Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, the coastal zone designations and their <br />accompanying construction standards should be revisited, A Zone standards are inadequate in <br />those coastal areas now defined as overwash, or AO, Zones, These areas are not V Zones, but <br />they still can experience up to 3-foot breaking waves and significant flow down the back side of <br />dunes and street ends, The wave action and velocity dictate different standards for coastal A <br />Zones and riverine A Zones. The Federal Insurance Administration recognizes the possible need <br />to differentiate, in the insurance rates, between the two types of A Zones, <br /> <br />FLOOD MAPS <br /> <br />Significant updates and remapping are needed of the coastal areas depicted on Flood Insurance Rate <br />Maps, including V Zone and A Zone boundaries, and AO Zones. For those areas that have been <br />remapped, the changes on the ground are often significant. In addition, there is a discrepancy between <br />the definition of V Zones in the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, and the delineation <br />of V Zone boundaries on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The maps need to catch up with the 1988 <br />change in the definition of V Zone, based on primary frontal dunes. <br /> <br />SHORELINE EROSION <br /> <br />The nation has begun to do a better job of identifYing and mapping erosion zones in the last few <br />years, with funding support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is fairly <br />widespread agreement among all stakeholders on these erosion problems, The real difficulty lies in <br />how public policy should respond to erosion, Traditional responses of armoring seem less popular, <br />due to the fact that this response often results in adverse impacts to valued beaches and coastal <br />resources, This has caused a shift in focus from "hard" annoring of the coast (with jetties, seawalls, <br />etc,) to "soft" armoring via beach nourishment. The Corps of Engineers has been heavily involved <br />in this, unfortunately often in response to intense lobbying from iniluentiallegislators and wealthy <br />property owners, <br /> <br />Beach nourishment has been criticized as the "expensive solution" to erosion, since these projects are <br />paid for by many but benefit relatively few, even when the benefits to ecosystem restoration and <br />habitat enhancement are considered, In addition, the technique is only a temporary solution because <br />periodic renourishment is required over the long term (Corps of Engineers projects and agreements <br />set forth a 50-year project life, with period renourishment every 3-6 years in most cases). Another <br />concern is the acknowledged secondary impacts of these projects, namely induced development and <br />redevelopment. <br /> <br />· The cost-share scheme for beach nourishment projects should be based on the true benefits to <br />each level of government. The National Shoreline Study mandated by the Water Resources <br />Development Act of 1999 would examine the environmental and economic impacts of beach <br />nourishment and should provide a sound basis for re-examination of the costs and benefits of this <br />technique, In addition to beach nourishment, localities, developers, and homeowners should <br />always consider alternative strategies for mitigating erosion, such as property acquisition or <br />increased setbacks, <br /> <br />· Public access to nourished beaches should be improved. Nourishment projects do require <br />easements to place sand on private property and to allow the public to walk on and use the newly <br />placed sandy beach. However, in many areas there is inadequate parking to facilitate this beach <br />access, <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-18- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />