NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

2016
ON THIS PAGE

Hurricane Sandy created a breach at Fire Island National Seashore. Photograph by Diane Abell, NPS.

ON THE COVER 

Point Reyes Historic Lighthouse at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. Photograph by Don Weeks, NPS.
National Park Service c Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

National Park Service Report 2016

Edited by Rebecca Beavers1, Amanda Babson2, and Courtney Schupp1

1

National Park Service

Geologic Resources Division 

Affiliate, NPS Climate Change Response Program

7333 W. Jefferson Ave, Suite 450

Lakewood, CO 80235

2

National Park Service

Northeast Region

Affiliate, NPS Climate Change Response Program

University of Rhode Island Bay Campus

215 South Ferry Rd.

Narragansett, RI 02882

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service
National Park Service d Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

This handbook was supported by the Natural Resource Stewardship and Science; Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science; 

and Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands Directorates. 

This handbook received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise is on par technically and scientifically with the authors of 

the information.

The information contained in this document is only intended to improve the internal management of the National Park Service.

It is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the 

U.S. government.

While publicly available content was the focus of this handbook for National Park Service employees and our partners, some 

information and resources in this report are only available to internal National Park Service and Department of Interior staff. 

Where there is a restriction on access, a disclaimer similar to “NPS/DOI internal access only” is used.

This report is available in digital format from the following website (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm). Updated content will also be posted at that website. 

Please cite this publication as:

Beavers, R.L., A.L. Babson, and C.A. Schupp [eds.]. 2016. Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook. NPS 999/134090. National 

Park Service. Washington, DC.
National Park Service i Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ix

Introduction ix

Policy ix

Planning ix

Natural Resources ix

Cultural Resources x

Facility Management x

Communication and Education x

Protecting Infrastructure: Costs and Impacts x

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy x

Acknowledgments xi

Acronyms xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Purpose 1

Terminology 1

Fundamental Concepts 2

Adaptation Continuum: Resist, Accommodate, and Direct Change 2

Decision Tools 3

Impacts of Climate Change on Coastal Resources and Assets 3

Changes in Sea Level and Lake Level 3

Temperature Increases 4

Ocean Acidification 6

Precipitation 6

Storms 7

Climate Change Information Resources 7

NPS Offices Supporting Climate Change Adaptation Efforts 8

What to Expect in this Document 9

Take Home Messages 10

References 11

Chapter 2 Policy 15

Introduction 15

General NPS Policies 15

Additional Policies That Apply to NPS Coastal Adaptation Strategies 16

Implementation of the Above Policies: Document All Adaptation/Intervention Decisions 17

Take Home Messages 17

References 18
National Park Service ii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 3 Planning 19

Planning Framework 19

Foundation Document 19

General Management Plan 20

Resource Stewardship Strategy 20

Tools for Climate Change Adaptation of Coastal Resources and Assets 21

Processes 21

Vulnerability Assessment 21

Scenario Planning 21

Climate-Smart Conservation 23

Resources 24

Disaster Planning and Preparing for Opportunities for Adaptation 24

Opportunities for Adaptation 26

Take Home Messages 26

References 27

Chapter 4 Natural Resources 29

Expected Climate Change Impacts on Natural Resources 29

Adaptation of Coastal Natural Resources 32

The Adaptation Continuum 34

Climate Adaptation Issues for Designated Wilderness Areas 37

Science to Support Climate Adaptation for Natural Resources 37

Managing for an Uncertain Future 38

Incorporating Uncertainty into Inundation Models 38

Additional Resources for Data and Collaboration 39

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program 39

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 39

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 40

Tools 40

Opportunities for Adaptation 43

Revisiting Leopold 43

Implement National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy 43

Expansion of Submerged Resources 43

Managing at the Landscape Scale 44

Review Documentation, Data Integration, and Prioritization 44

Inform Natural Resource Decision Making with other Decision-Making Processes 44

Take Home Messages 44

References 45
National Park Service iii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 5 Cultural Resources 51

Introduction 51

Climate Change Threats to Cultural Resources in the Coastal Zone 51

Threats to Archeological Resources 53

Threats to Cultural Landscapes 53

Threats to Ethnographic Resources 54

Threats to Historic and Prehistoric Buildings and Structures 54

Threats to Museums and Collections 55

Threats to Underwater Resources 56

Management of Cultural Resources in the Coastal Zone under Climate Change 56

Two-fold Approach to Cultural Resources and Climate Change 57

Vulnerability and Prioritization 59

Cultural Resources Adaptation Strategies 59

Cultural Landscapes 65

Ethnographic Resources 65

Museums and Collections 65

Buildings and Structures 66

Underwater Resources 66

Opportunities for Adaptation of Cultural Resources in the Coastal Zone 66

Take Home Messages 67

References 68

Chapter 6 Facility Management 71

Introduction 71

Guiding Policies, Regulations and Plans 71

Executive Order 13690 – Federal Flood Risk Management 72

Executive Order 13653 – Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change 72

NPS Policy Memorandum 15-01 73

Road Map for Planning for Climate Change Resilience and Sustainability of NPS Assets 74

Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability Assessment Protocol 75

Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach 80

Strategies for Adapting Coastal Facilities and Operations 80

Visitor Experience, Transportation, and Access 82

Asset Management Plans and Incident Response 83

Coastal Fortifications and Lighthouses 84

Opportunities for Adaptation 84

Mitigate Impacts of Coastal Engineering 84

Remove, Restrict, and Redesign Structures 84
National Park Service iv Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Funding Opportunities 85

Documentation 85

Storm Recovery Planning 85

Emerging Topics 86

Take Home Messages 86

References 87

Chapter 7 Communication and Education 89

Communication 89

Site Bulletins 89

Rack Cards 90

Waysides 90

Audio/Visual Arts 90

Newspapers/Newsletters 91

Twitter/Facebook and Social Media 91

Case Study Review 92

General Recommendations 93

Education 93

Webinars 93

Websites 93

Online Courses 94

Climate Friendly Parks Workshops 94

Climate Smart Training 95

Take Home Messages 95

References 96

Chapter 8 Protecting Infrastructure: Costs and Impacts 97

Infrastructure Adaptation 97

Protect in Place: Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of Infrastructure Adaptation Options 98

Onshore, Shore-Parallel Structures: Seawalls, Revetments, and Bulkheads 99

Shore-Perpendicular Structures: Jetties and Groins 102

Breakwaters 104

Beach Nourishment 105

Sand Fencing 108

Natural and Nature-based Features (NNBF) 108

Redesign the Structure 111

Relocate 112

Abandon in Place 113

Take Home Messages 114

References 115
National Park Service v Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy 121

Disaster as a Driver of Adaptation 122

Assessing Impacts and Resilience 123

Natural Resources 123

Built Environment 123

Cultural Landscapes 123

Museum Collections 125

Climate Adaptation for Cultural Resources 125

Success Stories of Planning, Preparation, and Experience 125

Common Barriers to Adaptation 127

Servicewide Coastal Adaptation Strategies and Challenges 129

Implementation of Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy 130

Recommendations for Park Actions based on Hurricane Sandy Lessons Learned 133

Pre-Storm 133

Post-Storm 134

Recovery and Mitigation 134

Take Home Messages 135

References 136

Glossary 139
National Park Service vi Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figures

Figure 1.1. Climate Change Adaptation Continuum. 2

Figure 1.2. Map of regional mean sea level trends in the United States. 4

Figure 1.3. Recent mean air temperature relative to the historical range of variability (1901–2012) in 289 

US national parks. 5

Figure 1.4. Map showing the change in global average sea surface temperatures between 1901 and 2014. 5

Figure 1.5. Correlation of atmospheric and dissolved carbon dioxide levels. 6

Figure 1.6. Map of changes in total annual precipitation for the United States since the early 20th century. 7

Figure 3.1. National Park Service Planning Framework. 19

Figure 3.2. Excerpts from draft general management plans from two parks addressing climate change. 20

Figure 3.3. Relationship among the three major components of vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, 

and adaptive capacity. 21

Figure 3.4. Forecast Planning differs from Scenario Planning. 22

Figure 3.5. Scenario planning example from Assateague Island National Seashore 22

Figure 3.6. Climate change scenario planning identified the vulnerability of the shallow freshwater aquifer. 23

Figure 3.7. Phases of the Disaster Recovery Life Cycle. 25

Box 4.1. Example of the adaptation continuum from Assateague Island National Seashore. 35

Box 4.2. Emerging coastal climate change issues. 36

Figure 4.2. Vertical accuracy estimates of Digital Elevation Models. 38

Figure 5.1. The Cockspur Lighthouse needs to be stabilized. 51

Figure 5.2. Sea level rise and increased tropical storm 55

Figure 5.3. After multiple hard stabilization protection efforts proved unsuccessful, 

the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was moved inland. 55

Figure 5.4. Dry Tortugas National Park protects submerged resources in south Florida. 56

Figure 5.5. Cultural resources adaptation strategies parallel management strategies used in natural 

resource management. 62

Figure 5.6. Cultural resources adaptation strategies vary with respect to the disruptive nature of each strategy and the 

temporal nature of each climate change impact. 63

Figure 5.7. Prehistoric shell mound sites are threatened by sea level rise and erosion at Canaveral National 

Seashore, Florida. 65

Figure 5.8. Panther Cave contains extensive pictographs, which are threatened by fluctuating water level tied to storm 

events and (indirectly) to siltation. 65

Figure 5.9. Coastal impacts affect inland lakes as well as ocean shorelines. 66

Figure 6.1. Built facilities, also known as assets, including roads, parking lots, and buildings 

such as these pictured before and after Hurricane Sandy are vulnerable to rising water level. 71

Box 6.1. Process for collecting elevations on vulnerable assets 79

Figure 6.2. Excerpt from NPS Natural Hazards Checklist. 73

Box 6.2. Overarching process for facilities climate change response and adaptation 81

Figure 6.3. Illustration of flood zones relative to floor elevations. 74

Figure 6.4. Image of base station set up for RTK-GPS elevation data collection. 83
National Park Service vii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figure 6.5. Image of rover GPS data collection 83

Figure 6.6. Coastal asset at Elliot Key in Biscayne National Park was documented as part of the 

vulnerable asset elevation project in 2015. 84

Figure 6.7. Panorama of waterfront of Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Massachusetts. 85

Figure 7.1. Example of a site bulletin from Assateague Island. 89

Figure 7.2. Example of a rack card from Assateague Island. 90

Figure 7.3. Example waysides from: a) Dry Tortugas National Park, and b) Gulf Islands National Seashore 90

Figure 7.4. An example of a park newspaper from San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. 91

Figure 7.5. NPS Southeast Regional Newsletter. 91

Figure 7.6. An example of a website: Teach Ocean Science. 93

Figure 7.7. Cape Hatteras Climate Friendly Parks Action Plan. 94

Figure 8.1. A continuum of green (soft) to gray (hard) shoreline stabilization techniques 97

Figure 8.2. A seawall protects Fort Warren on Georges Island at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area 99

Figure 8.3A. Bulkheads at the Hatteras Island ferry landing on Ocracoke Island, NC. 100

Figure 8.3B. Bulkheads protect Liberty Island. 100

Figure 8.4. Ocean City Inlet jetty and breakwaters on the north end of 

Assateague Island National Seashore in 2011. 102

Figure 8.5. Steel sheet-pile groin at the former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. 103

Figure 8.6. Beach nourishment at Assateague Island 

National Seashore in 2002 added sediment and widened the beach. 105

Figure 8.7. Examples of hybrid approaches to living shorelines. 109

Figure 8.8. Living shoreline options for stabilizing estuarine shorelines. 109

Figure 8.9. Visitor facilities have been redesigned at Everglades National Park; the new eco-tents are 

designed to be portable and can be moved in advance of storms 111

Figure 8.10. In this example of relocation and retreat, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse 

was moved inland using a railway. 112

Figure 9.1. FEMA Impact Analysis of Hurricane Sandy. 121

Figure 9.2. Estimated inundation (feet above ground level) in New Jersey, 

New York, and Connecticut from Hurricane Sandy. 122

Figure 9.3. Beach profiles at FIIS before and after Hurricane Sandy. 124

Figure 9.4. Photo from Liberty Island of damaged dock access. 128

Figure 9.5. Photo of elevated platform in maintenance building on Liberty Island. 130

Figure 9.6. Comparison map of the Sandy Hook portion of GATE, including the FEMA flood zone analysis

(A) and the SLR exposure analysis (B) for assets within the area based on first-floor elevations . 131

Figure 9.7. Coastal Engineering Inventory of Jamaica Bay, Gateway National Recreation Area. 132

Figure 9.8. Photos of Aviation Road bulkhead and area where section was removed. 133
National Park Service viii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Tables

Table 2.1. Handbook chapters with further discussion of NPS Policy Memoranda. 16

Table 3.1. Tools for Climate Change Adaptation of Coastal Resources and Assets. 24

Table 4.1. Climate Change Vulnerabilities of Coastal Habitats. 30

Table 4.2. General adaptation strategies for ecosystem management 33

Table 4.3. Examples of Tools and Resources for Climate Change Adaptation of Coastal Natural Resources. 40

Table 5.1. Synthesis of diverse climate change impacts across the five categories of cultural resources managed 

by the National Park Service. 52

Table 5.2. Climate change related impacts on cultural resources. 52

Table 5.3. Concept framework for cultural resources in relation to climate change. 58

Table 5.4. Seven climate change adaptation options for cultural resources 60

Table 6.1. Overarching Climate Change Facility Adaptation Planning Framework 75

Table 8.1. Summary of adaptation options and their costs, benefits, and impacts. 98

Table 8.2. Construction costs by material. 103
National Park Service ix Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Executive Summary 

The National Park Service has an agency-wide responsibility 

to address climate change impacts on vulnerable park 

resources. This handbook provides guidance for National 

Park Service (NPS) managers, partners, and other 

practitioners in exploring and implementing climate change 

adaptation strategies in estuarine and coastal areas, including 

the Great Lakes. This handbook captures the National Park 

Service’s current understanding of a rapidly developing field 

as it relates to coastal parks; identifies tools and strategies; 

provides examples of approaches that the National Park 

Service as an agency and individual parks are using to 

address coastal vulnerabilities and climate change impacts; 

and provides policy and decision-making guidelines. Online 

resources will be updated to supplement this document and 

can be found at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm.

The National Park Service protects natural resources, cultural 

resources, and facilities in over 120 parks that are vulnerable 

to changes in sea and lake levels, saltwater intrusion, ocean 

acidification, inundation during coastal storms, and the 

impacts of changing temperature and precipitation regimes. 

These parks compose a network of protected areas that are 

critical to maintaining threatened coastal resources and 

values and preserving coastal heritage. The National Park 

Service must prepare for and adapt to coastal climate change 

impacts in order to protect irreplaceable resources where 

possible, and to connect visitors to the resources and the 

potential impacts of climate change.

The nine chapters in the handbook expand upon the 

following take-home messages.

Introduction

● Climate change will continue to impact coastal resources 

and assets in the national parks at various rates. To 

address the current and anticipated impacts, parks 

can work proactively and cooperatively with others to 

implement adaptation strategies for resources at various 

levels of exposure and vulnerability. Adaptation is a 

process, not a single action.

● Adaptation includes a range of potential responses, 

including resisting change, accommodating change, and 

directing change towards a specific desired new future.

● Adaptation decisions should be made using the best 

available science; however, uncertainty should not 

prohibit adaptation action. There are numerous 

information systems and tools available to support 

climate change adaptation planning.

● Responding to climate change impacts on coastal parks 

is most effective when diverse adaptation strategies on a 

variety of temporal and spatial scales are considered.

● Vulnerability assessments can help prioritize among 

resources or better target an adaptation strategy. 

Policy

● Park managers have substantial flexibility and discretion 

when selecting coastal adaptation strategies. Yet this 

flexibility and discretion are not unconstrained; various 

policy and guidance documents contain additional 

considerations that should be incorporated into park 

managers’ decisions about adaptation alternatives.

● Park adaptation decisions must be well documented.

Planning

● Adaptation is most effective when it is intentionally and 

deliberately designed as a response to anticipated effects 

associated with climate change.

● Climate change adaptation is not a stand-alone plan, 

but should be addressed in ongoing, routine planning 

processes such as foundation documents, general 

management plans, resource stewardship strategies, and 

preparedness planning.

● Adaptation strategies may require a series of decisions 

and actions that will change over time.

● Preparing for natural disasters includes planning 

for uncertainty and allows for adaptation 

opportunities post-incident.

Natural Resources

● Parks can choose from a range of potential adaptation 

strategies developed for climate-sensitive ecosystems. 

Applying strategies to coastal systems is park- and 

resource-specific. There is not yet a clear way forward 

to know which adaptation options will be most 

effective, and implementation is an active research 

field. The scientific resources to support adaptation are 

varied and growing. 

● Uncertainty or the lack of locally specific information 

should not stop adaptation action. Strategies that are 

able to incorporate additional information at later steps, 

such as adaptive management, are well suited to coastal 

climate adaptation challenges.

● Managing for change may require working at a 

larger landscape scale than a single park and, thus, 

working with partners.
National Park Service x Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● NPS policies to maintain natural processes are consistent 

with consideration of natural resource adaptation 

strategies because change is part of natural processes, 

and natural processes can be highly resilient. Yet climate 

change functions outside bounds of natural variability 

and thresholds will be exceeded. Strategies to manage 

for change, especially where natural systems are more 

vulnerable, or where thresholds can be anticipated, are a 

growing challenge. 

Cultural Resources

● Cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable 

resources.

● The capacity of cultural resources to move or change 

is limited because they are in large part non-living and 

have strong ties to place, part of which can be ties to a 

dynamic coastal landscape.

● Cultural resource adaptation strategies can be applied to 

coastal systems.

● Managers need NPS-level guidance for adaptation of 

archeological and ethnographic resources to climate 

change. Upcoming reports and guidance for museum 

collections, cultural landscapes, and built environments 

will include coastal-relevant adaptation strategies.

Facility Management

● The National Park Service has the responsibility to invest 

wisely in facilities for the long term. Unquestionably, 

climate change and natural hazards pose a significant 

threat to our investment in current and future facilities.

● Vulnerability to climate change impacts needs to be 

understood at the asset level for parks to plan for these 

impacts. This includes an understanding of the risk of 

exposure and sensitivity of the asset to these impacts. 

● Park asset management plans and five-year project plans 

should be evaluated to include elements of climate 

change vulnerability and coastal adaptation strategies.

● Climate Friendly Park workshops are opportunities 

to integrate climate change mitigation planning with 

coastal adaptation.

Communication and Education

● At the heart of the variety of products covered in this 

section lies communication itself. These products 

merely serve as the vehicle to provide audiences with 

effective communication of the efforts made in coastal 

adaptation. The communication of success stories, 

both with other parks and with partners, will help build 

support for the implementation of adaptation strategies.

● Support of local communities, parks, partners, 

stakeholders, and the general public is necessary for 

the effective implementation of any adaptation strategy. 

Many times the efficacy of adaptation programs relies 

on the cooperation of a variety of interested parties. 

Communication is necessary to include stakeholder 

involvement, which is crucial for planning and 

managing for change.

Protecting Infrastructure: Costs 

and Impacts

● Shoreline stabilization mechanisms can protect resources 

in place but are not long-term solutions and have tradeoffs, including disruption of natural processes.

● Beach nourishment can be a costly short-term effort. 

There are ecological and physical consequences of 

dredging sand from other locations and placement of 

sediment on intertidal and nearshore habitats.

● The effectiveness of natural and nature-based features 

for shoreline protection is site-specific. Their suitability 

as a long-term alternative depends on ability to adapt 

to climate change, design, and compatibility with 

local conditions.

● Consider opportunities to redesign and relocate 

facilities, and to replace facilities with portable 

structures. Evaluate the maintenance costs and nonstandard costs associated with these alternatives.

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy

● Hurricane Sandy presented opportunities for adaptation 

and for testing adaptation elements in existing plans.

● Natural resources were found to be more resilient than 

many cultural resources and facilities. 

● Historic structures have resilient design features. If 

buildings are well maintained, they may have a better 

chance of surviving a major storm.

● National seashores can provide other parks with 

good examples of preparation for and learning from 

experience about storm impacts on dynamic landscapes.

● After an event, there is an immediate and strong 

push to return park assets to pre-storm conditions, 

which can leave resources vulnerable to similar 

impacts in the future.

● Baseline monitoring and resource assessments are 

essential data to evaluate impacts and plan for recovery.

● Post-storm recovery is a critical opportunity to adapt to 

climate change. 
National Park Service xi Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Acknowledgments

The National Park Service Climate Change Response 

Program (CCRP) supported the initial Task Agreement 

with Western Carolina University and provided numerous 

CCRP staff to work on this project. The National Park 

Service Geologic Resources Division (GRD) and CCRP 

funded Denver Service Center (DSC) editing and layout 

services coordinated by Mindy Burke, Jim Corbett, Kelly 

Hatton, Danielle Hernandez, Les Peterson, Nancy Shock, 

and Philip Viray. The GRD and CCRP supported the time of 

Rebecca Beavers and Courtney Schupp. The editing team 

of Rebecca Beavers (GRD/CCRP), Amanda Babson (NPS 

Northeast Region [NER]/CCRP), and Courtney Schupp 

(GRD/CCRP) guided this project. Cat Hawkins Hoffman 

(CCRP) consulted and guided this project. John Gross 

(CCRP) served as the peer review manager. Shannon Kruse 

(Environmental Quality Division) provided guidance on use 

of the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment System. 

Jeneva Wright (NPS Submerged Resources Center) provided 

thorough copy editing.

The Executive Summary was improved with review 

comments from Shawn Carter (USGS), Mike Eissenberg 

(NPS DSC), Maria Honeycutt (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), Marissa Liang 

(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), Keely Maxwell 

(EPA), Bonnie Meyers (US Geological Survey [USGS]), 

Heidi Moritz (US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]), Kim 

Penn (NOAA), Madeline Rubenstein (USGS), Megan Tyrrell 

(USFWS), Benjamin Pister (NPS Alaska Region [AKR]), 

Jordan West (EPA), and Erin Williams (NPS).

Chapter 1 was improved with input and review comments 

from Nicole Arendt (Death Valley National Park [NP]), Maria 

Caffrey (University of Colorado Boulder), Susan Dolan (NPS 

Park Cultural Landscapes Program [PCLP]), Mike Eissenberg 

(DSC), Rachel M. Gregg (EcoAdapt), Maria Honeycutt 

(NOAA), Tahzay Jones (AKR), Melinda Koslow (CCRP), 

Marissa Liang (EPA), Mary Lucid (NPS Park Planning), 

Keely Maxwell (EPA), Cliff McCreedy (compiled comments 

from NPS Ocean and Coastal Resources Branch [OCRB]), 

Julie Thomas McNamee (NPS Sustainable Operations and 

Climate Change [SOCC]), Heidi Moritz (USACE), Adam 

Parris (State University of New York [SUNY]), Kim Penn 

(NOAA), Benjamin Pister (AKR), Tracy Monegan Rice 

(Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.), Marcy Rockman (NPS Cultural 

Resources, Partnerships, & Sciences [CRPS]/CCRP), Anna 

Catherine Toline (NPS Southeast Region [SER]), Seshu 

Vadday (NPS NationaI Information Systems center [NISC]), 

Will Veatch (USACE), Jordan West (EPA), and Kate White 

(USACE). Michael Kolian (EPA) provided figures 1.4 and 1.6. 

Audra Luscher (NOAA) provided figure 1.2.

Chapter 2 was improved with review comments from Shawn 

Carter (USGS), Susan Dolan (PCLP), Mike Eissenberg (DSC), 

Rachel M. Gregg (EcoAdapt), Maria Honeycutt (NOAA), 

Tahzay Jones (AKR), Cliff McCreedy (compiled comments 

from OCRB), Bonnie Meyers (USGS), Heidi Moritz (USACE), 

Adam Parris (SUNY), Kim Penn (NOAA), Alma Ripps 

(NPS Policy), and Madeline Rubenstein (USGS). Chapter 

2 benefited from content from the CCRP-led Gnarly issues 

process including content provided by coastal parks.

Chapter 3 was improved with review comments from Shawn 

Carter (USGS), Mike Eissenberg (DSC), Rachel M. Gregg 

(EcoAdapt), Maria Honeycutt (NOAA), Bonnie Meyers 

(USGS), Heidi Moritz (USACE), Adam Parris (SUNY), Kim 

Penn (NOAA), Tracy Monegan Rice (Terwilliger Consulting, 

Inc.), Marcy Rockman (CRPS/CCRP), Madeline Rubenstein 

(USGS), and Anna Catherine Toline (SER).

Chapter 4 was improved with input and review comments 

from Michael Barber (Cape Lookout National Seashore 

[NS]), Janet Cakir (SER), Carmen Chapin (NER), Shawn 

Carter (USGS), Damon Doumlele (Big Cypress National 

Preserve), Mike Eissenberg (DSC), David A. Gadsby (NPS 

Archeology), Rachel M. Gregg (EcoAdapt), Maria Honeycutt 

(NOAA), Tahzay Jones (AKR), Marissa Liang (EPA), Keely 

Maxwell (EPA), Cliff McCreedy (OCRB), Bonnie Meyers 

(USGS), Heidi Moritz (USACE), Adam Parris (SUNY), 

Monica Patel (Gulf Islands NS), Kim Penn (NOAA), 

Benjamin Pister (AKR), Tracy Monegan Rice (Terwilliger 

Consulting, Inc.), Madeline Rubenstein (USGS), Rob 

Thieler (USGS), Anna Catherine Toline (SER), Megan Tyrrell 

(USFWS), Will Veatch (USACE), Jordan West (EPA), and 

Erin Williams (NPS).

Chapter 5 was improved with review comments from Beth 

Binns (WCU contractor), Shawn Carter (USGS), Susan 

Dolan (PCLP), Mike Eissenberg (DSC), David A. Gadsby 

(NPS Archeology), Maria Honeycutt (NOAA), Tahzay Jones 

(AKR), Marissa Liang (EPA), Keely Maxwell (EPA), Julie 

Thomas McNamee (SOCC), Bonnie Meyers (USGS), Heidi 

Moritz (USACE), Kim Penn (NOAA), Benjamin Pister 

(AKR), Tracy Monegan Rice (Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.), 

Madeline Rubenstein (USGS),Will Veatch (USACE), and 

Jordan West (EPA). 
National Park Service xii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 6 was improved with review comments from Nicole 

Arendt (Death Valley NP), Shawn Carter (USGS), Thom 

Curdts (Colorado State University [CSU]), Jeri L. DeYoung 

(Cape Lookout NS), Brian Diethorn (CSU), Rachel M. Gregg 

(EcoAdapt), Tahzay Jones (AKR), Marissa Liang (EPA), Keely 

Maxwell (EPA), Maria Honeycutt (NOAA), Tim Hudson 

(AKR), Julie Thomas McNamee (SOCC), Bonnie Meyers 

(USGS), Heidi Moritz (USACE), Kim Penn (NOAA), 

Tracy Monegan Rice (Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.), 

Marcy Rockman (CRPS/CCRP), Madeline Rubenstein 

(USGS), Tim Smith (NISC), Will Veatch (USACE), and 

Jordan West (EPA).

Chapter 7 was improved with review comments 

from Shawn Carter (USGS), Bonnie Meyers (USGS), 

Benjamin Pister (AKR), Tracy Monegan Rice (Terwilliger 

Consulting, Inc.), Madeline Rubenstein (USGS), and Erin 

Williams (NPS).

Chapter 8 was improved with review comments from 

Nicole Arendt (Death Valley NP), Michael Barber (Cape 

Lookout NS), Shawn Carter (USGS), Mike Eissenberg 

(DSC), Rachel M. Gregg (EcoAdapt), Maria Honeycutt 

(NOAA), Tim Hudson (NER), Cliff McCreedy (compiled 

comments from OCRB), Bonnie Meyers (USGS), Kim 

Penn (NOAA), Benjamin Pister (AKR), Tracy Monegan 

Rice (Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.), Madeline Rubenstein 

(USGS), Rob Thieler (USGS), Will Veatch (USACE), and 

Linda York (SER).

Chapter 9 was improved with review comments and input 

from Natalya Apostolu (NER), Nicole Arendt (Death Valley 

NP), Randy Biallas (CRPS), Maria Caffrey (University 

of Colorado Boulder), Shawn Carter (USGS), Marilou 

Ehrler (Gateway National Recreation Area [NRA]), Bill 

Hulslander (Assateague Island NS), Carrie Mardorf 

(Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park), Julie 

Thomas McNamee (SOCC), Bonnie Meyers (USGS), Adam 

Parris (SUNY), Benjamin Pister (AKR), Tracy Monegan 

Rice (Terwilliger Consulting, Inc.), Lizette Richardson 

(NPS Park Planning, Facilities and Lands [PPFL]), Patricia 

Rafferty (Gateway NRA), Madeline Rubenstein (USGS), 

Patricia Sacks (DSC), Peter Sharpe (NER), Rob Thieler 

(USGS), Dan Tower (DSC), Rich Turk (PPFL), Megan 

Tyrrell (USFWS), Will Veatch (USACE), Sara Wolf (NER), 

and Neil Winn (Assateague Island NS).

The glossary was refined by Nicholas Fisichelli (CCRP), 

Ryan Stubblebine (CCRP), and Gregor Schuurman (CCRP). 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM
National Park Service xiii Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Acronyms 

ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

API Asset Priority Index

ASIS Assateague Island National Seashore

ASMIS Archeological Sites Management 

Information System

BELA Bering Land Bridge National Preserve

CAKE Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange

CAKR Cape Krusenstern National Monument

CBA Choosing By Advantages

CC Climate Change

CCRP Climate Change Response Program

CEI Coastal Engineering Inventory

CFP Climate Friendly Parks

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLIP Climate Leadership in Parks

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CRAVe Climate Registry for the Assessment 

of Vulnerability

DAB Development Advisory Board

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DOI Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EMS Environmental Management Systems

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIIS Fire Island National Seashore

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FMSS Facility Management Software System

FY Fiscal Year

GATE Gateway National Recreation Area

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

GRD Geologic Resources Division

GMP General Management Plan

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom

HABS Historic American Building Survey

HAER Historic American Engineering Record

HALS Historic American Landscape Survey

I&M Inventory and Monitoring

IMT Incident Management Teams 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

MsCIP Mississippi Coastal 

Improvements Program

NAVD North American Vertical Datum

NCTC National Conservation Training Center

NED National Elevation Dataset

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NER Northeast Region

NGS National Geodetic Survey

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
National Park Service xiv Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NNBF Natural and Nature-Based Features

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NRSS Natural Resource Stewardship and 

Science Directorate

NWP Nationwide Permit

OB Optimizer Band

OPUS Online Positioning User System

PM Policy Memo

PMIS Project Management Information System

RRT Rapid Review Team

RTK Real Time Kinematic

SAGE Systems Approach to 

Geomorphic Engineering 

SCAPE Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the 

Problem of Erosion

SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model

SLOSH Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges 

from Hurricanes

SLR Sea Level Rise

SOCC Sustainable Operations and Climate 

Change (Branch)

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VA Value Analysis

WASO Washington Support Office

WRD Water Resources Division
National Park Service 1 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 1 Introduction

Contributing Authors: Rebecca Beavers, Courtney Schupp, 

and Cat Hawkins Hoffman

The National Park Service manages 88 ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes parks with more than 11,200 mi (18,000 km) 

of shoreline (Curdts 2011). 

1

 An additional 35 parks are 

subject to coastal influence from sea level change, though 

some do not manage a shoreline (Caffrey and Beavers 2013). 

As a network of protected areas important to maintaining 

threatened coastal resources and values, these parks serve 

as sentinels of coastal change and examples to the world of 

stewardship for irreplaceable natural and cultural resources 

and visitor experiences. They are also vulnerable to threats 

from climate change effects such as sea level rise, lower lake 

levels, salt water intrusion, and inundation during coastal 

storms. Thus, more than one-third of the 413 National Park 

Service (NPS) park units must prepare to adapt to coastal 

climate change impacts.

Purpose

This handbook provides guidance for NPS managers, 

partners, and other practitioners in exploring and 

implementing climate change adaptation in coastal settings, 

including Great Lakes areas but excluding nearshore and 

open-ocean issues such as oceanographic changes to marine 

ecosystems, and impacts to threatened and endangered 

species habitats such as offshore shoals, and fisheries. 

Climate change adaptation is a broad, interdisciplinary, 

and rapidly developing field. This handbook is not a 

comprehensive manual with a single decision framework or 

a complete listing of the best tools for a particular resource 

or asset. Instead, it summarizes key approaches currently 

in practice or considered for climate change adaptation in 

coastal areas to guide adaptation planning in coastal parks. 

The level of detail varies by topic depending on the state 

of research and practice in that field. Some topics are well 

researched in coastal areas, while others are emerging issues 

for which there may be no specific adaptation strategies 

to recommend or results available. Numerous information 

systems and tools support climate change adaptation 

planning (Stein et al. 2014), and the field of climate change 

adaptation is rapidly developing. Thus, the handbook also 

directs readers to other excellent sources on adaptation. 

Online resources supplement this document and are 

available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm.

Provision of this guidance is a further step in implementing 

the NPS Climate Change Response Strategy (NPS 

2010), which includes four major components: science, 

communication, adaptation, and mitigation. While this 

handbook primarily focuses on adaptation, it also addresses 

science, communication, and mitigation where these 

intersect with adaptation.

Terminology

Many coastal parks have dynamic features such as barrier 

islands, marshes, estuaries, bluffs, glaciers, or volcanic 

features; others have fixed coastline types (e.g., rocky, coral 

reef, built, armored) that may respond differently to climate 

change. The vulnerability of each of these features varies; 

climate change will affect them in distinct ways. Vulnerability 

is the extent to which a target (resource, asset, or process) is 

susceptible to harm from climate change and other stressors. 

A vulnerability assessment (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011) 

can help to understand relative impacts from climate change, 

thus informing priorities for response. The National Park 

Service provides guidance on what to include in a robust 

vulnerability assessment analysis (NPS 2014a). While initially 

developed to assess the potential impact of climate change 

on natural resources, vulnerability assessments are being 

applied in other interdisciplinary contexts. For example, the 

National Park Service is developing methods to conduct 

vulnerability assessments for cultural resources and facilities.

Given the variety of coastal types and the diversity of 

resources and assets managed by the National Park Service, 

multiple climate change adaptation strategies may apply to 

a given situation (Beavers et al. 2014; Schupp, Beavers, and 

Caffrey 2015). This handbook uses the term “adaptation” 

as defined in Executive Order 13653, “Preparing the United 

States for the Impacts of Climate Change” (78 FR 66819, 

6 November 2013).

1

park-specific statistics are available at https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1439/

upload/NPS_OceanCoastal_Stats.pdf

Vulnerability: The degree to which a resource, 

asset or process is susceptible to adverse 

effects of climate change, including climate 

variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a 

function of the character, magnitude, and 

rate of climate variation to which a system 

is exposed; its sensitivity; and its adaptive 

capacity (IPCC 2014). 
National Park Service 2 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Within the adaptation field and this handbook, “resilience” 

is a common term used differently between disciplines. This 

handbook uses two definitions, one more broadly applied in 

a community context and another in an ecological context, 

as defined in the Glossary (see also Fisichelli, Schuurman, 

and Hawkins Hoffman 2016).

Fundamental Concepts

Adaptation is an ongoing process, not a single action 

completed “once and forever.” Planning for adaptation does 

not require a stand-alone effort but is best incorporated into 

ongoing planning processes such as general management 

plans, resource stewardship strategies, and storm response 

and recovery plans. Strategic, advanced planning for 

adaptation prepares parks for action when opportunities 

to adapt arise through response to storm events and other 

rapid changes in the coastal zone. Rapid changes in the 

coastal zone will mean that managers may have limited time 

and opportunities to make decisions. A hurricane, budget 

realities, or abrupt changes in the physical landscape will 

define the timeline for some decisions. However, even these 

limited windows of time offer opportunities in which to 

act, especially when the park has determined appropriate 

responses through advanced planning. 

Adaptation can occur as a series of actions that have 

different foci. For example, stewardship of a historic 

structure (Caffrey and Beavers 2008) may involve multiple 

adaptation actions: 

● cultural: document the structure (Historic American 

Buildings Survey [HABS] standards) 

● interpretation: interpret the change to create 

opportunities for visitors to connect with the 

significance of the structure (see “Chapter 5 

Cultural Resources”)

● facility management: elevate the structure above flood 

hazards, following best practices that are outlined in The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (36 CFR 68) and Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard (E.O. 13690) (see “Chapter 6 

Facility Management”) 

There may be inherent trade-offs in effective adaptation; for 

example, protecting cultural resources or facilities through 

shoreline stabilization mechanisms may protect resources 

in place but disrupt natural processes. On the other hand, 

adaptation approaches used for infrastructure may be 

consistent with cultural resource goals (e.g., for a cultural 

landscape) while also helping to protect opportunities for 

habitat and species migration. 

Adaptation Continuum: Resist, 

Accommodate, and Direct Change

Observed and anticipated ecological responses suggest 

that many current management goals and strategies may 

become ineffective under accelerated rates of climate 

change, sea level rise, and associated impacts (NPSABSC 

2012). Adaptation includes a range of potential management 

responses, including resisting change, accommodating 

change, and directing change towards a specific desired 

new future (figure 1.1; Fisichelli, Schuurman, and Hawkins 

Hoffman 2016): resist change to maintain current or past 

conditions, direct change towards specific desired new 

conditions, and accommodate change by supporting a 

resource’s capacity to respond to changes without steering it 

towards past conditions or a strictly-defined desired future 

state. The intensity of management intervention required 

to achieve a particular adaptation goal depends on many 

variables, such as the focal resource’s vulnerability to climate 

change, and may vary with management time horizons and 

rates of climate change. These concepts are described further 

in “Chapter 4 Natural Resources.” Many of the case studies 

in Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey (2015) focus on resisting and 

accommodating change.

Adaptation: An adjustment in natural or 

human systems in anticipation of or in 

response to a changing environment in a way 

that effectively uses beneficial opportunities 

or reduces negative effects.

Resilience (community context): The capability 

to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and 

recover from significant multi-hazard threats 

with minimum damage to social well-being, 

the economy, and the environment. It is not a 

synonym for adaptation.

Resilience (ecological context): The ability to 

return to a previous state after disturbance.

Figure 1.1. Climate Change Adaptation Continuum 

(adapted from Fisichelli, Schuurman, and Hawkins 

Hoffman 2016).
National Park Service 3 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Decision Tools

Parks should use the best available science to inform 

management decisions, but high uncertainty or lack of local 

science should not preclude adaptation action (NPS 2016). 

Hoffman et al. (2014) describes five strategies for exploring 

uncertainty and making decisions. Scenario-based planning 

is a structured, “what if” exercise that uses qualitative and 

quantitative information to envision multiple possible 

futures. Robust decision-making identifies decisions that 

maximize the likelihood of some acceptable outcome across 

a range of scenarios rather than seeking the best possible 

outcome for one scenario. Expert elicitation helps to identify 

and characterize uncertainty and fill data gaps with local 

expertise and contextual knowledge. Structured decisionmaking begins with a solid understanding and framing of 

the problem to be solved, and evaluation and prioritization 

are formal and quantitative. In adaptive management, 

decisions are made while simultaneously pursuing additional 

knowledge, which is incorporated into subsequent reevaluation of management decisions. NPS climate change 

scenario planning, which is described in “Chapter 3 

Planning,” incorporates at least four of these strategies: 

scenario-based planning, robust decision-making, expert 

elicitation, and adaptive management; structured decisionmaking may also be used within the scenario planning 

framework. An example of value-based decision-making 

from Liberty and Ellis Islands is provided in “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.” NPS examples of 

adaptive management are provided in “Chapter 3 Planning” 

and “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources.”

Impacts of Climate Change on Coastal 

Resources and Assets

The coastal zone is a dynamic environment subject to 

the effects of wind, waves, tidal processes, freshwater 

and sediment inputs, and other processes with rates and 

magnitudes affected by climate change. Coastal resources 

and assets are affected by changes in sea level, temperature 

of both air and water resources (i.e., lakes and oceans), 

precipitation, storminess, and ocean acidification. Changes 

to the physical environment may be gradual and subtle or 

rapid and easily noticeable.

Changes in Sea Level and Lake Level

Global sea level is increasing and expected to continue to 

increase into the future (Tebaldi, Strauss, and Zervas 2012). 

However, location and magnitude of sea level change will 

vary along United States (US) coasts (figure 1.2); causes 

include changes in North Atlantic circulation that will 

affect the mid-Atlantic coast (Sallenger, Doran, and Howd 

2012), land subsidence along the Gulf Coast (Parris et al. 

2012), and isostatic rebound causing relative sea level to 

fall along the southeast coast of Alaska, including Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve (Motyka et al. 2007). 

Higher relative sea level causes accelerated coastal erosion, 

landward migration of shorelines, and saltwater intrusion 

into aquifers and estuaries, and amplifies the more frequent 

flooding caused by higher storm surges (Field et al. 2007). 

Impacts of sea level rise on coastal ecosystems are amplified 

by submergence and where landward migration is impeded 

by built structures or steep topography and where vertical 

growth is slower than sea level rise (Field et al. 2007). Along 

Alaska’s northwestern coast, sea level rise combines with 

other forces, including thawing permafrost, loss of coastal 

sea ice, and more intense extreme weather events to increase 

erosion and flooding (Maldonado et al. 2013).

Along the Great Lakes, shoreline water levels will decrease 

as a result of climate change (Schramm and Loehman 2010). 

Many parks have already experienced changes in lake level 

due to recent changes in climate coupled with ongoing 

tectonic conditions (Hartmann 1990; Lofgren, Hunter, 

and Wilbarger 2011). Lake level fluctuations in the Great 

Lakes prior to 1980 were predominantly driven by changes 

in precipitation, but evaporation has begun to significantly 

contribute to lake level decreases for the first time on record, 

including on Lake Superior in Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore (Hanrahan, Kravtsov, and Roebber 2010). There 

are significant data gaps in the geographic extent of lake 

level data. The lake level as recorded by tide gauges is further 

complicated by local tectonics that have caused decreasing 

relative lake level in some areas and increasing lake level in 

others (Gronewald et al. 2013). 
National Park Service 4 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Temperature Increases

Temperatures continue to increase in most parks, including 

coastal areas. For the United States, the last decade is the 

warmest on record, and as of April 2016, 2015 is the warmest 

year on record since modern record-keeping began in 1880 

(NASA 2016). A recent study (Monahan and Fisichelli 

2014) identified parks with climate variables that had 

“extreme” values recently (in the last 10–30 years) relative 

to the 1901–2012 historical range of variability; “extreme” 

conditions were those that exceeded 95% of the historical 

range of conditions. An overwhelming majority of national 

parks are already at the extreme warm end of their historical 

range of conditions (figure 1.3). Of 289 parks included in the 

study, 81% (235 parks) have recent “extreme” warm average 

air temperatures. This study included 80 coastal and Great 

Lakes parks, of which 74% (59 parks) were extreme warm, 

one park was extreme cold, one park was both extreme 

warm and cold, and 19 parks (24%) did not have any recent 

extreme temperature variables.

Figure 1.2. Map of regional mean sea level trends in the United States. The rates of relative local mean sea level 

observed at long-term tide stations (based on a minimum of 30 years of data) vary due to differences in rates and 

sources of vertical land motion. Areas experiencing little-to-no change in mean sea level are illustrated in green, 

including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 0.7 in/yr (1.7-1.8 mm/yr). Stations illustrated with 

positive sea level trends (yellow-to-red) are experiencing both global sea level rise, and lowering or sinking of the 

local land, causing an apparently exaggerated rate of relative sea level rise. Stations illustrated with negative trends 

(blue-to-purple) are experiencing global sea level rise and a greater vertical rise in the local land, causing an apparent 

decrease in relative sea level. Figure from NOAA available at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.htm

(accessed 20 April 2016). 

Sea Level Trends

mm/yr (feet/century)

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, 

AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo and the GIS User Community

-18 to -12 (-6 to -4)

9 to 12 (3 to 4)

6 to 9 (2 to 3)

3 to 6 (1 to 2)

0 to 3 (0 to 1)

-6 to 0 (-2 to 0)

-12 to -6 (-4 to -2)
National Park Service 5 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Models project that by 2071–2100, 

annual water temperature may 

increase in all of the Great Lakes, with 

the most change in Lake Superior and 

the least in Lake Erie (Trumpickas, 

Shuter, and Minns 2009). Summer 

surface water temperatures are 

expected to increase by up to 6°C 

(10.8°F) on average (Trumpickas, 

Shuter, and Minns 2009). The 

combination of long-term warming 

and increasing wind speeds on Lake 

Superior may lengthen the season of 

stratification and cause the surface 

mixed layer to become shallower, 

which has significant implications for 

the biogeochemical cycles of large 

lakes, atmospheric circulation along 

lake shores, and the transport of 

airborne pollutants in regions with 

many lakes (Desai et al. 2009).

Sea surface temperature is rising 

at an average rate of 0.13°F 

(0.23°C) per decade (figure 1.4). 

Some areas have experienced 

cooling, such as in the North 

Atlantic, though not including 

coastal park areas. Increases in 

sea surface temperature have 

fueled weather systems such as 

heavy rain and snow, and can 

shift storm tracks, potentially 

contributing to droughts in some 

areas (IPCC 2013). Changes 

in sea surface temperature can 

also affect marine ecosystems 

by controlling which species are 

present, altering migration and 

breeding patterns. Over the long 

term, increases in sea surface 

temperature will change water 

circulation patterns. Resultant 

changes in habitats and nutrient 

supply could dramatically alter 

ocean ecosystems and lead to 

declines in fish populations and 

the commercial and subsistence 

fisheries that depend on them.

Figure 1.3. Recent mean air temperature relative to the historical range of 

variability (1901–2012) in 289 US national parks (park plus 30 km buffer). 

Park temperature is considered extreme if one or more of seven temperature 

variables examined is <5th percentile (“cold”) or >95th percentile (“warm”) of 

the historical distribution. Figure from Monahan and Fisichelli (2014). 

F

v

Figure 1.4. Map showing the change in global average sea surface temperatures 

between 1901 and 2014. It is based on a combination of direct measurements 

and satellite measurements. A black “+” symbol in the middle of a square on the 

map means the trend shown is statistically significant. White areas did not have 

enough data to calculate reliable long-term trends. Figure from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 2016. Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. 

Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-004. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climatechange-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
National Park Service 6 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Ocean Acidification

Ocean acidification has implications for coastal resources; it 

is enhanced by coastal processes, affects coastal species such 

as coral, and may affect some coastal adaptation efforts, such 

as oyster reefs emplaced as living shorelines. 

Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon 

dioxide gas dissolves in the ocean where it reacts with 

seawater to form carbonic acid, raising the acidity of the 

seawater and decreasing pH (NOAA 2016) (figure 1.5). 

The current rate of ocean acidification is unprecedented in 

the past 300 million years (Hönisch et al. 2012). Over the 

past 200 years, the ocean’s acidity has increased by 30% (a 

decrease of 0.1 pH units) due to increased uptake of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), primarily as a physical response to rising 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Acidification affects growth 

rate in fish and inhibits shell growth in coastal and marine 

animals, including corals, oysters, clams, shrimp, lobster 

sea urchins, and calcareous plankton. This in turn affects 

significant segments of the marine food web and 

habitat-forming species such as coral reefs, along 

with commercial fisheries based on these species. 

Ocean acidification processes are more complex 

near the coast than in the open ocean. In 

addition to ocean acidification due to increased 

atmospheric carbon dioxide, nearshore pH is 

affected by nutrient and freshwater inputs, as well 

as upwelling, and is much more variable than 

open-ocean pH (Duarte 2013; Gledhill et al. 2015; 

Barton et al. 2015). Along the Alaskan coast, where 

average temperatures over the last 60 years have 

risen twice as quickly as the US average (Chapin 

et al. 2014), freshwater inputs from melting 

glaciers, snow, and ice exacerbate the problem 

because glacial melt water has low concentrations 

of carbonate ion, which marine animals need to 

build shells, and because when freshwater enters 

the marine environment, it quickly absorbs 

atmospheric CO2 to reach equilibrium (NOAA 

2014). Along the Pacific coast, oyster aquaculture 

is affected by anthropogenic CO2 that contributes 

to seasonally low pH, which exacerbates the 

effects of acidic water rising due to natural upwelling. 

Nutrient pollution from runoff advances acidification by 

changing water chemistry, and controlling nutrient inputs 

is a potential adaptation action in the Pacific Northwest, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic Coast (Ekstrom et al. 2015). 

To explore the dimensions of ocean acidification in various 

coastal hotspots, see the interactive website (NRDC 2015).

Precipitation

As average temperatures rise, evaporation increases, which, 

in turn, increases overall precipitation. Climate change is 

also shifting the wind patterns and ocean currents that 

drive the world’s climate system, so some areas will have 

less precipitation than in the past (figure 1.6) (EPA 2015b). 

Precipitation change is highly variable and seasonally 

dependent. Rainfall, snowfall, and the timing of snowmelt 

can all affect the amount of fresh water entering estuaries 

and oceans. Increased precipitation causes heavier runoff 

from inland areas and associated changes in sediment and 

nutrient transport. Lower precipitation and drought reduce 

freshwater inflows to the coast (Moser et al. 2014). This, in 

turn, can affect estuarine communities, estuarine circulation, 

and fish migration. Changes in precipitation patterns can 

also affect what types of animals and plants can survive in a 

particular place, particularly if they cannot adapt to the pace 

of change or the variability in precipitation (EPA 2015b). 

Figure 1.5. Correlation of atmospheric and dissolved carbon dioxide 

levels. Figure from NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Lab at http://

pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/co2_time_series_12-17-2014_with_text.jpg

(accessed 21 April 2015). 

 
National Park Service 7 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Storms

Storms, which often cause pronounced changes, are 

projected to become more intense with climate change. 

Projections suggest a decrease in the annual number of 

hurricanes in the Atlantic but an increase in the number of 

the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, and increases in 

associated rainfall (Walsh et al. 2014). In the North Atlantic, 

the average storm track may shift northward, causing more 

frequent impacts to northern areas (IPCC 2007). There is 

low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the 

last century and low confidence in near-term projections 

for increased tropical cyclone intensity in the Atlantic and 

in region-specific projections (IPCC 2013). Even if storm 

characteristics do not change, at higher sea level, storm surge 

will travel farther inland, affecting a larger area and having 

greater impacts. The Great Lakes areas are projected to have 

increasing frequency and intensity of severe storms and 

increased wind speeds (Schramm and Loehman 2010).

Climate Change Information Resources

There are numerous sources of information (several 

highlighted here) and ongoing efforts to meet data needs 

to support coastal adaptation planning. The NPS Climate 

Change Response webpage for Resources includes several 

adaptation resources for park managers, such as briefs on 

climate exposure (summarizing the magnitude and direction 

of changes in temperature and precipitation), visitation 

trends related to climate change, and a summary of species 

adaptive capacity. Climate summaries developed for each 

park’s foundation document workshop include an analysis of 

historical and projected climate trends downscaled for each 

park for temperature and precipitation, and provide annual, 

seasonal, and monthly averages (e.g., Gonzalez 2015). 

These reports are available via the NRSS Sharepoint (NPS 

internal access only) or Integrated Resource Management 

Applications Portal (IRMA). The Sea Ice Atlas has been 

compiled by a number of partners in the Alaska region. 

Figure 1.6. Map of changes in total annual precipitation for the United States since the early 20th century. Data show 

changes since 1901 for the contiguous 48 states and 1925 for Alaska. Figure from U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2016. Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-004. 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

Change in Precipitation in the United States, 1901-2015

Percent change in precipitation:

-30 -20 -10 -2 2 10 20 30
National Park Service 8 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The field of inundation modeling is ever growing. Errors in 

tidal datum calculation, vertical landform position accuracy, 

and biases in oceanographic and atmospheric models can 

alter calculations of location and magnitude of storm surge 

across landscapes at the scale of coastal properties contained 

within park boundaries. A recent study (see summary in 

Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 24: Storm 

Surge and Sea Level Change Data Support Planning”) 

projects sea level rise and storm surge trends for individual 

parks using downscaled data from the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Army Corps 

of Engineers sea level calculator. Gauges measuring river 

flow, which is very important to estuaries, sediment and 

nutrient transport, and fish migration, are available through 

USGS. The Water Resources Division continues to deploy 

tide gauges in locations where water level information is 

needed to fill in gaps (Curdts 2014) in the data available 

through NOAA’s National Water Level Observation 

Network. In addition to providing valuable synoptic data, 

these instruments can also provide valuable information 

regarding system evolution on management-timescales to 

individual parks. 

NPS Offices Supporting Climate Change 

Adaptation Efforts

Adaptation is not the responsibility of certain individuals; 

rather it is an NPS agency-wide responsibility conducted 

in coordination with partners and stakeholders. Staff 

from all divisions can contribute meaningfully to 

adaptation: from maintenance staff identifying vulnerable 

infrastructure resources and processes; to interpretation 

staff communicating to visitors why beach access may be 

changing; to resource managers identifying and monitoring 

at-risk natural and cultural resources; to management 

teams planning for visitor access when roads and bridges 

may be undermined.

Indeed, the National Park Service is engaged on multiple 

levels in addressing climate change impacts. Climate change 

adaptation is done at the Department level all the way to 

individual parks and individual staff members and visitors 

that incorporate climate change into their daily work 

including, but not limited to, interpretation, maintenance, 

education, resource protection, and research. Some NPS 

servicewide programs are described below.

● The NPS Directorates of Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science (NRSS), Cultural Resources, 

Partnerships and Science (CRPS), Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands (PPFL), Information Resources, 

and Partnerships and Visitor Experience provide 

technical expertise, science, and assistance to coastal 

parks, and include several programs and divisions that 

also play important roles in NPS adaptation efforts.

● The Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) 

leads the NPS climate adaptation response, providing 

services and guidance on climate change science and 

modeling, interpretation and education, planning, 

coastal hazards, cultural resources, and renewable and 

efficient energy use. 

● The Geologic Resources Division works to guide and 

plan for coastal adaptation. Efforts have addressed a 

variety of hazard concerns and contributed to planning 

efforts in coastal parks. 

● The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program, 

including 32 regional networks, collects, organizes, 

analyzes, and synthesizes natural resource data and 

information, including climate data, and provides the 

results in a variety of formats. 

● The Ocean and Coastal Resources Branch, part of 

the NRSS Water Resources Division, is developing 

partnerships with NOAA and providing technical 

assistance to gain accurate observations of water levels 

in parks with the goal of providing monitoring coverage 

for parks to evaluate coastal change, sea level rise, and 

lake level change. 

● The Sustainable Operations and Climate Change 

(SOCC) branch, a part of the Washington Support Office 

(WASO) Park Facility Management Division, oversees 

NPS progress under the Green Parks Plan assisting parks 

in implementing sustainable best practices throughout 

NPS operations. 

● The NPS Information Resources Directorate, regional 

offices, and individual parks and regional offices work 

to collect data, develop geospatial products, collaborate 

with research partners, and write funding proposals. 

● The National Geospatial Program is working through 

the GIS Council to develop infrastructure capable of 

providing more robust mapping information services to 

analysts, decision-makers and policy makers. 

● The Denver Service Center is leading the development 

of Park Atlases (NPS internal access only), an interactive 

web mapping viewer created to support access 

and visualization of park resources for planning, 

management, and operations. The geospatial products 

include resource elevations and can be used for prestorm planning, incident response, and post-storm 

recovery, as described in “Chapter 3 Planning.” 
National Park Service 9 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● The National Park Service also participates in and 

supports landscape conservation cooperatives

(LCCs), which consist of federal, state, tribal, local, 

nonprofit, and private stakeholders working with 

existing partnerships and programs, and establishing 

new partnerships, to facilitate communication, share 

the results of research, and strategically target and 

implement additional research and actions to meet 

shared conservation goals. The LCC and CCRP 

programs work to connect parks to larger landscapes; 

help parks predict the effects of climate change and 

other large-scale stressors; understand and promote 

climate change adaptation; and collaborate with 

other programs to create a regional strategy for 

landscape conservation.

● The coastal Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units 

and Research Learning Centers connect parks and 

NPS programs with academic and research partners 

to develop the science and outreach tools needed to 

advance the Climate Change Response Strategy. 

What to Expect in this Document

This document is intended to be a starting point and to 

direct users to many other resources when they need more 

depth, while capturing key points for those users who do not 

have the time to consult the original references. 

The National Park Service has an opportunity to take 

a leadership role in adaptation to climate change and 

demonstrate many strategies for coastal adaptation. Chapters 

3–6 in this handbook conclude with opportunities to prepare 

for and adapt to climate change.

Coastal adaptation extends beyond relocating lighthouses 

from eroding shores, restoring wetlands, and finding 

ways to work with the combination of the built and 

natural environments found in cultural landscapes. 

Coastal adaptation includes working with partners and 

gateway communities to address the topics of change, 

loss, and championing the role of documentation and 

museum collections.

 “Chapter 2 Policy” tackles the challenging questions on 

when the National Park Service can intervene. The National 

Park Service now has four policy memos (PM) for climate 

change on natural resources (PM 12-02, NPS 2012), cultural 

resources (PM 14-02, NPS 2014b), facilities (PM 15-01, NPS 

2015), and resource stewardship (PM 16-01, NPS 2016), 

which are described in more detail in “Chapter 4 Natural 

Resources,” “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources,” and “Chapter 

6 Facility Management” respectively, as well as discussed 

together in “Chapter 2 Policy.” 

Elevated water levels during major events such as Hurricanes 

Sandy and Katrina reinforce the need for the National Park 

Service to plan for and be prepared to respond to coastal 

impacts. “Chapter 3 Planning” outlines the NPS planning 

framework and emerging work with scenario planning and 

climate-smart strategies. Further information on lessons 

learned from incident response and recovery is included in 

“Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.”

“Chapter 4 Natural Resources” focuses on the natural 

resources of the dynamic coastal zone. It includes an 

overview of science and tools to support adaptation (many 

of which are applicable to other resources) and a discussion 

of how to handle uncertainty. This chapter provides 

examples of vulnerable habitats and discusses application 

of seven natural resource adaptation strategies to the coastal 

zone. Future guidance will address additional climate change 

forcings, such as elevated water temperatures, changes in 

ocean currents, ocean acidification, changes in freshwater 

flows, sediment and nutrient fluxes in coastal water bodies, 

and degradation of coastal water quality, and will describe 

possible adaptation approaches at relevant geographic scales. 

“Chapter 5 Cultural Resources” focuses on cultural 

resources. The National Park Service preserves many 

elements of the nation’s heritage in archeological sites, 

historic and prehistoric buildings and structures, cultural 

landscapes, museum collections, and the environments 

and places that support traditional and indigenous lifeways 

(ethnographic resources). Some cultural resources are 

threatened by changes in the low-lying coastal landscape. In 

many places, park infrastructure is also a cultural resource, 

such as the Sleeping Bear Point Life-Saving Station that now 

serves as the Maritime Museum at Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore in Michigan, and the Russian Bishop’s 

House at Sitka National Historical Park in Alaska. Cultural 

resources along with the geologic record can help to tell the 

story of climate change. The use of historical records can 

increase understanding of how prior cultures and landscapes 

have responded to drivers such as rapid environmental 

change. Adaptation for cultural resources brings together 

approaches to address impacts on cultural resources 

from climate change and engage with the information 

they contain. 

“Chapter 6 Facility Management” covers the work of the 

Sustainable Operations and Climate Change Program along 

with facility management and transportation programs 

that are challenged with managing assets in low-lying areas 

exposed to coastal hazards. 
National Park Service 10 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The National Park Service has an opportunity to 

communicate about coastal adaptation to climate change 

and educate the visiting public in person and via online and 

print resources. “Chapter 7 Communication and Education” 

provides examples of interpretive products, training, and 

communication strategies.

The adverse and beneficial impacts of coastal engineering 

structures are detailed in “Chapter 8 Protecting 

Infrastructure: Costs and Impacts.” The National Park 

Service recognizes that there is a history of inherited and 

recently constructed coastal engineering structures, and 

that in the future park managers will have to consider the 

potential placement of additional structures to protect 

coastal resources and assets at risk. The decision to construct 

a new structure along the shoreline should be part of 

a careful process that includes consultation with other 

entities through feasibility studies, compliance processes, 

funding requests, and more. The options outlined in this 

chapter include strategies for shoreline stabilization, coastal 

restoration, living shorelines, and other coastal engineering 

options. Sample construction costs are included to help 

inform initial project statements for technical assistance or 

initial funding.

Accompanying this handbook is a compilation of many 

adaptation strategies that have been recommended, tried, 

and even dismissed at some units in the “Coastal Adaptation 

Strategies: Case Studies” (Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015). In addition, an expanded Hurricane Sandy case study 

is included in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy.” Each chapter concludes with Take Home Messages. 

Take Home Messages

● Climate change will continue to impact coastal 

resources and assets in the national parks at various 

rates. To address the current and anticipated impacts, 

parks can work proactively and cooperatively with 

others to implement adaptation strategies for resources 

at various levels of exposure and vulnerability. 

Adaptation is a process, not a single action.

● Adaptation includes a range of potential responses, 

including resisting change, accommodating change, and 

directing change towards a specific desired new future.

● Adaptation decisions should be made using the best 

available science; however, uncertainty should not 

prohibit adaptation action. There are numerous 

information systems and tools available to support 

climate change adaptation planning.

● Responding to climate change impacts on coastal parks 

is most effective when diverse adaptation strategies on a 

variety of temporal and spatial scales are considered.

● Vulnerability assessments can help prioritize among 

resources or better target an adaptation strategy. 
National Park Service 11 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Barton, A., G. G. Waldbusser, R. A. Feely, S. B. Weisberg, 

J. A. Newton, B. Hales, S. Cudd, B. Eudeline, C. J. 

Langdon, I. Jefferds, T. King, A. Suhrbier, and K. 

McLaughlin. 2015. Impacts of coastal acidification 

on the Pacific Northwest shellfish industry and 

adaptation strategies implemented in response. 

Oceanography 28(2):146–159.

Beavers, R. L., C. A. Schupp, I. A. Slayton, and M. A. Caffrey. 

2014. Shoreline erosion and adaptation strategies for 

Peale Island Cabin, Yellowstone National Park. Natural 

Resource Report. NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2014/858. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Published Report-2216472. 

Caffrey, M. A., and R. L. Beavers. 2013. Forecasting 

the impact of sea level rise in the U.S. Park 

Science 30(1): 6–13.

Caffrey, M. A., and R. L. Beavers. 2008. Protecting Cultural 

Resources in U.S. Coastal National Parks from Climate 

Change. George Wright Forum 25(2): 86−97.

Chapin, F. S., S. F. Trainor, P. Cochran, H. Huntington, C. 

Markon, M. McCammon, A. D. McGuire, and M. 

Serreze. 2014. Ch. 22: Alaska. Climate Change Impacts. 

Pages 514-536 in J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, 

and G. W. Yohe [eds.]. The United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. doi:10.7930/J00Z7150.

Curdts, T. 2011. Shoreline length and water area in the ocean, 

coastal and Great Lakes parks: Updated statistics 

for shoreline miles and water acres (rev1b). Natural 

Resource Report. NPS/WASO/NRR—2011/464. NPS 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science. Fort 

Collins, Colorado. Published Report-2180595.

Curdts, T. 2014. Gap Analysis for Sea and Lake Level Data in 

National Park Service Coastal Parks. 

 Unpublished report. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO.

Desai, A. R., J. A. Austin, V. Bennington, and G. A. McKinley. 

2009. Stronger winds over a large lake in response to 

weakening air-to-lake temperature gradient, Nature 

Geoscience 2: 855-858.

Duarte, C. M. 2013. Is ocean acidification an open-ocean 

syndrome? Understanding anthropogenic impacts 

on seawater pH. Estuaries and Coasts 36:221-236. 

doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9594-3.

Ekstrom, J. A., L. Suatoni, S. R. Cooley, L. H. Pendleton, 

G. G. Waldbusser, J. E. Cinner, J. Ritter, C. Langdon, 

R. van Hooidonk, D. Gledhill, K. Wellman, M. W. 

Beck, L. M. Brander, D. Rittschof, C. Doherty, P. E. 

T. Edwards, and R. Portela. 2015. Vulnerability and 

adaptation of US shellfisheries to ocean acidification. 

Nature Climate Change 5: 207-214. http://www.nature.

com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2508.html

(accessed 17 April 2015).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. “Climate 

Change Indicators in the United States: Sea Surface 

Temperature.” Online resource. https://www3.epa.gov/

climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surfacetemp.html (accessed 22 April 2016).

EPA. 2015b. “Climate Change Indicators in the United 

States: U.S. and Global Precipitation.” Online 

resource. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/

science/indicators/weather-climate/precipitation.html

(accessed 22 April 2016). 

Executive Order 13653, “Preparing the United States 

for the Impacts of Climate Change.” 78 FR 

66819. 6 November 2013. http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-06/pdf/2013-26785.pdf

(accessed 9 May 2016).

Executive Order 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.” 30 

January 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishingfederal-flood-risk-management-standard-and-

(accessed 23 June 2016).

Field, C. B., L. D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D. L. Forbes, 

P. Kovacs, J. A. Patz, S. W. Running, and M. J. Scott. 

2007. North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. Pages 617-652 in 

M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der 

Linden and C.E. Hanson [eds.]. Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
National Park Service 12 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, M. 

van Aalst, W. N. Adger, D. J. Arent, J. Barnett, R. Betts, 

T. E. Bilir, J. Birkmann, J. Carmin, D. D. Chadee, A. J. 

Challinor, M. Chatterjee,W. Cramer, D. J. Davidson, 

Y. O. Estrada, J.-P. Gattuso, Y. Hijioka, O. HoeghGuldberg, H. Q. Huang, G. E. Insarov, R. N. Jones, R. S. 

Kovats, P. Romero-Lankao, J. N. Larsen, I. J. Losada, J. 

A. Marengo, R. F. McLean, L. O. Mearns, R. Mechler, J. 

F. Morton, I. Niang, T. Oki, J. M. Olwoch, M. Opondo, 

E. S. Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, M.H. Redsteer, A. 

Reisinger, A. Revi, D. N. Schmidt, M. R. Shaw, W. 

Solecki, D. A. Stone, J. M. R. Stone, K. M. Strzepek, 

A. G. Suarez, P. Tschakert, R. Valentini, S. Vicuña, 

A. Villamizar, K. E. Vincent, R.Warren, L.L.White, 

T.J.Wilbanks, P.P.Wong, and G.W. Yohe. 2014. Technical 

summary. Pages 35-94 in Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. 

J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, 

M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, 

B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 

P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L.White [eds.]. Climate 

Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/

pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-TS_FINAL.

pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

Fisichelli, N., G. W. Schuurman, and C. Hawkins Hoffman. 

2016. Is ‘Resilience’ Maladaptive? Towards an 

Accurate Lexicon for Climate Change Adaptation. 

Environmental Management 57(4): 753-758.

Gledhill, D. K., M. M. White, J. Salisbury, H. Thomas, I. 

Mlsna, M. Liebman, B. Mook, J. Grear, A. C. Candelmo, 

R. C. Chambers, C. J. Gobler, C. W. Hunt, A. L. King, 

N. N. Price, S. R. Signorini, E. Stancioff, C. Stymiest, R. 

A. Wahle, J. D. Waller, N. D. Rebuck, Z. A. Wang, T. L. 

Capson, J. R. Morrison, S. R. Cooley, and S. C. Doney. 

2015. Ocean and coastal acidification off New England 

and Nova Scotia. Oceanography 28(2): 182–197. http://

dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2015.41.

Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N. A. Edelson [eds.] 2011. Scanning 

the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

Gonzalez, P. 2015. Climate Change Summary, Padre Island 

National Seashore, Texas. Climate Change Trends. 

National Park Service Climate Change Response 

Program, Washington, DC. Published Report 2220505. 

Gronewold, A. D., V. Fortin, B. Lofgren, A. Clites, C. A. 

Stow, F. Quinn. 2013. Coasts, water levels, and 

climate change: A Great Lakes perspective. Climatic 

Change 120: 697–711.

Hartmann, H. C. 1990. Climate change impacts 

on Laurentian Great Lakes levels. Climatic 

Change 17(1): 49-67.

Hoffman, J., E. Rowland, C. H. Hoffman, J. West, S. H. 

Julius, and M. Hayes. 2014. Chapter 12: Managing 

Under Uncertainty. Pages 177-187 in Stein, B.A., P. 

Glick, , N. Edelson and A. Staudt [eds.]. ClimateSmart Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles 

into Practice. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hönisch, B., A. Ridgwell, D.N. Schmidt, E. Thomas, S.J. 

Gibbs, A. Sluijs, R. Zeebe, L. Kump, R.C. Martindale, 

S.E. Greene, W. Kiessling, J. Ries, J.C. Zachos, D.L. 

Royer, S. Barker, T.M. Marchitto Jr., R. Moyer, C. 

Pelejero, P. Ziveri, G.L. Foster, and B. Williams. 2012. 

The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification. Science 

335(6072): 1058-1063. doi:10.1126/science.1208277 

(accessed 17 April 2015).

Hanrahan, J. L., S. V. Kravtsov, and P. J. Roebber. 2010. 

Connecting past and present climate variability 

to the water levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron. 

Geophysical Research Letters 37(1): L01701. http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041707/

epdf (accessed 22 June 2016).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. 

The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, 

S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. 

Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller [eds.]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, 996 pp.

IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science 

basis. Working Group I contribution to the IPCC 

Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. www.ipcc.ch/

report/ar5/wg1. 
National Park Service 13 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in 

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

Lofgren, B. M., T. S. Hunter, and J. Wilbarger. 2011. Effects 

of using air temperature as a proxy for potential 

evapotranspiration in climate change scenarios of 

Great Lakes basin hydrology. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 37: 744–752. doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2011.09.006.

Maldonado, J. K., C. Shearer, R. Bronen, K. Peterson, and H. 

Lazrus, 2013. The impact of climate change on tribal 

communities in the US: Displacement, relocation, 

and human rights. Climatic Change 120: 601-614. 

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0746-z.

Monahan, W. B., and N. Fisichelli. 2014. Climate Exposure of 

US National Parks in a New Era of Change. PLoS ONE 

9(7): e101302. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101302 

(accessed 5 August 2016). 

Moser, S.C., M. A. Davidson, P. Kirshen, P. Mulvaney, J. F. 

Murley, J. E. Neumann, L. Petes, and D. Reed. 2014. 

Ch. 25: Coastal Zone Development and Ecosystems. 

Pages 579-618 in J. M. Melillo, ] T. C. Richmond, 

and G.W. Yohe [eds.]. Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

doi:10.7930/J0MS3QNW.

Motyka, R. J., C. F. Larsen, J. T. Freymueller and K. A. 

Echelmeyer. 2007. Post Little Ice Age Glacial Rebound 

in Glacier Bay National Park and Surrounding 

Areas. Alaska Park Science 6(1): 37-41. https://

www.nps.gov/akso/nature/science/ak_park_science/

PDF/2007Vol6-1/6_motyka.pdf (accessed 

20 April 2016).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

2016. “NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal RecordShattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015.” 

Release 16-008, 20 Janaury 2016. http://www.nasa.

gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-recordshattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

(accessed 22 April 2016).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2014. “NOAA and partner scientists study 

ocean acidification in Prince William Sound.” Press 

release. http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/

LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/10648/

NOAA-and-partner-scientists-study-oceanacidification-in-Prince-William-Sound.aspx (accessed 

21 April 2016).

NOAA. 2016. “Ocean Carbon Uptake.” Online resource. 

NOAA PMEL Carbon Program. http://www.pmel.

noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake (accessed 

21 April 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2010. National Park Service 

Climate Change Response Strategy. NPS Climate 

Change Response Program, Fort Collins, CO.

NPS. 2012. Applying National Park Service management 

policies in the context of climate change. US DOI 

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 12-02. 

March 6, 2012. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/

PM_12-02.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015). 

NPS. 2014a. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 

Framework for U.S. National Parks. National Park 

Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, 

Washington, DC.

NPS. 2014b. Climate change and stewardship of cultural 

resources. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 14-02. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM-14-02.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2015. Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards: 

Facility Planning and Design Considerations. US DOI 

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 15-01. 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm 

(accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2016. Resource Stewardship for the 21st Century – 

Interim Policy. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 16-01. https://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_16-01.htm (accessed 15 June 2016).

National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee 

(NPSABSC). 2012. Revisiting Leopold: Resource 

Stewardship in the National Parks. National 

Park System Advisory Board Science Committee, 

Washington, DC, 24 pp. https://www.nps.gov/

calltoaction/PDF/LeopoldReport_2012.pdf

(accessed 3 May 2016).
National Park Service 14 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2015. 

Dimensions of Ocean Acidification. Interactive website. 

http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification-hotspots/

default.asp (accessed 17 April 2015). 

Parris, A., P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. 

Hall, R. Hoßrton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, 

A. Sallenger, and J. Weiss. 2012. Global Sea Level 

Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate 

Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD, 37 pp,

Sallenger, A. H. Jr., K. S. Doran, and P. A. Howd. 2012. 

Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic 

coast of North America. Nature Climate Change 2: 

884–888. doi:10.1038/nclimate1597.

Schramm, A and R. Loehman. 2010. Understanding the 

science of climate change: talking points - impacts 

to the Great Lakes. Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRPC/CCRP/NRR—2010/247. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO.

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. A. Edelson, and A. Staudt [eds.]. 

2014. Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation 

Principles into Practice. National Wildlife Federation. 

Washington, DC.

Tebaldi, C., B. H. Strauss, and C. E. Zervas. 2012. Modelling 

sea level rise impacts on storm surges along US 

coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032. 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014032.

Trumpickas, J., B. J. Shuter, and C. K. Minns. 2009. 

Forecasting impacts of climate change on Great Lakes 

surface water temperatures. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research 35(3): 454-463.

Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. 

Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D. 

Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. 

Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. 

Somerville. 2014. Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Pages 

19-67 in Melillo, J. M., T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe 

[eds.]. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

The Third National Climate Assessment. US Global 

Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT
National Park Service 15 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 2 Policy

Contributing Authors: Julia Brunner and Steve Simon

Introduction

This chapter describes the policies that guide National 

Park Service (NPS) consideration and selection of 

adaptation strategies in response to climate change in 

coastal parks and ecosystems. As presented in the other 

chapters in this handbook, there are many potential 

coastal area adaptation strategies that the National Park 

Service is already considering and implementing over 

time. This chapter addresses questions that may arise 

regarding the compatibility of these strategies with NPS 

policy. Online resources to supplement this document are 

available at http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm.

General NPS Policies

NPS policy for cultural resource management provides NPS 

managers with direction to actively manage those resources 

based on research, planning, and stewardship principles 

(see “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources”). This is an urgent and 

targeted task as the effects of climate change on cultural 

resources become more evident, leading to specific policy 

direction (PM 14-02) relevant to the adaptation strategies in 

this handbook. 

NPS policy for natural resource management, however, 

provides NPS managers with the flexibility to take various 

management actions, including restoration, mitigation, and 

other intervention, with respect to natural resources and 

processes in these four circumstances: 

● when directed by Congress;

● in emergencies in which human life and 

property are at stake; 

● to restore natural ecosystem functioning that has been 

disrupted by past or ongoing human activities; or 

● when a park plan has identified the intervention as 

necessary to protect other park resources, human 

health and safety, or facilities (NPS Management 

Policies 2006 § 4.1).

While all of the above bullets are relevant at various times, 

the third circumstance is discussed here. It means that 

where natural resources or processes have been disrupted 

by human activities, NPS policy permits park managers to 

take action as necessary and feasible to protect, restore, or 

otherwise conserve the disrupted resources or processes. 

While this policy is stated in slightly different ways 

throughout Chapter 4 of the NPS Management Policies, 

the intention is evident and applies across biological and 

physical resources (see NPS Management Policies § 4.1 

(general management concepts), § 4.1.5 (restoration of 

natural systems), § 4.4.1 (biological resources), § 4.4.2 

(native plants and animals), § 4.4.2.2 (restoration of native 

plants and animals), § 4.4.2.2 (landscapes and vegetation), 

§ 4.6.3 (protection and restoration of water quality), § 4.6.5 

(wetlands), and § 4.8.1.1 (shorelines and barrier islands). 

Note that the Management Policies do not require active 

NPS management in human-disturbed resources or 

processes. The National Park Service may investigate various 

alternatives, and based on scientific, technical, financial 

reasons, and/or stakeholder input, decide to act or not to 

act to address the impacts of the human disturbance. If the 

National Park Service does take action, it must be kept to 

the minimum necessary to achieve the stated management 

objectives (NPS Management Policies 2006 § 4.1). 

The questions when evaluating potential natural resource 

adaptation strategies for consistency with Management 

Policies, then, are whether the current impacts resulting from 

climate change are a human-caused disruption, and whether 

the proposed adaptation strategy would conserve, restore, 

or otherwise protect park resources or processes from the 

impacts of the human disruption. 

To answer the first question, the majority of scientific 

information indicates that current climate change is largely 

a result of human activities (IPCC 2014). These activities 

and the resulting changes to Earth’s climate are changing 

the pace, magnitude, timing, and other aspects of natural 

ecosystem resources and processes. Where natural processes 

in parks have been impacted in pace, magnitude, and timing 

by human-caused climate change, it is consistent with NPS 

policy, for the National Park Service—at the appropriate 

time and in the appropriate circumstances—to consider 

management actions to mitigate, reduce, compensate for, 

or adapt to the effects, based on best available information, 

of the human-caused impacts at coastal parks. While 

climate change effects may seem ubiquitous, attribution 

of effects remains an important step in determining the 

appropriate management response. As explained elsewhere 

in this handbook (see figure 1.1, table 4.2, and table 5.4), 

adaptation strategies may range from resist change, 

accommodate change (which might include specific 
National Park Service 16 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

management actions such as reducing stressors or restoring 

human-disturbed resources), to direct change toward a new 

future (which might include specific management actions 

such as relocating certain resources). Again, such actions are 

not necessarily required but should be evaluated based on 

science, technical, financial, and societal factors, rather than 

ignored without any investigation. 

Management actions to mitigate, restore, or otherwise 

address human-caused climate change impacts may 

likewise be considered at NPS coastal or ocean areas 

that are designated or suitable for wilderness status but 

must be conducted in accordance with the concept of 

minimum requirement management to be consistent with 

other NPS wilderness policies (see Director’s Order #41, 

Wilderness Stewardship). 

To answer the second question, the potential adaptation 

strategy should be evaluated for whether it addresses the 

result of the human disruption, in which case it would be 

consistent with the general NPS policy, or whether it goes 

beyond or is unrelated to the result of the human disruption, 

in which case it would not be consistent and should be 

modified or dismissed from further evaluation.

Additional Policies That Apply to 

NPS Coastal Adaptation Strategies

In addition to complying with the general Management 

Policies considerations discussed above, potential adaptation 

strategies should be evaluated for consistency with the 

policies listed below. These additional policies are compiled 

and distilled from multiple documents, including several 

executive and secretarial orders, the Department of the 

Interior Manual, and four NPS policy memos (table 2.1) 

(See References).

Table 2.1. Handbook chapters with further discussion of 

NPS Policy Memoranda

Chapter 4 

Natural Resources

PM 12-02: Applying National Park 

Service Management Policies in the 

Context of Climate Change; 

PM 16-01: Resource Stewardship for 

the 21st Century – Interim Policy

Chapter 5

Cultural Resources

PM 14-02: Climate Change and 

Stewardship of Cultural Resources; 

PM 16-01: Resource Stewardship for 

the 21st Century – Interim Policy

Chapter 6

Facility Management

PM 15-01: Addressing Climate Change 

and Natural Hazards for Facilities

Based on those documents, when evaluating coastal climate 

change adaptation strategies, it is consistent with policies of 

the National Park Service, to:

● gather and maintain baseline climatological 

data for reference.

● use best available information and science to inform 

NPS understanding of climate change risks, impacts, 

vulnerabilities, and adaptation options.

● incorporate climate change considerations and 

adaptation strategies into NPS planning, programs, 

and operations.

● maintain partnerships and information flow with 

other entities and stakeholders to develop adaptation 

strategies and coordinate adaptation strategies with 

those entities.

● select adaptation strategies and investments that

○ integrate climate risk-management 

considerations into resource management and 

infrastructure decisions;

○ use, where feasible, landscape and seascapescale, ecosystem-based, and nature-based 

management approaches;

○ protect natural and cultural resources, including 

diversity and key ecosystem benefits and/

or services;

○ preserve and restore unfragmented or 

undisturbed habitat areas and key habitat 

linkages between them;

○ prevent or slow the spread of invasive species that 

would cause environmental or human harm;

○ focus development in disturbed areas, away from 

ecologically sensitive landscapes, culturally sensitive 

areas, and wildlife corridors; and

○ promote carbon sequestration or otherwise reduce 

the sources of anthropogenic climate change.

● do not select adaptation strategies and investments that

○ contribute to climate change impacts; or

○ increase vulnerability of resources or infrastructure 

within or outside park units to climate change 

impacts and risks.
National Park Service 17 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Implementation of the Above 

Policies: Document All Adaptation/

Intervention Decisions

The final policy relevant to the selection of adaptation 

strategies is that park managers must document the reasons 

for choosing particular adaptation and intervention 

strategies. Selected strategies must be consistent with laws, 

regulations, policies, other existing guidance (see references), 

and available scientific and technical information. Costs and 

benefits, and the assumptions underlying those costs and 

benefits, should likewise be considered. Documentation 

will demonstrate how selected strategies were reached and 

how they are consistent with these factors. Because of the 

importance of flexibility over time, a selected strategy does 

not have precedential value at any other park unit or at the 

same park in a different situation. The National Park Service 

should revisit adaptation decisions regularly. If a selected 

strategy turns out to be problematic for any reason, then 

the National Park Service should consider modifying that 

strategy as necessary and appropriate.

Take Home Messages

● Park managers have substantial flexibility and discretion 

when selecting coastal adaptation strategies. Yet this 

flexibility and discretion are not unconstrained; various 

policy and guidance documents contain additional 

considerations that should be incorporated into park 

managers’ decisions about adaptation alternatives.

● Park adaptation decisions must be well documented.
National Park Service 18 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Executive Office of the President. 2013. President’s 

Climate Action Plan (June 2013). http://www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/

president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance 

(5 October 2009). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2009-10-08/pdf/E9-24518.pdf.

Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for 

the Impacts of Climate Change (1 November 2013), 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-06/

pdf/2013-26785.pdf.

Executive Order 11988, Federal Floodplain Management 

(42 FR 26951), modified by Executive Order 13690, 

Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and 

Considering Stakeholder Input (4 February 2014), 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-04/

pdf/2015-02379.pdf.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

2014. Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in: C. 

B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. 

D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, 

Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, 

A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and 

L. L. White (eds.)]. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and 

Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Park Service 

Management Policies 2006. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.

pdf (accessed 26 March 2015).

NPS. 2010. National Park Service Climate Change Response 

Strategy. National Park Service Climate Change 

Response Program, Fort Collins, CO.

NPS. 2012. Applying National Park Service Management 

Policies in the Context of Climate Change. US DOI 

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 12-02. 

March 6, 2012. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/

PM_12-02.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2013. Director’s Order 41: Wilderness Stewardship. 

May 13, 2013. https://www.nps.gov/policy/

DOrders/DO_41.pdf (NPS internal access only), 

(accessed 16 June 2013).

NPS. 2014. Climate Change and Stewardship of Cultural 

Resources. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 14-02. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM-14-02.htm (NPS internal access only), 

(accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2015. Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards 

for Facilities. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 15-01. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm (NPS internal access only), 

(accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2016. Resource Stewardship for the 21st Century – 

Interim Policy. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 16-01. https://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_16-01.htm (accessed 15 June 2016).

US Department of the Interior (US DOI). 2009. Secretarial 

Order 3289, Addressing the Impacts of Climate 

Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural 

and Cultural Resources (14 September 2009. http://

www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/

SecOrder3289.pdf.

US DOI. 2008. Adaptive Management/Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy, Departmental Manual Part 522, 

Chapter 1 (February 2008).

US DOI. 2012. Climate Change Adaptation/Climate Change 

Policy, Departmental Manual Part 523, Chapter 1 

(December 2012).
National Park Service 19 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 3 Planning

Contributing Authors: Don Weeks, Janet Cakir, and 

Cat Hawkins Hoffman

Considering climate change in park planning and 

management is required (Secretarial Order 3289; Executive 

Order 13653). Planning for climate change is especially 

important for coastal parks because sea level rise and 

increased flooding risks are likely to present tradeoffs 

between park resources and assets. Without planning and 

prioritization, responses will be reactive and potentially 

maladaptive. For example, “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from 

Hurricane Sandy” describes potential barriers to adaptation 

such as the pressure to rebuild facilities and reopen stormdamaged areas quickly, instead of taking the additional 

time and funding to design new sustainable infrastructure, 

which may also entail considering more optimal locations. 

Advance planning can improve post-storm responses, such 

as anticipating and allowing a natural breach in a wilderness 

area to remain open (see other examples in “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”).

Some links in this chapter refer to internally available 

NPS documents. Externally available resources can be 

accessed at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm.

Planning Framework

The new National Park Service (NPS) planning framework 

(figure 3.1) accommodates the flexibility needed for adaptive 

park planning and management within the context of a 

changing climate.

This planning framework introduces the concept of a 

dynamic park planning portfolio, which is the assemblage 

of the individual plans, studies, and inventories needed to 

guide park decision-making. The portfolio can be visualized 

as a loose-leaf binder, in which particular planning elements 

can be removed and updated, and new elements added, 

without revising the entire body of work. This flexibility 

is well suited to the needs of climate change adaptation 

as a rapidly evolving field with a growing list of processes 

and frameworks. 

Foundation Document

The NPS planning framework begins with the Foundation 

Document (figure 3.1), identifying the park purpose, 

significance, and fundamental resources and values a park 

is committed to preserving and maintaining based on park 

legislation. The document includes an assessment and 

prioritization of park planning and data needs to provide 

direction for developing the overall park planning portfolio 

that guides park, regional, 

and national planning and 

information priorities. Over 

time, continued monitoring 

of the effectiveness of 

management decisions 

and incorporation of new 

information (e.g., new 

climate change projections, 

ecological responses) feeds 

back into the assessment 

and prioritization of park 

planning and/or data needs, 

informing adjustments 

in the park planning 

portfolio, as needed. 

Foundation documents 

have acknowledged climate 

change as a threat to 

important resources and 

values, a data need, and 

as a planning need (for 

example, see NPS 2012).

Foundation

Document

Comprehensive

Plans

Strategic

Plans

Implementation

Plans

National Park Service

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Studies/

Inventories

Monitor

Dynamic Portfolio

• Park Purpose & Significance

• Fundamental Resources & 

Values

• Other Important Resources & 

Values

• NPS Policy-Level Conditions

• Assessment of Planning & 

Data Needs

Figure 3.1. National Park Service Planning Framework.
National Park Service 20 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The NPS Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) 

provides relevant climate change information to inform 

development of all park foundation documents; such 

information includes sea level change and storm surge 

observations and projections for coastal NPS units. Guidance 

for addressing climate change in foundation documents

(NPS internal access only), (NPS 2014a) is available. 

A component of the Foundation planning process is the Park 

Atlas (NPS internal access only), a compilation of baseline 

GIS data for each park presented in an interactive web 

mapping site. Accurate spatial data, especially elevations for 

coastal resources vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding, 

are essential for many adaptation decisions. The park atlases 

and the underlying geodatabase provide valuable resources 

for pre-storm planning, incident response, and poststorm recovery. 

General Management Plan

The General Management Plan (GMP) builds from the 

Foundation Document and is required for all park units 

under statute (National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978) 

and 2006 NPS Management Policies (§2.3.1). These plans 

address four legislated requirements:

● Management actions to preserve park resources

● Intensities of development

● Visitor capacity

● Boundary modification, if needed

The 2014 memo, Guidance for Addressing Climate Change in 

ongoing General Management Plans (NPS 2014b), outlines 

how and where climate change considerations should be 

incorporated into ongoing general management plans. 

When preparing a GMP, it is important for coastal parks 

to consider the implications of ongoing and projected sea 

level rise and lake level changes (coupled with storm effects, 

melting permafrost, and other coastal changes) on park 

infrastructure, resources, and visitor use, and anticipate 

decisions that may be required in the future. Examples of 

the needed flexibility for coastal climate change adaptation 

can be found in some of the more recent park GMPs (figure 

3.2). A case study on “Incorporating Climate Change into a 

General Management Plan” is available at Schupp, Beavers, 

and Caffrey (2015; Case Study 23).

Resource Stewardship Strategy

The Resource Stewardship Strategy (RSS), (NPS internal 

access only) is the bridge between a park’s Foundation 

Document and the everyday management of natural 

and cultural resources. A Resource Stewardship Strategy 

evaluates the major components of the park’s priority 

resources (defined in the Foundation Document) that 

must be protected into the future; establishes science- and 

scholarship-based methods to evaluate success in protecting 

these priority resources and values; determines measurable 

targets for success; and includes prioritized strategies for 

achieving and maintaining those targets over time. Inclusion 

of current climate projections, plausible climate futures, and 

the associated range of effects in an RSS enables parks to 

develop flexible adaptation strategies that anticipate and can 

best respond to evolving conditions. 

Figure 3.2. Excerpts from Draft General Management Plans from Two Parks Addressing Climate Change.
National Park Service 21 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Tools for Climate Change Adaptation of 

Coastal Resources and Assets

This section summarizes some of the applied processes 

and available resources for climate change adaptation at 

coastal parks. 

Processes

Vulnerability Assessment

A climate change vulnerability assessment is a crucial tool 

for understanding the effects of climate change on natural 

systems, cultural resources, and park assets, and is a critical 

element of setting the stage for effective adaptation planning. 

For this reason, a climate change vulnerability assessment is 

typically conducted early in the adaptation planning process 

(Stein et al. 2014).

Vulnerability to climate change refers to the “degree to which 

as system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse 

effects of climate change, including climate variability 

and extremes.” (IPCC 2007, 2014). Vulnerability has three 

principal components: sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive 

capacity (figure 3.3). Sensitivity generally refers to innate 

characteristics of a specific resource, system, or asset and 

considers tolerance to changes in such things as temperature, 

precipitation, sea level rise, and storm frequency. Exposure in 

contrast, refers to extrinsic factors, focusing on the character, 

magnitude, and rate of change that the specific resource, 

system, or asset is likely to experience. Adaptive capacity 

addresses the ability of a specific resource, system, or asset 

to accommodate or cope with climate change impacts with 

minimal disruption (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011). Note 

that adaptive capacity may not be relevant to all types of 

resources or systems; for example, some cultural resources, 

and many types of infrastructure do not have inherent 

adaptive capacity. 

Climate change vulnerability assessments provide two 

essential types of information needed for adaptation 

planning (Stein et al. 2014):

● Identifying which species, systems, or assets are likely 

to be vulnerable

● Understanding why they are vulnerable

An overview on climate change vulnerability is provided in 

Chapter 6 of Stein et al. (2014), with more comprehensive 

guidance provided in Glick, Stein, and Edelson (2011). A 

description of a vulnerability assessment approach specific 

to infrastructure in coastal park units is available in the 

Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability 

Assessment Protocol report (NPS 2016).

One example is the “Relative Coastal Vulnerability 

Assessment of National Park Units to Sea-Level Rise” 

project, created in partnership between the National Park 

Service and the US Geological Survey (USGS), which 

assessed and mapped hazards posed by future sea level 

change to NPS units. The result from this effort was the 

coastal vulnerability index assessment for many national 

park units, highlighting areas that are likely to be most 

affected by future sea level rise. This index was developed 

at a large, coarse scale and is useful as a screening tool. If a 

park is in a highly vulnerable location, more detailed analysis 

will be needed.

Outcomes from climate change vulnerability assessments 

logically feed into other planning and management 

processes. The National Park Service has made significant 

investment towards developing, training, and applying two 

processes that assist parks with planning and managing in 

uncertain climate futures: climate change scenario planning 

and climate-smart conservation.

Scenario Planning

Planning in the National Park Service has been based on 

experiences in the past and projecting that understanding 

into the future, resulting in a range of “desired conditions” 

for priority park resources and assets. This is often referred 

to as “forecast planning” (figure 3.4). When considering a 

changing climate in park planning and management, the 

forecast approach is limited by incomplete knowledge of 

highly consequential factors that are largely unpredictable 

and outside of management control, but that influence 

future park conditions. The far-reaching effects of climate 

change, coupled with high uncertainty about local impacts 

Exposure

Potential	
  

Impact

Sensitivity

Vulnerability

Adaptive	
  

Capacity

Figure 3.3. Relationship 

among the Three 

Major Components of 

Vulnerability: Exposure, 

Sensitivity, and Adaptive 

Capacity. Figure 6.1 from 

Stein et al. (2014).
National Park Service 22 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figure 3.4. Forecast Planning differs from Scenario

Planning. Figure 2 from Weeks, Malone, and 

Welling (2011).

(e.g., population growth, economic conditions), produce 

a range of plausible futures that park managers may 

encounter (figure 3.4).

Scenario planning is a continuous and adaptive process for 

developing a science-based decision making framework in 

the face of futures with high uncertainty and lack of control 

(figure 3.5). This continuous process helps parks and local 

stakeholders prepare for climate change and other relevant 

uncertainties by exploring and tracking several plausible 

scenarios that represent a range of relevant and challenging 

futures for a park or region. The resulting scenarios help 

managers assess relative risk, test important decisions, 

develop strategies or contingency actions (figure 3.6), and 

identify key indicators to monitor that validate the scenarios 

over time, making adjustments as needed.

Multiple methods exist to facilitate scenario development. 

The NPS handbook, Using Scenarios to Explore Climate 

Change: A Handbook for Practitioners describes a five-step 

scenario building process with detailed instructions on 

how to accomplish each step using the “matrix approach” 

(NPS 2013). An accompanying Addendum I was released in 

2014 that introduces an alternative technique that requires 

less time to facilitate the five-step scenario building process 

(NPS 2014c). More information on the NPS approach to 

climate change scenario planning is available at http://

www1.nrintra.nps.gov/climatechange/planscenarios.cfm

(NPS internal access only). Further synthesis of additional 

scenario planning methods case studies is in Considering 

Multiple Futures: Scenario Planning to Address Uncertainty 

in Natural Resource Conservation (Rowland, Cross, 

and Hartmann (2014). 

Climate change vulnerability assessments and climate 

change scenario planning integrate with the climate-smart 

process. The plausible climate change futures created 

through a scenario planning effort, along with climaterelated vulnerabilities for select systems, resources, or assets, 

logically feed into the climate-smart step that assesses 

climate impacts and vulnerabilities. Table 3.1 provides a 

quick summary and reference link on these three processes. 

Figure 3.5. 

Scenario planning 

example from 

Assateague Island 

National Seashore.

» Breaching and fragmentation

» Reduced habitat 

diversity and complexity

» Saltwater intrusion from overwash 

and sea level rise

» Reduced land mass

» Community shifts

» Saltwater intrusion into aquifers

» Relatively stable but increased stress

» Reduced marsh building

» Lowered water table

» Episodic change

» Increased overwash and dune erosion

» Simplified habits

» Saltwater inundation from overwash
National Park Service 23 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Climate-Smart Conservation

Completed in 2014, the guidance document

Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation 

Principles into Practice describes a seven-step, 

iterative process for integrating concepts 

and tools of climate-smart conservation into 

existing work (Stein et al. 2014). The guidance 

is the product of an expert workgroup that 

included participants from the National Wildlife 

Federation, USGS, US Forest Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The 

Nature Conservancy, the National Park Service, 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental 

Protection Agency, and others. While developed 

specifically for natural resources, the approach 

and principles included in the guidance are 

relevant for adaptation planning across the 

breadth of NPS stewardship responsibilities. 

The principles of “climate-smart conservation” 

help to answer the question, “What should be 

done differently in light of climate change, and 

what actions continue to make sense?” This 

thinking helps to develop goals and strategies 

that are forward-looking, intentionally consider 

climate change, and manage for change, not 

just persistence (Stein et al. 2014). An important 

goal of climate-smart conservation is to help 

practitioners and policy makers understand what 

constitutes “good” climate adaptation, how 

to recognize those characteristics in existing 

work, and how to design new interventions 

when necessary.

The guidance highlights nine characteristics of 

climate-smart conservation:

● Link actions to climate impacts

● Embrace forward-looking goals

● Consider broader landscape context

● Adopt strategies robust to uncertainty

● Employ agile, informed management

● Minimize carbon footprint

● Account for climate influence

● Safeguard people and nature

● Avoid maladaptation

Figure 3.6. Through climate change scenario planning 

at Assateague Island National Seashore, the increased 

vulnerability of the shallow freshwater aquifer on the 

barrier island due to sea level rise and salt water intrusion 

was identified. This freshwater supply is important in 

sustaining the wild horses on the island that visitors come 

to see. The park is working with the USGS to characterize 

this shallow aquifer to better assist with management 

decisions and future planning. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 24 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Tool

Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment Scenario Planning Climate-Smart Conservation

Summary Offers guidance on the key components 

of vulnerability—sensitivity, exposure, 

and adaptive capacity—to identify 

which resources, systems, or assets are 

likely vulnerable and why they are 

vulnerable.

Offers a structured process designed 

for managing into futures with high 

uncertainty and lack of control (e.g., 

climate change). Rehearsing for 

multiple futures strengthens NPS and 

stakeholder ability to recognize, adapt 

to, and take advantage of changes over 

time.

Offers a structured process for 

linking climate adaptation actions to 

climate change impacts. Emphasis is 

placed on acting with intentionality 

while being transparent (show your 

work) in adaptation planning and 

implementation processes.

Link http://www.nwf.org/pdf/-ClimateSmart-Conservation/-NWFScanningtheC

onservationHorizonFINAL92311.pdf

http://www1.nrintra.nps.gov/

climatechange/planscenarios.cfm 

(NPS internal access only)

https://www.fws.gov/home/

climatechange/pdf/Scenario-PlanningReport.pdf

http://www.nwf.org/pdf/ClimateSmart-Conservation/NWF-ClimateSmart-Conservation_5-08-14.pdf 

Resources

The CCRP provides climate change information specific to 

parks and assists in adaptive planning and management that 

incorporate this information. Adaptation is most effective 

when it is both (1) intentionally and deliberately designed 

and implemented, and (2) “mainstreamed” into an existing 

overall management approach alongside actions that address 

other issues (Stein et al. 2014). Guidance on mainstreaming 

climate adaptation into foundation documents (NPS 2014a), 

general management plans (NPS 2014b), and resource 

stewardship strategies needs to be flexible and periodically 

revisited and updated. Within the NPS planning framework, 

climate adaptation also needs to be incorporated into 

other park plans such as wilderness stewardship plans, 

invasive plant management, cultural landscape reports, 

and commercial services planning. The forthcoming NPS 

guide, Planning for a Changing Climate, builds on climatesmart principles, and provides a standard approach for 

incorporating climate change adaptation as a routine part of 

all park planning, including the variety of planning needs in 

coastal parks.

Lastly, revisions to the DO-12 Handbook and supplemental 

guidance (NPS in prep; CEQ 2016) for considering project 

contributions to greenhouse gases, as well as influences 

from climate change on project success, support parks in 

addressing climate change as part of National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. Additional planning resources 

are available at http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastaladaptation.htm.

Disaster Planning and Preparing for 

Opportunities for Adaptation

Unfortunately natural disasters happen, and coastal zones 

are vulnerable because of coastal flooding, wave action, and 

high winds. It is more important now than ever for parks to 

plan ahead because climate change is increasing the risks of 

natural disasters (Field 2012; Smit and Wandel 2006; Smit et 

al. 2000). The National Park Service is steward to a variety 

of built resources that are vulnerable to climate change and 

natural disasters such as the storm surge, wave action, ice 

push, and high winds associated with coastal storm systems 

(e.g., hurricanes, typhoons, Northeasters), tsunami, and 

other sources of inundation. Some coastal storms could 

increase in intensity due to warmer ocean temperatures 

(Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014). When a park is highly 

vulnerable to natural disasters, pre-incident planning can 

create post-incident adaptation opportunities, and the tools 

and resources described above can be applied to 

pre-planning efforts.

Table 3.1. Tools for Climate Change Adaptation of Coastal Resources and Assets
National Park Service 25 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Parks in locations that are susceptible to natural disasters 

and include vulnerable infrastructure such as visitor centers, 

comfort stations, and historic buildings must plan for the 

risk associated with development in these locations. Where 

the risk is high, it may benefit a park to pre-plan for potential 

damage by identifying opportunities to restore infrastructure 

in a more sustainable manner and location.

The idea of pre-incident planning is compatible with 

Director’s Order 80: PM 15-01 Addressing Climate Change 

and Natural Hazards for Facilities, (NPS 2015; see “Chapter 

6 Facility Management”). The memorandum provides 

guidance to managers and their teams to proactively 

identify and document facility vulnerabilities to climate 

change and other natural hazards, which are most easily 

managed by planning for avoidance, resilience, or adaptation 

before events occur. 

When developing new facilities, it is prudent to do so in 

lower risk locations. For facilities already located in a highly 

vulnerable place, pre-incident planning can facilitate postincident adaptation actions. For example, if a park has a 

fixed boat dock that is destroyed by a hurricane, restoring 

the dock as a floating or removable dock may make it less 

vulnerable to sea or lake level change and destruction 

by storm surge.

A major component of adaptation planning focuses on 

disaster response and recovery. In order to understand 

adaptation and find plausible opportunities to adapt to 

upcoming changes, we need to study the disaster recovery 

timeline and look into each stage as a unique opportunity for 

adaptation. England (2005) developed a six-phase disaster 

recovery life cycle framework shown in figure 3.7. Each of 

these phases gives rise to distinctive priorities and goals as 

a context for decision making and can be evaluated as an 

opportunity for adaptation.

Disaster preparedness requires regular review and 

adjustment of existing plans to meet ever-changing 

situations. A good place to start is with analysis and 

assessment because it provides opportunities to identify 

vulnerabilities in systems, processes, and preparations. As a 

part of this stage, the current state of preparedness and the 

ability to respond effectively is assessed. Analysis is followed 

by remediation planning, which sets preparedness measures 

that help managers anticipate the response needs of a 

disaster. Prevention measures set in this stage help to avoid 

hazards and lessen the effects of events. 

Once analysis and remediation has been completed, 

adaptation (referred to as mitigation in the emergency 

response community, such as in figure 3.7) can be used 

to take steps to lessen the impact of disasters and reduce 

loss of life. Effective adaptation requires that local risks 

are understood and addressed and often includes making 

hard choices and investing in the long-term well-being of 

park assets and resources. After the disaster hits, the extent 

of damage is evaluated at the impact assessment stage and 

reports to acquire funds used for recovery are developed. 

Reporting is followed by immediate steps to respond to the 

event and use recovery procedures to help restore visitor 

access to facilities and natural and cultural resources. 

Throughout the disaster timeline cycle, the analysis and 

assessment stage is the stage where the most return can be 

made on an investment of time and money. Data collection, 

analyses, and assessment are the most important actions that 

can be taken today to adapt to future changes. For example, 

breach management plans must be prepared in advance 

of storm impacts, as was done for Fire Island National 

Seashore (see “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy”). Storm Response Plans are specific plans for coastal 

parks to implement strategies to prepare for adaptation 

opportunities by acknowledging that particular window as a 

time for change. 

Figure 3.7. Phases of the Disaster Recovery Life Cycle. Figure from England (2005).
National Park Service 26 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Opportunities for Adaptation

Being aware of pre- and post-event opportunities for 

adaptation and deliberately identifying opportunities can 

support adaptation of facilities and historic buildings. As 

discussed in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy,” disasters can be drivers of adaptation. Grannis et al. 

(2014) acknowledge that ideally, climate change adaptation 

actions are proactive and vulnerable communities anticipate 

and prepare for risks, but that in reality, adaptation actions 

are usually reactive, following a disaster. This highlights 

the importance of building in locations with lower 

vulnerability. Reactive adaptation is appropriate under some 

circumstances, considering that replacement of functional 

systems before a storm hits may incur as much damage and 

cost as much as post-storm replacement would. Ideally, 

plans for replacement or adaptation strategies are developed 

before a disaster, so that planners are better prepared to seize 

post-disaster opportunities to rebuild sustainably. It is also 

necessary to build support for adaptation strategies through 

stakeholder involvement in pre-event planning, so that there 

is less likely to be post-event resistance to implementation, as 

discussed in “Chapter 7 Communication and Education.”

Leveraging opportunities to rebuild sustainably after 

disruptive events like hurricanes benefits from advance 

planning and stakeholder engagement. Examining the 

emergency response timeline and applying a selection of 

the planning tools and methods described above at the 

appropriate stages can identify potential future opportunities 

and position the park to leverage them for adaptation after a 

disruptive event takes place. See “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned 

from Hurricane Sandy,” which describes how much of the 

planning and stakeholder engagement happened post-storm 

and continues through the recovery. In short, managers 

should try to prevent damage to resources but be prepared to 

rebuild or restore sustainably if those efforts fail.

Take Home Messages

● Adaptation is most effective when it is intentionally and 

deliberately designed as a response to anticipated effects 

associated with climate change.

● Climate change adaptation is not a stand-alone plan, 

but should be addressed in ongoing, routine planning 

processes such as foundation documents, general 

management plans, resource stewardship strategies, and 

preparedness planning.

● Adaptation strategies may require a series of decisions 

and actions that will change over time.

● Preparing for natural disasters includes planning 

for uncertainty and allows for adaptation 

opportunities post-incident.
National Park Service 27 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2016. Final 

Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 

Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental 

Policy Act Reviews (Aug. 1, 2016). Memorandum. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/

documents/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf (accessed 

5 August 2016).

England, G. 2005. Military Support for Stability, Security, 

Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations. 

Department of Defense Directive 3000.05. US 

Department of Defense, Washington, DC. https://

fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d3000_05.pdf (accessed 

5 August 2016).

Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the 

Impacts of Climate Change (Nov. 1, 2013). http://www.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-06/pdf/2013-26785.pdf.

Field, C. B. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and 

disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special 

report of the intergovernmental panel on climate 

change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson [eds.]. 2011. Scanning 

the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, D C, 168 pp.

Grannis, J., V. Arroyo, S. Hoverter, and R. Stumberg. 

2014. Preparing for Climate Impacts: Lessons from 

the Front Lines. A Synthesis Report to The Kresge 

Foundation. Georgetown Climate Center, Washington, 

DC. http://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Preparing%20

for%20Climate%20Impacts%20-%20Georgetown%20

Climate%20Center.pdf (accessed 31 August 2016).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution 

of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger 

[eds.]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

Geneva, Switzerland.

IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in 

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe [eds.]. 2014: 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Park Service 

Management Policies. US Government Printing 

Office,Washington, DC. 

NPS. 2012. Foundation Document: Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina. NPS 623/117007. National 

Park Service, Washington, DC.

NPS. 2013. Using Scenarios to Explore Climate Change: A 

Handbook for Practitioners. NPS Climate Change 

Response Program. Fort Collins, Colorado. 57 pp.

NPS. 2014a. Guidance for Addressing Climate Change in 

National Park Service Foundation Documents. NPS 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Denver 

Service Center - Planning. Lakewood, CO, 47 pp.

NPS, 2014b. Guidance for Addressing Climate Change 

in ongoing General Management Plans. Associate 

Director, Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands, 

Memorandum, Sept. 16, 2014. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC, 3 pp.

NPS. 2014c. Addendum 1, Using Scenarios to Explore Climate 

Change: A Handbook for Practitioners. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 4 pp.

NPS. 2015. Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards 

for Facilities. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 15-01. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2016. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset 

Vulnerability Protocol: Project Description and 

Methodology.  NPS 999/132623. National Park 

Service, Washington, DC.
National Park Service 28 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NPS. In prep. National Park Service Cultural Resources 

Climate Change Strategy. National Park Service 

Climate Change Response Program-Cultural Resources 

Partnerships and Science Directorate, Washington, DC.

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. Pub. L. 95-625. 

92 Stat. 3467. 10 November 1978.

Rowland, E. R., M. S. Cross, and H. Hartmann. 2014. 

Considering Multiple Futures: Scenario Planning To 

Address Uncertainty in Natural Resource Conservation. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R. J. Klein, and J. Wandel. 2000. An 

anatomy of adaptation to climate change and 

variability. Climatic Change 45(1): 223-251. 

Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity 

and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 

16(3), 282-292. 

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt [eds.]. 2014. 

Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting Adaptation 

Principles into Practice. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC 262 pp. 

US Department of the Interior (US DOI). 2009. Secretarial 

Order 3289, Addressing the Impacts of Climate 

Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural 

and Cultural Resources (Sept. 14, 2009), http://

www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/

SecOrder3289.pdf.

Weeks, D., P. Malone, and L. Welling. 2011. Climate Change 

Scenario Planning: A tool for managing parks into 

uncertain futures. Park Science 28(1): 26-33.
National Park Service 29 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 4 Natural Resources 

Contributing Authors: Melinda Koslow, Amanda Babson, 

and Courtney Schupp

Coastal natural resource managers are active leaders in the 

field of climate change adaptation, in part because climate 

change impacts to coastal natural resources are already 

apparent. Impacts from climate change are producing 

fundamental changes in ecosystem character, distribution, 

and function (Doney et al. 2012). These changes are 

exacerbated by stressors such as habitat destruction, 

pollution, and invasive species, further limiting the 

ability of coastal ecosystems to adapt. This chapter is not 

comprehensive on impacts and interacting stressors; rather, 

it focuses on the information and strategies necessary for 

getting started with adaptation for coastal natural resources. 

As our understanding of the breadth of coastal vulnerability 

develops and more examples of National Park Service (NPS) 

implementation of adaptation across a range of ecosystems 

and impacts become available, this guidance will be revised. 

Additional resources are available at http://www.nps.gov/

subjects/climatechange/coastalhandbook.htm.

Expected Climate Change Impacts on 

Natural Resources

The major climate change impacts on coastal natural 

resources are changes in sea and lake level, air and 

water temperature, precipitation, storminess, and ocean 

acidification (see “Chapter 1 Introduction” for more 

information on each impact). Together and individually, 

these affect other ecological and geophysical processes 

and can have impacts to resources that can be cumulative 

and direct or indirect. Each habitat type may have differing 

susceptibility to particular impacts (table 4.1). Sea level 

rise is an often cited impact, but it does not act alone. 

Scientists and managers are working to better understand the 

combined impacts of multiple stressors on park resources. 

Combined impacts of sea level rise and storm surge, as they 

affect erosion both gradually and episodically, are beginning 

to be addressed together. Synergistic effects between sea 

level rise and nutrients, which influence eutrophication and 

thus hypoxia, have been found (Crain, Kroeker, and Halpern 

2008). Hypoxia (low oxygen) can be exacerbated by warming 

water temperatures and increased stratification. Stratification 

is one of several factors influencing water quality that can be 

exacerbated by changes in precipitation patterns. 

Changes in water level and air temperature can define which 

stretches of lakeshore are affected by ice cover and protect 

or expose stretches of lakeshore to coastal erosion. Warmer 

air temperatures are melting permafrost and causing an 

increase in erosion at northern latitudes when sea ice is not 

present along shores to prevent storm waves and currents 

from eroding the shores (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015, “Case Study 4: Cultural Resources Inventory and 

Vulnerability Assessment” and “Case Study 9: Collecting 

Baseline Biological and Geologic Data to Understand 

Coastal Change”). 

Ocean acidification is a result of rising atmospheric carbon 

dioxide absorbed into the ocean, which decreases pH. 

This change is harmful to calcifying species such as corals, 

oysters, mollusks, and calcareous plankton (Doney et al. 

2009). In coastal areas (in contrast to open ocean areas), 

biological processes, nutrient loading, and freshwater 

inputs also influence acidity; the signal from these can 

be much larger and more variable than the open ocean 

signal of global changes in ocean pH driven by increased 

anthropogenic carbon dioxide alone (Wallace et al. 2014; 

Gledhill et al. 2015). Because of this variability and due to 

complexities of ocean carbonate chemistry, measuring pH 

and the associated variables (e.g., the partial pressure of CO2 

in seawater, total alkalinity, and dissolved inorganic carbon) 

is not a straightforward endeavor for parks, but it remains 

important to monitor and understand (Gledhill et al. 2015). 

Ocean acidification and increased hypoxia are being studied 

for their synergistic effects (Doney et al. 2009). Table 4.1 

describes some of the ways in which coastal habitats are 

vulnerable to climate change.
National Park Service 30 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Habitat Type Description

Beach 

Beaches are dynamic in nature, shaped by wind and waves. They accrete, erode, and develop 

dunes. Inlets open, migrate, and close. Both seasonal and long-term changes occur along 

beaches (Riggs and Ames 2007). Higher sea level causes increased coastal erosion and 

accelerates landward migration of barrier shorelines (Field et al. 2007). Impacts from sea level 

rise are amplified where sediment supply is disrupted or landward migration is impeded by 

built structures or steep topography (Field et al. 2007). Beaches provide vital nesting and 

feeding grounds for birds and sea turtles, as well as sunbathing and fishing spots for visitors. 

Lower lake levels allow vegetation encroachment on bare sand or sparsely vegetated beach 

areas that provide nesting habitat for birds.

Sand Dunes Sand dunes protect interior habitat from wind and wave damage. They protect the middle 

and inland facing sides of islands. While dunes are dynamic features, sea level rise and 

increased storm surge can lead to more frequent overwash events and increased erosion that 

will give less time for dune recovery and ecosystem recovery and subsequent restabilization. 

Dune grasses such as sea oats in the southeast Atlantic and American beach grass in the 

northeast Atlantic are essential to island health because they trap and hold sand, allowing 

the dunes to build. They are frequently used in coastal restoration programs following storm 

damage because they can stabilize dunes and reduce damage arising from erosion and wave 

action (Hodel and Gonzales 2013). On the Pacific mainland coast, non-native species that 

were historically used to stabilize dunes (e.g., iceplant and European beach grass) have led 

to monocultures. A number of federally and state protected species including shorebirds and 

beach mice use interdunal areas (overwash fans) for nesting, relying on the adjacent beaches 

for foraging. 

Grasslands

Grasslands are relatively flat sections of barrier islands. They make up the leeward side of the 

primary and secondary dunes. Although grasslands are somewhat protected by the dunes, 

large storms or heavy rains often bring salt water to this area, limiting the survival of woody 

vegetation. Terrestrial mammals, small birds, and reptiles inhabit the grasslands. If rainfall 

decreases and/or evaporative moisture loss increases with climate change, the likelihood of 

wildfires will increase (Twilley et al. 2001). While wildfires are an essential part of grassland 

ecosystems, in some sections of the United States (US), such as the Gulf Coast, increases in 

wildfires could threaten the ecosystem.

Salt Marsh Salt marshes are incredibly important nursery habitats for many estuarine fish and 

invertebrate species. They generally lie on the landward side of islands or in sheltered areas 

of a coastal system. Marsh grasses and dead plant material provide food for insects, crabs, 

shrimp, fish, and other bottom-dwelling organisms. Salt marshes also provide cover for 

offspring of many species of fish and crustaceans. Many species of birds feed on the insects, 

crabs, and other invertebrates that live in marshes and some nest in the high marsh. Salt 

marshes respond to sea level rise by landward marsh migration or conversion to mudflat 

if a marsh is not able to keep pace vertically. Warmer temperatures cause faster peat 

decomposition, which makes it harder for salt marshes to keep pace with sea level rise. 

Increases in storm frequency or intensity increase marsh edge erosion. Changes in seasonal 

freshwater input and drought will impact vegetation health and composition (Craft et al. 

2009; Thorne, Takekawa, and Elliot-Fisk 2012). Peat bank erosion and conversion to mudflat 

releases sequestered carbon. Salt marshes are also susceptible to invasive species. 

Table 4.1. Climate Change Vulnerabilities of Coastal Habitats. Photographs by Tim Carruthers (seagrass & coral reef); 

NPS (all others).
National Park Service 31 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table 4.1. Continued

Habitat Type Description

Mangroves

Mangrove forests grow in tropical and subtropical intertidal zones, are highly adaptable to 

variability and disturbance, have historically kept pace with sea level by building elevation 

and have been expanding their range northward in Florida with warming. In addition to their 

important habitat functions, mangroves offer storm protection and carbon sequestration 

benefits. Mangroves may be vulnerable to increasing air temperatures, to changes in 

precipitation affecting salinity, and in some areas to high rates of sea level rise depending on 

sediment sources (Lugo, Medina, and McGinley 2014). Estimates of 10-15% future mangrove 

loss due to climate change, especially in areas with low-relief islands or carbonate settings 

with low sediment supply and upland migration potential, are secondary compared to the 

current rates of loss due to deforestation (Alongi 2008).

Maritime Forest Maritime forests are coastal wooded habitat found on higher ground than dune areas 

within range of salt spray. They are found along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific 

Northwest coasts and are composed of deciduous, coniferous, and broadleaf evergreen tree 

species. The composition and structure of these forests are likely to change with changes in 

air temperature, precipitation, and sea level. For example, 36% of tree species are projected 

to undergo major change in habitat suitability at Cumberland Island National Seashore and 

surrounding areas by 2100, based on changes in air temperature and precipitation (Fisichelli et 

al. 2014). At Fire Island National Seashore, one of the few remaining occurrences of maritime 

holly forest, 74% of tree species are projected to undergo major change in habitat suitability 

by 2100 (Fisichelli et al. 2014). Saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer and increased 

incidence of overwash will also impact vegetation. Invasive species may cause further stress 

as milder winters reduce pest mortality and temperature changes increase the range of 

invasive species.

Seagrass

Seagrasses are vitally important nursery habitat for many marine species, several of which are 

important economically and socially. Potential threats to seagrass from climate change include 

rising sea level, which can affect light availability; increases in sedimentation and turbidity 

due to increases in heavy precipitation events; sediment hypoxia and anoxia due to warmer 

water temperatures; and increased storm damage (Bjork et al. 2008). The ability of seagrasses 

to buffer against local acidification through uptake of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis 

and sequestration in their roots and rhizomes is an active research topic (Bjork et al. 2008; 

Manzello et al. 2012). Interactions with non-climate stressors including eutrophication may 

increase hypoxia and reduce light availability, further stressing seagrasses.

Freshwater / Great Lakes 

Coastal Wetlands

Climate change impacts on Great Lakes wetlands include earlier spring runoff, larger 

floods, higher nutrient loading, and hotter summers. Changes in biodiversity and wetland 

structure could lead to a reduction of services provided by wetlands including flood storage, 

breeding habitats for birds and amphibians, and reduced water filtering and clean-up 

capacity. Wetlands exposed to lower Great Lakes water levels are likely to be under intense 

pressure for alteration through “beach grooming” (wetland removal) activities undertaken 

by lakeshore owners. Forested wetlands may be affected by more frequent droughts and 

fires, and the introduction of new forest pests in response to warmer temperatures and 

shifts in species composition as the forest biomes shifts northward (Christie and Bostwick 

2012). Coastal freshwater wetlands are vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and migration of 

saltwater wetlands.
National Park Service 32 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table 4.1. Continued

Habitat Type Description

Tundra Tundra is high latitude, generally treeless landscapes with low growth vegetation underlain 

by frozen subsurface soils (permafrost). This frozen layer contributes to the low growth 

characteristics of the habitat. Tundra includes numerous plant, lichen, and fungus genera 

and is found ranging from low coastal plains into mountainous areas. Tundra is susceptible 

to climate change impacts through the melting of the permafrost layer, leading to coastal 

erosion rates in the Arctic that are among the highest in the world (Jones, Mieszkowska and 

Wethey 2009). As permafrost melts, tundra elevation decreases, melt ponds form (thermokarst 

lakes), and rapid runoff can occur (Callaghan et. al 2005). Tundra elevation decreases can lead 

to tundra submergence into thermokarst lakes or through oceanic inundation, drowning 

the tundra. Rapid runoff on steep slopes can slough tundra into adjacent water bodies 

(thaw slumps) (Burn and Lewkowicz 1990). Uneven melting of coastal tundra cliffs causes 

catastrophic structural failure of the underlying soils, leading to cliff collapse and wave 

erosion (Mars and Houseknecht 2007). 

Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to climate change, with projected loss globally between 

30% and 90% depending on our ability to limit warming and coral thermal tolerances (Frieler 

et al. 2013). Warming increases bleaching events, leading to degradation and mortality. 

Ocean acidification reduces (and potentially reverses) coral calcification and growth (HoeghGuldberg et al. 2007). Identifying species resilient to bleaching and refugia from warming 

events is a growing research focus to better protect these species and places. 

Coastal Waters Warming of coastal waters from the sub-tropics through the Great Lakes to Alaskan waters is 

affecting fisheries and nearshore and pelagic ecosystems. In Alaska, air and ocean warming 

and decreased sea ice cover is causing northward shifts in Alaskan fisheries and ecosystem 

reorganization (Grebmeier et al. 2006). While effects of warming are already becoming 

evident on Arctic coastal waters and marine ecosystems, the research documenting changes 

is limited (Wassmann et al. 2011). Tropical and subtropical sea surface temperatures increased 

by an average of 0.5°F between the 1950s and 1990s, and this trend is projected to continue 

(Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2009). Several commercially important species now 

present off the New England coast, such as cod, haddock, winter flounder, and yellowtail 

flounder, are particularly vulnerable to temperature increases at the southern end of their 

ranges (Staudinger et al. 2013). Great Lakes nearshore waters are warming faster than air 

temperatures due to declining ice cover and changes in stratification; this influences the 

growth and distribution of a variety of aquatic species (Austin and Colman 2007; Dobiesz and 

Lester 2009).

Adaptation of Coastal Natural Resources 

Effective adaptation strategies require an understanding 

of the effects of climate change on parks and a deliberate 

consideration of climate change within planning and 

management processes. Understanding ecosystem responses 

to those adaptation actions will require new research and 

monitoring that will provide an understanding of how 

resources are expected to change over time. Uncertainty 

of climate change effects and rapid development of 

climate change science make it imperative that we employ 

new, more flexible planning approaches. Science and 

management responses to ongoing and rapid changes must 

be developed concurrently, iteratively, and collaboratively in 

inclusive partnerships.

Adaptation options will be park- and resource-specific 

and are likely to evolve over time, but general strategies 

can be chosen from adaptation approaches for ecosystem 

management strategies that were outlined in Climate-Smart 

Conservation and the 2nd National Climate Assessment 

(Kareiva et al. 2008; West et al. 2009; West and Julius 2014). 

Definitions, applications, and issues for these seven strategies 

are highlighted in table 4.2 and parallel strategies for cultural 

resources are detailed in “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources.”
National Park Service 33 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table 4.2. General adaptation strategies for ecosystem management (West and Julius 2014; Kareiva et al. 2008; 

West et al. 2009)

Strategy Description

Reduce 

Non-climate 

Stresses

By reducing non-climate anthropogenic stressors (e.g., excess nutrient inputs, introduction of invasive species, 

overfishing), an ecosystem is thought to be more resilient to stressful climatic events. For coastal parks, this includes 

options working with state and local water management agencies to reduce land-based sources of nutrient pollution or 

removing hard structures (e.g., bulkheads, seawalls) that disrupt sediment transport and are impediments to shoreline 

migration. This approach has many benefits in the case of high uncertainty about climate impacts because it should be 

part of management goals without climate considerations. Marine reserves that reduce anthropogenic stressors such as 

fishing pressure can increase the resilience of coastal ecosystems to impacts of climate change such as increased harmful 

algal blooms or disease, when marine reserves are established within park boundaries (McLeod et al. 2009). Climate 

change may also indirectly increase risks from non-climate stressors, such as melting sea ice increasing shipping and the 

potential for oil drilling in new areas of the Arctic, which increase potential spill risk. Incident response plans need to be 

updated to protect ecosystems from increasing risks. 

Protect Key 

Ecosystem 

Features

Keystone species such as ecosystem engineers (e.g., oysters, which build reefs or kelp forests that provide a physical 

substrate) have a disproportionate effect on the ecosystem and thus merit additional protection. Where key ecosystem 

features have already been identified as park fundamental resources, this is another approach that is an easy choice in 

the case of high uncertainty because it is already part of park goals. In cases such as historical parks where key ecosystem 

features may not be defined as fundamental resources, it will be important to identify the landscape characteristics (e.g., 

dunes), species, or areas that are key to other resources’ resilience and then to protect those features.

Ensure 

Connectivity

Protecting and restoring landscape corridors and connections facilitates the movement of species that are able to 

respond to changing conditions. It also increases ecological resilience of species in their current ranges through increased 

gene flow across isolated populations. Coordination on a larger landscape scale by partnering with entities outside the 

park to maintain connectivity across park boundaries provides more diverse combinations of biological communities and 

environments.

Restore 

Structure 

and Function

A healthy functioning ecosystem is better able to adapt to climate change impacts. By restoring degraded ecosystems 

now, it is thought they will be better able to persist in future conditions. For example, by removing tidal restrictions to 

salt marshes and thus restoring hydrology, the marsh will be better able to keep pace with accelerated sea level rise by 

vertical accretion through sediment trapping and adding belowground biomass (Burdick and Roman 2012). See Schupp, 

Beavers, and Caffrey (2015), “Case Study 11: Restoring the Jamaica Bay Wetlands” and “Case Study 12: Restoring the 

Giacomini Wetlands from Agricultural Lands.”

Support 

Evolutionary

Potential 

Strategy

By protecting a diversity of species, populations, and ecosystems in multiple locations, we can support ecological adaptive 

capacity. The idea that biodiversity improves resilience (Worm et al. 2006; SCBD 2009) is the basis for this approach, and it 

applies to physical environments as well (Lenihan et al. 2001). When it is uncertain how systems will adapt, maintaining 

diversity and a representation of a range of system characteristics, such as depths of oyster reefs, keeps more options 

available for systems or populations and increases the chances of protecting resilient resources or sources for recovery. 

Maintaining multiple locations of habitats or populations of species reduces risk in the case of disturbance. Maintaining 

larger population sizes of individual species may ensure sufficient genetic diversity to allow for natural selection under 

climate change and for possible adaptation to ocean acidification (Pespeni et al. 2013). As climate changes, managers will 

need to look beyond park boundaries. For marine systems, replication can provide larval sources for recovery of impacted 

areas. As with representation, coordinating on a larger landscape scale expands replication opportunities. The Pacific 

Ocean Parks Strategic Plan calls for a seamless network of ocean parks, sanctuaries, refuges and reserves across the Pacific 

West and Alaska regions.

Protect 

Refugia

Once resistant and resilient areas have been identified, they need to be provided with additional protections to maintain 

their refuge status. Marine reserves are coastal examples that have been shown to be more resilient and could be 

designed within coastal parks as resilience research areas to compare inside and outside areas of additional protections 

(Bengtsson, Angelstam, and Elmqvist 2003; Roman and Babson 2013). For many parks, resources such as fisheries may 

reside primarily outside of their boundaries or the scale of an effective marine reserve extends well beyond an individual 

park; for refugia to be effective adaptation strategies, managers need to work beyond park boundaries and collaborate 

with partners to manage ecosystems at larger scale. See Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey (2015), “Case Study 10: Recognizing 

Coral Adaptations to Environmental Stressors.”

Relocate 

Organisms

The concept of human-facilitated transplantation of species outside of their historical range or to bypass a barrier is less 

applicable to marine systems without barriers to transport but could be applied to select marine habitats and species and 

terrestrial coastal habitats. Currently seed banking for environmental restoration efforts have focused on using native, 

locally adapted, genetically diverse seedlings, but future planning efforts could consider shifting climate envelopes for 

sourcing seedlings. See also Schwartz et al. (2012) for a discussion of managed relocation, which remains a controversial 

strategy due to risks, uncertainties, and ethical questions. While marine barriers to migration are not as tangible as 

for terrestrial species, they do exist and can cause populations to become small and isolated. An example of marine 

translocation is the sea otter population in southern California by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 
National Park Service 34 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Most strategies in table 4.2 focus on resisting change 

or increasing resilience, but such strategies may not be 

successful as conditions continue to change (Millar, 

Stephenson, and Stephens 2007) and it will be necessary to 

manage for change (Kareiva et al. 2008; Stein et al. 2014). 

As thresholds of resilience are passed, planning methods 

that address uncertainty, such as scenario planning and 

adaptive management and accompanying monitoring will 

become increasingly important (Baron et al. 2009). Other 

adaptation approaches and frameworks are outlined in table 

5.1 of Stein et al. (2014). Choosing between approaches, 

especially whether to manage for change, will depend on the 

ecosystem, timing, and magnitude of expected impacts and 

how well understood or effective the adaptation approach is 

for the park-specific conditions. Management criteria that 

will influence the decision include landscape context (e.g., 

regional or national significance of the resource), threatened 

or endangered species status, cost, stakeholder support, and 

feasibility. Since the options based on resisting change and 

increasing resilience may only be effective in the near term 

through the next couple of decades, flexibility to change 

between adaptation options needs to be part of the planning 

process (Baron et al. 2008). 

The Adaptation Continuum

The continuum of adaptation responses of resist, 

accommodate, and direct change is introduced in “Chapter 

1 Introduction” and is illustrated in box 4.1 with an example 

from Assateague Island National Seashore. A resist change

approach seeks to preserve existing ecological conditions in 

spite of the stressors and climate change impacts affecting 

the ecosystem (Stein et al. 2014). This approach often works 

to prevent systems from crossing major change thresholds 

by promoting resistance, enhancing ecological resilience, 

protecting ecosystems from stress, and supporting recovery 

after major disturbances. Reducing other stressors (e.g., 

reducing runoff/pollutants, restoring degraded habitat, 

controlling competing nonnative species) can be considered 

a resist change response if it is done with climate change 

adaptation intentionality such that it explicitly and 

deliberately addresses climate change impacts. 

An accommodate change response that allows ecological 

processes to proceed unimpeded and ecosystems to adapt 

on their own (i.e., autonomy of nature) may be chosen if 

other responses are undesirable, impossible, economically 

infeasible, or likely ineffectual (see NPS Policy Memo [PM] 

12-02, “Applying National Park Service Management Policies 

in the Context of Climate Change” [NPS 2012]), or if those 

strategies would risk impairment of other park resources 

and values (NPS Management Policies 2006 Section 1.4.4 

“The Prohibition on Impairment of Park Resources and 

Values”). Accommodating change may also be chosen 

under an adaptive management approach as a control 

treatment to monitor the unmitigated effects of climate 

change and evaluate adaptation interventions in similar 

areas (Fisichelli, Schuurman, and Hawkins Hoffman 2016). 

An accommodating change response allows conditions to 

shift with climate and makes no particular effort to reverse, 

resist, or direct climate-driven changes. Parks are uniquely 

suited to provide places where the stories of our legacy of 

climate change can best be told. In places where we choose 

an accommodate change response, documenting and 

interpreting that change will be an important role for the 

National Park Service.

A direct change approach accepts change and attempts, 

where feasible, to steer towards desired future conditions. 

An example is assessing where unavoidable threshold 

changes in ecological systems may be about to happen, 

such as from freshwater to brackish wetlands, and planning 

the management towards these future conditions (Stein et 

al. 2014). These concepts in the adaptation continuum are 

relatively new and are evolving as they are tested, so this 

handbook cannot yet provide the guidance for choosing 

between these responses. 

Climate-smart conservation is an approach that helps 

managers both to develop adaptation strategies and to 

reconsider overarching goals (desired conditions) in light of 

climate change, as described in “Chapter 3 Planning” and 

has the potential as a process to guide parks through these 

decisions. This new climate-smart conservation process has 

not yet resulted in a completed coastal park case study; the 

Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) is supporting the 

application of the approach to NPS planning in “Planning 

for a Changing Climate: NPS Climate Change Adaptation 

Planning Guidance” further described in “Chapter 3 

Planning”. Similarly to the rapidly developing information 

on adaptation, new information related to climate change 

impacts is emerging, as described in box 4.2, and the 

National Park Service is working with partners to stay on top 

of what these emerging topics mean for coastal adaptation 

but does not yet have the guidance on these topics to 

include in this handbook. As the adaptation strategies to 

address these complex issues develop and park examples 

of implementation are completed, new and iterative NPS 

guidance will be necessary. 
National Park Service 35 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Management of Assateague Island National Seashore and 

development of a new general management plan (GMP), 

which will guide management of the park for the next 

twenty years, incorporates all three adaptation responses: 

resist, accommodate, and direct change. The park’s preferred 

alternative accommodates change and allows natural 

processes such as beach erosion and overwash to continue 

unimpeded and addresses the possibility of alternative 

transportation, such as a ferry service to access the island 

if bridges and roads can no longer be maintained. The 

accommodation approach to natural resources (acceptance of 

the ongoing beach erosion) requires a direct change approach 

to visitor experience (accessing the park by ferry instead of by 

personal vehicle). 

An example of resist change is along the north end of the 

island where the Ocean City Inlet has caused island narrowing 

and retreat. In 2002, beach nourishment occurred along the 

northern 8.08 mi (13 km); beginning in 2004, sand has been 

mechanically bypassed from the inlet shoals to the shallow 

nearshore area twice each year (see inset figure 4.1 from 

Schupp and Coburn 2015). The park plans to continue bypassing sediment to the north end of the island to prevent 

further degradation of the habitat and geologic integrity and to prevent that vulnerable area from crossing a major 

change threshold such as submergence, recognizing that increased storm intensity and sea level rise will continue to 

weaken this area of the island.

For additional information on the new GMP, see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey (2015), “Case Study 23: Incorporating 

Climate Change Response into a General Management Plan.” The draft GMP and Environmental Impact Statement were 

available for public comment from January through May 2016.

BOX 4.1. EXAMPLE OF THE ADAPTATION CONTINUUM FROM ASSATEAGUE ISLAND 

NATIONAL SEASHORE
National Park Service 36 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION 

The breadth of ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification and methods for monitoring it are the focus of most research 

on this topic, but following close behind is research into adaptation options. Because other factors influence coastal 

acidification, strategies based on reducing non-climate stresses like reducing nutrient inputs can have a buffering effect. 

Identifying resilient corals for added protection or active management is described in Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

(2015), “Case Study 10: Recognizing Coral Adaptations to Environmental Stressors, National Park of American Samoa.” 

Seagrasses have the potential to benefit from increased seawater CO2, and their carbon uptake capacity and associated 

influence on seawater chemistry could thereby effectively buffer against acidification (Hendriks et al. 2015).This emerging 

research field may demonstrate seagrass restoration, or other habitats, as an adaptation strategy, providing multiple 

ecosystem services as refugia to counter ocean acidification, and has added carbon sequestration benefits.

BLUE CARBON 

Blue Carbon is a term for carbon stored in coastal wetlands including salt marshes, mangroves, and seagrass meadows, 

which store carbon at much higher rates than tropical forests (Murray et al. 2011). Methods and research to quantify 

carbon sequestration of wetlands is expanding and development of a model for marketing carbon credits for these 

coastal systems (after forest sequestration protocols) has the possibility of providing financial incentives for restoration. 

The proposed Herring River Estuary restoration at Cape Cod National Seashore is part of a feasibility assessment to see if 

Blue Carbon credits could be applicable to this project and, thus, be the first Blue Carbon restoration project with credits 

marketed.

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS (HABS)

Climate change may influence the frequency, duration, or geographic range of HABs (algal blooms that produce toxins 

or other negative effects on ecosystems or human health), though currently the link is poorly studied (Moore et al. 

2008). Potential mechanisms include warming waters favoring harmful species or stratification intensifying blooms; 

changes in salinity expanding ranges for HABs species into freshwater systems; and changes in precipitation patterns 

increasing nutrient inputs or increases in carbon dioxide favoring rapid growth. The complexity of these processes, limited 

understanding of HAB physiology and ecology, and the limited long term datasets at time scales that capture HAB events 

mean that this is a research area to follow more than a current adaptation field (Moore et al. 2008).

WATER QUALITY

Climate change is adding new hurdles as parks work to address water quality issues, as Great Lakes phosphorus loading, 

Gulf Coast hypoxia, and Combined Sewer Overflows are all exacerbated by increases in heavy precipitation events. 

Saltwater intrusion, driven by groundwater pumping in some areas, is emerging as an issue for many more coastal parks 

because it is driven by sea level rise. 

PHENOLOGY

Phenological (the timing of life events of plants and animals) responses of marine and coastal species are more difficult 

to study than terrestrial species, so the climate related changes are much less well documented, with the exception of 

migratory birds. Visualizations of phenological changes, including for migratory raptors at Acadia National Park, are part 

of the Whenology project. The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (National Ocean Council 2013) calls for actions 

to “develop and begin to implement a plan for incorporating species phenology information...from coastal and ocean 

ecosystems in the National Phenology Network” so a Marine and Coastal Phenology Project is underway.

BOX 4.2. EMERGING COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES
National Park Service 37 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Climate Adaptation Issues for Designated 

Wilderness Areas

Change is inherent in natural processes, especially in the case 

of dynamic coastal landforms. Designated wilderness areas, 

where natural resources have the least interference from 

human activity, provide excellent sites to study the ecological 

resilience or other responses of natural processes and natural 

resources to climate change. As climate change pushes 

natural processes outside the bounds of natural variability, 

these places will teach us what happens when thresholds 

are crossed. Wilderness area designation limits some active 

management adaptation actions and relies primarily on 

accommodate change responses but applies the strategy of 

removing non-climate stresses. While the restraints of the 

Wilderness Act limit some active adaptation strategies, where 

there is certainty that such actions will be effective, there is 

flexibility to implement provided procedural processes to 

justify the actions are followed (Long and Biber 2014).

One example, described in more detail in “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy,” occurred at Fire 

Island National Seashore. There, Hurricane Sandy caused 

two breaches that didn’t close immediately. One occurred in 

the Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness, where policy 

disallows artificially closing the breach, allowing the natural 

processes of the barrier island to continue. In contrast, the 

second breach occurred outside of the wilderness area and 

was artificially closed. Intensive study of the open breach 

continues, allowing documentation of the continuing 

changes to the landforms and the water quality benefits 

to the adjacent Great South Bay (see “Chapter 9 Lessons 

Learned from Hurricane Sandy”). The breach that was 

artificially closed has remained closed. 

Coastal wilderness areas are a portion of a much larger 

coastal ecosystem and are affected by anthropogenic actions 

taken outside of designated wilderness areas. For example, 

at Gulf Islands National Seashore, the wilderness area of the 

Mississippi barrier islands migrates westward with shoreline 

changes until it reaches the adjacent shipping channel, where 

it is no longer considered wilderness. Regular dredging of 

the major shipping channel shaves off the western tip of the 

wilderness area at a higher rate than accretion is occurring 

at the eastern tip. Human actions occurring outside of 

wilderness boundaries may compromise the area’s ecological 

resilience. In “Case Study 13: Consideration of Shackleford 

Banks Renourishment” (Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015), 

Cape Lookout National Seashore decided against placement 

of dredged material on a barrier island, a proposed 

wilderness area, until more information on the potential 

impacts was known.

When choosing climate adaptation strategies in wilderness 

areas, the tradeoffs between short- and long-term impacts 

on wilderness character must be evaluated. A comprehensive 

assessment is needed to understand how action or 

inaction may impact the qualities of wilderness character. 

Designation of new wilderness areas may be a feasible 

climate adaptation strategy for some parks. Additional 

guidance on adaptation actions related to wilderness 

policy is provided in “Chapter 2 NPS Policies Applicable to 

Coastal Adaptation.”

Science to Support Climate Adaptation 

for Natural Resources 

Adaptation strategies will depend on the articulated goals, 

magnitude of climate change, rate of change with respect 

to identified thresholds, and availability of management 

resources. Vulnerability assessments inform managers of 

the magnitude of climate change and potential impacts 

on the resources articulated within goals, as well as the 

adaptive capacity of resources. There is a variety of scientific 

resources to inform these vulnerability assessments and 

adaptation strategy development.

Parks are encouraged to use best available science, which 

can bring up questions about which tools to use in the 

crowded field of sea level rise, storm surge, and inundation 

modeling. Models, projections, and scenarios developed 

from broader data sets such as the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Digital Coast, the 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC), and sea level 

rise and storm surge maps for all coastal NPS units (see 

Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 24: Storm 

Surge and Sea Level Data Support Planning”) use the best 

available science at a larger regional or national scale, but 

this may not be best available at a local scale. The need 

for data consistency for regional or national tools often 

means that locally specific data of higher quality is not 

incorporated. Parks have the flexibility to choose from locally 

specific information when it is available or from regional or 

servicewide-scaled products. Since there are many sources 

of uncertainty in each of these tools, for most purposes, it is 

more important to develop a flexible and iterative adaptation 

process than to invest in the most complex, locally 

detailed model.
National Park Service 38 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Managing for an Uncertain Future

It is important to incorporate information on uncertainty 

into the decision-making process. A chapter on “Managing 

Under Uncertainty” within Climate-Smart Conservation 

offers guidance on how to understand and work with 

uncertainty, instead of delaying decisions while awaiting 

additional information (Hoffman et al. 2014). Sources of 

uncertainty are not limited to future climate and sea level 

rise projections; they include how ecosystems will respond, 

how managers will respond, the effectiveness of adaptation 

actions, and randomness (Hoffman et al. 2014). 

Multiple planning strategies and resources are available to 

help make management decisions for an uncertain future. 

Scenario planning is one approach for decision-making 

under uncertain conditions that the National Park Service 

has explored more than other methods; it is described in 

“Chapter 3 Planning.” The uncertainty estimates provided 

in the park-scale climate resource briefs (see Monahan 

and Fisichelli 2014; e.g., Gonzalez 2015) and trend reports 

are well constrained for these physical variables, but many 

ecological variables have limited information on uncertainty 

and require more qualitative estimates. An example of 

qualitative treatment of 

uncertainty is estimating 

levels of confidence, 

such as high/low for the 

amount of evidence and 

high/low for the amount 

of agreement between 

them (Kareiva et al. 

2008). This method was 

applied to evaluating the 

efficacy of the adaptation 

approaches in table 4.2 

as applied to the National 

Park Service; three 

approaches were high in 

both categories and the 

remainder was low in 

both categories (Kareiva 

et al. 2008). 

Incorporating Uncertainty into 

Inundation Models

When considering the uncertainty in inundation models, it 

is important to weigh the vertical accuracy of the elevation 

data (both land and bathymetry) relative to the sea level rise 

scenarios (Murdukhayeva et al. 2013). Figure 4.2 compares 

the minimum vertical accuracy of the US Geological Survey 

(USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) (available for the 

study sites described Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, 

“Case Study 24: Storm Surge and Sea Level Data Support 

Planning”), Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (not 

available everywhere), and high-accuracy elevation data (e.g., 

Real Time Kinematic-Global Positioning System [RTK-GPS] 

data), relative to a sea level rise scenario of 3.28 ft (1 m). 

Often the planning horizon will be within a few decades, 

in which case sea level rise projections are of smaller 

magnitude than the vertical accuracy of USGS NED values 

and many LiDAR products, most of which have a maximum 

accuracy of + 5.9 in (15 cm) depending on the system and 

processing. The application of the models (e.g., planning site 

level restoration vs communication tools) will influence the 

accuracy needed and how much to invest in higher accuracy 

data or more complex models. 

Figure 4.2. Vertical accuracy estimates of Digital Elevation Models.

Note: Figure from Murdukhayeva (2012), mapping 3.28 ft (1 m) of sea level rise on land, adapted 

from Gesch (2009). Digital elevation models with different vertical root-mean-square errors result 

in inundation zones with different 95% confidence intervals and estimates of uncertainty.
National Park Service 39 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The field of inundation modeling is ever growing, and it 

can be challenging to determine which tool to use to better 

understand the coastal system response to sea level rise and 

storm surge. NOAA has a “low-tech” guidance document 

Incorporating Sea Level Change Scenarios at the Local 

Level intended for community planners to support the 

application of modeling results to mapping (NOAA 2012). 

USGS has a Sea-level rise modeling handbook—Resource 

guide for coastal land managers, engineers, and scientists 

for those wanting to dig into more technical detail (Doyle 

et al. 2015). Errors in tidal datum calculation, vertical 

landform position accuracy, and biases in oceanographic 

and atmospheric models can lead to challenges in accurately 

representing exact location and magnitude of storm surge 

across landscapes at the scale of coastal properties contained 

within park boundaries. To provide guidance in managing 

changing coastal systems in the national park system, the 

National Park Service is currently supporting partnering 

efforts with universities and other government agencies such 

as NOAA and the USGS to continue to support parks in 

utilizing this expertise. 

Another consideration for inundation modeling is when and 

where it is appropriate to use static models (often referred to 

as “bathtub models”) instead of dynamic models. The type 

of model needed will depend on the resources at risk and 

the particular park. Static inundation models do not account 

for sediment budget variation, sediment redistribution, and 

biological processes. Static models also do not capture water 

level changes in narrow water bodies or complex shorelines. 

Dynamic coastal landforms such as dunes and salt marshes 

respond to sea level rise in ways that are locally specific, so 

local models may be necessary. Lentz et al. (2015) developed 

a framework for categorizing which coastal response needs 

to be dynamically modeled, and applied it using a Bayesian 

model to the northeastern United States. Static inundation 

models were used for exposure assessments of park assets 

in 40 coastal parks (Peek et al. 2015) and will be available 

for all coastal park units by 2016 (see Schupp, Beavers, and 

Caffrey 2015 “Case Study 24: Storm Surge and Sea Level 

Data Support Planning”); other methods have been done 

by individual parks and regions (Nielsen and Dudley 2013; 

Shaw and Bradley 2014; URI and NPS 2014). 

There is a range of dynamic models in development that 

are being applied to coastal parks. These models include 

different geomorphic and biologic processes and have 

varying degrees of complexity and data requirements (Fuller 

et al. 2011; Roman and Babson 2013). While this discussion 

has primarily focused on inundation modeling, related 

questions about static vs dynamic models apply to other 

types of models, such as species climate envelope modeling 

or groundwater modeling. Other Bayesian models build 

on sea level rise models and have been applied to barrier 

island groundwater modeling or shorebird nesting habitat 

suitability (Gutierrez, Plant, and Thieler 2011; Masterson et 

al. 2013; Gieder et al. 2014). 

Additional Resources for Data 

and Collaboration

The National Park Service is engaged in many efforts 

and with many organizations to develop datasets and 

partnerships that will improve resource management. Several 

of these resources are described below as they relate to 

coastal climate adaptation.

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program 

provides valuable resource specific information and data 

that can be used to understand climate change effects 

and to support adaptation planning. The I&M program is 

enhancing monitoring to support climate change in several 

ways, including expanded coverage of Surface Elevation 

Tables to monitor tidal marsh surface elevation and monitor 

salt marsh breeding birds (Stevens et al. 2010). Other vital 

signs important to coastal adaptation include shoreline 

position, seagrass condition, and water quality including 

nutrient enrichment. Standard and park-specific monitoring 

protocols are available at http://science.nature.nps.

gov/im/monitor/. 

A climate inventory of stations and data sources adjacent 

to NPS units is compiled by the I&M program in an NPS 

Climate Database. There is a need for additional science 

communication products; guidance for developing these is 

provided in “Chapter 7 Communication and Education.”

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

LCCs can provide applied science, tools and resources 

for parks to address conservation challenges at a larger, 

landscape and seascape-level, trans-boundary scale, and the 

longer time scale needed to address climate change. These 

cooperatives are groups of conservation professionals who 

partner to work collaboratively to identify best practices, 

connect efforts, identify science gaps, and avoid duplication 

through conservation planning and design. In some places, 

a park may be one of a handful of protected areas and 

conservation organizations, and identifying and engaging 

partners could be fairly straightforward. In more fragmented 

landscapes like along the Atlantic coast of the United States, 
National Park Service 40 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

the Great Lakes, and the mainland Pacific coast of the United 

States, protected areas tend to be smaller while the number 

of conservation organizations working on the landscape is 

larger, making the development of collaborative partnerships 

more time-consuming. Although cooperatives do not have 

the capacity to take on every issue, they usually attempt to 

address broad issues that most conservation professionals 

are facing in that general ecosystem.

For example, sea level rise is affecting many places in the 

southeastern United States. Most coastal managers are 

dealing with saltwater intrusion, loss of marsh, narrowing 

beaches, and increased and more frequent storm surge. 

To prepare for these changes, the South Atlantic LCC, the 

Gulf Coast Plains and Ozarks LCC, the NPS Southeast 

Regional Office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration collaborated on a Gulf Coast Vulnerability 

Assessment. The report identifies exposure, sensitivity, and 

adaptive capacity of 4 key ecosystems and 11 associated 

species to the effects of climate change, sea level rise, and 

land use change across the US portion of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment 

Climate change vulnerability assessment is a tool for 

examining the “extent to which a species, habitat, ecosystem, 

place, or project is susceptible to harm from climate change 

impacts” (Stein et al. 2014). Climate change vulnerability 

assessments, as described in “Chapter 3 Planning,” are 

intended to support decision-making; thus, it is vital to 

involve decision makers from design through completion

of the assessment. It is also important to consider that the 

process of a vulnerability assessment is just as important 

as the conclusion. Furthermore, an assessment can be 

quantitative or qualitative depending on management 

needs and availability of data, funding, and capacity. 

There is no single approach that applies to all situations. 

Information from an assessment is primarily intended 

for guidance and analysis purposes; it does not outline a 

management response.

There are four key steps for assessing vulnerability to climate 

change (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011):

1. Determine objectives and scope.

2. Gather relevant data and expertise.

3. Assess components of vulnerability.

4. Apply assessment in adaptation planning. 

A marine vulnerability assessment methodology that 

qualitatively categorizes sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive 

capacity for four climate stressors (sea level rise, temperature 

change, salinity change, and ocean acidification) on 

nine marine habitats is being developed and piloted for 

Cumberland Island National Seashore (Peek et al. 2016).

Understanding relative vulnerability between habitats 

and the contributions between stressors will inform the 

development and implementation of strategies for adapting 

these resources to climate change.

Tools

An array of tools that specifically relate to coastal climate 

change have been developed, many of which are focused 

on natural resources. Table 4.3 highlights some of the tools 

available and their various applications. 

Tool

Agency/

Organization Summary WebsiteModelsCase StudiesPlansDataToolsTraining and Collaboration

Surging Seas Climate 

Central

Offers plans, actions, and resources for 

preparing for sea level rise. Highlights 

national and state-specific tools such as 

the NOAA Coastal Inundation Toolkit and 

California’s Cal-Adapt.

http://sealevel.

climatecentral.org/

responses/plans

X - X - - -

Digital Coast NOAA Offers data, tools, training, and stories 

from the field on coastal issues and 

climate change.

http://coast.noaa.gov/

digitalcoast/

X X X X X X

Table 4.3. Examples of Tools and Resources for Climate Change Adaptation of Coastal Natural Resources.
National Park Service 41 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table 4.3. Continued

Tool

Agency/

Organization Summary WebsiteModelsCase StudiesPlansDataToolsTraining and Collaboration

Sea, Lake, and 

Overland Surges 

from Hurricanes 

(SLOSH)

NOAA The SLOSH model estimates storm 

surge heights resulting from historical, 

hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes. 

The National Park Service is providing all 

coastal parks SLOSH inundation maps as 

part of coastal climate briefs (see Schupp, 

Beavers and Caffrey 2015 case study 24).

http://www.nhc.noaa.

gov/surge/slosh.php

X - - - - -

Sea Level 

Change 

Calculator

US Army Corps 

of Engineers

This on-line sea level change calculator 

provides sea level change curves from 

1992 to 2100 adjusted for NOAA tide 

gauge stations.

http://corpsclimate.us/

ccaceslcurves.cfm

- - - X X -

Climate Ready 

Estuaries 

Adaptation 

Planning 

Workbook

EPA Includes case studies, Climate Ready 

Estuaries, examples, and related links 

to illustrate what is being done in 

coastal communities to protect people 

and property.

http://www2.

epa.gov/cre/

risk-based-adaptation

- X - - X -

Climate 

Adaptation 

Knowledge 

Exchange 

(CAKE)

EcoAdapt One-stop shopping for adaptation 

information: case studies, tools, 

vulnerability assessments, virtual 

library, etc.

www.cakex.org - X - - X X

Climate 

Registry for the 

Assessment of 

Vulnerability 

(CRAVe)

USGS Clearinghouse of climate change 

vulnerability assessments, compatible 

with CAKE.

https://nccwsc.usgs.

gov/crave/

- X - - - -

Collaboratory 

for Adaptation

Hosted by 

Notre Dame 

University 

Website hosted by Notre Dame. Similar to 

CAKE—one-stop shopping for adaptation 

information: resources, climate tools and 

models, workflows, case studies, etc.

https://adapt.nd.edu/ X X - X X X

National Climate 

Assessment

US Global 

Change 

Research 

Program

Provides an integrated assessment of 

observed and projected climate changes 

and key impacts on the regions of the 

US Northeast, Southeast and Caribbean, 

Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, 

Northwest, Alaska and the Arctic, and 

Hawai‘i and the Pacific Islands, as well 

as coastal areas, oceans, and marine 

resources. This report is revised every 

four years.

http://ncadac.

globalchange.gov/

- X - X - -

National Fish, 

Wildlife, and 

Plants Climate 

Adaptation 

Strategy

Multiple Authoritative guidebook on adaptation 

written by large number of government 

and nongovernment entities.

http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov- - X - - -

National Climate 

Change Viewer

USGS Historical and future projected changes 

for temperature and precipitation 

variables at the county, regional, state, and 

watershed levels. 

http://www.usgs.

gov/climate_landuse/

clu_rd/nccv.asp

X - - X X -
National Park Service 42 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Tool

Agency/

Organization Summary WebsiteModelsCase StudiesPlansDataToolsTraining and Collaboration

FedCenter.gov FedCenter Provides links to numerous tools and 

agency sites for climate change adaptation.

https://www.fedcenter.

gov/programs/climate/ 

- X X - X -

Great Lakes 

Climate

The Ohio State 

University

Includes education, ecosystems, 

infrastructure, public health, public policy, 

water, and webinars. 

http://www.

climategreatlakes.com

- - - - - X

Great Lakes 

Coastal 

Resilience 

Planning Guide

NOAA and 

partners

Shows how coastal communities are using 

science-based information to address 

coastal hazards such as flooding, shore 

erosion, and lake-level fluctuations.

http://

greatlakesresilience.

org/

- X - - - -

Coastal 

Resilience

The Nature 

Conservancy

A network, mapping tool and apps 

to view flood and sea level rise risk, 

alongside coastal habitat, social and 

economic information. 

http://coastalresilience.

org/

X X - X X X

Community 

Resilience 

Building

The Nature 

Conservancy

Workshop guide process, where 

participants identify top hazards, current 

challenges, strengths, and priority actions 

to improve community resilience to all 

natural and climate-related hazards today, 

and in the future.

http://www.

communityresiliencebuilding.com/

- X X - X X

Climate Change 

Vulnerability 

Assessment 

Tool for Coastal 

Habitats

NOAA 

National 

Estuarine 

Research 

Reserves

Spreadsheet based decision support tool 

for land managers, decision makers, and 

researchers to identify habitats that are 

likely to be affected by climate change and 

the ways in which they will be affected.

http://www.northinlet.

sc.edu/stewardship/

CCVATCH/Overview.

html

- - - - X -

Guide for 

Considering 

Climate Change 

in Coastal 

Conservation

NOAA Step by step guide to including climate 

change in conservation plans for 

coastal environments.

https://coast.noaa.gov/

data/digitalcoast/pdf/

considering-climatechange.pdf

- - X - X -

Table 4.3. Continued
National Park Service 43 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The number and wide range of complexity of tools for 

coastal climate adaptation can be overwhelming. Table 

4.3 provides an overview of examples of the wide array of 

available tools. The climate-smart conservation scoping steps 

within the first step of identify planning purpose and scope 

of: articulate planning purpose; clarify existing goals and 

objectives; specify geographic scope and time frame; and 

determine data needs and acceptable levels of uncertainty, 

can be useful to work through before choosing a tool (Stein 

et al. 2014). The climate-smart conservation scoping process 

actions within the first step,“Identify planning purpose and 

scope” (articulating the planning purpose, clarifying existing 

goals, specifying geographic scope and timeframe, and 

determining data needs and acceptable levels of uncertainty) 

can be useful to work through before choosing a tool 

(Stein et al. 2014).

Once a tool is chosen, parks may need technical assistance 

on using tools and finding the necessary data to run and 

validate them. Technical assistance resources described in 

“Chapter 1 Introduction” are available through CCRP, NRSS, 

and collaboration with partners such as LCCs or cooperative 

ecosystem studies units.

Opportunities for Adaptation

Revisiting Leopold

Because change is a part of natural processes, there is an 

opportunity to embrace innate adaptive capacity while 

managing the trajectory of change. With natural resources 

for which the pace of change is larger than the resource’s 

ability to adapt on its own, park managers will need to 

prioritize action early and often. The report Revisiting 

Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks

(NPSABSC 2012) provides an opportunity to reconsider 

what is “natural” in a time of change, and how parks make 

decisions under accelerated, changing conditions. According 

to the report, “the overarching goal of NPS resource 

management should be to steward NPS resources for 

continuous change that is not yet fully understood, in order 

to preserve ecological integrity and cultural and historical 

authenticity, provide visitors with transformative experiences, 

and form the core of a national conservation land- and 

seascape.” The new Director’s Order #100 will be a way 

to implement the ideas in the report to update Resource 

Stewardship for the 21st Century, the guiding principles 

and policies of resource management and stewardship in 

the National Park System. Policy Memo 16-01, setting the 

framework for the new director’s order, calls for integrating 

the precautionary principle into resource stewardship 

decision making, which in the context of climate change, 

will be a powerful impetus to address climate adaptation 

(NPS 2016).

Implement National Fish, Wildlife and Plants 

Climate Adaptation Strategy

The National Park Service has an integral role in 

implementing this national strategy for natural resource 

climate adaptation. All of the goals in the strategy are 

applicable to coastal park resources, and they are as follows: 

● Conserve habitat to support healthy fish, wildlife, 

and plant populations and ecosystem functions in a 

changing climate. 

● Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem 

functions and provide subsistence, recreational, and 

commercial use in a changing climate. 

● Enhance capacity for effective management in a 

changing climate. 

● Support adaptive management in a changing climate 

through integrated observation and monitoring and use 

of decision support tools. 

● Increase knowledge and information on impacts 

and responses of fish, wildlife, and plants to a 

changing climate. 

● Increase awareness and motivate action to safeguard 

fish, wildlife, and plants in a changing climate.

● Reduce non-climate stressors to help fish, wildlife, 

plants, and ecosystems adapt to a changing climate 

(NFWPCAP 2012).

As parks implement the strategies described in this chapter, 

there is an opportunity to share successes and lessons 

nationally with others working toward achieving these goals 

as part of a collective effort to adapt. 

Expansion of Submerged Resources

Sea level rise may result in additional submerged resources 

in some ocean and coastal parks. If the park’s boundary is 

based on a static location, such as latitude and longitude 

or the Intracoastal Waterway, then the boundary will 

remain fixed, and those parks will begin to manage a 

larger percentage of submerged resources within their 

boundaries. However, the majority of ocean and coastal 

parks have boundaries that are tied to the mean high water 

line, mean low water line, or some other tidal measure. For 

these parks, sea level rise will cause the water line and the 
National Park Service 44 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

park’s boundary to move landward, resulting in changing 

park acreage. For more information on park boundaries 

and jurisdiction, please see NPS 39-1 Ocean and Coastal 

Jurisdiction Reference Manual (NPS internal access only).

Managing at the Landscape Scale 

The threat of climate change is prompting organizations 

including the National Park Service to look across borders 

and missions to collaborate on responses at a landscape 

scale, such as through LCCs. Many current management 

goals will be increasingly difficult to achieve without regional 

cooperation. Issues such as migratory bird habitats, marine 

invasive species, and sediment budgets all have landscapescale management questions exacerbated by climate change 

impacts. To be good stewards of natural resources within 

park boundaries, it is important, where possible, to act in 

concert with other stewards to serve as part of a network of 

professionals, each doing their part to support habitats and 

species broadly so that parks are not the last refuge, but part 

of a functioning landscape that sustains these important 

resources for future generations.

Review Documentation, Data Integration, and 

Prioritization (See more in the “Opportunities 

for Adaptation” section in “Chapter 6 

Facility  Management.”)

Documenting resource condition and change is important 

to understanding vulnerability and planning for adaptation; 

the science and monitoring in support of adaptation will 

be useful to other aspects of natural resource management. 

There is a growing amount of and accessibility to data 

related to climate change impacts on natural resources, 

providing new opportunities for the National Park Service to 

gather compatible baseline data and to synthesize trends. In 

addition, CCRP maintains an adaptation database complete 

with case studies of adaptation from various parks. Parks 

can either query other parks or input their case studies 

into the database. 

Prioritization of resources is more challenging under 

climate change. PM 12-02, (NPS 2102) helps to inform 

prioritization activities. As our adaptation experience grows 

and servicewide understanding of vulnerability develops, the 

opportunity to prioritize at regional and national scales will 

help with allocating resources. Working at a large landscape 

scale and collaborating with partners, the National Park 

Service will set priorities to support evolutionary potential of 

habitats and species. 

Inform Natural Resource Decision Making 

with other Decision-Making Processes 

Because climate change affects all resources, adaptation is an 

opportunity to integrate decision-making processes across 

cultural resources, facilities, and natural resources. The needs 

and vulnerabilities of various park functions can inform 

assessment, selection, and implementation of management 

actions across a park. An adaptation strategy that works for a 

facility, for example, (e.g., reducing runoff from stormwater) 

can also have benefits for natural resources (e.g., less 

nutrient pollution from stormwater). Another example is the 

opportunity to examine coastal engineering inventories (see 

“Chapter 6 Facility Management” and “Chapter 9 Lessons 

Learned from Hurricane Sandy”) and to consider building 

restrictions and removal of structures to protect and enable 

migration of beaches, dunes, estuarine shorelines, and 

wetlands (Nordstrom and Jackson 2016).

Take Home Messages

● Parks can choose from a range of potential adaptation 

strategies developed for climate-sensitive ecosystems. 

Applying strategies to coastal systems is park- and 

resource-specific. There is not yet a clear way forward 

to know which adaptation options will be most 

effective, and implementation is an active research 

field. The scientific resources to support adaptation are 

varied and growing. 

● Uncertainty or the lack of locally specific information 

should not stop adaptation action. Strategies that are 

able to incorporate additional information at later steps, 

such as adaptive management, are well suited to coastal 

climate adaptation challenges.

● NPS policies to maintain natural processes are 

consistent with consideration of natural resource 

adaptation strategies because change is part of natural 

processes, and natural processes can be highly resilient. 

Yet climate change functions outside bounds of natural 

variability and thresholds will be exceeded. Strategies 

to manage for change, especially where natural systems 

are more vulnerable, or where thresholds can be 

anticipated, are a growing challenge. 

● Managing for change may require working at a 

larger landscape scale than a single park and, thus, 

working with partners.
National Park Service 45 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Alongi, D. M. 2008. Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection 

from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76(1): 1-13.

Austin, J. A. and S. M. Colman. 2007. Lake Superior summer 

water temperatures are increasing more rapidly 

than regional air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo 

feedback. Geophysical Resource Letters 34(6). doi: 

10.1029/2006GL029021 (accessed 4 August 2016).

Baron, J. S., C. D. Allen, E. Fleishman, L. Gunderson, 

D. McKenzie, L. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. 

Stephenson. 2008. National Parks. Pages 4-1 to 4-68 in 

S. H. Julius and J. M. West [eds.]. Preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecoystems and 

resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research [J. S. Baron, L. A. Joyce, B. D. Keller, M. A. 

Palmer, C. H. Peterson, and J. M. Scott [authors]. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Baron, J. S., L. Gunderson, C. D. Allen, E. Fleishman, 

D. McKenzie, L. A. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. 

Stephenson. 2009. Options for National Parks 

and Reserves for Adapting to Climate Change. 

Environmental Management 44: 1033-1042.

Bengtsson, J, P. Angelstam, and T. Elmqvist. 2003. Reserves, 

resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32: 389-396.

Bjork, M., F. Short, E. Mcleod, and S. Beer. 2008. Managing 

Seagrasses for Resilience to Climate Change. Stockholm 

University Botany Department, Stockholm, Sweden. 

Burdick, D. M. and C. T. Roman. 2012. Salt marsh responses 

to tidal restriction and restoration: a summary of 

experiences. Pages 373–382 in C. T. Roman and D. M. 

Burdick [eds.]. Tidal marsh restoration. . Island Press, 

Washington, DC..

Burn, C. R. and A. G. Lewkowicz. 1990. Canadian Landform 

Examples – 17 Retrogressive Thaw Slumps. The 

Canadian Geographer 34(3): 273-276.

Callaghan, T. V., L. O. Bjorn, F. S. Chapin, Y. Chernov, T. R. 

Christensen, B. Huntly, R. Ims, M. Johansson, D. J. 

Reidlinger, S. Jonasson, N. Matveyeva, W. Oechel, N. 

Panikov, and G. Shaver. 2005. Arctic Tundra and Polar 

Desert Ecosystems. Pages 243 – 352in Hassol, S. J. 

Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact 

Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

UK. http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/impacts-of-awarming-arctic-2004/786 (accessed 3 August 2016).

Christie, J., and P. Bostwick. 2012. Climate change adaptation 

plan for Coastal and Inland Wetlands in the State of 

Michigan. A White Paper Prepared for the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality Wetlands 

Program and Coastal Management Program. Lansing, 

Michigan: Association of State Wetland Managers.

Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, H. Guo, S. B. Joye, M. 

Machmuller, D. Park, and S. Pennings. 2009. 

Effects of accelerated sea level rise on ecosystem 

services provided by tidal marshes: A simulation 

of the Georgia Coast. Frontiers in Ecology and 

Environment 7(2): 73-78.

Crain, C. M., K. Kroeker, and B. S. Halpern. 2008. Interactive 

and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in 

marine systems. Ecology Letters 11(12): 1304-1315.

Dobiesz, N. E. and N. P. Lester. 2009. Changes in MidSummer Water Temperature and Clarity Across the 

Great Lakes between 1968 and 2002. Journal of 

Great Lakes Research 35(3):371-384. doi: http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2009.05.002 (accessed 

3 August 2016).

Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. Feely, and J. A. Kleypas. 

2009. Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem. 

Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 169–92. DOI: 

10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834 (accessed 

3 August 2016).

Doyle, T. W., B. Chivoiu, and N. M. Enwright. 2015. Sea-level 

rise modeling handbook—Resource guide for coastal 

land managers, engineers, and scientists. US Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1815. USGS, Reston, 

VA,76 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1815 (accessed 

3 August 2016).

Field, C. B., L. D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D. L. Forbes, P. 

Kovacs, J. A. Patz, S. W. Running, and M. J. Scott. 

2007. North America. Pages 617-652 in M. L. Parry, 

O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, 

and C. E. Hanson [eds.]. Climate Change 2007: 

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution 

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Fisichelli, N. A., S. R. Abella, M. Peters, and F. J. Krist Jr. 

2014. Climate, Trees, Pests, and Weeds: Change, 

Uncertainty, and Biotic Stressors in Eastern 

U.S. National Park Forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management 327: 31-39.
National Park Service 46 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Fisichelli, N. A., G. W. Schuurman, and C. Hawkins 

Hoffman. 2016. Is ‘Resilience’ Maladaptive? Towards 

an Accurate Lexicon for Climate Change Adaptation. 

Environmental Management 57: 753-758.

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. The effects 

of climate change on Florida’s ocean and coastal 

resources. A special report to the Florida Energy 

and Climate Commission and the people of Florida. 

Tallahassee, FL, 34 pp.

Frieler, K., M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. 

Lebek, S. D. Donner, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 2013. 

Limiting global warming to 2°C is unlikely to save 

most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change 3: 165-170. 

doi:10.1038/nclimate1674. 

Fuller, R., N. Cofer-Shabica, Z. Ferdana, A. Whelchel, N. 

Herold, K. Schmid, B. Smith, D. Marcy, D. Eslinger, and 

P. Taylor. 2011. Marshes on the Move: A Manager’s 

Guide to Understanding and Using Model Results 

Depicting Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise on 

Coastal Wetlands. The Nature Conservancy and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Narragansett, RI and Charleston, SC.

Gesch, D. B. 2009. Analysis of LiDAR elevation data for 

improved identification and delineation of lands 

vulnerable to sea level rise. Journal of Coastal 

Research SI 53: 49-58.

Gieder, K. D., S. M. Karpanty, J. D. Fraser, D. H. Catlin, B. T. 

Gutierrez, N. G. Plant, A. M. Turecek, and E. R. Thieler. 

2014. A Bayesian network approach to predicting nest 

presence of the federally-threatened piping plover 

(Charadrius melodus) using barrier island features. 

Ecological Modelling, 276: 38-50.

Gledhill, D. K., M. M. White, J. Salisbury, H. Thomas, I. 

Mlsna, M. Liebman, B. Mook, J. Grear, A. C. Candelmo, 

R. C. Chambers, C. J. Gobler, C. W. Hunt, A. L. King, 

N. N. Price, S. R. Signorini, E. Stancioff, C. Stymiest, R. 

A. Wahle, J. D. Waller, N. D. Rebuck, Z. A. Wang, T. L. 

Capson, J. R. Morrison, S. R. Cooley, and S. C. Doney. 

2015. Ocean and coastal acidification off New England 

and Nova Scotia. Oceanography 28(2): 182–197. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2015.41.

Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N. A. Edelson[eds.]. 2011. Scanning 

the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

Gonzalez, P. 2015. Climate Change Summary, Padre Island 

National Seashore, Texas. Climate Change Trends. 

NPS Published Report 2220505. National Park Service 

Climate Change Response Program, Washington, DC. 

Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. Moore, E .V. Farley, 

E. C. Carmack, L. W. Cooper, K. E. Frey, J. H. Helle, 

F. A. McLaughlin, and S. L. McNutt. 2006. A major 

ecosystem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science 

311: 1461–1464. doi:10.1126/science.1121365.

Gutierrez, B. T., N. G. Plant, and E. R. Thieler. 2011. A 

Bayesian Network to Predict Coastal Vulnerability to 

sea level Rise. Journal of Geophysical Research Earth 

Surface 116(F02009). doi:10.1029/2010JF001891 

(accessed 3 August 2016).

Hendriks, I. E., C. M. Duarte, Y. S. Olsen, A. Steckbauer, L. 

Ramajo, T. S. Moore, J. A. Trotter, and M. McCulloch. 

2015. Biological mechanisms supporting adaptation to 

ocean acidification in coastal ecosystems. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 152: A1-A8. doi: 10.1016/j.

ecss.2014.07.019 (accessed 4 August 2016).

Hodel, R. G., and E. Gonzales. 2013. Phylogeography of Sea 

Oats (Uniola paniculata), a dune-building coastal grass 

in Southeastern North America. Journal of Heredity 

104(5): 656-665. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, 

P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. 

Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. 

Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, 

and M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid 

climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318: 

1737-1742. doi:10.1126/science. 1152509 (accessed 

4 August 2016).

Hoffman, J., E. Rowland, C. H. Hoffman, J. West, S. H. 

Julius, and M. Hayes. 2014. Chapter 12: Managing 

Under Uncertainty. Pages 177-187 in B. A. Stein, P. 

Glick, N. Edelson, and A. Staudt [eds.]. ClimateSmart Conservation: Putting Adaptation Principles 

into Practice. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

Jones, S. J., N. Mieszkowska, and D. S. Wethey. 2009. Linking 

thermal tolerances and biogeography: Mytilus edulis 

(l.) at its southern limit on the east coast of the United 

States. The Biological Bulletin 217: 73-85. 
National Park Service 47 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Kareiva, P., C. Enquist, A. Johnson, S. H. Julius, J. Lawler, 

B. Petersen, L. Pitelka, R. Shaw, and J. M. West. 2008. 

Synthesis and Conclusions. Pages 9-1 to 9-66 in: S. 

H. Julius and J. M. West [eds.]. Preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems 

and resources. A report by the U.S. climate change 

science program and the subcommittee on global 

change research. J. S. Baron, B. Griffith, L. A. Joyce, P. 

Kareiva, B. D. Keller, M. A. Palmer, C. H. Peterson, and 

J. M. Scott, J.M. [authors]. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Lenihan, H. S., C. H. Peterson,, J. E. Byers, J. H. 

Grabowski, G. H. Thayer, and D. R. Colby. 2001. 

Cascading of habitat degradation: oyster reefs 

invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological 

Applications 11:748–64.

Lentz, E. E., S. R. Stippa, E. R. Thieler, N. G. Plant, D. B. 

Gesch, and R. M. Horton. 2015. Evaluating coastal 

landscape response to sea-level rise in the northeastern 

United States—Approach and methods. USGS OpenFile Report 2014–1252. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

VA, 26 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141252. 

Long, E. and E. Biber. 2014. The Wilderness Act and Climate 

Change Adaptation, Environmental Law 44:623-694.

Lugo, A. E., E. Medina, and K. McGinley. 2014. Issues 

and challenges of mangrove conservation in the 

Anthropocene. Madera y Bosques, 20: 11–38.

Manzello, D. P., I. C. Enochs, N. Melo, D. K. Gledhill, 

and E. M. Johns. 2012. Ocean Acidification Refugia 

of the Florida Reef Tract. PLoS ONE 7(7): e41715. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041715.

Mars, J. C. and D. W. Houseknecht. 2007. Quantitative 

remote sensing study indicates doubling of coastal 

erosion rate in past 50 yr along a segment of the Arctic 

Coast Alaska. Geology 35(7): 583 – 586.

Masterson, J. P., Fienen, M. N., Thieler, E. R., Gesch, D. 

B., Gutierrez, B. T., and N. G. Plant. 2013. Effects of 

sea-level rise on barrier island groundwater system 

dynamics-ecohydrological implications. Ecohydrology 

7(3): 1064–1071. doi: 10.1002/eco.1442 (accessed 

4 August 2016).

McLeod, E., R. Salm, A. Green, and J. Almany. 2009. 

Designing marine protected area networks to address 

the impacts of climate change. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment 7:362-370.

Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 

2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological 

Applications 17:2145-2151.

Monahan, W. B., and N. Fisichelli. 2014. Climate Exposure of 

US National Parks in a New Era of Change. PLoS ONE 

9(7): e101302. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101302 

(accessed 4 August 2016). 

Moore S. K., V. L. Trainer, N. J. Mantua, M. S. Parker, 

E. A. Laws, L. C. Backer and L. E. Fleming. 

2008. Impacts of climate variability and future 

climate change on harmful algal blooms and 

human health. Environmental Health 7(Suppl 2): 

S4. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S4 (accessed 

4 August 2016).

Murdukhayeva, A. 2012. Assessment of Inundation Risk from 

Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge in Coastal National 

Parks. Master’s Thesis. University of Rhode Island, 

Kingston, RI, 118p.

Murdukhayeva, A., P. August, M. Bradley, C. LaBash, 

and N. Shaw. 2013. Assessment of inundation risk 

from sea level rise and storm surge in northeastern 

coastal national parks. Journal of Coastal 

Research 29(6A): 1–16.

Murray, B., L. Pendleton, W. A. Jenkins, and S. Sifleet. 2011. 

Green Payments for Blue Carbon: Economic Incentives 

for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats. Nicholas 

Institute Report NI R 11-04. Duke University, Durham, 

NC. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/

files/publications/blue-carbon-report-paper.pdf

(accessed 10 August 2016).

Nielsen, M. G., and R. W. Dudley. 2013. Estimates of future 

inundation of salt marshes in response to sea-level 

rise in and around Acadia National Park, Maine. 

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5290. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 20 p. http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sir/2012/5290/ (accessed 17 April 2015).

National Ocean Council. 2013. National Ocean Policy 

Implementation Plan. Washington, DC. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_

ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf (accessed 

10 August 2016).
National Park Service 48 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

2012. Incorporating Sea Level Change Scenarios 

at the Local Level. NOAA Coastal Services Center, 

Charleston, SC. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/

SLCScenariosLL.pdf (accessed 4 August 2016).

NOAA. 2016. Guide for Considering Climate Change in 

Coastal Conservation. NOAA Office for Coastal 

Management, Silver Spring, MD. https://coast.noaa.

gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/considering-climate-change.

pdf (accessed 8 August 2016). 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation 

Partnership (NFWPCAP). 2012. National Fish, Wildlife 

and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental 

Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.

gov/ (accessed 10 August 2016).

National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee 

(NPSABSC). 2012. Revisiting Leopold: Resource 

Stewardship in the National Parks. August 25, 2012. 

Funded by the National Park Foundation. https://www.

nps.gov/calltoaction/PDF/LeopoldReport_2012.pdf

(accessed 10 August 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Park Service 

Management Policies 2006. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.

pdf (accessed 26 March 2015).

NPS. 2012. Applying National Park Service management 

policies in the context of climate change. US DOI 

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 12-02. 

March 6, 2012. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/

PM_12-02.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015). 

NPS. 2016. Resource Stewardship for the 21st Century – 

Interim Policy. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 16-01. https://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_16-01.htm (accessed 15 June 2016).

Nordstrom, K. and N. Jackson. 2016. Facilitating migration 

of coastal landforms and habitats by removing shore 

protection structures: An adaptation strategy for 

Northeast Region units of the National Park Service. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NER/NRR—2016/1240. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://

irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2230271

(accessed 10 August 2016).

Peek, K. M., R. S. Young, R. L. Beavers, C. H. Hoffman, B. 

T. Diethorn, and S. Norton. 2015. Adapting to climate 

change in coastal national parks: Estimating the 

exposure of park assets to 1 m of sea-level rise. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/961. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://

www.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/coastal_assets_

report.cfm (accessed 10 August 2016).

Peek, K. M., A. Coburn, E. Stafford, B. Tormey, R. Young, H. 

Thompson, L. Bennett, and A. Fowler. 2016. Marine 

vulnerability assessment of Cumberland Island 

National Seashore: Determining the vulnerability 

of marine habitats at Cumberland Island National 

Seashore to climate change stressors. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/CUIS/NRR—2016/1281. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Pespeni, M. H., E. Sanford, B. Gaylord, T. M. Hill, J. D. 

Hosfelt, H. K. Jaris, M. LaVigne, E. A. Lenz, R. D. 

Russell, M. K. Young, and S. R. Palumbi. 2013. 

Evolutionary change during experimental ocean 

acidification. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the USA 110: 6937–6942.

Riggs, S. R., and D. V. Ames. 2007. Effect of storms on 

Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960-2001. US 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5309. USGS, Reston, Virginia. http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sir/2006/5309/pdf/sir2006-5309.pdf (accessed 

10 August 2016).

Roman, C. T., and A. L. Babson. 2013. Climate change 

in Northeast Region coastal parks: Synthesis of a 

workshop on research and monitoring needs. Natural 

Resource Report NPS/NER/NRR—2013/697. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://irma.

nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/475468 (accessed 

10 August 2016).

Schwartz M.W., J. J. Hellmann, J. M. McLachlan, D. F. 

Sax, J. O. Borevitz. 2012. Managed Relocation: 

Integrating the Scientific, Regulatory, and Ethical 

Challenges. BioScience 62(8): 732–743. doi:10.1525/

bio.2012.62.8.6.
National Park Service 49 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Schupp, C., and A. Coburn. 2015. Inventory of coastal 

engineering projects within Assateague Island National 

Seashore. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/

NRR—2015/914. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/

Profile/2220096 https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/ 

Reference/Profile/2220096 (accessed 10 August 2016).

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastaladaptationstrategies.htm (accessed 

10 August 2016).

Shaw, N., and M. Bradley. 2014. Sentinel Sites for All Parks 

in the Northeast Region. NPS Northeast Region. 

Geospatial Dataset- 2216317. National Park Service, 

Lakewood, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/

Profile/2216317 (accessed 21 April 2015).

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 

2009. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change 

Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second 

Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and 

Climate Change. Technical Series No. 41. SCBD, 

Montreal, Canada,126 pages. https://www.cbd.

int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-41-en.pdf (accessed 

10 August 2016).

Staudinger, M. D., S. L. Carter, M. S. Cross, N. S. Dubois, J. E. 

Duffy, C. Enquist, R. Griffis, J. J. Hellmann, J. J. Lawler, 

J. O’Leary, S. A. Morrison, L. Sneddon, B. A. Stein, L. 

M. Thompson, and W. Turner. 2013. Biodiversity in a 

changing climate: a synthesis of current and projected 

trends in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 11: 465–473.

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. A. Edelson, and A. Staudt 

[eds.]. 2014. Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting 

Adaptation Principles into Practice. National Wildlife 

Federation, Washington, DC. http://www.nwf.org/pdf/

Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWF-Climate-SmartConservation_5-08-14.pdf (accessed 19 March 2015).

Stevens, S., B. Mitchell, M. Brown, and P. Campbell. 2010. 

Strategy for enhanced monitoring of natural resource 

condition in North Atlantic coastal parks to address 

the effects of rapid climate change. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NCBN/NRR—2010/272. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Thorne, K. M., J. Y. Takekawa, and D. L. Elliott-Fisk. 2012. 

Ecological effects of climate change on salt marsh 

wildlife: a case study from a highly urbanized estuary. 

Journal of Coastal Research 28(6): 1477-1487. doi: 

10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11.00136.1.

Twilley, R. R., E. J. Barron, H. L. Gholz, M. A. Harwell, R. 

L. Miller, D. J. Reed, J. B. Rose, E. H. Siemann, R. G. 

Wetzel, and R. J. Zimmerman. 2001. Confronting 

climate change in the Gulf Coast Region. A report of 

the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological 

Society of America. http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-ir/

handle/1969.3/26295 (accessed 28 April 2015). 

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Sea level 

change calculator. Online data. http://corpsclimate.us/

ccaceslcurves.cfm/ (accessed 17 April 2015).

University of Rhode Island and the National Park Service 

Northeast Region GIS Office (URI and NPS). 2014. 

National Park Service NER Sentinel Sites and 

Inundation Risk. Online database and mapping 

application. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?

id=16c11b61be9042da9b44ced65887d543 (accessed 

21 April 2015).

Wassmann, P., C. M. Duarte, S. Agusti, and M. K. Sejr. 2011. 

Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine 

ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17: 1235–1249. doi: 

10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02311.x.

West, J. M., S. H. Julius, P. Kareiva, C. Enquist, J. J. Lawler, 

B. Petersen, A. E. Johnson, M. R. Shaw. 2009. US 

natural resources and climate change: Concepts 

and approaches for management adaptation. 

Environmental Management 44: 1001-1021.

West, J. M. and S. H. Julius. 2014. Chapter 8: The art of 

the possible: Identifying adaptation options. Pages 

119-139 in B. A. Stein, P. Glick, N. Edelson and A. 

Staudt [eds.]. Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting 

Adaptation Principles into Practice. National Wildlife 

Federation, Washington, DC. http://www.nwf.org/pdf/

Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWF-Climate-SmartConservation_5-08-14.pdf (accessed 10 August 2016).

Worm, B., E. B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J. E. Duffy, C. Folke, B. 

S. Halpern, J. B. C. Jackson, H. K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S. 

R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K. A. Selkoe, J. J. Stachowicz and R. 

Watson. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean 

Ecosystem Services. Science 314 (5800): 787-790.
National Park Service 50 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

This page intentionally left blank. 
National Park Service 51 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 5 Cultural Resources

Contributing Authors: Courtney Schupp, Marcy Rockman, 

Jeneva Wright, and Karen Mudar

Introduction

This chapter describes threats to cultural resources in the 

coastal zone, identifies multiple adaptation strategies to 

address these threats, and outlines policies and decisionmaking processes to assist with adaptation. Online 

resources will be updated to supplement this document 

and can be found at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/

climatechange/coastalhandbook.htm.

The National Park Service manages five types of cultural 

resources: archeological resources, cultural landscapes, 

ethnographic resources, museum collections, and historic 

and prehistoric buildings and structures (NPS 2006), 

all of which are found in the coastal zone. Underwater 

or submerged resources, which include shipwrecks, 

other submerged buildings or structures, and inundated 

archeological sites and cultural landscapes, also occur in 

and are accessed from the coastal zone. 

This diversity of cultural resources anchors the history of 

human interactions with water. While humans have lived in 

nearly every environment on the planet, coasts – through 

the access they have provided to plants and animals for 

food and manufacturing; to means of transportation, 

commerce, communication, and defense; and to areas 

of beauty and recreation – have high concentrations of 

cultural resources. These in turn hold a wide array of 

meanings and livelihoods for many different communities. 

Combined, this abundance of resources and their 

diverse associations create substantial challenges for the 

management of cultural resources in the coastal zone, 

particularly in regard to climate change. 

Because cultural resources hold significance from both 

place and the past, they are unique and nonrenewable. 

Once they are lost, they are gone forever, along with 

their value for research and discovery, provoking public 

introspection, keeping and reawakening cultural memories, 

connecting individuals to their ancestors, and maintaining 

ties from generation to generation. For these reasons, 

National Park Service (NPS) Director Jarvis stated in 

NPS Policy Memorandum 14-02 “Climate Change and 

Stewardship of Cultural Resources” (PM 14-02, NPS 

2014a) that cultural resource management “must keep in 

mind that (1) cultural resources are primary sources of 

data regarding human interactions with environmental 

change; and (2) a changing climate affects the preservation 

and maintenance of cultural resources.” This chapter 

provides an overview of the current state of the art for 

understanding the threats of climate change for cultural 

resources in the coastal zone (see phrase 2 above), and 

for integrating unique and significance aspects of cultural 

resources into adaptation in the coastal zone 

(see phrase 1 above).

Climate Change Threats to Cultural 

Resources in the Coastal Zone

Environmental forces have always affected cultural 

resources. Climate change, however, is accelerating, 

intensifying, recombining, and adding to these forces. 

Evidence of a wide range of climate change impacts 

on different types and forms of cultural resources are 

accumulating throughout different coastal environments 

of the National Park System. The potential and observed 

impacts of the many dimensions of climate change on 

the five categories of NPS cultural resources are outlined 

briefly in table 5.1 and table 5.2 (Rockman 2015; for more 

detailed descriptions, see Morgan et al. 2016 and Graphic 2

in the NPS Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy

[Rockman et al. in review]). This chapter focuses on the 

impacts of climate change specific to cultural resources in 

the coastal zone.

Figure 5.1. The Cockspur Lighthouse at Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, Georgia, needs to be stabilized 

with a structure that can withstand ongoing erosion 

around the revetment, sea level rise over the next 

20 years, and related impacts such as increased wave 

heights. Photograph by Paul Brennan.
National Park Service 52 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Table 5.2. Climate change related impacts on cultural resources in the coastal zone. Excerpted from Morgan et al. (2016).

Climate Indicator Climate Change Risk Impact on Cultural Resource

Increased global 

temperature

• Extreme weather events

• Permafrost melt

• Increased 

freeze-thaw cycle

• Higher relative humidity

• Stronger wind patterns

• Species shift

• Accelerated rusting in submerged and littoral archeological resources

• More rapid decay of organic materials

• Faster deterioration of newly exposed artifacts and sites

• Increased rate of chemical decay of collections

• Increased crystallization of efflorescent salts due to increased evaporation rates, 

leading to increased rates of structural cracking, deterioration

• Damage to foundations

• Reduced access to marine hunting grounds due to shifting sea ice

• Changes in historic/ culturally significant vegetation patterns

Precipitation 

Change 

• Saturated soils

• Flooding 

• Drought

• Increased exposure from vegetation loss and erosion

• Destabilization of wetland or waterlogged sites

• Exposure of submerged sites due to lower water levels in lakes

• Erosion of supporting ground around structure

• Increased pressure to relocate or elevate structures and/or surrounding structures

• Loss of landscape features

• Damage to structures

• Increased risk of post-flood subsidence

• Impacts from post-flood mitigation

Sea level rise • Inundation and flooding

• Increased storm 

surge height

• Increased coastal erosion

• Higher water table

• Salt water intrusion

• Submersion of coastal sites

• Increased post-flood cracking due to associated ground heave and subsidence

• Increased pressure to relocate or elevate structures

• Loss of coastal sites and artifacts

• Loss of culturally significant symbols, plants, and animals

• Loss of or limited access to culturally important sites

• Increased rusting, corrosion, and salt deposits

Table 5.1. Synthesis of diverse climate change impacts across the five categories of cultural resources (CR) managed by the 

National Park Service: archeological sites (AS), historic and prehistoric buildings and structures (B/S), cultural landscapes 

(CL), ethnographic resources (E), and museum collections (MC). Table from Rockman (2015).

e 

Impact Environmental Forces CR Affected Rate

Submersion Sea Level Rise (SLR) AS, B/S, CL, E Trend

Erosion SLR, Storm surges AS, B/S, CL, E Event, Trend

Inundation Storm surges, Flooding All Event

Saturation SLR (rising water tables) 1st: AS, B/S, CL, E

2nd: MC

Trend

Deterioration Precipitation variation

Temperature variation

Wind variation

AS, B/S, CL, E

AS, B/S, CL, E

AS, B/S, CL, E

Trend/event

Trend/event

Event/trend

Dissolution Temperature increase (permafrost)

Ocean acidification

AS, B/S, CL, E

AS (terrestrial, underwater)

Trend

Trend

Destruction Flooding

Storm (rain/wind)

All

All

Event

Event

Oxidation Increased atmospheric moisture B/S Trend

Depletion Ecosystem changes due to human development AS, B/S, CL, E Event, Trend

Conflagration Fire

(Drought)

(Temperature extremes +/- insect effects)

All Event

Dessication Temperature extremes

Drought

AS, B/S, CL, E 

AS, B/S, CL, E

Event (trend?)

Long event

Invasion Invasive species

Mold

AS, BS, CL, E, MC

BS, MC

Trend

Event

Disruption Loss of species

Loss of access

Looting

E

E

AS

Trend/event

Event/trend

Event
National Park Service 53 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The changing climate will affect cultural resources in the 

coastal zone through discrete events such as hurricanes 

and through ongoing changes such as changing sea and 

lake levels (both vertical rise or fall and rate of change), 

ocean acidification, and water temperature change. The 

abilities of cultural resources to withstand these and 

other effects without substantial change are related to 

the condition of the specific resource. A well-protected 

resource such as a shipwreck with a healthy covering of 

seagrass, or a resource in good condition such as a recently 

painted wooden building, will be better able to withstand 

particular destructive pressures of climate change, and for 

a longer period of time. 

Coastal impacts of climate change are, at times, 

dramatically visible, such as heightened storm surge 

impacts. Other impacts may be more subtle or may result 

from the intersection of several forces. For example, where 

sea ice is diminishing and permafrost is melting, coastal 

archeological and ethnographic resources are eroding, 

changing, deteriorating, and becoming harder to access. 

These resources may not be well documented, making 

assessment of resource significance and vulnerability 

and prioritization of management response difficult (see 

Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 4: Cultural 

Resources Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment”). For 

other resources, increased temperatures and humidity are 

affecting buildings and structures as heat accelerates the 

rusting of iron, and swelling and fungal decay of wood. 

PM 14-02 emphasizes adding to the understanding of the 

range and diversity of climate change impacts on cultural 

resources, and directs management priorities to resources 

that are both significant and most at risk, because humancaused stressors will exacerbate climate impacts. For 

example, deeper navigation channels and increased 

size and frequency of associated large vessel boat wake 

impacts will increase the vulnerability of coastal places 

such as Fort Sumter National Monument, Fort Caroline 

National Memorial, and the Cockspur Lighthouse at Fort 

Pulaski National Monument by accelerating erosion of the 

shorelines and exposure of their foundations to storms of 

increased magnitude (see figure 5.1 and Schupp, Beavers, 

and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 7: Lighthouse Stabilization 

Design Incorporates Sea Level Rise”).

Threats to Archeological Resources 

Archeological resources are physical evidence of past 

human occupation or activity across the span of human 

existence. Archeological sites may be located anywhere 

there has been previous human occupation on the current 

ground surface or buried. The resources are incredibly 

diverse; examples include a small scatter of prehistoric 

stone or bone tools or historic metal cans, town sites, heiau 

(Hawaiian temples), fish ponds, road system complexes, 

shell middens, and buried evidence of coastal occupation.

Climate change threats to coastal archeological resources 

can take many forms, including erosion, inundation, 

and chemical alteration. Erosion can be exacerbated 

by changes in water supply, such as increases in rainfall 

overall or the intensity of individual rainfall events; by 

drought (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case 

Study 1: Reservoir Water Level Change Impacts on Cultural 

Resources”); and by additional stresses affecting shoreline 

sediments, such as loss of soil structure due to melting 

permafrost. Unless quickly covered with sediments, sites 

in the intertidal zone may lose stratigraphic integrity as 

a result of water level rise or may be subject to physical 

degradation resulting from wave impacts.

A vulnerability assessment for coastal archeological sites 

and traditional cultural properties at Point Reyes National 

Seashore (Newland 2013) provides detailed analyses of 

climate impacts across different ecosystems within a single 

park, such as ocean acidification effects on cliff areas, sea 

level rise in tidal marshes, and wildfire along cliff tops. This 

report also provides a list of questions developed by the 

culturally associated tribe (the Federated Indians of Graton 

Rancheria) to help guide development of policies to 

manage archeological and ethnographic resources that may 

be increasingly exposed to weathering and unauthorized 

collection when exposed by storms and erosion. 

Threats to Cultural Landscapes

Cultural landscapes are geographic areas, including both 

cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic 

animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, 

or person or that exhibit other cultural or aesthetic 

values. Cultural landscapes may be historic sites, historic 

designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and 

ethnographic landscapes (Birnbaum 1994). 
National Park Service 54 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Climate-related impacts on coastal cultural landscapes 

include both ecosystem impacts and impacts on the 

built environment (when it is part of the landscape).

Changing water levels may exacerbate erosion of cultural 

landscapes along a shoreline. Changes in temperature and 

precipitation patterns may stress building materials or 

favor different vegetation species or patterns of historic or 

culturally significant vegetation species. Climate change 

also may lead to the introduction of new pests, and may 

change soil fertility or water table level that affects gardens 

and other vegetation that are character-defining features.

For cultural landscapes, character-defining features 

are key foci for assessing impacts. Natural and cultural 

components of the landscape and the relationships 

between them convey different aspects of the significance 

of the landscape and will interact in different ways with 

climate change impacts.

Dyke Marsh, on the western shore of the tidal Potomac 

River south of Washington, DC, and part of the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway, is an example of a cultural 

landscape that will be affected by rising sea level. The 

marsh was formed over thousands of years from the 

sediment load discharged by upstream Hunting Creek. 

Portions of the then-650 acres were diked in the early 

1800s for pasturage (Melnick, Burry-Trice, and Malinay in 

prep.). After abandonment of the area for grazing, shallow 

waters were dredged for sand and gravel. Rising sea level 

is affecting tidal heights in the Potomac estuary and is 

increasing wave impact on the south side of the marsh 

where a remnant dike is still visible, eroding that portion of 

the cultural landscape (Palinkas 2016).

Threats to Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources are basic expressions of human 

culture and the basis for continuity of both tangible and 

intangible components of cultural systems, including 

traditional arts, native languages, religious beliefs, and 

subsistence activities (NPS 1998a). Ethnographic resources 

include tangible places such as sites, structures, and 

landscapes, as well as natural resources needed for cultural 

expression, such as salmon, sweet grass, or species of 

predatory birds.

Coastal climate change impacts to ethnographic resources 

damage tangible resources and/or disrupt or otherwise 

disconnect people from their arts, language, beliefs, 

and activities and associations with the places in which 

they have performed them. Impacts include permafrost 

melt, which can accelerate coastal erosion that in turn 

may force relocation of communities, separating people 

from subsistence resources. Changes in sea ice due to 

increased temperatures and changing winds may limit 

access to traditional hunting areas and are expected 

to shift migratory patterns of significant marine prey. 

Warming temperatures also may affect the distribution 

and phenology of key terrestrial and coastal plant and 

animal species.

Wild rice is an ethnographic resource used by the Bad 

River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

that is being affected by climate change. The rice grows 

in ephemeral wetlands on the shore of Lake Superior 

in Apostle Island National Lakeshore. For centuries 

Anishinaabe people have harvested the rice for subsistence 

and trade. Climate change projections for the Great Lakes 

estimate that lake levels will continue to fall, depriving 

wetlands and the rice beds of the moisture needed to 

survive (Krumenaker 2014).

Threats to Historic and Prehistoric Buildings 

and Structures

A historic or prehistoric building or structure is “a 

constructed work . . . consciously created to serve some 

human activity” (NPS 1998b). They are usually immovable 

although some have been relocated and some are mobile by 

design. Examples include buildings and monuments, dams, 

millraces and canals, nautical vessels, bridges, tunnels 

and roads, railroad locomotives, rolling stock and track, 

stockades and fences, defensive works, temple mounds, 

ruins of all structural types, and outdoor sculptures. 

Preservation approaches for prehistoric structures are 

often similar to those for historic structures. Prehistoric 

structures also may be considered archeological resources, 

and some are ethnographic resources as well (NPS 1998a).

Climate change drivers interact variably with structural 

materials, architecture, and location (Sabbioni, 

Brimblecombe, and Cassar 2012). For example, increased 

rainfall may lead to accelerated rates of mortar and 

masonry decay, while associated ground heave and 

subsidence can lead to destabilization of foundations and 

pipes (Moss 2010; Morgan et al. 2016). Warmer, longer 

summers will enable new threats to wood structures as 

termites and other pests expand territory, and increased 

temperatures may increase growth of destructive mold and 

algae (Morgan et al. 2016). 
National Park Service 55 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Lighthouses and forts are iconic examples of coastal 

historic buildings. Facilities may include the lighthouse, 

the lighthouse keeper’s residence, outbuildings, and docks, 

as well as cultural landscapes that can encompass gardens 

and walkways. All of these buildings and structures are 

impacted in different ways by dimensions of climate change 

depending on material composition and condition of 

structure. For examples of impacts and NPS adaptation 

strategies for Fort Jefferson and for the Cockspur and 

Cape Hatteras Lighthouses, see figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, 

and Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey (2015), “Case Study 

5: Strategic Planning and Responsible Investments for 

Threatened Historic Structures,” “Case Study 7: Lighthouse 

Stabilization Design Incorporates Sea Level Rise,” and 

“Case Study 8: Relocating the Lighthouse.”

One historic district that is particularly vulnerable to 

maritime effects of climate change is Portsmouth Village, 

which is part of Cape Lookout National Seashore and 

is located on a barrier island (Melnick, Burry-Trice, and 

Malinay in prep.). The village was first established in the 

1700s; extant historic buildings date to the 19th and early 

20th century. As the barrier islands move westward in 

response to the complex interactions between sea level rise 

and ocean currents, the sea moves closer and closer to the 

village. Shifting of the low mobile sand dunes on which the 

village stands will impact the integrity of design, materials, 

and workmanship of any buildings that survive high winds 

and the direct impact of storm surges.

Threats to Museums and Collections 

Museums will play increasingly important roles in future 

cultural resource preservation. The National Park Service 

is the steward of the largest network of museums in the 

United States and is responsible for the welfare of more 

than 44.5 million museum objects and 74,000 linear 

feet of archives (NPS Museum Management Program 

2014). In addition to ongoing work to address backlogs 

in cataloguing and accessioning new collections (Wilson 

2015), additional facilities and funds will be needed for 

monitoring and mitigation programs. 

A review by the NPS Museum Management Program in 

2014 found that 233 parks have museum facilities in highrisk flood zones (NPS Museum Management Program 

2014), including facilities in the interior and along the 

coast. Other types of impacts can affect the museum facility 

building itself, such as through rising damp from changes in 

local ground water level and increased tree fall (Sonderman 

2016). Additional impacts can affect collections, such as 

through loss of climate controls or exposure to new species of 

insect pests. Museums and collections are clearly vulnerable 

to floods and storm surges.

Impacts from hurricanes provide opportunities to implement 

adaptation strategies to meet the challenges of climate 

change. For example, in 2003, Hurricane Isabel (National 

Hurricane Center 2016) inundated the Colonial National 

Historical Park museum facility located in the basement of 

the visitor center within the flood zone of the James River. 

The water inundated the building to a height of 5 feet (1.5m) 

and damaged archeological collections and records from 

excavations at Jamestowne. Restoration of these collections 

and records took four years. In another example, Hurricane 

Sandy caused the loss of electrical power and mechanical 

systems in the Ellis Island museum collection. See “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.”

Figure 5.2. Sea level rise and increased tropical storm 

intensity pose a serious risk to the long-term sustainability 

of historic Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas National Park, 

Florida. Photograph by Kelly Clark, NPS.

Figure 5.3. After multiple hard stabilization protection 

efforts proved unsuccessful, the Cape Hatteras lighthouse 

at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, was 

moved inland from the eroding beach using a railway in 

1999. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 56 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Threats to Underwater Resources 

Consideration of cultural resources within coastal 

adaptation planning does not stop at the water’s edge. 

Submerged cultural resources can comprise or contribute 

to archeological and ethnographic resources, cultural 

landscapes, and structures. Many coastal cultural resources 

managed by NPS units are littoral or submerged resources. 

Submerged historic structures, shipwrecks, submerged 

maritime landscapes, and other underwater cultural sites 

are equally as vulnerable as terrestrial sites to the effects of 

climate change, and perhaps are more vulnerable because 

they can be difficult to recognize and their threats can be 

easily overlooked (figure 5.4).

Submerged cultural resources can have different 

vulnerabilities than their terrestrial counterparts 

(Wright 2016). While inundation concerns may be 

diminished, mechanical damage from storm surge and 

changing wind and current patterns can scatter, disrupt, 

erode, or destroy submerged sites. The depth changes 

associated with sea level rise can affect the retreat of 

protective seagrass beds and corals, water chemistry 

changes associated with water depth, sediment coverage 

and mobility, and changes in anoxic environments 

conducive to preservation. Temperature rise and ocean 

acidification can destabilize wreck structures, increasing 

corrosion rates and weakening protection provided by 

adhering layers of calcium carbonate-based organisms.

One example of an underwater cultural resource at risk 

from climate change is the 100-year old steamboat Charles 

H. Spencer, which lies at the edge of the Colorado River at 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Deficits in water 

supply for the entire Colorado River system have lowered 

the average volume of the river, exposing Spencer. While 

coastal threats from climate change are often framed in 

terms of sea level rise, decrease in water supply also can be 

destructive. Uncontrolled drying of waterlogged remains 

damages archeological materials, particularly wooden 

remains such as components of Spencer.

Important management steps to support adaptation 

strategies for submerged resources include inventory and 

monitoring plans. The Submerged Resources Center is 

available to assist parks with stewardship of submerged 

cultural sites. Additionally, for information on park 

boundaries and jurisdiction (which can be particularly 

challenging to determine in coastal areas), see NPS 39-1 

Ocean and Coastal Jurisdiction Reference Manual.

Management of Cultural Resources in the 

Coastal Zone under Climate Change

NPS Policy Memorandum 16-01 “Resource Stewardship 

for the 21st Century – Interim Policy” (PM 16-01, NPS 

2016) calls for integrating natural and cultural resources 

management, and for using the precautionary principle 

when making decisions related to resource stewardship; in 

the context of climate change, this means that the National 

Park Service must address climate adaptation as part of its 

cultural resources management strategy.

The NPS adaptation strategy for cultural resources 

recognizes that, because many cultural resources are 

nonliving and so have no or limited capacity to absorb 

climate change impacts, the focus for cultural resource 

adaptation should be flexible and responsive human 

management. The framework for adaptation for cultural 

resource management set out in PM 14-02 addresses what 

adaptation means for cultural resources management, 

how to approach decision-making for cultural resources in 

light of climate change, and the important role of cultural 

resources in climate change communication (NPS 2014a, 

2014b, 2015; Morgan et al. 2016).

Specific topics developed in PM 14-02 include 

the following:

Adaptation

● Recognize that the primary focus for adaptation for 

cultural resources lies in research, planning, and 

stewardship activities.

● Integrate natural and cultural resources. Examples 

include addressing shared natural and cultural resource 

data needs in climate modeling and environmental 

monitoring, and incorporating relevant information into 

planning, such as Resource Stewardship Strategies.

Figure 5.4. Dry Tortugas National Park protects submerged 

resources in south Florida. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 57 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● Use innovative actions to address emergent threats. 

For example, reallocate funds where appropriate 

when budgetary cycles do not accommodate the 

urgency of actions.

● Incorporate cultural resources into sustainability 

actions. For example, adaptively reuse historic buildings.

● Evaluate siting of museum facilities and collections, 

starting with a vulnerability study and a plan to improve 

stewardship of museum facilities and collections. 

Decision Making

● Refocus inventory responsibilities onto lands that have 

not been investigated in areas that are most vulnerable 

to climate change impacts.

● Direct management decisions and funding to resources 

that are both significant and most at risk.

● Identify, develop means to address, and communicate to 

the public the range of climate change effects on cultural 

resources, including subtle and inland effects such as the 

impacts of more freeze/thaw cycles on stone walls.

● Consult a broad array of stakeholders to inform the 

assessment of resource significance.

● Value information from the past and incorporate 

the capacity of cultural resources to provide unique 

information about human adaptation to climatic and 

environmental variability through time into assessments 

of resource significance.

● Recognize the potential for loss in management 

options, work to balance sustainability with 

preservation, and coordinate decisions on management 

options servicewide.

Communication

Every place has a climate story. Cultural resources embody:

● climate change impacts at human scales that can be 

seen and touched;

● traditional ecological knowledge and changes in 

experience and lifeways;

● past human successes and failures of adaptation; and

● origins of modern climate situations.

In response to this directive, an assessment of the 

vulnerability of NPS museum facilities to climate change is 

being developed and will inform the upcoming servicewide 

revision of the collections storage plan (NPS Museum 

Management Program 2014).

Building on PM 14-02, the NPS Preserving Coastal 

Heritage workshop identified additional opportunities 

to improve the development of viable management 

alternatives for threatened coastal cultural 

resources (NPS 2014b):

● Engage interdisciplinary expertise.

● Establish short- and long-term goals before the 

inventory begins, and identify where goals may conflict. 

Revisit the goals throughout the planning process.

● Establish thresholds for monitoring and reassessment 

that allow change over time. Assume that new data and 

documentation will influence the planning process.

● Engage the public every step of the way.

● Establish vulnerability metrics so that resources can be 

evaluated and compared. Assess the risk of saving one 

resource at the expense of another.

● Update collections management plans to include an 

emergency plan that donors, owners, and the public can 

agree on in advance.

● Use the planning process as an opportunity to enhance 

public awareness about climate change.

Broad approaches and tools for addressing the impacts of 

climate change to cultural resources are being incorporated 

into the NPS Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy

(Rockman et al. in review). The following sections discuss 

some of these management approaches directed toward 

resources and impacts in the coastal zone. 

Two-fold Approach to Cultural Resources and 

Climate Change

Management of cultural resources in the coastal zone 

must balance response to the effects of climate change 

on cultural resources with the significance that those 

resources hold for the communities that use and value 

them. The NPS Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy

(Rockman et al. in review) sets out a concept framework 

that applies these two areas of responsibility (i.e. “Impacts” 

and “Information”) across the four pillars of NPS climate 

change response (NPS 2010): science, adaptation, 

mitigation, and communication (table 5.3). This concept 

framework is designed to support resource management 

decision-making across cultural and natural resources 

and facilities management by setting out the diversity 

of cultural resource impacts and information topics in 

relation to climate change, many of which overlap with 

natural resource, science, and facilities management topics. 
National Park Service 58 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Such overlap may be particularly useful in developing and 

selecting adaptation options, in which an option for a 

given resource is likely to have implications across multiple 

other resources.

While the cultural resources in the coastal zone can 

contribute generally to the topics in the Information 

columns, they have particular capacity to provide 

information in the areas of coastal science and coastal 

adaptation. For example, coastal archeological sites, cultural 

landscapes, and associated museum collections can hold 

paleoclimatic data, information about past fluctuations in 

shorelines, and evidence of past human and other plant and 

animal responses to those fluctuations. A recent report about 

Shackleford Banks, part of Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

used archeological sites to refine our understanding of the 

island’s geomorphological evolution (Riggs, Ames, and 

Mallinson 2015). Traditional ecological knowledge can 

describe both long-term patterns in use and settlement in 

coastal environments and ways of matching human activity 

to those patterns. PM 16-01 specifically calls for an increase 

in our understanding and use of traditional ecological 

knowledge to strengthen stewardship of cultural and natural 

resources (NPS 2016).

Table 5.3. Concept framework for cultural resources in relation to climate change. This framework applies needs of 

resource managers to address the impacts of climate change on cultural resources (Impacts) and the capacity to learn 

about long-term human interactions with environmental and climatic change (Information) across the four pillars of 

NPS climate change response: science, adaptation, mitigation, and communication (NPS 2010). Table from Rockman et 

al. (in review).

Science Mitigation 

Impacts Information Impacts Information

• Climate science at cultural 

heritage-relevant scales

• Cultural resource (CR) 

vulnerability assessments

• CR inventory/monitoring 

techniques and protocols

• Integrated CR databases-GIS

• Preservation science

• Documentation science

• Paleoclimate

• Traditional 

ecological knowledge

• Social climatic thresholds

• Shifting baselines

• Past land use and human 

impacts on environments

• Paleogenetics

• Integration of historic 

buildings into energy 

efficiency plans

• Resource conservation 

through historic or 

native landscapes

• Reduce carbon 

footprint of CR 

management practices

• Past architectural and 

landscape techniques suited 

to local environments

• Cultural heritage to conserve/

reestablish sense of place and 

community stewardship

Adaptation Communication

Impacts Information Impacts Information

• Scenario planning

• Adaptation options

• Decision frameworks

• Disaster risk reduction/

response connections

• Policies and standards

• Contexts/theme studies to 

support decision frameworks

• Past social 

adaptability per 

environmental change

• Traditional ecological 

knowledge 

• Relating past adaptability 

to current issues, 

methods, and decisions 

• Cultural resources 

climate change 

(CR-CC) literacy

• Dialogue between 

impacts and information 

in all pillars 

• Links between 

CR-CC managers 

(local-international)

• CR-CC links to public

Every Place has a Climate Story: 

• Change in material culture 

• Change in experience 

and lifeways

• Insights on change from 

past societies 

• Origins of the modern 

climate situation 
National Park Service 59 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Vulnerability and Prioritization

As set out in “Chapter 1 Introduction,” vulnerability is the 

degree to which a system is susceptible to adverse effects of 

climate change. Within natural resource management, 

vulnerability with respect to climate change is often 

expressed in the following formula: 

As noted previously, cultural resources themselves are 

largely non-living and, as such, have limited or no capacity 

to adapt to changing conditions. As a result, climate change 

adaptation for cultural resources lies in our use and 

management of them. Further, adaptive use and 

management can draw from a wide range of options (see 

below). Therefore, for cultural resources, a variation of the 

vulnerability formula that separates adaptive capacity from 

exposure and sensitivity is more appropriate:

This same formula has been developed and adopted 

for park infrastructure and facilities, as discussed in 

“Chapter 6 Facility Management.” 

Building out these terms, “exposure,” as a measure of 

the amount of climatic and environmental change that a 

geographic region or given resource is likely to experience, 

is an equivalent concept across resources. “Sensitivity” 

for cultural resources incorporates the adverse effects of 

climate change on the material components of a resource, 

and how those adverse effects may affect integrity and 

significance of the resource.

As noted above, exposure to essentially all climate change 

phenomena can occur in the coastal zone. Exposures 

specific to the coastal zone include sea level rise (causing 

inundation, increased severity of storm surges, and 

increased rates of erosion) and changes in water table 

(causing soil saturation, expansions of wetlands, and salt 

water intrusion). Sensitivity of cultural resources to these 

exposures is also diverse; several examples are listed for 

each resource type in the sections above, and detailed 

sensitivity lists are included in table 5.1 and in Climate 

Change Impacts on Cultural Resources (Morgan et al. 2016).

PM 14-02 states that management decisions and funding 

should be directed to resources that are both significant 

and most at risk. Currently, several projects are underway 

to assess vulnerability of cultural resources and to convey 

identified vulnerabilities in such a way that they can be 

readily displayed and compared. Projects include work 

in the Cultural Landscapes program (Melnick, BurryTrice, and Malinay in prep.) to develop a vulnerability 

assessment system for all cultural landscapes in the Pacific 

West Region, and two projects addressing vulnerability of 

National Historic Landmarks (NHL). The NHL projects 

include a process and assessment of six NHLs in Alaska 

(Anderson 2014) and for NHLs across the Pacific West 

Region (Stein Espaniola in prep.). To date, a consistent 

method of merging vulnerability assessments with resource 

significance has not yet been developed. One potential 

model of doing so has been implemented by international 

colleagues in Scotland through the work of the Scottish 

Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion Trust 

(SCAPE) (see discussion below).

Cultural Resources Adaptation Strategies

Adaptation strategies should seek to preserve not just an 

object or structure itself but also the components of the 

resource that convey its significance. To be significant, a 

cultural resource must have important historical, cultural, 

scientific, or technological associations, and it must 

manifest those associations in its physical substance (NPS 

2002). A character-defining feature of a historic property is 

a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic 

that contributes significantly to its physical character. 

Structures, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, 

furnishings, decorative details, and materials may be such 

features (NPS 2002). For example, at Fort Jefferson at Dry 

Tortugas National Monument, the moat wall, which forms 

a distinctive ring around the main structure of the fort, 

is a character-defining feature. It was designed to keep 

enemy ships away from the fort walls and now functions 

as a breakwater (see figure 5.2, and Schupp, Beavers, and 

Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 5: Reconsidering Investment 

Strategies for Threatened Historic Structures”). All cultural 

resources have connection to place, and the integrity and 

significance of cultural resources may change as those 

places change. However, decisions to make such changes 

are difficult, such as raising the moat wall to improve its 

current function as a breakwater, which would alter its 

historic form and use.

Vulnerability = Exposure + Sensitivity 

– Adaptive Capacity

Vulnerability = Exposure + Sensitivity 
National Park Service 60 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Cultural resources adaptation options were presented and 

further developed during the Preserving Coastal Heritage

workshop (NPS 2014a, also described in “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”). The current 

set of adaptation options is described in table 5.4. The 

current draft of the cultural landscapes climate change 

adaptation report (Melnick, Burry-Trice, and Malinay in 

prep.) develops examples of these options specifically for 

cultural landscapes. These cultural resources adaptation 

management options roughly parallel natural resource 

management adaptation strategies (figure 5.5 and table 

4.2). However, they do not fit easily within the adaptation 

continuum set out in “Chapter 1 Introduction”: resist 

change, accommodate change, and direct change, which 

has its roots in natural resource adaptation. The objective 

of cultural resources management is the preservation of 

as much or as many cultural resources as possible; this 

objective aligns most closely with the concept of “resist 

change.” Aspects of the “accommodate change” approach 

are also important because the aspects of cultural 

resources that anchor their significance are in large 

part non-living and non-renewable, so their adaptation 

depends on the selection and implementation of 

management actions by resource managers. Management 

actions for cultural resources range from no active 

intervention (when necessary) to active preservation 

measures. Different measures will be appropriate for 

different resources depending on the nature of the 

resource and the nature and severity of the observed or 

assessed risk from periodic and long-term climate change 

impacts (figure 5.6).

Each of these options can be used in combination with 

others. Status of the resources and actions taken should 

be documented throughout the process. The final option 

on the list, interpret the change, addresses not only 

preservation of the history of the resource, but also the 

interactions between climate change and the story of that 

place. The underlying premise of this option is that climate 

change is the heritage of the future. As with the other 

options, the interpret the change option may be used on its 

own or in combination with other actions.

Table 5.4. Seven Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Resources. Table from Rockman et al. (in review).

Adaptation Description

No active 

intervention

Taking no action is a decision. This may be an appropriate decision in situations of low vulnerability (no action 

warranted) or when, due to one or more of a range of constraints, including lack of technological or economic feasibility, 

no action can be taken. This decision may include assessment of the need for monitoring of resource condition, with a 

plan to revisit a no action decision at a future point in time.

Offset stress Removing or deflecting a stress is one or more actions taken away from the resource or a component of the resource 

to reduce or remove the environmental or other force(s) acting on the resource or component. The goal of this option 

is to enhance survival of a resource while minimizing changes to the physical materials and setting of the resource. 

Constraints on this option are likely to include impacts of actions to surrounding resources, such as natural habitat or 

infrastructure. Examples include temporary measures such as sandbags or levee plugs; an offsite retaining structure or 

living shoreline to reduce shore erosion; upstream re-vegetation to reduce flood hazards; and changes in adjacent forest 

management to reduce wildfire risk.

Improve 

resilience

Improving resilience consists of one or more actions that change the nature of a resource and/or the immediate setting 

of a resource and that are designed to make a resource more resistant or resilient to environmental or other forces. The 

goal of this option is survival of the resource despite possible impacts of actions on integrity of the resource, although 

this option does not necessarily mean the resource will be impaired. Examples include treatment of structural materials 

to better withstand increased moisture, wind, or an invasive species; elevation of a building to raise it above projected 

flood level; addition of a cap over an archeological site; changes in landscape plantings or soil treatments; and alternate 

storage arrangement of museum materials.

Manage 

change

Managing change is an action or set of actions that incorporate change into the form of the resource and/or into its 

management plan. The goal of this option is to maintain character-defining features of a resource, even if original 

specific materials or individual species are no longer part of the resource. An example is changing tree species on 

cultural landscapes by removing the original species that has died and replacing it with a species that is healthy in that 

environment and will provide similar shade and foliage conditions.
National Park Service 61 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Adaptation Description

Relocate/

facilitate 

movement

Relocating/facilitating movement includes two types of actions: (1) moving a resource, and (2) allowing movement to 

happen. 

The strategy of moving a resource is an action or set of actions that move all or a portion of a resource that cannot move 

on its own to a less vulnerable location. The iconic example of this option is the moving of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse 

inland from the coast (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 8: Relocating the Lighthouse”). Another 

example is temporary relocation of the museum collections from Ellis Island to a facility in Maryland following Hurricane 

Sandy (see “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”). Assisting with relocation of a human community to a 

safer location and assisted migration of a culturally important species to a refugium that it would not have been able to 

reach on its own (for instance, moving salmon species to a new watershed) are also examples of this strategy.

The strategy of allowing movement to happen is an action or a set of actions that enable movement of living portions 

of resources to less vulnerable or more stable locations, or halting actions that would otherwise impede movement of 

living portions of resources to less vulnerable or more stable locations. Examples include allowing ecosystems such as a 

marsh or barrier island with cultural significance or which contains culturally significant species to migrate landward, 

or allowing species with cultural significance to shift ranges. Such shifts may move all or components of a resource 

outside of documented resource or park boundaries. Movement is not feasible for a whole cultural landscape but may be 

appropriate for character-defining features of a landscape once the whole cannot be saved.

Document 

and release

This strategy is a set of actions to record a resource and then subsequently allow the geographic location of the resource 

to undergo full effects of environmental or other forces that are likely to destroy or remove all or portions of the 

resource. Documentation may be exhaustive, such as data recovery (full excavation) of an archeological site or detailed 

recording of a building or structure or cultural landscape (such as a Historic American Building Survey [HABS], Historic 

American Engineering Record [HAER], Historic American Landscape Survey [HALS]), or a cultural landscape inventory, 

possibly in combination with laser scanning documentation techniques.

Documentation may also be done at a less-than exhaustive level. This approach may be appropriate when exhaustive 

approaches are infeasible (due to limitations in access, time, human capacity, or financial constraints), not warranted 

(due to nature and scale of impacts), or there is merit in not recovering or preserving the whole of the resource (such as 

an archeological site that may become inaccessible because of submersion but is not anticipated to be fully destroyed). 

This option further differs from the data recovery option in that it requires consideration and documentation of the 

resource sampling and preservation approach. Other examples of documentation techniques that may be used in either 

approach include collection of pollen, seeds, or plant cuttings, and oral histories and video.

Interpret the 

change

Interpreting the change is an action or set of actions that preserves and then serves to engage people in the future with 

the effects of climate change on a resource. This option may be used on its own or in combination with any of the other 

options. A dramatic example would be preservation of a coastal resource such that its location and form remain either 

intact or otherwise visible from the coast once it is offshore or partially submerged (e.g., construction of a cover or large 

buoy at the former location of a lighthouse or archeological site). Other examples include interpretation signage of 

changing ecosystems and photo series of changes in garden phenology or vegetation across a landscape. 

While interpretation may be developed across any of the adaptation options on this list, for this option, interpretation 

addresses not only preservation and history of the resource, but also climate change itself, and seeks to tell the story of 

the place and climate change and how they are interacting.

Table 5.4. Continued
National Park Service 62 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figure 5.5. Cultural Resources Adaptation Strategies Parallel Management Strategies Used in Natural Resource 

Management. Graphic by M. Rockman, NPS.
National Park Service 63 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figure 5.6. Cultural Resources Adaptation Strategies vary with Respect to the Disruptive 

Nature of each Strategy and the Temporal Nature of each Climate Change Impact. 

Graphic by M. Morgan, NPS.

Less

More

No Active 

Intervention

Minimize 

Stresses

Improve 

Resilience

Manage 

Change

Preparation for Loss 

(document, excavate, 

community

Interpret the 

Change

Disruptive Action

Relocate/ 

Facilitate 

Movement

Less

More

Episodic/

Temporary 

events

Ongoing/ 

Sustained 

Impacts

Permanent/ 

Thresholdbreaching 

impacts

Correlation to Climate Change Impacts
National Park Service 64 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Any work done on cultural landscapes, historic properties, 

or historic structures must consider The Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR 68). The standards are a series of 

concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing 

historic materials, as well as designing new additions 

or making alterations. They are written in nontechnical 

language to promote historic preservation best 

practices. The standards offer four distinct approaches 

to the treatment of historic properties: preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, with 

guidelines for each. The guidelines, which are advisory 

rather than regulatory, offer general design and technical 

recommendations on applying the standards to a specific 

property. Together, they provide a framework and guidance 

for decision-making about work on or changes to a 

historic property. The choice of treatment of historic 

properties depends on a variety of factors, including the 

property’s historical significance, physical condition, 

proposed use, intended interpretation, and mandated code 

requirements. Together with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 102-575), 

“Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800), these 

documents guide the National Park Service in planning and 

executing actions to minimize harm to cultural resources. 

More information is available on the NPS cultural resource 

management website at http://www.nps.gov/history/howto/

PAToolkit/parkcrm.htm.

When choosing an adaptation option, managers must 

recognize that addressing vulnerability may change the 

resource and therefore may be considered an adverse 

impact. Implementing an adaptation strategy that causes 

an adverse impact on natural resources or other cultural 

resources may be feasible and may be the best option 

in some cases. There are a variety of resources to help 

managers ensure that adaptation strategies align with 

NPS policies; checklists and guidelines are described in 

“Chapter 2 Policy.”

Guidance for developing and selecting adaptation 

actions in national parks is currently in development, 

including Planning for a Changing Climate (in progress) 

(see “Chapter 3 Planning” for additional information). 

At the Preserving Coastal Heritage workshop it was 

determined that more guidance is needed to integrate 

climate change into existing cultural resource planning 

processes. An integrating framework for cultural resources 

and climate change that addresses inventory, significance 

assessment, and prioritization will be included in the NPS 

Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy (Rockman et 

al. in review).

In-progress or completed adaptation projects for coastal 

cultural resources are discussed in the following sections. 

Archeology

At Canaveral National Seashore in Florida, impacts from 

sea level rise and increased storm activities are predicted 

to accelerate erosion and cause the loss of shell mounds 

and the archeological and ecological data within them 

(see figure 5.7, and Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, 

“Case Study 3: Shell Mound Sites Threatened by Sea 

Level Rise and Erosion”). The park is reducing shoreline 

erosion by planting vegetation and deploying oyster shell as 

recruitment substrate (Walters et al. 2013).

Parks are also addressing diverse impacts with a variety 

of solutions that are highlighted in Schupp, Beavers, and 

Caffrey (2015):

● Amistad National Recreation Area in Texas (see figure 

5.8, and “Case Study 1: Reservoir Water Level Change 

Impacts on Cultural Resources”), 

● Olympic National Park in Washington (see “Case Study 

2: Preparing for Impacts to Archeological Sites and 

Traditional Resources”), and 

● Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and Cape 

Krusenstern National Monument in Alaska (see 

“Case Study 4: Cultural Resources Inventory and 

Vulnerability Assessment”). 

Other organizations have also initiated inventory efforts in 

recognition of climate vulnerabilities, including the Society 

for California Archaeology, which has developed a standard 

methodology for use by volunteers to survey the condition 

of known archeological sites (Newland 2014).
National Park Service 65 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Cultural Landscapes

A cultural landscapes climate change adaptation project is 

developing a series of 12 case studies, including multiple 

coastal examples. The current draft report, Climate 

Change and Cultural Landscapes: Research, Planning, and 

Stewardship (Melnick, Burry-Trice, and Malinay in prep.) 

includes three coastal parks in the eastern United States: 

Portsmouth Village at Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

Dyke Marsh at George Washington Memorial Parkway, 

and Jacob Riis Park at Gateway National Recreation Area. 

Additional case studies being developed about the Pacific 

West include coastal cultural landscapes in Redwood 

National Park and Pu’ukoholā Heiau National Historic 

Site. This project and its reports are linking climate 

projections to impacts on character-defining features and 

potential adaptation actions. To address deterioration and 

inundation impacts on Portsmouth Village, for example, 

the current draft report explores three of the adaptation 

options described in table 5.4: No Active Intervention, 

Manage Change, and Document and Release.

Ethnographic Resources

Olympic National Park is working with eight associated 

tribes to prepare for future effects on archeological sites, 

traditional burial locations, and nearshore traditional 

resources; the park also recognizes the need to incorporate 

traditional knowledge into management efforts and to 

recognize that people have traditions that document major 

events (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case 

Study 2: Preparing for Impacts to Archeological Sites and 

Traditional Resources”). In southern Louisiana, the US 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

has awarded $48 million in the National Disaster Resilience 

Competition to move an entire community. The Isle de Jean 

Charles Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw Indians will 

relocate from their subsiding island, which is 55 km (34 

mi) southwest of Jean Lafitte National Park and Preserve, 

to “a resilient and historically-contextual community” 

(Louisiana Disaster Recovery Unit 2016; US HUD 2016).

Museums and Collections

In direct response to PM 14-02, the NPS Museum 

Management Program assessed its facilities’ vulnerability 

to climate change (NPS Museum Management Program 

2014). Currently, 331 NPS units have museum facilities, 

and more than 60% of these have identified mitigation 

actions needed to reduce their risks related to climate 

change. Many parks have some existing background risk 

and also face new and future risks due to climate change. 

Seventy percent of these units have reported flood risks, 

38% have drought risks, and other units face additional 

climate-related risks related to wind, permafrost, biology, 

and heating, ventilation, and cooling systems (NPS 

Museum Management Program 2014). For examples of 

post-storm care of impacted collections, see “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.”

Figure 5.7. Prehistoric shell mound sites are threatened by 

sea level rise and erosion at Canaveral National Seashore, 

Florida. In this image, volunteers are building a living 

shoreline at Castle Windy mound site. Photograph by 

Margo Schwadron, NPS.

Figure 5.8. At Amistad National Recreation Area, Texas, 

Panther Cave contains extensive pictographs, which are 

threatened by fluctuating water level tied to storm events 

and (indirectly) to siltation. Photograph by Randy Rosales, 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
National Park Service 66 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Buildings and Structures

Parks are using various strategies to protect historical 

structures, as described in the following, companion case 

studies (Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015): 

● Revetments at Fort Pulaski National Monument (figure 

5.1, “Case Study 7: Lighthouse Stabilization Design 

Incorporates Sea Level Rise”);

● Relocation at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (figure 

5.3, “Case Study 8: Relocating the Lighthouse”); 

● Restoration at Dry Tortugas National Park (figure 5.2, 

“Case Study 5: Reconsidering Investment Strategies for 

Threatened Historic Structures”);

● Identifying options at Yellowstone National Park (figure 

5.9, “Case Study 6: Eroding Shoreline Threatens Historic 

Peale Island Cabin”); and

● Rehabilitation at Acadia National Park (“Case Study 15: 

Rehabilitating Stream Crossings on Historic Roads”).

Underwater Resources

To date, there are few documented examples of climate 

change adaptation undertaken for underwater resources. 

One example is recent research and stabilization of HMS 

Fowey. Fowey is an 18th century shipwreck in Biscayne 

National Park that has been damaged in recent years 

by looting, Hurricane Andrew, and Hurricane Sandy. 

Studies of sediments surrounding Fowey have established 

baseline information important for developing stabilization 

methods for the wreck and understanding sediment 

mobility at the site (Keller et al. 2014, Wright 2016).

Opportunities for Adaptation of Cultural 

Resources in the Coastal Zone

Because cultural resources in the coastal zone are 

increasingly vulnerable with little chance of condition 

improvement and high potential for permanent loss due 

to storm impacts and other climate change impacts, the 

following opportunities should be prioritized:

● Conduct inventory in the most vulnerable areas that 

have not yet been inventoried. 

● Determine significance and vulnerability of 

known resources to determine the most significant 

at-risk resources.

● Prioritize documentation of the most vulnerable 

undocumented resources.

● Assess the vulnerability of museum collection locations 

and create a plan to reduce vulnerability, such as 

through modifications to a curation facility or by 

moving collections to less vulnerable locations.

● Recognize cultural resources as opportunities to learn 

and engage with the information and stories they hold.

In Scotland, the Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the 

Problem of Erosion (SCAPE) Trust has developed a citizen 

science approach to vulnerable coastal heritage (SCAPE 

Trust 2015). The program began with detailed analysis of 

site records and prioritization based on site vulnerability 

and significance. These results are now displayed in a 

mobile application through which individuals can monitor 

sites and contribute observations. The program has also 

added a community engagement initiative that enables 

collective decision making and community projects 

for heritage that cannot be saved. The philosophy of 

this project is that “eroding coastal heritage provides 

opportunities for anyone to enjoy and benefit from 

taking part in archeological and historical exploration 

and discovery.”

Figure 5.9. Coastal impacts affect inland lakes as well 

as ocean shorelines. The historic Peale Island Cabin in 

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, is threatened by 

shoreline change that may be accelerated by tectonic 

uplift, tree death, and longer ice-free periods. Photograph 

by Yellowstone National Park. 
National Park Service 67 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The concepts shown under the “Information” columns 

in table 5.3 share this hope. Cultural resources can 

contribute to climate science through topics such as 

paleo-environmental and shifting baseline information; 

to adaptation planning through examples of resilience 

and social change; to mitigation through reuse of historic 

buildings and examples they provide of lower-energy 

practices; and to communication through interpretation 

of all of these considerations and stories developed 

under the “Every Place has a Climate Story” framework 

(Rockman 2015). 

Take Home Messages

● Cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable 

resources.

● The capacity of cultural resources to move or change 

is limited because they are in large part non-living and 

have strong ties to place, part of which can be ties to a 

dynamic coastal landscape.

● Cultural resource adaptation strategies can be applied to 

coastal systems.

● Managers need NPS-level guidance for adaptation of 

archeological and ethnographic resources to climate 

change. Upcoming reports and guidance for museum 

collections, cultural landscapes, and built environments 

will include coastal-relevant adaptation strategies.
National Park Service 68 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References 

Anderson, S. 2014. Northern Alaska National Historic 

Landmark Condition and Vulnerability Assessment. 

Report prepared for National Park Service, Anchorage, 

AK. Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Birnbaum, C. A. 1994. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: 

Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic 

Landscapes. NPS Preservation Brief 36. Technical 

Preservation Services, National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-topreserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/36PreserveBrief-Landscapes.pdf (accessed 26 March 2015). 

Keller, J. A., C. R. Sherwood, J. Marano, C. Lawson, and R. 

Beavers. 2014. HMS Fowey Pre-Stabilization Report, 

Biscayne National Park. Submerged Resources 

Center Technical Report No. 33. National Park 

Service, Lakewood, CO.

Krumenaker, R. 2014. Adapting to Climate Change in 

the Great Lakes. PowerPoint presentation. https://

www.nps.gov/apis/learn/nature/upload/ClimateChange-Impacts-to-the-Great-Lakes-Krumenaker2014June7-2.pdf (accessed 15August 2016).

Louisiana Disaster Recovery Unit. 2016. “Louisiana 

Receives $92 Million from U.S. Dept. of Housing 

and Urban Development for Coastal Communities, 

Disaster Resilience.” Press release 25 January 2016. 

Louisiana Division of Administration, Office of 

Community Development, Baton Rouge, LA. http://

lra.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=emaillist&tmp=

viewcampaign&nowrap=1&msgid=1064&uid=kx

(accessed 14 March 2016).

Melnick, R. Z., O. Burry-Trice, and V. Malinay. In prep. 

Climate Change and Cultural Landscapes: Research, 

Planning, and Stewardship. University of Oregon 

Department of Landscape Architecture, Eugene, OR.

Morgan, M., M. Rockman, C. Smith, and A. Meadow. 2016. 

Climate Change Impacts on Cultural Resources. 

NPS Cultural Resources Partnerships and Science, 

Washington, DC.

Moss, J. M. 2010. Climate Change and Historic Structures: 

The Curious Case of the West Sanctuary Window. 

Pages 12-16 in Salazar-Halfmoon, V. and R. Skeirik, 

editors. Vanishing Treasures 2010 Year-End Report. 

NPS Vanishing Treasures Program, Washington, DC.

National Hurricane Center. 2016. “Hurricanes in History.” 

Website. National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#isabel 

(accessed May 26, 2016).

Newland, M. 2013. The Potential Effects of Climate Change 

on Cultural Resources Within Point Reyes National 

Seashore, Marin County, California. Report prepared 

for Point Reyes National Seashore. ASC Project QC103 

70-10. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State 

University, Rohnert Park, CA. http://www.sonoma.edu/

asc/publications/pdfs/climate_change_pt_reyes_natl_

seashore_draft.pdf (accessed 21 April 2015).

Newland, M. 2014. Technical Report 1 Overview and 

Workplan. Climate Change and California Archaeology 

Series. Society for California Archaeology, Chico, CA. 

http://scahome.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/

SCA-Climate-Change-Report-Volume-1.pdf (accessed 

21 April 2015).

National Park Service (NPS). 1998a. Director’s Order 28: 

Cultural Resource Management. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/

DOrder28.html (accessed 26 March 2015).

NPS. 1998b. Cultural Resource Management Guideline. 

NPS-28. National Park Service, Washington, DC. 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/

nps28/28contents.htm (accessed 14 March 2016).

NPS. 2006. NPS Management Policies 2006. National Park 

Service, Washington, DC. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

MP2006.pdf (accessed 26 March 2015).

NPS. 2010. National Park Service Climate Change Response 

Strategy. National Park Service Climate Change 

Response Program, Fort Collins, CO. http://www.

nature.nps.gov/climatechange/docs/NPS_CCRS.pdf

(accessed 23 February 2015).

NPS. 2014a. Climate change and stewardship of cultural 

resources. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 14-02. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM-14-02.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2014b. Preserving Coastal Heritage. Summary Report. 

April 3-4, 2014. Federal Hall, New York City, NY. 

http://www.achp.gov/docs/preserve-coastal-heritage.

pdf (accessed 9 September 2016).
National Park Service 69 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NPS. 2015. Adaptation for Cultural Resources. Website. 

NPS Climate Change Response Program, 

Denver, CO. http://www.nps.gov/subjects/

climatechange/adaptationforculturalresources.htm

(accessed 1 March 2015).

NPS. 2016. Resource Stewardship for the 21st Century – 

Interim Policy. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 16-01. https://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_16-01.htm (accessed 15 June 2016).

NPS Museum Management Program. 2014. Assessment 

of National Park Service Museum Facilities’ 

Vulnerability to Climate Change. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC.

Palinkas, C. 2016. Sediment and Vegetation trends at 

Dyke Marsh Preserve and Kenilworth Aquatic 

Gardens. Paper presented at the biennial NPS 

conference “Spotlight on National Park Resources 

in the National Capital Region,” 21 April 2016. 

http://applcc.org/projects/spotlight-on-nationalpark-resources/cultural/#Dyke Marsh (accessed 

15 August 2016).

Riggs, S. R., D. V. Ames, and D. J. Mallinson. 2015. 

Environmental and geological evolution of Shackleford 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore North 

Carolina. A report to NPS. Department of Geological 

Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Rockman, M. 2015. An NPS Framework for Addressing 

Climate Change with Cultural Resources. George 

Wright Forum 32 (1): 37-50. http://www.georgewright.

org/321rockman.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016).

Rockman, M., M. Morgan, G. Hambrecht, S. Ziaja, and A. 

Meadow. In review. NPS Cultural Resources Climate 

Change Strategy. NPS Climate Change Response 

Program and Cultural Resources Partnerships and 

Science, Washington, DC.

Sabbioni, C., P. Brimblecombe, and M. Cassar. 2012. The 

Atlas of Climate Change Impacts on European Cultural 

Heritage. Anthem Press, London, UK. 

SCAPE Trust. 2015. Scotland’s Coastal Heritage at 

Risk. Website. http://scharp.co.uk/ (accessed 

26 March 2015). 

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. A. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

CO. http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastaladaptationstrategies.htm (accessed 

11 August 2016).

Sonderman, R. 2016. Our Collections at Risk: Climate 

Change Threats to NCR Museum Property.   Paper 

presented at the biennial NPS conference “Spotlight 

on National Park Resources in the National 

Capital Region,” 21 April 2016. http://applcc.org/

projects/spotlight-on-national-park-resources/

cultural/#Collection Risk (accessed 15 August 2016).

Stein Espaniola, E. In prep. Cultural Resource Climate 

Change Assessments of National Historic Landmarks 

in the Pacific Island Networks of the National Park 

Service. NPS Pacific West Region Cultural Resources 

Program, Honolulu, HI.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (US 

HUD). 2016. HUD Awards $1 Billion through National 

Disaster Resilience Competition. Press release HUD 

No. 16-006. US HUD, Washington, DC. http://portal.

hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_

media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-006 (accessed 

14 March 2016).

Walters, L., M. Donnelly, J. Manis and P. Sacks. 2013. 

Assess, Protect and Stabilize Eroding Archeological 

Sites through Soft Stabilization Techniques, Canaveral 

National Seashore. Final Technical Report CANA 

P11AT50514/P11AC91259 and UCF 24-03-6077. 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 

Wilson, R. 2015. Why National Park Service Museum 

Collections Grow. Museum Management Program 

Memorandum, 16 March. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC.

Wright, J. 2016. Maritime Archaeology and Climate 

Change: An Invitation. Journal of Maritime 

Archaeology. Published online 29 August. doi:10.1007/

s11457-016-9164-5.
National Park Service 70 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

This page intentionally left blank. 
National Park Service 71 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 6 Facility 

Management

Contributing Authors: Rebecca Beavers, Shawn 

Norton, Mike Eissenberg, Katie McDowell Peek, 

Robert S. Young, and Sarah Quinn

Introduction

Over the next century, warming global 

temperatures will present many challenges 

for the National Park Service and public land 

managers. Rising sea level will be one of the 

most obvious and most challenging impacts of 

this warming. Even a minor increase in sea level 

will have significant effects on coastal hazards, 

natural resources, cultural resources, and assets 

within national parks (figure 6.1). While sea level 

change and storm impacts are likely to occur in 

the future in most coastal parks, the timing of 

those impacts is not well-defined. However, it is 

certain that over time, facilities that are iconic 

and irreplaceable cultural resources and key 

roads and bridges that provide access will be lost. 

Park managers should approach development in 

areas vulnerable to climate change and/or other 

natural hazards conservatively, understanding 

that current estimates of changes and impacts 

may well underestimate future risk. This chapter 

describes the regulatory, program, and technical 

framework that the National Park Service will use 

to respond to climate change impacts to facilities 

in coastal parks. Updated resources can be found 

at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm.

Guiding Policies, 

Regulations and Plans

There are a number of governmental guiding 

policies, regulations, and plans that require the 

National Park Service to address the impacts of climate 

change on assets, including the president’s Executive Order 

(EO) 13653 Preparing the United States for the Impacts of 

Climate Change (2013) and EO 13690 on Federal Flood 

Risk Management (2015). Additionally, the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s Guiding Principles for Sustainable 

Federal Buildings and Associated Instructions was updated 

in 2016 and is required by EO 13693 Planning for Federal 

Sustainability in the Next Decade (2015). EO 13693 requires 

federal agencies to assess impacts from climate change in 

designing new facilities and modernizing existing facilities. 

From the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Climate 

Change Adaptation Plan (DOI 2014) incorporates “Guiding 

Principles,” which requires the National Park Service to 

consider climate change impacts on infrastructure and 

equipment. Lastly, the National Park Service (NPS) Climate 

Action Plan (2012a) and Green Parks Plan (2012b) both have 

climate change adaptation as key emphasis areas and require 

the agency to evaluate parks for vulnerability to climate 

change stressors and to develop guidance for adapting these 

vulnerable structures. 

Figure 6.1. Built facilities, also known as assets, including roads, 

parking lots, and buildings, such as these pictured before and after 

Hurricane Sandy at Sandy Hook unit of Gateway National Recreation 

Area in New Jersey, are vulnerable to rising water level. In the post 

Sandy image, sand covered the parking lots.

250 Meters
National Park Service 72 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Executive Order 13690 – Federal Flood 

Risk Management 

Impacts like rising sea level, intensified storms, and heavy 

downpours are contributing to an increased risk of flooding. 

In January 2015, the president signed EO 13690, establishing 

a flood standard that will reduce the risk and cost of future 

flood disasters by requiring all federal investments in and 

affecting floodplains to meet higher flood-risk standards. 

These standards are higher than the 1% annual chance 

(100-year) flood level. By requiring that federally funded 

buildings, roads, and other infrastructure are constructed to 

better withstand the impacts of flooding, the new standard 

will help ensure federal projects last as long as intended. 

Implementation guidance will be forthcoming from the 

National Park Service and will build upon Reference 

Manual (RM) 77-2.

EO 13690 modified the flood resilience standard that 

had been required by EO 11988 since 1977 for federally 

funded structures and facilities. Another requirement is 

that federal agencies shall use, where possible, natural 

systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches 

in federal actions and alternatives. This policy change is 

highly supportive of NPS Management Policies (2006) 

that promote preservation of natural resources and use of 

natural approaches.

In 2013, the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force adopted 

a higher flood standard for the Hurricane Sandy affected 

region to ensure that federally funded buildings, roads, and 

other projects were rebuilt to reduce vulnerability to future 

storms (see “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy”). While the new Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard (FFRMS) gives agencies the flexibility to select 

one of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation 

and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction, 

the Climate-Informed Science Approach (first option) is 

preferred where data are available:

1. Use data and methods informed by best-available, 

actionable climate science.

2. Build 2 ft (0.6 m) above the 100-year (1%-annualchance) flood elevation for standard projects, and 3 ft 

(0.9 m) above for critical buildings like hospitals and 

evacuation centers.

3. Build to the 500-year (0.2%-annual-chance) 

flood elevation.

Note that the return periods determining the 1% annualchance and 0.2% annual-chance flood zones are based on 

historical flood risks; exceeding this elevation is intended 

to account for potential increases where best-available, 

actionable climate science is not currently available. 

Executive Order 13653 – Preparing the United 

States for the Impacts of Climate Change

In support of EO 13653 and in preparation for the 

impacts of climate change, the National Park Service 

needs to develop plans that integrate consideration of 

climate change into agency operations and overall mission 

objectives, including:

● identification and assessment of climate change 

related impacts on and risks to the agency’s ability to 

accomplish its missions, operations, and programs;

● a description of how any identified climate change 

related risk impairs NPS statutory mission or operation;

● a description of how the National Park Service will 

improve resilience, including capital equipment 

purchases such as updating agency policies for leasing, 

building upgrades, relocation of existing facilities and 

equipment, and construction of new facilities; and

● a description of how the National Park Service will 

contribute to coordinated interagency efforts to 

support climate preparedness and resilience at all 

levels of government, including collaborative work 

across agencies.

The National Park Service is developing a number of policy 

and program initiatives to meet the mandates found above 

and assess, plan for, and implement projects that enhance 

climate preparedness and resilience. Additionally, the 

National Park Service has developed a Facilities Adaptation 

Roadmap that will guide its response to climate change.
National Park Service 73 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NPS Policy Memorandum 15-01

In response to federal mandates, the National Park Service 

issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 15-01 (NPS 2015). This 

provides guidance on the design of facilities to incorporate 

impacts of climate change adaptation and natural hazards 

when making decisions in national parks. It is the third 

“policy pillar” of the NPS climate change response (table 

2.1). It complements PM 12-02, “Applying NPS Management 

Policies in the Context of Climate Change” (NPS 2012c) and 

PM 14-02 “Climate Change and Stewardship of Cultural 

Resources” (NPS 2014a). PM 15-01 (NPS 2015) states:

 “Facilities play a critical role in the mission of the Service: 

they house our employees, protect and store equipment and 

materials, demonstrate sustainable design to our visitors, 

provide context for periods significant to our history, and 

connect the Service with the public. The Service has the 

responsibility to invest wisely in these facilities for the long 

term. Unquestionably, climate change and natural hazards 

pose a significant threat to our investment in current and 

future NPS facilities.” 

“This Policy Memorandum, in conjunction with the Level 

3 guidance, Addressing Climate Change and Natural 

Hazards Handbook, will help park personnel in planning 

and designing facilities that are responsive to the existing 

and projected climate change and other natural hazards. 

Managers must apply the guidance in the Handbook. 

The Associate Director for Park Planning, Facilities 

and Lands has the authority to update the Handbook 

periodically as necessary.”

The Level 3 Handbook (NPS internal access only) that 

accompanies PM 15-01 (NPS 2015) “will help provide 

information and context so that park decision-making 

appropriately addresses risks associated with natural hazards 

and climate change. It will ensure that the National Park 

Service reduces those risks to facilities and fulfills its mission 

to conserve natural and cultural resources established by 

Congress in the Organic Act of 1916.” The Handbook and 

Natural Hazards Checklist are designed to support parks in 

planning and designing facilities that evaluate and respond 

to existing and projected climate change impacts and 

natural hazards.

Specific Hazard Assessments include answering direct 

questions designed to guide decision makers through the 

range of alternatives that project teams could employ to 

maximize resiliency against certain risks. For example, 

coastal flooding can be a significant risk to park assets and 

functions, and climate change potentially amplifies this 

risk. To plan/design for a flooding risk, decision makers 

need resources to quantify the hazard now (baseline) and 

for the future, including resilient/adaptable construction 

alternatives (figure 6.2). One strategy is to elevate a building 

above the expected height of sea level rise and wave effects 

(figure 6.3). This strategy was used at Flamingo for visitor use 

facilities in Everglades National Park (see Schupp, Beavers, 

and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 18: Developing Sustainable 

Visitor Facilities”). 

Figure 6.2. Excerpt from NPS 

Natural Hazards Checklist.

Natural Hazard Checklist

Potential

Natural

Hazard

Risk or secondary

hazard

Sources of General

Non-site specific

Data

Sources for Site

Specific Data

Best Professional

Judgment 

Coastal

Storm

Surge

•Rising Sea

Levels

•Rising Water –

Wind Driven

(i.e. hurricane,

nor’easter)

• FEMA

Map Service

Center

• NPS Technical

Support

Potential Hazard



Not applicable



Tsunami •Coastal area

inundation

associated with

earthquakes or

undersea

landslides.

• State Tsunami

Inundation

Mapping

e.g. OR

Tsunami Clea

ringhouse

• National

Tsunami Watch

Center

Potential Hazard



Not applicable



Risk or 

Secondary Hazard

Sources of General 

Non-Site 

Specific Data

Sources for Site 

Specific Data

Potential

Natural

Hazard

Best Professional

Judgment

Natural Hazard Checklist

Potential

Natural

Hazard

Risk or secondary

hazard

Sources of General

Non-site specific

Data

Sources for Site

Specific Data

Best Professional

Judgment 

Coastal

Storm

Surge

•Rising Sea

Levels

•Rising Water –

Wind Driven

(i.e. hurricane,

nor’easter)

• FEMA

Map Service

Center

• NPS Technical

Support

Potential Hazard



Not applicable



Tsunami •Coastal area

inundation

associated with

earthquakes or

undersea

landslides.

• State Tsunami

Inundation

Mapping

e.g. OR

Tsunami Clea

ringhouse

• National

Tsunami Watch

Center

Potential Hazard



Not applicable

 Clearinghouse

Support
National Park Service 74 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Road Map for Planning for 

Climate Change Resilience and 

Sustainability of NPS Assets

The NPS Facilities Management community is working 

to implement an overarching process or “Road Map” to 

respond to the challenges of climate change and its impact 

on park facilities and assets. The Road Map will be used 

to guide the high level program actions that need to occur 

to meet both federal mandates and comprehensively track 

agency actions. The process will require all NPS stakeholder 

groups to collaborate on a wide-ranging set of actions across 

multiple components. Each of these Road Map components 

will have a series of milestones associated with them that will 

allow for a successful implementation of the Road Map.

The Road Map components are as follows:

● Policy/Guidance – Establish all necessary policies to 

focus investment in climate change facility adaptation. 

This may involve general management plans, risk 

management for facilities management, and cultural 

resources. Implement PM 15-01.

● Business Standards/Practices – Establish the framework 

for decision making. This may involve data elevation 

protocols (box 6.1) and the coastal hazards and climate 

change asset vulnerability assessment protocol. Apply 

Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards for 

Facilities Handbook.

● Stakeholder Engagement/Communication – Develop 

a process to involve and communicate with all 

stakeholders. Create communication materials and host 

stakeholder forums.

Figure 6.3. Illustration of flood zones relative to floor elevations. The illustration provides a process used to develop 

the finished floor elevation for projects within the floodplain for the case where the BFE is 14’. It incorporates 

adjustments to the finished floor elevation for both the A-Zone and the V-Zone. These adjustments account for sea 

level rise (A and V-Zones), and wave effects of sea level rise, floor structure depth, and insurance risk adjustment 

(V-Zone only). These adjustments will vary based on location and must be consistent with the requirements of EO 

13960. Figure from NPS (2015).
National Park Service 75 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● Data Integration and Management – Develop systems 

for managing and storing integrated data. Identify 

systems of records, standardize data sources and 

protocols, and implement enterprise solutions. Identify 

key assets using flood mapping.

● Park Adaptation/Resiliency Management – Conduct 

vulnerability screenings and assessments and 

incorporate climate change adaptation in plans. 

● Project Funding/Prioritization – Develop regional 

prioritization process and criteria for funding projects. 

Identify funding sources.

● Reporting and Evaluation – Monitor and evaluate 

performance of Road Map and projects. Track projects. 

Complete mandatory reporting.

Table 6.1. Overarching Climate Change Facility Adaptation Planning Framework

Step Status Planning

Step 1: Climate Change Adaptation 

Scoping (Business Standards/Practices; Data 

Integration & Management)

The Sustainable Operations and Climate 

Change (SOCC) Branch and the CCRP 

completed an inventory and assessment of 

parks vulnerable to 3.3 ft (1 m) of sea level 

rise. Top 100 parks identified.

SOCC and CCRP review other climate impact 

areas and identify affected parks.

Step 2: Vulnerability Assessments (Business 

Standards/Practices; Park Adaptation/

Resiliency Management)

SOCC is developing and piloting a 

vulnerability assessment protocol for park 

assets (structures and transportation) 

focused on sea level rise, storm surge, and 

coastal erosion.

SOCC, CCRP, and DOI to review the need for 

building out the protocol to address other 

climate stressors.

Step 3: Plan for Resilience and Sustainability 

in Capital Investments and Operations 

(Policy/Guidance; Project Funding/

Prioritization)

SOCC will pilot a climate change resiliency 

planning approach for sea level rise, storm 

surge, and coastal erosion during upcoming 

Climate Friendly Park workshops, webinars, 

and other training programs including 

collaborating with the Integrated Park 

Investment program.

SOCC to provide planning support to 

parks to address other climate impact 

areas through future Climate Friendly Park 

workshops, webinars, and other training 

programs.

Step 4: Implement and Monitor (Project 

funding/Prioritization; Reporting & 

Evaluation)

Parks, regions, and headquarters to assist 

with implementation and monitoring of 

project implementation as it relates to 

coastal hazards.

Parks, regions, and headquarters to assist 

with implementation and monitoring of 

other climate stressors.

Step 5: Communicate and Educate 

(Stakeholder engagement /Communication)

SOCC will prepare general communication 

materials (focused on sea level rise, storm 

surge, and coastal erosion) for parks 

to modify that communicate risks and 

adaptive strategies to park staff, visitors, 

and gateway communities.

SOCC will prepare general communication 

materials on other climate impact areas for 

parks to modify to communicate risks and 

adaptive strategies to park staff, visitors, 

and gateway communities.

In addition to the Facilities Management Climate 

Change Roadmap, the facilities management community 

has identified an Overarching Climate Change Facility 

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Framework that 

will be used to guide NPS response to climate change in 

coastal parks. This process, which includes the key steps in 

planning for climate change impacts at facilities in coastal 

parks, is summarized in table 6.1. Additionally, we have 

developed a Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset 

Vulnerability Assessment Protocol, which is described below. 

Coastal Hazards and Climate Change 

Asset Vulnerability Assessment Protocol 

The Sustainable Operations and Climate Change Branch 

(SOCC) of the Park Facility Management Division (PFMD) 

is providing various levels of support to parks to assist 

them in planning for park adaptation, including evaluating 

park assets for climate change vulnerability, assisting in the 

development of adaptation options, and training park staff 

on this topic. The National Park Service has partnered with 

the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines (PSDS) 

at Western Carolina University (WCU) to create a Coastal 
National Park Service 76 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability Assessment 

Protocol. This protocol (NPS 2016) establishes a standard 

methodology and set of best practices for conducting 

vulnerability assessments in the built environment. 

Standardizing the methodologies and data used in these 

assessments allows managers to compare the vulnerability of 

coastal park assets across local, regional, and national levels. 

Additionally, the findings from these assessments can then be 

integrated into future decision-making and planning efforts 

(e.g., Choosing By Advantages [CBA]).

The assessments are currently focused on assets at risk 

to coastal hazards and sea level rise within coastal parks. 

Coastal vulnerability was chosen as a starting point in the 

development of vulnerability assessments because of digital 

data availability and a good understanding of the trends in 

the major climate stressors (e.g., sea level). Ultimately, the 

general methodology can be applied to additional natural 

hazards and climate stressors in non-coastal parks, as long as 

georeferenced hazard data exist or can be mapped. 

A proposed standardized approach to assessing climate 

change vulnerability was described in a multiple agency –

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

National Park Service, United States Geological Survey 

(USGS), Department of Defense (DOD), National Wildlife 

Federation (NWF), and United States Forest Service 

(USFS) – document titled “Scanning the Conservation 

Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability 

Assessment” (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011). This 

document defines the vulnerability of natural resources to 

climate change as “the extent to which a species, habitat, 

or ecosystem is susceptible to harm from climate change 

impacts.” Vulnerability under the Glick, Stein, and Edelson 

(2011) approach is composed of three equally weighted 

metrics or components: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive 

capacity. However, for this infrastructure-specific protocol, 

vulnerability is comprised of only the first two metrics: 

Exposure and Sensitivity. 

The adaptive capacity of an asset is evaluated separately 

and is not included in the vulnerability score. Note that this 

is different than how vulnerability is defined in “Chapter 

3 Planning,” “Chapter 4 Natural Resources,” and the 

Glossary. This does not mean that understanding the 

adaptive capacity of an asset is not important. The range of 

adaptation strategies or options available for key vulnerable 

assets within a national park is the final and perhaps most 

important step in the overall analysis because any adaptation 

actions taken for an asset will help reduce its exposure or 

sensitivity, and, in turn, its vulnerability. 

One of the primary goals of this protocol is to standardize 

methods for evaluating the exposure of NPS assets to 

coastal hazards and climate change. This includes the 

standardization of data inputs (i.e., widely available, 

established data) that will allow the application of a 

consistent methodology among units. Another goal is to 

create a complete and effective set of factors or indicators 

for assessing the sensitivity of assets to coastal hazards. 

The current focus for this methodology is on structures 

and transportation assets within the NPS asset database 

(Facilities Management Software System [FMSS]); however, 

other resources will likely be included in future work.

The protocol will benefit by having significantly more high 

accuracy building elevation data (see “Chapter 4 Natural 

Resources” for a discussion on accuracy of elevation data). 

The National Park Service has begun a process for collecting 

building elevation data (box 6.1). Once elevations (which will 

be related to the area’s local tidal datum) are associated to 

the threshold of each structure, investment decisions can be 

based on location vulnerability (Smith and Gallagher 2011).

The Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset Vulnerability 

Assessment Protocol comprises four primary steps:

1. Exposure Analysis and Mapping

2. Sensitivity Analysis 

3. Vulnerability Analysis

4. Adaptation Strategies Analysis

Vulnerability = 

Exposure + Sensitivity 

R Exposure—magnitude of 

change in climate and other 

stressors that a resource, asset, 

or process has already or may 

experience in the future.

R Sensitivity—degree to which 

a resource, asset, or process 

is or could be affected, either 

adversely or beneficially, by climate 

variability or change.
National Park Service 77 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

ASSET EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND MAPPING

The first step in the protocol is to analyze the exposure of NPS assets to coastal hazards and climate change. The goal 

of this methodology is to standardize the data sources for exposure analysis, using widely available and regularly 

updated sources (when possible). Standard exposure indicators have also been determined; these indicators represent 

the primary factors or hazards that should be evaluated to assess an asset’s exposure (over the short-term to the year 

2050). The five factors are storm surge, sea level rise, erosion/coastal proximity, and historical flooding. The following is 

a summary of these indicators (as well as likely data sources for each):

● Flooding (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps; Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) or other elevation model)

● Storm Surge, Extreme Flooding, and Tsunamis (NPS-specific Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes 

(SLOSH) model results; Tsunami models, LiDAR DEM or other elevation model)

● Sea Level Rise (NPS-specific sea level rise (SLR) modeling; LiDAR DEM or other elevation model)

● Erosion, Coastal Proximity, and Cliff Retreat (State/USGS erosion rate buffers; shoreline proximity buffers)

● Historical Flooding (Park surveys/interviews/questionnaire results; storm imagery/reconnaissance)

The exposure analysis utilizes data imported into Geographical Information Systems (GIS) format because exposure 

is directly dependent on location (whether the area experiences the hazard) and mapped hazard data. Digital hazard 

data are gathered for each of the exposure indicators, such as the online georeferenced FEMA flood map layers. The 

only dataset that does not come from a widely available, well-established source is the historical flooding layer, which 

is derived from storm imagery, reconnaissance, and direct communication with park personnel. Thus, each of these 

exposure data layers represents an exposure indicator hazard zone for a particular park. Each asset that falls within a 

particular zone (exposed) is assigned a higher score than assets outside the hazard zone (unexposed).

STEP

1

ASSET SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The second step in the protocol 

is to analyze the sensitivity of 

NPS assets to coastal hazards 

and climate change. Similar to 

exposure, a set of indicators was 

determined for asset sensitivity. 

Unlike exposure, sensitivity is 

evaluated independent of location 

(only exposure is locationdependent). Sensitivity refers to 

how that asset would fare when 

exposed to the hazard, which is a 

function of the inherent properties 

or characteristics of the asset. 

While the sensitivity indicators 

for structures and transportation 

assets are generally the same 

(see list below), how sensitivity 

is addressed during design and 

construction is very different. 

Below is a list of the sensitivity 

indicators (with data sources) on 

the following page:

STEP

2
National Park Service 78 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

STEP 3: ASSET VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

Upon completion of step 3, each asset will have been given a rating (and score) of low, moderate, or high 

vulnerability to coastal hazards and climate change (calculated as the sum of exposure and sensitivity). A subset of 

the assets from the completed vulnerability analysis will be chosen for development of adaptation strategies (step 4). 

STEP

3

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES ANALYSIS

After the vulnerability assessment is complete, adaptation strategies will be analyzed for key assets within each 

park. FMSS data such as Asset Priority Index (API) and Optimizer Band (OB) can help prioritize the assets to analyze 

for adaptation strategies. These assets will likely include those with high vulnerability and high priority and/or high 

criticality (API/OB), as well as high vulnerability assets with low priority and/or criticality. If an asset is a historic 

asset, then its historic character should be considered in selecting and designing adaptation options (see “Chapter 

5 Cultural Resources”). This adaptation analysis begins with discussions with the park or by way of a questionnaire. 

This portion of the analysis focuses on the options available to the park to reduce the overall vulnerability of key 

assets. An outline of potential adaptation strategies to reduce coastal hazards and climate change vulnerability has 

been compiled for both structures and transportation assets (NPS 2016). Below is a list of these strategies, including 

the potential effect on vulnerability. 

● Elevate the asset: reduces the sensitivity of the asset; elevating a structure (and critical utilities) or 

transportation asset (i.e., a road) reduces the risk of flood damage. Conversely, planning for submersion of 

assets such as roadways may also provide added protection during storm inundation. See additional discussion 

in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.”

● Relocate the asset: reduces the exposure of the asset; relocating the asset to a lower risk area reduces the 

likelihood it will experience impacts from coastal hazards/SLR.

● Protect/Engineer: protecting the asset with an engineered structure or landscape modifications (i.e., drainage) 

can reduce the likelihood that the asset will experience, or obtain damage from, coastal hazards/SLR. This 

reduces the exposure and/or sensitivity of the asset.

● Decommission and Remove: eliminates the vulnerable asset. 

● Storm-Resistant Redesign: reduces the sensitivity of the asset; redesigning the asset to be more storm resistant 

can reduce the likelihood of damage from coastal hazards/SLR.

STEP

4

● Flood Damage Potential/Elevated (asset questionnaire; direct measurements of threshold elevation)

● Storm Resistance and Condition (asset questionnaire; FMSS database)

● Historical Damage (asset questionnaire; discussion with park staff)

● Protective Engineering (asset questionnaire; field and aerial imagery analysis; Coastal Engineering Inventory)

Bridges are considered transportation assets but have additional factors that must be considered when analyzing 

sensitivity to coastal hazards and climate change. Additional bridge sensitivity indicators are listed below (with data 

sources):

● Bridge Clearance (National Bridge Inventory, item 39)

● Scour Rating (National Bridge Inventory, item 113)

● Bridge Condition (National Bridge Inventory, items 59 and 60)

● Bridge Age (National Bridge Inventory, item 27; FMSS database)

Because digital data are not generally available, the primary data source for much of the sensitivity analysis is an 

asset questionnaire. This questionnaire contains detailed questions related to the various sensitivity indicators (e.g., 

is the structure elevated above base flood elevation). It is distributed to appropriate personnel within each unit—

typically individuals that possess long institutional memory and familiarity with park facilities. Where appropriate, 

sensitivity data are also obtained from FMSS, the National Bridge Inventory, aerial imagery, and site visits.
National Park Service 79 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● Engineering Downgrade (transportation assets only): reduces the sensitivity of the asset; downgrading 

the amount of engineering (i.e., replacing paved parking lot with shell material lot) can reduce the cost of 

rebuilding after damage and gives more flexibility for replacement. An example from Assateague Island 

National Seashore is described in “Case Study 16: Relocating Visitor Facilities Threatened by Erosion” in 

Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey (2015). 

This protocol is designed solely to assess the vulnerability of physical infrastructure. However, there are other 

adaptation actions for vulnerable assets that would not reduce the vulnerability of the physical asset but instead its 

function. For example, a park might consider moving the critical contents within a building to a higher floor to reduce 

potential flood damages. Similarly, parks may decide to shift an asset’s function to a less vulnerable asset. These 

adaptation actions do not change the vulnerability of the original asset (i.e., exposure and sensitivity remain the 

same); instead these actions change the criticality of the asset, potentially making it less of a concern to the park. 

Note: Locations of Vulnerable Asset Elevations procedure documentation https://www.nps.gov/orgs/socc/mitigation-and-adaptation.htm

PRE-FIELD:

1. Verify quality of Facility Management Software System (FMSS) data.

2. Coordinate with Regional and Washington Support Office staff so there will not be duplication of efforts. Your 

project may support existing efforts.

3. Asset data should be mapped in a GIS format (Shapefile or GeoDatabase) with FMSS Location IDs (FMSS primary 

key for assets) associated to the features. FMSS data can be accessed through Asset Management Record System. 

Location Hierarchy reports are recommended to be run to assist in attribution of spatial data.

4. Inventory, evaluate, and compile a list of existing local survey monumentation infrastructure as described 

in Accurate Elevation in Coastal National Parks (Smith and Gallagher 2011). Of particular interest are tidal 

benchmarks with published benchmark data sheets. If deep rod monumentation needs to be installed, this should 

be completed at least 30 days before data collection field work.

5. Determine the location of current and historic tide stations in the study area using the NOAA Tides and Currents 

website: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stations.html?type=Water+Levels.

FIELD:

6. Set up geodetic receiver on a backbone monument that will be tied to all of the survey points that you collect in 

a given area. If conventional surveying techniques are required, all points should be tied back to the backbone 

monumentation with traditional Real Time Kinematic (RTK) or static Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)

surveying techniques. 

7. Best approach is to have a 3-person field crew: two people using RTK rover devices and one person capturing 

photos and providing Locations ID’s to be used as the RTK point name and photo names. This is done to later 

associate the photos to the survey horizontal and vertical data (figures 6.4 and 6.5).

8. For buildings, collect first floor elevations at the threshold of primary entrance if possible. Collect multiple points for 

linear transportation assets and parking lots.

POST-FIELD:

9. Process project static base control files through National Geodetic Survey OPUS (Online Positioning User Service) 

using the precise ephemeris. It can take up to 21 days for the precise ephemeris to be available, so static files 

should be first processed using the rapid ephemeris to confirm their quality before final processing when the 

precise ephemeris is available. After the base control files are processed with the precise ephemeris, all RTK and 

conventional surveyed points can be adjusted and processed for North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) 

heights using current geoid.

BOX 6.1. PROCESS FOR COLLECTING ELEVATIONS ON VULNERABLE ASSETS
National Park Service 80 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach

The success of the facilities management climate change 

adaptation response will require the involvement of many 

stakeholder groups. It will also require the development of 

communication materials that can be used by parks and 

programs to reach out to these core groups. Workgroups will 

need to be established to develop components of the road 

map that require subject matter expertise such as GIS. These 

will be identified and integrated as needed. 

One of SOCC’s main programmatic responsibilities is 

the Climate Friendly Parks (CFP) Program. The principle 

output of this program is a park climate change action plan. 

Through the NPS Green Parks Plan (GPP; NPS 2012b) the 

Director has required that, where feasible, all parks become 

CFP and develop a climate change action plan. These 

plans currently focus mostly on greenhouse gas mitigation 

in the energy, transportation, and waste areas as well as 

planning around climate change communications at the 

park (see “Chapter 7 Communication and Education”). CFP 

workshops now include adaptation discussions, and SOCC 

will modify the CFP initiative to add a climate change facility 

adaptation component (focused on assets) to the CFP plan 

as appropriate. This process is shown in box 6.2.

Strategies for Adapting Coastal Facilities 

and Operations 

Visitor use areas in coastal environments are vulnerable 

to storm surges and future changes in sea level and lake 

level. With the projected changes in storm frequency and 

intensity, there are no “easy” answers to the design elements 

for coastal infrastructure. Certain engineering standards 

based on historic conditions are no longer accurate guides 

of future asset performance. More detailed examination of 

climate change impacts will be critical as actions envisioned 

in the general management plan and other planning 

documents are analyzed and implemented at site-specific 

levels. Factoring in changes in sea level and lake level, 

these analyses will influence the type, design, location, and 

ultimate feasibility of coastal facilities and developments. 

When parks engage in development employing sitespecific design, outstanding opportunities are created to 

demonstrate forward thinking, innovative designs, flexibility, 

and readiness for change in response to changes in sea level 

and lake level. Coastal resiliency will be incorporated into 

any new developed areas and adaptively reused structures 

and facilities. Multiple strategies and associated costs for 

protection and adaptation of infrastructure in the coastal 

zone are described in “Chapter 8 Protecting Infrastructure: 

Costs and Impacts.”

These strategies propose a range of facility additions and 

renovations to expand recreational opportunities. Proposed 

facility investments will be evaluated using the following 

climate change overarching approach prior to project 

approvals to ensure the long-term sustainability of these 

investments. Future plans and studies will provide technical 

data and resource information to support the strategies. 

Creative solutions will be identified to limit impacts from 

future flooding, storm surge, and other impacts on existing 

visitor and operations facilities. When these facilities are 

no longer viable to retain and use, a transition to portable 

facilities or other means to continue to offer visitor services, 

as feasible, should be considered. This could include the 

following on page 82:

10. Relate the NAVD88 orthometric heights of the 

assets to the local tidal datums. These tidal 

datums are mean lower low, mean low, mean sea 

level, mean high, and mean higher high water. 

Tidal datums are determined by recording tidal 

observations at a tide station over a period of 

months or years and deriving the relevant statistics. 

NPS staff and partners should request assistance 

with this step, especially in areas with relative land 

movement (subsidence, isostatic rebound, etc.).

11. Relate horizontal and vertical positions to photos.

12. Post results to NPS Focus/FMSS, and produce 

data-sharing products such as CSV and File 

GeoDatabase files (figure 6.6).

LESSONS LEARNED:

1. Data quality in FMSS is important.

2. NPS staff with park knowledge is crucial.

3. Park-specific tidal data and permanent survey 

monumentation (backbone) are often lacking.

4. Proper planning and coordination with park and/

or program staff prior to field work are critical.

5. Experience in surveying techniques, tidal datums, 

FMSS, and GeoJot is essential.

6. Where proper GNSS signal is obstructed, 

conventional survey methods will be necessary. 

7. Specialized equipment and knowledge of how to 

use it is required for this type of data collection.
National Park Service 81 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

PLAN FOR RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY IN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AND OPERATIONS 

(STEP 3 FROM ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL HAZARDS HANDBOOK)

● Identify, evaluate, and prioritize adaptation strategies.

» Identify options that could reduce vulnerability; suggestions for eliciting additional options include:

▫ Analyze past climate events that led to disaster; working backwards from a negative impact, 

at what points in the process could an intervention have improved the outcome?

▫ Could existing or outdated technologies or resources be repurposed in ways that would reduce 

vulnerability or enhance resilience?

▫ What newly available technologies have potential to improve resilience?

▫ Review various levers for affecting change such as land use planning, codes and standards, 

inspection and enforcement, operations, maintenance and repair, and renewal and renovation.

● Create response plan or integrate strategies into other plans; plan and invest for resilience and 

sustainability at all scales including operations and capital investments.

● Develop and submit a funding request (PMIS).

» Use Sustainable Buildings Checklist and other new standards and criteria to assess assets.

» Use rating scores as they become available from the National Park Service.

STEP

3

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 

(STEP 2 FROM ADDRESSING 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL 

HAZARDS HANDBOOK) 

● Refine impacts assessment and conduct 

asset inventory.

● Conduct vulnerability assessment.

● Use Sustainable Buildings Checklist, 

Natural Hazards Checklist (figure 6.2), 

and other new standards.

● Establish vision and resiliency goals.

● Prioritize planning issues.

PARK CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING 

(STEP 1 FROM ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE 

AND NATURAL HAZARDS HANDBOOK)

● Review climate change impacts including

» sea level rise, storm surge, coastal 

hazards.

» blizzards, extreme cold, extreme heat.

» hurricanes, heavy rains.

» wildfires, drought, lightning, tornadoes.

» permafrost depletion.

● Build working group and subcommittees.

● Characterize critical assets.

IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR 

● Implement high-priority actions.

● Track progress and evaluate effectiveness.

● Assess new impacts information and 

conduct adaptive management.

● Revise strategies and priorities as needed.

STEP

4

COMMUNICATE AND EDUCATE 

(SEE “CHAPTER 7 COMMUNICATION 

AND EDUCATION”)

● Share success stories.

● Develop a robust resource center.

● Provide user-friendly communication 

materials to parks and stakeholders.

STEP

5

BOX 6.2. OVERARCHING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE AND ADAPTATION

STEP

2

STEP

1
National Park Service 82 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● Removing existing facilities and discontinuing 

recreational uses where continued use is unsafe, 

infeasible, or undesirable because of changing 

environmental conditions.

● Avoiding or minimizing additions of new infrastructure, 

construction of high value assets, or major investments 

in facility renovations within coastal hazard or 

storm surge zones.

● Reflecting EO 13690’s amendments to EO 11988 for 

substantial facility investments within the coastal zone, 

including an adjustment for projected sea level rise 

by year 2100; these investments should be avoided to 

the extent possible. Essential improvements within 

these flood-prone areas, such as rehabilitation of 

historic structures or provision of necessary facilities 

for beach access and recreation, will be carefully 

evaluated to determine whether facilities should be 

elevated, made portable, hardened, or otherwise made 

resilient to potential flooding. Any decision to proceed 

with substantial improvements within the flood zone 

as adjusted for sea level rise will be documented in a 

floodplain statement of findings according to DO-77 per 

EO 13690’s amendments to EO 11988.

● Transitioning to systems and facilities that are more 

resistant to the effects of natural hazards and climate 

change effects on those hazards.

● Keeping susceptible elements of utilities, critical 

systems, and infrastructure out of flood zones (and 

away from the effects of other natural hazards) to the 

extent possible.

Visitor Experience, 

Transportation, and Access

Sea level rise and storm surge impacts will change the way 

that visitors experience park assets and resources. Perhaps 

one of the most notable of these changes will be the way 

visitors access the parks. Many park transportation assets 

have the highest exposure to SLR and coastal flooding 

making them the most vulnerable assets. For example, future 

visitors to Gulf Islands National Seashore may need to 

access the Fort Pickens unit via a ferry instead of driving in 

on the asphalt road, which is vulnerable to storm overwash 

(see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 19: 

Establishing Alternative Transportation to Fort Pickens to 

Supplement Vulnerable Road Access”). Alternate forms of 

transportation and access can benefit natural resources by 

reducing impacts to habitats of rare species such as the dune 

habitat used by the Santa Rosa beach mouse (Jackson et al. 

2001). Although the park has implemented several strategies 

to maintain the road, including lowering road elevation, 

the value analysis should also consider the alternative 

of elevated causeways, which were once viewed as cost 

prohibitive. Existing roads may need to have larger culverts 

to address climate change impacts on drainage and local 

watershed precipitation (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015, “Case Study 15: Rehabilitating Stream Crossings on 

Historic Roads”).

Some parks have already embraced more resilient design 

of parking lots. For example, Assateague Island National 

Seashore incorporates native materials so that asphalt 

debris will not litter the beach after storms (see Schupp, 

Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 16: Relocating 

Visitor Facilities Threatened by Erosion”). Other parks have 

considered the extent to which facilities should be replaced 

and elevated (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case 

Study 18: Developing Sustainable Visitor Facilities”). In 

the future, certain decisions and adaptation strategies 

may become more or less viable. It is important that parks 

document their process for planning and the rationale for 

which adaptation strategies are chosen.

While the loss of access can be a true loss, in some cases 

it will only be a change in traditional access to resources 

and assets. Although it may change the way that visitors 

experience a resource, the resource can persist. Some parks 

may have to consider acquiring land at higher or inland 

locations to properly provide for the safety of visitors 

and park staff. For example, Assateague Island National 

Seashore’s general management plan (see Schupp, Beavers, 

and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 23: Incorporating Climate 

Change Response into a General Management Plan”) 

includes the potential for obtaining additional lands on 

the mainland for visitor contact stations, staff housing, 

maintenance, and headquarters. Recognizing these needs 

will help the park prioritize and plan for obtaining these 

lands even if the acquisition is many years into the future. A 

storm impact may accelerate the timeline for implementing 

such strategies.

Coastal landscapes that are allowed to evolve naturally can 

become more resilient and better able to withstand changes 

(see “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”). 

At Cape Hatteras National Seashore on Hatteras Island, 

a breach during Hurricane Isabel in 2003 was artificially 

closed with dredged sediment. The inlet closure allowed 

State Highway 12 to be reestablished close to its pre-storm 

location, but that stretch of barrier island continues to be 

narrow and vulnerable to future breaches. The balance 
National Park Service 83 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

between the natural environment and the built environment 

must be considered when planning future actions. After 

later hurricanes (Hurricane Irene in 2011 and Hurricane 

Sandy in 2012) breached the same highway, some breaches 

were allowed to persist with temporary bridges put in 

place to allow access to communities without impeding 

natural coastal processes of overwash, breach closure, and 

wetland building. 

Asset Management Plans and 

Incident Response 

The goal of coastal adaptation is to implement strategies 

as soon as they can be acted upon and to prepare for 

opportunities. Without consideration and planning for 

a variety of strategies, parks may find it is easiest in the 

short-term to return to business as usual, such as conditions 

that existed prior to a storm (see “Chapter 3 Planning” for 

a discussion of pre-disaster planning). When vulnerable 

locations are identified through processes described earlier 

in this chapter, funding to relocate assets and resources away 

from vulnerable locations should be pursued. 

Parks are required to maintain asset management plans that 

describe the condition and priority of investments at the 

park. Park asset management plans should include elements 

of climate change vulnerability assessment and coastal 

adaptation. For example, plans for assets in the maintenance 

backlog must align with park adaptation strategies. If a 

certain structure is no longer serving its intended function, 

the future of that asset should be reconsidered (see “Chapter 

9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy” for additional 

discussion of deferred maintenance and prioritization of 

cultural resources).

The NPS Southeast Region has recognized the need to 

prepare for storms, and to have plans in place for post-storm 

recovery/adaptation. The Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Storm Recovery Plan sets an excellent example of preparing 

for post-storm assessments (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015, “Case Study 20: The Need for Storm Recovery Plans”). 

The plan lists the most important resources in several 

categories. These priority resource listings assist ordering 

of recovery efforts; provide justifications for the expertise 

recommended on each assessment team; and inform incident 

responders of the resources that drive visitation, operations, 

and the overall character of the park. Detailed checklists 

of major resources are included in the plan’s appendix 

so that teams can assess their status such as presence/

absence and immediate threats. These assessments help 

the incident command to assemble and dispatch resource 

assessment teams. For the purpose of resource damage 

assessment, the park is divided into multiple areas and the 

expertise and number of specialists needed in each of those 

assessment areas are specified. The park storm recovery 

plan also explains the need for immediate aerial photo 

overflights and specifies photograph needs (e.g., resolution 

and vantage points) and provides contact information for 

appropriate pilots.

For staff living in and near coastal parks, the realities 

of living in a changing environment can affect both 

participation at work and their ability to participate in 

incident response activities. When a major storm impacts a 

park, many of the park staff may be involved in addressing 

human health and safety concerns for themselves, their 

friends and family, and the local community, and may not 

be able to fully participate in park incident management 

activities. Therefore, it is very important that information 

Figure 6.4. Image of base station set up for RTK-GPS 

elevation data collection at Fort Sumter National 

Monument as part of the vulnerable asset elevation 

project in 2015.

Figure 6.5. Image of rover GPS data collection at the Sally 

Port of Fort Pickens at Gulf Islands National Seashore as 

part of the vulnerable asset elevation project in 2015.
National Park Service 84 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

about resources and facilities be stored in systems that can 

be easily accessed by incident management teams (IMT) 

deployed to or working remotely for the impacted site. 

The systems, such as park atlases and off-site web mapping 

services, should be accessible and understandable, and 

should use standard protocols. Backup copies of the systems 

must be maintained offsite to enable the IMT staff to work at 

that remote location or on-site at the park.

Coastal Fortifications and Lighthouses

Coastal fortifications and lighthouses are unique sets of 

cultural resources that are also assets. With a few exceptions 

(see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 8: 

Relocating the Lighthouse”), these structures are so large 

that they cannot or will not likely be relocated. Strategies 

to address these assets will have to consider the placebased nature of these cultural resources. Some assets may 

be protected in place for a limited period of time with 

coastal engineering methods such as seawalls or beach 

nourishment (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case 

Study 5: Strategic Planning and Responsible Investments 

for Threatened Historic Structures”). Data have shown that 

many forts and lighthouses along the southeast coast of 

the United States have high exposure to 3.3 ft (1 m) of sea 

level rise (Peek et al. 2015). Prioritizing funding of repairs, 

maintenance, and even improvements at the sites may be 

critical in deciding how to distribute limited funds (see 

Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 5: Strategic 

Planning and Responsible Investments for Threatened 

Historic Structures”). It is important to place each of these 

assets in context of the system of cultural and historical 

resources managed along the coast (figure 6.7). Even when 

access is limited and structures are partially submerged, 

it is still possible to provide a visitor experience related 

to these resources. As “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources” 

discusses, unique compliance requirements and more 

complex decision-making processes are required for these 

irreplaceable cultural resources.

Opportunities for Adaptation

Mitigate Impacts of Coastal Engineering

When human actions impact natural coastal processes, such 

as when coastal engineering structures disrupt sediment 

supply and affect the evolution of a coastal landscape, 

the National Park Service can take actions to mitigate for 

those human-caused alterations (see “Chapter 2 Policy”). 

For a discussion of pre-disaster planning, see “Chapter 3 

Planning.” Some impacts are caused by actions that occur 

outside of NPS boundaries, such as an updrift jetty affecting 

sediment transport to a down-drift park. The National Park 

Service has begun a series of coastal engineering inventories 

(CEIs) (e.g., Coburn, Griffith, and Young 2010; Dallas, 

Ruggiero, and Berry 2013; Schupp and Coburn 2015; and 

other coastal engineering inventories available at http://

www.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/monitoring.cfm that 

identify the locations and impacts of historic and current 

coastal engineering projects that affect coastal parks. These 

data exist for only 19 parks, so this work must be expanded 

to all coastal parks. The Northeast Region recognized that 

many coastal engineering structures are not comprehensively 

documented in FMSS, so post-Hurricane Sandy work 

has included incorporating data from available coastal 

engineering inventories into that database. 

Remove, Restrict, and Redesign Structures 

Aging coastal protection structures will become less effective 

as they deteriorate with age or their design elevations are 

exceeded. Building restrictions and structure removal can 

protect and promote open marine and estuarine shorelines 

and habitats such as wetlands (Nordstrom, Jackson, and 

Roman 2016). Coastlines respond differently to storm 

impacts and rising water level associated with coastal 

change depending on whether they are fixed or dynamic. 

Nature-based and hybrid infrastructure strategies can be an 

important component of coastal adaptation (see “Chapter 

8 Protecting Infrastructure: Costs and Impacts”). Following 

the publication of the CEI reports and creation of the 

associated GIS datasets, projects by the US Naval Academy at 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site have helped the park to 

consider the elements related to implementation of a living 

shoreline. “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy” identifies additional opportunities related to 

facilities and infrastructure, such as including architectural, 

Figure 6.6. Coastal asset at Elliot Key in Biscayne National 

Park was documented as part of the vulnerable asset 

elevation project in 2015.
National Park Service 85 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

engineering, and project management expertise on the poststorm assessment teams so that FMSS rebuilding estimates 

will consider the cost of newly designed sustainable 

buildings in addition or instead of the cost of rebuilding the 

damaged structure as it was.

