report the NACCS Main Report and also in the NACCS Institutional and Other
Barriers Report.
Collaboration Documents outreach conducted throughout the course of the study.
Report
Characterize GIS Geodatabase2 Includes data layers derived from the NACCS in a central location that
Conditions can be used for additional analyses.
Environmental & Provides a comprehensive report of environmental and cultural
Cultural Resources conditions for the North Atlantic Region. This information can be used
Conditions Report in future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation or
environmental studies.
USFWS Planning Provides a report of environmental conditions, including species and
Aid Report habitat considerations for the North Atlantic Region.
Storm Surge Provides information about future storms and climate change, which
Modeling will inform future studies and analyses.

Analyze Risk and Barrier Island Provides an example to complete an assessment of flood risk to a
Vulnerability Sea Level Rise barrier island and back bay and vulnerability to the impacts of sea level
Inundation change.
Assessment
Report
Extreme Water Provides current and future extreme water levels for each of the NACCS
Levels Report sea level change scenarios for the 1, 0.1, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.002
percent events for all 23 tide gages along the North Atlantic coastline of
sufficient record length.
NNBF Report and Advances the science on NNBF strategic placement, how these
Brochures features can be applied, and the benefits they provide. Includes the
technical report, Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features for Coastal
Identify Possible Resilience (Bridges et al. 2015), as well as user-friendly consolidated
Solutions brochures.
Conceptual Identifies the sources and sinks for sediment. Also identifies
Regional Sediment opportunities for the strategic placement of dredged material for NNBF.
Budget
State and District Provides State by State chapters that discuss each State and District’s
of Columbia post Hurricane Sandy landscape, sea level change considerations, and
Analyses Appendix vulnerability assessment.
Vulnerability Provides a question tree that guides local users through the exposure
Decision Tree and vulnerability assessment criteria and weightings.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1: NACCS Framework and Products (continued)

Technical
Products1
Advanced by
the NACCS to
Further the State
Framework Step of the Science Value Added
Identify Possible Coastal Program Provides detailed information on coastal storm risk management
Solutions Guide programs, including their authority, types of grants available, point of
contact information, goals, etc.
Measures Displays various risk management measures discussed in the NACCS
Infographics and depicts graphically how the measures work.

Evaluate and Enhanced Depth- Provides generic coastal depth-damage curves for the region, as well
Compare Damage Functions as a report documenting the relationship of secondary and tertiary
Solutions for Coastal Storms impacts.

1 Products are available at http//[Link]/CompStudy

2 The NACCS GIS Geodatabase product can also be utilized as part of the Analyze Risk and Vulnerability Step
GIS = Geographic Information Systems
NNBF = Natural and Nature-Based Features
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The NACCS applies steps 1–5, described below, at agencies and programs involved is critical. Through
the regional (Tier 1) scale. More detailed information collaboration and careful planning, these criteria can
is provided in the Planning Analyses Appendix. be considered early and integrated successfully.
Using the Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations, communities
can proceed sequentially through Steps 1–9 of the The NACCS study area encompasses 10 States and
Framework. the District of Columbia. As required by Public Law
113-2 and Section 3026 of the Water Resources
Step 1. Initiate Analysis Reform and Development Act of 2014, stakeholder
outreach included Federal and State agencies;
When applying the Framework, identifying a range Coastal Zone Management teams; Tribal liaisons;
of stakeholders and interested parties early in the NGOs; industry; and academia, including historically
process is important. In addition, determining the black colleges and universities, Tribal colleges, and
temporal and spatial scale of the analysis will guide universities, and other minority serving institutions.
collection of the necessary data sets, refine the These stakeholders provided local knowledge of the
goals and constraints of the analysis, and reveal study area, participated in multiple panel discussions,
other opportunities or objectives to be considered. and assisted with website development to solicit and
Given the many entities and funding mechanisms share information. They were an invaluable asset to
potentially involved in the planning or implementation the NACCS. Coordination among these experts and
of coastal actions, understanding the criteria (i.e., interested parties should continue during any further
time constraints, special requirements, real estate, analyses.
operation and maintenance responsibilities, etc.) of the

vi NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Step 2. Characterize Conditions – of coastal flooding. This knowledge can directly affect
Existing and Future evacuation planning and emergency response, the
siting of future development, and the implementation
More than 31,200 miles of coastal shoreline were of adaptation planning.
delineated into 39 planning reaches based on State
boundaries, shoreline types, geomorphic features, Analyses defining the extent of inundation for different
and extent of existing or planned risk management storm events were developed, as well as inundation
projects. Based on coordination with a diverse set from forecasted sea level change scenarios, for
of agencies, the post-Hurricane Sandy landscape the study area. Understanding WHERE the flood
considers population and supporting infrastructure, hazard exists is critical. Three exposure indices
environmental and cultural resources, and existing were used for population density and infrastructure,
and planned coastal storm risk management social vulnerability, and environmental and cultural
efforts. The study also considers existing and future resources located within the floodplains. In addition,
inundation and sea level change. For the Tier 2 and the three individual indices were combined to create
Tier 3 evaluations, this information can be refined a composite exposure index. Understanding WHAT
and aligned with State Coastal Zone Management is exposed to flood hazard is critical. The composite
Programs. exposure index was combined with the probability
of inundation to illustrate the flood risk along the
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL coastline. Understanding HOW FREQUENTLY these
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT areas are exposed to flood hazards is critical. The
PROGRAM NACCS risk assessment and National Hurricane
Program’s Hurricane Evacuation Studies provide
[Link] State-specific information for Tier 2 and Tier 3
evaluations.
Protecting natural resources;
Managing development in high hazard areas;
THE NATIONAL HURRICANE
Giving development priority to coastal-dependent PROGRAM
uses;
Conducts assessments and provides tools and
Providing public access for recreation; and
technical assistance to State and local agencies in
Coordinating the State and Federal actions. developing hurricane evacuation plans.
[Link]
The National Coastal Zone Management Program national-hurricane-program/
administered by NOAA is a voluntary Federal-State
partnership for protecting, restoring, and responsibly Step 4. Identify Possible Solutions – Risk
developing our Nation’s diverse coastal communities Management Measures by Shoreline Type
and resources. All 10 States within the NACCS study
area have approved coastal zone management State and local decision-makers play an integral role
programs (District of Columbia does not participate) in choosing and implementing solutions that address
to address a wide range of existing and future issues, near-term and long-term visions for their communities.
including coastal development, water quality, public Lessons learned following Hurricanes Katrina and
access, habitat protection, energy facility siting, Rita (2005) led to mitigation projects, implemented
ocean governance and planning, coastal hazards, through the Coastal Community Resilience program
and climate change. These programs provide States ([Link] that
the flexibility to design planning and implementation focus on incorporating nonstructural projects into
actions that best address their unique coastal coastal storm risk management planning, such
challenges, laws, and regulations. as elevating structures, floodproofing structures,
and voluntary acquisition or relocation. Effective
Step 3. Analyze Risk and Vulnerability coordination between local officials, policymakers,
NGOs, community groups, and citizens supports the
Significant new technical information has been
implementation of initiatives that will manage risk to
developed as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Localities
people, homes, and businesses.
must know what locations and resources are at risk

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Structural, nonstructural, NNBF, and programmatic storm risk management. Six overarching themes were
coastal storm risk management measures were identified based on the views of coastal stakeholders
gathered from a wide range of stakeholders and on frequent or high-impact issues, each with specific
experts. These measures were evaluated to identify institutional challenges, successes, and opportunities
those most appropriate for different shoreline types, for action. These themes are consistent with the plans
such that available resources can be directed to those of others and identify opportunities for action as
measures most likely to succeed and/or provide indicated in Table ES-2.
the greatest coastal resilience. A shoreline type was
assigned to each shoreline in the study area using a
classification dataset developed by NOAA. INTEGRATED COASTAL INVESTMENTS
Step 5. Evaluate and Compare Solutions – The NACCS, through extensive collaboration,
Systems Approach for Resilient Adaptation streamlines the risk management planning process
for the North Atlantic communities and others
The current approach to coastal storm risk undertaking coastal storm risk management
management includes a myriad of individual projects initiatives. Partners representing the public and
to address independent problems. The dynamics, local communities, State and Federal agencies,
complexity, and risks germane to coastal systems Tribal entities, regional bodies, NGOs, academia,
cannot be adequately addressed by incrementally and industry can use the information and products
building a patchwork of solutions. A systems approach presented in the NACCS to pursue a more resilient
to coastal storm risk management is a cornerstone and sustainable coastline considering site-specific
of the NOAA and USACE Infrastructure Systems vulnerabilities and future sea level change. The
Rebuilding Principles. NACCS products will also save time and resources
when the Framework is implemented at smaller scales.
Site-specific solutions can produce benefits and
consequences to the region, or system, and vice
versa. The NACCS presents a range of solutions
and an evaluation of the potential reduction in risk ACTIVITIES WARRANTING ADDITIONAL
compared to the relative cost of the strategies and ANALYSIS
measures. The Framework identifies the strategies
and measures that provide the greatest risk reduction Many areas of uncertainty and opportunities
for the lowest cost. Understanding the full array of to collaborate remain, particularly with respect
measures and the relative cost of pursuing certain to technical and scientific advancements, risk
levels of risk reduction is critical. This transparent communication, and institutional alignment and
and transferable process does not prohibit financing. The NACCS identified nine high-risk areas
consideration of additional measures and relative of the North Atlantic Coast that warrant additional
costs. Combinations of risk management measures, analyses by USACE to address coastal flood risk. No
including floodplain and evacuation planning, USACE cost-shared studies addressing these areas
managed retreat, buyouts, NNBF, and structural were ongoing at the time of the NACCS analyses:
solutions are some of the ways to adapt to future sea • Rhode Island Coastline
level and climate change.
• Connecticut Coastline
Holistically evaluating and comparing solutions based • New York–New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries
on future visioning, short-term and long-term costs
• Nassau County Back Bays, NY
and financing strategies, environmental and cultural
resources, the economy, and much more will ensure • New Jersey Back Bays
that investments in our communities and along our • Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast
coastline are strategic and forward-thinking.
• City of Baltimore, MD
• The District of Columbia
INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS
• City of Norfolk, VA
Public Law 113-2 directed an evaluation of institutional
and other barriers to providing comprehensive coastal

viii NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Develop consistent definitions for risk, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
vulnerability, resilience, and related terms Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
and conduct research, as necessary, to (HSRTF 2013a)
develop design standards for resilience, Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
performance metrics, a resilience Coasts (NRC 2014)
scorecard, and other standards1
Presidential Policy Directive 8, National
Preparedness

Conduct a national vulnerability study of Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

constructed USACE coastal storm risk Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
management projects
1. Risk/Resilience
Develop a national strategy for coastal Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Standards
storm risk management Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)
Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
Coasts (NRC 2014)
Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Develop regional and watershed-based Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

plans, including a broad base of benefits, Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
benefit quantification, and multi-objective
approaches1
Conduct coastal storm risk management Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
visioning sessions with the public1 Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Continue to develop information and Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

programs to educate the public about flood Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
2. Communication
vulnerabilities, flood risk, residual risk,
and Outreach
blended solutions, and pre-disaster and
evacuation planning1
Develop a community of practice2 for Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF)1 Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)
Strengthen and enforce floodplain Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
management policies Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
3. Risk
Management Simplify the complicated network of coastal Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
programs for communities1 Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action (continued)

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Improve research, coordination, and Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

collection of pre- and post-storm Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
data collection (e.g., climate and sea (HSRTF 2013a)
level change), including more rigorous Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
instrumentation and monitoring for adaptive Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
management, with USGS and others1
The President’s Climate Action Plan (Executive
Office of the President 2013)

4. Science,
Engineering, Develop better design and implementation Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
and Technology guidance for NNBF for use in coastal storm Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
risk management, including effects on (HSRTF 2013a)
long-term maintenance Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Compile information on ecosystem goods Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

and services provided by NNBF1 Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)

Re-evaluate and complete authorized Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

or planned projects in a comprehensive Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
systems approach1

Increase coordination between Federal, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

State, local, and Tribal governmental Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
agencies with responsibility for coastal (HSRTF 2013a)
management to foster mutual Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
understanding of roles and responsibilities Coasts (NRC 2014)
and to foster consistency between Federal
5. Leadership and programs affecting coastal management1 Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Institutional Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
Coordination Presidential Policy Directive 8, National
Preparedness

Support national adaptation planning1 Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation
(ICCATF 2011)
National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
(CEQ 2010)
Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

x NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action (continued)

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Apply lessons learned following Hurricanes Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Katrina, Rita, Sandy, and other coastal Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
storms to provide integrated coastal storm (HSRTF 2013a)
risk management approaches1

Create new tax and market-based incentive Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
programs to encourage resilient local action Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

6. Local Planning Explore innovative financing options and Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
and Financing timetables for Federal and non-Federal Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
partnerships to sustain long-term operation,
maintenance, monitoring, and adaptive
management

Leverage public-private partnerships as Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

part of community financing strategies Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

1 NACCS contributed toward reducing this barrier and introducing this opportunity for action.
2 A community of practice is a group of individuals who practice and share an interest in a major functional area.

Hurricane Sandy revealed where the vulnerabilities must commit to wise land use planning and zoning,
exist, now and into the future. With projected use of floodplains, and evacuation planning.
population increases, climate change, and Integration of a common coastal storm risk
existing barriers to comprehensive coastal storm management framework, evaluations of blended
risk management, the risk to populations and solutions and adaptation, and collaborative, strategic
infrastructure will continue to increase. Local investments in coastal storm risk management will
municipalities were the first to feel the impacts of facilitate resilient, thriving communities. Our citizens,
Hurricane Sandy and are also the first line of defense our businesses, and our local and regional economies
in hazard mitigation planning. As stated in Reducing cannot afford to wait.
Coastal Risk (NRC 2014),
“Floods are ‘acts of God,’ but flood losses are
“Every dollar spent before an event saves four to
largely acts of man.”
five dollars in reconstruction costs after.”
– Gilbert White, known as the father of
Local governments can lead a new era of coastal floodplain management
storm risk management through intensive and
proactive pre-storm initiatives. Local governments

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk xi

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1 CHAPTER TITLE
Table of Contents

Preface

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... i

I. Purpose..............................................................................................................................................1

Background....................................................................................................................................1

Overview of the NACCS.................................................................................................................3

II. Findings, Outcomes, and Opportunities........................................................................................7

Findings..........................................................................................................................................7

Outcomes.......................................................................................................................................8

Opportunities..................................................................................................................................9

Opportunities (continued)............................................................................................................ 10

III. Interagency Alignment and Consistency with Other Plans....................................................... 11

Stakeholder Input and Dialogue................................................................................................... 11

Interagency Alignment................................................................................................................. 15

IV. Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework for Vulnerable Coastal Populations.............. 19

Overview of the Framework......................................................................................................... 19

Initiate Analysis.............................................................................................................................22

Characterize Conditions – The Post-Hurricane Sandy Landscape.............................................22

Analyze Risk and Vulnerability.....................................................................................................43

Identify Possible Solutions – Coastal Storm Risk Management Strategies and Measures........53

Evaluate and Compare Solutions.................................................................................................63

NACCS Framework Examples.....................................................................................................71

Innovative Actions to Promote Resilient Coastal Communities...................................................80

V. Systems Approach to Coastal Storm Risk and Resilience........................................................83

Adaptation Planning ....................................................................................................................84

Examples of a Systems Approach to Managing Coastal Risk....................................................85

VI. Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and

Opportunities for Action................................................................................................................89

Coastal Policy Landscape............................................................................................................89

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk xiii

1 CHAPTER TITLE
Table of Contents

Opportunities for Action...............................................................................................................91

Summary .....................................................................................................................................99

VII. Activities Warranting Additional Analysis..................................................................................103

Technical and Scientific Analyses..............................................................................................103

Risk Communication and Collaboration....................................................................................103

Institutional and Financing.........................................................................................................103

Coastal storm Risk..................................................................................................................... 104

VIII. Definitions and Acronyms............................................................................................................105

Definitions ..................................................................................................................................105

Acronyms................................................................................................................................... 107

IX. References..................................................................................................................................... 111

Appendices
A. Engineering

B. Economics and Social Analyses

C. Planning Analyses

D. State and District of Columbia Analyses

List of Figures
Figure ES-1. NACCS Framework Steps......................................................................................................iv

Figure I-1. Hurricane Sandy Track, October 26 – 29, 2012..................................................................... 1

Figure I-2. Areas Impacted by Hurricane Sandy with Highlighted Counties Included in
NACCS Study Area ............................................................................................................... 2

Figure I-3. NACCS Planning Reaches..................................................................................................... 4

Figure I-4. NACCS Process Flowchart.................................................................................................... 5

Figure II-1. Combinations of Adaptable Measures That May Be Used to Improve

Redundancy, Robustness, and Resilience Associated with
Coastal Flood Risk Management........................................................................................... 7

Figure II-2. NACCS Focus Areas............................................................................................................ 10

Figure III-1. NACCS Alignment with Interagency Plans and Strategies.................................................. 17

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk xiv

1 CHAPTER TITLE
Table of Contents

Figure IV-1. Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework..................................................................... 20

Figure IV-2. Existing/Post-Hurricane Sandy USACE and State Coastal Projects.................................. 27

Figure IV-3. Relative Sea Level Change for Sandy Hook, NJ for USACE and NOAA Scenarios............ 30

Figure IV-4. USACE High Scenario Mean Sea Levels for NOAA Gage Stations..................................... 31

Figure IV-5. USACE High Scenario Future Mean Sea Level Mapping for Reach NY_NJ1...................... 33

Figure IV-6. USACE High Scenario Future Mean Sea Level and
Future Development Mapping for Reach NY_NJ1............................................................... 35

Figure IV-7. Reach NY_NJ1 NOAA SLOSH Model Very High Impact Area
Category 1–4 Water Levels.................................................................................................. 39

Figure IV-8. Reach NY_NJ1 Very High Impact Area NACCS 1 Percent Flood + 3-foot Floodplain........ 40

Figure IV-9. Reach NY_NJ1 Very High Impact Area NACCS 10 Percent Floodplain.............................. 41

Figure IV-10. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Population and

Infrastructure Exposure Index.............................................................................................. 46

Figure IV-11. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Area Social Vulnerability
Characterization Exposure Index......................................................................................... 47

Figure IV-12. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Environmental and

Cultural Resources Exposure Index.................................................................................... 48

Figure IV-13. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Composite Exposure Index............................... 49

Figure IV-14. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Risk Evaluation.................................................................... 50

Figure IV-15. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Risk Areas.......................................................... 51

Figure IV-16. Measures Compilation and Aggregation Process............................................................... 54

Figure IV-17. Submergence due to Sea Level Change............................................................................. 77

Figure IV-18. Locations of Innovative Projects and Initiatives in Coastal Communities........................... 81

Figure V-1. Conceptual Diagram and Map Showing the Interconnectedness of a

Coastal System.................................................................................................................... 86

Figure V-2. Coastal Processes and Anthropogenic Activities in Nassau and

Duval Counties, FL............................................................................................................... 87

Figure VI-1. Coastal Storm Risk Management Measures....................................................................... 89

Figure VI-2. Risk Management Process.................................................................................................. 91

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk xv

1 CHAPTER TITLE
Table of Contents

List of Tables
Table ES-1. NACCS Framework and Products......................................................................................... v

Table ES-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and
Opportunities for Action........................................................................................................ ix

Table III‑1. Requests for Information and Verification............................................................................ 11

Table III‑2. Interagency Collaboration Webinar Series.......................................................................... 13

Table III‑3. Technical Working Meetings................................................................................................ 15

Table III‑4. Interagency, NGO, and Tribal Alignment Initiatives.............................................................. 15

Table IV‑1. Current and Anticipated USACE Projects in New York and New Jersey............................ 25

Table IV‑2. Future Mean Sea Level Scenarios (feet, above NAVD88) at Sandy Hook, NJ.................... 32

Table IV‑3. List of NACCS Risk Areas within Reach NY_NJ1 with Relative Higher Risk....................... 52

Table IV‑4. Coastal Storm Risk Management and Resilience Attributes Associated
with the Full Array of Measures............................................................................................ 57

Table IV‑5. Post-Hurricane Sandy Design Criteria of Other Agencies................................................... 60

Table IV‑6. Conceptual Design Criteria of NACCS Risk Management Measures................................. 60

Table IV‑7. NACCS Risk Management Measures Parametric Unit Cost Estimates.............................. 62

Table IV‑8. Supporting Data and References for Completing the First Five Steps
Associated with the NACCS Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework....................... 67

Table IV‑9. Tier 2 Example No. 1: Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula
(NY_NJ1_I Risk Area) – Relative Costs for Various Coastal Storm Risk
Management Strategies....................................................................................................... 73

Table IV‑10. NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program Funding Allocation.................................. 75

Table IV-11. Storm Analysis Stages......................................................................................................... 78

Table VI-1. Federal Acts, Programs, PPDs, and Executive Orders That Affect
Coastal Storm Risk Management in Areas Affected by Hurricane Sandy.......................... 90

Table VI-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and
Opportunities for Action....................................................................................................... 99

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk xvi

 1 CHAPTER TITLE
I. Purpose

On January 29, 2013, President Obama signed in Jamaica on October 24, 2012, as a Category 1
into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of hurricane and strengthened to a Category 3 hurricane
2013, Public Law 113-2, to assist in recovery in the in eastern Cuba on October 25, 2012. While over the
aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. The Act directs the Bahamas, it weakened to a tropical storm, but grew
Secretary of the Army to “…conduct a comprehensive considerably in size. The system strengthened to
study to address the flood risks of vulnerable coastal a Category 1 hurricane while it moved northward,
populations in areas that were affected by Hurricane parallel to the coast of the southeastern United States
Sandy within the boundaries of the North Atlantic (Figure I-1). The storm continued to increase in size
Division of the Corps….” The study area includes to a diameter of more than 1,000 nautical miles,
the District of Columbia and the 10 States that were making it the largest diameter storm recorded in the
impacted by Hurricane Sandy: New Hampshire, Atlantic basin. On October 29, 2012, the remnants of
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Hurricane Sandy in the form of a post-tropical cyclone
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and made landfall near Brigantine, NJ.
Virginia.

The purpose of the North Atlantic Coast

Comprehensive Study (NACCS) is to identify
flood risk and plan and implement strategies, in
collaboration with others, to reduce that risk now
and in the future. Action is needed to reduce the
risk from, and make the North Atlantic region
more resilient to, the impacts of future storms
and sea level change. Hurricane Sandy could have
been more devastating. Initial “damages prevented”
estimates shortly after the storm suggest that existing
coastal storm risk management infrastructure
prevented some $1.9 billion in damages (USACE
2012). The NACCS will help the region to prepare now
for future storms, climate change (including sea level
change), and other increasing risks.

THE GOALS OF THE NACCS ARE:

Provide a risk management framework, consistent
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) / U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Infrastructure Systems
Rebuilding Principles; and
Support resilient coastal communities and
robust, sustainable coastal landscape systems, Figure I-1. Hurricane Sandy Track, October 26 – 29, 2012
considering future sea level and climate
change scenarios, to manage risk to vulnerable The storm drove a catastrophic storm surge into the
populations, property, ecosystems, and New Jersey and New York coastlines. National Ocean
infrastructure. Service tide gages at Kings Point on the western end
of Long Island Sound and the Battery on the southern
tip of Manhattan measured storm surges of 12.65
BACKGROUND feet and feet above normal tide levels, respectively
(Blake et al. 2013). Storm surge is an abnormal rise
Hurricane Sandy originated as a late season hurricane of water above normal tide levels generated by the
in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on October 22, storm whereas storm tide is the total observed water
2012 (Blake et al. 2013). The storm made landfall level during the storm due to the combination of surge

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 1

I. PURPOSE

and astronomical tide (NOAA 2013a). This surge was • Low (Green): No storm surge impacts or modeled
accompanied by powerful and damaging waves, wind damages less than $10 million or precipitation
especially along the coast of central and northern New less than 4 inches.
Jersey, Staten Island, and southern-facing shores
of Long Island. With the landfall of Hurricane Sandy
coinciding with high tide, tide gages in the New York
City area measured record storm tides. These storm
tides resulted in flood depths of as much as 9 feet in
Manhattan, Staten Island, and other low-lying areas
within the New York Metropolitan Area (Blake et al.
2013).

With estimated damages of $65 billion, Hurricane

Sandy is the second costliest hurricane in the Nation’s
history and the largest storm of its kind to hit the
U.S. east coast. Twenty-six States were impacted by
Hurricane Sandy, with Major Disaster declarations
issued in 13 (NOAA 2013b).

HURRICANE SANDY QUICK FACTS

$65 billion in damages and economic losses
159 total fatalities caused by the storm
8.5 million customers without power Figure I-2. Areas Impacted by Hurricane Sandy with
650,000 homes damaged or destroyed Highlighted Counties Included in NACCS Study Area
(FEMA MOTF 2013)
13 States with Major Disaster declarations
(HSRTF 2013a) The FEMA MOTF data for the post-Hurricane Sandy
impact analyses are available online at [Link]
[Link]/GISData/MOTF/Hurricane%20Sandy/.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Modeling New York and New Jersey were the most seriously
Task Force (MOTF) developed a Total Damage impacted States, with the greatest damages
(Composite Surge / Precipitation / Wind Map) and the most fatalities occurring in the New York
County Impact Analysis to define the area affected Metropolitan Area. New York had 48 direct fatalities,
by Hurricane Sandy and document widespread followed by 12 in New Jersey, 5 in Connecticut,
economic impacts related to storm surge, intense 2 each in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and 1 each
rainfall, and high winds. Figure I-2 provides a color- in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Maryland
coded overview of impacts using the following criteria: (Blake et al. 2013). Authorities ordered mandatory
evacuations in areas vulnerable to storm surge
• Very High (Purple): County population greater than throughout the region, affecting more than 500,000
10,000 experienced storm surge flooding impacts. people, including 370,000 in New York City alone.
By October 31, 2012, 8.5 million customers were
• High (Red): County population of 500 to 10,000 without power and approximately 20,000 residents
experienced storm surge impacts, or modeled wind were in shelters across the region. At least 650,000
damages greater than $100 million, or precipitation houses were either damaged or destroyed as a result
greater than 8 inches. of the storm, with the vast majority of the damage
caused by storm surge and/or waves. Many of the
• Moderate (Yellow): County population of 100 to 500 8.5 million customers who lost power remained
experienced storm surge impacts, or modeled win without power for weeks or even months in some
damages of $10 to $100 million, or precipitation of 4 areas. Telecommunications were seriously affected,
to 8 inches.

2 NACCS Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 I. PURPOSE

with approximately 25 percent of cell towers across The NACCS provides:

all or part of 10 States and the District of Columbia
out of service. Extensive flooding and lack of power • An analysis of sea level and climate change
shut down business and commerce for several days, scenarios, and a discussion of how those scenarios
including the New York Stock Exchange, which closed might affect coastal populations, infrastructure,
for 2 days. ecosystems, and implementation of risk
management strategies;

• Significant advancements in coastal hydrodynamic

OVERVIEW OF THE NACCS modeling, economic benefit pools, and analyses of
A key product developed as part of the NACCS is natural and nature-based features (NNBF);
the Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework
• A list of areas warranting further analysis; and
(the Framework). The NOAA/USACE Infrastructure
Systems Rebuilding Principles, which were developed • A list of institutional and other barriers to providing
following Hurricane Sandy (NOAA and USACE 2013), “protection to affected coastal areas”.
provide the foundation for the Framework and include:
In response to specific provisions included in Public
• Working together in a collaborative manner across Law 113-2, USACE prepared and submitted two
multiple scales of governance (including Federal, interim reports to Congress. Public Law 113-2 also
Tribal, State, and local) and with relevant entities required an evaluation of the performance of existing
outside of the government to develop long-term projects constructed by USACE and affected by
strategies that promote public safety, protect and Hurricane Sandy. The First and Second Interim
restore natural resources and functions of the coast, Reports and the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
and enhance coastal resilience; Performance Evaluation Study are available online at
[Link]/CompStudy.
• Improving coastal resiliency by pursuing a systems
approach that incorporates natural, social, and built The study area’s 31,200 miles of coastline was
systems as a whole; and delineated into 39 planning reaches (Figure I-3)
considering State boundaries, predominant shoreline
• Promoting increased recognition and awareness of
types, and other features. Maine was not included in
risks and consequences among decision-makers,
the Framework analyses because minimal impacts
stakeholders, and the public.
from storm surge were documented as part of the
The Framework and supporting analyses offer a FEMA MOTF Hurricane Sandy Impact Analysis.
coastal storm risk management methodology for Additionally, the USACE Hurricane Sandy Coastal
stakeholders to increase resilient planning and adapt Projects Performance Evaluation Study included
to increasing risk. This methodology includes risk, an assessment of 13 USACE coastal storm risk
exposure, and vulnerability analyses and results management projects in northern Massachusetts
in long-term coastal management strategies. The and Maine, and noted that Hurricane Sandy was
NACCS presents the results of large-scale risk generally less than a 20 percent flood with negligible
and exposure assessments for the NACCS study damages to project features. Based on minimal
area using the Framework, as well as various risk impacts and the authorization language that defined
management measures and opportunities for multi- the study area as areas affected by Hurricane Sandy,
agency action and further evaluation. Maine was not included as part of the NACCS study
area. Regardless, as the Maine coastline is primarily
The Framework also describes the methodology to affected by nor’easters and periodically by tropical
evaluate risk, exposure, and vulnerability to flood storms and hurricanes, stakeholders and communities
hazards at a smaller, State- and community-level could apply the Framework to address flood risk as
scale. Developing and implementing comprehensive well as utilize the various products generated as part
coastal storm risk management solutions is a shared of the NACCS.
responsibility. The Framework addresses increasing
risk as a system of strategies and measures to
manage coastal storm risk and promote resilience.

NACCS Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 3

I. PURPOSE

Figure I-4 depicts the overall process and timeline of and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
the NACCS. As shown, the study was conducted in Other Federal agencies provided valuable input
three major phases. Phase 1 identified the people, and comments as part of the NACCS refinements
property, and environmental and cultural resources during Phase 3. These agencies included the U.S.
at risk to coastal flooding, as well as the measures Department of the Interior (DOI), National Park
available to potentially manage coastal storm risk. Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S.
Phase 2 involved extensive interagency collaboration Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA, and FEMA.
and refinement of the analyses. Phase 3 included
the internal agency reviews and final refinements For general communication purposes, the term
prior to the submittal to Congress in January 2015. “coastal storm risk management” as used in this
The internal review process included numerous staff report applies to terms used in typical USACE and
from the five USACE North Atlantic Division Districts, other Federal and State reports, including, but not
North Atlantic Division, USACE Headquarters, the limited to, shore protection, flood risk management,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for hurricane and storm damage reduction, and coastal
Civil Works, the Office of Management and Budget, storm damage reduction.

ME

VT
NH NH1

MA1
MA2
NY6
MA MA3

MA4
NY

RI
MA5
RI1 MA6
CT
RI2
NY5 CT1

NY3 NY1
NY4
PA
NY_NJ1 NY2

NJ1

NJ2

PA1
DE1
NJ
NJ5
NJ3
MD3
WV MD NJ4
MD4
DE2
DE
DC
DC1
DE3

MD5 MD2

MD1
VA1

VA
VA7 NACCS Planning Reaches
VA6
NACCS Study Area
VA2

0 20 40 60 80 100
VA4
VA3
VA5 Miles

Figure I-3. NACCS Planning Reaches

4 NACCS Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 I. PURPOSE

POST-HURRICANE SANDY LANDSCAPE

Feb 2013 - Jan 2014
INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION & PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Climate Change Recovery & Coastal Coastal

& Relative Sea Resiliency Plans Flood Risk Characteristics
Level Change

DRAFT FRAMEWORK
Exposure and Risk Assessment Risk Management Measures
PHASEFeb2- Jun 2014 PHASE 1

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
& FRAMEWORK REFINEMENT

INTERNAL REVIEW
July 2014 - Jan 2015

FINAL NACCS
FRAMEWORK
PHASE 3

Figure I-4. NACCS Process Flowchart

NACCS Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 5

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 1 CHAPTER TITLE
II. Findings, Outcomes, and Opportunities
Findings, outcomes, and opportunities were identified as part of the NACCS using an intensive, collaborative
approach that included a number of Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
tribes, as well as alignment with ongoing and planned actions.

FINDINGS
The NACCS is based on the study and examination of a great amount of new information pertaining to all facets
of coastal storm risk management. The following conclusions emerged from this effort.

Addressing coastal Developing and implementing comprehensive coastal storm risk management
storm risk is a shared solutions is a shared responsibility among Federal, State, regional, and Tribal entities;
responsibility NGOs; academia; business and industry; local governments; and the public. Addressing
coastal storm risk requires responsible evacuation planning and rethinking approaches
to land use and use of floodplains, systems planning, risk communication, Federal and
State assistance programs, cost sharing, and related local, regional, State, and Federal
policies, as well as coordination with private land owners during implementation of
coastal storm risk management solutions.

Vulnerability and Numerous populations, infrastructure, local and regional economies, ecosystems,
residual risk continue and other significant assets in the North Atlantic region are increasingly vulnerable
to increase in the to coastal storm damage and impacts from sea level change. Areas most vulnerable
North Atlantic region include those with high populations and urban areas. Risk communication is critical to
convey existing and potential future risk.

Improved coastal Employing three primary strategies—avoid, accommodate, and preserve—coastal

storm risk communities should consider a system of comprehensive, resilient, and sustainable
management coastal storm risk management measures. The system should include a combination of
measures are needed measures (structural, NNBF, and nonstructural measures) to form resilient, redundant,
robust, and adaptable strategies and measures (Figure II-1) that promote life safety
based on local site conditions and societal values.

NNBF
ELEVATED - LIVING SHORELINES
FLOOD WARNING BUILDING - VEGETATED FEATURES
& EVACUATION DRAINAGE - OYSTER & CORAL REEFS
RELOCATION IMPROVEMENTS - MARITIME FORESTS BREAKWATERS
ACQUISITION
LEVEE/ NNBF GROINS
FLOODWALL SHORELINE BEACH & DUNE
STABILIZATION RESTORATION
FUTURE
SEA LEVEL

EXISTING
SEA LEVEL
MARITIME ESTUARY
+PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES FOREST TIDAL BARRIER
MARSH ISLAND

Figure II-1. Combinations of Adaptable Measures That May Be Used to Improve Redundancy,
Robustness, and Resilience Associated with Coastal Flood Risk Management (not to scale)

Sea level change is One of the important data gaps identified by the NACCS is how sea level change will
affecting the nature affect communities and their existing stormwater infrastructure. Sea level change will
of fluvial and coastal alter the ability of streams and rivers to convey rainfall to coastal bays and estuaries and
flooding interactions may increase the frequency and severity of inland and coastal flooding from rainfall.

Interior, low-lying Low-lying areas with large populations and/or critical infrastructure are
shorelines are particularly vulnerable to sea level change.
susceptible to small
changes in water
levels

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 7

II. FINDINGS, OUTCOMES AND OPPORTUNITIES

OUTCOMES
The NACCS provides products, strengthened relationships, and outcomes to assist in coastal storm risk
management planning. The outcomes outlined below represent a high level of cooperation at all levels of
government that will facilitate implementation of future coastal storm risk management actions.

Coastal Storm The Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework was applied to one example
Risk Management area in each State and the District of Columbia (State and District of Columbia
Framework Analyses Appendix) to identify vulnerable areas and communities and strategies for
comprehensive pre-disaster planning, risk management, and resilience. Further, the
Framework itself is transferable to other vulnerable areas, such as the South Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico coasts where storm surge and sea level change are major threats.

A common Partners and stakeholders can implement near-term demonstration projects using
framework leading the common framework presented in this study. These projects will support the
to best practices and development of valuable best practices and expertise to validate solutions aimed at
validation of solutions reducing coastal flooding risk and promoting resilient measures.

Interagency Interagency collaboration has strengthened the dialogue on resilient approaches

collaboration and will continue to inform coastal storm risk management planning and
implementation.

