Agenda

3:30-3:35     Welcome and Introductions (Bri)

1. Quick role call – report by region

Northeast

Steve Dickson (ME)

Julia Knisel (MA)

Patricia Bouey (MA)

 

Mid Atlantic

Kelly Pflike (NJ)

Kim Cole (DE)

 

Southeast/Caribbean

Joe Bauer (FL)

 

Great Lakes

Matt Warner (MI)

Scudder Mackey (OH)

Ronda Wycheck (MI)

 

West Coast

Larry Goldzband (CA)

Michelle Jesperson (CA)

 

Pacific Islands

Justine Nihipali (HI)

 

CSO

Bri Cotti-Rausch

John Ryan-Henry

Grant Williams

Bradley Watson

---

Scudder – Opens the call by thanking the members for attending and asks for any feedback on the Agenda or if anyone has information/updates they would like to share before beginning the call [Group – no comments]

3:35-3:50     Renaming the Work Group (Bobbak and Scudder)

1. Review the proposed name change: “Coastal Resiliency Planning and Adaptation Work Group” to reflect our current interests and desired direction as described in the CSO Policy adopted in 2013
   • Take and debate any other recommendations/suggestions from the group
   • Briefly describe process for making a name change

Scudder M. asks for any comments on the Work Group name from the members

Matt W.

• Dealing with the term coastal resilience can be interpreted very broadly for folks, so perhaps incorporating hazards back into the name would be appropriate
• If communities hear resilience they consider climate change and less broadly coastal resilience

Names are workshopped among the group:

Coastal Hazards Resiliency Planning and Adaptation Work Group

Final selection: Coastal Hazards Planning and Adaptation Work Group

Resiliency Planning and Adaptation for Coastal Hazards

Scudder M.

• Similar feeling – resiliency is very broad and has a connotation associated with climate change and also with respect to infrastructure so that the full meaning of what we work on can get lost
• Also using the term coastal hazards recognizes a changing in perception of resiliency
• We do discuss hazards later in the agenda so this change would be appropriate

Kelly P.

• Point well taken – every region/community defines resiliency differently so the intent would not be lost
• Though thought the more loaded term might be “adaptation”

Julia K.

• Agree with the proposed change as it aligns better with NOAA’s vision for evaluating the metrics of the CZM programs

Scudder

• Any concerns for leaving the term Resiliency out? [none]; Also suggests the shorter the better
• Will put the name to a full member vote using the online survey and if accepted the name change will be recommended to the Executive Committee for a final vote. [Group – agrees]

3:50 – 4:20   Work Group planning (Bobbak and Scudder)

1. Co-Chairs share long-term vision for the Work Group

Scudder M.

• The issues that we deal with that are timely and are pertinent and re-focusing on the hazards issue as NOAA is also re-focusing away from Resiliency and more on Coastal Hazards (hurricanes etc.) that the role for CZM programs under current political constraints to be a more “purple”

Bri C-R.

• Describes use of the Work Group to shift some work done on resiliency and allowing the focus of annual meetings to change

Scudder M.

• We can do more on the Hazards side; citing what was done in the past on climate change and adaptation and provides a good background/history

Michelle J.

• We are all focused on hazards across the board and doing a deeper dive into topics; from her point of view she doesn’t believe that hazards has overly dominated meetings in a negative way

Scudder M.

• Refocusing a bit is better not so much that hazards was too focused on in the past, reflecting the current issues facing the coastal states:
  • Severe nor’easters
  • Erosion etc.
• Because of these threats changes have been made to policies, regulations, and technical assistance
• How can we use this network to better share on how we are modifying our programs to adjust for current needs?

2. Call to Action – proposed Policy Subcommittee (Grant Williams)
   • Discuss proposed structure and process
   • Brief description of current/upcoming policies identified by CSO as being of significance to the members
   • Update members on The Coastal Communities Adaptation Act (S. 2783)

Grant W.