Funding Opportunities

Funding opportunities for adaptation will vary depending on 

location, park resources, and temporal conditions, such as 

storm events. Parks with five-year project plans should review 

these plans in conjunction with climate change vulnerability 

information to determine how the use of any project funding 

can be used to reduce exposure or sensitivity using strategies 

and actions noted above. Many project specifications and 

plans can be modified to increase the overall resiliency of 

the asset. The opportunity to adapt following a large-scale 

incident such as Hurricane Sandy may also bring needed 

funds for implementation of recovery objectives. It is 

important to conceive and perhaps even design projects to 

be implemented on dynamic post-storm landscapes. While 

the funding process for the National Park Service may not 

currently be designed to intentionally incorporate these 

“adaptive” actions, the concept of incorporating adaptive 

designs and other adaptive planning efforts will be very 

useful to effect changes for asset management in coastal 

parks. Examples of how the Value Analysis (VA), CBA, Rapid 

Review Team, and Development Advisory Board processes 

and procedures were used to incorporate adaptive element 

of project design are discussed for Hurricane Sandy recovery 

in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy.”

Documentation

As the consequences of climate change increase, parks 

will need to evaluate and document vulnerable assets and 

resources. Adaptation strategies may include Historic 

American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American 

Engineering Record (HAER), or Historic American 

Landscapes Survey (HALS) documentation, 3D laser 

scanning surveys, digitizing hard copies of documents and 

artifacts, and interpretation. Parks should also recognize 

that loss of resources and assets will be part of this process, 

as recognized in the Preserving Coastal Heritage Workshop 

Report (NPS 2014b) and PM 14-02, and discussed further in 

“Chapter 5 Cultural Resources.”

Storm Recovery Planning

The storm recovery plan for Cape Lookout National 

Seashore (CALO 2011; see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015, “Case Study 20: The Need for Storm Recovery Plans”) 

uses existing databases such as FMSS and the Archeological 

Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) for cultural 

resources. It is important that the incident management 

team has the ability to easily access this information and 

to know the intentions of the park management team for 

recovery. Incidents provide opportunities for climate change 

adaptation. Without prior planning, including consultation 

and coordination with National Historic Preservation Act 

section 106, it can be challenging to implement changes 

during the recovery process. Use of storm recovery plans 

for Fire Island and Assateague Island National Seashores 

are discussed in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from 

Hurricane Sandy.”

Figure 6.7. Panorama of waterfront of Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Massachusetts. 

Photograph by Marcy Rockman, NPS. 

o

S
National Park Service 86 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Take Home Messages

● The National Park Service has the responsibility to invest 

wisely in facilities for the long term. Unquestionably, 

climate change and natural hazards pose a significant 

threat to our investment in current and future facilities.

● Vulnerability to climate change impacts needs to be 

understood at the asset level for parks to plan for these 

impacts. This includes an understanding of the risk of 

exposure and sensitivity of the asset to these impacts. 

● Park asset management plans and five-year project plans 

should be evaluated to include elements of climate 

change vulnerability and coastal adaptation strategies.

● Climate Friendly Park workshops are opportunities 

to integrate climate change mitigation planning with 

coastal adaptation.

Emerging Topics

In addition to managing and adapting to 

potential impacts to NPS facilities from climate 

change, the National Park Service must address 

potential impacts from non-NPS infrastructure 

development near and through its coastal parks. 

In particular, there is increasing pressure for rapid 

deployment of energy development projects and 

related infrastructure, including offshore wind, 

offshore oil and gas drilling, marine hydropower, 

marine electric transmission related onshore 

substations, and petroleum product pipelines and 

related onshore compressor stations.

Regarding renewable energy, the current 

administration has committed to a national, 

non-hydro renewable energy generation of 

20% by 2030, with efforts to streamline and 

expedite permitting of offshore wind and 

related transmission infrastructure. In 2011, the 

Department of Energy and DOI formed a strategic 

partnership and issued a National Offshore 

Wind Strategy aimed at deploying generation 

projects. Likewise, DOI launched its “Smart from 

the Start” initiative to facilitate siting, leasing, 

and construction of new projects. In addition, 

a number of coastal states have Renewable 

Portfolio Standards requiring that a certain 

percentage of energy either used or produced 

in that state is from renewable energy sources. 

Generally, these efforts seek to reduce carbon 

emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, increase 

energy efficiency, and to use more renewable 

energy to generate electricity, pointing to the 

growing importance of these technologies. 

Large-scale development projects have the 

potential to cause adverse, cross-boundary 

impacts to NPS units. Examples include: direct 

mortality of avian species; potential disruption 

to physiology and behavior of nocturnal 

species from night lighting of facilities such 

as wind turbines; interference with sand and 

gravel transport from submerged facilities and 

construction activities; destruction of submerged 

archaeological resources; and others. Many of 

these resources are already vulnerable to the 

stressors of sea level rise and climate change. 

As such, it is imperative that the National Park 

Service engage on such activities occurring near 

its boundaries to ensure protection of park 

resources and values.

Increasingly, coastal parks are called upon to 

permit third-party infrastructure development 

within and through park units or to provide 

access to near shore facilities through seashores 

and park coastal waters. For example, the 

formerly named Atlantic Wind Connection 

electric transmission project was designed to 

connect offshore wind facilities to the onshore 

grid and had proposed a route through 

Assateague Island National Seashore that would 

have required directionally drilling the marine 

transmission cable under the barrier island. NPS 

staff identified a number of potential resource 

impacts, including the possibility of piercing the 

freshwater lens under the island, interfering with 

sand transport along the seafloor, and creating 

a vulnerability point for a future island breach. 

Moreover, NPS staff raised concerns about the 

ongoing management and safety of such facilities 

in an area constantly in flux. Clearly, such facilities 

have the potential to compound adaptation and 

management needs for coastal parks.
National Park Service 87 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). 2011. Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Storm Recovery Plan 2011. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harkers Island, NC. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/documents/

CALO_Final_Storm_Recovery_Plan_2011.pdf

(accessed 13 March 2015).

Coburn, A. S., A. D. Griffith, and R. S. Young. 2010. Inventory 

of Coastal Engineering Projects in Coastal National 

Parks. Natural Resource Technical Report. NPS/

NRPC/GRD/NRTR—2010/373. NPS Natural Resource 

Program Center, Fort Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.

gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2165163 (accessed 

15 October 2014).

Council on Environmental Quality. 2016. Guiding Principles 

for Sustainable Federal Buildings and Associated 

Instructions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/docs/guiding_principles_for_sustainable_federal_

buildings_and_associated_instructions_february_2016.

pdf (accessed 07 August 2016).

Dallas, K., P. Ruggiero, and M. Berry. 2013. Inventory of 

coastal engineering projects in Gateway National 

Recreation Area. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR—2013/738. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Department of the Interior (DOI). 2014. Department of the 

Interior Climate Adaptation Plan. https://www.doi.gov/

sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/sustainability_

plan/upload/2014_DOI_Climate_Change_Adaptation_

Plan.pdf (accessed 07 August 2016).

Executive Order 11988, “Federal Floodplain Management” 

42 FR 26951. 4 February 2014. http://www.

archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executiveorder/11988.html.

Executive Order 13653, “Preparing the United States 

for the Impacts of Climate Change.” 78 FR 

66819. 6 November 2013. http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-06/pdf/2013-26785.pdf 

(accessed 9 May 2016).

Executive Order 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.” 30 

January 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishingfederal-flood-risk-management-standard-and-

(accessed 23 June 2016).

Executive Order 13693, “Planning for Federal Sustainability 

in the Next Decade.” 19 March 2015. https://www.

whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/19/executiveorder-planning-federal-sustainability-next-decade

(accessed 07 August 2016).

Glick, P., B. A. Stein, and N. A. Edelson [eds.]. 2011. Scanning 

the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change 

Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, 

Washington, DC. 

Jackson, D. R., K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, K. Brandt, and D. 

Hipes 2001. 2001. Santa Rosa Beach Mouse Fact 

Sheet. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. http://

fwcg.myfwc.com/docs/beach_mouse_santarosa.pdf

(accessed 13 March 2015).

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Park Service 

Management Policies. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

NPS. 2012a. National Park Service Climate Change Action 

Plan 2012-2014. NPS Climate Change Response 

Program, Fort Collins, CO. http://www.nature.nps.gov/

climatechange/docs/NPS_CCActionPlan.pdf (accessed 

07 August 2016).

NPS. 2012b. Green Parks Plan. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. https://www.nps.gov/greenparksplan/

downloads/NPS_2012_Green_Parks_Plan.pdf

(accessed 07 August 2016).

NPS. 2012c. Applying National Park Service Management 

Policies in the Context of Climate Change. US DOI 

National Park Service Policy Memorandum 12-02. 

March 6, 2012. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/

PM_12-02.pdf (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2014a. Climate Change and Stewardship of Cultural 

Resources. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 14-02. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM-14-02.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2014b. Preserving Coastal Heritage. Summary Report. 

April 3-4, 2014. Federal Hall, New York City, NY. 

Available at http://www.achp.gov/docs/preservecoastal-heritage.pdf (accessed 7 October 2014).

NPS. 2015. Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards 

for Facilities. US DOI National Park Service Policy 

Memorandum 15-01. http://www.nps.gov/policy/

PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).
National Park Service 88 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NPS. 2016. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Asset 

Vulnerability Protocol: Project Description and 

Methodology. NPS 999/132623. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Nordstrom, K. F., N. L. Jackson, and C. T. Roman. 2016. 

Facilitating landform migration by removing 

shore protection structures in national coastal 

parks in the northeastern USA: opportunities and 

constraints. Environmental Science and Policy (in 

press). doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.012 (accessed 

8 August 2016).

Peek, K. M., R. S. Young, R. L. Beavers, C. Hawkins Hoffman, 

B. T. Diethorn and S. Norton. 2015. Adapting to 

climate change in coastal national parks: Estimating 

the exposure of FMSS-listed park assets to 1 m of 

sea-level rise. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/

NRSS/GRD/NRTR—2015/961. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO. 

Schupp, C., and A. Coburn. 2015. Inventory of coastal 

engineering projects within Assateague Island 

National Seashore. Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRPC/GRD/NRR—2015/914. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO.

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Smith, T. G., and C. Gallagher. 2011. Accurate Elevations in 

Coastal National Parks. 999/107779. National Park 

Service, Lakewood, CO.
National Park Service 89 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Contributing Author: Ryan Stubblebine

Communication

This chapter describes tools, goals, and media for 

communicating information about climate change 

adaptation to multiple audiences. The communication 

of coastal adaptation efforts is paramount to fostering a 

basic understanding of ways in which to adapt, restore, 

and protect coastal environments from the effects of 

climate change.

Given the number of ways in which climate change is 

currently affecting our coastal environments—sea level 

rise, ocean acidification, shoreline erosion, and increased 

storminess—the need for adaptation will only continue to 

grow. The National Park Service (NPS) has the responsibility 

to protect not only the habitats found along the coastlines, 

but also coastal processes, biodiversity, visitor facilities and 

opportunities, and archeological sites. Innovative, costeffective ways to adapt to the ever-changing conditions are 

necessary to minimize these negative effects. 

Communication about existing coastal adaptation efforts will 

encourage successful proactive adaptation by providing the 

following: the necessary framework for managers to apply 

to decision making for other areas being affected by climate 

change; an opportunity to promote and build stakeholder 

support for the steps taken to protect resources; ways to 

foster collaboration between parks and park partners; an 

examination of vulnerability pertaining to various areas; 

education to the general public about climate change and 

the ways of combating its effects; and an opportunity to 

publicize success stories regarding coastal adaptation efforts. 

A variety of products can effectively communicate coastal 

adaptation efforts. Many of these products can be used 

broadly, for multiple uses and audiences. Most NPS sites 

already have trained communication experts in-house as 

part of their interpretive staff. It is highly recommended that 

resource managers work with interpretive staff to create the 

most appropriate and effective communication possible. In 

the event that a park does not have in-house interpretive 

capacity, the regional office or the NPS Harpers Ferry Center 

would be next options for the creation of these products. 

Effective communication is best achieved by using the 

NPS graphic identity guidelines to ensure uniformity. The 

NPS brand is widely recognized and trusted, and, as such, 

adherence to these principles will help to embolden the 

message parks are looking to convey. These standards 

include guidance on the correct usage of the arrowhead, 

the correct fonts to be used, and the formats to use to 

achieve the greatest level of success. These guidelines used in 

conjunction with this handbook serve as a starting point for 

the creation of successful communications. The standards 

and templates can be found at http://www.nps.gov/hfc/

services/identity/.

Site Bulletins

Site bulletins are materials that are created and produced 

in-house and are intended for short-term use. These site 

bulletins allow for the rapid transmission of information, 

can be used by a wide range of audiences, and are usually 

produced in black and white. The template brings uniformity 

to the presentation of information. This type of product 

is ideal for disseminating success stories on a small scale, 

highlighting a specific project or action taken, providing 

general understanding of impacts and solutions, conveying 

management philosophies regarding specific habitats, and 

providing updates on the implementation of post-storm 

recovery actions. 

An example of a site bulletin from Assateague Island 

(figure 7.1) can be found at: http://ian.umces.edu/pdfs/

ian_newsletter_380.pdf. 

Chapter 7 Communication and Education

Figure 7.1. Example of a site bulletin from 

Assateague Island.
National Park Service 90 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Rack Cards

Whereas site bulletins are designed for in-house production 

and use, rack cards are used for off-site promotional 

efforts. Typically, these are 

distributed to the local 

community and to other 

partners. Similar to site 

bulletins, rack cards are 

designed for the transmission 

of simple and easy-tounderstand information. 

These publications are ideal 

for fostering collaboration 

with partners, promoting 

success stories, highlighting 

upcoming projects, and 

educating the general 

public about issues and 

proposed actions. 

A template for this type of 

publication can be found on 

the graphic identity website. 

It is highly recommended 

that parks use this template 

to ensure uniformity.

An example of a rack card 

from Assateague Island 

(figure 7.2) can be found at:

http://ian.umces.edu/pdfs/

ian_brochure_391.pdf.

Waysides

Waysides are a fantastic tool to use for longer-term 

dissemination of information to the public. They are sitespecific, outdoor interpretive exhibits designed to be simple 

in form and function. There are two types of waysides that 

can be used: (1) a low-profile exhibit, used for aspects that 

are readily visible to the visitor, or (2) an upright exhibit, 

designed to provide information about an entire area, trail, 

or habitat type. Keeping in line with the tenets of the site 

bulletin and the rack card, waysides are designed to convey 

simple and easy-to-understand information. Complex issues 

or processes should be included in other types of media.

Examples of climate related waysides from Dry Tortugas 

National Park and Gulf Islands National Seashore are 

shown in figure 7.3.

Audio/Visual Arts

A different way to communicate the work being done at 

park sites is through web videos or audio/visual products. 

Videos give an opportunity to transmit information not 

just with written words, but with images as well. This tool 

can be incorporated either through the park’s webpage, or 

through an official YouTube page. This type of media allows 

for more complex and technical information to be conveyed 

and can be used when site bulletins or waysides are not the 

appropriate choice for information sharing. 

The Climate Change Response Program (CCRP) has a 

YouTube account with many videos that highlight what 

these products may be used for, including examples specific 

to sea level rise and coastal park adaptation projects. It is 

recommended that park managers frequently check this site 

for updated videos and that parks share their climate change 

videos here as they develop their own. 

Although there are no established standards regarding 

content in audio/visual products, there are standards that 

apply to the final product. These standards will help to unify 

the brand of NPS videos. You may view this standardized 

process by following this link: http://www.nps.gov/hfc/

acquisition/pdf/standard-specs-av-production.pdf.

Figure 7.2. Example 

of a rack card from 

Assateague Island.

Figure 7.3. Example waysides from: a) Dry 

Tortugas National Park, and b) Gulf Islands 

National Seashore
National Park Service 91 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Newspapers/Newsletters

Coastal adaptation projects may take several months or 

even years to complete. Newsletters are a great way to 

communicate about the status of these ongoing projects. 

Newspapers, newsletters, and e-newsletters can provide 

more in-depth examinations of the project that consider the 

issues surrounding the project and the steps being taken to 

mitigate those issues. These newsletters can be a one-time 

use product, or can be part of an on-going series to match 

the pace of the project. 

An example of a climate-focused park newspaper (figure 

7.4) can be found at the following link: http://www.nps.

gov/hfc/services/identity/downloads/templates/2013/NPS_

Newspaper25x17.zip

Another example of a newsletter is from the 

NPS Southeast Region Newsletter (figure 7.5), 

which can be found at http://api.ning.com/files/

YIi6je0KpJOsrnbBJB7WKvgiFhpF-vhoL5RzBvNMieuq6Z

QYuFFmiVGGXYspnMONKmFE*Xfo*1fhN6yA04IAmS8

NashMbcU2*/SoutheastRegionClimateChangeNewsletter_

Winter2014_2015_Final.pdf.

Twitter/Facebook and Social Media

One of the newest and highly utilized forms of 

communication is social media. The speed at which 

information can be relayed and the general acceptance of 

that information makes it an indispensable tool. Coastal 

change is a certainty, and social media provides an 

opportunity to react to ever-changing conditions in real time.

Currently, there are four approved social media sites for the 

NPS: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr. These four sites 

have vastly different uses and each can provide a tailored 

product for the intended audience: 

● Facebook – an online community where people 

anywhere in the world go to stay connected with family, 

friends, colleagues, and organizations. The main use 

of this site is to provide subscribers with news updates, 

information, events, and announcements. The NPS 

Ocean and Coastal Facebook page is a closed group to 

which you can request to be added.

● Twitter – a “microblogging” site that is a shorter form 

of a blog. Twitter allows the use of only 140 characters 

per statement (tweet), so precise choice in words is 

essential for an effective tweet. 

Figure 7.4. An example of a park newspaper from 

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park.

Figure 7.5. NPS Southeast 

Regional Newsletter.
National Park Service 92 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● YouTube – the world’s largest video sharing website. It 

should be the “second stop” when posting videos after 

the site’s main webpage. 

● Flickr – one of the world’s largest photo sharing 

communities. This site allows only still images to be 

posted and does not have a video posting option. 

Several King Tides Flickr photo sharing groups provide 

a way for volunteers to help visualize what sea level 

rise may look like in the future by sharing photos taken 

during the highest tides each year (e.g., Washington 

State https://www.flickr.com/groups/1611274@N22/.

Some guidelines to keep in mind when using 

social media include:

● Only post information, images, and videos that are 

publicly available. Do not post anything that is related 

to a pending lawsuit, contains personally identifiable 

information, or is classified. 

● Be aware that the entire notion of social media is for the 

interaction of groups, and, as such, comments from the 

audience are a part of that interaction. These comments 

can be both positive and negative. Please use tact and 

caution when replying to negative comments, as these 

are still part of the conversation. If in doubt on how 

to respond, refer to the NPS policy on social media 

relations: https://www.nps.gov/policy/Socialmedia.pdf.

● Be sure that no commercial advertising 

appears on the site.

For more in-depth guidance on how to effectively use social 

media please see “Social Media: A Guide to Tools and 

Strategies” http://share.inside.nps.gov/sites/Web/Documents/

Social%20Media/NPS_SocialMediaGuideforToolsStrategies.

pdf (NPS internal access only).

Case Study Review

Communication is different from interpretation. 

Communication is the transmission of information, whereas 

interpretation ensures that the audience makes a connection. 

Not all communication needs to be interpretive. Many 

of the strategies described in this chapter have strong 

interpretive opportunities. One method that focuses more on 

communication than on interpretation is a case study review, 

which can disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application.

A case study is an explanatory analysis of a person, group, 

or event. Case studies use scientific language to describe 

issues and the steps taken to address those issues. This 

allows decision makers to frame their decision in terms 

of the successes and failures of similar issues. When the 

audience is composed mostly of resource managers, this type 

of communication is among the best choices; however, it is 

probably not the best selection for the general public.

When putting a case study review together, there 

are a few guidelines to help ensure the product is as 

effective as possible: 

1. Read and examine the cases thoroughly.

2. Focus on the analysis.

A. What were the major issues?

B. What caused these issues?

C. How did they impact the area?

3. Uncover the solutions.

4. Identify the best solution and transmit supporting 

evidence, pros and cons, and the possibilities of 

success elsewhere.

Case study analyses bring together a number of different case 

studies for comparison to one another. Typically, case studies 

included in the analysis are of a similar focus to highlight 

similar problems with different solutions. Collaboration is 

key when crafting a case study analysis; contact other sites 

to ensure that information presented is verified and that the 

most robust analysis possible is attained.

In addition to the case studies in the “Coastal Adaptation 

Strategies: Case Studies,” (Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015) a few examples of climate related case studies can be 

found at the following links:

http://ncptt.nps.gov/blog/

climate-change-strategy-for-cultural-landscapes/

http://ncptt.nps.gov/blog/climate-change-at-el-morro/

http://ncptt.nps.gov/blog/climate-change-at-dry-tortugas/
National Park Service 93 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

General Recommendations

It is worth noting that not all communication will focus on 

outcomes. Climate adaptation work often hinges on the 

unknown. There is no way of telling how a storm will alter a 

coastal environment, or how far-reaching storm surge effects 

will be. As a result, the communication of the unknown is 

valuable, and in many ways can have the same impact as the 

communication of observed results. 

Here are five tips for effective communication 

about adaptation:

1. Balance urgency with hope.

2. Tailor communication to your audience.

3. Emphasize preparedness, risk reduction, and a 

healthy future.

4. Avoid jargon.

5. Make it personal, local, and timely.

Education

The communication of previous efforts is not the only way 

to share the success stories of coastal adaptation. When 

projects have a modicum of success, there is a unique 

opportunity to be able to share those successes in an 

educational setting. The great American psychiatrist William 

Glasser once said, “95% of what we learn is what we teach 

others.” The sharing of success through education not only 

helps to teach others, but also helps to embolden the efforts 

parks have already undertaken. 

The National Park Service holds a unique position as one 

of the world’s leading organizations for informal learning. 

Park visitors, partners, stakeholders, and the general public 

all look to the National Park Service for leadership in 

professionalism, education, and connections to these special 

places. This puts the organization in a position to educate 

a diverse grouping of audiences through an array of media. 

These educational opportunities will help to strengthen 

coastal communities by freely sharing information, lessons 

learned, and success stories.

There are a variety of products that can be used effectively 

to teach the stories of coastal adaptation. Keep in mind that 

not all education opportunities need to focus on a specific 

project. Sharing the processes, science, possible actions 

to be taken, and general understanding of climate change 

are possible ways to educate those who are interested. The 

following sections will highlight several ways to incorporate 

educational opportunities in park communication efforts.

Webinars

A webinar is similar to a seminar with the exception that it 

uses computers and the internet to make the connection 

instead of bringing the participants together physically. As a 

seminar is essentially a group of people coming together to 

discuss and learn, a webinar is a much more cost-effective 

and time-effective way to have a similar experience. Webinars 

are also convenient and easy to use, and reduce greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions by reducing travel. 

For examples of how a webinar could work, check the NPS 

website, which links to completed webinars. Additionally, 

the CCRP currently has a monthly webinar series related to 

climate news and scientists. 

Websites

Similar to how a newsletter can provide greater and more 

in-depth information about a topic, a website allows you to 

provide additional information about a topic. A dedicated 

website allows close work with partners and stakeholders 

to create a resource from which the audience can learn 

based on individual speed and interest. One of the main 

benefits of a dedicated website is that it allows for a broad 

range of resources to be brought together in one area 

for ease of access. It also allows for a great diversity of 

collaborators to provide the framework necessary to convey 

the desired messages. 

For an example of a dedicated website, see the Teach 

Ocean Science website (figure 7.6) that Assateague 

Island National Seashore, National Science Foundation, 

and the Integration & Application Network at the 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science partnered together to create. It is available 

at the following link: http://www.teachoceanscience.

net/teaching_resources/education_modules/

barrier_islands_and_sea_level_rise/get_started#

Figure 7.6. An 

example of a 

website: Teach 

Ocean Science.
National Park Service 94 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Online Courses

Online courses are a fantastic way to teach and train others 

about coastal adaptation efforts. These courses provide more 

information than a webinar and allow for more interaction 

between the participants and the instructors/presenters. 

They also provide the ability to check the audience’s 

comprehension of the topics covered. Online classes operate 

in a way similar to in-person classes, with a great deal more 

flexibility and cost savings and the added benefit of GHG 

emissions saving. Once these courses have been created, 

they can be used over and over until updating is needed or 

the information becomes irrelevant. There is also a greater 

deal of flexibility with online courses as participants can take 

these courses at their leisure. These attributes afford online 

classes more depth in the information being presented, 

and tend to produce more attrition from the participants 

than a webinar.

Online courses, however, do require more planning and 

effort to create than a webinar and potentially more than 

planning an in-person course, and this should be taken into 

account when creating online courses. Planning is essential 

when creating an online course. Planning should not be 

limited to the content but also on the way information 

retention is tested. Having a solid plan of what the goals are 

for any online course is a necessity. 

Climate Friendly Parks Workshops

In 2000, the Climate Friendly Parks (CFP) plan was created 

to hold workshops to discuss sustainability options for 

individual NPS sites. Each workshop includes staff training, 

carbon management inventory, action planning, technical 

assistance, national recognition, and education and 

outreach products. These workshops have detailed content, 

akin to that included in webinars and online courses, 

and they focus on the specific park setting. While these 

workshops primarily provide parks with management tools 

and resources to address the mitigation aspect of climate 

change, communication has always been a major focus, and 

more recent efforts to integrate adaptation have shown this 

venue is an ideal entrée for developing coastal adaptation 

efforts. Cape Hatteras National Seashore is an example of 

one of the first CFP Action Plans that include adaptation 

actions (figure 7.7). 

The dedicated CFP staff can assist in planning and hosting 

a workshop, which requires approximately four months 

of planning. There are several areas in which the CFP 

staff can help:

● Inventory support. The technical experts help guide 

parks through conducting a GHG emissions inventory 

using the Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) tool.

● Action planning support. Technical experts can help 

to develop a strategic plan to address climate and 

sustainability issues. This section is ideal for coastal 

adaptation as it allows action items to be included in 

environmental management systems (EMS).

● Education and outreach support. The team and regional 

partners can help create outreach strategies to promote 

climate change efforts and educate visitors about their 

contributions to sustainability goals. 

At the end of a CFP process, it is possible to have the site 

named a Climate Friendly Park. This national recognition 

can help embolden the efforts of implementing the park plan 

and combating climate change. 

1

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Wright Brothers 

National Memorial, & Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

Climate Action Plan

Figure 7.7. 

Cape Hatteras 

Climate 

Friendly Parks 

Action Plan.
National Park Service 95 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Climate Smart Training

Climate-smart conservation (see chapters 3 and 4) is the 

intentional and deliberate consideration of climate change 

in natural resource management, realized through adopting 

forward-looking goals and explicitly linking strategies to key 

climate impacts and vulnerabilities. 

The Climate-Smart Conservation trainings based on the 

guidance document Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting 

Adaptation Principles into Practice (Stein et al. 2014) are 

being offered through the National Conservation Training 

Center several times a year. This training helps to serve 

natural resource managers with the following objectives:

Design adaptation planning processes that are relevant at 

multiple scales to:

● Evaluate conservation goals from a climate 

change perspective.

● Explain how climate change vulnerability assessments, 

scenario planning, and downscaled climate models 

inform adaptation.

● Describe the process for identifying possible adaptation 

options based on vulnerability information.

● Integrate climate adaptation into existing planning and 

decision-making processes and policies.

Take Home Messages

● At the heart of the variety of products covered in this 

section lies communication itself. These products 

merely serve as the vehicle to provide audiences with 

effective communication of the efforts made in coastal 

adaptation. The communication of success stories, 

both with other parks and with partners, will help build 

support for the implementation of adaptation strategies. 

● Support of local communities, parks, partners, 

stakeholders, and the general public is necessary for 

the effective implementation of any adaptation strategy. 

Many times the efficacy of adaptation programs relies 

on the cooperation of a variety of interested parties. 

Communication is necessary to include stakeholder 

involvement, which is crucial for planning and 

managing for change. 
National Park Service 96 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

2014. Summary for policymakers. Pages 1-32 in C. 

B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. 

D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, 

Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, 

A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and 

L. L. White (eds.)]. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and 

Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA, pp. 

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe [eds.]. 2014. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Stein, B. A., P. Glick, N. A. Edelson, and A. Staudt 

[eds.]. 2014. Climate-Smart Conservation: Putting 

Adaptation Principles into Practice. National Wildlife 

Federation, Washington, DC. http://www.nwf.org/pdf/

Climate-Smart-Conservation/NWF-Climate-SmartConservation_5-08-14.pdf (accessed 19 March 2015).
National Park Service 97 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 8 Protecting Infrastructure: Costs and Impacts

Contributing Authors: Katie McDowell Peek, Courtney 

Schupp, and Amanda Babson

Infrastructure Adaptation

This chapter identifies multiple strategies and associated 

costs for protection and adaptation of infrastructure in 

the coastal zone. While this chapter focuses specifically on 

infrastructure, many of these adaptation strategies can also 

be applied to archeological resources and other cultural 

resources; for a more detailed discussion of relevant issues, 

see “Chapter 5 Cultural Resources.” 

Infrastructure comprises the physical assets and 

components of a region that provide service to the public, 

and includes buildings, roads, water and wastewater 

systems, bridges, and electrical grids. Some of these 

park assets are also protected cultural resources. The 

National Park Service manages numerous types of coastal 

infrastructure that will be affected by climate change and 

is investigating coastal infrastructure adaptation options 

at park, regional, and servicewide levels. As coastal 

vulnerability increases with changes in the climate, public 

pressure will also increase to armor the coastline.

Climate change adaptation is important for National 

Park Service (NPS) assets in terms of both planning 

new construction, such as ensuring that the location 

is not along an eroding shoreline or within a flood 

zone, and managing existing assets through engineered 

protection, relocation, or abandonment. Adaptation 

efforts must consider the NPS mission and the balance 

of natural, historic, and cultural resources, as well as 

recreational access, budget constraints, and public and 

political pressure. 

This chapter describes different climate change adaptation 

options for infrastructure within coastal parks, with 

emphasis on sea level rise and storms. Options include 

hard stabilization structures, relocation and retreat, 

redesign, abandonment, and creation of nature-based 

features (Bridges et al. 2015), such as beach nourishment 

and living shorelines. A continuum of these options from 

hard to soft or nature-based options is described by 

SAGE, NOAA, and USACE (2014) and illustrated in figure 

8.1; their costs, benefits, and impacts are summarized in 

table 8.1. Online resources will be updated to supplement 

this document and can be found at http://www.nps.gov/

subjects/climatechange/coastalhandbook.htm.

Figure 8.1. A continuum of green (soft) to gray (hard) shoreline stabilization techniques. Figure 1 from NOAA 

(2015) based on SAGE, NOAA, and USACE (2014). 
National Park Service 98 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Protect in Place: Costs, Benefits, 

and Impacts of Infrastructure 

Adaptation Options

Many adaptation efforts have focused on protecting 

infrastructure in place by stabilizing the shoreline 

using seawalls, groins, bulkheads, and soft stabilization 

techniques, such as beach nourishment. These are 

strategies to resist change that are often not long-term 

solutions because climate change and sea level rise 

will continue to threaten the assets, and the stabilizing 

structures will require ongoing maintenance and repair. 

Hard stabilization structures can have adverse impacts, 

which are described within each section below; there are 

also impacts common to all of them. By changing natural 

shoreline processes in the project area, the structures may 

reduce sediment transport to downdrift areas, which may 

also have natural and cultural resources to be considered. 

If downdrift erosion needs to be mitigated, there will be 

additional costs for stabilization or nourishment. As sea 

level rises and erosion continues, the shoreline may migrate 

away from the fixed structure, requiring rehabilitation and 

extension to re-attach the structure to land. Also, hard 

stabilization and beach nourishment can give the false 

sense of security and reduced risk in an area. Although 

well intentioned, these projects could induce more risk by 

encouraging development within these vulnerable areas. 

Table 8.1. Summary of adaptation options and their costs, benefits, and impacts.

Adaptation Option General Cost Benefits Disadvantages/Impacts

Onshore, Shore-Parallel 

Structures

$2,000 – $3,000/ft 

($6562-$9843/m)

Reduce upland erosion Disrupts natural processes; causes 

erosion; impacts habitat

Shore-Perpendicular 

Structures

Groins: $250 – $6,500/ft ($820-

$21,325/m) 

Jetties: $16,000/ft ($52,493/m)

Groins: Widen beach

Jetties: Limit sediment flow and 

wave energy in inlet

Disrupt natural processes (longshore 

transport); cause downdrift erosion; 

cascading effect of installation 

(groins); hinder inlet migration (jetties)

Breakwaters Initial: $16,000/ft ($52,493/m) 

Annual maintenance: 

over $500/ft ($1640/m)

Reduce force and height 

of waves; allow accretion 

landward of structure

Navigation hazard; disrupt natural 

processes; cause downdrift erosion; no 

high water protection

Beach Nourishment $300 – $1,000 ft ($984-$3,281/m) 

per linear foot or between $5 

and $30 ($3.80 and $23 per 

cubic meter) per cubic yard 

of sand

Increase beach sand volume/

width; reduce wave energy 

near infrastructure; protection 

from moderate water rise; 

can promote tourism, rapid 

visible change

Temporary solution; does not 

reduce or eliminate erosion; sand 

compatibility limitations; impacts on 

wildlife on beach and at borrow sites; 

disrupts natural beach processes; can 

encourage increased development in 

high-risk areas 

Sand Fencing Inexpensive Support natural vegetation 

growth (and sand 

accumulation); reduce wind 

stress and salt spray

Can create debris and safety hazards 

when destroyed

Living Shorelines Initial: $1,000 ft ($3,281/m)

Annual maintenance: 

$100/ft ($328/m)

Provide habitat; dissipate 

wave energy; slow inland 

water transfer

No upland flood protection; 

vegetation survival can be limited; 

hybrid techniques that include hard 

structures disrupt sediment processes

Redesign the Structure May be lower than complete 

removal or relocation; adaptive 

maintenance costs can increase 

with redesign

Prolong accessibility; postpone 

need to find new site for 

structure; allow historical 

structure to remain in 

associated landscape

Pilings can be undermined by erosion 

or affected by groundwater; means of 

access may change

Relocate $800 – $40,000/ft 

($2625-$131,234/m)

Long-term solution, reduced 

maintenance needs; allow 

natural processes

Lack of appropriate relocation site; loss 

of historical context; size limitations

Abandon in Place Reduced short-term 

maintenance costs

Reduced maintenance needs; 

can eliminate need for 

protective structures

Deterioration over time; attractive 

nuisance; loss of historical value; 

potential for introduction of 

hazardous materials
National Park Service 99 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Hard stabilization often impacts wildlife habitat and 

ecosystem services and may also limit the extent of or 

seriously degrade seagrass, salt marsh, and coral reefs, 

all of which in themselves attenuate waves and provide a 

level of coastal protection and other ecosystem services, 

and all of which must be protected under NPS policies 

and regulations. Some studies have found that adding 

hard structures increases species diversity, particularly 

if the surface is complex (rough and pitted instead of 

smooth) (Moschella et al. 2005; Chapman and Underwood 

2011). Structures diversify habitat through new substrate 

types and differences in wave energy levels seaward and 

landward of structures (Martin et al. 2005). Compared 

to hard bottom habitat, breakwaters can show lower 

overall species richness than rocky shores because they 

are less established, and they have less habitat complexity 

and spatial extent (Moschella et al. 2005) although some 

studies have shown no significant difference (Pister 2009). 

Some studies indicate that anthropogenic structures favor 

invasive or exotic species over native ones (Wasson, Fenn, 

and Pearse 2005; Glasby et al. 2007; Tyrrell and Byers 

2007). These changes to the local coastal ecosystem are 

substantial and may not be desirable in the context of 

conservation and park values. 

As detailed in “Chapter 2 Policy,” NPS policy has been 

to allow natural shoreline processes to continue and to 

investigate mitigation options for the effects of human 

alterations to shoreline processes (NPS Management 

Policies 2006 § 4.8.1.1). Any such intervention must be 

kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the stated 

management objectives (NPS Management Policies 

2006 § 4.1 and § 4.8.1.1). A thorough decision-making 

process related to emplacing new structures will include 

evaluations of what happens when decisions must 

be made to repair, replace, or remove the structures 

(Nordstrom 2014). 

The following section describes the costs, benefits, 

and impacts of protecting assets in place using various 

coastal engineering approaches. A review of many coastal 

stabilization structures can be found in Nordstrom (2014).

Onshore, Shore-Parallel Structures: Seawalls, 

Revetments, and Bulkheads

Seawalls (figure 8.2) are onshore, shore-parallel structures 

built along open coasts with the primary purpose of 

protecting the resource behind the seawall from wave 

action. They are commonly constructed with a vertical, 

stepped, or curved face using stone, steel, concrete, or 

wood (Benoit et al. 2007). 

Revetments are placed directly on an existing slope, 

embankment, or dike to protect the upslope area from 

waves and strong currents, sometimes at the expense 

of the downslope area. They are commonly built to 

preserve the existing uses of the shoreline and to protect 

the slope. Like seawalls, revetments armor and protect 

the land and structure behind them. Revetments are 

commonly constructed using armorstone (in high wave 

energy environments), articulated concrete mattress 

(on riverbanks and in low and intermediate wave 

environments) (Leidersdorf, Gadd, and McDougal 1989), 

or rip-rap stone (in lower wave energy environments) in 

combination with smaller stone and geotextile fabrics. 

Other construction materials include gabions, placed 

concrete (usually in stepped fashion), pre-cast concrete 

blocks, and grout-filled bags.

Figure 8.2. A seawall protects Fort Warren on Georges 

Island at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. 

Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 100 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Bulkheads (figure 8.3) are vertical structures or partitions, 

usually running parallel to the shoreline on sheltered 

coasts, for the purpose of retaining upland soils while 

providing protection from wave action and erosion. 

Bulkheads are commonly rock-filled timber cribs and 

gabions, steel/composite sheet pile, concrete blocks, or 

armorstone units (Coburn, Griffith, and Young 2010). They 

can be freestanding or can have a series of tiebacks for 

stability (Benoit et al. 2007).

Sea level rise and increased wave heights may necessitate 

increased maintenance or elevation of the hard structures 

to maintain their efficacy. Increased wave heights and scour 

at the base of the structure are likely to reduce structure 

stability (NRC 2014). Seawalls are effective against 

coastal flooding only if they prevent tides from filtering 

up through the ground and can compound problems 

when they prevent rainwater from draining out (SpangerSiegfried, Fitzpatrick, and Dahl 2014). As sea level rises, 

the beach in front of the structures will be submerged, 

resulting in a loss of recreation opportunities and habitat 

(Heberger et al. 2009).

Costs

The construction costs for shore-parallel engineering 

structures vary widely depending on factors such as 

material, height, land characteristics, and location. Total 

planning and installation is commonly around $2,000 

to $3,000 per linear ft ($6,500 to $9,800 per m) but has 

topped $10,000 per linear ft ($32,800 per m) in several 

projects. Repair and replacement of deteriorating seawalls, 

revetments, and bulkheads can be more expensive than 

new construction. Examples from within and outside the 

National Park Service are compiled here.

1. Montauk Lighthouse, New York: Seawall and Stone 

Revetment Construction (2006)

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed 

a stone seawall and revetment in 2006 around a portion 

of the Montauk Lighthouse, part of the Montauk Point 

State Park in New York. The project was labeled as a 

“hurricane and storm damage reduction project” and 

total construction costs were estimated by the USACE 

as $13,720,000 for 840 linear ft (256 m) at 40 ft [12 

m] wide, and 25 ft [7.6 m] above National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929). This seawall and revetment 

replaced a deteriorated seawall installed in the 

1940s (USACE 2005). 

Approximate cost: $16,665/ft ($54,675/m)

2. Harkers Island, Cape Lookout National Seashore: 

Bulkhead Repairs and Replacement (2007)

The bulkhead at the headquarters of Cape Lookout 

National Seashore on Harkers Island was repaired 

and replaced starting in 2007. The work included the 

construction of a vinyl sheet pile bulkhead along more 

than 740 ft (225 m) of shoreline and boat ramp repair, 

with an award value of $2,042,372 (USACE 2007). 

Approximate cost: $2,759/ft ($9,052/m) 

3. Ellis Island, New York: Seawall Repair (2010) 

Major repair of the Ellis Island seawall began in 2010. 

Ellis Island is situated within the Hudson River in 

New York and is part of the Statue of Liberty National 

Monument. Approximately 5,550 linear ft (1,690 m) of 

deteriorating seawall was repaired at an estimated cost 

of $20.9 million (US DOI 2010). 

Approximate cost: $3,800/ft ($12,470/m)

Figure 8.3B. Bulkheads protect Liberty Island. 

Photograph by NPS.

Figure 8.3A. Bulkheads at the Hatteras Island ferry landing 

on Ocracoke Island, NC. Photograph by NPS.

 
National Park Service 101 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

4. Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Washington, DC: 

Seawall Repair and Replacement (2011) 

A replacement of the seawall along the Potomac River 

at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington 

DC was completed in 2011. The work was done by 

Clark Construction for the National Park Service 

at a cost of approximately $13 million. This project 

required the removal of 500 linear ft (152 m) of old 

seawall and complete replacement with new piling and 

seawall (NPS 2014b).

Approximate cost: $26,000/ft ($85,526/m)

5. Scituate Lighthouse, Massachusetts: Rock 

Revetment Improvement and Repair (2014) 

Repairs to the granite revetment around Scituate 

Lighthouse in Massachusetts included replacing around 

400 linear ft (122 m) of the revetment with new granite 

boulders at a cost of $800,000 (Shields 2013).

Approximate cost: $2,000/ft ($6,562/m)

6. Marshfield, Massachusetts: Seawall 

Replacement (2013) 

The oceanfront seawall in Marshfield, Massachusetts, 

was reconstructed in 2013 at a cost of $3.2 million to 

repair 1,131 linear ft (345 m) of the concrete and stone 

seawall with a height increase of 2 ft (0.6 m) (Trufant 

2013). In January 2014, winter storms destroyed 

sections of the seawall, and a 1,000 ft (305 m) section, 

which is less than half of the damaged length, was 

reconstructed with a 2 ft (0.6 m) height increase in the 

fall of 2015 at a cost of $4 million (Conti 2015).

Approximate cost: $3,379/ft ($11,076/m)

7. Elliot Bay, Seattle, Washington: Seawall 

Replacement (2013) 

The Elliot Bay seawall is currently being replaced in 

Seattle, Washington, from South Washington Street to 

Broad Street (approximately 4,000 ft [1,220 m]). The 

cost of the replacement has been estimated at $300 

million (Thompson 2012).

Approximate cost: $75,000/ft ($246,063/m)

8. Mantoloking and Brick Township, New Jersey: 

Stone Seawall Construction (planned)

A new steel seawall is being planned along the 

oceanfront in the communities of Mantoloking and 

Brick Township. It will extend for 10,636 ft (3,242 

m) and has a cost estimate of $78,905,000, including 

purchase of easements and property (USACE 2015).

Approximate cost: $7,418/ft ($24,338/m)

9. Riis Landing, Gateway National Recreation Area: 

Bulkhead Repair (2013)

An award was made with a construction company to 

make repairs to the bulkhead at Riis Landing in the 

Jamaica Bay unit of the Gateway National Recreation 

Area at a cost of $1.1 million; the bulkhead is 

approximately 500 ft (152 m) in total length (NPS 2012). 

Approximate cost: $2,200/ft ($7,217/m)

Benefits

Seawalls, revetments, and bulkheads reduce the impact 

of wave energy and associated erosion on coastal assets 

directly behind them along vulnerable shorelines. These 

structures may be a good choice for protecting assets that 

are not feasible to relocate, such as cultural landscapes and 

associated sensitive cultural and historic assets.

Impacts and Disadvantages

These structures are expensive and disturb the natural 

sediment transport processes that allow a beach to 

maintain itself. They cause both active and passive erosion 

of the beach in front of the structure. When waves hit 

a seawall or bulkhead, they are reflected downward, 

increasing scouring at the toe of the wall (active erosion). 

This impedes the natural landward migration of beaches 

in response to sea level rise (passive erosion). The reflected 

wave energy also degrades seagrass, submerged habitat, 

and marsh areas that might otherwise grow on the bay 

side of structures (Titus and Strange 2008). If a bulkhead 

is constructed at the shoreline, the area landward of a 

bulkhead is typically filled, converting existing marsh 

or beach to uplands (Benoit et al. 2007); this can be 

considered an impact to existing habitat but a benefit 

to uplands. Structures made of rip-rap stone have an 

additional disadvantage: they are very difficult to clean 

following an oil spill, because oil becomes entrained within 

the structure and is then slowly released over a much 

longer time scale than it might otherwise be.

All three structure types provide only a temporary solution 

to a threatened asset. The beach that is seaward of the 

structure will narrow and steepen as soon as the structure 

is constructed. Stone or riprap is often placed at the toe 

of a bulkhead to absorb some of the wave energy (Benoit 

et al. 2007). Over time the scouring at the toe of the 

structure will cause destruction of the beach ecosystem, 

including turtle and bird habitat, and can remove the 

public recreational beach. Recurring beach nourishment is 

often needed when seawalls are placed on the oceanfront 
National Park Service 102 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

to replace the beach that will eventually be lost seaward 

of the structure. It is generally recognized that seawalls, 

revetments, and bulkheads can also cause “end effect” 

erosion, which occurs when the structure causes erosion 

on the down-drift side of the structure. The structures 

need to be maintained and repaired (at a high cost) and 

are often overtopped and damaged by water during 

storms. It is possible to design seawalls to withstand some 

overtopping so that following a storm, they can return to 

service quickly. 

An additional limitation of seawalls is the incorrect 

perception that they are designed to prevent flooding, even 

when their height is insufficient and their intended purpose 

is to prevent erosion. This is a kind of induced risk, in that 

the risk reduction measure can lead to increased overall 

risk, such as residents’ failure to evacuate during dangerous 

conditions or leaving resources vulnerable to flooding due 

to a misperception that the structure can protect them.

Shore-Perpendicular Structures: 

Jetties and Groins

Jetties (figure 8.4) are hard structures that extend 

perpendicularly or at nearly right angles from the shore 

and are commonly used to limit the volume of sediment 

deposited in inlet channels, prevent inlet migration, and 

decrease wave energy around inlets.

Groins (figure 8.5) are structures that extend 

perpendicularly or at nearly right angles from the shore 

and are shorter than jetties (Coburn, Griffith, and Young 

2010). Often constructed in groups called groin fields, their 

primary purpose is to trap and retain sand that is being 

transported alongshore to build the beach on the updrift 

side of the structure. Jetties and groins can be constructed 

from a wide range of materials, including armorstone, precast concrete units or blocks, rock-filled timber cribs and 

gabions, steel sheet pile, timber sheet pile, and grout filled 

bags and tubes. 

Sea level rise increases the possibility of flanking or 

submergence of these structures (Heberger et al. 2009). 

Flanking may occur during high tides, because landward 

retreat of the beach and dune line leave the structure’s 

landward attachment point exposed. Submergence of the 

structure can lead to overtopping by the longshore current 

(Heberger et al. 2009).

Costs

The cost of groin construction, repair, and replacement 

generally ranges from $250 to $6,500 per linear ft 

($820 to $21,325 per m) depending on the material 

used (NCCRC 2010). Jetties tend to be more expensive, 

reaching up to $16,000 per linear ft ($52,495 per m). 

Jetties require maintenance, such as elevating the 

jetty height and extending the downdrift jetty inland 

Figure 8.4. Ocean City Inlet jetty and breakwaters on the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore in 2011. 

Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 103 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

as the shoreline retreats to extend the lifespan of the 

structure. Maintenance frequency may vary depending 

on erosion rate of the land to which it is tied, water level 

including storm surges, and height and integrity of the 

initially-built structure. Costs of maintenance depend 

on the level of maintenance (e.g., minor modification vs. 

complete rebuild), material used, labor used, difficulty 

of accessing the site, time frame of modification, and 

regulatory and public notice requirements, among other 

considerations (USACE 2008).

Examples of jetty and groin projects are summarized below 

with cost estimates and project details. Both NPS and nonNPS examples are included. 

1. Columbia River Inlet, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Park: Jetty Repair (2007)

The south jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River in 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Park was repaired in 

2006–2007 at a cost of $1.9 million for 5,300 ft (1,615 

m). The jetty is constructed of stone (USACE 2012). 

Approximate Cost: $3,585/ft ($11,176/m)

2. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida: Jetty 

Extension (2010)

The south jetty at Ponce de Leon Inlet in Florida was 

extended by 900 ft (274 m) for $14.8 million in 2010. 

The extension was constructed out of light-weight stone 

from a Florida quarry and was a straight jetty design 

(Florida Department Environmental Protection 2010). 

Approximate cost: $16,444/ft ($53,950/m)

3. Matagorda, Texas: Jetty Replacement (2010)

The east jetty on the mouth of the Colorado River in 

Matagorda, Texas, was replaced in 2010 by the US Army 

Corps of Engineers. The jetty was 2,780 ft (847 m) in 

length and constructed of 170,000 tons of rock, at a 

price of $25 million (MCEDC 2011). 

Approximate cost: $8,992/ft ($29,500/m)

4. North Carolina Terminal Groin Study (2010) 

The North Carolina legislature directed the North 

Carolina Coastal Resources Commission to initiate 

this project for the consideration of terminal groin 

construction in North Carolina. A study (NCCRC 2010) 

was conducted on the costs, benefits, and impacts of 

terminal groins. Table 8.2 summarizes the results of this 

study and the costs for the installation and repair of 

terminal groins.

Table 8.2. Construction costs by material.

Construction 

Material Price Per Linear Foot Price Per Linear Meter

Rock and Stone $1,200–$6,500 $3,937–$21,325

Concrete and 

Steel Sheet Pile

$4,000–$5,000 $13,123–$16,404

Timber $3,000–$4,000 $9,843–$13,123

Geotextile $250–1,000 $820–$3,281

Two specific examples from the 2010 North Carolina 

terminal groin study are summarized below:

a. Fort Macon, North Carolina: Terminal Groin 

Construction (1961–1970)

The terminal groin at Fort Macon was constructed 

between 1961 and 1970 and is a 1,530-ft (466-m) stone 

structure. The crest width of the groin is around 10 ft (3 

m) and the base width around 60 ft (18 m). According 

to the authors of the study, the groin cost $2.9 million in 

2009 dollars (NCCRC 2010). 

Approximate cost (2009 dollars): $1,900/ft ($6,234/m)

b. Oregon Inlet, North Carolina: Terminal Groin 

Construction (1991) 

Oregon Inlet impacts Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 

The terminal groin on the south side of Oregon Inlet 

was built in 1991 at a cost of $13.4 million. It is a 

stone structure 3,125 ft (952 m) long and includes a 

revetment on the shoreline. An estimated (2009 dollars) 

cost of $26.3 million for the structure was made in this 

study (NCCRC 2010).

Approximate cost (2009 dollars): $8,410/ft ($27,592/m)

Figure 8.5. Steel sheet-pile groin at the former location of 

the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 104 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Benefits

Groins can create a temporary wide beach on the updrift 

side of the structure. Jetties limit sediment flow into the 

adjacent inlet, reducing the frequency of maintenance 

dredging to maintain a navigable depth. Jetties also reduce 

the wave energy within the inlet and can widen the beach 

just up-drift of the structure. 

Impacts and Disadvantages

Shore-perpendicular structures, such as groins and jetties, 

disrupt natural beach processes and alongshore sediment 

transport pathways. By design, these structures are meant 

to capture sand transported by the longshore current; this 

depletes the sand supply to the beach area immediately 

down-drift of the structure. In response, down-drift 

property managers often install groins on adjacent 

properties to counteract the increased erosion, leading 

to a cascading effect of groin installation. Groins may be 

notched to increase their permeability, allowing some 

sediment to pass over the groin. This strategy is used with 

beach nourishment projects to limit overall sediment loss 

and to reduce renourishment frequency.

Jetties can also hinder inlet migration and delta processes, 

which are natural and important parts of the stability 

of coastal systems that allow sediment to build marsh 

platforms and add sediment to the bay side of an island. 

Large jetties and groins can alter physical processes 

significantly, which in turn can create new and different 

habitat. For example, a jetty can trap large quantities 

of sand on the updrift side, which can create beach, 

sand dune, or other upland coastal habitat that replace 

the nearshore or intertidal environment. This might be 

considered a benefit for the habitat type created and 

an impact to the pre-existing habitats and associated 

resources that are lost. 

Breakwaters

A breakwater (figure 8.4) is an offshore shore-parallel 

structure that breaks waves, reducing the wave energy 

reaching the beach and fostering sediment accretion 

between the beach and the breakwater. It is made of rock, 

concrete, or oyster shell (if in a low-wave environment). 

It can be floating or fixed on the ocean floor and can be 

continuous or segmented or as a series of spheres (reef 

balls). It can be high-crested to act as wave barriers, lowcrested to allow overtopping, or submerged to lessen its 

physical and visual impact (Nordstrom 2014). Breakwaters 

are often used in marinas or other areas without high wave 

energy (SAGE, NOAA, and USACE 2014). 

Breakwaters within protected harbors are not expected 

to be impacted by sea level rise over a 50-year project life 

span (HR Wallingford 2015), although that review only 

considered the lowest sea level rise scenario. If sea level 

rises to the point that the breakwater is submerged at 

high tide, the breakwater would be a navigation hazard. 

Breakwaters exposed to increased wave height associated 

with sea level rise may be weakened by wave impact; 

extreme significant wave heights are expected to increase 

by about 55% of the increase in relative sea levels, for 

a total increase of 155% (HR Wallingford 2015). The 

increased frequency of wave overtopping will reduce the 

ability of the breakwater to shelter the shoreline from wave 

energy (Heberger et al. 2009). Additionally, rising water 

levels will effectively move the shoreline farther from the 

breakwater, increasing the ability of the waves to diffract 

behind the structure and reducing the breakwater’s efficacy 

(Heberger et al. 2009). 

Costs

Initial construction costs are up to $10,000 per linear ft 

($32,808/m) and an annual maintenance cost of over $500 

per linear ft ($1,640/m), assuming a 50-year project life 

(SAGE, NOAA, and USACE 2014).

Benefits

Breakwaters reduce the force and height of waves 

reaching the shoreline. Sediment accretes landward of the 

breakwater, and in the case of high-crested breakwaters, 

can even create salients that connect the beach to 

the structure. 

Breakwaters can stabilize wetlands and provide shelter 

for new intertidal marsh habitat to form landward of the 

structure (Nordstrom 2014). The rocky habitat can provide 

some reef function (SAGE, NOAA, and USACE 2014). 

Along estuarine shorelines, bagged oyster breakwaters 

were found to support much higher densities of live ribbed 

mussels than reef ball breakwaters, but both configurations 

supported increased species richness of juvenile and 

small fishes compared to controls (Scyphers, Powers, 

and Heck 2014). 

Impacts and Disadvantages

Breakwaters are expensive to install in deep water, can 

create a navigational hazard, and can reduce water 

circulation. Sediment that accumulates landward of the 

breakwater may reduce alongshore transport, leading to 

downdrift erosion; this sediment can be silty and rich in 

organic matter. Intertidal marsh that forms landward of 
National Park Service 105 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

the breakwater may not be appropriate in that location 

and may replace a natural sandy beach habitat (Nordstrom 

2014). Breakwaters do not provide high water protection 

(SAGE, NOAA, and USACE 2014). 

Beach Nourishment

Beach nourishment, also referred to as renourishment or 

replenishment, is the placement of sand onto beaches or 

within the nearshore (figure 8.6). Sand is obtained from an 

outside source; it is commonly dredged from an offshore 

location and pumped via pipelines directly onto the beach 

or dumped from a hopper dredge into the nearshore, 

or in some cases it is trucked from an inland source and 

dumped onto the lower beach. Nourishment replaces sand 

that is lost because of coastal erosion and can temporarily 

widen a narrow beach. Many times this process is used 

to mitigate erosion caused by hard structures such as 

groins and seawalls. The placement of sand on the beach 

increases the distance between vulnerable infrastructure 

and wave energy, which in some cases can help mitigate 

and postpone damage to infrastructure and property 

from coastal hazards. Berms may also be built when 

sand is added to replace dune function; they absorb 

wave energy before the water reaches infrastructure 

behind the dunes, and they serve as a sand source to 

nourish the beach. Dunes may be stabilized by planting 

vegetation and erecting sand fencing, which is described 

in the following section. The NPS Reference Manual 

39-2: Beach Nourishment Guidance provides guidelines 

and best management practices for implementing beach 

nourishment projects where they have been deemed 

necessary and consistent with NPS management policies 

(Dallas, Eshleman, and Beavers 2012). 