Advanced the NACCS technical products advanced the state-of-the-science. These products are
state-of-the-science available for coastal storm risk management and planning, and can be used to revisit the
scope and purpose of authorized USACE projects. Ongoing studies, plans, and design
efforts can immediately utilize the NACCS outcomes/products/tools, including all projects
identified in First and Second Interim Reports and the Performance Evaluation Study.1
The analyses and technical products will inform and could potentially expedite future
investigations. Further, the NACCS products can be used for other vulnerable areas,
such as the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts where storm surge and sea level
change are major threats.
1In response to specific provisions included in Public Law 113-2, USACE prepared and submitted two interim reports to Congress.

What remains of a home in the Rockaways in Queens, NY after one of many fires caused by Hurricane Sandy
Source: Brandon Beach, USACE

8 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 II. FINDINGS, OUTCOMES AND OPPORTUNITIES

OPPORTUNITIES
NACCS identifies and emphasizes a number of opportunities to increase coastal resilience. These
opportunities, which include some nontraditional approaches to coastal storm risk management, are outlined
below.

Identify acceptable Communities and agencies must identify their acceptable level of residual
levels of risk risk to plan for long-term, comprehensive, and resilient risk management. Existing
programs for technical assistance include, but are not limited to, the USACE
Floodplain Management Services and interagency Silver Jackets Programs.

Encourage dynamic As knowledge of climate change, relative sea level change, and risk assessments
collaboration continues to evolve, dynamic and collaborative partnerships at the Federal,
State, local, and Tribal levels are critical to mitigating future risk.

Develop creative Developing creative incentives is necessary to spearhead the use of an array of
incentives resilient measures. Such incentives include, but are not limited to, enhanced cost
sharing for evacuation, floodplain, and pre-storm planning; prioritized funding for
initiatives with diverse partnerships or for areas demonstrating wise use of floodplains;
and similar efforts.

Promote public- Public-private partnerships should be explored to strengthen the resilience of coastal
private partnerships1 communities and their supporting economies, environments, and infrastructure.

Focus and prioritize A prioritized plan, including a system of coastal storm risk management
limited resources infrastructure and supporting authority and policies, may be considered to help focus
limited resources on solutions and strategies that reduce damages to critical infrastructure.
Redundant features that incorporate resilience of methods and materials to address storm
risk should be considered based on the benefits and costs of the additional investment.

Rebuild with Rebuilding with redundancy and robustness will increase resilience during more
redundancy and frequent, lower magnitude storm events and potentially more extreme storms.
robustness to
increase resilience

Improve Opportunities exist in the North Atlantic coastal region to integrate Federal and State data
implementation of to improve implementation of NNBF and blended solutions where appropriate.
Natural and Nature-
Based Features
(NNBF)

Quantify the There is a need to quantify the collateral economic value and services produced by
economic value and NNBF, including coastal storm risk management, ecosystem goods and services, and
services produced their contributions to system resilience to further the science of overall benefits that NNBF
by NNBF serve for coastal communities.

Provide for strategic Policy development and planning and designing of coastal storm risk management
monitoring and features should incorporate input from strategic monitoring efforts. Input from strategic
adaptive coastal monitoring will bolster flexibility and adaptive management of existing and future
storm risk coastal storm risk management projects, including the USACE projects referenced in the
management First and Second Interim Reports.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 9

II. FINDINGS, OUTCOMES AND OPPORTUNITIES

OPPORTUNITIES (CONTINUED)

Continue analyses in Nine high-risk focus areas (Figure II-2) identified in the NACCS warrant
focus areas additional analysis: Rhode Island Coastline; Connecticut Coastline; New York –
New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries; Nassau County Back Bays, NY; New Jersey
Back Bays, NJ; Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast, DE; City of
Baltimore, MD; the District of Columbia; and the City of Norfolk, VA.

Relay transparent Comprehensively monitor coastal conditions and provide actionable information
and actionable to regional, State, local, and public entities to facilitate shared solutions and increase
information awareness of coastal conditions.

1Public-privatepartnerships generally refer to relationships between the public sector and a private entity for the financing,
design, construction, renovation, management, operation, and/or maintenance of public infrastructure and/or the provision of
public services (Abt Associates 2014).
NACCS Focus Areas
ME
VT NH

NY
MA

RI
CT
Connecticut
Coastline
Rhode
New York – New Jersey Island
PA Harbor and Tributaries Coastline
NJ

Nassau
County Back
Bays, NY

City of
MD Baltimore, MD New Jersey
Back Bays
WV

Washington,
D.C. Delaware Inland Bays
and Delaware Bay Coast

VA

NACCS Focus Areas

NACCS Study Area

City of
Norfolk, VA
0 20 40 60 80 100

Miles
NC

Figure II-2. NACCS Focus Areas

10 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

III.
1 Interagency
CHAPTER TITLE
Alignment and Consistency
with Other Plans

Throughout the development of the NACCS, • Receive input and feedback from stakeholders;
significant resources were dedicated to coordination
and collaboration with others. The study is consistent • Facilitate open communication among agencies,
with, and was conducted in collaboration with, tribes, congressional interests, media, and the
Federal, NGO, Tribal, State, and local partners. public by keeping them informed about the status of
Public Law 113-2, Chapter 4 specified: “… that the the NACCS; and
Secretary shall conduct the study in coordination with
other Federal agencies, and State, local, and Tribal • Provide a forum to deliver a consistent message to
officials to ensure consistency with other plans to be diverse audiences that include Federal, State, Tribal,
developed, as appropriate….” In the scoping stages and nongovernmental stakeholders.
of the study, an Engagement and Communication
Strategy was prepared to provide a comprehensive
framework for planning, integrating, and executing all STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND DIALOGUE
communication associated with the NACCS.
Interagency points of contact and subject matter
Goals of the engagement and communication strategy experts were identified in early 2013 to assist in
were to: preparing the scope of the study and engage in
data gathering and development of analyses as
• Increase the understanding of the purpose and part of the NACCS. Table III-1 lists the requested
expected outcomes of the NACCS; input. Interagency subject matter experts were
also embedded in various subteams (engineering,

Table III‑1. Requests for Information and Verification

Requested Input Date Purpose
State Verification of Post- May 23, 2013 Request State confirmation of post-Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy Landscape projects and anticipated projects such that future exposure
Letter and risk can be properly assessed.
NACCS Public website and May 28, 2013 Provide background, status, technical information,
News Release subscribers list, and opportunity to provide input on
resiliency measures.
NACCS Formal Initiation June 6, 2013 Provide general background and request post-Hurricane
Letter to Federal, State, Sandy data or regional strategies, as well as a point of
Tribal and Nongovernmental contact information.
Stakeholders
Federal Register Notice June 19, 2013 Notify stakeholders of the NACCS and opportunities for
input.
State Historic Preservation August 1, 2013 Request review and validation of cultural resources
Officers Letter characterization.
State, Tribes, and Subject September 4, 2013 Request review and validation of exposure mapping and
Matter Expert Verification of methodology.
Exposure Analyses Letter
State Verification/Input on October 1, 2013 Request review and verification of existing State and post-
State Appendices Hurricane Sandy conditions, as well as most vulnerable
areas.
Federal Register Notice October 4, 2013 Solicit peer-reviewed data.
Tribal Coordination Webinars December 17, 2013 Answer questions and solicit input.
United South and Eastern June 1, 2014 Present the NACCS and solicit input.
Tribes (USET) Tribal Meeting,
ME

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 11

III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

environmental, NNBF, sea level change, etc.) in early feedback used to refine the analyses. The
supporting the NACCS. Details on agency webinars provided an opportunity for stakeholders
representation and public engagements are included to ask questions and obtain answers, as well as for
in the Agency Collaboration Report located at discussion among participants. Webinar attendance
[Link] ranged from 70 to 130 participants each, depending
on the topic, and webinars were recorded for future
An Interagency Collaboration Webinar Series reference. Table III-2 lists the webinars by topic. All
provided stakeholders with an overview of the topics webinar materials are posted on the NACCS website:
being considered in the NACCS, which resulted [Link]

Floating Debris in the Battery Park Underpass in lower Manhattan, NY on November 2, 2012
Source: [Link]

12 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

Table III‑2. Interagency Collaboration Webinar Series

Webinar Topic Date Purpose
Natural and Nature-Based July 30, 2013 Provide an overview of how NNBF infrastructure is being
Features (NNBF) applied to the NACCS and obtain relevant input or data
from interagency partners.
Ecosystem Goods and August 29, 2013 Introduce the processes necessary to evaluate ecosystem
Services goods and services produced from NNBF coastal storm
risk management measures.
Numerical Modeling and Sea September 12, 2013 Provide information on the NACCS effort to develop
Level Rise numerical models for evaluating future scenarios and
determining the probability of future Hurricane Sandy
events based on historical coastal storm forcing
parameters.
Exposure and Risk September 25, 2013 Provide information on the NACCS effort related to the
Assessments development of coastal risk metrics, coastal flooding
exposure assessment, and problems, needs, and
identification of opportunities.
Institutional Barriers and December 19, 2013 Provide preliminary results of policy challenges to
Policy Challenges comprehensive coastal storm risk management, including
the use of NNBF, as identified through personal interviews
and literature reviews.
Comprehensive Collaboration March-April 2014 Describe the compilation of analyses based on all prior
of Draft NACCS Analyses coordination and NACCS development, and solicit
validation of data, data gaps, etc. Included one overview
webinar and three webinars focusing on specific topics
associated with the NACCS.
Regional Sediment June 24, 2014 Describe the results of the conceptual sediment
Management and a Systems management budget for the Atlantic Ocean and major
Approach to Coastal Flood estuarine reaches within the North Atlantic Division of the
Risk Management and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, case studies associated
Resilience with regional sediment management and NNBF, and
discussion of a systems approach as well as public-
private partnerships to address coastal storm risk and
promote resilience.
General Overview of the August 14, 2014 Present the results of the NACCS draft report, with
NACCS a focus on the Coastal Storm Risk Management
Framework, technical products supporting the
Framework, and a systems approach and resilience
accounting for potential future impacts from each
level change and climate change. The discussion was
also intended to align with The Infrastructure Security
Partnership’s Regional and Infrastructure Resilience
Committee’s three strategic objectives, which include:
• Facilitate education and knowledge transfer;
• Advance operational and functional resilience of
communities and the built environment through regional
and State partnerships; and
• Enable existing and new partnerships for regional, State,
local, and private sector collaboration in achieving
resilience planning and improvements, advocating
critical infrastructure security and resilience, and
incorporating resilience management into an effective
lifecycle risk management model.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 13

III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

Table III-3 presents in-person working meetings that Various media outlets, including The Weather Channel,
occurred to address the state of the science and Newsday, and PBS Nova, featured the NACCS
determine future needs and best approaches. A series in interviews with NACCS team members. These
of visioning sessions were held in the focus areas that engagements and panel sessions provided more
are identified and described in the State and District opportunities to share information about the NACCS,
of Columbia Analyses Appendix. The purpose of these expose stakeholders to the website, and provide
meetings was to continue dialogue with the States input.
and other stakeholders to develop a shared vision to
address coastal storm risk and promote resilience. Tribes represent an important stakeholder group and
These meetings reaffirmed that coastal storm risk were included in many of the coordination efforts.
management is a reality faced by many stakeholders Existing communication channels between USACE
throughout the study area. For the majority of the District Tribal liaisons and tribes were enlisted in
meetings, three general topics were discussed, addition to the engagements and forums described
including vulnerability, potential solutions, and above. Liaisons regularly participated in webinars
institutional/policy change related to coastal storm and communicated with the Tribal entities to ensure
risk. For each particular topic, participants were asked they were fully aware of and integrated into the study
a question in a small group and then asked to provide efforts. USACE representatives attended the United
written responses. On the topic of vulnerability, the South and Eastern Tribes (USET) Meetings in October
question posed to the groups was, “How is your 2013 and June 2014. The Water Resources Reform
community (or agency/organization) most vulnerable and Development Act of 2014 directed the USACE
to coastal storm risk?” The overwhelming majority to extend coordination efforts beyond Federal and
of responses listed aging infrastructure as the top State agencies, NGOs, and tribes, to also include
vulnerability, and natural systems and resources as historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
the second most common vulnerability. The other two In July 2014, 27 HBCU, tribal college, and university
topics included discussion of potential solutions to stakeholders received the NACCS draft report for
those vulnerabilities and institutional/policy changes review and comment.
that could potentially increase coastal resiliency. The
most common responses and themes for both topics Collaboration opportunities and data-sharing
were related to “community scale” and “building discussions occurred during the NACCS efforts.
scale” measures. The community scale measures Coordination meetings and discussions with various
included proper zoning and land use regulations, NGOs and their various committees took place
floodplain management to limit development and as various post-Hurricane Sandy efforts initiated
redevelopment after a disaster, as well as community in earnest in 2013, including discussions with the
retreat. A summary of the participant responses and Conservation Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the
the most prominent common themes identified during Audubon Society, the Association of State Floodplain
the visioning and partnering meetings is included in Managers, and the American Shore and Beach
the State and District of Columbia Analyses Appendix. Preservation Association. In addition, USACE
Additionally, more information about NACCS coordinated with State Historical Preservation Offices
coordination efforts can be found in the Interagency across the study area. Cultural resources and other
Coordination and Collaboration Report, located on national/historic places along the North Atlantic Coast
the NACCS website ([Link] may also be at risk to coastal flood peril and impacts
CompStudy). from sea level change. The USACE coordination and
collaboration effort completed as part of the NACCS
with a myriad of stakeholders serves a foundation
for future collaboration efforts needed to meet the
ongoing challenge to address coastal storm risk and
promoting resilient communities.

14 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

Table III‑3. Technical Working Meetings

Topic Date Purpose
North Atlantic Coast June 12–13, 2013, Develop models for coastal flooding, storm surge, wave
Comprehensive Study Polytechnic Institute of systems, and climate change.
Numerical Engineering New York University
Modeling of Future Scenarios
Meeting
Reducing Risk and Building June 26–27, 2013, Develop strategies to reduce risk and increase the
Resiliency following Stevens Institute of resilience of communities affected by Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy Technology in 2012.
Policy Challenges to Using November 20, 2013, Identify institutional barriers and policy challenges to
Natural and Nature-Based U.S. Army Corps of implementing NNBF to support comprehensive risk
Features (NNBF) for Risk Engineers Institute for reduction and resilience.
Reduction and Resiliency Water Resources
Technical Considerations November 22–23, Share diverse approaches and best practices, and
in Using NNBF to Support 2013, Hall of States, receive input on evaluating NNBF, performance metrics
Coastal Resilience and Risk Washington, DC for goods and services produced, knowledge gaps, etc.
Reduction
Focus Area Visioning January–March 2014 Continue dialogue with the States and other
Sessions (7 Visioning stakeholders to develop a shared vision for resiliency in
Sessions and 2 Partnership response to risk and exposure, building on the previous
Meetings) discussions and information compiled to date.
Additional information on working meetings can be found on the NACCS website ([Link]

INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT
Table III-4 lists various agencies and organizations that participated during the study. Coordination and
alignment initiatives included presentations, working meetings, and webinars.

Table III‑4. Interagency, NGO, and Tribal Alignment Initiatives

Agency Alignment Initiative(s)
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Participated in NACCS working meetings and webinars and reviewed interim
New Hampshire, and analyses and processes.
Rhode Island Coastal
and Environmental State
Agencies
Conservation Fund and Presented and aligned the Saving the Salt Marshes of Blackwater National Wildlife
Audubon Society Refuge (NWR) report with the NACCS.
U.S. Environmental Coordinated with various subject matter experts, participated in NACCS working
Protection Agency (EPA) meetings and webinars, and reviewed interim products.
Federal Climate Partners for Participated in briefings on the development of the NACCS.
the Mid-Atlantic and the New
England Federal Partners
Federal Emergency Coordinated with subject matter experts, attended NACCS working meetings and
Management Agency (FEMA) webinars, and reviewed interim products analyses.
Joint Field Offices (New York Provided the recovery support strategies to help align risk management strategies
and New Jersey) and measures with the NACCS.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 15

III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

Table III‑4. Interagency, NGO, and Tribal Alignment Initiatives (continued)

Agency Alignment Initiative(s)

Maryland Department of the Participated in a presentation of innovative uses of green/nature-based features at
Environment (MDE) a technical working meeting.
Maryland and District of Participated in NACCS working meetings and webinars and reviewed interim
Columbia Silver Jackets1 analyses and processes.
Teams
Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Coordinated with subject matter experts and reviewed interim analyses.
Council
National Fish and Wildlife Provided the post-Sandy report, Assessing the Impacts of Hurricane Sandy on
Foundation (NFWF) Coastal Habitats (NFWF 2012) to aid in the development of the environmental
conditions.
National Oceanic and Embedded a NOAA team member on the Communications and Community
Atmospheric Administration Visioning Sessions. Reviewed sea level change analyses, participated in modeling
(NOAA) working meeting, coordinated on use of Geographic Information System (GIS)
data, and provided the Community Resiliency Survey for reference in the NACCS
report.
New York City Presented A Stronger, More Resilient New York to the NACCS team. The NACCS
is consistent with the strategies presented in the New York City report.
NOAA–Urban Waters Shared preliminary data on exposure areas such that the U.S. Department of the
Initiative Interior (DOI) could align urban waters criteria and grant funding to vulnerable
areas.
North Atlantic Landscape Attended a briefing on the NACCS and participated in interagency validation,
Conservation Cooperative by reviewing analyses and confirming that they align with the organization’s
– DOI / U.S Fish and understanding of the topic.
Wildlife Service (USFWS) /
North Atlantic Landscape
Conservation Cooperative
(NALCC)
Northeast Regional Ocean Participated in NACCS working meetings and webinars.
Council
The Nature Conservancy Previewed Coastal Resilience 2.0 and validated alignment between the tool and
(including State offices) the NACCS products.
United South and Eastern Participated in the October 2013 USET meeting. Offered an opportunity to present
Tribes (USET) the NACCS to the Culture & Heritage and Natural Resources committees of USET
at the June 2, 2014, meeting. Participated in review of the NACCS.
U.S. Department of Housing Provided the Task Force Report, so that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Urban Development (USACE) could align actions identified in the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy
(HUD) Task Force Report into the NACCS.
U.S. Department of Participated in the June 2013 NACCS measures working meeting.
Transportation (DOT)
USFWS Produced a Planning Aid Report for the NACCS and hosted an NNBF Webinar in
coordination with USACE.
USFWS – Hurricane Coordinated with NACCS team to ensure requests for funding were not for
Sandy Coastal Resiliency duplicative efforts or for data collection occurring as part of NACCS.
Competitive Grant Program
U.S. Geological Survey Provided the USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index for use in the NACCS risk
(USGS) assessment and GIS data coordination.
1TheSilver Jackets program provides an opportunity to consistently bring together multiple State, Federal, and sometimes Tribal
and local agencies to learn from one another and apply their knowledge to reduce flood risk.

16 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 III. INTERAGENCY ALIGNMENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS

Figure III-1 presents the various interagency

initiatives, strategies, and reports with
which the NACCS is consistent.

EO 13514 – Federal Leadership in

2009 Environmental, Energy and
Economic Performance (Oct 2009)

EO 13547 – Stewardship of the Ocean, Our CEQ Recommendations in Support of a

National Climate Change Adaptation
Coasts, and the Great Lakes (Jul 2010)
2010 Strategy (Oct 2010)

Regional Disaster Resilience – A Guide for Federal Actions for a Climate

Developing an Action Plan (2011 Edition) Resilient Nation, Climate Change
FEMA National Disaster Recovery
Framework (Sep 2011)
2011 Adaptation Progress Report
(Oct 2011)

NAS - Disaster Resilience: A National HURRIANCE SANDY

Imperative (2012) (Oct 2012)
United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level
Panel on Global Sustainability: Resilient people, EO 13632 – Establishing the Hurricane

2012
resilient planet: A future worth choosing (Jan 2012) Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (Dec 2012)

Disaster Relief Appropriations HUD Hurricane Sandy NAS – Launching a National

Act (Jan 2013) NOAA Global Sea Level Rise Rebuilding Strategy Conversation on Disaster
Scenarios for the United (Aug 2013) Resilience in America: Workshop
NYS2100 Report (Jan 2013) States (Apr 2013) Summary (Oct 2013)
NOAA National Climate
2013
President’s Climate Action EO 13653 - Preparing the
National Ocean Policy Assessment (Sep 2013) United States for the
Plan (Jan 2013)
Implementation Plan Impacts of Climate Change
(Apr 2013) USACE Coastal Risk (Nov 2013)
USACE-NOAA Infrastructure HUD Rebuild by Design Reduction and Resilience:
Systems Rebuilding Competition (June 2013) Using a Full Array of
Principles (Feb 2013) NYC Panel on Climate Measures (Sep 2013) Climate Change. Federal Efforts
Change: Climate Risk After Sandy (July 2013) Under Way to Assess Water
Information 2013 DOI Hurricane Sandy Coastal Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and
HUD Community Development Address Adaptation Challenges
Block Grant Allocations (June 2013) NY & NJ Recovery Resiliency Competitive Grant
Support Strategies Program (Oct 2013) (Nov 2013)
(Mar 2013)
(Aug 2013)

National Climate Assessment (May 2014) Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and
Gulf Coasts (July 2014)
USACE Climate Change
2014
Enhancing the Climate Resilience of
Adaptation Plan (June 2014) America's Natural Resources (2014)

North Atlantic Coast

Comprehensive Study
(NACCS)

2015
Figure III-1. NACCS Alignment with Interagency Plans and Strategies

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 17

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
IV. Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework
1 CHAPTER TITLE
for Vulnerable Coastal Populations

For a typical feasibility study leading to an agency recommendation, the USACE plan formulation process
includes identifying problems and opportunities, forecasting future conditions, identifying solutions, and
evaluating and comparing solutions to determine a recommended plan for action or implementation. Such a
plan would evaluate coastal storm risk within the context of forecasted future conditions and potential effects
of sea level change and would include estimates of damage associated with flood inundation, wave action,
and erosion. Additional investigation and evaluation of strategies, solutions, and plans at a smaller scale would
be required for and should also be considered more broadly within a systems perspective. The NACCS is not
a typical USACE feasibility study. Rather, the NACCS developed technical products and the Framework that
presents the steps to assist with the identification of coastal storm risk, exposure, vulnerability, and the coastal
storm risk management strategies and measures to reduce risk and promote resilience.

OVERVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK

The Framework is a three-tiered evaluation (Figure IV-1). Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are defined by different scales,
objectives to address flood risk, and stakeholders for input and feedback. The NACCS presents a large-scale
application of the Framework in the evaluation of risk and exposure for the North Atlantic Coast study area (Tier
1). For consistency across State boundaries, national datasets were used to complete the Tier 1 evaluation.
These datasets include the USGS National Hydrography Dataset and 10-meter digital elevation model, NOAA’s
Environmental Sensitivity Index data (shorelines), the Homeland Security Infrastructure Program Gold data
layers, USFWS National Wetland Inventory, The Nature Conservancy Ecoregional Priorities, and the U.S.
Census Data. Given the scale, the datasets are likely not as refined as State or local datasets, which is why the
steps are repeated as part of a Tier 2 (State and large watershed scale) and Tier 3 (local and small watershed
scale) evaluation. Furthermore, the NACCS application of the Framework does not include steps 6 through 9,
which require refined datasets and analysis as well as refined objectives and constraints for evaluation at a
smaller scale (Tier 2 and/or Tier 3).

In Tier 2 and Tier 3, the Framework steps are repeated A Tier 3 evaluation would likely include a benefit- to-
and adapted to a smaller, community-specific scale, cost ratio analysis leading to the selection of a plan.
incorporating refined datasets and societal value The Framework can also be used in anticipation of
for exposure, risk, and vulnerability assessments. future storms and for climate change adaptation
Example Tier 2 evaluations were completed for nine planning. Long-term flood risk and vulnerability should
States in the study area and the District of Columbia be considered when addressing current flood risk and
to present applications of the Framework at a smaller vulnerability solutions.
scale. A Tier 2 evaluation example is not included for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The example Tier The following paragraphs provide an overview of
2 evaluations do not include refined exposure and risk the Framework steps that were completed as part
assessments. Rather, the Tier 1 exposure and risk of the NACCS. This section describes the steps in
assessments were used with refined assumptions only general and is followed by sections with more detailed
related to coastal storm risk management measures. discussion. Presentation of the results of the Tier 1
The results of the example Tier 2 evaluations are application of the Framework represents an evaluation
presented in the State and District of Columbia of flood risk, including storm surge, erosion, and wave
Analyses Appendix. action, and does not include an evaluation of potential
impacts from wind or interior drainage analyses.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 19

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

NACCS Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework

(Repeat initial five steps for each Tier 1, 2, and 3 Evaluations)

INITIATE ANALYSIS
Identify Stakeholders, Partners, and Authorities
Identify Constraints and Opportunities
Formalize Goals

STEPS COMPLETED AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL BY THE NACCS

Determine Spatial and Temporal Scale of Analysis

CHARACTERIZE CONDITIONS
Define Physical and Geomorphic Setting
Compile Flood Probability Data
Establish Baseline Conditions and Forecast Future Conditions

ANALYZE RISK AND VULNERABILITY

Map Inundation and Exposure
Assess Vulnerability and Resilience
Determine Areas of High Risk

IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Assess Full Array of Measures
Consider Blended Solutions
Develop Performance Metrics
Establish Decision Criteria

EVALUATE AND COMPARE SOLUTIONS

Develop Cost Estimates
Assess Benefits
REPLICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK AT REFINED SCALES

SELECT PLAN
ADDITIONAL STEPS TO BE COMPLETED IN FUTURE

DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

���N Complete Pre-construction Engineering and Design
Consider Operation and Maintenance Issues
Establish Adaptation Thresholds
Develop Strategic Monitoring Plan

EXECUTE PLAN

MONITOR AND ADAPT

Measure Performance and Benefit Production
Assess Resilience
Adaptively Manage

Figure IV-1. Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework

20 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Initiate Analysis adverse effects of coastal flooding over a period of

time. Vulnerability is a function of the character and
In early 2013, interagency magnitude of a hazard (i.e., coastal storm flooding)
points of contact and subject to which the community is exposed; the sensitivity
matter experts were identified of the population, infrastructure, and environmental
to assist in preparing the scope resources in the community; and the capacity of the
for the NACCS and to be engaged in data gathering community to recover and regain full functionality or
and development of analyses. Various individuals design capacity. The NACCS presents a large scale
associated with the National Disaster Recovery evaluation of coastal storm risk for the North Atlantic
Framework Joint Field Offices (established in New coastline. This assessment identifies coastal flood
York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy) hazards and proposes a method by which to identify
were among the many points of contact and subject and evaluate measures that could reduce or manage
matter experts. Numerous Federal and State agency the risk. The extent of the flood hazard and what
representatives involved in coastal storm risk is exposed to the flood peril help further define the
management activities as well as Silver Jackets Teams problems and opportunities. The Framework provides
in several of the study area States also engaged in a process to identify the flood hazard from coastal
the process. In preparation of the scope, various storms, forecasted impacts from sea level and climate
interagency stakeholders provided feedback on the change, and various assets exposed to the flood
goals, opportunities, and constraints. hazard, as well as a process to assess vulnerability.

Characterize Conditions Identify Possible Solutions – Coastal Storm

Risk Management Strategies
More than 31,200 linear miles of
coastal shoreline were delineated and Measures
into 39 planning reaches as shown in
Structural, nonstructural, NNBF,
Figure I-3. The reach delineations are
and programmatic measures
based on State boundaries, similar shoreline types,
were evaluated to determine
similar geomorphic features, and the extent of existing
which may be applicable to the different shoreline
or planned coastal storm risk management projects.
types. Shorelines throughout the study area were
Forecasting the post-Hurricane Sandy landscape
assigned shoreline types using available Geographic
involved identifying the status of existing and planned
Information System (GIS) mapping.
coastal storm risk management efforts anticipated
by 2018 as well as the future inundation conditions,
taking into account climate change and relative sea
level change over a 100-year time horizon. Evaluate and Compare Solutions
As indicated by the NACCS
Findings in Section II, improved
Analyze Risk and coastal storm risk management
Vulnerability measures are needed throughout
the study area. The Tier 1
Risk is an overarching concept evaluation included cost-efficiency analyses that
that considers hazard, exposure, compared the potential reduction in risk to the relative
performance of coastal storm risk management costs of the measures. In coordination with State
features, subsequent consequences, and vulnerability. stakeholders, example areas were identified to present
The NACCS defines risk of coastal flood peril using a refined application of the Framework. This second
flood inundation mapping. Exposure to flood peril is stage refinement, or the Tier 2 evaluation, within each
defined as the presence of people, infrastructure, and/ State demonstrates how individual measures may
or environmental resources (receptors) affected by be combined to provide more comprehensive risk
potential coastal flooding. Vulnerability is defined as management and more resilient communities. The
the degree to which a system’s receptors or assets State and District of Columbia Analyses Appendix
are susceptible to, and unable to cope with, the includes the risk assessments for each of the reaches.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 21

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Further site-specific analyses would constitute Tier 3 North Atlantic Coast, as well as other coastal areas
local evaluations. like the South Atlantic or Gulf Coasts.

Based on an evaluation and comparison of solutions,

Illustration of Framework Application Framework users select a coastal storm risk
management plan, which includes provisions for
Because of the extensive damage that occurred as a implementation of adaptation strategies as well as
result of Hurricane Sandy in highly developed areas subsequent monitoring and adaptive management.
of the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area, These last four steps are applicable to a detailed
the following sections detail the application of the Tier 2 or 3 evaluation and not the regional Tier 1
NACCS Tier 1 Framework for the NY_NJ1 Reach, with application.
particular focus on the Jamaica Bay and Rockaway
Peninsula (NACCS Risk Area NY_NJ1_I). The following sections provide a detailed description
of the initial five framework steps applied in the
Although the Tier 1 evaluation identifies some areas as NACCS as part of a Tier 1 evaluation.
having relatively higher vulnerability, the methodology
presented by the Framework is applicable for
subsequent analyses to all coastal communities of the

INITIATE ANALYSIS
Public Law 113-2 provided authority and appropriated funding for USACE to initiate
analyses associated with the NACCS. Numerous points of contact and subject matter
experts were identified as part of the stakeholder identification process and for further
collaboration. Stakeholders expressed interest in collaborating with USACE and assisted
with the development of the NACCS goals, identification of constraints and opportunities, and the determination
of the spatial and temporal scale of analyses as part of the scoping process. The collaboration effort completed
as part of the NACCS would continue as part of subsequent Tier 2 or Tier 3 evaluations, as well as other
ongoing initiatives.

CHARACTERIZE CONDITIONS – THE POST-HURRICANE SANDY LANDSCAPE

The Planning and State and District of Columbia Analyses Appendices, as well as the NACCS
Environmental and Cultural Resources Conditions Report, describe existing conditions of the
NACCS study area.

Hurricane Sandy Response in New York and $3.8 billion was provided to more than 270,000
New Jersey individuals and 3,900 businesses through Small
Business Administration recovery loans and FEMA
Following Hurricane Sandy, Federal, State, and local Individual Assistance.
government agencies and NGOs initiated a major
response and recovery effort to repair, replace, and
restore homes, industry, and critical infrastructure billion in Community Development Block Grant
under the National Disaster Recovery Framework (CDBG) funds (later reduced to $15.18 billion due
developed by FEMA. This effort has changed the to sequestration) for necessary expenses related
physical and cultural landscape of the impacted areas to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration
and has altered the social and political awareness of of infrastructure and housing, and economic
the potential impacts of future storms. revitalization in the most impacted and distressed
areas resulting from a major disaster declared
On January 29, 2013, President Obama signed the pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-2), Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
which provided approximately $50 billion in funding seq.) due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events
to support rebuilding. That Act made available $16 in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013.

