Coastal Hazards Commission
February 15, 2006 Meeting Summary

Governor Romney opened the meeting with remarks about the importance of managing our coastal areas in the face of coastal hazards. He emphasized the need to take a comprehensive approach to managing hazards as well as prioritizing capital needs related to coastal infrastructure.

Secretary Pritchard described the charge to the Commission and asked that a report be submitted to the Legislature in November. The charge included: characterizing our vulnerability to coastal hazards, evaluating the adequacy of coastal hazards data and tools, evaluating current management approaches and exploring other alternatives, and developing a 20-year Coastal Infrastructure and Protection Plan for the coast of the Massachusetts that inventories existing publicly owned coastal engineering structures and prioritizes necessary capital improvements.

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management regional coordinators presented a virtual tour of the shoreline of Massachusetts, highlighting coastal geology, hazard issues, and hot spots, as well as some examples of solutions.

Following the presentation, the Commission brainstormed issues that should be addressed. These include:

• Need to make distinction between public and privately owned coastal structures.
• Understanding the role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
• Need for inventory and ways to discourage publicly funded infrastructure in hazardous areas.
• Need for more information about the extent and cost of federally declared coastal disasters—where and how much was paid out.
• Need to understand options and support for property buy-out and retreat from high hazard areas.
• Engaging the insurance sector and possibly real estate sector in conversations regarding the funding of development in hazardous areas (insurance, real estate, lending).
• More information requested on the use of innovative technologies to retain sand on beaches and minimize storm damage.
• Weighing the costs/benefits of coastal hazards management approaches (e.g., funds for hazard protection with the costs of the infrastructure being protected).
• Request for more information on sea level rise predictions and shoreline change trends.
• Need to understand growth management provisions of recent public infrastructure improvements (water and sewer) on barrier beaches/high hazard areas.
• Need to prioritize the maintenance of hazard mitigation for existing publicly owned coastal engineering structures (public works/wastewater treatment plants, roads/transportation, etc.).
• Look to positive examples from other states or regions (Florida, New Jersey) particularly related to public/private partnerships for beach nourishment.
• Use of "design storm" to inform Commission's work.
• Aesthetic concerns about coastal structures.
• Concerns about the existing regulatory system as it pertains to dredging projects(prolonged process).
• Further exploration of regional sediment management and beneficial use of dredged material for beach nourishment.