Using forecasts to protect Federal facilities in the path of Hurricane Isabel

Hurricane Isabel made landfall as a Category 2 Hurricane on 18 September 2003, on the North Carolina Outer Banks between Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras, then coursed northwestward through Pamlico Sound and west of Chesapeake Bay where it downgraded to a tropical storm. Wind damage on the west and southwest shores of Pamlico Sound and the western shore of Chesapeake Bay was moderate, but major damage resulted from the storm tide. The NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Sciences, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research at Beaufort, North Carolina and the Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomedical Research Branch at Oxford, Maryland have hurricane preparedness plans in place. These plans call for tropical storms and hurricanes to be tracked carefully through NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) watches, warnings, and advisories. When a hurricane watch changes to a hurricane warning for the areas of Beaufort or Oxford, documented hurricane preparation plans are activated. Isabel exacted some wind damage at both Beaufort and Oxford. Storm tide caused damage at Oxford, where area-wide flooding isolated the laboratory for many hours. Storm tide also caused damage at Beaufort. Because of their geographic locations on or near the open ocean (Beaufort) or on or near large estuaries (Beaufort and Oxford), storm tide poses a major threat to these NOAA facilities and the safety of federal employees. Damage from storm surge and windblown water depends on the track and intensity of a storm. One tool used to predict storm surge is the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model of the NWS, which provides valuable surge forecasts that aid in hurricane preparation.

Adapting to climate change: Combining economics and geomorphology in coastal policy

How is climate change affecting our coastal environment? How can coastal communities adapt to sea level rise and increased storm risk? These questions have garnered tremendous interest from scientists and policy makers alike, as the dynamic coastal environment is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Over half the world population lives and works in a coastal zone less than 120 miles wide, thereby being continuously affected by the changes in the coastal environment [6]. Housing markets are directly influenced by the physical processes that govern coastal systems. Beach towns like Oak Island in North Carolina (NC) face severe erosion, and the tax assesed value of one coastal property fell by 93% in 2007 [9]. With almost ninety percent of the sandy beaches in the US facing moderate to severe erosion [8], coastal communities often intervene to stabilize the shoreline and hold back the sea in order to protect coastal property and infrastructure. Beach nourishment, which is the process of rebuilding a beach by periodically replacing an eroding section of the beach with sand dredged from another location, is a policy for erosion control in many parts of the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts [3]. Beach nourishment projects in the United States are primarily federally funded and implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) after a benefit-cost analysis. Benefits from beach nourishment include reduction in storm damage and recreational benefits from a wider beach. Costs would include the expected cost of construction, present value of periodic maintenance, and any external cost such as the environmental cost associated with a nourishment project (NOAA). Federal appropriations for nourishment totaled $787 million from 1995 to 2002 [10]. Human interventions to stabilize shorelines and physical coastal dynamics are strongly coupled. The value of the beach, in the form of storm protection and recreation amenities, is at least partly capitalized into property values. These beach values ultimately influence the benefit-cost analysis in support of shoreline stabilization policy, which, in turn, affects the shoreline dynamics. This paper explores the policy implications of this circularity. With a better understanding of the physical-economic feedbacks, policy makers can more effectively design climate change adaptation strategies. (PDF contains 4 pages)