Discussion leaders: Thomas Cronin and Robert O’Connor

Notetaker: Loan Le

The May 2-3, 1999 Advisory Committee Meeting Coastal Zone Discussion group addressed 3 questions: 1) What did you learn from the report? 2) What was problematic in the report? 3) What more is needed for future reports?

1.  The region’s coasts, particularly the Chesapeake Bay, are extremely vulnerable. Many effects attributed to anthropogenic causes, as well as natural processes of the system, are known: sea level rise and fall, historical trends, land subsidence

2. and 3.  Topics relevant to coastal zone vulnerability to climate change include: thermal expansion, the range of sea level rise that has been documented, and an explanation of relative sea level rise as opposed to absolute sea level rise. Be clear about models’ limits, sensitivities and assumptions, and how predictions could differ if assumptions are wrong. The "land form" section of the report has an inaccuracy in the rate of sea level rise. List the uncertainties about the impacts of climate change. The IPCC report (Chapter 7) does a better job of explaining CC and SLR.

• Redefine the term "ecosystem," in reference to the figure on page 73
• Eliminate unnecessary information (e.g. in case studies sections)
• More response suggestions for marshland coast (e.g. strategic retreat programs, beach nourishment, or sediment replenishment in marshes)
• The language is too strong when words like "has caused" are used (p. 78).
• The term Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula (P.77) is unclear; both are sounds.
• Include a sub-section on socio- economic impacts; what are the costs of various scenarios for regional planning?
• Subsections on bays, estuaries, tidal marshes, and urban areas to separate the impacts from each type of area
• Incorporate storms and their effects on barrier islands and separate the effects of SLR from other hydrological changes
• Make unfinished sections brief and ask if these case studies are the right ones; mention strategies and management options but consider dropping the legal discussion
• Use more graphics (e.g. maps showing absolute vs. relative sea level rise, comparing the rate of sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay area to that of the globe, plotting cities in MAR within x meters of sea level as an example of vulnerable areas if a coastline map for 2100 is not possible).
• Mention paucity of recorded data on sea level rise for the Chesapeake Bay; sea level histories have been described for Connecticut and S. Carolina from paleo records. Zoe Johnson has maps showing changes over time in the Chesapeake Bay’s shoreline.
• Note possible projections: where shoreline positions will be (bearing in mind the sketchiness of concrete values in such estimations); if storm models give different predictions, rate the likely outcomes for decision-makers.
• Recognize complexity of system without CC; consider federal flood insurance costs and policies that subsidize coastal development; list stresses of ground water and coastal septic systems—without CC; be clear on limits & assumptions of SLR models before adding CC to current stresses.