• Idea started with internal discussions at CSO and presented to the Co-Chairs of the Work Group
• Currently, CSO does not have a very formalized process for endorsing legislation and have begun a process for being more proactive rather than reactive to upcoming legislation
• Having experts (members) review the legislation and recommending whether or not a bill should be supported, or how to improve the language, provide comments to Hill offices
• For quick moving legislation or if there is a fast timetable to support a bill, then the Executive Committee has been the first step and will likely remain so
• But for legislation that does not have to be acted on so longer timeline issues can be discussed by the group and allow time for thorough examination of the bill and recommendations to be shared with partners and Hill offices
  • Aspects to a program or bill that could be improved by the group

Scudder M.

• Would this include identification of specific issues and if it were to be addressed – we suggest additional changes/modifications (e.g., beach and inlet policy)?
• If legislation is in close alignment with group priorities will we help craft language that helps it be more aligned with CSO member needs?

Grant W.

• Yes, we would want to have recommendations that can as closely align with the views of the group (and CSO members in general) as possible

 

Scudder M.

• Some states face restrictions on lobbying on the Hill but if running through the Work Group and through CSO this can help be a work around – another mechanism for member interests to be heard

Grant W.

• As a former Hill staffer, it is valuable input from members because Hill Staff may not know who to talk to in the states to get these opinions. Often issues can be missed because Hill Staff lack state perspectives.
• Also, individual states do not need to be called out in the recommendations that are passed along to the Hill

Julia K.

• Really likes having a formal policy subcommittee where CSO staff would brief them on formal feedback and then provide that feedback to staffers and fully endorses this opportunity.

Scudder M.

• Internal work for how this will be formalized and constructed and work forward on?
• Looking for consensus or for those who might have a concern?
• Ohio perspective – certainly supports this and finding ways for states to have a stronger voice
• Some legislation coming through that may be hurtful/harmful and need to get out ahead of that; this would allow more to become engaged of this
• Work through how this will look going forward [Group: no one objects]

Grant W.

• Will establish a process on paper and send it to the Co-Chairs to review

Scudder M.

• Is there an appropriate size that we should aim for?

Grant W.

• Not really, this can be flexible as member involvement may vary based on the topic area addressed in a piece of legislation so hesitate to put an upper limit on the size
• More eyes on it the better – and would like good geographical representation as there can be differences in House/Senate bills that can impact individual states/regions differently.

3. Discuss other proposed Work Group activities (see table below)
   • Briefly discuss each opportunity
   • What have we missed?
   • Timelines and time commitments – what is a reasonable ask to make of members?

Scudder M. asks the group to refer to the table below that summarizes potential activities and Bri C.R. runs through a quick overview of the summarized activities

Scudder M.

• Have we missed anything? [Group – no]
• To clarify – on the survey does a vote indicate you are interested in the topic and can devote time to these resources?
• May want to break out the survey on a geographic basis to slice and dice on a geographic basis
• Send a survey with a cover explanation about what is being asked of the members
• Is a week timeline an appropriate time frame to expect a response on the survey? [Group – yes]

Julia K. – what were the reviewer comments on the Toolkit Paper?

• Bri provides brief overview – focused mainly on reviewer’s wanting a better understanding of the role of coastal programs in providing resources to local communities
  • Will share the paper with the Work Group and the reviewer comments

Julia K. – have we reached out to FEMA yet to float the idea of the guidance?

• CSO – no we have not

Justine N.

• Hawaii CZMP participates in state multi-hazard mitigation updates
• And can solicit proposals for pre-disaster mitigation funds – is this the same thing that we are talking about?
• Reflects that this is really not a problem for HI but may be a state-by-state issue

Scudder – that is something that we could follow-up on

John Ryan-Henry

• Not familiar; Scudder – asks for follow-up on this to be sent out to the group

Follow-up on FEMA question:

On the July 26 Adaptation Work Group call, we were asked for information on opportunities to improve partnership opportunities with FEMA. This information summarizes FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs and reviews existing CSO activities regarding FEMA programs.

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance

FEMA administers three programs to fund hazard mitigation projects, including long-term resilience planning. These programs can support coastal resilience priorities in the states, but each come with caveats on eligibility and application processes.

