Review of federal programs, selection of study communities, and compilation of bibliography sumitted to Council on Environmental Quality

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone 09482 #14
Information
Center

COASTAL FLOODPLAINS

Physical Resources, Federal Programs,
State and Local Management

GB
561
.R48
1976

DEPARTMENT nr @OAA
SERVICF'-
?34 SOUTH HOPSON November, 1976
HARLESTON, SC CF-75-36 Project #627

'p operty

Review of Federal Programs; Selection of
Study Communities; and Compil-ation of
Bibl iography.

Purchase Order EQ6AD673
DRAFT COPY.

Submitted to

Council on Environmental Quality

The Conservation Foundation

William K. Reilly
President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part Title Page.

I Federal Programs and the Coastal 1
Flood Plain

II Selection of Coastal Floodplain 17
Communities for Field Investigation

III Selected References 64

PART I

FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE COASTAL FLOOD PLAIN

Of the Federal programs that have ties to flood plain

management, five of particular importance are the Flood Insurance

Program, administered by the Federal Insurance Administration

in HUD; the Coastal Zone Management Program, administered by

the office of Coastal Zone Management in the Department of

Commerce; the management of navigable waters, carried out in

large part by the Army Corps of Engineers; the administration

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,

carried out principally by EPA; and fish and wildlife management

and monitoring, carried out by the Fish and Wildlife Service

in the Department of the Interior. Responsibilities are shared

in many cases, such as with the Corps of Engineers and EPA

for dredge and fill permits; or the Fish and Wildlife Service

which must comment on other Federal activities which threaten

wildlife and its habitat.

All of these programs have important roles for state and

local government and also require public participation. The

particular relationship varies, from consultative in dredae

and fill permitting, to direct Federal-local regulatory links

such as those estab 14-shed between flood insurance and local

flood plain development standards. The questions of inter-

governmental links are issues regarding the levels of government.

There are also substantial program overlaps--a question of the

subject matter addresse(f, by each program. The brief introduc-

tionb that follow outlive important segments of these programs.

-1-

Federal Flood Insurance Program

Until very recently, the nation's answer -to flood damage

has been structural: levees, dams and stream channelizations.

Still the damage payments mount, with claims of $2.2 billion

for the calendar year 1975. In response, Congress in 1973

passed the Flood Disaster Act and began the process of finding

non-structural and land-use-related responses to floods.

(Even this Act, however, does not place any constraints on

Federal actions in the flbodplain.)

Undei. the new Federal program, the insurance rates for

buildings already in the flood plain are reduced substantially

through Federal subsidy. Earlier federal flood insurance was

available only at actuarial rates, which were much too high

for mostbuilders. In return for reduced insurance rates for

existing development, coastal communities will have to develop

land use regulations for the floodplain, which, in.turn, are

expected to reduce the amount of damage from floods. New

development will then pay actuarial rates for insurance.

The first order of business is to produce reliable maps

of each community's floodplain. This process has been begun

by the Federal Insurance Agency (FIA) within HUD. At this point,

of the 22,000 American communities in the floodplain, 700 have

been mapped and 2300 maps are in progress under contract with
various agencies. By its 1983 cutoff date, FIA estimates 1500.

communities will be left to be rapped. of the -12,000 floo dplain

communities, between 1,000 and 2,000 of them are coastal.

-2-

The Act placed a deadline of July, 1975 by which time any

community which had not joined the program, and thereby

committed itself to land use regulation at least sometime in

the future, would be ineligible for fedederal money, including

federal mortgage assistance for building in the flood plain.

However, that deadline has been extended.

FIA recognizes two basic categories of community participa-

tion: the regular program and the emergency program. Those in

the regular program have either received their rate maps or have

their own adequate delineation of their floodplains. The date

of entry into the regular program determines the date after

which new development must pay actuar ial rates. Those in the

emergency program are those who are cooperating but for whom

no definite floodplain has been delineated. For the latter group

only general flood hazard maps are available. These maps have

no flood elevations, no coastal high hazard areas delineated,

and no velocity zones. For these communities, there are few

Federal incentives to enact land use regulations to protect the

floodplain any time soon,altho,ugh this is the raison dletre of

the Flood Disaster Act. Having joined the emergency program,,

they are able to get limited floodplain insurance at subsidized

rates, even for new buildings in the floodplain, while still

avoiding the hard choices that are required in enacting the land

use regulations on the floodplain.

THe Office of Coastal Zone Management

0CZM was created by the Coastal Zone Management Act in

1972 as a part of the Commerce Department. It had another

major infusion of money in Amendments adopted by Congress in

the summer of 1976. The Office's purpose is to help coastal

states develop and implement land use plans in their coastal

zones. First, it grants money to the states for their coastal

planning. All 30 coastal states have now signed up for these

grants, but only Washington State has gotten to the point of

implemnting its plan. A state's plan under the 1972 Act must

1) The boundary of the coastal zone.

2) Permissible uses within the coastal zones.

3) Areas of special environmental concern.

4) Definition of beaches and public resources.

5) Planning processes for energy facilities and shoreline

erosion.

6) The state's manner of exercising control over uses

in the zone.

Before the plan can actually be approved, the state must have

the power to enforce it. The 1976 amendments added requirements

for energy facilities planning and elaborated other conditions.

Second, the Coastal Act requires that Federal actions be

Consistent to "the maximum extent practicable" with a state's

approved coastal plan. Federal agencies are allowed to comment

-4-

on the plan before it is approved, and if there is a dispute

between a Federal agency and the state,the Act calls for

mediation between the Secretary of the Commerce and the Execu-

tive Office of the President (which has yet to occur). once

the.plan is approved the Federal agency must try to conform

with itland any individual attempting to get a permit from

that federal agency must begin by supplying a certificate of

compliance with the state coastal plan. These "consistency"

regulations have-proved a sore point in the implementation

process.

OCZM has signed cooperative agreements with HUD and EPA

to make i'--s planning consistent with the planning under plan-

ning programs sponsored by those agencies. HUD's 701 program

has been a long standing influence on land use and. development'

planning throughou t the country. The 208 program at EPA is of

more recent origin, created in the 1972 Federal Water Pollution

Control Act. It calls for water basin planning, now underway in

selected regions of the U.S.

-5-

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Dredge and Fill

The Army Corps' authority over dredge and fill stems from

Section 10 of the Refuse Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. On the upland

side of high tide, Section 404 is the only authority for Corps

action. The two come together and are jointly administered

on the seaward side of the mean high tide line. The pro-

cedures and standards under which the two acts are applied

are exactly the same.

An applicant for a dredge and fill permit in U. S. waters

takes the following steps:

1) He submits certain drawings and information to

the Corps. If the Corps feels it is necessary, he

also adds an environmental assessment or an environ-

mental impact statement.

2) The Corps sends a public notice soliciting comment

on the application to state, local and all interested

federal agencies including HUD, EPA, Interior and

OCZM. Interested individuals and conservation groups

are included in this mailing.

3) Section 404 also requires "an opportunity for public

hearing". That however is not to say that the District

Engineer must hold a hearing. If he finds that a

hearing would be repetitious, he need not hold one.

(The "Rehash Rule.")

-6-

The standards which the District Engineer uses in deciding

whether to grant a permit are:

1) the permit's effect on navigable waters including

environmental effects.

2) whether the state has denied a permit for the same

activity.

3) whether a state water certification has been denied.

4) whether the application is consistent with the state

OCZM Plan, as evidenced by a certification of

compliance (today only the State of Washington has

had its plan approved-and is affected).

Beyond this, the controversial nature of the project is

key. If it is non-controversial, raises no overriding national

interest, and has already received a state permit, then the

District Engineer is quite likely to approve the permit,and

so ends the matter. Even if the State has denied the permit,

the.District Engineer is obliged to treat it as a Federal matter

and decide its desirability at the Federal level.

Having attempted to resolve objections at his own level,

if the District Engineer is still faced with federal objection

or a direct'objection from a state governor, he passes it up to

the Division Engineer (there are ten Division Engineers in the

Corps). This occurred in 77 cases last year.

-7-

The Division Engineer likewise tries, to resolve the

differences. If there is no unresolved Federal objection,

he can authorize the District Engineer to grant the permit.

If there is a Federalobjection, he directs the federal agency

to write a letter and bring it to the attention of its Washington,

D.C. staff within 30 days. If so, the matter comes to the

attention of the regulatory group within the Washington office

of the Corps.

By a Memorandum of Understanding that was entered into

in.1967 with the Department of the Interior, its Fish and

Wildlife Service has special power. If dredging and filling

is concerned, the Fish and Wildlife Service can object at any

level and at any point in the Corps proceeding. In that event,

the Corps has no choice but to send the matter directly to

Washington. And if the Washington office is not able to

resolve the matter,it goes to the Secretary of the Army's

offic e. The Secretary of the Army has the power to decide

whether or not to grant the permit, but he is legally bound to

discuss the matter with the head of the Department of Interior.

Often, the Secretary of Interior maintains his Department's

objection.

Twenty..-five or thirty permits per year get to the Washington

level, largely because of the Fish and Wildlife Memorandum of

Understanding. Those twenty-five permits are out of a total

of 15,000 issued per year or slightly over one-tenth of one

percent of the total.

EPA has a more basic effect on the Corps' deliberations in

the sense that it and the Corps, under Section 404, have jointly

arrived at a set of guidelines under which the permit is to

be judged. Also under Section 404, EPA has veto power, although

it has never been exercised. Since no quidelines for the

exercise of the EPA veto have been developedr use of this power

is not likely on a large scale in the foreseeable future'.

Still EPA threatens the Army Corps from time to time with a

draft of such guidelines and indeed in an extreme situation,

could quickly develop guidelines and could veto thereafter.

In all but the cases of national importance, all EPA does is

file comments. Recommendations:fLor denial are not unusua 1,

but veto remains highly improbable.

-9-

The Environmental Protection Aqency,

EPA's programs of primary concern for flood plain manage-

ment are Sections 404 and 208 of the Federal Water Pollution

Act Amendments of 1972.

Section 404 - Permits for Dredged or Filled Material

The object of the 404 program is to protect water supplies,

shellfish beds, fishing areas (including spawning and breeding

areas), wildlife, and recreational areas and navigable waters.

The Act allows the Army Corps of Engineers to grant permits

for dredge and fill. It does so under guidelines developed

by the EPA Administrator and the Corps regulations. These

guidelines were actually promulgated in 1975. The Act gives

the Administrator the power, not yet explained in regulations,

to veto dredge and fill sites.

A project applicant applies to the Corps' District office

for a permit. The Corps then notifies EPA at its regional

level, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service, state

agencies,. and other interested groups. To date, EPA has used

its persuasive power to cajole the Corps into turning down

particular projects, or to persuade the Corps to add conditions

when granting permits. The manpower which EPA has assigned
to the 404 program is 'strictly limited, therefore, it

analyzes only selected permit applications. In the event that

EPA agrees with the granting of the permit, it returns a note

of no objection to the Corps. Failure to notify the Corps

has the same effect as sending a note of no objection.

_10-

EPA's goal in its administration of the 404 program has

been to leave the main permitting power.with the Corps.

Section 208 State and Areawide Water Quality Planning

Under Section 208, also a section of the 1972 amendments

to the Water Quality Act, the object is to prepare and imple-

ment plans for state or areawide treatment of water pollution

from all sources. The objective is the Act's 1983 goal of

swimmable, drinkable water.

These plans are due by December 1, 1978 at the latest.

They are to specify anticipated needs for municipal and
industrial treatment works over the next 20 years and establish

construction priorities. They must also recommend any neces-
sary land use controls. The agency in charge of the planning
is areawide such as the Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG) in the San Francisco area, or statewide.

As of June 30, 1976, 176 p1anning,areas in 49 states

have been designated. EPA estimates that 100 additional areas
have the potential for designation. Financial support for
fiscal year 1977 grants is $15 million, 'which will be available

to cover 75% of the costs.

The resulting plans are to be coordinated with those of

OCZM, HUD (701), Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps of Engineers.

The Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of the Interior

The Fish and Wildlife Service was created in 1956. Its

activities now include:

1) The improvement and maintenance of fishery resources,

2) The planning and management of national wildlife

refuges and water fowl protection areas,

3) Other water-based conservation activities.

Another activity, which is of most importance here, is to

assess the impact on fish and wildlife of projects along ocean

coasts and rivers.

This power was gi-ven to the FWS by the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act. The Act requires other agencies to consult

with PWS in order to insure "the conservation of wildlife

resources" whenever the waters of a stream or other body of

water are proposed to be impounded, diverted, channelized,

or otherwise modified by any federal agency or by any public

or private agency under federal permit. The only exception

to this power is that the federal agencies have the right to

undertake projects on their own lands without checking with

FWS.

Of primary concern here are the dredg e and fill permits

the Army Corps grants. The FWS uses its basically defensive.

power to add conditions to these permits. And in particularly

egregious cases where it feels compromise is irapossible (an

-12-

average of 25 per year), it forces consultation between the

Department of the Interior and the Corps in Washington--a time-

consuming process.

-13-

Levels-of-Government

Among the five programs described here, only the Federal

Insurancd Administration deals directly with local government

in the implementation of flood plain management regulations.

The Corps of Engineers may also aid in the preparation of local

regulations, but on a case-by-case contract basis. For the

most part, other program contacts are through regional or state

agencies.

For example, the Office of Coastal Zone Management

has a statutory mandate to work with a state agency designated

by the governor. Through this agency it may deal with local

coastal zone planning where local government is an integral

part of the implementation process, such as in California.

Regional water quality planning under Section 208 also

is accomplished through a state or a state designated regional

agency. The Office of Coastal Zone Management is in the process.

of coordinating Section 208 planning and planning funded under

the Coastal Zone Management Act within the coastal zone.

Dredge and fill regulatory programs have been traditional

areas of Federal jurisdiction, and although recent legislation

has expanded the permit area, they are still largely a matter

of Federal concern, with state and local government and the

public in consultative roles. Because of overlapping permit

procedures, there is increasing interest in joint permit

considerations that combine federal and state or regional

reviews and allow them to use a common information base.

-14-

The Fish and Wildlife Service works closely with state

technical agencies under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act. In its consultative capacity,it also influences Corps

and other agency decisions that may overlap local regulatory

authority.

The Subject Matter of Federal Programs

In the coastal flood plain, all five of these programs

apply to varying degrees depending on the terrain. They apply

for differing objectives. In many ways, the Federal Insurance

Administration has the narrowest mandate--provide flood insur-

ance for buildings that meet certain minimum standards. How-

ever, the standards it enforces are closely related to

standards required under other authorities--including coastal

zone management and the environmental elements of the dredge

and fill program--and it should be possible for each to work.

to the other's mutual advantage.

The scope of an agency's activities in the coastal flood

plain are determined by statute. Some agencies,such as the

Corps of Engineers, have a broad advisory role along with

specific regulatory authority. The Corps also conducts its

activities with a large measure of independence,compared to the

other Executive Branch agencies,because of its special

statutory and budget authorizations. They have been drawn into

close relationships with agencies like the Fish and Wildlife

Service through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the

Environmental Impact Assessment process managed by Ithe Council

-15-

on Environmental Quality. Interagency agreements such as the

agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service aid in settling

differences that relate to areas of shared interest.

Other agencies depend heavily on state-federal cooperation

to develop program implementation standards. Much of EPA's

authority and the office of Coastal Zone Management's effort

both depend heavily on state programs for air and water quality,

and coastal zone planning respectively. Interagency agreements

again reduce duplication. Depending on the state, there are

further opportunities for cooperative effort at the state and

local level.

Federal regions play an important role in this process for

the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

Corps. In routine cases, substantial regional discretion per-

mits differences to be ironed out and a relatively small per-

centage of decisions are actually made in Washington.

The largest opportunity for improving these relationships
lies in articulating the ways' in which flood hazard management

may further environmental quality objectives, while environ-

mentally sound development decreases flood disaster risks.

The potential exists with all five programs although no particu-

lar statute brings them together to this end.

PART II

SELECTION OF COASTAL FLOODPLAIN COMMUNITIES

FOR FIELD INVESTIGATION

Approximately 35 coastal communities were selected by

CF and its consultants for field investigations. Communities

were selected based on characteristics familiar to CF or

its consultants--either previous management history, involve-

ment in a current federal program of interest, or natural

system or development characteristics important to the study.

The list of communities was revised after comparison with a

conceptual framework for classifying the communities. Federal

agencies with important programs, such as EPA's 208 program,

supplied lists of participating communities. Selected

communities include at least one location where each major

federal program is active. The conceptual framework and

brief profiles of each candidate community are presented below.

Coastal floodplains pose a number of management concerns

for state and local government. These concerns include

physical resource management; hazard recognition; management
authority, capability and history; and rate of and pressures
for change. The relationshl.p among these concerns varies
greatly in different regions of the country. The selection

of communities reflects both common combinations of concerns

and the relative importance of concernsin different coastal

regions.

-17-

Unique" communities that have a singular relationship

among the concerns can also be identif ied, for example

the Florida Keys. Howeveri these communities offer

fewer examples of general interest and application, and

have been avoided in the selection process.

ASPO will use this list to initiate field investigations.

Experience may dictate selection of. an alternative community

in particular cases. Suggested changes will, of course,

be subject to the approval of the Conservation Foundation.

A Concept for Selecting Communities

Characterizing coastal floodplain communities can

require consideration of many variables. Factors of

greatest importance are illustrated in-Figure 1 on the next

page. The specific nature of each factor--natural systems,

hazards, population, socio-economic variables, and management
authority and tools--is an important-influence on the approach

any community selects for managing,its coastal floodplain.

Each factor is discussed below.

Natural Systems are the component ecosystems of the coastal

floodplain. The location and relative abundance of types

of ecosystems exhibits considerable regional variation. The

natural systems may be grouped as: high energy beaches (including

barrier islands and spits), low energy beaches, headlands and

bluffs, areas protected from direct-oceanic influences such

as lands surrounding bays and estuaries, and specific vital

-18-

Figure 1. Important Considerations in
Selecting Communities to Participate in
the Coastal Floodplains Project.

Hazards: Natural Systems:
hurricanes high energy beaches
severe storms low energy beaches
erosion headlands and bluffs
tsunamis protected areas
earthquakes vital areas

Coastal Floodplain

Communities

Population: Management:
density opportunities (legal
changes in settlement authorities)
patterns implementation
techniques
Socio-Economic Variables:
urban
rural
pressure for change

-19-

areas such as wetlands. 'Certain ecosvstems, such as wetlands,

are vital to natural productivity in the coastal flood plain.

Coastal Hazards consist mostly of hurricanes, other severe

storms, and erosion, but also include tsunamis and earthquakes

in certain areas. The key concern with hazards is a combination

of intensity and frequency. Some major hazards such as tsunamis

occur infrequently, and are therefore not considered a

significant hazard by individuals and managing authorities.

By contrast, erosion can be a persistent and continuous

process? requiring constant attention. The main hazard concern

for most areas is hurricanes and major storms, which also

cause erosion, wave and wind damage, as well as flood.water

damage.

Population is the single variable for which nationwide

uniform data is available at the community level, although data

for the coastal floodplain portion of communities is,usually

not available. Two useful characteristics of population

are density of settlement patterns and changes in settlement

patterns. Density exhibits distinctive variations and is

indicative of the level of past pressures for development.

Communities with high densities already occupying their

coastal floodplain have a more limited range of management

options. Changes in settlement patterns, may be estimated

through changes of density for each census. Rapid change is

a good indicator of grcwth pressure, whether associated with

a waterfront industrial facility, or high-density shorefront

recreational development.

-20-

Socio-economic Variables describe the general development

of an area. Places can be classified as urban or rural.

These two categories, as used here,.are qualitative, but

are probably a more accurate expression of community

characteristics than the quantative division used by the

U.S. Census Bureau to distinguish urban and rural places.

This qualitative framework takes into account the variation

in "urban' between the Gulf States and New England, for

example. The urban-rural dicotomy alone is an insufficient

expression of socio-economic variation, because pressure

for change can cause a rapid change in land values,

settlement patterns, and community structure. Pressure

for change has two sources: a major new facility such as

a power plant, or the more uniform and constant pressure

associated with recreational development. Generally,

communities under recreational pressures have a higher

regard for coastal resource values which is manifested

in their approach to coastal floodplain management.

Management includes both the legal authority vested in the

community and the techniques actually used to regulate

development in the coastal floodplain. Legal authorities can

be organized according to state laws and constitutions.

Localities with constitutional or charter home rule may have

substantial freedom in their approach to coastal floodplain,

and ecosystem management. A majority of communities do not

-21-

have this authority and their programs are dictated by state

statutes that vary-widely. Actual implementation techniques

require careful evaluation in the field, although some

elements of local programs are systematically reported to

the Office of Coastal Zone Management by state coastal zone

planners to meet federal requirements.

Sample Communities

The Conservation Foundation, assisted by its consultants,

prepared a list of potential communities for field study-

Separate lists were prepared for four coastal regions.of the

United States; the North Atlantic between Maine and Virginia,.the

South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the West Coast, and the Great

Lakes. This division recognizes major coastal variations in

natural systems, intensity and frequency of hazards, and

different development pattern s.

Within each region, communities are divided into urban

and rural categories. These categories provide a basis for

generalizing about past development patterns and reactions to

future growth pressures. Communities with substantial second

home and related amenity development were considered as rural

unless the residential development was, accompanied by substantial

shorefront commercial.development. For example, the Cape Cod

towns of Falmouth, Hyannis and Provincetown are urban, while

the remaining Cape,townships, which have retained their

general country character even with active coastal development,

are considered rural. This division is useful for

-22-

locating communities with greater professional capability

and more sophisticated planning tools. Additional field

contact will be required before CF is ableto determine if

the spectrum of commonly used management techniques in coastal

communities has been covered. F igu re 2., on the next page

lists the selected communities and Figure 3 locates these

communities on an outline map of the nation.

The map illustrates the dominance of communities in

North Atlan:tic,.(13) and South Atlantic and@Gulf (14) regions.

Emphasis in these areas reflects the location of more frequent

and severe hazards, a concentration of threatened vital

coastal habitat, and many active federal coastal management

'programs. These two regions, therefore, tend to have a

more complax array of coastal floodplains concerns, and

should include communities where imaginative solutions have

been developed.

The communities could be placed in additional categories

to segment them by any specific topic of the project,

such as frequency of hazard, type of ecosystem, active federal

program, or local professional ca pability. Additional detail

seemed to confuse, rather than clarify, the selection process.

Therefore, more detailed information useful in

characterizing the particular aspects of each community are

presented in each profile.

Following the map, a short profile of each selected

community is presented. Each profile includes a brief

-23-

NORTH ATLANTIC. SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF:
MAINE TO VIRGINIA' NORTH CAROLINA TO TEXAS

URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL

New Bedford, Mass. Bar Harbor, Me. Charleston, S.C. bare County, N.C.

Warwick, R.I. Barnstable, Mass. Palm Beach, Fla. Onslow County, N.C.

Suffolk County, N.Y. Charlestown, R.I. Mobile, Ala. McIntosh County, Ga.

Atlantic City, N.J. Stonington, Conn. Biloxi, Miss. Lee County, Fla.

Rehoboth Beach, Del. Cape May, N.J. Morgan City, La. Franklin County, Fla.

Norfolk, Va. St. Mary's County, Md. Corpus Christi, Tx- Jackson County, Miss.

Northhampton County, Va. Terrebonne Parish, La.
to
Rockport, Tx.

WEST COAST: GREAT LAKES:
WASHINGTON TO CALIFORNIA MINNESOTA TO NEW YORK

Santa Barbara, Ca. Whatcom County, Wash. East Lake, Oh. Lincoln Township, Mich.

Long Beach, Ca. Tillamook County, Ore. Calumet City, Ill. New Buffalof Mich.

Crescent City, Ca.

Figure 2. SELECTED COMMUNITIES

............

2 ...............
.............

..................4
5
30 ....... .
33
1:3 35 6
7

....... ... ........
2
3
3
4
2-
5
U1
6
--17

0
26 2 2
27 3 19

11. St. Mary's County, Md. 21. Mobile, Ala. 31. Santa Barbara, Ca.
I Bar Harbor, Me.
2. Barnstable, Mass. 12- Northhampton County, Va. 22. Jackson county, Miss. 32. Long Beach, Ca.
3. New Bedford, Mass.. 13. Norfolk, Va. 23. Biloxi, Miss. 33. East Lake, Oh.
4. Charlestown, R.I. 14. Dare County, N.C. 24. Terrebonne Parish, La. 34. Lincoln Township, Mich.
5. Warwick, R.I. 15. Onslow County, N.C. 25. Morgan City, La. 35. New Buffalo, Mich.
6. Stonington, Conn. 16. Charleston, S.C. 26. Rockport, Tx. 36. Calumet City, Ill.
7. Suffolk County, N.Y. 17. McIntosh . County, Ga. 27. Corpus Christi, Tx.
8. Atlantic City, N.J. 18.- Palm Beach, Fla. 28. Whatcom County', Wash.
9. Cape May, N.J. 19. Lee County, Fla. 29. Tillamook County, Ore.
10. Rehoboth Beach, Del. 20. Franklin County, Fla. 30. Crescent City,.Cal.

Figure 3. LOCATION OF SELECTED COMMUNITIES

description of the location and physical characteri stics

of the community, prevalent and unusual coastal

natural systems, population, and a general discussion

of interesting aspects of the local coastal floodplain

or its management programs. These profiles will be

useful to ASPO,in initiating their field investigations.

In addition, they provide ASPO with additional data for

selecting the approximately 20 communities that will

actually be visited for in-depth investigations.

-26-

No.

Bar Harbor, Maine

Bar Harbor is a wealthy resort community with a winter
population of 3,700 expanded to approximately 15,000 in
the summer. The community faces north in a partially
protected harbor. The community is dependent on tourism
and the "rural downeast" atmosphere of the community.
The town was selected because it participates in a
208 program, is under constant recreation development
pressure, and has a local planning program that recognizes
coastal values.

its Coast:
Bar Harbor is located on the rocky shores of Maine's
coast. All beaches are cobble, except for a small sand beach
less than 100 yards long. The floodplain is restricted in
area and the community lies on relatively flat land. The
few salt water.wetlands and bays in the community are small.

Its Hazards:
The main hazard is the "noreaster" storms which occur
frequently. The most recent storm to cause damage in the
community was in February, 1976. Damage is primarily
wind-related, as flooding is restricted to a small area
around the harbor. Hurricanes are an infrequent threat along
this portion of the nation's coastline.

Its Responses to the Hazards:
Development is controlled by local zoning, which
includes setbacks and lot size limitations. The state has
a minimum standards program. The harbor is protected by a
breakwater, which the community hopes to extend in the near
future.

-27-

No. 2

Barnstable, Massachusetts

Barnstable is a colonial community along Massachusetts
Bay, on the north shore of Cape Cod with a population
of *26,000 in 1976. It is best known as the home of the
Sandwich Glass Factory. The central community has changed
little, but outlying areas near the coast have come under
increased development pressures.
Barnstable was selected primarily because of extensive
wetlands, and the State of Massachusetts programs of both
wetlands management and coastal zone management. In addition,
these wetlands are separated from the bay by extensive dunes
and a barrier spit. Barnstable participates in a regional
208 program.

its Coast:
Barnstable lies on the outwash plain of a terminal
morraine, along the southern shore of a large shallow
bay that opens to the north.. The town has extensive wetlands,
dunes and a barrier spit.

Its Hazards:
Noreaster storms, striking directly on this coast
with a fetch from the open ocean.and with waves building
as they cross a shallow bay, can cause considerable damage,
especially along the barrier beach. In 1975, a severe noreaster
caused extensive damage to the dunes.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The town has wetlands zoning bylaws that augment the
state wetlands program. Development in unvegetated dune
areas is prohibited and public ownership within the dune and
wetland areas-is slowly increasing.

-28-

No. 3

New Bedford, Massachusetts

New Bedford is a small city (1978 population - 100,000)
along the southwestern shore of Buzzards Bay covering an .
area of 20 square miles. It is an old city that prospered
in 'the period of whaling an d early@textiles. It has more
recently experienced declining employment, as the major
remaining industry, commercial fishing, has continued to
be a marginal enterprise.
New Bedford was selected because it is a low-lying
urban anea protected by a flood barrier. In addition, the
coastal floodplain has been extensively modified and many
structures, primarily commercial and industrial lie within
the floodplain. The community participates in a 208 program.

Its Coast:
Very little of the original coastal floodplain remains
as the barbor bulwarks are surrounded by fills and the
barrier has increased pressure for development upstream.
The few wetlands are small, intermittent systems, and the
beaches, backed by riprap, barriers or other structures, are
largely cobble and gravel. The tidal shore line is 11.4
miles in length.

Its Hazards:
The main hazard is hurricanes, which do not occur
frequently. Greatest recorded property damage occurred
during storms in 1954 and 1938. Noreasters can also occur,
but cause less damage.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The flood barrier has been a constraint to city planning
to protect against flooding, although the city now participates
in the regular flood insurance program.

-29-

No 4

Charlestown, Rhode Island

Charlestown, Rhode Island, in Washington County, is an
isolated town along the southern Rhode Island coast. It has
less than 3,000 people. It has two plants, uranium and textile.
A number of its citizens work elsewhere, such as in Groton,
Connecticut. Charlestown offers a look at a rural. New England
town which is exposed to hurricanes and which is located
in a state with active coastal planning.

Its Coast:
Charlestown is located on an estuary protected by a long
sand spit and barrier beach from the Atlantic Ocean. The
southern part of town is directly on the ocean and has numerous
second home sites.

its Hazards:
Hurricanes commonly cause the evacuation of the low-part
of town, most recently in September 1976. Particularly
damaging was the hurricane of 1954.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Changes in its building code have allowed the town to
qualify fcr the Federal Flood Insurance regular program.
Also, the state coastal zone legislation requires Permits
for development, such as a dock, and Charlestown is allowed
to commen-@ on such permits.

-30-

No. 5

Warwick, Rhode Island

Warwick is an urban suburb of Providence located along the
western shore of Narragansett Bay. The 1970 census recorded a
population of 84,000.
This community was selected because it initiated the first
floodplain ordances in the country in 1958.- This lonq standing
ordance has affected growth patterns in this rapidly-growing
suburban area.

Its Coast:
Warwick has a protected rocky shoreline, typical of glacial
Morraine deposits and associated outwash areas. The present
coastline has been modified by extensive fills and barriers.

Hazards:
The primary hazard is hurricanes,.and.resultant storm surge up
the funnel-shaped Narragansett Bay.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The city of Warwick adopted the nation's first floodplain
in 1958. It is now participating in the regular federal insurance
program.

-31-

No. 6

Stonington, Connecticut

The town of Stonington, Connecticut is a rural community
with a population of 16,000 in the southeastern corner of the
state. It is located across the Race from the eastern tip of
Long Island. Many of the residents work in nearby industrial
communities, such as Groton and New London.
The community was selected because of coastal zone management
issues, some erosion problems, and development pressures on its
recreational harbor and adjacent wetlands.

Its Coast:
Stonington has a sandy beach front, with a large area and
adjacent wetlands.

Its Hazards:
The primary hazard is hurricanes.

its Response to the Hazards:
This community participates in the emergency floodplain
program.

-32-

No. 7

Suffolk County, New York

Suffolk County is a suburb of New York City, with a population
of 1,117,000 and an area of 929 square,miles. It includes a number
of incorporated municipalities. ft wa s selected because of the
typical urban hazard exposure; coastal zone management issues and
a concern over potential future OCS-related development.

Its Coast:
Suffolk County is characterized by a complex estuarine ecosystem
along the western shore of the Long Island and Long Island Sound.
It includes both protected and exposed shoreline.

its Hazards:
The primary hazard is hurricanes. Ocean front erosion poses
a secondary risk.

Its Response to the Hazards:

-33-

No. 8

Atlantic City, New Jersey

An aging resort community of 48,000 people, Atlantic
City is located in southern New Jersey. It sits on a
group of barrier islands fronting the Atlantic Ocean.
For the benefit of this study Atlantic CJty is a
densely-populated resort town which shouid be spurred
to sudden new growth by the opening of gambling casinos.

Its Coast:
Atlantic City has a boardwalk and other buildings
built up to and over the beach.

its Hazards:
Atlantic City is subject to moderately severe hurricanes.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Atlantic City has qualified for the regular program under
the Federal Flood Insurance Act.

-34-

No. 9

Cape May, New Jersey

Cape May is a small beach town at the tip of New Jersey.
It sits on a point which forms the northern mouth of Delaware
Bay where the Bay opens into the Atlantic Ocean. The town has
less than 5,000 residents. Cape May offers a look at a small
Mid-Atlantic community's hurricane and beach erosion problems.

Its Coast:
The beach at Cape May has a number of long jetties, which
have not prevented severe beach erosion.

Its Hazards:
Like most of the New Jersey coast, Cape may is subject to
hurricanes and beach erosion.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Cape May has qualified for regular status in the Federal Flood
Insurance program.

-35-

No. 10

Rehobeth Beach, Delaware

Rehobeth Beachis a medium-sized resort community located
in southern Delaware on the Atlantic Ocean. Its interest for
this study lies in its susceptibility to hurricanes and its
active participation in the Federal Flood Insurance program
and the Section 208 planning program.

Its Coast:
As its name indicates, Rehobeth Beach is fronted by a long,
wide, sandy beach. Immediately below is Rehobeth Bay with its
marshlands broken by narrow beaches.

its Hazards:
Rehobeth Beach is subject to hurricanes.

its Response to the Hazards:
Rehobeth Beach is enrolled in the Federal Insurance Agency's
regular program and is part ofan Environmental Protection Agency
Section 208 planning effort.

-36-

No. 11

St., Mary's County, Maryland

St. Mary's County is located on the western shores
of Chesapeake Bay on the Potomac River. It has 47,000
people in-373 square miles. It will be.the only,place
in this study located so far from the ocean and as such,
offers a different perspective.

Its Coast:
St. Mary's coast is broken by numerous inlets, creeks
and salt-water marshes.

Its Hazards:
St. Mary's is subject to the flooding from hurricanes.

Its Response to its Hazards:
St. Mary's County has joined the emergency part of
the Federal Flood Insurance Program.

-37-

Mo. 12

Northhampton County, Virginia

Northhampton County is the most southernly county of
Virginia's Eastern.Shore. It has a population of 14,000,
and Eastville is the county seat. On the bay side of the
county, Brown and Root is building an offshore drilling
platform, and El Paso Natural Gas is preparing a si te for
processing of liquid gas expected from the OCS energy
development. It offers a special opportunity to review
the effects of single project large-scale development on a
rural town.

Its Coast:
All of Northhampton County is flat, with its highest
point being only 48 feet above sea level. On the ocean side,
there are a series of barrier islands and, on the bay side,
sandy beaches interspersed with inlets and necks..

Its Hazards:
Northhampton County is subject to flooding caused by
hurricanes from both the bay and ocean sides. The worst
hurricane on record was in 1933.

Its Response to Hazards:
The county has created a Coastal Wetlands Committee under
Virginia State enabling acts. No development in the wetlands
is allowed below 1-1/2 feet above mean sea level, And above
there, a permit from the Commission is necessary. The county
is a participant in the Regular Federal Flood Insurance Program.

-38-

No. 13

Norfolk, Virginia

Norfolk is the largest city in Virginia and the hub of
the Hampton roads area. Its population, over 300,000, is
largely involved in shipping and shipbuilding and the military.
Norfolk's interest for this study lies in its size and its
location at the mouth of the Chesapeak Bay.

Its Coast:
Norfolk's coast, which includes many bays and inlets,
is largely developed.

Its Hazards:
Norfolk is susceptible to floodinq caused by hurricanes.

Its Response to Hazards:
Norfolkis enfi-sted in the Federal Flood Insurance emergency
program.

-39-

No. 14

Dare County, North Carolina

Dare County has a permanent population of only 7,000.
However, in the height of the summer season, 100,000 vacationers'
join them. The County faces the Atlantic Ocean on North
Carolina's Outer Banks. It is more water than land. On the
mainland there are only two small towns. Tourism is now the
county's largest source of revenue, but the long-awaited
Wanchee Harbor is now near realization. The harbor will be
a port for fishing vessels and-have processing plants for
their catch. For now, Dare County is the archetypal tourist
community, located on a barrier island, and subject to severe
hurricanes.

Its Coast:
Dare County has a long barrier island which fronts on
both the Atlantic Ocean and various sounds. The entire county
is very flat.

Its Hazards:
Both the mainland and the barrier island are subject to
flooding from hurricanes. The worst hurricane in recent memory
was on Ash Wednesday of 1962. Another bad hurricane hit in
February of 1973. It caused erosion along the coast between
Kitty Haw] and Cape Hatteras.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Dar'e County has joined the Federal Flood Insurance regular
program, and requires that the occupancy for any building
be 9 feet above sea level. Also the county requires that any
support piling be driven into the ground at least 8 feet deep,
The county also has a dune protection ordinance which requires
no building within 150 feet of the mean high water line and,
beyond that, requires a permit which regulates the amount of
sand removed and requires revegetation.

-40-

No. 15

Onslow County, North Carolina

The county has a population of 103,000 including the county
seat, Jacksonville. It is the site of a major military facility
and is presently without a professional planner.
The County was selected because of its undeveloped coastline,
barrier islands and large Federal facilities.

Its Coast:
The coast is made up of barrier islands and beaches. Approximately
12 miles of coastline is not in Federal ownership and is open for
development.

Its Hazards:
The primary hazard for this section of the coast is hurricanes.

Its Response to the Hazards:
A local planning boarff recommends approval or denial to the
County Commission for building applications. The County is presently
without a professional planner.

-41-

No. 16

Charleston, South Carolina

Charleston is a city of 60,000 located on a peninsula between
the Cooper and Ashly Rivers. Its harbor opens into the Atlantic
Ocean. Charleston's industries include tourism and military bases.
Charleston's interest arise from its size: it is the largest
metropolitan area on the coast between Norfolk, Virqinia and
Jacksonville, Florida. Also among all the cities on the eastcoast,
Charleston is the one most endangered by earthquakes.

Its Coast:
The city's coast has been largely diked and build upon.

its Hazards:
Charleston is subject to the hurricane flooding usual to the
South Atlantic and to an earthquake danger which is unique. An
earthquake in 1884 was devastating.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Charleston is enrolled in the regular program of the Federal
Flood Insurance.

-42-

No. 17

McIntosh County, Georgia

McIntosh County lies on the north central Georgia
coastline. It is a rural county with no large communities
and a total popula t4 on of 7,000 occupying 426 square miles.
The economic activity of the county is focused on basic
resources, such as agriculture and fishing.
McIntosh County was selected because it has extensive
wetlands, marshes and tidal flats, and one large barrier
island, Sapelo island which has been a major field experiment
location for coastal ecology studies in southern wetlands.

Its Coast:
The county includes extensive wetlands, marshes, tidelands
and a barrier island which have been reported in detail in scientific
papers prepared through the Georgia Institute of Ecology.

Its Hazards:
The major hazard is hurricanes, although erosion is a
problem in certain beach areas.

Its Response to the Hazards:

-43-

No. 18

Palm Beach, Florida

Located north of Miami, Palm Beach is a city of 350,000
residents. Residential development is concentrated in a strip of
land along the coast.
The town was selected because of its barrier beach
characteristics and low average elevation.

Its Coast:
The coastline in Palm Beach consists of a long high-energy
barrier beach.

Its Hazards:
Hurricanes pose the primary hazard with the last major
hurricane in 1949, with the worst storm of record in 1929.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Palm Beach enforces a 150' setback measured from the
bulkhead line. A minimum elevation of 7 1/2 feet above mean
sea level is required for living space.

-44-

No. 19

Lee County, Florida

Lee County is in southwest Florida, and its main city
is Ft. Myers. The county has over 100,000 people and stretches
from Boca Grande Island south to Bonita Springs and includes
Sanibel Island. Its only incorporated areas are Sanibel,
Ft. Myers and Cape Coral. According to its local planner, this
SMSA of which Lee County forms a part is the fastest growing
in the United States. The county contains condominium, medium
high rises, rental apartments and mobile homes. It.is suburban
and urban with only its sou.thestern portion still in agriculture.
For the purpose of the study, Lee County offers its
West coast of Florida location, its rapid growth, its low
elevation which would make an extemely severe hurricane
a disaster.

Its Coast:
Its coast contains barrier islands, estuaries and mangrove
swamps.

Its Hazards:
Lee County is subject to hurricanes. A recent one
struck old Ft. Myers Beach and did extensive damage to
homes that had been built to the ground.

Its.Response to the Hazards:
Buildings now being built along the Lee County coast
are being built on pilings, usually 8 or 9 feet above sea
level. Also condominiums commonly use their lower floor
for parking. Although Lee County was registered in a
Federal Flood Insurance regular program, it has been
dropped until elevations and setback lines are revised.

-45-

No. 20

Franklin County, Florida

Franklin County, with its county seat, Apalachicola, has
a population of 7,000 and 'a size of 536 square miles. it is
the heart of a thriving-..Qyster aquaculture industry and
subject to growing development pressure for recreational homes
and large scale agriculture.
The 'county was selected because of the presence of a large
scale coastal agriculture/dredge and fill issue; Forest Service
interests adjacent ot important wetlands, and the interest of
a small group of local oyster men in maintaining their livelihood.

its Coast:
The coast is made up of low energy ocean front with mangrove
and salt marshes. A barrier island protects the Bay and.the mouth
of the Apalachicola River.

Its Hazards:
The predominate hazard is hurricane flooding, aggravated by
estuarine and riverine conditions.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The County is making an effort to implement land use regulations
for recreational development, though the County has limited staff"
available to manage them.

-46-

No. 21

Mobile City, Alabama

Mobile lies at the head of Mobile Bay, in southern
Alabama. It is a major urban center, with a population of
190,000 (1970) and covering an area of 123 square miles. It
is a major port for the central Gulf and has several large
shipbuilding facilities.
It was selected because it is participating in a 208
program, has extensive wetlands resources within the city
limits, and has three miechanisms for controlling floodplain
development.

Its Coast:
The city lies at the head of Mobile Bay, approximately
30 miles from the coast. It has extensive tidelands in
brackish waters, and provides extensive habitat for waterfowl.

Its Hazards:
While hurricanes have landed in nearby coastal areas,
the last severe storm causing major property damage in
Mobile occurred in 1916. There are also erosion problems
along some portions of the western shore of Mobile Bay.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The city participates in the 208 program, and has sub-
division regulation, zoning ordinances and a floodplain
ordinance to control development in the coastal floodplain.
The Corps of Engineers has proposed deepening the channel
and harbor improvements.

-47-

No. 22

Jackson County, Mississippi

Jackson County, with a population of 88,000, and covering
an area of 736 square riiiles, lies in the southwest corner of
Mississippi. The cities of Biloxi and Pascagoula are located
within the county. The lengthy coastline, with wide sand
beaches and one bay was devasted by at least one recent
hurricane.
The county was selected because it participates in the
regular floodplain program, has been recently hit by a major
hurricane, and is oriented to coastal and waterfront development.

Its Coast:
The county has broad, sandy beaches and a low, flat elevation.
Pascagoula Bay is a small estuary supporting a commercial fishery.
Barrier islands offshore protect portions of the coast.

Its Hazards:
'Hurricanes are a major hazard, with.flood and storm surge
damage being severe.

Its Response to the Hazards@:
The county participates in the regular floodplain program.

-48-

No. 23

Biloxi, Mississippi

Biloxi is an urban center on the Gulf Coast with a
population (1970) of 48,000. The town fronts the Gulf,
with development concentrated along the-coastal shorefront.
It was selected because it is in the regular floodplain
program,,was devestated by a recent hurricane, and is
oriented to shore front tourist and related commercial development.

Its Coast:
Biloxi has a wide, sandy beach front with flat lands of low
elevation adjacent.

Its Hazards:
The hazard is hurricane, with damages resulting from flooding,'
surges and wind.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Biloxi participates in the regular flood insurance program.

-49-

No. 24

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana

Terrebonne Parrish lies along the Gulf Coast west of the main
portion of the Mississippi River delta. It has a population of
76,000 (1970) and an area of 1,368 square miles. The one large
community in the parrish, Houma, is a major oilindustry offshore
support base. The economy of the county is otherwise based on
basic extractive industries, such as fur, commercial fishing and
shellfishing, and agriculture.
Terrebonne Parish was selected because it is predominantly
wetlands, interspersed with cheniers. The floodprone area is
extensive and severe flooding can be frequent. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has constructed a number of structures in the delta
area which control and alter waterflow patterns. Numerous permanent
and temporary channels have a similar effect.

Its Coast:
Terr onne parish lies west of the Mississippi River on an
accreting delta and is characterized by large wetlands interspersed
with low uplands or cheniers.

Its Hazards:
The major hazard is hurricanes. Erosion is a problem in small
areas and doe,; not affect,human settlement.

Its Response to Hazards:
Terrebonne is in the regional flood insurance program. Corps
of Engineers and private alterations of wetland by dredging channels
and.construction water flow structures have altered flood patterns.

-50-

No. 25

Morgan City, Louisiana

Morgan 'City is located in the bayou country of Louisiana,
southwest of New Orleans. It is one of the largest onshore support
bases for offshore oil activity in the world, with a population of
17,000. It is located on a maintained channel, approximately 35
miles from the ocean.
Morgan City was selected because it is continually threatened
by flooding, lies within productive and valuable wetlands, and is
surrounded by dikes.

Its Coast:
The city lies on filled wetlands and natural uplands. Water
flow patterns have been altered, affecting vegetation and habitat.

Its Hazards:
Flooding is a constant threat. The 1973 flood was the most
severe in terms of damage to property. The greatest threat comes
from hurricanes and associated storm surge.

Its__Response to the Haxards:
Morgan City has no flood control zoning. The dikes are the
main protective devices. A combination of dikes and structures
has altered flood patterns in the past and will greatly influence
the effects of future events.

No. 26

Rockport, Texas

Rockport is a town located on the Gulf Coast of Texas,
above Corpus Christi. It is in Aransas County and lies
behind St. Joe Island. Less than 4,000 people live in
Rockport, mainly retirees and fishermen. Rockport offers
of interest here, the flooding problem in its own downtown
and the regional problem of how to evacuate barrier islands.

Its Coast:
Rockport is typical of small towns along the Tex-as coast, an
and sits behind a series of barrier islands.

Its Hazards:
Severe hurricanes have struck Rockport in 1919, 1957,
1961. The 1961 hurricane, Carla, left the downtown under
three feet of water.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Rockport has qualified for the regular Federal Flood
Insurance program. In its "A zone," any new building needs
an elevation certificate which shows that it is eight
feet above sea level. The rehabilitation of existing buildings
requires a certificate if more than 50 percent of its cash
value is redone. Also the Army Corps of Engineers is
attempting to stop the channelization for retirement homes
'that has been going on nearby, Finally, Rockport is part of
a 16 county COG which deals with OCZM.

-52-

No. 27

Corpus Christi, Texas

Corpus Christi, the largest city on the Texas coast
with over 200,000 residents, fronts the west and south shores
of Corpus Christi Bay. Corpus Christi is an important seaport
and industrial center for oil and agriculture and is also a
major tourist and convention center. Its importance for this
study lies in its size, industrialization and its nearby oil
and gas fields.

Its Coast:
Corpus Christi's coast is about 16 miles of highly developed
and densely populated urban area.

Its Hazards:
Corpus Christi is subject to flooding from hurricanes.

its Response to the Hazards:
Corpus Christi has qualified for Federal Insurance Agency's
regular program and is participating in a regional Section 208
program.

-53-

No. 28

Whatcom County, Washington

Whatcom County, located in northwest Washington on Puget
Sound, has a population of 42,000 and covers 1,167 square miles.
This county was selected because of coastal erosion concernsf
an approved state coastal zone management plan, and a substantial
commercial fishing and aquaculture industry.

Its Coast:
A rocky, irregular coastline with cobble and gravel beachesf
and extensive tidal flats in protected areas. Some of the larger
tidal areas have been diked or filled.

Its Hazards:
The main problems are erosion and coastal slides, although
flooding associated with small streams draining from the Cascade
Mountain is a problem in localized areas.

Its_Response to the Hazards:
The county has an active coastal zone management program,
tied into the approved state plan. The United States Army Corps
of Engineer is considering several new or improved structures
along the county's coastline to control erosion.

-54-

No. 29

Tillamook County, Oregon

Tillamook County is located in the northwestern section of
Oregon and is sparsely populated. It has 18,000 people in
1,115 square miles of area. Most of these are located on the
coast. The County is on the ocean side of the coastal range
and 90 percent of it is forested and rugged, with Tillamook
its largest city. Its industries include cheese from local
dairies, fishing, forestry, and tourism. Tillamook's interest
lies in its rugged, isolated northwest location and the variety
of hazards which plague it.

Its Coast:
Its coast has one large bay, Tillamook Bay, and six
other estuaries. It features three major headlands and
between them, sandy and sometimes rocky, beaches 4 or 5
miles long with offshore rocks.

Its Hazards:
The county's main hazards are cumulative -- from the
sedimentation of the coastal estuaries which is caused by
logging. Also in the early 1960's, a Columbus Day tsunami
hit Tillamook County, and in 1972 it was flooded as the
result of a severe storm. Finally, landslides are a
constant problem.

-Its Response to the Hazards:
Most of Tillamook County's responses are still in progress:
it expects to qualify for the regular part of the Federal
Flood Insurance program and for section 106 money, along with
the rest of the Oregon coast, within a year. However,
Tillamook County is not participating in EPA's section 208
program, apparently because it is too costly. Finally, the
Army Corps of Engineers is active in Tillamook Bay and is
now deciding whether to extend the levee which protects the
harbor and whether to dredge the harbor again.

-55-

No. 30

Crescent City, California

Crescent City is on California's north coast near the
Oregon border. It is home for 2,500 people. South of
Crescent City is the Redwood National Park. Crescent City
is the U.S. city most susceptible to tsunamis.

Its Coast:
Crescent City is located on a small natural harbor with
a sand beach. The city is beyond the beach to the north.
The other side-of town is on the Pacific Ocean.

Its Hazards:
Crescent City has a history of tsunamis. The most
.recent, in 1964 was also one of the most devastating. It
was a 100-year event and rose to 19 feet above sea level.
The main damage was not from the water itself, but from
the redwood logs which the waves picked up from nearby
beaches and sent washing into town.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Crescent City has now placed trees along its beach to
@revent a repeat of the damage from debris.. Beyond that,.
it has turned most of the area which was flooded in 1964
into a city park. The city has emergency status in the
Federal Flood Insurance program. The Army Corps of
Engineers recently suggested a 25 foot high dike to protect
the city from future tsunamis. However, the city turned
it down because of its unsighliness and chose to rely
instead on land use measures.

-56-

No. 31

Santa Barbara County, California

Santa Barbara County has a population of 264,000 spread
over 2,773 square miles. The Sierra Madre mountains run
through the westerly,part of the county. The city of Santa
Barbara itself is a tourist attraction with broad white beaches.
Santa Barbara's interest for this study lies in its offshore
oil wells located in the Santa Barbara channel, its danger from
locally - generated tsunamis, and the earthquake hazard.

Its Coast:
Santa Barbara County coast is typical of Southern California
with rocky headland interspersed with sandy beaches.

Its Hazards:
Santa Barbara is threatened by tsunamis which can be generated
in the Santa Barbara channel, a situation uniaue on the West Coast.
Added to this is the earthquake danger which Santa Barbara shares
with the rest of California.

Its Respons,3@ to the Hazards:
Santa Barbara has participated in the California State Coastal
Plan, whicY was-approved by voters for permanent adoption recently
and has qualified for emergency status in the Federal Flood Insurance
program.

-57-

No. 32

Long Beach, California

Long Beach is a city of almost 400,000 located.in the
greater Los Angeles area. It is situated on San Pedro Bay
which gives into the Pacific Ocean. Long Beach is heavily
industrialized and densely populated. Its interest for
this study is its dense population as wellas its subceptibility
to earthquakes and subsidence.

Its Coast:
Long Beach's coast is intensely used. These uses range
from the Long Beach Navy Shipyard to several beaches and a
large marina. San Pedro.Bay is protected from the ocean by
a long breakwater.

Its Hazards:
Long Beach like all the other communities in Los Angeles is
subceptible to earthquakes. Also it has a history of subsidence.

its Response to the Hazards:
Long Beach cooperated in the state Coastal Zone Planning
effort and has qualified for emergency status in the Federal
Flood Insurance Program.

-58-

No. 33

Eastlake, Ohio

Eastlake is a town of 20,000 on the shore of Lake Erie. It
was selected because of interest in local planning controls, and
a history of erosion control efforts predating the 1972 WRC study.

Its Coast:
Eastlake has approximately 6 miles of shoreline along Lake
Erie, including the mouth of the Chagrin River.

Its Hazards:
The primary hazard is erosion, associated with both the river
mouth and the general shoreline.

Its Response to the Hazards:
The community has applied for help from the Corps of Engineers
and has recognized erosion hazards in its zoning ordinance.

-59-

No. 3 4

Lincoln Township, Michigan

Lincoln Township is a rapidly growing suburb of St. Joseph
Michigan located on the Southeastern shore of Lake Michigan.
With a population of 9,900 in 1970, the population has nearly
doubled in 1976, to 16,000 (est.) or an average population
density of approximately 1.6/acre.