22 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

On May 13, 2013, HUD approved the State of New • Ensuring the region is rebuilt in a way that makes
Jersey’s CDBG-DR Action Plan for an initial $1.83 it more resilient – that is, better able to withstand
billion for housing and business recovery programs. future storms and other risks posed by a changing
HUD allocated an additional $1.46 billion on May 30, climate.
2014.
INCORPORATING REDUNDANCY WILL
On February 6, 2013, HUD allocated $5.4 billion in
ENHANCE REGIONAL RESILIENCE:
CDBG Disaster Recovery funding to five states and
New York City, representing the first round of CDBG “We also need to design and plan for more
grants from the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of redundancy [in] our transportation system, to
2013 signed into law by President Obama on January enhance regional resilience so that when one part
29. On October 28, 2013, HUD allocated a combined of the system goes down, other parts can pick up
$5.1 billion through a second round of recovery the slack. We could see the importance of this in the
funds to five states and New York City. On May 30, reaction to Hurricane Sandy.”
2014, HUD announced a third round of grant funding, – John Porcari, former Deputy Secretary,
totaling more than $2.5 billion, to help four states and U.S. Department of Transportation,
New York City continue recovering from Hurricane in November 6, 2013, briefing
Sandy. In these three allocations, HUD awarded to the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and
$4.42 billion to New York State, $4.21 billion to New the District of Columbia
York City, $4.17 billion to New Jersey, $159 million for
Connecticut, $29 million for Maryland, and nearly $20
million for Rhode Island. Each grantee was required to The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act allocated
submit an action plan describing the unmet recovery $13.1 billion (later reduced by $650 million due
needs from Hurricane Sandy and the planned use of to sequestration) to the U.S. Department of
the funds. Transportation (DOT) and $10.2 billion to the Federal
Transit Administration for a new Public Transportation
In recognition of the rebuilding challenges facing Emergency Relief Program. On November 6, 2013,
the region, President Obama signed Executive John Porcari, Deputy Secretary, DOT, addressed
Order 13632 on December 7, 2012, creating the the U.S. Senate, highlighting the agency’s role in
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (HSRTF), and recovery, rebuilding, and improving resilience. Mr.
designated the Secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, Porcari proposed building transportation systems that
as Chair. President Obama charged the Task Force are more resilient in the face of high winds and storm
with identifying and working to remove obstacles surges and that provide transportation agencies with
to resilient rebuilding while taking into account better information, new designs, and tools to enhance
existing and future risks and promoting the long-term the resilience of their infrastructure and the ability
sustainability of communities and ecosystems in the to address problems in a regional way. A sample of
Hurricane Sandy-affected region. specific initiatives related to resiliency and redundancy
are highlighted below:
In August 2013, the HSRTF released the Hurricane
Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. This strategy established • November 2014 – The Federal Transit Administration
guidelines for the investment of Federal funds for the announced the selection of $3.592 billion in
recovery of the impacted region. These funds are to public transportation resilience projects in the
be used for recovery and to build back smarter and area impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Projects were
stronger with the following outcomes in mind: selected subsequent to a December 2013 notice of
funding availability and competitive process;
• Align this funding with local visions for rebuilding.
• Gateway Project – an initiative to expand rail
• Cutting red tape and getting assistance to families, capacity from New Jersey into New York Penn
businesses, and communities efficiently and Station; and
effectively, with maximum accountability.
• River-to-River Rail Resiliency – an initiative to
• Coordinate the efforts of the Federal, State, manage risk to the East River Tunnels and Penn
and local governments to ensure a region-wide Station, which are used by the Metropolitan
approach to rebuilding. Transportation Authority Long Island Rail Road as
well as Amtrak and New Jersey Transit.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 23

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Hurricane Evacuation Planning and following three reports to document the status of
various projects:
Floodplain Management
• First Interim Report, USACE projects that are
Avoiding flood risk is important to effectively address constructed or under construction (March 11, 2013);
coastal storm risk to communities. Evacuation
planning addresses flood risk avoidance. Various • Second Interim Report, USACE projects authorized
evacuation studies have identified potential hurricane but not constructed and projects under study (May
storm surge inundation, evaluated evacuation routes, 30, 2013); and
and identified locations of hurricane shelters and
hospitals outside the potential hurricane surge areas. • Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects Performance
Despite such evacuation planning, some residents Evaluation Study of constructed USACE coastal
do not heed evacuation warnings and orders, such storm risk management projects (November 6,
as the many residents of the New York City Housing 2013).
Authority who chose to shelter in place during
Hurricane Sandy (City of New York 2013). The purpose of the First Interim Report was to provide
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Hurricane evacuation studies identify the potential Representatives and Senate with an assessment
inundation possibilities for worst case storm events of authorized constructed projects and projects
to identify segments of communities to evacuate. The under construction. The purpose of the Second
studies evaluate the appropriate evacuation routes to Interim Report to was to list previously authorized
maximize the efficiency of evacuation efforts prior to but unconstructed USACE projects as well as any
the storm event. Evacuation planning is a necessary potential USACE project under study by USACE
part of emergency management preparations for to address coastal storm flooding risks. Table IV-1
coastal storms (among other hazard mitigation provides a summary of the current and anticipated
strategies for communities) to avoid having people USACE projects in the high-impact States of New York
stranded in areas experiencing direct damage from and New Jersey. The table presents how the results
coastal storms. With increasing and aging populations of the two interim reports were incorporated into the
in coastal communities, evacuation planning and USACE post-Hurricane Sandy landscape, identifying
ways to encourage residents residing in flood prone those existing projects, projects under construction
areas will continue to be an increasingly important when Hurricane Sandy occurred, authorized but
measure to address coastal storm risk. Some unconstructed projects that would be funded for
States and New York City host websites devoted construction under Public Law 113-2, USACE
to evacuation that include online viewers of coastal investigations that were underway when Hurricane
storm risk and flooding, such as New York City’s Sandy occurred that may lead to a determination of
[Link] However, effective Federal interest to pursue construction authorization
local floodplain management could potentially reduce and appropriations, and those USACE projects that
the risk of flood peril even before the next storm event were not included in the First and Second Interim
occurs. Communities at risk of flood peril have the Reports.
regulatory authority to address local land use, zoning,
and building codes to avoid siting development in The Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects Performance
floodplains. Additional information on hurricane Evaluation Study identified numerous USACE projects
evacuation studies is included in the State and District that did not eliminate the flood risk associated
of Columbia Analyses Appendix. with Hurricane Sandy in the New York–New
Jersey metropolitan area, but did reduce damage
despite the fact that the storm tides and waves that
Coastal Storm Risk Management Projects Hurricane Sandy generated exceeded the design of
the projects. Projects that were intended to provide
The post-Hurricane Sandy physical landscape coastal storm risk management, including seawalls,
reflects major investments by governments and levees, and closure gates to prevent inundation,
NGOs to restore and expand coastal storm risk provided effective damage reduction. However, in
management projects. In response to the Disaster many locations, heavily developed areas on the
Relief Appropriations Act, the USACE prepared the bayside of many projects (and non-project areas)

24 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS
Table IV‑1. Current and Anticipated USACE Projects in New York and New Jersey

Unconstructed Projects

with High Probability of

Projects Under Study2,5

Second Interim Report)

Implementation3 (From
(From Interim Report1)

Projects not Included

Constructed Projects

First Interim Report)

Construction (From

in Public Law 113-2

(First and Second
Interim Reports)
Interim Report)
Projects Under

Authorized but
PROJECT

(From Second
Asharoken, NY (CAP S 103) 4 Constructed
Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Fire
Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY X Constructed
(FIMP)
Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Fire
Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY
X
(FIMP): West Of Shinnecock Inlet
Interim 6
Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Fire
Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY Constructed
(FIMP): Westhampton Interim 6
Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Fire
Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY
X
(FIMP): Fire Island to Moriches
Interim 6
Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Fire
Island Inlet to Montauk Point, NY X
(FIMP): Downtown Montauk Interim 6
Atlantic Coast of New York City,
East Rockaway Inlet to Jones Inlet, X
NY (Rockaway)
Atlantic Coast of New York City,
East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway X X
Inlet, NY (Rockaway) 6
Atlantic Coast of New York City,
Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, NY X
(Coney Island) 6
Fire Island and Shores Westerly to
X
Jones Inlet, NY (Gilgo Beach)

Hashamomuck Cove, NY X

Jamaica Bay, Marine Park & Plumb

Unconstructed
Beach, NY

Mattituck Inlet, NY (CAP S 111) Constructed

Montauk Point, NY6 X

Oakwood Beach, NY (CAP S 103) X

Orchard Beach, NY Constructed

Orient Harbor, NY State Road 25

Constructed
(CAP S 14)
Point Lookout/Jones Inlet, NY (CAP
Constructed
S 204)

Plumb Beach, NY (CAP S 204) Constructed

Joseph G. Minish Waterfront Park

X
and Historic Area, NJ6

Passaic Main Stem, NJ X

Passaic River Tidal Protection Area,

X
NJ6

Port Monmouth, NJ6 X

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 25

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑1. Current and Anticipated USACE Projects in New York and New Jersey (continued)

Unconstructed Projects

with High Probability of

Projects Under Study2,5

Second Interim Report)

Implementation3 (From
(From Interim Report1)

Projects not Included

Constructed Projects

First Interim Report)

Construction (From

in Public Law 113-2

(First and Second
Interim Reports)
Interim Report)
Projects Under

Authorized but

(From Second
PROJECT

Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay:

Keansburg, East Keansburg, and X
Laurence Harbor, NJ
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ
X
(Elberon to Loch Arbour) 6
Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ
(Sea Bright to Ocean Township and X
Asbury Park to Manasquan) 6
South River, Raritan River Basin,
X
NJ6

Union Beach, NJ6 X

Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor

X
Inlet, NJ
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor
X X
Inlet, NJ (Absecon) 6
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor
X
Inlet, NJ (Brigantine Island)
Cape May Inlet to Lower Township,
X
NJ
Delaware Bay Coastline, Oakwood
X
Beach, NJ6
Delaware Bay Coastline, Reeds
Unconstructed
Beach and Pierces Point, NJ
Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas, and
Unconstructed
Vicinity, NJ
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Peck
X
Beach, NJ
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to
X
Townsends Inlet, NJ6

Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, NJ X

Lower Cape May Meadows/Cape

Constructed
May Point, NJ
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet,
X
NJ6
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet,
X
NJ

1 Jamaica Bay Natural/Nature-Based Features will be evaluated for coastal storm risk management in the Rockaway-Jamaica Bay
General Re-evaluation Report effort. Jamaica Bay sites that are screened from the Rockaway-Jamaica Bay General Re-evaluation
Report would be advanced via the regular Civil Works program and be included in the Hudson Raritan Estuary Feasibility Study.
2 Projects under study may be constructed with Public Law 113-2 funds if the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) determines the recommended project is technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable and if
there are sufficient Public Law 113-2 funds to complete initial construction of the project.
3 For projects with high probability of implementation, the estimate of 5 years to complete construction is acceptable for regional
planning purposes.
4 CAP = Continuing Authorities Program
5 There are other ongoing USACE projects to address coastal storm risk that will not be completed by the year 2018 and are not
included in this list.
6 Project identified as a General or Hurricane Sandy Limited Reevaluation Report (HSGRR/HSLRR) in PL 113-2, Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act

26 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

were subject to back bay flooding and widespread existing coastal storm risk management projects
inundation damage, primarily because the storm tide and studies. Navigation, ecosystem restoration, and
propagated through inlets. Projects in these areas economic development efforts were also included
were not authorized or formulated to comprehensively in the inventory of projects if they were related to
manage flood risks from the back bay. As noted coastal resilience or represented significant social
in Section II, these bayside areas remain at risk of and economic investments in the Nation’s coastlines.
future flooding and impacts from sea level change. Letters were mailed to Federal, State, Tribal, and non-
Moreover, risk communication is extremely important governmental agencies in June 2013.
for local communities that may have existing coastal
storm risk management infrastructure in place. Figure IV-2 presents the inventory of existing USACE
As noted in the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects and State coastal storm risk management, coastal
Performance Evaluation Study, infrastructure projects ecosystem restoration, and navigation projects for the
could experience storm conditions that exceed the study area. A more detailed discussion of Federal and
design capacity, resulting in potential failure. Effective State projects is provided in the State and District of
operation and maintenance; redundant flood risk Columbia Analyses Appendix, which includes input
management measures, such as elevating structures received from State, Tribal, and non-government
and floodproofing; and evacuation planning could agencies in response to the request for information
assist those areas landward of the project to address made in June 2013. The Coastal Systems Portfolio
life safety concerns should a project or a feature of a Initiative Technical Review document presents
project fail to perform as designed. additional project information on a project-by-project
basis. Additional information related to the USACE
In addition to the information in the interim reports projects included in the Coastal Systems Portfolio
and Performance Evaluation Study, data provided Initiative is available online at [Link]
by various States, counties, and local municipalities mil/.
were instrumental in developing an inventory of

Figure IV-2. Existing/Post-Hurricane Sandy USACE and State Coastal Projects

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 27

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

As part of the post-Hurricane Sandy landscape, number of Federal coastal storm risk management
additional coastal storm risk management and projects. However, the low-lying areas of tidal rivers,
resilience projects will be constructed using funds back bays, and Delaware Bay coasts have a limited
made available by Congress under Public Law 113-2. number of coastal storm risk management projects.
In August 2013, the DOI announced that the USFWS
and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
would assist in administering the Hurricane Sandy Future Landscape Change
Coastal Resiliency Competitive Grants Program.
The program will support projects that reduce The landscape in the study area is constantly
communities’ vulnerability to the growing risks from changing. Unfortunately, many of the past decisions
coastal storms, sea level change, flooding, erosion, affecting coastal storm risk have resulted in measures
and associated threats by strengthening natural that are not readily adaptable to this changing
ecosystems that also benefit fish and wildlife (NFWF landscape. The Framework facilitates a flexible
2013). The Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency approach that can be adapted to changing conditions
Competitive Grants Program has already provided or societal needs. Changes in socioeconomic,
approximately $100 million in grants for 46 proposals environmental, cultural, and related conditions will
to those States that were affected by Hurricane certainly alter coastal risks and resilience, likely in
Sandy. Additional information is included in the ways difficult to foresee. This uncertainty reinforces
Planning Analyses Appendix. the need for adaptable strategies to accomplish the
NACCS goals.
The authorized, but unconstructed projects presented
in the Second Interim Report include a design for a As indicated by the NACCS Findings in Section II,
coastal storm risk management project as part of a vulnerability and residual risk continue to increase in
recommended plan in each project’s USACE decision the North Atlantic Region as a result of the following:
document authorized by Congress. Within the scope
and scale of the project design, modifications to • Relative sea level is increasing throughout the study
incorporate features to address resilience, sea level area, which when coupled with fluvial flooding,
change, and adaptation would be considered further increases the areas exposed to storm surge and
as part of subsequent plans and specifications for the increases the frequency of flooding.
project.
• Shorelines are changing in response to relative sea
Within the high-impact area of New York and New level change and sediment deficits and excesses.
Jersey, extensive investments have been made in Historic erosion patterns are likely to continue or
coastal storm risk management projects over the accelerate.
past five decades. These projects were designed
• Atlantic Hurricanes may increase in intensity;
and implemented individually with different goals
however, climate science projections for intensity
and design criteria. Although coastal storm risk is
and intense hurricane numbers suggest relatively
managed along much of the Atlantic Ocean coast of
large uncertainty (NOAA 2012b).
New York City and Long Island by Federal projects,
risk management improvements to these shorelines • The population in the study area is increasing
should be identified to enhance future resilience. In (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). The population and
addition, portions of the New York and New Jersey communities depend on infrastructure to support
Harbor and the Nassau County back bays are at economic development and critical infrastructure
risk and have a limited number of coastal storm risk to maintain functionality of established society.
management projects. Extensive damages from Existing infrastructure is at risk of damage from a
Hurricane Sandy in the New York–New Jersey area coastal storm.
occurred as a result of back bay flooding in areas
without constructed USACE coastal storm risk • The population in the study area is getting older.
management projects as well as along the Atlantic Older populations are more vulnerable during a
Ocean coastline where water levels exceeded the storm.
design of USACE coastal storm risk management
projects (USACE 2013a). In New Jersey, coastal storm • The extent and size of coastal storm risk
risk is managed along the Atlantic Ocean coast by a management projects will increase. Many
communities will respond to increased risk by

28 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

implementing projects and programs in developed functional; species that depend on coastal habitats
areas with blended solutions, including a for feeding, nesting, spawning, protection, and other
combination of traditional storm risk management activities could be severely impacted if this critical
projects, NNBF, managed retreat, and/or elevation habitat is converted or lost. The future without-project
of structures. conditions of coastal habitats in the study area and
their dependent species are discussed in more
• Ports and the infrastructure that support waterborne detail in the State and District of Columbia Analyses
commerce activities are at risk to coastal flood Appendix. Additional data on climate change, coastal
damages. Waterborne commerce and cargo is impacts, and resilience for use by communities,
forecasted to increase along North Atlantic ports businesses, and citizens is available at [Link]
with the expansion of the Panama Canal. Existing [Link]/climate/.
and future infrastructure to support port activities,
including navigation features, are at risk of coastal
storm damage and impacts of sea level change. Relative Sea Level Change

The HSRTF announced on April 4, 2013, that all Global mean sea level change over the past several
Hurricane Sandy-related rebuilding projects funded thousand years is a result of the inter-glacial warming
by Public Law 113-2 must meet a single uniform period that followed the last ice age. This warming
coastal storm risk management standard of 1 foot period has caused the global mean sea level change
above the best available and most recent base flood to stabilize at an approximate rate of +1.7 millimeters
elevation (BFE) information provided by FEMA, unless per year during the 20th century (IPCC 2007, 2013).
local standards are more restrictive. The NACCS The global mean sea level change rate is expected
incorporates this principle to consider the uncertainty to accelerate over the next century as a result of
of sea level and climate change. The NACCS uses increases in ocean water temperatures and the rate of
evaluation scenarios for years 2018, 2068, and 2100 polar ice loss (IPCC 2014).
to consider long-term water level changes associated
with sea level and climate change (the various Local/regional land uplift (rise) and subsidence (fall)
scenarios consider impacts of climate change that can contribute to higher or lower local relative sea
would result in accelerated sea level change). The level change. Variable rates of subsidence have been
Framework also considers future population forecast observed throughout the NACCS study area. These
scenarios for a 50-year planning horizon (2068) and subsidence rates create relative sea level change rates
projected sea level change inundation mapping. that are significantly higher than the global mean sea
level change rate.

Anticipated Impacts from Sea Level Change The NACCS addresses sea level change in
accordance with the recently-updated guidance
and Extreme Water Levels document USACE Engineer Regulation (ER) 1100-2-
8162, Incorporating Sea Level Change in Civil Works
Rising sea levels and climate change are expected
Programs (USACE 2013b). The USACE Sea Level
to have a profound effect in the study area. Impacts
Change ER refers to sea level change (rather than sea
will likely include shoreline retreat from erosion and
level rise) because it is meant to be applicable in all
inundation, increased frequency and magnitude of
areas—including those locations where local relative
storm-related flooding, temperature changes, and
sea levels are falling as a result of local/regional land
saltwater intrusion into the estuaries and aquifers
uplift. Relative sea levels are rising throughout the
(EPA 2009a). Relative sea level change will not only
entire NACCS study area.
inundate larger coastal areas, but will also be a
driver of changes in habitat and species distribution, The USACE ER specifies relative sea level change
as will other effects of climate changes, such as scenarios to be used in climate change planning and
increased sea surface temperatures. Additionally, outlines the development of three relative sea level
the presence of developed shorelines behind many change scenarios: Low, Intermediate, and High. The
of these habitats will prevent natural barrier island USACE High scenario forecasts sea level change
overwash and migration landward in response to sea based on a combination of polar and glacial ice
level change. Habitat changes may be structural or loss and ocean warming. The USACE Intermediate
scenario is based primarily on ocean warming. The

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 29

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

USACE Low scenario is a linear extrapolation of calculator for USACE and NOAA sea level change
the historical sea level change records. All three of scenarios. Additionally, the NOAA Coastal Services
these USACE relative sea level change scenarios are Center, Digital Coast includes a sea level change
evaluated in the NACCS. online viewer, [Link]
slr, that presents a range of potential impacts from
In addition, Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for different scenarios of inundation.
the US National Climate Assessment, a joint report
by NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of The NACCS uses the USACE Low, Intermediate, and
Defense Strategic Environmental Research and High scenarios and the NOAA High scenario. These
Development Program, and USACE, recommends four scenarios are shown, starting in the year 2018, in
sea level change scenarios (NOAA 2012a). NOAA Figure IV-3 for the Sandy Hook, NJ, NOAA tide gage,
outlines four relative sea level change scenarios: located in the center of the high-impact areas of New
Low, Intermediate Low, Intermediate High, and High. York and New Jersey. As indicated by the NACCS
The Low and Intermediate Low NOAA scenarios Findings in Section II, vulnerability and residual risk
are identical to the USACE Low and Intermediate continue to increase in the North Atlantic region as a
scenarios, respectively. The NOAA Intermediate High result of projected rise in future sea levels, regardless
falls between the USACE Intermediate and High of the scenario considered.
scenarios and the NOAA High scenario is greater than
the USACE High scenario. The NOAA and USACE
scenarios incorporate the Intergovernmental Panel on Future Sea Level
Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
global mean sea level change projections and are The USACE Low, Intermediate, and High scenarios
consistent with the latest IPCC, Fifth Assessment and NOAA High scenario were developed for the 26
Report predictions. The USACE Comprehensive NOAA gage locations across the study area that have
Evaluation of Projects with Respect to Sea-Level measurement records equal to or greater than 40
Change, which is available online at [Link] years, as shown in Figure IV-3. A record length of 40
[Link]/[Link], provides years or greater significantly decreases the erroneous
additional information and a sea level change curve sea level trends associated with decadal scale

8.0

7.0
NOAA High
USACE High
Relative Sea Level Change (ft,NAVD88)

6.0 USACE int ‐ NOAA int‐low

USACE low ‐ NOAA ‐ low
5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
Figure IV-3. Relative Sea Level Change for Sandy Hook, NJ for USACE and NOAA Scenarios

30 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

variations in water level that are not associated with Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) at each long-term NOAA
long-term mean sea level change (USACE 2013b). gage location in accordance with ER 1110-2-8160,
Engineering and Design: Policies for Referencing
The future relative mean sea level was computed Project Evaluation Grades to Nationwide Vertical
for three time horizons: 2018, 2068, and 2100. For Datums (USACE 2009b), and EM 1110-2-6056,
the purposes of the study, post-Hurricane Sandy Standards and Procedures for Referencing Project
USACE projects were assumed to be completed 5 Evaluation Grades to Nationwide Vertical Datums
years following Public Law 113-2 appropriations for (USACE 2010b). Variable rates of subsidence and
construction by 2018. The year 2068 represents a 50- local sea surface elevations associated with changes
year, post-construction period of project performance. in the gulfstream have been observed within the
The year 2100 is commonly presented in science NACCS study area, particularly in Maryland and
literature about sea level change as an endpoint; few Virginia where relative sea level change rates are the
projections are provided after that time. Because greatest (Boon et al. 2010 and Eggleston and Pope
USACE engineering technical letter 1100-2-1 requires 2013). Figure IV-4 illustrates the relative sea level
the consideration of a 100-year time horizon, the changes for the USACE High scenario; as shown, the
curves have been extrapolated beyond 2100, to 2118. maximum relative sea level changes are expected
However, to be consistent with various stakeholders, to occur in Virginia and Maryland with a generally
the analyses presented in the NACCS identify the declining trend of relative sea level change toward the
planning horizon to year 2100. The base year was north.
set at 1992 for all calculations, which corresponds
to the midpoint of the currently used National Tidal Table IV-2 shows future mean sea level estimates for
Datum Epoch of 1983–2001. Future relative sea levels Sandy Hook, NJ. Figure IV-5 shows areas for Reach
have been converted to the North American Vertical NY_NJ1 that would be below mean sea level at three

5
Mean Sea Level (ft, NAVD88)

3
2100
2068
2
2018

South NOAA Water Level Gage North

Figure IV-4. USACE High Scenario Mean Sea Levels for NOAA Gage Stations

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 31

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

future times (2018, 2068, and 2100) based on the to USACE and NOAA. Additionally, some States have
USACE High scenario. A complete set of future sea adopted regulatory policies for infrastructure projects
level tables for each scenario and time is presented in based on similar analyses and forecasts. The State
the Engineering Appendix. Sea level change mapping and District of Columbia Analyses Appendix includes
for the respective States is presented in the State and additional information for each State’s respective sea
District of Columbia Analyses Appendix. Various level change analyses completed.

Federal and State agencies also have completed

analyses to evaluate forecasted change in sea level,
including USGS, which is completing similar analyses

Table IV‑2. Future Mean Sea Level Scenarios (feet, above NAVD88) at Sandy Hook, NJ

USACE Low / USACE Int / USACE High NOAA High

Year NOAA Low NOAA Int-Low (feet above (feet above
(feet above (feet above NAVD88) NAVD88)
NAVD88) NAVD88)

2018 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5

2068 0.8 1.3 2.9 3.7
2100 1.2 2.2 5.5 7.1
NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Marblehead, Massachusetts during Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012

Source: Photo by Brian Birke, [Link], October 29, 2012

32 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

87
95
Wayne
Fair
Yonkers New
Lawn
Rochelle
Mount
Paterson Hackensack Vernon
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
Fort Lee
Bloomfield 895
Montclair
Nutley
NJ 295
280
Livingston Belleville West New
West York New York
Orange Union
Orange
East Kearny City
Orange 678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood
Newark
East
Jersey Hempstead Meadow
City 278 Elmont
Union New York Franklin Uniondale
78 New York Square
478 NY Baldwin
Hillside
Bayonne Valley
Scotch Elizabeth
Stream Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Merrick
Oceanside
Plainfield Linden
NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

ME
NACCS Planning Reach VT

2018 Sea Level Change

NH
NY
MA
2068 Sea Level Change CT RI

PA
2100 Sea Level Change
NJ

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Interstate Highway WV

MD
DC DE

Cities VA
Miles
Military Installation
NC

Figure IV-5. USACE High Scenario Future Mean Sea Level Mapping for Reach NY_NJ1

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 33

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Population and Development Density with the Environmental and Cultural Conditions
Report. This organization is intended to facilitate
Forecast State-level use of the final document, for study and
project reports, and National Environmental Policy Act
In most urban and suburban counties in the North
(NEPA) documentation by others. Users can easily
Atlantic Region, the total population will likely increase
locate and review, and reproduce in hard copy, the
by 2070. For the more rural areas or areas with
information that pertains to their interests.
agriculture as the predominant land use, such as the
lower Eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia and
For subsequent analyses of a range of future
southern Virginia’s western shore, the total population
conditions, population at risk and potential life safety
will likely decrease by 2070. Coastal storm risk and
concerns will help to determine the extent and severity
residual risk will continue to increase in the region with
of the flood problems, needs, and opportunities in
an increasing population density as indicated by the
order to evaluate and compare adaptation strategies
NACCS Findings in Section II.
and coastal storm risk management measures.
Considering the analyses of likely future population
Inferences related to the future population and
increases and development density, potential issues
residential development increase by 2070 were
to be addressed include failure of existing coastal
evaluated using information and datasets generated
storm risk management projects and infrastructure
as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
from, for example, breaching; the inability of the
(EPA’s) Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
existing stormwater management infrastructure
(ICLUS) (EPA 2009b). The ICLUS data was used
to handle an extreme event (in combination with
to derive the percent increase or decrease in total
relative sea level change inundation and potential
population between the 2010 Census data and the
future precipitation patterns as a result of climate
ICLUS 2070 total population projection. The residential
change); closure of evacuation routes and inability of
density development forecast was then compared to
first responders to access areas inundated by flood
the NACCS sea level change mapping for the USACE
waters; and loss of utilities and emergency services
High Scenario. Figure IV-6 presents the USACE High
that support communities. Addressing these life safety
scenario inundation and the increase in residential
issues will help to refine the areas at risk and the
development forecast derived from EPA’s ICLUS data.
measures used to manage flood risk.
The residential density development was computed
at a national level and compared to the residential
density at a smaller scale, which could potentially Extreme Water Levels
introduce changes in the resolution of the outputs.
Some of the residential density increases were in Storm-induced coastal flooding is primarily caused by
areas of open space, as designated by the ICLUS combinations of rainfall, storm surge, and waves from
model input parameters, but that are not developable, both tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes)
such as a cemetery. Similarly, local planning and extra-tropical storms (nor’easters). For the North
considerations to account for relative sea level change Atlantic coastline of the United States, astronomical
that may prohibit future development along the coast tides strongly influence the frequency and severity
could not be incorporated into the ICLUS model. of coastal flooding. In some locations, tides create
More refined analyses at a smaller scale, similar to significant nuisance flooding even in the absence of
the NACCS tiered approach, would be appropriate to storm activity. Increases in relative sea level has the
account for such considerations. potential to worsen coastal storm flood risk as well
as create or worsen nuisance flooding from normal
The Environmental and Cultural Resources Conditions rainfall events and astronomical tides.
Report, prepared as a technical product as part of
NACCS, presents a summary of each State’s (and The NACCS quantifies existing and future storm
District of Columbia) information on existing coastal conditions for use in assessing risk and measures to
and cultural resource characteristics, habitat impacts increase resilience from coastal flooding. Potential
from Hurricane Sandy, and future environmental future climate change is included in the analysis.
conditions. A Planning Aid Report for the North This work was performed by the USACE Engineer
Atlantic Region, prepared by the USFWS, is included Research and Development Center (ERDC) and is

34 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

87
95
Wayne
Fair
Yonkers New
Lawn
Rochelle
Mount
Paterson Hackensack Vernon
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
Fort Lee
Bloomfield 895
Montclair
Nutley
NJ 295
280
Livingston Belleville West New
West York New York
Orange Union
Orange
East Kearny City
Orange 678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood
Newark
East
Jersey Hempstead Meadow
City 278 Elmont
Union New York Franklin Uniondale
78 New York Square
478 NY Baldwin
Hillside
Bayonne Valley
Scotch Elizabeth
Stream Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Merrick
Oceanside
Plainfield Linden
NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

ME
ICLUS Housing Density (2010 - 2070) NACCS Planning Reach VT

2018 Sea Level Change

NH
No Change NY
MA
2068 Sea Level Change CT RI
Density Increase PA
2100 Sea Level Change
NJ
Interstate Highway WV
MD
DC DE

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Cities VA

Miles Military Installation

NC

Figure IV-6. USACE High Scenario Future Mean Sea Level and Future Development Mapping for Reach NY_NJ1

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 35

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

detailed in Technical Report TR-14-7 (Nadal-Caraballo SLOSH hydrodynamic modeling inundation mapping
and Melby 2014). ERDC conducted rigorous regional associated with Categories 1 through 4 hurricanes
statistical analysis and detailed high-fidelity numerical used for evacuation modeling in Reach NY_NJ1.
hydrodynamic modeling for the North Atlantic coastal
region to quantify coastal storm wave, wind, and FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
storm-driven water level extremes. bases the availability of flood insurance on
communities’ adoption and enforcement of floodplain
The extent of coastal flood hazard was determined management ordinances relative to the BFE. The
using readily available 1 percent flood mapping from BFE is the computed elevation to which floodwater
FEMA, preliminary 10 percent flood values from the is anticipated to rise during the base flood. The base
ERDC extreme water level analysis, and the Sea, flood is the flood having a 1 percent chance of being
Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) equaled or exceeded in any given year and is used by
modeling conducted by NOAA. The purpose of the the NFIP and local floodplain management authorities
various inundation datasets was to identify, assess, for the purposes of requiring the purchase of flood
and communicate flood risk at the regional scale. insurance and regulating new development (http://
The inundation mapping represents varying levels [Link]/national-flood-insurance-program/
of probability and corresponds with other agencies’ base-flood). Flood insurance and building ordinances
regulatory and planning efforts. for communities participating in the NFIP reference
the BFE for new or substantial renovations or new
SLOSH modeling of hurricane intensities is mortgages on home sales. Although flood insurance
categorized by the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind requirements and building ordinances are tied to the
scale and includes other characteristics of hurricanes BFE, they are not always tied to first floor elevation.
that can vary considerably along the coast, such as For example, in V-zones presented on FEMA Flood
pressure, size (radius of maximum winds), forward Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the reference to the
speed, and track data to create a model of the wind building codes is to the lowest horizontal structural
field which drives the storm surge. The SLOSH model member. Local jurisdictions can adopt more stringent
outputs support hurricane evacuation studies. The building codes than FEMA’s minimum requirements to
storm surge zones identified by the SLOSH model participate in the NFIP.
depict areas of possible flooding from the maximum
of maximum (MOM) event within the five categories Furthermore, in April 2013, the Hurricane Sandy
of hurricanes by estimating the potential storm surge Presidential Task Force established a Hurricane
during a landfall during different tide scenarios (i.e., Sandy coastal storm risk management standard of
high or mean tide for NY). Although the SLOSH the 1 percent flood plus 1 foot for buildings. This is
storm surge mapping is not referenced to a specific a minimum standard applicable to federally funded
probability of occurrence (unlike FEMA flood mapping, recovery and rebuilding investments under Public
which presents the 0.2 percent and 1 percent flood Law 113-2, including USACE vertical infrastructure
zones) nor does it include wave heights, the flooding and nonstructural retrofitting projects. The USACE
from a worst-case Category 4 hurricane making formulates its project recommendations for
landfall during high tide represents an extremely low coastal storm risk management projects based on
probability of occurrence but high-magnitude event. an evaluation of an array of alternatives and the
benefits and costs of each increment of work for
The use of the SLOSH model MOM was necessary these alternatives. However, for the purposes of the
based on the large spatial extent of the study area NACCS Tier 1 evaluation and to use a conservative
and because it is currently the most advanced assumption, the 1 percent flood inundation mapping
storm surge model available for the entire study plus 3 feet was used to evaluate structural coastal
area. The extent of the Category 4 MOM represents storm risk management measures (including NNBF
the maximum storm tide levels caused by extreme measures, such as beaches and dunes) as well as to
hurricane scenarios across the region, and, therefore, generate parametric unit cost estimates for structural
provides a reasonable approximation of the most risk management measures.
extreme flooding extent. Figure IV-7 presents the

36 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Figure IV-8 presents areas for Reach NY_NJ1 that accurately define residual risk associated with
are exposed to the 1 percent flood as well as the various coastal storm risk management measures
NACCS assumption of the 1 percent flood plus accordingly.
a 3-foot relative sea level change allowance. The
3-foot allowance is closely aligned with the USACE/ Figure IV-9 presents the limit of the current 10
NOAA High scenario for projected relative sea level percent floodplain (an area with a 10 percent or
change by year 2068 as well as New York City’s greater chance of being flooded in any given year).
recent recommendations (City of New York 2013). The 10 percent floodplain was delineated using the
The 1 percent flood inundation mapping was obtained stage- frequency analyses completed for NOAA
from effective and preliminary FIRMs available from gages across the entire study area (Appendix A). The
FEMA’s Map Service Center ([Link] purpose of the 10 percent floodplain is to consider
portal) and GeoPLATFORM ([Link] the coastal storm risk management performance
com/home/). The sources and dates of the data of various NNBF risk management measures with
incorporated into the NACCS Tier 1 evaluation are respect to storm surge. Although NNBF may provide
included in the Planning Analyses Appendix. FEMA’s multiple benefits and contribute to resilient coastlines
Special Flood Hazard Area and the computation of and communities, some NNBF measures are not
the BFE include wave heights. The SLOSH Category likely to offer coastal storm risk management with
2 (MOM) floodplain was used as a surrogate for respect to storm surge for extreme events. Sea level
the 1 percent flood plus 3 feet. For more refined change was not accounted for as part of the 10
studies, more detailed analyses to address risk and percent floodplain, because for various NNBF coastal
uncertainty should be considered. The purpose of storm risk management measures, such as wetlands
presenting the Category 4 MOM and the 1 percent or living shorelines, adaptive management to mean
flood plus 3 feet floodplain is to illustrate residual sea level conditions would be required. Consistent
risk to promote enhanced risk communication. with NACCS opportunities in Section II, there are
Subsequent and more refined analyses would more significant opportunities for adaptive management in
this regard.

Houses devastated by Hurricane Sandy in Mantoloking, NJ on November 26, 2012

Source: [Link]

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 37

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE CHANCE OF A COASTAL OR RIVERINE FLOOD

Floods are often defined according to their likelihood of occurring in any given year at a specific
location. The most commonly used definition is the “100-year flood.” This refers to a flood level or
peak that has a 1 in 100, or 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year (i.e., 1 percent
“annual exceedance probability”). Therefore, the 100-year flood is also referred to as the “1 percent
flood,” or as having a “recurrence interval” or “return period” of 100 years.

A common misinterpretation is that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In
fact, a second 100-year flood could occur a year or even a week after the first one. The term only means
that that the average interval between floods greater than the 100-year flood over a very long period (say
1,000 years) will be 100 years. However, the actual interval between floods greater than this magnitude
will vary considerably.

In addition, the probability of a certain flood occurring will increase for a longer period of time. For
example, over the life of an average 30-year mortgage, a home located within the 100-year flood zone
has a 26 percent chance of being flooded at least once. Even more significantly, a house in a 10-
year flood zone is almost certain to be flooded at least once (96 percent chance) in the same 30-year
mortgage cycle. The probability (P) that one or more of a certain-size flood occurring during any period
will exceed a given flood threshold can be estimated as

where T is the return period of a given flood (e.g., 100 years, 50 years, 25 years) and n is the number of
years in the period. The probability of flooding by various return period floods in any given year and over
the life of a 30-year mortgage is summarized in the following table.

Return Period Chance of flooding Percent chance of flooding

(years) in any given year during 30-year mortgage

10 10 in 100 (10%) 96%

50 2 in 100 (2%) 46%
100 1 in 100 (1%) 26%
500 0.2 in 100 (0.2%) 6%

Because of the potential confusion, recent USACE guidance documents and policy letters recommend
use of the annual exceedance probability terminology instead of the recurrence interval or return period
terminology. For example, one would discuss the “1-percent-annual-exceedance-probability flood” or
“1-percent-chance-exceedance flood,” which may be shortened to “1 percent flood” as opposed to the
“100-year flood.” This report uses the short form “1 percent flood.”

38 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

87
95
Wayne
Fair
Yonkers New
Lawn
Rochelle
Mount
Paterson Hackensack Vernon
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
Fort Lee
Bloomfield 895
Montclair
Nutley
NJ 295
280
Livingston Belleville West New
West York New York
Orange Union
Orange
East Kearny City
Orange 678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood
Newark
East
Jersey Hempstead Meadow
City 278 Elmont
Union New York Franklin Uniondale
78 New York Square
478 NY Baldwin
Hillside
Bayonne Valley
Scotch Elizabeth
Stream Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Merrick
Oceanside
Plainfield Linden
NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

Category 1 Maximum Water Level ME

Category 2 Maximum Water Level VT

NH
NY
Category 3 Maximum Water Level MA
CT RI
Category 4 Maximum Water Level PA

NACCS Planning Reach NJ

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5

MD
WV
Interstate Highway DC DE

VA
Miles Cities
Military Installation NC

Figure IV-7. Reach NY_NJ1 NOAA SLOSH Model Very High Impact Area Category 1–4 Water Levels

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 39

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

87
95
Wayne
Fair
Yonkers New
Lawn
Rochelle
Mount
Paterson Hackensack Vernon
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
Fort Lee
Bloomfield 895
Montclair
Nutley
NJ 295
280
Livingston Belleville West New
West York New York
Orange Union
Orange
East Kearny City
Orange 678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood
Newark
East
Jersey Hempstead Meadow
City 278 Elmont
Union New York Franklin Uniondale
78 New York Square
478 NY Baldwin
Hillside
Bayonne Valley
Scotch Elizabeth
Stream Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Merrick
Oceanside
Plainfield Linden
NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

ME

1 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain VT

NH
NY
1 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain (+ 3 ft) MA
CT RI
NACCS Planning Reach PA

Interstate Highway NJ

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5

MD
WV
Cities DC DE

VA
Miles Military Installation
NC

Figure IV-8. Reach NY_NJ1 Very High Impact Area NACCS 1 Percent Flood + 3-foot Floodplain

40 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

87
95
Wayne
Fair
Yonkers New
Lawn
Rochelle
Mount
Paterson Hackensack Vernon
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
Fort Lee
Bloomfield 895
Montclair
Nutley
NJ 295
280
Livingston Belleville West New
West York New York
Orange Union
Orange
East Kearny City
Orange 678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood
Newark
East
Jersey Hempstead Meadow
City 278 Elmont
Union New York Franklin Uniondale
78 New York Square
478 NY Baldwin
Hillside
Bayonne Valley
Scotch Elizabeth
Stream Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Merrick
Oceanside
Plainfield Linden
NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

ME

VT

10 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain NY

NH

MA
NACCS Planning Reach CT RI

Interstate Highway
PA

NJ

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Cities WV

MD
DC DE

Military Installation VA
Miles
NC

Figure IV-9. Reach NY_NJ1 Very High Impact Area NACCS 10 Percent Floodplain

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 41

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Numerical Modeling numerical models applied to the NACCS study (WAM

[Wave Prediction Model], STWAVE [Steady State
Completed as a technical product in parallel to the Spectral Wave], and ADCIRC [Advanced Circulation
development of the Framework, the NACCS modeling Model]) were validated for a set of historical tropical
efforts included the latest atmospheric, wave, and and extratropical storm events.
storm surge modeling and extremal statistical analysis
techniques. Previously, only regional SLOSH models For the joint probability of coastal storm forcing, the
existed for the study area, along with a myriad of standard-of-practice is to develop a joint probability
local models causing discrepancies in contiguous of nearshore waves, water levels, winds, overland
detailed model results with respect to water surface flooding, river flow, and any other parameters of
elevations. The NACCS modeling methodology for interest. The statistical approaches for estimating
computing winds, waves, and water levels involves the the joint probability of coastal storm response,
application of a suite of high-fidelity numerical models such as surge and waves, have also been greatly
within the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CSTORM- improved within USACE studies as well as FEMA
MS). The statistical analysis was performed using the Risk MAP studies. For recent similar USACE and
Joint Probability Method with Optimum Sampling by FEMA studies, planetary boundary layer numerical
Bayesian Quadrature (JPM-OS-BQ) and traditional models are used to generate wind and pressure
joint probability techniques as was also applied fields that are then used to drive high-fidelity storm
in recent FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and surge and wave hydrodynamic models. Waves and
Planning (Risk MAP) (FEMA 2012) and USACE studies water levels are modeled to the nearshore area for
(IPET 2009). The NACCS study produced nearshore historical storm events and/or synthetic events to
wind, wave, and water level estimates and the define a robust statistical population of project storm
associated marginal and joint probabilities. This study forcing. Present approaches include the JPM-OS-
did not include engineering calculations, such as BQ technique for hurricanes and more traditional
wave runup, nearshore morphology change, sediment joint probability techniques for extra-tropical storms.
transport, and probabilistic analysis of riverine stage Products from this work incorporated into the Coastal
or overland flooding. Hazards database include simulated winds, waves,
and water levels for approximately 1,050 synthetic
Over 1,100 production storms were designed tropical events and 100 extratropical events computed
(synthetic storms) or selected (historical storms), at over 3 million computational locations. A smaller
simulated, analyzed, and incorporated into the Coastal number—18,000 locations—save the same information
Hazards database. The suite of storms included at higher frequency for more convenient/concise data
1,050 synthetic tropical storms and 100 historical handling. These storm events are determined to span
extratropical events. The synthetic tropical storms the range of practical storm probabilities. The water
were developed to populate the statistical parameter levels are modeled in such a way that the effects of
space as part of the project design process. The storm surge, waves, tide, and sea level change can be
development of synthetic tropical storms focused on: assessed.
1) the discretization of the marginal distributions for
each of the hurricane parameters; 2) the development The NACCS storm simulation suite and statistical
of the hurricane track paths; and 3) development of analysis helps to close gaps in data required for
the along-track variations of hurricane parameters. coastal storm risk management analyses by providing
Because of the extremely large number of simulations statistical wave and water level information for the
and the massive amount of model-generated results entire North Atlantic coast, while providing a cost
from these simulations, a method was developed to savings compared to developing the ocean coastal
automate the simulation process to best utilize human storm hazard data for individual local projects. The
and computational resources. A semi-automated statistical database can potentially be revised based
production script was developed to set up and on estimates of future climatology. The CSTORM-
perform CSTORM-MS simulations, visualize and MS platform contains the raw model data (winds,
archive model results, and prepare a summary report waves, and water levels) as well as processed data
as part of the quality control process. This automation (visualization products and statistics) and is available
speeds up the simulation process and reduces the through the Internet-based Coastal Hazards System,
potential for human error. Prior to production, the and linked to the NACCS website [Link]
[Link]/CompStudy. These data will be

42 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

available for engineering analyses and project design

for coastal projects from Maine to Virginia for a
spatially complete model domain for the entire North
Atlantic coastline.

ANALYZE RISK AND VULNERABILITY

The concept of risk includes the components of hazard, exposure, performance of a system
with coastal storm risk management features (if applicable), subsequent consequences,
and vulnerability. Exposure and risk assessments evaluate risk from the flood hazard along the North Atlantic
Coast as a system, incorporating the natural, social, and built systems as referenced in the NOAA/USACE
Infrastructure Systems Rebuilding Principles. As such, the exposure and risk assessments make use of the
planning process that allows stakeholders to highlight risk areas by evaluating three criteria: population and
infrastructure, social vulnerability factors of the population, and environmental and cultural sensitivities.

Exposure is defined as the presence of people, incorporated into the exposure index using GIS spatial
infrastructure, and/or environmental resources data layers. The data layers utilized national datasets
(receptors) in areas subject to potential coastal to provide consistency across the study area, which
flooding. A higher density of people, infrastructure, covers 10 States and the District of Columbia.
and/or environmental resources produces relatively
higher exposure to coastal flood hazards. Three Areas with relatively higher composite indices
separate exposure indices were developed— were used to identify segments of the coastline for
population density and infrastructure, social further evaluation by the respective States and the
vulnerability characterization, and environmental District of Columbia (State and District of Columbia
and cultural resources—to represent exposure to Analyses Appendix). The flexibility of the Framework
flood inundation within the footprint of the Category facilitates the analysis of site-specific characteristics.
4 MOM floodplain. The Category 4 MOM represents When completing this step of the Framework, the
the maximum hurricane water level values from assumptions should be revisited and refined GIS
severe storm events and provides a reasonable datasets should be incorporated. If the Framework is
approximation of extreme flooding extent within the applied and refined at the State and community level,
study area. Risk of coastal flood peril was estimated decision-makers should adjust the indices to reflect
using flood inundation mapping in combination with the values and goals of the respective communities.
the exposure. When stakeholders adjust the indices, the individual
data layers should also be analyzed as necessary. The
The extent of flooding, as presented in Figure IV-7 Economics and Social Analyses Appendix presents
through Figure IV-9, was used to delineate the areas more information on the theory of the exposure index.
included in the exposure and risk assessments. The Planning Analyses Appendix presents information
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to on the development of the exposure index.
identify, in geographical terms, a relative range
of characteristics to define the consequences Performance of the system, or how the system reacts
of a coastal storm flooding event. The exposure to a hazard and associated consequences, requires
assessment was completed by creating a composite further analysis as part of the Tier 2 and Tier 3
exposure index. A composite exposure index is an evaluations to be completed with refined objectives,
instrument for communicating relative exposure to constraints, and datasets for smaller geographic
coastal flooding hazards for the natural and developed regions. Similar to performance and consequences,
systems, taking into consideration all three criteria: vulnerability also requires further analysis as part of
population and infrastructure, social vulnerability the Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations that include data-
factors of the population, and environmental and intensive analyses. The technical report Use of Natural
cultural sensitivities. The characteristics of population and Nature-Based Features for Coastal Resilience
density and infrastructure, social vulnerability, and includes additional details related to the development
environmental and cultural resource sensitivities were of coastal vulnerability metrics to assess vulnerability

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 43

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

and resilience metrics (Bridges et al. 2015). The The evaluation of critical infrastructure considered a
standards, policies, and guidance of the participating wide range of facilities, including large facilities, such
agencies establish the study requirements and as power plants, ports, and airports that serve large
stakeholders refine objectives and constraints. regional populations; moderate-sized facilities, such
as water and wastewater treatment plants, that may
serve an entire community; and smaller facilities, such
NACCS Exposure Assessment as gas stations and pharmacies that serve specific
neighborhoods. The Planning Analyses Appendix
Although a myriad of factors or criteria can be used provides a discussion of how these different facilities
to identify exposure, the NACCS Tier 1 evaluation were weighted in the analysis. Figure IV-10 depicts
focused on the following categories and criteria: the overall population density and infrastructure
exposure index for Reach NY_NJ1. This index reflects
• Population Density and Infrastructure: Population a weighted summation of the population density
density includes the number of persons within an and infrastructure that could be exposed to coastal
areal extent across the study area; infrastructure flooding.
includes critical infrastructure that supports the
population and communities. These factors were
combined to reflect overall exposure of the built Social Vulnerability Characterization Index
environment.
The 2010 U.S. Census data was used to develop the
• Social Vulnerability Characterization: Social social vulnerability characterization. The overarching
vulnerability characterization includes certain goal is to quantify populations that are more at risk
segments of the population that may have more from storm impacts. Age, income, and non-English
difficulty preparing for and responding to coastal speaking populations were considered important
flood events. factors in social vulnerability. The Economics
Analyses Appendix includes additional information
• Environmental and Cultural Resources: The on the development of the social vulnerability
environmental and cultural resources exposure characterization exposure index. Figure IV-11 provides
captures important habitat and selected cultural a depiction of the social vulnerability characterization
resources that would be affected by storm surge exposure index for Reach NY_NJ1.
and erosion.

Environmental and Cultural Resources Index

Population Density and Infrastructure Index
Environmental and cultural resources were evaluated
Population and population density was identified as a as they relate to exposure to the Category 4 MOM.
measure of the coastal flood exposure. In addition to Data from national databases, such as the National
identifying population, an objective of the NACCS is Wetlands Inventory and The Nature Conservancy
to identify coastal storm risk management to critical Ecoregional Assessments, and data provided by
infrastructure. Critical infrastructure was identified the USFWS, including threatened and endangered
through the Homeland Security Infrastructure Program species habitat and important sites for bird nesting
using principles associated with an engineering and feeding areas, shoreline types, and historic sites
reconnaissance process described in the Department and national monuments, among others were used to
of the Army Field Manual 3-34.170, Engineer assess resource exposure. Properties with restricted
Reconnaissance (2008). The Army developed the locations, typically archaeological sites, and certain
sewage, water, electricity, academics, trash, medical, other properties were omitted from the analysis.
safety, and other considerations (SWEAT-MSO) Figure IV-12 presents the results of the environmental
assessment process to provide immediate feedback and cultural resources exposure index for Reach
concerning the status of the basic services necessary NY_NJ1.
to sustain a population. The post-hurricane recovery
time includes the time it takes to restore interruptions
in basic infrastructure services, which may be used as
a measure of how resilient a community is following a
storm event.

44 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Composite Exposure Index NACCS Risk Assessment

The three independent exposure indices were Exposure and coastal flood inundation mapping
weighted and summed to develop one composite is used to identify the specific areas at risk. Once
index to convey overall exposure. Because the focus the exposure to flood peril of any area has been
of the NACCS is on managing risk to vulnerable identified, the next step is to better define the flood
coastal populations and the infrastructure that risk. The Framework defines risk as a function of
supports it, the population density and infrastructure exposure and probability of occurrence. For each
exposure index was weighted higher than the social of the floodplain inundation scenarios, Category 4
vulnerability characterization and environmental MOM, 1 percent flood plus 3 feet, and the 10 percent
and cultural resources indices. Population density flood, three bands of inundation were created. The
and infrastructure was assigned a weight of 80 bands correspond with the flooding source to the
percent, social vulnerability characterization was 10 percent inundation extent, the 10 percent to the
assigned a weight of 10 percent, and environmental 1 percent plus 3 feet extent, and the 1 percent plus
and cultural resources exposure was assigned a 3 feet to the Category 4 MOM inundation extent.
weight of 10 percent. In consultation with others FEMA 1 percent flood mapping is not available in
(States, District of Columbia, agency webinars, and all regions throughout the study area; therefore,
subject matter experts), the weighting for the Tier 1 the 1 percent plus 3 feet floodplain was defined as
evaluation composite index was selected to provide the Category 2 MOM instead. This process was
a greater emphasis on population and infrastructure completed for the composite exposure assessment
as an illustrative example of the application of the in order to generate the new data presented as the
Framework at the regional scale. NACCS risk assessment. Figure IV-14 depicts the
results of the risk assessment for Reach NY_NJ1. The
In addition, when critical infrastructure is damaged data were symbolized to present areas of relatively
and services are interrupted, as demonstrated by higher risk, which, based on the analysis, correspond
Hurricane Sandy in the densely developed areas of with the three bands that were used in the analysis.
New York and New Jersey, the entire population is Subsequent analyses could incorporate additional
affected. As noted previously, the Framework could bands, which would present additional variation in the
be adjusted to meet specific objectives by applying range of values symbolized in the figure.
refined datasets and/or resetting index weights. A
sensitivity assessment was performed to evaluate
changes when the composite index weights are NACCS Risk Areas Identification
adjusted to shift emphasis to either social vulnerability
or environmental and cultural resources. More The risk assessment for Reach NY_NJ1 identified
information on the development of the exposure 17 locations as having relative higher risk. These
indices and the sensitivity analysis is included in locations, labeled areas NY_NJ1_A through NY_
the Economics Analyses and Planning Analyses NJ1_Q are identified on Figure IV-15 and listed in Table
Appendices. Figure IV-13 depicts a sample composite IV-3. Because of scale limitations, the risk areas are
exposure index for Reach NY_NJ1. presented in Figure IV-17 as point locations and may
not specifically correspond with the map symbology
presenting the areas of relatively higher risk.

Additional information, including the description of

each risk area, is included in the corresponding New
York chapter of the State and District of Columbia
Analyses Appendix.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 45

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
280 Bloomfield Fort Lee
Montclair 895
Nutley
NJ 295

Livingston West Belleville West New

Orange York New York

Orange Union
East City
Kearny
Orange
678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
Jersey East
Hempstead
City Meadow
278 Elmont
Union Hillside 78 Franklin Uniondale
Square
478
NY Baldwin
Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Oceanside
Plainfield
Linden NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick
Sayreville
NJ2

High Exposure
ME
VT

Low Exposure
NH
NY
MA
CT RI
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 PA
NACCS Planning Reaches NJ

Miles WV MD
Interstate Highways DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS exposure analysis VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in Military Installation
February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time. NC
It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Cities

Figure IV-10. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Population and Infrastructure Exposure Index

46 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
280 Bloomfield Fort Lee
Montclair 895
Nutley
NJ 295

Livingston West Belleville West New

Orange York New York

Orange Union
East City
Kearny
Orange
678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
Jersey East
Hempstead
City Meadow
278 Elmont
Union Hillside 78 Franklin Uniondale
Square
478
NY Baldwin
Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Oceanside
Plainfield
Linden NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick
Sayreville
NJ2

High Exposure
ME
VT

Low Exposure
NH
NY
MA
CT RI
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 PA
NACCS Planning Reaches NJ

Miles WV MD
Interstate Highways DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS exposure analysis VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in Military Installation
February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time. NC
It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Cities

Figure IV-11. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Area Social Vulnerability Characterization Exposure Index

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 47

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
280 Bloomfield Fort Lee
Montclair 895
Nutley
NJ 295

Livingston West Belleville West New

Orange York New York

Orange Union
East City
Kearny
Orange
678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
Jersey East
Hempstead
City Meadow
278 Elmont
Union Hillside 78 Franklin Uniondale
Square
478
NY Baldwin
Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Oceanside
Plainfield
Linden NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick
Sayreville
NJ2

High Exposure
ME
VT

Low Exposure
NH
NY
MA
CT RI
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 PA
NACCS Planning Reaches NJ

Miles WV MD
Interstate Highways DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS exposure analysis VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in Military Installation
February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time. NC
It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Cities

Figure IV-12. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Environmental and Cultural Resources Exposure Index

48 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
280 Bloomfield Fort Lee
Montclair 895
Nutley
NJ 295

Livingston West Belleville West New

Orange York New York

Orange Union
East City
Kearny
Orange
678
Hoboken 495
NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
Jersey East
Hempstead
City Meadow
278 Elmont
Union Hillside 78 Franklin Uniondale
Square
478
NY Baldwin
Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Oceanside
Plainfield
Linden NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison
New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick
Sayreville
NJ2

High Exposure
ME
VT

Low Exposure
NH
NY
MA
CT RI
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 PA
NACCS Planning Reaches NJ

Miles WV MD
Interstate Highways DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS exposure analysis VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in Military Installation
February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time. NC
It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Cities

Figure IV-13. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Composite Exposure Index

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 49

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

287
West NY5
Milford CT
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
Teaneck

Clifton NY4
Passaic
695
280 Bloomfield Fort Lee 895
Montclair
Nutley

NJ 295

Livingston West Belleville West New

Orange York New York

Orange Union
East City
Kearny
Orange
678 495
Hoboken NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
Jersey East
Hempstead
City Meadow
278 Elmont
Union Hillside 78 Franklin Uniondale
Square
478 NY Baldwin
Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne Freeport
Plains
Cranford
Oceanside
Plainfield
Linden NY2

Long
Beach
95

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
Edison

New
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ2

High Risk ME
VT

Low Risk
NH
NY
MA

CT RI

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 PA

Interstate Highway NJ

Miles WV MD
NACCS Planning Reach DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS risk assessment

Military Installation
VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in

February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time.
It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Cities NC

Figure IV-14. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Risk Evaluation

50 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Stamford

NY5_A
West NY5_F 287
Milford CT
NY5
684 CT1
White
Plains
287

95
New
87 Rochelle NY4_A
Wayne
Yonkers
Fair
Lawn NY_NJ1_Q
Mount
Paterson Vernon
Hackensack
80
NY_NJ1_L
Teaneck

NY4_B
Clifton NY4
Passaic NY_NJ1_O
NY_NJ1_B 695 NY4_E
Bloomfield Fort Lee
280 NY4_D
Montclair 895
Nutley
NY_NJ1_M NY_NJ1_K
NJ
Livingston West Belleville West New
Orange York New York
295
Orange East
Union NY_NJ1_P
Kearny City
Orange
678 495
Hoboken NY_NJ1
Irvington
Maplewood Newark
NY_NJ1_N
Jersey
City
NY_NJ1_C Hempstead East
NY_NJ1_A Elmont Meadow
Union Hillside 278 Franklin Uniondale
78
Square
NY_NJ1_D 478
NY Baldwin
NY_NJ1_J Valley
Stream Merrick
Scotch Elizabeth
Bayonne NY2_D Freeport
Plains
Cranford

Plainfield
NY_NJ1_I Oceanside
Linden
NY_NJ1_E NY2
NY_NJ1_G
NJ1_A
Long
Beach
95 NY_NJ1_H

NJ1

287 Perth
Amboy
NY_NJ1_F
Edison

New NJ1_D
Brunswick
East
Brunswick Sayreville
NJ1_B NJ2
NJ1_C

Interstate Highway
ME

NACCS Planning Reach VT

NH
NY

Military Installation MA

CT RI

0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Cities PA

NJ

Miles NACCS Vulnerable Area WV MD

DC DE

This figure presents the results of the NACCS risk assessment High Risk VA

completed at the study area scale. The figure was generated in

February 2014 by USACE using the best available data at the time. NC

It may or may not accurately reflect existing or future conditions. Low Risk

Figure IV-15. Reach NY_NJ1 NACCS Tier 1 Evaluation Risk Areas

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 51

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑3. List of NACCS Risk Areas within Reach NY_NJ1 with Relative Higher Risk
Label Location

NY_NJ1_A Lower Passaic River

NY_NJ1_B Hackensack River, Hackensack Meadowlands

NY_NJ1_C Hudson Waterfront of New Jersey (Jersey City to Edgewater)

NY_NJ1_D City of Bayonne

NY_NJ1_E Rosebank to St. George on Staten Island (North Shore of Staten Island)

NY_NJ1_F South Shore of Staten Island

NY_NJ1_G New Brighton to Mariners Harbor (North Shore of Staten Island)

NY_NJ1_H West Shore of Staten Island

NY_NJ1_I Southern Brooklyn and Queens – Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway Peninsula

NY_NJ1_J Brooklyn and Queens western waterfront

NY_NJ1_K Northern Queens and the Bronx

NY_NJ1_L Marble Hill and the Spuyten Duyvil

NY_NJ1_M Harlem, East Harlem, and the Upper East Side

NY_NJ1_N Mid and Lower Manhattan

NY_NJ1_O Hudson River Shoreline of Upper Manhattan

NY_NJ1_P East River Shoreline of Mid-Manhattan

NY_NJ1_Q Hudson River Waterfront of Yonkers

The area NY_NJ1_I, Southern Brooklyn and Queens 130 homes were destroyed and another 50 homes
– Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway Peninsula, was damaged by a fire caused by salt water contacting
selected to illustrate the application of the Framework live electrical wires. The storm’s winds fanned the
as part of a Tier 2 evaluation because it includes a flames and flood waters impeded first responders
wide range of problems, needs, and opportunities. from controlling it. Rockaway Peninsula lost 1.5
The area experienced extensive flooding from million cubic yards of sand from its beaches and
Hurricane Sandy, particularly along the back bay area dunes during Hurricane Sandy. Residents in this area
of Jamaica Bay, as well as the USACE coastal storm were without electricity and other utilities for weeks
risk management projects along the Atlantic Ocean following the storm. The number of structures in this
coastline. The State and District of Columbia Analyses area with flood damage from Hurricane Sandy was
Appendix includes discussions for other State and in the thousands. In addition to dense residential
District of Columbia risk areas. and commercial development, this risk area also
contains John F. Kennedy International Airport, the
The NY_NJ1_I risk area encompasses southern Metropolitan Transit Authority A-train subway line,
Brooklyn and Queens in the City of New York, portions of the Gateway National Recreational Area,
including the neighborhoods of Coney Island, Brighton the historic Floyd Bennett Field, Jacob Riis Park,
Beach, Sheepshead Bay, Marine Park, Flatlands, and Jamaica Bay itself, one of the largest remaining
Canarsie, Howard Beach, Far Rockaway, and Breezy wetland complexes in the New York Metropolitan
Point. The neighborhoods of Coney Island, Brighton Area.
Beach, and the Rockaway Peninsula were fully
inundated during Hurricane Sandy. In Breezy Point,

52 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS – COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES AND MEASURES
The Framework presents structural (including NNBF), nonstructural, and programmatic
measures to address coastal storm risk, along with a conceptual and qualitative evaluation
of risk management capacity and parametric unit costs. The information presented in the
Framework related to coastal storm risk management measures is intended to provide users
with useful information to evaluate community-specific risk management measures as well as an opportunity
to derive order of magnitude cost considerations. Subsequent analyses could then consider further the full
array and combinations of measures as part of a systems approach and broader strategy to manage flood risk.
Subsequent sections of this report discuss the systems approach to coastal storm risk management.

As indicated by the NACCS Findings in Section II, consistency with study goals and objectives, and
improved coastal storm risk management measures finally augmented based on a literature review. The
are needed, ideally utilizing an integrated approach aggregated measures were then organized into three
that combines the full array of measures. The built categories: structural, nonstructural, and NNBF. Some
components of coastal systems can include both NNBF measures were identified for both the NNBF
nature-based and engineered structures that support and structural categories because of their storm
a range of objectives, including erosion control and surge reduction potential. Additionally, programmatic
coastal storm risk management (e.g., seawalls, levees), measures were organized under the nonstructural
as well as infrastructure providing economic and social
category. Figure IV-16 illustrates this process to
functions (e.g., navigation channels, ports, harbors,
compile and aggregate measures.
residential housing). Nonstructural measures focus on
elevation, relocation, flood warnings, and preparedness.
Natural features are created through the action of Natural, nature-based, nonstructural, and
physical, geological, biological, and chemical processes structural are terms used to describe the full
over time. In contrast to natural features, nature-based array of measures that can be employed to provide
features are created by human design, engineering, increased coastal resilience and risk reduction
and construction (in concert with natural processes) to (USACE 2013c).
provide specific services, such as coastal storm risk
management and other ecosystem services (e.g., habitat
for fish and wildlife). Nature-based features are acted Structural Measures
upon by processes operating in nature and, as a result,
generally must be maintained by human intervention to Structural coastal storm risk management measures
sustain the functions and services for which they were are engineering solutions to manage flood risk and
built. reduce damage from coastal storms. Typical structural
solutions include levees, floodwalls, beaches, and
dunes, which are intended to physically limit flood
Measures Compilation and Aggregation water inundation from causing damage. The actual
level of risk reduction associated with these measures
Process can vary significantly depending on the specific
The first step in compiling and aggregating measures application. At site-specific locations, the design
is developing an initial suite of coastal storm risk considerations and corresponding assumptions for
management measures to reduce the risk to coastal structural measures will vary. Furthermore, the level of
populations and increase resiliency. The USACE risk reduction associated with USACE coastal storm
convened a 2-day working meeting on June 26– risk management projects is based on a benefit to
27, 2013, at the Stevens Institute of Technology in cost evaluation as opposed to a specific risk reduction
Hoboken, NJ, with representatives from Federal, standard. In general, structural measures such as
State, and local governments, as well as academia, revetments, bulkheads and seawalls all share the
NGOs, and private industry, to discuss the full array of disadvantage of being potential wave reflectors that
potential measures. A master list of all the measures can erode a beach fronting a structure. Depending
identified was compiled at the conclusion of this on the design specifics and the characteristics
meeting, then edited and filtered for duplication and of the particular site, negative impacts such as
induced flooding and short to long-term negative

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 53

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Natural &
Managing Risk &
Review of Existing Nature-Based Interagency
Building Resilience
Studies & Reports Features (NNBF) Input
Working Meeting
Evaluation

Master Measures List

Categorize &
Aggregate (Based
on function, design
characteristics & risk
management capacity)

STRUCTURAL NON-STRUCTURAL NATURAL & NATURE-BASED PROGRAMMATIC

FEATURES (NNBF)

Categorize (Based
on shoreline type
applicability)

Rocky Beaches Manmade Vegetated Wetlands

Scarps
Structures Banks

Figure IV-16. Measures Compilation and Aggregation Process

54 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

environmental impacts can also be associated with does not solely consist of surge reduction. Wetlands
structural measures. can also dissipate wave energy (Gedan et al. 2011;
Tschirky et al. 2001). The magnitude of these effects
Although many of the structural measures generally
depends on the specific characteristics of the
correspond to standard coastal storm risk
wetlands, including the type of vegetation, its rigidity
management strategies, specific applications are
and structure, and wetland extent and position relative
not constrained to the usual solutions. Opportunities
to the storm track (Tschirky et al. 2001). Although
for innovative designs, technologies, materials,
wetlands may reduce storm surge propagation in
etc., should be considered when evaluating
some instances, water can be redirected, potentially
specific application of any of these measures.
causing a local storm surge increase elsewhere,
Furthermore, implementing innovative combinations
similar to sea walls/other structural interventions.
of standard measures is key to managing coastal
Furthermore, engineered, constructed, and natural
storm risks and increasing resilience. For example,
wetlands can enhance the adaptive capacity of the
shoreline stabilization measures, such as seawalls
coastal system under future conditions including
and revetments, can work effectively with beach
climate and sea level change.
restoration when designed to be exposed to waves
only during extreme events to provide an additional
line of defense without interrupting non-storm coastal ADAPTATION AND ADAPTIVE
processes (USACE 2013c). CAPACITY IN RESPONSE TO
INCREASING RISK
NNBF Measures Adaptive capacity describes a system’s ability
to evolve, either naturally or through engineered
NNBF measures have been useful in enhancing the maintenance activities, to preserve or enhance the
resilience of coastal areas threatened by sea level system’s valued functions. In the future coastal
change (Borsje et al. 2011) and coastal storms (Gedan landscape, adaptation and adaptive capacity of
et al. 2011; Lopez 2009). For example, beaches are coastal storm risk management measures will
natural features that can provide coastal storm risk become more and more critical to vulnerable
management and resilience where their sloping communities and populations. Specifically, with
nearshore bottom causes waves to break—dissipating current literature documenting increases in storm
wave energy over the surf zone. These breaking waves intensity and frequency, and impacts from sea level
often form offshore bars that help to dissipate waves change, the coastal landscape can be expected
farther offshore. Dunes that back a beach can act as to change considerably in the future (IPCC 2007,
physical barriers that reduce inundation and wave 2013). The NACCS sea level change analyses
presents potential scenarios of sea level change
attack to the coast landward of the dune. Although
for 2018, 2068, and 2100; the results reinforce the
dunes may erode during a storm, they often provide a
concept of coastline migration and inundation over
sediment source for beach recovery following storms. time. Coastal communities and populations must
Engineered beaches and dunes can provide functions be prepared to adjust or adapt to these changing
that are similar to natural beaches and dunes and conditions. Furthermore, adaptive management
represent nature-based infrastructure specifically costs of measures must accounted for to allow
designed and maintained to provide coastal storm migration, particularly in a developed area where
risk management. Strategic placement of offshore real estate costs are high or pose a barrier to
sediment is critical for these measures. These NNBF migration.
often require beach nourishment to mitigate ongoing
erosion and other natural processes.
As indicated by the NACCS Opportunities in Section
Dense vegetation and the shallow water within II, improved implementation of NNBF throughout
wetlands can slow storm surge advance somewhat the study area is a significant opportunity to
and can reduce the surge in some cases or slow increase resilience and manage risk. Moreover,
its arrival time landward (Wamsley et al. 2009 and NNBF performance and characterization of
2010). However, when storm surges increase water ecosystem goods and services derived from NNBF
levels above the height of the vegetation, low-lying implementation remain key knowledge gaps that
vegetation, such as sea grasses and salt marshes, should be addressed by interagency research teams
have less of an effect on mitigating storm surges in the immediate future.
(Koch et al. 2009). Coastal storm risk management

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 55

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Nonstructural Measures Measure Categorizations and Comparisons

Nonstructural coastal storm risk management Once the measures were aggregated into specific
measures include acquisition and relocation, building types, the respective coastal storm risk management
retrofits, flood warning and evacuation planning, and capacity, as well as the measures’ function to promote
programmatic considerations, such as land use and resilience within a system and their adaptive capacity
floodplain management and zoning. Additionally, over time was evaluated. The coastal storm risk
conservation planning actions, including acquisition management measures were characterized by the
and the establishment of perpetual easements to degree to which they could 1) manage coastal storm
increase the total acreage of undeveloped land and damage (through reductions in flooding, waves, or
open space, to convert existing areas of privately- erosion), 2) produce multiple benefits in addition
owned and existing buildable properties into to coastal storm risk management, and 3) promote
natural habitat along the coast could reduce risk by resilience and adaptive capacity. Based on these
removing properties and people from potential direct criteria, Table IV-4 presents the measures categorized
damages from future coastal storm events (NRC as high, medium, low, and none. This evaluation of the
2014). Programmatic measures include floodplain coastal storm risk management functions is based on
management and zoning, which could also include professional experiences from previous coastal storm
rescission of building permits following a storm event investigations. It was intended to present a qualitative
for structures in a floodplain regulated by the local assessment of the function, performance, utility, and
jurisdiction that are substantially damaged during a resilience attributes of the various measures. Table
flood event. Nonstructural management measures IV-4 is intended to highlight that while a measure
in general are intended to reduce the consequences may not have a singular high designation for risk
that flooding would have to assets exposed to flood management potential, it may be quite useful in
peril, as opposed to a structural measure that alters adaptive capacity and promoting resilience in the
the characteristics or the probability of the flood peril system. Subsequent analyses could provide more
to occur (USACE 2014b). Operation and maintenance refined and quantitative evaluations of the measures’
costs of nonstructural measures are typically low, coastal storm risk management capacity, other
and are usually sustainable over long-term planning benefits, and resilience and adaptive capacity,
horizons (USACE 2014c). including a range of possible metrics for evaluation at
smaller scales.
The Planning Analyses Appendix includes additional
information on the description of coastal storm risk
management measures, including benefits, impacts,
and other considerations.

A section of boardwalk at the base of Lincoln Boulevard destroyed during Hurricane Sandy in Long Beach, NY
Source: [Link]

56 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS
Table IV‑4. Coastal Storm Risk Management and Resilience Attributes Associated with the Full Array of Measures

Coastal Storm Resilience

Risk Management Function Multi-
Aggregated Measure Type1 Category2 Benefits3
Flooding Wave Erosion Adaptive
Attenuation Capacity4
Acquisition (building removal)
and relocation5 Non-STR High High High High High

Building retrofit (e.g.,

floodproofing, elevating
structures, relocating structures, Non-STR High Low Low Low Low
ringwalls)
Enhanced flood warning and
evacuation planning (early
warning systems, emergency Non-STR Low None None Low High
response systems, emergency
access routes)
Land use management/
conservation and preservation
of undeveloped land, zoning, and Non-STR Medium None None High Medium
flood insurance

Deployable floodwalls STR Medium None None None Low

Floodwalls and levees STR High Low None Low Low

Shoreline stabilization (seawalls,

revetments, bulkheads) STR Low High High Low Low

Storm surge barriers STR High Medium None Low Low

Barrier island preservation and

beach restoration (beach fill, STR/NNBF High High Medium High High
dune creation)
Beach restoration and
breakwaters STR/NNBF High High High High Medium

Beach restoration and groins STR/NNBF High High High High Medium

Drainage improvements (e.g.,

channel restoration, water STR/NNBF Medium Low Medium Medium Low
storage/retention features)

Living shorelines STR/NNBF Low Medium Medium High High

Overwash fans (e.g., back bay

tidal flats/fans) NNBF Low Medium High Medium High

Reefs NNBF Low Medium Medium High High

Submerged aquatic vegetation NNBF Low Low Low High Medium

Wetlands NNBF Low Medium Medium High High

1 An extensive list of management measures was compiled as part of the NACCS Measures Working Meeting in June 2013. The
measures presented here represent an aggregated list of the categories of measures and corresponding conceptual parametric unit
cost estimates.
2 STR = structural measure, Non-STR = nonstructural measure, and NNBF = Natural and Nature-Based Features measure. Multiple
measures are listed if the aggregated measure type is made up of a combination of measures.
3 Multi-benefits focus on socioeconomic contributions to human health and welfare above and beyond the risk management
benefits already highlighted in this table (i.e., flooding, wave attenuation, etc.). These benefits could include increased recreational
opportunities, development of fish and wildlife habitat, provisioning of clean water, production of harvestable fish or other materials,
etc.
4 Adaptive capacity is the assessment of a measure’s ability to adjust with changing conditions and forces (including sea level change)
through natural processes, operation and maintenance activities, or adaptive management, to preserve the measure’s function.
5 Acquisition, relocation, and buyouts do not actually prevent flooding and erosion but remove the population and associated
development from its effects.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 57

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

In addition to providing engineering functions related of coastal storms), and technical information that
to managing risks from coastal storms, integrated is available for describing the relevant processes
solutions can provide a range of additional ecosystem and functions. By employing a tiered approach
services. A true systems approach to coastal storm to addressing coastal storm risk management
risk management and resilience requires consideration (incorporating the steps of the Framework), various
of the full range of functions, services, and benefits components of the system could then be identified
produced by coastal projects and blended solutions. for further analyses, perhaps leading to more detailed
These include benefits related to commercial and designs of features composing the system.
recreational fisheries, tourism, clean water, habitat for
threatened and endangered species, and support for Coastal systems are naturally dynamic, and integrated
cultural practices. measures will respond in many ways to storms—
with some responses being temporary and others
As an example of a blended solution, breakwaters permanent. Storm effects on wetlands often include
manage risk of shoreline erosion by attenuating erosion, stripped vegetation, and salinity burn, all of
wave energy and can provide additional recreational which can decrease long-term productivity. However,
opportunities, valuable aquatic habitat, and carbon or storms can also introduce mineral sediments that
nutrient sequestration with wetlands incorporated into contribute to the long-term sustainability of wetlands
the design. Natural features, such as coastal wetlands, with respect to sea level change. The long- term
forests, or oyster reefs, provide environmental and consequences for wetland systems depends on many
social benefits and can also contribute to coastal factors, including pre-storm landscape structure
storm risk management or resilience. NNBF, such (including wetland extent and relationship to other
as engineered beaches and dunes, or ecosystem natural and built features), proximity of the wetland to
restoration projects involving coastal wetlands, forests, a storm track, and the meteorological conditions that
or oyster reefs, can provide a range of environmental persist following a hurricane (e.g., salinity burn effects
and social benefits, including those related to coastal are reduced if high precipitation occurs during or after
storm risk management. Nonstructural measures the storm).
may reduce social vulnerability due to changing sea
levels and coastal storms and can also allow for Storms provide the greatest source of coastal
wetland migration over time or support increased change on barrier islands due to storm surge and
socioeconomic benefits associated with recreation. strong waves. Surging water and stronger waves
can erode barrier island beaches and, if the surge is
Developing a more complete understanding of high enough, result in overwash, breaching, or back
the engineering functions, multiple benefits, and bay flooding, thereby reducing the coastal storm risk
adaptive capacity provided by the full range of management function of the islands.
coastal features will help to inform development
and application of coastal storm risk management The dynamic behavior and response of NNBF to
strategies. Some benefits are complementary, such threats, such as coastal storms and development,
as wetland restoration that increases habitat and can affect their performance with respect to system-
wave attenuation, while others are conflicting, such level coastal storm risk management and resilience
as dune creation for coastal storm risk management objectives. For NNBF, such as engineered beaches
that competes with viewshed concerns. As sea level and dunes, this variation can be addressed through
and climate change influence the coastal environment, effective planning and engineering to maintain the
taking a comprehensive view of the functions and desired level of service.
benefits will provide important information for
decision-making that supports resilient coastal Although some literature suggests that coastal
systems. features (e.g., wetlands, barrier islands) can reduce
surge and waves, this conclusion has sometimes
Knowledge about the performance of NNBF, been based on limited data. Consequently,
nonstructural, and structural features varies, as do characterizations of coastal storm risk management
the methods to calculate and measure performance. benefits vary widely based on anecdotal, qualitative,
Factors contributing to this varied knowledge and quantitative information (Wamsley et al. 2009).
include the diversity of objectives, the threats under The actual ability of wetlands to provide coastal
consideration (e.g., a particular range or frequency storm risk management from storms is complex

58 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

and depends on many factors, including storm vulnerability can be achieved by 1) instituting land use
intensity, track, speed, and the surrounding local changes over time to adapt to impacts that increase
bathymetry and topography (Resio and Westerlink risks; 2) accommodating potential changes, such as
2008). However, there are methods for including climate variability, sea level change, etc., to preserve
these complexities and the interactions of storms with the natural and built environment over time; and 3)
NNBF that make use of more quantitative analytical employing coastal storm risk management measures
approaches (Anderson et al. 2011, Cialone et al. 2008, to manage and reduce flood damage to property and
Suzuki et al. 2012, Yao et al. 2012). infrastructure. In addition to policy and programmatic
efforts to manage risk, the NACCS Coastal Storm Risk
Management Framework builds on three common
Applicability by Shoreline Type adaptation categories used by the climate adaptation
communities in the United States and internationally:
The measures were further categorized according avoid (sometimes termed “retreat”), accommodate,
to the shoreline type for which they are best suited and preserve (sometimes termed “protect”)
considering typical application opportunities, (Dronkers, J. et al. 1990; USACE 2014c).
constraints and best professional judgment. Shoreline
types were derived from the NOAA Environmental These three strategies can include a variety of
Sensitivity Index Shoreline Classification dataset structural (including NNBF), nonstructural, and
(NOAA n.d.). This categorization is summarized in the programmatic coastal storm risk management
Planning Analyses Appendix and State and District of measures, and combinations thereof, that provide
Columbia Analyses Appendix. risk management and adaptation options to coastal
communities to address increasing flood risk over
A conceptual evaluation was conducted on the time. Given the uncertainty associated with climate
geographic applicability of the NNBF measures science and the corresponding impacts to sea level
presented in Table IV-4, including beach restoration, change, planning scenarios should be factored into
beach restoration with breakwaters/groins, living the decision-making process when evaluating coastal
shorelines, reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, and storm risk management strategies, as well as risk
wetlands. The GIS operations used for the NNBF management measures. Subsequent sections of
screening analysis are described in the technical this report provide additional discussion on climate
report Use of Natural and Nature-Based Features in change adaptation planning, including key concepts,
Coastal Systems (Bridges et al. 2015). In addition to tiered adaptation planning, and a systems approach.
shoreline type, the analysis considered habitat type,
impervious cover, water quality, and topography/
bathymetry. Further evaluation of the results would be Design Considerations
required for applicability to a smaller scale using more
refined datasets. Additional information associated A Design Standards and Criteria Team was formed
with the methodology and results of the analysis is to examine existing coastal engineering design
presented in the Planning Analyses Appendix. standards and criteria, as required by Public Law
113-2:

Coastal Storm Risk Management Strategies …that efforts using these funds shall incorporate
current science and engineering standards in
and Full Array of Measures constructing previously authorized Corps projects
Coastal systems provide important social, economic, designed to reduce flood and storm damage risks
and ecological benefits to the Nation. However, our and modifying existing Corps projects that do not
coasts are vulnerable to the influence of a combination meet these standards, with such modifications as the
of factors, including storms, changing climate, Secretary determines are necessary to incorporate
geological processes, and the pressures of ongoing these standards or to meet the goal of providing
development and urbanization. The overarching sustainable reduction to flooding and storm
strategy to increase coastal resilience and reduce damage risks.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 59

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV-5 presents the post-Hurricane Sandy design For other NNBF measures (not including the beach
criteria identified by the Design Standards and Criteria restoration [beach fill, dune creation] measures
Team. These criteria informed the coastal storm risk presented in Table IV-4), the design criteria of the
management levels assigned to measures. Table 10 percent flood was assumed for risk management
IV-6 presents suggested levels of coastal storm risk potential. This design criteria was assumed for
management. Actual risk management levels may vary concept design purposes, although the opportunity
depending on site-specific conditions. for surge reduction would ultimately be dependent on
site-specific criteria, such as geographical location,
Table IV-6 summarizes the conceptual design local tidal variance, geomorphological conditions, etc.
criteria that were used in evaluating costs and risk In addition, the allowance for future sea level change
management for the various coastal storm risk increase was not considered for the 10 percent
management measures. The design criteria included floodplain because NNBF risk management measures
a “+3 feet” allowance for the structural measures would depend on tidal influences to maintain their
to account for uncertainty associated with future functionality (e.g., wetlands and living shorelines).
sea level change forecasts. This 3-foot allowance Adaptive management considerations with respect to
is consistent with the USACE High scenario for sea level and climate change would be required for
projected sea level change by year 2068, as well as NNBF management measures.
post-Hurricane Sandy design guidance developed by
other agencies. Most structural measures and NNBF Buildings are typically elevated (nonstructural
features such as beach fill and dune creation were measure) one foot above the 1 percent flood to
assumed to be designed to a 1 percent flood elevation account for risk and uncertainty. However, as part
plus a 3-foot allowance for future sea level change. of floodplain ordinances and building codes, some
Storm surge barriers were assumed to be designed coastal communities have, or are enacting, more
to a 0.2 percent flood elevation plus the same 3-foot stringent elevation requirements of up to 3 feet above
allowance for future sea level change.

Table IV‑5. Post-Hurricane Sandy Design Criteria of Other Agencies

Agency Criteria
NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resilience
FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) + 3 feet
(2013)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development–

FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) +1 feet
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (2013)

Table IV‑6. Conceptual Design Criteria of NACCS Risk Management Measures

Measure Type Criteria1

1 percent flood elevation + 3-foot sea level change
Structural (not barriers) 2
allowance

0.2 percent flood elevation + 3-foot sea level change

Storm Surge Barriers
allowance

Natural and Nature-Based Features 10 percent flood elevation

1 percent flood elevation + 3-foot sea level change

Nonstructural (floodproofing and buyouts)
allowance
1 Criteria are for conceptual NACCS design only, and may not be consistent with existing USACE or other Agency analysis or design
guidance.
2 Beaches and dunes are also considered Natural and Nature-Based Features.

60 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

the 1 percent flood as a result of the magnitude represent a 50-year project life, unless otherwise
and impact of Hurricane Sandy, and the uncertainty noted. For those measures that require substantial
regarding the rate of sea level change. Therefore, for operations and maintenance requirements, such
the purposes of this analysis, the more conservative as a beach and dune project, periodic operation
requirement of 3 feet above the 1 percent flood was and maintenance assumptions were specifically
used as the nonstructural design elevation. noted. Each measure presented in Appendix C that
includes a parametric unit cost estimate includes a
line item noting operations and maintenance costs
Cost Considerations to annualize costs over a 50-year project life, which
was then used to derive the unit cost. Table IV-7
Conceptual design and parametric cost estimates presents the parametric unit costs associated with
were developed for the various coastal storm risk coastal storm risk management measures. Additional
management measures. They are representative information on the various measures is included in the
of typical conditions and do not account for reach Planning Analyses Appendix. For Tier 2 and Tier 3, the
or site-specific variations in ground level, tidal conceptual designs and associated costs would be
range, or storm water levels. Concept designs were adjusted for variability in design parameters, including
developed for each measure together with quantities local design water levels, labor and materials, and
and parametric costs (typically per linear foot of more refined estimates of operations and maintenance
shoreline) based on a combination of available cost costs. Considerations of costs associated with real
information for existing projects and representative estate, including real estate acquisitions, rights of way,
historical unit costs for all construction items (e.g., or other easements, would need to be considered
excavation, fill, rock, plantings). Project timeframes as well.

Aerial view of New Jersey coast during a search and rescue mission, Oct. 30, 2012
Source: [Link]
U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 61

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS
Table IV‑7. NACCS Risk Management Measures Parametric Unit Cost Estimates

Total Estimated Total Estimated

Aggregated Measure Type1 First Construction Annual Average Units
Cost per Unit2 Cost per Unit3
Acquisition (building removal) and relocation $349,000 $14,900 Building

Building retrofit (floodproofing) $100,000 $4,200 Building

Building retrofit4 (elevating structures) $192,000 $8,200 Building

Building retrofit (ringwalls – commercial/

$3,680,000 $157,000 Building
apartment building)

Building retrofit (ringwalls – industrial

$4,840,000 $206,000 Building
building)

Land use management/zoning and flood

Varies Varies
insurance5

Deployable floodwalls $5,500 $250 feet

Floodwalls6 $5,300 $240 feet

Levee $1,600 $80 feet

Shoreline stabilization (seawalls, revetments,

$4,800 $250 feet
bulkheads)

Storm surge barriers Varies Varies

Beach restoration (beach fill, dune creation) $3,500 $490 feet

Beach restoration and breakwaters $9,200 $610 feet

Beach restoration and groins $7,400 $530 feet

Drainage improvements5 (e.g., channel

Varies Varies
restoration, water storage/retention features)

Living shorelines $1,400 $70 feet

Overwash fans (e.g., back bay tidal flats/fans) $2,400 $100 feet

Reefs $4,800 $200 feet

Submerged aquatic vegetation $2,400 $100 feet

Wetlands7 $565,000 $26,900 acre

1 An extensive list of management measures was compiled as part of the NACCS Measures Working Meeting in June 2013. The
measures presented here represent an aggregated list of the categories of measures and corresponding conceptual parametric unit
cost estimates.
2 Regional factors, such as materials, labor, and fuel, may affect overall costs. The total construction cost estimates must take into
account more localized costs of these factors as part of the development of project cost estimates.
3 Includes operations and maintenance costs for all measures as well as periodic renourishment costs for beach restoration measures.
4 The range of costs to elevate structures can vary considerably.
5 Costs could not be developed due to scale of the NACCS study.
6 The concept design identified for the floodwall category consists of a concrete structure. These structures might also require closure
structures including stoplogs, miter gates, swing gates, or roller gates, which were not included in the development of the parametric
unit cost estimate. A simple steel sheetpile I-wall may be more economical.
7 An annual average cost of $120 per foot was used in the Tier 1 evaluation assuming a nominal wetland width (i.e., dimension
perpendicular to the shoreline) of 200 feet.

62 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

EVALUATE AND COMPARE SOLUTIONS

As part of the Framework Tier 1 evaluation, an initial screening of potentially applicable
measures for each risk area was performed as part of the exposure and risk assessment.
After identifying the shoreline types and measures applicable by shoreline type, the
corresponding shoreline lengths within the risk areas were computed. Next, the qualitative assessment of risk
management potential and the parametric unit costs were used to complete an evaluation of the measures. For
those areas of the coast that were not specifically identified as a risk area as part of the Tier 1 exposure and
risk assessment, local communities and stakeholders could use the information presented in the Framework to
quickly develop similar comparisons. The Economics Analyses Appendix provides additional discussion of the
evaluation of measures, and corresponding risk management and costs. The results of the Tier 1 evaluation and
comparison of solutions are included in the State and District of Columbia Analyses Appendix.

Because the study area covered 10 States and the Climate Change Adaptation Planning
District of Columbia, the Tier 1 evaluation required the
use of consistent national datasets that were available The combination of extreme weather, such as storms
across the entire study area, which decreased the like Hurricane Sandy, and climate change scenarios
level of detail and granularity. For example, in some results in “climate extremes” that create risks to
areas of rather homogenous shorelines, such as coastal areas and may be significantly greater in the
beaches or urban areas, only a few measures are future. Changing sea levels also result in changes
likely to be applicable. The number of measures with to less extreme events by increasing the frequency
the lowest parametric unit cost that may be applicable of nuisance flooding (NOAA 2014). In addition,
for the shoreline type and that provide the same level these climate impacts would interact with other
of qualitative risk management potential is limited. simultaneous social and environmental changes to
The scale and corresponding level of detail necessary produce a substantially different future risk regime.
for decision-makers to determine the appropriate
risk management strategy and specific measures In the United States, the U.S. Global Research
to employ requires further analysis as part of the Program, National Research Council (NRC), NOAA,
aforementioned Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations. The and USACE are among those advocating the use of
subsequent analyses should also consider the range scenario-based approaches to project future sea level
of future, long-term scenarios associated with climate changes (Mellilo et al. 2014, NRC 1987, NRC 2012b,
change adaptation planning to adequately address NOAA 2012a, USACE 2013b, USACE 2014a,
and account for risk-based planning analyses. USACE 2014d). In fact, USACE guidance first
addressed changing sea levels in a 1986 letter of
Evaluating and comparing various risk management instruction, which was followed by a 2000 requirement
solutions in the context of climate change and for sensitivity analyses to differing rates of change,
climate change adaptation planning is critical. and subsequently a multiple-scenario approach
Consistent with the National Climate Assessment: (USACE 2014d).
Climate Change Impacts in the United States,
the Framework consideration of climate change According to Moser et al., the multiple-scenario
presents a risk-based, scenario-planning approach approach “acknowledges uncertainty by considering
to address uncertainties and improve the ability to an array of futures based on different potential
anticipate thresholds and tipping points (Melillo et values of key uncertainties. In this context, plans are
al. 2014). Long-term planning would assist with the formulated that both address each of the possible
development of effective strategies and adaptation futures but also are robust in achieving the desired
efforts to address risk from future flood hazards objectives regardless of the future” (2008). The
exacerbated by forecasted sea level change. scenario approach allows communities and decision-
makers to consider a range of potential future climate
conditions and their associated levels of impacts
(USACE 2014a). Effective use of scenarios enables
decisions to be made despite climate change
uncertainty. The ultimate goal of climate change
adaptation would be to reduce the impacts from

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 63

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

climate change and to promote community and • Future performance and alternative adaptation
ecosystem resilience. The Framework incorporates measures are important considerations during
climate change adaptation considerations associated coastal storm risk management systems planning
with future coastal storm risk and vulnerability. and design (USACE 2014d).

Key concepts related to climate change adaptation Prior to the rise of concerns regarding climate change,
in coastal settings are presented in the technical decisions regarding coastal risk were generally based
report Use of Natural and Nature-based Features for on the assumption that the climate would be stable—
Coastal Resilience (Bridges et al. 2015). Key concepts that a given location would see the same weather
incorporated in the NACCS include the following: patterns in the future that it had seen in the past. As
such, forecasts of future conditions were typically
• Climate change means that natural forces would based on a significant body of measured historical
change in the future; this nonstationarity requires data on the climate at the site and the historical
consideration of a future that may be substantially responses to that climate. This stationary climate
different than the past. There is considerable resulted in a decision-making environment based on
uncertainty associated with future climate change a single future condition that assumed low uncertainty
(USACE 2014a, 2014d). with respect to future forcing conditions (sea level,
waves, tides, surges, storms). Low uncertainty thus
• Uncertainty exists not only with regard to sea level led to a “predict-then-act” paradigm that decision-
change and wider climate change, but also with makers have become accustomed to (NAS 2010).
regard to landscape responses, such as flooding,
erosion, environmental impact, socioeconomic Given the current and potential future rates of sea
changes, and human responses, such as future level change and land subsidence in the NACCS study
policy and programmatic changes, that could area, assuming stationary conditions is not realistic.
influence how communities respond to climate Climate change scenarios indicate that future coastal
changes (USACE 2014d). forces and associated impacts may be far outside the
realm of past experience (Melillo et al. 2014, NOAA
• Climate change scenarios do not project future 2012a, NAS 2010, and USACE 2014d). For this reason,
conditions exactly, but they describe potential USACE coastal storm risk management planning
future conditions, which are then used to evaluate relies on climate change scenarios rather than simple
decisions under a variety of potential future extrapolation of past climate observations (USACE
outcomes (USACE 2014d). 2013b, 2014d).

• Adaptation plans include both current actions and Climate change scenarios incorporate a higher level
future actions that are implemented when critical of uncertainty through the use of a range of potential
climate change and/or vulnerability thresholds occur future coastal risks. Sea level change is relatively
in the future (USACE 2014a, 2014d). well understood, but climate impacts to storms
are still emerging. For this reason, coastal storm
• A recurring/iterative approach to climate change risk management strategies must include periodic/
planning allows decision-makers to leverage future ongoing review and revision to incorporate new
advancements in climate science and policy as science and climate scenarios as they develop.
well as evaluate the performance of coastal storm
risk management measures that have already In the face of highly uncertain outcomes associated
been implemented as part of their climate change with climate change, coastal storm risk management
adaptation strategy (USACE 2014d). decisions based solely on a single most probable
or likely outcome can lead to inaction, poor project
• Adaptation plans consider the full range of coastal performance or maladaptation (NOAA 2012a, USACE
storm risk management measures: structural 2014d). This uncertain future suggests a transition to
(including natural and nature based), nonstructural, an “explore-then-test” decision context (NAS 2010)
and programmatic (USACE 2013c, 2014d), and can in which multiple scenarios are evaluated and coastal
include combinations of structural, nonstructural, storm risk management measures are judged by
and natural and nature-based measures that are their adaptability and function across the full range
implemented simultaneously or in phases over time. of future risks. USACE (2014d) recommends a tiered
approach to the assessment of sea level change on

64 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

project alternatives and project performance using of multiple individual measures that work together as a
three scenarios of sea level change. coastal storm risk management strategy.

Adaptation strategies that look far into the future

Tiered Adaptation Planning would require that decision-makers consider a
geographic extent over which coastal adaptation
Decision-making under uncertainty requires a tiered, would occur. In many cases, this would include
iterative approach whereby an early, screening- areas landward of what has traditionally been
level analysis provides a preliminary outline of the considered the coastal zone that may not currently be
landscape responses to climate change (USACE significantly threatened by coastal storms or sea level
2010a, 2014d). One of the primary benefits of the change but that could be an important component
screening level analysis is that it illuminates relevant of adaptation (USACE 2014d). Additionally, gravity-
variables and uncertainties and is the first chance driven stormwater systems could become inundated
to evaluate potential measures and alternatives. by increases in mean sea level and perform below
The NACCS includes a Tier 1 level evaluation of sea their designed capacity (Mellilo et al. 2014). Drainage
level change scenario impacts and measures and problems are being experienced in the mid-Atlantic
strategies for coastal storm risk management. areas and in the Chesapeake Bay in particular
because sea level is rising at a faster rate than other
USACE has developed specific guidance in regards areas of the Atlantic Coast (Boesch et al. 2013). The
to sea level change (USACE 2013b, 2014d) that is NACCS sea level change analyses corroborate this
scenario-based. Scenario-based analysis establishes trend. As a result, further consideration of potential
the range of expected future landscape responses, changes in precipitation patterns should be evaluated
rather than a single most likely future condition. in low-lying areas associated with both tropical and
USACE (2014a) scenario-based adaptation planning extra-tropical events as well as in areas farther inland
concentrates on establishing critical thresholds (e.g., that represent the estuarine and freshwater tidal
sea level change, flooding frequency) at which future interface with riverine conditions. This is because poor
actions would take place (e.g., initiate construction drainage associated with stormwater design capacity
of flood walls, elevation of structures, building code exceeded by rising sea levels could exacerbate
revisions, marsh construction). flooding conditions and increase flood risk. In low-
lying areas and reaches of the Hudson, Delaware, and
The Framework follows a tiered approach in which
Chesapeake Bays and their tributaries, increases in
a screening level (Tier 1) evaluation is performed to
mean sea level coupled with riverine flooding could
evaluate broad and approximate impacts from climate
pose increasing flood risk to those communities
change. This process scopes a Tier 2 evaluation that
farther landward.
evaluates specific measures against the full range of
scenarios on a regional geographic scale. Adaptation In addition to coastal storm risk management
alternatives can then be developed to include multiple measures to be implemented at the outset of the
measures applied at varying thresholds of risk or planning process, determining those measures that
impact. appear the most promising for future implementation
and establishing current actions that would facilitate
A Systems Approach to Climate Change Adaptation their future use is also important. For example, retreat
from threatened coastal areas might require room for
The geophysical setting, existing and future levels a natural marsh habitat to move landward with rising
of risk exposure, desired level of risk reduction, sea levels or retreat from a populated barrier island
environmental constraints, cost, and other factors might require relocation of communities. Adaptation
would all influence the development of adaptation plans must also take into account other, non-climate
strategies (USACE 2014d). related environmental changes and the associated
uncertainties (Mellilo et al. 2014).
As described elsewhere in this report, a risk
management strategy would, in most cases, consist

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 65

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Application of the Framework and Other 3 evaluation should also consider other metrics
associated with risk, vulnerability, and exposure,
Considerations including more refined site-specific datasets
addressing sensitivity and adaptive capacity. In
Table IV-8 summarizes the first five steps associated
addition, the evaluation should consider the resilience,
with the Framework and includes supporting data and
including rapid recovery, of critical infrastructure,
references for completing each step.
focusing more protection on infrastructure that is
The detailed Tier 3 evaluation would consider slow to recover (e.g., hospitals) compared to those
combinations of measures for comparison of that rapidly recover (e.g., portions of airports without
alternative plans and could incorporate a benefit - cost buildings). Various metrics associated with evaluation
analysis. Additional characteristics or metrics beyond of management measures objectives, such as risk
risk assessment and parametric cost estimates reduction (life safety), damage reduction, feasibility,
should be explicitly considered at this level of analysis and impacts should also be incorporated.
and the best available data should be used. Tier

Hurricane Sandy flooding, Crisfield, MD on October 30, 2012

Source: [Link]
The National Guard - Maryland National Guard

66 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑8. Supporting Data and References for Completing the First Five Steps Associated with the NACCS Coastal Storm
Risk Management Framework

Tier 1 (NACCS/ Tier 2/Tier 3 Appropriate Data Sources/ References

Steps Regional Level) (State/Local Level (Not an Exhaustive List)
Replication)
Initiate Initiate Analysis Initiate Analysis Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Analysis Hazard Mitigation Planning Points of contact
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Districts
NACCS Coastal Program Guide
NACCS Visioning Session
Silver Jackets
NACCS Risk Assessment Decision-Making
Questioning and Metric Development
Methodology

Characterize Inventory existing Inventory existing ER 1100-2-8162, Incorporating Sea Level Change
Conditions conditions and conditions and forecast in Civil Works Programs ([Link]
forecast future future conditions of the org/wp-content/uploads/USACE_SLR_guidance_
conditions of the study area ER_1100-[Link])
study area • Collect refined ETL 1100-2-1, Procedures to Evaluate
• Collect data geographic data Sea Level Change: Impacts, Responses,
• Select a planning (bathymetry, and Adaptation ([Link]
horizon (25, 50, 100 topography, land use, [Link]/Portals/76/Publications/
years) environmental/habitat, EngineerTechnicalLetters/ETL_1100-[Link])
• Utilize existing plans etc.)
NACCS Geodatabase
and studies • Collect refined coastal
• Consider hazard data (storm NACCS Storm Database
environmental surge, waves, rainfall, Focus Area Assessments and Visioning Session
conditions and etc.) Reports
cultural resources • Consider local policies
and other local data USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator http://
• Consider changes [Link]/[Link]
in population
and supporting National Oceanic and Atmospheric
infrastructure Administration (NOAA) Digital Coast (Coastal
• Consider climate Services Center) ([Link]
change and sea level digitalcoast/tools/slr)
change scenarios U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change
Viewer ([Link]
clu_rd/[Link])
NACCS Depth-Damage Functions (including HEC-
FIA [Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Impact
Analysis] for coastal investigation)
Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM)
State Plans/Geographic Information System (GIS)
data
Hurricane Evacuation Studies
Bureau of Labor and Statistics Employment and
Wages in Flood Zones ([Link]
hurricane_zones/[Link] and [Link]
gov/cew/hurricane_zones/[Link])

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 67

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑8. Supporting Data and References for Completing the First Five Steps Associated with the NACCS Coastal Storm
Risk Management Framework (continued)

Tier 1 (NACCS/ Tier 2/Tier 3 Appropriate Data Sources/ References

Steps Regional Level) (State/Local Level (Not an Exhaustive List)
Replication)
Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper (http://
[Link]/CBRA/Maps/[Link])
U.S. Geological Survey iCoast ([Link]
[Link]/)
Climate Central ([Link]
Surging Seas Sea Level Rise Assessment Tool
([Link]
USGS monitoring/modeling of onshore and
nearshore coastal storm characteristics
USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index ([Link]
[Link]/coastalchangehazards/ and [Link]
[Link]/of/1999/of99-593/[Link])
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer and
Community Identification database
U.S. Department of Interior, Northeast Climate
Center ([Link]
[Link])
New Jersey Adapt [Link]
html

Analyze Identify problems and Identify problems and ER 1100-2-8162, Incorporating Sea Level Change
Risk and opportunities through opportunities through in Civil Works Programs ([Link]
Vulnerability exposure and risk exposure and risk org/wp-content/uploads/USACE_SLR_guidance_
assessments assessments ER_1100-[Link])
• Map inundation and • Alter exposure index ETL 1100-2-1, Procedures to Evaluate
exposure metrics and weights as Sea Level Change: Impacts, Responses,
• Multiply exposure appropriate and Adaptation ([Link]
by the chance • Consider how [Link]/Portals/76/Publications/
of inundation to existing projects EngineerTechnicalLetters/ETL_1100-[Link])
present risk (GIS reduce exposure and
NACCS Exposure Assessment
exercise) vulnerability
• Perform more detailed NOAA Digital Coast (Coastal Services Center)
analysis/ modeling of ([Link]
coastal responses to Social Vulnerability Index
sea level change and
storms Northeast Climate Science Center Research
& Decision Support Framework ([Link]
• Evaluate existing and
[Link]/catalog/item/5012eb2fe4b051
planned coastal storm
40039e03e0)
risk management
infrastructure U.S. Energy Information Administration Flood
design capacity and Vulnerability Assessment Map ([Link]
performance as well gov/special/floodhazard/)
as risk associated with Coastal Resilience Mapping Portal ([Link]
potential failure [Link]/network/)

68 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑8. Supporting Data and References for Completing the First Five Steps Associated with the NACCS Coastal Storm
Risk Management Framework (continued)

Tier 1 (NACCS/ Tier 2/Tier 3 Appropriate Data Sources/ References

Steps Regional Level) (State/Local Level (Not an Exhaustive List)
Replication)
Identify Identify possible Identify possible ETL 1100-2-1, Procedures to Evaluate
Possible solutions solutions Sea Level Change: Impacts, Responses,
Solutions and Adaptation ([Link]
(risk management (risk management
measures) measures) [Link]/Portals/76/Publications/
EngineerTechnicalLetters/ETL_1100-[Link])
• Identify the shoreline • Consider existing
types within the projects and whether Using the Full Array of Measures Publication
study area retrofits are feasible ([Link]
• Pull forward • Consider adaptability Coastal_Risk_Reduction_final_CWTS_2013-[Link])
measures that of measures State measures matrices and shoreline type
are applicable display (State and District of Columbia Analyses
Adopt systems
to the shoreline Appendix)
approach; combine
types in the study
measures into coastal FEMA’s Floodproofing Manual for Non-Residential
area (structural,
storm risk management Structures
nonstructural,
strategies
NNBF) Institute for Water Resources’ (IWR’s) Systems
Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE)
([Link]
[Link])
Evaluate and Evaluate and relatively Evaluate and relatively USACE project listings/GIS layers
Compare compare measures compare measures
State project listings/GIS layers
Solutions – coastal storm • Create smaller scale
risk management reaches (if needed) NOAA Resilience Index (Mississippi and
strategies and Alabama) ([Link]
• Consider how existing
measures using a publications/662/coastal_community_resilience_
projects can be
systems approach [Link])
enhanced or replicated
• Identify the in other areas NOAA Digital Coast (Coastal Services Center)
change in risk that • Consider how coastal ([Link]
implementing each storm risk system Climate Central’s Surging Seas Risk Finder for
applicable measure (existing and new New England ([Link]
could provide features) work together
• Divide the change IWR’s SAGE ([Link]
• Consider available
in risk by the Missions/Coasts/[Link])
site-specific
parametric cost for information (i.e., land Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Policy Focus
each applicable use, existing State/ Report: Lessons from Sandy
measure local plans)
• Consider long- • Assess the resilience
term vulnerabilities of the community by
associated with completing a detailed
sea level change risk assessment that
inundation and evaluates exposure,
forecasted changes sensitivity, and
in acceleration adaptive capacity of
associated with the community
climate change
• Consider climate
• Identify the process change adaptation
leading to the plan
development of a
• Address existing risk
quantitative metric
while considering the
to measure change
long-term forecasted
in resilience by
risk to sea level
implementing an
change inundation
array of solutions
(management
measures)

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 69

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

A variety of strategies and combinations of coastal As indicated by the NACCS Opportunities in Section II,
storm risk management measures will be required to States and communities need to determine what they
effectively manage coastal storm risk to vulnerable consider an acceptable level of risk, taking into account
populations along the North Atlantic coastline. sea level change and willingness or ability to adapt to the
These measures are needed to create a coastline likelihood of increased vulnerability over time.
resilient to future changes in climate, sea level, and
coastal storms, as well as populations such that our
communities, infrastructure, economy, investments, REDUNDANCY WITHIN A COASTAL
national security, ecosystems, and livelihoods can STORM RISK MANAGEMENT
be sustained. The risk of flood peril to humans and SYSTEM WITH AN EMPAHASIS ON
infrastructure would be effectively reduced to zero if CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WILL
they were not exposed to inundation during a flood PROMOTE RESILIENCE
event. However, in numerous areas of the North Compartmentalization of flood risk and modularity
Atlantic Coast that have considerable infrastructure within communities to ensure continuity of
and large populations as part of long- established operations of critical infrastructure must also be
communities, managed retreat and relocation is not considered for site-specific coastal storm risk
likely to be a viable option as a short-term strategy to management measures to increase resilience
address flood risk and sea level change. Furthermore, following a storm event. Broader concepts with
avoiding may never be a viable strategy if the current respect to community resilience presented in
NFIP policy that transfers part of the cost of siting the Regional Disaster Resilience: A Guide for
assets and communities in flood-prone areas to Developing an Action Plan are incorporated as
taxpayers is maintained. However, in some coastal part of the Framework (The Infrastructure Security
communities, sea level change may cause inundation Partnership 2011).
resulting in a tipping point and lead to changes in
effective coastal storm risk management strategies.
Considerations of the appropriate strategies— avoid, As indicated by the NACCS Findings in Section II,
accommodate, and preserve—and further evaluation improved coastal storm risk management measures
of the corresponding actions are required. Decision- are needed and should include consideration of
makers can use the Framework to evaluate flood risk redundant risk management measures for critical
and the ability or willingness of communities to adapt infrastructure, such structural measures that reduce
to increasing coastal storm risk over time. damage from waves and nonstructural measures,
such as elevation and/or floodproofing of mechanical
Several States and communities are already adopting or electrical equipment, that reduce the risk and
policies and guidelines to consider increases in water vulnerability. Resilience could also be incorporated by
surface elevations and require that the construction of waterproofing electrical components and switches as
infrastructure and structures consider increased future another redundant feature.
risk. Local jurisdictions must adopt minimum lowest
floor elevation requirements to participate in the NFIP. Robust and redundant measures also provide greater
Minimum policy and design requirements must be risk management when high-magnitude events
adjusted to align with a community’s acceptable level occur in series, such as Hurricane Rita following
of risk and corresponding sensitivity and adaptive Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005.
capacity in response to a flood event. As indicated by Much of the North Atlantic Coast is lined with existing
the NACCS Opportunities in Section II, communities beach nourishment and/or dune coastal storm risk
that are already partaking in incentives to manage management projects and may not be able to perform
risk have the opportunity to become more creative as designed should two high- magnitude events
in encouraging innovative solutions to managing occur in series over a short time. As described in
flood risk. The Community Rating System provides the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects Performance
incentives to communities to adopt more stringent Evaluation Study, disruption of planned maintenance
floodplain management ordinances above and and renourishment activities, and accelerated
beyond the minimal requirements to participate in the degradation of project conditions caused by coastal
NFIP. To address the next storm, minimum building storms can affect the project’s capacity to deliver
requirements could be increased. expected coastal storm risk management benefits.

70 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

When applying the Framework for subsequent Tier 2 as the Planning Assistance to States Program. Public-
or Tier 3 evaluations, shared waters must be managed private partnerships to establish innovative financing
without regard to political boundaries. Changes in sea opportunities, particularly in areas of shared waters,
level, water quality, sediment transport, and habitats are gaining traction to better leverage resources to
often have regional impacts and require regional address the common goals of managing flood risk
solutions. For inland waters, the Susquehanna and promoting resilient and sustainable coastal
River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin communities.
Compact, and the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin strike Compact are examples of
commissions established by Congress in recognition INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
that managing these shared waters without regard to IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS
political boundaries is in the Federal interest. Although INCREASING COASTAL STORM RISK
the NACCS Framework can be utilized by State and
local governmental entities, applying the Framework Ongoing interagency collaboration among
to the entire coastal system, which includes shared government agencies at all levels, along with
waters, would also be beneficial. USACE, which has other stakeholders and academia, will help
served a leadership role on river basin commissions overcome institutional barriers and guide an
and in watershed partnerships, could potentially interagency response for the broader coastal
provide technical assistance through various standing system.
authorities such

NACCS FRAMEWORK EXAMPLES

The NACCS Tier 1 evaluation of the study area over nine States and the District of Columbia was a large scale
evaluation to address flood risk, which required national level datasets for consistency. At a smaller scale, finer
details could be incorporated into the Framework steps as part of Tier 2 and Tier 3 evaluations. The NACCS
includes several examples of Tier 2 evaluations presenting the various concepts included in the analyses to
address increasing coastal storm risk and promoting resilience. Two are highlighted in the following sections.

The first example includes a basic Tier 2 evaluation in the Framework. The results of each of the Tier
for the Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula (NY- 2 example are presented in the State and District
NJ1-I) risk area. The analysis is still based on the Tier of Columbia Analyses Appendix. For specific
1 NACCS composite exposure and risk assessments, Tier 2 applications of the Framework by coastal
but it also includes refined assumptions related to communities, the exposure, risk, and potential
the application and design of coastal storm risk vulnerability and resilience assessments would be
management measures as well as a cost index, updated or completed in addition to refining the
a normalized parametric estimate of the costs. adaptation strategies and corresponding coastal
Specifically, as part of the Tier 1 evaluation, one storm risk management measures. In addition, more
generic design and cost were developed for each refined costs would be developed to more effectively
measure type and then various measures were address the comparability of the risk management
selected based on their applicability to shoreline type. strategies and corresponding coastal storm risk
In the Tier 2 evaluation, local shoreline configuration, management measures necessary to establish a plan
ground elevations, and design water levels were for implementation.
also considered to develop measure designs and
parametric cost estimates. The second example presented herein is an evaluation
of the increasing flood risk posed by sea level change
The purpose of this analysis was to showcase to barrier islands and the back bays, including a
an example of the Framework for each of the focus on back bay flooding risks. The purpose of this
10 States and the District of Columbia included analysis was to highlight the potential impacts that
in the study area. In addition, Tier 2 examples coastal communities may experience as a result of the
were completed for each State and the District of impacts associated with sea level and climate change.
Columbia to demonstrate the concepts presented

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 71

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

coastal storm risk management measures, including a

NACCS Tier 2 Example No. 1: Jamaica Bay storm surge barrier across Rockaway Inlet.
and Rockaway Peninsula (NY_NJ1_I Risk
Area) Coastal storm risk management measures were
considered based on applicability to the shoreline
The NACCS Tier 1 assessment as part of the types in the measures matrix. The analysis considered
Framework is a relative evaluation. This level of ongoing USACE projects located in the risk area,
analysis should be considered a first approximation, including East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet
which requires much more detail before any (Rockaway) identified in the First Interim Report and
decisions can be made for implementation. The Tier the Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet
2 assessment constitutes a slightly finer analysis. For to Norton Point NY (Coney Island) identified in the
example, this level of analysis incorporates existing Second Interim Report.
coastal storm risk management projects as well as
other planned activities. Decision-makers could use The Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula Tier 2
the information obtained from the Tier 2 assessment evaluation considered two preservation coastal storm
to assist with general discussions of the appropriate risk management strategies. The first consisted of
flood risk management strategies, such as avoid, local coastal storm risk management measures, such
accommodate, and preserve, which could then lead as dune and beach fill along the ocean shorelines,
into a Tier 3 evaluation of the various risk management and revetments, seawalls, levees, and floodwalls
measures to consider as part of the strategy. The Tier along interior bay shorelines. This strategy was
3 evaluation would likely include site-specific analyses developed considering existing constructed projects
of risk management measures as well as benefit-cost such as USACE’s Coney Island coastal storm risk
analyses. management beach fill project, as well as others that
will be constructed in the near term, such as beach
This section presents the application of the fill and groins along Sea Gate’s ocean shoreline as
Framework Tier 2 evaluation for Jamaica Bay and part of USACE’s Coney Island coastal storm risk
Rockaway Peninsula (NY_NJ1_I risk area). As part management project, USACE’s Rockaway coastal
of the Tier 2 evaluation, the NY_NJ1_I risk area was storm risk management project, and the New York
further divided into 15 subareas to generally identify State Department of Environmental Conservation
those areas appropriate for the various coastal storm natural infrastructure project at Spring Creek in
risk management strategies - avoid, accommodate, Howard Beach. The second strategy was a regional
and preserve – along with applicable structural coastal storm risk management strategy that included
(including NNBF), and non-structural coastal storm combining more robust ocean shoreline protection
risk management measures. For each of the subareas measures with a storm surge barrier across Rockaway
identified, coastal storm risk management measures Inlet and a number of NNBF measures within Jamaica
were selected based on general knowledge and Bay that would mitigate the effects of frequent
available data, including shoreline type and the flooding locally. These NNBF measures are consistent
aggregated coastal storm risk management measures with proposed projects presented in the NY Rising
matrix, topography, extent of development from online Community Reconstruction plans as well as other
aerial photography, and flood inundation mapping. ongoing USACE efforts, such as the Jamaica Bay
The purpose of this iterative process was to reevaluate Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study.
the Tier 1 evaluation at a smaller scale while
considering existing coastal storm risk management The Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula Tier
projects and planned projects. The Jamaica Bay 2 evaluation also considered an accommodation
and Rockaway Peninsula evaluation incorporates strategy, including NNBF and non-structural
general strategies and specific project proposals in measures. There are significant opportunities for
NYC’s PLANYC: A Stronger, More Resilient New York improved implementation of NNBF in this area.
Report, NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plans, NNBF opportunities include wetland restoration,
New York State Plans, and ongoing USACE studies maritime forests, oyster reefs/breakwaters, natural
and projects into the evaluation. Additionally, by re-contouring of existing grades, natural berm
dividing the risk area into subareas, the combination construction, etc. as part of an accommodation
of measures included in the Tier 1 evaluation could be strategy together with nonstructural measures, such
generally re-evaluated considering regional and local as elevating and floodproofing structures.

72 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV‑9. Tier 2 Example No. 1: Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula (NY_NJ1_I Risk Area) – Relative Costs1 for Various
Coastal Storm Risk Management Strategies
Coastal Storm Risk Management Strategies

Avoid Accommodate Preserve

Regional/ Gates
Subarea Structural
NNBF Non-Structural Structural Measures Measures (0.2%
Acquisition (10% flood Measures (1% flood (1% flood elevation flood elevation
(10% flood elevation) elevation) elevation plus 3 feet) plus 3 feet) plus 3 feet)

Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

Description Description Description Description Description
Index Index Index Index Index
“Strengthen”
"Strengthen"
Coney Island – to 0.2 %
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A to 1 % flood 0.45 1.00
Sea Gate flood design
design level
level
"Strengthen"
“Strengthen”
Coney Island & to 0.2 %
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A to 1 % flood 0.35 1.00
Brighton Beach flood design
design level
level
Groins
Acquisition and Coastal dike/
Manhattan Beach 1.00 N/A N/A Floodproofing 0.42 + Beach 0.48 0.72
Relocation floodwall
Restoration
Beach
Acquisition and Beach restoration
Rockaway West 1.00 N/A N/A Floodproofing 0.42 0.19 0.40
Relocation Restoration + buried
seawall
Beach
Rockaway East restoration
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00
– Ocean + buried
seawall
Tidal barrier
Coney Island Acquisition and
1.00 NNBF 0.01 Floodproofing 0.42 Revetment 0.04 and wetlands 0.08
Creek Relocation
(PLANYC)
Jamaica Bay
Acquisition and Levee/
– Brooklyn 1.00 NNBF 0.01 Floodproofing 0.42 0.24 NNBF 0.01
Relocation Floodwall
Shoreline
2018 Existing
Acquisition and Conditions
Howard Beach 1.00 NNBF 0.07 Floodproofing 0.42 0.86 NNBF 0.07
Relocation plus Levee/
Floodwall
JFK Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rockaway East Acquisition and Levee/
1.00 NNBF 0.03 Floodproofing 0.42 0.72 NNBF 0.03
– Bay Relocation Floodwall
Rockaway West – Acquisition and Levee/
0.22 N/A N/A Floodproofing 0.09 1.00 N/A N/A
Bay 1 Relocation Floodwall
Floyd Bennett
Field – National N/A N/A NNBF 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A NNBF 1.00
Park Service
Marsh Islands N/A N/A NNBF 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A NNBF 1.00
Acquisition and Levee/
Broad Channel 0.15 NNBF 0.01 Floodproofing 0.06 1.00 N/A N/A
Relocation Floodwall
1 Cost indices are based parametric costs estimates.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 73

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Finally, the Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Peninsula Tier spending to optimize coastal storm risk management
2 evaluation considered an avoid risk management and help align Federal, State, and local decision-
strategy comparable to managed retreat. Specific makers to achieve multiple goals.
measures as part of this strategy consisted of the
acquisition and relocation of structures in areas There are a number of ongoing efforts by New York
subject to frequent flooding defined using the 10 City, State, and Federal government to repair damage
percent floodplain. from Hurricane Sandy and to restore beaches
and natural features through a wide range of risk
Table IV-9 presents the results of the Tier 2 evaluation. management measures within Reach NY_NJ1_I in
The results illustrate relative changes in risk Coney Island and Rockaway.
associated with the various measures associated with
the three adaptation strategies along with a cost index
range (no specific cost estimates for measures are Federal Initiatives and Funding – DOI and
included). USACE
The design level and potential risk management In October 2011, the DOI and New York City entered
associated with each coastal storm risk management into an agreement regarding Jamaica Bay. The
measure correspond to the qualitative evaluation of agreement established a formal partnership between
measures presented in Table IV-4, such as high for a the National Park Service and the New York City
1 percent flood plus 3 feet and low for a 10 percent Department of Parks and Recreation to collaborate
flood. The cost index was derived from parametric in four areas: effective management of park lands,
cost estimates divided by the highest parametric cost science and restoration of Jamaica Bay, access and
of all the coastal storm risk management measures in transportation to park lands around Jamaica Bay, and
each subarea. The higher the cost index, the greater engagement of New York City youth with hands-on
the relative costs. The combination of measures science programs and fun public service projects to
leading to a selection of a plan, as described in the promote recreation, stewardship, and “green” careers.
Framework, would further quantify risk management
and evaluate and compare the change in the risk In a press release on October 24, 2013, DOI
based on the total cost of the plan. This effort would committed an investment of $162 million for
be completed as part of a Tier 3 evaluation and would restoration and research projects to build resilience by
incorporate refined exposure and vulnerability data, restoring natural features along shorelines, including
and evaluation of other risk management measures the New York–New Jersey Harbor. In addition to its
and costs. 2011 agreement with New York City, an investment of
$3.6 million of the DOI funding was allocated to the
National Park Service’s Jamaica Bay Science and
Future Outlook Resilience Center to support research on resilience in
urban coastal ecosystems.
Accepting certain levels of risk, making cultural
changes, planning for the future, creating public- The USACE East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet
private partnerships and incentive programs, and (Rockaway) and the Atlantic Coast of New York
implementing measures and combinations of City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point (Coney Island)
measures to address coastal storm risk management projects have been restored to their original design
of risk areas will be driven by regional coordination profile, pursuant to Public Law 113- 2, through the
between Federal, State, local, and tribal officials. USACE Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Regional coordination should occur through program. The USACE is re-evaluating the Rockaway
an interagency stakeholder group, chartered Project to identify whether there are cost-effective
to periodically review, evaluate, and coordinate alternatives to provide additional coastal storm
development and implementation of coastal storm risk management, including NNBF. As indicated
risk management features and programs. Close by the NACCS Opportunities in Section II, the
coordination by these groups will help ensure buy-in USACE is considering opportunities for improved
by all affected constituents and assist communities implementation of NNBF in this project.
in becoming more resilient to future storm events.
Regional coordination will help guide efficient

74 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

In Jamaica Bay, the USACE, in partnership with New Queens risk area communities under the Community
York City Department of Environmental Protection, Reconstruction Program.
is re-evaluating the Jamaica Bay Environmental
Restoration Feasibility Study, a draft plan that Rebuilding efforts within the listed communities
considers eight potential environmental restoration exemplify application and challenges of various
sites, to re-create natural streams, restore tidal initiatives. Rebuilding efforts and design criteria will
marshes, and plant coastal forests and other uplands draw on new risk information provided by FEMA
to better manage risk to neighborhoods and natural (revised FIRMs) and potential coastal storm risk
resources. An early draft of this plan will be revised management based on current USACE studies.
to better highlight the coastal storm risk management Buildings will be constructed or retrofitted in
features of these projects and to include new accordance with FEMA and New York City standards
techniques. to minimize vulnerability and reduce flood insurance

Several additional studies and projects in the risk area

are pending funding, including the Manhattan Beach
and Sheepshead Bay Reconnaissance Study. Table IV‑10. NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program
Funding Allocation

Statewide Actions – New York State Community Eligibility

The New York Rising Program was established by Belle Harbor $10,400,000
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to provide assistance to
communities damaged by Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Breezy Point $16,500,000
Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee. Under the New York
Rising umbrella, the Office of Storm Recovery was Brighton Beach $4,200,000
created in June 2013 to centralize recovery and
rebuilding efforts in storm-affected municipalities Broad Channel $6,100,000
throughout New York State, including New York
City. In support of the State of New York’s recovery
Coney Island $6,100,000
from the impacts of Hurricane Sandy, HUD allocated
$2,097,000,000 of CDBG-DR funds in November
2013 ([Link] Far Rockaway $5,500,000
and-amendments). In close collaboration with local
and community leaders in these areas, the Office Gerritsen Beach $6,700,000
of Storm Recovery continues to work to respond to
communities’ most urgent rebuilding needs while Manhattan Beach $5,400,000
also identifying long-term and innovative solutions
to strengthen the State’s infrastructure and critical Neponsit $3,700,000
systems for the future.
New Howard Beach $9,300,000
New York Rising programs include the Housing
Recovery program, which provides homeowners with
Old Howard Beach $9,100,000
assistance for home repairs/rehabilitation, mitigation,
elevation, and buyouts; the Small Business program,
Rockaway $16,800,000
which includes small business grants of $50,000 or
more and low-interest loans for businesses recovering
from the storms; and the Community Reconstruction Roxbury $3,000,000
Program, which provides assistance through a
community-driven initiative to develop distinct Seagate $3,500,000
comprehensive recovery plans that increase resilience
and economic development in the regions affected Sheepshead Bay $6,700,000
by the three storms. Table IV-10 provides a summary
of funding allocations to the Southern Brooklyn and Total $113,000,000

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 75

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

premiums, and repetitive loss structures will be not intended to evaluate the actual coastal storm risk
considered for acquisition and relocation—both in and consequences.
close coordination with local floodplain administrators.

Submergence Assessment
Local Initiatives – New York City
An initial simple submergence assessment was
The former mayor of New York City, Michael applied to bands of sea level against the elevation
Bloomberg, convened the Special Initiative for of the island to identify the area that would be lost
Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) and charged it with at varying levels without levees or flood walls and
analyzing the impacts of Hurricane Sandy on the assuming full hydraulic connectivity. The assessment
City’s buildings, infrastructure, and people; assessing was based on a digital terrain model with a resolution
the risks the City faces from climate change in the of 6 feet and analyzed into 1 foot bands of ground
mid term (2020s) and long term (2050s); and outlining height.
strategies for increasing resiliency citywide (City of
New York 2013). The PLANYC: A Stronger, More Figure IV-17 shows the resulting percentage loss in
Resilient New York report compiled by the SIRR land area compared with the four sea level change
addresses the need for improved coastal storm risk scenarios considered in the NACCS. As previous
management measures. studies have shown, this kind of analysis indicates
significant loss of land for just a one foot increase in
The PLANYC report’s recommendations for this area relative sea level, with only the large beach berm and
integrate the USACE Coney Island and Rockaway dune systems on the Atlantic Ocean escaping much
projects. These coastal storm risk management of the inundation. The analysis was completed for
projects are part of the system of coastal storm risk several barrier islands and the results were broadly
management measures. similar for each. The results confirm the vulnerability
of back bays and the lack of a comprehensive coastal
storm risk management solution.
NACCS Tier 2 Example No. 2: Barrier Island
and Back Bay Example Storm Inundation Analysis
Based on the documented impacts from Hurricane The storm inundation analysis emphasizes the
Sandy and the NACCS sea level change evaluation, sensitivity of the island to a relatively modest rise in
barrier islands, back bay areas, and embayments sea level. In particular, risk of the island road network
along the North Atlantic Coast, including the to back bay flooding, even during relatively modest
coastlines of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, storms, could affect access. Although less than 20
Maryland, and Virginia are at a risk from the impacts percent of the road network is flooded during such
of sea level change and a corresponding increase annual storms and only to an average depth of about
in flood risk. Additionally, the back bays of barrier a foot, just a one foot increase in relative sea level
islands to the bay side of beaches and dunes as well increases the percentage to about 70 percent, with
as other areas of the North Atlantic Coast including some roads flooded up to 4 feet. With an increase of
embayments and harbors are at risk of storm surge 3 feet in relative sea level the road network becomes
and tidal flooding via barrier island inlets. The following unusable.
example is included to illustrate one approach for
evaluating potential impacts of storms and sea level The risk of property to increased damage increases
change and the identification of appropriate coastal with sea level change. As part of the storm inundation
storm risk management strategies. analysis, annual damages were estimated based on
market valuations of structures in the different zones
Long Beach Island, New Jersey was identified for of the island, including ocean front, ocean block,
the NACCS Barrier Island and Back Bay Example ocean side, bay side, and bay front. The costs were
to present an illustrative example of how a beach normalized to present the concept of increasing risk
and dune system would perform based on sea level and corresponding damages associated with future
change inundation scenarios as well as the impacts of storm events (excluding wave attack and erosion
coastal flooding from back bay areas. This example is because the analysis used only depth-damage
relationships) coupled with sea level change.

76 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Figure IV-17. Submergence due to Sea Level Change

Implications of Analysis for Adaptation • Modifications to drainage systems. Structural

coastal storm risk management measures alone
The analysis suggests that the beach berm and would not solve all the flooding problems because
dune system can be maintained in a relatively robust during high water events, flooding can occur by
condition even with an increase of 6 feet in relative sea water backing up the drainage systems. Flap valves
level. Coastal storm risk management efforts should or sluices would, therefore, need to be installed
instead focus on back bay flooding. Combinations of on all outfalls. Significant rainwater storage would
the following measures could be considered instead: also be required, possibly located within modified
features.
• Comprehensive back bay risk management.
Maintenance of leisure access for boating will be • Elevation measures. Property elevation remains
important where bulkheads already exist; new a valuable tool to limit damage in the event of
(or elevated) bulkheads could be considered. flooding. Elevation of the road network to improve
Stepped features may be possible. For locations access could be considered, but would require
where natural beaches exist, terraced features proper drainage and rainwater storage located
incorporating ecological components could be beneath such elevated roads.
considered. In both cases, paths for access and
viewing are possible. Table IV-11 presents the storm analysis stage and the
description of the various analyses completed as part
of the NACCS barrier island and back bay example.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 77

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV-11. Storm Analysis Stages

Storm Analysis Description

Stage
Scenario Because the issues with barrier islands are primarily associated with the amount rather than
assumptions the rate of sea level change, future scenarios were examined following 1 foot, 3 foot, and 6
foot increases as opposed to selecting one of the specific sea level change rate scenarios
discussed in Section IV. The increased water levels also affect the wave heights, both to a
limited extent in conditions offshore (e.g., in 30 feet of water) but more significantly in the
near-shore conditions where the wave breaking occurs. Here, as nearshore wave heights
become strongly dependent on the available water depth, the generation of greater water
depths by increases in mean sea levels lead to correspondingly increased nearshore wave
heights. For each scenario, extreme wave and water level conditions for the 100, 10, 3, 1, and
0.1 percent flood events were examined. Calculations were also performed for two response
scenarios: one where defenses and dune systems were raised in line with sea level and the
other where no such improvements were included.

Extreme waves The analysis uses offshore waves based on data from the National Data Buoy Center at
and water levels the nearest available offshore location. A record length of 24.9 years was available, which
included 139 events (including Hurricane Sandy) where the significant wave height exceeded
13 feet. Equivalent coincident water levels used in the analysis were based on recorded
sea level data, using Monte Carlo simulation to fill any data gaps and a joint probability
distribution of waves and water levels obtained. Wave heights were transformed to the
nearshore taking into account wave refraction and breaking and then the data was analyzed
to obtain estimates of extreme wave heights. Because there is a relatively low tidal range on
the North Atlantic Coast, a strong correlation exists between the most extreme waves and
hurricane or other significant storm surges.

Beach/dune A DUROS+ empirical dune model (van Rijn 2013) was used to validate field data obtained
profile response before and after Hurricane Sandy (Stockton 2012) and to predict beach-dune profile
response, using a representative uniform sediment size of 0.152 millimeters. The predicted
run-up (exceeded by 33 percent of the waves) necessary for the empirical model was
calculated using van Rijn (2008) with results ranging from 6.5 feet for the 100 percent
flood event to 8.7 feet for the 0.1 percent flood event. In the sea level change scenarios
with nourishment, these results barely changed. In the sea level change scenarios without
nourishment, greater cut-back of the dunes occurs, but as relative sea levels continue to
increase, the cut back of the dune crest seems to reach a threshold beyond which further
erosion does not occur. Instead, under extreme conditions, further erosion is focused on the
submerged part of the beach profile.

Dune overtopping The EurOtop manual (Pullen et al. 2007) was used to assess overtopping rates based on the
calculations modeled beach berm and dune profile and wave heights at the toe of the beach and taking
account of the crest height, toe level, and a simplified structure slope. Large overtopping
rates can be maintained over a large part of the tidal cycle and, hence, overtopping rates
were calculated over a full tidal cycle. Because of the significant variation in beach berm and
dune profiles, a sensitivity analysis was conducted and found several orders of magnitude
difference in overtopping rates depending on which beach berm and dune profile was
selected. This issue could have been explored further, but in practice the inundation of the
island is dominated by inflows from the back bay.

78 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

Table IV-11. Storm Analysis Stages (continued)

Storm Analysis Description

Stage
Inundation The computational mesh for the flood spreading model RFSM-EDA (Jamieson et al. 2012a
modeling (ocean and 2012b) was made up of relatively small irregular polygons impact zones to capture
& bay shorelines) the inundation spreading across the narrow barrier island. Discharge boundary conditions
were applied using the dune overtopping rates on the ocean shore and a water level on the
bayshore, which represented the average sea level over the 24 hours that follow the peak
of the event. Plots for different sea level change scenarios were created and indicated the
proportions of the whole island, and of the road network, that would be inundated by different
flood depths. The proportions of inundation are slightly higher for the case of the road
network reflecting lower ground elevations for the roads than for the property parcels.

Flood risk The total impacts of flooding for each scenario (return period, sea level change), were
analysis calculated by combining the maximum flood depths with a depth-damage function in each
grid cell based on those used in Hazus/HEC-FIA (Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood
Impact Analysis). Property values were based on average property and structure prices for
different zones across the width of the island.

Flooding on 11th Street, Ocean City, NJ

Source: Photo by USACE team, taken on October 31, 2012
[Link]

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 79

IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

INNOVATIVE ACTIONS TO PROMOTE RESILIENT COASTAL COMMUNITIES

As part of an initiative of the HSRTF administered by HUD, the Rebuild by Design competition provided
incentives to plan coastal landscape systems to better withstand the impacts of the next coastal storm (HSRTF
2013a). The competition tasked 10 teams with investigating opportunities to promote resilient communities,
ultimately leading to the design of a solution that may receive HUD disaster recovery funds for implementation
(HSRTF 2013b).

In addition to its support for the Rebuild by Design continents, each of whom will be receiving technical
initiative, the Rockefeller Foundation also supports support from the Rockefeller Foundation over the next
the Structures of Coastal Resilience (SCR) and 100 3 years to address the challenges of recurrent coastal
Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge (Rockefeller flooding and sea level change.
Foundation 2014). The SCR project will study
and propose resilient designs for urban coastal Other initiatives and projects are ongoing through
environments. The project team includes engineers the New Jersey Department of Environmental
and scientists from Princeton University, Harvard Protection in collaboration with six New Jersey
University, the City College of New York, and the universities, including Richard Stockton College of
University of Pennsylvania, who will investigate New Jersey, the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
strategies and coastal storm risk management Stevens Institute of Technology, Rutgers University,
measures in four regions along the North Atlantic Monmouth University, and Montclair State University.
Coast: Narragansett Bay, RI; Jamaica Bay, NY; The projects will identify opportunities for structural,
Atlantic City, NJ; and Norfolk, VA. As part of the SCR, NNBF, and nonstructural solutions to address coastal
Princeton will develop a probabilistic projection of storm risk. Additionally, NGOs are implementing
forecasted mean sea level change, which is a different innovative projects and other initiatives. The
method than the USACE and NOAA sea level change Conservation Fund, the Audubon Society, and the
projections. Nature Conservancy, to name a few, obtain grant
funding for implementation of natural features, which
The 100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge is an contribute to resilient coastal systems. Their projects
initiative to enable 100 cities to better address the include a number of opportunities for improved
increasing shocks and stresses of the 21st century. implementation of NNBF. Figure IV-18, while not all
The City of New York, NY, and the City of Norfolk, VA, inclusive, presents a snapshot of the locations of
were among the 100 cities selected from six innovative projects and initiatives.

Inlet Section of Atlantic City, NJ after Hurricane Sandy

Source: [Link]

80 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IV. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
VULNERABLE COASTAL POPULATIONS

West Hartford East Warwick Bristol Fall Fall

River River
Bristol Newington Hartford
MA

CT Middletown Norwich RI
Waterbury Meriden
Naugatuck 1

Danbury
NY North
Haven
PA East
Shelton West Haven
Trumbull
Stratford Haven
Bridgeport

New City Westport

Norwalk
West 15
Stamford
Milford
White
Plains
New Rochelle
Wayne Fair Yonkers ID AGENCY DESCRIPTION
Lawn Mount East
Paterson Coram
Hackensack Vernon Rockefeller Foundation/
Northport Centereach Narragansett Bay, RI (SRC): Exploring the wider potential of NNBF,
Commack 1
Montclair
Hauppauge
Harvard
Medford specifically exploring vegetation as the primary component
West Nutley 10 Shirley
Orange Plainview Deer Central East Storm Surge Hazards Assessment (SRC): Estimating the risk of hurricane
19 East Islip Rockefeller Foundation/
Newark 11 Park 2 Patchogue storm surge at four locations along the North Atlantic coast: Narragansett
7 Meadow
West Princeton
Scotch Union
18 Elmont North Bay, RI, Jamaica Bay, NY, Atlantic City, NJ, and Norfolk, VA
Valley Bellmore Islip
Bayonne Local Sea Level Rise Projections (SRC): Utilizing a new methodology to
Plains 12 Stream
Cranford Rockefeller Foundation/
Plainfield Linden 14 Long 9 3 generate fully probabilistic projections of mean sea level change at tide
Princeton
Perth
4 Beach gauge locations proximal to the four design sites through the year 2100.
Somerset
Edison Amboy Rockefeller Foundation/ Jamaica Bay, New York Strategies and Design: A novel strategy of marsh
Sayreville 4 City College of New island restoration, the "island motor" harnesses the strategic placement of
3 East
16 York minimal dredged material as a perimeter "atoll terrace."
Brunswick Old
Bridge
Atlantic City, New Jersey Strategies and Design: Intelligent design and
Rockefeller Foundation/
2 NJ 5 careful coordination of non-structural strategies - particularly elevating
Princeton
8 houses and infrastructure
Ewing Rockefeller Foundation/ Norfolk, Virginia Strategies and Design: Innovative strategy based on the
13
Trenton 6 University of design potential of a unique natural feature of Tidewater Virginia
Levittown Pennsylvania characterized as "Fingers of High Ground"
Lakewood US Dept of Housing
and Urban Big Team The Big U Manhattan, NY: A community-programmed protective
Toms 7
Development's Rebuild system around the lower half of Manhattan.
River
By Design (HUD/RBD)
20 HR&A Advisors, Inc. with Cooper, Robertson & Partners | Coastal
Commercial Resiliency Financing | Regional (Asbury Park, Rockaways,
8 HUD/RBD
Red Hook) - innovative financing to implement building, corridor, and
organization level improvements.
17 Interboro Team | Living with the Bay: A Comprehensive Regional
Resiliency Plan for Nassau County's South Shore - A range of adaptive
9 HUD/RBD
measures could keep Nassau County residents safe while improving its
economic, ecological, and social quality.
MIT CAU + ZUS + URBANISTEN | New Meadowlands: Productive City +
10 HUD/RBD Regional Park | NJ
5
connecting and expanding the current marshland restoration effort.
Atlantic OMA | Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A Comprehensive Strategy for
City Hoboken | NJ - Hard infrastructure and soft landscape offer coastal
11 HUD/RBD
defense. Policy recommendations, guidelines, and urban infrastructure
propose measures to slow runoff.
PennDesign/OLIN | Hunts Point Lifelines | Bronx, NY - Penn's proposal
12 HUD/RBD protects the region's food hub, which provides over 20,000 jobs in the
0 6.5 13 19.5 26 32.5
poorest U.S. Congressional District.
Sasaki/Rutgers/Arup | Resilience + The Beach | NJ - Sasaki's proposal
Miles
13 HUD/RBD leverages the state's diverse ecological systems to shift NJ's heavily shore-
dependent tourism economy towards new inland opportunities.
West Groveton SCAPE/Landscape Architecture | Living Breakwaters | Staten Island, NY -
Springfield Waldorf SCAPE's project would attenuate wave action on Staten Island's south
14 HUD/RBD
shore by building a series of breakwater reefs to slow and calm water in the
MD DE
mouth of the New York Bight.
WB unabridged with Yale ARCADIS | Resilient Bridgeport | CT - Resilient
15 HUD/RBD Bridgeport comprises place-specific design solutions ranging from upland
green streets to coastal wetland park buffers.
WXY/West 8 | Blue Dunes - The Future of Coastal Protection barrier island
16 HUD/RBD
chain called "The Blue Dunes".
Mechanicsville
Tuckahoe Richard Stockton Beneficial use of dredged material to restore wetlands for coastal flood
Richmond 17
College mitigation
VA
Structural solutions for preventing storm surge in Little Ferry and
Newport New Jersey Institute of
Petersburg 18 Moonachie through use of berms, including evaluation of the economic,
News Technology
Hampton ecological, and social impacts of proposed recommendations
Stevens Institute of Evaluation of flood water behavior and structural solutions such as closure
6
Virginia 19
Technology gates in Barnegat Bay and flood walls in Hoboken, NJ
Suffolk ChesapeakeBeach
Evaluation of strategies for Barnegat Bay, Delaware Bay, Hackensack
20 Rutgers University River, Hudson River and Arthur Kill. Structural include seawalls and berms.
NC Non-structural solutions include mobile flood barriers.

Figure IV-18. Locations of Innovative Projects and Initiatives in Coastal Communities

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 81

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
V.1 Systems Approach to Coastal Storm
CHAPTER TITLE
Risk and Resilience

The risks in coastal areas have been managed using availability; laws, regulations, and policies; economic
a patchwork of measures, but experience has proven investments; and changes in populations.
that coastal risks require a more comprehensive
and integrated strategy, given the dynamics and • Managing coastal storm risks involves dealing with
complexities of the coastal environment. The competing objectives from numerous stakeholders,
patchwork approach has developed over time for including Federal, State, Tribal, and local
a variety of reasons—government agencies with governments; NGOs; business and industry; and the
different missions, line-item budgeting in project public.
authorizations and funding appropriations, land use
and zoning, private interests, and other reasons. Implementation of a systems approach has the
following advantages:
After Hurricane Sandy, NOAA and USACE
collaborated on developing the publication • Thinking and planning on a system scale inherently
Infrastructure Systems Rebuilding Principles (NOAA involves coordination of multiple decision-makers,
and USACE 2013), which outlines the unified focus of stakeholders, and the public, which means that
these Federal Agencies to use a systems approach to potentially contentious issues can be acknowledged
coastal storm risk management. A systems approach upfront, and group understanding and consensus
to coastal storm risk management is a cornerstone of can be attained early in the process of developing
the rebuilding principles. solutions.

A systems approach entails taking a broad view of • Sound science and engineering that build on
causes, objectives, and interactions among processes lessons learned can be applied to the development,
and actions to manage the risk in coastal systems. A design, evaluation, and implementation of solutions.
systems approach to coastal storm risk management For example, as part of the NACCS, USACE through
addresses the following aspects of coastal areas: ERDC, as part of the numerical modeling effort, is
developing a state-of-the-art database of storm
• Coastal processes occur over large geographic waves and surge, incorporating future sea level
areas. For example, major storms affect regional change.
geographic areas, and coastal response is forced by
processes occurring on watershed scales. • As identified in the NACCS Opportunities in Section
II, using a systems approach enables optimization of
• Geological and other physical processes that occur resources.
over long periods of time affect coastal areas.
Examples are worldwide sea-level change, regional Applying a systems approach to managing coastal
subsidence or uplift, changes in storm frequency storm risk provides for more reliable performance of
and severity, and changes in precipitation patterns. infrastructure, lowering risks, and increasing system
resilience. Intentional alignment of engineering and
• Focusing on one process in a linked system can natural systems maximizes benefits to support
have negative effects. For instance, building vulnerable populations and natural assets and
a structural seawall to manage risk to a single minimizes unintended negative consequences. Future
oceanfront property can result in erosion on damage will be reduced, promoting the ability of the
adjacent properties and loss of habitat throughout region, economy, and most importantly, communities
the area. On a larger scale, even a seawall that is to rapidly recover from impacts of the next coastal
built to manage risk to an entire community can disaster and to optimize the economic benefits.
leave many properties exposed to flooding from The intentional alignment and evaluation of the
inlets, bays, and estuaries. interconnected components of the system require a
prioritized plan, which could be developed using the
• The coastal environment is dynamic, and steps presented in the Framework. With constrained
environmental, economic, and social interactions budgets and the need for alternative and innovative
are complex. Coastal areas are affected by financing opportunities like public-private
regional issues and patterns, such as climate
change; species migration patterns and habitat

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 83

V. SYSTEMS APPROACH TO COASTAL STORM RISK AND RESILIENCE

partnerships, the plan would necessitate identifying Resilient adaptation to increasing risk, or the ability
the strategies and solutions that would benefit the to adapt to changing and increasingly perilous
partnership and overall resilience of the community. conditions and to withstand and rapidly recover,
requires a systems approach and a combination of
A systems approach to managing coastal storm strategies and measures. A combination of measures
risk should include adaptation planning, monitoring, to effectively decrease exposure and/or sensitivity to
redundancy, and modularity. flood hazard results in a relative increase in resilience.
This relationship can be quantified to define a metric
to measure the change in a community’s resilience
ADAPTATION PLANNING by implementing various pre-storm strategies and
measures. The technical report, Use of Natural
Planning for adaptations to potential changes in the and Nature-based Features for Coastal Resilience,
climate using scenarios should include actions that (Bridges et al. 2015) presents additional information on
will be implemented when critical climate change and/ incorporating the measurement of resilience based on
or vulnerability thresholds are met. changes in vulnerability into scenario planning.

Evaluating “low-regret” measures (measures that are Managing a coastal system to reduce the risk of storm
beneficial even in the absence of climate change) damage and increase resilience includes strategic
that provide both present and future benefits is a monitoring of the system and making information on
productive approach considering the current climate the condition of the system available to stakeholders
and the range of future climate scenarios. Low-regret and the public. The information will help Federal,
measures are effective starting points for climate State, local, and homeowners make decisions on
change adaptation because they address both where investments are needed.
current and future vulnerabilities. These measures
may have a wide range of benefits, may be highly Monitoring coastal systems also allows for proactively
adaptable across different future scenarios, and may managing risks to weak links and repairing failed
minimize the taxpayer burden by avoiding the cost of portions of the coastal storm risk management
capital improvements that cannot be retrofitted and system. An example of a weak link in a coastal
would need to be replaced if changes in the climate barrier island system is a narrow, low portion of the
require modification. Adaptation planning should also island that is vulnerable to breaching during a storm.
include a consideration of removing or modifying Proactive coastal storm risk management could
existing structures such as bulkheads, groins, jetties, involve adding width to the island in that area, adding
revetments, and riprap that no longer serve their a living shoreline on the bay-shore to reduce long-
intended purpose of managing coastal storm risk and term erosion, or making sand available and obtaining
have become erosional features. permits a priori to close a breach if it occurs.