• The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides post-disaster federal assistance funds to states, territories, and tribes after a presidential disaster declaration, and supports long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects.
• The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program funds states, territories, and tribes and communities for planning and projects to reduce long-term flood risk to structures in the National Flood Instance Program (NFIP).
• The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program provides funds to states, territories, and tribes annually through a competitive grant program to support planning and projects. Applications must pass through the state emergency management agency.

More information about these programs will be presented on August 21 during the OCM/CSO “Maximizing Your Resilience Potential” session 1 webinar, discussed below.

The CSO Coastal Resiliency Planning and Adaptation Policy includes the following principle:

Increase funding and capacity of state and federal programs to provide long-term resiliency planning thereby reducing future potential losses (post-disaster recovery planning). For example, eligibility of pre-disaster mitigation grants should be expanded to include Coastal Zone Management-related projects designed to minimize future loss of life and property through long-term resiliency planning and adaptation.

CSO asks – Would the Work Group want to support the Knowledge Exchange focus by examining CZM projects that have received funding under these programs and sharing success stories / best practices?

CSO Activities

CSO is partnering with OCM on a series of peer-to-peer exchange webinars for CZM and NERR programs titled “Maximizing Your Resilience Potential,” focused on increasing state CZM programs’ staff-level connections to FEMA regional office staff and access to FEMA mitigation funding. The first webinar will be held on August 21 (register here). That session will include an introduction to FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs and provide resources to assist relationship building with FEMA regional offices. Two more webinars are planned to follow about a month apart.

CSO asks – Is there further work we would like to do to build off of this coordinated effort with OCM to pursue the Work Groups focus on Building Partnerships – Resources for Communities?

CSO is also partnered with the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) to provide resources for members supporting community participation in the FEMA NFIP Community Rating System (CRS). We have a new CSO/ASFPM Digital Coast Fellow joining the staff in August who will be completing a study of socioeconomic factors affecting the capacity of communities to advance in the CRS. This study will help guide CSO/ASFPM efforts to provide resources to state programs and local communities. The fellow will also coordinate with other Digital Coast Partners, including OCM, The Nature Conservancy, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, and the American Planning Association on collaborative national efforts to support CRS participation/advancement.

CSO comment – We hope to coordinate with the Work Group on the development of this Digital Coast Fellowship project.

4. Format of future calls
   • Balance administrative updates and opportunity for peer-to-peer knowledge exchange

Scudder M.

• Alluded to this topic earlier; Propose that as individual Project teams get underway we will start calls with a brief overview from CSO on any breaking or developing issues – then progress onto a series of topics, including project team updates as appropriate
• Does this sound like a good plan? [Group – yes]
• Materials sent out prior to the call and then lead by the appropriate team

 

Kelly P.

• Providing the opportunity to share information is good
• If this is a formal update; then we need a more formalized process going forward

 

Bri agrees that CSO will take the lead on preparing materials and formalizing a schedule for members to present to the group. This will be planned and not ad hoc on each call.

 

Scudder

• Look at the list of proposed activities for the Work Group to vote on
• As the project teams develop more robust updates for each group to take the lead then that is what may take over the call – will be adaptive.

 

4:20 – 4:30   Housekeeping and CSO Update (Bri)

1. Remind members to log in and view the new Members Only Work Group webpage and provide feedback to Bri

• Link to the Activities Survey will be found on the main Work Group page

Bri C-R.

• Reminder that the webpage is live, please reach out to CSO if you need a members-only login.

 

2. Members given opportunity to make any program announcements they would like to share with the group and CSO (e.g., recent news stories, newly introduced policies)

[Members were asked previously on the call and no issues/updates were presented]

Bradley W.

• Plug for going to the members only portion of the website
• NFWF technical review is open and there is a short deadline on this and is an opportunity for the members that they are making on the regions

John R-H.

• NOAA and USGS reached out to CSO to request an assessment on national elevation requirements that will inform ongoing federal data production work
• The OST policy at the White House released a draft of it’s 10-year Strat Plan and feedback can be provided by Aug 27^th and focused on data collection
  • Members-Only site allows access to this information and if staff members do not have access then please contact CSO.

Scudder

• Thank to everyone and moving down a new path that is exciting – feel free to reach out to us let’s keep in touch and will be back in touch with you soon

Call adjourned at 4:32 EST.