Nourished beaches are subject to the same erosional 

forces as natural beaches (NRC 2014), and increased 

renourishment frequency is expected with increased sea 

level rise and storm impacts.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has published 

a set of best management practices (Rice 2009) to 

avoid adverse impacts to biological resources including 

macro-invertebrates upon which fish and birds prey, 

and which can be buried by sand placement. Important 

considerations include the timing of any sand placement 

relative to reproductive seasons; the quality and match of 

sand grains to the existing habitat; and maintaining the 

appropriate beach slope.

Costs

The cost of beach nourishment, like other types of coastal 

protection measures, varies depending on the method, 

location, and distance to the source sand. However, it is 

widely acknowledged that this method of protection can 

be extremely expensive, especially given that the process 

must be repeated frequently (commonly every few years). 

The cost of nourishment, including the transport and 

placement of the material, is commonly between $300 

and $1,000/ft ($984 to $3,281/m) or between $5 and $30/

yd3 ($3.80 to $23/m3) of sand. Below are eight beach 

nourishment projects in recent years within and outside of 

NPS coastal park units.

1. Assateague Island, Maryland (2002)

A one-time beach nourishment event widened the beach 

by 100 ft (30 m) in the area between 1.2 and 7.5 mi (2 

and 12.5 km) south of the Ocean City Inlet (figure 8.6). 

The sediment was dredged from Great Gull Bank, in 

offshore Maryland State waters, and placed just seaward 

of the mean high water line to replace about 15% of 

the sand captured by the Ocean City Inlet since 1934 

(USACE 1998). This effort cost $13.2 million.

Total Volume: 1,832,000 yd3 (1.4 million m3) 

Approximate cost: $7/yd3 ($9.42/m3)

2. Assateague Island, Maryland (2004–present)

The North End Restoration project is a 25-year effort 

that began in 2004 to restore sediment transport to the 

North End, which has been eroding since the Ocean City 

Inlet was stabilized in 1934. Twice each year, a dredge 

vessel takes sand from the inlet ebb and flood tidal 

deltas and deposits it approximately 1.5 to 3.1 mi (2.5 to 

5 km) south of the inlet, placing a volume approximately 

equal to the natural pre-inlet longshore transport rate. 

The bypassed borrow material is deposited on the crest 

and just seaward of the nearshore bar. The project 

Figure 8.6. Beach nourishment at Assateague Island 

National Seashore in 2002 added sediment and widened 

the beach. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 106 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

moved 1,990,956 yd3 (1,522,195 m3) between 2004 

and 2010. The estimated cost for dredging and placing 

sediment, and for monitoring and administering the 

project, is $2 million annually (Schupp et al. 2013).

Total Volume: 188,345 yd3/year (144,000 m3/year) 

Approximate project cost: $10.62/yd3 ($13.89/m3)

Approximate cost, not including monitoring program: 

$6 to $7/yd3 ($7.85 to $9.15 m3)

3. Cape May Point, New Jersey (2005–ongoing)

Cape May had been negatively affected by the dredging 

of a 3-mi (5-km) canal during World War II, as well 

as the installation of jetties in 1911, resulting in 

significant beach erosion. In 2005, USACE began a 

four-year renourishment cycle. Initial nourishment 

in 2005 consisted of 1.5 million yd3 (1,146,832 m3) at 

Meadows and Cape May Point as well as nourishment 

of the Cape May Inlet (Fox 2007; USACE 2013). 

Nourishment occurring through 2014 brought the total 

to 3.9 million yd3 (3 million m3) placed at a cost of 

$40.9 million (PSDS 2016).

Total Volume (2005-2014): 3.9 million yd3 (3 million m3)

Approximate cost: $10.45/yd3 ($13.70/m3)

4. Harrison County, Mississippi (2007)

Development along the coast of Harrison County, 

Mississippi, has compromised the natural shoreline. 

Beginning in the 1950s, a seawall and human-made 

beach were constructed to protect the shoreline. The 

latest renourishment along the 24.5 mi (39 km) of beach 

took place in 2007, pumping 1.1 million yd3 (841,010 

m3) of sand and costing about $6 million (Melby 2007; 

Brown, Mitchell & Alexander, Inc. 2011; PSDS 2015). 

Total Volume: 1.1 million yd3 (841,010 m3)

Approximate cost: $5.40/yd3 ($7.13/m3)

5. Bald Head Island, North Carolina (2010)

More than 150 ft (46 m) of beach had been lost on 

the west and south beach areas on Bald Head Island, 

North Carolina, by the time nourishment began in 

early November 2009. The dredged Cape Fear River 

contributed about 1.8 million yd3 (1,376,200 m3), 

which was pumped onto the shoreline over a fourmonth period at a cost of about $17 million (McGrath 

2009; PSDS 2015). 

Total Volume: 1.8 million yd3 (1,376,200 m3) 

Approximate cost: $9/yd3 ($12.35/m3)

6. West Ship Island, Mississippi (2011)

Ship Island, part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, 

was initially divided by Hurricane Camille in 1969 

and the inlet significantly widened during Hurricane 

Katrina in 2005. Therefore, a three-phase project was 

implemented to rejoin the East and West Ship Islands 

(Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 14: 

Large-Scale Restoration of Barrier Island Systems 

and Cultural Resource Protection through Sediment 

Placement”). By 2011, more than 0.5 million yd3 (almost 

432,000 m3) of sand had been pumped along 10,350 

ft of the West Ship Island shoreline to complete the 

$6 million north shore portion of the project that will 

protect the historic Fort Massachusetts (NPS 2011a; 

Kirgan 2011; USACE 2014; PSDS 2015).

Total Volume: 565,000 yd3 (431,942 m3) 

Approximate cost: $10.61/yd3 ($13.89/m3)

Additional renourishment and sand bypassing is planned 

as part of the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program 

project and will affect other areas of the park. Filling in 

Camille Cut to rejoin East and West Ship Islands is estimated 

to require approximately 13.5 million yd3 (10.3 million m3) of 

sediment. As part of the Ship Island restoration, the southern 

(Gulf) shoreline of East Ship Island will also be renourished 

with 5.5 million yd3 (4.2 million m3) of sediment. The Ship 

Island restoration will be accomplished in 5 phases over 

a 2.5-year period beginning in early to mid-2016. Natural 

regional sediment transport volumes will be restored by 

modifying future placement locations to better place material 

dredged from Horn Island Pass into the active littoral drift 

zone. The estimated cost for sand placement in Camille Cut 

and nourishment of East Ship Island is dependent on borrow 

site combinations used and is estimated at $368 million, not 

including monitoring costs (USACE 2014).

7. Perdido Key, Florida (2011)

A sand renourishment project took place in 2011 on 

the south shore of Perdido Key, Florida, part of Gulf 

Islands National Seashore. The area had been heavily 

affected by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and was considered 

“critically eroded.” Three million yd3 (2.3 million m3) 

of sand from Pensacola Pass was used to restore 2 mi 

(3.2 km) of shoreline located between Johnson Beach 

and Perdido Key State Park, costing about $14.5 million 

(NPS 2011b; My Escambia n.d.).

Total Volume: 3 million yd3 (2,293,664 m3)

Approximate cost: $4.80/yd3 ($6.32/m3)

8. Ocean City Beach, New Jersey (2013)

The USACE beach nourishment project at Ocean City 

Beach, New Jersey, in 2013 was part of a series of beach 

maintenance projects for the area following Hurricane 

Sandy. This three month renourishment began in 

February 2013 when 1.8 million yd3 (almost 1.4 million 

m3) were placed along 2.3 mi (3.7 km) of the beach. The 

initial $11 million project raised its cost to about $18 

million, which included supplemental funds from the 
National Park Service 107 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Sandy disaster fund (Bergen 2013).

Total Volume: 1.8 million yd3 (1,376,200 m3)

Approximate cost: $10/yd3 ($13.07/m3)

Benefits

Beach nourishment can provide protection from coastal 

hazards, such as storms, by increasing beach sand volume 

and beach width and reducing wave energy near atrisk infrastructure. The addition of sand to the beach 

profile (width and height) can also provide protection 

from moderate water level rise, up to the height of the 

constructed beach. Nourishment is often preferred to 

other types of coastal protection because many consider 

it a “soft” approach to beach engineering, which may 

attract less community resistance than hard structures 

such as groins, revetments, seawalls, or bulkheads. Some 

municipalities and states (e.g., North Carolina) restrict 

hard structures but allow soft stabilization. The additional 

beach width created by nourishment can help to promote 

beach tourism and recreational activities. Nourishment 

also creates a rapid visible change in the beach, in 

comparison to breakwaters or groins that trap sand over 

a longer period of time. Constructed dunes add sand to 

nourish the beach, with or without structural control, and 

provide a foundation for additional dune growth that may 

be enhanced by vegetation planting or sand fencing (Benoit 

et al. 2007). Newly constructed dunes provide new types of 

upland habitat, but it is not known if they provide the same 

ecosystem services, including wave energy dissipation, as 

naturally built dunes.

Impacts and Disadvantages 

Beach nourishment can have ecological, physical, and 

fiscal consequences. Beaches have a natural process of 

migration, which can accelerate during storm events. 

Beach migration does not end after nourishment, and 

continued erosion results in the need for subsequent 

nourishment projects within the same area, typically every 

few years. This short-term approach is very costly and can 

shut down a beach area for several months during each 

nourishment project. Predictions related to the durability 

of a nourishment project (i.e., how long the sand will 

last) are commonly overestimates and cost predictions are 

commonly underestimates (Pilkey et al. 1998). Research 

has also shown that nourished beaches disappear more 

quickly and recover more slowly from storms than 

natural beaches do (Pilkey et al. 1998). The cost and 

scale of renourishment episodes are highly likely to 

increase with sea level rise and with any increase in storm 

frequency or intensity.

Compatible sand sources for nourishment projects can 

be limited. Where possible, sand is often dredged from 

local sites for the purpose of introducing similar and 

compatible sediment into the beach areas of nourishment, 

but appropriate sources are not always available nearby. 

Sediment taken from nearby areas may have different 

proportions or ranges of grain sizes that are incompatible 

with existing habitat, impacting shorebird foraging, sea 

turtle nesting, shallow marine life, and the aesthetic quality 

of the beach (e.g., mudballs on previously sandy beaches). 

Dredging from local offshore sources may provide 

sediment with similar characteristics, but the dredging 

can disrupt the sediment transport pathway and reduce 

the ongoing natural sand supply to that location or other 

portions of the coast. Also, sediment borrow areas may 

become depleted as nourishment increases, thus requiring 

sediment to be borrowed from a greater distance or 

potentially from a less compatible source.

There are ecological impacts in the areas where sand is 

dredged and placed. Borrow pits can fill with fine-grained 

sediment that is resuspended during storm events; this 

in turn can impact adjacent resources (e.g., coral reefs). 

Borrow pits with fine-grained sediment also typically 

host a different ecological community from that which 

would occur naturally. Sand placement may cause burial 

of intertidal invertebrate communities (ASMFC 2002) and 

sedimentation of hardbottom reef structure (Lindeman 

and Snyder 2002) either by direct placement on reefs or as 

sediment is transported by nearshore waves and currents. 

Nourished beaches tend to have pronounced vertical 

scarps, especially soon after they are placed. This scarp can 

impact use by animals (e.g., shorebirds, turtles), and people 

(e.g., safety of oversand vehicles). 

Physical processes can also be impacted by beach 

nourishment and associated dredging. For example, 

dredging inlet or delta sands, or placing sediment updrift 

of an inlet, can alter natural inlet and delta dynamics 

including inlet bypassing processes and flood tidal 

delta sedimentation. These dynamics and processes are 

vital for maintaining barrier island systems; the natural 

maintenance that is provided by these systems promotes 

resilience to storms and sea level rise. Any interruption 

or alteration of inlet or delta processes can hinder these 

benefits. For example, tidal delta deposits are often a major 

source of sand for nearby beaches; taking sand from these 

deposits may increase shoreline retreat downdrift. 
National Park Service 108 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Nourishment also can encourage increased development 

in high-risk areas. A nourishment project can give future 

land owners, land developers, and real estate personnel 

the erroneous impression that since the beach is wider, it 

is stable and low risk for damage and erosion. However, 

beach nourishment only postpones the danger by shifting 

the current shoreline seaward and does not reduce 

or eliminate erosion. For more information on park 

boundaries and jurisdiction that might be impacted by 

beach nourishment, see NPS 39-1 Ocean and Coastal 

Jurisdiction Reference Manual. 

Sand Fencing

A sand fence can be constructed on a beach or dune to 

build a new foredune or to fill gaps in dune ridges by 

reducing wind speed or trapping sand. Fences can be 

made of wooden slats, plastic, or fabric attached to fence 

posts. Fences that run parallel to the shore can build 

a protective dune ridge. Two parallel lines of fencing 

create a wide foredune with a round crest and allow for 

planting dune grasses. Zig-zag configurations can create 

wider dunes with lower slopes that appear more natural. 

Fence configurations that maximize height of the dune 

are best for infrastructure protection; configurations 

that create multiple crests on lower and wider dunes are 

best for enhancing ecological value (Nordstrom 2014). 

Fences have been used at many national seashores, 

including Assateague Island National Seashore (Schupp 

and Coburn 2014) and Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore (Schupp 2015).

Costs

Sand fences are relatively inexpensive, are easy to install, 

and do not often require permits.

Benefits

Sand fences can support increased vegetation growth and 

species richness by reducing wind stress and salt spray 

(Nordstrom 2014). Sand fencing can provide co-benefits 

by directing visitor pathways away from delicate dune and 

beach habitats.

Impacts

Sand fences are usually placed at a highly dynamic 

boundary between the beach and dune, which is important 

habitat for sea turtles and nesting shorebirds (Nordstrom 

2014). Effective sand fences are buried as the sand is 

trapped, so they are not removed. When exposed by 

erosion events, the relict fencing material may create 

unwanted debris and safety hazards on the beach.

Natural and Nature-based Features (NNBF)

Shorelines can be protected by natural features, naturebased built features, other built features, and hybrids 

of these feature types. Nature-based features may 

mimic characteristics of natural features but are human 

constructions to provide specific services such as coastal 

risk reduction. The combination of both natural and naturebased features is referred to collectively as NNBF. The 

relationships and interactions among the natural and built 

features in the coastal system influence coastal vulnerability, 

reliability, risk, and resilience (Bridges et al. 2015).

Living shorelines use natural elements, such as vegetation, 

to stabilize sheltered coastlines such as along estuaries. They 

maintain continuity of the natural land–water interface 

and reduce erosion while providing habitat value (NOAA 

2015). For example, along low-energy estuarine shorelines, 

native plants can be planted so that their roots hold soil in 

place to reduce erosion. The plants provide a wave buffer 

to upland areas. 

Nature-based features, also known as hybrid techniques 

(figure 8.7), incorporate both nonstructural components 

and structural approaches (e.g., rock sill, breakwater). They 

have sometimes been referred to as “living shorelines,” a 

misnomer because the living component can be used as a 

façade to build what is functionally a hardened shoreline. An 

example is the combination of plantings with edging (e.g., 

geotextile tubes, oyster reef) or rock sills to hold the toe of 

the existing slope in place (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 

2015, “Case Study 3: Shell Mound Sites Threatened by Sea 

Level Rise and Erosion”). Sills are low edges that protect 

marsh grass fringe by breaking approaching waves. Breaks 

in the sills allow fauna to cross through the barrier. Building 

a sill system requires encroachment beyond the shoreline. 

Sand may be added with marsh grass plantings to provide 

stability and will be necessary at sites with a wind fetch 

that exceeds 0.5 mi (0.8 km). Creating this system changes 

existing habitat; the eroding bank, narrow beach and 

nearshore are converted to a stable bank, marsh and stone 

sill (Benoit et al. 2007).

It is important to have ongoing maintenance of the living 

shoreline, including replanting vegetation as needed, 

trimming tree branches, removing debris, and removing 

any interfering invasive species (NOAA 2015). The natural 

feature, if not maintained correctly, may damage the hard 

structure; an example would be when trees colonize the 

shoreline and then fall in a storm, causing their roots 

to unseat the hard structure. Conversely, the structural 

components can interrupt natural processes or the nonstructural components can fail.
National Park Service 109 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation provides 

guidance for living shoreline planning and implementation, 

including a diagram (figure 8.8) showing a continuum of 

treatment options (NOAA 2016); other good sources are 

Benoit et al. (2007) and the Maryland Chesapeake Bay 

experience over the past decades (Maryland Department 

of Environment 2008). In general, nonstructural 

approaches are better suited to low wave energy environs, 

while hybrid techniques are typically applied in areas of 

medium to high wave energy (Bilcovic and Mitchell 2011). 

The non-structural component should be appropriately 

designed for the environment. 

Figure 8.8. Living shoreline options for stabilizing estuarine shorelines. Figure by Burke Environmental Associates 

available via National Geographic, http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/living-shoreline/ (accessed 9 

September  2016).

Figure 8.7. Examples of hybrid approaches to living shorelines. Notes: (a) This hybrid approach to a living shoreline uses 

natural and nature-based features by combining a planted marsh with a rock sill. Photograph from Bilcovic and Mitchell (2011). (b) The 

vegetation component of this hybrid approach at GATE was unsuccessful, leaving only shoreline armoring. Photograph by NPS.

Extreme High Tides & Storms

Mean High Tide

Mean Low Tide

COASTAL WETLANDS & BEACH STRAND SUBTIDAL WATERS

TIDAL MARSH SAV LIVING BREAKWATER

Irregularly Flooded Regularly

Flooded

UPLAND BUFFER BANKFACE

Riparian Vegetation Management

Bank Grading

Fiber Logs

Tidal Marsh Enhancement

Tidal Marsh Creation

Beach Nourishment & 

Dune Restoration

Marsh Toe Revetment

Marsh Sill

Marsh With Groins

Living Breakwater

Offshore Breakwater System

Oyster Reef

Graphic courtesy Burke Environmental Associates

A B

Coastal Shoreline Profile & 

Living Shoreline Treatments
National Park Service 110 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

A hybrid engineering approach known as Systems 

Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE) is being 

advocated by a Community of Practice of numerous of 

agencies and organizations, including state and federal 

government (USACE and NOAA), academic institutions, 

NGOs, and private sector. The goals are to stabilize the 

shoreline, reduce current rates of shoreline erosion and 

storm damage, provide ecosystem services (such as habitat 

for fish and other aquatic species), increase flood storage 

capacity, and maintain connections between land and 

water ecosystems to enhance ecosystem resilience (SAGE, 

NOAA, and USACE 2014). SAGE considers the landscape 

view of how multiple site management strategies work 

(or do not work) together, such as a protected area with 

no shoreline structures next to a levee or living shoreline 

or seawall. SAGE leverages partnerships across entities 

and jursidictions making these decisions, and provides 

expertise and information needed to make them.

Recent research suggests that the biggest cause of salt 

marsh erosion is waves driven by moderate storms, not 

occasional major events such as hurricanes and other 

strong storms, which contribute less than one percent of 

deterioration (Leonardi, Ganju, and Fagherazzi 2016). 

Storm impacts on wetlands often include erosion, stripped 

vegetation, and salinity burn, all of which can decrease 

long-term productivity; storms may also introduce new 

sediment that increases long-term sustainability of 

wetlands with respect to sea level rise (Bridges et al. 2015). 

Long-term consequences for wetland systems depends on 

many factors, including the size of the wetland, proximity 

of the wetland to a storm track, and post-storm conditions 

(for example, high post-storm precipitation will reduce the 

effects of salinity burn) (Bridges et al. 2015). Salt marsh 

elevation may not be able to keep pace with the rate of 

sea level rise (Bridges et al. 2015). Many components of 

natural infrastructure, including vegetation and oyster 

reefs, may be increasingly vulnerable to climate-related 

changes, such as warmer water, disease, invasive species, 

and changes in salinity, water temperature, and air 

temperature (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014). Planning 

for hybrid projects must consider the lifespan of the living 

component and the possibility that the living component 

will fail and the hard structure will remain.

The draft proposed 2017 Nationwide Permits issued by 

the USACE includes a new Nationwide Permit (NWP B) 

for the construction and maintenance of living shorelines, 

which would be separate from NWP 13, which authorizes 

bank stabilization activities (USACE 2016). Doing a project 

under a NWP decreases the processing times and permit 

application costs associated with obtaining authorization 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 

of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Costs

Estuarine vegetation planting has an initial construction 

cost of up to $1,000 per linear ft ($3,280/m) and an annual 

maintenance cost of up to $100 per linear ft ($328/m), 

assuming a 50-year project life. Construction of edging or 

sill in combination with vegetation planting has an initial 

construction cost of up to $2,000 per linear ft ($6,562/m) 

and an annual maintenance cost of up to $100 per linear 

ft ($328/m), assuming a 50-year project life (SAGE, NOAA, 

and USACE 2014).

Costs will vary depending on the materials used. 

Installation may require professionals. Long-term 

maintenance is required, such as post-storm replanting.

Benefits

Living shorelines are increasingly promoted as a way to 

protect estuarine shorelines, as an alternative to armoring, 

which can result in habitat fragmentation or loss, reduced 

capacity to filter pollutants, reduced biotic integrity, 

increases in invasive species, and disturbance of sediment 

budgets sustaining adjacent properties (Bilcovic and 

Mitchell 2011). Vegetation alone or planted in combination 

with the edging or sill structures will dissipate wave energy, 

provide habitat and ecosystem services, and slow inland 

water transfer. Planting submerged aquatic vegetation such 

as seagrass stabilizes sediment and may contribute to wave 

attenuation at low tide (Koch 2001). Seagrass beds are 

most effective at attenuating waves (and thus protecting the 

shoreline) when seagrass height reaches the water surface 

(Fonseca and Cahalan 1992).
National Park Service 111 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Impacts and Disadvantages

Estuarine vegetation planting may increase or decrease 

storm surge water levels (and therefore wave energy) 

depending on the storm and the water level relative to the 

planted elevation. They may be misperceived as protecting 

uplands from high water, which they are not intended to 

do. Vegetation survival may be limited or unsuccessful 

(figure 8.7b) and may depend on competition with invasive 

species (SAGE, NOAA, and USACE 2014).

The value of seagrass beds for shore protection is 

limited by their seasonality. During the winter months, 

seagrasses in temperate areas become less dense or may 

even disappear.

Hybrid techniques can be more effective at reducing 

erosion, but the structural component will disrupt 

sediment processes and many of the benefits as alternatives 

to traditional armoring are lost. When a hybrid approach is 

planned, there needs to be a contingency plan for removing 

the structures or restoring the vegetation if the initial 

vegetation does not survive. Permitting processes may be 

complicated because the existing regulatory process is 

centered on traditional hard stabilization techniques.

Redesign the Structure

Adapting the design of a structure is another way to 

protect a structure, or the function of a structure, in place 

(figure 8.9). Design options for existing infrastructure 

include elevating the structure, elevating systems within 

the structure, or waterproofing mechanical systems (as 

described in “Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane 

Sandy”). New construction design may include elements 

such as sacrificial construction that is expected to be 

destroyed during an event, but will minimize clean up or 

hazards. Historic infrastructure may now be insufficient 

for modern conditions, such as stream culverts in places 

experiencing increased high flow events. Enlarging 

or re-engineering culverts (see Schupp, Beavers, and 

Caffrey 2015, “Case Study 15: Rehabilitating Stream 

Crossings on Historic Roads”) can prevent erosion and 

road damage and may provide additional benefits (e.g., 

improving fish passage).

Costs

Costs may be lower than complete removal or relocation 

of the structure. Adaptive maintenance costs and 

requirements may be higher than for typical infrastructure; 

for example, adapting the electrical panels to withstand 

future inundation at Ellis Island required innovation and 

upgrades to standard electrical panels (see “Chapter 9 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”). 

Benefits

Elevating a structure can prolong its accessibility and 

functionality for many years and may allow use of the 

structure until the end of its expected serviceable years. 

This option postpones or eliminates the need to find and 

impact a new site. It also allows historical structures to 

remain within an associated historic or cultural landscape.

Impacts and Disadvantages

Pilings used to elevate a structure may be undermined by 

continued shoreline erosion and changes in groundwater 

elevation. Means of accessing the structure may change, 

for example, if roads are undermined by continued 

erosion. Utility systems for elevated structures can be 

problematic, especially if buried, as they are vulnerable 

where they come up to the structure. This approach is 

likely not feasible as a permanent solution, and additional 

measures such as relocation or removal may need to be 

considered as shoreline vulnerability increases.

Figure 8.9. Visitor facilities have been redesigned at Everglades National Park; the new eco-tents are designed to be 

portable and can be moved in advance of storms. Images by NPS.

Fig
National Park Service 112 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Relocate

Structure relocation is the strategy of transporting a 

structure from a vulnerable area and placing it in a more 

stable location (figure 8.10). This can reduce structure 

vulnerability to threats, such as undermining caused by 

shoreline erosion, damage from wave impact, boring 

by marine organisms, and sea level rise. A structure can 

be moved as a whole or in parts using a flat-bed truck 

or temporary rails. The transport distance can vary, but 

most examples of relocation have been less than 500 feet 

inland from the original location. Infrastructure can also 

be replaced by structures that are designed to be moved 

landward to a new site, usually once or twice away from 

an eroding shoreline, or by portable structures that are 

moved off site seasonally or ahead of a storm and then 

returned (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case 

Study 16 Relocating Visitor Facilities Threatened by 

Accelerated Erosion”). Relocation should also consider the 

vulnerability of the new site to climate change. 

Costs

The cost of structure relocation ranges from $800 to 

$40,000 per linear ft ($2,625 to $131,234/m) of movement 

depending on the size of the structure and method 

of relocation. Various projects within this range are 

described below.

1. Hunting Island, South Carolina: Lighthouse 

Relocation (1889)

The second Hunting Island Lighthouse, first lit on July 

1, 1875, was an iron building capable of being relocated. 

It was thought to be protected by a jetty constructed 

in 1886, until one year later a storm resulted in the 

shoreline being only 152 ft (46 m) from the lighthouse. 

In 1889, the relocation of Hunting Island Lighthouse, 

6,600 ft (2,012 m) inland from the original site, lasted six 

months and cost $51,000 ($1.3 million in 2013 dollars) 

(Lighthouse Friends 2001b).

Approximate cost of relocation (2013 dollars): 

$197/ft ($646/m)

2. Block Island Southeast, Rhode Island: Lighthouse 

Relocation (1993)

Block Island Southeast Lighthouse, built in 1874, stood 

only 75 ft (23 m) from the edge of a bluff formed by 

substantial erosion. It was moved 300 ft (91 m) farther 

inland in August 1993 over a period of 19 days at a cost 

of approximately $2 million (Lighthouse Friends 2001c). 

Approximate cost of relocation: $6,666/ft ($21,870/m)

3. Highland, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: Lighthouse 

Relocation (1996)

The relocation of Cape Cod’s Highland Lighthouse, 

which is within Cape Cod National Seashore, occurred 

over a two-week period in July 1996. The Coast Guard 

Light was transported 450 ft (137 m) westward to 

escape the ongoing erosion occurring on the Highlands 

of Truro. The cost of this relocation was about $1.54 

million (Lighthouse Friends 2001a; NPS 2014a).

Approximate cost of relocation: $3,422/ft ($11,227/m)

4. Cape Cod, Massachusetts: Lighthouse 

Relocation (1996)

Nauset Lighthouse was only 36 ft (11 m) from a cliff in 

Eastham, Massachusetts, when it was relocated in 1996. 

The privately owned lighthouse, which is within Cape 

Cod National Seashore, was built to be moved, and had 

already been moved to Eastham from Chatham in the 

1870s. Nauset Lighthouse was relocated 300 ft (91 m) 

inland in three days at a cost of $253,000 (Nauset Light 

Preservation Society 1996; NPS 2014a).

Approximate cost of relocation: $843/ft ($2766/m)

5. Herring Cove Beach, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: 

Structure Relocation (2013–ongoing)

A retreat and mitigation plan began in 2013 to relocate 

structures on Herring Cove Beach, part of Cape Cod 

National Seashore in Provincetown, Massachusetts, 

(see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, “Case Study: 

17 Reducing Vulnerability of Coastal Visitor Facilities”). 

This included relocation of the north parking lot, a 

bath house and concession stand, and removal of a 

revetment constructed in the 1950s. The plan intended 

a one-time retreat to protect the structures for 50 years. 

The relocation included moving the north parking lot 

125 ft (38 m) inland to an elevation of 15 ft (4.6 m) 

above sea level. The bathhouse and concession stand 

were replaced with a moveable, elevated structure 

Figure 8.10. In this example of relocation and retreat, 

the Cape Hatteras lighthouse was moved inland using a 

railway. Photograph by NPS.
National Park Service 113 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

approximately 100 ft (30 m) landward of the former 

location. The cost of the retreat strategy was estimated 

at $4.5 million with an $825,000, 25-year maintenance 

plan (NPS 2013).

Approximate cost of relocation: $36,000/ft ($118,421/m)

Benefits

Structure relocation or “managed retreat” can be a longterm solution for infrastructure as sea level rise, erosion, 

and storms affect coastal national parks now and in the 

future. Relocation can have long-term fiscal benefits 

because removing the structure from the hazardous 

area can significantly reduce the need for repair and 

maintenance, and by reducing interest in expensive 

hard stabilization structures (e.g., seawalls, groins, and 

bulkheads) and beach nourishment, which offer only 

temporary protection. Natural resources may also benefit 

from a managed retreat strategy because the shoreline can 

be allowed to migrate and function naturally. 

Impacts and Disadvantages

The repeated cost and maintenance requirements of 

moving portable structures ahead of storms can be 

significant although likely lower than replacing the 

structures or mitigating damages and cleanup from 

structures that the storm moves into sensitive areas (e.g., 

removing damaged structures from the marsh). It may be 

difficult to locate an appropriate site for relocation due to 

construction impacts on resources at a new undeveloped 

site or a lack of open sites within highly developed urban 

areas. In the case of historical structures, relocation will 

cause the loss of historical context. Resistance within local 

communities and from other stakeholders can also arise. 

Some infrastructure may be particularly difficult to move, 

such as large complex structures including power plants, 

water treatment facilities, and major roads. See

Abandon in Place

The National Park Service will not always be able 

to maintain infrastructure in place. Certain types of 

nonessential infrastructure become obsolete over time, 

particularly within the National Park Service. Many units 

have structures, buildings, and roads that are never used by 

the public, that no longer provide their original intended 

service, or that have a historic value that is not essential 

to the interpretive themes of the park (Nordstrom and 

Jackson 2016). Other structures may be significant but 

become prohibitively expensive to maintain and repair, 

and the park may lack staff and funding to carry out this 

maintenance. In these cases, parks may want to consider 

the adaptation option of letting the structure deteriorate 

and abandoning it in place. For cultural resources, the 

related strategy of Document and Release (table 5.4 in 

“Chapter 5 Cultural Resources”) requires documentation 

of the resource, its condition, and the decision. 

Costs

Abandoning in place reduces maintenance needs but 

creates new costs including preparing a structure for 

abandonment, including the NEPA and the NHPA 

compliance processes; securing the structure, removal of 

potentially hazardous materials; and documentation or 

data recovery where appropriate. This action may create 

an attractive nuisance where people are attracted to 

explore a structure that is unsafe. Continued deterioration 

may necessitate the eventual demolition and removal 

of the structure.

Benefits

Abandoning in place can have long-term fiscal benefits by 

reducing the need for ongoing repair and maintenance of 

the structure. This strategy may also eliminate the need for 

protective engineering structures and associated impacts to 

adjacent resources. Allowing no longer effective shoreline 

protection structures to deteriorate in place may allow the 

re-establishment of coastal landforms when the structure 

has deteriorated to a degree that is no longer interfering 

with natural processes (Nordstrom and Jackson 2016). The 

abandoned structure provides interpretive opportunities 

related to climate change including sea level rise impacts 

and the different conditions when the structure was built.

Impacts and Disadvantages

Impacts of abandoning in place include the deterioration 

and, over time, the demolition of infrastructure that 

may have historical or other functional value to the 

public. There also may be negative impacts on the local 

environment, such as introduction of hazardous materials 

or unsecured items that may be displaced during a storm if 

regular inspections to the infrastructure are not completed 

or if there is not funding for removal of the structures 

before they become hazardous. “Chapter 9 Lessons 

Learned from Hurricane Sandy” for a discussion of 

infrastructure that has deteriorated and been abandoned 

in place, especially the groins at Fort Tilden and numerous 

buildings at GATE. 
National Park Service 114 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Take Home Messages

● Shoreline stabilization mechanisms can protect 

resources in place but are not long-term solutions 

and have trade-offs, including disruption of 

natural processes.

● Beach nourishment can be a costly short-term effort. 

There are ecological and physical consequences of 

dredging sand from other locations and placement of 

sediment on intertidal and nearshore habitats.

● The effectiveness of natural and nature-based features 

for shoreline protection is site-specific. Their suitability 

as a long-term alternative depends on ability to adapt 

to climate change, design, and compatibility with 

local conditions.

● Consider opportunities to redesign and relocate 

facilities, and to replace facilities with portable 

structures. Evaluate the maintenance costs and nonstandard costs associated with these alternatives.
National Park Service 115 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 

2002. Beach Nourishment: A Review of the Biological 

and Physical Impacts. ASMFC Habitat Management 

Series # 7. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, Washington, DC. http://www.asmfc.org/

uploads/file/beachNourishment.pdf (accessed 12 May 

2016). 

Associated Press. 2013. $40M steel sea wall to protect 

Sandy-ravaged towns to Mantoloking, Brick. 20 

August 2013. NJ.com. http://www.nj.com/news/index.

ssf/2013/08/40m_steel_sea_wall_to_protect_sandyravaged_towns_of_mantoloking_brick.html (accessed 

March 2014).

Benoit, J., C. S. Hardaway, D. Hernandez, R. Holman, E. 

Koch, N. McLellan, S. Peterson, D. Reed, and D. 

Suman. 2007. Mitigating shore erosion along sheltered 

coasts. National Research Council of the National 

Academies, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/

catalog/11764/mitigating-shore-erosion-alongsheltered-coasts (accessed 8 April 2016).

Bergen, D. 2013. Ocean City Beach Project is Complete. 31 

May 2013. OceanCityPatch. http://oceancity.patch.

com/groups/summer/p/ocean-city-beach-project-iscomplete (accessed March 2014).

Bilcovic, D. M., and M. Mitchell. 2011. Ecological and 

Erosion Protection Functions of Chesapeake Bay 

Living Shorelines. Final Report to Chesapeake 

Bay Trust, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Restoration Center, and the 

Maryland Department of the Environment, December 

2011. Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the 

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

Bridges, T. S., K. A. Burks-Copes, M. E. Bates, Z. Collier, C. 

J. Fischenich, C. D. Piercy, E. J. Russo, D. J. Shafer, B. 

C. Suedel, J. Z. Gailani, J. D. Rosati, T. V. Wamsley, P. 

W. Wagner, L. D. Leuck, and E. A. Vuxton. 2015. Use 

of Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF) for 

Coastal Resilience. Final Report for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers ERDC SR-15-1. US Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, 

MS. http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/Portals/40/

docs/NACCS/NNBF%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 11 

February 2015).

Brown, Mitchell & Alexander, Inc. 2011. Harrison 

County Sand Beach Renourishment. Report. BMA, 

Gulfport, MS.

Chapman, M. G., and A. J. Underwood. 2011. Evaluation 

of ecological engineering of “armored” shorelines to 

improve their value as habitat. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 302-313. 

Coburn, A.S., A.D. Griffith, and R.S. Young. 2010. Inventory 

of coastal engineering projects in coastal national 

parks. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/

NRPC/GRD/NRTR—2010/373. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/

DownloadFile/418829 (accessed 10 August 2016).

Conti, K. 2015. “Storms taking toll on towns’ sea walls.” 

Boston Globe, 25 December 2015. https://www.

bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2015/12/25/

coastal-towns-hope-seawalls-can-withstand-winterinevitable-storms/OKb799ePXbFmAR3uCzEuQL/story.

html (accessed 11 May 2016).

Dallas, K. L., J. Eshleman, and R. Beavers. 2012. National 

Park Service beach nourishment guidance. RM 39-

2. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRTR—2012/581. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/

Profile/2185115 (accessed 10 August 2016).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. 

Permit Modification for Ponce De Leon Inlet South 

Jetty Extension.

Fonseca, M. S., and J. A. Cahalan. 1992. A preliminary 

evaluation of wave attenuation for four species 

of seagrass. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 

35:565-576.

Fox, K. 2007. Beach Replenishment – A Blessing or a 

Curse. Cape May Magazine. Cape May, NJ. http://

www.capemay.com/Editorial/january09/beachreplenishment.html (accessed March 2014).

Glasby, T. M., S. D. Connell, M. G. Holloway, and C. L. 

Hewitt. 2007. Nonindigenous biota on artificial 

structures: could creation facilitate biological 

invasions? Marine Biology 151:887–895. http://link.

springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00227-006-0552-5

(accessed 18 March 2016).
National Park Service 116 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Heberger, M., H. Cooley, P. Herrrrera, P. H. Gleick, and E. 

Moore. 2009. The impacts of sea-level rise on the 

California Coast. California Energy Commission 

Final Report CEC-500-2009-024-F. California 

Climate Change Center. http://www.energy.

ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-024/CEC500-2009-024-F.PDF (accessed 18 February 2015).

HR Wallingford. 2015. North Atlantic coast of the USA 

- sea level change vulnerability and adaptation 

measures. Final report to the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. MCR5188-RT002-R02-00. HR 

Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. http://www.nad.usace.

army.mil/Portals/40/docs/ComprehensiveStudy/

SeaLevelChange_Vulnerability_AdaptationMeasures_

March2015.pdf (accessed 12 February 2015).

Kirgan, H. 2011. East, West Ship islands to be rejoined 

in $300 million project. 23 September 2011. The 

Mississippi Press. http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippipress-news/2011/09/east_west_ship_islands_to_be_r.

html (accessed March 2014).

Koch, E. W. 2001. Beyond light: Physical, geological and 

geochemical parameters as possible submersed aquatic 

vegetation habitat requirements. Estuaries 24:1-17.

Leidersdorf, C. B., P. E. Gadd, and W. G. McDougal. 1989. 

Articulated concrete mat slope protection. Pages 

2400-2415 in B. L. Edge, editor. Proceedings of 

Coastal Engineering 1988. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/

abs/10.1061/9780872626874.178 (accessed 16 March 

2016). 

Lindeman, K. C., and D. B. Snyder. 1999. Nearshore 

hardbottom fishes of southeast Florida and effects of 

habitat burial caused by dredging. Fishery Bulletin 

97: 508-525. http://my.fit.edu/~lindeman/1999%20

Nearshore%20reefs%20and%20dredging.pdf (accessed 

12 May 2016). 

Leonardi, N., N. K. Ganju, and S. Fagherazzi. 2016. A 

linear relationship between wave power and erosion 

determines salt-marsh resilience to violent storms and 

hurricanes. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 113(1): 64-68.

Lighthouse Friends. 2001a. Cape Cod (Highland) MA. 

Web page. http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.

asp?ID=491(accessed March 2014).

Lighthouse Friends. 2001b. Hunting Island, SC. Web page. 

http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=332

(accessed March 2014).

Lighthouse Friends. 2001c. Block Island Southeast, RI. 

Web page. http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.

asp?ID=41(accessed March 2014).

Martin, D., F. Bertasi, M. A. Colangelo, M. de Vries, M. 

Frost, S. J. Hawkins, E. Macpherson, P. S. Moschella, 

M. P. Satta, R. C. Thompson, and V. U. Ceccherelli. 

2005. Ecological impact of coastal defense structures 

on sediment and mobile fauna: evaluating and 

forecasting consequences of unavoidable modifications 

of native habitats. Coastal Engineering 52:1027-1051.

Maryland Department of Environment. 2008. Shore Erosion 

Control Guidelines for Waterfront Property Owners. 

2nd edition. Maryland Department of Environment 

Water Management Administration, Annapolis, 

MD. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/ccs/Publication/

Shoreerostext.pdf (accessed August 2016).

Matagorda County Economic Development Corporation 

(MCEDC). 2011. The Port of Bay City Authority 

New East Jetty. Beaches, Bays, Birds, and Business 

5(1). Matagorda County Economic Development 

Corporation, Bay City, TX. http://classic.edsuite.

com/proposals/proposals_259/mcedc_newsletter_

january_2011_fi_13.pdf (accessed March 2014).

McGrath, G. 2009. Bald Head Island beach renourishment 

project is accelerated – slightly. 22 September 

2009. StarNews. http://www.starnewsonline.com/

article/20090922/articles/909229932 (accessed March 

2014).

Melby, P. 2007. Experimental Beach Landscape 12 Year 

Study Results: The Evolution of a Model Landscape 

Design and Management Plan for the Manmade 

Beach in Harrison County, Mississippi. Unpublished 

report. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/

download?doi=10.1.1.553.8469&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(accessed March 2014).

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe [eds.]. 2014. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/

J0Z31WJ2.

My Escambia. No date. Perdido Key Beach Nourishment. 

Web page. (accessed March 2014; no longer available).
National Park Service 117 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Moschella, P. S., M. Abbiati, P. Aberg, L. Airoldi, J. M. 

Anderson, F. Bacchiocchi, F. Bulleri, G. E. Dinesen, 

M. Frost, E. Gacia, L. Granhag, P. R. Jonsson, M. P. 

Satta, A. Sundelöf, R. C. Thompson, and S. J. Hawkins. 

2005. Low-crested coastal defence structures as 

artificial habitats for marine life: using ecological 

criteria in design. Coastal Engineering 52: 1053-1071. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0378383905001146 (accessed 10 August 2016).

National Research Council (NRC). 2014. Reducing coastal 

risk on the East and Gulf Coasts. National Academies 

Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/

catalog/18811/reducing-coastal-risk-on-the-east-andgulf-coasts (accessed 10 August 2016).

Nauset Light Preservation Society. 1996. Moving Nauset 

Light 1996. Web page. Eastham, MA. http://www.

nausetlight.org/NLmove.htm (accessed March 2014).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2015. Guidance for Considering the Use of 

Living Shorelines. NOAA Living Shorelines Program, 

Silver Spring, MD. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/

noaa_guidance_for_considering_the_use_of_living_

shorelines_2015.pdf (accessed 17 March 2016). 

NOAA. 2016. Living Shoreline Planning and Implementation. 

Web page. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/

techniques/lsimplementation.html (accessed 18 

March 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2011a. Beach Renourishment 

on West Ship Island. 22 November 2011. Press 

Release. Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf 

Breeze, FL. 

NPS. 2011b. Perdido Key Renourishment Project. 14 

November 2011. Press Release. Gulf Islands National 

Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL. 

NPS. 2012. Design and repair method for the failing 

bulkheads and completing the repairs/replacement of 

the bulkhead. GATE 145326. FedBizOpps Solicitation 

Number P12PS03193. https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportu

nity&mode=form&id=bf4d33-4f28dba5444733715f408

2ae26&tab=core&_cview=0 (accessed March 2014).

NPS. 2013. Cape Cod National Seashore Herring Cove 

Beach North Public Access Site Plan Environmental 

Assessment. Report. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC. http://parkplanning.nps.gov/

document.cfm?parkID=217&projectID=44437&docum

ent-ID=55670 (accessed March 2014).

NPS. 2014a. “Lighthouse Moves.” Web page. Cape Cod 

National Seashore, Wellfleet, MA. http://www.nps.gov/

caco/historyculture/lighthouse-moves.htm (accessed 

March 2014).

NPS. 2014b. “Thomas Jefferson Memorial Seawall.” Web 

page. National Mall & Memorial Parks, Washington, 

DC. http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/

thomas-jefferson-memorial-seawall.htm (accessed 

March 2014).

Nordstrom, K. F. 2014. Living with shore protection 

structures: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science 150: 11-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

ecss.2013.11.003 (accessed 16 March 2016). 

Nordstrom, K. F., and N. L. Jackson. 2016. Facilitating 

migration of coastal landforms and habitats by 

removing shore protection structures: An adaptation 

strategy for Northeast Region units of the National 

Park Service. Natural Resource Report NPS/NER/

NRR—2016/1240. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

CO. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/ 

Profile/2230271 (accessed 9 August 2016).

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (NCCRC). 

2010. North Carolina Terminal Groin Study Final 

Report. Moffatt and Nichol, Raleigh, NC. http://portal.

ncdenr.org/web/cm/final-terminal-groin-study-report

(accessed January 2015).

Pilkey, O. H., W. J. Neal, S. R. Riggs, C. A. Webb, D. M. Bush, 

D. F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B. A. Cowan. 1998. The 

North Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands: Restless 

Ribbons of Sand. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. 

Pister, B. 2009. Urban marine ecology in southern California: 

the ability of riprap structures to serve as rocky 

intertidal habitat. Marine Biology 156(5): 861-873. doi: 

10.1007/s00227-009-1130-4 (accessed 18 March 2016).

Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines (PSDS). 

2015. Beach Nourishment Viewer. Online Database. 

Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. 

http://beachnourishment.wcu.edu/ (accessed 9 

January 2015).

PSDS. 2016. Beach Nourishment Viewer. Online Database. 

Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. http://

psds.wcu.edu/projects-research/beach-nourishment/

(accessed 11 May 2016).
National Park Service 118 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Rice, T. M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline 

stabilization to avoid and minimize adverse 

environmental impacts. Prepared for the USFWS, 

Panama City Ecological Services Field Office, Panama 

City, FL. http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL/

BMPs%20For%20Shoreline%20Stabilization%20

To%20Avoid%20And%20Minimize%20Adverse%20

Environmental%20Impacts.pdf (accessed 18 

March 2016).

SAGE, NOAA, and USACE. 2014. Natural and Structural 

Measures for Shoreline Stabilization. Brochure. https://

coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/living-shoreline.

pdf (accessed 17 April 2015).

Schupp, C. A., N. T. Winn, T. L. Pearl, J. P. Kumer, T. J. B. 

Carruthers, and C. S. Zimmerman. 2013. Restoration of 

overwash processes creates piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus) habitat on a barrier island (Assateague 

Island, Maryland). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 

116:11-20. 

Schupp, C. A. 2015. Cape Hatteras National Seashore: 

Geologic Resources Inventory report. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/964. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/

DataStore/Reference/Profile/2222014 (accessed 10 

August 2016).

Schupp, C., and A. Coburn. 2015. Inventory of coastal 

engineering projects within Assateague Island National 

Seashore. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/

GRD/NRR—2015/914. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/

Profile/2220096 (accessed 10 August 2016).

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

CO. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastaladaptationstrategies.htm (accessed 10 August 

2016).

Scyphers, S. B., S. P. Powers, and K. L. Heck. 2015. Ecological 

Value of Submerged Breakwaters for Habitat 

Enhancement on a Residential Scale. Environmental 

Management 55(2): 383-391. 

Shields, B. 2013. New Seawall Being Built To Protect Scituate 

Lighthouse, Coast. 3 October 2013. Televised news 

report. WBZ-TV, CBS Boston. http://boston.cbslocal.

com/2013/10/03/new-seawall-being-built-to-protectscituate-lighthouse-coast/ (accessed March 2014).

Spanger-Siegfried, E., M. F. Fitzpatrick, and K. Dahl. 2014. 

Encroaching tides: How sea level rise and tidal flooding 

threaten U.S. East and Gulf Coast communities over 

the next 30 years. Union of Concerned Scientists, 

Cambridge, MA.

Thompson, L. 2012. Cost estimate for Seattle seawall sinks to 

$300 million. 23 April 2012. The Seattle Times. http://

old.seattletimes.com/text/2018055008.html (accessed 

August 2016).

Titus, J. G., and E. M. Strange. 2008. “Background 

Documents Supporting Climate Change Science 

Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1, Coastal 

Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise.” EPA 

430R07004. US EPA, Washington, DC. 354 pp. http://

papers.risingsea.net/EPA-sea-level-rise-elevationswetlands-ecosystems-2008.html (accessed 10 August 

2016).

Trufant, J. 2013. Work on Marshfield sea wall nearly 

finished. 19 October 2013. The Patriot Ledger. http://

www.patriotledger.com/news/x1275634087/Workon-Marshfield-sea-wall-nearly-finished (accessed 

March 2014).

Tyrrell, M. C., and J. E. Byers. 2007. Do artificial substrates 

favor nonindigenous fouling species over native 

species? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:54–60. http://

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0022098106005739 (accessed 18 March 2016).

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. Appendix 

D: Restoration of Assateague Island. Ocean City, 

Maryland, and vicinity water resources study final 

integrated feasibility report and environmental impact 

statement. US Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore 

District, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

USACE. 2005. Montauk Point, New York Hurricane and 

Storm Damage Reduction Study Final Feasibility 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement: Report 

Summary. US Army Corps of Engineers New York 

District, New York, NY. http://www.usace.army.mil/

portals/2/docs/civilworks/cwrb/montauk/montauk_

point_project_summary.pdf (accessed 9 January 2015).

USACE. 2007. Y-Harker’s Island Shoreline Stabilization 

Project, National Park Service, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, Carteret County, North Carolina. Notice of 

Contract Award for FedBizOpps Solicitation Number 

W912HN-06-B-0071. US Army Corps of Engineers 

Savannah District, Savannah, GA. https://www.fbo.gov/
National Park Service 119 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

USACE. 2008. Coastal Engineering Manual- Part V. 

Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, US Army Corps of 

Engineers, Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes). 1 August 

2008 (Change 2). http://www.publications.usace.

army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerManuals.

aspx?udt_43544_param_page=4 (accessed 17 

December 2015). 

USACE. 2012. Major Rehabilitation of the Jetty System at 

the Mouth of the Columbia River. Final Report. US 

Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, Portland, 

OR. http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/

collection/p16021coll7/id/3/filename/4.pdf

(accessed 9 January 2015).

USACE. 2013. New Jersey Shore Protection, Lower Cape 

May Meadows – Cape May Point, NJ. Factsheet. US 

Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Marine 

Design Center, Philadelphia, PA. http://www.nap.usace.

army.mil/Missions/Factsheets/FactSheetArticleView/

tabid/4694/Article/6449/new-jersey-shore-protectionlower-cape-may-meadows-cape-may-point-nj.aspx

(accessed March 2014).

USACE. 2014. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement, Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program 

(MsCIP) Comprehensive Barrier Island Restoration, 

Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 

US Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District, Mobile, 

AL. http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Portals/46/

docs/program_management/mscip/docs/MsCIP_

DSEIS_02-27-14_Final.pdf (accessed 3 March 2015).

USACE. 2015. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay Highlands, 

New Jersey Coastal Storm Risk Management 

Feasibility Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report 

and Environmental Assessment. US Army Corps of 

Engineers New York District, New York, NY. http://

www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/civilworks/

projects/nj/coast/SHtoBIHighlands/Highlands%20

Draft%20FR-EA%20Main%20Report.pdf (accessed 11 

May 2016).

USACE. 2016. Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide 

Permits. RIN 0710-AA73. Agency review draft dated 

10 February 2016. US Army Corps of Engineers, 

Washington, DC.

US Department of the Interior (US DOI). 2010. Salazar, 

Menendez Announce $29 Million to Restore Ellis 

Island Seawall, Historic Structures under President’s 

Recovery Plan. 26 July 2010. Press Release. US 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http://

www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-MenendezAnnounce-29-Million-to-Restore-Ellis-Island-SeawallHistoric-Structures-under-Presidents-Recovery-Plan.

cfm (accessed 9 January 2015).

Wasson, K., K. Fenn, and J. S. Pearse. 2005. Habitat 

differences in marine invasions of central California. 

Biological Invasions 7:935–948. doi:10.1007/s10530-

004-2995-2 (accessed 18 March 2016).
National Park Service 120 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

This page intentionally left blank. 
National Park Service 121 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Chapter 9 Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy

Contributing Authors: Amanda Babson, Rebecca 

Beavers, Mike Eissenberg, Mary Foley, Tim Hudson, and 

Courtney Schupp

This case study highlights a few of the adaptation lessons 

learned from parks’ efforts to prepare for and recover from 

Hurricane Sandy. It also evaluates the success of various 

adaptation strategies and identifies opportunities to improve 

those strategies. The magnitude of this storm provides insight 

into a future with projected higher intensity storms, though 

the science of changing storm patterns remains an active 

research field. 

Currently, the National Park Service is developing a range 

of storm recovery, response, and long-term planning efforts 

that integrate climate change adaptation, anticipating 

higher sea levels and storm surge. The lessons learned from 

Hurricane Sandy directly benefit the management of each 

of the affected parks, and similarly can improve adaptation 

planning at other parks facing increased impacts of future 

storms due to sea level rise. Hurricane Sandy preparedness, 

response, and recovery has been a complex partner 

coordination effort at all levels of government, and we can 

learn from the lessons of other agencies and our partners 

and communities 

(e.g., FEMA 2013; 

NOAA 2013) in 

addition to reflecting 

on National Park 

Service (NPS) specific 

lessons described 

in this chapter.

Hurricane Sandy made 

landfall along the New 

Jersey coast on October 

29, 2012. It was the 

largest diameter Atlantic 

hurricane on record, 

causing $50 billion 

in property damages 

and bringing very high 

storm surges (Blake 

2013) (figures 9.1, 

9.2). Although its wind 

speed was relatively 

low (category 1 on the 

Saffir-Simpson scale), its 

westward direction was 

abnormal (most hurricanes in this area head northeastward). 

The storm surge coincided with peak high tide at Sandy 

Hook and at the southern tip of Manhattan in New York 

City (Sweet et al. 2013). Flood analysis yielded a return 

interval of between 559 and 650 years for the storm surge 

alone and 993 years for the surge plus tide at Manhattan 

(Shrestha et al. 2014).

The storm caused substantial damage to infrastructure in 

coastal national parks, including Ellis Island, which is part of 

the Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, where 

mechanical systems were flooded and destroyed. The Statue 

of Liberty National Monument; Castle Clinton National 

Monument, New York; Gateway National Recreation 

Area (GATE), New Jersey and New York; and other sites 

in the region experienced flooding, significant damage to 

mechanical systems, destruction of employee facilities, 

and considerable landscape changes. The storm inundated 

Sandy Hook in GATE, where storm surge exceeded 8.5 feet 

(2.6 meters) above normal tide levels (figure 9.2) (Blake 

2013), and breached Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS), 

New York, in two places in addition to eroding the barrier 

island’s shoreline.

Figure 9.1. FEMA Impact Analysis of Hurricane Sandy. Slide 22 from Blake (2013).
National Park Service 122 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Disaster as a Driver of Adaptation

As discussed in “Chapter 3 Planning,” disasters can drive 

adaptation. Grannis et al. (2014) acknowledges that ideally, 

climate change adaptation actions are proactive where 

vulnerable communities anticipate and prepare for risks. 

In reality, adaptation actions are usually reactive, following 

a disaster. This highlights the importance of building in 

locations with lower vulnerability. Deliberately choosing 

reactive adaptation may be appropriate under some 

circumstances. For example, it does not make sense to 

undertake proactive adaptation measures if the costs and 

impacts of these adaptive measures are greater than the costs 

and impacts of recovery or replacement after a disaster. In 

such cases, plans for replacement or adaptive structures 

are ideally developed before a disaster, so that planners are 

better prepared to seize post-disaster opportunities to rebuild 

resiliently. To accompany such plans, continued awareness and 

monitoring will be beneficial to catch if costs and conditions 

change so that reactive adaptation may no longer have lower 

costs and impacts than proactive options.

Hurricane Sandy and funding provided to agencies through 

the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (part of Public Law [PL] 

113-2) provided an opportunity to incorporate climate change 

adaptation features in recovery projects. As the National Park 

Service worked to restore 

parks and park facilities 

during the Hurricane 

Sandy recovery phase 

(NPS 2013), there was 

high-level support to 

incorporate adaptation 

strategies where possible. 

The magnitude of damage 

and volume of recovery 

projects required a process 

to provide consistency and 

expanded capacity and 

project review. 

The National Park 

Service created the Rapid 

Review Team (RRT) to 

review recovery projects 

quickly and to ensure that 

adaptation measures were 

included to the extent 

possible and practical. 

