DRAFT REPORT OF THE SHORELINE PRESERVATION TASK FORCE

You asked that we prepare a draft report of the Shoreline Preservation Task Force. A legislative website has links to the presentations and videos of the meetings.

In February 2012, House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan formed a bipartisan task force to study and make legislative recommendations on storm impacts on shoreline homeowners and businesses. He also charged the task force, chaired by Representative James Albis, with looking at the impact of climate change on efforts to preserve shoreline communities. Appendix A lists the task force members.

2. develop new policies to address the needs of shoreline and waterfront residents and businesses regarding shoreline erosion, rising sea levels, and future storm planning; and

3. ensure that these policies complement existing laws regarding emergency communications between towns and the state, utility company preparedness, response and accountability, and insurance issues.

The task force held public hearings on July 9, 2012 at Blackstone Library in Branford; July 23, 2012, at the Penfield Pavilion in Fairfield; and August 6, 2012 at the UConn Avery Point Campus in Groton. All of the hearings were held in the evening. A brief summary of each public hearing follows.

Approximately 70 people attended the Branford hearing and about 20 people spoke. Among the issues raised at the hearing were delays by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) that prevented homeowners from rebuilding after Irene. On the other hand, some homeowners and environmental advocates warned that lax development regulations threatened to make flood damage worse in the future or even poison Connecticut's water. Some homeowners said they had faced damage done by neighbors' seawalls, and environmental advocates warned of the potential risk of building a sea wall. Others said they only wanted to rebuild their existing sea wall. Another issue raised was the impact of storms on local roads.

The Fairfield hearing was attended by approximately 40 people. Among those speaking was a member of Fairfield's Flood Erosion Control Commission who argued that regulatory hurdles, lack of regulation enforcement, and excessive red tape continue to hinder residents' ability to protect their properties and maintain the littoral ecosystems. Westport's conservation director suggested creating incentives for residents and towns to develop and maintain properties in line with more stringent environmental standards. Several area residents complained that bureaucracy at the state level, that has caused wait times as long as three years for permits to build structures that combat erosion.

More than 40 people attended the 2½-hour hearing in Groton. Among the commentators was the owner of a local marina who noted that sea levels in Groton and Noank have risen about 9 inches over the last 60 years. He recommended that the state allow property owners to make repairs to seawalls during warm-weather months. Another commentator suggested that the state consider erosion-prevention technologies other than seawalls to figure out what is the best way to save beaches. A member of the Long Island Sound Assembly said that her group urges the state to start considering climate change when building future infrastructure projects and to update building codes to account for stronger storms.

The task force held eight meetings in 2012, with presentations from a wide variety of parties, as summarized below.

Representative Albis began the meeting by explaining the task force's charge. He stressed the need to keep people safe and the desirability of getting as much input for the task force as possible. The task force members then introduced themselves and explained their backgrounds and interests. Representative Albis then asked the members to describe their priorities and to identify possible speakers.

The task force heard presentations from Rob Thieler from the U.S. Geological Services and Jennifer Pagach from DEEP concerning climate change and sea level rise data and its potential impact along the Eastern seaboard and Connecticut's shoreline.

Mr. Thieler's presentation described the scientific understanding of sea level rise. He described the results and implications of a recent federal interagency assessment of sea level rise and discussed the role of science in supporting decision-making in the face of an uncertain future.

Ms. Pagach described (1) increases in sea level and other changes in Connecticut and the sources of these changes, (2) ecosystem monitoring and modeling efforts, (3) Connecticut initiatives to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and (4) state and national resources.

The task force also discussed a summary of the priorities for the task force as submitted by the members.

Gerard O'Sullivan and George Bradner of the state Insurance Department, described the department's response to the 2011 storms and lessons learned. The task force also heard from Joseph MacDougald, executive director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Law at the UConn School of Law about a proposal for a workshop and forum with the center, task force, and municipal leaders in shoreline towns to discuss the challenges of sea level rise and climate change on their communities.

Steven N. Weisbart of the Insurance Information Institute, discussed the history of hurricanes and other major storms in Connecticut and their impact on the insurance industry and its customers. He also discussed the status of homeowner's and flood insurance in the state.

Joseph Cassidy, acting state building inspector, described the process the state uses to adopt the State Building Code and how the current code is being revised.

Michael Barbero, a realtor with Huntsman, Mead & Partners and legislative chair of the Connecticut Association of Realtors, summarized the association's position on the laws governing shoreline development. The association believes that the current laws are overly extensive and that any changes to them should give due regard to the rights of property owners. Speaking for himself, he discussed what he believes are the shortcomings in the implementation of current law and suggested ways to make the regulatory process more user-friendly.

John Winkelman of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, described the types, functions, and applications of coastal structures such as seawalls, breakwaters, and revetments.

Adam W. Whelchel of The Nature Conservancy described his work in Connecticut and New York. He presented the summary of findings from the climate preparedness workshops held in Bridgeport in the summer of 2012. He also described The Nature Conservancy's work in promoting coastal resilience in New York and Connecticut.

The task force heard presentations from a team from the engineering firm Fuss and O'Neil. Phil Moreschi described federal, state, and local laws governing land use along the shoreline. Kirk Bosma described historic and projected sea level rise and addressed the impact of sea level on civil work projects. Craig Lapinski described design requirements in various types of flood zones and the implications of PA 12-101 on future developments.

The task force issued a wide range of recommendations regarding DEEP, coastal structures, municipalities and land use, insurance and real estate, climate change and sea level rise, and education, among other things.

1. that DEEP improve its responsiveness and consistency in handling coastal-related applications;

2. that DEEP develop clearer, more understandable policies, procedures, and processes for permitting damage and repair work;

3. that DEEP streamline its permitting process for seawalls and other coastal structures;

4. pre-authorizing property owners to reconstruct storm-damaged coastal structures;

6. improving collaboration between DEEP and municipalities to increase consistency and consumer-friendliness;

7. improving enforcement of existing regulations to reduce the number of poor, inappropriate, and illegal coastal structures; and

8. encouraging shoreline neighborhoods and coalitions to work together to create solutions that work for the greatest number, rather than merely allowing individual property owners to take actions, such as seawall construction, that could harm their neighbors.

1. establishing state coastal setback requirements based on local erosion rates and the size of the building;

2. providing incentives for municipalities to plan for the effects of sea level rise on public infrastructure;

3. allowing or requiring municipalities to address climate change adaptation in their plans of conservation and development and zoning regulations, with the state offering guidance and planning and technical assistance grants, an information clearinghouse, menu of local options, best practices, and assistance from regional planning agencies;

4. providing more home rule in coastal permitting, shifting authority from DEEP to the municipalities, with state guidance;

5. providing technical and financial assistance to municipalities to develop mitigation and adaptation plans to make the shoreline more resilient and minimize negative impacts of more frequent and intense storms, flooding, and rising seas;

6. increasing financial assistance to municipalities and nonprofit land conservation groups to acquire open space and watershed land for tidal wetland preservation, conservation of coastal marine habitats, flood control, and adaptation to climate change and sea level rise;

7. providing funds to local municipalities to seek alternative land-use options;

8. requiring local land use codes to reflect the “new realities” of sea level rise and provide for staged adaptation to them; and

9. assessing shoreline town's evacuation and sheltering capabilities to ensure there are mechanics and facilities to handle future emergency and storm crises.

1. increasing the transparency of insurance policies, including full disclosure of coverage limits, when hurricane deductibles apply, and a clear description of how wind damage is distinguished from water damage;

2. requiring the Insurance Department to serve as a facilitator and liaison among insurance companies, DEEP, and FEMA to expedite the paperwork associated with paying for storm-related damages and repairs;

3. encouraging or requiring insurance companies to offer incentives or credits to encourage homeowners and small businesses to take measures to reduce flooding impacts, possibly in the form of credits for insurance on properties located in municipalities that require property owners to employ best management practices to control reduce impervious surface and reduce storm and nonpoint source runoff;

4. identifying and informing property and business owners whose properties are in flood zones, so they are aware of the risks and understand the importance of flood insurance;

5. requiring condominium associations to purchase adequate flood insurance to cover individual units and common property and maintain FEMA-required paperwork;

6. requiring full disclosure in real estate sales transactions of home additions or construction elements that are not fully authorized or have not been given the proper certificate of occupancy; and

7. changing real estate disclosure laws to require property owners to disclose if a property is located in a high erosion area or a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coastal flood zone.

1. assigning staff to research, solicit, and collect successful climate adaptation strategies and technologies from Connecticut municipalities and other states;

2. engaging the UConn Department of Marine Sciences, School of Engineering, and College of Agriculture, and the Connecticut Sea Grant Program, in conjunction with DEEP, federal agencies, and other academic institutions, to establish a program to conduct research and guide development of technology and best management practices to enhance the resilience of coastal communities to coastal hazards and a rise in sea level;

3. taking stock of infrastructure along the coast and assessing the impacts of climate change, including rising seas and increased risk of flooding;

4. identifying the economic and workforce development opportunities associated with climate change adaptation and mitigations strategies;

5. compiling a statewide coastal infrastructure inventory and identifying potential adaptation strategies available to municipalities, developers, and private property owners;

6. developing computer mapping applications to help envision impacts based on different scenarios of sea level changes and storm activity and strengthen or moving infrastructure assets currently in harm's way;

7. separating the facts of climate change from the politics of what causes climate change;

8. adopting legislation to provide clear guidance to DEEP to allow for climate change adaptation;

9. adopting legislation to require sea level rise to be addressed in the design for construction or upgrade of sewage treatment plants or supporting infrastructure financed by the state's Clean Water Fund;

10. amending the statutory definition of “rise in sea level” for planning purposes, to enable planners to consider projected increases in the rate of sea level rise;

11. passing legislation to allow municipalities and the state to consider sea level rise, as it may impact a site or site access, as a factor in making decisions regarding natural resources in coastal site plan or public health permit reviews; and

1. implementing an aggressive statewide education campaign to capitalize on the raised awareness after Irene and Sandy of the impacts of climate change and sea level rise on the state's economy and shoreline;

2. having DEEP and other experts educate municipal agencies on best practices for shoreline development and regulation;

3. improving education and communication by these agencies to permit applicants on the rules and incentives;

4. developing a Connecticut coastal resource and research center to provide public service information on coastal issues;

5. establishing a clearinghouse, perhaps in DEEP, to help homeowners and developers to do the right thing the first time by providing information on best practices and available technologies, ideally coupled with incentives or possibly penalties; and

2. exploring creation of a program or fund to compensate and assist property owners with relocating when the state determines that their structures should not be replaced following severe storm damage; and

3. investigating possible municipal or state tax incentives to encourage or remove disincentives for voluntary relocation from particularly hazardous areas or use of living shoreline techniques for infrastructure protection.

1. appointing a group to identify high priority open space acquisition areas that could buffer storm surge and address marsh migration,

2. working with municipalities to leverage FEMA hazard mitigation and public assistance funding for land acquisition,

3. protecting public trust lands and providing incentives for private waterfront landowners and municipalities to provide access to the public, and

1. ensuring that state-of-the-art building resiliency standards are incorporated in the state building code and

2. requiring more aggressive updates to the building code to reflect sea level rise and increased flooding risks.


December 11, 2012		2012-R-0513 (Revised)
DRAFT REPORT OF THE SHORELINE PRESERVATION TASK FORCE

By: Kevin E. McCarthy, Principal Analyst