The community was selected because of severe erosion problems,
high growth pressure along t."'ie coast, and a high degree of awareness
of possible solutions.

Its Coast:
The coastline of Southwest Michigan is characterized by relatively
stable dune systems. Recent shifts in Lake Mic,,higan water levels
have left narrow beaches.

Its Hazards:
Erosion is the prime hazard. Northwest winds and high lake
levels create severe erosion.

Its Response to the Hazards:
Lincoln township has a permit program complementing the Corps
404 permit program. It also implements a state slope setback
program. They exercise state general zoning powers as well.
Coastal Zone planning is being carried out by the Southwest Michigan
.Regional Planning Commission under contract with the state.

-60-

No. 35

New Buffalo., Michigan

New Buffalo is a rural/recreational community on the Southeastern
tip of Lake Michigan with a 1970 population of 2784 on 1,130 acres.,
Large Corps of Engineers investments, a feeder beach project.
and a recreational harbor combine to illustrate a number of problems
common to smaller lakef.ront cor@munities.

Its Coast:
The coast of Southwest Michigan is made up of relatively stable
dune systems broken by harbors such as the recreational harbor in
New Buffalo.

Its Hazards:
Erosion poses the single greatest coastal hazard in New Buffalo.

its Response to the Hazards:
New Buffalo is the -@-1-te of Corps of Engineers improvement including
a breakwater. It also exercises zoning, subdivision and building
code authority under state statutes.

No. 36

Calumet City, Illinois

Calumet City is an urban suburb of Chicago on the Calumet
River. With a population of 40,000 it experiences many of
the problems of older Chicago suburbs adjoining lake front
industrial areas. It was selected because of its interest in
the Great Lakes Coastal Zone Management Program.

Its Coast:
Calumet City is on the Calumet River, immediately upstream
from the Calumet Harbor of the City of Chicago.

Its Hazards:
RiveriTne flooding poses the most severe hazard to the city,

Its Response to the Hazards:

-62-

PART III

SELECTED REFERENCES

Selected references in two subject areas, hazards

and management, are included in the following lists.

.Each list will be revised as research for the tasks

of Phase I continues. References concerning .natural

systems are not included. Present holdings at CF

include more than two thousand titles in this subject

area that potentially apply to aspects of the project.

Material in these sources will be reviewed and utilized

as CF continues to investigate the tasks that require

this information.

-64-

Selected References Concerning Hazards

Anderson,:,,William A. "Tsunami Warn-Ong in
Crescent City, California, and Kilo,
Hawaii." In The Great Alaska Earthquake
of 19-64:' Human Ecology. WasHington, D.C.:
National Academy of Science, National
Research Council, Committee on the
Alaska Earthquake, 1970, pp. 116-124.

Ayre, Robert S. Technological Adjustments
to Natural Hazards. University of
Z@-oro-r-a-dro-, NSF-RA-E-75-020, 1975.

Ayre, Robert S., et al. Earthquake and
Tsunami Hazards in the United States:
A-Research Assessment. University of
Cof-or-a-a-o, NSF-RA-E-75-005, 1975.

Ballenzweig, E. M. "Fluctuations in Frequency
of Tropical Storms." Weatherwise 10,
1957, pp. 121-125.

Baker, E. J. Cognitive Factors Relating to
Response and Adjustment to'Hurricane
Hazard. Master's Thesis. TallaHassee,,
FI-o-H-Za State University, 1972.

Baker, Earl J. and Joe Gordon McPhee, Land
Use Management and Regulation in
ff-azardous Areas: A Research As-sessment.
The University of Colorado, insFi-tut:e
of Behaviroal Science, 1975.

Barton, A. H. Communities in Disa ster.
New York: Anchor Books, 1970,

Bates, F. L., C. W. Fogleman, V. J. Parenton,
R. H. Pittman, and G. S. Tracy. The
Social and Psychological Consequences
of -aNaturai Disaster, A Longitudinal
Study HurricaH-e--A-u--d1-r-ey. Disaster
Study No. 18. Washington, D,C.:
National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, 1963.

-65-

Baumann, Duane D. and John H. Sims. "Human
Response to the Hurricane." Pages 25-30
in Gilbert F. White (ed.) Natural Hazards:
Local, National, Global. New York--.
University Press, 1974.
Ox or

Bodine, B. R. Storm Surge on the Open Coast:
FundamentaIs and Simplified Prediction.
Coastal Engineerin- Research Center
0
Technical Memorandum No. 35. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Brinkmann, Waltraud A. R., et al. Hurricane
Hazard in the United States: A
Research Assessment. University of
Colorado, NSF-RA-E-75-007, 1975.

Brouillete, John R. "The Department of Public
Works: Adaptation to Disaster Demands."
American Behaviroal Scientist 13,
January-February, 1970,--p-p-.-769-379.

Brown, L. F., Jr., R. A. Morton, J. H. McGowen,
C. 11. Kreitler and W. L. Fisher. Natural
Hazards of the Texas Coastal Zone.
Bureau of Economic Geology, University of
Texas at Austin in cooperation with the
Texas Coastal and Marine Council, 1974.

Burton, Ian and R. W. Kates. "The Perception
of Natural Hazards in Resource Manage-
ment." Natural Resources Journal 3,
1964, pp. 412-441.

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates and Rodman Snead,
The Human Ecology of C ,oastal Flood
Hazard in Megalopolis. Department of
Geography Research Paper No. 115.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969.

Burton, Ian, Robert W. Kates, John R. Mather,
and Rodman E. Snead. The Shores of
Megalopolis, Coastal Occupance and Human
A justment -E-6-71ood Hazard. Otfice of
1-- search, 1965.
Nava lRe

-66-

Byrne, John V. and William B. North. Landslides
of Oregon-North Coast. Corvallis: Oregon
State UniversiEy, Department of Oceanography,
Marine-Advisory Program, Sea Grant, 1971.

Carney, Charles and Albert Hardy. North
Carolina Hurricanes. Environment-al
Science Services Administration.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1967.

Carr, J. T. Hurricanes Affecting the Texas
Gulf Coast. Report-14o. 49. 1 Austin:
Texas Water Development Board, 1967.

Clement, Charles and James Richardson.
"Recreation on the Georgia Coast-An
Ecological Approach." In Georgia
Business, Vol, 30, No. 2. Ath@ns:
University of Georgia, College of
Business Administration, 1971.

Coast Code Administration. Regional Code
Enforcement--Hancock, Harrison and
Jackson Counties, Mississippi. '@_ulfport,
FlEssissippit 1972.

Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development
Services. Proceedings of Seminar on
Planning and Lngineering'in-the Coastal
Zone, June 8-9, 1972, Charleston, South
Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina.
Coastal Plains Center for-Marine
Development Services, 1974.

Cochrane, Harold C. Natural Hazards and Their
Distributive Effects. Universi.ty of
Colorado, NSF-RA-E-75-003',@'1975..

Colon, J. A. "Some Aspects of Hurricane
Carla, 19061." Hurricane Symposium.
American Societ-T-for Oceanograpny
Publication No. 1, 1966, pp. 1-33.

-677

Corps of Engineers. Land Against the Sea.
Coastal Engineering Research Center
Miscellaneous Paper No. 4-64. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19064.

Corps of Engineers. Report on the National
Shoreline Study. Distributed by INTIS.
Springfield, Virginia: -U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1971.

Cry, G. W. Tropical Cyclones of the North
Atlantic Ocean. Weather Bureau
Technical Paper No. 55. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1965.

Cypra, Kenneth and George L. Peterson.
Technical Services for the Urban
Floodplain Property Manager: Organization
01 the Design of the Problem. Toronto:
Natural Hazards Research Working Paper
No. 12, 1969.

Dacy, Douglas and Howard Kunreuther. The
Economics of Natural Disasters. New
York: The Free Press, 1969.

Demsetz, Harold. Economic Gains from Storm
Warnings: Two Florida Case Studies.
Memorandum No. RM-3166-NASA. Santa
Monica, California: RAND Corporation,
1962.

Dunn, G. E. and B. Miller. Atlantic Hurricanes.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Un-iversity
Press, 1960.

Ericksen, Neil J. Scenario Methodology in
Natural Hazards Research. University
of Colorado, NSF-RA-E-75-010, 1975.

Florida Bureau of Beaches and Shores.
Summary Report on Beach Conditions
in Florida. Tallahassee: Flor
Bureau of Beaches and Shores, 1973.

-68-

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
Wood Structures Survive Hurricane
Camille's Winds. Forest Service Research
Paper No. FPL-123. Madison, Wisconsin:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1963.

Friedman, D. G. Frequency of Hurricane Winds
in Various Sections of Florida, Georgia
and the Carolinas. Hartford, Connecticut:
The Travelers Insurance Company, 1963.

Friedman, D. G. The Storm Surge Along the
Gulf and South Atlantic Coastlines.
Hartford, Connecticut: The Travelers
Insurance Company, 1971.

Gentry, R. C. "Nature and Scope of Hurricane
Damage." Hurricane Symposium. American
Society for Oceanography Publication No. 1,
1966, pp. 229-254.

Gentry, R. C. "Project Stormfury." Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society
50, 1969, pp. 404-409.

Haas, J. Eugene, Robert W. Kates and Martyn J.
Bowden (eds.). Reconstruction Following
Disaster. Cambridge, Massachusetts;
MIT Press, 1976,

Hartman, L. M., D. Holland and M. Giddings.
"Effects of Hurricane Storms on
Agriculture." Water Resources Research
5, 1969, pp. 555-562.

Hawkins, H. F. "Comparison of Results of the
Hurricane (1969) Experiments with Those
from Rosenthal's Numerical Model
Simulation Experiments." Monthly Weather
Review 99, 1971, pp. 427-434.

-69-

Hendrick, R. L. and D. G. Friedman. "Potential
Impacts of Storm. Modification on the
Insurance Industry." Pages 227-246 in
W. R. Sewell (ed.) Human Dimensions of
Weather Modification. Department ot
Geogr,ap-hy Rese@@A-ch Paper No. 105. Chicago:
Univetisty of Chicago, 1966.

Herbert, Paul L. and Glenn Taylor. Hurricane
Experience Levels of Coastal County
Populations-Texas to Maine. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather
Service, 1975.

Hewitt, Kenneth and Ian Burton. The. Hazardous-
ness of a Place: A Regional Ec070-9y of
Damaging Events. University of Toronto
Department of Geography Research Publication
No. 6. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1971.

Holmes, R. C. "Composition and Size of Flood
Losses." In G. F. White (ed.) Papers
on Flood Problems. Department -&r F-Geography
Research Paper No. 70, The University
of Chicago, 1961.

Homan, A. Gerlof and Bruce Waybur. A Study
of Procedure in Estimatin5 Flood Damage
to Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Properties in7alifornia. Menlo Park,
California: Stanford Research Institute,
1960.

Howard, Arthur. "Hurricane Modification of
the Offshore Bar of Long Island, New,
York." Geographical Review 29, 1939,
pp. 400-415.

Inman, Douglas L. and Birchard M. Brush.
"The Coastal Chall.enge Reprint".
In Science, July 6, 1973, Vol. 131,
pp. 20-32.

-70-

Jagschitz, John A. and Robert C. Wakefield.
How to Build and Save Beaches and Dunes-
Preser 'SHoreline with F@-ncLn&
and Beach Grass. Kingston: University
of Rhode Island, College of Resource
Development (Marine Leaflet Series No. 4,
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
408, 1971.

Jelesnianski, C. P. SPLASH (Sp cial Program
to List Amplitudes of Surges from
Hurricanes), Vol. I. NOAA Technical
Memorandum No. NWS TDL-46. Washington,
D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972.

Jelesnianski, C. P. and A. D. Taylor. A
Preliminary View of Storm Surges Before
ancF-Aiter Storm Modifications. NOAA
TechnicaI -Memorandum ERL ITMPO-3. U.S.*
Department of Commerce. Boulder, Colorado:
Weather Modification Program Office,
Environmental Research Laboratories, 1973.

Johnson, J. W. Tidal Inlets on Sandy Shores.
1971,

Kates, Robert William. Hazard and Choice
Perception in Flood Plain Mana&ement..
The University of Chicago, 1962.

Leopold, Luna,B. HX drology for Urban Land
Planning-A Guidebook on the Hydrologic
Ettects ot*LJrban Land Use., Washington,
B-.C.: U.S.---G-e-ological vey, Circular
554, 1963.

Mack, Raymond W. and George W. Baker. The
Occasion Instant. National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council
Disaster Study No. 15. Washington, DIC.:
National Academy of Sciences, 1961.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., University of Florida,
and Water Resources Engineers,.Inc.
Storm Water Management Model-, Vol. 1.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971.
-71-

Miami Federal Executive Board. Evacuation
of Coastal Residents During Hurricanes.
Report to the U.S. OFfice of Management
and B'U@Jget an Pilot Study for Dade
county, Florida. Miami; Florida: 1973.

Mileti, Dennis S. Disaster Relief and Rehabili-
tation in the United States: A Research
Assessment. The University of Colorado,
Institute of Behaviroal Science, 1975.

Mileti, Dennis S. Natural Hazard Warning
Systems in the Un-ited States: A
Research Assessment. B-oulder:
University of Col-orado Institute of
Behaviroal Science, 1975.

Mil eti, Dennis S., Thomas E. Drabek and J.
Eugene Haas. Human Systems in Extreme
Environments: A Sociological Perspective.
To- r: University of Colorado Institute
of Behaviroal Science, 1975.

Miller, H. Crane. "Coastal-Flood Plain
Management and the National Flood Insurance
Program. A Case Study of Three Rhode
Island Communities." Environmental
Comment. November 1975, pp. 2

Mitchell, James K. Community Response to
Coastal Erosion: Individual- ana-
HazarU on the
ColIecfive A justments to
Atlan ic Shore. Departme Int of Geography
Re-search Paper No. 156, Chicago-, University
of Chicago Press, 1974,

Moore, H., E. Before the Wind: A Study 'of
the Response to Hurricane Carla.
National Academy of Sciences, Mational
Research Council Disaster Study No.. 18,
Washington, D.C.z National Academy of
Sciences, 1963.

-7.2-

National 'Conf erence on Flood Plain lvlanaaL,@ent.
Edited by Ken th J. Sa ol. Was ngton,
D.C. Statler Hilton Hotel, July 24-25,
1974.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Project Stormfury 1972. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Home@ort Story: An Imaginary City
Gets Ready for A hurricane. Wastiington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Gommerce,.1971.

Norris, Robert M. "Sea Cliff Retreat near
Santa Barbara, California." In
Mineral Information Service.
Sacramento: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Vol. 21, No. 6,
June 1968.

Olsen, Stephen B. and Malcolm J. Grant.
Rhode Islands Barrier Beaches, Vol. 2--
Report and Recommendations at the Comm:dnity
Level. Kingston: University oi R
Isla d, Coastal Resources Center, 1973.

Pearson, A. D. and A. F. Sadowski. "Hurricane-
Induced Tornadoes and Their Distribution."
Monthly We ather Review 93:,. 1965, pp. 461-464.

Pipkin, Bernard and Michael Ploessel.
Coastal Landslides in Southern California.
Los Angeles: University,of SoutTFe-rn
California, Sea Grant (USC-SG-3-72), 1972.

Roy Mann Associates, and Coastal Zone Resources
Corporation. General Guidelines for Use
of the Great Lakes Shoreline. ICambridg-e,
Massachusetts: Roy Mann Associates and
,Wilmington, North Carolina: Coastal Zone
Resources Corproation, 1972.

-73-

Russell, C. S. Losses from Natural Hazards.
Natural Hazards Research Working Paper
No. 10. Toronto: University of Toronto,
1969.

Sadowski, A. F. "Tornadoes with Hurricanes."
Weatherwise 19, 1966, pp. 71-75.

Saffir, H. S. "Hurricane Camille: Data on
Storm and Structural Damage." Paper
presented at Conference on Wind Effects
on Buildings and Structures, Tokyo,
Japan, 1971.

Sheaffer, John R., George W. Davis and Alan P.
Richmond. Community Goals-Management
Opportunities: An Approach to Flood
Plain Management, Center for Urban
Studies, University of Chicago, 1969.

Simpson, R. H. and M. B. Lawrence. Atlantic
HurricaneFrequencies Along the U.S.
Coastline. NOAA Technical Memorandum
No. NWS _9R-58. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1971,

Sorensen, John H., Neil J. Ericksen and Dennis S..
Mileti. Landslide Hazard in the United
States: A Research Assessment. University
of Colorado, NSF-RA-E@75-U1_6_,_l975..

Sorensen, John H. with J. Kenneth Mitchell.
Coastal Erosion Hazard in the United
States: A Research Assessment. Boulder:
University of Colorado Institute of
Behavioral Science, 1975.

Steers, J. A. "Coastal Changes." Pages
539-551 in F. Fraser Darling and John P.
Milton (eds.) Future Environments of
North America: Transformation of a
Continent. New York: Natural History
Press, 1966.

-74-

Sugg, Arnold L. "Beneficial Aspects of the
Tropical Cyclone." Journal of Applied
Meteorology 7, 1968, pp. T9--TT

Sullivan, Raymond and Ravmond Pestrong.
Coastal Hazards at f4ussel Rock, South
of San Francisco. San Francisco,
California: Sa-n Francisco State
University, Department of Geology.

Taylor, D. L. The Benefits of Hurricane
Runoff Water. Master's Thesis. Fort
Colling-.Colorado State Univeristy, 1970.

Terrnick, Doody, Coe and Leeson. Beach Erosion
and Protection, Interim Report. Los
Angeles: California Department of Water
Resources, South District Office, 1969.

Touliatos, Plato and Elmer Roth. "Hurricanes
and Trees: Ten Lessons from Camille,"
Journal of Forestry 69, 1971, pp. 285-289t

Trousdell, Kenneth, Wilfred Williams and
Thomas Nelson. "Damage to Recently
Thinned Loblolly Pine Stands by
Hurricane Donna." Journal of Forestry
63, 1965, pp. 96-10U-.

U.S,., Army Corps of Engineers. Beach Erosion
Control and Shore Protection Studies,
U..S., Army Corps of Engineers, 1966..

U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of
Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Fiood Losses,
Vol. I and 2, Parts I-VI., WasHE-ton, D,C,;
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Vinels, William R. Surface Waters,__Submerged
Lands, and Wat-er.,"ront Lands. Area
Planning Boar-cT of Palm EFeach Count y@
Florida, 1970.

-75-

Webber, Bert. What Happened at Bavocean--Is
Salishan Next? Fairfield, Washington:
Ye Galleon Press, 1973.

Welday, Ed. Natural Hazards in California-
Tsunamis--Draft. Sacramento: California
Division of Mines and Geology, 1974.

Wilkinson, K. P. and P. J. Ross. Citizens
Responses to Warnings of@H=Ficane Camille.
Social Science Research Center Report
No. 35. State College: Mississippi State
University, 1970.

Zornig, H. F. and G. E. Sherwood. Wo od
Structures Survive Hurricane C-a-m-ille's
Winds. Forest Service Research Paper
No. FPL-123. Madison, Wisconsin: U.S.
Deaprtment of Agriculture, 1969.

-76-

Selected References Concerning Mlanagerient

Armstrong, John M. The Development and
Enhancement of the Urban Coastal Zone-
The Research Requirements for Design,
Engineering and @NanageEent. Ann Arbor
And Chicago: University of Michigan,
0
Great Lakes Resource Management Program,
1973.

Barkley, Paul W. and David W. Seckler.
Economic Growth and .-nvironmental-Decay:
The Solution Becomes the-Fr'ob e@m.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
1972,

Beuchert, Edward W. A Legal View of,the
Floodplain. Cambridge, 'Massachusetts:
Harvard Law School, 1961.

,Beuchert, Edward W. "State Regulation of
Channel Encroachments." Natural Resources
Journal 4, (January, 1965), pp- 486-521.

Breeden, Richard Carroll.. "Coastal Controls
in California--T.@Iave of the Future." In
Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 11,
No. 3, April, 1974, pp. 4b3-508.

Brenneman, Russell L. "Local Regulation of
'Inland Wetlands' in Connecticut-A
Prototype 'Management Program' under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972?" In An Analysis of Local Wetland
Regulation, Planning Report T-6
Hartford, Connecticut: Coastal Area
Management.

Center for the Environment and Man. Coast
Stabilization and Protection on Lon
Island. New York: _N'iassau Suffo K
Regional Planning Board, 1972.

-77-

Clark, John.. Coastal Ecosystems. Washington,
D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1974.

Clark, John. Rookery Bay - Ecological Constraints
on Coastal Development. Washington, D.C.:
TH-eConservation Foundation, 1974.

Condon, Ed. Compilation of Studies in Dredging,
Dredge S2oil Usage and Disposal. Corvallis:
Oregon State University, Marine Advisory
Programs, 1973.

Connecticut, State of, Department of Environ-
mental Protection. Coastal Areas of
Particular Concern: Part I, Eleven State
ApproacH-esPart II, An Approach for
Connecticut. Hartford, Connecticut: 1975.

Council of State Governments. Conference
on Organizing and Managing the Coastal
Zone--Proceedings. Washington, D.C.:
Uo-un-cil of State Governments, Office
of State-Federal Relations, 1973.

Cross, Frank L., Jr. 208 Planning - What's It
All About? Vol. @T, -Environmental Monograph
ies. Westport, Connecticut: Technomic.

Dowd, R. M. Dredging on Long Island.
Hartford, Connecticut:, Center for the
Environment and Man, Inc., 1972.

Environment Information Center. State laws
and regulations. A guide to environmental
fe--gislation in the fifty states and
the District of Columbia. New York.
E.I.C., 1976.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Handbook: Building in the Coastal
Environment. Atlanta: 1975.

-78-

Harbridge House, Inc. Key Land Use Issues
Facing E.P.A. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Planning and Evaluation, 1974.

Illinois Coastal Zone Management Program.
Geographic areas of particular concern
for the Illinois Coastal Zone Management
Program. Draft. Chicago: Coastal Zone
Management Program, 1976.

James, L. D. "Nonstructural Measures for
Flood Control." Water Resources Research
1, (1965), pp. 9-24. See also, L. D.
James, A Time-Dependent Planning Process
for Combining Structural Measures, Land
Use, and Flood Proofing to Minimize the
Economic Cost of Floods. Report EEP-12
Stanford: Institute of Engineering-
Economic Systems, Stanford University, 1964.

Kates, Robert W. "Human Adjustment to Earthquake
Hazard." In The Great Alaska Earthquake
of 1964: Human Ecology. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Committee on the Alaska
Earthquake, 1970.

Kollmorgen, Walter M. "Settlement Control
Beats Flood Control." Economic Geography
29, 1953, pp. 208-215.

Kunreuther, Howard. "Reducing Losses from
Selected Natural Hazards." Project
supported by the RANN Directorate of the
National Science Foundation. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton
School, 1974.

Kunreuther, Howard, et al. Limited Knowledge
and Insurance Protection: Implications
for Natural Hazard Policy. Draft.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
The Wharton School, 1976.

-79-

Layne, Elizabeth 14. The Natural Environment:
A Dimension of Development. Vancouver,
B.C.: National Audubon Society, 1976.

Loughlin, James, C. "A Flood Insurance Model
for Sharing the Costs of Flood Protection."
Water Resources Research 7, 1971, pp. 236-244.

Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal
and Marine Resources. Louisiana
Government and The Coastal Zone, 1972.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana
Advisory Commission on Coastal and
Marine Resources, 1972.

Mandelker, Daniel R. and Thea A. Sherry.
The National Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972. Washington, D.C.: Washington
University School of Law, 1973.

Marcellus, Kenneth L., George 14. Dawes, Gene M.
Silberhorn. Local Management of Wetlands-
Environmental Considerations. Gloucester
Point: Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, (Special Report No. 35 in Applied
Marine Science and Ocean Engineering), 1973.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Coastal Zone Management Program. Coastal
zone planning. A unified planning program
for the Baltimore region. Annapolis,
Maryland: Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 1975.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sea
Grant Program. The Massachusetts
Coastline - Choice or Conseauence.
Boston: Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs and -he
Governors Task Force on Coastal
Resources.

Massachusetts, State of, Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs. Erosion and
Floo@ @, Study: Critical Hazardous
Areas. Boston: T9_76.

Michigan, State of, Department of State Police
Emergency Services Division. Hazard
Analysis, 2nd edition. Lansing-, 14ichigan:
19-74-.-

Miller, H. Crane. The National Flood Insurance
Program: An Assessment. Unpubl4sled
h
manuscript.

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
Regional Marine Resource Council Guidelines
for Long Island Coastal Management.
Hauppauge, Long Island, New York: Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1973.

National Association of Counties, International
City Management Association. The County
Year Book, 1976. Washington, D.C.: NACo,
IC-14A, 1976.

National Bureau 'of Standards. Building
Practices for Disaster Mitigation.
NBS Building Science Series No. 46.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Flood Insurance Studies:' (1),Brevard
CountX, Florida; (2) Volusia County,
Florida. Reports prepared tor ttie
Federal Insurance Administration of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Rockville 'Maryland: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1971.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation.
Flood Insurance Studies: (1) Charleston
CounLy,-South Carolina; (2) Land Subsidence---
Houston-Galveston, Texas Area; (3) Puerto-
Rico. Reports prepared for the Federal
Insurance Administration of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Depart-ment of
Commerce, 1973.

-81-

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Flood Insurance Studies: (1) City of
F-erH'andina Beach Nassau County, Florida;
T2-) _14artin Coun Florida; (3) Duval
ty-#) Indian River County,
County, Florida;
Florida. Reports prepared for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Rockville, Maryland: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1973.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Flood Insurance Studies:. (1) St. Johns
County, Fl( ) Palm Beach County,
Florida; (3) Broward County, Florida.
Reports prepared for the Federal Insurance
Administration of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Rockville,
Maryland: U.S. Department of Commerce,
1972.

New England River Basins Commission. Long
Island Sound Regional Study. Flood
Plains--An Interim Report. Boston:
New England River Basins Commission,
1973.

New England River Basins Commission. The
Ocean's Reach. Boston: New Engl_a_n__J
River Basins Commission, 1976.

Office of Emergency Preparedness. Disaster
Preparedness, Volumes liand 3. Executive
Office of the President. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972..

Ortoland, Leonard, Editor. Analyzing the
Environmental Iuacts of Water Projects
7- Report 73-3). Springfield, Virginia:
TI R
U.S. National Technical Information
Service, 1973.

Paterson, Karen W., Joel L. Lindsey Alvin L.
Bertrand. The Human Dimension of Coastal
Zone Development. Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
Louisiana State University, Center for
Agricultural and Rural. Development,
Bulletin No. 679, 1974.

8 2 -

Perdikis, 11. S. "Hurricane Flood Protection
in the Untied States." American Society
of Civil Engineers Transactions:
Waterways and HaFb-ors-9-3-(February), 1967,
pp. 1-24.

Pilkey, 0. H., Jr., 0. H. Pilkey, Sr. and R.
Turner. How to Live with an Island.
Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic
Resources, 1975.

Platt, Rutherford H. "The National Flood
Insurance Program: Some Midstream
Perspectives." In American Institute
Planner Journal, JuI-y-177-6.

Ponder, Hal. "Survey of State Coastal Management
Laws." In Wetlands, Vol, III. Baltimore
Maryland: To-hns Hopkins University, 1974.

Professional Services Division, Canfield
Press. The Flood Insurance Guide.
New York: Harper and Row, PubliiThers,
Inc.,,1973.

Renshaw, Edward F. "The Relationship Between
Flood Losses and Flood-Control Benefits."
In Papers on Flood Problems, edited by
Gil F. White. Chicago: University
of Chicago Department of Geography
Research Paper No. 70, 1961.

Rhode Island, University of, Coastal Resou rces
Center. Rhode Island's Coastal Natural
Areas. Priorities--T-orProtection and
Management. Narragansett, Rhode Island:

Rivkin Associates, Inc. Guiding the Coastal
Area of New Jersey. Washington, D.C.:
kin Associates, Inc., 1976.

-83-

SDiith, James. The Decline of Galveston Bay-
A Profile of %Governments Failure to
Control F_ollut@o_n in an Endang@ted
American Estuary. Washington, D.C.:
We- (TiTn-servation Foundation, 19172.

Sutton, Hirst. Comprehensive Emergency
Preparednes_@_Planning in State Government.
Lexington, Kentucky: Council of
State Governments.

Taylor, John L. "Coastal Development in Tampa
Bay, Florida." In Marine Pollution Bulletin,
1(10). 1970, pp. 1-53--=.

Texas General Land Office and The Texas
Coastal and Marine Council. Texas
Coastal Legislation. Austin: Texas
Gener 1 Land Office, 1974.

Thompson, John R. Ecological Effects of
Offshore Dredging and Beach Nourishment--
A Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper
No. 1-73, 1973.

Townsend, John M. Flood Plain Management
in Riverine Areas: A Federal, State
.and Loca -_. Unpublished L.L.M.
Degree Thesis, 19'76.

Urban Land Institute. "Coastal Flood Plain
Management and the National Flood
Insurance Program: A Case Study of
Three Rhode Island Corimiunities.T1
Washington, D.C.: November 1975.

Urban Land Institute@. Management and
Control of Growth.---V-01. 1.
Washington, D.C.; Urban Land
Institute, 1975.

U.S. Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Flood-Proofing Regulations (EP 1165-2-314),
Vla"sHI-ng t on, D . C .U.S. 77rmy, 1972.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Research to
Determine the Environmental Response to
the Deposition of Spoil on Salt Marshes
Using Diked and Undiked Techniques, First
Annual Progress Report. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1972.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific
Divsion. Water Resources Development
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
California, 1972, Supplement to the
1969 Edition. San Francisco: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, South Pacific
Divsion, 1973.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. County Business
Patterns. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1969.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of
Population: 1970. U.S. Department of
Commerce. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Statistical Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Office of Flood Insurance. Revised Flood
Plain Management Regulations of the
National Flood Insurance Program. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1976.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Statutory Land Use Control Enabling
Authority in the Fifty States (HUD-FIA-179).
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX.
Proposed Guideliens for Determining the

Acceptabiiity of Dredged Spoils to Marine
Waters. San Francisco, California: U.S.
Enviromental Protection Agency, 1972.

-85-

U.S. House Committee on 'Government Operations.
Increa sL@i@ ProteCL-ion for Our Waters,
Wetlands and Shorelines, The Corps o
Fnaine.E Washington, D.C.: U.S.
@,rs. C@
House Committee on Government Operations.

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adminsitration, Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Task Force. Status of State
Coastal Zone Management Efforts.
Rockville, Maryland:. U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1973.

U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified
National Program for Flood-F-lain
Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Water Resources Council, 1976.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Flood Hazard
Evaluation Guidelines for Federal
Executive Agencies. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Water Resources Council, 1972.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of
Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flocd Losses.
Washington, D.C.: T9-71.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of
Flood Hazard Areas. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Oceanic
Division. Mississippi Coastal Zone
Management Program. Annapolis, Haryland:
Westinghouse, Ocean Research and
Engineering Center; and Mississippi
Marine Resources Council, 1973.

White, Gilbert F. "A New Attack on Flood
Losses." State Government 32 (Spring),
1959, pp. 121-126.

-86-

White, Gilbert F. Natural Hazard Mapagement
in the Coastal Zone: A Handbook. Draft.
WasKington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1976.

White, G. F. "Optimal Flood Damage Management:
Retrospect and Prospect." In Water
Research, edited by Allen V. Knesse and
Stephen C. Smith. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University, 1966,. pp. 251-269.

White, G. F. "Recent Developments in Flood
Plain Research." Geographical Review
60, 1970.

White, Gilbert F. and J. Eugene Haas.
.Assessment of 111,esearch on Natural
Hazards. C idge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 19.75.

Woodhouse, William W., E. D. Seneca and S. W.
Broome. Marsh Building with Dredge
Spoil in North Carolina.: University of
North Carolina, Sea Grant-'Program
(UNC-SG-72-10), 1972.

-67-

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

11111011111111111111 @l
3 6668 14107 0609

The Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036