The team reviewed projects 

at the predesign stage 

to ensure appropriate 

consideration of projected future climate change impacts 

and that repaired or relocated facilities would be sound, 

sustainable, and resilient. The NPS Development Advisory 

Board (a board of NPS executives and external advisors 

who review all NPS construction projects valued greater 

than $500,000) delegated review authority for immediate 

repairs to the RRT and required RRT review for subsequent 

Hurricane Sandy projects before they were reviewed by the 

Development Advisory Board (DAB). The RRT has a national 

and a regional component depending primarily on project 

cost. During the first review phase, relevant to facilities 

reopening for the 2013 summer season, a set of standard 

questions evolved to guide design teams in considering 

construction and long-term resiliency. An RRT subcommittee 

composed of NPS subject matter experts used those questions 

to develop a document for the remainder of recovery project 

reviews. This chapter describes some of the adaptation 

examples that emerged from that process. The siting and 

design considerations that emerged from this RRT process 

informed the development of Level 3 guidance Addressing 

Climate Change and Natural Hazards Facility Planning and 

Design Considerations (Handbook) released in January 2015, 

to support Policy Memorandum (PM) 15-01, see “Chapter 6 

Facility Management”). 

Figure 9.2. Estimated inundation (feet above ground level) was calculated from USGS 

high-water marks and NOS tide gauges in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut from 

Hurricane Sandy. Figure 25 from Blake et al. (2013).
National Park Service 123 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Because of safety concerns, Fort Tilden Beach was closed 

to the public after Hurricane Sandy. One example of a 

recovery project included in the RRT process was removal 

of all concrete rubble from the demolished section of 

Shore Road, removal of exposed rusting steel cable at the 

deteriorating wooden bulkhead, and beach cleanup along 

Fort Tilden shoreline. This project enabled the re-opening of 

the beach to public use. The Fort Tilden Shoreline Resiliency 

Project / Environmental Assessment (EA) was underway at 

the time. As part of data collection activities pertinent to 

the EA, a Shoreline Structure Condition Assessment was 

completed for the historic wooden bulkhead and associated 

wooden groin system (groin field is yellow in lower left of 

figure 9.7). A full range of alternatives was developed and 

evaluated in a Value Analysis (a structured team process to 

achieve essential functions at the lowest life-cycle cost with 

required performance, reliability, quality, consistency, and 

safety factors.) The evaluation for the range of alternatives 

included assessment of resiliency and sustainability. This 

process assessed risk across a range of potential alternatives, 

and incorporated values including desired conditions for 

resources based on the management zones designated in 

the General Management Plan (GMP; NPS 2014a). The 

resulting preferred alternative recommends replacing the 

destroyed portion of Shore Road with an alternative surface 

(e.g., clay/shell) for pedestrian access and improving Range 

Road for accessibility and emergency egress and access for 

the adjacent community. It includes removal of the wooden 

bulkhead, associated wooden groins, and five damaged 

buildings/structures. Implementation is contingent on 

compliance and agency coordination, which is underway.

Assessing Impacts and Resilience

Natural Resources

After Hurricane Sandy, the National Park Service assessed 

the condition of natural and cultural resources and the 

built environment. In natural areas such as the Jamaica Bay 

salt marsh islands at GATE, the natural resource impacts 

were subtle and the recovery was rapid. The storm’s effect 

on wetland restoration projects (see Schupp, Beavers, and 

2015, “Case Study: 11 Restoring the Jamaica Bay Wetlands 

with Sediment and Plantings”), especially for the sites 

where sediment addition (with and without replanting) 

was completed just prior to the storm, was insightful; other 

than loss of the perimeter fence in some places, there was 

little immediate damage, and two years of post-storm data 

confirm that wetland impact was minimal (NPS, Patricia 

Rafferty, coastal ecologist, Northeast Region, pers. comm. 

with Amanda Babson, 27 October 2014). At the tip of Breezy 

Point in the park, overwash flattened rolling dunes and 

created extensive new shorebird habitat for piping plover, 

and by August 2013, there was substantial recovery of the 

beach grasses. 

At FIIS, a comparison of pre-and post-Hurricane Sandy US 

Geological Survey (USGS) beach profiles showed substantial 

changes in beach volume due to the hurricane, but that as 

of September 2014, the beach was growing steadily and 

approaching pre-Hurricane Sandy conditions in some 

locations, likely because the sand remained within the littoral 

system in the nearshore area (Hapke et al. 2014) (figure 9.3). 

Significant impacts to natural resources resulted from debris 

floating onto beaches and salt marsh habitat.

Built Environment

The greater resilience of the natural environment compared 

to that of the built environment was instructive. In many 

parks, facility managers had considered climate adaptation 

as primarily a natural resource issue since the science to 

support adaptation often comes from the natural resource 

realm. While vulnerability concepts such as sensitivity 

originated around biological systems, these ideas can be 

applied to infrastructure as well. In comparison to the effects 

on natural areas, the impacts on the built environment 

and cultural resources were extensive and required 

expensive repairs. It was necessary to transfer research 

on vulnerability and inundation from natural resources 

to facilities. Throughout the national parks of New York 

Harbor, wind and flooding (storm surge and standing water) 

caused substantial damage to historic structures and assets 

contained within areas that had not been impacted by past 

storms and in places not previously thought to be vulnerable. 

Cultural Landscapes

In addition, cultural landscapes sustained storm impacts 

that were not previously considered by facility and park 

managers. Similar to historic buildings, the most obvious 

impacts on cultural landscapes included damage to historic 

materials (e.g., railings, chain link fence, light posts, and 

brick courtyard fence at Jacob Riis Park), as well as changes 

to the natural resources and systems (e.g., changes in 

vegetation, topography, and sand dunes at Jacob Riis Park 

and Fort Tilden), which are character-defining features of 

historic landscapes. 
National Park Service 124 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Figure 9.3. Beach 

profiles at FIIS before 

and after Hurricane 

Sandy. Note: Shoreperpendicular elevation 

profiles of Fire Island, New 

York, capture the initial 

impact of Hurricane 

Sandy and the ongoing 

recovery of the beach 

system. Surveys were 

performed one day prior 

to Hurricane Sandy 

landfall in October 2012, 

within three days after 

the storm (in November 

2012), in September 2014 

and in January 2016. 

Profile elevation data were 

collected at 0.5 second 

intervals using an Ashtech 

Z-Xtreme GPS surveying 

instrument and postprocessed using positional 

data from a base receiver 

to achieve sub-decimeter 

accuracies. This figure 

and additional data are 

available from http://

coastal.er.usgs.gov/

fire-island/research/

sandy/beach-profiles.

html. Figure from 

Hapke (2014).
National Park Service 125 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Cultural landscapes also sustained some additional impacts 

from the immediate clean-up efforts as open areas were 

used as staging grounds, parking areas, and other aspects 

of operational support for the NPS Incident Management 

Team and the adjacent community. In particular, Miller Field 

at GATE was heavily used as a parking area for surrounding 

neighborhood recovery efforts, which resulted in muddy 

and compacted soil conditions; while the listed features of 

this cultural landscape were not affected, the surrounding 

area was heavily used. Unlike other cultural resources, 

cultural landscapes offer an opportunity to accommodate 

such staging and parking areas during disaster clean-up 

and recovery, though designated areas for such functions 

should be clearly marked and boundaries should be defined. 

Such activities should also be located away from sensitive, 

subsurface resources. 

Completed cultural landscape inventories and cultural 

landscape reports at GATE greatly contributed to making 

informed decisions about appropriate staging areas and 

decisions about character-defining features of landscapes 

that needed to be preserved to maintain landscape 

integrity. Having baseline studies available for the Incident 

Management Team and park managers is essential for 

assessing impacts. A lesson from Sandy is storm response 

would benefit from involving facility management staff in 

future inventories and assessments to ensure necessary data 

get collected to improve Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS) data quality. Moving forward, cultural 

landscapes and their inherent characteristics offer an 

opportunity for improved resiliency and adaptation against 

climate change. 

Museum Collections

The loss of electrical power and mechanical systems 

affected historic structures and collections, both those that 

were damaged by direct storm effects and those that were 

not. Without climate control, collections that were not 

damaged by the storm because they were stored at high 

locations within the buildings were at risk from extremes 

of temperature and humidity and resulting mold. A month 

after Hurricane Sandy hit, many of the climate control 

systems on Ellis Island were still not functioning, so the Ellis 

Island Museum Collection and exhibits were temporarily 

moved offsite to the NPS Museum Resources Center in 

Landover, Maryland, where they remain in a stable, climatecontrolled environment until resilient repairs on Ellis Island 

are completed. In addition to building resiliently in place, 

GATE is permanently relocating some collections to less 

vulnerable locations. The park has permanently relocated its 

museum collections off of Sandy Hook with the expectation 

that Sandy Hook facilities will be impacted again by future 

storms. The experiences of these parks following Hurricane 

Sandy influenced the development of a servicewide 

assessment of NPS museum facility vulnerability to climate 

change report (NPS Park Museum Management Program 

2014) which was already underway at the time (see “Chapter 

5 Cultural Resources”). That assessment will be used to 

initiate scoping of an updated park museum collection 

storage plan.

Climate Adaptation for Cultural Resources

The many cultural resource vulnerabilities illuminated by 

Hurricane Sandy impacts and recovery efforts inspired 

the National Park Service to convene a workshop called 

“Preserving Coastal Heritage” in April 2014 (see “Chapter 

5 Cultural Resources”). The purpose of this session was to 

inform development of NPS decision-making frameworks 

for cultural resources that are vulnerable to climate change. 

The workshop explored decision-making criteria and 

planning processes through case studies of Hurricane 

Sandy impacts including north Ellis Island, Spermaceti 

Cove life-saving station, and Jacob Riis Park. The summary 

report from this session identified and described seven 

climate change adaptation strategies for cultural resources: 

do nothing; offsite action; improve resiliency; relocate or 

allow movement; data recovery, then let go; record, then let 

go; and interpret the change, which are further developed 

into the seven strategies in table 5.4 (NPS 2014b) The report 

also identified opportunities to improve the development 

of viable management alternatives for threatened cultural 

resources (NPS 2014b), as enumerated in “Chapter 5 

Cultural Resources.” 

Success Stories of Planning, Preparation, 

and Experience 

Some NPS units with barrier island seashores have designed 

or adapted their infrastructure to minimize vulnerability to 

the frequent storms that impact those parks. At FIIS and 

Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS), Maryland and 

Virginia, the staff reviews storm response plans after each 

hurricane and northeaster that affects the park in order to 

incorporate lessons learned. While storms with the impact 

of Hurricane Sandy are infrequent, the historic experiences 

with large storms coupled with preparation for smaller 

storms minimized storm damage to park buildings at FIIS 

and ASIS. Such examples of successful designs and plans 

from national seashores can be adapted for other coastal 

parks facing increased storm impacts. 
National Park Service 126 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Adaptation strategies may vary by site, because they need 

to be compatible with site-specific features. Successful 

adaptation strategies post-Hurricane Sandy include (1) 

relocation to higher and less flood-prone locations, (2) 

portable construction, and (3) resilient construction or (4) 

sacrificial construction. At FIIS, where boardwalks were 

impacted by Hurricane Sandy, staff members are developing 

options to replace traditional boardwalks with alternatives 

using multiple adaptive techniques. Boardwalks were 

relocated to higher and less flood-prone locations, and were 

also anchored into the ground so they will not float away 

when future floods reach those heights or locations. At ASIS, 

assets in the Virginia district have been adapted over time 

to minimize damage from repeated storms (see Schupp, 

Beavers and Caffrey 2015 “Case Study 16: Relocating Visitor 

Facilities Threatened by Erosion”). For example, traditional 

visitor facilities such as beachside bathhouses have been 

replaced with portable structures that are secured off-island 

in advance of storms, and beach parking lots have been 

resurfaced with native materials (clay and clam shell) that 

can be reused and that do not leave asphalt debris on the 

beach when overwashed. ASIS is now implementing these 

successful adaptations in the Maryland district, where visitor 

facilities had not experienced significant storm damages until 

Hurricane Sandy significantly impacted infrastructure on 

both the ocean and bay sides of the park. 

Reducing infrastructure vulnerability by locating or 

relocating permanent facilities to lower-vulnerability 

locations is not without potential impacts on other 

resources. For example, when two visitor parking lots at 

ASIS were damaged by Hurricane Sandy, the park proposed 

relocating these assets to inland areas of the barrier island 

that would not be as vulnerable to ongoing shoreline change 

and future storm impacts. Through the environmental 

assessment process, the park discovered that this adaptation 

action was not as straightforward as expected because it 

could have undesirable aspects, such as impacts on inland 

resources and visitor experience. The birding community 

was opposed to the proposed location for one of those 

parking areas, which is located on the bay side of the island, 

because it would have disturbed a shrub/scrub vegetation 

community that migratory birds used as a stopover. Birders 

were also dissatisfied that only one alternative parking site 

was being considered. The NEPA public scoping process 

identified just how important this portion of the bayside 

peninsula currently is to recreational use and the birding 

community as a whole (NPS, Bill Hulslander, ASIS Resources 

Management Chief, email, 30 October 2014). As a result, the 

park developed a new, separate environmental assessment

(NPS 2015b) focused solely on the bayside parking lot to 

identify alternative locations for a parking lot, so that after 

the next storm event, there is a plan in place to relocate 

this asset. In the meantime, the bayside parking lot will be 

resurfaced with clay and clamshell rather than with asphalt. 

As illustrated by this ASIS example, as resource conditions 

change, and new adaptation strategies are developed, the 

value and use of park habitats will also likely change. This 

will make traditional planning processes more complex. 

Planning processes that are nimble and flexible will allow 

decisions to be made today despite it becoming increasingly 

difficult to evaluate specific resource impacts in the face of a 

changing environment. 

Another strategy to reduce vulnerability is to develop 

contingency plans for responding to possible or probable 

future scenarios. FIIS provides one successful model, where 

the potential for a barrier island breach is of concern to 

multiple stakeholders. An existing plan, known as the Fire 

Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Plan, Long Island, 

New York (USACE 2016), included a Breach Contingency 

Plan to guide decisions related to breach closure. This plan 

called for the closure of all breaches on Fire Island with 

the exception of the wilderness area, where any breach 

would be monitored to determine whether it would close 

under natural conditions. The plan was implemented after 

Hurricane Sandy created three breaches on Fire Island 

within the national seashore: one in the Otis Pike Wilderness 

and two within the Smith Point County Park. One breach in 

Smith Point County Park was closed immediately following 

the storm, and the other breach closed naturally. 

Monitoring data have been important in responding to 

public concerns about the open breach and understanding 

breach influence on Great South Bay located inland of 

FIIS. NPS scientists immediately began monitoring the 

morphology of the wilderness breach location, monitoring 

and mapping the east and west locations of the breach on 

a near daily basis. Subsequent monitoring efforts measured 

water velocity through the breach, the morphology of the 

depth of the breach, water quality (temperature and salinity), 

and changes in water level in the Great South Bay. Pre-storm 

baseline monitoring and post-storm data analyses enabled 

Stony Brook University (Flagg and Flood 2013) and USGS 

(Aretxabaleta, Butman, and Ganju 2014) to show that the 

increased flooding during the winter following the breach 

was regional, occurred both inside and outside Great South 

Bay, and was due to subsequent storms and unrelated to the 

breach. Data also show that the breach has improved water 

quality near the inlet due to increased local flushing, which 
National Park Service 127 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

has reduced brown tide in the vicinity of the breach. There 

is little impact beyond the vicinity of the breach due to the 

limited reach of the inlet flow, which has a small volume 

relative to the total volume of Great South Bay (Flagg, Flood, 

and Wilson 2013). Additional studies focus on the ecological 

response to the breach open condition, including potential 

changes in phytoplankton, clams, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and other ecologically important organisms 

(Gobler and Thickman 2016). 

Allowing the natural coastal processes of overwash and 

island migration to continue enables barrier islands 

to keep up with moderate rates of sea level rise. The 

breach monitoring program will improve future sciencebased management decision making. An environmental 

impact statement and associated technical reports 

supporting breach management planning for FIIS are 

currently in development as part of the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2013.

Common Barriers to Adaptation

There are several common barriers to the development and 

implementation of appropriate climate change adaptation 

strategies. A primary barrier to post-storm adaptation is the 

pressure to return the park and its facilities to pre-storm 

conditions quickly (Grannis et al. 2014). This expectation 

may be generated by policy, funding requirements, park 

culture, political pressure, or the desire to restore access 

quickly. The quickest solution is often to replace damaged 

structures “in kind,” thereby avoiding the lengthy process 

needed for new design work; additionally, cost estimates 

(often generated during the incident response process 

to quantify damage) for NPS funding though Project 

Management Information System (PMIS) are based on direct 

replacement of existing structures, and some federal funding 

has been tied to “in kind” replacement. 

In contrast, the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force 

(2013) initially required that federal facilities receiving 

Hurricane Sandy recovery funding must rebuild critical 

infrastructure to Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE) standards 

plus 1 foot or plus 2 feet instead of to pre-storm elevations. 

This evolved as other data sets became available (e.g., 

FEMA’s Best Available Flood Hazard data and Preliminary 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps) and has now been modified to 

plus 2 feet or plus 3 feet. The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding 

Strategy (2013) deals with this as follows:

“The Task Force previously advised use of FEMA ABFEs 

plus 1 foot for rebuilding in the region. In the July–

October time frame, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency will release most of the Preliminary Digital Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps for coastal areas in both states, 

which will replace the ABFEs and refine the 1%-annualchance (100-year) coastal flood elevations based on 

improved modeling.” 

The ABFEs for the New York and New Jersey coastlines 

were developed in 2012 using updated coastal study 

methodologies and topographic data. These were interim 

coverages. Existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs) were developed as long as 25 years ago in some 

locations along the New York and New Jersey coastlines. In 

most locations, the Advisory Base Flood Elevations reflect 

higher flood elevations than the current regulatory Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps, and are believed to represent a more 

likely scenario for the 1% annual flood risk in a given location 

(FEMA 2012). However, the link between recovery funds 

and elevation presented a challenge to parks with incomplete 

elevation data for facilities; the resulting efforts and protocols 

for GATE are described in the next section. 

This expectation that resources must be restored to their prestorm state primarily applies to infrastructure and cultural 

resources; for the most part, park visitors understand that 

natural resources are dynamic. The feasibility of adapting 

some types of coastal infrastructure depends on location. 

For example, docks, bathing facilities, and boardwalks will 

continue to be located close to the shoreline and therefore 

likely within the flood zone, but they can be adaptively 

redesigned. Political pressure, timeliness, and stakeholder 

interest in maintaining existing public amenities in places 

like the beach parking lot at ASIS or the marina at Great Kills 

in GATE can limit adaptation efforts to small, short-term 

changes in design. For example, although ASIS has reduced 

infrastructure vulnerability by investing in bathhouses 

that are moved off-island ahead of storms and resurfacing 

parking lots with native materials, more significant changes 

to the location of the recreational beach and associated 

parking lots have been met with strong resistance from 

the neighboring communities that are dependent on the 

tourism economy (see Schupp, Beavers, and Caffrey 2015, 

“Case Study: 16 Relocating Visitor Facilities Threatened 

by Accelerated Erosion”). In another popular NPS unit, 

political pressure to quickly restore dock access to Liberty 

Island at the Statue of Liberty National Monument 

resulted in minimal time to incorporate design features to 
National Park Service 128 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

accommodate rising water levels. The design changes that 

were incorporated included design-to-fail connection points 

between the dock sections to isolate damage and improved 

connections where the docks are fixed to the piles to improve 

survival (figure 9.4).

Many cultural resources must be protected in place and 

restored with appropriate materials to maintain their 

historic characteristics; this requirement also maintains their 

vulnerabilities. Resources listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places and resources covered by the The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR 68) needed additional review and 

oversight of recovery decisions. Structures such as the Jacob 

Riis bathhouse and the surrounding cultural landscape were 

heavily damaged by storm surge and the overwash of sand. 

Plans for adaptive reuse of this structure include roll-up 

doors or openings on both sides so that water can pass 

through, elevated electrical systems, resilient wall finishes 

(subway tiles) at ground level, and portable food service such 

as vendors with mobile carts or units.

If buildings are well maintained, they have a better chance 

of surviving a major storm; the porches of the Officers Row 

at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook are an illustrative example. 

There were two buildings that had been rehabilitated and 

maintained, including the building at the lowest elevation—

these were the only buildings that had porches without 

major storm damage. 

The need to prioritize cultural resources is described in 

“Chapter 5 Cultural Resources.” At GATE, many cultural 

resources were in poor condition before Hurricane Sandy 

due to deferred maintenance and the lack of capacity to 

assess maintenance needs. GATE had been working on a 

banding method to prioritize cultural resources with the 

awareness that they had never been able to fully address 

the maintenance needs or even a complete assessment of 

GATE’s extensive cultural resource assets. After the storm, 

capacity was strained to evaluate which resources could be 

rehabilitated and which to document and let go. Hurricane 

Sandy recovery brought home the realization that you 

cannot protect every resource and spurred staff to finalize 

the banding process and include storm vulnerability. The 

resulting prioritized list of resources was included as an 

appendix in the General Management Plan (GMP) update, 

for which the Hurricane Sandy impacts became a proxy for 

vulnerability to future storm events (NPS 2014a). With the 

combination of recovery funding and the cultural resource 

prioritization, GATE has an updated strategy for maintenance 

of cultural resources. 

The expectations of other agencies, partners, and adjacent 

communities can also be a barrier to adaptation. The Breezy 

Point Cooperative, a private community located within 

GATE and adjacent to Fort Tilden, previously removed the 

dune system fronting the community to allow for easier 

beach access, and experienced substantial storm damage. 

The established dune system protecting Fort Tilden was 

overwashed during the storm, but the beach volume eroded 

during Hurricane Sandy is recovering and dune building is 

occurring by natural processes. The Breezy Point Cooperative 

has constructed a dune system to protect residences from 

future storms and has tied this feature to the dunes in the 

park at the east and west ends of the community. 

Funding availability, constraints, and timelines can also 

be barriers to adaptation. Once the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2013 was passed, the funding process 

and timing determined which adaptation strategies could 

be included in recovery projects. The proposals had to be 

developed quickly in the midst of ongoing storm response 

efforts. Where storm recovery plans were in place, teams 

were able to evaluate the extent of damage, estimate 

costs of repair, and prioritize what was needed to get the 

park operational again. Infrastructure repairs to prevent 

further damage were a focus of the Incident Management 

Team (NPS 2013). While initial repairs were underway, 

the initial recovery funding call requested projects with 

design features to make infrastructure more resilient. The 

NPS RRT ensured that Hurricane Sandy funded facility 

Figure 9.4. Photo from Liberty Island of damaged dock 

access. Photograph by Rebecca Beavers, NPS.

Impacts on historic structures were often 

greatest for those with deferred maintenance.
National Park Service 129 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

projects dealt with resiliency and not just replacement 

in-kind. In later funding decisions, the DOI eventually did 

provide substantial funding for projects intended to improve 

ecological resilience. The initial project timeline was that all 

projects must be completed by November 2016. This timeline 

is incompatible with the need for continued monitoring to 

evaluate resilience, because it will be a challenge to complete 

the planning, design, and implementation in that time. While 

some projects are being given extensions, it is to complete 

work, not to address the continued monitoring needs. 

To better address rapid timelines of future storm response 

and recovery funding requests, efforts would benefit from 

having PMIS estimates come from an interdisciplinary 

project management team rather than only from estimators 

of damage. Current condition assessments would make it 

easier to determine storm damage from previous condition. 

Preapproved flexibility to design future structures differently 

(smarter) rather than replace in-kind and boilerplate text 

to include in storm recovery funding proposals would 

improve the response and recovery process. Hurricane 

Sandy construction projects were able to work around the 

initial challenges related to the above points by having a high 

degree of flexibility in managing projects as a whole body of 

work; within infrastructure projects there was flexibility for 

changes without having to redo the entire PMIS statement, 

including changing dollar amounts and moving funds 

between projects. 

Servicewide Coastal Adaptation 

Strategies and Challenges

Several of the recovery and adaptation issues highlighted 

by Hurricane Sandy are common to other coastal parks and 

are addressed in previous chapters of this handbook. One 

issue is how to consider tradeoffs in adaptation options 

across natural resources, cultural resources, and facilities. 

For example, overwashed roads and parking lots at GATE 

represent infrastructure in need of repair (figure 6.1), 

but are also new habitat for shorebirds. In that case, the 

park removed the sand burden from the road and parking 

surfaces, and placed the sand within the infrastructure 

zones, on the seaward side of buildings and parking lots, 

to create protective berms. The park made an effort to limit 

the intrusion of those berms into overwash areas to avoid 

habitat fragmentation. Resource advisors on the Incident 

Management Team discussed a backshore placement 

alternative, but necessary wetland and New Jersey and New 

York Coastal Zone Management permits had not been 

secured. Plans for future post-storm recovery should include 

back barrier shoreline placement alternatives in areas prone 

to overwash. 

With limited capacity to evaluate which resources to 

document and let go, parks needed guidance on whether 

degraded shore protection structures (e.g., remnant seawalls) 

are historic. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013

provided additional funding to the New York and New 

Jersey State Historic Preservation Offices to comply with the 

NHPA (PL 89-665; 16 USC 470 et seq.) Section 106, which 

requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects 

they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties. It 

would be beneficial to have response team members, and 

budgets to support them, with expertise in design and in 

cultural resources to help guide assumptions and decisions 

on post-storm recovery.

Hurricane Sandy recovery has presented educational and 

outreach opportunities on coastal climate adaptation, 

such as the October 2014 climate science education 

workshop, focused on the Sandy Hook area of GATE, titled 

Communities and Sandy Hook Workshop: Partnering to 

Build Resilience to Climate Change. The workshop engaged 

diverse local communities to discuss a possible vision for the 

future of the Sandy Hook Unit of GATE and the surrounding 

region. Several of the potential projects identified to 

advance climate adaptation project planning, funding, and 

implementation were based around education and climate 

literacy (NPCA 2014). 

Parks must also develop ways to implement climate change 

adaptation strategies in cooperation with concessions 

partners, who often have both the expectation to return 

to previous conditions and pressure to reopen quickly. 

Responses differed based on functional needs, contracts, 

concessioner insurance, and level of impact. In some places, 

there were multiple occupants, and the responsibilities for 

common space and utilities were unclear. Systems such as 

electricity and climate control were moved out of basements, 

but large freezers were more challenging to make more 

sustainable in places where they were incompatible with 

the cultural landscape. The Great Kills Marina was rebuilt 

to more resilient standards with higher piles and materials 

better able to withstand future storms through a combination 

of insurance and federal funding. The Silver Gull Beach Club 

was able to use insurance money to replace in-kind without 

improvements in resilience. The Sandy Hook Beach Centers 

were under-insured and no longer has a concession operator, 

so the National Park Service could make recovery decisions 

without contract issues.
National Park Service 130 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Implementation of Lessons Learned from 

Hurricane Sandy 

Hurricane Sandy created opportunities to replace damaged 

structures with resilient alternatives, rather than rebuilding 

damaged structures back to their pre-storm state. At Liberty 

and Ellis Islands, below grade-level electrical and mechanical 

equipment was damaged. The decisions on how and where 

to replace the equipment were made through a value-based 

decision-making process (e.g., Value Analysis or Choosing 

by Advantages). At Ellis Island, the park decided to relocate 

some of the equipment within an existing Power House 

building. Chillers and boilers were located on a new elevated 

steel frame platform, and electric switchgear was moved to 

the second floor. Similar, but less complicated, solutions 

for Liberty Island, where there had been less damage, also 

include an elevated steel platform to support equipment 

above flood zones within an existing maintenance building 

(figure 9.5). At the Sandy Hook unit of GATE, grade-level 

electrical equipment serving below grade sewage lift stations 

was damaged. The initially popular idea to install electrical 

panels that could be detached from the stand and moved 

inland was untenable because removal would have required 

unprotected flexible cord and a 220V outlet exposed to 

the public, which would violate code. As an alternative, a 

risk assessment helped prioritize the few key vulnerable 

lift stations and equipment to protect with water proof 

enclosures. These are larger or multiple enclosures that 

were ultimately able to fit into the historic district, with only 

minor items left unprotected that can easily be bypassed 

in the short term. An important lesson learned from this 

process was to consider all options fully without focusing a 

preference on existing methods or locations. The concept 

of risk management in making decisions is also exemplified 

in this example. The concept of risk comes into play in 

many decisions when there is usually no obvious solution, 

so risk management becomes a key component of making 

informed decisions.

The storm recovery effort identified planning needs that 

can be addressed in preparation for future storms. One 

immediate need was data for each building’s floor elevation 

relative to the floodplain. The NPS Northeast Region (NER) 

and the NPS GPS Program (WASO) already had several 

elevation inventory efforts underway prior to the storm. 

At GATE in June 2013, a “GPS Swat Team” that included 

park employees used protocols (Smith and Gallagher 

2011) from previous NPS asset elevation inventories and 

surveyed accurate elevations of first-floor thresholds 

for all buildings in GATE and Statue of Liberty National 

Monument, including Ellis Island (see box 6.1 “Chapter 

6 Facility Management” for details). The success at GATE 

and previous efforts in Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras 

National Seashores (North Carolina) is being expanded to 

an NPS-wide project; FIIS building elevations were surveyed 

in summer 2014, and surveys have been completed in 2015 

of Biscayne National Park (Florida), Gulf Islands National 

Seashore (Florida and Mississippi) and Fort Sumter National 

Monument (South Carolina). Colonial National Historical 

Park (Virginia) including the historic Jamestown site and 

Fort Monroe National Monument (Virginia) were completed 

in 2016. Planned future projects are dependent on future 

funding and include Cumberland Island National Seashore 

(Georgia), Fort Frederica National Monument (Georgia), 

Boston National Historical Park (Massachusetts), Boston 

Harbor Islands National Recreation Area (Massachusetts), 

and Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve 

(Louisiana) (NPS, Tim Smith, National GPS Program 

Coordinator, email, 11 May 2016; updated 10 August 2016). 

Executive Order 13690 sets a new, post-Sandy federal flood 

risk management standard (see discussion in “Chapter 6 

Facility Management”), a minimum elevation relative to flood 

zones that accounts for sea level rise for all major federal 

investments to better avoid riverine and coastal floodplain 

risks. It is important to consider that facilities at risk from 

future sea level rise may be different from facilities susceptible 

to storm surge and coastal flooding alone. A recent risk 

analysis of coastal assets at GATE examined the vulnerability 

of assets identified by the National Park Service as having 

high exposure to long-term sea level rise because of their 

elevation (Peek et al. 2015). The locations of these highly 

exposed assets were then compared to assets within FEMAdesignated high flood risk and coastal high hazard areas (the 

AE and VE zones, respectively) (Peek et al. 2015). Overall, 

Figure 9.5. Photo of elevated platform in maintenance 

building on Liberty Island.
National Park Service 131 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

57% of all assets within GATE are in FEMA high coastal 

risk zones, with variability between areas (for example, 82% 

of the assets on Sandy Hook are in FEMA high coastal risk 

zones), but only 30% of all park assets were considered to 

have high exposure to long-term sea level rise (Peek et al. 

2015). The risk analysis did not incorporate storm surge 

and flooding, which can increase coastal vulnerability; for 

example, surge flooding during Hurricane Sandy exceeded 

10 ft (3 m) in the GATE region (Peek et al. 2015) (figure 9.6).

Availability of inventories or baseline data improved the 

ability of response teams to evaluate impacts and monitor 

recovery. Hurricane Sandy exposed shortcomings in data 

availability describing the vulnerability of resources and 

understanding their resilience to extreme events. For 

example, documentation supporting response and recovery 

for facilities relies heavily upon FMSS. Many coastal 

engineering structures (e.g., bulkheads and seawalls) were 

damaged in the storm, but are not consistently listed in 

FMSS (figure 9.7). Recognizing this need, the NER Facilities 

Management funded a partner to input FMSS data based 

on recent inventories of coastal engineering actions in 

coastal parks (e.g., Dallas, Ruggiero and Berry 2013; Coburn, 

Griffith, and Young 2010; and other coastal engineering 

inventories available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/

coastal/monitoring.cfm).

Research funded by the NER begun prior to Hurricane 

Sandy assessed potential coastal engineering structures for 

removal within coastal NER units to allow for shoreline 

habitats such as wetlands to exist and migrate (Nordstrom 

and Jackson 2016, also discussed in “Chapter 6 Facility 

Management”). At GATE, a sheetpile bulkhead along the 

Jamaica Bay shoreline near Aviation Road was assessed for 

its current function and impacts. A section of the sheetpile 

bulkhead was cut off approximately two feet below finish 

grade to allow for safe recreational access to a popular 

fishing location and plans to remove a more extensive 

section of the structure and the damaged parking area 

behind it to allow for migration of the beach habitat were 

recommended through a value analysis. Implementation 

was complicated by learning that the bulkhead is under US 

Marine Corps (USMC) jurisdiction; it was delayed until an 

agreement with USMC was reached, and this project is now 

proceeding (figure 9.8). The relocation of the upland parking 

lot and associated RV housing loop road pavement is still 

moving forward. 

The response and recovery phase of incident management 

are recognized as adaptation opportunities. One lesson 

learned from Hurricane Sandy was that pre-storm planning 

for the after-effects of a storm is crucial to effective and 

thoughtful recovery (see “Chapter 2 Planning” and 

“Chapter 6 Facility Management”). 

Figure 9.6. Comparison map of the results from the Sandy Hook portion of GATE, including the FEMA 

flood zone analysis (A) and the SLR exposure analysis (B) for assets within the area based on first-floor 

elevations (HE = high exposure, LE = limited exposure). Figure from Peek et al. (2015).

F
National Park Service 132 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

The concept of resilience has taken a central role in 

Hurricane Sandy recovery, yet it is a challenge to measure 

or define. Some of the funding from the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2013 was designated for mitigation 

and resilience studies to help National Park Service better 

understand the resilience of natural resources. Department 

of the Interior’s Hurricane Sandy Mitigation Funding 

awarded $21 million dollars to study coastal marshes, 

wetlands and shorelines, measure the effects of Hurricane 

Sandy on park natural resources and provide natural 

resource monitoring information and necessary scientific 

data to park managers. Part of that funding went to the 

Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay to lead 

10 studies that advance knowledge of resilience in urban 

coastal ecosystems. The projects will examine the health 

and resilience of Jamaica Bay salt marshes, including water 

quality and shoreline position; monitor and evaluate current 

ecosystem restoration efforts; and assess barriers to future 

projects and community visions of resilience (CUNY 2014). 

Study results will improve the design and implementation 

of restoration practices and other strategies that enhance 

the resilience and long-term sustainability of Jamaica Bay. 

This funding also supported a wide variety of resilience 

studies and actions by other federal agencies and partners. 

One example that can help provide the larger landscape 

context for NPS efforts is a series of reports inventorying 

modifications to beaches and tidal inlets prior to, 

immediately after, and several years post- Hurricane Sandy 

(Rice 2015; Rice 2012a; Rice 2012b). 

gure 9. Structure map for Jamaica Bay. Area in white box is shown in Figure 10, green box in Figure 14, and orange box in Figure 18 (image 

om ESRI ArcGIS basemap, 2011 Bing Maps layer).

Figure 9.7. GATE Coastal Engineering Inventory of Jamaica Bay. Figure from Dallas, Ruggiero and Berry (2013).
National Park Service 133 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Recommendations for Park Actions based on Hurricane Sandy Lessons Learned 

The impacts of Hurricane Sandy on NPS areas and assets, and NPS response following the storm, provided 

opportunities to identify lessons learned and to prepare for future storms.

Pre-Storm

Several pre-storm preparations would improve 

park response and recovery: 

● Create and Update Storm Response Plans: 

Create checklists for park recovery, in 

addition to existing storm response plans, 

to guide response team to evaluate park 

resource impacts (e.g., check on a particular 

species in a particular location), similar to 

those found in the appendix of the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Storm Recovery 

Plan (CALO 2011).

● Update geodatabases: Prepare a Park Atlas

(NPS internal access only), or a GIS Toolbox. 

Create and update GIS coverages. Update 

and georeference FMSS assets. Add cultural 

resources and Coastal Engineering Inventory 

data to FMSS. Add first floor threshold 

elevations of buildings and resources to FMSS 

and the GIS toolbox. Create ready to print 

PDF showing the locations of key cultural 

resources, sensitive habitats and species, and 

the FMSS numbers of all facilities. 

● Reduce facility vulnerability: Incorporate 

design features to address new guidance 

from Facility Management PM 15–01 on 

climate change and natural hazards (NPS 

2015a). The guidance includes a checklist and 

guidance to identify potential risks associated 

with climate change and strategies to reduce 

that risk for facilities. 

● Plan for sediment movement: Plan in 

advance for alternatives to moving all 

sediment overwashed on built assets (e.g., 

asphalt parking lots) back onto the beach 

(e.g., landward or to bayside feeder beaches).

● Allow natural processes: Allow the natural 

coastal processes of overwash and island 

migration to continue, to enable barrier 

islands to keep up with moderate rates of 

sea level rise.

● Create a monitoring plan: Plan to collect 

monitoring data to understand storm impacts 

and respond to public concerns about 

allowing natural processes to continue.

Figure 9.8. Photos of Aviation road bulkhead (left) and area where section was removed (right). Note: Planned removal of 

the Aviation road bulkhead to allow shoreline migration was delayed and only a section was removed initially for safe access. Removal 

of the bulkhead is now proceeding.
National Park Service 134 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

● Develop a long-term landscape plan:

Develop a landscape-scale plan for future 

habitat, migration corridors, habitat for 

threatened and endangered species, working 

strategically with partners where appropriate 

to capture a range of habitat.

● Build stakeholder support: Before a disaster, 

develop plans, and build stakeholder 

support so that parks are better prepared 

to seize post-disaster opportunities to 

rebuild resiliently with replacement or 

adaptive structures. Identify educational and 

outreach opportunities related to coastal 

climate adaptation, to improve stakeholder 

understanding and support of post-storm 

recovery efforts.

● Consider removing vulnerable facilities: Do 

an analysis of entire areas and determine the 

risks and needs of each facility. Those that are 

not resilient and not able to be maintained 

should be considered for documentation and 

removal before the next storm.

● Tailor site solutions: A number of resilient 

solutions need to be evaluated site by site; 

there is no one silver bullet.

Post-Storm

Post-storm response strategies could be improved 

with the following actions:

● Develop integrated teams: Develop 

integrated project management teams that 

consider natural and cultural resources, 

sustainability, and facilities design/planning, 

to supplement individual FMSS estimators. 

For example, Museum Emergency Response 

Teams in Northeast, Southeast, and National 

Capital Regions and Cultural Resource 

Emergency Response Teams in Pacific West 

and Alaska Regions use project statements 

from resource advisors/professionals. 

● Include wide expertise: Include team 

members with expertise in design, project 

management, and cultural and natural 

resources to help guide assumptions and 

decisions on post-storm recovery, such as 

which resources should be rehabilitated or 

protected and which might be let go after 

a more deliberative process in the recovery/

mitigation processes. Continue to support the 

training and integration of Resource Advisors 

on Incident Management Teams.

● Increase funding flexibility: Increase funding 

flexibility to design replacement structures 

differently and to incorporate new smart 

designs instead of replacing in-kind.

● Use value-based decision-making: Use 

a process that considers all the factors 

that might be affected by a change in 

infrastructure and rebuilding; accept that 

some ideas will ultimately be rejected. 

Recovery and Mitigation

The recovery and mitigation processes would 

benefit from the following actions: 

● Lay the ground work for funding 

applications: Develop or copy boilerplate 

text to include in storm recovery 

project statements.

● Recognize changing values: Recognize that 

as resource conditions change, and new 

adaptation strategies are developed, the 

value and use of park habitats and resources 

will also likely change. This will make 

traditional planning processes more complex.

● Recognize limitations of relocation:

Recognize that relocating permanent 

facilities inland can have undesirable aspects, 

such as impacts on inland resources and 

visitor experience. 

● Consider infrastructure alternatives: Consider 

replacing traditional infrastructure with

○ portable structures that can be moved in 

advance out of the path of a storm. 

○ structures that are elevated above predicted storm surge heights.

● Adapt infrastructure: Incorporate 

design elements within traditional 

infrastructure such as

○ flow-through elements that will accommodate storm surge and limit 

standing water.
National Park Service 135 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Take Home Messages

● Hurricane Sandy presented opportunities for adaptation 

and for testing adaptation elements in existing plans.

● Natural resources were found to be more resilient than 

many cultural resources and facilities. 

● Historic structures have resilient design features. If 

buildings are well maintained, they may have a better 

chance of surviving a major storm.

● National seashores can provide other parks with 

good examples of preparation for and learning from 

experience about storm impacts on dynamic landscapes.

● After an event, there is an immediate and strong 

push to return park assets to pre-storm conditions, 

which can leave resources vulnerable to similar 

impacts in the future.

● Baseline monitoring and resource assessments are 

essential data to evaluate impacts and plan for recovery.

● Post-storm recovery is a critical opportunity to adapt to 

climate change.

○ non-mold growing materials that will 

withstand intermittent water.

○ impact resistant materials that can replace the need for hurricane shutters, etc.

○ elevated utilities (e.g., first floor, attic 

spaces, additional elevated platforms).

● Learn from cultural resource management 

strategies: Consider the seven climate change 

adaptation strategies for cultural resources: 

no active intervention, offset stress(ors), 

improve resilience, manage change, relocate/

facilitate movement, document and release, 

and interpret the change.
National Park Service 136 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

References

Aretxabaleta, A. L., B. Butman, and N. K. Ganju. 2014. 

Water level response in back-barrier bays unchanged 

following Hurricane Sandy. Geophysical Research 

Letters 41(9): 3163–3171. doi:10.1002/2014GL059957. 

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/estuarinephysical-response/pdf/aretxabaleta_et_al_Sandy.pdf

(accessed 3 December 2014).

Blake, E. S. 2013. Hurricane Sandy. Powerpoint presentation. 

National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. http://www.

nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/presentations/Sandy2012.pdf

(accessed 7 October 2014).

Blake, E. S., T. B. Kimberlain, R. J. Berg, J. P. Cangialosi, 

and J. L. Beven II. 2013. Tropical Cyclone Report: 

Hurricane Sandy (AL182012) 22 – 29 October 2012. 

National Hurricane Center Report. 12 February 2013. 

National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. http://www.

nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf (accessed 

7 October 2014).

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). 2011. Cape 

Lookout National Seashore Storm Recovery Plan 2011. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harkers Island, NC. 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/documents/

CALO_Final_Storm_Recovery_Plan_2011.pdf

(accessed 5 December 2014).

Coburn, A. S., A. D. Griffith, and R. S. Young. 2010. Inventory 

of Coastal Engineering Projects in Coastal National 

Parks. Natural Resource Technical Report. NPS/

NRPC/GRD/NRTR—2010/373. NPS Natural Resource 

Program Center. Fort Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.

gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2195056 (accessed 

15 October 2014).

The City University of New York (CUNY). 2014. “Science 

and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay Awarded $3.6 

Million to Support Research on Resilience in Urban 

Coastal Ecosystems.” Press release. 21 July 2014. 

http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2014/07/21/scienceand-resilience-institute-at-jamaica-bay-awarded-3-6-

million-to-support-research-on-resilience-in-urbancoastal-ecosystems/ (accessed 9 August 2016).

Dallas, K., P. Ruggiero, and M. Berry. 2013. Inventory of 

coastal engineering projects in Gateway National 

Recreation Area. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR—2013/738. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, CO. https://irma.nps.gov/

DataStore/Reference/Profile/2195204, (accessed 

9 August 2016).

Executive Order 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.” 30 

January 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishingfederal-flood-risk-management-standard-and-

(accessed 23 June 2016).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. 

Hurricane Sandy Advisory Base Flood Elevations – 

NJ and NY Frequently Asked Questions. Fact Sheet. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

DC. http://www.nfipiservice.com/pdf/Storm%20Sandy/

Hurricane%20Sandy%20ABFE_FAQ.pdf (accessed 

14 October 2014).

FEMA. 2013. Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report 

(July 1, 2013). Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Washington, DC. https://www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/20130726-1923-25045-7442/sandy_fema_aar.pdf

(accessed 8 April 2016).

Flagg, C. N. and R. Flood. 2013. The Impact on Great 

South Bay of the Breach at Old Inlet March 10, 2013. 

Report 8. School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, 

Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. http://www.

somassbu.org/research/storm/sandy/reports/FLAGG_

Inlet_Report_8.pdf (accessed 11 September 2016).

Flagg, C. N., R. Flood, and R. Wilson. 2013. The Continuing 

Evolution of the New Inlet. Report 10. School of 

Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook 

University, Stony Brook, NY. http://www.bellport.

com/vnews/seenheard/2013/Dec15_Inlet_Report.pdf

(accessed 11 September 2016).

Gobler, A. B., and J. Thickman. 2016. Response of indicator 

bacteria in Great South Bay, Long Island to the breach 

at Old Inlet: An analysis of coliform bacteria post 

Hurricane Sandy. Natural Resource Report NPS/

NER/NRR—2016/1261. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, CO. 

Grannis, J., V. Arroyo, S. Hoverter, and R. Stumberg. 

2014. Preparing for Climate Impacts: Lessons from 

the Front Lines. A Synthesis Report to The Kresge 

Foundation. Georgetown Climate Center, Washington, 

DC. http://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Preparing%20

for%20Climate%20Impacts%20-%20Georgetown%20

Climate%20Center.pdf (accessed 31 August 2016). 
National Park Service 137 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Hapke, C. J., O. Brenner, R. Here, and B. J. Reynolds. 2013. 

Coastal Change from Hurricane Sandy and the 2012-

2013 Winter Storm Season: Fire Island, New York. 

USGS Open-File Report 2013-1231. http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2013/1231/ (accessed 13 March 2015).

Hapke, C. 2014. Fire Island Coastal Change. Online datasets 

and project status. USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and 

Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL. http://

coastal.er.usgs.gov/fire-island/research/sandy/beachprofiles.html (accessed 18 November 2014).

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. 2013. Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. http://portal.hud.gov/

hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=hsrebuildingstrategy.

pdf (accessed 13 March 2015).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). 2013. Service assessment: Hurricane/PostTropical Cyclone Sandy October 22–29, 2012. NOAA, 

Washington, DC.

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). 

2014. Communities and Sandy Hook: Partnering 

to Build Resilience to Climate Change. Workshop 

Summary. https://sites.google.com/site/

resilientparksandcommunities/home (accessed 

9 August 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2013. Hurricane Sandy 

After Action Report. 14pp. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC.

NPS. 2014a. A New Vision for a Great Urban National Park 

Gateway National Recreation Area: Final General 

Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. 

National Park Service, Washington, DC. https://

parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=237

&projectID=16091&documentID=59051 (accessed 

9 August 2016).

NPS. 2014b. Preserving Coastal Heritage. Summary Report. 

April 3-4, 2014. Federal Hall, New York City, NY. 

Available at http://www.achp.gov/docs/preservecoastal-heritage.pdf (accessed 7 October 2014).

NPS. 2015a. Addressing Climate Change and Natural 

Hazards: Facility Planning and Design Considerations. 

US DOI National Park Service Policy Memorandum 

15-01. http://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_15-

01.htm (accessed 28 April 2015).

NPS. 2015b. Bayside Picnic and Parking Area Environmental 

Assessment. National Park Service, Washington, DC. 

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=2

07&projectID=52476&documentID=68176 (accessed 

9 August 2016).

NPS Museum Management Program. 2014. Assessment 

of National Park Service Museum Facilities’ 

Vulnerability to Climate Change. National Park Service, 

Washington, DC.

Nordstrom, K. F., and N. L. Jackson. 2016. Facilitating 

migration of coastal landforms and habitats by 

removing shore protection structures: An adaptation 

strategy for Northeast Region units of the National 

Park Service. Natural Resource Report NPS/NER/

NRR—2016/1240. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

CO. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/

Profile/2230271 (accessed 9 August 2016).

Peek, K. M., R. S. Young, R. L. Beavers, C. H. Hoffman, B. 

T. Diethorn and S. Norton. 2015. Adapting to climate 

change in coastal national parks: Estimating the 

exposure of FMSS-listed park assets to 1 m of sea-level 

rise. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRTR—2015/961. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO. https://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/

coastal/coastal_assets_report/2015_916_NPS_NRR_

Coastal_Assets_Exposed_to_1m_of_Sea_Level_Rise_

Peek_et_al.pdf (accessed 9 August 2016).

Rice, T. M. 2012a. The Status of Sandy, Oceanfront Beach 

Habitat in the Continental U.S. Coastal Migration and 

Wintering Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius 

melodus). Appendix 1c in US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping 

Plover (Charadrius melodus) in its Coastal Migration 

and Wintering Range in the Continental United States. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. https://

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/pipingplover/pdf/

CCSpiplNoApp2012.pdf (accessed 9 August 2016).

Rice, T. M. 2012b. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to 

Tidal Inlets in the Continental U.S. Coastal Migration 

and Wintering Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius 

melodus). Appendix 1b in US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping 

Plover (Charadrius melodus) in its Coastal Migration 

and Wintering Range in the Continental United States. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. https://

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/pipingplover/pdf/

CCSpiplNoApp2012.pdf (accessed 9 August 2016).
National Park Service 138 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Rice, T. M. 2015. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to 

Sandy Oceanfront Beaches in the U.S. Atlantic Coast 

Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius 

melodus) prior to Hurricane Sandy: South Shore of 

Long Island to Virginia. Report submitted to the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, 47 p.

Schupp, C. A., R. L. Beavers, and M. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. 

Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 

999/129700. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/

coastalhandbook.htm (accessed 10 August 2014).

Shrestha, P., S. James, P. Shaller, M. Doroudian, D. Peraza, 

and T. Morgan. 2014. Estimating the Storm Surge 

Recurrence Interval for Hurricane Sandy. Pages 

1906-1915 in W. Huber [ed.]. World Environmental 

and Water Resources Congress 2014: Water without 

Borders. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

VA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784413548.191

(accessed 9 August 2016).

Smith, T. G. and C. Gallagher. 2011. Accurate Elevations in 

Coastal National Parks. 999/107779 National Park 

Service.  National Park Service, Lakewood, CO.

Sweet, W., C. Zervas, S. Gill, and J. Park. 2013. Hurricane 

Sandy Inundation Probabilities Today and Tomorrow. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 94.9: 

S17-S20. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/

bams-sotc/extreme-events/2012/BAMS-Extremes-of2012-Section-06.pdf (accessed 3 December 2014).

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Fire Island 

to Montauk Point. Fact Sheet. http://www.nan.usace.

army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/

Article/487483/fact-sheet-fire-island-to-montaukpoint/ (accessed 9 August 2016).
National Park Service 139 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Glossary

Accommodate change – a class of adaptation response 

(alongside resist change and direct change) in which the 

target (resource, asset, system, or process) responds to 

climate change, and management may support its capacity 

to do so but does not aim to steer the target back towards 

past conditions or move it towards a strictly-defined 

desired future state.

Adaptation – adjustment in natural or human systems 

in anticipation of or response to a changing environment 

in a way that effectively reduces negative effects or 

uses opportunities.

Adaptive capacity – the ability of a resource, asset or 

process to adjust to climate change (including climate 

variability and extremes), i.e. to moderate potential 

damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with 

the consequences.

Adaptive management – a systematic approach for 

improving management by learning from management 

outcomes. The approach involves exploring alternative ways 

to meet management objectives, predicting the outcomes 

of alternatives based on current state of knowledge, 

implementing one or more of these alternatives, monitoring 

to learn about the impacts of management actions, and 

then using the results to update knowledge and adjust 

management actions. 

Anthropogenic – made by people or resulting from human 

activities. Usually used in the context of emissions that are 

produced as a result of human activities.

Carbon sequestration – terrestrial, or biologic, carbon 

sequestration is the process by which trees and plants absorb 

carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. 

Climate – climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as 

the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical 

description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant 

quantities over a period of time ranging from months to 

thousands of years. The classical period is 3 decades, as 

defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 

These quantities are most often surface variables such as 

temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider 

sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the 

climate system. 

Climate change – climate change refers to any significant 

change in the measures of climate lasting for an 

extended period of time. In other words, climate change 

includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, 

or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several 

decades or longer.

Climate model – a quantitative way of representing the 

interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, 

and ice. Models can range from relatively simple to quite 

comprehensive. 

Coral bleaching – the process in which a coral colony 

under environmental stress expels the microscopic 

algae (zooxanthellae) that live in symbiosis with their 

host organisms (polyps). The affected coral colony 

appears whitened.

Direct change – the focus of a class of adaptation response 

(alongside resist change and accommodate change) in which 

the target (resource, asset, system, or process) is actively 

managed towards a specific desired new condition.

Ecosystem services – the conditions and processes through 

which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them 

up, sustain and fulfill human life.

Exposure – magnitude of change in climate and other 

stressors that a resource, asset, or process has already or may 

experience in the future.

Inundation – the submergence of land by water, particularly 

in a coastal setting. 

Isostatic rebound – the movement of land masses in 

response to the massive weight of continental glaciers. 

As glaciers melt, the land rises slightly, unburdened 

by the ice load.

Mitigation (climate change context) – human 

intervention to reduce the human impact on the climate 

system; it includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas 

sources and emissions and enhancing greenhouse gas sinks.

Mitigation (emergency response context) – the 

effort to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the 

impact of disasters.
National Park Service 140 Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook

Monumentation – a control station and its coordinates 

established by geodetic methods and permanently marked 

with a brass disk, metal rod driven to refusal (or 80 ft), 

cement or stone platform, or other permanent structure with 

the purpose of making consistent relative measurements and 

tying these measurements to the most recent horizontal and 

vertical datum.

Nature-based features – features that mimic characteristics 

of natural features but are created by human design, 

engineering, and construction to provide specific services 

such as coastal risk reduction.

Ocean acidification – increased concentrations of 

dissolved carbon dioxide gas in sea water causing a 

measurable increase in acidity (i.e., a reduction in ocean pH). 

This may lead to reduced calcification rates of calcifying 

organisms such as corals, mollusks, algae, and crustaceans.

Permafrost – perennially (continually) frozen ground 

that occurs where the temperature remains below freezing 

for several years.

Persistence – current/past target (resource, asset, system, 

or process) conditions continue to exist, either because 

the target is inherently resistant to change or because of 

adaptation efforts to resist change. 

Phenology – the timing of natural events, such as flower 

blooms and animal migration, which is influenced by 

changes in climate. Phenology is the study of such important 

seasonal events. Phenological events are influenced by a 

combination of climate factors, including light, temperature, 

rainfall, and humidity.

Recovery (Incident Command System context) – a set of 

policies and procedures to enable continuation of vital park 

management following a natural or human-induced disaster.

Relative sea level rise – the increase in ocean water levels 

at a specific location, taking into account both global sea 

level rise and local factors, such as local subsidence and 

uplift. Relative sea level rise is measured with respect to a 

specified vertical datum relative to the land, which may also 

be changing elevation over time. 

Resilience (community context) – capability to anticipate, 

prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multihazard threats with minimum damage to social well-being, 

the economy, and the environment. Note that this term has 

been misused as a synonym for adaptation in some contexts, 

but is used in this document with this specific definition.

Resilience (ecological context) – the ability to return to a 

previous state after disturbance. 

Resistance – the ability to withstand perturbations without 

significant loss of structure or function. 

Resist change – the focus of a class of adaptation response 

(alongside accommodate change and direct change) in which 

current/past target (resource, asset, system, or process) 

conditions are maintained. 

Response (Incident Command System context) –

organized approach to addressing and managing the 

aftermath of an incident. The goal is to handle the 

situation in a way that limits damage and reduces recovery 

time and costs.

Salt water intrusion – displacement of fresh or ground 

water by the advance of salt water due to its greater density, 

usually in coastal and estuarine areas. 

Scenario planning – scenarios are plausible, internally 

consistent stories about the future that help us incorporate 

scientific uncertainty into our thinking; scenario planning 

is a tool to challenge us to consider how we would operate 

under novel conditions.

Sensitivity – degree to which a resource, asset, or process 

is or could be affected, either adversely or beneficially, by 

climate variability or change.

Storm surge – a rise of water level generated by a storm, 

over and above the predicted astronomical tide.

Subsidence – the downward shift of the land surface relative 

to its surroundings. 

Sustainability – the conditions under which humans and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and 

future generations.

Vulnerability – the degree to which a resource, asset or 

process is susceptible to adverse effects of climate change, 

including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is 

a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate 

variation to which a system is exposed; its sensitivity; and its 

adaptive capacity. 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities.

NPS 999/134090

2016

On the Back Cover 

Left: Thunder Hole viewing platform, at Acadia National Park, Maine. Photograph by Rebecca Cole-Will, NPS. 

Center: The America shipwreck in Lake Superior at Isle Royale National Park, Michigan. Photograph by Brett Seymour, NPS. 

Right: Waterfront at Boca Chita Key at Biscayne National Park, Florida. Photograph courtesy of Program for the Study of 

Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Coastal Adaptation Strategies Handbook | 2016

http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/coastalhandbook.htm

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM