DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing the Retreat from Rising Seas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Managing the Retreat from Rising Seas Lessons and Tools from 17 Case Studies Matthew D. Viggiano, formerly New York City Cover Photo Credits: Authors Mayor’s Office of Housing Recovery Operations, (top row, left to right): This report was written by Katie Spidalieri, Senior New York; Andrew Meyer, San Diego Audubon, Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin, Associate, and Isabelle Smith, Research Assistant, California; Tim Trautman, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Texas; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Uni- Storm Water Services, North Carolina; Pam Service; U.S. Fish and versity Law Center; and Jessica Grannis, Coastal Kearfott, City of Austin Watershed Protection Wildlife Service; Integration Resilience Director at National Audubon Society. Department, Texas; James Wade, Harris County and Application Network, University of Maryland The Louisiana Strategic Adaptations for Future Flood Control District, Texas; Fawn McGee, New Center for Environmental Environments (LA SAFE) case study was written by Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Science. Jennifer Li, Staff Attorney, and Alex Love, student, Frances Ianacone, New Jersey Department of (center row, left to right): Harrison Institute for Public Law at Georgetown Environmental Protection; Thomas Snow, Jr., State of Louisiana Office of University Law Center. Editorial and writing support New York State Department of Environmental Community Development; Integration and Application were provided by Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Conservation; Dave Tobias, New York City Network, University of and Lisa Anne Hamilton, Adaptation Program Direc- Department of Environmental Protection, Maryland Center for tor, Georgetown Climate Center. New York; Stacy Curry, Office of Emergency Environmental Science; Will Parson, Chesapeake Management, Woodbridge Township, New Bay Program, U.S. Fish Jersey; Sandy Urgo, The Land Conservancy and Wildlife Service; State Acknowledgments of New Jersey; Joel Gerwein, California State of Louisiana Office of Community Development. Coastal Conservancy; Jay Diener, Seabrook- The authors would like to thank the Doris Duke Hamptons Estuary Alliance, Hampton, New (bottom row, left to right): Charitable Foundation for its generous support and Integration and Application Hampshire; Kirsten Howard, New Hampshire guidance, and without whom the Managed Retreat Network, University of Department of Environmental Services Coastal Toolkit and this case study report would not have Maryland Center for Program; Mathew Sanders, Louisiana Office of Environmental Science; been possible. Betty Whetzel (Courtesy Community Development; Liz Williams Russell, of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Foundation for Louisiana; Joseph (Joe) Tirone, We are also grateful for the support of the Service); Matt Green; Katie Jr., Oakwood Beach Buyout Committee, Staten Spidalieri, Georgetown Georgetown Environment Initiative that enabled Climate Center. Island, New York City, New York; and Megan us to bring together diverse, interdisciplinary Webb, King County Department of Natural stakeholder expertise and Georgetown University Resources and Parks, Washington State. faculty to inform the development of the Managed Retreat Toolkit, including Professors Uwe Brandes, Design: J. Peter Byrne, Beth Ferris, and Sheila Foster. Brent Futrell, Georgetown University Law Center Office of Communications. We would also like to specially thank and acknowledge the following individuals for taking ©2020, Georgetown Climate Center the time to speak with us, review drafts, and provide insights that were invaluable in helping to Georgetown University Law Center inform the Managed Retreat Toolkit and these case 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW studies: Erik Meyers, The Conservation Fund; Matt Washington, D.C. 20001 Whitbeck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Justine Nihipali, Hawaii Office of Planning Coastal Zone Management Program; Mitchell Austin, City of GeorgetownClimate.org Punta Gorda, Florida; Kelsey Moldenke, Quinault Managed Retreat Toolkit Indian Nation; Charles Warsinske, Quinault Indian Nation; Deborah Helaine Morris, formerly New AdaptationClearinghouse.org York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, New York; Lauren E. Wang, New York City Mayor’s Office of Resiliency, New York; b Table of Contents I. About This Report II. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland: Blackwater 2100 III. State of Hawaii: Assessing the Feasibility and Implications of Managed Retreat Strategies for Vulnerable Coastal Areas in Hawaii I V. Punta Gorda, Florida: Climate Adaptation and Comprehensive Plans and Updates V. Quinault Indian Nation, Washington: Taholah Village Relocation Master Plan VI. Queens, New York: Resilient Edgemere Community Plan VII. San Diego, California: ReWild Mission Bay VIII. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: Floodplain Buyout Program IX. City of Austin, Texas: Flood Risk Reduction Buyout Projects X. Harris County, Texas: Flood Control District Local Buyout Program XI. New York City, New York: Land Acquisition and Flood Buyout Programs XII. State of New Jersey: Blue Acres Buyout Program XIII. Woodbridge Township, New Jersey: Post-Hurricane Sandy Buyouts XIV. Long Beach, California: Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration and Land Swap X V. Hampton, New Hampshire: Community-Driven Climate Adaptation Planning Process XVI. State of Louisiana: Louisiana Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments (LA SAFE) XVII. Staten Island, New York: Oakwood Beach Buyout Committee and Program XVIII. King County, Washington: Transfer of Development Rights Program I II Managing the Retreat from Rising Seas: Lessons and Tools from 17 Case Studies About This Report This report is composed of 17 individual case studies. Each one tells a different story about As seas continue to rise and disaster events how states, local governments, and communities and extreme weather increase in frequency and across the country are approaching questions intensity, climate change is driving state and about managed retreat. Together, the case studies local policymakers to evaluate strategies to adapt highlight how different types of legal and policy to various risks affecting many communities. tools are being considered and implemented across In addition to protection (e.g., hard shoreline a range of jurisdictions — from urban, suburban, armoring) and accommodation (e.g., elevating and rural to riverine and coastal — to help support or flood-proofing structures) measures, coastal new and ongoing discussions on the subject. These governments and communities are increasingly case studies are intended to provide transferable evaluating managed retreat, where appropriate, lessons and potential management practices for as a potential component of their comprehensive coastal state and local policymakers evaluating adaptation strategies. Managed retreat is the managed retreat as one part of a strategy to adapt coordinated process of voluntarily and equitably to climate change on the coast. relocating people, structures, and infrastructure Collectively, these case studies present a suite, away from vulnerable coastal areas in response although not an exhaustive list, of legal and policy to episodic or chronic threats to facilitate the tools that can be used to facilitate managed retreat transition of individual people, communities, and efforts. Legal and policy tools featured include: ecosystems (both species and habitats) inland. planning; hazard mitigation buyouts and open The aim of managed retreat is to proactively move space acquisitions, as well as other acquisition tools people, structures, and infrastructure out of harm’s like land swaps and reversionary interests; land use way before disasters occur to maximize benefits and and zoning; and Transfer of Development Rights minimize costs for communities and ecosystems. programs. The case studies also highlight various For example, policymakers may maximize policy tradeoffs and procedural considerations opportunities for flood and risk reduction by necessitated by retreat decisions. Each jurisdiction conserving wetlands and protecting habitat is confronting different challenges and migration corridors and minimize the social, opportunities and has different, perhaps even psychological, and economic costs of relocation by competing, objectives for retreat. In addition, making investments in safer, affordable housing stakeholders in each of these cases are attempting within existing communities. to balance multiple considerations, including: III protecting coastal ecosystems and the environment; • The Next Steps section captures the anticipated fostering community engagement and equity; future actions that jurisdictions may take in preparing “receiving communities” or areas where implementing these managed retreat strategies. people may voluntarily choose to relocate; and assessing public and private funding options • The Considerations and Lessons Learned and availability. The case studies included in this section concludes with the primary takeaways report were selected to reflect the interdisciplinary from each example that other coastal state and and complex nature of retreat decisions and local policymakers and communities may con- underscore the need for comprehensive solutions sider when developing or implementing their and decisionmaking processes to address these own managed retreat strategies using these legal challenging considerations. and policy tools. Where possible, all of the case studies share a The case studies in this report
Recommended publications
  • Preparing for Sea-Level Rise Through Adaptive Managed Retreat of a New Zealand Stormwater and Wastewater Network

    Preparing for Sea-Level Rise Through Adaptive Managed Retreat of a New Zealand Stormwater and Wastewater Network

    infrastructures Article Preparing for Sea-Level Rise through Adaptive Managed Retreat of a New Zealand Stormwater and Wastewater Network Rick Kool 1,2, Judy Lawrence 1,* , Martin Drews 2 and Robert Bell 3 1 New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, 6012 Wellington, New Zealand; [email protected] 2 Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; [email protected] 3 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, 3251 Hamilton, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 6 October 2020; Accepted: 16 October 2020; Published: 1 November 2020 Abstract: Sea-level rise increasingly affects low-lying and exposed coastal communities due to climate change. These communities rely upon the delivery of stormwater and wastewater services which are often co-located underground in coastal areas. Due to sea-level rise and associated compounding climate-related hazards, managing these networks will progressively challenge local governments as climate change advances. Thus, responsible agencies must reconcile maintaining Levels of Service as the impacts of climate change worsen over the coming decades and beyond. A critical question is whether such networks can continue to be adapted/protected over time to retain Levels of Service, or whether eventual retreat may be the only viable adaptation option? If so, at what performance threshold? In this paper, we explore these questions for stormwater and wastewater, using a dynamic adaptive pathway planning (DAPP) approach designed to address thresholds and increasing risk over time. Involving key local stakeholders, we here use DAPP to identify thresholds for stormwater and wastewater services and retreat options, and for developing a comprehensive and area-specific retreat strategy comprising pathway portfolios, retreat phases, potential land use changes, and for exploring pathway conflicts and synergies.
  • Climate-Driven Community Relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska Provide Insight for a 1.5 °C Future

    Climate-Driven Community Relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska Provide Insight for a 1.5 °C Future

    Regional Environmental Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 °C future Simon Albert1 & Robin Bronen2 & Nixon Tooler 3 & Javier Leon4 & Douglas Yee5 & Jillian Ash6 & David Boseto7 & Alistair Grinham1 Received: 4 May 2017 /Accepted: 12 November 2017 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017 Abstract Whilst future air temperature thresholds have become the centrepiece of international climate negotiations, even the most ambitious target of 1.5 °C will result in significant sea-level rise and associated impacts on human populations globally. Of additional concern in Arctic regions is declining sea ice and warming permafrost which can increasingly expose coastal areas to erosion particularly through exposure to wave action due to storm activity. Regional variability over the past two decades provides insight into the coastal and human responses to anticipated future rates of sea-level rise under 1.5 °C scenarios. Exceeding 1.5 °C will generate sea-level rise scenarios beyond that currently experienced and substantially increase the propor- tion of the global population impacted. Despite these dire challenges, there has been limited analysis of how, where and why communities will relocate inland in response. Here, we present case studies of local responses to coastal erosion driven by sea- level rise and warming in remote indigenous communities of the Solomon Islands and Alaska, USA, respectively. In both the Solomon Islands and the USA, there is no national government agency that has the organisational and technical capacity and resources to facilitate a community-wide relocation.
  • Four Strategies for Dealing with Sea Level Rise

    Four Strategies for Dealing with Sea Level Rise

    Sea level Rise Adaptation Tools and Resources Did you know….? Canada has the longest coastline in the world – approximately 151,019 miles (243,041.5 km) In British Columbia, 80% of population lives within 5 km from the coast. 59 municipalities out of 169 municipalities are coastal, 14 out 28 regional Districts contain coastal communities. The length of the coast is approximatively 29,000 km including the mainland and all islands from Haida Gwaii south to Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands Coastal population: 3,500,000 Major ports: Metro Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Victoria In BC, the government is planning for Sea Level Rise (SLR) using this projected data: 0.5m sea level rise by 2050, 1m by 2100 and 2 m by 2200 BC communities won't be affected by sea level rise in the same way due in part to vertical land movement. The highest relative sea level rise is projected to occur in the Fraser low land, the southern part of Vancouver Island and the North Coast of British Columbia The greatest threat to communities along the coast besides sea level rise is storm surge flooding. Coastal communities are already dealing with extreme water levels. Four Strategies for dealing with Sea Level Rise Protect – advance or hold the line: Reactive strategy to protect people, property and Four Main Main ApproaFourea infrastructure – dikes, seawalls for example, to keep the shoreline at the same position. May be very expensive, have limited effectiveness on long term and may increase the level Four Main Approaches to Adaptation of erosion instead of addressing it.
  • Woodbridge Township Open Space and Flood Plain Restoration Plan Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County New Jersey

    Woodbridge Township Open Space and Flood Plain Restoration Plan Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County New Jersey

    Woodbridge Township Open Space and Flood Plain Restoration Plan Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County New Jersey FINAL DRAFT January 29, 2016 Prepared by: Rutgers Cooperative Extension 14 College Farm Road New Brunswick, NJ 08901 The plan was produced as a collaboration between: Rutgers Cooperative Extension Wildlife Conservation and Management Program Brooke Maslo, Ph.D. Assistant Extension Specialist/Assistant Professor Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources 848-932-5572 [email protected] Brian Schumm Research Assistant Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources and Rutgers Cooperative Extension Water Resources Program Jeremiah Bergstrom, LLA, ASLA Senior Research Project Manager Department of Environmental Sciences 848-932-5708 [email protected] Tekla Pontius-Courtney Unit Administrator/Specialist Department of Environmental Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 1. A flood-damaged house on Crampton Avenue in the Watson-Crampton Neighborhood has been purchased under the Blue Acres Program and awaits demolition ............................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Site Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Residential Properties Remaining
  • Year-Long Celebration to Mark 300Th Anniversary of Woodbridge Township

    Year-Long Celebration to Mark 300Th Anniversary of Woodbridge Township

    THE MIDDLESEX COUNTS . \ • \ TOP COVERAGE Leader-Press and Leader Shopper titi* —top circulation coverage in Woodbridge area. Serving Woodbridge Township, Carteret and Edison Entered in M Cl««i Mail "««* TEN CENTS At P 0 Wnndbrldo. N. J. Woodbridge, N. J., Wednesday, October 23, 1968 On Year-Long Celebration to Mark 300th Anniversary of Woodbridge Township WOODBIUDGE — It will he The executive committee of community will be welcome. organizations in the Township auxiliaries in enlarging the OTHER SUGGESTIONS a big party! the Birthday Celebration, Miss Wolk hat named Mrs. will be asked i > present spe- Memorial Day program to in- Other suggestions made at And it will i»M a long time headed by Miss Ruth Wolk, Elizabeth V. Novak, of Fords, cial historical programs. clude historical aspects. the meeting included the re — for one whole year — the Township historian, has held as chairman of the reception, enactment of Janet Gage Tentative plans have been The "big day" will be June your 1969! an initial meeting. raising the first flag in Wnod- assisted by Richard Bassa made to erect a small monu- Mth—Flag D«y—and the day The guest list? Why, the bridge; George Washington's rab, Colonia; Mrs. Mary Ai- ment in Trinity Episcopal •>! (he signing of the charter. 100,000 residents of Wood- MAYORS RECEPTION stay overnight in Woodbridge wa}, Sewaren and Mrs. Aida Churchyard C* m e t e r y to The tentative arrangements Arrangements were made on bis way to New York for bridge Township. Brennan, Colenia. Mrs. No. mark the final resting place call for an old-fashioned to open the year-long celebra- his inauguration as the first In case there is some doubt vak will name others from a of James Parker, a printer country fair with all groups tion with the Mayor's Recep- president of the United States about whose party it will be, eneral committee to assist who published the first news- and organizations in the tion January I, from .1:00 to and Lafayette's visit to Wood just for the record, it will be n the arrangements.
  • Improving the Prospect for Managed Retreat by Us Cities

    Improving the Prospect for Managed Retreat by Us Cities

    CAN IT HAPPEN HERE? IMPROVING THE PROSPECT FOR MANAGED RETREAT BY US CITIES Peter Plastrik & John Cleveland Innovation Network for Communities With funding from the Summit Foundation March 2019 Managed retreat is a strategy that most effectively eliminates risk.1 —Urban Land Institute Communities have generally focused on actions that address risks from current climate variability and recent extreme events . Fewer communities have focused on actions to address the anticipated scale of future change and emergent threats, such as reducing exposure by preventing building in high-risk locations or retreating from at-risk coastal areas. —"Fourth National Climate Assessment” (2018)2 1 Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Insight #1 -- Many cities will not be able to avoid retreat, but they can choose what kind of retreat to have. ................................................................................................................................ 6 o Disaster-Driven Retreat ................................................................................................... 11 o Market-Driven Retreat ..................................................................................................... 12 o Plan-Driven Retreat ......................................................................................................... 18 Insight #2 -- There is an emerging roadmap for generating community
  • Managed Retreat Report Final

    Managed Retreat Report Final

    Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is intended for general informational and demonstration purposes only. Resemblance to any actual locations, places and/or residences is not intentional. The provision of scenario profiles and the document itself does not constitute any advice, opinions or directives of the State of any kind. The information does not create any duties, obligations or requirements of the State and/or its contractors. The State and/or its contractors will not be liable for any damages, losses or causes of action of any nature arising from any use of these documents or information provided herein. ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY AND IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGED RETREAT STRATEGIES FOR VULNERABLE COASTAL AREAS IN HAWAI‘I FINAL REPORT Commissioned by: State of Hawai‘i Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program Prepared by: Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program with support from SSFM International, Inc. 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 February 2019 This report is a publication of the Hawai‘i State Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Award Nos. NA14NOS4190079 and NA15NOS4190105, funded in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub‐agencies. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project engaged over 200 stakeholders, including decision makers, government agencies, private industries, researchers and community groups and private citizens involved in coastal zone management.
  • Communicating Managed Retreat in California

    Communicating Managed Retreat in California

    water Article Communicating Managed Retreat in California Wendy Karen Bragg 1, Sara Tasse Gonzalez 1 , Ando Rabearisoa 1 and Amanda Daria Stoltz 2,* 1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA; [email protected] (W.K.B.); [email protected] (S.T.G.); [email protected] (A.R.) 2 Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-301-356-3496 Abstract: California cities face growing threats from sea-level rise as increased frequency and severity of flooding and storms cause devastating erosion, infrastructure damage, and loss of property. Management plans are often designed to prevent or slow flooding with short-term, defensive strategies such as shoreline hardening, beach nourishment, and living shorelines. By contrast, managed retreat focuses on avoiding hazards and adapting to changing shorelines by relocating out of harm’s way. However, the term “managed retreat” can be controversial and has engendered heated debates, defensive protests, and steady resistance in some communities. Such responses have stymied inclusion of managed retreat in adaptation plans, and in some cases has resulted in complete abandonment of the policy review process. We examined the Local Coastal Program review process in seven California communities at imminent risk of sea-level rise and categorized each case as receptive or resistant to managed retreat. Three prominent themes distinguished the two groups: (1) inclusivity, timing, and consistency of communication, (2) property ownership, and (3) stakeholder reluctance to change. We examined use of terminology and communication strategies and provided recommendations to communicate “managed retreat” more effectively.
  • Perceptions of Sea-Level Rise and Managed Retreat: an Exploratory Survey

    Perceptions of Sea-Level Rise and Managed Retreat: an Exploratory Survey

    Perceptions of Sea-Level Rise and Managed Retreat: An Exploratory Survey Anthony Ryan1,2, Russell Gorddard1, Nick Abel1, Anne Leitch3, Kim Alexander1,4 and Russell Wise1 February 2012 1 2 CSIRO, Black Mountain Canberra, ACT, now Visiting Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU, Canberra, ACT, 3 4 CSIRO, Dutton Park, Brisbane, Queensland, now Royal Surf Life Saving Society, Sydney, NSW Enquiries should be addressed to: Anne Leitch Russell Wise CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences Ph: 07 3833 5652 Ph: 02 6242 1621 E‐mail: [email protected] E‐mail: [email protected] Copyright and Disclaimer © 2012 CSIRO. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important Disclaimer: CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Citation: Ryan, A., Gorddard, R., Abel, N., Leitch, A.M., Alexander, K.S.
  • 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Middlesex County, New Jersey

    2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Middlesex County, New Jersey

    2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Middlesex County, New Jersey Final Draft December 11, 2015 Section 1: Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview and Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Organization of the Plan ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Planning Process .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Hazards and Risk .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Goals Objectives and Actions .............................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Approval and Adoption ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Monitoring and Updating the Plan ...................................................................................................... 4 Section 2: Planning Process .................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 3: County Profile.......................................................................................................................................
  • Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge

    Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge

    Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge Prepared by Heyer, Gruel & Associates August 2015 Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge Acknowledgments Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Woodbridge Township John E. McCormac, Mayor Robert M. Landolfi, Business Administrator Caroline Ehrlich, Chief of Staff John Hagerty, Communications Director Marta Lefsky, Planning & Development Director Patrick Kenny, Office of Emergency Management Director Stacy Hoffman, Grant Manager Heyer, Gruel & Associates Susan S. Gruel, PP, Principal Fred Heyer, PP/AICP, LEED AP-ND, CNUa, Principal McKinley Mertz, Associate Planner Elena Gable, Assistant Planner/ GIS Specialist ii 2015 Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge Table of Contents Introduction 1 Blue Acres Program 5 Township Characteristics 9 Historic Flooding Impacts & Superstorm Sandy 10 Community Profile: Watson Crampton Neighborhood 12 Related Planning Documents 27 Neighborhood Plan 33 Goals & Objectives 34 Neighborhood Boundaries 35 Design Standards 40 Concept Plan 43 Implementation Plan 55 Appendix 61 2015 iii Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge iv 2015 Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge Introduction Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan 2015 1 Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan Township of Woodbridge Introduction In October 2012, Superstorm Sandy devastated The Watson Crampton Neighborhood Plan has been numerous communities and neighborhoods prepared under the Post Sandy Planning Assistance throughout New Jersey.
  • Development Control Guidance Note: Development and Coastal Erosion – April 2009 2 Summary

    Development Control Guidance Note: Development and Coastal Erosion – April 2009 2 Summary

    North Norfolk Development Control Guidance Development and Coastal Erosion April 2009 Development Control Guidance Note: Development and Coastal Erosion – April 2009 2 Summary North Norfolk District Council, as coast protection authority, manages erosion risk, but it also has a broader responsibility for ensuring that the interests of the public and of our coastal communities are safeguarded in the face of coastal change. Development is a normal and necessary process by which private and commercial aspirations are achieved and community needs are met. It is essential that coastal communities are no different from those inland, and this guidance has therefore been prepared to help ensure that coastal change can be managed now and in the future with minimal detriment to the communities at risk. Protection against flooding is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and whilst this can present a similar threat to individuals and communities it is more difficult to predict and usually its impacts are less permanent. Coastal flooding therefore requires a different response and is dealt with by different policies and guidance; this guidance relates only to coastal erosion (for the cliffed frontage of North Norfolk’s coastline). Planning policy at a national level, and in our own Local Development Framework, stresses that new development should be avoided in coastal zones at risk of erosion. National Planning Policy Guidance Note 20 says a “precautionary approach” should be taken in areas susceptible to erosion. The Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to ensure that “new development is compatible with shoreline management”. And NNDC’s Core Strategy aims to “restrict new development in areas where it would expose people and property to the risks of coastal erosion and flooding”.