Scenario planning strategies should be developed As indicated by the NACCS Opportunities in

to include cost-effective measures that will achieve Section II, redundant features in a coastal storm
the objectives of both communities and regions. risk management system ensure that if one or more
An iterative approach to scenario planning allows components of the system are damaged, alternatives
decision-makers to leverage advancements in science are available to ensure that the system does not fail.
and policy in the future. An example of redundancy is three bridges on a
barrier island that can all be used for evacuation; if
Because there are many unknowns in future storms, one bridge is inaccessible, the other two will allow
precipitation patterns, and sea level change, resilient evacuation off the island.
systems must include a consideration of the potential
for extreme events and ancillary conditions that A modular system is a system in which the same
have not been experienced previously. Planning for coastal storm risk management features are
the unknown means that system solutions need to dispersed throughout the geographical extent of the
be designed and monitored so they can be readily coastal system. The redundant coastal storm risk
adapted as needed. management features can be prioritized to avoid
indirect damage as a result of direct damage to one
component of the coastal system. Prioritizing the

84 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 V. SYSTEMS APPROACH TO COASTAL STORM RISK AND RESILIENCE

features requires identifying the critical components Enhancing and Managing Risk to the New
that, if damaged, will decrease the resilience of the
system. For example, electric grid substations that Jersey Coastal NNBF
provide electricity to the coastal system and that are
The U.S. Army ERDC; USACE District, Philadelphia;
damaged by flooding may lead to indirect damage
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); and HR
(loss of electricity) to the community.
Wallingford (HRW) among others including USGS
Successful coastal storm risk management and are working on a variety of projects designed to
resilient coastal solutions combine and integrate improve the resilience of the New Jersey coastline
approaches across the full array of measures, by enhancing and managing risk to existing NNBF
including structural, nonstructural, and NNBF, in a using a systems approach. The projects have various
variety of redundant combinations to support resilient funding sources and objectives, but all are designed
coastal communities and a robust, sustainable coastal to improve the resiliency of the New Jersey coast.
landscape.
Figure V-1 is a map and conceptual diagram showing
the interconnectedness of the coastal system. The
resilience of the New Jersey coast is a function of the
EXAMPLES OF A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO individual features in the system and the interaction
MANAGING COASTAL RISK between the features.

This section presents examples from the New Jersey

and Florida coastlines to illustrate a systems approach
to managing coastal risk.

Dune Grass Planting on Long Beach Island, New Jersey

Source: [Link]

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 85

V. SYSTEMS APPROACH TO COASTAL STORM RISK AND RESILIENCE

The projects are as follows: refuge’s ecological resources, including restoring

and enhancing salt marshes and impoundments
• Management of navigation channels and sediments and developing long-term plans for monitoring and
along the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway. adaptation in response to future disasters, sea level
ERDC and USACE Philadelphia District examined change, and anthropogenic changes in the system.
placement options for the required dredging of
the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway that would • Sea level change vulnerability and adaptation
enhance existing NNBF near the navigation channel. measures for barrier coasts - the analyses
Although regulatory and logistical constraints will conducted as part of the NACCS Tier 2 Example
determine the placement, all options included a No. 2: Barrier Island and Back Bays Example. A
consideration of the enhancement of the resilience barrier island evaluation method was completed to
of the coastal system. predict the erosion and overtopping response of
dune-beach systems to sea level change using Long
• Ecosystem restoration and enhancement in Beach Island, NJ. The methodology can be used to
response to relative sea level change at the Forsythe examine the impacts of proposed policy decisions
NWR. ERDC and Forsythe NWR are planning a for managing barrier island and back bay systems
variety of ecosystem restoration and enhancement on submergence and increasing flood risk over time.
projects intended to increase the resilience of the

Ecosystem Estuarine Infrastructure Oceanographic and

impacts forcing impacts meteorological forcing
•Storms (magnitude,
•Physical damage •Storms (magnitude, •Flooding
frequency, duration)
•Burial frequency, duration) •Damage
•Wind
•Inundation •Wave height •Economic impacts
•Wave height
•Community shift •Currents •Loss life/property
•Currents
•Water level
•Water level

•Erosion •Erosion
•Erosion
•Deposition •Deposition
•Deposition
•Accretion •Overwash
•Accretion
•Breaching

•Sediment supply

Marsh Navigation Lagoon Marsh Barrier flat Dunes Beach Ocean

channel

Landward migration

Figure V-1. Conceptual Diagram and Map Showing the Interconnectedness of a

Coastal System (Bridges et al. 2015)

86 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 V. SYSTEMS APPROACH TO COASTAL STORM RISK AND RESILIENCE

Using a systems approach can ensure that all of • Locally funded coastal storm risk management
the ongoing activities on the New Jersey coastline project
are increasing system resiliency and reducing the • Two natural inlets
vulnerability to future disasters despite the individual,
and sometimes competing, interests of each project. Net sediment transport is from north to south in this
region, although there are reversals downdrift of the
coastal inlets as well as complex interactions between
Regional Sediment Management in the inlets, river systems, estuaries, and waterways. As
Northeast Florida a result of these complex sediment transport patterns,
beaches downdrift of coastal inlets have eroded, sand
The regional sediment management activities in the is needed on beaches to create dunes and berms, and
USACE District, Jacksonville, for Nassau and Duval fine sediments are needed in estuaries and bays for
Counties in northeast Florida illustrate the benefits of a habitat creation.
systems approach (Hodgens and Neves 2014).
The systems approach has been largely realized by
Coastal processes and anthropogenic activities in the connecting dredging activities at the Federal and
region are complex and interconnected Navy navigation channels with the coastal storm
(see Figure V- 2) and include: risk management and NNBF needs of the adjacent
beaches, estuaries, and bays. By recognizing the
• Two deep-draft Federal harbors region as an interconnected coastal system, aligning
• Two deep-draft Navy harbors existing authorities and funding streams, obtaining
permitting proactively, and fostering collaborative
• Two intracoastal waterways planning, the USACE Jacksonville District has
• Two Federal coastal storm risk management coordinated the dredging and placement activities,
projects reduced costs, and increased the coastal resilience of
the region.

Figure V-2. Coastal Processes and Anthropogenic Activities in Nassau and Duval Counties, FL
(Hodgens and Neves 2014)

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 87

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
VI. Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving
1 CHAPTER TITLE
NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, Public measures, such as zoning, building codes, risk
Law 113-2, states that as part of the investigations, “… communication, and evacuation plans. A combination
the Secretary shall identify those activities warranting of nonstructural measures, floodproofing, wise use
additional analysis by the Corps, as well as institutional of floodplains, managed retreat, and insurance can
and other barriers to providing protection to the further reduce the residual risk.
affected coastal areas …”
In Figure VI-1, the left-most bar represents the initial
risk faced by a community. Moving to the right,
COASTAL POLICY LANDSCAPE each bar shows the actions and policies (structural,
nonstructural, and NNBF) that can be used to
To frame the issues of coastal storm risk management manage and reduce the initial risk. The entities that
in the context of the policy landscape, the NACCS are responsible for the actions and policies are also
goals of community resilience and coastal storm shown (Federal, State, and local governments and
risk management must be understood. Resilience is homeowners and business owners). The right-most
defined in the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy bar shows that risk cannot be completely eliminated.
report as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and
adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond Hundreds of policies and programs influence coastal
to, and recover rapidly from disruptions” (HSRTF storm risk management and the achievement of
2013a). community resilience. Table VI-1 is a list of the
significant Federal acts, Presidential Policy Directives,
Recent literature (NRC 2014 and Aerts et al. 2014) Executive Orders, and one program that affects long-
suggests that the future of resilience in coastal term recovery and coastal resilience in the Hurricane
communities could be tied to the concept of Sandy-affected areas. State and local governments
shared responsibility. The concept calls for a whole and programs and policies related to land use, zoning,
community effort by Federal, State, Tribal, local, and and building codes heavily influence coastal storm risk
individual stakeholders to understand, assess, and management and are too numerous to list.
prepare for current and future risks.
Since Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, many
Figure VI-1 illustrates that significant coastal storm risk Federal and State agencies have been trending toward
management can be achieved through nonstructural supporting a more prepared and resilient Nation.

Local, State, Federal, Tribal, NGO, & Industry Actions

Local Non‐Structural
Strategies
Level of Risk

Individual
Homeowner or
Business Actions

Figure VI-1. Coastal Storm Risk Management Measures (Source: NRC 2013, modified by USACE)

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 89

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION
Table VI-1. Federal Acts, Programs, PPDs, and Executive Orders That Affect Coastal Storm Risk Management in Areas Affected
by Hurricane Sandy

Title Purpose

Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Long-term reauthorization and reform of the NFIP. Raised insurance rates on
Reform Act of 2012 certain properties that had been previously discounted in order to achieve
actuarial soundness and included provisions for evaluating future risk

Grimm-Waters-Richmond Flood Delays rate increases for some property types until an affordability
Insurance Affordability Act (2014) assessment and new maps are completed

Community Development Block Appropriated funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-
Grant Disaster Recovery Program term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic
(2013) revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a
major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) due to Hurricane
Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013

Coastal Zone Management Act of Appropriated Federal funds to 34 State programs through NOAA to “preserve,
1972 protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of
the nation’s coastal zone”

Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of Appropriated funds and set guidance for recovery and rebuilding after
2013 Hurricane Sandy

PPD-8, National Preparedness Directed the development of a national preparedness goal that would include
(2011) national planning frameworks for protection, prevention, mitigation, response,
and recovery

National Disaster Recovery Two of the five planning frameworks required by PPD-8
Framework (FEMA 2013c) and
National Mitigation Framework
(FEMA 2014b)

PPD-21, Critical Infrastructure Mandated that critical infrastructure be hazard resilient

Security and Resilience

Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act Provided funding for FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning
of 2006

FY2010 Department of Homeland Appropriated funding for FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning
Security Appropriations Act

Water Resource Development Acts Authorized major water resource projects and provided for updating planning
(1974 through 2007) guidance and a national vulnerability assessment and strategy

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Required Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-
Management (1977) term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
floodplains

Coastal Barrier Identified and mapped undeveloped coastal barriers with the intention of
Resources Act (1982) discouraging development in areas vulnerable to storm damage and therefore
minimizing the loss of human life, wasteful expenditures, and damage to
natural resources

FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NFIP = National Flood Insurance Program PPD = Presidential Policy Directive

90 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

Hazard
Identification

Risk Policy Risk

Development &
Assessment
Adjustment
Risk Management
for
Resilient Communities:

Establish goals, values,

& objectives
Risk Risk
Strategy Strategies &
Review & Decision
Evaluation

Risk
Strategy
Implementation

Figure VI-2. Risk Management Process (NRC 2012a, used with permission)

Figure VI-2 outlines a risk management process that consequences of the barrier on coastal storm risk
can be used by decision-makers and policymakers management and/or resilience.
to manage risk and build resilience. The process is
an adaptive cycle beginning with hazard identification The following six themes in the barriers emerged from
and risk assessment, continuing with strategy the analysis:
development and implementation, and concluding
with policy development and adjustment. • Theme 1: Risk/Resilience Standards

• Theme 2: Communication and Outreach

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION • Theme 3: Risk Management
Institutional and other barriers, opportunities for • Theme 4: Science, Engineering, and Technology
action, and successes in reducing or eliminating the
barriers were identified by analyzing relevant reports • Theme 5: Leadership and Institutional Coordination
and interagency webinars and by interviewing key
players at the local, State, and Federal levels. The • Theme 6: Local Planning and Financing
identification of barriers was based on two criteria:
the frequency of which the institutional barrier was The themes, opportunities for action, and successes
mentioned and the severity of the impact/ are described in the following sections.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 91

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

Theme 1: Risk/Resilience Standards Successes

A number of policies and reports have identified

Opportunities for Action initiatives for meeting the challenges associated with
establishing and implementing better standards for
• Standardize the definitions of risk, vulnerability, risk and resilience. These policies and initiatives serve
resilience, and related terms. Conduct research, to:
as necessary, to develop design standards for
resilience, performance metrics, a resilience • Provide a more holistic approach to coastal storm
scorecard, and other design issues. risk management and community resilience.

• Conduct a national vulnerability study. • Embrace collaborative and integrated water

resources planning and management opportunities.
• Develop a national strategy for coastal storm risk
management and/or a national coastal policy. The • Form interagency and intergovernmental teams.
NRC report (2012a) and others have called for a
national policy; therefore, NACCS is consistent and • Set standards for risk and resilience.
aligned with these references. A national policy
The following national initiatives are underway that
would set the vision, and Coastal Zone Management
support strategy integration and standard setting:
plans would be examples of documents that would
implement the vision. • In 2013, CEQ released Principles and Requirements
for Federal Investments in Water Resources.
• Develop regional and watershed-based plans,
including a broad base of benefits, benefit • (CEQ 2013) pursuant to the Water Resources
quantification, and multi-objective approaches. Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.) to supersede
the 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles
The challenges related to risk and resilience standards
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land
contribute to confusion and misperception of the
Resources Implementation Studies (U.S. Water
real risks, including residual risk and long-term
Resources Council 1983). CEQ (2013) sets a Federal
sustainable options to recover from Hurricane Sandy
objective for all key Federal agencies with water
and to mitigate future risk. Some project design levels
resource missions to maximize public benefits
(2 percent flood, 1 percent flood), or the 1 percent
that encompass environmental, economic, and
flood standard for FIRMs, represent conditions that
social goals. Although CEQ (2013) has yet to be
may not be appropriate considering all the economic,
implemented at the agency level, the requirement
social,and environmental consequences of a large
of a multi-objective focus in water resource
natural disaster in a region. Nor do these conditions or
investments is promising.
standards consider future risks to provide long-term
comprehensive planning scenarios. • President Obama’s Climate Action Plan (Executive
Office of the President 2013), along with Executive
Further, there is general agreement that such
Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental,
standards should be national in scope, or at least
Energy, and Economic Performance, require
regional, to avoid creating perverse incentives for
federally funded projects to reflect a consistent
developers to “shop” for lenient standards and
approach that accounts for relative sea level change
disincentives for communities to adopt more stringent
and other factors affecting coastal storm risk.
standards (ASFPM 2013; NRC 2012a). Finally, Smith
and Grannis (2013) and information obtained in • The HSRTF recommended that a minimum coastal
interviews suggest that some agency programs may storm risk management standard be adopted
restrict the ability of communities to use Federal grant during recovery for major Federal investments. The
program funds for coastal storm risk management standard sets the rebuilding standard for Federal
improvements to infrastructure or facilities damaged in investments involving vertical construction as 1
disasters. foot above the best available and most recent
BFE information provided by FEMA, unless local
standards are more restrictive. This standard and

92 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

even more stringent standards have already been solutions, pre-disaster and evacuation planning, and
adopted by some States and local communities in similar issues.
the North Atlantic region.
• Develop a community of practice for NNBF, a group
Additionally, Federal agencies have provided of individuals who practice and share an interest in a
guidance to inform resilience planning. The major functional area.
USACE guidance on relative sea level change and
accompanying relative sea level change calculator Communication and outreach about NNBF should:
are included (Engineering Regulation [ER] 1100-2-
• Focus on NNBF definitions, key concepts, and costs
8162, Dec 2013, “Incorporating Sea Level Change in
and benefits, particularly how these features can
Civil Works Programs”).
increase the resilience of a community, ecosystem,
• The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management or local economy.
Task Force (FIFMTF) identified as a priority the need
• Target Federal, State, and local levels of
to develop or update the national strategic vision
government, as well as private interests and
for floodplain management that was established
homeowners who determine the type of project to
in the Unified National Program for Floodplain
implement on their property.
Management (FIFMTF 1994).
• Include working with coastal communities to help
• As discussed in Theme 5, the Mitigation Framework
them consider potential future changes, such as
Leadership Group (MitFLG) has been established
demographic changes, and the implications of
under Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8, National
climate change, such as relative sea level change,
Preparedness, to serve as a Federal leadership
and determine how to incorporate and use NNBF in
forum to promote preparedness.
these considerations.
There are also important non-Federal initiatives that
• A critical aspect of managing risk and creating
look at national risk. New York State identified the
resilient communities is communicating risk to local
need to promote planning and development criteria
officials, community leaders, and decision-makers
for integrated decision-making for capital investments
who are responsible for land use, evacuation
across agencies (NYS 2100 Commission 2012). In
planning, and implementation of mitigation
October 2013, Michael Bloomberg, then-Mayor of
measures. Public acceptability of coastal storm risk
the City of New York, announced an initiative called
management measures, the difficulty individuals
Risky Business to prepare the Nation for extreme
and communities have in understanding their own
weather events such as Hurricane Sandy. The initiative
risk, and a lack of community engagement about
evaluates the risks imposed by climate change on
coastal storm risk management options have all
the entire U.S. economy and will help individuals,
been cited as barriers to implementing good coastal
communities, and the Nation understand and prepare
management strategies.
for risk (Bloomberg Philanthropies 2013).
• In many areas, mitigation measures for homes such
as floodproofing, elevation, and managed retreat are
Theme 2: Communication and Outreach considered adverse options and may be prevented
by legacy zoning or building codes. This issue
is sometimes the result of a miscommunication
Opportunities for Action
of standards. For instance, many homeowners
• Conduct coastal storm risk management visioning believe the 1 percent flood is an unlikely event,
sessions with the public and with help from and particularly if such an event has just occurred,
programs such as NOAA’s National Sea Grant they believe is not likely to happen again soon.
College Program. Additionally, beachfront property owners and
local officials have sometimes resisted community
• Working with NOAA’s National Sea Grant College coastal storm risk management projects because of
Program, continue to develop information and perceived negative impacts on views and access.
programs to educate the public about flood
vulnerabilities, flood risk, residual risk, blended

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 93

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

• Similar communication and outreach challenges them. Communities can choose not to participate in
were identified by participants of the November the NFIP, not adopt the minimum floodplain standards
2013 “Policy Challenges to Using NNBF for Risk set by the program, and forfeit the availability of flood
Reduction and Resiliency” working meeting. insurance through the program. Further, even though
Participants noted that NNBF remains a nebulous homes may be eligible for buyouts under various
concept for many, including decision-makers and Federal grant programs, homeowner participation is
others with responsibility for implementing coastal voluntary.
projects.
The strategies that communities develop and the
laws and ordinances they adopt reflect the tolerance
Successes they have for managing their risks. Perceived or real
impacts to the local tax basis make it difficult for
NOAA’s Sea Grant College Program is a network of decision-makers to implement effective zoning and
33 Sea Grant programs in universities and colleges code laws. Changes to land use and building codes
located in every coastal and Great Lakes State, can potentially drive down the value of an existing
Puerto Rico, Lake Champlain, State, and Guam. property over the short term and stimulate “takings”
The program is a trusted source of information on lawsuits, even while they may provide a sustainable
conservation and practical use of coasts and marine solution to the community for managing flood risk,
areas. After Hurricane Sandy, the Sea Grant programs creating a double-edged sword for decision-makers
in the Northeast played a key role in disseminating and property owners.
information, educating the public on Federal and
State programs, and providing important scientific Although many issues were identified, six key
information on coastal restoration and climate change subthemes of coastal storm risk management
(NOAA 2014). emerged:

On a more local level, under the EPA’s National • Great concern and political interest in the impacts
Estuary Program, the Barnegat Bay Partnership is 1 of rising insurance rates and new flood risk maps on
of 28 congressionally designated National Estuary low- and moderate-income populations. The repeal
Programs throughout the United States working to of portions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
improve the health of nationally significant estuaries. Reform Act is a manifestation of the concern. One
A partnership of Federal, State, county, municipal, alternative is the establishment of voucher systems
academic, business, and private stakeholders in to provide assistance to lower income groups (Pirani
the Barnegat Bay Partnership watershed program and Tolkoff 2014).
supported the Hurricane Sandy Federal Recovery
Support Strategy, including its mission of “research, • Balancing old and newly emerging floodplain
educate and restore” to provide outreach and management ordinances on land use and building
education to New Jersey (Barnegat Bay Partnership codes with an urgent need to move forward.
2014).
• Integrating the requirements and applications of
Federal dollars for rebuilding infrastructure with local
Theme 3: Risk Management recovery plans.

• Lack of capacity, capability, and sometimes

Opportunities for Action willingness at the local level for resilience planning.

• Strengthen and enforce floodplain management • Pressure to rebuild infrastructure quickly and
policies. expedite regulatory reviews and requirements for
environmental and historic preservation.
• Simplify the complicated network of coastal
programs for communities. • Compassion-driven approaches to disaster recovery
that are short-sighted and that avoid the tough
Federal policies can inform and incentivize good land issues in risk management and building resiliency.
use zoning and building codes, but State, local, and
Tribal communities have the authority to implement

94 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

Successes Some initiatives, such as Rhode Island’s Center for

Coastal Adaptation and Resilience, are intended
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy – Stronger to provide “extension service,” one-on-one type
Communities, A Resilient Region (HSRTF 2013a) assistance to communities and homeowners to
contains numerous recommendations for addressing understand risk and risk management approaches.
some of the programmatic issues listed previously.
The task force encouraged communities and
homeowners to promote existing programs, such Theme 4: Science, Engineering, and
as the Institute for Business and Home Safety’s
program for Fortified Homes, embrace green building
Technology
practices, and adopt the latest International Building
Code and International Residential Code. Opportunities for Action
The task force also suggested establishing a • Improve research, coordination, and collection of
Hurricane Sandy Regional Infrastructure Permitting pre- and post-storm data (e.g., relative sea level
and Review team to help expedite the review of change, climate change) and data standards,
the most complex infrastructure projects. The including more rigorous instrumentation and
recommendation follows the intent of Executive Order monitoring for adaptive management, with USGS
13604, Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and others.
and Review of Infrastructure Projects (2012), which
recommends the establishment of regional teams to • Develop better design guidance for NNBF and use
keep communications open with Federal and State in coastal storm risk management, including effects
permitting officials. on long-term maintenance.

Based on a task force recommendation, States • Compile information on ecosystem goods and
have adopted amendments through Coastal Zone services provided by NNBF (USACE 2013d).
Management programs to include climate change
in coastal development and revitalization plans and Successful comprehensive coastal storm risk
encouraged “soft approaches” to coastal storm risk management incorporates sound science,
management projects. engineering, and technology practices. Critical
gaps, including risk and uncertainly, still exist (and
In addition, several States also supported the policy will remain, in some cases) in climate change,
for using advisory base flood elevations (ABFEs) plus environmental enhancement and risk management,
additional elevations to address risk and uncertainty NNBF, blended solutions, watershed and integrated
associated with forecasted relative sea level change water resource management solutions, and decision-
scenarios to build back more resilient communities. support tools and data.
ABFEs are computed by FEMA following a storm
event that exceeded the effective BFE. The purpose Data gaps and uncertainties exist in critical areas,
of ABFEs is to assist communities in their rebuilding including climate change; social science of coastal
efforts while new FIRMs are being completed (FEMA areas; NNBF production functions; ecosystem
2014a). goods and services; and wave, wind, and elevation
data. Baseline condition data are needed in many of
The NFIP Community Rating System has helped these areas, as well as improved process modeling
communities reduce their insurance premiums by and engineering methods that are informed by data
incentivizing good floodplain management; however, collection and experimental studies. All of the data
some communities fail to enforce proper floodplain gaps and uncertainties constitute important areas
management standards. for additional research and development. Enhanced
relative sea level change and storm models are also
Many community efforts have been focused on necessary to meet data needs.
regional approaches to resilience. The National
Disaster Recovery Framework and the National The study of ecosystem goods and services has acute
Mitigation Framework have helped to institutionalize and specific data needs. Although NNBF can provide
regional approaches and capacity building. a wide range of ecosystem goods and services, the

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 95

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

kinds and extents of ecosystem goods and services Successes

provided by different NNBF are generally poorly
understood. Some believe it is hard to describe A number of positive technology and data
and quantify the secondary and tertiary benefits advances have been achieved. Following Hurricane
of NNBF. There are also perceptions that benefits Sandy, NOAA, in partnership with FEMA and the
that are difficult to monetize are less reliable in their USACE, created a set of map services to help
performance or in decision criteria. Policies to inform communities, residents, and other stakeholders
benefit-cost valuations of the ecosystem goods and consider risks from future relative sea change
services provided by NNBF are needed, as well as in planning for reconstruction. The services are
direction on how to monetize benefits provided by endorsed by the U.S. Global Change Research
NNBF. Program and are available on its website at http://
[Link]/what-we-do/assessment/
Assessment of NNBF performance and coastal-resilience-resources.
characterization of ecosystem goods and services
remains a key knowledge gap that can be addressed The Nature Conservancy has been partnering
by interagency teams. with many governmental, nongovernmental, and
academic entities to develop guidelines for nature-
based designs (see [Link]
There are also numerous uncertainties regarding the climatechange/[Link]) and
performance, timing, and scale of NNBF needed to recently released a coastal resilience mapping tool
provide coastal storm risk management and decrease to help communities evaluate alternatives (see http://
storm damages. More information is needed on NNBF [Link]) (Mathison 2012).
performance to effectively compare and integrate
NNBF with structural and nonstructural measures. The Engineering with Nature ([Link]
lifecycle costs needed to operate and maintain NNBF [Link]/ewn/) is a USACE initiative defined as the
are also uncertain. Finally, many threats, including intentional alignment of natural and engineering
relative sea level change and climate change also have processes to efficiently and sustainably deliver
unknown effects on the performance of NNBF, though economic, environmental, and social benefits through
it must be acknowledged that the effects of relative collaborative processes.
sea level change and climate change on structural
coastal storm risk management features may also be The Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering
unknown. (SAGE 2014) is another initiative led by USACE,
NOAA, and FEMA that engages a diverse set of
Adaptive management is an important requirement experts and partners to develop and apply innovative
for many coastal storm risk management alternatives alternatives to coastal resilience using both natural
and in particular will be critical for implementing and nature-based (green) and structural (gray)
and maintaining NNBF Further, although NEPA elements.
requirements present an opportunity to improve
project design and gather stakeholder input and The HSRTF and HUD, in partnership with The
ensure that scientifically sound approaches are Rockefeller Foundation, launched an initiative
considered, it was cited as occasionally delaying called Rebuild by Design in June 2013 as a multi-
the implementation of adaptive coastal storm risk stage design competition to develop innovative,
management measures. Adaptive management can implementable, and regionally-scalable proposals that
be accommodated through NEPA with a tiered or promote resilience in the Hurricane Sandy-affected
programmatic approach, which should be used to region. In October 2014, HUD allocated a total of
overcome these issues if they arise. Additionally, $930 million toward implementation of seven projects
the use of adaptive management approaches may originating from the competition (six winning projects
mean that projects that are phased in over time do and one finalist project).
not initially meet the required standards (local, State
The extensive rebuilding effort following Hurricane
or Federal), which could result in penalties. In some
Sandy presented an opportunity for homeowners
municipalities, existing policies hamper the application
and businesses to adapt to increasing flood risk.
of adaptive management because the municipalities
Participation in the NFIP requires that communities
may be penalized for reporting results that are below
expectations.

96 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

adopt and enforce floodplain ordinances that meet Federal agencies and the State, Tribal, and local
or exceed FEMA requirements to reduce the risk tribal governmental agencies with responsibility
of flooding, including building permits that require for coastal storm risk management could promote
the lowest floor elevation (for A-Zone) or lowest mutual understanding of each entity’s roles and
structural horizontal member (for V-Zone) to be at responsibilities in policy-making, data sharing, and
or above the BFE (1 percent flood) according to planning and regulatory reviews.
FEMA’s floodplain management regulations available
at [Link] Improved coordination among government agencies,
floodplain-management-requirements. academia, nongovernmental entities, and others is
needed to determine where NNBF could best be
Developed in collaboration with FEMA, NOAA, used to manage risk throughout an entire region.
and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Organizations serving this capacity include the
the USACE sea level change calculator provides Northeast Regional Ocean Council, Northeast
four scenarios (USACE/NOAA Low, USACE/NOAA Regional Association Coastal Ocean Observing
Intermediate, USACE High, and NOAA High) to Systems, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean,
present the elevations based on the potential future and MAFPO. Federal agencies NNBF are not practical
sea level change scenarios above the BFE obtained in all instances, but a broad understanding and
from FEMA’s Preliminary FIRMs published after characterization of the landscape can facilitate their
Hurricane Sandy. The tool is available at [Link] use. Land use planning and zoning policies often do
[Link]/[Link]. not encourage and sometimes limit the use of NNBF.
Informing local governments about the benefits of
NNBF and working with them to institute policies that
Theme 5: Leadership and Institutional allow for NNBF, while promoting resilient communities,
Coordination could alleviate this problem. The promotion of
a holistic or integrated community strategy and
decision-making process would facilitate collaboration
Opportunities for Action among communities on how to achieve resilience
through measures that include NNBF.
• Re-evaluate and complete authorized or planned
projects using a comprehensive systems approach.
Successes
• Increase coordination between Federal, State,
Tribal, and local governmental agencies with Under PPD-8, both the National Disaster Recovery
responsibility for coastal storm risk management Framework and the National Mitigation Framework
to foster a mutual understanding of roles and have functions that support integration of programs
responsibilities and consistency between Federal and community engagement. As part of the National
programs affecting coastal management. Mitigation Framework, the MitFLG was established to
coordinate interagency policies for disaster reduction.
• Support national adaptation planning. Additionally, the FIFMTF developed a focused work
plan to improve coordination, collaboration, and
Two of the more significant challenges identified transparency among Federal agencies (FIFMTF 2013).
from the analyses are the complexity of institutional
governance and the need for coordination and Further opportunities lie in continuing support of
leadership at all levels. There are at least 9 Federal the regional body to enhance local leadership and
agencies with responsibilities for various parts of ensure consistency of implementation efforts with the
coastal storm risk management and 16 Congressional NACCS, State, and local/community master plans. For
subcommittees responsible for authorization of example, under its Community Development Block
programs and appropriation of funds for coastal Grant disaster recovery grants made to Hurricane
storm risk management. Increasing Federal intra- Sandy disaster recovery grantees, HUD encouraged
and interagency coordination could help ensure grantees to consult with a Regional Coordination
consistent implementation of Federal projects and Working Group and agreed to consider the group’s
programs affecting coastal storm risk management. views prior to approving an action plan for the use
Likewise, increasing coordination between these of funds by a CDBG disaster recovery grantee. HUD

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 97

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

stated that the goal of this effort was ‘to promote within a certain period of time or at a particular
a regional and cross-jurisdictional approach to geographic scale. The key challenges that were
resilience in which neighboring and states come identified are as follows:
together to: identify interdependencies among
and across geography and infrastructure systems; • Investing in preparing for and mitigating future
compound individual investments towards shared disasters provides a much higher return to
goals; foster leadership; build capacity; and share taxpayers than investing in disaster recovery.
information and best practices on infrastructure For example, the Government Accountability
resilience (Federal Register 2014). Office concluded in 2007 that a comprehensive
strategic framework establishing joint strategies
Additionally, the programs of multiple Federal and leveraging resources across agencies for
agencies have provisions that disincentivize addressing natural hazard mitigation to reduce or
development in hazardous areas. For example, the eliminate long-term risks to life and property would
Department of the Interior’s Coastal Barrier Resources provide greater benefit than disaster recovery (GAO
Act restricts Federal spending on undeveloped coastal 2007). Similarly, a benefit-cost analysis performed
barrier islands. Additionally, the Steering Committee by the National Institute of Building Sciences found
on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review has that a dollar invested in mitigating the effects of
been established to lead the development of a plan, natural hazards saved society an average of $4
released in May 2014, for modernizing the Federal in disaster recovery costs (National Institute of
permitting and review process for major infrastructure Building Sciences 2005). The challenge is that
projects to reduce the time and uncertainty for such Federal government has increasingly funded post-
projects and to ensure that appropriate environmental disaster recovery as opposed to pre-disaster
and other safeguards are accommodated (Steering mitigation opportunities.
Committee 2014).
• Project decisions are often too focused on least
cost or benefit-cost ratio, limiting the consideration
Theme 6: Local Planning and Financing of environmental benefits or other regional and local
benefits.

Opportunities for Action Additionally, examples from the Louisiana Coastal

Protection and Restoration effort illustrate formulation
• Apply lessons learned from post-Hurricanes and evaluation processes for adding nonstructural
Katrina, Rita, Sandy and other coastal storms to components into an integrated coastal storm risk
provide integrated coastal storm risk management management program (USACE 2009a). As this report
approaches. indicates:

• Create new tax and market-based incentive Nonstructural measures were formulated with the
programs to encourage resilient local action. primary goal of managing risk to the population
and assets of South Louisiana. The development
• Explore innovative financing options and timetables of applicable measures was based on two primary
for Federal and non-Federal partnerships to sustain sources of risk: storm surge velocity and inundation.
long-term operation, maintenance, monitoring and Findings support that nonstructural measures
adaptive management. perform well across all the metrics considered for the
LACPR evaluation. They are efficient and effective in
• Leverage public-private partnerships as part of managing risk from storm surge, as well as from other
community financing strategies. sources of flooding. Nonstructural measures bear few
operational and maintenance costs and have little or
The issue of funding and resources was an often
no environmental mitigation requirement
repeated challenge mentioned during the interviews
(USACE 2009a).
conducted as part of this analysis. Beyond budgets
and staffing, policies and authorities can cause Challenges to USACE projects that were identified in
unintended economic stressors, limit the ability to the Hurricane Sandy Coastal Performance Evaluation
pool resources or incentivize good coastal storm risk Study (USACE 2013a) include limited consideration
management, or make executing programs difficult

98 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

of issues in coastal watersheds such as impacts with challenges identified in other recent initiatives.
in back bays and concurrent flooding and limited Opportunities for action are summarized such that
consideration of the interrelationship of coastal decision-makers and policymakers across all levels of
features. Older local ordinances and building codes government, NGOs, and the private sector can come
may encourage or require armored shorelines over together as a coastal community committed to coastal
NNBF, taking choices away from landowners. storm risk management and resilience. Table VI-2
presents a summary of the barriers, their consistency
with others, and opportunities for action.
SUMMARY
The institutional landscape and hierarchy of decision-
makers, policymakers, and those who enforce
the decisions is complex. The six institutional and
other barriers identified in NACCS are consistent

Table VI-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Develop consistent definitions for risk, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
vulnerability, resilience, and related terms Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
and conduct research, as necessary, to (HSRTF 2013a)
develop design standards for resilience, Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
performance metrics, a resilience Coasts (NRC 2014)
scorecard, and other standards1
Presidential Policy Directive 8, National
Preparedness

Conduct a national vulnerability study of Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

constructed USACE coastal storm risk Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
management projects
1. Risk/Resilience
Develop a national strategy for coastal Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Standards
storm risk management Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)
Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
Coasts (NRC 2014)
Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Develop regional and watershed-based Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

plans, including a broad base of benefits, Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
benefit quantification, and multi-objective
approaches1

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 99

VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

Table VI-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action (continued)

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Conduct coastal storm risk management Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
visioning sessions with the public1 Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Continue to develop information and Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

programs to educate the public about flood Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
2. Communication
vulnerabilities, flood risk, residual risk,
and Outreach
blended solutions, and pre-disaster and
evacuation planning1
Develop a community of practice2 for Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF)1 Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)
Strengthen and enforce floodplain Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
management policies Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
3. Risk
Management Simplify the complicated network of coastal Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
programs for communities1 Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Improve research, coordination, and Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

collection of pre- and post-storm data Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
collection (e.g., relative sea level change, (HSRTF 2013a)
climate change), including more rigorous Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
instrumentation and monitoring for adaptive Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
management, with USGS and others1
The President’s Climate Action Plan (Executive
Office of the President 2013)

4. Science, Develop better design and implementation Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –
Engineering, guidance for NNBF for use in coastal storm Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
and Technology risk management, including effects on (HSRTF 2013a)
long-term maintenance Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Compile information on ecosystem goods Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

and services provided by NNBF1 Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
(HSRTF 2013a)

100 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VI. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING
NACCS GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

Table VI-2. Summary of Institutional and Other Barriers to Achieving NACCS Goals and Opportunities for Action (continued)

Barrier Theme Opportunities for Action Consistent with Plans by Others

Re-evaluate and complete authorized Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

or planned projects in a comprehensive Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
systems approach1

Increase coordination between Federal, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

State, local, and Tribal governmental Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
agencies with responsibility for coastal (HSRTF 2013a)
management to foster mutual Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf
understanding of roles and responsibilities Coasts (NRC 2014)
and to foster consistency between Federal
5. Leadership and programs affecting coastal storm risk Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Institutional management1 Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
Coordination Presidential Policy Directive 8, National
Preparedness

Support national adaptation planning1 Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation
(ICCATF 2011)
National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
(CEQ 2010)
Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

Apply lessons learned following Hurricanes Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy –

Katrina, Rita, Sandy, and other coastal Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region
storms to provide integrated coastal storm (HSRTF 2013a)
risk management approaches1

Create new tax and market-based incentive Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
programs to encourage resilient local action Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

6. Local Planning Explore innovative financing options and Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
and Financing timetables for Federal and non-Federal Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)
partnerships to sustain long-term operation,
maintenance, monitoring. and adaptive
management

Leverage public-private partnerships as Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects

part of community financing strategies Performance Evaluation Study (USACE 2013a)

1 NACCS contributed toward reducing this barrier and toward this opportunity for action.
2 A community of practice is a group of individuals who practice and share an interest in a major functional area.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 101

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 1 CHAPTER TITLE
VII. Activities Warranting Additional Analysis

The NACCS provides the baseline knowledge (monitoring and adaptive management data) of
to continue the dialog with vulnerable coastal success.
communities and evaluate plans to address the
future challenges these communities face. Other • Additional system-wide and regional sediment
analyses, using the technical products from NACCS, budget investigation to address navigation, NNBF,
which include measures and socioeconomic and and sand sources in the region.
environmental benefit analyses, could be pursued to
contribute further to coastal storm risk management • Reliable prediction of storm severity and landfall
strategies. locations 72 hours or more prior to landfall are
needed to gain public confidence and streamline
The NACCS Framework and accompanying technical evacuation of coastal regions.
analyses, which advance the state-of-the-science,
are significant steps forward in aligning coastal • Analysis of ecosystem goods and services of NNBF.
practitioners and streamlining decision-making
to support diverse and resilient management in
a systems context. There remain many areas of RISK COMMUNICATION AND
uncertainty and opportunities for collaboration: COLLABORATION
from conducting research and development to
overcoming policy challenges to educating others Effective and ongoing communication of coastal storm
on the Framework and the full array of measures for risk is required among various Federal, State, Tribal,
managing risk to vulnerable coastal populations. and local governments as well as NGOs, academia,
Activities warranting additional analysis have private industry, and the public. Examples of actions
been identified, as directed by the Disaster Relief to be taken include:
Appropriations Act of 2013, and are summarized in the
following sections. • Local risk communication approaches and
techniques to assist in sharing and understanding
applicable analyses, models, measures, and actions
TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES that could be taken to manage and reduce risk.

Additional technical analyses are needed to advance • Dynamic and cohesive education and
the incorporation of resilience, risk and uncertainty, communication about current risks, community risk
and sea level and climate change adaptation planning and resilience self-assessments, and acceptable
into site-specific coastal design and construction, levels of risk in the future due to the impacts of sea
including the following: level and climate change.

• Detailed risk, exposure, and vulnerability analyses

(i.e., application of the Framework using technical INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCING
advancements of the NACCS) to support long-
term planning decisions about when and where to Additional coordination is needed to overcome
transition strategies between avoid, accommodate, challenges and complexities associated with land-use
and preserve. Opportunities exist to conduct more policy and permitting actions, as follows:
detailed analyses for the nine focus areas identified
in this report (see Figure II-2). • Develop policies, guidance, and incentive programs
based on state-of-the-art science (e.g., land use,
• Site-specific analyses to demonstrate potential wise use of floodplains, zoning, pre-storm planning,
coastal storm risk management benefits from and nonstructural measures are cost-effective
blended solutions, NNBF, and other innovative measures supporting coastal resilience).
approaches.
• Explore innovative financing and public-private
• Documentation of best practices for coastal storm partnership models for integrated water resources
risk management and resilience and validation management. These approaches, when established

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 103

VII. ACTIVITIES WARRANTING ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

carefully, can present an efficient allocation of The risk of similar events may increase over time with
resources, be consistent with the Federal role in exacerbated impacts of relative sea level change and
infrastructure investment, and support long-term climate change; therefore, coastal communities must
sustainability and local economies. begin to consider long-term coastal storm risk now.
Some communities have already begun addressing
• Develop prioritized plans for coastal storm risk the issue, such as in New York City.
management to focus limited resources.
Considerations for an adaptation strategy to avoid,
• Streamline and align regulatory and planning accommodate, or preserve could be incorporated into
reviews, data sharing, and resources across coastal storm risk management planning activities.
agencies. Short-term and long-term adaptation strategies
include evacuation planning. Permanent relocations
and re-siting of regional critical infrastructure that
COASTAL STORM RISK supports the population as part of a long-term
planning effort to avoid flood peril could also be
Nine areas of the North Atlantic Coast were identified considered across the North Atlantic Coast, where
as warranting additional analyses to address coastal appropriate, based on a community’s objectives and
storm risk. The areas are listed below. A Focus Area constraints.
Report for each area is provided as an attachment to
the State and District of Columbia Analyses Appendix. For coastal communities that intend to adopt an
• Rhode Island Coastline adaptation strategy to accommodate or preserve,
planning will be an ongoing effort by various
• Connecticut Coastline stakeholders over a number of years. For example,
• New York-New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries any new plan to incorporate or modify existing coastal
• Nassau County Back Bays, NY storm risk management projects into the landscape
would require planning, design, construction,
• New Jersey Back Bays monitoring, and adaptive management. The timeframe
• Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast to implement solutions could be years, including the
• City of Baltimore, MD time necessary to plan a risk management solution;
coordinate the solution with various stakeholders
• The District of Columbia including the public; evaluate the benefits, costs, and
• City of Norfolk, VA impacts; design the solution; and then implement it.
Strategic monitoring of the coastline will be necessary
Through extensive collaboration, planning efforts to measure how well investments perform and
for the North Atlantic Coast in coastal storm risk increase resilience as well as to inform an adaptive
management and resilience, as well as potential management strategy.
impacts from forecasted relative sea level change,
have been streamlined for USACE and other Addressing coastal storm risk is a shared
stakeholders. Federal, State, Tribal, and local responsibility. It will require communities and local
stakeholders and NGOs, academia, and industry can governments to effectively plan for the populations
use the information and products presented in the to avoid the impacts of future storms, as well as
NACCS to implement the vision of more resilient and Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, NGOs,
sustainable coastal communities. Hurricane Sandy academia, and private industry to provide support
revealed that that North Atlantic Coast is vulnerable as appropriate. The NACCS Framework enables the
to the impacts of coastal flooding. Future projections development of solutions to address the coastal storm
of increasing relative sea level change as a result of risk to vulnerable coastal populations. To promote
impacts of climate change present a range of possible resilience and sustainable coastal communities,
future conditions, all of which indicate increasing risk. integrated water resources planning to address the
increasing risk must occur now.
The NACCS was a 2-year study that was initiated in
response to a catastrophic event—Hurricane Sandy.

104 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 1 CHAPTER TITLE
VIII. Definitions and Acronyms

DEFINITIONS Consequence – Amount of harm caused by a hazard.

Accommodate – An adaptation category that allows Cost Index Range – Range of values taken by the
individuals and communities to adapt to sea level cost index. The cost index for measure X is the
changes and other impacts as they occur over time. normalized parametric estimate of the unit cost of
This strategy could include traditional nonstructural producing measure X. The idea of a parametric cost
measures, such as elevation, floodproofing, and ring estimate is to produce, for each type of measure,
walls, along with improved implementation of NNBF an equation of the relationship between the scale
measures. of production of the measure and the total cost to
produce that scale.
Adaptive Capacity – Assessment of a measure’s
ability to adjust through natural processes, operation Ecosystem – A dynamic complex of plant, animal,
and maintenance activities, or adaptive management, and microorganism communities and the nonliving
in such a way as to preserve the measure’s function. environment, interacting as a functional unit. Humans
are an integral part of ecosystems.
Adaptive Management – Decision-making process
that promotes flexible decision-making that can be Ecosystem Services – Benefits people obtain
adjusted in the face of risks and uncertainties, such from ecosystems and the attributes and outputs
as those presented by climate change, as outcomes of ecosystems that create value for human users.
from management actions and other events become Ecosystem services are derived from ecosystem
better understood through monitoring and improved processes, such as nutrient cycling, climate regulation,
knowledge. and maintenance of biodiversity. The tangible items or
intangible commodities generated by self-regulating or
Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs) – managed ecosystems whose composition, structure,
Following large storm events, such as Hurricane and function are composed of natural, nature-based,
Sandy, FEMA performs an assessment to determine and/or structural features that produce socially valued
whether the 1 percent flood event, shown on effective benefits that can be used either directly or indirectly to
FIRMs adequately reflects the current flood hazard. promote human well-being.
In some cases, because of the age of the analysis
and the science used to develop the FIRMs, FEMA Exposure – Presence of people, infrastructure, and/
determines that there is a need to produce ABFEs. or environmental resources (receptors of the hazard)
ABFEs are provided to communities to support affected by the coastal storm flooding hazard. A
recovery to make the communities more resilient to higher density of people, infrastructure, and/or
future storms (FEMA 2013b). environmental resources produces relatively higher
exposure to coastal storm flood hazard.
Avoid – An adaptation category, sometimes termed
“retreat,” that seeks to avoid increasing impacts Hazard – Circumstance that increases the likelihood
through traditional nonstructural activities, such as of danger or peril to life, property, or assets.
acquisition, to convert land to open space, providing
Measure – See Risk Management Measure.
natural infrastructure risk reduction benefits, but
also could include other strategies, such as NNBF Mitigation – Capabilities necessary to reduce loss
measures. of life and property and damage to natural resources
or ecosystem services by lessening the impact of
Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework –
disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are
Suite of coastal storm risk management strategies,
not limited to, community-wide risk management
measures, and parametric costs that provides a basis
projects, efforts to improve the resilience of
for further analyses and potential implementation at a
critical infrastructure and coastal ecosystems, risk
future stage. The framework manages risk to reduce
management for specific vulnerabilities from natural
damage and promotes resilience to populations in
hazards or acts of terrorism, and initiatives to manage
areas of the USACE North Atlantic Division vulnerable
future risks after a disaster has occurred to reduce
to storm surge-induced flooding.
damages.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 105

VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Natural Features – Elements that are created and Redundancy – Duplication of critical components of a
evolve over time through the actions of physical, system with the intention of increasing reliability of the
biological, geologic, and chemical processes system, usually in the case of a backup or fail-safe.
operating in nature.
Residual Risk – Flood risk that remains after all
Nature-Based Features – Elements that mimic efforts to manage and reduce the risk are completed.
characteristics of natural features but are created Residual risk is the exposure to flood peril remaining
by human design, engineering, and construction to after other known risks have been countered, factored
provide specific services such as coastal storm risk in or eliminated.
management.
Resilience – Ability to adapt to changing conditions
Nonstructural Measures – Complete or partial and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due
alternatives to structural measures, including to emergencies.
modifications in public policy, management practices,
regulatory policy, and pricing policy. Nonstructural Response – Capabilities necessary to save lives,
measures essentially reduce the consequences of manage risks to property and the environment,
flooding as compared to structural measures, which and meet basic human needs after an incident has
may also reduce the probability of flooding. occurred.

Performance – How a system reacts to a hazard Restoration – For the purposes of the NACCS,
according to a specific set of metrics. restoration includes not only returning a physical
structure, essential government or commercial
Planning Reach – Planning segment with an services, or a societal condition back to a former
area smaller than State jurisdictions based on or normal state of use through repairs, rebuilding,
existing natural and manmade coastal features, relocation, or reestablishment, but also the restoration
including shoreline type, USACE coastal storm of natural and ecological systems and processes
risk management project extent, and the 1 percent that are linked with and contribute to the resiliency of
flood (100-year flood) floodplain, from which risk physical infrastructure and coastal economies.
management and resilient coastal community
decisions can be made. Risk – Function of the probability of occurrence of
some event (i.e., frequency with which it occurs) and
Preserve – An adaptation category, sometimes the consequences of the event. Risk is an overarching
termed “protect,” that focuses on preserving the concept that includes the components of hazard,
function or reliability of the given economic, social, exposure, vulnerability, performance, and subsequent
and/or environmental system that is adversely consequences. For the purposes of the NACCS,
affected by climate change (e.g., navigation channels hazard, exposure, and vulnerability are addressed in
continue to function reliably, coastal storm risk the risk assessment. At the NACCS study area scale
management measures continue to manage and for plan formulation purposes, risk was further defined
reduce risk), and may include structural, nonstructural, as the function of exposure to the coastal flood hazard
NNBF, and combinations of each as appropriate. and the probability that the hazard will occur.

Recovery – Capabilities necessary to assist Risk Management Measure – Feature or activity that
communities affected by an incident to recover can be implemented at a specific geographic site to
effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding address risk.
infrastructure systems; providing adequate interim
and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, Risk Management Strategy – Set of related features
social, and community services; promoting economic or activities that can be considered alone or in
development; and restoring natural and cultural combination to manage risk.
resources.
Robustness – Ability of a system to continue to
Redevelopment – Rebuilding degraded, damaged, operate correctly across a wide range of operational
or destroyed social, economic, and physical conditions (the wider the range of conditions, the more
infrastructure in a community, State, or Tribal lands robust the system), with minimal damage, alteration
to create the foundation for long-term community or loss of functionality, and to not fail catastrophically
development, health, and resiliency. outside that range.

106 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Sensitivity – Potential of a system’s valued attributes Vulnerability – Degree to which a system’s receptors
or functions to be affected (either positively or or assets are susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
negatively) by the changes caused by a hazard. the adverse effects of coastal storm flood hazard
over a period of time or temporal reference. More
Strategy – See Risk Management Strategy. broadly, vulnerability to coastal storm flood hazard
is a function of the exposure of receptors or assets
Structural Measures – Measures that are intended to to the hazard, the sensitivity of the receptors or
prevent flooding by altering the flow of floodwater and assets within the system to the hazard, and adaptive
include constructing levees or dams or modifying a capacity of the receptors or assets within the system
waterway’s channel. to recover from and withstand the reoccurrence of the
coastal flood event. Given the expansive scale of the
Sustainability – Meeting the needs of the present
NACCS, probability of occurrence is used as the only
without compromising the ability of future generations
measure of the receptors’ or assets’ sensitivity to the
to meet their own needs.
coastal flood hazard, and adaptive capacity was not
System – Integrated whole of the natural and built assessed.
environments that can be defined geographically,
technically, and politically.

ACRONYMS
ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation
ADCIRC Advanced Circulation Model
BFE Base Flood Elevation
CAP Continuing Authorities Program
CDBG-DR Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CSTORM-MS Coastal Storm Modeling System
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EC Engineering Circular
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER Engineer Regulation
ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA MOTF Modeling Task Force
FIFMTF Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
GIS Geographic Information System
HBCUs Historically Black Colleges and Universities

NACC: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 107

VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

HEC-FIA Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Impact Analysis [model]

HSRTF Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICLUS Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JPM-OS-BQ Joint Probability Method with Optimum Sampling by Bayesian Quadrature
IWR Institute for Water Resources
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MitFLG Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
MOM Maximum of Maximum
NACCS North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study
NALCC North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
n.d. no date
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NNBF Natural and Nature-Based Features
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
PPD Presidential Policy Directive
Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning
SAGE Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering
SCR Structures of Coastal Resilience
SIRR Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency
SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model
SLOSH Sea, Lake , and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
STWAVE Steady State Spectral Wave
SWEAT-MSO Sewage, Water, Electricity, Academics, Trash, Medical, Safety, and Other Considerations

108 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code
USET United South and Eastern Tribes
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WAM Wave Prediction Model

A debris engineer with USACE inspects a house devastated by Hurricane Sandy in Queens, NY on November 30, 2012.
Source: [Link]

NACC: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 109

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 1 CHAPTER TITLE
IX. References

Abt Associates, Inc. (2014). Framework for Public- Boon, J.D., Brubaker, J.M., Forrest, D.R. (2010).
Private Partnerships in the U.S. Army Corps of Chesapeake Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level
Engineers’ Civil Works Program. Abt Associates, Inc. Change: An Evaluation of Past and Present Trends and
with Deloitte Consulting and Resources for the Future. Future Outlook. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Bethesda, MD.
Special Report No. 425 in Applied Marine Science and
Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H., Wouter Botzen, W. J., Emanuel, Ocean Engineering. Gloucester Point, VA.
K, Lin, N., De Moel, H., Michel-Kerjan, E.O. (2014).
Evaluating Flood Resilience Strategies for Coastal Borsje, B.W., B.K. van Wesenbeeck, F. Dekker, P.
Megacities. Science Magazine, VOL. 344/473. Paalvast, Tj. J. Bouma, M.M. van Katwijk, and M.t
B. de Vries (2011). How Ecological Engineering Can
Anderson, M.E., Smith, J.M., and McKay, S.K. Serve in Coastal Protection. Ecological Engineering
(2011). Wave Dissipation by Vegetation. Coastal and 37(2): 113–122.
Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note ERDC/CHL
CHETN-I-82. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Bridges, T. S., Wagner, P. W., Burks-Copes, K. A.,
Research and Development Center. Available at http:// Bates, M. E., Collier, Z., Fischenich, C. J., Gailani, J.
[Link]/library/publications/chetn/ Z., Leuck, L. D., Piercy, C. D., Rosati, J. D., Russo,
pdf/[Link]. Accessed September 14, 2014. E. J., Shafer, D. J., Suedel, B. C., Vuxton, E. A., and
Wamsley, T. V. (2015). Use of Natural and Nature-
ASFPM (Association of State Floodplain Managers) based Features (NNBF) for Coastal Resilience.
(2013). A Guide for Higher Standards in Floodplain Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer and Research
Management. Available at [Link] Development Center.
ace-files/documentlibrary/committees/3-13_Higher_
Standards_in_Floodplain_Management2.pdf. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality) (2010).
Accessed September 14, 2014. Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change
Adaptation Task Force: Recommended Actions in
Barnegat Bay Partnership (2014) Barnegat Bay Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation
Partnership: About Us. Available at [Link] Strategy. The White House Council on Environmental
edu/pages/[Link]. Accessed September 18, 2014 Quality. Washington, DC.

Blake, E.S., Kimberlain, T.B., Berg, R.J., Cangialosi, CEQ (2013). Principles and Requirements for Federal
J.P., and Beven II, J.L. (2013). Tropical Cyclone Report Investments in Water Resources. Washington, DC.
– Hurricane Sandy (AL182012) 22 – 29 October 2012:
National Hurricane Center. Cialone, M.A., M.E. Brown, J.M. Smith, and
K.K. Hathaway (2008). Southeast Oahu Coastal
Bloomberg Philanthropies (2013) Risky Business: Hydrodynamic Modelling with ADCIRC and STWAVE.
The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United Technical Report ERDC/CHL TR-08-9. Vicksburg, MS:
States. Available at [Link] Accessed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics
September 14, 2014. Laboratory.

Boesch, D.F., Atkinson, L.P., Boicourt, W.C., Boon, City of New York (2013). A Stronger, More Resilient
J.D., Cahoon, D.R., Dalrymple, R.A., Ezer, T., Horton, New York. New York City Special Initiative for
B.P., Johnson, Z.P., Kopp, R.E., Li, M., Moss, R.H., Rebuilding and Resiliency. Available at [Link]
Parris, A., Sommerfield, C.K. (2013). Updating [Link]/html/sirr/html/report/[Link]. Accessed
Maryland’s Sea-level Rise Projections. Special Report September 15, 2014.
of the Scientific and Technical Working Group to
the Maryland Climate Change Commission, 22 pp. Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience
University of Maryland Center for Environmental (2014). Enhancing the Climate Resilience of America’s
Science, Cambridge, MD. Natural Resources. Available at
[Link]
enhancing_climate_resilience_of_americas_natural_
[Link]. Accessed October 13, 2014.

NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 111

IX. REFERENCES

Department of the Army (2008). Engineer FEMA (2012). Operating Guidance No. 8-12 for use
Reconnaissance. Field Manual No. 3-34.170/MCWP by FEMA staff and Flood Mapping Partners: Joint
3-17.4 (5-170). Washington, DC. March 25, 2008. Probability – Optimal Sampling Method for Tropical
Storm Surge. Federal Emergency Management
Dronkers, J., J.T.E. Gilbert, L.W. Butler, J.J. Carey, Agency, US Department of Homeland Security,
J. Campbell, E. James, C. McKenzie, R. Misdorp, N. Washington DC.
Quin, K.L. Ries, P.C. Schroder, J.R. Spradley, J.G.
Titus, L. Vallianos, and J. von Dadelszen. (1990). FEMA (2013a). Flood Risks Nationwide.
Strategies for Adaption to Sea Level Rise. Report Get Flood Smart. Available at [Link]
of the IPCC Coastal Zone Management Subgroup: [Link]/toolkits/flood/downloads/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: FloodRisksAcrossCountry-11%2019%[Link].
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed September 14, 2014.

Eggleston, J. and Pope, J. (2013). Land Subsidence FEMA (2013b). Advisory Base Flood Elevations
and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern (ABFE) Frequently Asked Questions. Available at
Chesapeake Bay Region. U.S. Geological Survey. [Link]
Circular 1392, 30p. [Link] faq#GeneralABFEQuestions. Accessed September
2014.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2009a).
Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the FEMA (2013c). National Disaster Recovery Framework.
Mid-Atlantic Region. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Available at [Link]
Change Science Program. assets/documents/24647?fromSearch=fromsearch&
id=5124. Accessed September 14, 2014.
EPA (2009b). Land-Use Scenarios: National-Scale
Housing-Density Scenarios Consistent with Climate FEMA (2014a). Advisory Base Flood Elevations.
Change Storylines. EPA/600/R-08/076F. Washington, Available at [Link]
DC: Global Change Research Program, National flood/recoverydata/abfe_faqs_la_leveeparishes.pdf.
Center for Environmental Assessment. Accessed September 2014.

Executive Office of the President (2013). The FEMA (2014b). National Mitigation Framework.
President’s Climate Action Plan. Washington, DC. Available at [Link]
Available at [Link] assets/documents/32209?id=7363. Accessed
files/image/[Link]. September 14, 2014.
Accessed September 14, 2014.
FEMA MOTF (Federal Emergency Management
Federal Register (2014). Second Allocation, Waivers, Agency Modeling Task Force) (2013). FEMA MOTF
and Alternative Requirements for Grantees Receiving Hurricane Sandy Impact Analysis. Available at http://
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) [Link]. Accessed September 14,
Disaster Recovery Funds in Response to Hurricane 2014.
Sandy. Washington, DC. Volume 78, Number 222,
69104-69108 pp. FIFMTF (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
Task Force) (1994). A Unified National Program for
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Floodplain Management. Washington, DC.
(2011). Two Coastal Flood Inundation Maps – Which
Should I Use? Hurricane Evacuation Study – Storm FIFMTF (2013). Federal Interagency
Surge Inundation Mapping vs. National Flood Floodplain Management Task Work Plan.
Insurance Program – Flood Insurance Rate Map: An Available at [Link]
Overview and Comparison. Available at [Link] library-data/20130726-1759-25045-4816/
[Link]/Documents/ResourcesDocument/Diff_ fifm_tf_work_plan_updated24jan2013.pdf.
BW_SLOSH_ADCIRC.pdf. Accessed September 14, Accessed September 2014.
2014.

112 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IX. REFERENCES

GAO (Government Accountability Office) (2007). IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Natural Hazard Mitigation. Report to the Ranking Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Representatives. GAO-07-403. Available at Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge
[Link] University Press.
Accessed September 14, 2014.
IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Gedan, K.B., M.L. Kirwan, E. Wolanski, E.B. Barbier, Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University
and B.R. Silliman (2011). The Present and Future Press.
Role of Coastal Wetland Vegetation in Protecting
Shorelines: Answering Recent Challenges to the IPET (2009). Performance Evaluation of the New
Paradigm. Climatic Change 106(1): 7–29. Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection
System. Final Report of the Interagency Performance
Hodgens, K.C., and Neves, M. (2014). Northeast Evaluation Task Force. Department of the Army, U.S.
Florida Regional Sediment Management: Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC.
Implementation Strategies and Recommendations for
Nassau County and Duval County, Florida. U.S. Army Jamieson, S., Lhomme, J., Wright, G. and Gouldby,
Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, B. (2012a). Highly Efficient 2D Inundation Modelling
FL. Available at [Link] with Enhanced Diffusion-wave and Sub-element
Portals/40/docs/ComprehensiveStudy/Northeast%20 Topography. Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers – Water
Florida%20RSM%20technote%20FY14_final.pdf. Management 165(10), 581–595.
Accessed September 14, 2014.
Jamieson, S., Wright, G., Lhomme, J., and Gouldby, B.
HSRTF (Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force) (2012b). Validation of a Computationally Efficient 2D
(2013a). Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy Inundation Model on Multiple Scales. Floodrisk 2012
– Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region. Proceedings. Rotterdam: Taylor & Francis Group.
Washington D.C. Available at
[Link] Koch, E.W., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., Reed, D.J.,
huddoc?id=[Link]. Perillo, G.M.E., Hacker, S.D., Granek, E.F., Primavera,
Accessed September 14, 2014. J.H., Muthiga, N., Polasky, S., Halpern, B.S., Kennedy,
C.J., Kappel, C.V., and Wolanski, E. (2009). Non-
HSRTF (2013b). Rebuild by Design. Available at http:// linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial
[Link]. variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology
Accessed September 14, 2014. and the Environment 7, 29–37.

ICCATF (Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Lopez, J.A. (2009). The Multiple Lines of Defense
Force) (2011). Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Strategy to Sustain Coastal Louisiana. Journal of
Nation. Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Coastal Research SI (54): 186–197.
Change Adaptation Task Force. Available at http://
[Link]/sites/default/files/microsites/ Mathison, C. (2012). Using Nature to Reduce Climate
ceq/2011_adaptation_progress_report.pdf. Accessed and Disaster Risks. The Nature Conservancy.
September 14, 2014. Available at [Link]
org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Caribbean/science/adaptation/Documents/
(2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science UsingNatureToReduceRisks-Brochure-Final-12.22.12.
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth pdf. Accessed September 14, 2014.
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds.
Press. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 148 pp. doi:10.7930/
J0Z31WJ2.

NACC: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 113

IX. REFERENCES

Moser, D., M. Schultz, T. Bridges, and B. Harper NOAA (2012b). State of the Science Fact Sheet:
(2008). Flood Risk Management and the U.S. Army Atlantic Hurricanes, Climate Variability, and Global
Corps of Engineers Actions for Change. Fourth Warming. Available at [Link]
International Symposium on Flood Defence, Toronto, Documents/SoS%20Fact%20Sheets/SoS_Fact_
Canada. Available at [Link] Sheet_Hurricanes_and_Climate_FINAL_May2012.pdf.
isfd4/docs/May7/Session_11am/Room_B_11pm/4. Accessed September 14, 2014.
Schultz,M.T..pps. Accessed September 14, 2014.
NOAA (2013a). Introduction to Storm Surge. Available
Nadal-Caraballo, N.C. and J.A. Melby (2014). North at [Link]
Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study – Phase I: surge_intro.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2014.
Statistical Analysis of Historical Extreme Water
Levels with Sea Level Change. ERDC/CHL TR-14-7. NOAA (2013b). Service Assessment, Hurricane/Post-
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Tropical Cyclone Sandy. Available at [Link]
Development Center. [Link]/os/assessments/pdfs/[Link].
Accessed September 14, 2014.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences) (2010).
America’s Climate Choices, Adapting to the Impacts NOAA (2014). The National Sea Grant College
of Climate Change. Panel on Adapting to the Impacts Program. Available at [Link]
of Climate Change. Available at [Link] [Link]. Accessed September 18, 2014.
resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/
reports-in-brief/Adapting_Report_Brief_final.pdf. NOAA and USACE (2013). Infrastructure Systems
Accessed March 12, 2014. Rebuilding Principles. Available at http://
[Link]/resources/docs/
National Institute of Building Sciences (2005). Natural [Link].
hazard mitigation saves: an independent study to Accessed September 13, 2014.
assess the future savings from mitigation activities.
Multihazard Mitigation Council. Washington, DC. NRC (National Research Council) (1987). Responding
to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications.
NFWF (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) Committee on Engineering Implications of Changes in
(2012). Assessing the Impacts of Hurricane Sandy Relative Mean Sea Level, Marine Board, Commission
on Coastal Habitats. Prepared by The American on Engineering and Technical Systems, National
Littoral Society for the National Fish and Wildlife Research Council. National Academy Press,
Foundation. December 12, 2012. Available at http:// Washington DC 1987, 148pp.
[Link]/images/PDFS/Policy/
[Link]. Accessed NRC (2012a). Disaster Resilience: A National
September 2014. Imperative. Washington, D.C: The National Academy
Press.
NFWF (2013). Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency
Competitive Grants Program. Available at [Link] NRC (2012b). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of
[Link]/hurricanesandy/Documents/hurricane_ California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present,
sandy_rfp.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2014. and Future. Washington, D.C: The National Academy
Press.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) (n.d.). Environmental Sensitivity Index NRC (2013). Levees and the National Flood Insurance
(ESI) Maps. Available at [Link] Program: Improving Policies and Practices.
[Link]/esi. Accessed September 14, 2014. Washington, D.C: The National Academy Press.

NOAA (2012a). Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios NRC (2014). Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and
for the US National Climate Assessment. NOAA Gulf Coasts. Washington, DC: Committee on U.S.
Tech Memo OAR CPO-1. Silver Spring, MD: Climate Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Science,
Program Office. Engineering, and Planning: Coastal Risk Reduction;
Water Science and Technology Board; Ocean Studies
Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National
Research Council. The National Academy Press.

114 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

 IX. REFERENCES

NYS 2100 Commission (2012). Recommendations to The Infrastructure Security Partnership (2011).
Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire Regional Disaster Resilience: A Guide for Developing
State’s Infrastructure. Available at [Link] an Action Plan. 2011 Edition. Alexandria, VA.
[Link]/uploads/files/7c012997-176f- September 2011.
[Link]. Accessed September
14, 2014. Tschirky, P., Hall, K., and Turcke, D. (2001). Wave
Attenuation by Emergent Wetland Vegetation. Coastal
Pirani, R. and Tolkoff, L. (2014). Lessons from Sandy. Engineering 2000: 865–877.
Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Urban Land Institute (2013). After Sandy: Advancing
Pullen, T., Allsop, N.W.H., Bruce, T., Kortenhaus, Strategies for Long-Term Resilience and Adaptability.
A., Schüttrumpf, H. and van der Meer, J.W. (2007). Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
EurOtop: Wave Overtopping of Sea Defense and
Related Structures: Assessment Manual. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) (2009a).
Nonstructural Plan Component Appendix. U.S. Army
Resio, D.T., and J.J. Westerink (2008). Modeling the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District.
Physics of Storm Surge. Physics Today 61(9):33–38.
USACE (2009b). Engineering and Design: Policies for
Rockefeller Foundation (2014). Available at Referencing Project Evaluation Grades To Nationwide
[Link] Accessed Vertical Datums. Engineering Regulation 1110-2-8160.
December 22, 2014. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Smith, N. and Grannis, J. (2013). Understanding the USACE (2010a). Decision Making Under Uncertainty.
Adaptation Provisions of the Sandy Disaster Relief Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Appropriations Act (H.R. 152). Georgetown Climate TR-10-12. Washington, DC.: U.S. Army Corps of
Center. Available at [Link] Engineers.
org/sites/[Link]/files/GCC_
Sandy_Relief_Act_Analysis.pdf. USACE (2010b). Standards and Procedures for
Accessed September 14, 2014. Referencing Project Evaluation Grades to Nationwide
Vertical Datums. Engineering Manual 1110-2-6056.
Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Permitting and Review Process Improvement (2014).
Implementation Plan for the Presidential Memorandum USACE (2012). Damages Prevented by Corps Projects,
on Modernizing Infrastructure Permitting. Available Hurricane Sandy, CENADPD-P Memorandum.
at [Link] Available at [Link]
[Link]. Accessed September Portals/40/docs/ComprehensiveStudy/Estimate%20
14, 2014. of%20Sandy%20damages%[Link]. Accessed
September 2014.
Stockton (2012). Beach Dune Performance
Assessment of New Jersey Beach Profile Network USACE (2013a). Hurricane Sandy Coastal Projects
(NJBPN) Sites at Long Beach Island, New Jersey After Performance Evaluation Study. Washington DC.
Hurricane Sandy. The Richard Stockton College of NJ
Coastal Research Centre. USACE (2013b). Incorporating Sea Level Change in
Civil Works Programs. Engineer Regulation
Suzuki, T., M. Zijlema, B. Burger, M.C. Meijer, and S. 1100-2- 8162. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Narayan (2012). Wave Dissipation by Vegetation with
Layer Schematization in SWAN. Coastal Engineering USACE (2013c). Coastal Risk Reduction and
59: 64. Resilience: Using the Full Array of Measures. CWTS
2013-3. Washington, D.C: U.S. Army Corps of
Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works.
(SAGE) (2014). Resilient Shorelines, Thriving
Communities. Available at [Link]
sage/. Accessed October 5, 2014.

NACC: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk 115

IX. REFERENCES

USACE (2013d). Using Information on Ecosystem U.S. Census Bureau (2012). National Population
Goods and Services in Corps Planning: An Estimates. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Examination on Authorities, Policies, Guidance, Office.
and Practices. Available at [Link]
[Link]/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/EGS_Policy_ U.S. Water Resources Council (1983). Economic and
Review_2013-[Link]. Accessed December 19, 2014. Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.
USACE (2014a). Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Available at [Link]
Available at [Link] library/Guidance/Principles_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed
docs/Sustainability/Performance_Plans/2014_ September 14, 2014.
USACE_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Plan.pdf.
Accessed December 19, 2014. van Rijn, L.C. (2008). Beach and Dune Erosion Due to
Storms. Proceedings of International Conference of
USACE (2014b). National Nonstructural Flood Proofing Coastal Engineering 2008.
Committee. Available at [Link]
mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning/[Link]. van Rijn, L.C. (2013). Erosion of Coastal Dunes Due to
Accessed September 24, 2014. Storms. Available at [Link]
com/papers/[Link]. Accessed
USACE (2014c). Nonstructural Flood Risk September 15, 2014.
Management Measures. Available at [Link]
[Link]/rcc/MRFTF/docs/USACE- Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, and B.A.
NFPC%20Nonstructural%20Measures%20Definitions. Ebersole (2009). Influence of landscape restoration
pdf. Accessed September 24, 2014. and degradation on storm surge and waves in
southern Louisiana. Journal of Natural Hazards 51 (1):
USACE (2014d). Procedures to Evaluate Sea Level 207–224.
Change: Impacts, Responses, and Adaptation.
Technical Letter 1100-2-1. U.S. Army Corps of Wamsley, T.V., M.A. Cialone, J.M. Smith, J.H. Atkinson,
Engineers. and J.D. Rosati (2010). The Potential of Wetlands in
Reducing Storm Surge. Ocean Engineering 37: 59–68.
USACE Coastal Systems Portfolio Initiative (CSPI)
(2012). Technical Review of Coastal Projects: Storm Yao, Y., Z. Huang, S.G. Monismith, and E.Y.M.
Risk Management, Navigation, and Ecosystem Lo (2012). 1DH Boussinesq Modeling of Wave
Restoration for the Nation’s Coastlines. Transformation over Fringing Reefs. Ocean
Engineering 47: 30.

116 NACCS: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK