Difference between revisions of "State of the Beach/State Reports/GA/Erosion Response"
From Beachapedia
Gwsuperfan (talk | contribs) |
Gwsuperfan (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Climate Change Adaptation= | =Climate Change Adaptation= | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Introduction== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Climate Change== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Adaptation== | ||
=Contact= | =Contact= | ||
=General Reference Documents= | =General Reference Documents= |
Revision as of 13:35, 24 November 2010
Home | Beach Indicators | Methodology | Findings | Beach Manifesto | State Reports | Chapters | Perspectives | Model Programs | Bad and Rad | Conclusion |
Georgia Home | Beach Description | Beach Access | Water Quality | Beach Erosion | Erosion Response | Beach Fill | Shoreline Structures | Beach Ecology | Surfing Areas | Website | Coastal Development | Sea Level Rise |
British Columbia
California
Oregon
Washington
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi
Texas
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Delaware
Maryland
New Jersey
New York
Virginia
Introduction
Erosion response is a measure of how well a state's policies and procedures limit the extent of shoreline armoring, unsafe coastal development, and costly beach nourishment projects. Evaluation of this indicator brings attention to the states that are taking proactive roles in natural beach preservation and natural hazard avoidance. Through the formulation (if not already in place), implementation, and strict adherence of the specific criteria within the indicator, states can overcome two fundamental obstacles to alternative erosion response practices outlined by the Oceans Studies Board (2007):
- A lack of knowledge and experience among decision-makers regarding alternative options for shoreline erosion response, the relative level of erosion mitigation afforded by the alternative approaches and their expected life time, and the nature of the associated impacts and benefits.
- The current legal and regulatory framework itself, which discriminates against innovative solutions because of the complex and lengthy permitting process that almost always considers these options on a case-by-case basis.
For example, are statewide oceanfront construction setbacks used to site new development and are these based on the latest erosion rates? When existing development is damaged during a storm does a state prohibit reconstruction or provide incentives for relocation? Before permitting shoreline stabilization does a state require: that there is demonstrated need via geo-technical reports with content standards; that alternatives to armoring including managed retreat/relocation are fully explored; and that potential adverse impacts and cumulative effects are taken into account? If a state can answer 'yes' to most of these questions then its rank is high and if the answers are mostly 'no' then its rank is low.
Also see the “Policies” discussion in the Shoreline Structures section for more information on Georgia’s erosion response.
Possible quantitative measures for this indicator include the number of new structures located within setback areas, number of damaged structures reconstructed in identified erosion zones, number of instances where alternatives to "hard" shore protection were employed, the number of shoreline structures permitted under "emergency" provisions, and the number of permits for shoreline structures reviewed, approved or denied. We have found that such information is rarely available.