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













































































            GF
            85
            . C67
            1990



                                         1





            Coastal Management Soluti"ons
                                                      ura                   azar -S@






                                                                                    HURRIERNE HUGO

































                                                                   National Ocean Service
                                  t       N t                    I H                      d
















                         4                                         Office of 0 an & Coastal Resource Management
                                                                              ce
                                                                   Coastal Programs Division

                                                                   Technical Assistance Bulletin #103





                                                     or C0
                                                              UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                              NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
                                                   'Arcs Of   OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
                                                              Washing,on, D.C. 20235


           July 1990

           The problem of coastal hazards is more pressing now than ever before. Americans
           continue to demand more opportunities for coastal recreation, leading to intense
           pressures to develop resort areas and single family vacation houses along the beach. The
           consequences of this development is increased exposure to storms and the potential for
           loss of life and property, a potential realized in South Carolina when Hurricane Hugo
           made landfall last year. Less dramatic, but of equally great concern, is the interference
           intensive development causes in natural shoreline processes. A seawall on a beach not
           only accelerates beach erosion, but also inhibits the beach's ability to absorb storm
           energy, thus exposing structures to the full force of wind and waves. In many parts of the
           country, beaches also act as buffer zones to protect wetlands; as the beach/dune system is
           damaged or destroyed by unwise development, unprotected wetlands resources will suffer
           as well.


           State coastal zone management agencies are at the forefront of efforts to mitigate coastal
           hazards through restrictions on development, mapping and monitoring erosion rates,
           participating in beach renourishment projects, educating the public and other efforts.

           The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) of the National
           Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has produced this technical assistance
           document to provide examples of innovative, successful state coastal management
           program efforts to address coastal hazards. OCRM believes these examples will be of
           interest to other states faced with similar problems, as well as to individuals interested in
           the welfare of the nation's coasts. This report reviews only selected projects conducted
           by state coastal agencies under ï¿½306 and ï¿½309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
           (CZMA) and does not include programs under other CZNL@k sections.

           For further information on activities highlighted in this report, contact either the state
           program manager listed at the end of this document directly or:     property of CSC LibrA&T

                                Coastal Programs Division
                                National Ocean Service/NOAA               U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W.               COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                Washington, D.C. 20235                    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                (202) 673-5158.                           :,HARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

           OCRM thanks the many state program managers who contributed to this document.

                                                            Si erely,


                                                            Timoth R.E. Keeney
                                                            Director
                                                   __@ere'y'
                                                                0
                                                              im@           eene@y
                                                                 th R.




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I          Pre-Publication
  I                  Co
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                              4
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                         py











  I
  I . .











                         Coastal Management Solutions to Natural Hazards Mitigation
                                               Table of Contents





                                                     Part A
                                An Overview of Hazards and Hazards Mitigation


            I.     The Problem of Coastal Hazards    ...................................            1

            II.    The Federal Role in Coastal Hazards Management       .....................       3





                                                     Part B
                                  State Coastal Program Responses to Hazards


            III.   Managing Development, Erosion Control Structures, and
                   Beaches in Hazardous Areas     ......................................            6


            IV.    Research, Planning, Technical Assistance,
                   and Education   ................................................               33




                                                     Part C
                                                   Appendices


            A.     A Listing of State Coastal Zone Management Programs      .................     44

            B.     Map of States with Setback Requirements     ...........................        47

            C.     Diagram of FEMA Flood Zones       ..................................           48

            D.     Index  .......................................................                 49







                                                              Part A


                                    An Overview of Hazards
                                     and Hazards Mitigation

                                                                                         4Z.







                                                                      Alr





























                   Somce: MjaMl Beach TOU69 DWSJOP@t AWWky











                                                    CHAPTER I
            Introduction.         THE PROBLEM OF COASTAL HAZARDS
            Coastal hazards, be they cataclysmic natural disasters, gradual erosion, or steadily rising
            sea and lake levels, are an ever-present threat to public health and safety, natural
            resources, and property. Options for dealing with these hazards are many. But because
            each option has its own environmental, economic, and political costs, there is little
            consensus on how governments should respond to coastal hazards.

            Meanwhile, threats to public safety and the public cost of failing to address coastal
            hazards continues to increase:

                   NOAA's National Hurricane Center in Miami has refined its prediction techniques
                   to give a 12-hour warning of a hurricane's landfall. Because hurricanes can
                   change intensity and direction suddenly and unpredictably, this warning time is
                   unlikely to lengthen. However, emergency planners estimate an evacuation of
                   Galveston, Texas, would take 26 hours; officials would need over 30 hours to
                   evacuate the Florida Keys. These evacuation times will increase in the face of
                   continued development and population growth. The Tampa Bay Regional
                   Planning Council, for example, estimates that a "worst case" hurricane would cause
                   $9.6 billion in structural damage in the region.

                   According to 1985 figures, about 75% of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal populations
                   most vulnerable to hurricanes moved to those areas since the last direct hit by a
                   major hurricane and are thus less likely to be familiar with appropriate responses.

                   The evacuation problem will intensify as Americans continue to be drawn to
                   coastal areas for recreational opportunities, climate, and the other benefits coastal
                   communities offer. Some 53% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the
                   coast, a percentage expected to increase significantly in the future. As coastal
                   populations continue to swell, the consequences of both severe storms and the
                   longer term processes of erosion and sea and lake level rise become more severe.

            .0     The insurance industry's All-Industry Research Advisory Council (AIRAC)
                   estimates that a major hurricane making landfall in a heavily populated area of
                   the South Atlantic or Gulf coasts would trigger $7 billion in claims. (AIRAC
                   estimates insured wind losses alone from Hurricane Hugo will approach $4 billion;
                   Hugo ranked 3 to 4 on a 1 [moderate] to 5 [catastrophic] scale of hurricane
                   severity.)

                   Through federal programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
                   the nation's taxpayers help underwrite billions of dollars of insurance coverage on
                   structures built in hazard areas.


                                                         -I-








                  After major storms, as many as 50 federal agencies provide funding and support
                  for coastal redevelopment. Because of this assistance, development after
                  hurricanes and severe storms may in fact be more dense and property values
                  higher than before, exposing taxpayers to even greater expenditures for future
                  storm recovery efforts.

                  Less easily quantified, but perhaps more important in the long term, is the loss of
                  beaches, bluffs, and barrier islands as first line defenses against storms and sea
                  and take level rise.


           Long-term Beach Erosion.
           While major events such as Hurricane Hugo provide dramatic confirmation of the perils
           of living too close to the water's edge, the more subtle process of shoreline erosion also
           threatens property along the nation's coasts. Beaches are by nature dynamic; beach
           profiles and widths depend on natural movements of sand, wind, storms, currents, and
           seasonal changes. Furthermore, many areas of U.S. shorelines are receding due to sea
           level rise caused by geologic and global hydrologic processes and subsidence from human
           activities such as hydrocarbon or water extraction. Once development takes place on
           inherently unstable beaches and barrier islands, property owners naturally want to protect
           their investments from erosion. But efforts to supplement the natural storm protection
           dunes and beaches provide with "hard" erosion control structures interfere with natural
           beach systems, exacerbating erosion. Beaches disappear, exposing property perched on
           the edge of bulkheads to the full force of the next major storm.

           Threats to Natural Resources.
           In a broader context, the loss of beaches and barrier islands exposes wetlands and upland
           areas to the full brunt of storms. The dynamic nature of beach/dune systems allows them
           to absorb storms' energy; during a storm, waves flatten the beach profile and move sand
           offshore to create sand bars that help dissipate wave energy. Calm weather returns the
           sand to the beach. As protective systems for wetlands, b4rrier islands prevent normal
           and storm-wave energy from reaching wetlands, and prevent sand and salt water
           intrusion. Barrier islands migrate with storms and sea level rise; if "stabilized," eventually
           they, and any development on them, will face increased risk from heightened vulnerability
           to normal and storm wave action.














                                                        -2-












                                                  CHAPTER [I
                     TIM FEDERAL ROLE IN COASTAL HAZARD MANAGEN[ENT



            The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
            In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to encourage
            states to better manage the nation's coastal resources, resources increasingly threatened
            by poorly planned development and consequent environmental degradation. The CZMA
            was designed as a state-federal partnership to encourage states to develop and
            implement comprehensive coastal zone management plans to address these and other
            concerns.


            The CZM.A uses an innovative approach that funded state coastal plan development and
            implementation, but also provides that once NOAA approves a state's coastal
            management plan, other federal agencies carrying out activities affecting a state''s coastal
            zone must make their actions consistent with that plan. The program development phase
            of the CZMA has expired, but NOAA continues to fund implementation in the
            participating states. Since the CZMA became law, 29 states and territories of the 35
            eligible have joined the program.

            At the state level, a lead agency oversees program implementation and administers
            federal implementation funds. The agency may be solely responsible for planning,
            regulation, and management in the coastal zone, or share that authority with other state
            agencies. Local govemments play formal or informal roles in implementing state
            programs and policies. Some state programs delegate planning authority to local
            governments, which make decisions according to state coastal program requirements.
            Federal agencies participate in state programs through consultation and consistency
            reviews to determine whether federal activities and actions are consistent with state
            coastal programs.

            While the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) in NOAA's
            National Ocean Service (NOS) is the only federal agency directly involved in
            administering the CZMA, other federal agencies play important roles in regulation,
            emergency response, and prediction.

            Prediction.
            The National Weather Service (NWS), another NOAA line office, is responsible for the
            nation's weather forecasting system. Using weather stations, satellites, specially equipped
            aircraft, and other instrument platforms, NWS's National Hurricane Center in Miami
            monitors and tracks hurricane activity from the west coast of Africa, where most are
            spawned. It is the Hurricane Center that issues warning times and probabilities for
            storms striking a particular coastal area.


                                                          3,







            In addition to its weather forecasting responsibilities, NWS also has developed the Sea
            and Lake Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computer model, which is widely
            used by state and local emergency preparedness officials to predict flooding from storm
            surge, the dramatic increase in sea level caused by the low barometric pressure
            associated with hurricanes.

            Other NOAA offices supply information on tides, currents, ocean temperature, and other
            ocean and coastal measurements.


            Emergency Response.
            The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is charged with responding to
            natural disasters with immediate relief, in the form of emergency personnel,
            communications equipment, medical services, food and water, housing, and other needed
            supplies and services. FEMA also supplies intermediate and long-term assistance
            through loan and grant programs for homeowners, businesses, and communities, and
            encourages emergency preparedness through a variety of assistance programs for
            planning and evaluation.

            The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) provides construction-related services after
            disasters. For example, NOAA predicted unusually high spring tides in the weeks
            following Hurricane Hugo. Hugo had eroded the beach and dune system from much of
            the South Carolina coast; without their buffering capacity, South Carolina's already
            devastated coastline faced further flooding. Using heavy equipment, the Corps scraped
            the beaches all along the coast to build temporary artificial dunes to protect beachfront
            property.

            The Corps also removes debris (it removed thousands of tons of material from South
            Carolina beaches and wetlands after Hugo), provides a variety of other intermediate-
            relief services, and in some regions, takes an active role in evacuation planning.

            Erosion Control and Renourishment
            The Corps of Engineers is charged with responsibility for navigation projects, such as
            dredging, and jetty and breakwater construction, and plays a major role in many beach
            renourishment and sand bypass projects. Through cost share agreements with states and
            localities, the Corps provides design expertise and other technical assistance for such
            projects.

            Flood Insurance.
            In addition to its emergency response role, FEMA also administers the National Flood
            Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP underwrites insurance for flood-prone areas in
            communities participating in the program. In exchange, communities must manage
            floodplain development, homeowners must meet the elevation requirements FEMA sets
            for each community, and banks must require floodplain insurance as a condition for
            writing a mortgage for new construction. Congress intended that these requirements act

                                                      4-









            as a disincentive to development in flood-prone areas. Enforcement of the NFIP's
            provisions, however, has proven to be difficult, and the program's record has been
            criticized by those who feel the NFIP can actually encourage development in high
            hazards by insuring property owners who unwisely build in such areas.

            In 1987, FEMA requested the National Research Council (NRC) to review erosion
            management strategies and to advise FEMA on how best to implement these strategies
            through the NFIP. Currently, FEMA delineates flood depth, frequency and velocities in
            determining coastal hazard risks. In a report entitled "Managing Coastal Erosion," the
            NRC found that an actuarially sound NFIP depends on FEMA developing accurate
            erosion rate information and including erosion as a risk factor in writing coastal flood
            insurance policies. The NRC further recommended that FEMA delineate coastlines
            subject to erosion to include:

                  Imminent erosion hazard, or areas likely to be directly affected by erosion within
                  10 years;

                  Intermediate erosion hazard, areas likely to be affected within 30 years; and

            0     Long-term hazard, areas likely to be affected within 60 years.

            The NRC suggested that these zones (referred to as E-10, E-30, and E-60, respectively),
            be determined initially using historical shoreline change maps and that FEMA help
            develop more sophisticated methodologies to more accurately predict shoreline change.

            The NRC recommended that only readily moveable structures be permitted seaward of
            the E-60 line; most development should be confined landward of the E-30 line. No
            structures over 5,000 square feet should be allowed seaward of the E-60 line. No new
            NFIP policies should be issued for the E-10 zone; all other policies issued in the E-30
            and E-60 zones should be based on actuarial standards. ,

            According to the report, FEMA should use e)dsting state setbacks whenever possible,
            even if they are more stringent than FEM.A standards, and establish minimum standards
            for local erosion management as a prerequisite for eligibility for disaster relief and other
            federal programs, including highway and water and sewer funds. FEMA currently is
            reviewing the NRC's report internally.

            In addition to FEMA's review and evaluation of the NFEP, Congress is considering a
            number of reforms that would  'both ease the difficulties of administering the NFIP and
            address concems that the NFIP as currently structured unnecessarily subsidizes
            development in high-hazard areas.




                                                       -5-







                                                                  Part B


                       State Coastal Program Responses
                                         to Hazards Mitigation



                                                    7-77-








                                        7'














                           W-dW                          _ow_                                                 .0
                          fe7


                                                                                                                     10





                                                                                        1w          Ad



                                                       Owl'








                Sou,ce: Ntio" Res",ch Cot", Managing COaStW FI-SiOn










                                                    CHAFTER III
                    NIANAGING DEVELOPMENT, EROSION CONTROL STRUCMJRES
                                   AND BEACHES IN HAZARDOUS AREAS



            Nfitigation Policy Responses.
            Evacuation planning and other emergency measures are the traditional--and until
            recently, the only--approaches to mitigating the effects of hurricanes and severe storms.
            But an improved understanding of beach/dune systems, the extremely high cost to the
            public and private citizens to replace or repair storm-damaged structures, and the limited
            ability of public agencies to evacuate densely developed high hazard areas indicate the
            need for a much broader approach to coastal hazards management. Mitigating the
            effects of severe storms and chronic erosion presents different political and policy
            problems, but to address either effectively requires unified and comprehensive
            approaches. Sound hazards mitigation does indeed include better evacuation plans and
            emergency preparedness, but also requires policies to minimize risks and exposure, and
            therefore public costs, through managing the siting and construction of shorefront
            development, and preserving the natural protective functions of beaches and dunes by
            imposing restrictions on erosion control structures.

            States have at their disposal a number of management options. The most widely used
            include:


                    Managing Development;

            0       Comprehensive Policies for Erosion Control Structures; and

                    Beach Renourishment.


            Managing Development.
            Perhaps the most difficult approach politically, restricting 6eachfront development is also
            the most effective. Risk from coastal hazards is greatly diminished when development
            densities are reduced, beach front structures are set back behind primary dunes and
            bluffs, and areas most vulnerable to erosion such as highly mobile spits are left
            undeveloped. For example:
                    Development densities on barrier islands should be matched to the evacuation
                    capacity of roads and bridges to the island.
                    Public expenditures for bridges, roads, and other infrastructure on and to barrier
                    islands and hazardous areas should be limited to discourage unwise development.

                    Beach and bluff setbacks based on local erosion rates should be established;
                    structures built near these setbacks should be designed so as to be movable to


                                                          -6-









            locations further inland when threatened by erosion.

            Purchasing property in high hazard areas and holding it as open space is the most direct
            way to control development; however, it is also expensive, making it less popular than
            other options for most states. Although property acquisition can alleviate concerns that
            restricting development constitutes an unlawful taking of private property, it raises other
            issues such as whether public purchases of highly eroding land are sound investments.

            Comprehensive Policies for Erosion Control Structures.
            Erosion control structures have the ironic effect of accelerating erosion, either in front of
            the development the structure is designed to protect, or downdrift. Groin fields, for
            example, interrupt the longshore transport of sand that replenishes beaches naturally,
            building up the beach on the updrift side of the groins and leaving steadily eroding
            beaches downdr-ift. Jetties designed to stabilize harbor mouths and inlets can affect
            entire regions: the Charleston Harbor jetties built by the Army Corps of Engineers have
            caused Sullivan's Island to accrete while starving Folly Beach to the south. And although
            seawalls and bulkheads may stabilize an eroding shoreline for a time, normal and storm
            wave action eventually strip away the beach in front of the structure and scour out its
            base, causing the wall or bulkhead to fail.

            Sound beach management requires that state and local governments limit or prohibit
            erosion control structures, particularly vertical structures such as seawalls and bulkheads.
            Policy options range from requiring that erosion control structures be removed entirely to
            restrictions on control structures' repair and replacement.

            Beach Renourishment
            In areas where development is particularly dense, or to protect an important natural or
            man-made feature, beach renourishment may be viable. Ocean City, Maryland, and
            Miami, Florida, for example, have undertaken large-scale renourishment projects both to
            protect buildings that were literally at the ocean's edge and to restore the beach as a
            recreational amenity. In a typical project, dredges or pumps move sand of a suitable
            type and size from a sand bar, an accreted area, or an upland source to the beach where
            it is graded to approximate a natural slope. Unfortunately, renourishment is expensive--
            the Miami project cost $64 million, Ocean City's new beach about $45 million. Further,
            there are no guarantees the new sand will stay in pl ace; it may erode gradually (although
            usually faster than the original beach eroded) or be carried away in hours by a storm.

            Although largely funded by Congress in the past, the increased cost of such projects,
            greater need for renourishment, and changes in federal cost sharing requirements have
            placed more of the funding burden on states and localities.


            The State Response.
            Examples of state efforts to implement the policies outlined above follow.

                                                        -7,











                                                 ALABAMA

           Zoning for Hazards.
           In 1989, the Dauphin Island Town Council adopted a zoning ordinance in large part
           developed by the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission with funds provided by
           the Alabama Coastal program. The ordinance improved monitoring and enforcement of
           the Coastal Control Line (CCL) for Dauphin Island and prohibited development in
           several hazardous areas on the island.



                                                  ALASKA


           Lxw,al Han ds PI      g.
           The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) delegates authority to local districts
           to formulate specific coastal management programs based on ACMP standards. One
           such standard requires that district programs identify and address geophysical hazard
           areas. For example:

                  The Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Management Program directs
                  development away from hazardous areas. Where this is not feasible, the
                  development must incorporate siting, design, construction, and operation measures
                  to protect against losses of life and minimize property damage and environmental
                  impacts.

                  The Sitka Coastal Management program prohibits the issuance of any building
                  permits for developments in geophysical hazard areas until mitigation for such
                  hazards has been incorporated into the project design.

                  In Juneau, the coastal program prohibits industrial and resource extraction
                  activities in high landslide or avalanche areas, unless the project can be shown to
                  reduce the threat of landslides and avalanches to existing and potential
                  development.


                                                CALEFORNIA


           Coastal Geologic Evaluation&
           The California coast presents numerous natural hazards to coastal users, including cliff
           erosion and shoreline retreat, storm wave run-up, tsunamis, landslides, earthquakes and
           soil liquefaction. In implementing the California Coastal Act, the California Coastal
           Commission requires that natural hazards be considered in new development planning.
           The Coastal Commission requires geotechnical hazards reports for any project located in
           an "area of demonstration." An area of demonstration includes the base, face, and top of

                                                      -8-








            all bluffs and cliffs. The Commission defines 'bluff top" as the area between the face of
            the bluff or cliff and a line described by a 20 degree angle from the toe, or 50' inland of
            the edge of a cliff or bluff, whichever is greater. In areas of known geologic stability or
            instability (as determined by adequate geologic evaluation or historical evidence), the
            Commission may designate a greater or lesser area of demonstration.

            Among other factors, geotechnical hazard reports must consider, describe, and analyze
            historic, current and foreseeable cliff erosion, evidence of past or potential landslide
            conditions, giound/surface water conditions, marine erosion effects, and the potential
            effects of the most severe probable earthquake. These reports must also address off-site
            development impacts and mitigation.

            Finally, most projects located on the coast must consider and plan for the effects of
            potential storm surge and tsunami run-up.

            San Francisco Bay Seismic Engineering Requirements.
            The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) manages
            the coastal resources of the San Francisco Bay Area under the McAteer-Petris Act. To
            ensure all developments on new fill in the Bay Area are constructed safely, BCDC relies
            upon its Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB). The ECRB consists of experts in
            the fields of soils engineering, geology, structural engineering, engineering geology, and
            architecture, who volunteer their time and services. The ECRB reviews all projects that
            involve fill and problems relating to the safety of fills and/or structures on fills.

            The roots of the ECRB can be traced to 1965, when the California Legislature
            established BCDC and charged the Commission with preparing a plan for San Francisco
            Bay to protect and develop its shoreline in the long-term interest of the general public.
            The BCDC and its staff began this comprehensive planning effort by reviewing the major
            development issues confronting the Bay and its physical characteristics. Four of these
            studies dealt directly with the issue of the safety of fills during an earthquake.

            Based on these reviews, the Commission appointed a Board of Consultants to Review
            Safety of Proposed Fills in 1968. As a first step, the Board began the study of criteria
            necessary to establish a satisfactory level of safety in a field where no generally accepted
            standards existed. The Board believed that these safety criteria should be developed and
            made enforceable by requiring their inclusion in any plan for the conservation and
            development of San Francisco Bay. The Board adopted a report entitled "Carrying out
            the Bay Plan: The Safety of Fffls," which recommended a set of qualitative criteria
            involving geological and seismological considerations, sod and foundation engineering
            considerations, and engineering safety requirements. The report also recommended the
            Commission include in the Bay Plan a Board of Consultants to continue working on
            seismic safety considerations and to:




                                                          -9-









                          establish and revise safety criteria for Bay fills and structures thereon with
                          respect to risk zones;

                          review all except minor projects for the adeq@acy of their specific safety
                          criteria;

                          gather and make available data developed from projects in the Bay;

                          complement the efforts of local building and planning departments.

            Based on  the technical background reports and the recommendations of the Board of
            Consultants, BCDC included findings and policies on the safety of fills in the San
            Francisco Bay Plan. To implement "Safety of Fills" policies of the Bay Plan, the
            Commission also created the permanent Engineering Criteria Review Board.

            The ECRB reviews all major applications for Bay fills to ensure developers use
            appropriate safety criteria and state-of-the-art techniques to build structures. A number
            of subjective and quantitative factors are balanced to establish these safety criteria, such
            as the professional judgment and technical skill of the designer, the degree of geologic
            hazard, the importance, use and configuration of the structure, the sophistication of the
            analysis, and the choice of construction materials and techniques.

            Overall, the ECRB's review has resulted in a significant improvement in the seismic
            engineering of fills and structures built on them. In many cases, the ECRB has advised
            applicants that additional soils and geologic information was needed to properly define
            the hazards inherent in a development, which in turn led to design changes to reduce
            risks. Moreover, the mere existence of the ECRB, with its reputation or thorough
            review, encourages developers, public agencies, and their consultants to consider seismic
            safety carefully in the design of projects and to use more sophisticated analytical methods
            than those required by ex:isting code standards.           %                                          I
            The Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 confirmed ECRB's value. Following the
            earthquake, BCDC evaluated a number of Bay fill projects reviewed by the ECRB as
            conditions of their Commission permits. This analysis found that the projects scrutinized
            by the ECRB suffered very little damage during the earthquake. The ECRB, for
            example, required significant changes in the design of the Dumbarton Bridge, which
            survived the earthquake with little damage.

            San Francisco Bay Sea Level Rise Policies.
            The BCDC has taken a leader     .ship role in planning for the effects of future rises in sea
            level. Extensive studies indicate that as a result of global warming, Bay water levels
            could rise appro3dmately one-half foot in the next 50 years, and possibly up to five feet by
            the year 2100. Such a rise in sea level could have catastrophic effects for'the Bay



                                                         _10-








            Area. In response to this problem, BCDC developed new policies and amended its
            program in 1989 to require that new shoreline development take sea level rise into
            consideration. The new policies generally require that any new project requiring fill
            should be above the highest estimated tide level for the design life of the development.
            BCDC has also been working with Bay Area local governments to assist them in
            addressing future sea level rise.



                                               CONNECTICUT


            Him d and Permits.
            The Connecticut coastal program requires all coastal towns to consider coastal flooding
            and erosion risks in conducting permit reviews for proposed waterfront development
            activities. In addition, the Connecticut program has encouraged and provided funds for
            many coastal towns to incorporate fixed water-front and wetland setbacks in local zoning
            regulations as a component of municipal coastal plans.

            Land Acquisition.
            The Connecticut DEP oversaw acquisitions of coastal hazard areas in several significant
            instances. Milford Point in Milford and Cedar Island in Clinton are barrier beaches
            located in FEMA's V-zones.' In both cases, coastal management standards and direct
            involvement during coastal site plan review prevented housing construction in valuable
            resource areas subject to severe coastal flooding. With substantial coastal program
            technical assistance and coordination, Milford Point was purchased and incorporated into
            the Connecticut Coastal National Wildlife Refuge; Cedar Island was purchased jointly by
            the state and the Nature Conservancy and added to the Hammonasset Natural Area
            Preserve.



                                                   FLORIDA


            Sanibel Hurricane Code.
            Using federal coastal zone management funds the Florida coastal program provided, the
            City of Sanibel developed a Hurricane Resistance Construction Code to protect lives and
            property on the barrier island in the event of a major storm. The code, adopted in 1984,


                  FEMA delineates and maps flood hazard zones. "V-zones" designates the 100-year
            floodplain subject to high-velocity wave action from coastal storms or seismic sources.
            "A-zones" refer to the flood hazard zone corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, but
            not subject to such wave action. "B-zones" are the areas between A-zones and the 500-
            year flood plain; B-zones also include areas subject to 100-year shallow flooding (less
            than one foot). See appendix for diagram.








           adds National Standard Minimum Design Loads for buildings and other str-uctures to the
           city's building code. It includes requirements that new construction meet wind and wave
           design standards based on plans certified by engineers and that structures be inspected
           after hurricanes.


           Building Setbacks.
           The Florida Coastal Program, through the state Department of Natural Resources
           (DNR), has set a 30-year erosion line and a coastal construction control line (CCCL)
           along the sand beaches in each coastal county in Florida. The lines delineate the portion
           of the beach/dune system most vulnerable to storm surges, storm waves, erosion, or other
           unpredictable weather conditions. No construction is permitted seaward of the 30-year
           erosion line. Between the CCCL and the 30-year erosion line, special siting and design
           considerations are required to ensure that the beach/dune system, proposed and existing
           structures, and adjacent properties are protected.

           The DNR sets the CCCL using field data collected from reference monuments linked to
           the state plane coordinate survey system installed at 1000' intervals upland of Florida's
           ocean-fronting beaches. At each monument, DNR field survey teams measure beach
           profiles, which extend from behind dunes into the surf. Special features such as
           vegetation lines and existing structures are recorded for future comparisons. Offshore
           profiles are surveyed at every third monument. Finally, photomaps generated from aerial
           photography runs provide further confirmation and documentation for each CCCL.


                                             MASSACHUSETTS

           Development Restrictions on Barrier Islands.
           The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) implements
           Executive Order #181, which prohibits state expenditures on undeveloped barrier islands
           and designates barrier islands a state priority for acquisition.

           Mapping and Sea Level Rise.
           The MCZMP funded Shoreline Change Summary Maps to consolidate data from
           NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) Shoreline Change Maps.' Some 230 local
           shoreline change maps are available. Based on the Shoreline Change Summary Maps,
           the MCZMP makes siting or mitigation recommendations during project review and
           development permitting stages.



                  NOS Shoreline Change Maps are generated from surveys of the U.S. coasts
           undertaken by the U.S. Coast Survey beginning in the 1840's. That agency--now known
           as the Office of Charting and Geodetic Services--is part of NOAKs National Ocean
           Service.








            The recent Massachusetts Coastal Submergence study yielded a report titled "Passive
            Retreat of Massachusetts Coastal Upland Due to Relative Sea Level Rise." The report
            consolidated information coastal communities use to estimate the degree to which upland
            areas will be affected under different sea level rise scenarios. Based on the study,
            MCZMP developed policies that require a review of projects proposed in the 100-year
            floodplain to determine the effects of relative sea level rise as well as the project's
            potential to exacerbate those effects.

            Land Acquisition.
            The MCZMP worked closely with FEMA in acquiring coastal storm-damaged property
            after the Blizzard of 1978. The state, FEMA, and the town of Scituate cooperated to
            acquire 13 parcels of storm-damaged property in areas highly vulnerable to storm surge
            and coastal flooding.



                                                    MAINE


            Beach/Dune Management
            In 1980, Maine adopted legislation to manage the state's beach/dune system. Although
            beaches comprise only 60 miles of the state's 2,500-mile coastline, they represent an
            important part of the state's tourist economy. The law requires applicants proposing
            activities in the beach/dune system--defined as "sand deposits within a marine beach
            system above high tide, including beach berms, frontal dune ridges, back dune areas, and
            other sand areas deposited by wave or wind action"--to demonstrate that those activities
            would not:


                   Unreasonably interfere with navigation or recreational uses;

                   Cause excessive soil erosion;

                   Unreasonably harm wildlife or fisheries; or

                   Interfere with natural sand supply and movement.

            In 1987, the state coastal program sponsored a set of amendments to the dune
            regulations to:

                   Prohibit construction in the V-zone or on or seaward of a frontal dune;

            0      Prohibit construction elsewhere in the beach/dune system if, within 100 years, the
                   project may reasonably be expected to be damaged as a result of changes in the
                   shoreline;

                   Prohibit seawalls;


                                                      -13-









                  Require that if the shoreline recedes so that a structure is located in a coas tal
                  wetland for six months or more, the structure must be removed and the site
                  restored to natural conditions;

                  Require that new coastal structures be constructed to withstand winds from a 50-
                  year storm;

                  Require that the first floor of new single-family houses or additions to existing
                  structures built in the FEMA A- and B-zones be at least 1' above the 100-year
                  flood zone and built to withstand winds from a 100-year storm; and

                  Prohibit the construction of buildings covering more than 2,500 square feet in
                  ground area or more than 35' in height in A- or B-zones unless the builder
                  demonstrates that the site will remain stable after allowing for a 3' rise in sea level
                  over 100 years. The first floor of multi-unit structures must be at least 4' above
                  the 100-year flood zone. The Sand Dune Rules assume that smaller structures
                  can and will be moved if necessary.

           The coastal program helped develop a model local floodplain ordinance incorporating
           these amendments, which a number of local governments have adopted. Other Maine
           regulations restrict development in flood risk areas and direct coastal managers to
           consider sea level rise and its implications in making management decisions. A
           governor's directive requires state agencies to align their activities and prepare plans to
           implement this policy.

           The Maine coastal program developed the state Coastal Barriers Resource System, which
           uses the federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 as a model. State expenditures
           for development activities within the coastal barrier resource system are prohibited.


                                                 MARYLAND


           Reducing Development Densities.
           The state's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program will reduce potential damages from
           natural hazards by reducing development density along the coast. Resource Conservation
           Areas designated under the program may be developed at no greater density than 1 unit
           per 20 acres. Developments must include a 100-foot natural buffer adjacent to tidal
           waters and wetlands to help mitigate the effects of tidal flooding and sea level rise.

           Historic Shoreline&
           The Maryland coastal program has begun a major effort to update and computerize
           mapped information on historic shorelines and annual erosion rates. The program will
           use a Map and Image Processing System (MIPS) to computerize information from


                                                      -14-








           orthophoto quads and NOS Shoreline Change Maps to produce digitized maps s        howing
           historic shorelines and erosion rates from the 1840's to the 1980's. The information and
           MIPS software will be used by various DNR divisions to implement more effectively the
           Tidal Wetlands Permit/License Program, Non-Structural Shore Erosion Control Program,
           and the Waterways Improvement Program.
           Evaluating Erosion.                     MICHIGAN
           The Michigan coastal program is funding a three-year project with the University of
           Michigan on coastal monitoring and shoreline evolution to better understand the causes
           and effects of coastal processes, including erosion.

           Mapping and Geographical Information Systems.
           Michigan Coastal Management staff has been instrumental in developing the Great
           Lakes Information System (GLIS), the only centralized integrated information system for
           Great Lakes data storage, retrieval, and computer modeling in the region. The GLIS is
           pari of a broader geographic information system, the Michigan Resource Inventory
           System (MIRIS), which contains almost all land use/land cover data for the Michigan
           Great Lakes shoreline. Used together, GLIS and MIRIS databases can provide detailed
           maps at any scale that display a wide variety of information useful to resource managers,
           community planners, and others. These maps, for example, provide finer imaging than
           the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), allowing a
           more accurate interpretation of the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the system
           generates map overlays showing high risk erosion areas, wetland areas, and other areas
           of special interest to provide local decisionmakers with a more thorough understanding of
           the environmental hazards and conditions of a given region.

           In addition, Coastal Management staff has completed a Wgh-risk erosion area
           photogrammetric analysis of the majority of Michigan's 3,200 miles of Great Lakes
           shoreline. Current efforts are directed toward updating these recession rate studies;
           expanding the database by a minimum of 10 years to include the impacts of changing
           water levels, storms, mass wasting, installation or deterioration of shore protection
           structures, and other processes that affect shorelines. This research is the basis for
           Michigan's high-risk erosion area construction setbacks.

           Land Acquisition.
           Nearly $2 million recently has been made available for acquisition of high-quality coastal
           sand dune or wetland habitats. In addition, tax-reverted properties in hazardous areas
           are often retained in state ownership to prevent development.





                                                       .15-









            Restricting Development.
            The Michigan Coastal Management Program administers the Shorelands Protection and
            Management Act of 1970, which directs the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
            identify coastal hazard areas and implement regulations to minimize risk to development
            in those areas. The Coastal Program identifies and designates the following hazard
            areas: High-Risk Erosion Areas, Environmental Areas, and Flood Risk Areas.

                   In High-Risk Erosion areas, new construction, including additions and substantial
                   improvements to existing structures, must meet requirements for setbacks from the
                   bluff line, which are based on local shoreline erosion rates.

                   In Environmental Areas, the DNR regulates all dredging, filling, grading, or other
                   alteration of the soil, natural drainage, or vegetation, or placement of permanent
                   structures, reviewing permits for such activities for consistency with hazards
                   mitigation goals.

                   Construction in the floodplains of Flood Risk Area communities must meet state
                   elevation standards to mitigate for 100-year floods.

            The DNR has permitting authority under these programs; localities may opt to assume
            permitting authority following adoption of a DNR-approved zoning ordinance. An
            approved ordinance may be revoked and state permitting authority reinstated in the
            event of local noncompliance.

            In July 1989, the State Legislature passed amendments to    'the Sand Dunes Protection and
            Management Act. Key provisions of the Act include the designation of 70,000 acres of
            Critical Dune Areas, the establishment of a model zoning plan for sand dunes protection,
            and an option for local governments to administer the act if the implementing local
            ordinance is approved by the Department of Natural Resources and provides protection
            equal to or greater than the Act's model sand dunes zoning plan. The amendments
            prohibit certain uses in Critical Dune Areas unless the a&-ainistering authority grants a
            variance. Examples of proscribed activities include:
                   structures on a slope of 18%-25% unless plans are prepared by a registered
                   professional architect or engineer;

                   all uses on slopes greater than 25%;
                   silvicultural practices, vegetative removal and uses involving contour changes likely
                   to increase erosion or decrease stability; and

                   uses not in the public interest.




                                                         -16-









            Placement of shore protection structures on Great Lakes bottomland is regulated under
            the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act of 1955. DNR staff review permit applications
            under guidelines developed to minimize the negative effects of such structures on
            adjacent shoreline property owners and the state's natural resources.


                                                 MISSISSIPPI


            Beach Management.
            Using federal CZM funds, the state developed a Sand Beach Master Plan to manage
            publicly owned man-made beaches for recreation, habitat, and hazard mitigation. As
            part of that management plan, the state recently launched a dune construction project in
            an effort to further restore beach values.



                                             NEW HAMPSHIRE


            Shoreline Change.
            The New Hampshire Coastal Program sponsors periodic updates of "Assessment, Impact
            and Control of Shoreline Change Along New Hampshire's Tidal Shoreline," a survey
            identifying eroding or accreting shorelines.

            In addition, the program funds bathymetric mapping projects for Great Bay and Little
            Bay. Mapping the estuarine system enables staff to track sediment movements, and
            provides a baseline for sea level change measurements.


                                                NEW JERSEY


            Erosion and Wet Mapping.
            The New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP) generated computer-based
            shoreline maps which depict historical positions of mean high water for the state's
            coastline based on NOS Shoreline Change Maps. The NJCMP uses these maps to
            establish the 30-year setback line required for hazardous and high erosion areas and in
            permit reviews.
            Efforts are underway to transfer the cartographic data to a Geographic Information
            System (GIS) to combine erosion maps, political boundaries, reference points, and
            roadways. The NJCMP plans to make the GIS information available to coastal counties
            in a format readily useable by local planners.
            The coastal program also funded the Inlet Data Program, which collected historical data
            to help evaluate dredge and beach renourishment projects.



                                                       -17-









            Restricting Development in Hazardous Areas.
            The New Jersey coastal program has proposed       revisions to several coastal erosion and
            flooding management policies. Currently, the NJCMP is reviewing public comment on
            the proposed changes, as outlined below. The coastal program expects to adopt the
            revisions by the end of 1990. The Erosion Hazard Areas policy prohibits all development
            between the mean high water line and the 30-year erosion line, and allows only one- to
            four-unit dwellings between the 30-year and 60-year erosion lines. Exceptions are made
            for existing commercial beach and tourism-related facilities or if an area is already zoned
            for such uses, and for single-family and duplex infill development. The revisions also
            place further limits on extending or fortifying existing seawalls and bulkheads.

            The revised policies will be consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program's newly
            adopted Guidelines for Erosion Hazard Areas and will allow New Jersey residents to
            participate in the Upton-Jones' program. The Coastal High Hazard Areas policy
            prohibits residential development, including hotels and motels, within FEMA V-zones,
            although the beach-related commercial and infill development noted above is excluded.

            The Flood Hazard Areas Policy limits development in FEMA and state -designated
            floodplains., In undelineated areas, the state will determine the 100-year floodplain case-
            by-case. What development is allowed must comply with applicable federal and state
            construction standards for flood risk areas.



                                                    NEW YORK


            Defining High Hazard Areas.
            The New York Coastal Management Program (NYCMP) provides funding to the
            Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to implement the Coastal Erosion
            Hazard Areas Act (CEHA) within the state's coastal erosion hazard areas. CEHA's
            thrust is twofold:

                   In areas defined as structural hazard areas, a 30-year setback is required for all
                   major buildings. Although the NYDEC generally discourages the use of "hard"
                   erosion control structures, it has established criteria for the construction of erosion
                   control structures, which, where properly designed and constructed, would be



                  The Upton-Jones Amendment to the National Flood Insurance Act provides funds
            for the relocation or demolition of structures in imminent danger of collapse from
            erosion or subsidence. Under Upton-Jones, property owners may receive 40% of the
            value of their structure to relocate it to a more stable site, or 100% of the structure's
            value (exclusive of site value) plus 10% for demolition if more stable sites are
            unavailable.








                   likely to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to property, natural protective
                   features, and other natural resources. The protective measures must have a
                   reasonable probability of controlling erosion on the immediate site for at least 30
                   years; each structural permit application must be accompanied by a long-term
                   maintenance program to ensure this goal will be met.

                   In areas with natural protective features, such as dunes, bluffs, and beaches,
                   development activities must not harm these features.

            NYDEC has issued maps defining these areas along the New York coast. A number of
            communities already have exercised the option to implement the program at the local
            level through the adoption of a local ordinance. Otherwise, DEC will administer the
            program.

            Because of long-term natural processes and extensive seawall, jetty and groin
            construction along Long Island's South Shore, erosion and flooding threaten natural
            resources, infrastructure, and existing development. Rather than continue to approach
            these problems on a short-term crisis basis, NYCMP recognized the need for
            comprehensive and coordinated land use management and erosion control and
            commissioned a study to devise a management strategy. The results of this study are
            incorporated into a Hazards Management Program for the South Shore, developed in
            cooperation with the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The Hazards Management
            Program provides general recommendations for the region, and specific
            recommendations for local shoreline segments when appropriate.

            For erosion control, the Hazards Management Program makes the preliminary
            recommendation that a state wide sand-bypassing implementation plan be developed to
            address conditions in the 5 inlets along the South Shore, and for long jetties. The
            program also recommends that all new inlets be allowed to close naturally, or by
            intervention after a reasonable period of time. For flood control, the program
            recommends the creation of a primary dune system, shoreline maintenance, and the
            preservation of the continuity of the barrier island systern.

            The NYCMP also participated with the New England/New York Coastal Zone Task
            Force in a study entitled "Developing Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Coastal
            Floodplain Management." The Task Force's efforts helped develop policies for coastal
            hazard areas by evaluating the costs and revenues to government entities from coastal
            development; considering the costs and revenues associated with various responses to the
            continuing problem of erosion.and storm damages in these area; and projecting these
            costs and revenues under various scenarios of future sea level rise.







                                                        _19-










                                              NORTH CAROLINA

            A Soft Stand on Erosion Control.
            As long-term barrier island migration and short-term storm   'erosion shaped North
            Carolina's coast, shorefront property owners sought to protect their property and
            structures with bulkheads, riprap, groins, and jetties. In the early 1970s, North
            Carolinians became concerned that their coast would become long stretches of hardened
            shoreline with narrow or non-existent beaches. To prevent such a scenario, North
            Carolina became one of the first states to take a "soft," or non-structural, stand on
            coastal hazard mitigation.

            In 1979 the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) adopted rules
            establishing an ocean hazard setback area based upon the average long-term annual
            erosion rate. In 1983, the CRC revised these rules to require a greater setback for multi-
            unit structures. The CRC also found that risks near inlet areas were greater than in
            beach areas and strengthened inlet hazard area development regulations.

            The CRC's amendments to the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
            regulations are designed to minimize the loss of life and property, prevent structures
            from being built on public beaches and other encroachments, and reduce public costs due
            to improperly designed development. The amendments. designate three types of coastal
            hazard Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC):

                   Ocean Erodible. Ocean erodible AECs extend from mean low water landward to
                   a distance 60 times the long-term average annual erosion rate for a particular
                   stretch of shoreline, plus an additional distance where significant erosion can be
                   expected during a major storm. AEC widths vary from 145 feet to over 700 feet;

                   Inlet Hazard. Inlet hazard AECs extend from mean low water landward to where
                   the inlet can be expected to migrate and range in width from 250 feet to 4,000
                   feet; and

                   High Hazard Flood. High hazard flood AECs are defined by FEMA V-zones.

            General CAMA development standards for all coastal hazard AECs include requirements
            that:

                   No development shall significantly alter the sands or vegetation of primary or
                   frontal dunes;

                   At a minimum, development must be 60 feet landward from the first line of stable
                   natural vegetation. Where the erosion rate is greater than two feet per year, the
                   erosion setback line extends landward from the first fine of stable natural



                                                        -20-









            vegetation to 30 times the average annual erosion rate at the site. For structures of
            5,000 square feet or more, or containing more than four dwelling units, the erosion
            setback line is 60 times the average annual erosion rate at the site, not  to exceed 30
            times the average annual erosion rate plus 105 feet.

                   A permit applicant must sign an AEC Hazard Notice acknowledging an awareness
                   of the risks associated with development in coastal hazards AECs and that the
                   state assumes no liability for damage or injury. In signing the notice, the applicant
                   also indicates an understanding that no permanent erosion protection structures
                   may be used to protect the applicants' property or dwelling;

                   Development in coastal hazard AECs also must comply with all local government
                   minimum lot size and setback requirements and land use plans, not unduly
                   interfere with public access, and not cause irreversible damage to historic
                   resources. Mobile homes may not be placed in the coastal hazard AECs unless
                   they are within mobile home parks that existed prior to June 1, 1979;

                   Publicly funded facilities are permitted only if there is an overriding public benefit,
                   and if the infrastructure will not promote additional development in the AEC, will
                   not damage natural buffers, and is designed to withstand erosion and storm
                   damage.

                   All newly constructed structures must comply with the "Windstorm Resistive
                   Construction" standards of the N.C. Residential Building Code. The Code further
                   specifies that structures must be elevated above the 100-year flood level, and that
                   numerous "piling" requirements be met. Private dune walkovers are allowed only if
                   they cause negligible alteration of the dune.

            In addition to the coastal hazard AEC general use standards, development in inlet hazard
            AECs is limited to residential structures of four units or less, and non-residential
            structures of 5,000 square feet or less. All development must be set back from the first
            line of stable vegetation at a distance equal to the adjacent ocean erodible area setback.

            Erosion rate maps, produced by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, show
            the average rate of erosion in a given part of the coast for the past 50 years. The maps
            are updated every five years. The erosion rate and setback derived from this rate are
            used by prospective coastal property buyers to make investment and construction
            decisions.

            In 1985, the CRC amended the CAMA regulations such that no permanent shoreline
            stabilization structures, i.e., bulkheads and groins, are allowed in coastal haza d AF-Cs.
            Limited bulldozing of sand, beach nourishment, and emergency sand bagging is
            permitted. Any erosion control activity must be timed to cause minimal damage to
            wildlife.


                                                          -21-








           As a result of these measures, North Carolina has been able to maintain the natural
           dune and sand transport system and wide beaches, resulting in greater protection for
           structures, businesses, and public infrastructure.

           The Nags Head Storm Nfitigation and Reconstruction Plan.
           The Town of Nags Head has developed an innovative program to deal with hurricane
           preparedness and town reconstruction after a severe storm. The Hurricane and Storm
           Mitigation and Reconstruction Plan (or Plan), which was prepared and adopted by the
           town prior to a severe storm, allows for objective decision-making and lessens post-storm
           social, political and economic pressures. The Plan will ensure the town is rebuilt in a
           planned, safe and economical manner. The Plan also will assure that all rebuilding will
           be in accordance with state and local laws and regulations.

           In the early 1980s, Nags Head officials realized that no preparations were made to
           manage reconstruction after severe storms, the unique physical, historical and cultural
           features of the town could be permanently altered. In 1984, Nags Head received $10,000
           in Federal CZMA funds from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management to
           address a new North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NCCMP) requirement on
           planning for storm hazard mitigation and reconstruction. The town found that 62% of its
           assessed property value was within the 100-year flood zone. As a result, policies were
           adopted in its 1985 Land Use Plan Update to help the own reduce new construction in
           the 100-year flood zone and to lessen damage from storms or existing development.

           The primary hazard mitigation goal included in the 1985 Land Use Plan was  ...... to
           reduce, to the extent possible, future damage from hurricanes and severe coastal storms.
           It is the town's intent to reduce these hazards both in advance of such events and to
           require mitigation measures during reconstruction which reduce damages from future
           storms."

           In 1986, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management awarded $12,000 in Federal
           CZMA funds to Nags Head to further develop the goals and policies adopted in the
           town's 1985 Land Use Plan. Following two years of meetings, workshops and widespread
           public involvement, the plan was adopted by the town on October 10, 1988.

           The town's Planning and Development Staff kept the various town boards, elected
           officials, development and realty community, and general public informed every step of
           the way. This greatly reduced opposition to the various mitigation and reconstruction
           proposals.
           The town combined growth management techniques with an understanding of the natural
           coastal processes. The effects of wave and wind action, barrier island migration, dune
           and beach dynamics, and storm processes on coastal development were factored into the
           town's zoning and subdivision ordinances, and policies.



                                                     -22-








            The Nags Head Hurricane and Storm Mitigation and Reconstruction Plan establishes:

                   Various building moratoriums based upon the severity of damage. These range
                   from an initial building moratorium of 48 hours for all construction and permits to
                   30 days for the replacement of destroyed structures. All replacement construction
                   must comply with new ordinances and building codes. Where new inlets have
                   formed, construction will be allowed only when the Board of Commissioners
                   deems it appropriate. Building permits issued by the town prior to the storm are
                   revoked for a minimum of 30 days.

                   A Reconstruction Task Force consisting of 13 local officials and representatives
                   from the construction or realty community who will advise the Board of
                   Commissioners on a wide range of reconstruction issues.

                   Requirements for the issuance of building permits to repair storm-damaged
                   structures. These requirements vary for destroyed structures (repairs of 50% or
                   more of the replacement cost at the time of damage), and structures with major
                   (repairs of 10%-50% of the cost of the structure) or minor (less than 10% of the
                   cost of the structure) damage.

                   Use standards and setback requirements for construction in coastal hazard areas.
                   This provides strict conditions for the replacement of structures on lots existing
                   prior to June 1, 1979, seaward of the applicable setback line in ocean erodible
                   areas. For the most part, the town's setback lines follow the state's; 30 times the
                   annual erosion rate for residential structures, and 60 times the annual erosion rate
                   for structures of 5,000 square feet or more or with four or more dwelling units.

                   Requirements for the recombination of land under certain circumstances to allow
                   buildings to move back from eroding areas.

                   Conditions for declaring damaged structures and structures in public trust areas as
                   public nuisances to facilitate clean-up activities.

                   Policies that give the town time to consider its options for the reconstruction of
                   public roads. These policies also prohibit the use of public funds to repair private
                   roads, except where the town's water system is in need of repair.

                   A program for rapid acquisition of land for open space, parks, recreation areas,
                   and historic or scenic areas.

                   An Assistance Facilitato r-Consultant to advise the town of the types of assistance
                   and post-storm aid available, and to assist in securing such aid.




                                                        -23-








                  A Mutual Building Inspector Assist4nce Program through which the town can
                  arrange ahead of time to have other communities assist Nags Head in the event of
                  a major storm.

           In recognition of the first plan of its kind signed into law in North Carolina, the Town of
           Nags Head received the 1989 Small Community Outstanding Planning Award presented
           by the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association. In April 1990 the
           town received further recognition for its leadership in developing the Plan when it was
           awarded the 1990 National Hurricane Conference's "Legislative Award," normally
           awarded to a state legislator or member of Congress. The Nags Head Hurricane and
           Storm Mitigation and Reconstruction Plan, however, was singled out as the year's most
           significant legislation addressing hurricane and storm hazards. The Conference also
           believes that the plan should be a model for other coastal communities.



                                     NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

           Permitting and Setbacks.
           Coastal Resources Management permits are required for all projects proposed for Areas
           of Particular Concern (APCs) designated by the coastal program, and for major projects
           outside APCs. The Coastal Resources Management Office established setbacks for
           development along the shoreline. Among other restrictions, no structural development is
           allowed within 75 feet of mean high water. The only exceptions to the setback
           requirements are for projects within the Port and Industrial APC-


                                                  OREGON


           Land Use Planning in the Coastal Zone.
           The statewide land use planning program in Oregon requires cities and counties to adopt
           comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances to implement the statewide goals.
           Three of these goals set specific standards for natural hazards.

           Statewide Planning Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, mandates
           that development subject to damage shall not be located in known areas of natural
           disasters and hazards without appropriate safeguards. The goal defines hazardous areas
           as areas subject to natural events such as stream flooding, ocean flooding, erosion and
           deposition, landslides, earthquakes, and other hazards. Local plans are based on an
           inventory of natural disaster and hazards areas. Goal 7 also delineates specific factors to
           consider in locating development in hazardous areas.
           Statewide Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands, requires coastal cities and counties to identify
           coastal shoreland areas, which include those areas adjacent to estuaries, the ocean,



                                                     -24-





             coastal lakes, areas subject to flooding, coastal headlands, land within 1,000 feet,of the
             shoreline, and areas of geologic instability. Local governments must establish
             management policies for these areas according to state standards. Goal 17 states
             explicitly that policies should favor nonstructural over structural solutions to problems of
             coastal erosion and flooding.

             Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes, sets standards for regulating new development in beach
             and dune areas. The goal prohibits building on undeveloped foredunes subject to ocean
             flooding or erosion. Goal 18 includes other standards to protect development from
             flooding and erosion, and to avoid interference with the natural beach/dune system:

                    Findings are required for any new development in beach or dune areas. These
                    findings must assess the effects of the proposed development on the beach and
                    dunes and on surrounding development, and demonstrate how the development
                    will avoid or minimize impacts on the dune and adjacent areas;

                    Breaching of foredunes is prohibited, except for temporary breaching in
                    emergencies, such as to drain floodwater from upland areas;

                    Riprap and other structural means of erosion control are allowed only on
                    shorelines that were developed before January 1, 1977.

             Coastal cities and counties have responded to the goals' mandates with appropriate
             comprehensive plan provisions and by implementing ordinances regulating development
             in hazardous areas. Local governments have used a variety of planning tools, such as
             hazard overlay zoning, beach and dune overlay zoning, site-specific geologic report
             requirements, and density bonus awards to developers who avoid hazardous areas.
             Comprehensive plan elements addressing Goal 18 typically are implemented through
             special zoning districts or overlay zones which require that any proposed development or
             dune alteration be reviewed and approved by the local government. Usually, ordinances
             require minimum setbacks from the beach zone line.

             Local zoning ordinances also incorporate the federal floodplain management
             requirements. Regulations adopted to implement these requirements prohibit
             development in high-velocity flooding areas.

             Finally, state coastal program field representatives provide assistance to local
             governments as local officials develop and adopt comprehensive plan policies and zoning
             ordinances and as they make I   and use decisions.








                                                          -25-










                                             PENNSYLVANIA

           Monitoring Bluff Erosion.
           In 1987, the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (PCZMP) funded "Great
           Lakes Shoreline Existing and Potential Damage Survey, Lake Erie/Pennsylvania Coastal
           Zone." The coastal program also completed a project to remeasure the bluff recession
           monitoring control points on a 1/2 krn grid along the Lake Erie shoreline. Local
           governments with ordinances restricting development in bluff recession hazard areas will
           receive the remeasuring project results.

           Limiting Development Along Bluffs.
           The PCZMP also administers the Bluff Recession and Setback Act of 1980 (BRSA)
           which mandates that coastal communities in recession hazard areas adopt setback
           ordinances for stationary structures. Communities maintain and enforce the setbacks as
           part of the local building permit review process to:

                  regulate new buildings within the bluff recession hazard zones;

                  monitor improvements to existing buildings in such hazard zones to ensure that no
                  improvement exceeds 50% of the structure's market value for a five consecutive
                  year period; and

                  maintain variance procedures enabling property owners to build or add to
                  structures provided they meet the Act's requirements.

           The PCZMP program has increased its monitoring of local BRSA implementation by
           stepping up surveillance. Each year, in conjunction with annual overflights, coastal
           program and other agency staff tour each municipality's bluff recession hazard areas to
           detect new construction and substantial improvements.
           The coastal program also has received FEMA approval t6 certify structures in danger of
           imminent collapse because of erosion caused by high lake levels for Upton-Jones
           purposes.


                                              RHODE ISLAND


           Erosion Mapping.
           The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) has mapped all critical erosion
           areas and calculated average annual erosion rates for these areas. 'Me state uses the
           information to establish building setback lines in highly eroding areas.





                                                     -26-








             The CRMC also has prepared maps to describe various sea level rise scenarios for the
             southwestern Atlantic beaches. Included in the project was an analysis of the economic
             effects of sea level rise.

             Controlling Development on Barrier Islands.
             The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) formulated a set of general
             coastal hazardmitigation policies as well as comprehensive controls on construction and
             development on the state's barrier islands. General policies include:

                    A minimum 50 foot building setback along the shoreline. In state -designated
                    11critical erosion areas," the setback is a minimum of 30 times the annual erosion
                    rate for housing with 4 or fewer units, and 60 times the annual erosion rate for
                    structures containing 4 or more units.

                    Repair or reconstruction of all structures destroyed 50% or more by natural
                    processes such as wind, storm surge, and erosion requires that a new CRMC
                    Assent Order be issued. In a number of cases, the CRMC has required that the
                    remains of the structure be removed completely.

                    In 'Type I" conservation areas and waters--the majority of the state's waters--any
                    type of erosion control device is prohibited.

             To regulate construction and development on Rhode Island's barrier beaches, the CRMC
             forbids construction on frontal dunes; and requires that all development be set back at
             least 75' landward of the primary dune, except in developed areas. The CRMC has
             characterized the state's barrier islands and divided theminto three categories:

                    Developed Barrier Beaches. Rhode Island faces little high-density development;
                    developed areas generally are characterized by single-family detached dwellings.
                    Property owners on developed barrier beaches may not build seaward of a line
                    drawn across the face of existing buildings, or closler than 75 feet landward of the
                    primary dune crest.

                    Moderately Developed Barrier Beaches. There is some infrastructure on these
                    islands, but little other development. No new development is permitted, other than
                    public recreational facilities such as changing and shower rooms. Existing private
                    recreational structures may be repaired, but not expanded.

             0      Undeveloped Barrier Beaches. No new construction may take place on these
                    barrier beaches.

             In addition, no public funds may be expended for infrastructure on barrier islands in
             Rhode Island, whether or not they are developed. Some 82% of Rhode Island's barrier



                                                          -27-








            islands are either moderately developed or undeveloped.

            The CRMC has adopted a post-hurricane and storm policy which authorizes a
            moratorium of up to 30 days on reconstruction of structures in V- or A-zones at least
            50% destroyed by storm, flood, wave, and wind damage. During the moratorium, the
            state may consider purchasing damaged properties or pursue other mitigation responses.


                                              SOUTH CAROLINA


            Regulating Beachfiront Development.
            The 1977 law establishing the South Carolina Coastal Management Program (SCCMP)
            provided the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) with permitting jurisdiction in the
            f1critical area"--coastal waters, tidelands, and beaches and primary dunes. The SCCMP
            definition of beaches and primary dunes limited the SCCC's permitting authority to the
            landward trough of the primary dune if the crest of the dune was located within 200' of
            mean high water. This and other statutory limitations on its beach and dune critical area
            jurisdiction prevented the SCCC from effectively managing South Carolina's beaches in
            that construction just outside the critical area often interfered with the natural movement
            of the beach/dune system.

            Recognizing this jurisdictional problem, and the threat to the long-term health of its
            beaches construction encroaching on the beach/dune system posed, South Carolina in
            1986 appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee on Beachfront Management. The Committee
            was charged to investigate the problems of beach erosion along the coast and to
            determine how the state could best manage the beach/dune system for the public good.

            The Blue Ribbon Committee on Beachfiront Management.
            The Committee's efforts were lent new urgency when in December 1986 and January
            1987, two severe winter storms caused considerable beach erosion and property damage.
            The Council received numerous permit applications to rebuild houses, pools, seawalls,
            and revetments. Although the Council made every effort to require applicants to
            relocate the new structure as far landward as possible, its limited jurisdiction meant that
            many of these structures were rebuilt where they would likely be damaged again and
            would continue to contribute to the destruction of dunes and beaches by interfering with
            natural sand movements.


            In its 1987 report, the Blue Ribbon Committee found that the coastline is a vital
            component of the state's economy, that many miles of South Carolina beaches are
            eroding and that this erosion threatens the beach/dune system. In the absence of a
            health beach/dune system, the Committee reported, life, property, the tourism industry,
            vital state and local revenue, and marine habitat were at risk from continued erosion and
            exposure to storm hazards. The Committee also found that the primary causes of this
            erosion were: a persistent rise in sea level, poorly planned development which


                                                        -28-








           encroached on the beach/dune system, and a lack of comprehensive beach management
           planning. The Committee recommended prompt legislative action by the General
           Assembly to include an expansion of the SCCC's jurisdiction, a policy of a retreat from
           the beach over a number of years, the establishment of setback lines based on local
           annual erosion rates, size and other restrictions on structures built seaward of these
           setbacks, and the development of local and state comprehensive beach management
           plans.

           The Beachfront Management Act of 1988.
           In 1988, the South Carolina General Assembly passed the Beachfront Management Act,
           which declared that the policy of South Carolina is to:

                 "Protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the beach/dune system, the highest and
                 best uses of which are declared to provide: a barrier and buffer from high tides,
                 storm surge, hurricanes and normal erosion; a public area which serves as a major
                 source of state and local revenue; habitat for indigenous flora and fauna; [and] a
                 place which harbors natural beauty;"

                 Develop long range comprehensive beach management plan, which must include. a
                 gradual retreat from the beach/dune system over 40 years;

                 "Severely restrict the use of hard erosion control devices to armor the beach/dune
                 system and to encourage the replacement of hard erosion control devices with soft
                 technologies;"

                 Encourage the use of erosion control techniques which do not adversely affect the
                 beach/dune system;

                 Promote carefully planned beach renourishment projects where economically
                 feasible; and

                 Develop guidelines for the emergency management of the beach/dune system
                 following significant storm events.

           To accomplish these objectives, the BMA required the SCCC to determine local erosion
           rates for all portions of the coast, except areas already protected from development, and
           to establish development setback derived from expected beach erosion over 40 years. To
           help preserve the beach and ensure the Act's 40-year retreat goal was realized, all new
           erosion control structures were. prohibited and such structures damaged more than 50%
           required to be removed. The Act also expanded the beach/dune critical area to include
           the area between mean high water and the setback line, required the SCCC to develop a
           comprehensive permitting scheme for the newly expanded beach/dune critical area,
           directed the SCCC to develop a statewide beach management plan, provided for local
           governments to develop beach management plans consistent with the state management


                                                 -29-







            plan, and required the disclosure of specific hazards conditions during property transfers.

            Baselines and Setbacks.
            To determine the setback line, the SCCC established monumented and controlled survey
            points along the coast to help develop the topographic and beach profile information
            necessarv to establish baselines and setbacks. From these monuments, the Council set a
            "baselin@" at the crest of an ideal primary oceanfront dune for each standard erosion
            zone. A standard erosion zone is a section of shoreline subject to similar coastal
            processes, having a fairly constant range of beach profiles, and not directly influenced by
            tidal inlets or associated inlet shoals. In areas where the shoreline has been altered by
            the construction of erosion control devices, groins, or any other man made alteration, the
            baseline is set where the crest of the primary dune would have been had the shoreline
            not been altered. Baselines within unstabilized inlet erosion zones are set at the most
            landward point of erosion at any time in the past 40 years, unless scientific and/or
            technical information indicate the shoreline is unlikely to return to their former position.
            For stabilized inlets, the baseline is set in the same manner as for standard erosion zones.

            The BMA also required the SCCC to establish a 20' buffer, or "dead zone" delineated by
            thi@@ "minimum setback line" immediately landward of the baseline. The SCCC then
            established a "setback line" for all locations at a distance from the baseline 40 times the
            local annual erosion rate. However, the setback is a minimum of 20'. The BMA
            provides for periodic line reviews and an appeals process for property owners who
            believe lines have been set improperly.

            Limits on Construction.
            The BMA prohibited construction seaward of the baseline and within the dead zone.
            Seaward of the setback, habitable structures were to be located as far landward on the
            lot as practicable and limited in size to 5000 square feet, inclusive of porches, decks, and
            garages. No part of habitable structures were to be constructed seaward of the landward
            edge of the dead zone.
            The BMA also provided that all vertical erosion control devices seaward of the setback
            line be removed entirely or be replaced by sloped erosion control structures within 30
            years, and forbade the construction of new erosion control devices anywhere seaward of
            the setback line.

            Damage to Existing Structures.
            To implement the 40-year retreat policy, the BNLA required that if a structure located
            between the baseline and the setback line was two-thirds destroyed (or "destroyed beyond
            repair"), that structure must be-torn down and if rebuilt, be constructed as far landward
            on the lot as practicable. In cases where the structure was located seaward of the
            minimum setback line, and the lot was not large enough to allow reconstruction landward
            of the dead zone, the structure could not be rebuilt.



                                                       -30-









            Vertical erosion control devices more than 50% destroyed were required to be removed.
            If replaced with a sloping erosion control structure, the BMA required that it be moved
            as far landward as possible.

            Implementation and Hurricane Hugo.
            In some areas, particularly where the beach/dune system had been altered with erosion
            control structures, the methodology used to establish baselines meant the baseline could
            be located well landward of the existing primary dune, leaving a number of lots
            unbuildable, and would have prevented rebuilding of about 1,200 structures had they
            been destroyed beyond repair. Several property owners unable to build on their
            oceanfront lots because of the construction restrictions filed suits arguing that the
            restrictions constituted an unlawful takings of private property by the state. SCCC
            currently faces some 60 takings suits.

            Other controversies arose from the methodologies used to establish baselines--although
            the SCCC made every effort to use the best technical and scientific data on shoreline
            change over the past 40 years available, line setting techniques could not precisely predict
            future shoreline movement--and provisions in the BMA that prohibited the seaward
            movement of the baselines even where renourishment projects were in place.

            Just a year after the SCCC began to implement the BMA, Hugo struck the South
            Carolina coast. Fortunately, the SCCC had already set most of the baselines and
            setbacks lines on an interim basis; contingency contracts with engineering firms helped
            the SCCC to survey damaged property to determine which structures were destroyed
            beyond repair in a timely fashion. Although in the storm's aftermath only about 125
            structures in the dead zone were found to be "destroyed beyond repair" and so could not
            be rebuilt in their original foot print, the storm consolidated opinion in South Carolina
            that amendments to the BMA were necessary.

            1990 Beachfront Management Act Amendments.
            After intense debate over the future of beach management in South Carolina--one set of
            amendments would have deleted all reference to a retreat policy and removed the
            BNLA's strictures on erosion control devices--the General Assembly passed amendments
            to the BMA in June 1990. The most significant changes include:

                   Elimination of the Dead Zone. The General Assembly eliminated the dead zone
                   immediately landward of the baseline, thus allowing limited construction on many
                   lots that were unbuildable under the 1988 law.

            0      Erosion Control Devices. The prohibitions against erosion control structures were
                   strengthened by prohibiting the construction of all erosion control devices, not just
                   vertical structures, and by clarifying definitions of seawall and bulkhead damage.
                   However, the requirement that all vertical devices be removed within 30 years was
                   dropped, and a gradual approach to removing erosion control devices destroyed


                                                       -31-








                   beyond repair adopted. Until 1995, seawalls more than 80% destroyed above
                   grade must be removed and may not be rebuilt. From 1995 to 2005, seawalls
                   more than two-thirds destroyed above grade must be removed, and after 2005,
                   seawalls more than 50% destroyed above grade must be removed.

            0      Special Permits. In an effort to avoid future takings cases, the General Assembly
                   provided the SCCC with the discretion to issue a special permit when the location
                   of the baseline and its restriction on development seaward of the line would
                   render a lot unbuildable. The owners of structures allowed under such a special
                   exemption, however, must remove the structure if it becomes situated on the
                   active beach through erosion processes; the SCCC may impose other restrictions
                   consistent with the goals of the BMA. In no case, however, may a structure be
                   built on the active beach or primary dune, nor may erosion control structures be
                   built or rebuilt under special exemption permits. The SCCC currently is drafting
                   regulations that would allow only for a very narrow application of special permit
                   authority.

                   Non-Habitable Structures Seaward of the Baseline. Walkways, small decks (less
                   than 144 square feet), public fishing piers, dune walkovers, and the like now may
                   be constructed seaward of the baseline subject to SCCC permit review and
                   approval.


                                                   WISCONSIN


            Lakefront Setback.
            The Wisconsin Sborelands and Wetlands Act requires a minimum 75-foot setback from
            shorelines and wetlands. At least one-half of the affected counties, however, have
            implemented 100-foot setbacks to guard against periodic high lake levels.

















                                                        -32-












                                                CHAPTER IV
                RESEARCH, PLANNING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND EDUCATION

           Introduction.
           Although managing development along shorelines is the most effective way to reduce
           exposure to coastal hazards in the long term, it is equally important to educate the
           public, conduct basic research about geologic processes, buildings' resistance to severe
           storms and other factors of importance in the land-sea boundary, and to provide
           technical assistance to property owners and other agencies.

           Han ds Nfitigation Technical Assistance.
           Many states have programs to provide technical assistance to local governments and
           property owners on geologic processes, beach profiling, renourishment, local beach
           management planning, and other mitigation measures. These run the gamut from
           providing the technical expertise necessary to evaluate a renourishment project to
           assisting with dune construction efforts to providing advice to property owners who wish
           to plant native dune stabilizing grasses.

           Public Information and Education.
           Educating the public about coastal hazards and mitigation, from explaining hurricane
           evacuation plans to pointing out the dangers of unwise development on barrier islands, is
           an important part of long-term efforts to reduce risks from hazards. Making the public
           aware of the risks of building too close to the water's edge or on unstable beaches
           underpins efforts to manage development in those areas.: Outreach programs range from
           elementary school curricula to hazard mitigation seminars for private landowners.

           Planning and Research.
           Using federal coastal zone management funds, states conduct a variety of research and
           planning activities. Most states have taken the obvious qep of developing evacuation and
           emergency response plans. But a great deal of work remains to more fully understand
           erosion rates, the potential effects of sea and lake level rise, the efficacy of hazard
           mitigation-based building codes, land use planning, early warning systems, better hazards
           prediction models, and the like.

           Ile State Response.
           State activities in planning, research, education and technical assistance follow.










                                                      -33-











                                              AMERICAN SAMOA

            Landslide Ntitigation Planning.
            The American Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) is developing the
            Landslide Mitigation Feasibility Plan. The ASCMP has contracted with the US
            Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to conduct preliminary field
            research for a study of rock and soil types, slope zones, vegetative cover, and other
            factors related to landslides. SCS will also produce maps and supporting data to
            determine additional study requirements for effective landslide mitigation efforts. Upon
            completion, the report will provide a basis for a review of mitigation options and special
            construction standards for high hazard zones.

            Coastal Zone Documentary.
            The ASCMP funded a one-hour documentary on Coastal Zone Management in
            American Samoa. The discussion of coastal hazards in this film has heightened public
            awareness. Local television has broadcast the program; it is also used frequently in
            outreach efforts and interagency workshops. In order to reach the entire
            population, the film is available in both English and Samoan.


                                                  CALIFORNIA


            Technical PubUcations.
            The California Coastal Commission prepares Local Assistance Notes, a newsletter to
            provide technical information to local governments. Some of the topics the Notes have     ts
            addressed include the effects of accelerated sea level rise on the California coast; impac
            of induced seismicity and subsidence within the California coastal zone; and assistance for
            review of seawall permits. The Commission circulates N= to interested parties
            nationwide.


            Coastal Erosion Conference.
            In 1985, the Commission sponsored a conference on coastal erosion and published the
            proceedings in a report entitled "California's Battered Coast." In 1990, the Commission
            will sponsor a workshop on the Malibu Coast Fault.


                                                 CONNECTICUT


            Erosion and Flood Planning.
            The Connecticut coastal progra m, administered by the Department of Environmental
            Protection (DEP), provides technical assistance to individuals and municipalities on
            coastal flooding and erosion and undertakes ongoing flood and erosion hazard planning.



                                                        -34-








                  Through the Coastal Site Plan Review process, coastal program staff routinely
                  work with coastal municipalities to assess coastal hazards mitigation planning when
                  reviewing development permit applications.

                  The DEP provides technical assistance to municipalities, private property owners
                  and water dependent businesses, such as marinas, to address coastal hazard
                  problems.

            The Connecticut program also provides extensive technical assistance and/or takes lead
            responsibility, where appropriate, for several state-sponsored coastal hazard-related-
            studies and projects such as beach erosion control measures at Compo Cove in Westport
            and at Hammonasset State Park.



                                                DELAWARE


            Beaches 2000.
            The DCMP, with assistance from University of Delaware scientists, government officials,
            and interested citizens, prepared "Beaches 2000" and submitted the report to the
            governor in 1988. "Beaches 2000" assesses management alternatives to address shoreline
            erosion along Delaware's Atlantic coast over the next decade. The report concluded that
            a policy of retreat from the coast was the only viable long-term option, but also proposed
            a short-term action plan, since implemented, to renourish beaches where economically
            justified. Significantly, "Beaches 2000" makes clear renourishment is only a temporary
            solution to erosion and recommends that communities' share of the cost of
            renourishment projects vary depending on the degree to which the public, not just
            beachfront property owners, benefits.

            Public Education: The Hugo Experience.
            DCMP produced a slide show illustrating Hurricane Hugp's effects on a variety of
            structural and non-structural erosion control measures and showing the effects such a
            storm might have on the Delaware coast.


                                                  FLORIDA


            Coastal High Hazard Areas Research.
            Coastal management program grants have been used by the Department of Natural
            Resources to research shoreline change, storm surge, wave impacts, dune/bluff erosion
            predictions, and ways to avoid or minimize public and private losses on barrier islands
            and high erosion shorelines. This research provided support for 1985 legislation which
            prohibits construction of a major development seaward of the 30-year erosion zone and
            prohibits subsidies for public infrastructure in locally designated coastal high-hazard
            areas. It has also been used to set state coastal construction standards and regulations.


                                                      -35-








           Coastal Storm Structural Damage Assessment and Appraisal.
           The Department of Natural Resources used a coastal program grant to review agency
           structural damage assessment and appraisal procedures following hurricanes. Based on
           study findings, the Department revised its format to simplify property damage
           assessments and developed an emergency permitting plan.

           Sea Level Rise.
           The Florida Coastal Citizen's Advisory Committee has developed different sea level rise
           scenarios and begun planning for their effects. Recently, the Committee distributed a
           public information flyer explaining the concept of sea level rise throughout the state.
           The committee has sent out a survey of local cities, counties, and regional planning
           entities; responses will be discussed at an upcoming coastal conference sponsored by the
           Florida Coastal Program in September 1990.

           Hurricane Evacuation Planning.
           The potential for loss of life and life from natural hazards such as hurricanes, flooding,
           and erosion is enormous along Florida's heavily developed coastal shoreline. The Florida
           coastal management program has funded hurricane evacuation plans on a regional basis.
           Projects in South Florida, Tampa Bay, and other regions have helped the state prepare
           for major storms and develop techniques to minimize losses. The funds have been used
           to develop baseline hurricane impact plans and evacuation plan revisions based on
           hurricane evacuation exercises and population changes.

           The success of this planning effort was evident in the 1985 hurricane season. During
           Hurricanes Kate and Elena, emergency officials evacuated Pinellas County and the
           Panama City area quickly and safely. Well-marked evacuation routes, effective
           communication systems, easily available shelters, and a defined chain of command all
           prevented serious injuries and loss of life during these storms.

           Hurricane Risk and Loss Studies.
           The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council used coastal management program funds to
           evaluate the economic risk to the region posed by hurricanes. The study projects that
           the structural loss from a "worst case" major storm will amount to over $9.6 billion. This
           information is critical for public officials concerned with disaster relief funding.

           Regional planning councils in Florida received coastal grants to conduct hurricane loss
           studies which identified property loss estimates based on selected hurricane scenarios.
           Research included property vulnerability analyses; evaluations of projected structural
           loss; service and social disruption; and employment loss.
           The hurricane risk studies have helped the state and coastal communities understand the
           potential public costs, both fiscal and social, that could result from a major hurricane
           along Florida's heavily populated coastal counties. As a result of the study findings, state


                                                      -36-









            and coastal governments are examining ways to minimize further public investment risk
            through sound development and redevelopment policies.


                                                    HAWAII


            Oahu Erosion Studies.
            In June 1989, the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program completed the "Hawaii
            Shoreline Erosion Management Study." The study provided a comprehensive review of
            erosion management in Hawaii, a critical step toward developing consistent regulations
            governing the use of structural and non-structural measures to control erosion. It offered
            numerous recommendations to improve shoreline management, including a
            recommendation that the state coastal program play a preliminary role in developing a
            method to identify critical erosion-prone areas throughout the islands. The study further
            recommended that the Hawaii coastal program take the lead in working with county
            governments to develop local long-term erosion management plans for erosion-prone
            areas. Finally, it discussed the potential effects of a beachfront regulatory regime on
            selected beaches on Kauai and Oahu.

            The coastal program also funded the "Oahu Shoreline Setback Study" to update erosion
            trends for Oahu beaches and to refine the methodology for establishing building setbacks
            for various beach types. Current and historic shoreline positions were plotted from aerial
            photographs. In addition, revised setbacks were proposed for the study area and a draft
            setback ordinance prepared.


                                               MASSACHUSET17S


            Portrait of the Coast.
            The MCZMP funded a half-hour film, now also available on video cassette, entitled
            Portrait of the Coast." The film depicts a coastal high hazard area over the course of a
            y"ear, including the Blizzard of 1978. It is widely distributed in the state.

                                                  MARYLAND


            Non-structural Technical Assistance.
            Through the state's Non-structural Shore Erosion Control Program, the Maryland DNR
            provides 50-50 matching grants. to shorefront property owners and local jurisdictions to
            restore degraded shorelines. Property owners apply to the DNR for restoration grants to
            grade shorelines to original contours and plant marsh grasses and other land-stabilizing
            vegetation. The DNR also provides other non-structural technical assistance.




                                                        -37-











                                                  MICHIGAN

            Assistance for High Lake Levels.
            The Michigan coastal program provides assistance to site inspectors, engineers,
            contractors, and others to manage the effects of high lake levels. The state also conducts
            Community Assistance Visits to help review and monitor local floodplain regulation
            implementation for compliance, and provides technical zoning assistance to local
            communities.


            In 1990, coastal program staff will monitor 12 designated Flood Risk Area communities
            in a new effort to determine compliance with floodplain regulations established in local
            zoning ordinances, building codes, the Shorelands Protection and Management Act, and
            the National Flood Insurance Program. At least one of these communities was non-
            compliant during an initial visit in 1989. A return visit is scheduled to ensure compliance
            with floodplain regulations.

            During the high lake level periods in 1986 and 1987, the Michigan Legislature authorized
            emergency programs to provide grants and subsidies to assist communities and property
            owners with flood and erosion mitigation projects. Coastal Management staff
            administered the program, which provided a 3% interest rate subsidy on loans used to
            relocate or elevate structures threatened by erosion or flood damage. Structural projects,
            such as seawalls and dikes, were eligible for the subsidy only if the dwelling could not be
            moved or elevated. The Emergency Management Division of the Michigan State Police
            administered a community grant program that made funds available to coastal
            communities for up to 85% of the cost of erosion or flooding prevention projects.


                                                 MISSISSIPPI


            Sea Level Rise.
            Since most of the Gulf coast is low-lying, sea level rise is of particular concern to Gulf
            states. The Mississippi coastal program, in cooperation with the Alabama coastal
            program, will host a two-day sea level rise conference in September 1990 focusing on the
            anticipated effects of sea level rise on marine life, estuarine resources, upland
            development, and coastal erosion.
            The coastal program also has embarked on an ambitious demonstration program in
            Jackson County to address coastal hazards. The program is designed to evaluate state
            and local policy and ordinances. relating to coastal hazards, and to inform the public
            about hazards and about state and local requirements for hazards mitigation. As part of
            the education campaign, the state coastal program will:

                   Identify methods to disseminate hazards information;



                                                      -38-








                   Develop an education plan and acquire the necessary education materials;

                   Implement the plan through seminars with realtors, contractors, insurance agents,
                   and bank loan officers.

            Finally, the state will prepare a written report which evaluates the current coastal hazard
            and floodplain management policy and regulatory framework.


                                               NEW HAMPSHIRE


            Preparing for Sea Level Rise in New Hampshire.
            The coastal program in New Hampshire co-sponsored a workshop with NOAA Sea
            Grant on sea level rise in 1987 and published conference proceedings. 'Me program
            commissioned "Rise in Sea Level and Coastal Zone Planning," a study of sea level rise
            and its potential effects on New Hampshire, and distributed the study to all coastal local
            governments.



                                                  NEW JERSEY


            Educating the Public About Shoreline Erosion.
            The New Jersey coastal program funded a video in conjunction with public television's
            New Jersey Network News entitled "Migrating Shores." This 30-minute presentation,
            which aired on New Jersey public television in October 1989, provided viewers with a
            description of coastal erosion processes, and a critical assessment of techniques used to
            try to control erosion.

            Dune Protection.
            As part of its Shore Protection Program, the New Jersey program assists municipalities in
            dune protection efforts. In Atlantic City, DCR funded dune vegetation plantings and
            sand fence installations along a 28-block section of the beach to stabilize and create
            dunes. In exchange, the city adopted a dune protection ordinance. DCR has worked
            with 14 other coastal communities to achieve similar results.

            In 1984, the NJCMP administered $2 million in emergency federal funds to 15 towns for
            beach and dune restoration, walkway construction, research on restoration techniques,
            and land acquisitions. Although it discourages the construction of shore protection
            structures, the NJCMP occasionally provides technical assistance for innovative protection
            structures. Sea Isle City, for example, receives funding from NJCMP to study the efficacy
            of an artificial reef system the town installed to trap sand that would otherwise move
            offshore.

            Finally, whenever the NJCMP undertakes a beach renourishment project, the benefiting


                                                        -39-







            community must, as a condition of receiving the renourishment, comply with a series of
            DCR beach management policies. These include improved public access, dune creation
            and improvement, and dune protection practices such as walkover construction.


                                                  OREGON


            Erosion Risk Assessment.
            In 1989, the Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) funded a preliminary
            assessment of potential coastal erosion in Oregon and the adequacy of state and local
            policies for managing development in erosion-prone areas. As part of this effort, OCMP
            is developing an action plan for the Oregon Task Force on Global Warming, which is
            concerned with, among other issues, the effects of accelerated sea level rise on the coast.
            Bluff StabRization.               PENNSYLVANIA
            Efforts to stabilize receding bluff areas are hampered by heavy groundwater flows at
            midbluff, which undermine the upper portions of the bluff face. The use of traditional
            mitigation techniques has not been successful in addressing this problem.

            The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (PCZMP) is obtaining technical
            training in "Biotechnical Slope Stabilization," a technique for stabilizing bluffs. The goal
            of this technique, which combines vegetative and engineered biodegradable structures, is
            to control midbluff groundwater, recreate natural contours, and reestablish indigenous
            vegetation.



            Technical Assistance.
            The PCZMP provides technical assistance on structural and non-structural methods of
            shore protection and bluff stabilization to lakeshore property owners in the Lake Erie
            coastal zone. In carrying out this responsibility, the PCZM`P has developed the Site
            Analysis and Recommendations (SAR) Service. The SAR Service includes a site visit by
            the PCZMP, usually accompanied by coordinating agencies, and includes
            recommendations as to what measures the owner can implement to reduce the rate of
            bluff recession. The recommendations are given orally at the site. Property owners
            receiving only oral recommendations are contacted shortly after the site survey to confirm
            the recommendations. If the erosion problems are severe, additional recommendations
            in the form of a detailed report are sent to the property owner within 30 days. All site
            visits are videotaped and maintained in the PCZUT files.

            Appro)dmately 300 property owners have received the SAR Service and close to 180
            detailed reports have been written.


                                                     -40-











                                                PUERTO RICO

             Coastal Flood Han d Mitigation.
             According to estimates from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), nearly
             300,000 acres in the Commonwealth are subject to severe flooding. The DNR predicts
             that over one-quarter of the total population of Puerto Rico, as of 1980, lived in areas
             exposed to flooding.

             Flood hazard mitigation, along with aspects of other hazard-related planning, has been an
             important element of the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program (PRCMP) since it
             was approved in 1980. An island-wide hazard mitigation plan was prepared in 1980,
             updated in 1986 and revised in 1987 to include Executive Order 4974-E, which created the
             Flood Hazard Management and Mitigation Program within the DNR, and an Interagency
             Flood Hazard Mitigation Committee chaired by the DNR secretary.

             Working with the Committee, sixteen area-specific coastal flood hazard mitigation plans
             have been prepared under the PRCMP. The planning process identified priority
             watersheds and provided recommendations for population relocation from hazardous
             areas. The highest priority project, relocation within the Rio Grande de Loiza area, is
             now being accomplished under a five-year effort using $51 million appropriated by the
             Legislative Assembly.

             Predicting Riverine Flooding.
             Using both Federal and Commonwealth funds, Puerto Rico has installed a series of
             automatic rain gauge reporting systems in basins facing flood hazards. When completed,
             the system will cover 33 stream basins around Puerto Rico and include 47 rain gauges
             and 24 stream-flow sensors. The rain gauges report by radio directly to a terminal
             through which information is fed into a special computer connected to the DNR, the
             National Weather Service and the Civil Defense Agency. Data from the stream-flow
             sensors are transmitted directly via satellite to the Hydrologic Division of the U.S.
             Geologic Survey (USGS) in Reston, Virginia, then re-transmitted to the USGS in San
             Juan and to the DNR as needed. According to the DNR, this network produces a
             continuous record of rainfall and run-off at various critical points in Puerto Rico.
             Information provided by this network is critical to the safety of Puerto Ricans living in
             areas of high flood potential.

             Predicting Storm Surge.
             The south and east coasts of Puerto Rico are often exposed to hurricane storm surges.
             Certain critical areas on the south coast are exposed to both river and ocean flooding.
             To complete flood management plans for these critical areas, the PRCMP funded a study
             by the Department of Marine Sciences of the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez to
             determine potential storm surges using the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from
             Hurricanes (SLOSH) model of the National Weather Service. Transects indicating
             bathymetry, terrain, ground cover and coastal development were taken to help


                                                       -41-








           supplement SLOSH predictions. With this information, it is possible to determine
           potential inland penetration of the storm surge-plus-wave heights at given points, greatly
           improving the Commonwealth's ability to predict and plan for coastal hazard areas.

           Public Information and Planning.
           For the past several years, the PRCMP has sponsored an annual Hurricane Conference
           oriented toward public officials (Corps of Engineers, Geological Service, Civil Defense,
           Soil Conservation Service, and others), and the general public. The success of these
           conferences over the years was one factor in Puerto Rico's ability to deal quickly with the
           aftermath of Hurricane Hugo which passed over the island in September 1989.
           Sea Level Rise Modeling.           RHODE ISLAND
           The Coastal Resources Management Council has developed a computer program to
           simulate the effects of sea level rise. The program overlays the predicted effects of sea
           level rise on annual erosion rates and FEMA flood zones. Local and state planners use
           the program as an evacuation planning tool; the program also is used to help make the
           public aware of the consequences of sea level rise.


                                            SOUTH CAROLINA


           Beach Management on Public TV.
           In conjunction with South Carolina Educational Television, the South Carolina Coastal
           Council produced "Who Owns the Beach?," a 90-minute film on beach and hazards
           management issues. The program was aired statewide in 1989.


                                               WASHINGTON


           Accretion, Erosion and Sea Lzvel Rise.
           In December 1989, the Washington coastal program held a sea level rise conference in
           Seattle. The conference attracted over 170 local and state planners, scientists,
           consultants, and state and federal agency representatives, who met to discuss the physical,
           ecological and economic effects in the Northwest of a further rise in sea level.
           The coastal program also is funding an update of a 1978 accretion and erosion study to
           identify coastal areas subject to short- and long-term recession or accretion and
           sponsored Pacific County's Dunes Management Advisory Committee, which issued a
           draft management plan in June 1989.




                                                     -42-











                                                WISCONSIN

           Hazards Management in Urban Areas.
           The Wisconsin coastal program funded development of a hazards management strategy
           in the town of La Pointe to identify and evaluate cost-effective alternatives for managing
           hazards risks. The strategy will make available land management information to island
           property owners. The hazards management strategy will result in an erosion hazard
           setback ordinance amendment to the town zoning ordinance, and a revised official zoning
           map that reflects the amendment.

           Coastal Processes Workbook and Video.
           In 1987, the Wisconsin coastal program provided federal CZM funds to the University of
           Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute to publish a coastal processes workbook and video. The
           materials describe techniques for evaluating the effects of lake level changes, storm
           surges, wave run-up, and shoreline recession on Great Lakes coastal property. The
           procedures outlined in the workbook and video are designed to help:

           0      improve information available to lenders and buyers investing in coastal property,
                  and

                  local administrators and members of coastal planning and zoning commissions
                  make better management decisions.




























                                                     .43-







                                                                            Part C



                                                                                               ices








                                                             DEPARTMENT           OF COMM E RCE         WE A T HER BUREAU
                                                                                                                        ART
                                                           RTH     AT L A N T I C  HURRICANE         TRACKING        C H






                                        X.,

                          .... .......
                             ...... .........
                               ...... ............. .....
                                                      L
                                                        S
                                                       -N











                                                    APPENDDC A

                              A Listing of State Coastal Zone Management Program


             Alabama                                           Florida
             Coastal Resources Div.                            Dept. of Environmental Regulation
             Dept. of Economic and Community                   Twin Towers Office Bldg.
             Affairs                                           2600 Blair Stone Road
             P.O. Box 2939                                     Tallahassee, FL 32301
             Montgomery, AL 36105                              (904) 488-6221
             (205) 284-8778
                                                               Guam
             Alaska                                            Bureau of Planning
             Division of Governmental Coordination             P.O. Box 2950
             431 North Franklin                                Agana, GU 96910
             Juneau, AK 99811-0165                             (671) 472-4201
             (907) 465-3562
                                                               Hawaii
             American Samoa                                    Office of State Planning
             Development Planning Office                       State Capitol, Room 700
             Government of American Samoa                      Honolulu, HI 96813
             Pago, AS 96799                                    (808) 548-3026
             (684) 633-5155
                                                               Louisiana
             California                                        Coastal Mgmt. Div.
             California Coastal Commission                     Dept. of Natural Resources
             631 Howard Street, 4th floor                      P.O. Box 44487
             San Francisco, CA 94105                           Baton Rouge, LA 70804
             (415) 543-8555                                    (504) 342-7591

             Connecticut                                       Maine
             Dept. of Environmental Protection                 State Planning Office
             18-20 Trinity Street                              State House Station #38
             Hartford, CT 06106                                Augusta, ME 04333
             (203) 566-7404                                    (207) 289-3261

             Delaware                                          Maryland
             Dept. of Natural Resources                        Coastal Resources Div.
              and Environmental Control                        Dept. of Natural Resources
             89 Kings Highway                                  Tawes State Office Bldg.
             Dover, DE 19903                                   Annapolis, MD 21401
             (302) 736-4403                                    (301) 974-2784


                                                          -44-









            Massachusetts                                     Northern Mariana Islands
            Office of Environmental Affairs                   Coastal Resources Mgmt. Office
            100 Cambridge Street                              Nauru Building
            Boston, MA 02202                                  Saipan, MP 96950
            (617) 727-9530                                    (670) 234-6623

            Michigan                                          Ohio
            Land & Water Mgmt. Div.                           Dept. of Natural Resources
            Dept. of Natural Resources                        Fountain Square
            P.O. Box 30028                                    1930 Belcher Drive
            Lansing, MI 48909                                 Columbus, OH 43224
            (517) 373-1950                                    (614) 265-6877

            Mississippi                                       Oregon
            Coastal Programs                                  Dept. of Land Conservation
            Bureau of Marine Resources                         and Development
            2620 West Beach Blvd.                             1175 Court Street, N.E.
            Biloxi, MS 39531                                  Salem, OR 97310
            (601) 385-5860                                    (503) 378-4017

            New Hampshire                                     Pennsylvania
            Office of State Planning                          Div. of Coastal Zone Mgmt.
            2 1/2 Beacon Street                               Dept. of Env. Resources
            Concord, NH 03301                                 P.O. Box 1467
            (603) 271-2155                                    Harrisburg, PA 17120
            New Jersey                                        (717) 541-7808     -
            Dept. of Environmental                            Puerto Rico
             Protection, CN 401                               Dept. of Natural Resources
            Trenton, NJ 08625                                 P.O. Box 5887
            (609) 292-2795                                    Puerta de Tierra, PR 00906
            New York                                          (809) 724-5516
            Department of State                               Rhode Island
            162 Washington Street                             Coastal Resource Mgmt. Council
            Albany, NY 12231                                  Stedman Office Bldg.
            (518) 474-3643                                    Tower Hill Road
                                                              Wakefield, RI 02879
            North Carolina                                    (401) 277-2476
            Div. of Coastal Mgmt.
            Dept. of Environment, Health, and                 San Francisco Bay Conservation &
            Natural                                           Development Commission
              Resources                                       30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011
            512 N. Salisbury Street                           San Francisco, CA 94102
            Raleigh, NC 27611                                 (415) 557-3686
            (919) 733-2293


                                                        -45-










           South Carolina
           S.C. Coastal Council
           AT&T Capitol Center
           1201 Main Street, Suite 1520
           Columbia, SC 29201
           (803) 737-0880

           U.S. Virgin Islands
           Dept. of Planning and Natural Resources
           Nisky Center, Suite 231
           No.45A Estate Nisky
           St. Thomas, VI 00802
           (809) 774-3320

           Virginia
           VA Council on the Environment
           903 Ninth St. Office Bldg.
           Richmond, VA 23219
           (804) 786-4500

           Washington
           Department of Ecology
           State of Washington (PV-11)
           Olympia, WA 98504
           (206) 459-6777

           Wisconsin
           Coastal Mgmt. Program
           Dept. of Administration
           101 South Webster, 6th floor
           Madison, WI 53707
           (608) 266-3687



















                                                     -46-





        State Setback Requirements







                                                                    M State Setback Requirements
                                                                    M Local Setback Requirements
                                                                    OM No Setback Requirements
          Hawaii, Puerto Rico
           Alaska, Guam,                                            ff@j Non-CZM Participant
           CNMI, American Samoa







                                   V Zone                                                        A Zone
                                                                                                                                            AV@
                            Wave Height Greater Than                                        Wave Height Less Than 3ft.






                           Base Flood Elevation
                           including Wave Effects



                      loo Year Stillwater
                                                                      4-                                      r
                      Mean Sea                                                                                   I I A
      90              Level




                            Shorelin     id                      Wooo    Region Overland Wind Fetch             lings                       Limit of
                                      Dune                                                                                               Tidal Flooding
                                                                                                                                           and Waves


                                                    FEMA V-Zone and A-Zone Criteria


                  9-: MeNft2!@. -1 ft-6- by *6 ftw-b










                                                                APPENDIX D


                                                                       Index




                                         -A-                                   Erosion rates 6, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28,
               A-zones 11, 28                                                           29,33,35,42
               Alabama 8,38, 44                                                E-Zones 5
               Alaska 8, 44
               All-Industry Research Advisory Council
               (AIRAC) 1                                                                                 -F-
               American Samoa 34, 44                                           Federal Emergency Management Agency
               Army Corps of Engineers 4, 7, 42                                (FEMA) 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 26, 42
                                                                               Flood hazard mitigation plans (Puerto Rico) 41
               B-zones 11, 14            -B-                                   Florida 1, 7, 11, 12, 35, 36, 44
               Barrier islands 1, 2, 6,   11, 12, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28,                                    -G-
               33,35                                                           Great Lakes Information System (GLIS) 15
               Beach Management 7,       17, 29, 31, 33, 40, 42                Groins 7, 19, 20, 21, 30
               Beachfront Management Act (South Carolina)
                        28-32                                                                            -H-
               Beach Renourishment 4, 6, 7, 17, 29, 31, 33, 35,                Hawaii 37, 44
                        39,40                                                  Hazards management in urban areas 43
               Beaches 2000 (Delaware) 35                                      High lake levels 26, 32, 38
               Bluffis 1, 6, 9, 16, 19, 26, 35, 40                             Hurricane Hugo 1, 4, 31, 35, 42
               Bluff Stabilization 40                                          Hurricanes 1, 3, 4, 11, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35,
               Bulkheads 1, 7, 18, 20, 21, 32                                  36,41,42



               California 8, 9, 34, 44                                         Jetties 4, 7, 19, 20
               Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program
                        (Maryland) 14                                                                    4,
               Cliff erosion 8, 9                                              Lake Erie 26, 41
               Coastal Barriers Resource System (Maine) 14                     Lake level rise 1, 33
               Coastal Barriers Resources Act 14                               Lakefront building setbacks 32
               Coastal Geologic Evaluations (California) 8                     Land acquisition 11, 13, 15
               Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 1, 3,                        Landslide mitigation 34
                        22                                                     Local hazards planning (Alaska) 8
               Connecticut 11, 34, 35, 44
               Consistency 3, 16
               Construction codes 11                                           Maine 13, 14, 44          _M_
                                         -D-                                   "Managing Coastal Erosion" (NRC Report) 5
               Delaware 35, 44,                                                Map and Image Processing System (MIPS) 14,
                                                                                        15
                                         -E-                                   Maryland 7, 14, 37, 44
               Earthquake 9, 10                                                Massachusetts 12, 13, 37, 45
               Educational films and videos 34, 37, 42, 43                     Michigan 15, 16, 38, 45
               Erosion control structures (see also bulkheads,                 Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS)
                        groins, and seawalls) 2, 6, 7, 18, 27, 29,                      15
               30,31,32                                                        Mississippi 17, 38, 45
               Erosion rates, annual 20, 23, 27, 30



                                                                        -49-











                                        -N-                                                        _W_
               Nags Head 22, 23, 24                                        Wetlands 2, 4, 11, 14, 15, 32
               National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 4, 5,               Wisconsin 32, 43, 46
                        15, 18,38
               National Hurricane Center 1, 3                                                      _Z_
               National Research Council (NRC) 5                           Zoning 8, 11, 16, 22, 24, 25, 38, 43
               National Weather Service (NWS) 3, 41
               New Hampshire 17, 39, 45
               New Jersey 17, 18, 39, 45
               New York 18, 19, 45
               NOAA 1, 3,4,12,39
               Non-structural technical assistance 37
               North Carolina 20, 21, 22, 24, 45
               Northern Mariana Islands 24, 45
               NOS Shoreline Change Maps 5, 12, 15, 17


               Oregon 24, 41, 45


               Pennsylvania 26, 40, 45
               Puerto Rico 41, 42, 45


                                        _R-
               Rhode Island 26, 27, 42, 45
               Riverine flooding 41


               San Francisco Bay Conservation and
                        Development Commission (BCDC) 9,
                        10,11
               Sand Dune Rules (Maine) 14
               Sea and Lake Overland Surge from Hurricanes
                        (SLOSH) 4, 41, 42
               Sea level rise 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 27, 34,
                        36, 38, 39, 40, 42
               Seawalls 7, 13, 18, 19, 28, 29, 34, 38
               Seismic engineering requirements 9
               Setbacks, construction 6, 11, 12, 15,  16, 17, 18,
                        20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32,
                        37,43
               South Carolina 4, 28, 29, 31, 42, 46
               Structural damage assessment 31, 36

                                        _T_
               Technical assistance 1, 2, 4, 11, 33, 3.4, 35, 37,
                        39,40
               Technical publications 34

                                        _U_
               Upton-Jones Program 18, 26

                                        _V_
               V-zones 11, 13, 18, 20


                                                                     -50-




                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                . I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                         ".     I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                I
                                   @ 3 6668 00000 7858 -                                        I
                                                                                                I