Natural Hazard Observer Nov 2005

Home Browse Search

erosion rates along the East Coast by 33 to 50 percent on average, greatly increasing the cost of beach nourishment projects, which are designed to "hold the line" and protect shorefront development. Most moderately to highly developed coastal commu- nities have come to rely on beach nourishment for storm protection. Shoreline armoring is also used. The em- placement of seawalls (without beach fill) in the face of incessant erosion ultimately results in beach loss and hence the degradation of the recreational corridor that draws residents and tourists alike. Some critics have called for outright retreat from the coastline, but rapidly increasing beachfront development combined with soaring real estate values make the option of retreat and land abandonment politically unpalatable and popularly unacceptable for landowners where "living on the edge" is a physical reality. We are long past the point of decrying that barrier islands as dynamic land - forms should not be developed; the reality is quite differ- ent, and the goal now must be to maintain and manage environmental qualities. Therefore, beach renourishment is usually considered the only viable option to address erosion hazards, but obtaining Corps funding requires a tremendous investment of time and resources by coastal communities, and the process is largely politically driven. A national policy for shoreline management is vitally needed.' In the absence of a coherent and consistent framework for managing the shore, Corps projects are undertaken on a project -by- project basis. Overall, federal programs are reduced to ad hoc efforts to deal with coastal hazards and environmental consequences. Florida has the best program in the nation for dealing with storm impacts and coastal erosion, as well tested in 2004 by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne, and Ivan. In fair- ness to coastal communities that are confounded by the contradictory, or at least divergent, approaches to beach - front management, a coordinated policy and streamlined process to address the nations' growing coastal hazard losses is clearly needed and long overdue. Stephen P. Leatherman (leatherm @fact. edu) Florida International University Gilbert White University of Colorado at Boulder `The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. 2000. Evaluation of erosion hazards. Washington, DC: Heinz Center. 2Zbang, K., B.C. Douglas, and S.P. Leatherman. 2003. Global warming and long -term sandy beach erosion. Climatic Change 64:41 -58. 'Crowell, M., and S.P. Leatherman, eds. 1999. Coastal erosion mapping and management. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 28. 4U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. NEMA's Recommendations for Naming the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) released the following recommendations for naming the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Nomination and Confirmation Process for FEMA Director • The director of FEMA should be a fixed term appointment for not less than five years (as is the director of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice, for example). • Regardless of where FEMA is located in the federal government organizational structure, the FEMA director should have a direct report to the president of the United States. • The president should continue to nominate and the Senate confirm the director of FEMA. Congress should scruti- nize the nomination to ensure the appointed individual meets established criteria. • A vetting process should be established that includes a role for input by emergency management constituent groups (using the judicial nomination process and rating by the American Bar Association as an example). Recommended FEMA Director Qualifications, Knowledge, and Expertise • Emergency management or similar, related career at the federal, state, or local government level • Executive level management, government administration, and budgeting experience • Understanding of fundamental principles of population protection; disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery; and command and control • Understanding of the legislative process • Demonstrated leadership: ability to exert authority. and execute decisions in crisis situations For more information about NEMA, contact NEMA, PO Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578; (859) 244 -8000; http://Www.nemaweb.org/. Natural Hazards Observer November 2005 •