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








            REVIEWDRAFT



            STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN
                                      PROTECTING
                 BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, ROCKY SHORES:
                               A NATIONAL OVERVIEW












                                                                               lid










                        Prepared by Tina Bernd-Cohen and Melissa Gordon
                    As Part of the Sea Grant National CZM Effectiveness Study
                    for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                               National Ocean Service, NOAA, DOC


           HC                              June1997
           103.7
           .B47
           1997

















                                   Mailing Address:

                                  Tina Bernd-Cohen
                                  Coastal Consultant
                                   729 Power Street
                                  Helena, MT 59601

                                 Phone: 406-442-4002
                                  FAX: 406-442-4114



                              Email: [email protected]
                              Email: [email protected]





                                    REVIEW DRAFT11



           STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN
                                      PROTECTING
                BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, ROCKY SHORES:
                              A NATIONAL OVERVIEW






                                   Principal Investigator:
                                     Tina Bernd-Cohen
                                     Coastal Consultant,
                                      Helena, Montana

                                    Research Associate:
                                    Melissa Gordon, Ph.D
                                 Louisiana State University




                        Prepared by Tina Bernd-Cohen and Melissa Gordon
                     As Part of the Sea Grant National CZM Effectiveness Study
                     for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                               National Ocean Service, NOAA, DOC

                                          June1997

















                                                       ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






                Many individuals contributed to the completion of this report. We would like to thank the state coastal
                program managers and their staff for the many hours of assistance they provided conveying information
                and reviewing and commenting on the draft state CZM profiles. This thanks extends to CZM staff in ihe
                network of agencies which make up each state's CZM program. There are too many of you to name
                individually here, but you know who you are and how appreciative we are of you help on this project. We
                would also like to thank Bill Millhouser, our OCRM liaison, for his humor and patience in working with us
                thmugh every step of this project. Thanks also to other OCRM staff members for compiling and sharing
                information at the OCRM headquarters.

                We! also thank our state CZM advisory committee would provided suggestions on how to conduct this
                study: Eldon Hout of Oregon; Sarah Cooksey of Delaware; Jim Tabor of Pennsylvania; and Wayne Beam
                of S )outh Carolina. To other expert reviewers, including David Owens, Tom Leschine, and Jen Sorenson,
                we also express our thanks. We thank others who provided advice and information on their agency's
                roles in shoreline management including Charlie Chesnut and his staff from the US Army Corps of
                Engineers and Mark Crowell of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

                A special thanks to each members of our study team: Marc Hershman, Bob Goodwin, Jim Good, Pam
                Pogue and Virginia Lee, and their students. The unique perspectives and expertise of each member made
                this project particularly exciting and challenging. Congratulations on a difficult job well done. This project
                has made us more than colleagues, we are now a family.

                Thi:; portion of the project was made possible by a grant from the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal
                Resources Management. Supplemental funding for Melissa Gordon was provided by NOAA Coastal
                Service Center thanks to Margaret Davidson and Mark Evans. Louisiana State University's Department of
                Oceanography and Coastal Sciences supported the doctoral dissertation of Melissa Gordon thanks to Dr.
                Maigaret Reams and Dr. Chuck Wilson.







                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                        v


             I INTRODUCTION                                                           1
             2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT                                                 2
                    Beach and Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources 2
                    Human Interactions 4
                    Shared Coastal Management 8
                    Overview of State CZM Programs 12

             3 METHODOLOGY                                                            is
                    Research Question and What is Covered IS
                    Research Design 15
                    Determination of Effectiveness 15
                    Research Limitations 16


             4 RESULTS                                                                17
                    National Objective of Protecting Coastal Resources is Being Achieved 17
                    Tools Employed by Coastal States To Protect Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs
                     and Rocky Shores as of 1995 17

             5 PROCESS INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS                                    21
                    Key Role of State CZM in Coastal Regulatory Programs 22
                           Coastal Setbacks 22
                           Coastal Construction Control Areas 25
                           Shoreline Stabilization Regulations 29
                           Access Restrictions, Habitat Protection & Other Controls 33
                           Permit Tracking and Enforcement 36
                    Key Role of State CZM In Planning 39
                           Rocky Shores Plan 41
                           Beach Management Plans 41
                           Bluff Plans 41
                           Local Coastal Plans 42
                           SAMP Plans 43
                    Key Role of State CZM in State Public Land Management and Acquisition 44
                           Active Management of State Coastal Lands 44
                           Beach Nourishment 45
                           Shoreline Armoring 46
                           State Coastal Land Acquisition 46

             6 OUTCOME INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS                                    53
                    Outcome Indicator Data Availability 54
                    Regulatory Outcomes 64
                    Adopted Plan Outcomes 58
                    State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes 60

             7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                        63
                    Conclusions 63
                    Recommendations 65


             APPENDICES
             A - NATIONAL AND STATE CONTEXT DATA
             B - METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE STATE CZM PROFILE - MAINE
             C - SUMMARY TABLES
             D - CASE EXAMPLES
             E - BIBLIOGRAPHY








                                        LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
                Table 1: National Context Factors Affecting State Protection of Beaches., Dunes, Bluffs          page
                and Rocky Shores                                                                               3

                Table 2: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Beaches and Dunes                      19

                Table 3: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Bluffs and Rocky Shores                20

                T3bIe 4
                A: State Permit Actions- Rhode Island                                                          66
                B: Now Development & Shoreline Stabilization Permits by Barrier Beach Designations- RI         57
                C: Pedestrian/ Vehicular Access Restriction On Private Lands Protecting Habitat Areas-RI       57
                D: Regulated Areas- type of regulated area, acres, shoreline miles, resources protected-RI     57

                Table 5
                A:: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Regulations, and Other Special Area
                  Management Plans- CT                                                                         59
                B:: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans/Regulations, Other SAMP Plans- CA                       59
                C:, State Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Other SAMP Plans- Guam                              60-

                Table 6
                A: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management- MA                                    61
                B: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management of State Parks-MA                      62
                C: Beaches Restored/Nourished/Renourished- MA                                                  62
                D: Dunes Restored and Shoreline Armored- MA                                                    62
                E: Coastal Lands Acquired- MA                                                                  62

                Figure 1: Diversity of policies behind state coastal setback regulations                       13

                Figure 2: Examples of significant changes to state CZM program tools which affect
                prDtection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores                                         14

                Figure 3: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback         23

                Figure 4: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions                 26

                Figure 5: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure restriction provisions               30

                Figure 6: Coastal restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access, habitat protection
                and other activities                                                                           35

                Figure. 7: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools                   36

                Figure 8: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans
                affecting protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores                                   39
                Figure 9-A: State Coastal Land Holdings and Acquisitions                                       48
                Figure 9-13: Active State Coastal Land Management                                              so















                                   STATE COASTAL ZONE EFFECTIVENESS IN
                   PROTECTING BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS AND ROCKY SHORES:
                                                  A NATIONAL OVERVIEW



                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


                                The Importance of the Coastal Zone Management Act for
                                  Protecting Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores


                Prior to enactment of the federal CZMA, state efforts to address protection of natural shoreline features
                such as beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores were highly variable. State coastal management
                -programs (CMPs) developed since passage of the CZMA were designed specifically to balance resource
                protection and development. State coastal programs have resulted in more attention to issues such as
                erosion, sea level rise, and cumulative adverse impacts resulting from development on receding beach
                and bluff shorelines and sensitive natural habitat areas. State CMPs have been at the forefront in
                addressing shoreline use conflicts such as the demand for shoreline armoring to protect existing upland
                structures to the detriment and loss of natural beach systems. Beach nourishment has been promoted by
                some coastal states as an alternative to continued loss of developed recreational beaches through
                shoreline hardening. Likewise, some coastal states have funded research into sand loss from inlet
                dredging and have demanded that beach quality sand from inlet dredging be placid on down-drift.
                beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for coastal development was a common practice in the past, state
                CMPs prohibit such practices today and wage educational campaigns on the importance of protecting
                stabilized dune systems.

                State CMPs serve as the institutional focus for addressing ongoing competing public and private demands
                for the use of our limited and sometimes fragile coastline resources. Our understanding of natural
                shoreline processes and the impacts of human development on these processes has grown. Today, we
                are no longer building as close to the shoreline. The development that does occur is better built to
                withstand coastal storm events. Efforts are made to guide access across fragile vegetated dunes. We are
                becoming better stewards of our natural coastal heritage through state CMP efforts. Balancing private
                property rights with natural resource protection goals remains a challenge.


                                    Summary of Research Findings and Conclusions


                The national objective of protecting coastal resources is being achieved through implementation of
                federally-approved state coastal management programs. State CMP efforts are effective overall in
                addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores, given that the CZMA requires states to
                balance competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion


                                                                   v









                 of recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on process
                 indicators and case examples.

                 Coastal states are utilizing a wide variety of tools to achieve resource protection including
                 regulatory setbacks and controls over shoreline development in combination with planning, stewardship
                 of state lands, coastal land acquisition, and research and public education about shoreline processes and
                 hurnan interactions. The primary tools employed are regulatory controls over land and water uses along
                 the coast through setbacks, permits for coastline development, and restrictions on access and habitat
                 destruction. All but three coastal states identified protection of natural resources and/or minimization of
                 loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority management issue. Although all coastal
                 states own coastal properties, only three use state ownership and land management as the pdmary tool.


                 Of the twenty-five tools identified with beach and dune protection, the fewest tools used by a state is
                 eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore protection,
                 the fewest tools used by any state is five and the most is eleven.

                 More Systematic Resource Protection Occurring             State coastal management programs have provided
                 more systematic, extensive and intensive planning and review of projects along the shoreline resulting in-
                 minimized adverse impacts of improper development and erosion on natural systems and adjacent
                 properties and structures. Greater attention has been given to cumulative effects of individual permit
                 decisions. The measurement of erosion rates for establishing construction setbacks, the long-term
                 adverse long-term effects of shoreline armoring on natural beach sand transport, and opportunities for
                 norstructural solutions to coastal erosion. As a result, less inappropriate development is occurring in
                 hazardous areas such as migrating beaches and eroding bluffs.

                 All but two coastal states have made significant changes to their program tools in the way they
                 protect resources. Significant changes have often included expansion of the geographic area or types of
                 activities covered by shoreline setbacks or regulations and changes to limitations on shoreline
                 stabilizations. Most give greater consideration to natural shoreline processes, even when addressing other
                 concerns such as the need to protect developed eroding shoreline using structural measures
                 These changes complicate assessment of program effectiveness, using outcome indicators.

                 Regulatory tools are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline resources,
                 because the majority of the oceanfront shoreline is in private ownership and is subject to significant
                 shoreline change and development pressures. The scope, policies, and provisions of state coastal
                 regulatory programs afford greater natural resource protection. State coastal programs protect beaches,
                 duries, bluffs and rocky shores through setbacks, regulation of shoreline development and shoreline
                 stabilizations, restrictions on pedestrian access, vehicular access, and habitat protection, and permit
                 conipliance/permit tracking systems. Most coastal states employ construction setbacks from the
                 shoreline to provide a natural buffer between development and the water. Almost all coastal states
                 regulate activities within defined coastal construction control areas in ways that minimize adverse impacts
                 on -the natural shoreline resources and protect critical habitat areas. Most coastal states regulate the use
                 of Eboreline stabilization structures to minimize adverse impacts on beach systems. However, only a few
                 coastal states prohibit shoreline stabilization structu'res, thereby placing protection of beach systerr  'is as a
                 policy priority over protection of upland structures. Many coastal states restrict pedestrian and vehicular
                 access along portions of the shoreline. Pedestrian access restrictions channel human encroachment
                 along boardwalks or dune crossovers, minimizing dune destabilization and limiting adverse impacts on
                 fragile shoreline resources. Vehicular access restrictions keep vehicles off sensitive coastal habitat areas
                 or limit vehicular use to government vehicles or off-road vehicles in areas planned for their use. Almost all
                 cocistal state have permit compliance programs to enforce their regulations and permit tracking systems.

                 Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, are used effectively to protect natural resources.
                 Most coastal states with beach or bluff resources employ some type of planning tool. Locally-delegated

                                                                         vi









                 permitting combined with mandatory local planning in eight coastal states provides the key management
                 tool in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore resources. Planning programs are more
                 effective when combined with implementation through state regulation or local land use regulations,
                 zoning and subdivision ordinances and other actions.

                 Stewardship of coastal lands, through state land management and acquisition, is an important
                 component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that
                 encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff or rocky shore. Most coastal states have natural protection
                 areas and guided accessways and many have acquired additional coastal land holdings. Almost half of
                 the coastal states use boardwalks or dune crossovers to protect dune vegetation and minimize adverse
                 impacts on natural resources and employ sand fencing and dune creation to restore the natural function of
                 damaged dune systems. Over half of the coastal- states use beach nourishment to recreate recreational
                 beaches which are eroding away. Eleven coastal states have chosen to armor or repair existing shoreline
                 stabilization structures in high erosion areas, primarily to protect coastal highways or other public
                 infrastructure investments.


                 Insufficient nationally compatible outcome data is available to determine on-the-ground
                 effectiveness. It is not possible to determine the oh-the-ground effectiveness of state CPM regulatory,
                 planning, state land management or acquisition programs, due to the scarcity of outcome data, Although
                 about two-thirds of the coastal sta'tes have computerized permit tracking systems, no states keep
                 statewide databases on the miles affected, the area affected, or the resources affected by permits
                 approved for coastline activities. Regarding states with setbacks, the regulatory jurisdiction varies making
                 cross-state comparisons difficult. States which delegate coastal permitting to local governments do not
                 maintain multi-year databases on local permits. Data on conditions attached to permits are contained in
                 paper files, not on permit tracking systems. Few states have any data on the results of pedestrian access
                 and vehicular access restrictions and protected habitat areas.

                 Most coastal states with approved local plans have information on the number of plans approved but no
                 statewide and longitudinal data on results of local plan implementation. For states with adopted special
                 area management plans (SAMPs) or other specialized plans, outcome data is also scarce. Although all
                 coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one of more beach, dune, bluff or
                 rocky shore, only some states have inventory data on their coastal land holdings such as number of
                 shoreline miles in state parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership. Several states are active
                 stewards of their public coastal land holdings but outcome data is scarce regarding accessways installed,
                 dunes restored, beaches restored, and other protection results. Of the coastal states which utilize
                 acquisition, most have some data on the number and/or acres of coastal lands acquired. However, for
                 most states, this data is not broken-down by type of resource area acquired and very few states have data
                 on amount of money spent or acquisition priorities.

                 Determining "effectiveness" of state coastal program in protecting natural coastline resources based on
                 on-the-ground outcome indicators is elusive. Determining the "effectiveness" of state coastal programs in
                 protecting natural coastline resources based on process indicators and case examples is more possible,
                 but still difficult. Case examples can be effective is illustrating how a management tool has been
                 implemented in a certain geographic area and the results of such implementation.

                 Competing Demands for the Use of the Shoreline and Competing Government Policies Continue
                 to Require Balance - State CZM programs continue to face decisions regarding competing demands for
                 recreation and tourist development, protection of existing threatened properties, and the rights of private
                 property owners versus public health and safety. Shrinking federal and state dollars for state CZM
                 program administration, coupled with increased demand and expectations for CZIVI services, is a long-
                 term concern for coastal programs. Several federal agencies, state CZIVI programs, local coastal
                 governments, and other non-profit organizations each play a role in managing our nation's coastline
                 resources. Inconsistencies between certain federal agency programs and state CZM objectives is an
                 ongoing concern. Forexample, the FEMA flood insurance program and the federally-funded shoreline

                                                                       vii










                protection projects of the USACE achieve objectives whic;   h undermine some state CZM natural resource
                protection objectives. The unique role of state coastal zone management programs has been to focus
                aftention and resources on improving the state and local land use controls and other tools to minimize the
                adverse impacts on natural resources.



                                                           Recommendations

                Develop a computerized CZM database - OCRM should seek funding from Congress to establish a
                computerized monitoring and tracking program for state and federal agency CZM activities, the results of
                which should be published in a biennial state-of-th 'e-coast report to Congress. This should include a
                cornputerized coding system and an information tracking and recovery system for all information
                submitted by coastal states. OCRM should prepare up-datable state CZM program summary files for
                each coastal state with information about the state program, periodic changes to the program, program
                actvities, CZM projects undertaken, results and reports produced.

                Share Information Through the Internet - OCRM should create a home page on the Internet and a CD-
                RCM of the National State of the Coast Report and National CZM effectiveness study and other CZM_
                databases.


                Incentives for Coastal States to Refine and Expand their Process and Outcome Data Collection
                and Record Keeping - OCRM should seek funding from Congress to fdrrn a coastal states task force with
                the objective to change the coastal states reporting requirements under 306, 309, and 312 to better
                address results of state CZM activities and their effectiveness in meeting state and national CZM
                objectives. This should include accepted. methods for organizing, collecting, storing, and reporting
                accurate and precise data on program activities and results which include trend data usable in future
                assessments of CZM effectiveness.


                   OCRM should also encourage coastal states to improve their daily record keeping and yearly reporting
                to OCRM on program implementation and results. They should be encouraged to continue to develop and
                refine computerized permit tracking systems regarding permitted activities to refine the individual permit
                entries to include data on type of project, area and resources affected, length of shoreline affected, size of
                project, permit restrictions/conditions and other data which, when analyzed yearly, could assess the
                individual and cumulative impacts of projects permitted along the coast. OCRM should encourage states
                which delegate implementation to local governments to monitor, collect and report on local implementation
                and results. States should be encouraged to explore the use of in-depth case studies as a way to provide
                more meaningful explanations of how CZM works and the on-the-ground results, rather than relying on
                ca.se examples and success stories. State should be encouraged to explore the use of aerial photo
                interpretation for measuring long-term changes in develop and resources along the coast.

                Federal agencies should monitor changes to the coastal environment and report on changes
                every Five years. OCRM should compile data from U.S. Bureau of the Census on population changes in
                coastal counties. Congress should fund the appropriate federal agency to conduct aerial photo
                interpretations of shoreline development and changes in development patterns. USDOI should compile
                data on private development occurring on designated Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) units and
                fedleral/state agency actions affecting CBRA designations and implementation success. USACE should be
                furided by Congress to conduct follow-up national shoreline studies on erosion, shoreline armoring, beach
                nourishment, and public ownership of the coast. USD0l/FWS should compile data on coastal endangered
                species and habitat loss/protection changes and role of federal and state agencies in this effort.

                Utillize the Section 309 Assessment Process to address issues associated with shoreline change.
                0C'RM and the Coastal States should continue to utilize the section 309 Assessment process to address
                substantive issues associated with the protection of natural coastal systems. Significant changes to state
                coastal programs suck changes in activities exempt, shoreline armoring allowed and the landward extent
                                                                      viii





                                          ILL            MOD    SID: 01463        IL
 NO@ will ship.
    i@  11-11
 ILL Pending 20001121                                           Record 1 of 4


    :ILL: 3892773     :Borrower: GUL      :ReqDate: 20001116 :NeedBefore: 20001216
    :Status: SHIPPED                      :RecDate:           :RenewalReq:
    :OCLC: 42408228   :Source: FS51LL     :DueDate: 20001221  :NewDueDate:
    :Lender: *NO@,NO@                                                             11
    :CALLNO:   11
    :AUTHOR: Bernd-Cohen, Tina.
    :TITLE:   Review draft : state coastal management effectiveness in protecting
 beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores : a national overview / I
 @ :IMPRINT: [Washington, D.C.? : United States Office of Ocean and Coastal
 Resource Management], 1997. 1
 @ :VERIFIED: WorldCat Desc: 1 v. (various foliations) : Type: Book
 @ :PATRON: lazarus, richard I
 0 :SHIP TO: Interlibrary Loan/Edward Bennett Williams Law Library/Georgetown
 University Law Center/111 G Street, N.W./Washington, DC 20001-1417/USA/ARIEL
 141.161.38.88 1

    :BILL TO: same
    :SHIP VIA: lib rate               :MAXCOST: $20.OOIFM

    :COPYRT COMPLIANCE: CCG I

    :FAX: 202-662-9202 1









               of regulatory jurisdiction should be carefully scrutinized for their long-term effects on natural coastal
               systems.


               Study Approach This research project involved three stages. Stage I included data collection and
               creation of 29 state profiles. Five states were selected as pilot states to test our survey instrument,
               followed by surveys of all remaining coastal states. The state profiles documented state tools and
               available outcome data on protection of natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. Case examples
               were compiled as part of the state profiles. Data collection also included a search of evaluation literature,
               national context factors, and national data sources on resource protection. Stage // involved evaluation of
               state CZM program effectiveness in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, drawing from the
               state profiles and national summary tables. Stage /11 involved creation of the national CZM effectiveness
               evaluation synthesis report. The national overview report contains background and context information; a
               summary of the regulatory, planning, state land management and acquisition tools used by coastal states
               to protect natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores; the importance of resource protection to
               coastal states; and the key role, process indicators and outcome indicators of state CZM program
               effectiveness.in protecting natural shoreline resources. The report also contains recommended
               improvements related to tracking and document state CZM program effectiveness in meeting CZM
               objectives.






































                                                                       ix









                                                          I INTRODUCTION


                 The purpose of the National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Effectiveness Study has been to assess the
                 overall effectiveness of the state CZM programs in addressing five core objectives of the Federal CZM Act.
                 This section of the report investigates the effectiveness of coastal resource protection at the state level. In
                 particular, this section looks at the coastal management tools state CZM programs employ to protect natural
                 beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and the effectiveness of these management tools in achieving
                 national policy objectives. Both process and on-the-ground outcome measures are used to assess CZM
                 program effectiveness. This section also contains recommendations for improving federal and state accounting
                 of the results of coastal management programs in achieving national policy objectives.

                 The Congressional declaration of national policy related to protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and, rocky
                 shores includes:


                          "(A) the protection of natural resources, including ... beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and
                          fish and wildlife and their habitat, within the coastal zone.

                          (B) the management of coastal development to minimize loss of life and property caused by improper
                          development in flood-prone areas and in areas likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise,
                          land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the destruction of natural protective features such as
                          beaches, dunes, wetlands and barrier islands."
                          (Section 303 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of"I 972)

                 All coastal states with federally-approved coastal programs have adopted policies which interpret and
                 implement the national policy objectives and call for the protection of natural resources and minimization of
                 loss of life and property along the coast.

                 state coastal programs were designed to balance resource protection and development. The economic
                 development pressures along the oceanfront and shoreline are tremendous. Shorefront property is scarce and
                 highly valued. As a result, policies to protect natural resources are tempered by policies which meet other
                 objectives. The most obvious conflicts involve balancing protection of the natural beachfront and bluff-front
                 shoreline resources and processes (erosion and accretion) against protection of (a) existing development built
                 too close to the waters edge and threatened by coastal erosion; (b) private property owners' rights to develop
                 on their coastal lands; and (c) public access and recreational use of beach and dune areas.

                 This report covers the background and context for resource protection; the research methodology; res earch
                 findings and conclusions; and recommendations.









                                              2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT


                State CZM programs which protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are each influenced by a variety of
                physical, social and economic context factors including: (a) the type and extent of the natural resources in a
                given state; (b) coastline erosion processes and storm events; (c) coastline ownership and development; (d)
                human interference with natural processes; (e) competing demands placed on natural coastal resources and
                state priorities for balancing these demands; (f) shared coastal management responsibilities between states,
                federal agencies and non-governmental organizations; and (g) the unique role of the CZM program in the state.
                Historic and cultural factors are also important in some states. See Table 1, for selected national context data
                by state. Also see Appendix A for data related to these national and state context factors.

                Beach and Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources

                Beach resources are present along portions of all coastal state shorelines, though the length and character of
                such beaches vary considerably. Sandy beaches can be categorized into three distinct types: barrier
                beaches, mainland beaches, and pocket beaches. The Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast is characterized by a
                system of baryier beaches and a relatively wide continental shelf, as is much of Alaska. Barrier beaches are
                pait of a complex integrated system of beaches, marshes, bays, tidal flats, and inlets. These beaches are -
                constantly migrating, eroding and building in response to natural processes and human activities. Mainland
                beaches stretch unbroken for many miles, some low standing and prone to flooding, others backed by steep
                headlands. They received sediment from nearby rivers and eroding bluffs. Examples include Long Island,
                northern New Jersey and southern California. Pocket beaches form in small bays surrounded by rocky cliffs or
                headlands. The headlands protect the sandy alcoves from erosion by Winter storms and strong currents.
                Po(*,ket beaches are common in Maine and the Pacific Northwest. Other coastline variations are based on plate
                ted:onics or type of wave forces. Difference and variations in beach and dune coastline systems within a state,
                betNeen states and within regions are factors affect states enactment and implementation of certain beachfront
                management tools. 1                                                                                                        1
                Headland/rocky shorelines and bluffs/cliffs are present along the West Coast, the North East Coast, the Great
                Lakes Coast, and Territorial shores. These features are absent along the low elevation Southern and South
                Atlantic coastlines. The underlying geology of active tectonics, faulting and earthquakes or glaciers, ice
                gOLging and rafting, or ice and strong wind determine shore stability and erosion factors which effect state
                management responses. 2 Eroding bluffs and cliffs of the Great Lakes states, creating beaches and dunes, are
                subject to highwater levels which, when driven by storm winds and waves cause flooding and lakefront.
                deterioration.3

                Table I provides the length of the US coastline, using NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce data, that
                includes two measures, one of direct oceanfront miles where they cross bays and sounds and the other tidal
                shoreline miles which extend inland to the head of tidewaters or to a point where tidal waters narrow to a width
                of 100 feet. The national shoreline, as measured by the US Army Corps of Engineers, to the head of
                tide'Naters, or to the point where tidal waters narrow to 100 feet is also shown. Percent of direct ocean
                coastline in beachesi rocky shores and bluffs is also indicated from state CZM program estimates. For 8 of the
                29 coastal states, their entire ocean coastlines are sandy beaches with no rocky shores or bluffs. All other 21
                coastal states have other beaches and rocky shores, backed by bluffs or sand dunes.







                'Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna k. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management
                21bid.
                31slational Committee on Property Insurance. 1998. America's Vanishing Coastlines: A New Concern for the
                Voluntary and Residual Property Insurance Markets. p,23


                                                                      2









                    Table 1: National Context Factors Affecting State Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and Rocky Shores
                    State    Resource        Open           Tidal        National Shoreline        % State Land Area           Coast     % Coast       Presence of Natural Coastal Resources and                Major          USACE
                             Protection-     Ocean          Shoreline          Miles and           % State Population          Pop.      Pop Chg       Beach and Rocky Shore a Percent of the                   Barrier        Major
                             Importance      Coastline      Miles        % Critically Eroding         in Coastal Zone          density   1970-90       State's Open Ocean Coastline                             Islands        Shoreline
                             of Issue:       miles          (2)                   (3)                      (4)                 1990      (5)           Beach, Bluff and Rocky Shore as Percent of               Number/        Protect.
                             High- H         (1)                                                                               (4)                     Non-Open Ocean (CT & Great Lakes States)                 Miles          Projects
                             Medium-M                                                                                          person                  Shoreline      (6)                                       (7)            1950-93
                             Low-L                                                                                             per sq.                                                         Rocky                           (8)
                                (1)          Miles          Miles        Miles          %CE ,      Area           Pop.         mile      %             Beaches        Dunes          Bluffs    Shores           Miles
                    AL       H               46*            607          352            9          6              12           171       27%           Y-100%         n              n_            n
                    AK       H               6640           33904        47300          >1         67             85              1      F9%           y-nd           ?              y             y            nd
                             H_              126            126          nd             nd         100            100          607       72%           y-nd           n              y
                    ll@S                                                                                                                                                                           y-nd         nd
                    CA       H               840            3427         1827           4          -24            73           605       39%           y-nd           y              y             y-nd                        13
                    CT       M               0              618          270            9          47             62           887       8%            y-31%          Y-rare         y-25%         y-14%                       8
                    DE       H               25*            381          226            12         100            100          338       22%           Y-100%         y              n             n            1- 6 mi        4
                    FL       H               1266*          8426         6266           5          100            100          228       90%           y-65%          y              n             n            49-560m        33
                    GU       H               108*           110          nd             3          100            100          637       57%           y-37%          n            -1              y-63%        nd             -
                    HI       H               750            1052         nd             2          100            100          174       44%           y-25%          y              y-nd          y-nd         nd             -
                    LA       L               149*           7721         1943           2          37             49           171       16%           y-50%          y              n             n                           4
                    ME       H               228            3478         2500           >1         39             72           72        29%           Y-10%          y              y             Y-90%        -              -
                    MD       H               32*            3190         1939           9          66             70           507       12%           Y-100%         y              n_            n            2- 31 mi       4
                    MA       H               192            1519         1200           11         45             75           1272      5%            Y-??           y              y             y-nd         2- 18 mi       7
                    MI       H               0              3224         nd             nd         55             50           154       -5%           y-nd           y              y-nd          y-nd                        -
                    MS       H               44*            359          247            15         4              12           192       30%           y-41 %         n              n             n                           3
                    NH       H               18*            131          40             5          12             32           331       67%           y-70%          y              n             y-30%                       5
                    NJ       H               125*           1792         469            -26        76             90           1219      6%            Y-100%         y              n             n            10-100M        12
                    NY       H               125*           1850         638            47         37             84           858                     Y-100%*        y              y             y            4- 93 mi       13
                    NC       H               320*           2625         3661           15         19             11           75        -3%           Y-100%         y              n             n            20-285m        10
                    NM       H               184*           206          nd             nd         100            100          236       255%          y-nd           n              y             y-nd         nd             -
                    OR       H               362*           1410         500            13         20             38           82        46%           y-72%         -2              IF            y-28%
                    PA       H               0              140          nd             nd         4              25           1701      _9%           Y-19%          n              y-81 %        n                         -3
                    PR       H               311            700          nd             nd         12             100          856       30%           y-50%          y              y             y-nd         nd             -
                    RI       H               40             384          340            7          100            100          950       6%            y-68%          y              y             y                           I
                    SC       H               181*           2876         3063           2          26             24           114       57%           Y-100%         y              n             n            18- 96 m       2
                    VI       H               nd             175          nd             nd         100            100          771       63%           y-nd           ?              y             y-nd         nd             -
                    VA       H               200*           3315         993            26         22             62           423       40%           Y-100%         y              n             n            9- 67 mi       2
                    WA       H               171            3026       1 2337           >1         31             70           172       46%           y 35%          y              y         I y-65%       I                 -
                    W1       M               0              120        1 nd             nd         19             39           177       0%            _%             y              y-72%         y-8%                        -
                                                                                                                                                  J -Y1 0
                    Total    26H 2    1L     nd          H85770          31513          nd                        44                                   y-29           y2l n8         y18n11        y17n12                      124
                    KEY:   y-yes n-no        unknown nd- no data H- high M-medium L-low
                       denotes where state coastline miles data differs from General Coastline miles data in US DOC, NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States
                    ** New York- Atlantic Ocean only covered under this study.          *** Does not include the Great Lakes States or the Island Territories and Commonwealths.
                    (1) Individual State CZM Profiles.
                    (2) US DOC, NOAA. 1975. The Coastline of the United States.
                    (3) USACE. 1970. National Shoreline Study.
                    (4) Coastal Ocean Policy Roundtable, The 1992 Coastal Status report: A Pilot Study of the US Coastal Zone and its Resources, Tables 2 and 3.
                    (5) US DOC, NOAA, NOS. 50 Years of Population Change Along Our Nation's Coasts 1960-20 10.
                    (6) Individual State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores
                    (7) Ringold, Paul and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac, Table 8.
                    (8) USACE, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study. Phase 1.                                                 3










                  Human Interactions


                  Coastline Ownershl


                  State jurisdictional ownership of beaches usually begins at mean high water and extends seaward.      This
                  leaves extensive dry sanding beach and dune systems in private ownership, except where governments have
                  acquired beachfronts for recreation or preservation. Seventy percent of our nation's shoreline is in private
                  ownership (excluding Alaska where 99% is publicly owned). As of 1970, three-fifths of the shoreline was
                  undeveloped (excluding Alaska).4 Development pressures vary depending on geography and climate issues.
                  Inaccessible and hard to develop shorelines, such as rocky shores, are less prone to development than
                  accessible sandy beach areas. A state's beach and dune management varies depending on the extent of
                  public ownership. For the 20 coastal states (not including the islands or the Great Lake States), public
                  ownership ranges from a high of 99% for Alaska to a low of 3% for Maine. For 11 of the 20 states. over 1/4 of
                  the shoreline is in public ownership. (see Table 1).

                  -Coastline Development Population Growth, and Economic Pressures on Shoreline Properties

                  As, early as the late 1800s, recreational tourism began along our nation's beaches. With the advent of the
                  aUtOrnobile, seasonal seaside resorts evolved. The summer homes and fishing villages of the 1940s and I 950s
                  were transformed by the 1970s into "cities on the beach."5 Today, due to population and economic pressures,
                  over half of our nation's population lives within 50 miles of the coast and our nation's coastal zone is over four
                  times more densely populated than the national average. 6 In addition to the retirees who migrated to the coast
                  and other year round residents, tourists and'conventioneers are demanding beachfront coastal resorts. This is
                  most pronounced along our coastal barriers at high risk due to coastal flooding, hurricanes and erosion. Billions
                  of dollars in private development and pubic recreation and infrastructure is invested on these unstable coastal
                  barriers. 7 The demand for coastal waterfront property has lead to increased residential development pressures
                  along our nation's coastal bluffs and rocky shores.

                  The persistent development along our nation's coastline had lead to destruction of coastal dunes systems and
                  placement of structures in jeopardy from both short and long-term erosion. Shoreline development prior to the
                  1970s were frequently armored with seawalls, revetments, bulkheads or other shoreline stabilization structure
                  to protect upland private and public investments from erosion. Such stabilization structures accelerated the
                  loss of sandy beaches. 8 Table I shows coastal county population change between 1970 and 1990.          ,For 17 of
                  the 29 CZM states, population growth was over 30% (major impact); for 4 population growth was between 10
                  and 29% (moderate impact); and for 8 population growth was 0% to 9% (minimal impact.)

                  The cost of purchasing oceanfront and waterfront properties along our nation's shorelines are considerably
                  higher than for non-waterfront properties. Likewise, the value of such properties have increased at a faster rate.
                  T@e seasonal beachfront cottages of yesterday have given way to much larger and more expensive
                  developments, often high-rise multi-family condominiums. The result is intensive, extensive and expensive
                  investments in known coastal high hazard areas. Barrier islands have become a magnet for retirees and
                  vacation homes.9 About half of all residential and non-residential construction in the U.S. between 1970 and
                  1989 occurred in coastal areas. The most dramatic growth has occurred in the Florida and California.10
                  Despite the environmental degradation associated with population growth, these shoreline areas remain in
                  strong demand for commercial, residential, tourism and recreation.

                  41bid.
                  5platt, Rutherford H. et al. 1987. Cities on the Beaches: Management Issues of Developed Coastal Islands.
                  6U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts:
                  1960-2010.
                  7platt, Rutherford, et al. 1992. Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat Sounded?, p. 12.
                  81bid., p.8
                  9U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NOS. 1992. Building Along America's Coasts: 20 Years of Building
                  Permits, 1970-1989. p.5
                  101bid                                            4













                  Coastline Erosion


                  Coastal erosion, the landward displacement of the shoreline, is a normal process that has been going on for
                  many years along most of our nation's sandy beaches. Gradual long-term erosion from normal wave action (of
                  1-3 feet per year) is accelerated by severe storm events during hurricanes and winter storms, sea level rise,
                  the greenhouse effect: and man-made shoreline stabilizations. 11

                  The only nationwide survey of shoreline erosion, published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1971,
                  estimates that at least 79/6 of our nation's coastline is critically eroding where properties are in imminent danger
                  of collapse and 25% is experiencing significant erosion. 12 In addition to long-term erosion, many coastal
                  states have experienced shoreline loss and property destruction through periodic storm events. Bluff recession
                  is also a problem along the Great Lakes States.

                  The average rate of erosion is determined locally through historical shoreline records or shoreline modeling. A
                  few examples of documented shoreline retreat dramatize the management urgency of coastal erosion. Cape
                  Shoa  'Iwater, Washington has been eroding at the rate of more than 110 feet a year since the turn of the
                  century. it's spa@sely settled sand dunes have retreated an outstanding 12,000 feet, or more than 2 miles since
                  1910. 13 Most of the barrier islands along the east and gulf coasts are retreating landward by 1 to 10 feet'per
                  year--rates of up to 20 feet are not uncommon for specific locations. 14 Every coastal state is affected by
                  shoreline change and erosion.15 Table 1 shows, by state, the amount'of coastal shoreline threatened by critical
                  erosion.


                  Sea level rise and land subsidence, as a contributor to shoreline erosion, are recognized problems along
                  portions of our nations' coastline. If accurate, the long-term costs to protect existing development, shoreline
                  stabilizations, and infrastructure would be staggedng'6

                  Coastal Storm Events


                  Coastal storms and hurricanes exacerbate long-term erosion, shifting the position of beaches and sand dunes
                  and splintering and collapsing erodable bluffs. Rapid shoreline erosion caused by high storm surge and wave
                  heights overtop dunes and damage beachfront buildings in harms way. Wave attack at the base of steep
                  slopes, undercut and collapse overhanging banks and topple properties perched on such bluffs. Large
                  tsunamis waves with speed and height have inflicted great damaged to California and Hawaii coastal areas.
                  Between 1980 and 1995, 11 separate billion-dollar weather disasters struck coastal areas of the US: 9
                  hurricanes, 1 Nor'easter and 1 tropical storm resulted in over $46 billion in damages.17

                  Human,lnterference wIth Natural Processes

                  Beach systems, and sandy beaches in particular, are dynamic. They advance and retreat, but over several
                  cycles maintain state of equilibrium. Beginning as early as the 1890s, a variety of human modifications to the
                  physical shoreline have been undertaken to achieve objectives that run counter to the protection and dynamic
                  equilibrium of natural beach/dune systems. This host of human interferences have adversely affected the
                  natural sand transport system, destroyed or caused dune instability, and increased erosion. These include the
                  damming of coastal rivers; dredged navigational channels with jetties for shipping and dredged tidal inlets for
                  commercial fishing and recreational boating; the placement of dredged spoil and beach quality sand offshore


                    Kaufmam, W., and 0. H. Pilkey, Jr. 1983. The Beaches are Moving.
                  12U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study.
                  13National Committee on Property Insurance. 1988.
                  141bid
                  15U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971.
                  16S.D. Lyles, L.E. Hickman., and H.A. Debaugh.1988. Sea Level Variations for the United States. 1855-1986:
                  US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atrmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland.
                  17 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC. Home Page hftp://ncdc.noaa.gov/publications/billionz.htmI


                                                                               5









                   bi?yond the littoral sand transfer system; shoreline armoring; sand-trapping structures such as groins and
                   breakwaters; sand mining for development; and sand scraping practices. Efforts to recreate natural beach/dune
                   systems include sand fencing and dune revegetation, beach nourishment, and inlet sand transfer.18

                   The damming of coastal rivers, to protect urban areas downstream from flooding and provide hydro-electric
                   power, has trapped sediment that would normally feed coastal beaches. Sediment starved beaches occur
                   most on the west coast, but some east coast beaches are also affected by river diversions. Inlet dredging to
                   maintain established boating and shipping access through coastal barrier passes that open and close with
                   storm events has, until recently involved disposal of dredge material offshore beyond the littoral sand transfer
                   system. The loss of this sand to the nearby beaches has increased erosion. For major navigational channels,
                   th a installation of jetties to stabilize the such inlets results in trapping sand on the updrift side of the inlet and
                   staving the clowndrift beaches. Offshore breakwaters used primarily to stop wave action and create a quiet
                   water area for safe boat moorings obstruct the free flow of sand along the coast and starve downstream
                   beaches.      -                                                                                                                         I
                   Shoreline armoring through placement of seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, or riprap to protect private
                   oceanfront structures and public infrastructure from erosion has occurred at the expense of lost recreational
                   beaches. These wave-resistant walls may withstand wave action and protect upland properties but rapidly
                   remove sand from the beach and eventually fail or require more substantial armoring.19 Groins, structure's
                   extending into the water to interrupt and accumulate sand on the updrift shore, also starves downdrift adjacent
                   beaches. Most of our nation's urban oceanfronts have been armored,'although the percent of our nation's
                   beachfront/oceanfronts that has been armored is unknown.


                   Scind mining, the removal of sand from beaches, dunes, adjacent areas, or riverbeds near was common
                   practice in many states for road construction and development fill. This resulted in a loss of sand and protective
                   dune areas, making such areas vulnerable to coastal flooding from storm events and accelerating erosion.
                   Sand scraping, the practice of moving sand accumulated at one portion of the beach to another to build back a
                   dune or the practice of leveling sand in front of a beachfront development to provide visual access to the
                   wziter, has been allowed in many states. The negative effects include unstable dunes and low-lying dune areas
                   vulnerable to breaching in storms.

                   Three activities have been used to try to recreate the natural beach/dune system. Dune restoration through
                   Send fences and dune revegetation has been used to stabilize and re-build dune areas. This helps limit
                   breaching and creation of new inlets during major storms. Beach renourishment and period nourishment has
                   become a popular alternative to armoring, in attempting to artificially create or recreate a beach area through
                   the importing of compatible sand and pumping/placing it on the eroded beach area. The flattened beach profile
                   and wider beach width mitigates erosion losses and storm-induced inundation. In certain high erosion areas,
                   however, sand is rapidly washed away. Finding suitable sand source borrow areas also poses challenges.
                   Sand transfer facilities which pump sand from updrift accumulation areas to clowndrift beaches has ameliorated
                   thi!5 problem. In Florida, for example, over 80% of the beach erosion on the state's Atlantic coast is estimated
                   to be caused by 19 maintained inlets, most stabilized with jetties.

                   aalancing Comneting Demands for Protection of Natural Resources with the Use of Hard Structures to
                   Protect Private Oceanfront Properties and Publig Infrastructure

                   Sandy beaches backed by dunes or bluffs, rocky shores and wetlands constitute the three types of natural
                   shoreline features along our nation's coastline. The natural resource protection values       of these features are
                   often in conflict with social and economic values as reflected in shoreline use and development. State CZM
                   programs were created, in part, to provide institutional mechanisms and management tools to balance the
                   competing demands paced on these shoreline features.

                   Th a natural resource protection values of beaches and dunes commonly idenfified by state coastal programs
                   include the first line of defense and protection of upland properties from storms and high tides; and wildlife


                   18 US Army Corps of Engineers. 1971 and Platt. 1992.
                   19U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. Shore Protection Guidelines. Pp32-33


                                                                               6










                 habitat for marine life such as sea turtle nesting areas, bird nesting and staging areas, and endangered species
                 habitat. Key use values of beaches and dunes are recreation, tourism and access to coastal waters. On the
                 lip side of the coin, social and economic demands have also made oceanfront properties highly desired places
                 for second-homes, resorts and year-round residences. Beachfront and bluff-front development built too close to
                 the edge and now in jeopardy has led to shoreline armoring which has destroyed the natural beach/dune
                 systems which attracted people to the coast in the first place. In addition, cutting and maintaining of inlets for
                 recreational and commercial navigation has permanently disrupted the natural transport of sand along the
                 beachfront, accelerating the loss of recreational beaches.

                 Coastal bluffs, sitting behind extensive or minimal beaches, have been thought of as excellent features for
                 providing coastline vistas. In a few states, select bluff areas have been acquired and managed as natural
                 resource protection areas or scenic vista areas. Most are managed as high erosion areas where development
                 and other activities are regulated to minimize erosion risks rather than protect valuable natural resource
                 features. The social and economic pressures for ocean vista developments have resulted in the siting of
                 development along bluff recession areas in harms way.

                 Rocky shores, located within the inter-tidal zone, are recognized as high energy environments and valuable
                 marine habitat. The inter-tidal areas are under state ownership,an management. Although public access and
                 recreational enjoyment of these areas has not been restricted, states are beginning to limit public access to
                 avoid over-utilization and destruction of tide pool areas. Rocky shoreland areas have for the most part been
                 resistant to erosion and therefore not managed as high     hazard areas. Likewise, they have not been
                 considered developable, though development often occurs immediately landward of these features.

                 Balancing such competing demands has become a key role of state CZM programs (see below). As our
                 understanding of the impact (both individual and cumulative) of human activities on natural systems grows,
                 coastal managers are looking for alternative management approaches to allow activities but minimize their
                 negative impacts on resources of known public benefit. The U.S. is based on strong private property rights
                 laws. The private property takings issue in the regulation of coastal land and water uses is of paramount
                 importance in the development and implementation of coastal management tools. Over the years, states
                 priorities in balancing resource protection and development have varied and altered. Today, coastal programs
                 are required to justify their management decisions basing complex technical data sets. Refinements to
                 shoreline setbacks, based on historical erosion rates, demands sophisticated and complex computer modeling
                 programs.

                 Government has invested billions in public infrastructure along our nation's coastlines from highways and
                 bridges to water and sewer systems to support mainly private development and some public facilities including
                 military facilities, coast guard stations, hospitals schools and recreation facilities. Beginning in the 1980s, in
                 re,cognition of the hazardous nature of barrier islands, federal and state agencies have begun to limit their
                 public investments in such areas.

                 Shared Coastal Management

                 Several federal agencies have a long history of involvement with our nation's coastlines, all pre-dating the
                 Federal CZM Act of 1972. Key federal players involved in activities affecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
                 shores include the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S.
                 Department of Interior/National Park Service/US Fish and Wildlife Service. Staring in 1972, the U.S.
                 Department of Commerce/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management became responsible for
                 administering the Federal CZM Act.

                 The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) administers the 1) federal shoreline protection program through
                 research, planning, design, construction management, federal cost-sharing; 2) authorized navigation channel
                 dredging; and 3) federal permits for dredge and fill involving any construction or other activity which affects
                 navigable waters including federal guidelines for beach nourishment and shoreline stabilizations. The COE
                 Published the National Shoreline Study in 1971, and is working on analysis of Federal shore protection
                 program for Congress..




                                                                            7









                    The COE shoreline protection program covers construct  ion projects for hurricane and storm damage
                 mcluction, beach erosion control, navigation, mitigation and recreation. Since 1930, Congress has authorized
                 137 projects or studies involving 19 of the 29 CZMA states plus 4 coastal states not in the CZM program. A
                 total of 82 Federally-sponsored shore protection projects were constructed between 1950 and 1993 in areas of
                 concentrated development experiencing severe erosion and/or property damage from storms. The projects
                 protect 226 miles or less than 0.3 % of the 84,240 mile of tidal shoreline of the U.S. and only 8% of the 2,700
                 miles of COE identified "critical-erosion" coastline.20 Of the 82 projects, 56 were large projects costing
                 $1,177.3 million in 1993 dollars. The cost-sharing was 60% federal and 40% non-federal (state, locals, and
                 pjivate) sponscirs.21 These projects involve one or more of the following: 1) initial beach restoration,
                 sometimes with dune filling; 2) periodic beach nourishment; 3)shoreline structures-groins, seawalls,
                 reivetments, breakwaters, bulkheads, or sand transfer plants, 4) emergency measures to repairs storm
                 damaged projects. The significant shift from reliance on fixed structures in the 1950s to beach restoration and
                 periodic nourishment in the 1970s by the COE, is based on a realization that fixed structures protect upland
                 property but destroy recreational beaches. Artificial beaches as a primary means of shore protection has
                 become a major component of the COE program. the concept of replicating the protective characteristics of
                 natural beach and dune systems. However, beach renourishment is not without its critics. In 1983, 1 million
                 square yards of sand placed on the beaches of Ocean City, New Jersey at a cost of $5.5 million. Within a few
                 yfiars. storms.removed and redistributed much of the -sand. 22 " In 1993, the COE initiated an investigation and
                 analysis of the benefits, environmental effects, and the existence of induced development resulting from -
                 Federal shore protection program. 23The small percent of our nation's coastal erosion problem covered by the
                 COE, leaves state CZM program with major responsibilities to cope with and address appropriate erosion
                 responses. See Table 3 in Appendix A for shoreline protection projects by state between 1950-1993.
                    The COE navigation channel dredging program began with the Harbors Act of 1890. Since then Congress
                 has authorized 830 navigation projects for channels for shipping, commercial fishing and recreational boating
                 involving every coastal state, territory and commonwealth.24
                    The COE permit program for dredge and fill projects in navigable waters is subject to federal consistency
                 provisions. Only one coastal state, Alaska, relies on the minimum standards contained in the COE regulations
                 for placement of shoreline stabilizations. All other coastal states have their own state regulatory programs
                 covering shoreline stabilizations and other activities over coastal waters.

                 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the Federal Flood Insurance Program
                 that produces rate insurance maps and insures properties within the I 00-year flood zone for local community
                 participating in the program. Insured coastal structures, when damaged or destroyed, receive insurance claim
                 payments to repair or rebuild. Critics have argued that, despite local code requirements, the NFIP promotes
                 SLbsidized inappropriate development in coastal high hazard areas, impeding state management efforts to
                 restrict new development and redevelopment in these areas.
                    In 1994, Congress required FEMA to conduct an evaluation of the economic impact of mapping coastal
                 drosion areas and then denying flood insurance for existing and new structures in such areas, establishing
                 actuarial rates, and changes in the tax base of communities.25 As of 1992, there were over 66,000 NFIP
                 pclicies in effect covering structures in the hazard zone (V-Zone) .
                    Under the Upton/Jones Program 1988-1995, FEMA allowed for payment of flood insurance claims to
                 demolish or relocate buildings imminently threatened by erosion. A total of 434 claims have been approved
                 under this program. 73% for demolition. (See Table 4 in Appendix A for claims by state). FEMA is currently
                 conducting an evaluation of economic impact of mapping erosion hazard areas for Congress.



                 20 U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers. 1971.
                 21I.I.S. Army Corg)s of Engineers. 1994. Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: Phase 1: Cost
                 Comparison of Shoreline Protection Proiects of the U.S. Army Corns of Engineers.
                 2214ordstrom, Pilkey et al. -1986. Living with the New Jersey Shore. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.
                 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Shore Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: Economic Effects
                 of Induced Development in Corps-Protected Beachfront Communities.
                 241j.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources, Table D, Unpublished Report.
                 25 FEMA. Undated. "Sqction 577 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994-"Evaluation of Erosion
                 Hazards": Overview of Study Plan." (provided by Mark Crowell, FEMA)


                                                                       8










                 U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), National Parks Service (NPS) created and manages 10 National
                 Seashores covering 592,627 acres and 4 National Lakeshores covering 228,716 acres The DOI U.S. Fish an
                 Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces federal wildlife and endangered species laws and maintains system of
                 national wildlife refuges. In cooperation with states and local communities, USFWS identifies and protects
                 beach and dune areas which provide nesting sites for endangered sea turtles and birds through limitations on
                 sand fencing and beach nourishment during nesting season. Rocky shores, habitat for the Stella Sea Lion and
                 other endangered mammals. There are several National Wildlife Refuges along our nation's coastline. These
                 national wildlife refuges are managed by USFWS to preserve the natural beach/dune systems.
                    DOI/USFWS also administers the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and Coastal Barrier Improvement
                 Act of 1990. The purpose of the Act is to minimize loss of human life, wasteful Federal expenditures, and
                 damage to fish, wildlife and associated natural resources. The Act restricts federal expenditures and financial
                 assistance that have the effect of encouraging development on designated coastal barriers along the Atlantic,
                 Gulf and Great Lakes shorelines. This includes prohibitions on National Flood Insurance, HUD assistance,
                 public infrastructure, and other financial assistance. The system includes 582 units, comprising over 1.3
                 million acres and 1,276 miles of shoreline that are not publicly owned or otherwise protected. An addition 173
                 units of otherwise protected areas are covered under the 1990 Act which includes public barrier holdings in
                 federal, state and local ownership. Theseareas include national wildlife refuges, national parks and
                 seashores, state and local parks and conservation lands. (See Table 5 in Appendix A)

                 The U.S. Department of Defense owns coastal properties within military bases, some significant tracts along
                 the eroding coastline. The closing of certain bases and disposal of coastal properties will pose choices
                 between sale for development or transfer for public preservation. 26

                 Nonprofit conservation organizations have played a significant role in p  reserving certain coastal barrier lands.
                 The Nature Conservancy, the National Audubon Society and the Trust for Public Lands and their
                 partners have selectively acquired parcels for protection. Just over half of the shoreline of coastal barriers on
                 the Atlantic and gulf of Mexico are protected through public or quasi-pubic ownership.27

                 Unique Role of States CZIVI Programs

                 All coastal states are involved with the protection of their natural resources through a variety of state and Ibcal
                 management controls. 29 of the 35 coastal states, territories and commonwealths have federally-approved
                 CZM programs. The management tools these states utilize to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore
                 include regulatory, planning, direct land management, acquisition and other techniques. These tools are
                 discussed in detail in this study. In most states, local governments participate through local land use controls.
                 The unique role of state CZM programs has been the creation of unified state programs which articulates the
                 conflicts among competing uses, the policies of the state and the balance or method used to resolve conflicts;
                 and utilizes land use controls, both state and local, to manage shoreline uses.

                 State CZM programs have become increasingly involved in identifying the problems of eroding beach/dune
                 systems and developing coordinated responses through statewide beach management and erosion control
                 plans. States concern about adverse affects on downdrift beaches from federal dredging of navigation
                 channels, offshore disposal of dredged materials, and loss of recreational   beaches from shoreline armoring,
                 has lead states CZM programs to take a proactive role in shaping state and federal policies and programs. In
                 recognition of the adverse effects on recreational beaches from shoreline armoring. For example, the South
                 Carolina CZM Program pushed for Congressional recognition that COE dredging of Charleston Harbor was
                 causing severe beach erosion on the sand-starved downdrift beaches and led to the Folly Beach
                 renourishment mitigation projeCt.28 The State of Florida passed legislation requiring that suitable beach
                 quality sand from be inlet and navigational channel dredging be placed on the down-drift beaches and used
                 federal consistency and state-funds to negotiate with the COE to place 1.4 million cubic yards of sand from St.




                 26platt. 1992.
                 271bid.
                 28U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water Resources Development in South Carolina. 1993. p.44


                                                                          9









                  Mary's inlet dredging on the down-drift beaches rather than losing the sand to the offshore system.29 Several
                  states have passed legislation limiting the use of new shoreline stabilizations, in an effort to protect beach and
                  dune systems at the expense of private upland properties.

                  The inappropriate siting of structures on coastal barriers, in coastal flood zones and on erodable bluffs is a
                  problem which state CZM programs inherited. Thus when the state CZM programs began in the 1970s, certain
                  pcrtions of our nation's coastline were already committed to intense development and other areas already
                  zoned and platted for development. Shoreline erosion was a recognized problem, but land use controls were
                  nct well developed. State CZM programs would provide the testing grounds for land and water management to
                  balance competing demands along our shoreline and minimize adverse impacts on valued natural coastal
                  resources. State CZM programs would be at the forefront of the "quiet revolution in land use controls" and
                  "integrated coastal management."

                  Stite, Profilles, developed as part of this study, capture some of the complexity and diversity of geographic,
                  geologic, and social context factors which are unique to each coastal state and its CZM program. The authors
                  fOLind no significant correlation between these factors and management tools employed by a group of states.
                  These context factors have proven helpful, however, in understanding the unique set of conditions in states
                  that influence coastal management program actions,for example, the Connecticut, New Jersey and portions
                  of @:he New York coastlines were already intensely developed at time of program approval, so population: -
                  grawth between 1970 and 1990 was not a major concern. In Connecticut, management aftention has therefore
                  focused on coastal erosion-based permits for improvements and additions to existing structures and
                  development on the few remaining lots within the coastal erosion zone. In New York and New Jersey, attention
                  h&5 been given urban waterfront redevelopment and erosion response to protect existing structures. The
                  islands of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have each experienced
                  significant population growth (>50%) between 1970 and 1990. Tourism development on these islands has
                  placed pressures on the natural resources and infrastructure. Continued development along the narrow low-
                  lying coastal plains has exacerbated coastal hazard risks on these already storm-vulnerable islands.
                  Ag ricultural use and some new develop on steep slope areas is causing landslides and soil erosion. At least
                  eight states are experiencing critical erosion along more than 10% of their shoreline. All but a few states have
                  are-as where existing coastline development is failing into the water or in imminent danger of collapse as a
                  result of being constructed too close to an eroding beach or receding coastal bluff. The management
                  responses to shoreline erosion, both on beaches and bluffs, vary by state -from setbacks to requiring
                  moveable structures, to prohibiting shoreline stabilization structures- but each state with such erosion has
                  sought management solutions. Although all states have beacj_i resources, the demand and utilization varies.
                  Alaska and Florida have extensive barrier beach resources. The warm sub-tropical climate places Florida's
                  beaches in high demand for recreation and development, while the bleak Arctic climate of Alaska along with
                  extensive public holdings makes beachfront development a non-issue. Oregon and Maine have rocky shore
                  resources of high scenic value. Easy linear access along the Oregon coast has made protection of rocky
                  intertidal areas from over-use a significant issue. In contrast, the irTegular and inaccessible nature of the Maine
                  coastline reduces the need for protection measures. Several states have coastal bluff resources, but bluff
                  erosion and bluff development pressures vary. Where new development along unstable bluffs is occurring--
                  such as PA, OR, CA, Ml- a variety of management responses are being developed. American Samoa, Guam,
                  HaINaii, and Northern Mariana Islands have historic and traditional cultural values which affect coastal
                  management. In American Samoa, most properties are owned by the aigas (communal villages) with tribal
                  chieftains making decisions about communal use of the land consistent with traditional cultural values.

                  National Persg)ectiv

                  Context factors are helpful when evaluating the overall national effectiveness of state CZM Programs. For
                  example, the length of coastline and type and extent of natural coastline features highlight the relevant areas
                  needing coastal management attention; the extent and change in coastal erosion along our nation's shoreline
                  helD define the magnitude of erosion as a national coastal management problem; the extent of public.versus
                  private ownership of the coastline puts the relevancy of various management tools (direct land management,



                  29C
                    late of Florida. Florida Castal Management Program. Best Pro4ects Report. 1988. p.19


                                                                         10










                  regulatory controls and land acquisition) into perspectivL-, and the population,andzemnomic pressures along
                  the coastline bring into focus the competition between resource protection and development interests.

                  Issue Identification


                  All but three of the twenty-nine coastal states identified issues associated with protection of natural coastal
                  resources and/or minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority management
                  issue for their program. Two states ranked the issue of moderate importance: Connecticut has. no open-ocean
                  coastline and was already intensely developed at time of program approval; Wisconsin considers wetlands
                  protection a higher priority. Louisiana ranked the issue as low, since only a small portion of the coastline is
                  sandy beach and wetlands are the highest priority issue. (See Table 1)

                  Diversity of State Policy Objectives


                  The tools states employ reflect each state's policy priorities to address competing uses along our nation's
                  beachfront and shoreline areas. This study focuses on a cross-state analysis of the key tools, selected
                  provisions, and on-the-ground outcomes of tools employed. It should be noted that the policy intent behind the
                  tools employed vary, even among similar types of tools employed. Figure 1 illustrates the diversity of policies
                  behind state setback regulations.

                  Overview of State CZM Programs

                  This study covers the twenty-nine coastal states, territories and commonwealths with federally-approved
                  coastal zone management programs as of 1995. For the purpose of simplicity, all twenty-nine programs are
                  hereinafter referred to as "coastal states," which term is intended to include states, territories and
                  commonwealths. The state coastal programs were approved between 1976 and 1988. (See Appendix C)


                  Each of the twenty-nine coastal states was required to develop and describe its program in a CZM Plan and a
                  draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prior to program approval. These documents contain
                  some baseline data on resources. They also describe the key tools to be employed in the program to address
                  resource protection and other issues.


                  Under the CZMA (Section 306(d)(1 1); 15 CRF, Section 923.42-.44), states were required to develop coastal
                  programs with means for controlling coastal land and water uses in one or more of three ways: Technique A-
                  state establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation; Technique B- direct state land and
                  water use planning and regulation; or Technique C- state review on a case-by-case basis of actions affecting
                  land and water uses. subject to the management program. Ten of the states developed programs based on
                  direct state land and water use planning and regulatory programs (Technique B). Nineteen of the states used a
                  combination of state controls and local controls based on state standards. (See Appendix C)

                  Looking at primary authorities and tools employed by state CZM Programs to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs
                  and rocky shore resources, twelve states employ state-level regulatory programs; seventeen states employ a
                  combination of direct state and local planning and regulatory programs. Although all states own coastal
                  properties, for three states ownership and direct land management is a primary tool. (See Appendix C)

                  Most coastal states are finding ways to provide for local participation in coastal management decisions. Even
                  states that do not rely on local controls as part of their approved programs are providing for voluntary or
                  mandatory local participation. For example, in 1995 New Hampshire began requiring local shoreland
                  ordinances and setbacks. In 1994, Florida added local comprehensive planning to its tool box. In 1990, South
                  Carolina began requiring local beach management plans tied to access and beach nourishment funding.

                  Coastal states use a wide variety of management tools to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores.
                  Coastal management tools are continually evolving. Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine coastal states have made
                  signfflcant changes to their program tools in ways that affect protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
                  shore resources. (See Figure 2 below and Appendix C) The fact that state coastal programs are changing



                                                                           11









                 complicates eftrts to assess program effectiveness looking at on-the-gmunat results of program
                 implementation. Although not the methodological approach taken in this study, a review of changes which
                 s1rengthen or weaken protection programs could be used as a way to assess CZM program effectiveness.


                 Figure 1: Diversity of policies behind state coastal setback regulations

                 Commonwealth of Northern Marianas          Preserve visual open space.

                 Virgin Islands, Guam                       Retain public access.

                 Puerto Rico                                Retain public access and prevent shadows on the beach.

                 Hawaii                                     Protect shoreline resources vital to the economy and
                                                            environment, protect natural shoreline processes, provide
                                                            public access.

                 Maine                                      Conserve wildlife habitats and other vital resources,
                                                                      .A
                                                            protect natural functions of frontal dunes.

                 Michigan and Pennsylvania                  Keep development away from bluff-recession hazard
                                                            areas. Both address reasonable use of parcels
                                                            subdivided prior to setback laws. Michigan allows
                                                            moveable structures and Pennsylvania uses a variances
                                                            process.

                 Oregon                                     Protect public access, protect life and property from
                                                            hazards including ocean flooding, to prohibit
                                                            development on beaches, active foredunes, and other
                                                            conditionally stable foredunes and intertidal dunes.

                 Rhode Island                               Multiple setbacks: to protect foredunes, coastal features -
                                                            beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores; to reduce loss of
                                                            life and property in designated coastal hazard areas; to
                                                            reduce public expenditures for infrastructure and flood
                                                            disaster relief on banier islands.


                 Sauth Carolina                             Preserve beaches and keep development off the active
                                                            beach and dune. However, as a result of taking cases,
                                                            the state allows certain development along the
                                                            oceanfront if not located on primary dune.

                 American Samoa, Florida, New Jersey        Consider the type and/or size of development (single North
                 Carolina, other states                     family, commercial and/or square footage/number of
                                                            units) in setting development back from the shoreline.

                 several states                             Erosion-rate based setbacks to respond to beach
                                                            dynamics and to keep development out of coastal
                                                            erosion areas.

                 most states                                Variance provisions to avoid "taking" issues associated
                                                            with private property rights.

                 Source: State CZM Profiles.






                                                                       12









                 Figure 2: Examples of signiricant changes to State CZM program tools which affect protection of beaches,
                 dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores:

                 California adopted coastal hazard landform alteration policy guidance in 1993 to address geologic stability of
                 bluff top development.
                 b
                 Connecticut amended its regulatory program in 1987 to include permits for seawalls which had previously
                 een exempt from review.

                 * Florida amended its beachfront regulatory program in 1985 to establish a 30-year erosion zone and prohibit
                 major development seaward of that zone line.

                 * Hawaii amended its setback provisions in 1989 to limit variances and improve enforcement of setbacks and
                 variances.


                 Maine amended its sand dune rule in 1989 and 1993 to broaden and clarify permit requirements for
                 development on sand dunes. In 1995, Maine amended its natural resource protection act to allow existing
                 seawalls and.other shoreline stabilizations to be fortified and built bigger/stronger to protect existing threatened
                 oceanfront development. This was contrary to the sand dune rule which promotes retreat from erosion-prg'ne
                 areas.


                 Massachusetts passed a state endangered species act in 1990 which expanded beach management from
                 flood control and storm damage protection to include protection of wildlife habitat and endangered species.

                 Michigan amended its shorelands protection and management act in 1992 to expand the definition of bluff-
                 line to cover non-biuff shoreline and extended the inland setback requirements to address severe short-term
                 erosion events.


                 *New Hampshire revised the definition of the high water mark in 1995 extending more landward state permit
                 jurisdiction.

                 New Jersey amended its oceanfront permits program in 1988 and 1990 to expand its jurisdiction landward
                 and include single family, commercial development and shoreline stabilizations previously excluded.
                 Amendments also created erosion hazard areas and erosion-rate setbacks within these areas.


                 North Carolina amended its program in 1985 to prohibit hard erosion control devices designed to harden or
                 *stabilize beaches, and modified its law in 1989 to allow stabilizations to protect historic structures.

                 Oregon adopted a Territorial Sea Plan in 1994 which includes'a Rocky Shores Strategy. Areas are
                 inventoried, classified and designated under one of four classifications. Within these areas access/use is
                 restricted.


                 South Carolina amended its beach management act in 1988 and 1990. Since 1988, the state prohibits new
                 shoreline stabilization structures; since 1990, reconstruction of shoreline stabilizations & rebuilding of certain
                 damaged structures is restricted.

                 *The Virgin Islands adopted 18 Areas of Particular Concern in 1994 which include sea turtle nesting beaches
                 for special protection.

                 Source: State CZM Profiles












                                                                      13









                                                            3 METHODOLOGY



                  A detailed description of the methodology is provided in Appendix B-11. The following is a summary containing
                  the research question, research design, and approach to determining effectiveness.

                  Research Question and What is Covered


                  The basic research question utilized is "how effective overall have the individual and collective state CZM
                  program efforts been in addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores?"

                  Research.Design

                  The overall research framework is described in the introduction to the entire study. A specific survey
                  instrument was developed for collecting process and outcome data on protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and
                  rocky shores.'This survey instrument was sent to all twenty-nine CZM states. In addition, the instrument was
                  used in completing follow-up phone interviews with state contacts. The survey results served as the basisjor
                  completion of individual state CZM profiles. (See Appendix B-2 for a copy of the Survey Instrument)

                  In addition, the authors reviewed information from state CZM documents including FinalEnvironmental Impact
                  Statements (FEIS); 309 Assessment and Strategy Reports and state laws and regulations pertaining to
                  resource protection. Where provided by OCIRM or the coastal state, the authors reviewed documents on beach
                  and dune protection, state coastal parks, land acquisitions, and selected state CZM progress reports, annual
                  reports, and 312 evaluation reports.

                  Follow-up phone interviews and data requests were made to each coastal state, usually to multiple state
                  agency or bureau staff. It was typical to contact more than one staff in the state CZM program office, the state
                  land management agency, a state environmental regulatory agency, the state land acquisition agency, and the
                  state wildlife protection agencies.

                  Determination of Effectiveness


                  Coastal Management Tools" are the processes, tools, and techniques a state coastal management program
                  employs or utilizes to address a coastal management issue and to implement its program.

                  "Process Indicators" are the specific management programs, tools or techniques that states have developed to
                  address coastal problems. Examples include key provisions of regulatory programs such as coastal setbacks
                  from primary dunes or control zones which protect natural functions of resources; plans with enforceable
                  policies that address beach renourishment, inlet management, dune restoration or special area resource
                  protection; state land management of coastal parks which guide access or protect unique habitat areas; and
                  acquisition programs to purchase beaches, dunes, bluffs or rocky shore areas.

                  "Outcome Indicators" are the specific on4he-ground measurable effects that result from implementation of CZM
                  programs, tools, and techniques. Examples include linear and/or area data on permits issued reflected in miles
                  of beachfront shoreline developed or armored through permitting; area restricted from vehicular access through
                  access plan and regulations; miles and/or acres of coastal shoreline in state land management or protection
                  status; miles and cubic yards of beaches restored or dunes revegetated; miles and/or acres of coastal
                  shoreline acquired for resource protection.

                  "CZM Program Effectiveness" means the special role of CZM in using process tools to affect outcomes sought
                  under the CZMA, namely the protection of natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. Effectiveness is
                  measured by: 1) process indicators (tools) and outcome indicators (results) and their linkage within each of the
                  29 state programs; 2) state CZM program implementation through case examples where no statewide data is




                                                                          15









                 available; and 3) the unique role of CZM as only one of many government and non-government agencies
                 involved in coastal management.

                 Research Limitations


                 There are several limitations to this research project. The greatest limitation involves a lack of historical
                 in-formation and databases on state CZM management tools and outcomes. The following is a list of some of
                 the problems and weaknesses which limit meaningful cross-state comparisons of CZM tools and results, and
                 the assessment of CZM effectiveness:
                 (1) diversity among state CZM programs with regard to natural resources, size, region, coastal population,
                 development, priorities for balancing resource protection and development, organizational and management
                 framework, and application of similar management tools;
                 (21 multiple state agencies involved in the coastal area with separate management mandates, and a lack of
                 ccordination among agency programs to achieve common objectives;
                 (3) lack of database at OCIRM on state CZM program tools, activities, outcomes including a lack of
                 standardized and consolidated reporting in performance evaluations, grants, annual reports which is reflected
                 in art-inadequate reporting process between the coastal states,and OCRM; inadequate- computerized permit
                 tracking data regarding miles, acres, resources, areas affected, length of projects permitted, and assessment
                 of cumulative impacts of multiple permits; and lack of federal standards for measuring state CZM performance
                 coupled with a lack of measurable data provided by OCIRM and the coastal states;
                 (4,'. lack of documentation, bibliographies and dissemination of CZM technical reports and program results;
                 (5), reliance on case examples and success stories, in the absence of statewide data on dZM outcomes, as
                 inclicated in biennial reports to Congress and state submissions to OCRM;
                 (6) significant changes to state CZM programs over the years which are not documented by OCRM;
                 (7) turn-over among state CZM staff and the lack of institutional memory about CZM activities and results;
                 (8) compounding factors which influence and shape state coastal policies and programs and affect CZM results
                 including economic development, environmental pressures, political and social factors.
































                                                                      16









                                                                 4 RESULTS.


                 NATIONAL OBJECTIVE OF PROTECTING COASTAL RESOURCES IS BEING ACHIEVED through
                 implementation of federally-approved state coastal management programs. State CZM programs efforts are
                 effective overall in addressing protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores, given that CZM requires
                 states to balance competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and
                 promotion of recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on
                 process and outcome indicators and case examples. There was insufficient outcome data to determine on-the-
                 ground results of program implementation.

                 TOOLS EMPLOYED BY COASTAL STATES TO PROTECT BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, AND ROCKY
                 SHORES AS OF 1995.


                 Coastal states are utilizing a wide variety of tools to achieve resource protection including regulatory,
                 planning, state land management, acquisition, non-regulatory and research tools. A summary list of the too/s
                 each of the twenty-nine coastal states employ to protect beaches and dunes is shown in Table 2. Tools used to
                 protect bluffs and rocky shores are shown in Table 3. . As noted above, coastal management tools. are
                 continually evolving. The summary represent management tools in place as of the summer of 1995. All but
                 three state coastal programs identified issues associated with protection of natural resources and/or
                 minimization of loss of life and property from coastal hazards as a high priority management issue. The primary
                 authorities and tools utilized by coastal states are regulatory controls over land and water uses along the coast.
                 Although all coastal states own coastal properties, only three use state@ownership and land management as *
                 the primary tool. Of the twenty-five tools identified with beach and dune protection, the fewest tools used by a
                 state is eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore protection,
                 the fewest tools used by any state is five and the most is eleven.

                 All but two coastal states have made significant changes to their program tools In the way they protect
                 resources. Significant changes have often included expansion of the geographic area or types of activities
                 covered by shoreline setbacks or regulations and changes to limitations on shoreline stabilizations. Most give
                 greater consideration to natural shoreline processes, even when addressing other concerns such as the need
                 to protect developed eroding shoreline using structural measures
                 These changes complicate assessment of program effectiveness, using outcome indicators.

                 Regulatory tools are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline resources,
                 because the majority of the oceanfront shoreline is in private ownership and is subject to significant shoreline
                 change and development pressures. The scope, policies, and provisions of state coastal regulatory programs
                 afford greater natural resource protection. State coastal programs protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
                 shores through setbacks, regulation of shoreline development and shoreline stabilizations, restrictions on
                 pedestrian access, vehicular access, and habitat protection, and permit compliance/permit tracking systems.
                 Most coastal states employ construction setbacks from the.shoreline to provide a natural buffer between
                 development and the water. Almost all coastal states regulate activities within defined coastal construction
                 control areas in ways that minimize adverse impacts on the natural shoreline resources and protect critical
                 habitat areas. Most coastal states regulate the use of shoreline stabilization structures to minimize adverse
                 impacts on beach systems. Many coastal states restrict pedestrian and vehicular access along portions of the
                 shoreline. Pedestrian access restrictions channel human. encroachment along boardwalks or dune crossovers,
                 minimizing dune destabilization and limiting adverse impacts on fragile shoreline resources. Vehicular access
                 restrictions keep vehicles off sensitive coastal habitat areas or limit vehicular use to government vehicles or off-
                 road vehicles in areas planned for their use, Almost all coastal state have permit compliance programs to
                 enforce their regulations and permit tracking systems. Only a few coastal states prohibit shoreline stabilization
                 structures, thereby placing protection of beach systems as a policy priority over protection of upland structures.

                 Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, are used effectively to protect natural resources. Most
                 coastal states with beach or bluff resources employ some type of planning tool. Locally-delegated permitting
                 combined with mandatory local planning in eight coastal states provides the key management tool in protecting
                 beaches, dunes, bluffs-and rocky shore resources. Planning programs are more effective when combined with



                                                                          17










                  implementation through state regulation or local land use regulations, zoning and subdivision ordinances and
                  other actions.


                  Stewardship of coastal lands, through direct land management and acquisition, is an Important
                  component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that
                  encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff or rocky shore. Most coastal states have natural protection
                  arsas and guided accessways and many have acquired additional coastal land holdings. Almost half of the
                  coastal states use boardwalks or dune crossovers to protect dune vegetation and minimize adverse impacts on
                  natural resources and employ sand fencing and dune creation to restore the natural function of damaged dune
                  systems. Over half of the coastal states use beach nourishment to recreate recreational beaches which are
                  eroding away. Eleven coastal states have chosen to armor or repair existing shoreline stabilization structures
                  in high erosion areas, primarily to protect coastal highways or other public infrastructure investments.

                  Nonregulatory and research tools support regulatory, planning, acquisition and direct land
                  management activities. All coastal states employ some types of nonregulatory and research tools. For
                  example, education and technical assistance to local governments function to improve local coastal planning
                  and regulation. Likewise, research and technical reports on shoreline erosion rates function to improve state
                  regulatory controls over development in erosion prone areas. Table 2 identifies the key nonregulatory and
                  re";earch tools'that states use in shoreline management. No attempt was made to collect outcome data fbr
                  those tools. Any further analysis of these tools was beyond the scope of this study.

                  OUTCOME INDICATOR DATA


                  There is insufficient nationally compatible outcome data to determine on-the-ground effectiveness of the
                  national program. It is not possible to determine on-the-ground outcomes or effectiveness of implementing
                  state CZM regulatory, planning, state land management, or acquisition programs to protect beaches, dunes,
                  blUffs and rocky shores, based on the scarcity of data and information provided by OCRM and the coastal
                  states. Monitoring and reporting of on-the-ground outcomes of CZM program activities have not been required,
                  as part of OCRM's annual reporting on grants and activities and the periodic 312 program evaluations.
                  Although most states have developed permit tracking systems, these are primarily administrative efforts to
                  track individual permits through the regulatory process and not designed to contain program evaluation data.
                  State reporting on plan implementation, where available, is descriptive rather than analytical. Data on shoreline
                  ownership and inventories of shoreline resources have not been updated since program approval and outcome
                  data on results of active state coastal land stewardship is scarce.



























                                                                        18








                  Table 2: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Beaches and Dunes
                                                                      I Al Al  Al C1 C1    DI F I GI HI   L I MI MI MI MI MI     NJ NJ   NJ  NJ    NJ 01 PI   PI RI C    I  A   A     W1 Total I
                    TOOLS                                                L K   S   A T     E     LU I     A    E   D A     I S   H   J   Y   C     M R   A    R  I  S1   vi vi I      I Yes
                    REGULATORY & PLANNING TOOLS                                                                                                                                       129
                    Restrict Construction                                v I v Iv Iv vi    vi    v1 v vi  v1   vi  v v1    vi v1 v  Iv   v1  v I   viv   n1   v1 vi v    vi vi  v1    v 28      1
                    Restrict Shoreline Stabilizations                      n   y   y y     y I   y Iy Y1  yl   Y1  y y     yl yl Y1  y   y   y     y y   y    y  y  y    y  y   y     y
                    Restrict Pedestrian or Vehicular Access               _L   n  _I       y _L _L _L     n  _L _L _L _L     y   n   y   y   y     y Y_  n    n  y       n  y   y     y 23
                    Protect Habitat, Other Restrictions                  n _L _L     _L _L _L _L _L       n _L _L _L _y _L       y _L    y   y     n y _I j      y  y    y  y   y     y 25
                    Permit Compliance Program                            y _L y   _y                                         n   y y                                                  y 28
                                                                                                                                        _L   y j     y           y  y    y  y   y     y
                    Local Plan and/or Regulate                           y y   n   y   y   n     yy    y  y    y   y y     y y   y   y   y   y n     y   n n     n                1     22
                    Special Area Management Plans                        n y   n   y   n   n     ny    y  n    y   n-y     n n   n   n   n   n _L    n   n       y                    y 12
                    Other Adopted Plans                                  n n   y   y   n   n     yn    n  y    n   y y     y n   y   n   y   y y     y I yt Ln   n                    y 16
                    DIRECT LAND MGT, RESTORATION
                    AND ACQUISITION TOOLS                                                                                                                                             j 29
                    Shoreline in State Parks Management                  v v   v   v   v   v     vv    v  v    v   v v     v v   v   v   v   v     v v   v I  v  v  v    v v    v     v 129
                    Natural Areas Protected                              y y   n   L   y   y     yy    y  n    y   y y     y n   y   y   y   y     y y   n    y  y y y y        y     y _5
                    Dunes Revegetated                                    y n   n y     y _L _L    n    n  y    y   y y     n n   y   n   n   y     n n   n    n  n y n y        n     n 13
                    Beaches Nourished or Renourished                     n n   n. y   j  _L _L _L         y    y   y y     n y   y   y   y   y     n y   y    n  n       n _L   n     n 17
                    Shoreline Armoring & Repairs                         n n   n           n y _L y      _L _I[y     j  _L   n               n     n n   y    n  n       n n    n     n 11
                    Coastal Lands Acquired                               n n   n                       y n                   n                     n y   y    y  y y     nj _y          21
                    NON-REGULATORY TOOLS                                                                                                                   I   I   I       1            29
                    Public Investment Restrictions                       n n   n   v   v   v     vn    n  n I  v I v v I v   n   n   n   v   v     n n   n I  v  y  n    v  n   n     n 13
                    Public Investment Incentives                         n n   n   n   n   y     yn    n  n    n y   y     n n   n   n   n   n     n n   n    n  n  y    n n    n     n 4
                    Coastal Property Disclosure                          n n   n   n   n         y n   n j     n j _!!_    n y   n   n   n n       n v   n    n  n  y    n n    n An 26
                    Education/Outreachrrechnical Assistance                y   y                                                                         n    y                           8
                                                                       _L          Y_  y         Y. ..y. y J_ _L -L     -dy-            -L _L ]      L           y  y..  y -L _L
                                                                                                                                                   nT                                 n 20
                    Financial Assistance                                                   n           y  y    y   n n                               y   y    n  nj y    n  y   y
                                                                               y   n
                    RESEARCH TOOLS
                    Methodolodes for Shore Setbacks/Zones                v n   n   v I v   v     vv I  v  n    v   v n     v v I v   v   v I v     n v   n    v  n Iv    n  n I n I   v 19
                    Beach Profiles                                       y     n   y y     y     y y   y  y    y   y n     y y y     y   y   y y     y   n    y  y  y    n  y   n     y 23
                    Natural Areas Inventory                              y y   yl_L_L_L_y y            y  n    y   y         y y     y   Y1  y Y     y   n    y  y  y    y  y   y     y 27
                    Technical Reports                                    y y   y I Y Y -L -L-L-Y          y    y   y       y -L y       IL         _L _L _L _L _y_ _L _L _L _L          29
                    Aerial Photos                                        y y   y   y _L _L -L _L                        _L y _L         _L             _L _L _y _L _L y _L              29
                    Sea Level Rise Considerations                        n n   y   y             y n y         y y   y ? J_ J_                                   Y Y Yly


                  KEY:
                  Y- Yes, Management Tool employed by state
                  N- No, Management Tool not employed by state
                  Total Tools Employed out of 25: Al-1 5, AK-1 3, AS-12, CA-22, CT-21, DE-1 9, FL-24, GM-1 7, HI-1 9, LA-16, ME-21, MD-23, MA-20, MI-1 9. MS-16, NH-20, NJ-
                  18, NY-20, NC-21, NM-14, OR-20, PA-1 I         PR-16, RI-16, SC-23, VI-13-, VA-20, WA-15, WI-17.
                                                                                                                                                                                      @
                                                                                                                                                                                        28
                                                                                                                                                                                        28
                                                                                                                                                                                        23
                                                                                                                                                                                        25
                                                                                                                                                                                        28
                                                                                                                                                                                        22









                                                                                                                                         n
                                                                                                                                4n
                                                                                                                                *nn
                                                                                                                                 y y
                                                                                                                     ly             19


                  Source: Individual CZM Profiles             Version 12/13/96
                                                                                                             19










                 Table 3: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Bluffs and Rocky Shores
                 STATES                                            AK       AS       CA         CT      GU         HI     ME        MA       MI       NH       NM       OR       PA       PR       RI                WA        WI          Total
                                                                                                      I                                                                                           I                                        YES
                 RESOURCE PRESENT                                                                     I                                                                                           I
                 Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                              y y      y4y y               y y     y y        y  y   y y    I y y I y       y I  n y    I y y    I y y    I y n    I y y     Iy y     Iy y    ry y      I y y    1    17 17
                 REGULATORY TOOLS
                 Restrict Construction
                 BlufW Rocky Shores                              J_L Y Y I Y Y                  y y     y y        y  y   y y       y y      y   n        Y  _y Y       Y Y      Y -      Y Y     _L        Y v      v ?       y y         17 15
                 Other Regulatory Controls
                 Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                              n n      y y      y y        y y     n n        y  y                 y    y   n        y    ? ?      y y      y -                                                       13 11
                 PLANNING TOOLS                                                                                                                                                                                  y
                 Local. state, or special area                     y y      y y      y y     -y y                                            n   n        y  1 n n      y y      y -                                           n n
                 DIRECT LAND MGT
                 State Owns and Manages
                 Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                              y y      n n      y y     _)L?       y y        y y    y y       ? y     -Y   ?        y    ? ?      y y      y -      y y      y y      ? y      Y Y_      y y         13 13
                 Natural Areas Protection
                 Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                              y y      n n      y y        y ?     y   n      Y  y   y y       ? y      y   ?        y    ? ?           y   n -      y y      y y      ? y      y y       y y         11 12
                 ACQUISITION TOOL
                 Lands Acquired
                 Bluffs/Rocky Shores                               n n      n n- _Ly            ?   ? 2     n      y  y   y y       ? ?      y   ?                                        n n      ? ?      n n      y y       y y         7   7
                 NON-REGULATORY TOOLS
                 Public Investment Restriction                     n n      n n      y    n     y   n   n   n      n  n   n n       ?   ?        ?   @-n     rnn             n   n   -             n   n    y        n    n    n  n        5   2
                 Coastal Property Disclosure                                n n      n    n     n   n   n   n      n  n   n n       n   n    n   n    -   n    n    n            n -      n n      n   n    n    n   n    n    n  n
                 Education/OutreacIV TA                                              n    n     y   y   n   n      y      n n                    ?    _   y    n    n                     n n               y             n    Y           12  9
                                                                                                                                                      _   y                  y   y        n n
                 Financial Assistance                                                n    n     y   y   n   n      y  y   n n       n   n    y   ?             n    n' Wn                          n   n    n ..     y    y                r   I
                   RESEARCH TOOLS
                 Inventories/ Designate protection area            y y      y y      n    n     y   y   y   y      y  y   y y       y   y    y   ?        y    n    n   y    y   y        ? y      n   y    y    y I y    n    y  y        13  13
                 Technical Reports                                 y y      y y      y    y     y   y   n   n      y  y   y y       y   y    y   ?        y    n    n   y    y   y        y y      y   y    ?    ? @L_n        y  y        14  12
                 Total Tools Employed-13                           9 8      8 8      9    8, 1  11 8    6   5      11 11  9 9       6   8    11?          11   2    2   10 12    10       7 8      8   8   17    8 1 11 6 1    9  9   1
                 Key:
                 y- YES, Management Tool employed by state
                 n- NO, Management Tool not employed by state
                 - not applicable
                 ? unknown, not state data or insufficient data to determine answer

                 Resource Presence Summary:
                 17 States with Bluffs:          AK, AS, CA, CT, GIJ, H1, ME, MA, M1, PA, NM, OR, PR, RI, V1, WA, WI
                 17 States with Rocky Shores: AK, AS, CA, CT, GU, HI, ME, MA, MI, NH, NM, OR, PR, Rl, VI, WA, WI

                 13 States with No Coastal Bluffs:           AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MA, MS, NH, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, SC, VA
                 12 States with No Coastal Rocky Shores: AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, PA, SC, VA

                 Source: CZM profiles      Version 12/1/96                                                                     20
                                                                                                                qn                               ?                                                 n                Wnn
                                                                                                                                            @n   En
                                                                                                                   y  n                 dn       ?                                             In ann       y    n
                                                                                                                                                                                          n
                                                                                                                                  i                                                            n
                                                                                                                   y  y             n   n    y   ?                                        n n      n   n    n n      y    y








                                     5 PROCESS INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS

                 Key provisions of.selected management tools are used as process indicators of effective state CZM
                 programs in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. States with the following suite of
                 regulatory, planning, direct land management and acquisition provisions are presumed to have effective
                 programs:

                 Regulatory Programs
                 (a) Coastal Setbacks for development and redevelopment from beach, dune, bluffs, or rocky shores natural
                 features, with the farther setback the more effective; the fewer exceptions allowed within the setback, the more
                 effective.
                 (b) Coastal Construction Controls Areas along the shoreline with regulations governing activities affecting
                 beach, dune, steep slope bluffs, erodable bluffs, and rocky shores and limits on size, type, design or location
                 of permitted construction to minimize adverse impacts on beach/dune/bluff systems; controls over new
                 significant activities with few exceptions, control over additions/repairs/rebuilding; the more restrictive, the more
                 effective.
                 (c) Shoreline Stabilization Regulations which place.limitations on the use of shoreline stabilization structures
                 in favor of nonsfructural solutions.
                 (d) Access Restrictions with requirements for boardwalks or dune crossovers to minimize adverse impacts on
                 dune; and areas designated where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted to protect resources.
                 (e) Habitat Protection and Other Controls over critical habitat areas.where uses are restricted to protect
                 habitat protection values.
                 (1) Permit Tracking and Enforcement Provisions which are used to monitor permits and violations.

                 Planning
                 (a) Adopted Plans for areas containing enforceable policies that address resource protection, beach
                 nourishment, inlet management, dunes restoration, or special area resource protection or conservation; the
                 larger the resource area covered, the more of the shoreline included, and the more restrictive the enforceable
                 policies, the more effective.

                 State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition
                 (a) State Coastal Land Holdings including inventory of the number, acres, shoreline miles of state lands in
                 state oceanfront parks and preserves.
                 (b) State Coastal Land Management and Stewardship including park management plans; boardwalks, dune
                 cross-crossovers or other guided pedestrian access; dune restoration and beach nourishment where
                 appropriate; enforceable policies restricting the use of shoreline stabilization structures; and designated
                 natural resource habitat protection areas.
                 (c) State Coastal Land Acquisition Program with coastal land acquisition as a priority.

                 Appendix C contains summary tables which describe the key provisions of regulatory and planning tools
                 each of the twenty-nine coastal states utilizes to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores, including
                 setback requirements, regulations within construction zones, restrictions on shoreline stabilizations, access
                 restrictions, and protection of critical habitat areas. Appendix C also contains summary tables on direct land
                 management and acquisition tools associated with state ownership and management and land acquisitions,
                 including coastline miles, miles of beachfront, state oceanfront park (miles, acres, number, and beach parks as
                 subset), number of boardwalks or dunes crossovers installed, dunes revegetated, beaches renourished,
                 shoreline armored, natural areas protected and lands acquired in beach/dune, bluff or rocky shore. Findings
                 regarding state CZM process indicators of effectiveness in protecting beaches, dunes, bluft and rocky
                 shores are presented on the following pages.

                                                                          21









                  KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN COASTAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS

                  The inappropriate siting of structures on coastal barriers, in coastal flood zones, and on eroclable bluffs is a
                  problem which state CZM programs inherited. Thus when the state CZM programs began in the 1970s, certain
                  portions of our nation's coastline were already committed to intense development and other areas were already
                  zoned and platted for development. Shoreline erosion was a recognized problem, but land use controls were
                  not well developed. State CZM regulatory programs have provided institutional mechanisms to balance
                  competing demands along our shoreline and to minimize adverse impacts on valued natural coastal resources.
                  State CZM programs have created new or implemented and refined existing coastline regulatory controls such
                  as setbacks from beaches/bluffs, and controls over shoreline development and stabilizations. CZM programs
                  have played a leadership role in the policy shift towards beach nourishment and shoreline retreat.
                  COASTAL SETBACKS 0                                                                                                                1
                  * All 29 coastal states with federally-approved CZM programs have controls over certain land and water
                  activities along portions of their coastlines. All coastal states with developable beach/dune systems or bluffs
                  have some form of state-mandated regulatory mechanism by,,@hich they prohibit or restrict certain types of new
                  development in designated portions of their shoreline. The strength of the individual state setback or coastal
                  construction control laws vary considerably depending on the setback distance, activities permitted, exceptions
                  allowed, reconstruction provisions, level of government regulating development, and permit compliance and
                  monitoring.

                   22 of the twenty-nine coastal states have adopted land use. regulations in the form of setback requirements
                  far now structures that can be built on the shoreline. Another    2 states use locally-created setbacks.

                  * C
                   Setback laws have a dual purpose: protecting the natural beach and dune or bluff systems as storm buffers
                  and reducing the loss of life and property from hurricanes and winter storm events. Implementation of these
                  la%vs has reduced the number and size of new structures that can be built on the shoreline and, for those built,
                  located these structures as far landward from the water's edge as possible to prevent erosion from reaching the
                  structures during their expected useful life. However, naturally migrating beaches have over time resulted in
                  houses sifting on open beaches and then collapsing into the water. The effectiveness of setbacks in protecting
                  natural beach and dune or bluff systems is limited in cases where development is allowed on portions of the
                  dune systems, usually behind the crest of the foreclunes where restricting private property rights is more
                  difficult.


                  * 10 of the 22 states measure their setback lines based on an arbitrary distance inland from the shor      eline; 3
                  use erosion rates; 3 use resource features; and 5 use a combination of feet, erosion rates, and features.
                  Determining which states have the most extensive landward setback boundaries is not practical, since the
                  ways setback lines are measured vary considerably, as do the state geography and resources. For example,
                  states vary in the shoreline location inland from which they. measure their setbacks (mean high water, mean
                  low tide, normal high water, crest of dune, elevation, or contour line.) 'Me landward boundary also varies (feet,
                  erosion rates, feet landward of coastal features.)

                  * *16 of the 22 state setback laws contain provisions for exceptions which tend to weaken the effectiveness of
                  the setback requirements. Examples include single-family dwellings within the setback if the land was platted
                  before the effective date of the statute, or small parcels where there is not enough land to build behind the
                  setback line. In some states, exception provisions have been added to state laws to avoid private property
                  taking claims. Other types of exceptions include in-filling in developed areas, water-dependent uses, public
                  interest activities, recreational activities, swimming pools, fences, boardwalks.

                   C
                    ,oastal setback provisions for each state are shown in Figure 3, including setback distance and exceptions
                  allowed seaward of the setback. Data was not collected on the methodology for setting the baselines and
                  other technical information. There was insufficient data to determine the number of shoreline miles covered by
                  state setback laws.





                                                                           22















                Figure 3: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback


                States  Setback distanced measured in feet or meters:


                AL      40 ft landward of crestline (120-450 feet landward of MHWL). Exceptions- SF
                AS      25 ft for residential; 50 ft for commercial from OHWL
                DE      100 ft landward of seaward-most 7-ft elevation above NGVD. Exceptions-yes, if not sufficient
                        land.
                GU      Public access zone MHW and 25 ft inland from 2 ft contour line of Geo. Survey. 35 ft from MHW
                        bounding beach. No higher than 25 ft. Win 75 ft. of MHW. Exceptions- shoreline w/cliff/bluff higher
                        higher than 25 ft, village lots> 100 sq meters in residential areas before WW1
                        Variances- recreation, commercial.
                HI      40 ft..along most shorelines to upper reaches.of wash, of waves, usually evidenced by edge of
                        vegetation growth, debris. Variances- 20 ft for small lots, shoreline stabilizations in public interest
                        or hardship.
                MID     75 ft from Normal High Water (NHW). Exceptions- fences, boardwalks.
                NH      100 ft from High Ordinary Tide Line (HOTL) bordering tidal waters. Exceptions- public good,
                        rebuilding. 5 ft from Mean High Water (MHW) for primary structures; 75 ft for septic tanks.
                NM      In shoreline Area of Particular Concern (APC), 0-35 ft no construction from MHW; 35-75 ft no
                        construction that obstructs visual openness; 75-100 ft. only SF.
                PR      6 meter public right of way w/no structures. 50 meter setback from TM. 2.5 time ht setback Win
                        400 meters of Territorial Maritime Zone (TMZ). Exceptions- urban zone lot, adjacent structures
                        setback less, water-dependency.
                \An     75 ft from Ordinary Mean High Water (OMHW). Exceptions- piers, boat hoists, boathouses.

                States  Setback distance measured by erosion ratg:

                FL      30-year erosion line for major structures from SHWL. Exceptions- SF
                Ml      Sand dune setback 100 ft landward from crest of first landward ridge not a foredune. Bluff high
                        risk area setback 30-year erosion projection plus 15 ft. Exceptions- substandard lots approved
                        prior to law.
                PA      Bluff setback of 50 times annual rate of recession from the bluff-face for residential; 75 times for
                        commercial, at least 50 ft. Exceptions- parcels subdivided prior to law if structure moveable.
                VA      30-year erosion rate or 20 times local recession rate from MHW for barrier islands Exception- public
                        interest activities.


                States  Setback measured by landward extent of resource features:

                NY      No moveable structures or major additions within "environmental hazard areas."
                OR      No building within "beach zone." No building on beaches, activelforedunes, other conditionally
                        stable foredunes subject to ocean undercutting and wave overtopping, and intertidal plains subject to
                        oc an flooding. Exceptions- in-filling where protection provided, on older-stabilized dunes.
                ISC     From MHW to crest of primary oceanfront sand dune. Exceptions- swimming pools.






                                                                    23









                  Figure 3: State coastal setback distance provisions and exceptions and type of setback (continued)
                  Slates   Setback measu;;Ybv combinatlon of setback, feet and/or resource feature:

                  ME       No structures on frontal dunes seaward of 100 year floodplain and sea level rise area. Shoreline
                           setback 75 ft for residential; 25 ft for general development/commercial; 250 ft from Normal High
                           Water Line (NHWL) in Resource Protection Areas. (feet & resource)
                  NJ       V-zone setback for residential. Exceptions- beach related commercial. 30-year erosion for 1-4
                           DU.; 60-year erosion setback for larger in erosion hazard areas. Baseline for setback varies by
                           site (crest of coastal bluff, dune crest, first line of vegetation, landward edge of 8-ft. elevation).
                           Exceptions- SF and duplex in-fill, shore protection. 25 ft setback from shore protection
                           structures for all permanent structures. (erosion rate and feet)
                  NC       Structures less than 5,000 sq. ft, setback landward of 30-yr erosion rate, crest of primary dune,
                           toe of frontal dune, 60 ft from 1 st line of stable vegetation. Exceptions- lots platted before law.
                           Structures greater than 5,000 sq. ft, 60-yr. erosion rate or 120 ft from mean vegetation line.
                           (erosion, feet, features)
                  RI       50 ft from coastal features or 25 ft from coastal buffer zone. Exception- water-dependent activity;
                           30-year erosion rate up to 4 units, 60-yr erosion rate larger structures in critical erosion areas. Dune
                           construction setback on 3 barrier beaches seaward of utilifiestwall of existing development. No
                           development on beach face, sand dune, undeveloped barrier beaches. Exception-stabilizations,
                           access, public utilities, public welfare.
                  VI       50 ft from MLT or inland boundary of natural barrier. (feet & resource)

                  Key: MHLW- mean high water line OHWL- ordinary high water line SF single family DU dwelling unit
                  Note: 22 states with state setbacks. 2 states with local setbacks- CA, WA.
                        5 states with no setbacks: AK, CT, LA, MIA, MS.
                  Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.


                  The North Carolina's strong oceanfront setback law uses erosion rates to determine setbacks and keep
                  development out of ocean hazard areas. Within the "Ocean hazard Areas of Environmental Concem'@- sand
                  dunes, ocean beaches, and other areas exhibiting substantial possibility of excessive erosion- setback are
                  based on average annual erosion rates, natural site features, and the nature of the proposed development The
                  setback is measured from the rirst line of stable natural vegetation or aerial photosIground survey where no
                  stable vegetation. New structures smaller than 5, 000 square feet and fewer than 5 residential units must be set
                  back the farthest landward of the following.- 1) a distance equal to 30 times the long-term annual erosion rate;
                  2) the crest of the primary dune, 3) the landward toe of the frontal dune, or, 4) 60 feet landward of the
                  vegetation line. Larger structures must be set back 60 times the average annual erosion rate or 120 feet
                  landwardof the vegetation line. Where erosion rates exceed 3.5 feet per year, the setback line for larger
                  shuctures is set at 30 times the erosion rate plus 105 feet. The law was passed in 1974, made part of the
                  coastal program in 1978, and amended in 1981 to allow single-family residences on pre-existing lots not deep
                  enough to meet the erosion setback requirements, as long as they am set back at least 60 feet The coastal
                  pn)gram has focus attention on studying erosion rates used in determining setbacks.

                  The Pennsylvania Bluff Recession and Setback Act provides a long-term regulatory approach to
                  reducing property losses from bhiff recession along Lake Ede. The act requires municipalities in bluff
                  recession hazard areas to administer bluff setback ordinances which restrict new development from bluff areas
                  and limit improvements to existing structures within the minimum bluff setback. Setback distance is based on
                  the rate of erosion (feet per yeat) multiplied by the Xe span of the structure. Life span for residential
                  development is 50 years,, commercial is 75 years, and industrial is 100 years, or at least 50 feet from the crest
                  of the bluff. The major effect of this program has been to keep new development a safe distance from bluff
                  recession hazard areas. CZM provides technical assistance to Lake Erie property owners affected by bluff
                  recession, consisting of on-site inspections and recommendations on surface and groundwater contro   */, bluff
                  stabilization and the role of vegetation to stabilize loose soil conditions. In the first seven years of the service
                  (1981-1988), approximately 314 of the surveyed property owners followed CZM's recommendations, resulting in
                  an estimated property damage savings and property value enhancement of $5.2 million. Pennsylvania is the
                  only Great Lakes state to offer this service.
                                                                 24
















                  COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AREAS


                  27 coastal states have established land use regulations using a coastal construction control area or zone
                  within which they regulate the location, size, and other conditions of development. Provisions used to protect
                  natural beaches and dunes include siting and design guidelines to locate structure as landward as possible,
                  minimizing disruption of dune vegetation, dune revegetation and landscaping requirements to recreate dunes
                  and vegetation destroyed during construction, and limitations on development square footage and density. 23
                  coastal states use both a setback and construction control area approach.

                  -The coastal construction control areas are smaller geographic areas than the states' coastal zones, focusing
                  regulatory controls over activities along the immediate shoreline. In most cases, a state's coastal zone extends
                  more landward to cover watersheds and other inland features. Regulatory controls along the immediate
                  shoreline, such as setbacks and construction regulations, may not apply to more landward areas within the
                  state's coastal zone.


                  The purpose of coastal control areas is to allow activities along the shoreline but to minimize their negative
                  impacts on natural shoreline resources and adjacent properties. Control area regulations presume that some
                  adverse effects will occur in balancing coastal development and resource protection. Some coastal states have
                  strengthened their regulatory program by eliminating exemptions, extending regulatory jurisdiction, and placing
                  limitations on additions, repairs and rebuilding. As a result, less harmful and inappropriate development is
                  occurring along out nation's shorelines, and the development that is permitted is taking into account the
                  resultant negative and cumulative impacts.

                  * 19 of the 27 coastal states with regulatory control areas exempt certain activities from the permit program.
                  Examples of exempted activities include single-family, water-dependent uses, public purpose uses, recreation,
                  agriculture, decks, walkways, in-filling, and small lots platted before law took effect. Such exempted activities
                  tend to weaken the effectiveness of the control zones in protecting resources.
                  In addition, only 10 of the 27 states with regulatory control areas contain limitations on additions to structures
                  built within the setback area or within the construction zone. Limitations include maximum square footage,
                  moveable structures, and location landward of setback.

                   12 of the 27 coastal states with regulatory control areas place restrictions on the repair or rebuilding of a
                  s*tructure damaged during a coastal storm event. For example, in some states, structures that are damaged
                  in excess of a specified threshold (e.g., 50% of assessed value), and which are located in the setback area,
                  must be relocated landward of the setback line. 16 states participated in the relocation or demolition benefits
                  under the Upton-Jones Act, prior to its termination in 1995. State requirements often differ from NFIP
                  standards. (See Appendix A, Table 4)

                  *
                  Each of the 27 states Wth coastal construction control area programs has unique regulatory features which
                  reflect their particular physical, social, economic or political priorities. Figure 4 below shows the diversity of
                  regulatory jurisdictions, activities exempted, and restrictions on additions and repairs















                                                                       25








                      Figure 4: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions
                                                                                              Activities           Restricts            Restricts
                      State     Regulatory Jurisdiction-Distance Inland                       Exempt               Additions            Repairs  .........

                      AL        40 ft inland from crestline to I 0-ft. elevation line         SF                   no                   Y-if
                                                                                                                                        damaged<50%

                      AK        District Control Zones- flood/hazard/erosion areas            uk                   no                   no

                      AS        1) 200 ft. from MHW                                           PP, R, WD, SF        no                   no
                                2) coastal hazard areas                                       no                   no                   no
                                3) territory-wide grading, excav.,fill,steep slopes           no                   no                   no

                      CA        MHT to 1 st public road or 300 ft. from beach/bluff           SF                   yes-except SF        yes-except SF
                                or MHT if no beach

                      CT        MHW inland to 1000 ft or 100 ft from state                    SF, A, 0             yes-                 yes-
                                regulated areas                                                                    except minor         except minor

                      DE        landward of 100 ft. setback inland 100 yds.                   no                   no                   y-d.amaged>75%
                                North of Wilmington to -12 miles in SE.                                                                 Y-foundation >59%

                      Fl.       SHW to landward extent of 1 00-yr. floodplain.                no                   no                   no

                      GU        1) Seashore Reserve seaward to 10 fathom                      Maintenance          yes-except SF        y-if damaged >50%
                                contour, all islands, inland from MHW                         Dredging                                  no-SF >$7500
                                to 10 meters or edge of public right of way.
                                2) flood hazard area                                          no                   no                   no

                      H11       1) SMAs: 100 yds inland, cover resource areas                 SF,                  no                   no
                                or to inland coastal road.                                    uses<$25,000
                                2) Island-wide land use boundary changes no                                        na                   na
                                3) Nat. Resource Conserv. District use permit                 no                   no                   no

                      Uk        Inland to intracoastal waterway, highways,                    SF                   no                   no
                                natural ridges, parish boundaries.

                      ME        1)On mapped coastal dunes. Frontal dune                       0                    y- floor area>30% yes-
                                  inland 125-175 ft.                                                                                     new standards
                                2) protected natural resource areas,                          SF                   no                   no
                                   1 00-year floodplain

                      MID       On coastal sand dunes 250 ft. from NHW.                       SF outside dunes no                       no

                      MIlk      Tide-flowed tidelands, filled tidal flats between             no                   no                   n o
                                waterway and 1 st public way or 250 ft. from water
                      M11       1) designated critical dune areas w/in 250 ft.dune>3 acres,>4 units                no                   yes-exceptions
                                2) high risk bluff erosion areas inland 1000 ft + 15 ft. no                        no                   yes-moveable
                                3) 500 ft. of stream for earth change permit                  no                   na                   na

                      Nil       1) HOTL inland 100 ft. bordering tidal waters.                public good, in-fill no                   no
                     L          2) OHTL inland 250 ft                                         A, 0                 no                   no




                                                                                              26








                      Figure 4: State coastal construction control area jurisdictions and provisions (continued)
                                                                                             Activities            Restricts           Restricts
                    State      Regulatory Jurisdiction-Distance Inland                       Exempt                Additions           Repairs  .........

                    NJ         1) IVIHW inland 500 ft                                        no                    no                  no
                               2) erosion hazard areas                                       SF, duplex in-fill no                     no
                               3)dunes, overwash areas, beaches, bluffs                      no alternative        no                  no

                    NY         Designated erosion hazard areas- a) beach                     no                    yes-except          no
                               dune, shoal, bar, spit, barrier island, bluff,                                      moveable structures
                               wetland, assoc.natural vegetation; b) 40-year
                               erosion area.


                    NC         AECs-Ocean Hazard Areas                                       Lots platted before y-setbacks            y-setbacks
                               1) ocean erodable areas MLW inland to 145- 700 ft.;           law, minor permits          apply             apply
                               2) high-hazard flood areas;                                   <60,000 sq ft. get
                               3) inlet hazard areas                                         local permits
                               4) unvegetated beach areas.

                    NIVI       4 AF:@Cs: a) shoreline APC IVIHW inland 150                   no                    no                  no'

                    OR         1)extreme low tide and line of vegetation no                            na                    na
                               2) coastal town boundaries                                    no                    no                  no

                    PA         landward of crest of bluff 50 to 200 ft.                      yes-parcels           yes                 yes if >50%
                               depending on erosion rate and type of                         subdivided before                         market value
                               development.                                                  law if moveable,
                                                                                             utilities, 3 miles non-erosion bluff area

                    PR         1) 1000 meters inland from shoreline                          yes-depends on Zone no                    no
                               2) flood areas                                                no                    yes                 yes-must protect
                               3) maritime zone-territorial waters, submerged lands no                             no                  no

                    RI         Inland 200 ft. from coastal feature- beach, dune,             yes*                  yes-if not          yes- on barrier bch
                               .beach, coastal bluff, rocky shore, etc.                                            priority use

                    SC         40-year erosion zone                                          no feasible alt.,     >5000 sq ft.      Y-damaged >66213%
                                                                                             swimming pools, 0

                    V1         Mapped are based on roads, landmarks, property lines.         minor activity        no                  no
                                                                                             <$17,000

                    VA         Coastal primary dunes and beach                               uk                    uk                  uk

                    WA         200 feet inland from shore                                    uk                    no                  no


                    WI         OHWIVI inland 100 ft.                                         piers, 0              no                  no

                    K ey: SF- single family, PP-public purpose, WD- water dependent, R- recreation, A-agriculture, 0- other such
                    as temporary structures, decks, walkways. uk- unknown Activities Exempt- covers activities not subject to
                    regulations

                    * RI has complex regulations with exceptions tied to water type and priority uses.

                    NOTE: 28 States with control zones along beach, bluff, or rocky shoreline. 2 States with no control zone along
                    beach- IVIS, PA.
                    Source: State CZIVI Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.




                                                                                      27










                   77ie Maine Coastal Program illustrates the complexity of regulating diverse resources such as beaches,
                   bluffs and rocky shores. Maine uses three coastal constfuction regulatory program.. Under the Natural
                   Resources Protection Act, coastal frontal sand dunes and back sand dunes are mapped and protected. There
                   is a de facto setback from frontal dunes. In back dunes, there is a size limit of 2,500 square feet, the structure
                   must be moveable, and elevated above 3"sea /eve/ rise, with multifamily elevated higher Reconstfuction of
                   stiuctures damaged >50% is prohibited unless all now building standards are met, including minimal damage
                   to dunes, lot restrictions, bird habitat protection, and revegetation of disturbed areas. Additions may not
                   expand floor area or volume by more than 30% of existing structure. Exceptions include maintenance and
                   repair of existing structures, temporary structures, walkways, open decks smaller than 200 square feet, and
                   underground storage tanks outside the V-zone.          State pennits are also required for activities within "protected
                   natural resource areas" which include the 100-year flood zone, moderatelhigh value wetlands, and steep
                   slopes greater than 20%. Development in 'Protected areas, " with the exception of single family residential,
                   must beset back 250 feet from normal high waterline. The Municipal Shoreland Zoning Act mandates local
                   zoning with a 75-foot setback for residential and 25 ft for general developmenticommercial.

                   The Rhode Island Coastal Program Is an example of a strong regulatory program with defined criteria
                   addressing idendfied resources, activities, and management issue areas. Activities are regulated within
                   an of 200 feet landward of defined coastal features-coastal beaches and dunes, barrier beaches, bluffs, cliffs
                   anct banks, rocky shores, and manmade shoreline. Complex coastal zoning designates what type's of activities
                   an? permissible on shoreline features, tied to 6 state water classifications. About 75% of the shoreli      ne i  .s
                   ad@acent to Type I Waters (Conservation) or Type 2 Waters (Low Intensity Use Areas) where alteration or
                   coastruction or shoreline features and undeveloped barrier beaches is prohibited. In addition. activities are
                   regulated by different setbacks from beaches and dunes, critical erosion areas, and coastal buffer zones.
                   There are also regulations for speceic types of activities (such as dredging, fiffing, new residential structures)
                   as well as 17 designated coastal hazard areas and 18 identified erosion-pmne areas. On barrier beaches, all
                   rez4dential and non-water dependent structures on dunes destroyed >50% may not be reconstructed
                   re@ rardless of insurance carrier coverage. Additions are allowed only to structures designated priority
                   peanissible uses.

                   The Michigan Coastal Program is a multi-faceted program which has specialized regulatory controls for
                   different types of areas. Under the Shorelands Protection and Management Act (SPMA), three types of
                   arvas are regulated: 1) high risk areas-subject to bluffine recession; 2) environmental areas-fish and wildlife
                   habitat; and 3) food risk areas-flood-prone areas due to changes in Great Lakes water level. The"highrisks
                   erosion areas" have been surveyed and designated. Included are all areas with erosion > 1 foot per year over
                   15ormoreyears. This area can extend inland from MHWas far as 1,000 feet from the bluffline. Setbacksare
                   rec,fuired and based on 30-year bluffline erosion projections. Within the setback area, new pennanent
                   structures are prohibited. and lakeward relocation of existing stfuctures is prohibited. Existing structures in front
                   of ihe setback line cannot be moved lakeward and any addition must be located landward of the setback line.
                   Repairs to deteriorated or damaged structures >60% of building's replacement value must meet new setback
                   standards. if less than 60%, structures can be restored to previous condition. Exceptions to the setback for
                   small lots granted if waste handling system is landward Of the structure, the structure is moveable and located
                   as far landward as possible, and the building meets engineering standards. For structures in danger from
                   erosion with access routes too narrow or steep to relocate the structure, shoreline stabilization permits may be
                   grointed, but only after a# other options are exhausted and sewer and engineering standards are met
                      Major regulatory amendments in 1992 expand the definition of bluffline to include non-bluff areas subject to
                   ercision. AHione of imminent danger- area landward of bluffline where erosion anticipated in the next 10
                   years- must be designated. An additional 15 feet was added to the setback to address severe short-term
                   ercsion or landslides or high water Construction requirements were eased. Additions are allowed if existing
                   building and addition are moveable, the addition and the foot-print does not exceed 25% of the building's
                   foundation, and located landward of zone of imminent danger Reconstruction of substantially damaged
                   stnictures (60-100% of replacement value) is allowed if damage not caused by erosion and if stiucture is not
                   reconstructed in zone of imminent danger and is readily moveable. Small structures (. 3,500 square feet
                   foundation and >5 units) must be moveable if built between setback and 2 times setback distance. For larger
                   structures, the setback is doubled.

                                                                           28











                   The Sand Dunes Protection Act of 1976, strengthened in 1989, protects critical dune areas within 2 miles of
                   the Great Lakes, much farther inland than the 1, 000 feet SMPA high risk erosion are jurisdiction. Regulations
                   may extend inland 250 feet from a critical dune area. A 100-foot setback from the crest of the dune is required
                   unless dune stability standards are met Development, silvaculture and recreation affecting dunes and contour
                   changes is regulated. Building is not allowed on slopes 25-33% without registered plan or slopes >33%
                   without a special exception. Special use projects are regulated including industrial, commercial, multi-family >3
                   acres or>4 units per acre. Variances can be granted for rebuilding of nonconforming structures within critical
                   dune areas if built prior to act and destroyed by fire or non-erosion forces or made nonconforming due to
                   erosion.


                   The Puerto Rico Coastal Program is characteristic of state CZU programs adopted by the island states,
                   teryltories and commonwealths where regulations are island-wide. Puerto Rico regulates development
                   through island-wide land use policies and zoning districts In addition to three shoreline setback areas, permits
                   are required for activities within 1000 meters of the shoreline or farther inland to include important natural
                   resources, as well as all offshore islands. There are 14 zoning districts within which specific activities are
                   allowed. For example, no subdivisions are allowed in the following three Districts: Conservation of Resources
                   District (CR); Conservation and Restoration of Reso(4rces District (CRR); and Resource Preservation
                   District(PR). Exceptions granted in CR District for tourist-related recreation if the public interest and natural
                   environment not adversely affected. In the Public Beaches District (PPI, subdivisions and development
                   allowed for hotellvacation facilities, tourist villas, restaurants, recreation, wharves, docks and other water-
                   dependent or water-related activities. Puerto Rico also required Flood Areas permits for activities in
                   Floodprone zones. In Zone 1 (floodways) development and major renovations are prohibited. Exception-
                   existing structures cannot be expanded unless protected. Zone 1M(v-Zone) and Zone 2 (low areas) allows new
                   development and modifications to existing subject to design/building requirements. There is also a relocation
                   program in coastal high hazard flood areas. Effective beginning in 199Z there is a Maritime Control Zone and
                   required state Authorizations and Concessions for nonconforming uses in the maritime zone- mapped
                   territorial waters, submerged lands, inland to reaches of low lands beneath by ebb1flow of tides.

                   SHORELINE STABILIZATION REGULATIONS                    0

                   -
                   The primary purpose of shoreline stabilization structures is to protect upland structures affected by coastal
                   erosion, by stabilizing the shoreline. Most types of shoreline armoring impede natural sand migration, thereby
                   causing erosion and resulting in the loss of natural beach. States which prohibit the use of shoreline
                   stabilizations give priority to the protection of natural beach processes. As a result of inappropriate
                   development along migrating shorelines, the accepted practice prior to CZM was to allow seawalls, bulkheads
                   and groins in an effort to prot'ect structures threatened by coastal erosion. Greater awareness of the negative
                   impacts of shoreline stabilization structures on adjacent properties and coastal resources has caused CZM
                   programs to more carefully scrutinize such activities and weigh the private and public benefits.


                   * 28 coastal states regulate the use of shoreline stabilizations structures. All 28 require permits for new
                   shoreline stabilizations and place conditions on new activities to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent land,
                   natural resources, sand supply, erosion, and drainage. Protection of existing upland structures is a common
                   reason for granting permits.

                    22 coastal states generally allow new shoreline stabilizations if impacts are minimized. Most approval must
                   -meet criteria such as water-dependency, public benefit, erosion present, nonstructural alternatives not feasible,
                   etc. A few states require structures to be designed to meet 30-50 storm/erosion events.

                    6 coastal states prohibit new shoreline stabilization structures along all or portions of their coastline.
                   Exceptions are granted by some states if structures or infrastructure are in imminent danger of collapse from
                   erosion.


                       7 coastal states do not require permits for the repairs or reconstruction of shoreline stabilizations. 4
                       states set 50% damage thresholds and 2 require a rebuilding permit while 2 do not require a rebuilding
                       permit. South Carolina prohibits repair or rebuilding of stabilizations if structures are damaged over a



                                                                             29









                    certain percent. Oregon prohibits erosion repairs on oceanfront lots platted before 1997 where no
                    infrastructure improvements exist.

                   Most coastal states have regulatory language which promotes nonstructural soluttons. Some states
                require applicants to exhaust nonstructural alternatives before granting structural permits.


                   Each of the 28 states reg ulating shoreline stabilization structures has adopted unique provisions which
                reflect their level of shoreline development, erosion pressures, and political priorities. Figure 5 summarizes the
                restrictions associated with shoreline stabilizations.

                Figure 5: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure (SSS) restriction provisions
                State   Restriction provisions

                AL.     No SSS allowed on Gulf-front. Exceptions, case-by-case, if structure built prior to law and
                        threatened by erosion. Allowed by permit on Bay, a permit required for repair/reconstruction.

                ASP     Allowed by permits only in developed areas to protect'property from erosion and if public-
                        safety/health risk; no feasible alternatives, habitat affected evaluated; adverse affects on nearby -
                        areas and habitat, drainage and shoreline alternations minimized.

                CA      Allowed by permit for coastal-dependent uses ., to protect exist ing structures or public beaches in
                        danger of erosion if designed to eliminate/mitigate adverse impacts on local shore sand supply.
                        Can replace SSS damaged >50% without permit. Along cliffs, allowed to stabilize slope or check
                        marine erosion where no.less damaging alternative.

                C1,     Allowed by permit to protect infrastructure, for water-dependent uses, existing inhabited
                        structures, if bluff slope not greater than 3:1. Groins/jetties allowed where non-structural
                        alternatives infeasible.

                DE:     Allows by permit new and repair to existing SSS.

                FL      Allows by permit new and repairs to existing SSS.

                GLJ     Permit required, but none since 1970s issued. Relies on USACE standards.

                HI      Allows bu t requires variance to demonstrate public interest or hardship. No SSS which interferes
                        with beach processes. State regulates from shoreline seaward. Counties regulate above
                        shoreline.

                LA      Allows new but regulates to minimize downstream land loss. No restrictions or permit for
                        repairs/rebuilding if damaged >50%.

                M E     Prohibits new rip-rap, seawalls, groins, other SSS on sand dune system, except existing seawalls
                        may be maintained and repaired unless building behind SSS damaged more than 50%. Effective
                        1995, existing seawalls can be fortified, build bigger and deeper if undermined. Within 32
                        designated natural coastal barriers, no state funds for new SSS if incompatible with protection
                        values.














                                                                    30











                 Figure 5: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure (SSS) restriction provisions (continued)
                 MD       Allows new and repair of existing. Nonstructural stabilization encouraged.

                 MA       Allowed  to stabilize shorej rehabilitate existing structures, if minimize encroachment in waterway.
                          Seawalls, bulkheads, revetments must be located landward of MHW, except for proper tieback
                          placement, obtain slope stability, or be compatible with abutting SSS below MHW. Encourages
                          Nonstructural alternatives where feasible. No restrictions on reconstruction. If adverse impacts
                          occur, state may require modifications/removal.

                 MI       Allowed but must be designed to meet/exceed 20-year storm event for small structures; 50 year
                          storm event for large structures. Must be 30 feet from erosion zone and landward of zone of
                          imminent danger.

                 MS       Allows new and repairs to existing SSS.

                 NH       Allows new. No restrictions on reconstruction. SSS considered in public interest and generally
                          allowed for protection of upland structures. Considered a major project if in dune, tidal wetland
                          or within 100 feet of HOTL. Minor projects include beach nourishment <1 0 cu yd or removal of
                          sand, rock, gravel <20 cu yd. Minimal impact projects- repair retaining wall.

                 NJ       Allowed based on 7 conditions- to protect water-dependent uses, heavily used public recreation
                          areas or existing structures and infrastructure in developed shorefront areas. Although
                          nonstructural solutions preferred, SSS deemed essential given NJ's urbanized shoreline.

                 NY       Allows new by permit. Repair/reconstruction allowed without permit. SSS must be designed to
                          control erosion for 30 years, be unlikely to increase erosion, minimize adverse effects on natural
                          protective features, other erosion structures and natural resources. Must include long-term
                          maintenance program. Variances from regulations for hardship and not alternative site,
                          mitigation measures, safe from flood/erosion damage, public benefit if public funds used.

                 NC       Effective 1985, no new SSS. Temporary sand bags and beach nourishment allowed. Repairs to
                          existing do not require permit, but replacements require permits. Exceptions to SSS
                          prohibition- emergency DOT SSS to protect historic sites, groin at north end of Pea Island to protect
                          bridge foundation across Oregon Inlet- only road access to barrier island. Policy preference for beach
                          nourishment and relocation of structures.


                 NM       Allows new and repairs. Must not interfere with coastal processes or inhibit access to shoreline.

                 OR       Allows new, but must be built as far landward as possible above MSL to prevent encroachment.
                          Allows repairs/replacement if within 3 years of damage. Prohibits erosion repair on lots where
                          no physical improvements (i.e., building, road, water lines, sewer lines) on existing oceanfront
                          lots platted before 1977. Promotes nonstructural solutions, SSS must be designed to minimize
                          adverse impacts. Allows emergency new and repair SSS if property in imminent peril from erosion.

                 PA       Allowed from MHW lakeward. Groins allowed 50 feet from water's edge. No regulation of SSS
                          above MHW. No permit required for repair/reconstruction. Priority is bluff-erosion prevention.

                 PR       Allowed for new and repairs. Relies on USACE standards.

                 RI       Allowed but must exhaust nonstructural alternatives. Prohibits new SSS on barriers in type 1 waters.
                          Limits use of riprap to protect septic systems/ancillary structures. Permitted SSS must demonstrate
                          that erosion exists, SSS will control erosion, nonstructural SSS does not work, no reasonable
                          alternatives will not increase erosion, long-term solution and maintenance program and financial
                          commitment. Repair/reconstruction SSS damaged >50% requires a new permit.




                                                                          31










                 Ficiure 5: State coastal shoreline stabilization structure (SSS) restriction provisions (continued)
                 SC       Since 1988, no new SSS along         ch except to protect public highways in existence in 1990. Since
                          1990, restricts reconstruction of SSS based on degree damaged in certain years. After 2005,
                          damaged >66 2/3% above grade cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Sand bags, sand scraping and beach
                          nourishment allowed as exceptions.

                 V1       Allows new by permit and environmental assessment. Repairs/reconstruction do not require permits.
                          Prohibited within 50 feet of open shore setback and siting policies to minimize adverse impacts.

                 VA       Effective 1990, new SSS prohibited under any circumstances. Prior to 1990, preference for
                          nonstructural measures. Exception-SSS allowed on portions of Virginia Beach where private upland
                          structures in imminent danger from erosion.

                 WA       Allowed, except no new groins or jetties since 1985.

                 W        Allows new and repair.

                 Total    28 states regulate SSS through state permits; I state (AK) relies on USACE permit.

                 Keir SSS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures- refers to erosion control devices designed to harden the beach or
                 shoreline. Includes seawalls, rip-rap, revetments, groins and jetties.

                 Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.



                 South Carolina Developments Erosion Retreat Policy. The 1988 Beachfront Management Act and the 1990
                 Amendments established an erosion retreat program which requires the SCCC to develop setback lines
                 derived from expected beach erosion over 40 years. Beachfront development prior to 1977, the year that the
                 State CZM statute was enacted, and from 1977 to 1988 resulted in a steadily increasing loss of the State's
                 public beach resource& No better example of this trend exists than the development of the Garden City areas
                 in Horry County. This unincorporated beachtront community in HorTy County developed from 1977 till 1985
                 from single family beach cottages to high rise hotels and condominiums at the water's edge. In each case, the
                 buJi'dings and swimming pools occupy virtually the entire square footage of the beachfmnt lots behind seawalls
                 and revetments that leave little or no dry sand beach for much of the day. This development has taken. place
                 since the State CZM program was enacted in 1977. This law provided little consideration for the protection and
                 -conservation of the public beach or for the dynamics of the changing beachface from erosion and storms. The
                 proliferation of hard erosion control structures in this area has significantly narrowed the beach and flattened
                 the beach profile resulting in a much less appealing tourist destination when compared to other areas with
                 healthier beaches. The storm hazard potential has also been greatly heightened. The policy of retreat
                 established in the 1988 legislation will require decades to correct this problem; while repeated, expensive
                 attempts at beach renourishment will be required in the short run to rebuild public beach. State-of-the art
                 scientific and technical expertise has been and continues to be used to refine the methodologies on which the
                 stalle bases its shoreline constniction retreat policy. This includes methodologies to protect structures from
                 shoreline erosion and damage from storms. (Source: Chris Brooks, South Carolina Coastal Program)

                 Cailfornis allows by permit now stabilization construction and repair to existing shoreline stabilization
                 stri,rctures. In 199Z the California Coastal Commission (CCQ undertook a pilot Regional Cumulative Impact
                 Prclect (ReCAP) to study development impacts along an 83 mile-long coastal stretch covering the two central
                 Cafifomia coastal counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey. This study looks at policies governing shoreline
                 amporing activities,* resource conditions measured by changes in amount of armoring, and pennitted activity
                 rehited to shoreline armoring. - A major finding of the study is that the current coastal policies support the use
                 of public shoreline and public resources to protect private property, and if the current situation continues, more
                 and more of the public shoreline will be lost as a public resource. On-the-ground outcome data indicates that,
                 between 1978 and 1993, the percent of the shoreline armored in the ReCAP pilot area increased from 9.6
                 miloas to 12.0 miles. Approximately 118th of the shoreline is now armored. This estimate does not include



                                                                          32










                  lengths of beaches protected by breakwaters, jetties, or groins, nor do the figures for length reflect
                  maintenance and additions of rock to existing walls. Much of the increase in armoring between 1978 and 1986
                  is thought to have been constructed in response to storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Future demand
                  for shoreline protection will depend on trends in development along the shoreline, erosion potential and storm
                  frequency. Based on private property ownership, land use and physical characteristics, development patterns,
                  and continued implementation of existing policies, it is estimated that 113 of the ReCAP coastline, or 27 miles,
                  could be armored in the future.
                      Armoring has led to cumulative impacts to beach areas and access opportunities, affecting sand supply
                  and landward retreat of the beach. Along the ReCAP shoreline, data indicate that protective structures cover
                  -25 acres of beach, Permits granted since 1978 represent about 5 acres, or 20% of this total. Although
                  shoreline armoring data indicates that armoring and encroachment has slowed under CZM, the impact from
                  such encroachment may still be significant Many of the armoring projects were approved in the popular
                  recreational areas of Santa Cruz County. Armoring is often put in place following emergency storm events.
                  However, permits are approved with little or no technical analysis, review of alternatives, or review of
                  mitigation for adverse impacts on resources, and no followup permit. Therefore, such projects do not receive
                  full regulatory review or monitoring, and are usually in areas of significant long-term or storm related erosion.
                  As a result, impacts from these projects have not been fully assessed or mitigated.
                     The policies governing shoreline development and building setbacks for much of the shoreline
                  development in'urban portions of the ReCAP pilot are often inadequate. CC Act policies are inconsistent. - One
                  requires that new development be stable without construction of protective devices to minimize hazards..
                  Another policy allows shoreline armoring to protect existing structures. There is no cutoff date for when a
                  structure can be considered existing. Storm damaged structures are exempt from permits if reconstructed in
                  same footprint, thereby, precluding more landward redevelopment, risk avoidance, and reduction of
                  dependence on protective devices. Setbacks are a common LCP management approach to avoid armoring.
                  However, most are based on long-term average erosi      .on and do not incorporate episodic events which may
                  exceed setbacks. This leads to structures in harms'way and future need for armoring. In the ReCAP region,
                  LCPs generally develop setbacks based on 50-year economic lifetime for new development Those structures
                  exceeding that lifetime will ultimately require armoring for long-term protection. Development on infill lots is
                  allowed to be as seaward as adjacent existing development, exacerbating erosion risks and the need for
                  annoring. Current policy does not restrict development in areas of high hazard. Future development is likely to
                  continue with adverse impacts on coastal resources and public costs involved in protecting private
                  development Regional Plans are recommended to address adverse impacts of shoreline armoring.
                  Source: ReCAP Pilot Proiec Executive Summa and Findings and Recommendations.


                  ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, HABITAT PROTECTION AND OTHER CONTROLS 0


                   The purpose for regulating beach access is to two-fold. One reason is protect the stability of the vegetation
                  within the beach, dune and bluff system and retaining their storm buffer benefits. The other is to protect critical
                  natural habitat areas from human encroachment. Coastal beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore areas
                  provide critical habitat for certain animals and plant species that are endangered or threatened with extinction
                  such as bird nesting sites, sea turtle nesting sites or other state-designated essential wildlife habitat set-aside
                  and regulated as part of the state CZM programs. Coastal endangered bird species include shorebirds and
                  seabird such as the bald eagle, piping plover, northern harrier, osprey, upland sand piper, and common tern.

                   22 coastal states restrict pedestrian access by requiring the use of boardwalks, trails, dune cross-
                  crossovers, beachfront stairs, and other structural accessways. Prior to the 1970s, public access cutting
                  through and breaching dunes was a common practice. With CZM, guided access on both private and public
                  dunes has be  come accepted practice.

                  * 22 coastal states restrict vehicular access along portions of the beachfront or shoreline. Types of
                  restrictions include only allowing beach clean-up, emergency or law enforcement vehicles, prohibiting driving
                  on public beach areas or designated habitat areas, allowing only certain types of vehicles, and creating
                  physical barrier to the shoreline. Certain beachfronts historically were public transportation routes or beaches
                  used as race-ways. Today, driving and parking on hard sandy beaches with access through vehicular access
                  ramps is considered locally acceptable ways to provide public beach access,



                                                                           33










                 *28 coastal states protect coastal shoreline habitat through regulation. The most common areas protected
                 are bird staging and nesting areas along the coast. Other areas include turtle nesting sites, endangered
                 species habitat, natural areas, and natural heritage areas. Regulation of turtle and bird nesting sites is
                 scasonal and tend to cover only a small portion of the coastline.

                 * 25 coastal states regulate other activities which affect natural coastal resources. This primarily includes
                 sand mining, dune reshaping, sand scraping, and dune creation. Both on-shore and offshore sand extraction
                 can have long-term adverse impacts on beach and dune systems. Historically, dunes and beach areas were
                 used commercially as a source of sand for construction, resulting in the loss of many beachfront dune areas.
                 Commercial use of sand remains an issue in a few states, but most now restrict or prohibit the taking of
                 beachfront sand. Sand dune grading and dune reshaping are issues affecting accreting coastlines where too
                 great accumulations of sand obstruct views and access. Dune creation and sand scraping are issues along
                 storm-event and long-term erosion affected coastlines.

                 T4e Florida Coastal Program requires state permits for boardwalks and dune crossovers to the beach.
                 Thousands of permits are issued for these accessways. The South Carolina Coastal Program allows
                 construction of walkways over sand dunes as an qKcepdon if the accessways are no greater than 6 feet
                 wide and other criteria are met. Wider accessways and handicap access requires state permit- approval. In
                 bc,th states, the goal is to minimize the adverse effects of vertical access through fragile dune areas to the
                 sandy beaches. Whereas dune breaching was common practice prior to state regulations, guided accessway
                 over dunes to avoid damage to the natural and protective functions of dunes is the accepted practice.

                 The Oregon Coastal Program restricts vehicular traffic by Parks Department administrative rule. Along
                 certain beach1dune areas, vehicular access is restricted to protect endangered snowy plover habitat,
                 reo,reation, and avoid use conflicts. Beach vehicular accessibility is shown on the Official State Map of Oregon
                 1995-1996. Vehicles are prohibited year-round or from May to September along an estimated 70% of the coast

                 The Maine Coastal Program protects shore bird nesting or breeding areas. Bald eagles, roseate tem,
                 least tem, piping plover are coastal endangered species and their habitat are mapped and protected under
                 Maine Endangered Species Act as "essential wildlife habitatn by inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Designated
                 an,as include: seabird nesting islands, shorebird nesting, feeding and staging areas; atlantic salmon spawning
                 an.,as; and critical waterfbwl and waterbird areas. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reviews
                 state and local pennits to ensure these habitat are protected. Prior to issuance of a local or state permit, the
                 applicant is required go through a consultation process with the Department staff. Construction of new fences
                 and reconstruction of closed fences are prohibited; open fences are allowed only to protect dune vegetation or
                 bitd nesting areas.
























                                                                      34











                       Figure 6: Coastal restlictions on pedestrian and vehicular access, habitat protection and other activities
                       state        Pedestrian Access                     Vehicular Access                 Habftt Protected                   Other Activities


                       AL           y-boardwalks                          y- only clean up, law            y- turtle& tem nesting,            no
                                    n-dune crossovers                     vehicles allowed on bch          beach mouse habitat


                       AK           y-trails regulated                    y-transportation routes          y-bald eagles                      y-sand mining

                       AS           no                                    no                               y-case-by case habitat             no

                       CA           y-boardwalks/walkways                 y                                y- env. sensitive areas            y-sand mining

                       CT           y-pedestrian corridors                no                               y- bird nesting habitat            y-dune reshape

                       DE           y-dune cross-crossovers               y-only 4 wheel drive veh.        y-bird nesting sites               y-sand mining

                       FL           y-boardwalks &                        y- 5 counties allow              y- sea turtle nesting sites        no
                                    dune cross-crossovers                 driving on the beach

                       GU           y-boardwalks                          y-no vehicles public bch         y-public conservation areas        y-sand mining, corals
                       HI           y-natural. resource areas             y-only gov't vehicles            Y-natural areas/sanctuaries        y-sand mining,corals

                       LA           no                                    no                               y-bird nesting sites               y-sand scraping, dune 4shape
                       ME           y-boardwalks                          y-no new roads, drives           y-shorebird. nesting               y-sand fencing, bn, ss, removal
                                                                          parking in V-zones               wildlife habitat areas

                       MD           y-boardwalks                          y-no vehicles on beach           y- bird nesting sites              y- sm, erosion control, bn
                       MA           y-boardwalks                          y-local plan for ORVs            y-natural heritage                 y-sand scraping, mining
                                                                          allowed on beach                 endangered species habitat

                       Mi           y-bchfront stairs,                    y-restTicted along 23% coast     y-natural preserves, cffical       y- ss,ds, sand mining
                                    bdwalks, trails                                                        coastal dunes, high erosion areas

                       MS           y-boardwalks                          y-no vehicles on beach           y-bird nesting sites               y- ss, sm, bn
                       NH           y-boardwalks                          no                               y-natural sites                    y-mining

                       NJ           y-boardwalks                          y-local restrictions             y-bird nesting sites               y-ss, mining, dune creation
                       NY           y-boardwalks                          y-no driving on vegetation       y-bird nesting fish WL sites       y- ss, sn, dune creation

                       NC           y-structural accessways               y-local restrictions             y-1 00 mi. undisturbed area        y-dune creation, ss, dr
                       NM           no                                    no                               y-beaches, pristine areas          y-sand mining

                       OR           y-boardwalks, walkways                y-vehicles restricted near       y-bird & endangered species        y-sand grading, sand dune
                                    sidewalks                             habitat areas                    habitat areas                      Mgt.

                       PA           no                                    no                               y-public beach/bluff               no

                       PR           y-public access restricted in         y-no cross-country vehicles      y-natural area reserves, SPA y-sand, gravel, stone extraction
                                    some Districts, Rec.trails,etc.       on bathing beaches, some Dist. endangered species habitat

                       RI           y-dunewalk-crossover, decks           y-vehicles prohibited on         y-APRs, CMAs, habitat areas        y-sand mining, dune alteration
                                                                          barrier beach, foreduries

                       Sc           y-boardwalks                          y-only emergency vehicles        y-sea turtle nesting               y-sm, ss, sr, dune creation
                       VI           no                                    no                               y-rec.beaches, turtle nesting      y-dredging, sand mining

                       VA           y-dune cross-cmssovers, trials        y-no vehicles in park areas      y-sea turtle nesting sites         y-dune creation/veg, sm

                       WA           no                                    y-no driving on beaches          no                                 y-dune grading, sand mining
                       W1           no                                    y-no vehicles in navig. waters y- 300 areas statewide               y-sand mining
                       total        yea     no                            yea no                           yes no                             yea no
                       29           22     - 7                            22   7                           28     1                           25     4


                       Key: y- yes n-no sm- sand mining. ss-sand scraping, dr- dune reshaping, bn-beach nourishment, ORV- offroad vehicles, WL- wildlife,
                       SPA- special planning areas., APR- areas of particular concern, CMAs- conservation and Management Areas
                       Source: State CZM Profiles







                                                                                                   35











                PERMIT TRACKING AND ENFORCEMENT


                * 26 coastal states have permit tracking systems. Only 19 have computerized permit tracking systems for
                habitable structure permits, 20 for shoreline stabilization permits. These permit tracking systems primarily
                seive as a tool for tracking individual permit status through the permit system and do not contain detailed
                information on the type or size of project, location and impact on natural resources, or other relevent data for
                determining individual or cumulative impacts of permit decisions. However, a few states have begun to explore
                ways to add such data to their permit tracking systems.

                   23 coastal states have permit compliance programs usually with field inspections, some with aerial
                surveillance.

                * FIgure 7 identifies which states have computerized or paper permit tracking systems and summarizes each
                CIVIP's coastal permit compliance mechanisms.



                Figure 7: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools
                STATE Permit Tracking System
                         Permit Compliance Tools

                AL      y-computer listing of permit number, subdivision lot, and party name
                        y-post-permit monitoring

                AK      y-agency review, inspection, monitoring
                        y- pre-issuance field inspections, post-issuance field inspections, agency project reviews

                AS      y- permit database for Land Use Permits since 1984. Covers all permits island-wide, not coded
                        by geographic area (shoreline, steep slope) or resource area (beach, cliff). Sam with Building
                        Permit data.

                CA      y-paper files. For CCC permits, developing statewide electronic logging system.
                        y-cease and desist order for activity without permit or inconsistent with permit conditions.
                        Penalties. Reported violations inspected by district office field staff and public records.

                CT      y- DEP monitoring of municipal Site Plan Review decisions through quarterly reports
                        y-periodic aerial photo surveys at 5 year intervals, IVISPR permits monitored through third party
                        complaints, DER field enforcement staff investigations, clipping service, hearing notices at local
                        level.


                DE      y- computer tracking system
                        y- small permit compliance staff make phone calls and inspections

                FL      y- computerized database, DEP sends area inspectors to monitor areas
                        y- violations reported, inspector informed, inspector surveys and files report with DEP Bureau of
                        beaches and Coastal Systems, Bureau reviews reports and set penaltiestfines.

                GU      y- no on-going computer tracking system. Database developed for actions from 1987-1993 only.
                        y- no Territory-wide permit data base dating back to 1979. All permit data is island-wide since
                        Guam's upland jurisdiction is the entire island. This makes it impossible to identify and separate
                        out shoreline development permits from inland development. A database was developed for TLUC
                        actionsl 987-1993.









                                                                      36










                 Figure 7: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools (continued)
                 STATE Permit Tracking System
                          Permit Compliance Tools

                 Hl       y- 1994 CZM Program computer system and software training for county staff. Database for Kauai
                          County Planning to track permits and violations. City and County of Honolulu utility program that down
                          downloads for CZM data analysis, permit tracking.
                          y- monitoring notices of state and county permit actions for compliance with HCZMP.

                 LA       n- no computer tracking system
                          y- violations monitored through coordination between Enforcement Section and field investigators

                 ME       y- NRPA computerized permit file.
                          y- Under NRPA, DER staff, & DMR marine patrol officers jointly enforce and monitor for permit
                          violations. Under MSZA, Code Enforcement Officers notify in writing violations and investigate
                          complaints, submit Biennial reports to DEP on applications, permits approved, variances,
                          violations, etc.

                 MD       y- joint state and USACE permit tracking system used. Permit and compliance database_
                          maintained.
                          y- MDNR, Inspections and Compliance Program monitors authorized projects. Regional
                          inspections. Significant violations corrected through restoration and/or fines after referral to the
                          state AG office.


                 MA       y- computerized tracking system
                          y- certificates of compliance required for all permitted projects and it must be registered with the
                          deed. DEP takes enforcement actions against state-issued permits. Local conservation
                          commissions are generally responsible for enforcement of locally-issued permits.

                 MI       y- Coastal and Inland Waters Permit tracking System
                          y- inspection, enforcement, and handling of public complaints.

                 NH       y-new GIS system in 1995. Prior to that old GIS system very limited, mostly paper files
                          y- 2 wetland Board inspectors serve 17 coastal communities, field inspections, public education.
                          Periodic aerial surveillance to monitor waterfront properties, dunes restoration projects, harbor
                          dredging.

                 NI       y- computer database, inspectors, monitoring
                          y- Coastal Enforcement Unit/monthly meetings on enforcement, violations, pending decisions,
                          bulletins, press releases of enforcement actions, monthly reports of over flight inspections,
                          responses to complaints of violations, field inspections, etc.

                 NY       y- computerized data
                          y- specific application requirements

                 NC       y- permit application tracking system and separate GPS/GIS base system
                          y- inspection, monitoring, tracking, database within permit and enforcement section.

                 NM       y- paper files, computer database being developed
                          y- field staff inspections, monitoring permit compliance, cease and desist orders, civil fines.

                 OR       y- no statewide database on local permits; separate computer permit tracking for OPI-PRD and
                          RIF-DSL permits, but.no information on length of shoreline stabilizations (in paper files)





                                                                       37










                 Figure 7: State Coastal Permit Tracking Systems and Permit Compliance Tools (continued)
                  .j
                 STATE Permit Tracking System
                          Permit Compliance Tools

                 PA      y- permit tracking system for shoreline stabilizations but only since 1994. no surveillance system.
                            permit data for bluff setback permits in written reports only.
                         y- Shoreline stabilizations -site inspections, violations taken to court, complaint response,
                         penalties. bluff permits- Township Code enforcement officers monitor for violations.

                 PR      n- no permit tracking system, but developing a GIS based computer system
                         y- each regulatory agency has authority to issue compliance, cease/desist orders, impose fines.

                 RI      y-computerized permit database begun in 1987, upgraded and input permit data back to 1971.
                         y- violation fines/fees, newspapers publish CRIVIC list of violators, follow-up on every cease/desist
                         order and notice of violation, field staff, condition on CRIVIC Assent permits.

                 SC      y- computer tracking system begun in 1980s on D-base. Permit name and #, category of activity,
                         when issued, appeal date.
                         y- routine inspections, aerial surveillance, Creek and Bay Watch citizens reporting program with
                         800-number, enforcement manual.

                 V1      y- all paper files, no computerized data base.*
                         y- Bureau of Enforcement monitors enforcement. CCA Commissioner may issue cease and desist
                         orders and initiate judicial proceedings with AG office.

                 VA      y- computerized tracking system.
                         y- certificates of compliance, must be registered with deed. DEP enforces state-issued permits.
                         Local conservation commissioner responsible for local permits.

                 WA      y- In process of refining and expanding permit tracking database system.
                         y- State DOE review authority over local shoreline substantial development permits; enforcement
                         authority over local government actions.

                 W1      y- computerized permit tracking systern links DNR offices throughout the state. Non-computerized
                         tracking system for federal consistency.
                         y- monitoring is a goal of DNR, no specific permit compliance tools.

                 Tolal:  26 States with Permit Tracking Systems
                         28 States with Permit Compliance Tools
                         1 State with no Permit Tracking and Permit Compliance Tools: MS
                 Key: y- yes n-no
                 Source: State CZM profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores















                                                                        38










                KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN PLANNING

                Since passage of the 1972 CZMA, several states have adopted legislation mandating state and local
                comprehensive planning and/or growth management programs. Some mandatory local planning programs
                have been incorporated into state CZM Programs, others have not. In addition, state coastal programs have
                funded numerous planning studies which look at resource protection issues. These eventually lead to adoption
                of enforceable policies and regulatory programs addressing a wide array of state-wide and area-specific issues
                such as erosion hazard management and habitat protection.

                Planning programs, when combined with implementation through local land use regulations, zoning and
                subdivision ordinances and other actions, can provide protection of shoreline resources. The level of
                protection provided varies depending on: the extent of the resource covered by the plan, the type of protection-
                policies, standards and provisions; and the specified exemptions and variances. There was insufficient
                resources, as part of this project, to conduct an analysis of the key provisions of each local and state CZM plan
                affecting resource protection. Attention was given instead to reviewing key provisions of regulatory programs
                resulting from CMP planning and collecting on-the-ground outcome data for which there proved to be very little.
                   State CMPs employ various types of plans including generalfand use planning or comprehensive planning as
                well as special area planning such as beach, inlet, bluff, rocky shore, natural reserves, habitat conservation,
                erosion or hazard area management planning. All but one of the 29 coastal states employ some type of
                planning affecting their beachfront; 20 rely on local permit delegation in combination with local planning; 23
                utilize special area management plans or a variety of other plans; 10 coastal states use more than one
                planning tool. (See Figure 8)


                Figure 8: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans affecting protection of beaches,
                dunes, bluffs, rocky shores
                      Local Permit
                State Delegation      Local Plannina       Other Plans (SAMPS, etc)


                AL      no                voluntary        no

                AK      yes               mandatory        Areas of Special Merit

                AS      no                no               Territory-Wide Zoning serves as land use plan

                CA      yes               mandatory        Coastal resource/environmentally sensitive areas;
                                                           Local blufftop management plan

                CT      yes               voluntary        no

                DE      no                no               no
                FL      yes               mandatory        Beach Erosion Control Pr@gram; Inlet Management Plans

                GU      yes               no               Seashore Reserve Plan; Flood Hazard APC; Erosion Control
                                                           Plan; Recreation & Water Use Management Plan

                HI      yes               mandatory        Natural Area Reserves; Marine Life Conservation Districts;
                                                           Wildlife Sanctuaries.

                LA      yes               voluntary        Mash Management Plan & Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Policy

               IME      yes               mandatory        Resource Protection Zones




                                                                       39









                 Figure 8: Planning Tools- local permit delegation, local planning, other plans affecting protection of beaches,
                 dunes, bluffs, rocky shores continued
                       Local Permit
                 State Delegation      Local Planning      Other Plans (SAMPS, etc)

                 ME)     yes              mandatory        Beach Erosion Control District Plan

                 MA      yes              voluntary        Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; Local Beach Mgt. Plans for ORV
                 ml      yes              no               Sand Dune Protection Act & Shorelands Protection/Mgt. require
                                                           designation of critical dunes & high erosion areas through local
                                                           zoning; Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Act
                 MS      no               voluntary        no .                                                                            I
                 NH      yes              voluntary        Hampton Harbor Inlet Mgt.Plan; Seabrook Beach/Dune Plan

                 NJ      yes              voluntary        no

                 NY      yes              no               Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans; Local Coastal Erosion Plan

                 NC      yes              mandatory        Sate Beach Mgt; Shore Erosion Response; Inlet Mgt.Plans

                 NIV     no               no               Saipan Lagoon Management Plan; Coastal Hazard APC

                 OR      yes              mandatory        Territorial Sea Management Plan

                 PA      y-bluff only     bluff only(v)    Presque Isle Peninsula State Park

                 PR      yes              no               Natural Reserves; Special Planning Areas; Island of Culebra

                 RI      no               no               Salt Pond Regions; Pawcatuck River Estuary & Little Narragansetts 13ay

                 SC      no               no               State Beachfront Management Plan

                 V1      no               no               APC Management Plans

                 VA      yes              voluntary        Northhampton County Sustainable Development Initiative;
                                                           Erosion & Sediment'Control Plan

                 WA      yes              mandatory        no

                 wl      yes              no               Carol Beach Plan; 3-year Harbor Plans

                 Total   20- yes          10- mandatory    23- yes 6-no
                         9- no             9- voluntary
                                          10- no plans

                 Key: SAMP- Special Area Management Plan                                  Source: State CZM profiles










                                                                      40












                  ROCKY SHORES PLAN


                    Oregon is the only coastal state to have developed and implemented, through regulations, a rocky shore plan
                  for its entire coastline. This plan serves as a model for other states with rocky shore resources.

                  The Oregon Ocean Plan was adopted in 199Z followed in 1994 by the Territorial Sea Management Plan
                  which covers rocky shores, intertidal areas and ocean resources in an ecosystem management process. The
                  Plan provides an ocean policy framework with management standards to be used in managing the marine
                  resources in Oregon's tenitorial seas. The Plan includes a Rocky Shores Strategy to protect Oregon's rocky
                  marine habitats while providing people the opportunity to use them. Under the strategy, four classifications of
                  rocky shores are designated to guide agency programs on the ground: They include: 10 "habitat refuges" along
                  4% of the rocky shore where access is limited; 7 "research reserves" along 7% of the rocky shore where
                  access is discouraged and harvest is limited; 8 "marine gardens" along 10% of the rocky shore which
                  encourage visitors to highly popular areas, and 29 "marine shores" along 79% of the rocky shore which are
                  small areas open to public but not heavily used. In addition, 9 areas have been identified but not yet
                  designated and 7 priority offshore rockslreefs identified for future study.
                     A key aspect is "local site management plans" for rocky shore sites with mandatory policies to address
                  complex site dobditions, biological resources, human   uses, and agency management concems. The strategy
                  provides clear policies for all agencies to follow and a process for intergovernmental coordination. Education
                  and public awareness through communications and interpretive programs are crucial parts of the strategy to
                  manage growing usage and impacts on rocky-shore areas.
                     On-the-ground results of site management plans indicate that four Marine Gardens have been closed to
                  taking of marine invertebrates, clams (except razor clams at Cape Perpetua), and mussel (except single
                  mussels for bait). Pyramid Rock in Rogue Reef, a critical habitat site for Steller sea lions and under increased
                  fishery use, under the plan is closed within 1, 000 feet to all fishing activity from May-A ugust. Permit or
                  management conditions have been placed on all rocky shore sites to protect the natural resource values of
                  these areas.

                  BEACH MANAGEMENT PLANS Is
                  m
                    Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and several other states have state-level beach
                    anagement or erosion control planning. The key purpose of these planning efforts is to address erosion
                  hazard issues. The plans usually identify areas of high erosion, properties affected, and erosion responses
                  that have historically been undertaken. For most, plan implementation is tied to the coastal regulatory
                  programs and state land management and beach restoration or armoring programs.

                    State CZM programs have become increasingly involved in identifying the problems of eroding beach/dune
                  systems and developing coordinated responses through statewide beach management and erosion control
                  plans. States'concems about adverse affects on downdrift beaches from federal dredging of navigation
                  channels, offshore disposal of dredged materials, and loss of recreational beaches from shoreline armoring,
                  have led state CMPs to take a proactive role in shaping state and federal policies and programs.

                  Coastal States Address Causes of Beach Erosion. The South Carolina CMP pushed for Congressional
                  recognition that USACE dredging of Charteston Harbor was causing severe beach erosion on the sand-starved
                  downdrift beaches; this /ad to the Folly Beach renounshment mitigation project. The State of Florida passed
                  legislation requiring that suitable beach quality sand from inlet and navigational channel dredging be placed on
                  the down-drift beaches; the state then used federal consistency and state-funds to negotiate with the USA CE
                    place 1. 4 million cubic yards of sand from St. Marys inlet dredging on the down-drift beaches rather than
                  losing the sand to the offshore system. Afterplanning and debating the issue, certain states have passed
                  to

                  legislation limiting the use of new shoreline stabilizations, in an effort to protect beach and dune systems at the
                  expense of private upland properties.







                                                                          41












                  BLUFF PLANS


                  * California, Oregon and Washington states require local plans that address development along eroding
                  ccastal bluffs. These programs are all implemented through state and local regulatory programs. Pennsylvania
                  requires local governments to implement state established bluff setbacks, but this is not considered a planning
                  program.


                  LOCAL COASTAL PLANS


                  * 19 coastal states employ local planning, 10 with mandatory local planning and 9 with voluntary local
                  planning; 10 states do not use local planning. Locally-delegated permitting responsibility combined with
                  mandatory local planning are key management tools employed by Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,
                  North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington in protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. Several of the
                  regulatory setback and control zone provisions described earlier are administered by local governments. In
                  states that set the enforceable regulatory guidelines, local implementation is strictly administration of the
                  regulation rather than local planning.

                  The California Coastal Program requires Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) with CCC certification and-
                  oversight LCP Regulations require that each local coastal program identity specfflc coastal resources, hazard
                  an.mas, coastal access, use priorities and significant cumulative impacts on coastal resources and access of
                  development; and adopt a land use plan, zoning ordinances and zoning district maps to reflect the /eve/ and
                  pattern of development consistent with Policies in Chapter 3 of CC Act- Land use plans are required to
                  incorporate resource protection policies. Zoning ordinance are required to their implement land use policy
                  plan. CCC Certification of a LCP results in delegation of coastal development permit authow

                  There are a total of 73 LCPjurisdictions which have been divided into 126 LCP segments thr planning
                  purposes, of which 88 have CCC-certified Programs (Plans and Implementation) and local permit delegation
                  responsibilities. Certified LCPs regarding oceanfront property and its development vary widely. Some
                  encourage purchase of remaining undeveloped properties and impose rigorous guidelines for any new
                  development. Others encourage shoreline development adjacent to coastal erosion areas. 24 coastal
                  junisdictions recognize coastal geologic hazards through designation of special zones, geologic hazard
                  onlinances, or comparable techniques. 18 jurisdictions use liability releases for projects proposed in hazardous
                  an?as. Regarding bluff-top development, some local jurisdictions use predetermined, fixed setbacks that vary
                  frcm 10 to 320 feet. Others employ a cliff retreat rate, most commonly over a 50-yearperiod. Most communities
                  compromise safe setback considerations in "infilling" areas. The lack of state guidelines for safe beach-level
                  development has led to continued development and reconstruction in hazardous locations. San Mateo has a
                  combined Open Space and Conservation Elements which is implemented by a Resources Management
                  Di3trict Ordinance that covers the Coastal Policy requirements.

                  The CCC Interpretive Guidelines (adopted May 3, 1997) address "Geologic Stability of Blufflop Development
                  These guidelines specify that alternation of cliffs and blufflops, faces, or bases by excavation or other means
                  should be minimized and that cliff retaining walls should be allowed only to stabilize slopes, or seawalls at the
                  too of the seacliffs or to check marine erosion where no less environmentally-damaging, alternative exists and
                  where necessary to., 1) to maintain public recreational areas orpublic services such as highways, energy
                  fa(,ilities, port areas, 2) protect principal structures in existing developments that are in danger of erosion; or 3)
                  in LA, Orange and San Diego Counties, infiffing small section of wall in subdivisions where wall already in place
                  and infiffing have no substantial adverse effect. The guidelines call for a geologic investigation and report
                  when a development is proposed in an unstable "area of demonstration of stability" In areas of geologic
                  hazard, the Commission may require that a development permit not be issued without a waiver of all claims
                  against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. Aft such waivers should be
                  recorded with the County recorder's office.







                                                                           42












                  SAMP PLANS


                   The 23 states that use SAMPs and other specialized plans employ them to address a variety of issues. Most
                  *are used for natural resource area protection. Other uses include flood hazard management, erosion control,
                  resolving recreation use conflicts, economic development, state land management, and multi-issue
                  management. These plans are used to supplement or supersede state coastal regulatory provisions for
                  selected planning areas.


                  The Guam Coastal Management Program developed and adopted the Recreational Water Use
                  Management Plan in 1990-1991. The plan covers a 6 miles stretch along the coast and in the water It
                  addresses user conflicts along this stretch of beach and water Bird nesting areas are identified and protected,
                  and Manahac fish-runs protected. The plan prohibits jet skis except in management plan areas. The plan
                  provides for "use zones" for certain water activities in planned areas, and requires buoyed areas forjet-ski-type
                  vehicles and mechanized vehicular closure during predictable Manahac runs. Minimum operating age is 16
                  years for all mechanized water vehicles. Jet skis can only be operated in planned areas- two such areas have
                  been adopted, and a third area being finalized. The first area planned, Agana Bay to Piti, encompasses 6
                  linear miles of coast to a distance varying from two hundred yards to half a mile. The second area, Cocos
                  Lagoon, is a triangular shaped lagoon 3 miles long on the land side, extending 2 miles seaward- The third area
                  is Apra Harbor, which is Guam's commercial port, the Navy port and Guam's Harbor of Refuge.

                  The Rhode Island Coastal Program adopted four SAMPS, as a supplement to the regulatory program for
                  specific areas: Two SAMPS cover oceanfront areas. The main focus of SAMP planning in Rhode Island has-
                  been on cumulative and secondary impacts of development in, and adjacent to, poorly flushed estuaries,
                  nonpoint source pollution, groundwater contamination, and on-site sewage disposal systems,
                  The Saft Pond Regions SAMP. Ninigiet to Point Judith Ponds covers 32 square miles. Just over I I % was in
                  public ownership and 50% undeveloped as of 1984. The shoreline miles and miles in beaches and rocky
                  shores are unknown, but the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program is developing a GIS data
                  base and will be able to provide this data in future. The SAMP expands the inland boundary to include a
                  watershed,, establishes coordinated permit review procedure; amends policies for dredging in Ninigret and
                  Green Hill Ponds to allow dredging in Type 2 waters, and changes water use designations for Port of Galilee to
                  allow port expansion. It also specifies dredging of navigational channels and restoration of overwash channels,
                  and requires disposal of sand dredged materials to replenish the following adjacent beaches: Sand Hill Cove,
                  East Mantunuck, Chadestown Beach; Quonochontaug banier beach. It prohibits, for beach restoration,
                  mechanical removal or redistribution of sand from the intertidal zone of the beach to increase the profile of the
                  beach scarp or to construct artificial dune since they destabilize beaches, increase erosion along beaches and
                  sedimentation in ponds. It specifles how beach sand shall be placed on beach. It identifies priority- areas for
                  acquis 'ition. The SAMP plan sets density limitations for "self-sustaining lands" and "lands of critical concem.
                  Subdivisions in these areas cannot exceed more than I residential unit per two acres and sewers are
                  prohibited. The goal is to keep residential development low. The percent of area and shoreline miles covered
                  under these two classifications is not available, but RICRMP is developing a GIS system that should be able to
                  provide this infonnation in the future. Also, the plan is under revision. (Source: RI Saft Pond Region SAMP.
                  1984, and 1993 Addendum and phone interview with Jeff Willis, RI Coastal Program Managef)

















                                                                          43









                  KEY ROLE OF STATE CZM IN PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION


                  Regarding public land management, most of the state beachfront and oceanfront parks had been acquired and
                  placed under state park management prior to enactment of state CZM program. The unique role of the state
                  coastal program has included funding or promotion of detailed resource inventories and specialized
                  management plans to balance resource protection and public use of these sensitive lands; installation of
                  boardwalks over dunes and other sensitive habitat; sand fencing to avoid dune destruction; walking trails to
                  limit damage to park resources; beach profiles, sand transport and erosion studies, and beach management
                  planning; beach and dune restoration; and policies limiting state infrastructure investments on state beachfront
                  park shorelines. Beach renourishment has been promoted by some coastal states as an alternative to
                  continued loss of developed recreational beach through shoreline hardening. Likewise, some states have
                  furided research into sand loss from inlet dredging and have demanded that beach quality sand be placed on
                  dOINn-drift beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for coastal development was a common practice in the past,
                  state CZM programs prohibit such practices today and wage educational campaigns on the importance of
                  protecting stabilized dune systems.

                  Although many state land acquisition programs were in existence prior to enactment of state CZM programs,
                  some state CZM programs have played a major role in-creating new land acquisition programs and in helping
                  their state set priodties for coastal land acquisitions. State CZM programs have funded land inventories, land
                  appraisals, negotiated purchases and land swaps. Land inventories have included both high value natural
                  resource properties and vacant coastal lands suitable for recreation. State CZM programs have served as
                  advocates for state acquisition of oceanfront and shoreline properties.

                  States that are effective stewards of their shoreline parks and preserve lands use park inventories and
                  management plans; install boardwalks, dune crossovers or other guided pedestrian access; use dune
                  restoration and beach nourishment where appropriate; enforce policies restricting the use of shoreline
                  stabilization structures; designate natural resource habitat protection areas; and acquire additional holdings.


                  ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF STATE COASTAL LANDS


                  * State ownership and management of state-held lands along the coast can afford a high level of natural
                  resource protection, subject to competing use demands placed on such lands. State lands developed for
                  recreational use, such as beachfront parks, can also protect natural resources if management plans are
                  adopted and implemented which restrict pedestrian and vehicular access, set aside fragile habitat from human
                  uso, and employ other methods to maintain the natural landforms. Protection also varies depending on priority
                  usos given to such state holdings. Those lands with wildlife preserves or conservation areas generally afford
                  more restrictions on uses than state parks and recreation areas.

                  * The installation of boardwalks and dune crossovers serves to protect natural dunes through stabilization of
                  clune vegetation and avoidance of dune breaching. Dune creation and restoration through sand fencing and
                  clune revegetation serve to stabilize and rebuild dune areas, limit breaching during coastal storms, and recreate
                  natural dune systems.

                  * The identification, designation and protection of natural resource areas within beach/dune systems function to
                  suntain the natural habitat conditions and values present and provide long-term protection. However, to the
                  extent that such protection is only seasonal, such as temporary turtle or bird nesting site fencing, pedestrian
                  acc:ess over such areas at other times of year may destroy the habitat values long-term.

                   All 29 coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff or
                  rocky shore; 26 have natural resource protection areas and guided accessways, and 21 states have acquired
                  additional coastal lands.

                  * Only 17 states have inventory data on their state coastal land holdings such as number of shoreline miles in
                  state parks. The data gaps regarding state coastal parks and state beachfront parklands is discussed under the
                  oU:come data section thbt follows. 5 states do not have information on the total number of beach miles. 5 do


                                                                            44
                                    1 .                                                                                                                I










                 not know the number of state coastal parks. 10 do not know the number of beachfront coastal parks they own.
                 12 do not have information on the miles of state coastal parklands they own. 11 do not know the number of
                 miles in state coastal lands. See Figure 9-A.

                  14 states use boardwalks or dune crossovers within their state coastal parks to guide pedestrian traffic over
                 fragile beach and dune resources. Sand fences have been installed to keep pedestrians off the beach. Prior to
                 CZM, unguided access resulted in the trampling of many public beachfront dune areas.

                 * 13 coastal states employ dune creation on state beachfront parks to repair and enhance the natural functions
                 of their state-owned beach and dune systems.


                 BEACH NOURISHMENT


                  Beach ren6urishment has become popular as a tool to artificially create or recreate a beach area through the
                 importing of compatible sand. The position of NOAA is that "...while beach nourishment may indeed, under
                 certain circumstances, be a technically viable alternative, there are many other considerations that must be
                 deliberated prior to supporting this approach to erosion management... include(ing) the role of beach
                 nourishment in inducing development in high hazard areas . .... other erosion management approaches-, whether
                 beach nourishment is economically justified, appropriate cost-sharing, and the environmental issues..." ( -
                 MEMO March 19, 1996. NOAA Position on the National Academy of Sciences' Report "Beach Nourishment
                 and Protection.") For this study, if a state employs beach nourishment in lieu of armoring with sufficient
                 documentation of benefits and tradeoffs, it is generally considered a positive impact on protecting natural
                 beach/dune systems. However, the author agrees that unconditioned use of beach nourishment may indeed
                 adversely affect natural systems and may not be the most suitable management approach to protect natural
                 beach/dune areas.


                 * 17 coastal states have used beach nourishment or renourishment as a management tool, 15 in conjunction
                 with the USACE. See Figure 9-B. Historically, the lead agency in beach renourishment has been the USACE
                 with local governments participating as project sponsoring. With increased state regulatory oversight and the
                 federal consistency provisions of the CZMA, beginning in the 1970s, coastal states have take a more active
                 role in setting policies and priorities for beach nourishment.

                  With the increased use and cost of beach nourishment, states in addition to local government have been
                 called upon to provide matching funds for projects. The state and local share is usually 20% of the total cost of
                 a project. There is insufficient data to determine the number of miles of beachfront or cubic yards of sand
                 placed in state-funded beach renourishment projects. Table 3 in Appendix A provides data on USACE major
                 share protection projects in CZM states between 1950 and 1993. Most states appropriate money from the
                 legislature as needed to match USACE beach nourishment projects. Only a few states, like Florida and South
                 Carolina, have begun to take a proactive role in setting state priorities for beach nourishment projects and
                 seeking dedicated funding for beach nourishment.
                 p
                  There were insufficient resources to conduct an in-depth study of state-sponsored beach nourishment
                  rojects. Furthermore, state data was sparse on projects funded, success or failure of such projects, and
                 tradeoffs made in selecting beach nourishment as the appropriate management response.






                 SHORELINE ARMORING


                  Most of our nation's urban waterfronts have been armored. Shoreline armoring is a practice which began prior
                 to CZM programs, in an effort to protect private oceanfront structures and public infrastructure from erosion.
                 Greater awareness of the negative impacts of shoreline stabilization structures on adjacent properties and
                 coastal resources has caused CMPs to more closely scrutinize such activities and weigh the private and public
                 benefits. This is particularly the case, along public recreational beaches, where armoring to protect roads and



                                                                      45









                  public access to the shoreline results in the loss of natural beach. Armoring and armoring repair through
                  construction of shoreline stabilization structures acts to accelerate the loss of sandy beaches. For this study, if
                  a state employs armoring on state beaches, it is considered a negative impact on natural beach/dune systems.

                    11 coastal states have funded armoring or repair existing armoring structures in high erosion areas along
                  their coastline. 15 states have had federal USACE shoreline protection projects built along their coastlines. In
                  all cases, these armoring project were built to protect existing upland infrastructure such as roads, public
                  accessways or public buildings inappropriately sited along the eroding coastline. The cost of relocation such
                  existing uses, particularly coastal highways, was weighed against the loss of natural recreational beaches and
                  armoring was selected as the management option of choice.


                  STATE COASTAL LAND ACQUISITION

                  * Acquisition programs place private lands into public holdings. Along the coast, these acquisitions tend to
                  serve both recreational use demands and some resource protection goals. Acquisition of large resource
                  systems, or acquisition of lands adjacent to existing holdings can afford improved natural resource protection
                  opportunities.

                   21 coastal states are utilizing acquisition to purchase additional valuable coastal resources. Data is not
                  generally available on all state land acquisitions, so it was not possible to determine whether coastal land
                  acquisition was a priority over inland acquisitions. Although some states do not have formal land acquisition
                  programs, they have utilized CZM funds and other funds to acquire significant parcels.


                  ANY range of state coastal land management activities occur along New Hampshire's 18 miles of
                  hlIlhly developed oceanfront where the immediateshorellne is mainly (78Y*) in public ownership. State
                  coastal park management plans have been completed for several of the 9 beachliont parks and 7 rocky shore
                  parks in state ownership including studies of archeological, historical, recreational, and natural resources.
                  Twenty (20) natural resource inventories funded by CZM provide baseline data on habitat areas and are used
                  inpermitting by Wetlands Board and in public education programs. The Seabrook Back Dunes, the only major
                  undeveloped back dunes remaining along the New Hampshire coast, was acquired by the Town of Seabrook
                  with partial funding ($100,000) from the CZM Program. This 53 acre parcel is managed as a conservation and
                  passive recreation area. CZM funded an Education Brochure Trail Guide to the Seabrook Dunes Area (1985),
                  Coastal Endangered Plant Inventory on Seabrook Dunes (1983), Seabrook Dune Management Plan (1985),
                  Dunes Valuation Analysis and Acquisition Report 1984, and Final Appraisal (1986). The state also acquired
                  other parcels to expand their coastal landholdings for recreation and conservation. NewHampshirehas
                  completed a multi-year Seabrook Foredunes Restoration Project on a 15 acre town-owned Seabrook Beach.
                  The project involved restoring badly eroded dunes, the planting of American beach grass to stabilize the
                  dunes, and the construction of walkways from the street to the beach to control access and minimize adverse
                  impacts on dunes. Signs along walkways inform the public about dunes restoration work and the importance of
                  us.fng walkways. Route I-A borders the ocean along most of the coastline. The state periodically repairs and
                  maintains protective seawalls running between the beach and the road, as well as seawalls protecting state
                  beachfront parking lots.. Two USACE-built harborjetties are maintained and as is the state-buflijetty at
                  Hampton Harbor Inlet. New Hampshire periodically dredges its harbor channels and beach-quality sand has
                  been placed on adjacent beaches. The USACE also periodically dredges the Hampton Harbor entrance
                  channel, but the sand is not always used for beach nourishment

                  Nearly half (47YS) of California's 1100 mile long coastline is in public ownership and active public
                  management. The State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is one of the largest landowners along
                  the Califomia coast, with over 375 miles or 34% of the ocean shoreline in the state parks system. There are -
                  87 bluff-front state parks and -32 rocky shore state parks. Management of these parks is a major activity
                  some of which'are located in coastal hazard areas. About 10% of state-owned park units are administered by
                  local govemments. The state parks include reserves, beaches, historic parks, and unclassified units. They
                  cover beaches, dunes, bluft, rocky shores and some underwater state reserves. The state has installed -20
                  boardwalks to guide pedestrian traffic. The DPR acquisition program for beaches and dunes, through special
                  site-specific legislation and some bond-funds, has acquired 26,838 acres of state beaches, -6, 000 acres of


                                                                          46










                 unclassified beach areas, 27.3 miles of land in five state parks and one state reserve, and 2.8 miles of dunes.
                 Califomia has also acquired bluff and rocky shore areas through special legislation and surplus property bills,
                 but the amount of shore acquired above mean high tide is unknown.
                    The Coastal Conservancy awards grants to local governments and non-profit organizations for coastal
                 restoration and coastal resources enhancement projects. Funds are also used for Resource Protection Zones,
                 buffer areas surrounding public beaches, parks, natural areas and fish and wildlife preserves in the coastal
                 zone. Between 1978-1995, 600 projects were initiated and 400 projects were completed involving access,
                 wetlands protection, trail, recreational pier restoration, conflict resolution and farm lands protection. Between
                 1978-199Z $175 million general obligation bonds acquired 29,000 acres.
                    The Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation (OPR) administers a statewide resource management,
                 stewardship, and donor program which includes dune creation/ restoration. Through this program 9 dune
                 areas were revegetated on state lands.
                    The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBM administers a "shoreline erosion fund" which
                 provides funds to state agencies and local governments for construction of shoreline protective devices and
                 beach nourishment on public beaches and park lands with 75% state funding and 25% local match funding.
                 Nineteen (19) beach erosion control projects were funded between 1980-1996. Since 1980, there has been
                 approximately 20 miles of beachtront replenished, restored, or renourished with 15 million yards with joint
                 federallstateAoc"al funding. Several properties have seawalls with a well-documented history of repeated
                 destruction and reconstruction. In 1984, the DPR adopted a coastal erosion policy to discourage- armodrig in
                 state beachfront parks and to avoid construction of new permanent facilities in areas subject to coastal erosion
                 and to promote use of expendable or movable facilities in areas subject to erosion. However, the DPR rebuilt a
                 timber seawall for seventh time with little design modifications. This armoring to protect a parking lot and
                 access is not typical.






































                                                                          47










                   Figure 9-A: STATE COASTAL LAND HOLDINGS AND ACQUISITIONS
                   State    Beach            State         State          State C. Parks Coastal Lands Acquired (acres/miles)
                            Miles            Coastal       Coastal        Acres
                                             Parks         Parks             Park
                                             # Parks                      Acres
                                             # Beach       Mi Parks          Beach
                                              Parks        Mi.BchP
                   AL       46               1             3              6,000             n
                                             all beach     all beach      all beach
                   AK                        63            nd             990,335           n
                            nd               nd            nd             nd
                   AS                        nd            nd             nd                n
                            nd               nd            nd             nd
                   CA                        119           377            145,540           B/D: 26,838 acre; BL: yes-nd; RS: yes-nd
                            nd               71            280            26,838
                   CT                        nd            nd             nd                B/D: 1,439 acre
                            78.6             6             6.75           3003


                   DE       24.5             3             18             nd                B/D: yes- nd                      -
                                             all beach                    nd
                   FL       825              24            -500           -11,500           B/D: parcels: 980 acres: 294,968 miles: nd
                            343.4-P?
                            41.5%-
                            Public
                   GU       40               14 (only      5.1            nd                yes through trades -nd
                                             beach)        13%            nd
                   HI       185              24            16%            14,814            62 acres-B, BL, RS combined
                                             16                           322
                   LA       >4 mi            2             unk            unk               n
                            d/n inc.                       >1 mi.         345
                            barrier
                            island
                            shore
                   ME       23 B/D           25            nd             11090             B/D & BL & RS properties: 8
                            20%-S            10            4.6            2380              acrs: 4828
                            205 RS                                                          miles: -20
                   MD       32               3             17             nd                parels:2 acres: nd miles: 2
                                                                          all beach
                   MA       222              18            64             nd                State Acres:2250 miles: nd
                                             nd            nd             nd.               Local Grants Projects: 17 Acres: 273
                                                                                            miles: nd
                   mi       270              29            114            nd                136,000 statewide coastal: nd
                            50%-S            nd            nd             nd
                   MS       18               1             nd             nd                n
                 [UH        10 B/D           16            12.5           580               B/D & RS acres: 131 Miles: nd
                            7.8 RS           9             10             101
                   Key: B/D- Beach/Dune       BL- Bluff RS- Rocky Shore CA- Coastal Area y- yes n- no ?-nd- unknown, no
                   dala provided.
                   Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
                   * CZM Profile coastline miles data differs from General Coastline mile data in U.S. Department of Commerce,
                   NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States.
                   **LIS Army Corps of Engineers, Shoraline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study., Phase 1: Cost
                   Comparison of Shoreline Protection projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.





                                                                                48



                                                                                         7






                    Figure 9-A: STATE COASTAL LAND HOLDINGS AND ACQUISITIONS Continued
                State      Beach           State         State          State C. Parks       Coastal Lands Acquired (acres/miles)
                           Miles           Coastal       Coastal        Acres
                                           Parks         Parks             Park
                                           # Parks                      Acres
                                           # Beach       Mi Parks          Beach
                                             Parks       Mi.BchP
                NJ         125             2             12             3192                 n
                           9% state
                NY         125             10            46.5           11,600               CA:2000 acres
                           30%-s           all beach     all beach      all beach
                -NY        No              Data          Great          Lakes                see above
                NC         320             3             11             nd                   7,000 acres beachfront
                           5%_S?                         3.4%7                               27,439 beach access sites
                NM         nd              nd            nd             nd                   n
                                           nd            nd             nd
                OR         262 B/D         64            129.5          27,107               B/D & RS
                           56%-P           nd            76.3-B/D       nd -                 acres: 94.3
                           30%-S                         53.2-RS                             miles: .75 B/D only
                           100 RS
                           65%-P
                           53%-S
                PA         Lake Ede        Lake Ede      Lake Ede       Lake Ede             B/D:' Spoil Island mile: .25      acres: 10
                           1 0_13          2             13.4           3110                 BL: mile: 3.5 acres:3,100
                           99%-S           1             9.9 B          10B
                           53-BL                         3.5 BL         3100 BIL
                           11%_P                         (5.3?)
                           10%-S
                PR         154             nd            nd             nd                   n
                                           15            nd             nd
                RI         27.3            14            nd             1501                 y-nd
                           64%-S           nd            nd             nd
                _SC        181             4             68             nd                   y-nd
                VI         nd              nd            nd             nd                   n
                                           nd            nd             nd
                VA         200             1             6              4700                 y-nd
                           10%-S
                WA         60 B            120           nd             27,000               75,000 acres
                           111 RS          nd            nd             nd                   statewide coastal: >10,748 acres
                W1         820             30            nd             nd.                  637 acres: 77 beach/560 dunes
                           1 0%-B          nd            nd             nd
                           72%-BL
                           8%-RS
                Total      y-29            nd-5          nd-12          nd-1 6               y-20
                           nd-5            nd-10         nd-1 I         nd-16                n-9


                    Key: B/D- Beach/Dune BL- Bluff RS- Rocky Shore              CA- Coastal Area y- yes n- no ?-nd- unknown, no
                    data provided.
                    Source: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
                    * CZM Profile coastline miles data differs from General Coastline mile data in U.S. Department of Commerce,
                    NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States.
                    US Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study. Phase 1: Cost
                    Comparison of Shoreline Protection projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.





                                                                                49










                  Figure B Active State Coastal Land Management
                  St 3te     Board-         Dunes          Beaches           Armoring      Natural Protection Areas
                             Walks- #       Revegetated    Renourished       Projects
                             Dune           # projects     # Projects        Federal
                             Cross-         feet &         Federal **        State
                             Overs- #       mile           State I# & mi)
                  AL         y-7            Y-1            n                 n             40 acres for Perdido beach mouse; -3 mi. sea
                                            500ft          n                 n             turtles nesting season; 25 acres for terns.
                  AH:        n              n              n                 n             49,000 acres protected for Bald Eagles
                                                           n                 n
                  AS;        n              n              n                 n             n
                                                           n                 n
                  CIA,       y-20          Y->ig          y-7               y-5           Resource Mgt. Plans designate trails, roads,
                                            nd             y-nd              y-1 2         parking, zone units for reserves, preserves, habitat
                                                                                           protection and public use. Endangered species
                                                                                           habitat protected bird nesting sites.
                  CT         ?-nd           9              y-6               y-2           408 acres Natural Area Preserve; 806 acres
                                            nd             y-1  .25 i        y,@3          Coastal Reserve, Nature trail -        - .                     I
                  DE.        y-2-bdwk       y-nd           y-2               Y-1           Endangered species habitat-siuch as piping plover-
                             y-3-cross      6 mi ?         y-nd 6 mi.        n             case by-case and during nesting season.
                  FL         y-many         Y-100 mi       y-26              y-6           Sea turtle nesting sites during season.
                             nd                            y-nd -94 mi.      y,nd              -
                  GLI        n              n              n                 n             28,197 acres (20.73% Guam total land area)
                                                           n                 n             15,600 acres submerged lands.
                  HI         n              n              n                 n             y- Natural Area Reserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries,
                                                           n                 n             Marine Life Conservation District
                  LA         Y-1            y-6            y-2               Y-1           n
                                            -20 mi         y-nd -20 mi.      y-20
                                            barrier Is.
                  ME:        Y-11%          y-5            n                 n             3 state beachfront parks, dunes protection,
                                            4 mi.          y-6               n             pedestrian accessways; sea bird nesting sites
                                                           USACE Harbor                    fenced off during nesting season. 1 Rocky Island
                                                           Proj. >1 mi                     Sanctuary-access restricted
                  ME)        Y-1            Y-1            y-2               Y-1           Seasonal restrictions for nesting birds along entire
                                            2 mi           y-2 10 mi.        y-nd          beachfront.
                  MA         ?-nd           y-nd           y-5               y-2           5 coastal pk. mgt. plans for 4,673 acres
                                                           y-nd 3 mi.                      .14 ACECs covering 75,000 acres.
                  mi         ?-nd           n              n                 n             - 860 mi total: -250 mi. natural preserv; -300 mi.
                                                           n                 n             critical dunes areas; -310 mi. high risk erosion areas.
                  ME;        Y-1            n              y-2               Y-1           n
                                                           Y-1 18 mi.        n
                  NH         I              y-2            y-3               y-2           Pedestrian access restricted area; 5 acres. pipi7ng
                                            nd             y-5 2 mi.         y-3           plover nesting site.
                  NJ         n              n              yes-8             y-4           B/D acres: 2,500 miles: 11.57 Included
                                                           y                 y             100 acre bird sanctuary; 1200 acres beach
                                                           27 mi                           research/wildlife sanctuary; 1,000 acre beac
                                                                                           nature area; 3 other nature areas 1201 acres.
                  Kee: y- yes n- no ?-nd- unknown, no data provided.
                  So'urce: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
                  * CZM Profile coastline miles data differs from General Coastline mile data in U.S. Department of Commerce,
                  NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States.
                  **LIS Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study.- Phase 1: Cost
                  Comparison of Shoreline Protection projects of the US. Army Corps of Engin          ears.





                                                                             50










                    Figure 9-B Active State Coastal Land Management (Continued)
                    State     Board-           Dunes            Beach               Armoring         Natural Protection Areas
                              Walks-#          Reveg.           Nourishment         Projects
                              Dune             # proJects       # Projects          Federal
                              Cross-           feet &           Federal"            State
                              Overs-#          mile             State
                                                                # & mi
                    NY        3                n                y-8                 y-4              7 protection areas covering 566 acres in state
                                                                Y-1                 n                parks. >50 miles beachfront bird nesting areas.
                                                                                                     200 fish/wildlife habitat areas.
                    NC        2                y-nd             y-6                 y-2              314 miles plus spoil islands (?)
                                                                y-I 2               n                100 miles undisturbed Reserves; 50 acre nesting
                                                                5 mi                                 colonial birds; 11 miles sea turtle nesting.
                    NM        n                n                n                   n                Offshore islands as bird sanctuaries, beaches as
                                                                nd                                   turtle nesting sites
                    OR        n                n                n                   n                Vehicles prohibited on 70% of coastline. State park
                                                                Y-I >1 mi.          n                mat. trails. restricted access.
                    PA        n                n                y-2                 y!               Lake Ede only
                                                                y- 1  area          Y-1              n- beach
                                                                6 mi                                 y- Q * Roderick Wildlife Refuge
                    PR        n                n                n                   n                19 Nature Reserves and 8 Special Planning Areas
                                                                n                   n
                    Rl        Y-1              n                n                   Y-1              All undeveloped barrier beaches
                                                                n                   n
                    SC        4                y-3              Y-I                 Y-I              68 miles in parkstwildlife preserves.
                                               58 mi            y-4   45 mi.        y-nd
                                                                                    groins
                                                                                    repair
                    vi        n                n                n                   n                Salt River Bay
                                                                n                   n
                    VA        n                y                Y-I                 n                6 miles sea turtle nesting at False Cape.
                            I                                   y-5   nd            n
                    WA        ?-nd             n                n                   n                Many- 7 areas with >6336 acres harbor seals,
                                                                n                   n                falcons, eagles and other bird nesting areas.
                    Wi        y-several        n                n                   n                -300 natural areas statewide coastal: nd
                              nd                                n                   Y?
                    Total     y-14             y-1 3            fy-I 5              fy-15            y-26
                              n-1 1            n-16             sy-17               sy-1 1           n-3
                              ?nd-4
                    Key: y- yes n- no ?-nd- unknown, no data provided.
                        ource: State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores.
                        CZM Profile coastline miles data differs from General Coastline mile data in U.S. Department of Commerce,
                    NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States.
                    '*US Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study-* Phase 1: Cost
                    Comparison of Shoreline Protection projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.













                                                                                        51









                                   6 OUTCOME INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS


                Outcome indicators are used to measure the on-the-ground effects that result from implementation of CZM
                tools. Outcome Indicators of CZM effectiveness in implementing regulatory, planning, direct land
                management and acquisition tools associated with the protection of beaches, dunes, bluft and rocky
                shores include the following:

                Regulatory Programs Outcomes
                (a) No further encroachment into coastal resource areas as measured by one or more of the following:
                1) aerial photography interpretation documenting no new shoreline structures or shoreline stabilizations on the
                beach/dune system, eroding bluff, coastal floodplain, or immediate shoreline; 2) permit data reflecting few or no
                permits for activities seaward of setback lines, few or no permits for activities on active beachesIdune systems,
                eroding bluffs, or coastal hazard areas; 3) permit data which includes area and linear miles of permitted
                activities by type of activity (new residence, seawall, etc.) located in specific resource areas (beaches, dunes,
                etc.) within the state's coastal control zones and restrictive conditions attached which shown minimization of
                adverse impacts (size, location, design other conditions); 4) permit data on demolitions or landward relocation
                of beachfront/bluff-front structures; and/or 5) physical surveys of the condition of selected natural shoreline
                resources (dunes, rocky shores, etc.)
                (b) No further hardening of the undeveloped beachfront through shoreline stabilizations as measured by:,
                1) aerial photo interpretation; and/or 2) permit data on linear miles of shoreline stabilizations permitted by type
                of stabilization.
                (c) Controlled shoreline accessways as measured by: 1) aerial photo interpretation or shoreline maps of
                controlled accessways; 2) permit data on shoreline boardwalks, dune crossover, and other structural
                accessways permitted with specific resource areas (beach, dune, bluff, rocky share); and/or maps delineating
                shoreline acres and miles where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is restricted.
                (d) Healthy and maintained intact natural habitat areas along the coast as measured by: 1)aerial photo
                interpretation; 2) maps delineating habitat protection areas and permit data showing no activities permitted in
                designated areas which would adversely affect the natural values being protected, and/or 3) periodic physical
                surveys of designated protection areas.

                Adopted Plan Outcomes
                (a) Achievement of Plan Objectives- such as resource protection, inlet management- as measured by:
                1) aerial photo interpretation; 2) periodic physical surveys of areas protected or managed under enforceable
                plans; 3) state and local permit data on activities permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles
                affected and consistency with plan objectives; and/or 4) state or local actions undertaken- such as.dune
                revegetation, installation of inlet sand transfer plant- and results from such actions.

                State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition Outcomes
                (a) Presence of state coastal land holdings in parks and preserves containing beaches, dunes, bluffs or rocky
                shores as measured by acres, linear shoreline miles, coastline in public ownership/state ownership with
                resources present.
                (b) Active public natural resources stewardship of coastal land holdings as measured by: 1) number of
                accessways, marked trails, boardwalks, dune crossovers and demonstrated public use; 2) dune restoration
                projects, acres, miles of shoreline involved, state funds; 3) beaches restored/renourished in cubic yards,
                beachfront miles, state funds; 4) number of shoreline stabilizations installed, acres, shoreline miles affected as
                a counter-indication to stewardship; and/or 5) acres, shoreline miles in state coastal lands designated as
                conservation, preservation or protection areas and aerial photo interpretation, periodic physical surveys to
                verify condition of resources.
                (c) Coastal land acquisition program as measured by the miles and acres and type coastal shoreline resource
                areas acquired by the state, the state expenditures for coastal versus inland properties, and the CZM program
                funds used.








                                                                       53










                  OUTCOME INDICATOR DATA AVAILABILITY

                  It is not possible to determine on-the-ground outcomes or effectiveness of implementing state CZM regulatory
                  programs, planning programs, state land management, and state acquisition programs to protect beaches,
                  dUneg, bluffs and rocky shores, based on data and information provided by OCIRM and the coastal states. For
                  the most part, there was insufficient data to assess the on-the-ground effectiveness of state CZM programs.
                  Monitoring and reporting of on-the-ground outcomes of CZM program activities have not been required, as part
                  of OCIRM's annual reporting on grants and activities and the periodic 312 program evaluations. Although most
                  states have developed permit tracking systems, these are primarily administrative efforts to track individual
                  permits through the regulatory process and not designed to contain program evaluation data. State reporting
                  on plan implementation, where available, is descriptive rather than analytical. Data on shoreline ownership and
                  inventories of shoreline resources have not been updated since program approval and outcome data on results
                  of active state coastal lands stewardship is scarce.

                  Appendix C contains a summary of the available outcome data associated with state regulation through
                  permits for shoreline construction and shoreline stabilizations, restricting access, and protecting habitat.
                  Appendix C also contains summary tables with outcome data associated with state ownership and
                  management-and coastal land acquisitions. These tables cover the tools utilized by state CZM programs.and
                  available outcome data on program implementation to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. -
                  Findings regarding outcome indicators of effectiveness for state CZM tools employed to protect beaches,
                  dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are presented on the following pages.

                  REGULATORY OUTCOMES


                  *Afthough 20 of the 29 coastal states have computerized permit tracking systems (19 for habitable structures,
                  20 for shoreline stabilizations), states do not keep state-wide databases on the linear miles affected or area
                  affected or resources affected by the permits approved for activities along the beachfront or oceanfront. Such
                  information, when available, is contained only in the individual paper permit files. Only 16 states provided any
                  permit data on structures and shoreline stabilizations. States restrict the size, location design of structures and
                  shoreline stabilizations to minimize adverse impacts on natural resources beach/dune systems. Conditions
                  atlached to individual permits are sometimes contained in paper files, but never in computer permit tracking
                  systems. Of the 25 states that employ restrictions over activities such as sand mining and beach nourishment,
                  nc ne routinely collect data on the results of these restrictions. Likewise, coastal. states do not collect and
                  analyse statewide data on changes in shoreline development or changes to conditions of natural resources
                  from aerial photography or from permitted activities.

                   Regulatory program jurisdictions vary but tend to extend from MHW inland a certain number of feet, a
                  distance based on erosion rates, or to the inland extent of a natural or manmade feature. Within this permit
                  judsdiction, several or no significant natural resources may be affected by any given permitted activity. No
                  statewilde data is available on specific resources affected by approved permits. This data may not even be
                  contained in individual paper permit files. Trend data on changes in number of coastal permits issued and
                  number of violations sited is also insufficient to use in assessing regulatory program effectiveness. Although
                  scme states keep data on numbers of coastal permits issued and violations corrected, the critical information
                  missing is a break-down on type of activity permitted, length of project and area of coast and resources
                  affected. Although some states issue permits for demolition or relocation landward of beachfront structures,
                  mlifti-year data in not readily available. Only Upton-Jones data was available from FEMA. (See Appendix A)
                  For states that delegate coastal permitting to local governments, no state maintains a mufti-year database on
                  local permit decisions.

                   23 states restrict pedestrian and/or vehicular access. Several coastal states issue permits for boardwalks and
                  dUnes crossovers, but st9tes.Wth large number of boardwalks permits (such as Florida) do not have permit
                  deita available. A few states set guidelines but do not require permits if such structures comply with the
                  gUidelines, so there are no records on construction of these accessways. Only 4 state provided data on
                  access permits and 3 states on vehicular access permits. Michigan data shows 200-250 public access
                  projects approved between 1989-1995 and vehicular access restrictions along 23% of the coastline. New



                                                                          54










                 Jersey data shows 2 permits for boardwalks between 1994-1996 but no data on local level restrictions of
                 vehicular access. Oregon data shows 12 boardwalks permitted between 1967-1995 and vehicular restriction
                 along 70% of the coastline. South Carolina allows, without permit, small walkways over dunes if guidelines are
                 met. Larger projects require permit. Data shows 12 boardwalks permits issued and 13 emergency vehicular
                 access permits issued between 1988-1995.

                  27 states protect areas such as endangered species habitat and restrict development in these areas through
                 r*egulation. Only 9 states provided data on protection areas and even this data was scant and lacked
                 information on the type of resources within protected acreage or condition of resource area. For several states,
                 protection occurs only on state-held lands. Examples of state data collected:
                 AL- 3 miles of sea turtle nesting; 40 acres of beach mouse habitat; 25 acres of tern nesting habitat.
                 AK- 49,000 acres of Bald Eagle nesting habitat.
                 Ml- 300 miles of critical dunes; 250 miles of natural preserves; 310 miles of high risk erosion areas.
                 NJ- 15 miles of bird nesting habitat
                 NY- 50 miles of beachfront bird nesting sites; 200 designated fishtwildlife habitat areas.
                 NC- 100 miles of undisturbed areas.
                 SC- 18`1 miles beachfront restricted during sea turtle nesting season.
                 Vl- 13 recreational beaches; 9 sea turtle nesting beaches; 13 CRBA areas.
                 VA- 6 miles of sea turtle nesting sites protected.

                 Example of outcome data collected:

                 As shown in Table 4-A, Rhode Island CRMP tracks permit data by activity type and not by location (beaches,
                 bluffs, rocky shores) so one cannot identify extent of permitted activity by resource area. One cannot make a
                 determination of effectiveness from data provided. As shown on Table 4-13, RICRMP policies prohibit new
                 development on undeveloped and moderately developed barrier beaches. At least 65% of the barrier beaches
                 have had no new permitted development since 1971 or earlier. Likewise no new shoreline stabilzations were
                 permitted on undeveloped and moderately developed barrier beaches since 1971. Permit data in Tables 4-A
                 and 4-B do not reflect setback requirements which act to place development away from shoreline, erosion
                 areas, and valuable habitat areas. Table 4-C indicates no outcome data on pedestrian or vehicular access
                 restrictions. Table 4-D shows several special regulation areas covering setbacks from resource features,
                 erosion setbacks, setbacks from dunes, and areas restricted from development based on adjacency to state
                 waters classified as type 1 and 2.




























                                                                       55



















                        Table 4-A: State Permit Actions-Rhode Island
                        RE'GULATORY ACTION                  CRM Council CRM Council
                                                               Permit       Permit (Assents)
                     -YEARS                                     1971-1977    1971-July 1996
                        Upland Jurisdiction                 CRMC Juris(b) CRMC Regulatory Jurisdction (b)
                        Permit Applications                 -600 (a)        unknown
                        Permits Approved                    - 97% (a)       14,762-- 95% in Tier I

                        Subdivisions                                        312 (2%)
                        Dwelling Units                                      3950 (27%)(c)
                        Commercial/Indust Dev.                              539(40/.)
                        Maintenance R/C/I                                   762
                        Accessory Bids.                                     1073
                        Recreation-Pools                                    208
                        Dredg@@ill                                          359
                        Roads                                               467
                        Marina Activities                                   779
                        Docks                                               2504 (17%)
                        Dock Maintenance                                    389
                        Discharge/Waste Fac.                                477
                        Energy facilities                                   200
                        Demolitions                                           30
                        ISDS*                                               559
                        Landscaping                                         149
                        Fe Jeral Consistency                                119
                        Other (d)                                           572

                        Shoreline Stabilizations                            1066 (70/6) (e)
                        Nonstructural Shore Proj                            238 (1.60/6) (f)

                        ViDlations Cited                                    no data


                        Habitable Structures
                        destroyed by storms                                 no data
                        permitted to rebuild                                no data
                        de-nied to rebuild                                  no data
                        relocated                                           3 Claims Approved under Upton Jones for demolition or
                                                                            relocation
                        Key: *ISDS- Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
                        (a) 125 approved in FYI 977 only (FEIS, p. iv). Approved after modifications suggested by council/staff to minimize adverse
                        environmental effects. (b) Tier 1 -200 ft. inland of coastal features including beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores and other shoreline
                        feature areas such as wetlands. Tier 2- the inland extent of 7 types of activities. (c) 1715 new, 1703 alterations to DU. (d) Other
                        includes buffer alterations (74), wetlands determinations (38), mosquito Ditches (18), ROW (10), and other (e) Shoreline Stabilization
                        Structures: groins, bulkheads, rip rap, seawalls, retaining walls, and repairs. (f) Cover beach nourishment/conservation restoration
                        aciivities (224) and non-structural shoreline protection/vegetation (14) Sources: Computer printout, Application Statistics by CRMC
                        Pr)ject types, provided by Jeff Willis, August 29, 1996. Also Mark Crowell, Upton-Jones Data Base.
















                                                                                            56











                      Table 4-B New Development & Shoreline Stabilization Permits by Barrier Beach Designations- Rhode Island
                      Barrier Type                     % of Beach Shore New Develovment Permits 1971-1996
                      Undeveloped                      65%                                Prohibited                       None(a)
                      Moderately Developed             (part of 35%)                      Prohibited                       None(b)
                      Developed                        35%                                Allowed                          Unknown
                      Barrier Type                     % of Beach Shore New SS                       Permits 1971-1996
                      Undeveloped                      65%                                Prohibited                       None (c)
                      Moderately Developed             (part of 35%)                      Prohibited                       None (c)
                      Developed                        35%                                Allowed                          Unknown
                      Note: Total Beach Shore is 27.3 miles
                      Key: New Development- residential, commercial, industrial development
                      SS- structural shoreline stabilizations
                      (a) neither public nor private development since 1954.
                      (b) no new development allowed.
                      (c) no new structural shoreline stabilizations allowed
                      Sources: 309 Assessment, Jeff Willis


                      Table 4-C: Pedestrian and Vehicular Access Restriction On Private Lands Protecting Habitat Areas- Rhode Island
                      REGULATORY ACTION
                      Beachfront Boardwalk Permits 1971-1995: Unknown, no permit required if meet state guidelines.
                      Vehicular Traffic Restriction Areas as of 1995: Many, no data base.
                      A. Coastal Beaches and Dunes (210. 1):
                       vehicles prohibited on dunes except on tails marked expressly for vehicular use.
                       vehicular use of beaches (where not otherwise prohibited by private/public management programs) required DEM Use
                      Permit through DEM Division of Enforcement. Vehicles shall not be operated across, protected (lifeguard) swimming
                      beaches during protection period.
                      B. Barrier Beaches (210.2)- Prohibit:
                      - vehicle access across back barrier flat to access Salt Ponds
                      - vehicles in vegetated areas anywhere on barrier
                      C. Dunes (1995 Addendum- New Section 210.7- Dunes)-Prohibit:
                      1. vehicles on dunes within 75 ft. of dune crest except on marked trails.
                      2. alteration of foredune zone adjacent to Type I and 2 waters, except for protection/restoration, no hard structures.
                      Habitat Protection Areas as of 1995: Many, no data base.
                      Source: Jeff Willis, RICRMP Regulations.

                      Table 4-D Regulated Areas- type of regulated area, acres, shoreline miles, resources protected- Rhode Island
                      TYPE OF AREA                                        Acres/Shoreline Miles/Resources Protected or Benefit
                      A, Coastal Setback                                  acres-nd
                                                                          Mile- 100% All 700 miles of tidal & 311 miles of coastline setback at
                                                                          least 50 feet and up to 200 feet inland in some areas to protect coastal
                                                                          features.
                      B. Critical Erosion Areas                           Acres-nd
                                                                          Miles-nd No data on percent of total 311 mile of coastline designated
                                                                          critical erosion areas. Areas designated and mapped based on 30 yr.
                                                                          erosion rate setback for residential and 60 yr. erosion rate setback for
                                                                          commercial/industrial. Table of required setback depths based on erosion
                                                                          category A, B, C, D.
                      C. Dunes Construction Setback                       Acres-nd
                                                                          Miles-nd No data on miles of beachfront covered. setback based on edge
                                                                          of existing development as measured by utility lines and landlord walls:
                                                                          Misquamicut Beach- #miles-nd
                                                                          Coast Guard Beach- # miles-nd
                                                                          Sand Hill Cove- # miles-nd
                      D. State Waters Classification                      Type I (Conservation) and Type 2 (Low Intensity)
                                                                          Acres- 3300
                                                                          Miles- covers 70/6-75% of the shoreline and development regulated
                                                                          along this entire shoreline area.
                      Sources: FEIS, RICRMP Regulations



                                                                                          57











                ADOPTED PLAN OUTCOMES


                * Most states with approved local comprehensive, land use, or coastal area plans provided information on the
                number of local plans the state has approved. Otherwise, no statewide data was available on the results of
                local plan implementation such as natural resource protection areas, local setbacks, land use designations,
                and changes to land use or zoning.

                * For the states with adopted SAMP or other specialized plans, none of the following outcome measures are
                available: 1) aerial photo interpretation of on-the-ground changes since plan adoption; 2) periodic physical
                surveys of areas protected or managed under enforceable plans; 3) state and local permit data on activities
                permitted within approved plan areas, area and linear miles affected by approved permits and consistency of
                permitted activities with plan objectives. For public-held lands, there is some limited data on actions taken such
                asdune. revOgetation, but no data on results from such actions. (See under State Coastal Land Management
                and Acquisition section below) Only 2 of the 13 states with adopted SAMPs provided outcome data. See
                page 43 for the Guam Recreational Water Use Management Plan.
                Tho California MalibulSanta Monica Mountain (SW Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) Prociram is
                summarized biglow. In 1979, Coastal Conservancy and CCC developed TDC program requiring, as a permit
                condition, that proposed subdividers or builders of multifamily housing units extinguish or retire the
                development potential of comparable existing undeveloped parcels prior to the creation of new parcels or
                additional units in density. The purpose was to eliminate small undeveloped and poorly sited parcels that, if
                buil, would increase erosion, runoff, and landslides. OUTCOME By 1989, over 700 parcels of land were
                p/aced under open space easements or offers to dedicate open space easements in the SMM area.
                (Assessment, p.55)

                 Only 3 of the 14 states with adopted plans affecting state lands provided outcome data. This include:
                OR- Territorial Sea Management Plan with Rocky Shore Strategy; PA- 8 approved local plans under Bluff
                Recession and Setback Act with setbacks covering 50 miles or 94% of bluff-front. FL- 500 miles of beach under
                staie erosion plan; 100 miles of beaches restored. Other states provide data on number of plans and areas
                covered but no results. For example, NY data shows 2 erosion management plans approved covering 25 miles
                or 210% of beaches.

                Examples of outcome data collected:

                As indicated in Table 5, most coastal towns In Connecticut have adopted Municipal Coastal Program
                (MCPs) consistent wit the CCMA policies and use guidelines that contain long-range land use plans for coastal
                development and conservation and implementing local zoning/subdivision regulations. There is no statewide
                data on local land use plans or local zoning/subdivision regulations. However, most have established setbacks
                from sensitive coastal resources and the high tide line. Through Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review (CSPR),
                municipalities regulate development between MHW. and coastal boundary.

















                                                                    58










                     Table 5-A: Local Land Use Plans and Regulations, & Other Special Area Management Plans- Connecticut
                     YEAR                                                 1995                 1995
                     COASTAL GOVERNMENT                                  MUNICIPALITIES (Towns and Boroughs)
                     1. Number in CZ                                     41          (36/4)
                     2. Number with Approved Plans                       35*
                        (Municipal Coastal Programs)
                     3. Number with Setback Regulations ND (a)
                        (Setbacks from beaches/dunes)
                     4. Number with Dune Management Plans                ND (b)
                        Acres Protected/Restricted Use
                     KEY:
                     NA- Not applicable
                     ND no statewide data.
                     * Local participation is voluntary. Of 6 not participating, three located along Long Island Sound: Madison, Greenwich,
                     and East Haven
                     (a) Most towns have setbacks from sensitive coastal resources (such as wetlands) and the high tide line required by zoning
                     and/or subdivision regulations. But few have setbacks from the beach.
                     (b) CZM has provided assistance the locals for development of dunes restoration plans
                     Sources: 309 Assessment p. 16, Mary-Beth Hart, CZM staff.

                     The State of California utilizes state goals, policies and guidelines with both state and local implementation. Local
                     implementation is through adoption of Local Coastal Land Use Plans which 83% of the localities have adopted. All require
                     either setbacks or case-by-case construction standards. However, no statewide daiabase to determine effectiveness.

                     Table 5-B: Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans/Regulations, Other Special Area Management Plans- California
                     YEAR                                                 1905                        1995
                     COASTAL GOVERNMENT CITIES/ COUNTIES/Total                        LCP Segments(a)
                     1. Number in CZ                  58       15            73                126
                     2. Number with Certified Local Coastal Land Use Plans (LUPs)              105(83%)
                     3. Number with Certified Implementation Plans                             88(70%)
                     4. LCPs Certified and Issuing Permits                                     82(650/.)
                     5. Geographic Area Covered by Certified LCPs                              1,387,129 acres (86% of CZ)
                     6. LCP Amendments Reviewed                                                738
                     7. Areas of Deferred Certification                                        42
                     8. Number with Beachfront Regulations                                     All with beaches*
                     9. Number with Bluff Regulations                                          All with bluffs*
                     10.. Number with Dune Management Plans
                        Acres Protected/Restricted Use.                                        unknown*
                     I L. Number of SAMPs
                        Acres Protected/Shoreline Miles                                        unknown*
                     12. Number of Environinentally Sensitive Areas
                        Resource Protection Areas in beaches/dunes/bluffs/rocky shores
                        Acres protected/Shoreline Miles                                        unknown*
                     13. Malibu/Santa Monica Mountain Transfer of Development
                     Credit Program
                        Results- +700 parcels placed on Open Space Easement (as of 1989) avoiding erosion, landslides on these small undeveloped and.
                     poorly sited lots.
                     KEY:
                     unknown- no statewide database.
                     (a) The 73 coastal jurisdictions are divided into 126 segments for purposes of LCP planning.
                        All cities/counties with certified plans have provisions which meet state goals, policies and guidelines regarding beaches. dunes and
                     bluffs and significant resource areas. However, some require setbacks, other have case-by-case siting/construction standards. No
                     itatevvide database.
                     Sources: Local Coastal Planning Program Annual report FY 1994-1995, p. 16









                                                                                        59











                       Omni has a single layer of government. All plans are island-wide. There is insufficient data in Table 7 to make a determination
                       of effectiveness of the State'land Use Plan or State Seashore Protection Plan or the Territorial Parks System. Guam has,
                       however, adopted a Recreational and Water Use Management Plan for which data indicates that a 6 miles is protected and
                       competing use conflicts managed.

                       Table 5-C: State Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Other Special Area Management Plans- Guam
                       PlEnning Tool                              % of Coastline Covered       % Guam Total Acreage/land Area
                                                                  (excluding federal lands)          (Guam CZ)
                       1. State Land-Use Plan                     100%                           100%
                       (a) Conservation Districts                nd                              nd -
                       (b) Habitat Protection Areas             nd                               2 8,197 acres (2 1 %land area)*
                       2. State Seashore Protection Plan       100%                              10 fathom contour-10 meters inland
                       3. SAMI's
                       (a) Flood Hazard Zones                     nd                            nd
                       (b) Recreational and Water Use Mgt. Plan
                       4. "Ferritorial Parks System
                       (a) Natural Preserves                   nd                     nd
                       (b) Conservation Reserves               nd                               nd


                       KEY:
                       nd- no statewide data.
                       Island wide- includes upland areas, not just shoreline also includes both Guam Government and federal lands.
                       * A 6 miles stretch along coast and in water which addresses users conflicts along beach and in waters. Bird nesting areas identified
                       and, protected, Manahac fish-runs protected. Cannot operate jet ski except in management plan areas. Plan adopted as part of GCMP in
                       1990/9 1. Provides for "use zones" for certain water activities in phnned areas, required buoyed areas for jet ski type vehicles and
                       mei.hanized vehicular closure during predictable Manahac nins. Minimum operating age of 16 years for all mechanized water
                       veb icles. Jet skis can only be operated in planned areas- two such areas adopted, third area finalizing plan. In first area planned,
                       Ag;ma Bay to Piti, encompasses 6 linear. miles of coast to a distance varying from two hundred yards to half a mile. The second area,
                       Cocos Lagoon, is a triangular shaped lagoon 3 miles long on the land side, extending 2 miles seaward. 'Me third area is Apra Harbor,
                       which is Guam's commercial port, the Navy port and Guam's Harbor of Refuge.

                       Sources: Michael L. Ham.


                       STATE COASTAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION OUTCOMES


                       Although all 29 coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one or more beach, dune,
                       bluff or rocky shore, only 17 states have inventory data on their state coastal land holdings such as number of
                       shoreline miles in state parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership. 5 states do not have information on
                       the: total number of beach miles. 5 do not known the number of state coastal parks. 10 do not know the
                       number of beachfront coastalparks they own. 12 do not have information on the miles of state coastal park
                       lands they own. 11 do not know the number of miles in state coastal lands.

                       * Several states are active stewards of their public coastal land holdings. However, outcome data is scarce
                       regarding: 1) number of accessways, marked trails, boardwalks, and dune crossovers; 2) dune restoration
                       projects measured in acres, miles of shoreline involved, state funds; 3) beaches restored or renourished as
                       measured in cubic yards, beachfront miles, state funds; 4) number of shoreline stabilizations installed with
                       acres and shoreline miles affected as a counter-indication to stewardship; and
                       5) acres, shoreline miles in state coastal lands designated as conservation, preservation or protection areas
                       and aerial photo interpretation, periodic physical surveys to verify condition of resources.

                       Cf the 14 states which use boardwalks or dunes crossovers within their state coastal parks to guide
                       pedestrian traffic over fragile beach and dune resources, 12 have provided limited data on the number
                       accessways installed (See Figure 9-13). However, this data is of limited use without additional data which
                       coirelates access provided within each state park against length of shoreline or unmet access needs.

                       Of the 13 coastal states which employ dunes creation on state beachfront parks to repair and enhance the
                       natural functions of their state-owned beach and dune systems, 9 have provided limited data on the




                                                                                         60










                 number of projects and/or miles of beachfront covered. (See Figure 9-13). This information is of limited use in
                 determining effectiveness, since there is no data which correlates need for dune restoration against projects
                 completed or project results.

                 * Of the 17 coast at states which have used beach nourishment or renourishment as a management tool, 14
                 state have very limited data on the number of projects and/or miles of beachfront renourished. There is almost
                 no state data on cubic yards of sand involved, costs, or long-term results of these projects. However, 15 states
                 involve beach nourishment projects sponsored by the USACE and there is some data on federally-funded
                 beach nourishment projects (See Appendix A, National Context Factors).

                  11 coastal states have chosen to armor or to repair existing armoring structures in high erosion areas. 15
                 state have had federal USACE shoreline protection projects built along their coastlines. As with beach
                 nourishment projects, data is very scarce. (See Figure 9-13) However, the fact that over 1/3 of the,coastal
                 states employ armoring on state-held lands indicates the policy priority preference for protecting upland
                 structures and infrastructure in such areas.


                 * Of the 26 coastal states which have natural resource protection areas, all have some limited data on the
                 number of areas protected, the type of species protected, the type of resource area protected, and/orthe
                 number of acre's protected. (See Figure 9-B). There is a need, however, for data on the value or-conditiod of
                 the habitat protected and the results of the protection activities in order to assess program effectiveness.

                  Of the 21 coastal states which are utilizing acquisition to purchase additional valuable coastal resources, 15
                 states provided some data on the number of properties and acres acquired. Most is coastwide or statewide
                 acquisition data. (See Figure 9-A) For states with multiple coastline resources, data is not broken-down by
                 beaches, bluffs or rocky shores. Very few states provided data on amount of money spent. There is need for
                 data which can be used correlate acquisition of coastal lands versus all state lands acquired and to determine
                 the relative priority of coastal land acquisition in the state's overall land acquisition program.

                 Example of outcome data collected:

                 Outcome indicator data show that -25% of the Massachusetts coastline is in public ownership with only 5%
                 being in state-ownership (See Table 6-A). There are 18 parks in the coastal frontage of Massachusetts (See
                 Table 6-13). There is no outcome data on pedestrian access restrictions. There has been one federal/state
                 sponsored beach nourishment project.(See Tables 6-B and 6-C). The Rivers and Harbors Program funds dune
                 restoration, beach restoration, and armoring projects. No data, however, was available on projects funded or
                 project results (See Table 6-13). Outcome indicator data show that 2,250 acres were acquired by state
                 agencies (See Table 6-E).

                 Table 6-A: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management- Massachusetts
                 OWNERSIUP                         LINEAR SHORELINE MILES
                 Total coastal miles               1,500
                  Public-Owned                     -25%
                  State-Owned                      _5%
                 Total Beachfront miles            222 miles of barrier beaches
                  Public-Owned                     ND
                  State-Owned                      ND
                 Total Rocky-Shore                 ND
                  Public-Owned                     ND
                  State-Owned                      ND
                 Total Bluffs                      ND
                 Key: ND- no data
                 Source: Deirdre Buckley










                                                                       61











                     Table 6-B: State Coastline Ownership and Direct Land Management of      State Parks- MA
                     MANAGEMENT                      COASTAL NATURAL RESOURCE AREA
                     Activity                                  COASTAL FRONTAGE
                     # Parks                                   18
                     # MILES                                   63.46 miles
                     # FEET                                    335,064 feet
                     # Boardwalks                              ND
                     #Park Plans                               5 coastal park mgt. plans [email protected],673 acres
                                                               5 coastal park beach plans in progress  5,000 acres
                       Dunes Restored                          Yes- ND
                       Beaches Renourished                     2 - 3 MILES
                       Protection Areas/Acres                  14 ACECs = 75,000 acres

                     Key: ND- no data     ACE'Cs- Areas of Critical Erosion Concern
                     Source: Deirdre Buckley


                     Table 6-C: Beaches Restored/Nourished/Renourished - MA
                     YEAR                 PROJECT        MILES OF BEACH CUBIC YARDS
                     1970-1996            Revere Beach         2 - 3 miles                    ND


                     Note: USACE sponsored. There are several private projects and sand/material placement on beaches.- Jim O'Connell
                     Kc y: ND-no data
                     Source: Deirdre Buckley


                     Table 6-al): Dunes Restored and Shoreline Armored- MA
                     YEAR                 PROJECT        MILES OF BEACH CUBIC YARDS
                     1970 - 1996
                     Dunes restored     Yes under Rivers and Harbors Program- No data
                     Shoreline Armored Yes under Rivers and Harbors Program- No data
                     So-irce: Deirdre Buckley


                     Table 6-E: Coastal Lands Acquired- MA
                     Coastal Acquisitions: Open Space Bond Bill
                     Year:                           1978-1996
                     DEM
                     Acquisitions:
                     Acres/Linear Miles              2, 100 acres/ no data on miles
                     Re,;ource Area                  coastal frontage
                     Acquisition Tool                Bond issue
                     Ex@?enditures                   36 million/
                                                     awarded $70 million more through
                                                     Open Space Bond Bill in 1987 and 1996
                     DFWELE
                     Acquisitions
                     Acres/Linear Miles 150 acres
                     Re!;ource Area                  coastal frontage - habitat protection
                     Acquisition tool                Bond Issue
                     Expenditures                    3 million

                     MDC
                     plans to restore Boston Beaches ; 5 year revitalization project, $30 million

                     DCS
                     provides grants to municipalities to protect open space through Self-Help and Urban Self-Help Programs. Also DCS administers
                     federal Land and Water Conservation /fund grants to targeted municipalities. To date only 273 acres of coastal frontage has been
                     acquired through t7 acquisition project in over 20 years by local municipalities. Only 16 cities and towns have received grants -
                     mostly in the Cape Cod/Islands region.
                     Source: Deirdre Buckley








                                                                                       62









                                       7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


                  CONCLUSIONS


                  P6o, to emactmen, of the federal czMA, state efforts to address protection of natural shoreline features such as
                  beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores were highly va6able. State coastal management programs (CMPs)
                  developed since passage of the CZMA were designed specifically to balance resource protection and
                  development. State coastal programs have resulted in more attention to issues such as erosion, sea level 6se,
                  and cumulative adverse impacts resulting from development on receding beach and bluff shorelines and
                  sensitive natural habitat areas. State ClVlPs have been at the forefront in addressing shoreline use conflicts
                  such as the demand for shoreline armoring to protect existing upland structures to the detriment and loss of
                  natural beach systems. Beach nourishment has been promoted by some coastal states as an alternative to
                  continued loss of developed recreational beaches through shoreline hardening. Likewise, some coastal states
                  have funded research into sand loss from inlet dredging and have demanded that beach quality sand from inlet
                  dredging be placed on down-drift beaches. Whereas excavation of sand for coastal development was a
                  common practice in the past, state CMPs prohibit such practices today and wage educational campaigns on
                  the importance of protecting stabilized dune systems...

                  State CMPs serve as the institutional focus for addressing ongoing competing public and private demands for
                  the use of our limited and sometimes fragile coastline resources. Our understanding of natural shoreline
                  processes and the impacts of human development on these processes has grown. Today, we are no longer
                  building as close to the shoreline. The development that does occur is better built to withstand coastal storm'
                  events, Efforts are made to guide access across fragile vegetated dunes. We are becoming better stewards of
                  our natural coastal heritage through state CMP efforts. Balancing private property rights with natural resource
                  protection goals remains a challenge.

                  The national objective of protecting coastal resources Is being achieved through implementation of
                  federally-approved state coastal management programs. State CMP efforts are effective overall in addressing
                  protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores, given that the CZMX requires states to balance
                  competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion of
                  recreational use of the shoreline. Determination of CMP effectiveness has been based on process indicators
                  and case examples.

                  Coastal states are utilizing a wide variety of tools to achieve resource protection including regulatory
                  setbacks and controls over shoreline development in combination with planning, stewardship of state lands,
                  coastal land acquisition, and research and public educabon about shoreline processes and human-interactions.
                  The pr@imary tools employed are regulator, controls over land and water uses along the coast through
                  setbacks, permits for coastline development, and restrictions 6n access and habitat destruction. All but three
                  coastal states identified protection of natural resources and/or minimization of loss of life and property from
                  coastal hazards as a high priority management issue. Although all coastal states own coastal properties, only
                  three use state ownership and land management as the primary tool. Of the twenty-five tools identified with
                  beach and dune protection, the fewest tools used by a state is eleven and the most is twenty-three. Of the
                  thirteen tools related to bluff and rocky shore protection, the fewest tools used by any state is five and the most
                  is eleven.

                  More Systematic Resource Protection Occurring - State coastal management programs have provided
                  more systematic, extensive and intensive planning and review of projects along the shoreline resulting in
                  minimized adverse impacts of improper development and erosion on natural systems and adjacent properties
                  and structures. Greater attention has been given to cumulative effects of individual permit decisions; the
                  measurement of erosion rates for establishing construction setbacks; the long-term adverse long-term effects
                  of shoreline armoring on natural beach sand transport; and opportunities for nonstructural solutions to* coastal
                  erosion. As a result, less inappropriate development is occurring in hazardous areas such as migrating
                  beaches and eroding bluffs.





                                                                          63










                  All but two coastal states have made significant changes to their program tools In the way they protect
                  resources. Significant changes have often included expansion of the geographic area or types of activities
                  covered by shoreline setbacks or regulations and changes to limitations on shoreline stabilizations. Most give
                  greater consideration to natural shoreline processes, even when addressing other concerns such as the need
                  to protect developed eroding shorelines using structural measures. These changes complicate assessment of
                  program effectiveness, using outcome indicators.

                  Rogulatory tools are the most significant tools employed nationwide to protect shoreline resources.
                  because the majority of the oceanfront shoreline is in private ownership and is subject to significant shoreline
                  change and development pressures. The scope, policies, and provisions of state coastal regulatory programs
                  aflbrd greater natural resource protection. State coastal programs protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
                  shores through setbacks, regulation of shoreline development and shoreline stabilizations, restrictions on
                  pedestrian access, vehicular access, and habitat protection, and permit compliance/permit tracking systems.
                  Most coastal states employ construction setbacks from the. shoreline to provide a natural buffer between
                  development and the water. Almost all coastal states regulate activities within defined coastal construction
                  control areas in ways that minimize adverse impacts on the natural shoreline resources and protect critical
                  habitat areas. Most coastal states regulate the use of shoreline stabilization structures to minimize adverse
                  impacts on beach systems. However, only a few coastal states prohibit shoreline stabilization structures,
                  thereby placing protection of beach systems as a policy priority over protection of upland structures. Many
                  coastal states restrict pedestrian and vehicular access along portions of the shoreline. Pedestrian access
                  restrictions channel human encroachment along boardwalks or dune crossovers, minimizing dune
                  destabilization and limiting adverse impacts on fragile shoreline resources. Vehicular access restrictions keep
                  vehicles off sensitive coastal habitat areas or limit vehicular use to government vehicles or off-road vehicles irf
                  areas planned for their use. Almost all coastal state have permit compliance programs to enforce their
                  regulations and permit tracking systems.

                  Planning tools, when combined with regulatory, are used effectively to protect natural resources. Most
                  coastal states with beach or bluff resources employ some type of planning tool. Locally-delegated permitting
                  combined with mandatory local planning in eight coastal states provides the key management tool in protecting
                  beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore resources. Planning programs are more effective when combined with
                  implementation through state regulation or local land use regulations, zoning and subdivision ordinances and
                  other actions.

                  Stewardship of coastal lands, through state land management and acquisition, is an important
                  component of all state coastal programs. All coastal states own state parks along the shoreline that
                  encompass one or more beach, dune, bluff or rocky shore. Most coastal states have natural protection areas
                  and guided accessways and many have acquired additional coastal land holdings. Almost half of the coastal
                  states use boardwalks or dune crossovers to protect dune vegetation and minimize adverse impacts on natural
                  resources and employ sand fencing and dune creation to restore the natural function of damaged dune
                  systems. Over half of the coastal states use beach nourishment to recreate recreational beaches which are
                  eroding away. Eleven coastal states have chosen to armor or repair existing shoreline stabilization structures
                  in high erosion areas, primarily to protect coastal highways or other public infrastructure investments.

                  Insufficient nationally compatible outcome data Is available to determine on-the-ground effectiveness.
                  It is not possible to determine the on-th6-ground effectiveness of state CPM regulatory, planning, state land
                  management or acquisition programs, due to the scarcity of outcome data. Although about two-thirds of the
                  coastal states have computerized permit tracking systems, no states keep statewide databases on the miles
                  affected, the area affected, or the resources affected by permits approved for coastline activities. Regarding
                  states with setbacks, the regulatory jurisdiction varies making cross-state comparisons difficult. States which
                  delegate coastal permitting to local governments do not maintain multi-year databases on local permits. Data
                  on conditions attached to permits are contained in paper files, not on permit tracking systems. Few states have
                  any data on the results of pedestrian access and vehicular access restrictions and protected habitat areas.

                  Most coastal states with approved local plans have information on the number of plans approved but no
                  statewide and longitudinal data on results of local plan implementation. For states with adopted special area
                  management plans (SAMPs) or other specialized plans, outcome data is also scarce. Although all coastal



                                                                          64










                 states own state parks along the shoreline that encompass one of more beach, dune, bluff or rocky shore, only
                 a few states have inventory data on their coastal land holdings such as number of shoreline miles in state
                 parks or percent of shoreline in public ownership. Several states are active stewards of their public coastal land
                 holdings but outcome data is scarce regarding accessways installed, dunes restored, beaches restored, and
                 other protection results. Of the coastal states which utilize acquisition, most have some data on the number
                 and/or acres of coastal lands acquired. However, for most states, this data is not broken-down by type of
                 resource area acquired and very few states have data on amount of money spent or acquisition priorities.

                 Determining "effectiveness" of state coastal program in protecting natural coastline resources based on on-the-
                 ground outcome indicators is elusive. Determining the "effectiveness" of state coastal programs in protecting
                 natural coastline resources based on process indicators and case examples is more possible, but still difficult.
                 Case examples can be effective is illustrating how a management tool has been implemented in a certain
                 geographic area and the results of such implementation.

                 Competing    Demands for the Use of the Shoreline and Competing Government Policies Continue to
                 Require Balance - State CZM programs continue to face decisions regarding competing demands for
                 recreation and tourist development, protection of existing threatened properties, and the rights of private
                 property owners versus public health and safety. Shrinxing federal and state dollars for state CZM program
                 administration, coupled with increased demand and expectations for CZM services, is a long-term concern for
                 coastal programs. Several federal agencies, state CZM programs, local coastal governments, and other non-
                 profit organizations each play a role in managing our nation's coastline resources. Inconsistencies between
                 certain federal agency programs and state CZM objectives is an ongoing concern. For example, the FEMA
                 flood insurance program and the federally-funded shoreline protection projects of the USACE achieve
                 objectives which undermine some state CZM natural resource protection objectives. The unique role of state
                 coastal zone management programs has been to focus attention and resources on improving the state and
                 local land use controls and other tools to minimize the adverse impacts on natural resources.


                 RECOMMENDATIONS

                 Develop a computerized CZM database . OCRM should seek funding from Congress to establish a
                 computerized monitoring and tracking program for state and federal agency CZM activities, the results of which
                 should be published in a biennial state-of-the-coast report to Congress.. This should include a computerized
                 coding system and an information tracking and recovery system for all information submitted by coastal states.
                 OCRM should prepare up-datable state CZM program summary files for each coastal state with information
                 about the state program, periodic changes to the program, program activities, CZM projects undertaken,
                 results and reports produced.

                 Share Information Through the Internet - OCRM should create a home page on the Internet and a CD-ROM
                 of the National State of the Coast Report and National CZM effectiveness study and other CZM databases.

                 Incentives for Coastal States to Refine and Expand their Process and Outcome Data Collection and
                 Record Keeping - OCRM should seek funding from Congress to form a coastal states task force with the
                 objective to change the coastal states reporting requirements under 306, 309, and 312 to better address results
                 of state CZM activities and their effectiveness in meeting state and national CZM objectives. This should
                 include accepted methods for organizing, collecting, storing, and reporting accurate and precise data on
                 program activities and results which include trend data usable in future assessments of CZM effectiveness.
                 The types of outcome indicator data that OCRM and the coastal states should consider collecting to measure
                 program results for protecting natural beach, dune, bluff and rocky shore resources are provided on page 53.

                    OCRM should also encourage coastal states to improve their daily record keeping and yearly reporting to
                 OCRM on program implementation and results. They should be encouraged to continue to develop and refine
                 computerized permit tracking systems regarding permitted activities to refine the individual permit entries to
                 include data on type of project, area and resources affected, length of shoreline affected, size of project, permit
                 restrictions/conditions and other data which, when analyzed yearly, could assess the individual and cumulative
                 impacts of projects permitted along the coast. OCRM should encourage states which delegate implementation



                                                                          65










                  to local governments to monitor, collect and report on local implementation and results. States should be
                  encouraged to explore the use of in-depth case studies as a way to provide more meaningful explanations of
                  how CZM works and the on-the-ground results, rather than relying on case examples and success stories.
                  State should be encouraged to explore the use of aerial photo interpretation for measuring long-term changes
                  in develop and resources along the coast.

                  Federal agencies should monitor changes to the coastal environment and report on changes every five
                  years. OCRM should compile data from U.S. Bureau of the Census on population changes in coastal counties.
                  Congress should fund the appropriate federal agency to conduct aerial photo interpretations of shoreline
                  development and changes in development patterns. USDOI should compile data on private development
                  occurring on designated Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) units and federal/state agency actions
                  affecting CBRA designations and implementation success. USACE should be funded by Congress to conduct
                  follow-up national shoreline studies on erosion, shoreline armoring, beach nourishment, and public ownership
                  of the coast. USDOl/FWS should compile data on coastal endangered species and habitat loss/protection
                  changes and role of federal and state agencies in this effort. .                                                                 I

                  UtIlIz'e the Section 309 Assessment Process to address Issues associated with shoreline change.
                  OC RM and the Coastal States should continue to utilize the section 309 Assessment process to address
                  substantive issues associated with the protection of natural coastal systems. Significant changes to state-
                  coastal programs such changes in activities exempt, shoreline armoring allowed and the landward extent of
                  regulatory jurisdiction should be carefully scrutinized for their long-term effects on natural coastal systems.







































                                                                           66











              APPENDICES



              APPENDIX A: NATIONAL AND STATE CONTEXT FACTORS



              APPENDIX 8: METHODOLOGY & SURVEY INSTRUMENT
                           B-1 Methodology
                           B-2 Survey Instrument



              APPENDIX C:  SUMMARY TABLES



              APPENDIX D:  CASE EXAMPLES



              APPENDIX E:  BIBLIOGRAPHY









                     APPENDIX A: NATIONAL AND STATE CONTEXT FACTORS
                     Factors affecting protection of coastal beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky shores

                     State CZM programs for protecting beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores are influenced by a
                     variety of physical, social and economic context factors including: (a) the type and extent of the
                     resource in a given state; (b) coastline erosion processes and storm events; (c) coastline
                     ownership and development; (d) human interference with natural processes; (e) competing
                     demands placed on natural coastal resources and state priorities for balancing these demands;
                     (f) shared coastal management responsibilities between states, federal agencies and non-
                     governmental organizations; and (g) the unique role of the CZM program in the state.

                     Type and Extent of Beach and Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources

                     Beach resources are present along portions of all coastal state shorelines, though the length and
                     character of such beaches vary considerably. Sandy beaches can be categoried into three
                     distinct types: barrier beaches, mainland beaches, and pocket beaches.The Gulf of Mexico and
                     Atlantic Coast is characterized by a system of barrier beaches and a relatively wide continental
                     shelf, as is much of Alaska. Barrier beaches are part of a complex integrated system of beaches,
                     marshes, bays, tidal flats, and inlets. These beaches are constantly migrating, eroding and
                     building in response to natural processes and human activities. Mainland beaches stretch
                     unbroken for many miles, some low standing and prone to flooding, others backed by steep
                     headlands. They received sediment from nearby rivers and eroding bluffs. Examples include
                     Long Island, northern New Jersey ar @ southern California. Pocket beaches form in small bays
                     surrounded by rocky cliffs or headlands. The headlands protect the sandy alcoves from erosion
                     by winter storms and strong currents. Pocket beaches are common in Maine and the Pacific
                     Northwest. Other coastline variations are based on plate tectonics or type of wave forces.
                     Difference and variations in beach and dune coastline systems within a state, between states
                     and within regions are factors affect states enactment and implementation of certain beachfront
                     management tools. 1

                     Headland/rocky shorelines and bluffs/cliffs are present along the West Coast, the North East
                     Coast, the Great Lakes. Coast, and Territorial shores. These features are absent along the low
                     elevation Southern and South Atlantic coastlines. The underlying geology of active tectonics,
                     faulting and earthquakes or glaciers, ice gouging and rafting, or ice and strong wind determine
                     shore stability and erosion factors which effect state management responses. 2 Eroding bluffs
                     and cliffs of the Great Lakes states, creating beaches and dunes, are subject to highwater levels
                     which, when driven by storm winds and waves cause flooding and lakefront deterioration.3

                     Table I provides the length of the US coastline, using NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
                     data, that includes two measures, one of direct oceanfront miles where they cross bays and
                     sounds and the other tidal shoreline miles which extend inland to the head of tidewaters or to a
                     point where tidal waters narrow to a width of 100 feet. The national shoreline, as measured by
                     the US Army Corps of Engineers, to the head of tidewaters, or to the point where tidal waters
                     narrow to 100 feet is also shown. Percent of direct ocean coastline in beaches, rocky shores and
                     bluffs is also indicated from state CZM program estimates. For 8 of the 29 coastal states, their
                     entire ocean coastlines are sandy beaches with no rocky shores or bluffs. All other 21 coastal
                     states have other beaches and rocky shores, backed by bluffs or sand dunes.




                     Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna k. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal
                     Zone Manacement
                     z1bid.
                     3National Committee on Property Insurance. 1998. America's Vanishing Coastlines: A N
                     Concern for the Voluntary and Residual Pro                   Markets. p,23
                                                                 perty Insurance











                    CoasUlne Owners-WID

                    State jurisdictional ownership of beaches usually begins at mean high water  and extends
                    seaward. This leaves extensive dry sanding beach and dune systems in private ownership,
                    except where governments have acquired beachfronts for recreation or preservation. Seventy
                    percent of our nation's shoreline is in private ownership (excluding Alaska where 99% is publicly
                    owned). As of 1970, three-fifths of the shoreline was undeveloped (excluding Alaska).4
                    Development pressures vary depending on geography and climate issues. Inaccessible and hard
                    to develop shorelines, such as rocky shores, are less prone to development than accessible
                    sandy beach areas. A state's beach and dune management varies depending on the extent of
                    public ownership. For the 20 coastal states (not including the islands or the Great Lake States),
                    public owneship ranges from a high of 99% for Alaska to a low of 3% for Maine. For I I of the 20
                    states. over 1/4 of the shoreline is in public ownership. (see Table 1).

                    Coasdine Development. Population Growth. and Economic Pressures on Shoreline
                    Prowrties

                    As early As1he late 1800s, recreational tourism began   along our nation's beaches. With the
                    advent of the automobile, seasonal seaside resorts evolved. The summer homes and fishing
                    villages of the 1940s and 1950s were transformed by the 1970s into "cities on the beach."5
                    Today, due to population and economic pressures, over half of our nation's population lives
                    within 50 miles of the coast and our nation's coastal zone is over four times more densely
                    populated than the national average. 6 In addition to the retirees who migrated to the coast and
                    other year round residents, tourists and conventioneers are demanding beachfront coastal
                    resorts. This is most pronounced along our coastal barriers at high risk due to coastal flooding,
                    hurricanes and erosion. Billions of dollars in private development and pubic recreation and
                    infrastructure is invested on these unstable coastal barriers. 7 The demand for coastal waterfront
                    property has lead to increased residential development pressures along our nation's coastal
                    bluffs and rocky shores.

                    The persistent development along our nation's coastline had lead to destruction of coastal dunes
                    systems and placement of structures in jeopardy from both short and long-term erosion.
                    Shoreline development prior to the 1970s were frequently armored with seawalls, revetments,
                    bulkheads or other shoreline stabilization structure to protect upland private and public
                    investments from erosion. Such stabilization structures accelerated the loss of sandy beaches. 8
                    Table I shows coastal county population change between 1970 and 1990. For 17 of the 29 CZM
                    states, population growth was over 30% (major impact); for 4 population growth was between 10
                    and 29% (moderate impact); and for 8 population growth was 0% to 9% (minimal impact.)

                    The cost of purchasing oceanfront and waterfront properties along our nation's shorelines are
                    considerably higher than for non-waterfront properties. Likewise, the value of such properties
                    have increased at a faster rate. The seasonal beachfront cottages of yesterday have given way
                    to much larger and more expensive developments, often high-rise multi-family condominiums.
                    The result is intensive, extensive and expensive investments in known coastal high hazard
                    areas. Barrier islands have become a magnet for retirees and vacation homes.9 About half of


                    41bid.
                    50latt, Rutherford H. et al. 1987. Cities on the Beaches* ManaGement Issues of DeveloDw
                    Coastal Islands.
                    t5U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the
                    Nation's Coasts: 1960-2010.
                    'Platt, Rutherford, et al. 1992. Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat Sounded?, p.12.
                    81bid., p.8
                    9U.S. Department*of Commerce, NOAA, NOS. 1992. Building Along America's Coasts: 20 Years
                    of Buildina Permits. 1970-1989. p.5


                                                                     2










                      all residential and non-residential construction in the U.S. between 1970 and 1989 occurred in
                      coastal areas. The most dramatic growth has occurred in the Florida and California. 10 Despite
                      the environmental degradation associated with population growth, these shoreline areas remain
                      in strong demand for commercial, residential, tourism and recreation.

                      Coastline Erosion

                      Coastal erosion, the landward displacement of the shoreline, is a normal process that has been
                      going on for many years along most of our nation's sandy beaches. Gradual long-term erosion
                      from normal wave action (of 1-3 feet per year) is accelerated by severe storm events during
                      hurricanes and winter storms, sea level rise, the greenhouse effect; and man-made shoreline
                      stabilizations.

                      The only nationwide survey of shoreline erosion, published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                      in 1971, estimates that at least 7% of our nation's coastline is critically eroding where properties
                      are in imminent danger of collapse and 25% is experiencing significant erosion. 12 In addition
                      to long-teffn erosion, many coastal states have experienced shoreline loss and property        -                    I
                      destruction through periodic storm events. Bluff recession is also a problem along the-Great
                      Lakes States.

                      The average rate of erosion is determined locally through hist  orical shoreline records or
                      shoreline modeling. A few examples of documented shoreline. retreat dramatize the
                      management urgency of coastal erosion. Cape Shoatwater, Washington has been eroding at the
                      rate of more than 100 feet a year since the turn of the century. irs sparsely settled sand dunes
                      have retreated an outstanding 12,000 feet, or more than 2 miles since 1910. 13 Most of the
                      barrier islands along the east and gulf coasts are retreating landward by 1 to 10 feet per year-
                      rates of up to 20 feet are not uncommon for specific locations. 14 Every coastal state is
                      affected by shoreline change and erosion. 15 Table 2 shows, by state, the amount of coastal
                      shoreline threatened by erosion.

                      Sea level rise and land subsidence, as a contributer to shoreline erosion, are recognized
                      problems along portions of our nations' coastline. If accurate, the long-term costs to protect
                      existing development, shoreline stabilizations, and infrastructure would be staggeringis

                      Coasftl Storm Events


                      Coastal storms and hurricanes exacerbate long-term erosion, shifting the position of beaches
                      and sand dunes and splintering and collapsing erodable bluffs. Rapid shoreline erosion caused
                      by high storm surge and wave heights overtop dunes and damage beachfront buildings in harms
                      way. Wave attack at the base of steep slopes, undercut and collapse overhanging banks and
                      topple properties perched on such bluffs. Large tsunamis waves with speed and height have
                      inflicted great damaged to California and Hawaii coastal areas. Between 1980 and 1995, 11
                      separate billion-dollar weather disasters struck coastal areas of the US: 9 hurricanes, 1
                      Noeeaster and I tropical storm resulted in over $46 billion in damages. 17

                      101bid
                      11 Kaufmam, W., and 0. H. PlIkey, Jr. 1983. The Beaches are Moving,
                      12U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study
                      13National Committee on Property Insurance. 1988.
                      141bid
                      I SU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971.
                      I 6S.D. Lyles, L.E. Hickman., and H.A. Debaugh. 1988. Sea Level Variations for the United
                      States. 1855-1986: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atrmospheric
                      Administration, Rockville, Maryland.
                      17U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NCDC. Home Page
                      hftp*Hncdc.noaa.gov/publications/billionz.htmI


                                                                        3











                     Human-Intwftrence with Natural Processeg

                     Beach systems, and sandy beaches in particular, are dynamic. They advance and retreat' but
                     over several cycles maintain state of equilibrium. Beginning as early as the 1890s, a va@;@ of
                     human modifications to the physical shoreline have been undertaken to achieve objectives that
                     run counter to the protection and dynamic equilibrium of natural beach/dune systems. This host
                     of human interferences have adversely affected the natural sand transport system, destroyed or
                     caused dune instability, and increased erosion. These include the damming of coastal rivers;
                     dredged navigational channels with jetties for shipping and dredged tidal inlets for commercial
                     fishing and recreational boating; the placement of dredged spoil and beach quality sand offshore
                     beyond the littoral sand transfer system; shoreline armoring; sand-trapping structures such as
                     groins and breakwaters; sand mining for development; and sand scraping practices. Efforts to
                     recreate natural beach/dune systems include sand fencing and dune revegetation, beach
                     nourishment, and inlet sand transfer. 18

                     The damming of coastal rivers, to protect urban areas downstream from flooding and provide
                     hydro-eledtdc power, has trapped sediment thai'would normally feed coastal beaches. Sediment
                     starved beaches occur most on the west coast, but some east coast beaches are also affected.
                     by river diversions. Inlet dredging to maintain established boating and shipping access through
                     coastal banier passes that open and close with storm events has, until recently involved
                     disposal of dredge material offshore beyond the littoral sand transfer system. The loss of this
                     sand to the nearby beaches has increased erosion. For major navigational channels, the
                     installation of jetties to stabilize the such inlets results in trapping sand on the updrift side of the
                     inlet and staving the downdrift beaches. Offshore breakwaters used primarily to stop wave
                     action and create a quiet water area for safe boat moorings obstruct the free flow of sand along
                     the coast and starve downstream beaches.

                     Shoreline armoring through placement of seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, or riprap to protect
                     private oceanfront structures and public infrastructure from erosion has occurred at the expense
                     of lost recreational beaches. These wave-resistant walls may withstand wave action and protect
                     upland properties but rapidly remove sand from the beach and eventually fail or require more
                     substantial armoring. 19 Groins, structures extending into the water to interrupt and accumulate
                     sand on the updrift shore, also starves downdrift adjacent beaches. Most of our nation's urban
                     oceanfronts have been armored, although the percent of our nation's beachfronVoceanfronts that
                     has been armored is unknown.

                     Sand mining, the removal of sand from beaches, dunes, adjacent areas, or riverbeds near was
                     common practice in many states for road construction and development fill. This resulted in a
                     loss of sand and protective dune areas, making such areas vulnerable to coastal flooding from
                     storm events and accelerating erosion. Sand scraping, the practice of moving sand accumulated
                     at one portion of the beach to another to build back a dune or the practice of leveling sand in
                     front of a beachfront development to provide visual access to the water, has been allowed in
                     many states. The negative effects include unstable dunes and low-lying dune areas vulnerable to
                     breaching in storms.

                     Three activities have been used to try to recreate the natural beach/dune system. Dune
                     restoration through Sand fences and dune revegetation has been used to stabilize and re-build
                     dune areas. This helps limit breaching and creation of new inlets during major storms. Beach
                     renomishment and period not0shment has become a popular alternative to armoring, in
                     attempting to artificially create or recreate a beach area through the importing of compatible
                     sand and pumping/placing it on the eroded beach area. The flattened beach profile and wider

                     18 US Army Corps' of Engineers. 1971 and Platt. 1992.
                     19U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. Shore Protection Guidelines. pp32-33


                                                                          4









                     beach width mitigates erosion losses and storm-induced inundation...In certain high erosion
                     areas, however, sand is rapidly washed away. Finding suitable sand source borrow areas also
                     poses challenges. Sand transfer facilities which pump sand from updrift accumulation areas to
                     downdrift beaches has ameliorated this problem. In Florida, for example, over 80% of the beach
                     erosion on the state's Atlantic coast is estimated to be caused by 19 maintained inlets, most
                     stabilized with jetties.

                     l3alancing Competing Demands for Protection of Natural Resources with Protection of
                     Private Oc"nfront Properties and Supportina Public Infrastructure

                     Sandy beaches backed by dunes or bluffs, r    'ocky shores and wetlands constitute the three types
                     of natural shoreline features along our nation's coastline. The natural resource protection values
                     of these features are often in conflict with social and economic values as reflected in shoreline
                     use and development. State CZM programs were created, in part, to provide institutional
                     mechanisms and management tools to balance the competing demands paced on these
                     shoreline features.

                     The natural resource protection values of beaches and dunes commonly identified by state
                     coastal programs include the first line of defense and protection of upland properties from storms
                     and high tides; and wildlife habitat for marine fife such as sea turtle nesting areas, bird nesting
                     and staging areas, and endangered species habitat. Key use values of beaches and dunes are
                     recreation, tourism and access to coastal waters. On the flip side of the coin, social and
                     economic demands have also made oceanfront properties highly desired places for second-
                     homes, resorts and year-round residences. Beachfront and bluff-front development built too
                     close to the edge and now in jeopardy has led to shoreline armoring which has destroyed the
                     natural beach/dune systems which attracted people to the coast in the first place. In addition,
                     cutting and maintaining of inlets for recreational and commercial navigation has permanently
                     disrupted the natural transport of sand along the beachfront, accelerating the loss of recreational
                     beaches.


                     Coastal bluffs, sifting behind extensive or minimal beaches, have been thought of as excellent
                     features for providing coastline vistas. In a few states, select bluff areas have been acquired
                     andmanaged as natural resource protection areas or scenic vista areas. Most are managed as
                     high erosion areas where development and other activities are regulated to minimize erosion
                     risks rather than protect valuable natural resource features. The social and economic pressures
                     for ocean vista developments have resulted in the siting of development along bluff recession
                     areas in harms way.

                     Rocky shores, located within the inter-tidal zone, are recognized as high energy environments
                     and valuable marine habitat. The inter-tidal areas are under state ownership an management.
                     Although public access and recreational enjoyment of these areas has not been restricted, states
                     are beginning to limit public access to avoid over-utilization and destruction of tide pool areas.
                     Rocky shoreland areas have for the most part been resistant to erosion and therefore not
                     managed as high hazard areas. Likewise, they have not been considered developable, though
                     development often occurs immediately landward of these features.

                     Balancing such competing demands has become a key role of state CZM programs (see below).
                     As our understanding of the impact (both individual and cumulative) of human activities on
                     natural systems grows, coastal managers are looking for alternative management approaches to
                     allow activities but minimize their negative impacts on resources of known public benefit. The
                     U.S. is based on strong private property rights laws. The private property takings issue in the
                     regulation of coastal land and water uses is of paramount importance in the development and
                     implementation of coastal management tools. Over the years, states priorities in balancing
                     resource protection and development have varied and altered. Today, coastal programs are
                     required to justify their management decisions basing complex technical data sets. Refinements



                                                                      5










                      to shoreline setbacks, based on historical erosion rates, demands sophisticated and complex
                      computer modeling programs.

                      Government has invested billions in public infrastructure along our nation's coastlines from
                      highways and bridges to water and sewer systems to support mainly private development and
                      some public facilities including military facilities, coast guard stations, hospitals schools and
                      recreation facilities. Beginning in the 1980s, in recognition of the hazardous nature of barrier
                      islands, federal and state agencies have begun to limit their public investments in such areas.

                      Shared Coastal Management

                      Several federal agencies have a long history of involvement with our nation's coastlines, all pre-
                      dating the Federal CZM Act of 1972. Key federal players involved in activities affecting
                      beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores include the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal
                      Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service/US
                      .Fish and Wildlife Service. Staring in 1972, the U.S. Department of Commerceioffice of Ocean
                      and Coastal Resource Management became responsible for administering the Federal CZM Act.

                      The Arrny Corps of Engineers (COE) administers the 1) federal shoreline protection program
                      through research, planning, design, construction management, federal cost-sharing; 2)
                      authorized navigation channel dredging; and 3) federal permits for dredge and fill involving any
                      construction or other activity which affects navigable waters including federal guidelines for
                      beach nourishment and shoreline stabilizations. The COE Published the National Shoreline
                      Study in 1971, and is working on analysis of Federal shore protection program for Congress.
                         The COE shoreline protection program covers construction projects for hurricane and storm
                      damage reduction, beach erosion control, navigation, mitigation and recreation. Since 1930,
                      Congress has authorized 137 projects or studies involving 19 of the 29 CZMA states plus 4
                      coastal states not in the CZM program. A total of 82 Federally-sponsored shore protection
                      projects were constructed between 1950 and 1993 in areas of concentrated development
                      experiencing severe erosion and/or property damage from storms. The projects protect 226
                      miles or less than 0.3 % of the 84,240 mile of tidal shoreline of the U.S. and only 8% of the
                      2,700 miles of COE identified "critical-erosion" coastline.20 Of the 82 projects, 56 were large
                      projects costing $1,177.3 million in 1993 dollars. The cost-sharing was 60% federal and 40%
                      non-federal (state, locals, and private) sponsors.21 These projects involve one or more of the
                      following: 1) initial beach restoration, sometimes with dune filling; 2) periodic beach nourishment;
                      3)shoreline structures-groins, seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, bulkheads, or sand transfer
                      plants; 4) emergency measures to repairs storm damaged projects. The significant shift from
                      reliance on fixed structures in the I 950s to beach restoration and periodic nourishment in the
                      1970s by the COE, is based on a realization that fixed structures protect upland property but
                      destroy recreational beaches. Artificial beaches as. a primary means of shore protection has
                      become a major component of the COE program. the concept of replicating the protective
                      characteristics of natural beach and dune systems. However, beach renourishment is not
                      without its critics. In 1983, 1 million square yards of sand placed on the beaches of Ocean City,
                      New Jersey at a cost of $5.5 million. Within a few years, storms removed and redistributed much
                      of the sand. 22 In 1993, the COE initiated an investigation and analysis of the benefits,
                      environmental effects and the existence of induced development resulting from Federal shore
                      protection program. Bihe small percent of our nation's coastal erosion problem covered by the

                      20 U.S. Amry Corps-of Engineers. 1971.
                      L U.S. Army Coros of Ehaineers. 1994. Shoreline Protection and- Beach Erosion Control Stu dy:
                      Phase 1: Cost COMIDarison of Shoreline Protection Pro6ects of the U.S. Army Corps of Enaineers.
                      "Nordstrom, Pilkey et al. 1986. Living with the New Jersey Shore. Durham, N.C. Duke
                      University Press.
                      23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Shore Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study:
                      Economic Effects of Induced Develowent in Corys-Protected Beachfront Communiti



                                                                         8









                   COE, leaves state CZMI program with major responsibilities to cope with and address appropriate
                   erosion responses. See Table 3 for shoreline protection projects by state between 1950-1993.
                       The COE navigation channel dredging program began with the Harbors Act of 1890. Since
                   then Congress has authorized 830 navigation projects for channels for shipping, commerical
                   fishing and recreational boating involving every coastal state, territory and commonwealth.24
                       The COE permit program for dredge and fill projects in navigable waters is subject to federal
                   consistency provisions. Only one coastal state, Alaska, relies on the minimum standards
                   contained in the COE regulations for placement of shoreline stabilizations. All other coastal
                   states have their own state regulatory programs covering shoreline stabilizations and other
                   activities over coastal waters.

                   The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the'Federal Flood
                   Insurance Program that produces rate insurance maps and insures properties within the I 00-year
                   flood zone for local community participating in the program. Insured coastal structures, when
                   damaged or destroyed, receive insurance claim payments to repair or rebuild. Critics have
                   argued that, despite local code requirements, the NFIP promotes subsidized inappropriate
                   development in coastal high hazard areas, impeding state management efforts to restrict.new
                   development and redevelopment in these areas.
                       In 1994, Congress required FEMA tro conduct an evaluation of the economic impact of
                   mapping coastal erosion areas and then denying flood insurance for existing and new stuctures
                   in such areas, establishing actuarial rates, and changes in the tax base of communities.25 As of
                   1992, there were over 66,000 NFIP policies in -effect covering structures in the hazard zone (V-
                   Zone) .
                       Under the Upton/Jones Program 1988-1995, FEMA allowed for payment. of flood insurance
                   claims to demolish or relocate buildings imminently threatened by erosion. A total of 434 claims
                   have been approved under this program. 73% for demolition. (See Table 4 for claims by state).
                   FEMA is currently conducting an evaluation of economic impact of mapping erosion hazard
                   areas for Congress.

                   U.S. Departinent of Interior (DOI), National Parks Service (NPS) created and manages 10
                   National Seashores covering 592,627 acres and 4 National Lakeshores; covering 228,716 acres
                   The 001 U.S. Fish an Wildlife Service (USFVVS) enforces federal wildlife and endangered
                   species laws and maintains system of national wildlife refuges. In cooperation with states and
                   local communities, USFWS identifies and protects beach and dune areas which provide nesting
                   sites for endangered sea turtles and birds through limitations on sand fencing and beach
                   nourishment during nesting season. Rocky shores, habitat for the Stella Sea Lion and other
                   endangered mammals. There are several National Wildlife Refuges along our nation's
                   coastline. These national wildlife refuges are managed by USFWS to preserve the natural
                   beach/dune systems.
                       DOI/USFWS also administers the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and Coastal Barrier
                   Improvement Act of 1990. The purpose of the Act is to minimize loss of human life, wasteful
                   Federal expenditures, and damage to fish, wildlife and associated natural resources. The Act
                   restricts federal expenditures and financial assistance that have the effect of encouraging
                   development on designated coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf and Great Lakes shorelines.
                   This includes prohibitions on National Flood Insurance, HUD assistance, public infrastructure,
                   and other financial Assistance. The system includes 582 units, comprising over 1.3 million acres
                   and 1,276 miles of shoreline that are not publicly owned or otherwise protected. An addition 173
                   units of otherwise protected areas are covered under the 1990 Act which includes public barrier
                   holdings in federal, state and local ownership. These areas include national wildlife refuges,
                   national parks and seashores, state and local parks and conservation lands. (See Table 5)



                   24U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources, Table D, Unpublished Report.
                   25 FEMA. Undated. "Section 577 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994-
                   *Evaluation of Erosion Hazards": Overview of Study Plan." (provided by Mark Crowell, FEMA)


                                                                   7










                     The U.S. Department of Defense owns coastal properties within military bases, some
                     significant tracts along the eroding coastline. The closing of certain bases and disposal of coastal
                     properties will. pose choices between sale for development or transfer for public preservation. 26

                     Nonprofit conservation organizations have played a significant role in preserving certain coastal
                     barrier lands. The Nature Conservancy, the National Audubon Society and the Trust for
                     Pubic Lands and their partners have selectively acquired parcels for protection. Just over half
                     of the shoreline of coastal barriers on the Atlantic and gulf of Mexico are protected through public
                     or quasi-pubic ownership.27

                     Unique Role of States CZM Programs

                     All coastal states are involved with the protection of their natural resources through a variety of
                     state and local management controls. 29 of the 35 coastal states, territories and commonwealths
                     have federally-approved CZM programs. The management tools these states utilize to protect
                     beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shore include regulatory, planning, direct land management,
                     acquisition and other techniques. These tools are discussed in detail in this study. In most
                     states, local governments participate through local land use controls. The unique role of state
                     CZM programs has been the creation of unified state programs which articulates the conflicts
                     among competing uses, the policies of the state and the balance or method used to resolve
                     conflicts; and utilizes land use controls, both state and local, to manage shoreline uses.

                     State CZM programs have become increasingly involved in identifying the problems of eroding
                     beach/dune systems and developing coordinated responses through statewide beach
                     management and erosion control plans. States concern about adverse affects on downdrift
                     beaches from federal dredging of navigation channels, offshore disposal of dredged materials,
                     and loss of recreational beaches from shoreline armoring, has lead states CZM programs to take
                     a proactive role in shaping state and federal policies and programs. In recognition of the adverse
                     effects on recreational beaches from shoreline armoring. For example, the South Carolina CZM
                     Program pushed for Congressional recognition that COE dredging of Charleston Harbor was
                     causing severe beach erosion on the sand-starved downdrift beaches and led to the Folly Beach
                     renourishment mitigation project.28 The State of Florida passed legislation requiring that
                     suitable beach quality sand from be inlet and navigational channel dredging be placed on the
                     down-drift beaches and used federal consistency and state-funds to negotiate with the COE to
                     place 1.4 million cubic yards of sand from St. Mary's inlet dredging on the down-drift beaches
                     rather than losing the sand to the offshore system.29 Several states have passed legislation
                     limiting the use of new shoreline stabilizations, in an effort to protect beach and dune systems at
                     the expense of private upland properties.

                     The inappropriate siting of structures on coastal barriers, in coastal flood zones and on erodable
                     bluffs is a problem which state CZM programs inherited. Thus when the state CZM programs
                     began in the 1970s, certain portions of our nation's coastline were already committed to intense
                     development and other areas already zoned and plafted for development. Shoreline erosion was
                     a recognized problem, but land use controls were not well developed. State CZM programs
                     would provide the testing grounds for land and   water management to balance competing
                     demands along our shoreline and minimize adverse impacts on valued natural coastal
                     resources. State CZM programs would be at the forefront of the "quiet revolution in land use
                     controls" and "integrated coastal management."

                     All states with significant beaches, dunes, bluff and rocky shore resources rank protection of
                     these resources as a high priority. Most focus on the coastal hazard.
                     26platt. 1992.
                     271bid.
                     28U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water Resources Development in South Carolina. 1993. p.44
                     29State of Florida. Florida Castal Management Program. Best Pro*ects Report, 1988. p.19


                                                                       8










                    This project explores the CZM management tools developed, refined and employed to protect
                    beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and the effectiveness of the management tools in
                    achieving national objectives. Included will be documentation of regulatory controls such as
                    setbacks from beachestbluffs, controls over shoreline stabilizations and the policy shift towards
                    beach nourishment and shoreline retreat. Also include will be direct land management of
                    beachfront parks, acquisition of beaches and coastal resource areas, and the use of planning
                    and research tools such as beachfront management plans.

                    Financial Support

                    Federal CZM funds for State CZM Program implementation between 1974 and 1992 have
                    amounted to $858, 849,000 for all program activities including Section 305-program
                    development, Section 306-program implementation, Section 308-interstate grants, and Section
                    309- enhancement grants. CZM Section 306 Program Implementation Grants to individual
                    states in 1995 ranged from a low of $600,000 to a high of $2.5 million for a given coastal state.
                    30 State spending of CZM funds for natural resource protection has varied depending on
                    competing state priorities.31

                    Tables of National and State Context Factors

                    Table 1: Length of US Coastline, Population Change, Resources Present, Public Ownership
                    Table 2: Coastal Shoreline Erosion - Percent Eroding by State
                    Table 3: US Army Corps of Engineers Major Shoreline Protection Projects in CZM States
                            1950-1993
                    Table 4: Upton-Jones Coastal Claims Summary
                    Table 5: 001- Coastal Barrier Resource System























                    30Bill-Millhouser, phone interview. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal
                    Resource Management.
                    31 Natural Coastal' Resources Research and Development Institute. 1990. Valuing Coastal Zone
                    Management. p.1 1


                                                                     9








                   Table 1: Length of US Coastline, Populati n Change, Reso                                 es Present, Pu            ic Ownership
                   State     open         Tidal         National Shoreline        % State Land Area         Coast      % Coast        Presence of Natural Coastal Resources and             % Open
                             Ocean        Shoreline           Miles and           % State Population        Pop.       Po, Chg        Beach and Rocky Shore a Percent of "he                Coast
                             Coastline    Miles         % Critically ErodN          in Coastal Zorm         density    1970-90        States Open Ocean Coastline                           Public
                             Mims         (2)                    (3)                     (4)                1990       (5)            Beach, Bluff and Rocky Shore as Percent of            (7)
                             (1)                                                                            (4)                       Non-Open Ocean (CT & Great Lakes States)
                                                                                                            person                    Shoreline     (6)
                                                                                                            per sq.                                                          Rocky
                             miles        Mies          miles          % CE       Area          Pop.        mile       %              Beaches       Dunes        BI4ffs      Shores
                   AL        46-          607           352            9          6             12          171        27%            v-100%        n            n            n             5%
                   AK        6640         33904         473W           >1        .67            85               1     89%            y-nd          ?            y            y             99%
                   As        126          126           rid            rid        100           100         607        72%            y-nd          n            y            y-nd          9%
                   CA        840          3427          1827           4          24            73          605        39%            V-nd          y            y            V-nd          47%
                   _CT       0 (a)        618           270            9          47            62          887        8%             y-31%         Y-rare       y-25%        04%           20%(a)
                   DE        25'          381           226            12         100           100         338        22%            V-100%        V            n            n             75%
                   FL        12W          8426          6266           5          1W            100         228        9D%            v-65%         V            n            n             rid
                   GIJ       108'         110         1 rid            3          100           1W          637        57%            y-37%         n            y            y-63%         rid
                   HI        750          1052          rid            2          100           100         174        44%            y-25%         V            y-nd         y-nd          rid
                   LA        149*         7721          1943           2          37            49          171        16%            y-            y            n            n             20%
                   ME        228          3478          2500           >1         39            72          72         29%            Y-10%         V            y            V-90%         5%
                   MD        32'          3190          1939           9          66            70          507        12%            Y-100%        y            n            n             rid
                   MA        192          1519          1200           11         45            75          1272       5%             Y-??          V            y            y-nd          rid
                   M         0            3224          rid            rid        55            so          154        -5%            y-nd          y            y-nd         y-nd          30%
                   MS        44'          359           247            15         4             12          192        W%-            V41%          n            n            n             30%
                   _NH       18*          131           4D             5          12            32          331        67%            y-70%         V            n            y-30%         78%
                   NJ        125*         1792          469            26         76            90          1219       6%             Y-100%        y            n            n             74%
                   NY     1  125* (b)     1850          638            47         37            84          858                       V-100%*       V            V            y             WIN
                   NC        320*         2625          3661           15         19            11          75         -3%            V-100%        V            n            n             rid
                  _NM        1W           206           rid            rid        100           100         236        255%           y-nd          n            y            y-nd          rid
                   OR        362*         1410          500            13         20            38          82         46%            y-72%         V            V            y-28%         58%
                   PA        0            140           rid            rid        4             25          1701       _9%            V-19%         n            V-81 %       n             2Q%
                   PR        311          700           rid            rid        12            100         856        30%            Y-50%         V            V            y-nd          rid
                   R 1       40           384           340            T          100           100         950        6%             y-68%         y            V            V             nd
                   sc        181*         2876          3063           2          26            24          114        57%            V-100%        V            n            n             42%
                   VI        rid          175           rid            rid        I W           100         771        63%            Hid           ?            V            y-nd          rid
                   VA        200'         3315          993            26         22            62          423        40%            V-10D%        y            n            n             rid
                   WA        171          3026          2337           >1         31            70          172        46%            -35%                                    y-65%         rid
                   W1        0          1 820         1 rid            rid        19            39          177                       V-10%         y            y-72%        V41%          rid
                   Total     rid        1 85770         31513- 1 rid              -             44          -                         Y-29          y2l n8       Y1801        V17n12        rid
                   KEY and SOURCES:
                       denotes where state coastline miles data differs from General Coastline miles data in US DOC,NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States
                   ** Now York- Atlantic Ocean only covered under this study.          *** Does not include the Great Lakes States or the Island Territories and Commonwealths.
                   (a) CT has no open ocean coastline. Data covers Long Island Sound (b) New York data covers open ocean coastline only. Great. Lakes shoreline not included here.
                   rid- no data available ?- unknown
                   (1) InciWual State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores
                   (2) US DOC, NOAA. 1975. The Coasdne of (he Urtited States.
                   (3) USACE. 1970. National Shor"ne Study.
                   (4) Coastal Ocean Policy Roundtable, The 1992 Coastal Status report: A Pilot Study of the US Coastal Zone and its Resources, Tables 2 and 3.
                   (5) US DOC, NOAA, NOS. 50 Years of Population Change Along Our Nation's Coasts 1960-2010.
                   (6) Individual State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores
                   (7) Individual State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores
                                                                                                                                   /0









                    Table 2: Coastal Shoreline Erosion - Percent Eroding By State
                    State         National     % Critically Eroding     Significantly
                                Shoreline         Eroding Miles         Eroding Miles

                    Alabama          352              9%                41%
                    Alaska           47300            >1%               11%
                    Am.Samoa         -                ---               -
                    California       1827             4%                85%
                    C.N. Marianas    --               --                -
                    Connecticut        270            9%                89%
                    Delaware           226            12%               26%
                    Florida          6265             5%                16%
                    Guam             -                -                 -
                    Hawaii           930              3%                12%
                    Louisiana        1943             2%                82%
                    Maine            2500              >1%              99%
                    Maryland         1939             9%                .86%
                    Massachusetts    1200             11%               97%
                    Michigan         -
                    Mississippi      247              15%               43%
                    New Hampshire40                   5%                95%
                    New Jersey       469              26%               49%
                    New York         638              47%               100%
                    North Carolina   3661             15%               35%
                    Oregon           500              13%               33%
                    Pennsylvania     -
                    Puerto Rico      -
                    Rhode Island     340              7%                98%
                    South Carolina   3063             2%                8%
                    Virgin Islands   -                -                 -
                    Virginia         993              26%               56%
                    Washington       2337             >1%               4%
                    Wisconsin        --               -                 -
                    Great Lakes      3680.            6%                34%

                    Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. The National Shoreline Study.
                    Notes:
                    Critically Eroding Areas- areas where action to haft erosion may be jusitfied based on rate of
                    erosion and presencetlevel, of threatened development.
                    Significantly Erosion Area- areas where erosion occuring but development not threatened
                  LStudy did not cover Island Territories and Commonwealths or Great Lakes States.










             Table 3: US Army Corps of Engineers Major Shoreline Protection Projects in CZM States 1950-1993
                     Initial Beach Renourishment     Periodic Beach Nourishment          Structures            Emergency Projects        Total
                           As/Est.CuYds/Acl.ExD, # Proiects/Esl.CuYds/Acl.fJW_       #Proiects/Act. E2W.    #PEQ*ects/Act. Ex       PEQiect
             CA      5       14448 $ 23942           2        5600 $36813              5      $  6144          1      $ 473              13
             CT      3        1435 $ 1882            3          889 $ (1)              2      $    169         0      $ 0                8
             DE      1            0* $       0       1          700 $ 813              1      $  1876          1      $ 88               4
             FL      15       34804  $147764         11      14731 $68273              6      $  9797          1      $3217              33
             LA      1        2540   $ 10534         1       1520 $ 7571               1      $    284         1      $4688              4
             MD      1        3825   $ 23290         1          184* $    685          1      $  5919          1      $2335              4
             MA      3        1325   $   4664        2          285 $     (1)          2      $    745         0      $ 0                7
             MS      1        5700   $    856        1        3350* $ (i)(a)           1      $    736         0      $ 0                3
             NH      2          540  $    956        1          931  $    (1)          2      $    190         0      $ 0                5
             NJ      4           9131$36781          4        1842   $4561             4      $24860           0      $ 0                12
             NY      3        37995  $29875          3        5585   $53386            3      $ 6642           1      $1750              10
             NY-GL   1          244  $   1178        1            70 $ 0               1      $ 1200           0      $ 0                3
             NC      3        4651   $   1606        3        6653   $22351            2      $    948         2      $2529              10
             PA      1        4400   $   5692        1        4017   $24637            1      $19723           0      $ 0                3
             Rl      0            0  $    0          0          0    $ 0               1      $ 1361           0      $ 0                1
             SC      1        2500   $   '7184       0          0    $ 0               1      $ 1609           0      $ 0                2
             VA      0            0  $   0           1        1875   $12800            0      $  0             1      $560               -2
             Total   45                              36                              34                        9                     124
             Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study:       hase I - Cost CompArison of Shoreline
             Protection Proeects of the U.S. Army Coros of Engineers. (Adapted from Tables 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 and Appendix D)
             KEY: Est. Cu. Yds- Estimated Cubic Yards of Sand Placed on Beach(OOO cu.yd.)          Act.-.Exp.- Actual Expenditures for Projects ($000's
             Federal/Non-Federal)
             (1) Actual Costs for project not available. Estimated Costs of projects for CT- $889; MA-Not Available; NH-$931
             (1)(a) All non-federal costs and no record kept by COE.             * Actual Cubic Yards
             NQW regarding COE involvement with Coastal States, Territories   , commonwealths
             16 CZM-Approved States with COE Shoreline Protection Projects (Listed Above)
              8 CZM States with Continuing Authorized Projects for Beach Erosion Control: CA, CT(3), DE, MD, VA, HI, AS,,WA
              2 CZM-Approved States with other COE Erosion Control Projects: AK-Under construction; Puerto Rico-Deauthorized project
             23 CZM-Approved States with COE Dredging Projects 90-93
             25 CZM-Approved States with one or more COE Projects (protection, dredging, etc).
              4 CZM-Approved States with No COE Projects: ME, Guam, CNMI, UV.






                                                                                     12










                     Table 4: Upton-Jones Coastal Claims Summary (as of 2/20/96)

                     Coastal                      Claims          Claims           Claims         Total Amount of
                     State                        Filed           Approved       Denied    Approved Settlement

                     Approved CZM Programs
                     CA                           2               1              0              $    58,900
                     DE                           4               3              0              $    35,605
                     FL                           19              10             3              $   690,958
                     LA                           5               3              1              $    37,618
                     MA                           51              32             15             $2,361,687
                     MD                           2               2              0              $ 142,128
                     MI*                          47              32             9              $1,084,727
                     IVIS                         1               1              0              $    44,678
                     NC*                          356         282                21             $14,715,911
                     NJ*                          1               0              1              $            0
                     NY                           24              10             10             $ 748,939
                     PA*                          38              23             3              $1,193,114
                     RI                           4               3              0              $    89,220
                     SC*                          15              9              2              $1,612,638
                     VA                           is              8              3              $ 695,011
                     WA                           20              12             5              $ 181,687
                     Subtotal                     603         411                73             $23,692,801

                     Not In CZM Program
                     IN                           1               0              0              $            0
                     MN                           1               1              0              $    20,714
                     OH                           22              17             4              $   813,605
                     TX                           17              5              10             $   125,765
                     Subtotal                     44              23                            $   960,084

                     TOTAL                        6"          434                87             $24,652,885


                     Coastal Claims Approved                  434
                        Demolition - 73%
                        Relocation - 27%
                     Coastal Claims Denied                        87
                     In Erosion Zone, Not Condemned               43
                     Not in Erosion Zone, Condemned               4
                     Not in Erosion Zone, Not Condemned           24
                     No Coverage                                  is
                     Coastal Claims Withdrawn                     34
                     Coastal Claims Pending                       87
                     Total                                    645


                     The 5 states with state certification authority from FEMA under this program.
                        For all other states, claim applicants submft directly to FEMA.
                     Source: Mark Crowell, FEMA, Upton-Jones Data Base. 500 C Street, Room 444, Washington DC
                     20472 phone: 202-646-3432






                                                                     13










                      Table 5: DOI- Coastal Barrier Resource System

                      State                         # Units                   Total Acreaae Shoreline Len(3th( miles)
                                              Private 0. Protected*           Not Including Otherwise Protected Units

                      Maine                       26         5                4,812                     23.4
                      Massachusetts               61         10               67,410                    122.3
                      Rhode Island                21         5                11,116                    33.0
                      Connecticut                 25         3                9,180                     22.7
                      New York                    80         10               64,731                    104.0
                      New Jersey                  9          7                8,096                     10.4
                      Delaware                    4          4                6,945                     17.5
                      Maryland                    36         12               7,163                     28.0
                      Virginia                    so         12               47,930                    77.0
                      North Carolina              9          7                35,229                    43.0
                      South Carolina              is         6                98,184                    60.2
                      Georgia                     6          5                64,407                    199
                      Florida ' '                 67         39               285,148                   189'.3
                      Alabama                     4          4                11,381                    19,6
                      Mississippi                 6          1                 5,981                    12.8
                      Louisiana                   17         4                351,738                   178.0
                      Texas                       17         6                195,992                   175.9
                      Puerto Rico                 41         22               20,196                    51.1
                      Virgin Islands              24         11                3,793                    14.6
                      Ohio                        10         0                 4,792                      8.1
                      Michigan                    46         0                 18,689                     55.2
                      Wisconsin                     7        0                   1,958                    7.6
                      Minnesota                     1        0                    940                     3.0

                      Totals                      582        173              1,325,809                 1,276.6

                      * Otherwise Protected Areas in Public Ownership
                      Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Adapted from Table December 22, 1992.


























                                                                            14










                    APPENDIX 8: METHODOLOGY & SURVEY INSTRUMENT


                    APPENDIX B-1: METHODOLOGY

                    RESEARCH QUESTION
                    The basic research question utilized is "how effective overall have the individual and collective
                    state CZM program efforts been in addressing pmtection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky
                    shores?"


                    What is Covered and What is not Covered: This section covers oceanfront beaches, dunes,
                    bluffs and rocky shores. It also covers the same resources along the shoreline of the Great
                    Lakes. It is limited to the twenty-nine coastal states, territories and commonwealths with
                    approved coastal programs as of 1995.

                    What is not Covered: "Barrier islands" and "coral reefsv were not studied as distinct natural
                    coastal features, although, some states employ- management tools to specifically address their
                    protection. Likewise "coastal hazard areasm and management tools employed exclusively to
                    minimize hazard risks were not addressed in this study including state participation in the NFIP,'
                    hurricane preparedness, evaluation, mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment tools. However,
                    because state protection of beaches and dunes and eroding bluff areas is often. tied to coastal
                    hazard risks, several tools which overlap these issue areas were part of this study. They include
                    regulatory tools for structures and shoreline stabilizations; beach, dune, and bluff erosion
                    management plans; dune restoration, beach nourishment; armoring repair programs; public
                    investment restrictions and incentives for beach and dune protection. States participation in
                    Upton-Jones portion of the NFIP is referenced, since it involves the removal or relocation of
                    structures rather than building standards within beach/dune areas. Many states regulate
                    coastline development and stabilizations based on public access and visual access
                    considerations. This study only covers state CZM regulations which limit public access in order
                    to protect natural resources. Likewise, "dredging and dredged material disposar policies and
                    management tools are not covered except when such material is disposed on beaches as
                    nourishment. Federal consistency and intergovernmental coordination tools are also not
                    expressly part of this study. In addition, the New York CZM program in the Great Lakes was.not
                    addressed.


                    RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
                    1. Describe the management tools developed, refined and employ to protect beaches, dunes,
                    bluffs, rocky shores;
                    2. Describe the on-the-ground outcome after implementation of the CZM tools;
                    3. Determine the effectiveness of state CZM-programs in achieving the national policy objective
                    to protect beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores by linking tools and outcomes.
                    4. Identify the role of federal and state CZIM programs in achieving the outcomes; and
                    5. Identify and recommend improvements related to monitoring guidelines, performance
                    measures, technical or information services.

                    RESEARCH DESIGN

                    A. Model for Evaluating Effectiveness. The overall research framework is described in the
                    introduction to the anitire study. However, a model of the method used to evaluate the
                    effectiveness of stateCZM programs in addressing protection of beaches and dunes, bluffs and
                    rocky shores is shown in Figure 1.









                   Figure 1: Method used for evaluating effectiveness of stbtb'CZV Orbgrams in addressing
                   protection of beaches and dunes, bluffs and rocky shores

                   RESEARCH QUESTION:
                   How Effective are state CZM efforts
                   in addressing protection of beaches,
                   dunes, bluffs and rocky shores


                   CONTEXTFACTORS
                   * type and extent of coastline resources
                   * population, development pressures
                   * erosion, coastal hazards
                   * Importance of resource protection issue
                   * type of program, authorities, amendments,


                   KEY MANAGEMENT TOOLS
                   PROCESS INDICATORS
                   (Qualitative Information)
                   CZM laws, regulations, tools to protect
                   resources:
                   *Regulatory    * Nonregulatory
                   *Planning      * Research
                   *Land Management and Acquisition


                   ON THE GROUND RESULTS
                   OUTCOME INDICATORS
                   (Quantitative Information)
                   * Regulatory   * Planning
                   * Direct Land Management & Acquisition


                   STATE PROFILES
                   * 29 state profiles


                   CASE EXAMPLES
                     illustrate results of CZM implementation


                   NATIONAL SYNTHESIS
                   ï¿½ coastal policy priorities
                   * research findings regarding CZM effectiveness
                   ï¿½ national context factors
                   ï¿½ key management tools and provisions employed
                     process and outcome data evaluated and synthesized
                     unique role of CZM
                     case examples illustrating processes and outcomes
                     conclusions and recommendations














                                                               2









                    S. Daft CoIllection: A specific survey instrument was developed         for collecting information on
                    tools employed (pmcess data) and on-the-ground results of program implerhentation (outcome
                    indicator data) on the protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. This survey
                    instrument was mailed, faxed or emailed to all twenty-nine CZM states. In addition, the
                    instrument was used in completing phone interviews with state contacts. It also served as the
                    basis for completion of individual state CZM profiles. (See Appendix B-2 for a copy of the
                    Survey Instrument)

                    In addition, the authors reviewed and selected information from state CZM documents including
                    Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS); 309 Assessment and Strategy Reports; and
                    state laws and regulations pertaining to resource protection. Where pmvided by OCRIVI or the
                    coastal state, the authors reviewed documents related to beach and dune pmtection, state
                    coastal parks, land acquisitions, and selected state CZM progress reports, annual reports, and
                    312 evaluation reports.

                    Follow-up phone- interviews and data requests were made to each coastal state, usually to
                    multiple state agency or bureau staff. It was typical to contact more than one staff in the state-
                    CZM program office, the state land management agency, a state environmental regulatory
                    agency, the state land acquisition agency, and the state wildlife protection agencies.

                    The information collected for each of the 29 coastal states was placed in the individual state
                    CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes@,'Bluffs and Rocky Shores. This draft profile was
                    sent to each state for review, and sometimes to OCRIVI regional staff for review, and then
                    finalized.


                    C. Definitions

                    "Process Indicators" are the specific management pmgrams, tools or techniques that states have
                    developed to address coastal problems. Examples include key provisions of regulatory programs
                    such as coastal setbacks from primary dunes or control zones which pmtect natural functions of
                    resources; plans with enforceable policies that address beach renourishment, inlet management,
                    dune restoration or special area resource protection; state land management of coastal parks
                    which guide access or protect unique habitat areas; and acquisition programs to purchase
                    beaches, dunes, bluffs or rocky shore areas.

                    "Outcome Indicators" are the specific on-the-ground effects that    result from implementation of
                    CZM programs, tools, and.techniques. Examples include linear and/or area data on permits
                    issued reflected in miles of beachfront shoreline developed or armored through permitting; area
                    restricted from vehicular access through access plan and regulations; miles of coastal shoreline
                    and acres in state land management or protection status; miles of'beaches restored or dunes
                    revegetated; miles and/or acres of coastal shoreline acquired for resource pmtection.

                    "CZM Program Effectiveness" means the special role of CZM in using pmcess tools to affect
                    outcomes sought under the CZMA, namely the protection of natural beaches, dunes, bluffs and
                    rocky shores. Effectiveness is measured by: 1) pmcess indicators (tools) and outcome indicators
                    (results) and their linkage within each of the 29:state programs; 2) state CZM program
                    implementation through case examples where no statewide data is available; and 3) the unique
                    role of CZM as only one of many govemment and non-govemment agencies involved in coastal
                    management.

                    "Natural Resources of the Coastal Zone" means watersheds, lakes and rivers, associated
                    floodplains and wetlands, estuaries, beaches and dunes, barrier beaches, offshore coral reefs,
                    and the wildlife, fish and other aquatic life that depends on these envimnments are part of a
                    larger, integrated coastal nearshore ecosystem.




                                                                      3










                          "Natural Resources* under this section means beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores. State
                          definitions for these resources, however, vary particularly with regard to the inland extent of the
                          resource jurisdiction.

                          "Resource Protection Values" means the priority natural values a state gives to a certain
                          resource. For example, some states establish conservation or preservation zones within which
                          natural resources are afforded more protection than within a recreation or development zone.
                          Likewise, some states identify certain species or habitat as having high protection value such as
                          threatened or endangered species habitat areas.

                          "Management Tools Employed" means the processes, tools and techniques which a state CZM
                          program has identified in their FEIS document and OCRM has approved as part of the state's
                          CZM program that affect protection of beaches,- dunes, bluffs*and rocky shores.

                          An example of a management tool is the "setback law". This study looks at the key provisions and their WVerm effects. State
                          setback laws require now structures to be built at a specified distance from the mean high water line, a dune Urn or some other
                          definable point. The setback distance is usually defined as either an 'arb&aty distance' In feel (e.g., 50 feet, 100 feet) or a
                          distance in feet determined by the average annual 'erosion rate' murdplied by a specific number of years (e.g., average annual
                          erosion rate at 2 feet x 30 years = 60 foot setback). The arbitrary distance method creates a need to reestablish the mean
                          high tide line, or other measurement point frequently. The erosion rate method is intended to allow norrrial erosion and avoid
                          erosion threats to a structure during its usable lifetime. However, state laws define the normal useful life of a frame dwelling
                          structure as 30 years, where in reality 9 is closer to 70 years and, In some coastal arms, the current annual erosion rate
                          exceeds the Wxj-term historical rate placing structures in harms way even sooner. Along our nabon's high erosion areas,
                          beaches and shorelines are washing away and the long-term effects, using either setback method, are homes toppling into the
                          ocean or armored shorelines.
                          0. Grouping of State Management Tools for Beach, Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore
                          Protection.


                          An initial analysis of the 29 coastal states/territories and their legal authorities to protect beach,
                          dune, bluff and rocky shore resources demonstrated a great diversity in approaches. Each
                          state's particular physical, social and economic environment is reflected in that state's priorities,
                          laws, regulations and other implementing management tools. This makes it difficult to compare
                          diverse state approaches and the effectiveness of their management tools.

                          To facilitate comparisons for this research, common state management approaches to protecting
                          beach and dune resources, bluffs and rocky shores are grouped together. This grouping makes
                          it possible to analyze similar state management tools and to develop a national perspective on
                          the utilization of major management tool in addressing beach and dune, bluff and rocky shore
                          protection.

                          State coastal management tools utilized for the protection of beaches and dunes are
                          grouped and analyzed within the following six major categories: 1) Regulatory Tools; 2) Planning
                          Tools; 3) Direct Land Management Tools; 4) Acquisition Tools; 5) Nonregulatory Tools; and 6)
                          Research Tools.

                          Each of these categories have sub-groupings of more precisely delineated management tools
                          and key provisions. This was necessary, again, in order to identify and compare similar
                          management approaches and tools among state programs. The following is a list of the tool
                          categories and subtools employed:

                          * Regulatory Tools:
                          I. I. Distance inland regulations apply
                          1.2. Activities regulated and exceptions
                          1.3. Restrict new construction and rebuilding through a) setback, b) controls zones, c)exceptions
                          1.4. Restrict new and repair/rebuilding of shoreline stabilization structures and exceptions.
                          1.5. Restrict pedestrian access
                          I.S. Restrict vehicular accessttraffic



                                                                                         4











                    1.7. Protect beach/dune habitat of value to marine life
                    1.8. Other restrictions or conditions affecting dune creation, revegetation, sand fencing, sand
                    scraping. dune reshaping, near shore mining, etc.
                    1.9. Local delegation of permit responsibilities
                    1. 10. Permit compliance and computerized permit tracking system

                     Planning Tools
                    2. 1. Local planning and/or regulation
                    2.2. Special Area Management Plans
                    2.3. Other adopted plans- such as erosion control, inlet management, land and water use plans

                    * Direct Land Management, Restoration and Acquisition Tools
                    3. 1. Shoreline in state park management
                    3.2. Natural areas protected
                    3.3. Boardwalks, dune cross-overs & access restrictions
                    3.4. Dunes creation or restoration program
                    3.5. Beach renourishment program
                    3.6. Shoreline armoring and repair program
                    3.7. Coastal lands acquisition program

                     Nonregulatory Tools
                    4.1. Public investment restrictions
                    4.2. Public investment incentives
                    4.3. Coastal property disclosure
                    4.4. Education, outreach and technical assistance
                    4.5. Financial assistance


                     Research Tools
                    5. 1. Methodologies for establishing setbacks, control zones
                    5.2. Beach profiles
                    5.3. Natural areas inventories
                    5.4. Technical reports
                    5.5. Aerial photography
                    5.6. Sea level rise considerations

                    Existing state management tools utilized to protect bluff resources and likewise rocky shore
                    resources have been identified, grouped and analyzed within six major categories: 1) Regulatory
                    Tools; 1) Planning Tools; 3) Direct Land Management Tools; 4) Acquisition Tools;
                    5) Nonregulatory Tools; and 6) Research Tools.

                    For biuft and rocky shores, these six categories have sub-groupings of management tools to
                    facilitate comparative analysis, as follows:

                     Resource Present
                    1. Bluffs
                    2. Rocky Shores

                    * Regulatory Tools
                    I.I. Restrict construction
                    1.2. Other regulatory controls

                     Planning Tools
                    2.1. Local
                    2.2. State
                    2.3. Special area*management
                    2.4. Other



                                                                   5











                       Direct Land Management Tools
                      3.1. State owns and manages
                      3.2. natural areas protected

                      * Acquisition Tools
                      4.1. Lands acquired

                      * Nonregulatory Tools
                      5. 1. Public investment restrictions
                      5.2. Coastal property disclosure
                      5.3. Education, outreach and technical assistance
                      5.4. Financial assistance


                      * Research Tools
                      6.1. Inventories/designate protection areas
                      6.2. Technical reports

                      Due to the paucity of on-the-ground outcome data, indicators of program effectiveness were
                      developed using the tools states employ and key provisions which are assumed to ensure
                      greatest protection of resources. See below.

                      E. Analysis and Linkage of Process and Qutcome Indicators and Determination of
                      Effectiveness in Protecting Beach, Dune, Bluff and Rocky Shore Resources.

                      The author has expressed certain underlying assumptions and developed certain process and
                      outcome Indicators or measures of effectiveness for management tools employed to protect
                      beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores. These are summarized as follows:

                      Regulatory Programs

                      Assumption: Regulatory programs, depending on their purpose and design, can provide on-the-
                      ground protection of beach and dune systems. The level of protection they provide varies
                      depending on the jurisdictional area covered, the types of prohibitions and limitations placed on
                      activities within the jurisdiction, exception/variances allowed, level of enforcement and penalties
                      for violations. coastal -laws with setbacks from beach and dune systems offer significant
                      protection, provided there are no major exceptions such as single family homes seaward of the
                      jurisdiction. Coastal laws with control zones within which activdies are regulated tend to allow but
                      try to minimize negative impacts on beach and dune resources. Most types of shoreline armoring
                      impede natural sand migration, cause erosion and result in the loss of natural beach. States
                      which restrict the use of shoreline armoring structures protect natural beaches, dunes and bluffs.
                      Coastal laws which require and regulate beach access, dune cross-overs, pedestrian and
                      vehicular access, protect beach and dune vegetation/stability. Coastal laws which identify,
                      designate and protect wildlife habitat through permit restrictions protect those specific sections of
                      beach/dune; however such regulated areas tend to be small areas and restrictions are seasonal
                      for bird or turtle nesting sites.

                      Effectiveness: For regulatory tools employed by states to protect beach, dune, bluff and rocky
                      shore areas:


                      1) Oprocess indicators of effectiveneW include:

                      (a) mandatory setbacks for development and redevelopment from beaches, dunes, bluffs, rocky
                      shorelines; the farther setback the more effective and the fewer exceptions allowed within the
                      setbacks, the more effective.




                                                                        6









                     (b) Control zones along the shoreline which restrict construction on the beach and dunes, steep
                     slope bluffs, erodable bluffs, rocky shores; the more restrictive, the more effective.
                     (c) restrictions on shoreline stabilization structures; the more restrictive, the more effective.
                     (c) restrictions on pedestrian and vehicular access.
                     (d) restriction on the use of habitat areas.
                     (e) permit tracking system.
                     (f) enforcement program.

                     2) *outcome indicators of effectiveness" include:

                     (a) no new permits for shoreline structures or shoreline stabilizations on the beach/d   une system.
                     (b) decreases in the number of permits issued or violations cited for shoreline structures and
                     shoreline stabilizations over time.
                     (c) permits issued for demolition and/or landward relocation of beachfront structures.
                     (d) permit restrictions on size, location, design of structure or stabilization to minimize adverse
                     impacts on natural beach/dune system.
                     (e) permits issued for beachfront boardwalks/dunes cross-overs.
                     (f) areasia6res/shoreline miles restricted from @edestrian or vehicular access.
                     (g) areasiacresishoreline miles designated protected areas as endangered species habitat, etc.-
                     where development restrictions apply.

                     Planning Programs

                     Assumotion: Planning pm"ms, when combined with implementation through local land use
                     regulations, zoning and subdivision ordinances and other actions, can provide on-the-ground
                     protection of beach and dune resources. The level of protection the planning programs provide
                     varies depending on the extent of the resource covered by the plan; the type of protection
                     policies, standards and provisions; and specified exemptions and variances.

                     Effectiveness: For planning tools employed, states to protect beach, dune, bluff and rocky shore
                     areas:


                     1) "process indicators of effectiveness" include:
                     (a) number of approved plans: state beach/dune, rocky shore, bluff management plans; local
                     coastal land use plans; SAMPS, etc. that protect resources.

                     2)-"outcome indicators of effectivenese include:
                     (a) areastacres/shoreline miles designated by enforceable state or local plans, SAMPs, or other
                     designations as protection/conservation/limited use areas which are enforced through zoning or
                     other protective ordinancestregulations.

                     State Ownership and Direct Land Management

                     Assumption: State owrwship and management of state-held lands along the coast can afford a
                     high level of natural resource protection, depending on competing use demands placed on such
                     lands. State lands developed for recreational use, such as beachfront parks, can also protect
                     natural resources if management plans are adopted and implemented which restrict pedestrian
                     and vehicular access, set aside fragile habitat from human use, and employ other methods to
                     maintain the natural landforms. Protection also varies depending on priority uses given to such
                     state holdings. Those lands with wildlife preserves or conservation areas generally affording
                     more restrictions on uses than state parks and recreation areas.
                        The installation of boardwalks and dune cross-overs serve to protect natural dunes through
                     vegetation stabilization and breach avoidance. Dune creation and restoration through sand
                     fencing and duna revegetation serves to stabilize and rebuild dune areas, limit breaching during
                     coastal storms, and recreate natural dune systems. Beach renourishment has become popular
                     as a tool to artificially create or recreate a beach area through the importing of compatible sand.


                                                                        7









                     The position of NOAA is that "...while beach nourishment may indeed, under certain
                     circumstances, be a technically viable alternative, there are many other considerations that must
                     be deliberated prior to supporting this approach to erosion management ... include(ing) the role of
                     beach nourishment in inducing development in high hazard areas, ....other erosion management
                     approaches, whether beach nourishment is economically justified, appropriate cost-sharing, and
                     the environmental issues..." (MEMO March 19, 1996. NOAA Position on the National Academy
                     of Sciences' Report "Beach Nourishment and Protection." For this study, if a state employs
                     beach nourishment, it is considered a positive impact on protecting natural beach/dune systems.
                     However, the author agrees that unconditioned use of beach nourishment may indeed adversely
                     affect natural systems and may not be the most suitable management approach to protect
                     natural beach/dune areas.
                       Armoring and armoring repair through construction of shoreline stabilization structures acts to
                     accelerate the loss of sandy beaches. (Pfaff. Coastal Erosion: Has Retreat Sounded). For this
                     study, if a state employs armoring on state beaches, it is considered a negative impact on
                     natural beach/dune systems.
                       The identification, designation and protection of natural resource areas within beach/dune
                     systems functions to sustain the natural habitat conditions and values present and provide long-
                     term protection. However, to the extent that suCh protection is seasonal, such as temporary turtle
                     or bird nesting site fencing, pedestrian access over such areas at other times of year may
                     destroy the habitat values long-term.

                     Effectiveness: For direct land management tools employed bystates to protect beach, dune,
                     bluff, and rocky shore:

                     1) "process indicators of effectiveness include:
                     (a) number of state beachfront parks
                     (b) number of park management plans
                     (c) policies prohibiting use of shoreline stabilizations
                     (d) number of natural areas protected

                     2) "outcome indicators of effectiveness" include:
                     (a) presence of state parksicoastline holdings that contain beaches and dunes, bluffs and rocky
                     shores as measured by acres, linear shoreline miles covered, coastline in public ownership/state
                     ownership; the more coastline in state parks the more effective.
                     (b) number of boardwalks/dune cross-overs Installed on state park lands.
                     (c) dune revegetation projects, acres and shoreline miles involved, state funds.
                     (d) beaches restored/renourished measured in cubic yards, beachfront miles, state funds.
                     (e) natural resource protection areas as measured by number, acres, coastline acrestmiles within
                     these state parks for sea turtle nesting sites, sea bird or shorebird nesting sites, other protected
                     species, or restricted from pedestrian and vehicular public access through limitations on use or
                     fencing, vehicular access restrictions, etc.

                     Acquisition

                     Assumption: Acquisidon programs place private lands into public holdings. Along the coast, these
                     acquisitions tend to serve both recreational use demands, as well as some resource protection
                     goals. Acquisition of large resource systems or acquisition of lands adjacent to existing holdings
                     can afford improve natural resource protection opportunities.

                     Effectiveness: For state land acquisition tools employed by states to protect beach, dune, bluff
                     and rocky shore areas:

                     1) "process indicators of effectiveness* include:
                     (a) state acquisition program which includes coastal land acquisition component.
                     (b) multiple acquitition tools employed- fees, trades, etc.
                     (c) acquisition expenditures.



                                                                       8











                    2) *outcome indicators of effectiveness" include:
                    (a) amount of land on coastline acquired, acreage, beachfront and coastline miles; the more land
                    acquired for natural resource protection, the more effective.
                    (b) Increase in amount and percent of coastline in state ownership.

                    Nonregulatory Tools and Research Tools

                    Assumption: Nonregulatory and research tools support the four management tools discussed
                    above. For example, education and technical assistance to local governments functions to
                    improve local coastal planning and regulation. Likewise, research such as shoreline erosion
                    rates functions to improve state regulatory controls over development in erosion prone areas.

                    Effectiveness: No attempt wa s made to collect outcome indicator data for these two types of
                    management tools employed.


                    F. Suits of Tools Emploveg and Competina'*Policy Priorities

                    States with the following suite of regulatory, planning, direct land management and acquisition
                    provisions are presumed to have effective oceanfront resource protection programs:

                    Regulatory Programs
                    (a) Coastal Setbacks for development and redevelopment from beach, dune, bluffs, or rocky
                    shores natural features, with the farther setback the more effective; the fewer exceptions allowed
                    within the setback, the more effective.
                    (b) Coastal Construction Controls Zones along the shoreline with regulations governing
                    activities affecting beach, dune, steep slope bluffs, erodable bluffs, and rocky shores and limits
                    on size, type, design or location of permitted construction to minimize adverse impacts on
                    beach/dune/bluff systems; controls over new significant activities with few exceptions, control
                    over additionstrepairstrebuilding; the more restrictive, the more effective.
                    (c) Shoreline Stabilization Regulations which place limitations on the use of shoreline
                    stabilization structures in favor of nonstructural solutions.
                    (d) Access Restrictions with requirements for boardwalks or dune crossovers to minimize
                    adverse impacts on dune; and areas designated where pedestrian and/or vehicular access is
                    restricted to protect resources.
                    (e) Habitat Protection and Other Controls over critical habitat areas where uses are restricted
                    to protect habitat protection values.
                    (f) Permit Tracking and Enforcement Provisions which are used to monitor permits and
                    violations.


                    Planning
                    (a) Adopted Plans for areas containing enforceable policies that address resource protection,
                    beach nourishment, inlet management, dunes restoration, or special area resource protection or
                    conservation; the larger the resource area covered, the more of the shoreline included, and the
                    more restrictive-the enforceable policies, the more effective.

                    State Coastal Land Management and Acquisition
                    (a) State Coastal Land Holdings including inventory of the number, acres, shoreline miles of
                    state lands in state oceanfront parks and preserves.
                    (b) State Coastal Land Management and Stewardship including park management plans;
                    boardwalks, dune cross-crossovers or other guided pedestrian access; dune restoration and
                    beach nourishment where appropriate; enforceable policies restricting the use of shoreline
                    stabilization structures; and designated natural resource habitat protection areas.
                    (c) State Coastal Land Acquisition Program with coastal land acquisition as a priority



                                                                    9











                    Balancing Competing Policy Priorities
                    The CZMA and state programs are multi-objective, attempting to accommodate diverse uses
                    competing for limited space along our nat Ion's shorelines. The CZMA requires states to balance
                    competing needs and demands such as protection of properties from hazard risks and promotion
                    of recreational use of the shoreline, as well as protection of natural shoreline resources. As a
                    result, natural resource protection policies are tempered by policies which meet other state and
                    national objectives. Context factors are important, such as development pressures, inappropriate
                    shoreline development and commitment to coastline development which preceded CZM,
                    presence of valued natural resources, natural threats- such as erosiorr, hurricanes, landslides,
                    etc. The suite of tools and key provisions listed above are indicative of states which have
                    developed effective resource programs.
                    G. Uni@ue role of czm Prourams amon-a several CZM agencies.

                    A national and state context report was prepared which identifies key federal laws and agencies
                    with coastal management responsibilities and the unique role of the. national CZM program in
                    'this contixil. See Appendix A

                    H. National Synthesis

                    The national synthesis provides a summary of tools states employ, key provisions and relevant
                    outcome data demonstrating protection of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores.
                    Effectiveness is based on a assessment of coastal policy priorities, context factors, management
                    tools employed, the strength of the key provisions, outcomes linked to tools employed, case
                    examples, and the unique role of CZM in protection of resources and utilization of particular
                    management tools. The cross-state utilization and overall effectiveness of certain tools is
                    discussed, such as setback or control zones. No attempt is made, however, to weight and rank
                    the effectiveness of each coastal state according to the CZM tools it employs and the outcome
                    data it provided.

                    RECOMMENDATIONS


                    The fourth objective of this study is to identify and recommend improvements related to
                    monitoring guidelines, performance measures, technical or information services.
                    Recommendations follow directly from lessons learned in conducting this research projects.

                    RESEARCH LIMITATIONS


                    Limitations to the research include:

                    * diversity among state CZM programs in geography, sociology, develop     ment pressures,
                    organization and policy priorities.

                    * plethora of management agencies involved in coastal area with separate management
                    mandates and lack of coordination.

                    * lack of database at OCRM on state CZM program tools, activities, outcomes.

                    * lack of documentation, bibliographies and dissemination of CZM technical reports and program
                    results, coupled with reliance on case examples and success stories in the absence of statewide
                    data on CZM outcomes.








                                                                     10










                      lack of standardized and consolidated reporting in performance evaluations, grants, annual
                    reports which is reflected in an inadequate reporting process between the coastal states and
                    OCIRM.

                    * Inadequate computerized permit tracking data regarding miles, acres, resources, areas
                    affected, length of projects permitted, and assessment of cumulative impacts of multiple permits.

                    * lack of federal standards for measuring state CZM performance coupled with lack of
                    measurable data provided by OCRIVI and the coastal states.

                    * significant changes to state CZM programs over the years which are not documented by
                    OCRIVI.


                    * tum-over among state CZM staff and the lack of institutional memory about CZM activities and
                    results.

                    * compounding factors which influence and shape state coastal policies and programs a  'nd affect
                    CZM results including economic development, environmental pressures, political and -social
                    factors.

                     legal interpretations and decisions affecting coastal management tool implementation.










               APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY & SURVEY INSTRUMENT


               B-2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT


               STATE--Beaches. Dunes. Bluffs. Rocky Shores Protection (1/10/95)

               BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT


               ISSUE IN THE STATE
               At time of program approval.
               Evolution of the Issue:,.
               State Ranking of Issue:

               CONTEXT FACTORS


               Tidal Shoreline Mileage:
               Open Coastline Mileage:
               Sandy Beaches Coastline:
                  Dunes-Backed Beaches:  Bluff-Backed Beaches:
               Rockv Shores Coastline:
               Bluff Coastline w/minimal Beach:
               Offshore Rocks and Islands:
               Description:
               Changes in Resources/Use Patterns:
               Coastline OwnershiR: % Public
               Coastline Developme : % Developed % Undeveloped % public/private)
               Coastal Pgpulation Growth 1980-1990: % (Major, Moderate, Minimal Impact)(See National Table)
               Economic Presgares:
               Coastal Erosion Factors:
               Critical Coastal Erosion Areas as measured by Miles of Beachfront with annual erosion> Ift pgr year:
               Critical Coastal Erosion Areas as measured by Miles of Bluff-Front with annual recession rates>? De
               Lear.
               Tidal Inlets:
               Inlets with ietties:
               Inlets with maintained channels:
               Inlet Dred&g Projects: (See National Table)
               Beachfront Shoreline Armored (miles/0% of coast) 19-: 1995:
               Bluff Fronts   (milw/0):
               Beachfronts Renourished: If yes, (See National Table of COE projects)
               Maior Coastal Storm Events: (See National Table)

               KEY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES AFFECTING PROTECTION OF BEACHES, DUNES
               ROCKY SHORES, AND BLUFFS

               MAJOR AMENDMENTS AFFECTING BEACHES AND DUNES, BLUFFS ROCKY SHORES


               KEY DEFINITIONS.


               CZM PROGRAM POLICIES THAT ADDRESS BEACH AND DUNE PROTECTION











                     TOOLS EMPLOYED TO PROTECT BEACHES AND DUNES


                     A. REGULATORY TOOLS EMPLOYED


                     A-1 Regulatory Prop-am to Restrict Construction on the Beach/Dune Systems

                     Local Regulation Delegation

                     A-1 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Development on Beaches and Dunes
                     Number of state permits for habitable structures in permit jurisdiction 19 -1995:
                     (Seaward of setback. within permit control zone, etc)
                     Number of beachfront structures damaged and
                     - permitted to be replaced/rebuilt 19 -1995:
                     - not allowed to be rel;"t 19 -1995:
                     - relocated Landward 19 -1995:
                     - demolished 19 -1995:


                     A-2 Regulatory Program to Restrict Shoreline Stabilization Structures

                     * Permit new shoreline stabilization structures * Exceptions
                     * Restriction on reconstruction of shoreline stabilization structures/shoreline protection devices:
                     * Exceptions:
                     * Provisions for "emergencyrepairs" of shoreline stabilizations

                     A-2 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Shoreline Stabilization Structures
                     Number of state permits issued for seawalls, rip rap, other armoring devices between 19 and 1995:
                     Number of seawalls, rip rap, and other shoreline stabilization structures damaged and
                     - allowed to be repaired/rebuilt 19 -1995:
                     - not allowed to be repaired between -19 -1995:
                     - emergency permits issued 199 -1995:
                     Number of groins/groin fields permitted: 19 - 1995:
                     Number of jetties and offshore breakwaters constructed 19 -1995:

                     A-3 Regulatory Program to Restrict Pedestrian Access and Vehicular Traffic

                     * Construction of beachfront boardwalks/elevated walkways over dunes regulated:
                     * Restrictions on vehicular traffic


                     A-3 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic on Beaches and Dunes
                     Number of Beachfront Boardwalks Permitted 19 - 1995:
                     Areas where accesstvehicular traffic has been prolubited/restricted in area and shoreline miles:

                     A-4 Other Regulatory Permit Restrictions/Conditions Affecting Beach/Dune Protection
                     ï¿½ Beach/Dune Habitat for Marine Life Regs:
                     ï¿½ Dunes Creation/Revegetation Regs/Sand Fencing:
                     ï¿½ Sand Scraping/Dune Reshaping Regs:
                     ï¿½ Near Shore Sand Mining Regs:
                     ï¿½ Other:
                     A-4 Outcome Indicators for Other Restrictions Resulting in Beach/Dune Protection
                     Number of Areas/Beaclifront Mdes protected as Turtle Nesting Habitat:
                     Number of Areas/Beaclifront Miles protected as Bird Nesting Habitat:










                   A-5 Permk Compliance and Permit Tracking-System

                   * Permit compliance tools include.
                   * Permit tracking system
                   A-5 Outcome Indicators-Violation Corrections
                   Number of violations cited and corrected 19 -1995:



                   B. MANAGEMENT PLANS EMPLOYED TO PROTECT BEACHES AND DUNES


                   B-1 State Coastal Zone Management Plan
                   B-2 State Comprehensive Plan or State Comprehensive Planning Process Requirements
                   B-3 Local Beach[Dune Resource MgL Plans
                   (State guidelines and approval/certification or Voluntary/advisory only; Beach/Dune Resource Protection
                   plans; Local Comprehensive Plan component:; Land use regulations (ordinances, zoning, subdivision
                   regulations, etc., Inventory of Resources: other)
                     B-3 Outcome Indicators for Local Beach/Dune Resource Mgt. Plan Results
                   Number of local governments with state certified plans/ regulations to protect beach/dune systems and
                   areas/acres covered by local protection plans/regulations and results:-

                   B4 State Beachfront Management PlanstErosion Control Plans
                        B4 Outcome Indicators for State Beachforit Management Plan Results
                     area/acre&lbeachfront covered and protection results:
                     Number of COE Sponsored beach restoration projects where state negotiated placement of beach quality
                   sand on down-drift beaches 19--1995:

                   B-5 Inlet Management Plans
                        B-5 Outcome Indicators for Inlet Management Plan Results
                     area covered and protection results:

                   B-6 Special Area Management Plans
                        B-6 Outcome Indicators for State Special Area Management Plan Results
                   -area/acrevbeachfront covered and protection results:

                   B-7 Post Disaster Redevelopment Plans
                        B-7 Outcome Indicators for Post Disaster Redevelopment Plans
                   - area covered and protection results:-

                   B-8 Other Management Plans for Beach and Dune Protection
                        B-8 Outcome Indicators for Other Management Plans for Beach and Dunes Protection
                     Other on the ground indicators of management plan results:

                   C. DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BEACHES
                   AND DUNES


                   C-I State Beachfrout/Oceanfront Park Management
                   C-1 Outcome Indicators for State Beachfront Parks with Management Plans that designate and protect
                   beach/dune systems
                   - percent of beachfront in state beachfront parks:
                   - areas/acrestbeachfront protected:
                   - public boardwalks installed:

                   C-2 Natural Resource Areas Protection Program for Public Lands


                                                           3









                   C-2 Outcoine 1ndk&t6 n-' for Designated Natural Resource Protection Areas Under CzMp Management.
                   Number of areastacres of publicly-owned beach/dune areas restricted from public access and damages and
                   designated natural preserve areas/ habitat protection areas: 19-: 1995:

                   C-3 Dune Creation/Restoradon Program
                   C-3 Outcome Indicators for Dunes Revegetated
                   Number of area0mchfront miles 19 -1995:


                   C4 Beach Renourishment Funding Program
                   C4 Outcome Indicators for Beaches Restored/Nourighed/Renourished
                   Number of beachfront miles replenished and cubic yards sand placed
                   19- and 1995:

                   C-5 Armoring Repair Program
                   C-5 Outcome Indicators for State Funding of Beach Erosion Control
                   (a) armoring 19_-1995:
                   (b) nourishment 19--1995:


                   D. ACQUISITION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BEACHES AND DUNES
                   D-1 Acquisition Program for Purchase of Beaches(Dunes/Coastal Hazard Areas
                   D. Outcome Indicators for Acquisition of Beaches and Dunes
                   D- I Number of areasiacres of coastal beaches/dunes acquired for public usetnatural resource protection (If
                   acquired in partnership specify with whom) between 19- and 1995:



                   E. RESEARCH FOR BEACHES AND DUNES PROTECTION
                   E-1 Methodologies for Designating Setback or Regulatory Zone
                   E-2 Beach Profiles:
                   E-3 Natural Resource Amas Inventories:
                   E-4 Technical Reports as Base for Mgt:
                   E-5 Aerial Photography:
                   E-6 Sea Level Rise Considerations:


                   F. OTHER KEY MANAGEMENT TOOLS EMPLOYED TO PROTECT BEACHES AND DUNES
                   F-I Public Investment Restrictions:
                   F-2 Coastal Property Disclosure:
                   F-3 Technical Assistance:
                   F-4 Financial Assistance to Local GovernmentstLand Owners:











                   TOOLS EMPLOYED TO PROTECT BLUFFS

                   A. REGULATORY TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BLUFF MANAGEMENT
                   A-1 Regulatory Program to Restrict Development on Bluffs
                   A-1 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Development on Bluffs
                   Number of structures permitted & required to be setback from bluffs: 19--1995:
                   Number of Cliff/Bluff-front Structures Damaged and
                    allowed to be repaired/rebuilt 19--1995:
                    not allowed to be rebuilt 19--1995:
                    relocated Landward 19 .-1995:
                    demolished 19--1995:

                   A-2 Regulatory Program to Restrict Shoreline Stabilization Structures Used in Bluff Protection
                   A-2 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Shoreline Stabilization Structures That Protect Bluffs (See IV.A-


                   ilk-3 Bluff Erosion Control Regulations
                    Engineering Standards * Geotechnical Studies Siting Standards: Revegetation Regs:
                    Ground Water Controls
                   A-3 Outcome Indicators for Bluff Erosion Control.
                    areas covered and results:


                   A4 Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic. Shoreline Stairs & Access Controls
                   A4 Outcome Indicators for Restrictions on Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic, Shoreline Stairs, and
                   Access to Shoreline
                    Number of permits issued for stairs and other shoreline access:
                    Areas where vehicular traffic is restricted/prohibited:

                   A-5 Permit Compliance and Permit Tracking Program
                   " Permit Compliance Program includes
                   " Permit Tracking Program
                   A-5 Outcome Indicators -Violation Corrections
                   Number of violations cited and corrected 19 -1995:

                   13. MANAGEMENT PLANS EMPLOYED FOR BLUFF PROTECTION
                   B-1 Bluff Management Plans
                   11-2 Special Area Management Plans
                   B-1 and B-2 Outcome Indicators for Bluff Management Plan/Special Area Management Plan Results
                   Bluffs areas protected in acres/shorefront miles:

                   B-3 Local Bluff Protection Plans/Regulations as part of state CZW
                   13-3 Outcome Indicators for Local Bluff Protection Plans/Regulations
                   Number of local governments with state certified plans/ regulations to protect bluffs and areastacres
                   protected:

                   C. DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENTIRESTORATION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BLUFF
                   MANAGEMENT
                   lt-l Public. Owns Bluffs:
                   C-1 Outcome Indicators for Public Ownership of Bluffs- % public

                   C-2 Bluff Park Management:
                   C-2 Outcome Indicators for Bluff Park Management
                   Number of bluff state parks:











                   C-3 Natural Are= Protection- of Bluffs in- Public Ownership:
                   C-3 Outcome Indicators for Designated Natural Resource Protection Areas Under CZMP Management:
                   Number of areastacres of publicly-owned bluffs restricted from public access and damages and designated
                   natural preserve areas/ habitat protection areas: 19-: 1995:

                   D. ACQUISITION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BLUF            F PROTECTION
                   D-1 Acquisition Program or other Acquisition Techniques for Bluffs
                   D-1 Outcome Indicators for Acquisition of Bluffs
                   -Number of areas/acres of coastal shoreline bluffs acquired for public usetnanual resource protection (If
                   acquired in partnership specify with whom) between 19- and 1995:

                   E. RESEARCH FOR BLUFF MANAGEMENT
                   E-1 Inventories of Bhdf Resources:
                   E-2 Designation of Bluff Protection Areas:
                   E-3 Technical Reports as Base for Bluff Mgt:
                   E4 Othee


                   F. OTHER KEY MANAGEMENT TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR BLUFF MANAGEMENT:
                   F-1 Public Investment Restrictions:
                   F-2 Coastal Property Disclosure:
                   F-3 Technical Assistance:
                   F4 Financial Assistance to Local Governments/Property Owners:












                   TOOLS EMIPLOYED TO PROTECT ROCKY SHORES

                   A. REGULATORY PROGRAMS EMPLOYED FOR ROCKY SHORES PROTECTION

                   A-1 Regulatory Program to Restrict Development on Rocky Shores
                   A-1 Outcome Indicators for Restricting Development on Rocky Shores
                   Number of structures permitted & required to be setback from rocky shores 19--1995:
                   Number of rocky shore front structures damaged and
                   - allowed to be repaired/rebuilt 19--1995:
                   - not allowed to be rebuilt 19--1995:
                   - relocated Landward 19--1995:
                   - demolished:


                   A-2 Regulatory Condition To Protect Roc ky Shores
                   *Engineering Standards * Geotechnical Studies * Siting Standards Utilities Controls
                   A-2 - No Outcome Indicators


                   A-3 Pedestrian Access Controls
                   A-3 Outcome Indicators for Pedestrian Access Control Results


                   A4 Permit Compliance and Permit Tracking System
                   ï¿½ Permit Compliance Program includes
                   ï¿½ Permit Tmclung Program
                   A4 Outcome Indicators-Permit Violations Cited 19 -1995:


                   B. MANAGEMENT PLANS EMPLOYED FOR ROCKY SHORES PROTECTION:
                   B-1 State Rocky Shore Management Plans:
                   B-2 Special Area Management Plans:
                   B-1 and B-2 Outcome Indicators for State Rocky Shore Management Plan/ Special Area Management
                   Plans
                   - areas protected in acres/shorefront miles:

                   B-3 Local Rocky Shores Protection Plans as part of state CZMEP:
                   B-3 Outcome Indicators for Local Rocky Shore Protection Plans
                   Number of local governments with state certified plans/ regulations to protect rocky shores and acre/acres
                   protected:


                   C. DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR ROCKY
                   SHORES:


                   C-1 Public Owns Rocky Shores:
                   C-1 Outcome Indicators for Rocky Shores in Public Ownership: %

                   C-2 Rocky Shore Park Management:
                   C-2 Outcome Indicators for Rocky Shore Parks
                   Number of rocky shore state parks:

                   C-3 Natural Areas Protection of Rocky Shores in Public Ownership:
                                                                                              'QvW Management:
                   C-3 Outcome Indicators for Designated Natural Resource Protection Areas Under CA
                   Number of areas/acres of publicly-owned rocky shores restricted from public access and damages and
                   designated natural preserve areas/ habitat protection areas: 19-: 1995:

                   D. ACQUISITION TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR ROCKY SHORES:










                   D-I Acquisition Program or other Acquisition Techniques for Rocky Shores:
                   D-1. Outcome Indicator for Acquisition
                   - Number of areas/acres of coastal rocky shores acquired for public use/natural resource protection (If
                   acquired in partnership specify with whom) between 19- and 1995:

                   E. RESEARCH FOR ROCKY SHORES PROTECTION
                   E-1 Inventories of Resources:
                   E-2 Designation of Protection Areas:
                   E-3 Technical Reports as Base for Mgt:
                   E-4 Other


                   F. OTHER KEY MANAGEMENT TOOLS EMPLOYED FOR ROCKY SHORES PROTECTION:
                   F-I Public investment restrictions:
                   F-2 Coastal property disclosure:
                   F-3 Technical Assistance:
                   F-4 Financial Assistance:
                   F-5 Other-



                   CASE EXAMPLES (Examples that illustrate paerticularly important and effective management tool
                   in protecting resources or example that shows complexity/coupeting demands of difficulty in
                   protecting)



                   STATE CONTACTS FOR BEACHESIDUNES/BLUFFS/ROCKY SHORES


                   STATE REFERENCES FOR BEACHES, DUNES, BLUFFS, ROCKY SHORES


                   State of


                                      309 Assessment.
                                      309 Strateav.

                   U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
                   Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Smtement.











                APPENDIX C: SUMMARY TABLES

                1: National Context Factors Affecting State Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shores

                2: Summary of State CZM Programs-year CZM plans approved, year plans amended, management
                techniques used under CZMA, and primary authorities and tools employed to control land and water uses
                and protect natural resources (beaches and dunes, bluffs and rocky shores)

                3: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect BeachlDune Systems

                4: Summary of State Tools Employed to Protect Bluft and Rocky Shores

                5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction &
                Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and Rocky Shoreline

                6: Direct Land Management and Acquisition Tools. and Outcomes Associated with State Management of
                Beaches, Dunes, filluft and Rocky Shores and Acquiring Additional Areas.







      Table 1: National Context Factors Affecting State Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and RockV Shores
      State I  Open         Tidal     I National Shoreline       % State Land Area         Coast  I  %Coast I    Presence of Natural C        I Resoi rces and        Major           CRBA     USACE                    Resource
               Ocean        Shoreline         Miles and          % State Population        Pop.      Pop Chg     Beach and Rocky Shore a Percent of the               Barrier         Units-   Major                    Protection-
               t'^aafli     Uld'aft      qh rrdicaliv Eradino  I    in Coastal Zone        densitv   1970-90     States ODen Ocean Coastline                          Islands         lenath   Shoreline Jones          Inloortmice
               miles        (2)                                         (4)                1990      (5)         Beach, Stuff and Rocky Shore as Percent      iof     Number/         in       Protect.        Claims   of 16VA:
               (1)                                                                         (4)                   Non-Open Ocean (CT & Great Lakes States)             Miles           Miles    Prooft          (10)     HML
                                                                                           person    -           Shoreline      (6)                                   (7)             (8)      1950-93                  (1)
                                                                                           per sq.                                                      Rocky                                  (9)
               Mies         Miles        Miles        %CE        Area         pop.         mile      %           Beaches        Dunes        Bluffs    Shores         Miles           Miles
      AL       4(r          W7           352          9          6            12           171       27%         V-100%         n            n           n                            20       -                        H
      AK       6640         33904        47300        Z'I        67           85               1     89%         V-nd           7 -          y           V            rid             0                                 H
      AS       126          126          rid          rid        100          100          607       72%         V-nd           n            V           y-nd         rid             0                                 H
      CA       80           3427         1827         4          24           73           605       39%         V-nd           V            V           y-nd         -               0        13              1        H
      CT       0            618          .270         9          47           62           887       8%          v-31 %         Y-rare       Y-25%       041%         -               23       8               -        M
      DE     1 25*          381          226          12         100          1100         338       22%         V-100%         V            n           n            1- 6 mi         18       4               3        H
      FL     1 1266'        8426         6266         5          100          100          228       90%         V-65%          y            n           n            49-560m         189      33              10       H
      GIJ      108'         110          rid          3          100          100          637       57%         y-37%          n            y           Y-63%        rid             0        -               -        H
      HI       75D          1052         rid          2          100          1100         174       44%         y-25%          V            y-nd        V_nd         rid             0        -               -        H
      LA       149*         7721         1943         2          37           49           171       16%         v-50%          V            n           n                            178      4               3        L
      ME       228          3478         2500         >1         39           72           72        29%         V-10%          V            V           Y-90%        -               23       -               -        H
      MD       32*          3190         1939         9          66           70           507       12%         V-100%         V            n           n            2- 31 mi        28       4               2        H
      MA       192          1519         1200         11         45           75           1272      5%          V_??           V            V           VqW          2- 18 mi        122      7               32       H
      MI       0            3224         rid          rid        55           50           154       _5%         W-nd           V            V-nd        y-nd         -               55       -               32       H
      MS       44'          359          247          15         4            12           192       30%         y-41 %         n            n           n                            13       3               1        H
      NH       18*          131          40           5          12           32           331       67%         V-70%          V            n           y-30%                        0        5               -        H
      NJ       125-         1792         469          26         76           90           1219      6%          V-100%         V            n           n            10-loom         10    -  12              -        H
      NY       125*         1850         638          47         37           84           858                   Y-100%*        V            y           V            4- 93 mi        104      13              10       H
      NC       320'         2625         3661         Is         Is           11           75        -3%          -100%         V            n           n            20-285m         43       10              262      H
      NM       184*         206          rid          rid        100          100          236       255%         -rid          n            V           y::29        rid             0        -               -        H
      OR       3621         1410         500          13         20           38           82        46%                      a              V           V-28%                        0        -               -        H
      PA       0            140          rid          rid        4            25           1701      _9%         V-19%          n            v-81 %      n                            0        3               23       H
      PR       311          700          rid          rid        12           100          856       30%          -50%          V            V           M29          rid             51    1  -               -        H
      RI       40           384          340          7          100          100          950       6%          y-68%          V            V           V                            33       1               3        H
      SC       181          2876         3063         2          26           24           114       57%          -100%         V            n           n            la- 96 m        60       2               9        H
      VI       nd           175          rid          rid        100          100          771       63%                        ?            V           V40          rid             Is       -               -        H
      VA       20Q*         3315         993          26         22           62           423       40%          -100%         V            n           n            9- 67 mi        77       2               8        H
      WA       171                       2337         >1         31           70           172    146%           v-35%          V            V           v-65%        -               0        -               12       H
      W1       0            820          rid          rid        19           39           177    10%            V-10%      I   V            v-72%     I Y-8%                                                           M
      Total    rid          Smo          31513*** rid                         44           -                     Y-29           Y21 ne       Y1801 I Y1702          1                 1070  1 124              411      26H 2M IL
      KEY and SOURCES:
          denotes where state coastline miles data differs from General Coastline miles data in US DOC,NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States
      - Now York- Atlantic Ocean only covered under this study.        "' Does not include the Great Lakes States or the Island Territories and Commonwealths.
      (1) Individual State CZM Profiles.
      (2) US DOC, NOAA. 1975. The Coasdne of the UnNed States.
      (3) USACE. 1970. Nabonal Shoreline Study.
      (4) Coastal Ocean Poky Rwndtable, The 1992 Coastal Status report: A Pilot Study of the US Coastal Zone and its Resources, Tables 2 and 3.
      (5) US DOC, NOAA. NOS. 50 Years of Populadon Change Along Our Nadon's Coasts 1960-2010.
      (6) Individual State CZM Profiles on Protection of Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs arid-Rocky Shores
      (7) Ringold, Paul and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac, Table 8.                                       -72%
                                                                                                                  -rid

















      (8) US DOI. US FWS, Adapted from CBRA Table December 22.1992
      (9) USACE. Shorahne Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study: Phase 1.
      (10) FEMA. Mafk Ciowell, Upton-Jones Database.
                                                                                                                  2









            Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE CZM PROGRAMS                   -----
            YEAR CZM PLANS APPROVED, YEAR PLANS AMENDED, MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES USED UNDER CZMA, AND PRIMARY AUTHORITIES AND TOOLS EMPLOYED TO CONTROL LAND
            AND WATER USES AND PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES (BEACHES AND DUNES, BLUFFS AND ROCKY SHORES)
                     Year            Program         Technique       Primary Authorities and Tools Employed under state CZMP that affects protection of beaches, duries, bluffs, rocky shores
                     Approved        Changes         for control     * State Coastal Regulatory/Permit Program(s) along the open ocean coastline
                                     affecting       of land and     * Voluntary or Mandatory Local Coastal Planning and Regulatory in the coastal zone
                                     Natural         water i         * State ownership and management of coastline properties with natural resources

            AL       1979            1994            A. 8            Combination of a direct state CCCL regulatory program and voluntary local planning/ zoning consistent with ACMP.

            AK       1979            1981            A. 8            Combination of state coastal policies and mandatory District Control Zone plardregulatory implementation. Also 99% in public ownership with direct
                                     1983-1993                       state and federal management of coastline property.

            AS       1980            1994            B               Direct Territory regulatory program with Land Use Permits and Project Notification and Review System in coastal zone.

            CA       1978            1983-92,        A. B            Combination of a direct state regulatory program with Coastal Development Permits and voluntary local planning/regulation/ and permit delegation
                                     1993                            program.

            CT       1980            1987-88,        A, B            Combination of direct state regulation of shoreline stabilizations and state poficy/use guidelines and mandatory Municipal Site Plan Review and
                                     1992                            vow" local planning.
                                                                   I
            DE       1979            1954            A, 8            Direct state regulatory program with coastal permits along oceanfront.

            FIL      1981            1985,1956       A, B            Network of state regulatory programs. State CCCL permit program. However, beginning in 1994, mandatory local planning and regulations based on
                                     1994                            state standards and approval added to program.

            GLI      1979            1993            a               Network of direct Territorial planning and zoning regulatory program through Seashore Protection Permits and Territory Land Use Commission
                                                                     Permits.

            HI       1978            1979-80,        A, B            Combination of a network of direct state land use and regulatory programs and mandatory County Special Management Area and Shoreline Setback
                                     19863-87                        Variance regulation programs.
                                     1989,
                                     1994-5
            LA       1980            1990,1991       A, 8            Combination of a direct state regulatory program with Coastal Use Permits in coastal zone and a local planning and regulation program.
                                     1993
            ME       1978            1989,1993       A, 8            Combination of a nelviork of direct state regulatory programs with Sand Dune and Shoreline Permits and mandatory Municipal Shoreland Zoning
                                     1995                            Regulations and beginning in 1988 mandatory local comprehensive plans.

            MD       1978            No              A, 8            Combination of a direct state regulatory program with Beach Erosion Control Districts and sand dune permits and County zoning to implement state
                                                                     setbacks.

            MA       1978            1990,1996       A. B            Combination of a direct state regulatory program with state permit in tidal and coastline irea and a voluntary local planning and Local Conservation
                                                                     District regulation program.

                                                                             ation of a network of direct state regulatory programs with sand dune permits, bluff permits and earth change permits a" the coast, State
            Ml       1978            1974,1989       A, B. C         Combirk
                                     1990,1994                       model zoning plan, and option local planning/ zoning.

            MS       1980            1994-           B               Dired state regulatory program, but only for shoreline stabilizations. All beaches are artificial and no state regulation above MHW since all artificial
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ial
                                                                     beaches are public and construction prohibited.

            NH       1982/88         1991,1995       B               Combination of a network of direct state regulatory programs along coast for Tkial.Buffer Zone and Shoreland Development Permits, and optional
                                                                     local planning/zoning, and local planning. Mandatory local shorelands ordinances and setbacks based on state standards beginning in 1995, but not
                                                                     part of approved control techniques.



      = = = = M = = = = M = M M = = = = = M

         Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE CZM PROGRAMS----
         YEAR CZM PLANS APPROVED, YEAR PLANS AMENDED. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES USED UNDER CZMA, AND PRIMARY AUTHORITIES AND TOOLS EMPLOYED TO CONTROL LAND
         AND WATER USES AND PROTECT NATURAL RESOUREE&LBEACHES AND DUNES, BLUFFS AND ROCKY SHORES)
         Stste Year               Program         Technique       Primary Authority Empbyed under state CZMP- affecting projection of beaches, dunes, Muffs, rocky Whom
                  Approved        Changes         for control     * State Coastal Regulatory/Permil Program(s) eking the open ocean coastline
                                  affecting       of land and     * Voluntary or Mandatory Local Coastal Planning and Regulatory in ow coastal zone
                                  Natural         water uses      ' State ownership and nuumigwrient of coastline properties with natural resources
                                  Resources- (A. B. C)
         NJ       197MO           1981-83.        B               Combitation of network of direct state regulatory programs for activities In de coastal zone, erosim hawd areas, and barrier islands. Vokintary
                                  1992-94                         local land use plane. bid not part of approve control technique.

         NY       1982            1988            A, 8            Combination of a direct state regulatory program wth Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permits and voluntary local Erosion management pMnrwW


         NC       1978            1979,1981       A. 8            Ckimbinatim of a direct state regulatory program with permits in Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) along the coast and maixWory local
                                  19M                             planning and minor development permits in AECs.

         NM       19W             1983.1991       B               Direct Commonwealth regulatory program with coastal permits in Shorelire APCs.

         OR       1977            Igul-M,         A. 8            Cximbination of state policy plan and guidelines, network of direct state regulatory programs with Ocean Improvement Permit (01P), and Removal-Fill
                                  1994                            Permid, wid mandatory Local Comprehensive Plans, land use controls and regulationi; local planrung and regulation program.

         PA       1980            1964            A, 8            Continaboin of a direct state regulatory program for shoreline stabilization structures and mandalmy local Skiff Soft" ordinances. Also, only major
                                                                  beach arm in State ownership, so no state regulations for beaches and dunes.

         PR.      1978            1983.1988       B               Direct Commonwealth regulatory programs with permits Wang shoreline, Flood Area Permits, and Maritime Control Zone Authoriza@Concessions.
                                  1992
         RI       1978            1979,1986       8               Direct state regulatory program with CRMC Permit (Assent) along coestal'and barrier islands.
                                  1958.
                                  19W93
         SC       1979            1958.1990       B               Direct state regulatory program with SCCC Perrrdt Wong coast. Beginning in 19W, local beachfrord management plans required, but only for beach
                                                                  access and beach nourishment decisions and not a control technique change.

         V1       1979            1987.1992       B               Direct Territory regulatory program with Coastal Zone Permit along coast and network of regulatory programs trilarid.
                                  1994
         VA       1986            1993            A, B            Combination of a direct state regulatory program with permits on Coastal Primary Send Dunes and Beachin and designated counhes/citm may
                                                                  adopt local dune ordinances and issue permits.

         WA       1976            1902            A, 6            Combination of a state policy plan. direct state regulatory program for shorelilne stabilizations and delegated mandatory Shoreline Master Program
                                                                  (SMPs) arid coastal permitting.

         W1       1978            NO              A. B            Combination of a direct state regulatory program for shoreline stabilladions and mandatory local shoreland zoning ordinances with setbacks and
                                                                  delegated permitting.
                     -          I                I              I                                                                                                                  . . .. ...........
         TOW      7976-1968       Changes        118 A. B         17 Combination of dired state and local planning1regulatory program based an slats standards, guidelines, model ordinances.:
                                  27 yes          108                 AL, AK, CA, CT, HI, LA, ME, MD, MA, Mi. NY, NC, OR, PA, VA, WA, WI.
                                   2 no             I A, B. C     12 Direct state regulatory program(s): AS, DE, FL, GU. MS, NH, NJ, NM, PR, RI, SC', V1.
                                                                    3 States where ownership and management of beach/dune resources a primary tool: AK, MS, PA
         KEY:                     means th       ;h*tw           by a CMP for control of coastal uses. Under CZMA Section 306(dX1 1); 15 CRF, Section 923.42-.44
                     Technique A- State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation
                     Technique B- Direct State land and water use planning and regulation
                     Technique C- State review on a case-by-case basis* of actions affecting land and water uses subject to ft managernerit Program
         Sources: CZM Profiles, OCRM Review of Approval Findings and Amendments, FEIS Documents











                     Table 3: Summary of State CZM Tools Em                                loyed to Protect Beaches and Dunes
                                                                                           I A I Al Al        C1 C1  DI   F1   GI      HI Ll MI    MI      MI  MI MI       NJ NJ  NJ NJ        NJ   01    PI PI     RI S1 VI     v I Al I Total I
                     I TOOLS                                                               L     K    S       A T    E    L    U       I A    E    D       A   I   S       H J    Y C          M    R     A R       I  C I       A           I Yes
                       REGULATORY & PLANNING TOOLS
                       Restrict Construction                                               V1    vi   v1      v V1   V1   v1   v       v vi   V1   V       V1  vi  V1      V1v    vi -v I      V    v     n yl      v1 v I y     V V         V1 28
                                                                                                 - - -               - - - - - - - -                                       - - - -                          - - -
                       Restrict Shoreline Stabilizations                                   y     n1   v I     w v    v I  vi   v       y V1   V1   V       V               V V    V1 -v I      y    V     w V I     v  V V       v y         V1 28
                       Restrict Pedestrian or Vehicular Access _L                                y    n I     V V    y    V    V       y n I  y I  y       v   y   y       n _t   V yj         n    y     n n                    y v         v 122
                       Protect Habitat, Other Restrictions                                 n a _@L a -i              v    y    y       y n    V    y       V   y   y       -L -Y Y             n    __[I    y                                  25
                       Permit Compliance Prouram                                                              y V    V    V1   V. -1                               n                                                V V V V V v                27
                       Local Plan and/or Reaulate                                                     n _L      y    n    y    y y y y             V       V   V y         @L -1 _L j A _I                n n       n _y n       y  y        y 22
                       Special Area Management Plans                                       n _I_R_jLAA                    n            y A_                                n n n n _L A                   ni        _E -1           n          12
                       Other Adopted Plans                                                 n     n    y                   y    n       n y    n                                                             nj n                    n          15
                                                                                                                     n
                       DIRECT LAND MGT. RESTORATION                                                                                                                                                                                            29
                       AND ACQUISITION TOOLS
                       Shoreline in State Parks Management-                                v     v    v       v v    v    v    v       v v    v I  v       v   vi vi v1      v vi V1 V1             V     vi V1     V1 V      V1 v1 V1       V1 9Q
                                                                                                 - - - - - - - - - - - -                                                                                    - - - - - - -
                       Natural Areas Protected                                             y     v    n       v v    v    v    y       y n    y    y       y   Y_ I h I Y_   v v Y_            v_   Y_    n-V       V  v      V  y  y I      V 125
                       Dunes Revegetated                                                   y     n    n       w y    y    y    n       n y    y    y       v   n n y         n n I n                n     n n       n  w      n  v  n        n 13
                       Beaches Nourished               or Renourished                                           V    V    v    n       n y    y _L -L            -L -L A              -L            y     v n       n  v      n              n 17
                     1 Shoreline Armoring & Repairs                                        :n@ :n:            -L     n    Y    n       Va     n _I                         y _L n _E n              A       n       n  v      n n n          n 11
                       Coastal Lands Acquired                                              n     n    n       y y    y         Y       Y n                                   n                                         j      n  X jL _L       21
                       NONREGULATORY TOOLS
                       Public Investment Restrictions                                      ni    nl   ri I    v v I  V I  v 1  11      n n I  v I  v I y   _y    -A n        n    v       v-1 n     n     n v       yl n         n n         ni 13
                       Public Investment Incentives                                        n     n    n       h n    y- I _y I n       n n    n    yl y        n n n         n    n       n    n    n     n n       n  y      n  n n         n14
                       Coastal Property Disclosure                                         n     n    n       n                        n j    n    y n         n   y
                                                                                                                n    nM                                                    n n    n       n    n j _g_ _.L _a          y __q_ _E _E          n    6
                       Education/Outreach/Technical Assistanc                                                                                    _L -1         Y _@L _L _y _L _L jL _L _q. a _@L _I _L _L _I _L                                28
                       Financial Assistance                                                y y        y       n y                                          n   y   y       V LU
                                                                                                                                                                                               n 1 y I y I n           y 1 n _LU_1             20
                     'MethodoliDiies for Shore                                                 -A     n       v v    v    v    v       v ni v1 v           n   vi  vi      viv    v vi         n    y                               n        v1 19
                       Beach Profiles                                                                    -L     V    y    V    y       v V1 y      V       n   V   y       viv    y       y    v    v     n I-LALILa n                       VI 23
                       Natural Areas Inventory                                             y V _@L -L           V    y    V    V       V n Y       y       Y   V jL -L       y -L         y_X -I-         A -L -L y -L -L -Y j                 27
                       Technical Reports                                                   -1 -L -L A -1             V    V    V -L -L -1 -1 _jL _y_ -L -L -L -L -L V A -1 -L _t _L Y _@L _t _L 29
                       Aerial Photos                                                       y y y                     y    y                        y V1.1--t-L-L-L-L y y y y y y y                                               y             29
                     r sea Level Rise considerations                                       I nj nj yj yj y           yj   yj   n y y y yj yj n y y yl yi y                                     yj yj yj yj yj yi V1 y__vTy                     25


                     Y- Yes, Management Tool employed by state
                                                                                           @
                                                                                           n




                                                                                           n

                                                                                           n



                                                                                                      !n
                                                                                                      n @y

                                                                                                      y kn
                                                                                                              n













                     N- No, Management Tool not employed by state
                     Total Tools Employed out of 25: AI-15, AK-13, AS-12, CA-22, CT-21, DE-19, FL-24, GM-17, HI-19, LA-16, ME-21, MD-23, MA-20, MI-19, MS-16, NH-2().
                     NJ-18, NY-20, NC-21, NM-12, OR-20, PA-11, PR-15, RI-16, SC-23, VI-13-, VA-20, WA-15, WI-17.
                     Source: Individual CZM Profiles                                Version 1/1/97
                                                                                                                                            5









          Table 4: Summary of State CZM Tools Employed to Protect Nuffs and Rocky Shores
          STATES                                           AK JAS ICA ICT IGU IHI IME IMA IMI INH INMIOR.IPA                                                                    PR I RI I VI I WA I WI I TOM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             YES

          BkdW RockvShorse                                 V V      V V      V V      v y      y v      v v      y v      v v      v v      n y      v y      v v      y n    I y v   Ivy. IVY I,Yy,               v " v- F if'i

          Rashid C41raftuction
          Skiffs/ Rocky Shores                             v v      v v      v v      v V'     v y      v v      y v      y v      v n      - if     y,v      v, v     v -      y v     V    v   v v      v
          Other Regulatory Controls
          Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                             n n      V V      V y      V y      n n      y y      y y      y y      y n      - V      ? ? y y           v -      n n     v   v-   y v      v ?      v v       13 11
        J.&AWANU110.0-
                                                                                                                                   n n      - v      n n      y v      v -      v v     v        v  y     y   y    n n       13
          Local, side. or special am                       v Y      Y v      v v      v- y    IV,                    v    1 T
          OWT LAND MOT                                                                        I
          Side Owns wW Monagn
          Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                             v v      n n      v v      v ?      v v      v v      v v          v    v ?        v               v v      v -      v v     v v      ?  v     v   v    v v       13 13'
          Natural Areas Protection
          Bluffs/ Rocky Shores                                                                                                                                v v      n -                          v
        I
          Bluffs/RockySho-res.....-.---------[-n.ry v                                 7 ?      n n      y y    I y y      ??Iy?'I-y Inn I                     n V    I y -    I n n I ? ? I      n  n I y V
        -                                                I n n      n                                                                                                                                              y v 1 7 7

          Public Inveaftnent Restriction                   nn Inn Ivn Ivn Inn 1nn1nn I??Iv? 1-n Innin'n In- Ivy Inn1vv Inninn 15 2
          Coastal Property Disclosure                   -nn Inn Inninn Inn Inn Inn Inn Innl-n Inn Ivy In- Inn lnnlnninn Inn I
          Education/Outreach/ TA                           v n I v v         n n      v v      n n      v v      n n      v v      y ?        v      n n      v v      v -      n n     y v      v  v     v n      y y
          Financial Assistance                             v v I y v         n n      v v      n n      v v      n n      n n      y ?        v      n n      n v      y -      n n     n n      n  n              n n
                      1. 111 to:*: k-1111111111
          Inventories/ Deskinate protection area           v v      v y      n n      v v      v v      v v      v v      v v      y ?        v      n n      v v      v        ? v     n v      v v      v n      v v 1 13 13
          Technical Reports                                                                    n n                                     ?      I      n n      I I      I- III III '??IZn                               1     14
           i - @'v i-in - 7. @@ jim  1,


          y- YES. Managernent Tool employed by state
          n- NO, ManagIsinent Tool not arriployed by side
          - not applical*
          ? unknown, not side date or Insufficient dds to determine answer

          Resource Presence Summary:
          17 States with Skills:          AK AS, CA, CT. GU, HI, ME, MA. MI, PA, NM, OR, PR. RI, VI, WA, Wl
          17 States with Rocky Shores: AK AS. CA, CT. GU. HI, ME. MA, MI, NH, NM, OR, PR. RI. VI, WA, Wl

          13 States with No Coastal Skiffs:           AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MA, MS. NH, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, SC. VA
          12 States with No Coastal Rocky Shores: AL. DE. FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, PA, SC, VA

          Source: CZM profiles Version 1211/96





                                                                                                                       6











             Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Duries, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                      TYPE OF REGULATION                 SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                             OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                         exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of         Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                         permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                            Plan Outcome Data
             State    SB I CZ J'SS I       PA I     LD   S8- Setback                       CZ-Conlrol Zone                             SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                      (S) Sufficient Data
                                           VA       LP   PA-INxIestrian Access                                        LO- Local Perrnit Delegation                                                 Case Example
                                           H        S    VA- Vehicular Access                                         LP- Local Planning
                                           0        OP   H4id*d Anm Protected               0436m                     S- Special Area Managernent Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
             AL       y      y      y      y        n*   Beadiffirord                                                                                                                              DATABASE
                      FT                   y        y    SB-Seaward of 40 ft. crestfine (120450 feet landward of MHWL). Exception - SF 1200 sq. ft. or less if bought before CCL and               Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                           y        n    no room to build, repairs if <50% damaged.                                                                                                Permit Outcome Data: HS/SS no data
                                           n        n    CZ- state ADEM CCCL regulates construction 40 ft. inland from crestline to the 10-ft elevation line. Repairs allowed if <50%              provided by state
                                                         damaged. Both a setback and control zone.                                                                                                 HS-m permit data
                                                         SS-No SS allowed an gulf-front. Emrag         -case-by case if structure bulk prior to regulation and threatened by erosion.              SS-no permit data
                                                         PA-regulates boardwalks but no permit for dune cross-overs.                                                                               Local Permits- no data
                                                         VA-onty cleanup or law enforcement vehicles allowed on beach
                                                         H- 3 miles sea turtle nesting; 40 acres beach mouse; 25 acres tern nesting habitat protected.                                             LP- I approved plan. 3 locals with
                                                         *LDA.P- Voluntary local planning and zoning ordinances consistent with state CCCL provisions. State retains CCCL permitting               zoning ordinances. No linear/area data

             AK       n      y      n      y        y    Shorellm                                                                                                                                  DATABASE
                                           y'       y    CZ-Regulates construction through district control zone. Regulates new activities in hazardous and erosion hazard areas                   Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                           y        y    though District land use, zoning and subdivision regulations based on statewide Guidelines and Council Approval. Covers flood,            Permit Outcome Data:
                                           y        n    storm surge, littoral process areas. Distance inlandfarea covered unknown. No restrictions on repairs. State policies to minimize         HS- data too limited
                                                         property damage and loss of fife and to manage rocky islands and seacliffs to avoid harassment of wildlife, destruction of                SS-na
                                                         important habitat and the introduction of competing/destructive species/predators.
                                                           0- what is landward boundary of AK CZ regulatory program?                                                                               LP- 33 approved. No data on area
                                                         SS-No regulation of SS- relies on USACE                                                                                                   covered or outcomes.
                                                         PA- trails regulated         VA- transportation route inland from beach/shoreline unless WD or no alternative.                            SAMPS- No data on areas designated.
                                                         H- 49.000 acres of Bald Eagle habitat (also see 990,335 acres in marine parks-under Direct Land Management)                               No linear or area data
                                                         0- neashore sand and mining regulated.
                                                         LD/LP- Mandatory District land use planning, controls zones and regulations based.on statewide guidelines and Council
                                                         Approval.- Need more data.
                                                         SAMP- Areas Designated which merit special attention. No data.
                                                         Need more information on state policies/Dishict Guidelines.
             AS       y      y-3 y         n        n    Shoreline                                                                                                                                 DATABASE
                      FT                   n        n    SS-frorn OHWL 25ft for residential and 50 ft for commercial. No exceptions.                                                               Computerize Permit tracking: YES for
                                           y        n    CZ- (I)Territory regulates activities through Territory-wide zoning and land use permit within 200 ft MHW. Permit denied If               Land Use Permits since 1954
                                           n        y    subject to shoreline erosion, diminish physical/visual access, clegrade CR. Exglpfigi@pubfic purpose rec., WD, no better                  Permit Outcome Data:
                                                         alterriative site, and SF w1in existing residential areas. (2) Also building permits for coastal hazard areas and (3) perrnits for        HS: Island-wide, no kwar date or by
                                                         grading, excavation. fill. steep slopes Varia       for use changes such as commercial or irxiustnal. Conservation Zorn on all            geographicireswroe area
                                                         but Pago Pago Harbor & Industrial Park.                                                                                                   SS- 20 In I I yrs, no kmr data
                                                         SS- Regulated, allowed to protect property from erosion. uses USACE standards.                                                            No data on Territory-wide zones and
                                                         H- case-by-case review of permits to protect habitat.                                                                                     variances for use changes.
                                                         Steep Slopes/Land Slide Areas
                                                         Sod ErosiordSlope Erosion Policy to control road building and construction to minimize soil erosion and avoid clearing, grading,
                                                         construction on slopes >40%. Use Landslide Mitigation Maps to identify steep slope hazard areas to avoid. Engineering Plans
                                                         required in high/medurn slope areas. Most land in agriculture or open space,
                                                         OP- Territory-wide zoning serves as a land use plan.












           Table 5: Regulatory and Panning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines

                    TYPE OF REGULATION                SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions; setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;					OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                      exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of		Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                      permit responsibities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.								Planning Outcome Data
           State    SB  CZ  SS  PA  LD 			SB- Setback                        CZ-Control Zone                            SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures				(S) Sufficient Data
                                VA  LP   			PA-Pedestrian Access                                         LD-Local Permit Delegation									Case Example
                                H   S                 VA-Vehicular Access                                          LP- Local Planning
                                0   OP                H-Habitat Areas Protected          O-Other                   S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
           CA       y   y   y   y   y    			Shoreline																						DATABASE
                                y   y                 SB-no state coastal setback. Some Local Coastal Programs require setbacks. e.g.: LA Co. 15 ft. from MHW; Malibu 10 ft. from			Computerized permit tracking; NO,
                                y   y                 MHW.																							developing electronic logging system.
                                y   y                 CZ-State Coastal Development Permit for activities from MHT to 1st public road, or 300 ft. from beach/bluff or MHT if no			Permit Outcome Data: HS/SS: No,
                                                      beach. Covers beaches/dunes, rocky shores and within 300 feet of top of a coastal bluff and any development in a locally-			coast-wide only, no break-down by
                                                      designated sensitive coastal resource. Regulations based on State CC Act policies and Interpretive Guidelines.  Exceptions-			type or resource or sub-area.
                                                      improvements to SF and repair/replacement, SF in designated urban areas, replacement. Coastal Permit based on enforceable			HS-coastwide
                                                      policies in California Coastal Act which serves as both a planning and regulatory tool at state level, and plan adoption,			SS-no data
                                                      implementation guidance at local level.																	Case Examples
                                                      SS-Regulates SS, allowed if WD uses or to protect existing structures or eroding public beaches. Rebuild ok w/o permit.
                                                      Regional variations.																				LP-126 LCP segments, 105 (83%)
                                                      PA/VA-boardwalks, elevated walkways regulated and some restrictions on vehicular traffic. But both promoted, except where			certified LUPs, 88 (70%) certified
                                                      inconsistent with protection of fragile CR. Case-by-case review.													Implementation Plans.  Cover 86% of
                                                      H-Locally designated environmentally sensitive coastal resources/habitat areas										CZ.  All locals with beaches/bluff have
                                                      0-land form alteration policies; nearshore sand mining regulated but allowed for beach nourishment.							plans/regulations for these areas.
                                                      LD/LP-Local Coastal Programs required with land use plans & zoning ordinances. Must implement statewide coastal policies in			No statewide data on outcomes.
                                                      CCAct. Covers both land use activities and coastal resource protection areas, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, geologic		Case Examples
                                                      hazard areas, flood hazard areas, bluff and cliff areas. Certified LCPs vary widely. Some have setbacks but vary and no				SAMPS-a) and b) No statewide data
                                                      statewide database. State retains permit jurisdiction over tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, and other activities for		on area designated, NO linear/area
                                                      which no local permit required. Also acts on local permit appeals													data. c)+700 parcels (S)
                                                      SAMPs- a) LCP designation of coastal resource areas/environmentally sensitive areas considered SAMPS- b) Regional					OP-no statewide data on outcomes.
                                                      coastal erosion plans. Coastal Erosion Management Plan for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. c) Malibu/Santa Monica
                                                      Mountain (SMM) TDC Program to eliminate small undeveloped lots to avoid erosion, runoff, landslides, +700 parcels placed in
                                                      Open Space Easements (as of 1989) avoiding erosion, runoff, landslides an small undeveloped and poorly sited parcels
                                                      Bluffs
                                                      OP- Local Bluff Protection Plans adopted as part of LCPs consistent with CCC Interpretive Guidelines for Geologic Stability of
                                                      Bluff tops Development. Must minimize alteration of cliffs and blufftops, faces or bases. Cliff retaining walls only to stabilize
                                                      slope or seawalls at toe of seacliffs to check marine erosion if no alternative or protect public infrastructure or existing
                                                      development. Geologic investigation and report required in unstable areas. Commission may require waiver of all claims against
                                                      public for future liability/damage resulting from permission to build in geologic hazard area. Allows rebuilding w/o permit If built in
                                                      same location as original site; does not include public works.
                                                        LCPs vary. 24 coastal jurisdictions recognize coastal geologic hazards through designation as special zones, geologic hazard
                                                      ordinancess, or comparable techniques. 18 jurisdictions use liability releases for projects proposed in hazardous areas.
                                                      Regarding bluff-top development, some local jurisdictions use predetermined, fixed setbacks that vary from 10 to 320 feet.
                                                      Others employ a cliff retreat rate, most commonly over a 50-year period. Most communities compromise safe setback
                                                      considerations in "infilling" areas. LCP/SAMP- designation of environmentally sensitive areas with overlay zones, special use
                                                      permits. But no statewide data on LCPs.
                                                      Rocky Shores -No Regulations or Plans Specific to Rocky Shores- Below MHT rocky shore habitat areas. Above MHT, RS
                                                      and bluffs in State Parks/Recreation.

																	8
 












          Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines

                	 TYPE OF REGULATION   SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks, distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;									OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                        exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of						Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                        permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.												Planning Outcome Data

          State    SB  CZ  SS  PA  LD   SB- Setback                CZ-Control Zone             SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures
                               VA  LP   PA-Pedestrian Access                         LD- Local Permit Delegation
                               H   S    VA- Vehicular Access                         LP- Local Planning
                               0   OP   H-Habitat Areas Protected  O-Other           S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
          CT    	 n   y   y   y   y    Shoreline
                               n   y    CZ-Yes- see under Local Delegation (LD)- MHW inland to 1000 feet. State Coastal policies/Use Guidelines to preserve natural
                               y   n    beach system, protect coastal bluffs from erosion, maintain healthy intertidal community, and regulate uses to minimize adverse
                               y   n    impacts.
                                        SS-State permit for SS seaward of MHW, landward controlled by I.D. Filling allowed for beach nourishment/erosion control.
                                        Groirns/jetties allowed where nonstructural infeasible or to protect infrastructure, WD uses, existing inhabited structures in
                                        existence prior to 1988 and if mitigate. Seawalls, revetments, bulkheads allowed for same reasons as above and if minimal, and
                                        does not increase erosion. Also on bluffs if slope of protective structure no steeper than 3;1 when bluff/escarpment to be
                                        protected is fronted by beach system.
                                        H-regulate activities in mapped bird nesting habitat areas and case-by-case review.
                                        PA- pedestrian traffic corridors allowed along B/D, BL if vegetation/habitat protected. VA-no, not an issue.
                                        O-Dune reshaping allowed only as part of beach renourishment or filling
                                        LD- Municipal Coastal She Plan (MSPR) reviews required and covered under regulatory tools -local regulation delegation.
                                        2 Tier regulatory zones. 1) All activities regulated above MHW inland to 1000 feet or 100 feet from inland boundary of state
                                        regulated tidal wetlands, or 100 year flood zone through Municipal Site Plan Reviews(MSPR). 2) Certain major state/federal
                                        activities reviewed for consistency within the boundaries of the coastal municipalities. Exceptions- gardening, agriculture,
                                        conforming SF if 100 feet landward of beach/dune/bluff/escarpment/tidal wetland, minor additions/modifications to existing
                                        bids, pools/walks/driveways/docks/fences/utilities, conservation/preservation activities. Local regulatons based an state
                                        General Use Guidelines. No provisions for relocation of damaged structures outside erosion-prone areas.
                                        DATABASE-HS- No statewide database for municipal site plan review (MSPR) decisions. Data in performance reports of each
                                        municipality and not broken-down by resource areas, permit data aggregated for all activities within coastal boundaries. Now
                                        trying to identify resources that may be impacted (including beaches, etc.).
                                        LP-State coastal policies and use guidelines adopted as part of CCMP to guide state decisions and local planning and
                                        regulations. Voluntary Municipal Coastal Programs (MCPs) adopted with long-range land use plans and zoning consistent will
                                        CCMA coastal policies and use guidelines.
                                        General Use Guidelines for:
                                        Beachfronts/Blufs/Rocky Shores-preserve natural beach systemstbluff vegetation/rocky shore slope/composition and natural
                                        features; setback; protect habitat; siting to preserve littoral system; prohibit excavation of beech; construction to minimize
                                        adverse impacts; public access; siting to avoid visual/aesthetic impacts.

             				    Beachfront
                	                      SB-11 feet landward of seaward most 7-foot elevation above National Geodetic Vertical Datum. Re-establish line It storm
                           	          changes seaward contours. Exceptions - may build within 100 feet of MHW if not sufficient land, but permit required.
                          	          CZ- Building landward of setback. letter of approval needed for building landward of the setback a" a strip which runs down
                                        the Delaware Bay and around to the Atlantic. Extends inland 100 yards North of Wilmington to - 12 miles in the south-eastern
                                        part of the state. Post-storm reconstruction prohibited after complete destruction (75% or more of structure or 50% or more
                                        foundation).  Exception-inadequate space landward of line for reconstruction.
                                        SS- permits new and repair of shoreline stabilizations.
                                        PA- Letter of approval required for dune-crossovers. VA- only 4-wheel drive vehicles allowed.
                                        H- bird nesting sites, however. on state park lands only.
                                        0- nearshore sand mining, sand fencing, dunes alteration regulations.
                                        LD/LP- soil Conservation Districts implement Erosion and Sediment control Act, but not along ocean. State has comprehensive
                                        plan and counties have growth management plans, but not part of CZMP.


                                                                                9
 











        Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
              TYPE OF REGULATION  SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks: distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                                                      OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                  exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of                                  Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                  permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plane required, other enforceable plans.                                                                     Planning Outcome Data     
        State 5B CZ SS PA LD      SB-Setback                 CZ-Control Zone     SS-Shoreline Stabilization Structures                                                                               (S) Sufficent Date   
                       VA LP      PA-Pedestrian Access                 LD-Local Permit Delegation                                                                                                     Case Example 
                       H  S       VA-Vehcular Access                   LP-Local Planning
                       0 OP       H-Habitat Areas Protected  O-Other   S-Special Area ManagamentPlan (SAMP) OP-Other Plan
        FL    y  y     y y        Beachfont                                                                                                                                                           DATABASE   
              E        y y        SB-30-year erosion zone setback for major structures. Zone determined on permit-by-permit basis from SHWL w/ln 30 year                                              Computerized permit tracking: YES
                       y n        after permit. Exception-SF on parcels platted prior to 1985. Can repair/rebuild but not seaward of zone.                                                            Permit Outcome Data:
                       n y        CZ-permits for activities w/ln CCCL Measured from SHW to landwrd extent of 100-year floodplain. Line ranges from a few                                              HS/SS-NO data provided by state
                                  feet to several hundred feet.                                                                                                                                       Boardwalks-Thousands     
                                  SS-state allows new and repair of SS by permit. Anti-armoning policy for with no armoring repealed in 1992.                                                         LP-170 cities/35 counties with
                                  PA-Boardwalks, dunes crossovers regulated by permit.                                                                                                                approved plans Beach Management    
                                  VA-5 counties allow driving on beach to facilitate beach parking needs.                                                                                             Plans cover 58.8 miles(10.8% of     
                                  H-sea turtle nesting areas.                                                                                                                                         beacfront). No statewide data on     
                                  LD-State could delegate CCCL and 30-Year erosion zone permits to local government-None delegated at this time.                                                      outcomes.
                                  LP-In 1994, mondatory local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations added to CZMP. Must meet state                                                         Others-a)all-500 miles of beach
                                  requirements including beach/dune management. Prior to that relied on network program at state level.                                                               under state erosion plan-100 miles of      
                                  op-a) Florida Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program identifies/plans erosion controls and funds beach management                                                 beaches restored/dunes restored. See
                                  projects. b) Inlet Management Plans- state funds inlet management plans for sand transfer to address adverse effects of                                             b(29 inlet mgt. plans. No data on                                            under Direct Land Management. (S)
                                  channel dredging on littoral drift and beaches.                                                                                                                     results  
                                                                                                                                                                                                       
        GU    y-2 y-2 y   y y     Shoreline                                                                                                                                                           DATABASE 
              FT          y n     SB-(1) Ocean Shore Public Access Zone right between MLW and 25 feet inland from 2 foot contour line of Goo. Survey.                                                 Computerized permit tracking: NO 
                          y y     (2)Zoning Setback of 35 feet from MHW bounding beach. No higher than 20 feet within 75 feet of MHW.Exception-Beach                                                  Permit Outcome Data:
                          y n     does non include shoreline if cliff/bluff higher than 25 feet nor village lots >100 sq. meters in residential areas before WWII.                                    HS:Island-wide 357 requests, 88%
                                  Cannot restore nonconfroming buildings if destroyed >50% value of bulding unless-conform to regulations for new buildings.                                          approved. No data by resource areas,
                                  Varlances-recietion, aesthetic, commercial value and riot interfere surrounding property and public access to beach.                                                no linear data.                                  CZ-Territory-Wide Land-Use Plan, Zoned Districts, Policies and Guidelines. Requires state agencies act consishtent.
                                  (1)-Territory permits required for activities In Seashore Reserve seaward to 10 fathom contour, all islands, and inland from                                        SS:none permitted since 1970's(S)
                                  MHW to 10 maters or Inland edge of public right of way. Exception-repair/improve SF at $7500 or less and maintence                                                  H-3,000 acres-public
                                  dredging.(2)Flood hazard area building permit for new and expanded activities. No permit required for repairs.                                                      Use Districts-100% of Guam CZ
                                  SS-TSPA and submerged lands permit would be required. Relies on USACE permit program.                                                                               covered. 21% of land area in Habbiat    
                                  PA-boardwalks regulated through TSPA. VA-vehicles restricted an public beaches. H-conservation/preserve areas. All                                                  Protection Areas. No data on %
                                  protected habitat areas urder public ownership, so covered urnder Direct Land management                                                                            conservation districts, type habbiat      
                                  O-sand mining prohibited on beaches and taking of coral and live rock prohibited.                                                                                   protected.       
                                  LD-Local building official issues building permit unless outside organized villages, then Issued by Territorial Land Use                                            SAMP-a)covers seashore inland 10
                                  commission.                                                                                                                                                         meters-inf. under regulatory looks.  
                                  SAMPs-a)Guarn Seashore Reserve Plan and b)Flood Hazard Areas as APCs-see under CZ above.                                                                            b)no data       
                                  c)Recreation and Water Use Management Plans-plan for 6 mile stretch designates jet skis area, bird nesting protection areas                                         c)6 lineal miles. 3 Jet skis use zones/
                                  Manahac fish run protection areas. d)Erosion Control Plans to get clearing/grading permit. Development limited in areas 15%                                         planning areas area/distance defined
                                  or greater slope by erosion/sediment requirements. Development on bluffs and slopes >15% discouraged, not restricted. No                                            for each. 2 adopted 1990-91, 1
                                  regulations/plans for rocky shores. Public owns below MHW(Submerged lards are 2/3 territtory and 1/3 federal). About 1/3                                            pending. (S)
                                  coastline is federal and coniains rocky sixxtrs and clliffe areas.




                                                                           10













              Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs a					OUTCOME DATA A SUFFIEIENCY
                       TYPE OF REGULATION                SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;						Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                         exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of		Planning Outcome Data
                                                         permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.								(S) Sufficient Data
              State    SB    CZ     SS     PA       LD   SB- Setback                         CZ-Control Zone                             SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures				Case Example
                                           VA       LP   PA-Pedestrian Access                                           LD- Local Permit Delegation
                                           H        S    VA- Vehicular Access                                           LP- Local Planning
                                           0        OP   H-Habitat Areas Protected            O-Other                   S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) 0P-Other Plan
              HI       y     y-3    y      y        y    Shoreline
                       FT                  y        y    SB- Shoreline setback of 40 feet along most shorelines. Counties establish setback based on state guidelines and may					DATABASE	
                                           y        y    establish greater setback distance. Prohibits new structures seaward of setback. Shoreline defined as the upper reaches of the			Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                           y        n    wash of the waves, other than storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash of			updated in 1994
                                                         the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves
                                                         Variences-20-ft for small lots, shoreline stabilization if in public interest or hardship; protection of existing structures at risk fror	Permit Outcome Data:
                                                         shoreline erosion; new or repair/minor expansion of boating, Maritime, or water-sport recreation facilities; public agency/utilities;		1993-1995-Permits Issued
                                                         private facilities clearly in public interest; private facilities/improvements if not adversely affect beach processes, nor artificially	4 Counties Total
                                                         shoreline if hardship demnonistrated; private facilities/improvements that artificially fix shoreline if shoreline erosion likely to cause	SMA Major Permits: 153
                                                         hardship but only If in public interest; moving of sand from one location to another if not adversely affect beach processes, size		SMA Major Permits: 730
                                                         of beach, erosion; cultivation of crops; aquaculture; landscaping; drainage.											Shoreline Setback Varfances: 27
                                                         CZ- a) Special Management Areas (SMAs) must extend 100 yards inland from shoreline, so extend several miles inland to				DLNR-CDUA Permits: 53
                                                         cover resources or set boundary at inland coastal road. Permits required for development (land uses w/market value >$25,000			LUC District Boundary Amendments:
                                                         or significant adverse effect on environment/ecology. Exemptions : Single-family residences; land use <$25,000; subdivisions			23
                                                         prior to 12/1/75. Major permits >$125,000 or adverse environmental or ecological impact, otherwise minor permits. b) Land Use			Total CZMP regulatory Permits: 1342
                                                         Commission Land Use Boundary Amendments to reclassify land use from agriculture. or conservation, rural to urban; c) Dept.				No data on resource areas affected,
                                                         of Land and Natural Resources Conservation District use Permits.													type of activity regulated
                                                         SS- Allowed but require a Shoreline Setback variance. No public hearing requirement for stablication of shoreline erosion by			SAMP-data received late, not yed
                                                         the moving of sand entirely on public lands. Variance requires demonstration of public interest or hardship.						incorporated
                                                         PA- HCZMP policies to provide pedestrian access but restricted in areas where natural resources may be adversely affected on
                                                         case-by-case basis. No boardwalks.
                                                         VA- Vehicular access restricted. Most roads have barriers limiting access to shoreline, except for government vehicles.
                                                         H- Endangered plant/animal species on case-by-case review. Natural Area Reserves, Wildlife Sanctuaries on state lands.
                                                         0- Prohibit taking/mining sand, dead coral, coral rubble, rocks, soil or beach w/in in  shoreline setback area or within 100-ft
                                                         seaward from shoreline.
                                                         LD- Counties administer both Shoreline Setback Variances and Special management Area (SMA) Permits- see above.
                                                         LP- County Master Plans, zoning and subdivision regulations required. Zoning based on state-mandated setbacks/guidelines.
                                                         S- Natural Resource Areas, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Marine Life Conservation Districts.
              LA       n     y      y      n        y    Beachfront																						DATABASE
                                           n        y    CZ- Coastal Use Permit required in CZ. Inland boundary based on intracoastal waterway, highways, natural ridges and parish				Computerized permit tracking: NO
                                           y        n    boundaries. SF Exemption Single-family and No restriction on repair/rebuilding. Uses of state conocern include dredging, use			Permit Outcome Data;
                                           y        y    of submerged lands; mineral, oil and gas, and energy activities; uses of local concern that may affect the region/state/nation.			HS/SS: No data
                                                         Uses of Local concern include: shoreline modifications such asjetties/breakwaters/bulkheads, piers; dredging/fill not				H: bird nesting sites on Chandeller
                                                         intersecting more than one waterbody; maintenance dredging; private water control projects >$15,000.							Island. No linear data
                                                         SS- Coastal Use Permit required. Exempt -No restriction on repair/rebuilding damaged shoroline structures and no permit				LP-8 parishes have certified plans. N	o
                                                         needed If rebuild same structure and no dredge/fill required.														data on linear/area resources	
                                                         H- Bird nesting sites protected. 0- Sand scraping, dune reshaping require Coastal Use Permit.								protected
                                                         LD/LP- Local coastal use permits allowed, but not required, for Uses of Local Concern. 8 parishes with local plans/regulation.			OP-a)no data
                                                         based on state guidelines/cetification. Few land use/ restrictive zoning ordinances.										b) no data
                                                         OP-a) Water and Marsh Management Plan includes erosion prevention.
                                                         b) Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials Policy- If USCOE dredges > 500,000 cu yd, must work with state to determine beneficia
                                                         use. Note: Beach Management Plan with guidelines for beach renourishment, but not incorporated into CZMP.
 










		Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulationg Construction & Shoreline Stabilizatoin Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                 
                       TYPE OF REGULATION              SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                            OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                       exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of        Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                       permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                           Planning Outcome Date
            
           State       SB   CZ   SS   PA    LD         SB-Setback                                       CZ-Control Zone           SS-Shoreline Stabilization Structures                         (S) Sufficient Data   
						  VA    LP   	 PA-Pedestrian Access                                   LD-Local Permit Delegation										 Case Example
                                      H     S          VA-Vehicular Access                                    LP-Local Planning       									
                                      0     OP         H-Habitat Areas Protected             O-Other          S-Special Area Management Plan(SAMP)    OP-Other Plan
            
           ME          y-2  y-3  y    y     y          Beachfront/Dunes and Shoreline
                       R              y     y          SB- (1) In Frontal dunes (V-Zone) no new structures, shore stabilizations, de facto setback. Dune encrochment is setback                    DATABASE
                       FT             y     y          behind 100-year floodplan (V-Zone) and sea level rise area. No setbacks in back dunes. Prohibits reconstruction of structures		   Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                      y     n          damaged >50% unless all new building standards met-i.e., minimal damage to dunes, lot restrictions, bird habitat protection,			   Permit Outcome Data:
                                                       revegetation of disturbed areas. After 1/89 may not expand floor area/volume by >30% of existing structures.					   NRPA/BEP Permits 1988-1995
									 (2) Under MSLZ, setback from residential district is 75 feet; general development/commercial-25 feet. Existing development-			   HS: 304
									 follow existing pattern. In resource Protection Areas setback is 250 feet from NHWL.									   SS: 110
									 CZ-(1) State NRPA/BEP permit for any activity on coastal sand dunes. Regulates activities on coastal frontal and back				   Other: 214	
									 dunes. Dunes mapped by states. Frontal dunes extend inland 125-175 feet from MHW or seaward edge of sand dune.					   NRPA/BEP Permit by Rule 1988-1995
									 Setbacks (see above). In Back Dunes, size limits max. 2,500 sq. ft and must be moveable structure or elevated 3" above sea 			   HS:9         SS:82    Other:12
									 level rise. MF elevations higher. Exceptions-maintenance/repair/additions to existing structures, temporary structures,			   LURC Permits 1972-1995
									 walkways, open decks >200 sq. ft;underground storage tanks outside v-zone.  (2)NRPA permit also for activities in "protected			   HS: 187     SS:4       Other:434
									 natural resource areas" which include 100-year flood zone, moderate/high value wetlands, steep slopes >20%. Setback 250 feet			   
									 (see above.) Exception- Single-Family under certain conditions. (3) Under LURL same restrictions as MSZA, but for
									 unorganized areas.																				   Local MSZA Permits	
									 SS- prohibits new rip-rap, seawalls, groins, other SS in/on any sand dune system. Exempt-existion seawalls may be				   HS/SS: no data
									 repaired/maintained unless building behind SS damaged >50%. Effective 1995, existing seawalls can be fortified, built bigger			   Note: no linear data, no local data
									 and deeper if undermined. Property owner w/o permit may place protective materials (riprap, sandbags, etc.) or					   for state/local permits
									 strengthen SS.																					   Case Example
									 PA- State standarts-private 4 ft. wide, public 10 ft. wide allowed w/o permit if sand transport and dunes not affected.			   LP-56 of 144 coastal communities
									 Maintenance/repair of existing accessways to residential d/n require permit, if conditions met. However, Notice to state required		   have approved plans. The MSZA all
									 VA- no new roads, driveways, parking in V-zone. No other specific restrictions on beach/dune.								   have setbacks-see under Regulatory
									 H- shore bird nesting areas, essential wildlife habitat areas protected.											   Tools.
									 0- sand fencing, beach nourishment, sand scraping and removal regulations.											   SAMP-36, 250 acres and 10% of											
									 LD-Municipal shoreland zoning regulations (MSZA) required for activities within 250 feet of NHW lind. Six districts				   shoreline protected as "Essential	
									 LP- State Comprehensive Plannign and Land Use Regulation Act (CPLURA) of 1988 established 10 coastal area goals and				   Wildlife Habitat" under all planniong and
									 mandates planning to address growth. More comprehensive than Municipal Shorelands Zoning Act since covers watersheds				   regulatory tools combined MSZA
									 and addresses growth/infrastructure issures. Incorporates 250 ft. set-back from resource protection areas in MSZA. Local must		   LURL, NRPA, ESA. However, %
									 adopt ordinances which meet or exceed state standards in MSZA. Land Use Regulation Law (LURL) requires planning in 				   zoned as "resource Protection
									 unorganized areas (5%) of Maine coastline- mostly rocky shores and 306 (10%) of Maine's islands.							   districts" is unknown. No statwide
									 At time of program approval, locals required to adopt/enforce minimum shorelands zoning regulations. With passage of				   database. Varies by type and extent of
								       CPLURA in 1988, local comprehensive plans required and shorland zoning as method to implement.								   resource present.
									 SAMP- Locals required to designate "Resource Protection Zones" within 250 ft. of NHWL (including beaches, floodplains, 			   Case Example
									 steep slopes) under MSZA.																						
									 Same shoreline regulations cover bluffs or rocky shores.




																12










               Table 5: Regulatory and Planni T           and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches. Dunes. Bluffs and                ocky Shorelines
                        TYPE OF REGULATION                SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                              OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                          exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of          Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                          permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans                                              P nni pig Outcome Data
               State SBICZ-1 SSI PAI                 LD I S13- Setback                       CZ-Control Zone            . -             -SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                      (S) Sufficient
                                            VA       LP   PA-INxIestrian Access                                         LD- Local Penirdt DIon                                                      Case Example
                                            H        S    VA- Vehicular Access                                          LP- Local Planning
                                            0        OP   H411al" Areas Protected            04)ther                    S- Special Area Managernent Plan ISAMP) OP- Otheir Plan
                        y      y-2 y                 y    Beachkont                                                                                                                                  DATABASE
                        FT                  y        y    S13- Beach Erosion Control District. Setback 75 feet from NHW. Building setback runs a" landward west edge of board-walk                   Computerized permit backing: YES,
                                            y        n    in Ocean City and behind dunes of Assateaque Island. No construction seaward axgo fences and boardwalk when extends                        joint date and USAGE
                                            y        y    -26 city Mocks.                                                                                                                            Permit Outcome Data:
                                                          CZ- a) State SEP permits for any activity on coastal Sand dunes. b) State permit for MF and other devekipment within                       HS: No date provided
                                                          shorelaind zone of 250 feet from NHW.                                                                                                      SS: 4238 permits (9 yrs-1 986-1995)
                                                          SS- Now and repair/rebuild allowed by permit. Nonstructural stabilizations encouraged.                                                           367 planting/sand fill
                                                          PA- boardwalks, elevated dune crossovers regulated. VA- vehicle traffic prohibited on beach.                                               However, No linear data
                                                          H- bird nesting sites seasonally restricted. 0- sand mining, erosion control, beach replenishment,                                         LP- I county/1 city (I OD% oceanfrord)
                                                          LD- county zoning implements requirements of model ordinance with 75 feet setback.                                                         approved plans with setbacks and
                                                          LP- Requires county comprehensive plans1zoning to implement state Beach Erosion Control District Act standards.                            dune nigt. plans. No outcome data an
                                                          OP- a) Beach Erosion Control District Plan-provides beach maintenance funds for shore erosion structures. Dunes restored.                  results
                             I                            beaches renoudshed, erosion control projects- see under Direct Land Manamment.
               MA       n      y      y     y        y    Shoreline                                                                                                                                  DATABASE
                                            y        y    CZ- State Waterway Permit for any new construction/fill on tide-flowed tidelands and filled tidal flats between waterway and first         Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                            y        y    public way, or 250 feet from water. State performance standards of resource areas including coa@tal beaches. dunes, barrier                Permit Outcome Data:
                                            y        y    beaches, banks- No restrictioni on private rebuilding, but priority to relocating willing sellers. May impose permit conditions if         HS/SS: No data provided by state
                                                          project found to have significant impact on storm damage prevention. Exemptions-V                                                          Case Example
                                                          SS- State DEP permit required. Allowed if necessary for stabilization of shore, rehabilitation existing structure, if minimize
                                                          encroachment in waterway. Seawalls, bulkheads, revetments locale landward of MHW, except tieback, slope stability and                      SAMP -14 coastal ACEs
                                                          abutting below MHW. Encourages nonstructural alternative wtwe feasible.                                                                    designatedladopted. 75,000 acres of
                                                          PA- boardwalks, cross-overs regulated. VA- Local Beach Management Plan required if locals permit ORV activity on beach.                    resources protected. No linear data.
                                                          H- natural hedtage and endangered species habitat areas.                                                                                   No results data.
                                                          0- Sand scraping and sand mining regulated.
                                                          LD-Local Conservation Commission permits projects within 100 feet of the I 00-year floodplain or 100 feet of bank of beach,                Other- 8 local ban* beach mgt. plans
                                                          dune. flat, marsh, meadow or swamp. State performance standards for resource areas inchiding coastal beacties, dunes,                      approved. No linearlarea data. No
                                                          barrier beaches, banks.                                                                                                                    results data.
                                                          LP- Local comprehensive plansiland use plans voluntary. Cape God Commission requires local comprehensive plan for all
                                                          activities (traffic, buildings) riot just CZM.                                                                                                                                       4
                                                          SAMP - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) delineated and designated by state cover 75,000 acres.
                                                          OP- Local Beach Management Plans encouraged and required If ORV allowed on beach. MCZMP Barrier Beach Management
                                                          Guklelines as TA to local planning to help communities develop plans for all locally-owned beaches. To qualify for funding
                                                          through DCS, municipalities must have developed an open space and recreation plan for the area.










                                                                                                                            13












            Table 5: Regulatorv and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches. Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                     TYPE OF REGULATION               SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;         				OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                      exceptions; Shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of		Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                      permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.						      	Planning Outcome Data
            State,   SB CZ SS            PA      LD   SO- Setback                       CZ-Control Zone                            SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures				(S) Sufficient 
                                         VA      LP   PA-Pedestrian Access                                         LD- Local Permit Delegation									Case Example
                                         H       S    VA- Vehicular Access                                         LP- Local Planning
                                         0       OP   H-Habitat Areas Protected          O-Other                    S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
            MI       y-2 y-3 y           y       y    Sand Dunes/Bluffs/Shoreline																			DATABASE				
                     FT                  y       n    SB- (1) SOW Dunes Setback Of 100 feet landward from ft crest of the first landward ridge that is not a foredune.					Computerized permit tracking:YES
                     IR                  y       n    (2) Bluffs High Risk Erosion Area Setback landward of 30-year erosion projection along receding bluff-line. In 1992, 15 feet			Permit Outcome Data:
                     E                   y       y    added to setbacks to address severe short-term erosion events. Also expanded to cover non-bluff areas. Small structures				HS: 705 homes (6 years-1969-1995)
                                                      (>3,500 sq. ft. foundation and >5 units) must be moveable If bull between setback and 2 limes setback distance. Larger				SS: 1688 (6 years 1989-1995)
                                                      structures-setback doubled. Exceptions:site too narrow/steep for movable structures. Exceptions- construction an					PA 200-250 projects
                                                      parcels/substandard lot prior to designation if moveable. wade system landward, landward as possible, meets engineering				VA- prohibited along 23% of coast
                                                      standards, etc. Also addition to nonconforming structures it moveable or loot print d/n exceed 25% of foundation.					H-300 miles critical dunes; 250 miles
                                                      CZ- (1) Sand Dunes- Permits required wAn designated critical dune areas. Covers land lying w/in 2 miles of Great Lakes				natural preserves; 310 miles high risk
                                                      OHWM. Also may regulate land wAn 250 feet of critical dune area. Regulates development, silvaculture and recreation affecting			erosion area.
                                                      dune areas/contour change. State requirements: cannot build on slope 25-33% w/o registered plans, >33% w/o special				For HS/SS, no linear data
                                                      exception; silvaculture prohibited; 100 foot setback; if structure wAn 100 feet of dune crest, standards to ensure dune				Some relocation data.
                                                      stability; special use projects regulated (C, 1, MF>3 acres, density> 4 units per acre). Variances-rebuilding of nonconforming		Case Example
                                                      structure Win critical dune area if build prior to act and destroyed by fire/non-erosion forces. Also nonconforming lot prior to
                                                      Acre; made nonconforming due to erosion.																	OP- a) and b) see above
                                                      (2) Bluffs- Permit required Win High Risk Erosion Area which extend landward from OHWM as far as 1,000 feet inland from				(c) no data
                                                      recession and covers all areas w/erosion of I foot or greater per yew over past 15 years. Setback requirements.(see above)
                                                      Allows reconstruction of substantially (non-erosion) damaged structures if moveable, not in zone of imminent danger. If
                                                      completely damaged, new requirements apply.
                                                      (3) Earth change permit for changes to natural cover or topography within 500 feet of a land or stream including the GL.
                                                      SS- must be designed to meet/exceed 20-year storm event for small structures; 50 year storm event for large structures.
                                                      Must be constructed at least 30 feet from erosion zone and landward of zone of imminent danger. Escrow required for
                                                      maintenance of erosion control device In front of large structures.Exception to minimum setback based on engineering.
                                                      PA- regulates beachfront stairs, boardwalks, trails. VA- restrict vehicles along 23% of ft coast.
                                                      H-designated natural preserves, critical dune areas, high erosion areas
                                                      0- nearshore mining. sand scraping and dune reshaping regulated. -
                                                      LD-authorized to zone within 100 fed of OHWM of Grad takes. Optional Local Sand Dune Protection Ordinances based on
                                                      Model Zoning Plan/State requirements for critical dune areas.
                                                      OP- a) Sand Dune Protection and Management Act & b) Shorelands Protection and Management Act, both essentially
                                                      regulatory program with local zoning including designated critical dune areas, high erosion area that meet state requirements.
                                                      c) Sol Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act both a planning and regulatory tool. Plans/educates on need for soll erosion
                                                      control. local implementation. Rock Shore Management- Need Information.
            MS       n     n      y      y       n    Beachfront
                                         y       V    Note:All beaches we artificial and open to the public. No regulation of beaches/dune above MHW. (Coastal Wetlands					DATABASE					
                                         y       n    regulations, but no permit required for SF)																Computerized permit tracking:NO
                                         y       n    SS- permit or consistency certification required for SS. Repairtrebuilding allowed.										Permit Outcome Data:1980-1995
                                                      PA- boardwalk to only beech park.																		HS: none on beach
                                                      VA- no vehicles allowed an the beach.																	SS: 12 permits
                                                      H- bird nesting sites                                                                            							No linear or Area Data
                                                      0- sand scraping and sand mining for beach nourishment regulated.													
                                                      LP-One Voluntary local coastal land use plan adopted,. Voluntary beach/dune management plans are utilized in two counties on			LP- no linear/area outcome data
                                                      Public beaches.																	



                                                                                                                      14
 












              Table     Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes Bluffs and                          ockv Shorelines
                        TYPE OF REGULATION                SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated4ocation; activities regulated;                                    OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                          exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of               Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                          permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                                  Planning Outcome Data
              State SB CZ SS PA                     LD    SB- Setback                         CZ-Control Zone                              SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                         (S) Sufficient
                                            VA      LP    PA-Pedestrian Access                                            LO- Local Peffnit Delegation                                                    Case Example
                                            H       S     VA- Vehicular Access                                            LP- Local Planning
                                            0       OP    H-Habiltat Ar"s Protected            O-Other                    S- Special Area Managernent Plan ISAMP) OP- Other Plan
              NH        y-3 y        y      y       y     Shoirelim                                                                                                                                       DATABASE
                        FT                  n       y     SS-(i) Tidal Buffer Zone extends inland 100 feet from HOTL bordering tidal waters. No structures on beach1dune unless in                        Compulerizzed permit tracldnq@ YES,
                                            y       n     public good. Effective 1993, allows building on relic dunes. E              - rebuidding existing structures, activities in public benefit,     new in 1995. No data entrees yet.
                                            y       y     building on relic dunes. (2) Shoreland development setback of 5 feet from MHW for primary structures; (3) 75 feet setback                       Permit Outcorm Data:
                                                          from coastal waters for septic tanks.                                                                                                           HS/SS: No (6 months from paper flies)
                                                          CZ- (1) Tidal Buffer Zone extends inland 100 feet from HOTL bordering tidal waters. All dredge and fill in wetlands regulated.
                                                          Covers beaches and dune areas. Regulates in-filling of back dunes and building on relic dunes. (2) Shoreland Devekipment                        OP- a) and b) See under Direct Land
                                                          Permits required from OHTL landward 250 feet. Standards for cutting veg., septic & building setbacks. lot sizes and                             Management Tools
                                                          disturbance of terrain. Exmoion - agriculture, forestry, state port authority, special local urbanized area on petition. (3) DES
                                                          Subsurface disposal permits statewide with setbacks from water bodies.
                                                          SS- state permit for SS. No restriction on reconstruction. SS considered in public interest and generally allowed for protection of
                                                          upland structures. Major profect if in dune, tidal wettand or Win 100 feet of HOTL. Minor project is beach replenishment <1 0 cu
                                                          yd or removal rock, gravel, sand <20 cu yd. Minimal impact projects-repair retaining walls,.
                                                          PA- construction of boardwalks and accessways regulated. VA- no
                                                          H- condition of dune and value of habitat a permit consideration. Natural Sites protected but all public.
                                                          0- mining of sand and gravel regulated.
                                                          LD- Local Shorelands ordinances based on state standards. No local delegation of wetlands permits.
                                                          LP-LCPs voluntary and not part of CZMP. Effective 1991, Comprehensive Shorelands Protection
                                                          Act requires local protection ordinances with setbacks based on state standards- See under Regulatory tools.
                                                          OP-a) Hampton Harbor Inlet Management Plan for placement of dredged material on Hampton Beach. See under Direct Land
                                                          Management Tools.
                                                          b) Seabrook BeactVDune Plan- See Under Direct Land Management Tools.
                            I             I      I        RS-same regulations as SB abd CZ above.
              NJ        y-3 y-2 y           y       n     Beachlront                                                                                                                                      DATABASE
                        E                   y       y     Sig- (1) V-zone Setback: residential prohibited. Exog - some beach-related commercial permitted                                                 Computerized permit tracking: YES
                        FT                  y       n     (2) ) Erosion Hazard Areas setback a" Atlantic based on 30 year erosion rate for 1-4 dwelling units, and 60 yr. for larger                      Permit Outcome Data:
                                            y       n     structures. Baseline for setback vanes by site (crest of coastal bluff, dune crest, first line of vegetation. landward edge of 8-11.            HS: No data provided
                                                          elevation). Erosion rate calculated on case-by-case basis. Within EHAs. new development prohibited. Emma                      Single-           SS: -40 (25 years 1970-1995)
                                                          Family and duplex infill and shore protection. (3) All permanent structures must be setback 25 feet from shore protection                            30 Emergency (I I yr 1984-95)
                                                          "ures.                                                                                                                                          Boardwalks: 2 (1994.19N)
                                                          CZ- (1) state DEP permit for all facilities (C, 1, housing >24 units) w/in CZ extending inland to 7n In 1994, SF added as a                     No linear or area data
                                                          regulated activity. In 1980/1990. expanded regulation to include activities from MHW landward 500 feet. Covers SF, C, SS.                       No resource impacted data
                                                          (2) Erosion Hazard Areas covers erosion rate areas and uses setbacks (see above).
                                                          (3) DEP rule limit development permits based on growth, environment, development potential and divided into 14 areas. Barrier
                                                          Wand designated "extension region." For "bamer Island corridort" new/expanded developirrient allowed and no restrictiorts on
                                                          repair, rebuilding, relocation of damaged structures. However, DEP rule prohibits development 6n dunes, overwash areas,
                                                          beaches and coastal bluffs            where no prudent/feasible aftemative.
                                                          SS- allovved by permit in areas where most new development prohibited based on 7 conditions such as WD, public use, protect
                                                          existing structures/infrastructure in developed urban shoreline areas. Nonstructural solutions preferred.
                                                          PA- boardwalks, crossovers regulated. VA- local level restriction.
                                                          H- 15 miles restricted for bird nesting
                                                          0- Dune creation, sand scraping and sand mining regulated.                                                                                   I


                                                                                                                              15











       Table Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beeches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
             TYPE OF REGULATION SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;	OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                              exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of	Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                              permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.									Planning Outcome Data
      State SB CZ SS  PA  LD SO- Setback        CZ-Control Zone       SS-Shorelines Stabillization Structures	(s)Sufficient
                       VA  LP PA-Pedesdrian Access               LD- Local Permit Delegation												Case Example
                       H   S  VA- Vehicular Access              LP- Local Planning 
                       0   OP H-Habit Areas Protected   O-Other			 Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan					LP-151 Local Coastal Land Use Plans
       NJ    y-3 y-2 y y   n  Beachfront (Continued)																		and Beach/Dune management Plans
             E         y   y  LO- stale retains permit jurisdiction.																			approved.  No linear or Area Data
             FT        y   n  LP- Local plans are voluntary under NJCZMP. However, if adopt Local Coastal Land Use Plan or beach Management Plan
                       y   n  must meet state standards, requirements, approval. Some local plans and construction line ordinances seaward of which
                              construction is prohibited
                              OP- a) Coastal Erosion Hazard Management Plan under development. Will coordinate state and coastal municipalities beach
                              erosion control efforts. b) In 1992. State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) adopted. Original State
                              Comprehensive Plane excluded coastal areas. Exclusion removed as part of CAFRA Amendments in 1992. NJCMP and State
                              Planning Commission working together to adopt new such regulations for SDRP for coastal counties and municipalities. State
                              coastal policies will be revised to Incorporate the planning policies and land use criteria in SDRP to provide for statewide
                              planning for the coast. Goal of SDRP is to channel development to preserve important natural resources, encourage
                         I    development where Owe Is existing infrastructure, and minimize adverse impacts of development.
       NY    y y   y   y   y  Oceanfront Shoreline
                     y   n  SS. Within EHAs, prohibits nonmoveable structures and major additions.
             E         y   n  CZ-: Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (EHA) permit required for any activity in a designated erosion hazard area (EHA) and natural
                       y   y  protective feature area based on state standards. Covers Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound and lands adjoining the shores of
                              Lake Erie and Ontario. EHA defined as portion of the coastline that is 1) a natural protective feature (beach, dune, shoal, basin,
                              spill barrier Wand, bluff , wetlands and assoc. natural g) or 2) structural hazard area (40-year erosion areas). Within EHAs,
                              prohibits nonmoveable structures and major additions. Moveable structures permitted if- reasonable/necessary, YA
                              rot Increase erosion. Permits also required to relocate structures and reloction required If structure w/in 10 feet of receding
                              edge.
                              SS- permits dredging, sand by- pass, beach nourishment, new docks and SS. Allows repair/construction WMXK a permit.
                              However, any change or modification (bigger or longer) subject to CEHA regulations.
                              PA- permits commercial boardwalks. No permit required for walkwaystairs for individual property owner use.
                              VA- local permits generally required. Must drive seaward of upper debris on or toe of primary dune, riot an vegetation.
                              N- 50 miles of beachfront bird nesting sites; 200 designated for habitat areas.
                              0- Dune creation, sand scraping, sand mining regulated.
                              LD- Local Erosion Management Plans and regulations cover 20% of beachfront.
                              
                              a) Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans - very broad, deals with all aspects of coastal community.
                              b) Local Coastal Erosion Management Plans- Locals regulation erosion based an state standards.
                             c) Bluffs - No date collected on Great Lakes Shoreline of New York.













                                                                  16











            Table 5: Reaulatorv and Plannina Too       and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches. Dunes, Bluffs and              ockv Shorelines
                      TYPE OF REGULATION               SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                            OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                       exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access, habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of        Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                       permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                           Plannina Outcome Data
            State SB        CZ     ï¿½S     PA      LD   SO- Setback                       CZ-Controll Zone                           SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                      (S) Sufficient
                                          VA      LP   PA-Pedestrian Access                                         LD- Local Perrinit Delegation                                               Case Example
                                          *       S    VA- Vehicular Access                                         LP- Local Planning
                                          *       OP   H411abitat Areas Protected        O-Other                    S- Special Area Manaaernent Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
            NC        y     y      y      y       y    Boachbont                                                                                                                                DATABASE
                      E                   y       y    SO- In Ocean Erodable AECs-Erosion rate setback based on size of structure. >5,000 sq ft setback farthest of: 1) 30 year                 Computerized permit tracking: YES
                      R                   y       n    annual erosion rate; 2) behind the crest of the primary dune; 3) behind landward toe of the frontal dune; 4) 60 feet landward from       Permit and GPS/GIS Systems
                                          y       y    the first line of stable vegetation. ExgWion for lots platted before June 1, 1979 if they cannot meet the 30 times setback; they         Permit Outcorne Data:
                                                       must be back as far as possible and in no case closer than 60 feet landward of first line of vegetation). For structures greater         Oceanfront Permits 1979-1995
                                                       than 5,000 sq. feet, setback 60 year annual erosion rate or 120 feet from mean vegetation lines.                                         Major: 2489
                                                       CZ- CAMA permit program in designated areas of environmental concern (AECs). State permit for major developments (.20                    General: 11,222
                                                       acres/ 60,000 sq. ft.) w1in AECs. Local permits for minor developments (SF) within AECs. Development must conform with                   Minor 2,405
                                                       state standards for each category of AEC and local land use plans for each AEC. Also General permits for routine major                   HS demolished: 174
                                                       developnent projects such as private piers, etc.                                                                                         HS relocated: 76
                                                          Ocean hazard areas on barrier islands, beaches, frontal duries, and inlet lands vulnerable to erosion consist of 4 types of           SS:3
                                                       AECs: 1) ocean erodible area, 2) high-hazard flood area, 3) inlet hazard area and 4) unvegetated beach area.                             Violations: 193 (19WI 996)
                                                          Ocean erodible AEC areas extend from mean low water line to a variable distance inland depending on erosion in the vicinity
                                                       varying from 145 feet to 700 feet. Within this area, all development must be located landward of an erosion setback line based           No linear data, no data by resource
                                                       on the size of the structure. (see above)                                                                                                area (beach, dune), not data by type of
                                                       SS- Effective 1985, no new erosion control devices designed to harderi/stabilize beach alWied. Temporary sand bags and                   activity.
                                                       Beach nourishment allowed. Repairs to existing SS do not require permits, however repMcernent requires CAMA permit.
                                                       EXgeoffl emergency DOT SS to protect historic sites, groin at N. end of pea island to protect bridge foundation across                   LP- 70 municipalities120 counties with
                                                       Oregon Inlet-the only road access to the barrier island. CRC policy preference for beach nourishment and relocation of                   approved land use plans. No results
                                                       structures. PA- structural accessways require permits. VA- local level restrictions. H- 100 miles of undisturbed areas.                  data.
                                                       0- Dune creation, sand scraping, dune reshaping regulated.                                                                               OP- See under Regulatory Tools
                                                       LD- Mandatory local planning in 20 coastal countiesJ70 municipalities. Local permits are needed for minor developtrients within
                                                       AECs. (see above) Effective 1993, all coastal counties required to have hazard mitigation element of land use #An
                                                       w/enforceable policies an post-storm rebuilding.
                                                       LP - Mandatory beat land use plans with hazard mitigation element required effective. 1983.
                                                       OP - a) State Beach Management/Shoreline Erosion Response Plan with policies, designate ocean and Inlet hazard areas-
                                                       Implemented through regulation- See under Regulatory Tools. b) Inlet Management Plans- same as above
            NM        y-3 y-3 y           n       n    Shoreline SO- Setbacks within Shoreline APC: 0-35 feet no construcbon; 35-75 feet no structures that obstruct visual                     DATABASE
                      FT                  n       n    openness; 75-100 feet SF  ' structures only.                                                                                             Computerized permit tracking: ?
                                          y       y    CZ- coastal permit program. Activities regulated w1in 4 APCs (shoreline, lagoons reef, wetlandstmangroves, portsfindustrial)             Permit Outcome Data:
                                          y       n    and major sitings Win commonwealth. Shoreline APC extends 150 feet inland of MHW mark. - Covers ocean shoreline                          No data provided by CNMI (1)
                                                       beaches and rocky headlands. not top of seacliffs. Setbacks (see above) . Permit standards. Permit criteria: WD, compatible
                                                       uses, SF wrin existing residential area, safe location/resources protected, erosion controlled. Priority uses- public recreation of      SAMP- no data (1)
                                                       beaches, compatible WD uses, preservation. Moderate pnority-agriculturw Low                - C, MF. mining/taking sand.
                                                       Unacceptable- new C, I non-rec., SF, waste disposal. Executive Order 15 established Territory-wide goals, policies, and priority
                                                       land uses implemented through regulation        Lagoon and Reef APC extends from MHW seaward to outer slope of barrier or
                                                       reef friinge. High priority uses include prevention of beach erosion, conservation, public recreation, habitat preservation, WD
                                                       projects. Lowest priority-dredging1filling. Unacceptable include taking of coraK etc. Exem            only outside APCs.
                                                                   it public, regional, national interest, emergency repairs, mitigation. (2) Earth moving perm ft Wand-wide for
                                                       erosion/sediment prevention. (3) Submerged Lands ficenselLease                                      I
          Fst,                                         SS- Allowed, but require CRM permit. Also covered under submerged land lipense/lease for petroleum/mirieral extraction. N-
                                                       no development in critical habitat areas- beaches, pristine marine areas. Offshore islands designated as wildlife sanctuaries-
                                                       turtle nesting sites. Cl- onshore and near shore sand mining regulated. Prohibits removal from public beaches. SAMP- Siapan
                                                     I Lagoon Use Management Plan.

                                                                                                                        17












       Table 5: Regulatorv and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures an Beaches. Dunes, Bluffs an
            TYPE OF REGULATION  SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;
                                exception; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of
                                Permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.
       State SB CZ  SS  PA   LD SB- Setback         CZ-Central Zone           SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures
                        VA   LP PA-Pedestrian Access               LD- Local Permit Delegation
                        H    S  VA- Vehicular Access               LP- Local Planning
                        0    OP H- Habitat Areas Protected O-Other      S- Special Arm Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
       OR   y-2 y-3 y-3 y    y  Beachfront
            R           y    y  SB-(1)Under OIP Interpretation, no new buildings in "beach zone." (2) LUPA Beach/Dune Goal 18-prohibits R.C.I buildings
                        y    n  on beaches, active foredunes, other conditionally stable foredunes subject to ocean. undercutting and wave overtopping, and
                        y    y  intertidal areas (deflation plains)subject to ocean flooding. (V-zone). Exceptiioons-in-filling developed areas where protection
                                provided. On older-stabilized dunes, development allowed w/ vegetation retenttion and stablization standards.
                                CZ- (1) OIP permit for any improvement w/in ocean shore recreation area- land lying between extreme low tide and line of
                                vegetation. No new buildings (de facto setback). Permits for stairs, pipelines, sand alteration, armoring. (2) DSL Removal-Fill
                                permit for >50 cu yds w/in area seaward of highest measured tide/vegetation line.  Covers mainly riprap/seaswalls.  Exemptions-
                                no permit required for revegetation/landscaping since considered beneficial use. (3) Oregon Land Use Planning Act sets
                                enforceable statewide planning goals and guidelines which require federal/state/local consistency. Includes coastal goals to
                                protect beaches and dunes. (see Goal 18 under setback above). Goals 5 and 19 require resource protection. Goal 7 requires
                                safeguards before development in known hazard areas. Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands applies at least I W feet landward of ocean
                                shore and further in to cover significant coastal resources/hazard areas. Goals apply to both state and local permits.
                                SS- (1) OIP permit and (2) DSL Removal-Fill permit and 3) Land Use planning Act goals for new beach erosion control devices.
                                (see above). Must build as far landward as possible above MSL to prevent encroachment. All construction, maintenance and
                                reconstruction of SS. Prohibits erosion repair on lots where no physical improvements (i.e., buildings, roads, water lines and
                                sewer lines) on oceanfront lots plaited before 1977. Allows emergency permit for a new improvement, dike, revetment, or for
                                repair, replacement or restoration of an existing, or authorized Improvement where property or property boundaries are in
                                imminent peril of being destroyed or damaged by actions of the Pacific Ocean or the waters of any bay. Goal 17 promotes
                                nonstructural solutions to erosion problems and calls for erosion stabilization structures to be designed to minimize adverse
                                impacts.
                                PA/VA-Constructin of beachfront boardwalks or elvated walkways over dunes requirements and access sidewalks,
					  structures regulated through OIP permit.  Restricted on certain beaches/dunes based on bird/endangered species habitat.
					  H-bird/endanagered species habitat.  Vehicles prohibited on 70% of coastline.
					  O-Sand granding allowed but regulated and dune management pans required.
					  LD-mandatory Local comprehensive Plans, land use controls and zoning ordinances implement statewide goals. All
					  development landward of state jurisdiction requires a local permit.  Covers several private stabilized dune areas.
					  LP-Local Comprehensive Plans required with state acknowledgment. Includes land use controls and zoning to address
					  beach/dune/rocky shore/bluff management. Must be consistent with State Planning Goals and Guidelines.
					  OP-Territorial Sea Management Plan adopted 1994 includes a Rocky Shore Strategy.
					  Bluffs-No statewide setbacks, but siting, design and landscaping guidelines fir construction under Goal 7 Areas Subject to
					  Natural Disasters and Hazards.  Under Goal 17, areas within 100 feet of ocean and areas of geologic instability and coastal
					  headlands subject to management.  Under Goal 18, only priorities developed before 1977 are eligible for shoreline stabilization.
					  Rocky Shores-most under state ownership and subject to Territoral Sea Management Plan and Rocky Shore Stategy.




OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
Database, Permit Outcome Data and
Planning Outcome Data

(S) Sufficient
Case Example


DATABASE
Beachfront
Computerized permit tracking: YES
Permit Outcome Data:
PDR OIP Permits (1967-1995)
HS:1
SS:202
Other:64
Boardwalk: 12

DSL R/F Permits (1977-1995)
HS: 0
SS: 238
Other: 27

LUPA
Local Permits-no data on local permits

NO linear data, no data on resources 
affected


LP-no statewide data on results.
OP-10 haabitat refuges (4% of rocky
shoore; 7 research reserves (7%);8
marine gardens(10%); 29 marine
shores (79%)(S)

Case Examples

Bluffs: Case Example
Rocky Shores: Case Example and see
above OP.






                                                                      18
 










             Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on..Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                      TYPE OF REGULATION                 SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: se4backs; distance inland regulatedflocation; activities regulated;                                OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                         exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of            Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                         permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                               Plannina Outcome Data
                                    SS J.PA I      LD    SO. Setback                        CZ-Control Zone                             SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                        IS) Sufficient
                                          VA       LP    PA-Pedestrian Access                                           LD- Local Peffnit Delegation                                                  Case Example
                                          H        S     VA- Vehicular Access                                           LP- Local Planning
          I-Swe       SB     CZ           0        OP    H4WMW Areas Protected              O-Olther                    S- Special Area Mam,-'w.1iA11 mft,-f@V'l
             PA       n-     n-     y     n        y     Beachbont(O)                                                                                                                                 DATABASE
                      B      B            n        y     No regulatory Program or and Local Plans for beaches/Dunes. Only major beach are is in public ownership.                                     Beachhont
                      y-     y-           y        y     Presque Isle Peninsula State Park- See under Direct Land Management Tools                                                                    Computerized permit tracking: NA
                      BL     BL           n        n     Bluff4ront(BL)                                                                                                                               Permit Outcome Data: NA
                                                         SO - Under Bluff Recession and Setback Act, setback based on rate of recession times; the life span of the structures which for              No regulatory program for
                                                         residential is 50% years, commercial is 75 years and industrial is 100 years. Variances for new developmerd on lots subdivided               beachesidunes. State park
                                                         prior to 1900 if inadequate depth to setback. Substantial improvements prohibited.                                                           covers 7 miles-See under Direct Land
                                                         CZ - Local government planning and zoning applies within and landward of setback.                                                            Management.
                                                         SS- New SS allowed by permit from MHW lakeward. Submerged lands lease agreement required. Groins allowed 50 feet from                        Bluff4ront
                                                         waters edge. Program protects bluff from recession/erosion rather than minimizing beach erosion. No regulation over SS built                 LP- 8 approved plans with setbacks
                                                         above MHW line.                                                                                                                              covers 50 miles (94% of bluff-front)
                                                         H - 3.5 miles of bluff-front as David N. Roderick Wildlife Reserve.                                                                          (S)
                                                         LD - State delegates administration of Bluff Recession and Setback Act. LP - Bluff Recession and Setback Act sets state
                                                         regulations a" bluffs and requires local implementation through plans and ordinances. Bluff recession hazard areas
                                                         designated by state. Minimum setback of 50 feet. Setback distance based on type of use times life span of structure.
                                                         S - Presque Isle State Park
             PR       y-3 y-3 y           y        n     Shoreline                                                                                                                                    DATABASE
                      FT                  IF       n     SO- (1) 6 meter public ROW on which no structures can be bulk ((Spanish Water Law); (2) 20 meter public accessway                            Computerized permit tracking: NO,
                                          y        y     Separation Zone setback for construction and subdivision and no permanent structures wrin 30 meters of separation zone                       developing GIS database.
                                          y        n     results in 50 meter setback from Territorial Maritime Zone; (3) 2.5 times height of building setback for all structures erected wrin
                                                         400 meters of TMZ to prevent shadows on beach. Exemplign - urban zone lots approved prior to regulation, if structures on one                Permit Outcome Data:
                                                         or both skies se tback less, if WD.                                                                                                          I Year (July 1995-June 1996)
                                                         CZ- Commonweafth-Wide Land Use Policies and Zoning Districts.                                                                                HS: see below
                                                         (1) Permits from RPA based on PB regulations for activities 1000 meters inland from shoreline or farther to include important                Resid.-I 20 Tourist- 24 Public 47
                                                         natural resources. Also includes all offshore islands. 14 Zoning Districts. In District CR -Conservation of Resources and CRR-               Rec- 41 Comm 34
                                                         Conservation and Restoration of resources, and PR- Resource Preservation, no subdivisions.                        in CR District for         AcW4 in Maritime Zone- 82
                                                         tourist-related recreation If in public interest/natural environment not affected. In District PP-Pubfic beaches, subdivision and            Marine Sports Event- 143
                                                         developed allowed for hoteltvacation facilities, tourist villas, restaurants, recreation, wharvestdocks, etc.                                Total- 491
                                                         (2) Flood Areas Permits from RPA based on P8 regulations for activities in Floodprone zones. In Zone I (floodways)                           SS: unknown
                                                         development, major renovations prohibited. Exceptior"ixisting structures cannot be expanded unless protected. Zone I M(v-                    No linear data.
                                                         Zone) and Zone 2 (low areas) allows new development and modifications to existing subject to desigrilbuilding requWanents.                   No data by resource type
                                                         Also relocation program in coastal high hazard flood areas.                                                                                  Coo" Flood Hazard relocation- 1300
                                                         (3) in 1992, Maritime Control Zone and DNR Authorizations and Concessions over nonconforming uses in the maritime zone-                      families relocated.
                                                         which includes territorial waters, submerged lands, inland to reaches of low lands beneath by ebb/flow of tides and
                                                         mapped by DNR.                                                                                                                               SP- no data on zones, acres, etc,
                                                         SS-DNR permit required for SS. Few permitted. No policies. Relies on USACE standards.                                                        SAMPS
                                                         PA- No permits for boardwalks. But restriction on public access in some Zoning Districts. Also permits for uses in recreational              a) 20 NRs designated- am under DLM
                                                         areas and fees for use of recreational areas/facilities. Includes foot paths, trails, observation1watch towers. e.g., in Districts CCR       b) 7 SPAs designated- see under DLM
                                                         and PR, access controlled to protect natural resources.                                                                                      c) no outoorne date
                                                         VA- No cross-country vehicles in or adjacent tp bathing beaches. Vehicular restrictions in some Zoning Districts.
                                                         N- Natural Reserves and Special Planning areas, endangered species habitat protected, beaches on certain islands protected.
                                                         0- sand, gravel and stone extraction regulated, and removal of sand from sand dunes requires permit approval,
                                                         SAMP- a) Natural Reserves% b) Special Planning Area& c) Island of Culebra Plan


                                                                                                                           19










      Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and OUtcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Stuctures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs, and Rocky Shorelines
          TYPE OF REGULATION SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;
                            exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of
                            permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.
      RI  y-4 y   y  y   n  Shoreline- Beeches, Dunes, Bluffs, Rocky Shores
          FT         y   n  SB-(1) 50 feet from inland boundary of coastal feature or 25 feet inland of edge of Coastal  Buffer Zone up to 200 feet.
          E          y   y  Exceptions: W-D activities; minor modifications or restoration of structures conforming to standards.
          R          y   n  (2) Critical Erosion Area Setback in areas receding >2 ft. per year, 30 X annual erosion rate >4 units; 60 x annual erosion for C,
                            1, DU>4 units. Setback measured from landward edge of foredune zone defined as 25 feet landward of dune crest.
                            (3) Dunes construction setback line on 3 barrier beaches. No building seaward of line based on utilities/wall of existing
                            development. Amended 1995- see above.
                            (4) Construction Prohibition Areas- No new construction an sand dunes; beach face; undeveloped barrier beaches. Exception-
					beach/dune stabilization, public access, sanitary or recreation facilities, protect public welfare.
					CZ-State CRMC permit (Assent)for activities inland 200 feet from a "coastal feature" which includes a) beaches/dunes; b)
					barrier beaches; c)coastal wetlands; d)coastal bluffs, cliffs, banks; e)rocky shore; f)manmade shoreline. Also regulates 7
					categories of activities inland of shoreline features: 1) power-generating plant; 2)petroleum storage; 3) chemical/petroleum
					processing; 4)mineral extraction; 5)sewage treatment; 6)solid waste disposal; 7)desalination plants.
					CRMC permits tied to 1)Zoning of Uses adjacent to State Water Classification Areas; 2) Coastal Shoreline Features protection
					and 3)regulated activities.  For Coastal Beaches and Dunes, construction on beaches adjacent to Type 1 and 2 waters and
					undeveloped dunes is prohibited.  Exception-beach protection, restoration, renourishment, some SS. On Dunes, setbacks (see
					above).  Alteration of foredunes adjacent to type 1 and 2 waters prohibited except non-structural protection/restoration,
					accessways to beach.  Alteration adjacent to type 3-6 waters permitted if designated priority use, alternative considered, etc.
					 	For all Barrier Beaches, new infrastructure prohibited. for undeveloped barrier beaches; construction/alteration prohibited.
					Only nourishment, dune stabilization, natural features protection.  On developed barrier islands, new construction prohibited on
					barriers on which only roads, utility lines, infrastructure present as of 1965.  On moderately developed barrier beaches, new
					development prohibited.  Exceptions-restoration/preservation; existing infrastructure; and existing recreation may be
					maintained/expanded/rebuilt if destroyed.
					SS-regulated. Nonstructural measures preferred.  If SS proposeed, must exhaust alternatives including relocation of structure
					and nonstructural measures. Prohibit new SS on all barriers in type 1 waters.  Limit use of riprap to protect septic
					systems/ancillary structures.  If SS permitted, must demonstrate that erosion hazard exists and SS will control; nonstructural SS
					does not work; no reasonable alternatives, will not increase erosion, long-term solution and maintenance program/financial
					commitment.  Repair/reconstruction >50% damaged requires new permit.
					PA-Guidelines for dune walk-over structures. Width 4 feet.  May include small deck/view platform limited to 100 sq. ft. Not permit
					required of guidelines met.
					VA-A. Coastal Beaches and Dunes: 1)vehicles prohibited on dunes except on trails marked expressly for vehicular use; 2)
					vehicular use of beaches (where not otherwise prohibited by private/public management programs) required DEM Use Permit
					through DEM Division of Enforcement.  Vehicles shall not be operated across protected (lifeguard)swimming beaches during
					protection period.  B.Barrier Beaches-Prohibit: 1)vehicle access Salt Ponds; 2) vehichles in
					vegetated areas anywhere on barrier.
					C.  Dunes (1995-Prohibit:1) vehicles on dunes within 75ft of dune crest except oon marked trails; 2)alteration of foredune
					zone adjacent to Type 1 and 2 waters, except for protection/restoration, not hard structures.  D. Transportation policy- Section
					550.0-2(E)(2) and (3) in reviewing transportation facilities shall address impacts on natural environment and habitat; and impacts
					on scenic, sensitive, productive and/or unique coastal natural features and areas such as wetlands, beaches, cliffs and bluffs.
					SAMP-a)Salt Pond Regions SAMP: Ninegret to Point Judith Ponds
					b)Pawcatuck River Estuary and Little Narragansett Bay SAMP
					OP-a) Harbor Management Plans. 8 Plans, but not yet adopted as part of RICRMP.
					LP-State Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1994 which requires local planning and regulation, but not part of RICZMP.
					H-Designated APRs protect habitat.  Designated Conservation and Management Areas cover 9 barrier beach/dune areas where
					CRC permits protects areas. DEM Fish and Wildlife review CRC permits for habitat protection areas.
					O- neashore and onshore sand mining, sand dune alterations, dune revegetation regulated.






OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY 
Database, Permit Outcome Data and
Planning Outcome Data

DATABASE
Computerized permit tracking: YES
Began in 1987, upgraded and input
permit data back to 1971

Permit Outcome Data:
Tier 1 - 200 ft. landward of C Feature
14 1/2 yrs (1971-1996)
HS: See below
DU-3950
C/l: 539
SS: 1066
Nonstructural SS 238
No linear data
No resource area data


SAMP - 2 Plans adopted affecting
beaches/dunes. No data on Results
                        




                                                             20
 










            Table 5: Reaulatorv and Planning T        and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and            ocky Shorelines
                     TYPE OF REGULATION               SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                          OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                      exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of      Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                         mit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                         Planning Outcome Data

                                        VA      LP    PA-Peftstrian Access                                        LD- Local Permilt Delegation                                               Case Example
                                        H       S     VA- Vehicular Access                                        LP- Local Planning
                                        0       OP    H-14ab" Areas Protected           0-0ther                   S- Special Area Manc-r.        Ar@            11lIIIIfs%ffs717710r-
            state                       PA      LD    SB- Setback                       CZ-Controll Zone                          SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                     (S) Sufficient




            SC       y     y     y      y       n     Beachhont                                                                                                                              DATABASE
                     R                  y       y     SS- Setback from MHW to crest of primary oceanfront sand dune. No new/reconstruction gxQW swimming pools seaward of                    Computerized permit tracking: YES.
                     E                  y       n     baseline.                                                                                                                              beginning in late I 98M
                                        y       y     CZ- SCCMA establishes state coastal policies used in regulatory decisions and Local beach management planning.                         Permit Outcome Data:
                                                      Regulates new/reconstruction wrin 40-year erosion zone. Prohibits destruction of beach/dune vegetation ExQWion                         8 Years (11988-1995)
                                                      If no feasible afternative. Structures permitted Win 40-yr zone: 1) structures less than 5000 sq ft heated space; 2) and located       HS:35
                                                      as landward as possible; 3) no erosion control as part of building; 4) not built on primary dune. If vegetation damaged, mitigation    19774987
                                                      required.              swimming pools, other activities to avoid takings cases. No permits required for: hunting, fishing,             SS:307
                                                      research. walkways over sand dunes which follow established guidefines. Sand bags, sand scraping, and minor beach                      1988-1995
                                                      nourishment are also exceptions allowable under "emergency orders" and within established guidelinies.        Since 1990,              SS: 0- except exempt areas
                                                      restricts repair or rebuilding of beachfront structures destroyed beyond repair >66 213% of structure based on point system for        No firwar data
                                                      building comporients left intact. Exemptions include habitable structures and pools damaged Ins than 66 2/3% may be                    No data on resources affected
                                                      repaired. There are no relocation provisions for structures in erosion-prone areas. Although state policy encourages retreat, no       Case Example
                                                      state program. Procedures for requiring property owner to remove structure that is permanently located on the active beach,
                                                      as a result of erosion and shoreline change. .                                                                                         LP- 15 of IS coastal communities with
                                                      SS- Restricts new shorelir* stabilization structures since 1988. No new erosion control structure or device ahowed a"                  adopted beach Mgt. Plans. No
                                                      oceanfront beaches and sand dunes in state jurisdictional boundaries, oTW structure to protect public highways which existed           statewide finear or area data.
                                                      on June 25,1990-        Restricts reconstruction of shoreline stabilization structures since 1990. Between 6/90-6W structures          OP- no results data
                                                      damaged> 80% above grade cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Between 6195 - 6/2005 structures damaged > 66 2/3% above grade                 Case Example
                                                      cannot be repaired or rebuilt. After 6/2005 structures damaged >50% above grade cannot be repaired or rebuilt. Sand bags,
                                                      sand scraping, and nourishment are also exceptions allowable within established guidelines under "emergency orders".
                                                      PA- Construction of walkways over sand dunes are allowed as an exception if they follow guidelines under R. 39-13(0)
                                                      including maximum width of 6 feet and other criteria. Otherwise permit required for handicapped and access wkler than
                                                      guidefirms. Beachfront Boardwalk Permits 1988-1995:12
                                                      VA- Restrictions for vehicular traffic include emergency vehicle access; construction/repair of drives and parking lots.
                                                      Emergency Vehicular access permits 1988-1995: 13
                                                      H- Restrictions on beach nourishment during sea turtle nesting season. Restriction on sand fencing so as not to impede turtle
                                                      nesting. Restrictiori on beach nourishment during sea turtle nesting season affect all 181 miles of beach.
                                                      0- regulatiom covers fences, lighting. trash receptacles, sidewalks, signs; utility knes; drainage structures, golf courses; new
                                                      fishing piers, sand scraping, sand bags,
                                                      LD- Since 1990, locals required with strategy for 40-year retreat and setbacks. -However. state did not delegate permitting
                                                      authority.
                                                      LP-Locall Beach Management Plans required under 1990 Amendments including regulatory
                                                      setbacks and 40-year retreat plan.
                                                      OP- in 1992, State Beachfront Management Plan adopted to address erosion, beach nourishment and other management
                                                      issues. State BMP covers entire beachfront of 181 mile and landward to cover frontal duries.











                                                                                                                     21











              Table 5: Regulatorv and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                      TYPE OF REGULATION              SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulated/location; activities regulated;                              OUTCOME DATA & SUFFICIENCY
                                                      exceptions; shoreline stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations. Local delegation of          Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                      permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                             Planning Outcome Data
              State   SB    CZ      SS     PA    LD   SB- Setback                       CZ-Control Zone                          SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                          (S) Sufficient
                                           VA    LP   PA-Pedestrian Access                                        LD- Local Permit Delegation                                                    Case Example
                                           H     S    VA- Vehicular Access                                        LP- Local Planning
                                           0     OP   H- Habitat Areas Protected        O-Other                   S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
              VI      y     y-2     y      n     n    SB- Open Shore Act prohibits obstructions win 50 test of MLT, or inland boundary of seaward boundary of natural barrier                    DATABASE
                      FT                   n     n    whichever is shortest.																				 Computerized permit tracking: NO
                      R                    y     y    CZ- Coastal Land and Water Use Plan- sets Use Districts consistent with policies in VICZM Act.                                             Permit Outcome Data:
                                           y     n    A) Coastal Zone Permit for major and minor permits w/in 1st tier whose landward boundary is mapped and based on features                   10/92-3/95
                                                      such as roads, landmarks, property fines, USGS contour lines, and uniform distance from MLT. Also covers all offshore islands              Permits Approved
                                                      and cap. Major permits cover activities on offshore islands and the 1st tier. Exception- if landward of MHT and minor activity             Major: 365
                                                      which include: a) subdivision SF, Duplex; 2) improvements >$52,000; c) dev. less than %56,000; d) mineral extraction                       Minor: 374
                                                      >$17,000; e) emergency permits; f) maintenance/repair of permitted facility.                                                               HS: unk
                                                      B) CZ Permit Incorporates 5 other state permits in the 1st tier: 1) Earth Change; 2) Submerged lands; 4) Use Permits under                 SS: unk
                                                      Zoning Law; and 5) Building, plumbing and electric permits. 2nd tier landward boundary includes all watersheds, adjacent areas             No linear data
                                                      and inland portions of 3 main islands. Permits include 1) earth Moving; and 2) Use Permits under Zoning Law.                               No data on resources affected
                                                      SS CZ Permit required for new SS. Reconstruction of SS allowed w/o permit and emergency repairs. Prohibited w/in 50 ft open                No statewide data on use districts
                                                      shore setback. Siting policies to minimize adverse impacts.                                                                                SAMP- 18 APC Mgt. Plans adopted.
                                                      H- yes, but data limited on areas. 18 APCs designated, 13 cover recreational beaches, 9 cover sea turtle nesting beaches, 13               13 recreational beaches; 9 sea turtle
                                                      cover CBRA designated areas, 6 cover shore protection structure areas.                                                                     nesting beaches; 13 CBRA areas; 6
                                                      0- offshore and neashore dredging and sand and gravel mining regulated.                                                                    shoreline protection structure areas.
                                                      SAMP-APC Management Plans adopted by Legislature in 1994.														 No statewide data on outcomes.
																																 No linear/area data.
              VA      y     y      y       y     y    SB- 30 yr. annual erosion rate or 20 time local recession rate for barrier Islands. No permanent development/alteration of coastal         DATABASE
                      E                    y     y    primary sand dunes. Exceptions- public interest activities. Existing structures damaged within 20-year setback may not be                  Computerized permit tracking: YES
                                           y     y    rebuilt??                                                                                                                                  but just now incorporating permit data
                                           y     y    CZ- Permits on Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and beaches. Setbacks required effective 1990 (See above). Permit required of                    into database.
                                                      certain uses -Need information on activities/uses regulated, and exemptions.                                                               Permit Outcome Data:
                                                      SS- Effective 1990, new shoreline erosion protection structures prohibited under any circumstances. Prior to 1990, discouraged             HS: no linear/area data
                                                      shoreline modifications in preference to nonstructural solutions. Exception- portions of Virginia Beach where private upland               SS: no linear/area data
                                                      structures in imminent danger from erosion, bulkheads/erosion control devices and normal maintenance allowed.                              Less than 10 permits per yr. for
                                                      PA- no boardwalks, but dune cross-overs and nature trails regulated.                                                                       activities in beach and dune area.
                                                      VA- no vehicles allowed in specific areas of state parks.
                                                      H- 6 miles of sea turtle nesting sites protected.                                                                                          LP- 3 counties w/approved land use
                                                      0- dune creation/revegetation and sand mining regulated.                                                                                   plans, setbacks. No linear or Area
                                                      LD- designated counties/cities authorized to adopt coastal primary dune ordinances and issue local permits.                                Data.
                                                      LP- Voluntary and state provides model ordinances for local adoption/implementation.                                                       SAMP- No outcome data
                                                      SAMP- Northhampton County Sustainable Development Initiative began in 1991, enforceable policies for habitat protection and                OP- a) no outcome data b) na
                                                      eco-tourism. Covers 209 square miles.
                                                      OP-a) Shoreline Erosion Control Act provides TA to property owners, policy on dredge material for beach nourishment, and
                                                      Board on conservation and development of public beaches.
                                                      b) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan establishes standards/regulations for local erosion and sediment control regulations.
                                                      Mandatory, but not part of approved CZMP.








                                                                                                                     22
 









             Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches, Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                      TYPE OF REGULATION                SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance inland regulatedflocation; activities regulated;                              OUTCOME DATA a SUFFICIENCY
                                                        exceptions., Shoreline Stabilization regulations-, regulation of access', habitats regulated'. other regulations. Local deftation of       Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                                        permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.                                             Planning 0         D Dab
             State    SB     CZ     SS    PA     LD     SB- Setback                        CZ-Conlrol Zone                            SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures                       (S) Sufficient
                                          VA     LP     PA-14destrian Access                                          1-13- Local Pennit Delegation                                                Case Example
                                          H      S      VA- Vehicular Access                                          LP- Local Planning
                                          0      OP I   H4iabitnt Areas Protected          043ther                   S- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) OP- Other Plan
             WA       y      y      y     n      y      S11- No slaite setback, but local regulations may contain setbacks                                                                         DATABASE
                                          y      y      CZ- Shoreline substantial development permit w/in 200 feet of shore. See under LD.                                                         Computerized permit tracking: NO for
                                          n      n      SS- Hydraulic Project Approval required for construction in coastal waters including SS. Groins are no longer allowed and no               local permits, YES for State Hydraulic
                                          y      n      new jetties have been built since 1985.                                                                                                    Projects
                                                        VA- restrictions on beach driving.                                                                                                         Permit Outcome Data:
                                                        0- primary dune grading prohibited at local level or restricted. Near shore sand mining regulated locally.                                 HS: no data
                                                        LD- Total local permit delegation subject to state review. Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) issue permits. Permits required for            SS: No data, database not coded for
                                                        substantial development (cost>$2500 or interferes w/normal public use of waters/shores of state. Exception need information.               Ss
                                                        LP- Mandatory Local Shoreline Master Program with state certified plans and regulations.                                                   LP- all 5 oceanfront local governments
                                                                                                                                                                                                   have approved Shoreline Master
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Programs. No linear or area data

             W1       y      y      y     n-     y      SB- 75 ft. setback from OMHW for all buildings and structures, exog piers, boat hoists, boathouses.                                        DATABASE
                                          y      n      CZ- State regulates development within 100 feet of OHWM. Setback (see above).                                                              Computerized permit tracking: YES for
                                          y      y      SS- permit required for SS in navigable waters.                                                                                            DNR, but no for CZM Federal
                                          y      y      PA- do riot regulate boardwalks, shoreline accessways.                                                                                     consistency
                                                        VA- restricts vehicles w/in navigable waters.                                                                                              Permit Outcome Data:
                                                        H- 300 areas statewide                                                                                                                     HS: No data (local permits)
                                                        0- near shore sand mining regulated                                                                                                        SS  *6422 (1949-1995)
                                                        LD- Locals administer state required setback through shoreland zoning ordinances.                                                          No linear or area data
                                                        SAMP- Carol Beach protects unique coastal area dunes, ridges, swales covers both beach and weliand areas.                                  SAMP- 4.5-5 miles of shoreline. No
                                                        OP-3 Year Harbor Plan required for State Harbor Assistance Money                                                                           other outcome data
                                                                                                                                                                                                   OP- No outcome data
                                       TPA
                                          VA
                                          H
                                          0]










                                                                                                                          23











            Table 5: Regulatory and Planning Tools and Outcome Data Associated with Regulating Construction & Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Beaches,Dunes, Bluffs and Rocky Shorelines
                   TYPE OF REGULATION           SUMMARY OF TOOLS EMPLOYED Key provisions: setbacks; distance Inland regulated/location; activities regulated;				OUTCOME DATA $ SUFFICIENCY
                                                exceptions; shorefine stabilization regulations; regulation of access; habitats regulated; other regulations.  Local delegation of	Database, Permit Outcome Data and
                                              permit responsibilities, voluntary or mandatory local plans required, other enforceable plans.							Planning Outcome Data
        State      SB CZ SS         PA    LD    SB- Setback                  CZ-Control Zone                      SS- Shoreline Stabilization Structures					(s) Sufficient 
                                    VA    LP    PA-Pedestrian Access                                LD- Local Permit Delegation									Case Example
                                    H     S     VA- Vehicular Access           O-other              LP- Local Planning
                                    0     OP    H-Haitat Areas Protected                 S- Special Area Management Plan(SAMP) OP- Other Plan
        Total      24    27    28   22    20    Dominant Features of Regulatory and Planning Tools
         Yes                        22    18    88-23
                                    28    12    CZ- 27
                                    25    14    Combo SB/CZ-23
                                                SS-22
                                                PA- 22
                                                VA- 22
                                                H-28
                                                0-26
                                                LD- 20
                                                LP-18
                                                S- 12
                                                OP- 14

                                                Mandatory Delegated Local Permit program- 20 states: AK CA, CT, FL, GU, HI, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NH, NY, NC, OR,
                                                PA (bluffs only), PR, VA, WA, WI
                                                Mandatory Local Planning- 10 states - AK, CA, FL, HI, ME, MD, NJ, OR, SC, WA
                                                Voluntary Local Planning- 9 states- AL, CT, LA, MA, MS, NH, NJ, VA, PA (bluff only)
                                                State Beach Management Plan 4 states: FL, MD, NC, SC
                                                State-Level Inlet Management Plan: 3 dates- FL, NH, NC, RI
                                                SAMPS- 12
                                                Resource Protection Areas: AK ME, MA, NY, NM, OR, PR, V1, V1, HI, RI, WI
                                                Erosion Control Areas:: CA, LA, MI, VA
                                                Other Plans: 4 states - Rec. & Water Use Plan (GU); Local Bluff protection plans (CA); Beneficial use of dredging ( FL, LA)

                                                Outcome Data: Only 4 special planning programs with outcome data that includes linear or area data: CA TDC Program; FL
                                                Beach/Dune Restoration Program; GU Recreation and Water Use Mgt. Plans; and OR Rocky Shore Strategy.

















                                                                                                       24













            KEY
            y- yes, tool employed n- no, tool riot employed
            1313- Setback required
            CZ- Coastal construction control zone, also referred to in some states as coastal construction control line (CCCL)
            ILD- Local Delegation
            A- Access restricted through regulation of a) pedestrian boardwalk or dunes-crossover; or b) vehicular traffic
            H- Habitat area restrictions
            SS- shoreline stabilization structures (seawalls, riprap, revetment, groins, etc.)
            SF- single family residential development
            WD- water dependent activities
            SF, MF, C, I - Single Family, Mufti-Family, Commercial, Industrial
            CR- coastal redources
            na - not applicable
            Case- case example provided which illustrates on-the-ground effectiveness of tool employed.
            USACE- United State Army Corps of Engineers
            MHW- Mean High Water
            MHT- Mean High Tide
            MLT- Mean Low Tide
            SHW- Seasonal High Water
            NHW- Normal High Water
            OHWM- Ordinary high Water Mark

            TYPES OF PLAN
            SP - State Level Plans- Covers State Comprehensive. Land Use, or CZM Policy Plan and all tied to regulatory tools for implementation
            LP- Local Plan both land use and implementing zoning, subdivision, other ordinances.
            SAMP - Special Area Management Plan
            0 - Other State Plans which address resource management areas: Beach Erosion Plan: Inlet Management Plan; Harbor Management Plan; Rocky Shore or Bluff Management Plans

            OUTCOME DATA AND SUFFICIENCY FOR ANALYSI
            (S) - Sufficient- Tool used and sufficient data to analyze outcomes.
            (na) - riot applicable, no planning tools employed, or dominated by regulatory controls
            Case Exarnple- example provided which illustrates effectiveness in a local area

            Note: Regarding Rocky Shores, the submerged lands below HHT are generally in state, commonwealth or territory ownership. Development regulations tend to apply to water-dependent activities such as
            docks and piers.
            KEY
            R- Regulatory Tools
            P- Planning Tools
            L- Direct Land Management Tools
            A- Acquisition Tools
            na- not applicable
            no data- no statewide data, either linear data or acreage data, on program results or outcomes on-the-grourid
            17 States with Rocky Shores: AK. AS, CA. CT, GU, HI, ME, MA, MI, NH, NM, OR, PR, R1, VI, WA, Wl
            16 States with Bluffs:         AK, AS, CA, CT. GU, HI, ME, MI, PA, NM, OR, PR, RI, VI, WA, WI
            12 States with No Coastal Rocky Shores: AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NY ocean coast only, NC, PA, SC, VA
            13 States with No Coastal Bluffs:          AL, DE, FL, LA, MD, MA, MS, NH, NJ. NY ocean coast only, NC, SC, VA

            Source: State CZM Profiles                Version 1/1/97








                                                                                                                     25








               Table 6: DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION TOOLS AND OUTCOMES associated with state management of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and acquiring additional areas.

               State Open             Open           Beach          State C.         State C.         State C.     Board-        Critical         Dunes      Beech       Armor        Natural Protection Areas                                      Coastal Land&
                         coast        coast          miles          Parks            Parks            # Perks      Walks/        Coastal          Reveg.     Nouris.     Project                                                                    Acquired
                         Miles        % Public                      Mi.Parks         Acres Pk         0 Beach      Dune          Erosion          0 proj     Fed '-      Fed.                                                                       (ac"1181kniles)
                                      % state                       Mi.Beach         Acres Bc         Parks        Cross-        Areas            It/mile    0 proj.     Stele                                                                      BID Beach/Dune
                                                                                                                   Overs                                     State                                                                                  BL Bluff
                                                                                                                                                             X& mi                                                                                  RS Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               J    CA Contal rea
               AL        46'          10%            46             3                6'wCF-                                      2 areas          1          n           n            40 acres for Perdido beach mouse; -3 mi. sea                  n
                                                                                     11 beach]        1
                                        7%                          all beech        a                all beach                                   500ft      n           n            turtles nestIM sessonm 25 acres for tems.
               AK        6640         99%                           rid              990,335          63           n             rid              n          n           n            49,000 acres protected for Bald Eagles                        n
                                      rid            rid            rid              rid              rid                                                    n           n
               AS        126          _9%                           rid              rid              rid          n             20,000 It        n          n           n            n                                                             n
                                      _9%            rid            rid              rid              rid                                                    n           n
               CA        1100*        47%                           377              145,540          119          y-20          4%               >19        y-7         y-5          Resource Mgt. Plans designate trads, roads,                   B/D: 26,838 wie
                                      34%            rid            280              26.8W            71                                          rid        y-nd        y-12         parking and zone units for reserves, preserves,               BL: yes-nd
                                                                                                                                                                                      habitat protection and public use. EndanWed                   RS: yes-nd
                                                                                                                                                                                      species habitat protected (bird nesting sites, etc.
               CT        Long         LIS-2D%        85             rid              rid              rid          ?-rid         rid              9          y-6         y-2          408 acres Natural Area Preserve; 8W acres                     B/D: 1,439 acre
                         Is                                         6.75             3003             6                                           rid        Y-1         y-3          Coastal Reserve; Nature trail
                         Sound                                                                                                                               .25 mi
                         278 '                                                                                                                I                        I
               DE        24.5*        75%            24.5           18               rid              3            2-bdwk        rid              y-W        y-2         Y-1          Endangered species habitat-such as piping                     B/D: yes- rid
                                      >62%                                                            all beach    3-cross                        >15 mi     y-nd        n            plover-
                                                                                 1                                                                           6 mi.                    case by-case and during nesting season.
               FL        1350         rid            827            -500             -11,500          24           y-many        273 mi           100 mi     y-26        Y-6          Sea turtle nesting sites during season.                       BID:
                                      rid                           bch only                                       rid                                       y-nd        y-nd                                                                       parcels: 900
                                                                                                                                                             -94 mi                                                                                 acres: 294,968
                                                                                                                                                                       1                                                                            miles: rid
               GLI       110,         rid            40             5.1              rid              14 (only     n             No Areas         n          n           n            28,197 acres (20.73% Guam total land area) and                yes through
                                      rid                           13%              rid              beach)                                                 n           n            15 600 acres submerged lends.                                 trades -nd
               HI        750          rid            185            rid              14,814           24           n             rid              n          n           n            Natural Reserve Area System                                   Bld & OL & RS
                                      rid                           16%              322              16                                                     n           n            Wildlife Sanctuaries                                          properties: 62
                                                                                                 1                                                                                    Marine Life Conservation Districts                               res
               LA        397          -2D%           >4 mi          unk              unk              2            1             10D%             y-6        y-2             I        n                                                             n
                                      .0%            d1n inc.       >1 mi.           345                                                          -20 mi     y-nd        y-20
                                                     barrier                                                                                      barrier    -20 rni
                                                     Island                                                                                       islands
                                                     shoreline                                                                                            I
               ME        228          5%             23 B/D         rid              11090            25           3             1 %              y-5        n           n            3 state beachfront parks dunes protection,                    B/D & BL & RS
                                      >4%            2D%-S          4.6              2380             10                                          4 mi.      y-6         n            pedestrian accessways; sea bird nesting sites                 properties: 8
                                                                                                                                                             COE                      fenced off &ulng nesting                 I Rocky Island       acres: 4828
                                                     205 RS                                                                                                  Habor                    Sanctuary-access restricted                                   miles: -20
                                                                                                                                                             Prol.
                                                                                                                                                             >1 mi









                                                                                                                                          26











               Table 6: DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION TOOLS AND OUTCOMES associated with state management of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and acquiring additional areas.


               State Open            Open            Beach          20             Coasta           exha           Board-        Critical       Duries      Beach        Armor        Natural Protection Areas (2)                                    Coastal Lands
                         Coast       Coast           Miles          Mi Parks       Acre Pks         # Parks        Walks/        Coastal        Reveg.      Nouns.       Project                                                                      Acquired
                         Miles       % Public                       Mi Bch P       Acre Bch         # Bch Pk       Dune          Erosion        # proj      Fed -        Fed. "                                                                       (acres/miles)
                                     % State                                                                       Cross-        Areas          ft/mile     # proj.      State                                                                        B/D Beach/Dune
                                                                                                                   Overs                                    State                                                                                     BL Bluff
                                                                                                                                                            S& mi                                                                                     RS Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      CA C=M Area
                         32*                         32
               MD                                                   17             rid              3              1             Assateaq       y-1         y-2          Y-1          Seasonal restirctions for nesting birds alorV                   pareb:2
                                     150%                                          all beach                                     ue             2 mi        y-2          y-nd         entire beachfront.                                              acres: rid
                                                                                                                                 Island                     10 mi                                                                                     miles: 2
               MA        ZE@ nd                      222            64             rid              18             rid           S.             y-nd        y-5          y-2          5 coastal pk. mgt. plans for 4,673 acres                        state
                                     rid                            rid            rid              rid                          Nantuck                    y-nd         y-nd         14 ACECs covering 75.000 acres.                                 Acres:2250
                                                                                                                                 at Island                  3 mi                                                                                      miles: rid
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Local Grants
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Projects: 17
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Acres: 273
                                                   I                                             I                                            I                                     I                                                                 miles: rid
               MI        Great       GL              270            114            rid              29             rid           350 mi         n           n            n            - 860 miles total                                               136,000 acres
                         Lakes       30%             50%-S          rid            rid              rid                          high risk                  n            n            -250 miles natural preserves                                    statewide
                         3,288       rid                                                                                         areas                                                -300 miles critical duries areas                                coastal: rid
                                                                                                                                                                                      -310 miles high risk erosion areas
               MS        44          30%             18             rid            md               1              1             Jackson        n           y-2          Y-1          n                                                               n
                                     17%                                                                                         Co-                        Y-1          n
                                   I                                             I                                                            I             lamwe S
               NH        18*         78%             10.2 B/D       12.5           -580             16             1             7 areas        y-2         y-3          y-2          Pedestrain access restricted area; 5 acres. piping              BID & RS
                                     nd              100%-p         10.1           101              9                                           nd          y-5          y-3          plover nesting site.                                            acres: 131
                                                     88%-S                                                                                                  2mi                                                                                       Miles: rid
                                                     7.8 RS                                                                                                                         I
               NJ        125*        74%             125            12             3192             2              n             rid            n           ye"          y-4          B/D acres: 2,5W        miles: 11.57 Included                    n
                                     9%              9% state                                                                                               y            y            100 acre bird sanctuary; 1200 acres beach
                                                                                                                                                            27 mi                     researchtwildfife sanctuary; 1,000 acre beach
                                                                                                                                                                                      nature area* 3 other nature areas 1201 acres.
               NY        1251                        125            46.5           11,600           10             3             rid            n           Y-8          y-4          7 protection areas covering 566 acres in site                   CA:2000 acres
                                                     30%-s          all beach      all beach        all beach                                               y-nd         n            parks. >50 miles beactifront bird nesting areas.
                                                                                                                                                                       1              200 fish/wildlife habitat areas.
               NY        Great       no data         collected      for Great      Lakes            portion of     New           Coastal        Zone.                                                                                                 see above
                         Lakes                                                                                     York
               NC        32(r        rid             320            rid            rid              3              2             50%            y-nd        y-6          y-2          314 miles plus spod islands.                                    7,000 acres
                                     3.4%            3.4%           11 mi          rid                                                                      V-12         n            100 miles undisturbed areas/Reserver.; 50 acre                  beachtront
                                                                                                                                                            5 mi                      nesting colonial birds; I I miles sea turtle nesting.           27,439 beach
                                                   I             I               I               I                            I               I                                   I I                                                             I -skes
               NM        1W          rid             rid            rid            nd               nd             n             nd             n           n            n            Offshore islands as bird sanctuaries, beacehs as                n
                                     rid                            rid            rid              nd                                                      rid        I n            'turtle nesting sites



                                                                                                                                         27









               Table 6: DIRECT LAND MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION TOOLS AND OUTCOMES associated with state management of beaches, dunes, bluffs and rocky shores and acquiring additional areas.

               State Open             Open            Beach          20                                            Board-          Critical       Dunes        Beach        Armor       Natural Protection Areas (2)                                    Coastal Lands
                         coast        Coast           Miles          Mi Parks       Acre Pits        # Parks       Walks/          Coastal        Reveg.       Nouris.      Project                                                                     Acquired
                         mks          %.Public                       MI Bch P       Acre Bch         0 Bch Pk      Dune            Erosion        8 proi       Fed"         Fed.                                                                        (acrowman)
                                      % State         %Public                                                      Cross-          Areas          It/mile      0 prof       State                                                                       BID Beach/Dune
                                                      %State                                                       Overs                                       state                                                                                    BL Bluff
                                                                                                                                                               #& mi                                                                                    RS Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        CA Coastal Arm
               OR        Xr           58%             2626/0         129.5          27,107           64            n               13%            n            n            n           Vehicles; prohibited on 70% of coastline. state                 BID & RS
                                      36%             56%-P          76.3-BID       rid              rid                                                       y-1          n           park mgt. trails, restricted access.                            acres: 94.3
                                                      30%-S          53.2-RS                                                                                   >1 mi                                                                                    miss: .75 B/D
                                                      100 RS                                                                                                                                                                                            only
                                                      65%-P
                                                      53%-S
               PA        Greg         20%             Lake Erie      Lake Erie      Lake Erie        Lake Erie n                   Lake Erie n                 y-2          Y-I         Lake Erie only                                                  B/D: Spoil Is.
                         Lakes        rid             10-8           13.4           3110             2                             All 10 mi                   Y- I         Y-I         n- beach                                                        mile: .25
                         120*                         99%-S          9.9 B          110B             I                             Beach                       area .                   y- D. Roderick Wildlife Refuge                                  acres: 10
                         Lake                         53-BL          3.5 BL         3100 BL                                        50 mi                       6 mi                                                                                     BL:
                         Erie                         II%_P                                                                        bluff                                                                                                                mile: 3.5
                      1  63,                          10%-S                                                                        (94%)                                                                                                                acres:3100
               PR        311*         rid             154            rid            rid              rid           n               rid            n            n            n           19 Nature Reserves and 8 Special Planning                       n
                                      rid                            rid            rid              15                                                        _n           n           Areas
               Rl        40           rid             27.3           rid            1501             14            Y-11            rid            n            n            Y-I         All undeveloped barrier beaches                                 y-nd
                                      rid             64%-S          rid            rid              rid                                                       n            n
               SC        1811*        42%             181            68             nd               4             4               26 miles       y-3          Y-11         Y-I         68 miles in parkstwildide preserves.                            y-nd
                                      38%                                                                                          (30% of        58 mi        y-4          Y-nd!
                                                                                                                                   dev                         45 mi        groins
                                                                                                                                   coast)                                   repair                                                                                             r.
               VI        rid          rid             rid            rid            rid              rid           n               rid            n            n            n           Sell River Bay                                                  n
                         175          rid                            rid            rid              rid                                                       n            n
                         (tidal)* _
               VA        2001         rid             200            6              4700             1             n               2 co.'s        y            Y-11         n           6 miles sea turtle nesting at False Cape.                       Y-nd
                                      rid             10%-S                                                                        I city                      y-5          n
                                                                                                                                                               rid
               WA        171*         rid             60 B           rid           .27,000           120           ?-rid           yes-           n            n            n           Many- 7 areas with >6336                harbor seals,           75,000 acres
                                      rid             III RS         rid            rid              rid                           variers                     n            n           falcons. eagles and other bi1rd nesting areas.                  statewide
                                                                                                                                   All Bluffs                                                                                                           coastal: >10.748
                                                                                                                                                1                                                                                                       acres
               W1        Great        rid             820            rid            rid              30            y-several       30%-           n            y4           VL-nd       -300 natural areas statewide                                    637
                         Lakes        8%              10%-B          rid            rid              rid           rid             mainly                      n            n           coastal: rid                                                    77 beachiM
                         &M                           72%-BL                                                                       bluffs                                                                                                               dunes
               Total     rid                       I  8%-RS                                                                                       rid          rid
               Sources:               rid             rid            rid            rid              rid           rid             rid
               state CZM Profiles
               * CZM Profile coastline miles data differs from General Coastline mile data in U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 1975. The Coastline of the United States,
               **US Army Corps of Engineers, Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control StW Phase 17 Cost Comparison of Shoreline Protection pEWects of the U.S. Army Q= of Engirisers-



                                                                                                                                              28










                     APPENDIX D: CASE EXAMPLES


                     Case examples have been provided for the following states: California, Connecticut, Delaware,
                     Florida, Guam, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
                     Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and South Carolina.


                     CALIFORNIA
                     CA-1 ReCAP Santa Cruz County and Monterey Pilot Study
                     CA-2 Beach Sand Mitigation Fund- In Lieu Mitigation for Impacts of Seawalls on Sand
                     Supply
                     CA-3 State Coastal Conservancy Projecti
                     CA-4 Local Coastal Program Implementation - Dunes Protection
                     CA-5 Local Coastal Program Implementation- Bluff Protection


                     CA-1 ReCAP Santa Cruz County and Monterey Pilot Study
                        The California Coastal Commission (CCC) -undertook at pilot Regional Cumulative Impact
                     Project (ReCAP) to study development impacts along a 83 mile-long coastal stretch covering the
                     two central California coastal counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey. This study provides an in--
                     depth look at the effectiveness of the implementation of the CC Act policies relative to coastal
                     hazards, wetlands protection, and public access.
                        Regarding hazards, the study looks at policies governing shoreline armoring activities,
                     resource conditions as measured by changes in amount of armoring, and permit activity related
                     to shoreline armoring. This study is relevant to protection of natural beaches, dunes and bluffs,
                     since "Armoring along much of the coast in the ReCAP region has led to cumulative impacts to
                     beach areas and public access opportunities. These impacts occur when shoreline devices are
                     placed directly on the beach and by affecting the sand supply and landward retreat of the beach."
                     (ReCAP: Executive Summary, p.3)
                        The study data shows increased growth pressures with population increasing 65% from 1970-
                     and 1995 in the two-county area through in-filling and urban expansion. This is reflected in an
                     increase of 43% in urban land uses in the past twenty years. From 1983 to 1993, there were over
                     3000 coastal development permits approved by the CCC and local governments of which 100
                     were for shoreline protection permits. Of these, 96 permits were approved for some type of
                     shoreline protective device; 4 for beach nourishment. The armoring permits resulted in more
                     than 2 miles of approved seawall activity and over 65,000 tons of approved riprap tonnage. Most
                     are rip-rap or rock rubble revetments, with only 1.1 miles in timber seawalls without rock.' Only
                     30 of the permits were for new revetments or seawalls; 63 for repair/maintenance or expansion
                     of existing shoreline structures. One reasons for the high number of permits involving
                     modifications of existing structures is that riprap revetments require regular additions of rock for
                     the structure to function effectively. In general such devices are concentrated in developed
                     areas with erosive shoreline. material and high incidence of storm wave attack. .
                        A major finding of the study is that the current coastal policies support the use of public
                     shoreline and public resources to protect private property, and if the current situation continues,
                     more and more of the public shoreline will be lost as a public resource. On-the-ground outcome
                     data indicates that, between 1978 and 1993, the percent of the shoreline armored in the ReCAP
                     pilot area increased from 9.6 miles to 12.0 miles. Approximately one-eighth of the shoreline is
                     now armored. this estimate does not include lengths of beaches protected by breakwaters,
                     jetties, or groins, nor do the figures for length reflect maintenance and additions of rock to
                     existing walls. Much of the increase in armoring between 1978 and 1986 is thought to have been
                     constnicted in response to storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Future demand for :
                     shoreline protection will depend on trends in development along the shoreline, erosion potential
                     and storm frequency. Based on private property ownership, land use and physical
                     characteristics, development patterns, and continued implementation of existing policies, it is
                     estimated that 11/0 of the ReCAP coastline, or 27 miles, could be armored in the future.










                       There is no consistent regional approach to address areas prone to shoreline erosion. In
                    many portions of the ReCAP area, the strategies used to provide shoreline* protection differ
                    greatly from one property to the next, in spite of physical similarities of sites. For example, within
                    Live Oak along a 3,000 foot long section of Opal Cliffs, properties have been protected with
                    gunite, vertical walls, rip-rap and concrete cylinders. The piecemeal approach to shoreline
                    protective devices and generally not effective and have the potential to create further problems.
                       Armoring has led to cumulative impacts to beach areas and access opportunities, affecting
                    sand supply and landward retreat of the beach. Along the ReCAP shoreline, data indicates that
                    protective structures cover -25 acres of beach. Permits granted since 1978 represent about
                    20%, or 5 acres of this total. Although shoreline armoring data indicates that armoring and
                    encroachment has slowed under CZM, the impact from such encroachment may still be
                    significant. Many of the armoring projects were approved in the popular recreational areas of
                    Santa Cruz County.
                       Armoring is often put in place during emergency storm events. However, permits are
                    approved with little or no technical analysis, review of alternatives, or review of mitigation for
                    adverse impacts on resources, and no follow-up permit. Therefore, such projects do not receive
                    full regulatory review or monitoring, and are usually in areas of significant long-term or storm.
                    related erosion. As a result impacts from these projects have not been fully assessed or-
                    mitigated.
                       The policies governing shoreline development and building setbacks for much of the
                    shoreline development in urban portions of the ReCAP pilot are offien inadequate. CC Act policies
                    are inconsistent. One requires that new development be stable without construction of protective
                    devices to minimize hazards. Another policy allows shoreline armoring to protect existing
                    structures. There is no cutoff date for when a structure can be considered existing. Storm
                    damaged structures are exempt from permits if reconstructed in same footprint thereby
                    precluding more landward redevelopment, risks avoidance, and reduction of dependence on
                    protective devices. Setbacks are a common LCP management approach to avoid armoring.
                    However, most are based on long-term average erosion and do not incorporate episodic events
                    which may exceed setbacks. This leads to structures in harms way and future need for armoring.
                    In the ReCAP region, LCPs generally develop setbacks based on 50-year economic lifetime for
                    new development. Those structures exceeding that lifetime will ultimately require armoring for
                    long-term protection. Development on infill lots are allowed to be as seaward as adjacent
                    existing development, exacerbating erosion risks and the need for armoring.
                    . Current policy does not restrict development in areas of high hazard. Future development is
                    likely to continue with adverse impacts on coastal resources and public costs involved in
                    protecting private deve'lopment. Regional Plans are recommended to address adverse impacts
                    of shoreline armoring.

                    Source: ReCAP Pilot Proiect; Executive Summary and Findings and Recommendations.

                    CA-2 Beach Sand Mitigation Fund- In Lieu Mitigation for Impacts of Seawalls on Sand
                    supply
                       In 1995, the CCC received requests for one long seawall to protect 12 properties within the
                    same shoreline area along the Encinitas portion of the San Diego County bluff-backed sandy
                    beach coastline. No armoring existed along the shoreline, but structures setback 10 to 30 feet
                    were in danger due to episodic erosion. A few structures has been red-tagged by local
                    governments as non-habitable structures. Since the bluffs contribute 40% of the sand in the
                    littoral system, the CCC was concerned about loss of long-term sand supply from armoring. The
                    result was a permit condition attached to the requests for shoreline armoring which required fees
                    to go into a regional fund to pay for placement of sand on the beach within the same Ifttoralcell
                    area through offshore dredging or sand transport from inland sources.
                       To implement this permit condition, the California Coastal Commission in 1996 established a
                    Beach Sand Mitigation Fund, Under a MOA, the Fund is administered by the San Diego
                    Association of Gavemments(SANDAG). Funds are to be used for beach nourishment projects to
                    provide sand to replace sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impact of the
                    proposed shoreline armoring projects. Mitigation fees can be collected by the CCC through its


                                                                   2










                    coastal development permit process. Fees address adverse impacts of proposed protective
                    structures on local shoreline sand supply.      Three quantifiable impacts from seawalls along
                    shoreline backed by coastal bluffs, such as in Encinitas, are identified and include: 1) halting of
                    natural bluff retreat, preventing a portion of the bluff material from becoming part of the sand
                    supply; 2) halting landward migration of beach and nearshore profiles, preventing formation of
                    beach that would otherwise be available to the public for use over time if the seawall were not
                    constructed; and 3) physically occupying areas, by its encroachment seaward of the toe of the
                    bluff that would otherwise be available for recreational use.
                       The fee is based on estimates of the loss of beach material and beach area which could
                    occur over the life of the structure and the cost to purchase an equivalent amount of beach
                    quality material and deliver to beaches in the project vicinity. The methodology for determining
                    the in-lieu fee is based on estimates the total quantity of sand necessary to replace: a) the
                    reduction in beach quality material contributed from the seacliff over the life. of the armoring; b)
                    the reduction in beach width which will occur when the landward migration of the beach profile is
                    stopped, over the life of the structure; and c) the reduction in beach area which will occur from
                    the seaward encroachment of the seawall.
                       SANDAG has adopted a Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego region. Through
                    its Shorefirfe Erosion Committee, SANDAG monitors large scale projects, both in and out of the
                    coastal zone, looking for "opportunistic sand projects" that will generate large quantities-of beach
                    material suitable for replenishing the region's beaches.
                       Applicants for shoreline stabilization projects are,being required to pay a fee, in-lieu of
                    depositing sand on the beach, because most are small projects and the costs would outweigh the
                    benefits. Instead, the fees go into the fund which is used for a larger renourishment project to
                    provide sand to the region's beaches.

                    CA- 3 State Coastal Conservancy Projects

                    Garrapata Beach Site Reservation: In 1979, the Coastal Conservancy acquired 2.24 acre site on
                    Big Sur coast with reefs, tidepools, and sea caves. The parcel is within the designated
                    boundaries of the Garrapata Beach State Park. Conservancy, using tax law incentives,
                    negotiated purchase price of $155,000. Land intended to become part of Department of Parks
                    and Recreation state park. (1980 Annual Report, p.20)

                    NiRome Dunes Enhancement. In 1990, the Coastal Conservancy acquired 2,500 acres in the
                    heart of the Nipoma Dunes, California's largest and one of it's most spectacular coastal dune
                    regions, bringing the goal of protecting the major part of the 12,000 acres dunelands and 18 mile
                    shoreline a step closer.'The property acquired has rare beauty and high biological value, a
                    landscape of sand and wetlands. The $2.6 million acquisition was $425,000 below market value.
                    The Conservancy had earlier, in 1986, acquired 567 acres of fragile dune habitat through a
                    $715,000 grant to the Nature Conservancy. - Today, the "Nipomo Dunes Preserve," under Nature
                    Conservancy management, encompasses about 4,000 acres but is expected to expand. The
                    Coastal Conservancy remains active in the Nipomo Dunes, developing projects to protect scenic
                    and biologically valuable coastal resources. (1989-90 Annual Re     port, p.22)

                    Furlouah Gulch Subdivision Conflict Resolution. Prior to 1972, when coastal subdivisions were
                    relatively unregulated, thousands of lots were ere-ated in areas inappropriate for development.
                    Permanent protection of the coast required the Coastal Commission to temporarily deny such
                    development. In the case of Furiough Gulch, a 384ot subdivision on 22 acres planned for a
                    parcel that flanks Sonoma Coast State Beach, the land was purchased by the Conservancy and
                    resold to the Department of Parks and Recreation. The cost of acquisition was defrayed by
                    transfer of development rights whereby developers on alternative sites paid fees for intensified
                    development and these fees were used to reimburse the Conservancy. This made possible
                    keeping land that should be in open space from being developed. (1982 Annual Report)

                    Access to the Beach. The Coastal Conservancy has funded stairways, wheel chair ramps, bike
                    paths, gravel paths and other amenities to facilitate access to the beach and from the bluffs to


                                                                      3









                      the shoreline. Although accessways have served to open up areas of the coast to human
                      access, they have also served to guide pedestrian traffic over or away from fragile resources to
                      the water's edge; and provide visual access through scenic vistas and coastal trails.

                      CA-4 Local Coastal Program Implementation- Dunes Protection
                         In California, local governments' adoption and implementation of Local Coastal Program
                      (LCPs) vary depending, in part, on the type and extent of coastal resources, geologic conditions,
                      hazard risks, and development pressures. Each LCP was required to adopt policies suitable for
                      protecting coastal resources, such as beaches and dunes and natural land formations
                      (bluffs/cliffs) consistent with the policies of the CC Act. Time did not permit completion of case
                      example of dunes protection.

                      CA-6 Local Coastal Program Implementation- Bluff Protoction
                         There are several examples of local bluff protection: Malibu, Marin County, Oceana Marin.
                      Cayucos. Time did not permit completion of case examples. However some references noted
                      below.
                      District Intenpretive Guidelines- Malibu- Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas; Natural
                      Landforms; Natural Hazards Waiver of Public Liability, Landslide Areas, Blufflop Development
                      Shoreline Development - 10 ft setback, Stringline Bulkheads; Wave Hazards
                      Residential Development- Small lot Subdivisions, Slope Intensity Formula

                      Intemretive Guidelines for Marin County
                      Bolinas- "Geologic studies indicate the new construction at Bolinas Mesa should have a
                      minimum setback of 150 feet from the bluff."

                      Oceana Marin. Extreme geologic instability at Oceana Marin, ..as an interim measure, all permit
                      applicants should be required to join the Bodega Bay Preserve and Bodega Bay Club to
                      contribute to erosion prevention measures,..."

                      Cayucos Guidelines-Oceanfront bluffs in Cayucos subject to erosion. Carefully follow Statewide
                      Interpretive Guidelines on Geologic Stability on Blufftop Development

                      CONNECTICUT
                      CT-1 Victoria Beach Condominium Project
                      CT-2 CT-2 Harvey's Beach Acquisition

                      CT-1 Victoria Beach Condominium Project
                        Various components of a proposal for a 40-unit condominium complex at Victoria Beach in
                      East Haven have been reviewed by the municipal zoning board with substantial OLISP
                      involvement since 1984. The original complex was proposed for location on a bluff immediately
                      landward and east of an existing public beach area. This area is very dynamic and has'
                      experienced periodic storm-related erosion over the years, and also accretes and erodes
                      sand seasonally. Because the project was proposed and constructed fairly soon after the
                      passage of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA), which went into effect on
                      January 1. 1980, OLISP's early involvement was significant and centered on relevant CCMA
                      consistency issues such as the protection of the beach resource through use of non-structural
                      measures, including dunes, for shore stabilization along with the need for adequate building
                      setbacks from the water. OLISP had also indicated during review of the project that since the
                      condominiums at Victoria Beach did not exist as of the effective date of the CCMA, the use of
                      structural solutions to flood and erosion problems, such as a seawall, would be in violation of
                      Section 22a-92(b)(2)(J) of the CCMA which allows structural solutions to flood and erosion
                      problems when necessary and unavoidable for the protection of infrastructural facilities, water-
                      dependent uses, or existing inhabited structures, and where there is no feasible, less




                                                                      4










                      environmentally damaging alternative and where all reasonable mitigation measures and
                      techniques have been provided to minimize adverse environmental impacts. OLISP specifically
                      recommended that non-structural alternatives including adequate beach nourishment, dune
                      creation, and building setbacks be incorporated into any project plans for this.property to protect
                      against flooding or erosion. When the condo complex was subsequently approved, a dune was
                      incorporated into the project plans while adequate water-side building setbacks were not
                      required. The dune and vegetation planted early on, which has required periodic replenishment
                      and replanting after significant storm events, has been effective for over 10 years in protecting
                      the beach and dwellings in the area. However, pressures have periodically surfaced from
                      residents to build a structural seawall to protect the condos, some of which lie within 10 feet of
                      the top of the dune bluff. In 1996, residents again proposed to build a seawall approximately 260
                      long and ranging from 20 to 35 feet wide just landward of direct DEP regulatory jurisdiction.
                      Such a structure, if locally approved, would have been inconsistent with the same CCMA policies
                      and standards, and would have been unprecedented in terms of size in this area of Connecticut
                      in recent years. Based on OLISP's historic and on-going coastal management involvement, the
                      Planning and Zoning Commission denied the seawall application in July of 1996, instead
                      recommending redesign, replenishing and replanting of the dune which has effectively protected
                      the beach'and condos since the mid 1980's.

                      CT-2 Harvey's Beach Acquisition
                      As a result of coastal management issues raised during the coastal site plan review of a
                      proposed development project on Harvey's Beach in Old Saybrook, the town decided to
                      purchase the popular swimming beach and preserve it for public use. "Coastal Management in
                      Connecticut, Beyond the First Decade, p.8"

                      DELAWARE
                      DE-1 Delaware's Piping Plovers Management Plan
                      DE-2 Beach Nourishment Project at Dewey Beach

                      DE-1 Delaware's Piping Plovers Management Plan
                         This plan will be a networked plan between the US Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural
                      Resources and Environmental Control, and the Soil and Water Conservation. The plan will be
                      implemented by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The plan will
                      be in effect as long as the species is in need of state management, and the determination will be
                      abased upon status of the species on official State or Federal Listings of threatened or
                      endangered species. The management practice is to identify nests and monitor to determine
                      when eggs are laid. During the nesting period , 'permanent fencing" will be installed
                      perpendicular to the dune, from the dune to the high tide line, on both sides of the piping plover
                      nest. The fencing should be no closer than 300 feet of the nest, and specific location will be
                      determined case by case. The fencing will be installed by the Staff of Soil and Water
                      Conservation. There will be no construction of jetties, groins, bulkheads, or other "harda coastal
                      protection structures during the nesting period that would have detrimental effects.

                      DE-2 Beach Nourishment Project at Dewey Beach
                         In July of 1994, there was a $2.3 million beach replenishment project in progress at Dewey
                      Beach, Delaware. The project added more than a half million cubic yards of sand to Dewey
                      Beach, whose shoreline had been damaged by coastal storms and has suffered tremendous
                      erosion.. Sand was dredged from the ocean at a borrow site 2.5 miles offshore and pumped
                      onto the beach. The state paid half of the 2.3 million dollar cost, and the Town of Dewey Beach
                      paid the other 50%. Over time the town will be reimbursed with a portion of the funds raised by
                      the state's accommodation tax.


                      FLORIDA
                      State Revises Beach Armoring Policies to Protect Sea Turtles. The Florida Department of
                      Environmental Protection (DEP) is changing its proposed beach armoring rules to protect sea



                                                                        5










                      turtles. As a result of the revisions, the Center for Marine Conservation (CIVIC) and the
                      Caribbean Conservation Corps (CCC) announced today that they have agreed to withdraw their
                      challenge to the rules 15 days after publication of the changes. CIVIC and CCC filed a challenge
                      to the rules in early June because the State's beach armoring policies failed to adequately
                      protect threatened and endangered sea turtles that nest on Florida beaches.

                           "We are withdrawing our challenge because the DEP has taken an important first step by
                      prohibiting the construction of harmful sea walls and other beach armoring devices on public
                      lands in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. However, we will continue to fight to control
                      all armoring within the Refuge that destroys sea turtle nesting sites and public beaches. There
                      should be at least one safe place in Florida for sea turtle nesting," said Tim Eichenberg, Program
                      Counsel for CIVIC. The Archie Carr Refuge is the most important nesting site for threatened and
                      endangered loggerhead sea turtles in the western hemisphere, and the largest nesting site for
                      endangered green sea turtles in the United States.

                           DEP also revised its rules to provide that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
                      should review local agency emergency armoring projects under the Endangered Species Act
                      (ESA) to ensure the protection of sea turtles and nesting habitat. "The revisions will at-least
                      provide some oversight to ensure that emergency armoring projects do not sidestep the
                      requirements of the ESA. The changes also mean that the DEP, USFWS and local agencies
                      must be vigilant and, where possible, plan ahead to ensure that nesting beaches are not
                      destroyed," said David Godfrey, Program Director with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation.

                           CIVIC and CCC will continue to press the State to honor its pledge to restrict all armodng
                      within the Archie Carr Refuge, and comply with the requirements of the Florida Marine Turtle
                      Protection Act and the ESA. Both laws prohibit the 'lake" of threatened and endangered sea
                      turtles through "significant habitat modification or degradation" that impair nesting beaches.
                      CIVIC and CCC were represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

                           The Center for Marine Conservation has over 120,000 members nationally, and
                      approximately 8,000 in Florida. It is headquartered in Washington D.C., and has regional offices
                      St. Petersburg, California and Virginia. The Center is the nation's leading nonprofit organization
                      dedicated solely to protecting the marine environment. The Caribbean Conservation Corporation
                      is the oldest sea turtle conservation group in the world, founded in 1959 by Dr. Archie Carr for
                      the sole purpose of studying and protecting marine turtles and their habitats. CCC is
                      headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, with field offices in Tortuguero and San Jose, Costa Rica.

                      CONTACTS: Tim Eichenberg, Center for Marine Conservation (202) 429-5609 or David
                      Godfrey, Caribbean Conservation Corp. (352) 373-WI; FAX:(352)375-2449; Sea Turtle
                      Survival League, Caribbean Conservation Corporation; cccocccturtle.org; ** New Web Page!
                      hftp:/Avww.cccturtle.org; Mailing Address: 4424 NW 13th Street, Ste A-1, Gainesville, FL 32609
                      June 26,1998
                      Publications:_Q_q&chel-The Official Journal of Florida's Shore and Beach Preservation
                      Association; and The Coastal Barriers Resource Manual: Federal and State Proaram Hiahliahts.

                      GUAM
                      Recireationall Water Use Management Plan: The Guam Coastal Management Program
                      developed and adopted the Recreational Water Use Management Plan in 1990-1991. The plan
                      covers a 6 miles stretch along the coast and in the water. It addresses user conflicts along this
                      stretch of beach and water. Bird nesting areas are identified and protected, and Manahac fish-
                      runs protected. The plan prohibits jet skis except in management plan areas. The plan provides
                      for "use zones" for certain water activities in planned areas, and requires buoyed areas for jet-
                      ski-type vehicles and mechanized vehicular closure during predictable Manahac runs. Minimum
                      operating age is 16 years for all mechanized water vehicles. Jet skis can only be operated in
                      planned areas- two such areas have been adopted, and a third area being finalized. The first
                      area planned, Agana Bay to Piti, encompasses 6 linear miles of coast to a distance varying from


                                                                       6










                    two hundred yards to half a mile. The second area, Cocos Lagoon, is a triangular shaped lagoon
                    3 miles long on the land side, extending 2 miles seaward. The third area is Apra Harbor, which is
                    Guam's commercial port, the Navy port and Guam's Harbor of Refuge.

                    MAINE
                    ME-1 The Atlantic Condominiums at Old Orchard Beach
                    ME-2 Sand Dune Rule
                    ME-3 Cutler Coast Acquisition and Management Plan
                    ME-4 Coastal Control Zone Regulations

                    ME-1 The Atlantic Condominiums at Old Orchard Beach-
                       In 1987, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection denied a permit for the construction of
                    the Atlantic Condominiums in Old Orchard Beach, Maine. The project would have contained 96-
                    units, 8 story residential condominium, two 2-story parking garages, and a new frontal dune ridge
                    between the land and the beach. This project was located along a beachfront with no existing
                    seawall. The proposed building would have been about 137 feet from the shoreline. Experts
                    disagreed-on the amount of erosion and shoreline retreat the be expected, but consensus was
                    that retreat will occur, and that the project as proposed would be in the intertidal zone in the next-
                    100 years. Additional grounds for denial were based on applicant's inability to demonstrate that
                    the project would not adversely impact the sand dune system; unreasonably interfere with
                    existing recreational or wildlife use and natural supply or movement of sand; not increase
                    erosion hazard or cause flood hazard to structures built on property or neighboring property. The
                    applicant requested a reconsideration'of the project with modifications to a 30 unit structure, no
                    parking garages and located 286 feet from the shoreline and contested the shoreline retreat
                    calculation over the next 100 years by state experts. The Board denied the reconsideration,
                    citing that the applicant's change to the proposal constituted a substantially different project and
                    should be considered as a new application. Market conditions changed and the applicant elected
                    not to submit a new application request.
                       The debate centered around the calculation of shoreline change and retreat based on sea
                    level rise, absence of a seawall and construction of a sand dune, the natural storage and
                    movement of sand, and other data. Several geologist testified. Credibility over certified state
                    geologists verses non-certified geologist became an issue. This case example illustrates the
                    difficulty coastal states face in implementing setback laws based n shoreline erosion rates, given
                    limited data on historical shoreline change and the effects of shoreline stabilizations and artificial
                    dunes on impeding erosion. The Department of Conservation, Natural Resource Information and
                    Mapping Center (formerly Maine Geological Survey) has been called upon by the DEP to assess
                    natural hazard risks associated with building close to the shoreline. The Maine CZM Program is
                    working on refining methods for determining erosion rates of the shoreline and applying these to
                    the shoreland zoning setbacks.

                    ME-2 Sand Dune Rule
                       The Maine Sand Dune Rules are very clear with regard to location of dune system and
                    applicant requirements. There are maps of all beach/dune systems. This has made it very easy
                    for applicants to comply with the requirements.
                       The Maine Sand Dune rule covers frontal dunes and back dunes and applies to the entire.
                    dune system whether developed or not. For example, the York, Maine beachfront is paved and
                    seawalled with the highway running along ft. However, it is classified as a "frontal dune" and
                    subject to the same protection as undeveloped/pristine frontal dune areas. Recent State efforts
                    to distinguish between developed and pristine dune areas has met with resistance from citizens
                    opposed to changing,the law. The state is facing a few takings cases involving the denial of
                    variances for development on frontal dunes along the developed portion of York Beach. (Dan
                    Prichard 207-287-7826)

                    ME-3 Cutler Coast Acquisition and Management Plan




                                                                       7










                         In 1989, the Land for Maine's Future Program acquired the 2,174 acre Cutler Coast Unit with
                      4.5 miles of ocean frontage in the Town of Cutter. The property contains step bedrock cliffs
                      jutting into the Atlantic Ocean, with the highest elevation 220 feet above sea level. The property
                      also contains coves, pebble and cobble beaches. Through a 1993 Management Plan, 600 acres
                      or twenty-seven percent of the property has been set-aside as a "special protection area"
                      including 1500 feet from the seaward edge of the cliffs and where they occur pocket beaches
                      from MHW. (Source: Cutter Coast Unit Management Plan, 1993)

                      ME-4 Coastal Control Zone Regulations
                         The Maine Coastal Program illustrates the complexity of regulating diverse resources- such
                      as beaches, bluffs and rocky shores. Maine uses three coastal construction regulatory programs
                      to protect its beach and dune system and natural resource areas. Under the Natural Resources
                      Protection Act, coastal frontal sand dunes and back sand dunes are mapped and protected. The
                      Maine sand dune rules apply equally to the entire dune system, whether developed or pristine
                      areas. There is a de facto setback from frontal dunes. In back dunes, there is a size limit of
                      2,500 square feet, the structure must be moveable, and elevated above 3" sea level rise, with
                      multifamily elevated higher. Reconstruction ofstructures damaged >50% is prohibited unless all
                      new building standards are met, including minimal damage to dunes, lot restrictions, bird habitat
                      pmtection, and revegetation of disturbed areas. Additions, may not expand floor area or volum-e
                      by more than 30% of existing structure. Exceptions include maintenance and repair of existing
                      structures, temporary structures, walkways, open decks smaller than 200 square feet, and
                      underground storage tanks outside the V-zone..       State permits are also required for activities
                      within "protected natural resource areas" which include the 1 00-year flood zone, moderate/high
                      value wetlands, and steep slopes greater than 20%. Development in "protected areas*, with the
                      exception of single family residential, must be set back 250 feet from NHWL. Under the
                      Municipal Shoreland Zoning Act, state-mandated and locally-implemented setbacks required. 75-
                      foot setback for residential and 25 ft for general development/commercial.

                      MASSACHUSETTS
                      MA- Sylvia State Beach and State Highway on Martha's Vineyard
                         Sylvia State Beach is a -2.5 mile long barrier beach on the Island of Martha's Vineyard. It is
                      owned by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and maintained by the Dukes
                      County Commission. The beach is bordered on the East by Nantucket Sound and to the West by
                      Sengekontacket Pond. There are two fixed inlets into the Ponds. Longshore sediment volume
                      and transport to the state beach may be reduced and interrupted over the years through
                      construction of a variety of coastal engineering structures northeast of the Pond and through
                      channel construction and maintenance.
                         The controversy at Sylvia State Beach revolves around the beach road, a state highway
                      which runes the entire length of the state beach. Erosion of the beach, particularly immediately
                      downdrift of the last two stone groins, coupled with the Beach Road's low elevation relative to
                      storm surge and waves, has resulted in storm damage and temporary closures after coastal
                      storm events. Both the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) who maintains the mad and
                      the Towns want to protect the mad as a link for emergency and other vehicles between Oak
                      Bluffs and Edgertown.
                         Since the October Storm of 1991, state agencies have debated how to best protect long-term
                      the mad and the barrier beach system consistent with the Wetlands Protection Act and other
                      regulations. In the interim, dune building, planting and beach nourishment efforts by the Friends
                      of Sengekontacket Barrier Beach Task Force and MHD beach nourishment have pmtected the
                      beach and mad fmm major storm events.
                         The Massachusetts CZM Program have co-sponsored a series of meetings with other state
                      agencies, local towns and conservation commissions, the county, harbor masters, universities,
                      state legislators, and federal agencies. These meetings have resulted in an Interim Plan, short-
                      term afternative to reduce storm damage to the beach Road. The Plan calls for construction of 1 -
                      3 adjustable wooden groins, beach nourishment, and dredging of Sengekontacket Pond to
                      protect the roadway until a long-term erosion control measure and storm damage reduction is
                      implemented.


                                                                        8













                      MICHIGAN
                      Regulatory. Controls: The Michigan Coastal Program illustrates a mufti-faceted, program which
                      has specialized regulatory controls for different types of areas. Under the Shorelands Protection
                      and Management Act (SPMA), three types of areas are regulated: 1) high risk areas-subject to
                      bluffline recession; 2) environmental areas-fish and wildlife habitat; and 3) flood risk areas-
                      flood-prone areas due to changes in Great Lakes water level. The "high risks erosion areas"
                      have been surveyed and designated. Included are all areas with erosion > I foot per year over
                      15 or more years. This area can extend inland from MHW as far as 1,000 feet from the bluffline.
                      Setbacks are required and based on 30-year bluffline erosion projections. Within the setback
                      area, new permanent structures are prohibited. and lakeward relocation of existing structures is
                      prohibited. Existing structures in front of the setback line cannot be moved lakeward and any
                      addition must be located landward of the setback line. Repairs to deteriorated or damaged
                      structures >60% of building's replacement value must meet new setback standards. If less than
                      60%, structures can be restored to previous condition. Exceptions to the setback for small lots
                      granted if waste handling system is landward of the structure, the structure is moveable and
                      located as far landward as possible, and the building meets engineering standards. For
                      structures in danger from erosion with access i*butes too narrow or steep to relocate the
                      structure, shoreline stabilization permits may be granted, but only after all other options are
                      exhausted and sewer and engineering standards are met. Major regulatory amendments in 1992
                      expand the definition of bluffline to include non-bluff areas subject to erosion. -All 'zone of
                      imminent danger'-- area landward of bluffline where erosion anticipated in the next 10 years-
                      must be designated. An additional 15 feet was added to the setback to address severe short-
                      term erosion or landslides or high water. Construction requirements were eased. Additions are
                      allowed if existing building and addition are moveable, the addition and the foot-print does not
                      exceed 25% of the building's foundation, and located landward of zone of imminent danger.
                      Reconstruction of substantially damaged structures (60-100% of replacement value) is allowed if
                      damage not caused by erosion and if structure is not reconstructed in zone of imminent danger
                      and is readily moveable. Small structures (.3,500 square feet foundation and >5 units) must be
                      moveable if built between setback and 2 times setback distance. For larger structures, the
                      setback is doubled.
                         The Sand Dunes Protection Act of 1976, strengthened in 1989, protects critical dune areas
                      within 2 miles of the Great Lakes, much farther inland than the 1,000 feet SMPA high risk -
                      erosion are jurisdiction. Regulations may extend inland 250 feet from a critical dune area. A 100-
                      foot setback from the crest of the dune is required unless dune stability standards are met.
                      Development, silvaculture and recreation affecting dunes and contour changes is regulated.
                      Building is not allowed on slopes 25-33% without registered plan or slopes >33% without a
                      special exception. Special use projects are regulated including industrial, commercial, multi-
                      family >3 acres or>4 units per acre. Variances can be granted for rebuilding of nonconforming
                      structures within critical dune areas if built prior to act and destroyed by fire or non-erosion forces
                      or made nonconforming due to erosion.

                      NEW HAMPSHIRE
                      Public Land Management: This example illustrates the diversity of public land management
                      activities that occur in a coastal state with a small shoreline which is mainly in state ownership.
                      New Hampshire has 9 state beachfront parks covering -9 beachfront miles, and 7 rocky shore
                      state park and other holdings along the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, there are several local
                      beachfront parks covering over 2 beachfront miles. About 78% of the 18 mile long shoreline is in
                      public ownership. The state has completed several state coastal park management plans
                      including studies of archeological, historical, recreational, and natural resources. 20 natural.
                      resource inventories funded by CZM provide baseline data on habitat areas for permitting by
                      Wetlands Board and are used for public education.
                          The 53 acres of the Seabrook Back Dunes were acquired by the Town of Seabrook with
                      partial funding ($100,000) from the CZM Program. The area was acquired for conservation and
                      passive recreation and constituted the only major undeveloped back dunes remaining along the
                      New Hampshire coast. CZM funded an Education Brochure Trail Guide to the Seabrook Dunes


                                                                         9










                     Area (1985), Coastal Endangered Plant Invqntory on Seabrook Dunes (1983), Seabrook Dune
                     Management Plan (1985), Dunes Valuation Analysis and Acquisition Report 1984, and Final
                     Appraisal (1986). A Fish and Game easement on a 4-5 acre dune spit at the mouth of Hampton
                     River was also acquired as an endangered piping plover nesting site. If nesting occurs, the land
                     may be fenced and foot traffic restricted during nesting season. The state also acquired lands
                     adjacent to Odiome Point State Park, as well as other parcels, to expand their coastal land
                     holdings for recreation and conservation. CZM funds were used to develop an Odiome State
                     Park Management Plan.
                        .New Hampshire has completed a multi-year Seabrook Foredunes Restoration Project on a 15
                     acre system on town-owned Seabrook Beach. The project involved restoring badly eroded
                     dunes, the planting of American beach grass to stabilize the dunes, and the construction of
                     walkways from the street to the beach to direct access and minimize adverse impacts on dunes.
                     Signs along walkways inform the public about dunes restoration work and the importance of
                     using walkways.
                        The coast is almost fully developed. Route 1-A borders the ocean along most of the coastline.
                     The state periodically repairs and maintains protective seawalls running between the beach and
                     the road, as well as seawalls protecting state beachfrorit parking lots.. Two USACE- bulk harbor
                     jetties are maintained. Periodic harbor channel dredging and placement of sand on beaches
                     occurs. The jetty at Hampton Harbor Inlet is periodically repaired. Hampton Harbor is
                     periodically dredged by the state and beach-quality sand placed on Hampton Beach. The
                     USACE also periodically dredges the Hampton Harbor entrance channel, but the sand is not
                     always used for beach nourishment

                     NEW JERSEY
                     NJ-1- CAFRA Amendments
                     NJ-2- The Now Jersey Beach Profile Network Program

                     NJ-1- CAFRA Amendments
                     In 1970, New Jersey passed the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) which required that
                     certain large facilities be subject to state review and permits. Only coastal area facilities with 25
                     or more housing units and commercial development with 300 or more parking spaces were
                     required to obtain a development permits from the State DER AS a result of this loophole, an
                     estimated 50% of the development in the coastal zone was taking place without State or
                     NJCZMP review. In July 1993, New Jersey passed amendments to the CAFRA, closing a major
                     loophole in the act. Now permits are required for any development on a beach or dune, or any
                     residential development with 3 or more dwelling units within the CAFRA boundary. This
                     amendment is intended to improve state oversight of development within the coastal zone. It will
                     address coastal hazard management requirements and'cumulative and secondary impacts of
                     numerous small developments along the coast.

                     NJ-2- The Now Jersey Beach Profile Network Program
                     Coastal damage along the New Jersey coast shore by a March 1984 northeast storm and the
                     1985 Hurricane Gloria brought to attention the lack of survey data needed to substantiate the
                     severity of storm losses on state and municipal beaches and episodic verse long4erm erosion.
                     FEMA recommended an updated mapping program every five years or after severe storm
                     events, complemented by a seasonal or annual beach-dune profiling program. In response, the
                     New Jersey Beach Profile Network (NJBPN) was established in 1988 to collect and analyze data
                     on shoreline and beach face conditions and erosion trends. The Stockton State College
                     Research Center has received almost $118,000 in CZM funds to create beach profile stations
                     and annually monitor and map changes to beach-dune profiles. Data collected under this ,
                     program continues to aid the regulatory and planning components of N.J.'s Coastal Management
                     Program in determining areas of potential erosion problems, implementing policies and
                     discussing permits to protect beaches, dunes, overwash fans and erosion hazard areas, as well
                     as reducing development risks in high hazard areas, and improving coordination with FEMA after
                     storm events.



                                                                       I.0













                    NEW YORK
                    NY-1: Westhampton Beach Erosion and Groinfield Chronology
                    NY-2: Coney Island Beach Nourishment Project

                    NY-1: Westhampton Beach Erosion and Groinfield Chronology
                       During a 1938 hurricane, Shinnecock Inlet opened increasing the erosion rate west of the inlet
                    to over 6 feet per year in some locations. Emergency dune repair by State and local
                    governments cost about $180,000. In 1951, sand fill and beach grass was used to close a small
                    inlet formed during a noreaster. In the 1950's, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
                    developed a protection plan calling for beach nourishment only. Local concerns resulted in plan
                    modification to allow immediate construction of groins. In 1958, the Westhampton dune was
                    nourishment with 380,000 cubic yards of sand. In 1960, the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act
                    authorized the Atlantic Coast of long Island, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Beach Erosion
                    Control and Hurricane Protection Project which was subsequently amended by 1974, 1986, and
                    1992 Water Resources Development Act. A March 1962 noreaster caused severe erosion; a
                    pew inlet was formed which was closed with emergency placement of sand at a cost of around
                    $970,000, In 1963 the USACE and the NYS Superintendent of Public Works and the County
                    agreed to construct a beach erosion control and hurricane protection project for the reach with 23
                    groins and fill placement. In 1965, eleven groins were built 480 feet long and 1200 feet apart with
                    an elevation of 16 feet above'MSL at the landward end and 2 feet above MSL at the seaward
                    ends. No beach nourishment was provided. In 1969, an additional four groins were built in
                    response to rapid erosion and 1.9 million cubic yards of sand was dredged from the bay and
                    placed with the groins. The total cost for the 15 groins was about $6 million. In 1973, property
                    owners along Dune Road west of the groin field a class action suit ag   ainst the U.S., State of NY
                    and Suffolk County which is still pending.
                       In 1977, an interim project was proposed by the USACE at the Westhampton Beach. The
                    project would add 4 million cubic yards of fill to existing groin compartments and 4 million cubic
                    yards to nourish beach west of the groins, at a cost of $50-%76 million to be cost shared 70%
                    federal, 21 % state, and 9% county. Additional beach and dune nourishment for the remainder of
                    the island and 8 groins was also proposed at $55-80 million. Nor'easters caused severe erosion
                    in 1978, 1984, and 1992. In 1983 sand was bulldozed to reopen Dune Road. In 1984 Dune
                    Road was rebuilt and 125,000 cubic yards of sand was used create artificial dunes costing
                    $90b,000. Litigation against Suffolk County claimed damages over $70 million affecting 300
                    property owners as a result of the nuisance caused by the groins. The County in turn sued the
                    US (USACE) and the State of New York.
                       In 1987 the NYS Department of States proposed an alternate project plan to address
                    problems raised by the groin fields-- taper the existing groins and nourish the beach downdrift of
                    the groins at a cost of $25-50 million. A 1992 storm created two new inlets. In 1993, USACE
                    rejected the NYS alternate. project plan in favor of a 3-5 year study, but later agrees to proceed
                    with NYS plan. USACE closes the new inlet for $8 million. The cumulative impact of the groins,
                    storms, and inlet migration resulted in the loss of about 200 private structures.
                       In 1994, affected area becomes Village of Westhampton Dunes and in 1995 lawsuit settled
                    with Suffolk County paying Westhampton Dunes $2 million in damages and up to $2 million in
                    legal fees. NYS-DEC places about 8,000 cubic yards of sand to maintain the inlet closure for
                    $54,400. In 1996, the USACE proceeds to implement the "modified state plan" to taper groin
                    fields, adding fill to groin area and placing sand downdrift of groins. Estimated cost is $30 million,
                    plus $7 million every 3 years for renourishment for 30 years. Project is ongoing at this time.
                    Source: NY Coastal Management Program -staff file.

                    NY-2: Coney Island Beach Nourishment Project
                       New York's Coney Island beach has received beach nourishment, beginning in 1923. In the
                    1970s, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed a beach erosion control and
                    hurricane protection plan for the area involving beach restoration and terminal groins. Due to
                    lack of support from non-federal participants, the large project proposed by the USACE was
                    scaled back, but the 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized federal participation in
                    the larger beach restoration plan for Coney island. After further reanalysis, a Final General


                                                                      11










                     Design Memorandum was approved and funds appropriated in 1992. The project cost $9.5
                     million with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) paying
                     25%, the City of New York paying 10%, and the federal government paying 65%.
                     Source: Emmett, Brian. K., Larry J. Cocchied, and John R. Lesnik. "Coney Island Storm Damage
                     Reduction Plan." Shore and Beach. Vol. 63, No. 4, October 1995, pps.540

                     NORTH CAROLINA
                     Oceanfront Setback Program: The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act is an
                     example of a strong oceanfront setback law which uses erosion rate based setbacks which vary
                     by type/size of structure. Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) are designated and regulated
                     based on state standards. "Major development" -drilling or activity occupying >60,000 square
                     feet of land-requires a state permit. Smaller projects require local permits. Within the "Ocean
                     hazard AEC"- sand dunes, ocean beaches, and other areas exhibiting substantial possibility of
                     excessive erosion- coastal goals include: 1) minimize loss of life and property from storms and
                     long-term erosion; 2) prevent encroachment of permanent structures on public beaches; and 3)
                     reduce public costs resulting from inappropriate coastal development. Regulations cover 3
                     areas: 1) ocean erodible areas, 2) high hazard flood areas; and 3) inlet hazard areas. A statewide
                     oceanfront setback is required within the ocean hazard areas based on average annual -erosion -
                     rates, natural site features, and the nature of the proposed development. The setback is
                     measured from the first line of stable natural vegetation or aerial photos/ground survey where no
                     stable vegetation. New structures smaller than 5,000 square feet and fewer than 6 residential
                     units must be set back the farthest landward of the following: 1)-a distance equal to 30 times the
                     long-term annual erosion rate; 2) the crest of the primary dune, 3) the landward toe of the frontal
                     dune, or, 4) 60 feet landward of the vegetation line. Larger structures must be set back 60 times
                     the average annual erosion rate or 120 feet landward of the vegetation line. Where erosion rates
                     exceed 3.5 feet per year, the setback line for larger structures is set at 30 times the erosion rate
                     plus 105 feet. The law was passed in 1974, made part of the coastal program in 1978, and
                     amended in 1981 to allow single-family residences on pre-existing lots not deep enough to meet
                     the erosion setback requirements, as long as they are set back at least 60 feet. The coastal
                     program has focus attention on studying erosion rat   es used in determining setbacks.

                     OREGON
                     OR-1 Oceanfront Improvement Permit Implementation
                     OR-2 Local Setbacks
                     OR-3 Sea Cliff Land Slides, Geologic Hazards Management
                     OR-4 Oregon Territorial Sea Plan and Rocky Shores Strategy

                     OR-1 Oceanfront Improvement Permit Implementation
                        The Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD) regulates new shoreline
                     stabilization structures within "ocean shore recreation area" under Oceanfront Improvement Act.
                     All beachfront erosion control devices must be built as far landw  ard as possible to prevent
                     encroachment on the public beach.       State Goal 18 prohibits erosion repair permits on lots
                     where there were no physical improvements ( i.e., buildings, roads, water lines and sewer lines)
                     existed on oceanfront lots platted before January 1, 1977. State Goal 17 promotes nonstructural
                     solutions to erosion problems and calls for erosion stabilization structures to be designed to
                     minimize adverse impacts on water currents, erosion and accretion patterns. The law allows
                     emergency permit for a new improvement, dike, revetment, or for repair, replacement or
                     restoration of an existing, or authorized improvement where property or property boundaries are
                     in imminent peril of being destroyed or damaged by actions of the Pacific Ocean or the waters of
                     any bay.
                        The ground for denial of permits are very comprehensive and cover project need, public
                     rights, public laws and compliance with state goals (scenic/visual impacts; beach access,
                     impacts on adjacent properties and safety concerns, long-term public costs; and other resource
                     concerns); project modification options; and public and agency comments.




                                                                       12










                        A 1993 application to construct a 100 foot-long riprap revetment on the ocean shore in
                      Lincoln Counlywas denied by the OPRD . The grounds for denial included:.. 1) no habitable
                      structure on the property; 2) property buildable without a beach protection structure; 3)-
                      inadequate documentation by the applicant of active erosion or cause of erosion on the site or
                      impacts on adjacent properties; 4) public rights would be eliminated without justification on 800
                      square feet of public beach easement; 5) although local government defers to state regulations
                      and state goals, Lincoln county code requires that "shoreline stabilizations Ae confined to
                      ..areas where active erosion is occurring which threatens existing uses of structures" and
                      "permitted only where a higher priority method is not feasible" and "designed and located so as
                      to minimize impacts on aquatic life and habitat, circulation and flushing characteristics and
                      patterns of erosion and accretion;" 6) nonstructural alternatives to the proposed revetment were
                      not considered; 7) proposed revetment does not comply with county plan or state goals 17 and
                      18; and 8)adverse impacts and cumulative effects have not been considered.
                         The permit denial contained several nonstructural alternatives to avoid erosion hazards
                      through site design and building setbacks; relocation of septic system which may be contributing
                      .to shoreline instability by saturating soil; shoreline reconfiguration and vegetative stabilizations;
                      or use of dynamic or soft structures. The denial also noted that reduction on size of structural
                      altemativ'e'or modified toe protection which would offer equivalent erosion protection and no-
                      encroach west of beach zone line.
                         This application was resubmitted and approved after the following amendments and new
                      information was submitted: size of structure reduced; analysis of the effectiveness of alternative
                      methods presented: analysis of possible adverse impacts to adjoining properties.
                      (Source: Application BA-352-92, SP 3357 - Riprap Revetment NW Willa St. in Yachats, Oregon)

                      OR-2 Local Setbacks
                         Tillamook County, predominantly sandy beaches and dunes, has a construction setback in
                      oceanfront and geologic hazard areas. The oceanfront setback line (OSL) is a line landward of
                      the crest of the active foredune and approximately parallel to the State's BZL. Variances to the
                      setback may be granted, but the setback must be at least 10 feet from the OSL. The oceanfront
                      setback is based on existing structures and type of zone. In zones suitable for development, or
                      already developed area, setback is determined by distance from dune crest possible to obtain
                      ocean view from ground floor of proposed structure, the lot size, and the location of the seaward
                      location of the nearest buildings within 250 feet of the proposed project.. If there are not pre-
                      existing structures in area zoned for development, oceanfront setback based on geological
                      stability of site, landward crest of the foredune, and ability to achieve ocean view. In areas of
                      active erosion or flood zone, the setback may be increased based on a site investigation and a
                      geologic hazard report. In permitting shoreline stabilizations, in addition to demonstrated need,
                      county priorities are: 1) maintenance of riparian vegetation; 2) vegetated riprap; 3) non-
                      vegetated riprap; 4) groins, bulkheads, other structural devices.
                         Lincoln County, characterized by sandy beaches backed by sedimentary cliffs located
                      between rocky headlands, uses setback requirements based on the erosion rate and the height
                      of the bank at a given site. (The setback ranges from 1 ft setback per 1 ft of bank height to 2.75
                      ft setback per I ft of bank height.) Geotechnical reports and design modifications in areas of
                      known hazards may also be required if the applicant proposes modifications to the setback
                      requirements. This commonly occurs, since existing lots subdivided prior to the county setback
                      law are too small to meet the setbacks. In permitting shoreline stabilizations, preference is given
                      to 1) vegetative/nonstructural measures; 2) vegetated riprap; 3) unvegetated riprap; and 4)
                      seawalls/bulkhead,s.
                         In Curry County, characterized by sea cliffs and rocky headlands with beaches, development
                      decisions are on a case-by-case basis with a required geologictengineering analysis. The
                      diversity of the terrain precludes uniform requirements. The county allows shoreline protective
                      structures if a property is threatened and there is a demonstrated need.
                          The City of Newport, like Lincoln County, requires setbacks based on coastal recession rates
                      and bank heights for ocean bluff developments. Newport has setback regulations for geological
                      hazard areas which increases the setback based on three erosion categories which increase with
                      erosion rates ranging fmm I ft to 2.75 ft. per year.     The City of Gearhart has mapped a Dune


                                                                        13










                    Hazard Line based on rate of erosion and anticipated life of the structure. The City of Florence
                    prohibits buildings within 100 feet-of the leading edge of the foredune and no grading or
                    breaching of a foredune. Shoreline stabilizations are allowed under a conditional use permit or by
                    administrative review. In Waidport, if oceanfront and bayfront setbacks cannot be met, a
                    geotechnical site report is required before a building permit can be issued.

                    OR-3 Jump-Off Joe Sea Cliff Land Slide- Geologic Hazards Management
                       The erosion of sea cliffs is a significant problem along many of the world's coastlines,
                    including Oregon. However, few studies document the processes and patterns of sea cliff
                    retreat due to the complexity of multiple casual factors. Research confirms that sea-cliff erosion
                    is highly variable along the Oregon coast'. Landsliding has been a problem at some locations,
                    particularly where development has occurred along bluffs composed of small remnants of
                    manne terraces which are muddy and particularly susceptible to landsliding.
                       In 1942, a large landslide developed in the bluff at Newport carrying more than a dozen
                    homes to their destruction. In 1982 a condominium was built on a small remnant of the bluff
                    ,adjacent to the major slide, despite continued slumping in the area. Within three years, slope
                    retreat had.caused the foundation to fail and the unfinished structure had to be destroyed by the
                    City of Newport. The City had allowed the condominium to be built on this known hazard area -
                    because a registered geologist, hired by the developer, submitted a geotechnical report attesting
                    to the safety of the project.
                       Homes and condominiums are being built atop cliffs overlooking the ocean, -as close to cliff
                    edges as geologist evaluations will allow. Local governments in Oregon lack technical ability to
                    evaluate geotechnical reports and have adopted few site evaluation standards which would
                    ensure hazards avoidance from erosion or landslides. As a result, individual development in
                    hazard areas are routinely approved. The erosion of sea cliffs along the Oregon coast has
                    increased in prominence as a management issue. The Oregon Coastal Program is now focusing
                    attention on impmving state technical assistance and local govemment regulations in this area
                    through development of hazard mitigation requirements, construction setback methodology, and
                    area-wide hazard management plans.

                    OR4 Oregon Territorial Sea Plan and Rocky Shores Strategy
                       In 1992 the Oregon Ocean Plan was adopted. This was followed in 1994 with adoption of the
                    Territorial Sea Management Plan which covers rocky shores, intertidalareas and ocean
                    resources in an ecosystem management process. The Plan provides an ocean policy framework
                    with management standards to be used in managing the marine resources in Oregon's territorial
                    seas.
                       The Plan includes a Rocky Shores Strategy to protect Oregon's rocky marine habitats while
                    providing people the opportunity to use them. Under the strategy, four classifications of rocky
                    shores are designated to guide agency programs on the ground: They include: 10 "habitat
                    refuges" along 4% of the rocky shore where Access is limited; 7 "research reserves" along 7%
                    of the rocky shore where access is discouraged and harvest is limited; 8 "marine gardens" along
                    10% of the rocky shore which encourage visitors to highly popular areas; and 29 "marine shores"
                    along 79% of the rocky shore which are small areas which are open to public but not heavily
                    used. In addition, 9 areas have been identified but not yet designated and 7 priority offshore
                    rockstreefs identified for future study.
                       A key aspect is local site management plans for rocky shore sites with mandatory polices to
                    address complex site conditions, biological resources, human uses, and agency management
                    concems.. Due to mufti-agency management, the strategy provides clear policies for all agencies
                    to follow and a process for intergovemmental coordination. Education and public awareness
                    through communications and interpretive programs is a crucial part of the strategy to manage
                    growing usage and impacts on rocky-shore areas. The strategy is based on sound research and
                    monitoring. An extensive inventory and analysis of rocky shore sites along the coast was
                    conducted in 1993-1994. This inventory provides the coastwide ecosystem context for site-by-
                    site management. The detailed inventory of the Oregon rocky shores was conducted using aerial
                    photos registered on the 7.5' base map. This data showed 161 miles of rocky shore and 395
                    miles of ocean coastline. Even these figures do not account for the vertical zone of certain large


                                                                     14










                     rocks, such as haystack rock which has a vertical zone of 10 feet or greater around the base
                     circumference and therefore a large interticlal surface area. In contrast, more generalized and
                     straight-line state parks shoreline data shows 100. 1 miles or 28% of the 361.9 mile-long coastline
                     in rocky shores. (Peter Bond and Nan Evans, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department,
                     Table on Ocean Shoreline Ownership.)
                         The plan covers all rocky shores defined as shoreline features of rocky cliffs, rocky intertidal
                     areas with associated rocks; and offshore features of rocks, islands, and submerged reefs
                     within Oregon's Territorial Sea (ocean and seafloor area from mean low water seaward three
                     nautical miles). This extremely comprehensive and ambitious plan covers marine fish and
                     shellfish, invertebrates, marine plants, threatened and endangered species, migratory species,
                     marine mammals, and all human uses (both recreational and commercial) associated with
                     marine life and their habitat.
                         Illustrations of on-the-ground results of site management plans: 1) Four Marine Gardens have
                     been closed to taking of marine invertebrates, clams (except razor clams at cape Perpetua), and
                     mussel (except single mussels for bait). 2) Pyramid Rock in Rogue Reef, a critical habitat site
                     for Steller sea lions and under increased fishery use, under the plan is closed within 1,000 feet to
                     all fishing activity from May-August. Permit or. management conditions have been placed on all
                     rocky shore sites to protect the natural resource values of these areas.

                     PENNSYLVANIA
                     Pennsylvania Bluff Recession and Setback Law and Coastal Hazards Area Technical
                     Assistance Program to Lake Erie Property Owners:

                         Pennsylvania's Bluff Recession and Setback Act provides a long-term, regulatory approach to
                     reducing property losses from bluff recession along Lake Erie. The act requires municipalities in
                     bluff recession hazard areas to develop, adopt and administer bluff setback ordinances. The
                     ordinances restrict new development from bluff areas and limit improvements to existing
                     structures within the minimum bluff setback distance. Setback distance is based on the rate of
                     erosion (feet per year) multiplied by the life span of the structure. Life span for residential
                     development is 50 years; commercial is 75 years; and industrial is 100 years; or at least 50 feet
                     from the crest of the bluff. Currently, the act restricts development only from the bluff crest
                     landward. CZM wants to strengthen the law by including the regulation of structures placed
                     landward of the bluff crest in a high hazard area known as the bluff face. CZM is also working to
                     improve its bluff recession monitoring techniques. The major effective of this program has been
                     to keep new development a safe distance from bluff recession hazard areas.
                         Since 1981, CZM has provided free site analysis and recommendation service to Lake. Erie
                     property owners affected by shoreline erosion and bluff recession. The service consists of on-
                     site inspections and recommendations on surface and groundwater control, bluff stabilization and
                     the role of vegetation to stabilize loose soil conditions. In the first seven years of the service
                     (1981-1988), approximately 3/4 of the surveyed property owners followed CZM's
                     recommendations, resulting in an estimated property damage savings and property value
                     enhancement of $5.2 million. Pennsylvania is the only Great Lakes state to offer this service.

                     PUERTO RICO
                     Island RegulaMons: The Puerto Rico Coastal Program is characteristic of state CZM programs
                     adopted by the island states, territories and commonwealths where regulations are island-wide.
                     Puerto Rico regulates development through island-wide land use policies and zoning districts In
                     addition to three shoreline setback areas, permits are required for activities within 1000 meters of
                     the shoreline or farther inland to include important natural resources, as well as all offshore
                     islands. There are t4 zoning districts within which specific activities are allowed. For example,
                     no subdivisions are allowed in the following three Districts: Conservation of Resources District
                     (CR); Conservation and Restoration of Resources District (CRR); and Resource Preservation
                     Distnict(PR). Exceptions granted in CR District for tourist-related recreation if the public interest
                     and natural envirQnment not adversely affected. In the Public Beaches District (PP),
                     subdivisions and development allowed for hotel/vacation facilities, tourist villas, restaurants,
                     recreation, wharves, docks and other water-dependent or water-related activities. Puerto Rico


                                                                        15









                     also required Flood Areas permits for activities in Floodprone zones. In Zone I (floodways)
                     development and major renovations are prohibited. Exception-existing structures cannot be
                     expanded unless protected. Zone I M(v-Zone) and Zone 2 (low areas) allows new development
                     and modifications to existing subject to design/building requirements. There is also a relocation
                     program in coastal high hazard flood areas. Effective beginning in 1992, there is a Maritime
                     Control Zone and required state Authorizations and Concessions for nonconforming uses in the
                     maritime zone- mapped territorial waters, submerged lands, inland to reaches of low lands
                     beneath by ebbiflow of tides.

                     RHODE ISLAND
                     Coastal Construction Control over Coastal Features: The Rhode Island Coastal Program is
                     an example of a strong regulatory program with defined criteria addressing identified resources,
                     activities, and management issue areas. The Coastal Resource Management Council regulates
                     activities within and 200 feet landward of defined coastal features-coastal beaches and dunes,
                     barrier beaches, bluffs, cliffs and banks, rocky shores, and manmade shoreline. Complex
                     coastal zoning designates what types of activities are permissible on shoreline features, tied t  o6
                     state water. classifications. About 75% of the shoreline is adjacent to Type I Waters
                     (Conservation) or Type 2 Waters (Low Intensity Use Areas) where alteration or construction or-
                     shoreline features and undeveloped barrier beaches is prohibited. In addition. activities are
                     regulated by different setbacks from beaches and dunes, critical erosion areas, and coastal
                     buffer zones. There are also regulations for specific types of activities (such as-dredging, filling,
                     new residential structures) as well as 17 designated coastal hazard areas and 18 identified
                     erosion-prone areas. On barrier beaches, all residential and non-water dependent structures on
                     dunes destroyed >50% may not be reconstructed regardless of insurance carrier coverage.
                     Additions are allowed only to structures designated-priortty permissible uses.

                     SOUTH CAROUNA
                     SC-1 Evolution of the Coastal Retreat Policy
                     SC-2 Charleston Harbor Jetties and Folly Beach Erosion Problems
                     SC-3 Simplified Permit Application Process

                     SC-1 Evolution of the Coastal Retreat Policy
                        Until 1987, the SCCC routinely issued permits for erosion control structures on the beach.
                     Construction allowed by the regulations resulted in a proliferation of sea walls and resultant
                     acceleration of erosion of the beach by lowering of the beach face in front of the walls. Damages
                     from the 1986 winter storms caused the Council to toughen its standards concerning permits for
                     erosion control structures. The 1988 Beachfront Management Act and the 1990 Amendments
                     established an erosion retreat program which requires the SCCC to develop setback lines
                     derived from expected beach erosion over 40 years.
                        To build public awareness and education about the beachfront coastal erosion problems, the
                     SCCC produced "Who Owns the Beach?, a 90 minute film on beach and hazard management
                     issues which was aired in 1989. The SCCC has used mass media to communicate/respond to
                     heightened public awareness of SCCC events such as the Lucas property taking case that
                     received national press coverage as it made its way to the US Supreme Court.
                        State-of-the art scientific and technical expertise has been and continues to be used to refine
                     the methodologies on which the state bases its shoreline construction retreat policy. This
                     includes methodologies to protect structures from shoreline erosion and damage from storms.
                        Beachfront development prior to 1977 (the year that the State CZM statute was enacted) and
                     from 1977 to 1988 (the year that the State Beachfront Management Act was enacted) resulted in
                     a steadily increasing,loss of the State's public beach resources. No better example of this trend
                     exists than the development of the Garden City areas in Horry County. This unincorporated
                     beachfront community in Horry County developed from 1977 till 1985 from single family beach
                     cottages to high rise hotels and condominiums at the water's edge. In each case, the buildings
                     and swimming pools occupy the entire square footage of the beachfront lots behind seawalls and
                     revetments that leave little or no dry sand beach for much of the day.. This development has


                                                                      16










                    taken place since the State CZM program was enacted in 1977. This law provided little
                    consideration for the protection and conservation of the public beach or for the dynamics of the
                    changing beachface from erosion and storms. The proliferation of hard erosion control
                    structures in this area has significantly narrowed the beach and flattened the beach profile
                    resulting in a much less appealing tourist destination when compared to other areas with
                    healthier beaches. The storm hazard potential has also been greatly heightened. The policy of
                    retreat established in the 1988 legislation will require decades to correct this problem while
                    repeated, expensive attempts at beach renourishment will be required in the short run to rebuild
                    public beach. (Source: Chris Brooks)

                    SC-2 Charleston Harbor Jeffies and Folly Beach Erosion Problems
                      Jetties constructed in the 1890s leading to Charleston Harbor and maintained by the US Army
                    Corps of Engineers (COE) have a long recorded history of causing beach erosion on Folly
                    Beach. Between 1988 and 1992, the SCCC worked with its Congressional Delegation to
                    negotiate a management response with the COE to address this problem. The SCCC was
                    successful in getting the Section 111 Study which documented the contribution of COE
                    maintained jetties and the inlet to the Folly erosion problem. The COE has subsequently
                    nourished Folly beach, paying for 85% of the cost with the state paying 15% at $2.3 million.

                    SC-3 Simalifled Peffnit A[Wication Process. South Carolina DHEC in 1995 produced a
                    brochure on "General Guide to Environmental Permitting in South Carolina". In cases where a
                    401 water quality certification and a direct state permit and coastal zone management
                    consistency certification are required, the three are combined into a "state certification" or "state
                    permit." The state certification is issued by EQC; however, all EQC and OCRM requirements for
                    certification must be met (p.65). This constitutes a simplified joint permitting program between
                    EPA and two state agencies.



































                                                                  17










                   APPENDIX E: BIBLIOGRAPHY

                   BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR BEACHES AND DUNES, BLUFFS AND ROCKY SHORES

                   In 1995, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Offices of Sea Grant and Ocean
                   and Coastal Resources Management selected a team from the University of Washington,
                   University of Rhode Island, Oregon State University, and Coastal Consultants to conduct the
                   National Coastal Zone Management (CZM)

                   Effectiveness Study. The purpose of the study is to determine the effectiveness of the national
                   CZM program, as developed and implemented by the states, in addressing certain core
                   objectives of the CZMA. One of these core objectives for state programs is the "protection of
                   natural beaches, dunes, bluft and rocky shores.

                   The National CZM Effectiveness Study is unique among CZM evaluations at the national level in
                   that it seeks to determine on-the-ground outcomes of state CZM policy implementation. In the
                   process of addressing estuary and coastal wetland protection issues and outcomes in the states,
                   the investigators gathered a great deal of information, some published and others in the. "gray
                   literature,"
                   As an independent task, OCRM has asked the investigators to'compile a comprehensive
                   bibliography of materials collected in the study*at the national level and for each state. This
                   bibliography is that product.

                   This bibliography is based on materials collected by members of the project research team
                   consisting of Tina Bemd-Cohen, coastal consultant in Helena, Montana and Melissa Gordon,
                   Phl). Student at Louisiana State University.

                   NATIONAL

                   Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and Anna K. Schwab. 1994. An Introduction to Coastal Zone
                   Management Washington, DC: Island Press

                   Bemd-Cohen, Tina and Pam Pogue, Virginia Lee and Richard Delaney, 1995. "A Review of the
                   309 Coastal States Enhancement Grants Program". Coastal Management, Vol.23

                   Brower, David J., et al. 1991. Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program.
                   Newport, Oregon: National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute, NCRI-W-
                   91-003.


                   Coast Alliance. 1995. State of the Coasts. Washington, DC.

                   Coast Alliance. 1995. Health Coasts, Healthy Economy. Washington, DC.

                   Coastal Ocean* Policy Roundtable (COPR). The 1992 Coastal Status Report. A Pilot Study of the
                   U S. Coastal Zone and its Resource& Newark, Del.. University of Delaware, Center for the Study
                   of Marine Policy.

                   Coastal States Organization (CSO). 1981. Coastal Management Options for the '80. Final
                   Report. Washington, DC.

                   Coastal States Organization (CSO). 1985. America's Coast.* Progress and Promise. Washington,
                   DC.










                   Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Development, 1969. "Our Nation and the Sea.
                   Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office

                   Englander, Emie, James Feldmann and Marc Hershman, 1977. "Coastal Zone Problems: A
                   Basis for Evaluation." Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol.* 3, p-217

                   Englander, Emie, Jim Feldmann and Marc Hershman. 1976. "Formulating criteria thr evaluating
                   coastal management problems". University of Washington, Institute for Marine Studies.

                   General Accounting Office. 1975. National Efforts to Preserve the Nation's Beaches and
                   Shorelines- A Continuing Problem. RED-75-364. Washington, DC.: General Accounting Office.

                                                 1988. Flood Insurance Statistics of the NFIP. Washington, DC.:
                   General Accounting Office.

                   Good, James W. 1992. "Ocean Shore Protection Policy. and Practices in Oregon., An Evaluation
                   of Implementation Success". Corvallis, OR. (A PHD Thesis for Oregon State University.) -

                   Kaufman, W., and O.H. Pilkey, Jr. 1983. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America's
                   Shoreline. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

                   Ketchum, Bostwick, ed., 1972. The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone.
                   Cambridge: Mass. Institute of Technology.

                   Knecht, Robert W., Biliana Cicin-Sain and Gregory W. Fisk, 1995. "Perceptions of the
                   Performance of State Coastal Zone Management Programs in the United States". Manuscript
                   submitted to Coastal Management Journal for review, 30 pp.

                   Lipton, Douglas W., Katherine Wellman, Isobel C. Sheifer and Rodney F. Weiher.1995.
                   Economic Valuation of Natural Resources-A Handbook for Coastal Resource Pofidymakers.
                   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis
                   Series No. 5. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Springs, MO. 131 pp.

                   National Committee on Property Insurance. 1988. America's Vanishing Coastline: A New
                   Concem For the Voluntary and Residual Property Insurance Markets Institute thr Property Loss
                   Reduction. Boston, Massachusetts.

                   National Research Council. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. Washington, DC.:
                   National Academy Press.

                                                1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. Washington, DC.: National
                   Academy Prom

                   NOAA, DOC. 1981. The Federal Coastal Programs Review A Report to the President.

                   Office of Coastal Zone Management. (OCZM)
                    1976. State Coastal Zone Management Activities 1975-1976.
                    1976. Report to Congress on Coastal Zone Management, FY96
                    1979. The First Five Years of Coastal Zone Management. AN Initial Assessment
                    1982. Managing the Nafional's Coast., Biennial Report to the Congress on Coastal Zone
                   Management lbr Fiscal Years 1980 and 1981.

                   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
                    1984. Biennial Report- FY82-83
                    1990. Biennial Report- Fr88-89



                                                                2










                     1994. Biennial Report- FY92-93

                     1988. Coastal Management Solutions to our Nation's Coastal Problems. Technical Assistance
                   Bulletin. 101
                     1990b Coastal Management Solutions to Natural Hazards, TA Bull. 103

                   National Ocean Service, NOAA. 1992. Building Along America's Coasts: 20 Years of Building
                   Pennits 1970-1989.


                   Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, NOS, NOAA. 1990. 50 Years of
                   Population Change Along the Nation's Coasts: 1960-2010.

                   Owens, David W. 1992. "National Goals, State Flexibility and Accountability in Coastal Zone
                   Management". Coastal Management, Vol. 20, p. 143.

                   Plait, R.H. et al. 1987. Cities on the Beach: Management Issues of Developed Coastal Barriers.
                   Research Paper 224. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

                   Platt, Rutherford H; Miller H.C., Beatley T., Melville J., Mathenia, B.G. 1992. Coastal Erosion:
                   Has Retreat Sounded? Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph No. 53. Institute of
                   Behavioral Science, University of Colorado., Chapter 3 pp. 46-55

                   Pogue, Pamela, Tina Bernd-Cohen, Virginia Lee, et al. , 1994. A Review of the CZMA Section
                   309 Enhancement Grants Program: Executive Summary. Report for NOAA, Office of Ocean and
                   Coastal Resource Management. University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center/Sea
                   Gant, p.19.

                   Pogue, Pamela, Tina Bemd-Cohen, Virginia Lee, et al., 1994. A Review of the CZMA Section
                   309 Enhancement Grants Program: State and Territory Profiles. Report for NOAA, Office of
                   Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources
                   Center/Sea Gant, p.272.

                   Powell, Scoff L. and Marc Hershman, 1991. Contribution of State CZM Programs to Improved
                   Coastal Water Quality. National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute Report,
                   NCRI-T-91-012.

                   Putt, A.D. and J.F. Springer. 1989. Policy Research: concepts, methods, and applications.
                   Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

                   Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. 7he Coastal Almanac for 1980- The Year of the Coast.
                   The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.: W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco,
                   California.

                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Shoreline Protection and beach Erosion Control Phase 1.
                   Cost Compwison of Shoreline Protection projects of the US. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute
                   of Water Resources. Washington, DC.

                                                      1971. Report on the National Shoreline Study. Department
                   of the Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC.

                                                     1995. Data from unpublished report on Section 309 Study.
                   Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC.






                                                                3










                   U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 1990. Problems Continuing in the Federal
                   Management of the Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington, DC: U.S. General
                   Accounting Office.

                   U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 1986. Resource Management: Information on the
                   Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

                   Urban Institute. 1994. Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs: A Manual. U.S. Environmental
                   Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 842-B-94-008, Washington, DC.

                   Wholey, Joseph, Harry Hatry, and Katherine Newcomber. 1995. The Handbook of Practical
                   Program Evaluation. Josey-Bass Publishers.

                   STATES


                   ALASKA

                   Alaska Administrative Code January 1992. Title 11. Natural Resources. Office of the -
                   Commissioner, Parks, Recreation, and Public Use. Alaska State Parks - Statutes. October
                   1988.

                   Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Title 5,9,18,38, & 4'1.The Constitution of the State of
                   Alaska. Article Vill. Natural Resources. Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

                   Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                   W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                   State of Alaska. 309 Assessment. State of Alaska. 309 Strategy.

                   U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                   Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                   US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                   Environmental Impact Statement. 1979.

                   AMERICAN SAMOA

                   American Samoa Government. Economic Development and Planning Office. 1994. American
                   Samoa Coastal Manacement Proaram Administrative Rules.


                                                                                     1980. American Samoa
                   Coastal Manaaement Proaram and Final Environmental Impact Statement.


                                                                                     1992. Assessment of
                   the American Samoa Coastal Manaaement Proaram.
                   Geneveive Brighouse-Failauaa.                                     1996. MEMO from
                                                                                     .1992. Strateav
                   Amedcan Samoa Coastal Management Enhancement Program.


                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pacific Division. 1994. American Samoa Shoreline Inventory
                   Update 11.




                                                              4











                     U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                     Coastal Zone Management. 1980. American Samoa Coastal Management Program and Final
                     Environmental Impact Statement.


                     CALIFORNIA

                     City of Long Beach. 1980. Local Coastal Permit Procedures Ordinance.

                     Griggs, Gary B., James E. Pepper, and Martha E. Jordan. 1991. California's Coastal Hazards
                     Policies: A Critigue. The Calithmia Coastal Zone Experience, ASCE,

                     National Research Council. 1990.-ManaQing Coastal Erosion.. National Academy Press,
                     Washington, D.C., Chapter 5, pp. 109-117

                     State of California. California Coastal Commission. 1996. Administrative Rules.

                                                                         1994. California Coastal Act of 1976 As of
                     January 1996.
                     Enhancement Grants Strateav ( 309 Strategy.)        -1992. The. alifornia Coastal Commission's

                                                                         1987. California Coastal Resources Guide.
                     University of California Press.

                                                                          1981. District Intervretive Guidelines: South
                     Coast District: Malibu- Santa Monica Mountains.


                                                                         . 1992. Final Assessment of the California
                     Coastal Management Program Performed Under Section 309.

                                                                          1994. Land Form Alteration Policy
                     Guidance.
                                                                          1995. Local Coastal Plannina Proararn
                     Annual Report FY 1994-1995
                     and revised 1979)         -                          1979. Local Coastal Program Manual (1977

                                                                          1977. Local Coastal Program Reaulations.
                                                                          1993. Local Coastal Proararn Overview of
                     Hazards and Shoreline Develooment.

                                                                          1996. MEMO: Mitioation fgr Imipacts of
                     Seawalls on Sand Suc)iplv Coastal DevelopmentTermit Condition and Findinas of Suwort with
                     Methodoloov and Graohics.
                     Sand Mitication Funds.                               1996. Me orandurn of Aareement- Be     .ach

                                                                         1996. Memorandum of Aareement Between
                     San, Dieao Association of Governments (SANFAG) and the Californian Coastal Commission
                     Establishing a Process for the Administration of the beach Sand Mitigation Fund,




                                                                      5










                                   1994. ReCAP Pilot Proiect: Executive Summary: Preliminary Findinas and
                    RecomWendations: lZnterey Bay Redon.

                                                                         1995. ReCAP Pilot Proiect: Findinas and
                    Recommendations: Monterey Bay Region.


                                                                         1979. Re ional Interpretive Guidelines:
                    Central Coast Reaion: Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties,
                    South Coast Rec3ion: Los Anceles County,            .1980.  Reaional Interpretive Guidelines:

                                                                         1978. Regional Interpretive Guidelines:
                    North Central Coast Region: Sonoma, Marin, San F    rancisco Counties,


                                                                         1978. Reaional Interpretive Guidelines:
                    South Central Coast Reaion.

                                                                         1980. Regional Interpretive Guidelines:
                    South Coast Reaion: Orance County.


                                                                        1990. Reoort to the City of Sand City on the
                    Imolementation of its Local Coastal Proaram: Draft Staff Recommendation.


                                                                         1989. Reoort to the city-of Trinidad on the
                    Imolementation of the Local Coastal ProQram.


                                                                         1981. Statewide Interwetive Guidelines.


                                                                         1980. Zonina Chanter o LCP Manual.


                    Sedway Cook Associates. 1986. Consultant's Recommendations for California Coastal
                    Commission LCP Review Proaram.

                    University of California. Institute of Marine Sciences. No Date. Responding to Oregon's
                    Shoreline Erosion hazards: Some Lessons Learned from California.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1978. State of California Coastal Zone Management Program and
                    Final Environmental Imoact Statement.


                    CONNECTICUT

                    State of Connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection. 1988. Coastal Management in
                    Connecticut Beyond the First Decade.

                                                                                1995. Lona Island Sound Proarams
                    and Accomolishments,


                                                                                1995. Office of Lona Island Sound
                    Proarams Strateoic Plan 1995-1997.


                                                                                 1992, Final Assessment of the
                    Connecticut Coastal Manaaement Proaram: Section CZMIA.
                    Manaaement oroaram: Final Strateav: Section 309.             1992. Connecticut Coastal

                                                                    6











                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1980. State of Connecticut Coastal Zone Management Program
                    and Final Environmental Impact Statement.


                    DELAWARE

                    Information : state survey/ Sarah Cooksey 1/18, Robert Henreyl/19, and Maria
                    Sadlerl/20Delaware Coastal Management Program.

                    State of Delaware. 1992. Section 309 Assessment.


                                       Coastal Management Act.

                                       1992.Delaware Coastal Management Program Enhancements. A Multi- Year
                    Strategy to Improve Coastal Resource Management: A Response to Section 309 of the Federal
                    Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization of 1990.

                    Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast-.
                    W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. Delaware Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                    Environmental, Impact Statement.

                    US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
                    Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the
                    Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.


                    FLORIDA


                    A Coastal Barriers Resource Manual. Federal and State Highlights. November 1986. Financial
                    assistance for publication provided by Florida Department of Environmental Regulations and
                    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by Coastal Resource
                    Management, NOAA, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs.

                    Beaches - The Official Journal of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association.
                    Autumn 1994. Editor Stan Tait.


                    Beachfront Properties Under Public Ownership Inventory. February 1994.

                    Funds for project provided by Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management
                    Program, using funds made available through the NOAA under CZMA of 1972, as amended.

                    Conservation and Recreation Lands 1995 Annual Report. Prepared by Office of Environmental
                    Services. Division of State Lands. Department of Environmental Protection in cooperation with
                    Land Acquisition Advisory Council

                    Florida's Sandy Beaches - An Access Guide. 1985. Published with the assistance of DNR,
                    DCM, State of Florida DER. Additional funding was provided by NOAA. University Presses of
                    Florida - University of West Florida Press/ Pensacola. Florida Statute s.

                    Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                    W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.State of Florida. 309 Assessment.State of Florida.
                    309 Strategy.




                                                                   7










                   U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                   Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                   US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. Florida Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                   Environmental Impact Statement. August 1981.

                   GUAM


                   Territory of Guam. Public Law 13-154

                   Territory of Guam. Bureau of Planning. 1992. Final 309 Assessment.

                                                    -.1992. Final 309 Strategy,

                                                       1992. MEMO on State Hazards Management Efforts.

                   U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. 1979. Guam Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                   Environmental lmg)act Statement.

                   U..S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. 1994. Guam Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                   Environmental Imoact Statement.- Amendments to Volumes 1 &2.


                   HAWAII


                   State of Hawaii. Coastal Management Program. 309 Assessment.

                                        . 309 Strategy.


                   U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management.      Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
                   Imoact Statement.


                   LOUISIANA


                   Graber, Peter, H. F. contract with NOSDACW 39-91 and DACW 39-91-17-5396. Greenbae,
                   California.

                   Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division and Rodney E.
                   Emmer, et. al. 1991. Preliminary Assessment of the Louisiana Coastal Management
                   Program. Louisiana

                   Department of Natural Resources. Title 43: Natural Resources. (Louisiana Coastal Use
                   Guidelines).

                   Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Restoration and Management,
                   Coastal Restoration Division, Federal Assistance Section 1995. Summary of the Completed
                   State Funded Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Projects 1986 - 1994. (Draft).

                   Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 1995. CWPPRA Bulletin No. 1 Coastal Wetlands
                   Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act - Summary of Priority List I - 4. (Draft).





                                                                 8










                      Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Status Report for Coastal Wetlands
                      Conservation and Restoration Program.

                      Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980. The Year of the Coast.
                      W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.State of Louisiana. 1992. Final Assessment of the
                      Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program.

                                        1992. Final Section-309 Strategy.

                                        1987. State and Local Coastal Resource Management Act (SLCRMA) of
                      1978 (1978 La. Acts 361 - codified as amended at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 49-214 et seq.)

                                        1990. Administrative Regulations, La. Admin. Code tit. 43 Section 1(701)
                      (707) (721)(723).

                                          1993. Chapter 637.

                                          1993. Chapter 970

                      US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                      Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960-2010.

                      US Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM and State of Louisiana. 1980. State of Louisiana
                      Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact'Statement.

                      MAINE


                      Normandeau Associates, Inc. For U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. A Dredged Material
                      Manaaement Study for Coastal Maine and Llew Hamoshire.

                      State of Maine. Coastal Barrier Resources System. Chaoter 21 Sections 1901-1905

                      State of Maine. 1986. Public Laws of the State of Maine As Passed by the 112 Leoislature at the
                      Second Reaular Session. January 8, 1986 to April. 16, 1986.


                                    Bureau of Public Lands. 1993. Cutter Coast Unit Manaaement Plan.

                                                           1991. Dodae Point unit Manaaement Plan.

                      State of Maine. Department of Conservation. Land Use Regulation Commission. 1990.
                      Amendment of the Comorehensive Land Use Plan Re-gardina the Development and
                      Conservation of Lakes in Maine's Unorganiged Areas.
                                                                                                . 1995. Bac round
                      Reaardina the Prooosed Revision of the Maine Land Use Reaulatio Comin-ission's
                      Comprehensive Land Use Plan.


                                                                                                 1991. Land Use
                      Districts and Standards: For Areas Within the Jurisdiction of the Maine Lawd, Use Reaulation
                      Commission, Chapter 10 of the Commission's Rules and Standards. Land Use Regulation
                      Commission.


                                                                                                 1983. Land Use
                      Plan: For Areas Within the Jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Reaulation Commission,


                                                                                                 199S. Revised
                      Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Areas within the Jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use



                                                                     9










                    reaulation Commission. Vol. 1: Issues and Policies. and Vol 11: Characterization of Resources
                    (Draft for public comment)                                                  .. 1995. Statutes
                    Administered by Maine Land Use Reaulation Commission. As Amended through the 11 7th
                    Legislature First Regular Session, 1995.

                    State of Maine. Department of Conservation. 1987. 1986: The Year In Review- Activities of the
                    Maine Geolooical Survey.

                                                                1990. Coastal Sand Dune Maps.

                    State of.Maine. Department of Environmental Protection. 1987. Degartment Order for The
                    Atlantic Condominiums, Old Orchard Beach. Maine.
                                                                          .1995. Mandatory Shoreland Zonina Act.
                    Title 38 M.R.S.A. Sections 435 throuah 449.
                                                                            1993. Natural Resources Protection Act::-
                    Coastal Sand Dunes Rules Chapter 355.


                                                                            1995. Natural Resources Protection Act:
                    Permit By Rule Standards Chapter 305.
                                                                            1995. Natural Resources Protection Act:
                    38 M.R.S.A Sections 480-A to 480-X.
                                                                            1994. State of Maine Guidelines for
                    MuniCiDal Shoreland Zonina Ordinances: 06-096 Dwartment of Environmental Protection
                    Chapter 1000.


                                                                            1992. Final Section 309 Assessment.
                    309 Strategy. (Revised Nov. 1992)                        1992. Maine Coastal Proaram Section

                                                                             1996. "Application Tracking System
                    (ATS) for Coastal Sand Dune and Coastal Wetland Applications in the Coastal Zone 1/1/88-
                    12/21/95" and Permit By rule (PBR) Notification reports selected data on riprap and sand dune
                    activities 5/92-12/95" provided by Kathy Jensen.

                                                                            . 1996. "Complaints Received in Maine's
                    Coastal Zone 1/1/84 to 12/31/95* provided by Kathy Jensen.

                    State of Maine. Land for MainWs Future Board. 1990. Biennial Report: February 1990.


                                                                 1995. Biennial Report: January 1995.


                    State of Maine. Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission. 1991. An Inventory and Analysis for
                    Monheaan Plantation,

                                                                             1996. Data Base Inforrnation on Land
                    Use Regulation Commission building permit activities since 1972 provided by Henry G. Nichols.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1978. Maine's Coastal Program final Environmental lmoact
                    Statement.





                                                                    10












                  MARYLAND


                  Code of Maryland.

                  Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                  W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                  State of Maryland. 309 Assessment. State of Maryland. 309 Strategy.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                  Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management. Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                  Environmental Impact Statement. 1978

                  MASSACHUSETTS

                  State of Massachusettes. Coastal Management Program. 309 Assessment.-

                                        309 Strategy.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management..      Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
                  Impact Statement.

                  MICHIGAN

                  Atlas of Critical Dunes. February 1989. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and
                  Water Division. Michigan's Coastal Resources.

                  Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Division. Natural Resources and
                  Environmental Protection Act (excerpts) Act 451 of 1994. Part 353. Sand Dunes Protection and
                  Management.

                  Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                  W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco. ,

                  State of Michigan. 309 Assessment.State of Michigan. 309 Strategy.

                                     The Shorelands; Protection and Management Act. Act 245 of 1970.

                  Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Division.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth We         ek
                  Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management.       Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
                  Impact Statement.

                  MISSISSIPPI

                  Information: state survey / Jerry Mitchell. Bureau of Marine Resources. January 9, 1996 at 1:30
                  pm.










                   Bureau of Marine Resources Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 1992.

                   State of Mississippi Section 309 Enhancement Grant Program: Volume I- Assessment and
                   Volume 2 - Strategy.

                   Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                   W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                   U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                   Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
                   Impact Statement.

                   US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
                   Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the
                   Nation's Coasts 1960 - 201


                   NEW HAMPSHIRE


                   State of New Hampshire. Code of Administrative Rules. Wetlands Board. Undated. Chapter wt
                   300- Criteria and Conditions, Chaoter wt 100 Organizational Rules, wt 400 Shoreline Stnictures,
                   Chapter wt 600 Tidal Wetlands.

                   State of New Hampshire. Department of Environmental Services. 1994. Environmental Fact
                   Sheet: NHDES Technical Bulletin NHDES-CO-1994-2 and Table 2 Minimum Shoreland
                   Protection Standards Under the CSPA (RSA, 483-B)

                                                                                   . Water Supply and Pollution
                   Control Division. 1995. Quarterly Reports. Subsurface Water Quality Bureau: Inspections,
                   Monitoring and Surveillance. July-Sept. 1995, Cot-Dec. 1995. By Dennis Plante, Denise
                   Frappier, James Spaulding, Stephen Larson                       . Wetlands Board. 1995.
                   Quartedy Reports to NH Coastal Program. 1995-September 1995 and October 1995-December
                   1995. By Frank Richardson and Dori Wiggin on Wetland Permit Inspections and Monitoring.

                                                                                    Wetlands Board. 1996.
                   Wetlands Impact Activity Reoort (5/7/96) and Imoact Trackina Database Screen. (Provided by
                   Tracey Boisvert)

                   State of New Hampshire. Department of Resources and Economic Development. 1996. DRED
                   Property List as of April 1. 1996 (computer print-out)

                   State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Coastal Program. 1992. Coastal Program Bulletin.:
                   Endanaered and Threatened Birds in the Coastal Zone March 1992.

                                                                        Undated. Excerpt from Project #85,
                   Assessment, Impact and Control of Shoreline Change Along New Hampshire's Tidal Shoreline,
                   "Hampton Harbor Inlet," p. 107.

                                                                        1995. Inventory of Proiects Receivinci
                   Fundina Assistance Throuah the New Hampshire Coastal Pr@g_ram 1978-1995, (revised 1996)

                                                                        1992. Final Section 309 Assessment.

                                                                        1992. Final Section 309 Strateav.




                                                                12











                                                                         1994. "Table I Status of Shoreland
                    Protection and Other Ordinances in the NH Coastal Communities."

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1982. New Hamoshire Coastal Program Ocean and Harbor
                    Seament and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1988. New Hampshire Coastal Program -Remainder of Coast and
                    Final Environmental Imoact Statement.


                    NEW JERSEY

                    State of New Jersey Coastal Permit Program Rules NJAC 7:7-1.1 et seq. (incorporating
                    amendments through October 16, 1995). prepared by State of New Jersey, Department of
                    Environmental Protection, Land Use Regulation Program.

                    New Jersey's Coastal Enhancement Program: "Final A  ssessment Nomination Document.
                    January 1992. prepared by the Office of Regulatory Policy, Department of Environmental
                    Protection and Energy.

                    New Jersey's Coastal Enhancement Draft Mufti-year Strategy. . March 1992. prepared by the
                    Office of Regulatory Policy, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy.

                    Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                    W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                    US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                    Environmental Impact Statement. August 1980.

                    US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                    Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                    NEW YORK


                    State of New York.Design of Long Island South Shore Erosion Monitoring Program.

                    Long Island Regional Planning Board. December 1991   Draft of Long Island Sound Regional
                    Management Report (excerpts).

                    Erosion and Flooding Hazards. Emergency Response to Coastal Storms. Final Report Volume I
                    and Long-Term Strategy, Final Report Volume 11. September 1994.

                    Governors Coastal Erosion Task Force.Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazards
                    Management Program. Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, New York. 1989.

                    Long Island Regional Planning Board and New York Coastal Program, Division of Coastal
                    Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. New York Department of State.

                    Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                    W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                    South Shore Mainland Hazards Management Program. Final Report. March 1994. Long Island
                    Regional Planning Board and New York Coastal Program, Division of Coastal Resources and
                    Waterfront Revitalization. New York Department of State.


                                                                 13













                  State of New York. 309 Final Assessment.

                  State of New Yoric. 309 Final Strategy.

                  Town of Southold Erosion Management Plan. November 1995. New York Department of State,
                  Division of Coastal Resources- Town of Southold. Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc. Moffatt
                  and Nichol, Engineers with the Sarotoga Association.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                  Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management. New York Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                  Environmental Impact Statement. August 1982.

                  NORTH CAROLINA


                  Brower, David J. and James E. Wuenscher. Special Area Management in the North Carolina
                  Coastal Zone. January 1994.

                  North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Heath, Milton S. Jr.,
                  and David Owens. North Carolina Law Review. Coastal Management Law in North Carolina.
                  1974-1994. Volume 72. Number 6. September 1994.

                  North Carolina Law Review Association. North Carolina Administrative Code.Priddy, Loie E., and
                  Rick Carraway. The Final Report and Recommendations to the Coastal Resources Commission.
                  Technical Services Section, Division of Marine Fisheries. North Carolina Department of Natural
                  Resources and Community Development. September 1978.

                  Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                  W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.State of North Carolina. 309 Assessment. State of
                  North Carolina. 309 Strategy.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                  Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                  US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management. North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                  Environmental Impact Statement. 1978.

                  NORTHERN MARIANAS


                  Commonwealth of Northern Marianas. Coastal Management program. 309 Assessment.

                                      309 Stratem

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management.    Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental
                  Imoact Statement.


                  OREGON

                  Crook, Christianna. 1979. An Introduction to Beach and Dune ftLsical and Biological Processes.




                                                             14










                  Good, James, W, 1994. "Shore Protection Policy and Practices in 0   regon: An Evaluation of
                  Implementation Success." Coastal Management. Vol. 22, No.4, pp.325-352
                  Komar, Paul'. 1979. Physical Processes and Geoloa                         on'Coast.
                                                                      ic Hazards on the Oreq

                  State of Oregon. Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 1992. Oregon Geology, Vol.
                  54, Number 1. "Ocean Processes and Hazards Along the Oregon Coast" by Paul Komar.

                  State of Oregon. Department of Land Conservation and Development. 1994. Inventory fo
                  Orecon's Rocky Shores.
                                        Undated. Oreaon Coastal Manaciement Proaram. -


                                        Undated Oreaon Coastal Manaaement Proaram. Appendi


                                        Oreaon Coastal Manaaement Pro-gram: A Citizens Guide


                                        1995. Oreaon Rocky Shores Natural Resource Inventory


                                        1995. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines: 1995 Edition.
                                        1995. Rocky Shore com   munications Strateav.

                                        1994. Territorial Sea Plan.


                                        1995-. Unpublished material on local setback requirements from Emily
                  Toby.

                  State of Oregon. Department of Parks and Recreation. Undated. Oregon State Parks Guide.

                                                                         1996. Sites and Deedbook Acres by
                  Mana-gement Unit.

                  State of Oregon. Department of Transportation. Official State Mag) 1995-1996: Oregon.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. OCRM. Evaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal
                  Manacement Proaram for the Period throuah
                  Proaram for the Period throuah .     Evaluation FindinQs of the Oregon Coastal Manaaement

                                                       Evaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal Management
                  Program for the Period through .

                                                       Evaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal Management
                  Program for the Period through.

                                                       Evaluation Findings of the, Oregon Coastal Management
                  Program for the Period through .

                                                       Evaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal Management
                  Program for the Period through .

                                                       1982. Evaluation Findinas of the Oreaon Coastal
                  Manaaement Proararn for the Peri;d February 1981 throuah February 1982.




                                                                 15










                                                       1984. -Evaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal
                    Manaaement Proaram for the Peri;d February 1982 throuah Auciust 1983 .

                                                       1988. EV luation Findincis of the Ormon Coastal
                    Manaciement Proaram for the Period February 1985 throu-oh January 1987 .

                                                       1990. Fv luation Findinas of the Oreaon Coastal
                    Manaaement Proaram for the Period From February 1987 throuah May 1990.

                                                      .1991. gyaluation Findings of the Oregon Coastal
                    Manauement Prourarn for the PeTod From June 1990 throuah February 1993.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. OCZM. 1977. State of Oregon Coastal Managemen
                    Proo in Final Environmental Imoact Statement.

                    U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Beaches and Dunes of the Oreaon Coast.

                    PENNs,@LVANIA

                    Christerson, Neil. 1995. MEMO on Pennsylvania for the National CZM Effectiveness Study:
                    RPls and Amendments; Performance Reports; Final Reports and Closeout Reports.

                    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water
                    Resources Management, Division of Coastal Zone Management. 1991. Pennsylvania Coastal
                    Zone Manacement Proaram.


                                                  1992. Assessment of the Pennsvlvania Coastal Zone
                    Manaaement Proaram.


                                                  1995. CZM Proiect List.


                                                  1995. "Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program" as
                    part of Coastal States Organization briefing packet for Congress.

                                                  1994. Pennsylvania 309 Strateq-v Revisions.

                                                  1992. Strategy of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Manaaement
                    Proaram.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. 1980. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management
                    Pro-gram and Final Environmental lmoact Slatement.

                    PUERTO RICO


                    Puerto Rico. Coastal Management Program. 309 Assessment,

                                         309 Strateav,

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office o'f
                    Coastal Zone Management.     Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                    Environmental lmoact Statement.

                    RHODE ISLAND










                State of Rhode island. Coastal Management Program. 3gg Assessment.

                                 .309   rateav.

                U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                Coastal Zone Management. 1978. State of Rhode Island Coastal Management Program and
                Final Envirogmental ImRact State m-ent.

                SOUTH CAROLINA

                Dean, R.G. 1987. Coastal Armorina: Effects. erinciples and Mitigation,

                Duke University. 1990. Recovering From Hugo: Pregaring for Hilda. Hurricane Damage
                Mitigation Figid Trio Guide. Department of geology, Program for the Study of Developed
                Shorelines.

                Fairbridge, Rhodes W. 1989. Climate Warming and Rising Sea Level, NASA-GISS and
                Columbier University.

                Kana, Timothy W. 1988. Beach Erosion in South Carolina.

                               . 1990. Conservina South Carolina Beaches Throuah the I 990s: A Case for
                Beach Renourishment.

                National Committee on Property Insurance. 1988. America's vanishing Coastli_"es: A New
                Concern for the Voluntary and Residual Prooertv Insurance Market.

                Smith, Jack Newman. 1991. "Analysis of the Regulation of Beachfront Development in South
                Carolina." South Carolina Law Review, Vol.42, pp.717-742.

                State of South Carolina. 1992. South Carolina's Beachfront Manaaement Plan.


                                        .1977. South Carolina Coastal Manaciement Act. Code of Laws of
                South Carolina

                                         1988. Beachfrogt Management Act. Code of Laws of Souttv
                Carolina.
                                        .1990. Beachfront Manaaement Act Amendments. Code of Laws of
                South Carolina.

                                        Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management. No date.
                Coastal Erosion in South Carolina (internal staff paper).

                                         .1992. Final Assessment of the South Carolina Coastal Zong
                Manaaement Proaram.

                                        1992. Final Sectign 309 Strategy.

                                        1995. General Guide to Environmental Permitting in South Carolina.

                                        1995. OCRM Regulations: Rules and Reaulations for Permittina in
                the Critical Areas of the Coastal Zone,


                                        1995. Policies and Procedures of the South Carolina Coastal
                Manaaement-Proaram.



                                                       17












                                                  1994. -Revised Section 309 Strategy.

                                                  1995. South Carolina's Annual State of the Beaches Report.

                                                  1994. South Camlina's Coastal Zone Manaaement Act: Coastal
                     Tidelands and Wetlands: Chapter 39 of Title 48 of the 1978 Code as Amended.

                     US Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Water Resources Development in South Carolina 1993.

                     US Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1975. The Coastline of the United States

                     US Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCIRM. 1988. Amendment No.1 to the South Carolina
                     Coastal Manacement Pmaram: Inclusion of the 1988 Beach Mana-gement Act, Environmental
                     Assessment & Preliminary Findinas of Approvability.

                                                  Undated. Amendments tolhe 1977 Coastal      Manaaement Act.

                                                  1990. Coastal LAanagement Solutions to Natural Hazards, Technical
                     Assistance Bulletin #103.


                                                  1981. Final Evaluation Findinas for the South Camlina Coastal
                     Manauement Pro-gram fort    he Period September 1979 throuah October 1980.

                                                  1982. Final Evaluation Findinas for the South Camlina Coastal
                     Manaaement Pmaram for the Period November 1980 Throuah January 1982.

                                                 . 1984. Final Evaluation Findings for the South Carolina Coastal
                     Manaaement Proaram for the Period February 1982 to November 1983.

                                                 . 1985. Final Evaluation Findinas for the South Carolina Coastal
                     Management Proaram for the Period November 1983 throuah November 1984.


                                                 .1988. Final Evaluation Findings for the South Carolina Coastal
                     Manauement Proaram for the Period Nove[Ober 1984 through May 1987.

                                                  1991. Final Evaluation Findinas for the South Carolina Coastal
                     Manaaement Program for the Period June 1987 thmuQh Seg)tember 1990.

                                                 . 1994. Final Evaluation Findings for the South Carolina Coastal
                     Manaaement Proaram for the Period October 1990 throunh November 1991.


                     US Department of Commerce, NOAA, ORCA. 1992. Building Along America's Coasts.

                                                                      1990a, 50 Years gf Pooulation Change.


                     US Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM and State of South Carolina Coastal Council.
                     1979. State of South Carolina Coastal Manaaement Pmaram and Final Environmental Imoact
                     Statement.

                     U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991k. "Coastal County Populations.*

                                                      1991g. Statistical Abstract of the United States:1991,(111th
                     edition)



                                                                     18










                                                1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1994, (xx edition)


                  VIRGIN ISLANDS

                  Territory of the Virgin Islands of the United States. 1991. Preliminary Assessment of the Virciins
                  Islands of the United States Coastal Zone Manacement Proaram: Section 309 Coastal Zone
                  Enhancement Grants Proaram.

                                                                   1996. Virgin Island Coastal Management
                  Program. Performance Report Permit Chart for Sia-te CZrn AQencies with Direct Permittina
                  Authoft: St. Croix St. Thomas: St. Johns Districts, ct. 1992-Sept. 1995. (Provided by Jewle
                  Griffin, OCRM)

                                                                   1978. Chapter 21 Vimin Island Coastal
                  Manaaement Act.

                                                                   1987. Chapter 13. Environ_mental Protection.

                                                                   1992. 309 Final Strateav.

                                                                   1992. Rules and Reaulations, Vimin Island
                  Coastal Zone Manaaement. Title 12, Chapter 21 71RR, Chag)ter 900 throuah 913. Amendments
                  to Subchapter 910, Subchaoter 913,



                  Towle, Edward L. and Richard D. Volk. 1994. Case Study: From Theory to Practice with Vimin
                  Islands Coastal Management: A Retrospective- View. Interamerican Development Bank 5th
                  Consultative Meeting on Environment.

                  U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Coastal Zone Management. 1979. The Vimin Islands Coastal Management Program and Final
                  EnvironmentgI lmoact Statement.

                  VIRGINIA


                  An Assessment of the Barrier Island Policy and the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act. December
                  1992. Prepared by Chris W. Frye.

                  Virginia council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program.

                  Laws of Virginia Related to Submerged Lands, Wetlands, and Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and
                  Beaches. 1992 Edition.

                  Marine Resources Commission. Newport News, Virginia.

                  Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                  W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.Shoreline Development BMPs. 1994.

                  Virginia Marine Resources Commission.Subaqueous Guidelines. 19M.

                  Virginia Marine Resources Commission.Wetland Guidelines. 1993.

                  Department of Wdtlands; Ecology, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, College of William and
                  Mary and Habitat Management Division, Virginia Marine Resources Commission.


                                                              19











                    State of Virginia. 309 Assessment. State of Virginia. 309 Strategy.

                    U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                    Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                    US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                    Coastal Zone Management. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                    Environmental Impact Statement. 1985.

                    WASHINGTON


                    Brunengo, Matthew. 1994. Washington Geology: Geologic Hazards and the Growth Management
                    Act.State of Washington. Dept. of Natural Resources. Forest Practices Division. (vol. 22, no.2,
                    July 1994)

                    Carson, Brent. No date. Regulation of Critical-Areas and Natural Resource Lands Under the
                    Growth Manaaement Act. (Buck and Gordon Law Firm)

                    State of Washington. Chapter 90.58 RCW. Shoreline Management Act of 1971 As Amended in
                    1995.


                    State of Washington. Dept. of Ecology. 1995/1996. Coastal Currents. (Vol. XVIV No. 4 and
                    VOL.XX No. 1)

                                                            1994. Coastal Erosion Manaaement Strateav: Coastal
                    Erosion Manaciement Studies, Volumes 1-9:


                    Vol. 1 Coastal Erosion Management Studies in Puciet Sound Washinaton: Executive Summary.

                    Vol. 2 : Annotated Biblioaraphies on Shoreline Hardenina Effects. Veaetative Erosion Control,
                    and Beach Nourishment.


                    Vol. 3: Inventory and Characterization f Shoreline Armorina. Thuurston County, Washinoton
                    1977-1993.


                    Vol. 4: Encineerina Geotechnical techniques for Shoreline Erosion Manaaement in Puget Sound.

                    Vol. 5: Shoreline Armorina Effects on Physical Coastal Processes in Puciet Sound, Washinaton.


                    Vol. 61994. Policy Altematives for Coastal Erosion Management.

                    Vol. 7Shorellne Armoring Effects on Coastal Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound,
                    Washinaton.


                    Vol. 8: Manaaement OiDtions for Unstable Coastal Bluffs in Puaet Sound, Washinaton.

                    Voo. 9: R@gional Awroches to Address Coastal Erosion Management.



                                                            1995. Coastal Zone Assessment: An Annotated
                    Biblioarat)hy of the Documentary Literature.






                                                                20









                                                                                                           f




                                                             1996. The Cumulative Environmental Effects of
                   Shoreline Erosion Control and Associated land Clearina Practices, Puaet Sound, Washinaton.
                   (Report 94-83)

                                                             1994Geoloaically Hazardous Areas (October 18, 1994
                   version)                                 1991. Po ulation and Development Trends in
                   Washinaton's Coastal Zone.


                                                            1995. Indicators of Coastal Zone Quality: An Annotated
                   Biblioarwhy.


                                                            1994. Shoreline Administrator's Manual. (2nd Edition)

                                                            1991. Shoreline Bluff and Slog)e Stability: Manaaement
                   Options. (shorelands Technical Advisory paper No.2)

                                                            1985. The Shoreline Manaciement Act: An Ovdrview o
                   the Trends.


                                                            1996. Shoreline Manaaement Act Rea    ulatory Reform.
                   (Ecology Fact Sheet 95-108) and (Ecology Publication 96-102)

                                                            1994. Shoreline Master Proaram Handbook (2nd
                   Edition)

                                                            1983. Shoreline Master Program Handbook.



                                                             1995. Washinaton State Coastal Zone Management
                   Program.
                                                             1976. Washinaton State Coastal Zone Manaaement
                   Proaram- Amendments.


                                                            1992 Washinaton State Coastal Zone Section 309
                   Assessment and Strateav. Volume 1. Assessment.


                                                            1992. Washinaton State Coastal Zone Section 309
                   Assessment and Strateav, Volume
                   State of Washington. 1993. G[gMh Managemqnt Act. RCW

                                          No Date. ChaMer 365-190 WAC Minimum Guidelines to Classify
                   Aciriculture. Forest. Mineral Lands. and Critical Areas,

                   U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. 1975..State of Washington Coastal Zone Management
                   Proaram Final Environmental Impact Statement.


                   WISCONSIN

                   Ringold, Paul L. and John Clark. 1980. The Coastal Almanac for 1980 - The Year of the Coast.
                   W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

                   State of Wisconsin. 309 Assessment.State of Wisconsin. 309 Strategy.





                                                                   21











                      U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service. 1990. A Special Earth Week
                      Report: 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coasts 1960 - 2010.

                      U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                      Coastal Zone Management. Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
                      Environmental Impact Statement.

                      Water Quality Standards for Wetlands - A Regulator's Guide to NR 103. September 1992.

                      Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Statutes.


















































                                                                  22



                                                                                             t
                                                         11MMMINIIIIII                       t
                                                          3 6668 14103 4571                  1 --"
                                                                                             I -
                                                                                             @t


                                                                                             "I @
                                                                                             I .
                                                                                             i
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I ,
                                                                                             I
                  I                                                                          I -
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             1,
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I @@


                                                                                             t -
                                                                                             It
                                                                                               "10