Development management to reduce coastal storm hazards policies and processes

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

Hazard Mitigation Research Program

The Center for Urban and Regional Studies
The University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

HT392
R4655
no.85-
07

Report No. 85-07

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE
COASTAL STORM HAZARDS:
POLICIES AND PROCESSES

Timothy Beatley

The information presented in this report is based upon research funded by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. CEE@8217115, Hurricane Hazard
Reduction Through Development Management. The findings and opinions are
solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect. the views of the
National Science Foundation.

June 1985
Cn

LIBRARY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2224 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Contents

Section Page

I. Introduction: Planning for Coastal Storm Hazards ... . . . . . I

11. Storm Hazard Reduction Goals . . . . . 3

Ill. Assessing the Local Storm Threat:
Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis . . . . . 5

IV. Alternative Storm Hazard Mitigation Options . . . . . . . . . . 14

V. Development Management Tools and Concepts 20

A. Development Regulation * * * o * * 9 21

B. Land and Property Acquisition . . . 41

C. Taxation, Fiscal and Other Incentives 59

D. Capital Facilities Policies . . . . 65

E. Information Dissemination . . . . 71

VI. Institutional Approaches to Recovery and Reconstruction . . . . 74

VII. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

VIII. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

I. Introduction: The Need to Plan for Coastal Storm Hazards

When this nation's coastal areas were sparsely populated, the need to

plan for hurricanes and coastal storms was not great. In recent decades,

however, barrier islands and vulnerable coastal areas have experienced

unprecedented growth (e.g., Baker 1979). The aesthetic and other amentities

of the coast have attracted many to the water's edge. These natural attrac-

tions and amenities of the coast are accompanied by natural hazards, most

importantly hurricanes and severe coastal storms. The lives and property at

risk in coastal areas are substantial, and states and localities must begin to

seriously deal with and plan for these eventual natural phenomena.

A number of hazards are usually associated with a hurricane or severe

coastal storm. Ocean surge and waves can create tremendous hydrodynamic

forces which destroy or undermine shoreline buildings, public facilities, and

protective works. Stillwater flooding, from surge and storm rains, can cause

substantial property damages, as well as obstruct the evacuation of coastal

residents to safer areas. High winds create similar threats to life and

property, destroying homes and blowing down trees and utility lines. A more

extensive catalog of the threats to life and property can be found elsewhere

(Beatley, Brower, and Godschalk 1984). These brief comments are meant only to

identify in a general way the danger of hurricanes and severe coastal storms.

This paper is designed to assist local, regional, and state officials in

planning for storm risks and is specifically focused on the concept of

mitigation. Mitigation can be defined as actions taken in advance of a

disaster which reduce the damages and loss of life resulting from such an

event should it occur. Mitigation is, of course, not the only area where

local and state planning is needed. Disaster planning is typically

conceptualized in terms of four phases or stages. They are: 1) pre-storm

preparedness (mitigation), 2) preparedness, 3) emergency response, and

4) recovery and reconstruction. It is clear that this Is a circular process

with recovery and reconstruction feeding into preparation and mitigation for

the next storm. 1he mitigation options and process described in this report

Recovery Mitigation

Res;.,onse Preparedness

Disaster Event

Diagram 1: 1he Four Phases of Disaster-related Activity

are relevant to stages 1 and 2 of this sequence. Policies and processes of

planning for the immediate storm emergency, such as evacuation planning or

search and rescue functions, will not be discussed in this paper. This,

however, does not imply that these activities do not influence or have a

bearing on mitigation. For example, certain pre-storm mitigation programs may

have as their main objectives the facilitating of evacuation should a storm

threaten. 'While mitigation is not concerned with the immediate actions and

management tasks associated with evacuation, it may be concerned with creating
rRecovery Miti@gation

a physical environment in which evacuation is relatively easy.

Uhile a number of mitigation options are reviewed in this paper, the

primary focus is on the use.of development management techniquii. Other major

mitigation options, such as structural improvements and building codes, have

been examined at length elsewhere, while development mauagement rem-gins an

approach little discussed in hurricane hazard mitigation. Moreover, the focus

on development management is an acknowledgement of the limitations of these

other approaches. Coastal- protection structural improvements, such as the

construction of seawalls and groins, tend to be very expensive, and it is

often difficult for local governments to modify existing national or statewide

building codes and construction standards to enhance their storm protection

requirements.

Development management refers to programs and policies which control or

influence the location, density, timing and/or type of urban development

(Godschalk, Brower 1979). While these techniques have been used extensively

to advance numerous other community goals in coastal and non-coastal settings,

their explicit use in reducing storm hazards has thus far been limited. This

report presents alternative development management strategies, potential

problems in their application, and general approaches to effectively apply

these techniques to mitigate the impacts of hurricane and coastal storms.

II. Hazard Reduction Goals

The general goal of reduction of storm hazards is not specific enough to

guide mitigation programs and policies. There are several basic objectives,

however, within this overall goal which can be identified and among which

priorities can be assigned. Decisions concerning which of these objectives

are important, and the extent of their importance are essential to choosing

between different hazard mitigation strategies. Potential objectives within

storm hazard reduction are the following:

1. reduction of damages to existing development;

2. reduction of damages to future development;

3. reduction of damages to existing public facilities and structures;.

4. reduction of damages to future public facilities and structures.

5. reduction of injury and loss of life;

6. protection of the natural environment;

7. other comminity goals.

7he relative importanceof each of these objectives will in turn

influence the types of hazard reduction programs and policies which are chosen

by the locality. For instance, many of the development management strategies

suggested below are oriented toward reducing damages to future development and

can do little in the case of exisiting development. Shoreline protection

works, such as seawalls and bulkheads are designed primarily to reduce damages

to property already existing in the storm hazard area. On the other hand,

protecting human life may call for the construction of additional

infrastructure, e.g., the construction of roads and bridges to facilitate

evacuation, and the construction of storm shelters.

The relation of storm hazard reduction goals, and the program designed

to advance them, to other community objectives should always be considered.

Among these non-mitigation goals might be some of the following:

� the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and
ecosystem;

� the enhancement and improvement of the local economy and the adequate
provision of employment and income for residents;

� the availability of sufficient and affordable housing stock for
existing and future residents;

� the protection of aesthetic and scenic characteristics of the coastal
environment.

� the preservation of the high quality-of-life and small town
atmosphere of the community;

� the achievement of efficiency in the provision of public services. and,
facilities.

If, for instance, the protection of coastal wildlife areas is an

important local goal, this may be accomplished through the public acquisition

of such lands, which are likely also to be areas susceptible to hurricane and

storm forces. Acquisition of these lands in these cases serves MItiple local

goals. Certain mitigation policies, such as setbacks and density

restrictions, for instance, may also serve to advance local goals of

preserving aesthetic resouces and ensuring the economic attractiveness of the

area. It is important to integrate mitigation goals with other pertinent

local goals and objectives. Ihis will almost certainly tend, as well,

to enhance the political and financial acceptability of such measures.

III. Assessing the Local Storm Threat: Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis

Before beginning Its analysis of appropriate mitigation measures, a

jurisdiction must fully understand the nature of the hazards and risks

associated with hurricanes and coastal storms. This begins with an assessment

of the storm phenomenon itself, and the nature and probability of this

phenomenon. This should include a review of the storm history of a locality

or region, including the history of storm strikes by different intensity

levels, as well as the different tracks and meteorological characteristics of

these events where possible (e.g., historical points of landfall). This will

serve as a general description of the types and magnitude of storm events that

a Jurisdiction might expect, and will, along with information about the

natural and built environment, provide a general indications of the levels of

disaster risk to which it is subject.

In most coastal areas the complexity of this risk assessment task has

been simplified through the hazard mapping requirements of the National Flood

Insurance Program. While these maps say nothing about potential wind risks,

they do provide a locatiom-specific delineation of flooding and wave hazards

for certain primary return intervals (i.e., the 100 year floodplain). more

complex modeling procedures such as SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from

Hurricanes) can provide more detailed information concerning the wind and

surge effects of hurricanes. 7he SLOSH model has been or will eventually be

applied in 22 coastal metropolitan areas (U.S. Congress 1983). From the

SLOSH model, maximum wind and surge penetration levels can be computed for an

area (see Diagram 2), as well as information concerning when key evacuation

points will experience hurricane forces (e.g., when key bridges will be

unindated and thus incapable of further evacuation) (see Ruch 1981). Despite

the analytical possibilities of such a sophisticated form of hazards mapping,

NFIP hazard maps will likely remain the major basis for delineating local

storm hazard areas, at least until all coastal areas are analyzed under SLOSH.

National flood insurance maps are developed according to the type of

flood hazard associated with a particular location and the probability or

chance that such flooding will occur in any given year. "A" Zones or 100 year

flood zones, are areas which have a probability of 1% of being flooded in any

one year. "B" zones are 500-year flood zones and consequently have a lower

chance of flooding, while the risk in "C" zones is negligible. "T' or

"Velocity" zones are "A" zones which are determined to be susceptible to

significant wave action. In combination, these zone types permit local

officials to Identify and delineate areas utere storm forces are most likely

and to take appropriate mitigative actions. Further discussion of the

requirement of the National Flood Insurance Program is provided in Section IV.

Diagram 2: Estimated Galvestor, )unty Storm Surge Penetration

lei.
.00,

0*C*lw
7 r---J
0
C..

T4M AO CITV
Leven FLOOC160

POST 1"Ink-V a

C,
--ot Not I

COMMOLGTO OBLAW40
COWAVLOT8 ISLA440

"SILVF Stow
001

GALVESTON COUNTY

WInd Speeds 74-09 mph
96 - '110 mph
111-130 Iowa
'131 - 1198 mph
Over 11515 solo

Source: Ruch, 1991.

These hazard areas can then be supplemented through the delineation of

areas of high erosion, incipient inlets, washover zones, wetlands, and other

local areas of particular concern. For example the State of North Carolina,

under the Coastal Areas Management Act, makes provision for such additional

zones under its Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) program. Two categories

of AEC are relevant to storm hazard mitigation: the estuarine system and

ocean hazard areas. Three types of ocean hazard areas have been identified:

ocean erodible areas, high hazard flood areas, and inlet hazard areas. Ocean

erodible areas are zones where the possibility of significant erosion exists

and where new buildings are required to adhere to setback requirements. High

hazard flood areas are coterminous with "V" zones under the National Flood

Insurance Program, while inlet areas are extensions of the ocean erodible zone

and subject to a high degree of fluctuation of coastline. Two types of

estuarine AEC's are of relevance to storm hazard mitigation: coastal wetlands

and estuarine shorelines. In addition, localities where finger canals have

been created will want to include these on the hazards map, as they tend to be

very susceptible to inlet formation during severe storms. The Town of Holden

Beach, N.C., for instance, has three separate developments built around fringe

canals and representing a substantial storm hazard (Town of Holden Beach, N.C.

1984).

These different types of hazards can be depicted in composite form for a

locality. Diagrams 3 and 4 are composite storm hazards maps constructed for

the Town of Surf City, as contained in their storm hazard mitigation and

reconstruction plan (Town of Surf City, N.C. 1984). In this case, one map

delineates NFIP zones, and another delineates AECs.

'gloom
Morw

-a a 0" -W "Oft

I Audi..
V, faw co "b"O j%" so

w Cos ft%" qk 1* ISS

TOWN OF SW CM
scas- L:

Amw@
--W7 Jf
JWW 9 r 7.
W1111
1411.1 ?'A'L,

AnAv"C actm

Legend

0@ ONWAb *A C

ow"No Asc

"m "two &A C
ro =&?"; @w Cff Y

Scale
Nuom a"

Risks from natural phenomena are not created, however, until population

and development locate in or in close proximity to these hazard areas. A

second step is to identify the quantity of property and population currently

at-risk. This information can be obtained from tax maps, windshield surveys,

and data on land use and development. As well, this analysis should identify

and assess the vulnerability of property and population. This should include,

for instance, the ability of residents in different locations to evacuate

expeditiously, their ability to find adequate shelter, the ability of

buildings and facilities to resist storm damages, and features of the built

and natural environments which may offer protection from storm forces (e.g.,

the existence of a seawall). From this the community can identify existing

areas currently at-risk. Researchers at Texas A&M have recently applied the

SLOSH modeling technique to computing expected damages and casualties from

potential hurricanes (under different assumptions), for delineated hazard

zones (see Berke and Ruch, forthcoming.)

An assessment of the extent of public and private property at-risk can be

undertaken for each of the hazard areas delineated in the hazard mapping

process. For instance, Table 1 below provides summary information on the

amount of private property at risk in the Town of Nags Read (1984), by NFlP

zones. -Some 544 structures, valued at over $25 million are located within the

V-zone, for example. This information can generally be obtained from local

taxation and revenues departments. 7he U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be an

additional source of information on extent of property at-risk. A 1982 survey

of Surf City buildings, for instance, indicated that some $5.5 million in

damages to residential structures could be expected under a 100-year storm, as

well as some $1.7 million in commercial damages (Town of Surf City, N.C.

1984).

Table 1: Siumary of Private Property At-Risk by Flood Hazard
Area, Town of Nags Head, N.C.

Number of Number of
Buildings Value Parcels Value Total Value

V-zone 544 26,951,000 722 25,321,100 52,272,100

A-zone 1126 60,835,300 1968 47,230,100 100,073,400

B-zone 563 33,194,500 674 29,929,800 63,124,300

C-zone 329 18,740,000 640 15,286,000 34,026,000

Source: Town of Nags Head, NC. Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post-Storm
Reconstruction Plan, prepared by Coastal Resource Collaborative Ltd., 1984.

Included in this vulnerability assessment, as well.' should be the extent

of public facilities, such as roads and sewer lines, which are at risk.

These should at least be identified, if not estimated and valued in the same

way that structures at-risk are. Table 2 below indicates, for instance,

the extent of roads and sewer mains at risk in the Town of Nags Head.

Table 2: Public Investment Vulnerable to Storm Damage

Water Mains in Flood Zone (in feet)

Size of Main

Zone 24" .14" 12" 8.0 6" 4- 2"
V 0 0 0 0 6850 1650 6500

A 33070 230 26200 32110 57880 5440

B 0 0 8350 250 0 0 200

300 0 0 0 0 2300 250 1330

Table 2 (cont.)

Zone Street Length (feet)

V 10500

A 134300

B 3100

Source: Town of Nags Head, N.C. Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post-Storm
Reconstruction Plan. Prepared by Coastal Resource Collaborative, Ltd. 1984.

Risks to human life may be assessed in several ways. One approach is

simply to document and analyze population trends and the proximity of

populations to expected storm forces. This in effect indicates the expected

exposure to storm hazards should residents remain in their homes. Because

most residents are likely to evacuate and/or occupy a storm shelter, storm

risks to residents can be assessed according to local evacuation and shelter

capacity. As roads and highways ran accommodate only so many vehicles at a

given time and because approaching storms can cause substantial hazards to

evacuation (e.g., downed trees, flooded bridges) it is important to carefully

examine the evacuation capacity of a locality and to accurately identify risks

to human life. Sophisticated traffic and evacuation models have been

developed for both metropolitan (e.g., Tampa Say Regional Planning Council

1981) and nonmetropolitan localities (e.g., Stone 1983). Stone calculates,

using a relatively simple methodology, that it would take between 8 and 13

hours to evacuate Holden Beach, North Carolina. As conditions change, however

(e.g., as development increases and evacuation capacity does not), the levels

of risks will tend to change as well.

Together this information can be used to identify and prioritize

mitigation opportunities according to the nature and magnItude of local ritks.

Ideally, an assessment of the benefits to be obtained from permitting

development to occur in storm hazard areas should accompany the above

considerations of cost (e..g., see Petak and Atkisson 1982). While in most

cases a detailed examination of these economic benefits, is no t made, the

jurisdiction should at least consider them. What follows is an examinatiem-of

the alternative programs, policies and institutions that can be employed ty, ;a

jurisdiction to reduce storm risks, both before and after a storm strikes.

Emphasis is placed on the use of development management techniques and

consequently a more detailed presentation of these approaches is provide&

IV. Alternative Storm Hazard Mitigation Options

Several alternatives exist for the reduction of hurricane and storm

hazards. 1hese fall into three main categories or "mitigation strategies".,

1) programs designed to structurally alter the coastal environment so thIC It

better withstands storm forces; 2) programs designed to strengthen buildi2as

and accompanying facilities; and 3) development management, the topic of tb--is

report, designed to reduce the exposure of people and property to storm f-IMces

(see Table j). An outline and discussion of the specific types of program

and mechanisms which fall within each of these categories follows. BecaLse

development management is the focus of this paper, it receives the bulk off

attention.

A. Structural Programs

Structural actions are designed to reinforce the skoreline enviroamext. to

better protect this development from storm wave and surge forces. Four

primary approaches exist within this category.

1. Sandtrapping Structures

Sandtrapping structures are designed to protect, maintain, or enhance

beaches and dunes which absorb storm impact and energy. Groins are structures

extending into the ocean at right angles to the coast, typically constructed

of concrete, timber, steel sheetpiling or riprap. Groins induce deposition of

sand on the updrift side, and in turn block lateral deposition in down drift

areas. Jetties are also built at right angles to the shore but generally

extend further into the ocean and are often constructed in pairs to prevent

shoaling in coastal inlets.

2. Sandmoving Programs

Natural processes of beach accretion can be supplemented through programs

designed to move sand to "starved" areas from other areas where it is in

greater abundance. Beach nourishment programs transport large amounts of sand

to an area experiencing high rates of erosion, using pumps, dredges, and/or

trucks. In this way beach and dune structure are preserved by redistributing

sand resources to correct for accretion-erosion imbalances. Large scale

nourishment programs can be very expensive, and in areas of high erosion may

require constant investment even to maintain existing shoreline levels.

Sandscraping may be undertaken to reinforce a beach structure, e.g., filling-

in behind protective seawalls and bulkheads using bulldozers and other earth-

movers.

Table 3: Approaches to Reducing Coastal Storm Hazards

A. Structural Alteration/Reinforcement of Coastal Environment

1. Sandtrapping Structures

a. Groins
b. Jetties

2. Sandmoving Programs

a. Beach nourishment
b. Sandscraping

3. Shoreline Protection Works

a. Seawalls
b. Revetments
c. Bulkheads
d. Terraces
e. Breakwaters

4. Flood Control Works

a. Dams
b. Dikes and levees
c. Retaining ponds
d. Flood channels

B. Provisions to Strengthen Buildings and Facilities

1. Strengthening Buildings

a. Floodproofing
b. Elevating
c. Windproof ing

2. Strengthening Facilities

a. Floodproofing
b. Burial
c. Elevating

Table 3 (cont.)

C. Development Management

1. Development Regulation

a. Zoning
b. Subdivision regulations

2. Land and Property Acquisition

a. Fee-simple acquisition of undeveloped land
b. Relocation of existing development
c. Purchase of development rights/easements
d. Transfer of development rights

3. Taxation, Fiscal and Other Incentives

a. Differential taxation
b. Special assessments and impact fees

4. Capital Facilities Policy

5. Information Dissemination

3. Shoreline Protection Works

Shoreline protection works are structures designed to protect buildings

and property from wave and water forces. Seawalls are vertical walls embedded

in the earth to absorb wave energy, typically constructed from heavy concrete

sheetpile, with a stepped-down or curved face (see U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers 1981; Yasso and Hartman 1976). Bulkheads are smaller vertical walls

used to protect headland areas and inlet channels. A revetment has a similar

purpose, but may be angled and typically uses rip-rap or interconnecting

concrete blocks to protect dunes and beaches from erosion. Terraces are used

in cliff areas, and involve the insertion of vertical pilings and planks at

different levels. Breakwaters are fixed or floating structures that parallel

the coast, serving to reduce the energy of waves before they hit the

shoreline.

4. Flood Control Works

Flood control.works.,are-des,igned to.-manage and reduce the damaging

effects of flooding. 1hey range from relatively small projects such as the

construction of retaining ponds to hold excess stormwater, to the undertaking

of large dams, control-the movement of-water in river systems. Dikes and
A
levees are elevated earth-en--works--used-to protect against rising flood waters.

Flood channels are used.@to funnel and divert flood waters away from developed

areas. A number of examples can be cited of the use of these approaches in

addressing hurricane and coastal storm risks. A series of levees and locks

are being constructed on Lake Ponchartrain (New Orleans) to protect against

and manage hurricane flooding (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1980). Kiawah

Island, South CaroUaa,,[email protected] management plan which

includes a lagoon system, which can be emptied prior to a storm landfall

(S.C. Water Resources Commission 1982). Texas City (near Galveston, Texas) is

nearing comp let ion -,.of.,..a A-6--mi le Aong-, -earthen levee system (maximum height of

23 feet MSL), along with a concrete floodwall drainage system, a closure gate,

and pumping drainage stations (Texas Division of Emergency Management 1984).

It is designed to provide protection from storms creating 15-foot surges. A

similar project is found in Freeport (also near Galveston). It includes 38

miles of earthen levees, as well as drainage and pumping facilities, and a

tide control gate.

B. Provisions To-St-rengthen Bul-ldings and Facilities

Rather than relying on improvements to strengthen the surrounding coastal

environment, building strengthening efforts seek to strengthen the building

structure, along with accompanying facilities such as sewerage collection

lines, water distribution lines, and roads.

1. Strengthening Buildings

The adoption of building codes and constructioa standards to floo4roof

and elevate buildings in fl0*d Orono areas has beez the most widespread

response to hurricane and coastal risks. These bui-ldi7ng strengthening actions

were required by the National Flood Insurance ProgrAw. Along with

windproofing requirements in building codes, these types of actions seek to

decrease the vulnerability of buildings exposed to storm forces.

Under the regular phase of NFIP, new residential structures lyimg within

the 100-year floodplain (A-zones) must be elevated to or above this 100-year

flood mark (the BFE, or Base Flood Elevation). Commercial and industri-al

structures must either be elevated or flood-proofed (e.g., flood res1si-ant

materials, floodwalls) (see FIA 1976). In the "V-zoDes," velocity or Vo-astal

High Hazard Areas where thelincoming storm surge is expected to support a

mihimum three-foot wave (see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975), buildiiigs

must be elevated to or above 100-year wave heights and built on pilings

(rather than landfill). New mobile homes are.prohibited in V-Zones, wn'd the

alteration of certain sand dunes and mangroves is prohibited if likely to lead

to increased flood damages. In both A and V Zones, if flooding damage of more

than 50% of the value of an existing structure occurs. the rebuilding of the

damaged structure must be consistent with elevation and floodproofing

requirements. (For a good history of the NFIP see Burby, French, and Kaiser

1979).

Some communities have mandated building elevation in excess of that

required under the 100-year BFE. Referred to as "freeboard" elevation, this

can further minimize the impacts of wave and surge for4oes. The City of Fast

Providence, R.I., for example, has enacted provisions which differentiate

a high- and low-hazard zone. In the high hazard tooe (sear the beach)

residential buildings must be elevated to 15 feet HSL, rather than the 10 feet

required under the NFIP requirements (Kusler 1982, p. 46).

Building codes vary widely in the resistance they provide to hurricane

forces. Depending on the state and the code in use, storm strengthening

requirements may be either local option or state-mandated, or some combina-

tion. Standard codes may not have adequate requirements. In the Texas model

Hurricane Resistant Building Standards (Texas Coastal and Marine Council

1981), stringent wind loading standards were proposed to protect against storm

winds of 140 mph (as compared with, say, 105 mph in the Southern Standard

Code). This model cod e was, however, not enacted by the Texas.Legislature.

2. Strengthening Facilities

Inhabited structures located in hazard areas must also,be served by

basic support facilities. These facilities, like the structures themselves,

can be strengthened to better resist storm forces. Primary among these are

wastewater collection, water distributiont electric and telephone lines, and

roads. Sewer and water lines can be floodproofed, while utilities can be

placed underground for better protection. Roads are best protected through

elevation.

C. Development Management

Development management programs are designed to affect the location,

density, timing, and/or type of development (see Godschalk and Brower

1984.) In this sense they can be described as "non-structural" approaches to

mitigation. This discussion of specific development management techniques

indicates the range and diversity of different tools and approaches available.

Ideally, a locality should seek to find that package of development management-

programs and policies particularly suited to their political, social and

economic conditions. Types of techniques include development regulation, land

acquisition, taxation and fiscal incentives, capital facilities policies, and

programs for information dissemination.

1. Development Regulation

The primary development management tools are those which regulate and

control in a direct fashion the location, amount, density, and type of

development in a coastal community. Regulations can address the reduction of

exposure of property to hurricane and storm risks, and reduction of

vulnerability of property, and can lead to the enhancement of the protective

features of the natural environment. Basic types include zoning and

subdivision regulations and various specialized applications of these standard

regulations.

a) Zoning

e Conventional zoning: Reducing the quantity of development exposed.

Conventional zoning ordinances control the type of land uses allowed in

particular parts of a community (e.g., residential, commercial, recreational)

as well as their intensity (e.g., bulk, height, floor area ratio, setback

provisions). As a result, zoning provisions can control the amount and type

of property exposure to hurricane and storm hazards. For instance, open space

and recreational uses may be the most appropriate activities to be permitted

in high risk areas (e.g., high wave and erosion areas). Restricting such

areas to commercial or public recreational activities will substantially

reduce the amount of property at-risk and in turn the property losses to

accrue from future hurricanes and storms.

One zoning option is simply to designate hazard areas as an open space or

conservation zones in which all future development is prohibited. Even if

this were a politically feasible option, in coastal areas where agricultural

and other non-developed uses do not yield reasonable economic returns, a

challenge of a "taking" of private property without just compensation is

opened up (see Bosselman, Banta,and Callies 1976). Depending upon specific

state statutes and case law, such an approach is not likely to be defensible

unless some economic use, such as agricultural, forestal, or commercial

recreation can be supported. The community must examine the local viability

of these non-developed uses and modify its regulations accordingly.

The legal and political feasibility of a zone where all development is

prohibited may depend on the precise design and configuration of this zone,

and its relation to land ownership patterns in the community. If, for

instance, the zone constituted a "strip" which was long but not deep, a

typical landowner might work around such a prohibition, essentially building

on other portions of lots. Such a zone then essentially becomes much like an'

ocean setback. Moreover, even if the zone is not of a "strip" type but

rather encompasses a large amount of land in one area, if landholdings are

quite large, it might be argued that reasonable development potential

(economic use) has been preserved.

In most instances, in the absence of land acquisition or some substantial

form of landowner compensation, large scale prohibition of new development in

hazard areas is not likely to be feasible. A more sensible approach is one

which seeks to reduce the overall quantity of development at-risk. While a

residential designation in an oceanfront area may still permit considerable

development to occur at high risk to hurricane damages, this quantity may be

considerably less than what the unregulated market would support. Moreover,

reducing a zoning designation from relatively dense multi-family development

to single family uses may reduce substantially the amount of property at-risk.

Also, the legal and political feasibility of development limitation can

be maintained by coupling it with other techniques such as the transfer of

development rights and the acquisition of less-than-fee simple Interests In

land. For instance, if the regulated landowner is able to transfer a portion

of the pre-regulatory development value of his parcel to another site where it

can be used (or sell it to someone who can use it for such a purpose) this

will afford the landowner at least some economic return. These techniques are

further discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

Examples of reductions in densities along high hazard coastal shorelines

are not hard to find. Several localities along the highly vulnerable South

Shore of Long Island, New York, have reduced permissible densities (see Long

Island Regional Planning Board 1984.) Hollywood, Florida, in an effort to

protect a relatively underdeveloped segment of its shoreline, and to keep the

arears population within existing evacuation capacity, severely downzoned

this area from high density hotel and condominium uses to single-family

detached residences. In its recent hurricane hazard mitigation and

post-disaster reconstruction plan, the Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina,

notes its efforts to reduce storm hazards by keeping hazard area densities

down.

-The Towns growth policy encourages relatively low densityresidential

development; high rise developments along the ocean are not typically found in

.Emerald Isle. 1he Town has also downzoned lands that originally allowed up to

13.5 dwelling units per acre to 8 dwelling units per acre. This may-reduce

the ultimate number of units by 2,200 or about 7,300 seasonal sites" (Town of

Emerald Isle 1984, p. 10).

, In the hurricane hazard mitigation and reconstruction plan for Onslow

County, North Carolina, It is recommended that future permissible densities be

lowered considerably in West Onslow Beach (Topsail Island), to facilitate

evacuation. Moreover, while it recommends a reduction in overall density for

the area, it recommends more extensive reductions where the hurricane hazard

is greater.

The Onslow County plan illustrates that zoning can be used to reduce the

amount of property at risk in coastal hazard areas in proportion to the extent

and nature of the storm-related hazards in various locations. The quantity of

development permissible could be a function of the aggregate risks on a

particular site. For instance, less development may be permitted in an area

subject to both wave velocity action from storms and a potentially-shifting

inlet than in a location subject to velocity effects but without the inlet

hazard. Different hazard zones can be designated with varying degrees and

combinations of hazards, with the density of development adjusted accordingly.

Proximity to ocean and sound waters may serve as a good proxy for storm risks,

with the most extensive amounts of new development permitted on locations

further inland. An important factor here is that in a typical coastal

community there will be gradations of hazard risk, with the primary

(mitigation) objective of zoning often being to orient future development away

from high hazard areas to lesser hazard areas.

As with many of the other development management techniques discussed in

this paper it is important to utilize zoning provisions to preserve, to the

extent possible, the protective features of the natural environment. It may

be desirable, for instance, to permit only very low densities of development

(where permitted at all) around wetlands. Development in close proximity may

threaten the health and vitality of these areas and in turn reduce their

utility in absorbing storm forces (e.g., Conservation Foundation 1980; Benton

et al. 1980).

This density can be reduced in several ways. One approach is to raise

the minimum lot size required for structures. For instance, in a high hazard

zone, the zoning ordinance may be modified so that new residential structures

bere must be situated on a minimum lot size of five acres, rather than the

previous one acre minimum. A complimentary approach is simply to reduce the

number of dwelling units permitted per acre in high hazard areas. An

existing permitted density of 30 dwelling units per acre may be reduced to

that of 15 dwelling units per acre. Either approach serves to reduce the

overall quantity of permissible development in a particularly hazardous

location.

Where an existing zoning ordinance already exists, this reduction in

density may be most expediently accomplished by rezoning hazard areas to

existing zoning designations which exclude higher density uses. For instance,

the hurricane mitigation and post-storm'reconstruction plan for the Town of

Nags Head, North Carolina recommends that the town consider rezoning cerLain

portions of its beachfront from CR to R1 or R2, in order to prevent the

location of high density hotel and motel uses.

Reductions in the densities of development permitted by zoning in high

hazard areas can occur in either the pre-storm stage or during recovery and

reconstruction. It may be difficult to overcome the political obstacles to

such changes in the pre-storm stage, while storm devastation may present

unique opportunities for this. The community may decide in advance that

certain pre-determined density reductions would be installed according to

the extent of overall damage occurring in particular areas of the community.

For instance, in areas where structures have been damaged by 50% or more

of their market value on average, the community may automatically impose

a density reduction of, say, 50%. Ihis would permit structures to be rebuilt,

but would as well reduce substantially the amount of future property at-risk.

The pre-specified reductions would likely be tied to the damage zones

delineated during the early stages of recovery and reconstruction (see Section

VI) and would resemble a sort of floating zone which would become binding only

upon the occurrence of certain damage conditions. Many'of these objectives

might also be accomplished through the concept of nonconforming use, described

below.

Table 3: Potential Post-storm Reductions in Density

Extent of
Damage Areas* Density Reduction

Major damage
(50% or more of market value) 50%

Moderate damage (20% to 50% of
market value) 20 to 50%

Minor damages
(less than 20% of market values) no change

*See Section VI for a discussion of the delineation of storm damage zones.

This reduction of risk is also contingent to some extent on the quality

and type of structures to be built. Multifamily structures, designed by

engineers and architects, for instance, may be built to withstand the forces

of hurricanes and storms much more effectively than builder-designed single

family structures. While limiting development to the latter type may reduce

the quantity of property at-risk, this property may be more vulnerable to

storm damages.

One traditional zoning concept that can be readily applied to density

reduction is the notion of "nonconforming uses." A nonconforming use is

created when a land use or activity is no longer permitted to occur by right

in a zoning district, but rather is considered a "grandfather" use. That

is, it is permitted to continue, yet is not generally permitted to expand (or

to expand beyond a certain extent) and if destroyed or discontinued is not

permitted to reestablish itself. For instance, a commercial establishment may

be considered a nonconforming use in an exclusive residential zone. While it

is permitted to continue in the short-term, it may not be permitted to expand

its size, and if destroyed by, say, a fire, will not usually be permitted to

rebuild in this zoning district.

This concept can be used to reduce storm hazards in several ways.

Certain high density uses in high hazard areas can be declared nonconforming

uses, i.e., through changes in zoning districts, and in time a.slow process of

land use change might be expected. A shorter-term perspective views the non-

conforming use concept as a way of preparing for and managing reconstruction

after a hurricane or storm occurs. For instance, while a major hotel or

condominium may be acceptable in a high storm hazard zone because it already

exists (it would be economically inefficient to tear it down), storm destruc-

tion provides the opportunity to change the use of this land. Declaring this

a nonconforming use in advance of the storm prevents its reconstruction and

relieves local officials of the need to make such a zoning change after the

storme This may, as well, simply be a way of bringing older structures **up to

code" in the event that they are faced with substantial repairs.

Several issues are raised by use of this approach. The first is a

question concerning the financial and other impacts of declaring an existing

use to be non-conforming. To what extent, for instance, does this lower the

fair market value of this property and the ability of its owners to secure

continued financial backing? Furthermore, will this result in lower tax

assessments and reduced property tax revenues for the locality? A contro-

versial issue is the extent or degree of damage required before reconstruction

to its original use or condition is not longer permitted. The National Flood

Insurance Program has used a 50% fair market loss criterion to distinguish

between damaged structures which do or do not have to be repaired to NFIP

standards (e.g., elevation to the 100-year BFE). It may be, however, that a

community wishes to define a destroyed structure in some other way, for

instance structures which have incurred damages of 80% or more of their fair

market value.

A variation on the nonconforming use theme is the concept of

amortization." Typically employed to regulate billboards, this mechanism

permits a use to continue in its present state, but only for a certain

number of years, presumably to permit the achievement of a certain level of

economic return. This tool might be used to reduce the location of certain

property in high hazard areas in situations where it is considered equitable

to provide the property owner with a certain amortization or compliance

period. A locality might require a single-family homeowner in a high erosion

area, for instance, to relocate his home on a safer parcel by some reasonable

period of time.

Coastal setback. The concept of development setback has long been part

of zoning and land use controls. Setbacks are used in urban settings, for

instance, to ensure that sufficient land is available for future public

improvements (eoge, roads), and to ensure adequate light, access, and

separation of structures. Required setbacks from coastal hazard areas are an

extension of this toning concept and have become relatively popular as a

technique both for minimizing the impact of development on beach and dune

areas and reducing exposure to storm hazards (e.g., see Kusler 1982; CURS,

1984). Setbacks can be required from the ocean itself (e.g., from mean high

tide), the first line of vegetation, or dune ridges. Such setbacks may be

either state-mandated or local option. A number of states require development

to be set back from the ocean. ,The State of North Carolina requires small

coastal developments to be located landward from the first line of vegetation

(or crest of dune), a distance 30 times the annual rate of erosion for that

particular segment of the coast. This setback is 60 times the annual rate of

erosion in the case of multifamily structures of four units or more and

structures of more than 5,000 square feet in size. Florida imposes a similar

requirement under its Construction Control Line (CCCL). Seaward of the

control line, a permit must be obtained from the state to develop or excavat e

land. The line is meant to encompass the 100-year flood area and varies from

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based on local erosion and shoreline changes.

While construction seaward of the CCCL is not prohibited it must satisfy

certain structural and"design requirements, to ensure protection of structures

and the beach and dune system. 1hese mitigative requirements can discourage

or reduce the amount of development in high risk areas, as it may be easier to

obtain development approval In locations outside the CCCL.

The State of New York has recently established a setback requirement,

although it has yet to be implemented (Long Island Regional Planning Board

1984). Under the state's Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act, localities are

required to adopt local erosion control ordinances which are approved by the

state. Two hazard areas are defined in the regulation: natural protective

feature areas and structural hazard areas. 1he boundary line of the natural

protective feature area must be 25 feet from the landward edge of the dominant

natural protective feature. (e.g., edge of dune formations, edge of beach).

Structural hazard areas are locations experiencing at least an average annual

erosion rate of one foot, with the hazard zone extending to a landward depth

of 40 times this rate plus 25 feet. Permits will then be required for new

development in these hazard zones, as well as reconstruction following

a storm, and will be subject to certain performance standards. For instance,

for development to gain approval in a natural protective feature zone, it

must not aggravate coastal erosion and must minimize adverse effects on

natural features. Within'structural protection zones, permanent structures

are prohibited, but movable structures can be located here if set back 50 feet

from the edge of a bluff, provided they include no permanent fou ndation and

their permit applications includ e adequate plans for relocating the structures

at a later date.

A number of individual localities have established their own setback

provisions(e.g., see Kusler, 1982). For example, Glynn County, Georgia, has

enacted a Beach and Dune Protection District as an overlay district to its

zoning ordinance. For stretches of oceanfront which have an active/stable

dune sequence, new development must be setback at least 40 feet landward of

the crest of the most seaward stable dune. In areas where this dune sequence

does not exist, the requred setback is 20 feet landward of the mean high water

mark. Kiawah Island, South Carolina, has also implemented development

setbacks which are completely private or non-governmental. The Kiawah Island

Company will only sell development lots with deed restrictions that require

the structure be setback considerably landward of the tertiary dune.

Contract and conditional zoning. Under contract zoning the

jurisdiction agrees to allow a land use activity not normally permissible in a

particular area (e.g., a rezoning from low-density residential to commercial,

or higher-density residential) in exchange for a certain desirable feature

provided by the developer (e.g., a deed restriction, certain public

improvements). Conditional zoning is similar to contract zoning, but without

the community selling or bargaining away its regulatory authority. Here,

zoning changes are permitted only if they satisfy the stipulations laid down

by the community at the time of project review. For example, a community may

agree to rezone low density residential to commercial uses in a high hazard

zone, only if the developer agrees to ensure, for example, that such

structures can be used for sheltering the public in the event a hurricane

threatens. These are conditions which generally flow from the project review

prIo.cess and are typically not formalized or uniform from project to project.,

An additional approach to enhancing the flexibility of land use controls

is the use of "conditional" or "special" uses. These are uses which are

permitted by right as long as proposed development meets certain standards.and

criteria. These conditions typically relate to the provision of public

facilities and the protection of environmental resources. Such standards

could also incorporate storm risk reduction actions, for instance permitting

special uses only when adequate evacuation capability exists, or only when

such uses do not disrupt the ability of the natural coastal environment to

resist and protect against storm forces.

o Bonus or Incentive zoning. Bonus or incentive zoning is a formal

mechanism through which developers are granted extra development density

(e.g., square footage, dwelling units, etc.) in exchange for certain public

amenities or desirable project features. It has been used for some time in

New York City and San Francisco. In New York, for example, a developer can

obtain a 20% increase in permissible floor area for projects which incorporate

a legitimate theatre (i.e., within a designated theatre district). Density

bonuses have been given to encourage the incorporation of low and moderate

income into development projects (e.g., See Fox and Davis 1978). In the case

of coastal hazard areas, developers may be granted additional development

units if projects incorporate certain hazard-reduction features. These

features may include the purchasing and deeding to the public of high hazard

lands, or the provision of certain design features which may increase the

ability of structures to withstand storm forces. It may not be wise public

policy, however, to encourage or permit additional densities in such areas,

even if certain public amenities and hazard-reduction features are provided.

9 Population caps and annual development limits. One approach to

addressing the hurricane threat is simply to restrict the number of

individuals permitted to reside in the community. This may be particularly

appropriate in barrier island communities where only limited numbers of people

can evacuatq safely should a hurricane or severe storm threaten. It may be,

as well, that a strategy to reduce future property damage is simply to

restrict the amount of such property permitted in the community. Usually,

however, such restrictions are employed for other purposes, such as to protect

the aesthetic quality of a community or to ensure that a natural resource is

not overtaxed.

Two basic approaches can be identified. One approach is to establish

an absolute "cap" on the amount of future growth permitted in the community.

(For a general review and comparison of these, see BGRS 1974.) This may be

assessed in terms of overall population or development units. The City of

Boca Raton, Florida, has become a classic example of an attempt to use this

approach. Citizens here voted in 1972 to enact a charter amendment

restricting the absolute number of dwelling units in the jurisdiction to

40,000, with a series of down zonings to implement this provision (see

Godschalk et al. 1979; Meador 1979). The courts have found, however, that the

Boca Raton System is violative of basic constitutional rights, and such an

absolute growth restriction is unlikely to be judically defensible.

A second and more legally acceptable approach is to limit growth on an

annual basis. The City of Petaluma, California, is a prime example of the use

of thislapproach. Here provisions were enacted which restrict the issuance of

building permits to roughly 500 residential units per year. Development

applications are evaluated according to the Petaluma General plan and

environmental design plans (see Godschalk et al. 1979). A program of

-restricting the amount of annual growth may have several advantages for a

storm-vulnerable coastal locality. It will reduce the speed of new

development and growth, and consequently the extent of people and property

at-risk in the short-tem. In the long run, however, the absolute extent of

development may remain unchanged. Timing growth in this way may afford a

community more time to plan for the storm hazard, and may place the community

in a better position to make intelligent land use and other decisions which in

the long-run will reduce the extent of local storm hazards (e.g., being better

able to review individual development designs for their consistency with local

atom reduction goals). As a further example, a community may need additional

time to finance and put in place certain public facilities critical to the

safety of people and property, eogo, perhaps a new bridge to the mainland, or

an offshore breakwater to protect development. 1he concept of a temporary

building moratorium serves essentially the same functions.

1he preceding comments suggest the possibility of closely tying permitted

new growth to the capacity of a coastal locality and its residents to respond

to a storm hazard. Such an approach has been employed in the growth manage-

ment system adopted by the Sanibel Island, Florida. Prior to its incor-

poration in 1974, this barrier island had been zoned to permit some 30,000

dwelling units, or some 90,000 residents. Condominiums had already been

constructed on frontal dunes and,serious damage to the island's ecosystem had

already occurred (e.g., dredging and filling of wetlands) (see Godschalk et

al. 1979; Clark 1976; City of Sanibel 1980). Shortly after the island was

incorporated, a moratorium on new development was instituted, and a comprehen-

sive plan was developed. 1he Sanibel plan was explicitly based on the

capacity of the island's natural and built environments new development and

growth. 1he plan itself includes an extensive discussion of the hurricane

threat, including an analysis of the different types of hurricane that could

hit the island, the evacuation and refuge facilities in place, and a calcu-

lation of evacuation capacity. The plan sets out policies in several key

areas to address the island's hurricane risks: evacuation facilities, popu-

lation limitation, on-island refuge, building codes and capital improvements

with regard to population growth and evacuation capacity. The plan concludes

the following:

%) 1he city should limit and manage growth so that the population on

the island when a hurricane warning is issued will not be substantially in

excess of the evacuation and on-island refuge capacity of the island.

Overloading the emergency system will reduce efficiency and deprive residents

and visitors of a reasonable opportunity to reach safe refuge.

2) Future growth should be accompanied by and coordinated with to the

maximum extent practicable, improvements in the island evacuation system and

increases in the amount of on-island refuge. It is only in anticipation of

such improvements that the present population should be allowed to expand,

because the evacuation capacity is already taxed during certain times of the

burricane season" (pp. 42-43).

Analysis of evacuation capacity indicated that the island could

accommodate between 4,900 and 6,250 cars. Based on this factor and the

capacity of the island's facilities and natural systems, an intermediate

development cap was established of approximately 6,000 dwelling units, or a

50% increase over the number existing in 1974. The actual allocation of these

units to areas of the island was intimately tied to different natural zones

and systems existing on the island. Numerous performance standards have

been developed to minimize the effects of development on these systems should

future Investments in, say, evacuation facilities occur (e.g., bridges,

roads), these development restrictions might be reduced.

The Sanibel case illustrates well the use of the concept of "carrying

capacity." By carrying capacity is meant the natural and marmade limits

development beyond which significant harms will occur (see Gods.chalk and

Parker 1975; Schneider et al. 1978; Godschalk et al. 1974). Carrying capacity

can be used to assess the effects of development on such natural factors as

ground water supply and drainage, and manmade factors such as sewage treatment

and roadway capacity. 7his concept has been applied in practice to a number

of coastal localities (e.g., Nags Read 1984; DCRP 1983). Several implications

for storm hazard reduction arise from the application of this concept. The

first is that, as the Sanibel case illustrates, the concept is particularly

relevant to assessing evacuation capacity (see particularly DCRP 1983).

Second. natural and manmade limitations on coastal development my provide a

rational means to regulate the location and quantity of new growth, which In

turn may serve to reduce storm hazards.. Carrying capacity objectives, in

other words, may serve to reinforce and complement efforts to reduce storm

hazards generally.

The recent efforts of Hollywood, Florida, to restrict the absolute number

of dwelling units in its North Beach Development Development District has

provided an example of strong judicial support for this concept. Permissible

development here was dowazoned to an overall capacity of 3,000 dwelling unit

equivalents. These restrictions were supported by a number of detailed

planning studies, including a hurricane evacuation analysis. While losing at

the district court level, the plan was found to be legal at the Appellate

level. In writing its opinion the court made specific reference to the Boca

Raton case, and the major differences between the two.

the facts in that Boca Raton case reveal that the cap was

established by public referendum, the City planning department was never even

consulted and ,hen examined, the Boca Raton City Planning Director knew of no

compelling reason for imposing this fixed limitation. In the case before us

now, the city did not adopt any such Ali ce-in-Wonder land approach. The record

is replete with comprehensive plans, studies, reports, public meetings and

actual discussions with the developer over a period of years. Unlike the Boca

Raton case, the City of Hollywood did not present its comminity purpose in-the

abstract, but presented a more than adequate case for the proposit ion that the

City has been attempting to accomplish a density slash since 1971 and that the

developer has owned most of its holdings for fifty years. As a consequence,

this was no sudden municipal zonig karate chop such as transpired in the Boca

Raton case" (P. 6).

b) Subdivision Regulations

0 Subdivision and site plan review process. Subdivision regulations

govern the conversion of raw land into developed uses, and the type and extent

of improvements made in this conversion. Subdivision regulations can control

the density, configuration and layout of development. They operate in ways

similar to zoning to control the amount and density of development on a

particular site. The requirement of a minimum lot size can reduce the amount

of new development exposed to storm hazards. Site plan review and other

requirements of subdivision approval can provide the opportunity to orient the

location of development sites in ways which minimize storm risks. For

instance, subdivision provisions may require that new single-family dwellings

on lots in hazard areas be sited in ways which maximize distance from high

hazard oceanfront areas.

Subdivision approval might be made contingent upon mitigative actions,

such as the protection of dunes, wetlands and natural vegetation. For

instance, subdivision and site plan provisions may require that structures be

located a sufficient distance from protective dunes. Ihis may, in fact,

amount to a setback, but this is not necessarily so. Subdivision approvals

may also be made contingent upon the planting of certain vegetation and the

restoration and repair, to the extent feasible, of existing dunes.

A promising alternative is to protect the option of moving a structure

back from the ocean by requiring lots %hich are sufficiently deep for their

purposes. Such areas could be considered analogous to the "repair" areas

often required for septic tank use. If necessary, a structure could be moved

to the landward portion of the'lot, in a safer location.

Clustering. Perhaps some of the most promising requirements from a

storm mitigation perspective are clustering provisions (seeMhyte 1968). Such

provisions would not affect the overall density permitted on a particular

site, but would seek to amalgamate this density on portions of the site which

are less hazardous (e.g., outside of the flood zone, at a distance from

velocity zones and active inlets). These provisions may either be required

or be presented to developers as an option. Clustering could have several

advantages from a storm mitigation perspective. By directing density to a

particular portion of a site, it can both permit and encourage development to

locate on the less-hazardous portions of a site, while preserving hazard-prone

areas in an undeveloped state. In Gulf Shores, Alabama, development regula-

tions encourage clustering new development on the landward side of the ocean

highway, with parking and recreation open space areas on the seaward side.

These may typically be areas, such as wetlands and vegetation areas, which in

themselves serve to protect against storm forces. Clustering may also

encourage the construction of buildings which are more structurally resistant

to storm forces, and may provide a more economical provision of certain storm

protection improvements (eoge, sea or floodwalls). Clustering can, as well,

economize on the public facilities, such as sewer, water and roads, which must

accompany development, in turn reducing the amount of such property at risk

(RERC 1974). Clustering may also offer advantages in the provision of

community storm shelters and evacuation services.

The possibility exists for requiring or encouraging the clustering of

structures on safer sites during reconstruction followinga damaging storm.

This is a primary strategy proposed for Long Island comminities by the long

Island Regional Planning Board (1984). More specifically, this approach is

suggested for comminities in the Fire Island Reach:

"Should a major hurricane wipe the slate clean at Sultaire, destroying a

majority of the existing structures, the first step for the village would be

to initiate an immediate moratorium on all redevelopment. The Village would

then have the opportunity to move away from single-family development in

vulnerable areas and encourage clustered development at less vulnerable inland

locations. ...it would probably be necessary to condemn certain private

inland properties, as well as use all publicly owned properties, to provide

sufficient areas to accommodate this redevelopment. Owners of properties

along the oceanfront would be prohibited from rebuilding, using the mechanisms

already mentioned, and these property owners would be encouraged to partici-

pate in the inland clustered development." A transfer of development rights

system (see Section V-C) is proposed as well to facilitate -and encourage this

clustering.

Exactions and development conditions. Traditionally, subdivision

approval is contingent upon the provision by the developer of certain land or

facilities, or monetary contributions in lieu of such dedications. Referred

to as "exactions," they have conventionally taken the form of requirements to

construct and dedicate, or to pay for the construction, of such immediate

facilities as sewer and water lines, curbs and gutters, and roads. Typically

included, as well, are requirements that developers contribute a certain

amount of land for open space, parks and recreation, and future school sites.

These are generally needs directly related to the new development. This

exactions process offers potential for storm hazard mitigation in several

ways. it may require, for instance, that %ten private developers build and

dedicate public facilities, these facilities be constructed in ways which

are hurricane-resistant (e.g., flood proofing sewer and water lines, elevated

roads, etc.). Moreover, in the dedication of lands, or fees in lieu of such

dedications, the community can require that lands which are particularly

hazardous be dedicated In turn ensuring that such areas are used for

39,

non-developed (non-intensive) uses. An in-lieu land acquisition fund may

allow the community to combine resources and to acquire in a more aggressive

way large tracts of high-hazard land. Consideration of public reconstruction

requirements may also be appropriate. For example, the community may wish to

make subdivision approval contingent upon the contribution of the developer to

a "reconstruction fund," which would be used to finance both immediate

recovery and longer-term reconstruction tasks.

Some comminities have attempted to tie subdivision approval to the

adequate provision of off-site community facilities and services, such as

police and fire. Similar reasoning applies to hurricane hazard reduction.

Subdivision approval might be contingent, for instance, on adequate

community-wide evacuation capacity, or the provision of community storm

shelters.

Approval of repair or reconstruction followinga storm (i.e., the

issuance of a building permit) may also provide a situation in utich certain

exactions" can be obtained. For instance, it may be possible to hinge

reconstruction permission on the elevation of a certain amount of open space,

or fees in lieu of such acquisitions. Mere are numerous of other standards

and requirements, such as clustering and restoration of the dune structure,

that may be imposed as a condition to permitting redevelopment and which may

reduce damages from future hurricanes.

e Planned unit development (PUD). Planned Unit Development (PUD)

provisions are intended to increase flexibility and innovation in project

design by relaxing stringent zoning and subdivision requirements, and a more

creative design resulting from negotiation between the developer and public

officials. A PUD process may permit the mixing of residential and commercial

uses in ways which conventional zoning would not. Storm hazard reduction can

be advanced through PUD project design, for instance, by permitting deviation

from normal land use and subdivision standards for more innovative

developments (and perhaps more profitable from the developer's point of view)

when these designs incorporate storm hazard reduction features, such as the

provision of protective land and vegetation buffers, and the provision of

on-site storm shelters. (For a discussion of PUD provisions see Burchell

1973; 1972.)

2. Land and Property Acquisition

The acquisition of land and property, or Interests therein, may in many

cases be the most effective approach to reducing the extent of exposure to

storm forces. Several acquisition approaches are discussed here: 1) fee-

simple acquisition of undeveloped land; 2) acquisition of less-tha'n-fee-simple

interests in undeveloped land; and 3) fee-simple acquisition/relocation of

existing development.

a) Fee-Simple acquisiton of undevelooed land. Fee simple acquisition

entails the public's obtaining of the full "bundle of rights" associated with

a parcel of land. With respect to the storm hazard, acqusition may have

several immediate functions. The first is to secure in public hands high

hazard areas, thus in turn preventing the future exposure of property and

people to storm hazards. On a larger scale public acquisition of land can

serve to influence the direction and timing of growth and development in a

locality. Urban landbanking programs, particularly popular In Europe, have

attempted to regulate growth by preventing development in undesirable

locations while strategically releasing other land more suitable (see Strong

1979; Ka 1970; Parsons 1973). Or perhaps, on a much smaller scale, single

parcels of land may be *Purchased to prevent the location of certain

growth-shaping private activities, e.g., the construction of a shopping

center, boat marina, manufacturing complex, and so on. Land acquisition can

also be used to secure in advance, and typically at lower prices, land that

will be needed at some point in the future for public facilities and services,

e.g., school sites. The primary focus of the following discussion will be on

the acquisition of undeveloped high hazard parcels as an attempt to reduce the

extent of property and people at risk.

The use of fee-simple acquisition poses a number of practical questions.

The most significant perhaps for most coastal localities have to do with

cost and how such acquisitions are to be-financed. Fee-simple acquisition in

coastal areas experiencing moderate or high levels of market demand will tend

to be very expensive -- prohibitively expensive for many communities. 1he

purchase of already-improved land (i.e., land with homes and facilities) will

be even more expensive, although damaged properties purchased in the aftermath

of a storm may reduce these expenses substantially. 1he locality must be

prepared, however, to take advantage of "bargain sales" after the storm.

The expenses associated with fee-simple acquisition can be reduced in

several ways. First, a locality may seek to acquire land a number of years in

advance of development, when its market value is relatively low. It may also

be possible to obtain reduced acquisition costs through the use of eminent

domain. Official mapping is another technique for keeping acquisition costs

down. This identifies areas where the public expects to purchase land in the

future and where inconsistent activities and developments will not be

permitted. Such an approach can serve to squelch rising development

expectations utich can lead to higher land acquisition costs.

The costs of fee-simple acquisition might also be reduced through th

use of "preemption" or "right of first refusal." Such a mechanism would

essentially permit the local governing body to insert itself in the place of a

property-buyer in any local land transaction. In other words, it would allow

the locality to oversee all land transactions and to spend its limited

resources in acquiring only those lands which are truly threatened by

development (i.e., are in fact In the process of being sold for development

uses). Ihis technique has been used extensively in France under their SAFER

program. Here, right of preemption is used to purchase farmland, which is in

turn reassembled and sold in larger and more agriculturally-efficient tracts

(Coughlin et al. 1977). The technique has also been used by the State of

Oregon in protecting its scenic waterways from damaging development. While

this concept has legal precedents in real estate law, enabling legislation

will likely be necessary in most states before it could be used.

Acquisition costs can also be kept down through resale of properties,

with certain covenant restrictions placed on their use. This would also

address the problem of managing lands and property once they have been

acquired. Placing land back into-private hands, where possible, may do much

to keep costs down. This decision, however, will also depend upon other -

important community objectives which may exist. If there exists a local need

for parkland, maintaining these lands in public hands will then make more

sense. A locality should in its acquisition decision making be aware of other

local goals and objectives that can be advanced simultaneously with

hurricane/storm hazard reduction. 7he greater the overlap of such objectives,

the greater will be the social efficiency of these acquistions. The State of

Maine, for instance, has recommended that purchases of coastal properties give

equal weight to two factors: "I) the beach to be acquired must be subject to

potentially severe and recurring storm damages, and (2) the beach must offer

significant public recreation opportunities" (Maine Land and Water Resources

Council 1978).
43

Where possible a locality should seek to obtain "bargain buys," and land

and property donations. Bargain purchases may be particularly attractive in

the aftermath of a storm where damages are substantial and some property

owners may wish to vacate the hazard area. The locality must, however, be

prepared prior to such damages to act upon these bargains when they present

themselves.

Acquisition costs may also be reduced by taking advantage of all avail-

able federal and state funding sources. Historically, where acquisition has

been used most extensively as a mitigation tool, there has been substantial

federal and state financial involvement (Kusler 1979). For instance, Section

1362 of the Federal Disater Assistance Act provides for federal funds for the

purchase of federally-insured properties damaged by a storm (or other dis-

aster). NFIF provisions also provide for what is known as "total constructive

loss," or payments to FIA-insured property owners for the complete amount of

policy coverage even where damages are not this extensive, if owners agree not

to rebuild. The policy has, however, apparently lost favor with FEMA

officials in recent years and is no longer used.

A locality may also be able to more efficiently use its available

acquisition funds by coordinating its acquisition decisions with private

organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land,

that are actively involved in land acquisition. These organizations are

often in a better position to engage in extensive acquisition than are single

jurisdictions. Although their acquisition decisions are typically based on

non-hazard objectives, a community may be able to influence these private

purchase decisions in several ways. This may occur, for'iastance, simply by

better communicating their perception of which acquisitions will be in the

public interest or by convincing them that by purchasing specific parcels or

parcels in particular areas of the locality, multiple social objectives will

be furthered. As well, the locality may be able to devise a cost-sharing

arrangement, in which the local goverment, through some form of financial

contribution, is entitled to share in specific decisions concerning

acquisition. The locality may also be able to facilitate certain private

foundation acquisitions which are favorable to local storm hazard mitigation.

Even where acquisition costs can be kept down, the locality must address

the issue of how it will finance the inevitable local expenses involved in

acquisition. One approach is simply to finance these expenses through general

revenue funds. In turn, local taxes must either be raised to pay for these

costs, or funds must be diverted from other local needs. Because acquisition

of hazardous lands reduces "general" or "community-wide" damage liability, it

can be argued that general revenue financing makes sense from an equity point

of view. An alternative approach would be to obtain these funds through

special means, which might include the collection of a special acquisition

(impact) fee from new development, or through special district levies and

assessments. Land -acquisition as part of the exaction process during

development approval has been discussed in an earlier section. The use of

special assessments or levies would appear contingent, at least from an equity

(as well as a legal) standpoint, on the extent to which these acquisitions

will benefit existing property owners (i.e., the property-owners to which the

tax is applied). To the extent that such acquisitions serve to enhance

protection from future storm damages, as well as provide other benefits to

nearby landowners (e.g., scenic and recreational benefits) such a mechanism

seems a reasonable approach to financing acquisitions.

b) Relocation to reduce exposure. Development management may also

Involve the relocation of structures and facilities from high storm hazard

areas 'to areas of the locality which are less hazardous. Relocation can

take at least two forms: 1) relocation of the structure and its contents to

another site, and 2) relocation of the contents of a structure while

demolishing or putting to a new use the remaining structure. Johnson (1978)

has suggested that the first option entails the following steps:

� locating and purchasing land at a new site;

� preparing the new site; services, driveway, sidewalk new foundation;

� raising the structure off its existing foundation, transporting it to
the new site, and placing it on the new foundation;

� moving contents from the existing to the new location;

� removing, disposing and backfilling the foundation at the existing
site;

� providing temporary lodging during relocation (p. 47).

Johnson (1978) suggests that the second option entails the following steps:

� locating an existing structure, or building a new structure, at a
flood free site;

� moving contents from an existing to a new location;

� either demolishing, and where possible salvaging the existing
structure, or reusing it for a less damage susceptible use (p. 47).

Relocation of the structure to a hazard-free or less hazardous site,

while physically possible, may be economically infeasible. This will depend

on the type of structure involved. It is generally not feasible with respect

to most commercial or industrial structures and multifamily residential

structures. Single-family residential structures (one or two stories) and

light commercial structures are most feasible (those with wood frames and

with basements or raised foundations). 1hese are structures which generally

weigh less and contain accessible floor joists (Johnson 1978). Structures

with slab-on-grade foundations are difficult to relocate. Reducing the

distance a structure must be transported may increase the feasibility of this

technique. It may be, for instance, that significant additional protection

can be afforded a structure by moving it back from the ocean or high hazard

areas*

Relocation of families and their belongings to new housing outside the

hazard or "high" hazard area will generally be a more feasible approach. This

is particularly true following extensive storm damage, where demolition of

damaged properties (rather than extensive reconstruction) involves fewer

opportunity costs. The recent efforts in the Town of BayTown, Texas, to

purchase properties in the Brownwood subdivision -- an area devastated by

Hurricane Alicia -- are illustrative of the technique. Here some 300

destroyed or heavily damaged single-family homes have been prevented from

being rebuilt (see FEMA August 1983; December 1983). Federal monies are

being used to acquire the land the structures sit on (Section 1362), while SBA

loans are being used to make up the difference between federal flood insurance

payments and the replacement costs of these homes. This particular sub-

division had been flooded at numerous times in the past, and federal officials

saw this as an excellent opportunity to reduce future property losses and the

federal insurance liabilities that would accompany them. Once these lands are

@acquired by the federal government they will be deeded to the City of BayTown,

which in turn must agree to keep these lands in an undeveloped state. This

type of relocation becomes more feasible, then, when storm damages are great

and where a perception of the hazard as "perennial" on the part of public

officials and property owners exists.

Up to this point we have been discussing the option of relocation as it

pertains to a small number of buildings or residents. A perhaps more radical

approach is to consider moving an entire community to a safer location. 1he

immensity and expense of this type of approach will generally prevent its use,

and I have not considered it in this paper as a serious alternative except in

very unique situations (e.g., Adler and Jansen 1978; see also David and Mayer

1984). The SayTown experience also indicates that even in situations where

severe damages have occurred, relocation efforts will meet with substantial

resistance.

c) Purchase of development rights/donation of easements. Where the

fee-simple purchase of hazardous lands is, for various reasons, not feasible,

a locality may consider the purchase of less-than-fee-simple interests in

land. One such approach is the acquisition of rights to develop, from owners

of high-hazard parcels. Under this arrangement, a jurisdiction would pay the

landowner the fair market value of this right in exchange for agreeing to

leave the land in an undeveloped state for some specified period of time,

typically perpetuity. This is usually accomplished through a restrictive

c6veaant which runs with the property deed. Throughout the section we will

refer to this technique as the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR).

As with fee-simple acquisition a number of immediate practical questions

arise. First, in what manner are these rights to be acquired? Does the

jurisdiction use its powers of eminent domain, or instead simply bargain for

them on the open market, acquiring such rights only from those who wish to

sell them? This question may have significant implications for the ability of

PDR to protect large blocks of high hazard land. For instance, relying upon

voluntary sales may permit substantial development in an otherwise un developed

high hazard area; it may do little more than shift new development from some

parcels to other parcels (with perhaps denser development) within high hazard
areas. Through the use of eminent domain, this potential "checkerboard

effect" in high hazard areas may be prevented.

7here is, as well, the question of what a "development right" is to

consist of, I.e. , exactly what rights are being purchased by a locality.

Clearly, extensive residential development should be precluded, but should

this include private recreational uses and developments which do not place

substantial amounts of private or public property at risk? 7he greater the

economic use which remains for the property owner, the greater will be the

parcel's remaining fair market value, and the less costly will be the

development rights purchase. Exactly what uses are permitted after

development rights have been purchased may also influence overall property at

risk on other parcels/areas. For instance, if private recreational activities

are permitted In PDR circumstances, this may in turn induce further

residential and other development in adjacent areas (lands where development

rights have not been purchased). 1hese types of development influences and

side effects should be considered when defining the rights to be purchased

(and the types of uses and activities that will be permitted in the future).

While a leading reason for preferring development rights acquisition over

fee-simple acquisition is that public expense will be less, PDR may still be a

very expensive mitigation approach. In areas where market demand for

developed uses is high, the purchasing of a development right will constitute

the major portion of the parcel's fair market value (Coughlin and Plaut 1978).

Because of this fact, PDR may be no more financially feasible than fee-simple

acquisition. A locality can, however, investigate alternative techniques for

keeping down the costs of these rights. For instance, the Maryland

Agricultural Land Foundation, a state-funded agency which purchases

development rights from farmers, seeks to get the most from its limited

funding by giving preference to parcels where the following ratio Is highest:

development rights (easements) value-asking price/development rights

(easement) value (Furuseth and Pierce 1982; Nielson 1979). Under this

arrangement farmers wishing to sell their development rights submit bids to

the state foundation, which in turn gives preference to high.value parcels

with low sale prices. A similar procedure might be applied in coastal

communities. A jurisdiction might designate,a general area of high storm

hazard from which it will accept bids for development rights sales -- in turn

maximizing limited local monies by purchasing those rights which consist of

the "best deals." A system could also be developed by which to evaluate the

extent of relative storm hazard for each parcel (e.g., distance from the

ocean) in turn incorporating this information into the evaluation procedure

(i.e., getting the largest hazard reduction for the dollar).

The period of time for which the development rights are purchased will

also have significance for the cost of such a program. The Maryland program

requires that development be restricted for a minimum of 25 years. A shorter

period of time may serve the needs of the locality (e.g., in directing growth

into certain areas) and preserve for the landowner a greater portion of the

market value of the land, thus reducing the overall cost of development rights

to a locality. Instead of purchasing these tights, the locality may find it

more economically efficient to "lease" them for shorter periods of time.

As with fee-simple acquisition, there arise important questions of how

the securing of these rights will be financed. Again, where possible, outside

assistance should be utilized along with attempts to collaborate with the

purchasing efforts of private groups. As before, developers of projects in

hazardous areas might be required to purchase such rights themselves, or

contribute to a local development rights purchasing fund, based on the

magnitude*of the project (eege, square feet, number of bedrooms). 1he

purchase of development rights may advance other community goals, as already

noted, such as the preservation of open space and the protection of natural

amenities, and as such funding by the general public may be justified. 1he

general public will also benefit to the extent that future public expenditures

for recovery and reconstruction are reduced. It should, however, be

remembered that the purchasing of such rights may also reduce the local tax

base, as may be the case with fee-simple acquisition. 7his impact will, of

course, depend upon the extent of the local purchase program and characteris-

ties of the local tax base. Generally the impact on local tax base is not

likely to be substantial.

PDR can be used effectively in collaboration with development regulation.

On the one hand, restricting development in a particularly hazardous area of

the jurisdiction may prevent the checkerboard effect that sometimes results

from a voluntary PDR. In turn, PDR may serve to soften the economic effects

of development regulations, and reduce as well the political opposition

typically arising around such regulatory programs.

While not widely used, the prime example of its use, in this case

specifically to protect farmland, is in Suffolk County, Long Island (NY) (see

Peterson and McCarthy 1977). Financed-through the sale of bonds, development

rights have been purchased for 3,400 acres (as of 1981), at an average cost of

$3,120 per acre (Duncan 1984). 7he State of Connecticut has also been

experimenting with this concept and has acquired development rights for over

2,500 acres of land. King County, Washington, as a further example, has also

been engaged in PDR. Closer to home, the PDR concept has recently been

proposed for North Carolina's Forsyth County (Zaneski 1984). Vnder this

proposal the county would spend $1 million each year to purchase development

rights to prime farmland in the county. 7hese lands could then not be

developed for at least 25 years. At the end of this period the landowner

would be given the option of buying back the development rights if he so

desired but at,their current (new) market value. As currently proposed this

program would be completely voluntary.

As an alternative to the purchasing of development rights, a locality

might investigate encouraging the donation of scenic or conservation

easements. Landowners can be encouraged to make such donations in large part

becasue of the income tax deductions permissible under Section 170 of the IRS

Code. For easements to qualify as charitable deductions, the instrument must

be for perpetuity, must run with the land, and all subsequent owners must be,

subject to the restrictions. Under new provisions (1980), the Treasury

Department is now required to make a determination that the easement "will

yield a significant.public benefit." This does not appear, however, to have

been an impediment to receiving the charitable deduction.

The locality can take either an active or passive role in soliciting

easement donations. It may, for example, actively search out and encourage

these donations by landowners in hazard areas. In contrast it may simply

assume a passive role as the recipient of easements. In either case, the

jurisdiction must carefully evaluate the significance of each charitable

easement for local storm hazard mitigation. Accepting easements located in

the wrong places simply because they are donations (or at least inexpensive)

may do more harm than good in the long r4n. Easements in perpetuity may lock

the locality into land use and development patterns that it may later find

undesirable or inappropriate. In the case of extreme coastal hazard areas,

this is unlikely to be a significant problem, but in certain situations it may

prove to be an important consideration.

If an easement is accepted, the jurisdiction and donating party should

seek a clear understanding of the precise restrictions to the use of the land

which will be in place. Experience with easements by the U.S. Park Service

and others indicates that substantial difficulties can arise where misunder-

standings about easement restrictions exist (Coughlin and Plaut 1978). This

highlights the importance of educating landowners concerning easement

restrictions both at initial time of donation and during*subsequent sale or

transfer of the land. 7he jurisdiction accepting the easement should also

ensure that certain positive rights of entry are included, so as to facilitate

public inspection and ensure compliance with easement provisions. Adminis-

trative processes need to be devised to detect these violations at an early

point.

d) Transfer of development rightE. One potentially effective approach

to reducing the amount of property at-risk is to permit the transfer of

development rights from a high storm hazard zone to a non-hazard or "safe"

.zone in another part of the jurisdiction (see generally Carmichael 1974;

Costonis 1973; Rose 1975). Such a system could either be voluntary or

mandatory. Under the latter, a locality would simply zone the storm hazard

area so that fewer units of development are allowed (or prohibit new

development entirely), and the owner of land within this zone would then be

permitted to transfer all or some of this unused development density to

parcels in designated safe areas or to sell these on the open market to

others who own land in areas designated for development. The locality would

then permit increased levels of development in the .safe" zone as a result of

possessing extra development rights; thus a natural market for the transfer of

these rights is created. A voluntary approach would simply present this

transfer as an additional option for the landowner -- a way of maintaining the

land in its undeveloped use if the landowner wishes. The landowner in this

case would still have the option of developing his land or selling it for

development purchases.

A number of practical issues must be considered in using the TDR

approach. First, there are several alternative institutional approaches to

operating such a program. On the other hand, the transfer of development

rights can be left entirely to market dynamics, with the locality involved

only in designating "sending" and "receiving" zones and determining the

number of rights to be allocated. Whether a selling landowner receives a fair

price for his rights will depend simply on what the market will provide.

While there are decisions which must be made in the initi al allocation of

rights, the locality adopts essentially a "hands-off" stance once the system

is created. An alternative institutional structure would have the

jurisdiction play a more direct and active role in the development rights

transaction itself, perhaps serving as a broker -- buying and selling rights

as needed. 1his in turn helps to ensure that an adequate price is obtained

(e.g., overcoming short-term market oscillations). While the latter approach

would permit greater control over the price and quantity of rights sold, it

would also require greater government expense and oversight. An intermediate

position might permit the local government to enter the market at occasional

critical points, e.g., to stabilize prices, etc., yet leaving transactions, by

and large, to the dynamics of the local market.

An initial difficulty is devising a methodology for assigning rights.

They might be allocated, for instance, strictly according to acreage (e.g.,

one right per acre), or according to the market value of the property (ioe.,

the greater the value of property the more rights assigned). Eventually at

some point in the future the question will arise as to whether additional

rights should be allocated. If this is considered appropriate, a practical

and fair procedure for allocating these additional subsequent rights must be

devised.

The locality twat also decide how rights transferred from hurricane-prone

sites can be used. If a developer purchases ten development rights from land

in a high hazards area, and seeks to apply these in a non-hazardous (or

less-hazardous) receiving zone, what will this entitle him to? Each

additional development right, for example, might translate into a certain

amount of additional floorspace (e.g., square footage) allowed in the

receiving zone. In the case of residential development, these additions may

be measured in terms of additional dwelling units, bedrooms, etc*

The transfer of development rights can also be viewed as a form of

compensation when restrictions are placed on development in storm hazard

areas. For instance, although an oceanfront landowner may be prevented from

developing his land (i.e., it is now zoned for open space or recreational

uses), he may be able to realize a portion of this development potential by

transferring (or selling to,those who will transfer) his allocated development

rights to areas of the jurisdiction less susceptible to storm hazards.

Viewing TDR primarily as a form of compensation raises several questions: key

among them is the extent of compensation deemed to be desirable or equitable.

At what point will the market value of a development right be unacceptably low

as a form of compensation? If full or substantial compensation is a goal,

this may require a more active role for goverment in the development rights

market, say, by entering the market to buy rights at times when demand is low.

A large-scale TDR program requires extensive information and knowledge

about local market conditions and land development trends, and this can

represent a major limitation. How large, for example, should the receiving

zone be (by how much should the locality raise permissible densities?) to

ensure an adequate demand for development rights? How readily will landowners

in sending zones sell their development rights and when? One reasonable

approach to these empirical limitations is to develop a modest TDR program, at

least initially, with relatively small receiving and sending zones which can

be monitored closely over time.

A number of illustrations of the use of TDR can be cited. It has been

used extensively in protecting urban landmarks (e.g. Costonis 1974). Perhaps

one of the better known applications is that of Buckingham Township, in

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. Here the TDR concept

was coupled with performance zoning. The Township was initially divided into

two major districts: 1) a development district, designed to accommodate some

20 years of future growth; and 2) a rural district. The development zone

was further divided into more specific use and density zones, and the rural

district was divided into agricultural and resource protection zones. 1he

TDR program here is entirely voluntary. Owners of land in agricultural

protection zones are able, if they wish, to transfer unused development rights

to development areas. Each landowner has been awarded one right per acre.

If, instead of transferring development rights the landowner wishes to develop

his land, he can do so but only under stringent performance standards.

Landowners might be required, for example, to preserve as much as 90% of the

area of the land in permanent open space, under clustering provisions (see

Merriam 1978).

Collier County, Florida, is an example of the use of TDR in a coastal

setting. Here the intent was the protection of the coastal ecosystem. The

county has placed more than 80% of its land area in what is called a Special

Treatment (ST) zone, where a permit is required for development (including

portions of barrier islands). The County will issue a permit, however, only

in instances where development will not cause "significant environmental

damage." If the County finds that such damage will occur and thus prohibits

development, or if the landowner simply wishes to leave his land In an

undeveloped state, he may transfer unused development rights to areas outside

of the Special Treatment zone. As of 1979, some 40,000 acres of land had been

included in ST zones, and 374 residential units had been transferred to less

environmentally-sensitive areas (e.g., see Spagna 1979).

Two Maryland localities have also recently initiated TDR programs:

Montgomery and Calvert counties. Montgomery operates a development rights

bank, while Calvert County operates an "unfettered" program in which

development rights are transferred on an open market. Calvert does provide

assistance; however, in matching-up prospective buyers and sellers. Both

programs are designed primarily to protect local farmland. In the case of

Calvert County, development rights transfer is available only for parcels

located either in a voluntarily-created "agricultural presentation district,"

or a "designated agricultural area" identified by the county. lAndowners

within these areas are generally allotted one development right per acre,

although development rights are subtracted for existing residences and

additional rights are allocated for existing lots of record. Owners of land

within transfer zones can increase their allowable densities by one single

family residential building lot for each five development rights purchased.

Increased density may not exceed one dwelling unit per acre and in most cases

one dwelling unit per two and one-half acres. If a landowner who has already

9old his development rights wishes to subdivide a lot for a family member he

may do so by purchasing five development rights from other landowners in the

district. However, this lot may not be smaller than 25 acres.

The City of Hollywood, Florida, recently enacted a TDR program to

encourage the preservation of one of its few remaining undeveloped ocean-

fronts. 7he program downzoned this oceanfront area from high density condo-

minium and hotel uses to relatively low density residential uses, permitting

the developer either to develop at these reduced densities or to transfer

development rights to an inland area where increased development could be

permitted. In exchange the developer would agree to dedicate the beachfront

areas to the city to be put to open space and recreational uses. More

specifically, the city's program established two zones (within the North Beach

Development District): a Development zone and a control zone, with an unpaved

roadway separating the two.

The owners of the downzoned land -- unsatisfied with either development

option -- sued the city, and won at the district level. On Appellate, how-

ever, the district opinion was overturned and city's ordinance vindicated. In

the Appellate decision, the legality of using TDR is strongly supported. The

appellate opinion employs criteria established in the premiere federal case on

TDR: Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (438 U4S. 104, 98 S.

Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1978)). 1he three factors or criteria taken into

consideration in this case are: %) the character of the government action

involved; 2) whether the land use restriction or real property may be held to

constitute a taking if it is not reasonably related to a valid public pur-

chase, and 3) the economic impact of the regulation..." The court concludes,

"Applying these three criteria to the case at hand, we have already found

the government action to be proper and reasonably related to a valid public

purpose. As to the economic impact of the transfer, it involves the loss of

the right to build 79 single family units vis-a-vis the gain of 368 more

multi-family units on adjoining land, both parcels already owned by the

developer. We cannot quarrel with the economics of that exchange especially

when the value of all the multi-family units will be enhanced because the

buildings will have an uninterrupted oceanfront position and view." (P.11).

3. Taxation and Fiscal Policies

The specific provisions included in this broad mitigative category are

designed primarily to affect indirectly the use of hazardous parcels and the

quantity and type of development to occur in storm hazard zones. In contrast

to the public acquisiton of storm-prone lands, a taxation policy might seek to

reduce development by decreasing the holding costs of open space and vacant

land, in turn reducing the opportunity costs of not developing such lands for

more intensive uses. Wile the broad category of taxation and fiscal policy

can entail numerous specific tools and mechanisms, primary attention in this

paper is given to-differential property taxation and special assessments

and impact fees.

a) Differential taxation. The use of differential taxation is based on

the theory that by reducing the property tax burden on undeveloped parcels of

land, this will decrease their holding costs and increase the profitability of

their current uses, and in turn their ability to resist pressures to convert

to more intensive uses. Almost every state now has a provision for some form

of differential assessment (Coughlin and Keene 1981; Keene et al. 1976). The

uses which are typically eligible for such reductions are farm and forestland,

open space and recreational uses. These are all uses which could occur in

coastal high hazard areas and which could in turn reduce the amount of

property and people exposed to the storm threat.

Three basic variations of differential assessment are currently in use:

1) pure preferential assessment; 2) deferred taxation; and 3) restrictive

agreements (see Keene et al. 1976). Under the first type of program, pre-

ferred land uses are assessed for local property tax purposes not at their

fair market value (i.e.j the potential development value) but rather at their

value in their current uses. If the land is in far'mland, for Instance, it is

assessed according to its value in this use (usually based on a state-

determined capitalization formula). If the benefitting landowner decides

after several years of receiving this lower assessment that he wishes to

develop his land, he is still permitted to do so, without having to repay the

property taxes foregone as a result of this lower assessment. In contrast to

this pure approach is that of deferred taxation. The difference here is that

the landowner changing the use of his land is required to repay a portion of

the tax benefits he has received. This recapture period is, however, not

typically very long, with five years perhaps average. In addition, most

states using this approach require the landowner to pay interest on these

recaptured funds (although usually at a below market rate). A third approach,

the use of restrictive agreements, is best exemplified by California's

Williamson Act (see Gustafson and Wallace 1975). Here, in order for qualify-

ing landowners to obtain lower tax assessments, they must be willing to enter

into written agreements to keep their land in its current use for a minimum

period of ten years. This contract is a "rolling-front" agreement which is

self-r6neving each year unless the landowner explicitly notifies the locality

of an intention to change the use. There are also provisions which permit the

landowner to break his contract subject to certain penalties (see Coughlin

et al. 1977).

While differential taxation has been used in most states as a technique

to preserve farmland, its effectiveness at retaining land,in undeveloped uses

is generally found to be low (see, for instance, Keene et al. 1976; Coughlin

et al. 1977, 1981). Preferential assessment may indeed reduce holding costs

somewhat or even substantially, but in the face of high market prices, and

thus high opportunity costs of maintaining land in open space, the pressures

to develop will generally far outweigh these incentives (e.g., Dressler 1979;

Duncan 1984). Consequently, differential assessment is likely to be most

successful in circumstances (perhaps specific locations in the jurisdiction)

where development pressures are slight-to-moderate, and where landowners are

actively interested in maintaining the present undeveloped use of the land.

Differential assessment will also be a more effective tool at reducing

development of hazardous sites when used in collaboration with other

approaches, such as the regulation of new development, the fee-simple purchase

of land, and the transfer of development rights. For instance, reducing the

permissible development density in a hazard location together with

preferential assessment may reduce opportunity costs to the landowner enough

to reduce actual conversion of hazard lands to developed uses.

To maximize the effects of these tax benefits, a locality should

consider establishing mechanisms for funneling these benefits to those lands

with the greatest hazard-reduction potential. This might entail, for example,

the reduction of local assessments/rates of taxation in excess of what is

provided under normal differential assessment provisions. This would provide

greater tax benefits for parcels of open space, forestland, etc., which are

designated as particularly hurricane-prone. Such additional tax benefits

would be directly tied to the zones delineated on hazard boundary maps.
Obviously, this approach would reduce-locil tax revenues, and thus in turn

cost a jurisdiction more than the typical differential assessment program

would. The extent of this cost would depend, of course, on the degree of

property tax reduction deemed necessary to retard the conversion of hazardous

parcels. Moreover, providing these additional tax benefits will raise

significant questions concerning whether the community has legal authority for

such a program. If this is viewed as a desirable policy direction it may be

necessary to seek state enabling legislation.

b) Special assessments and impact fees. Building in, and inhabiting,

high hazard areas often involves substantially greater public costs than in

similar less-hazardous sites. 1hese costs are seen %ten a hurricane or

coastal storm strikes, or even threatens, a locality. As we have already

mentioned, there are, for instance, public costs of evacuation, search and

rescue, temporary housing, the reconstruction of pu blic facilities such as

roads, utilities, water and sewer lines, and so on. One public policy

approach is to acknowledge that such additional public expenses will exist as

a result of permitting this development to occur and to attempt to assess

those who will ultimately benefit from these expenditures. Ihis can be

accomplished through several means.

One approach is to attempt to tie more closely benefits received and

costs incurred through the use of special benefit assessments. A common

example is a special assessment charged to property owners benefiting from the

public installation of curbs and gutters or the improvement of roads, drain-

age, and sewer and water services. Such assessments are typically tied to a

geographically-delineated district in which property owners are generally

determined to receive a distinct and substantial benefit in excess of the

general benefits received by the public at large (Hagman and Misczynski 1978).

Applying this concept to storm hazard management, a locality would thus be

required to delineate an area in which "special storm services" are provided,

and in which residents would be subject to the special assessment.

Ihis approach raises a number of issues. Ihe first is how the extent or.

magnitude of the special assessment is determined and justified. This may

require a number of assumptions, and rather rough estimates, about the public

costs associated with an actual or potential hurricane. 7he magnitude of

these costs will, of course, depend on the assumed size and severity of the

storm event, among other things. The special assessment required to cover the

expenses associated with a Category 5 hurricane (on the Saffir/Simpson Scale)

will be substantially greater than those associated with a Category I storm.

The actual delineation of a special assessment district is dependent on these

assumptions as well.

An additional question has to do with the manner in which this assessment

will be levied. A traditional approach is the use of an ad valorem property

tax, in which the size of the levy for an individual property owner is a

function of the market value of land and property. Ihis is sensible from the

perspective of ability-to-pay as well as the fact that it seems intuitively

fair that those who have the greatest property at risk ought to be required to

contribute the most. An alternative basis is to-assess an equal amount for

each home or dwelling unit (or other similar units). Ihe locality must

decide-the most equitable approach.

A variation on this theme is the impact fee. Here the levy may be

designed to recoup and mitigate the overall "impacts" of a project or

development on the community at-large -- impacts that may extend beyond the

immediate environs and requirements of a project or development. For

instance, while a special assessment may be levied to cover the immediate

costs associated with the floodproofing of sewer and water service, an impact

fee might assess broader and perhaps more diffuse consequences, less clearly

related to services or benefits received directly by a specific site or

development. Rather, it is less an issue of direct and visible benefits

received, so much as the negative impacts on the locality created by the

developer or landowner which must be mitigated. For example, the jurisdiction

might levy an impact fee according to the extent to which a new project

further reduces the overall ability of the locality to evacuate in the event

of a hurricane. While it may not be designed to cover the costs of a specific

improvement or set or improvements by which the particular development will

benefit in a unique and special way, it is designed to require the developer

(and presumably future residents who purchase these properties) to compensate

the public for the costs of these consequences*

Unlike a special tax assessment and accompanying tax district, there may

be greater freedom in how and in.which areas of the locality the proceeds are

used. Under an impact fee scheme, it may be possible for the jurisdiction to

use proceeds to improve hurricane evacuation or to provide additional hurri-

cane shelters in parts of the locality quite distant from the development the

impact fee is levied upon. The impact fee proceeds might, for example, be

used to purchase hazardous land, which would in turn reduce overall local

risk, but which only indirectly benefits the contributing project or

developer.

The impact fee may be instituted as a separate instrument, or more

typically attached to the exactions process during development review and

approval (Ragman and Misczynski 1978). Ihe impact fee also usually represents

a way of getting around legislative and court-imposed limitations on the

extent of exactions permissible (e.g., for the installation of roads, sewers

and other facilities, and the donation of open space, school sites, and other

land) (Stroud 1978).

How the impact fee is assessed is an important question. Commonly con-

sidered approaches are to assess the tax according to the number of bedrooms,

number of dwelling units, or square footage involved. Uhich of these is

closer as a proxy for impact will depend on the types of these local impacts

the tax is meant to address, and the primary kinds of new development it will

be imposed upon. If new commercial development is considered as "impacting"

as residential development is, a fee based on number of bedrooms will be

inappropriate. On the other hand, if the primary concern is evacuation-

ability, it may be an appropriate gauge. On the other hand,-if public

emergency services and reconstruction/recovery expenditures are the concerns,

the total amount or value of property at risk may be the most suitable

indicator.

The impact fee in its ability to construct a formal system or procedure

for calculating and assessing impacts may present a greater level of cer-

tainty for the developer than is the case under the exaction process, which

may tend to be highly negotiated. Adjusting the expectations of the develop-

ment community and creating a relatively clear and consistent set of public

storm safety obligations on their part may be an important local objective.

4. Capital Facilities Policy

Coastal development its type, location, density and timing -- is

highly influenced by capital facilities such as roads, sewer and water

services. Such public investments have been aptly called the -growth

shapers." In this section we will briefly review the potential role to be
played by t@e location, type and timing of capital facilities in reducing

local storm hazards. Issues relating to the financing of these facilities

have been discussed in a general way in the taxation and financial incentives

section of this paper. The use of particular pricing policies may also

significantly affect patterns of development, but this strategy is not

discussed here (see Downing 1975).

Two primary dimensions to capital facilities emerge which have implica-

tions for local storm hazard mitigation: one is geographical (where capital

facilities are placed), and the other temporal (when these are placed there)

(see Nugent 1976). With respect to the first dimension, a locality can

develop an explicit set of capital facilities extension policies designed to

avoid high hazard areas, thus reducing the amount of development and property

which is placed at risk and reducing the potential threats to personal

safety. This will only become an effective deterrent, however, if development

in high hazard areas is dependent upon -- or deems as highly attractive -- the

existence of these public facilities. For instance, if coastal development is

able to obtain water through individual site wells and dispose of waste-

water through septic tanks, a reorienting of sewer and water facilities by the

locality will do little to impede growth in hazardous zones. It may be

necessary for the locality to foreclose other service/facility options avail-

able to development by restricting the issuance of septic tank permits, for

example. Without valid health reasons, foreclosing such alternative options

for development may be legally difficult. It is advisable that the jurisdic-

tion closely coordinate its environmental protection, health, and other

community objectives with those of reducing storm hazards. Restricting the

depletion of coastal groundwater supplies, for instance, may also serve to

advance the effectiveness of capital facilities policy at reducing the number

of people and property at risk in high atom hazard areas.

Redirecting capital facilities, and thus the development which

accompanies them, into "safer" areas of the locality can be facilitated

through several means. One is the clear delineation of an urban service area

or district. in which the Jurisdiction agrees to provide certain facilities

and services. This district would also likely entail a temporal dimension,

for example including sufficient land to accommodate ten or twenty years of

future growth, under certain assumptions (e.g., alternative densities). Such

a practice has several advantages. It provides a long-term perspective on

growth and development and permits developers, residents, and the locality

generally to visualize where and when such facilities will become available

in the future (and in turn where they cannot be expected). 1his, in effect,

modifies long-term expectations about where future development will and will

not be acceptable to the community. Development pressures may tend to shift

naturally as a result of this public designation, as developers, landowners

and others realize that certain facilities will not become available outside

of these designated areas. The provision and availability of facilities may

determine the amount of overall development that can take place in a locality,

and suspicions of "no growth" objectives are often held. Designation of a

service area in "safer" parts of the locality and a good faith efforL to

satisfy growth demands here will tend to enhance the political and

legal acceptablility of such an approach.

In perhaps more intermediate terms, the locality needs a policy

instrument by which to systematically identify, finance, and sequence specific

capital improvements. This is typically the function of a capital

improvements program (CIP). Ideally, the CIP follows closely designated

service boundaries, as well as the comprehensive plan, zoning and other

regulatory and planning provisions. 1he CIP provides a specific framework for

asking short-term (i.e., each year) decisions about which improvements to make

and where. Avoidance of storm hazard areas can be incorporated into this

instrument and decision framework, as a specific CIP policy.

A close connection between the designation of service areas and the

capital improvement program, and the overall planning process in a

jurisdiction (including the local comprehensive plan), is essential. Such a

close link will tend to enhance their effectiveness in advancing overall local

objectives, and their legal fortitude. From a practical standpoint, the

concept of guiding growth through capital facilities should be closely linked

to the objective of reducing the public costs of such facilities and the

extent of public investment at risk in high storm hazard areas. The latter

is, by itself, a legitimate argument for denying facility extension. Ihis is

a facility-related reason wtich is likely to enhance the 1egal standing of

hazard-sensitive capital facilities extension policy (Nugent 1976).

A number of localities have been able to more effectively tie the

provision and planning of capital facilities to desired local development

patterns and objectives. A highly touted example is the case of

Ramapo, N.Y.-, which established a six-year capital improvement program

identifying improvement priorities and specific projects to te undertaken each

year (e.g., see Godschalk et al. 1979). Ihis was buttressed by a

long-range capital plan identifying the location and sequence of capital

facilities in the twelve years following the short-term CIP. At the end of

this 10-year period it was anticipated that the entire town would have access

to public facilities. The town tied the location and timing of development

with capital improvements planning by requiring proposed residential

development to obtain a special permit, contingent upon the availability of

certain minimum public facilites. Developers were required to obtain at least

15 points on a point system designed to evaluate a parcel's access to these

facilities. Five types of facilities contributed to the points assigned:

sewers, drainage, parks and recreation (including school sites), roads, and

fire protection. If a parcel did not amass the necessary poLmts it would not

be approved for development,'unless the developer agreed to finance the

needed improvements himself. Ihis system has withstood a takings

challenge because of the "temporary" nature of the development restrictions.

While a constructive approach to managing growth, the Ramapo System has in

recent years came under fire for failing to live up to its promises.

Several recent hurricane hazard mitigation planning efforts Illustrate

the potential role of capital facilities in guiding growth into less

hazardous areas. The recent Surf City, North Carolina, hurricane hazard

mitigation plan'suggests the use of sewer service as a way to avert growth to

less hazardous areas of the locality.

"The Town should actively encourage development in the southern section

of the town. Specifically, it is the area where future higher density

development should be concentrated. Additionally, if an actual sewer

system is developed in the near future, it should be designed to serve these

areas rather than another section of the community where development in hazard

areas would be encouraged by such a system" (1984, p. 13).

The hurricane hazard mitigation and reconstruction plan for the town of

Nags Read contains similar recommendations, particularly in an attempt to

discourage future growth in an incipient inlet area.

"In the short term, the Town will explore the possibility of limiting

future water service extension in the largely undeveloped area in the

Whalebone incipient Inlet area. While this does not precl ude future growth,

it ensures that the town will not be a willing participant la placing property

at risk" (1984, p. 57).

Public investments encompass more than sewers and road& and include

numerous structures and buildings from town halls to schools to police and

fire stations. Again, it -may -be -possible to locate these investments in areas

which are less susceptible to storm forces, -in turn serving to reduce the

quantity of actual public property at-risk, and discouraging the location of

other private development.- By locating such structures in particular

strategic locations, and by-constructing them to certain specifications, it

may be possible to use them as storm shelters.

* Relocating or strengthening capital"investments after the storm.

Opportunities may exist aftera storm has occurred to implement these capital

facilities objectives. It may be possible, if facilities are sufficiently

damaged, that facilities such as public roads and sewers can be rebuilt in

areas which are less susceptible to damage from the next storm. Even if such

facilities are not relocated, they may be re'paired and reconstructed in ways

which make them stronger or less'susceptible to storm forces. Roads and

sewers can be elevated, for instance, and sewer and water lines can be

floodproofed.

It may be possible that such facilities can be reconstructed in ways that

not only reduce the possibility oftheir own damage but which reduce other

stor related hazards. As before, the presence of certain public facilities

will influence development patterns. If certain facility repairs are not

permitted to occur after a storm has hit, this may preclude or discourage the

private redevelopment of this area. Ibis technique was used subtly in the

BayTown, Texas case. The opt-ion-of selling out and leaving the Brownwood

Subdivision was made much more attractive to homeowners because they were

uncertain that sewers and roads would be restored and maintained. As a

further example, placing power--and-telephone lines underground after the storm

will ensure safer evacuation when the next storm threatens.

A similar approach might be taken to the rebuilding or reconstruction of

damaged public buildings such as town halls and fire stations. If suffi-

ciently damaged, it my be logical to move these structures to safer sites in

the locality. After Hurricane Camille, for instance, the Pass Christian Town

Hall was rebuilt on higher ground, and consequently much more protected from

future storm damages than it would have been if rebuilt in the same location.

When structures are not relocated, it may be po6sible to repair or rebuild

them in ways that reduce their susceptibility to future storm damages (e.g.,

th tough elevation). It may be desirable, as well, to rebuild these structures

in ways which permit their usage as storm shelters.

5. Information Dissemination

Classical economic theory supposes that the more informed consumers are,

the more rational and allocatively-efficient their market decisions will be.

This implies an additional set of mitigation strategies which aim primarily at

supplementing and enlightening individual market dicisions regarding the

hurricane and storm threat. Several approaches can be taken in this vein.

The first approach is to seek mechanisms and processes which facilitate

the effective informing of potential consumers of homes and other buildings of

the actual risks associated with their location (e.g., in a high hazard

district). 7his can be done in several ways. It might be required that real

estate agents and those selling homes inform prospective buyers about the

potential dangers from atom forces. Exactly this approach was proposed in

Texas, but was not enacted due to stiff opposition from real estate and

development interests (e.g., Texas Coastal and Marine Council 1981). While no

other examples of this approach can be cited with respect to atom hazards,

this approach has been used in California in an attempt to inform prospective

homebuyers of the risks of living near earthquake fault lines (see Palm

1981). Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act a real estate agent

or individual selling property must disclose to the prospective buyer the fact

that the property lies in a special studies zone (earthquake fault zone). A

recent study (Palm 1981) indicates, however, that such a requirement'has had

little measurable effect on the market behavior of housing consumers. Among

the problems identified are the tendency for homeowners to place a low

priority on the earthquake threat, the issuance of th disclosure in the
latter stages of a home purchase, a downplaying of th: importance of the

earthquake hazard zones, and a disclosure vehicle (e.g., a line that simply

says "in Alquist-Priolo zone") that conveys little or no real information

about the earthquake risk. As Palm observes, "At present, real estate agents

are disclosing at the least sensitive time in the sales transaction, and are

using methods which convey the least amount of information about special

studies zones" (p. 102).

Consequently, if a similar disclosure approach is to be applied to

hurricane and storm hazards in an effective way it must learn from the

California experience. Namely, the disclosure must be provided early in the

sales transaction, preferably during the initial agent-purchaser meeting,. and

this disclosure must convey real and accurate information about the location

and nature of the hazard. Not only should the disclosure form or process be

"labeled" in a meaningful way (e.g., the home is in a "storm hazard zone" as

opposed to an ambiguous "special studies zone") it must provide a full

description of the nature of storm related risks. Strong resistance from the

real estate industry in coastal areascan be expected, and efforts to convince

them of the utility of such a process may be essential to its success. More

passive" types-of hazard disclosure might also be used. Included in this

category would be requirements that hazard zone designations be recorded on

deeds and subdivision plats and public signs be erected indicating the

boundaries of storm hazard areas (and perhaps the location of past storm

damages).

Another approach is to institute programs which attempt to directly

educate the housing consumer about storm risks. This might take the form of

brochures and other materials distributed to new and prospective residents of

the locality, informing them of the nature and location of storm hazards and

information about what to look for in a new home or business structure (e*go,

elevation and floodproofing). For existing residents, this approach may be

one of educating them about actions which can be taken to enhance the

integrity of their existing structures (e.g., installing "hurricane clips")

and reducing future property damages.
Another approach is to attempt to reduce storm hazards by increasing

infor-mation on the "supply side." Ibis might take the form of construction

practice seminars for-coastal builders and developers, introducing both

conventional and innovative approaches both to building and designing

structures, as well as siting and planning the orientation of buildings in

vulnerable locations. Ihis approach was proposed as a primary mitigation

strategy following Hurricane Alicia in 1983 (see FEMA 1983). The success of

such a strategy, however, depends essentially on the integrity of builders and

developers, and those uto are conscious of storm threats are probably already

planning their projects accordingly. Perhaps the most significant impediment

to this type of private sector mitigation is that real estate development is a

competitive industry in coastal regions and the incurring of substantial

mitigation costs by one developer may place him or her at a competitive

disadvantage. Ihis is a major reason, for example, why building codes,

subdivision restrictions, zoning ordinances, and other jurisdiction-wide

requirements are to be preferred - they set general rules for all developers

to adhere to and in this sense create a common set of expectations which do

not require one developer to be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

VI. Institutional Approaches to Managing Reconstruction After the Storm

While most of the development management techniques described above are

equally relevant to post-storm circumstances, there are certain factors which

make the post-storm situation unique, and its decision making demands special.

The first of these factors is the multiplicity and magnitude of the tasks

which must be underr-aken in the post-storm context. They range from such

immediate concerns as the clearance of debris, the location of adequate water

suppli es, and the restoration of public utilities, to less immediate questions

about redevelopment and reconstruction. An additional factor is that even

those activities which are not immediate, do require relatively rapid actions

and decisions, and even more rapid analysis and information-gathering, before

such decisions can be made. A locality recovering from a hurricane or severe

storm should be prepared to effectively manage this process and should have

the appropriate institutions and tools available to bring this rational

management about. The following sections examine these institutions and tools

in a relatively general way. Again, I am concerned primarily with recon-

struction, and will say little about how to organize emergency and short-term

recovery activities.

A. A Post-Storm Reconstruction Plan

A locality should, to the extent possible, foresee alternative damage

scenarios from hurricanes and severe storms and have in place a set of

policies or planning instruments which will facilitate post-storm decision

making. Ihat is, a substantial portion of the reconstruction decision making

can in this way be undertaken prior to the actual storm event. This will

permit a less pressured, and more deliberative set of de cisions. concerning

reconstruction options. This in turn permits a focusing of the energies and

attention of governing officials after the disaster on questions of a highly

contingent" nature, which could not be completely foreseen prior to the event

-- or which were simply unexpected. The locality should always be prepared

to take stock of factors and circumstances that have not been considered (or

not considered fully) in pre-storm planning.

B. Redevelopment Plan v. Reconstruction Policies

The actual product of pre-storm reconstruction planning can take several

forms. On the one hand the jurisdiction may develop very specific and

detailed reconstruction/redevelopment plans, indicating sites and locations

which should not be re-developed, areas where changes in uses and activities

should occur during redevelopment, where certain capital improvements should

take place, and so on. Sucha detailed plan would provide a blueprint for

reconstruction decisions after the storm. Its primary advantage is that it

reduces the deliberation and decision making pressures on local officials

after the storm (assuming that local officials generally concur with the

substance and content of such plans). One of the disadvantages of-such a

detailed redevelopment plan is that for it to be accurate it must be updated

frequently (i.e., land use circumstances change). A second limitation is seen

in the fact that it must make specific assumptions about the extent, location

and nature of damages, as well as the political and economic opportunities

which may emerge after the storm (e.g., the nature of demands to rebuild,

amount of external disaster relief). These are factors which undermine any

very precise program or design for reconstruction.

In contrast is the development of a set of general policies concerning

reconstruction following the storm. This would provide general guidance to

more specific reconstruction decisions. For instance, a reconstruction policy

may state that rebuilding shall not occur in areas where homes have been

destroyed an average of 50% or more. Ihis policy then, would not attach

itself to a particular location or site until after the storm occurred. Such

policies would simplify public decisions, but would depend heavily upon con-

tingent factors and an analysis of the relationship between reconstruction and

other community objectives. Such an approach has the advantage of being more

flexible and sensitive to the numerous contingent factors wtich will exist in

the aftermath of the event. Such a plan or set of policies (whether a

detailed redevelopment plan or more general reconstruction policies) should

address at least the following issues:

� Identification and mapping of coastal hazards, and identification of
high hazard areas (presumably occurring prior to the event), and a
process for updating this information following the storm.

� A process for identifying the extent and nature of actual damages from
the storm event, by geographical location and zone.

� Identification of instruments and tools that can be applied in the
post-storm context to address hazard reduction goals. In the case of a
detailed redevelopment plan these mechanisms may be designed to "spring
into place" following the event. More general policy plans may simply
identify the range of alternatives leaving for post-storm
decision makers to choose which are most relevant.

� Identification of redevelopment opportunities (in addition to hazard
reduction) that may be present should certain locations, types, and
magnitudes of damage result. Again, the extent of detail and advance
precision can vary tremendously.

� Description of a post-storm decision-making process by vihich potential
reconstruction decisions are structured and organized in logical
fashion, and in which relevant actors and decision makers are brought
together to solve reconstruction problems.

C. Institutional Structures and Frameworks

Post storm reconstruction places unique decision-making pressures and

requirements on local officials, which in turn require special

institutional and decision-making arrangements to cope effectively with them.

Several of these specific arrangements are described briefly below. This

discussion is meant to be exploratory and not necessarily intended to be

recommendations for organizing reconstruction -- rather, possible approaches

which may or may not be relevant in particular situations.

1. Post-Storm Damage Assessment

Critical to public decisions concerning redevelopment and reconstruction

is a clear understanding of the magnitude, type, and causes of damages from

the.storm. Moreover, the assessment of local damages must occur quickly. A

sensible approach is to prepare for this need by constituting, in advance of

the storm, a damage assessment team. Such a team would be organized so as to

come into existence immediately following the emergency phase and should be

comprised primarily of individuals with appropriate technical expertise.

Procedures for estimating and documenting the extent and nature of storm

damages should be established in advance of the storm (e.g., damage assessment

forms, field guides). Adequate local resources and authority must be invested

in this group for an expeditious damage assessment.

More specifically, the damage assessment team might be assigned the

following responsibilities (Town of Nags Read, N.C. 1984):

a) to assess the extent and location of storm damage, both to public and
private structures and facilities and the natural environment;

b) to document the type and location of storm forces,including the
identification of following:

1) incipient inlet areas

2) high wave action areas and areas of high erosion;

3) high flooding and overwash zones.

c) from the above information, to determine, to the extent possible, the
likely causes of damage (e.g., faulty construction, proximity to an
incipient inlet).

The damage assessment team(s) would collect this Information and present

it to the recovery task force, preferably in graphic form and consistent with

the damage area delineation scheme suggested below. The damage team should

also be asked to compare the actual damages incurred in the community with the

hazard maps available prior to the storm and to adjust the delineation of the

hazard areas accordingly.

The precise composition of this damage assessment team will depend upon

the resources and expertise available in the locality. It might include some

of the following individuals:

� town (county) planning director

� town (county) building inspector

� town (county) engineer

� town (county) tax assessor

� town (county) public works director

� local real estate agents/appraisers

� environmental scientist/individuals familiar with coastal dynamics and
processes,

It is important that this group of individuals be appointed as quickly as

possible so that they may organize procedures and develop appropriate forms

for this assessment function. 1he assessment team will also serve as an

expert advisory group during the period in which specific reconstruction

decisions are being made. For instance, in the case of a proposal to prohibit

reconstruction in a particular portion of the town, they may be called upon to

provide more detailed information about the degree of damages.

Humphries and Johnson (1984) in their storm hazard mitigation plan for

Ocean City, Maryland, propose the creation of three different sets of damage

assessment teams. As initial damage assessment team is the first in the

field, providing initial inspection of damages (to be completed in a couple of

hours), and is responsible for determining whether an emergency should be

declared, whether a redevelopment moratorium should be enacted, and whether

state and federal disaster aid should be requested. 1he second stage of

damage assessment would involve more detailed records of damages and different

teams would be organized to assess different types of damages (e.g., private

residences, mobile home, etc.). A third team will accompany federal

and state damage assessment teams and will assist in the preparation of damage

survey reports required for obtaining disaster assistance.

2. Recovery Task Force

7be creation of a special task force to deal with the unique issues and

problems of reconstruction has occurred in a number of disaster circumstances

and is a result of recognition that normal local decision-saking capability

often needs to be supplemented. Under the North Carolina program coastal

localities are required to consider the creation of such a group. For

instance, the Onslow County hurricane hazard mitigation and post-disaster

reconstruction plan proposes a recovery task force with the following

responsibilities; it shall:

"M Review the nature of damages, identify and evaluate alternate
program approaches for repairs and reconstruction, and formulate
recommendations for handling community recovery.

(2) Recommend to the County Commissioners the declaration of a
moratorium on repairs and new development.

(3) Set a calendar of milestones for reconstruction tasks.

(4) Initiate orders for repairs to critical utilities and facilities.

(5) Recommend the lifting of a moratorium for "minor" repairs.

(6) Recommend the lifting of a moratorium for "major" repairs to
conforming structures.

(7) Evaluate hazards and the effectiveness of Aitigation policies and
reco=end the amendment of policies, if necessary.

(8) Initiate negotiations for relocations and acquisitions of property.

(9) Recommend the lifting of moratorium on "major" repairs (with
approved changes to conform).

(10) Participate in federal hazard mitigation planning.

(11) Recommend the lifting of moratorium on new development." (Onslow
County 1984)."

1hus a primary function of such a body is to receive and review the

damage and other analysis of post-storm circumstances, and to compare these

circumstances with mitigation opportunities identified prior to the storm to

discern appropriate areas for post-storm change and innovation. Where needed,

it can review in a more specific fashion alternative mechanisms for bringing

these changes about and go about harnessing internal and external resources

for achieving these ends. Essentially, then, a primary function of this group

is comparing contingent factors and circumstances (physical, economic,

political) with pre-storm mitigation opportunities, to arrive at and implement

a set of post-storm changes. Such a task force would also ideally undertake a

similar process for non-mitigative local objectives and opportunities.

Among these other goals utich would be considered during reconstruction

decision making might be the following:

1) enhancement of local recreational and open space opportunities;
enhancement of public access to beach and ocean;

2) enhancement and restoration of local natural ecosystems;

3) reduction of traffic congestion, noise, and other
traasportation-related problems;

4) enhancement of the long-term economic vitality of the local
commercial and industrial base;

5) others.

The composition of this body also presents a question. Several options

exist. One possibility is to assign these responsibilities to a completely

new group of individuals, perhaps.broad-based in its representation of

community interests. Ihis group might be composed of the following:

* one or more elected officials;

e planning director or planning department representative;

0 public works official;

* one or more representatives of the business community;

* representatives of adjoining communities.

Such a group would have the advantage of a fresh perspective on

development opportunities in the locality as well as perhaps a stronger

political base. A major issue in this case is the extent to which this body

is directly accountable to the elected governing body or has some degree of

independent decision-making authority.

Another option is to assign these responsibilities primarily to the local

planning board. Allocating responsibilities to this group would consequently

have the advantage of capitalizing on the existing knowledge and expertise of

the development process and the actions involved in it. Unlike the creation

of a new recovery committee, commissioners would generally not have to be

brought up to speed on development issues. Moreover, using the planning board

would still serve to release the elected board from many of these decisions

(at least at a detailed level of consideration), a highly desirable feature

given the number and gravity of decision-making requirements these individuals

are tyically faced with in the aftermath of a hurricane.

Another option is simply to place these reconstruction opportunities

squarely and completely in the hands of elected officials, with this body

serving the function of the task force. This option has the advantage of

placing these reconstruction issues and decisions in the hands of those

officials who will be ultimatelyzespoasible for their ramifications. This

often may be more politically expeditious, as well. A major disadvantage is

that elected officials are typically faced with myriad and numerous decisions

in the storm aftermath, and it may seem appropriate to reduce rather than add

to their decision-making responsibilities.

Humphries and Johnson (1984) in their storm mitigation plan for Ocean

City propose several different recovery and reconstruction committees to more

efficiently address all the necessary issues. A Disaster Recovery Task Force

would oversee recovery decision-making and would perform many of the super-

visory tasks mentioned above. In addition, a Property Acquisition committee

would be established which would have the primary responsibility for identify-

ing and recommending properties for acquisition after the storm. A permitting

Task Force would also be formed which would assist in the management of the

permit process following a storm. Finally, a Property Owner Notification

Committee would be established principally to inform non-resident property

owners of damages incurred by the property and post-disaste r conditions and

requirements imposed by the city.

3. Delineation of Damage and Hazard Zones: 1he "Triage" Concept

A primary task of the local damage assessment team, in conjunction with

the reconstruction task force, is to graphically designate damaged areas in

the community by severity level. A three-tiered delineation would function

much like a "triage" does in emergency medicine: "major," "moderate,- and

"minor" damage areas would be designated, perhaps according to the following

damage criteria:

a) us or damage areas: where buildings experience damages amounting to
50% or more of their market value;

b) moderate damage areas: where buildings experience damages amounting
to over 20% but under 50% of their fair market value;

c) minor damage areas: buildings receiving damages of less than 20%
of their Fair market value.

These damage cut-off points are largely for illustration and, of course,

could be considerably different. The triage suggests that a community

prohibit reconstruction in major damage areas (at least in the short term) and

permit immediate rebuilding in minor damage areas. 1he bulk of the task

force's immediate attention should be directed to determining whether

structures in moderate damage areas ought to be allowed to rebuild and if so

under what conditions. In addition, existing designation of local hazard

zones (e.g., flood hazard areas) should be reviewed and modified to reflect

changes in natural processes and topography and new knowledge gained about

these processes. For example, if a new inlet has been created, this should be

designated and considered by the task force or governing body when making

reconstruction decisions.

The triage damage zone concept, while largely untested, has.been incor-

porated, in one way or another, in a number of local disaster planning

programs (eego, Rogers, Golden, and Halpern 1981; the North Carolina Mitiga-

tion and Reconstruction Plans; see Haas et al. 1977 for a general description

of this idea).

4. Tempora!l Reconstruction Moratoria

After the storm'a locality may be swamped with requests by individuals

to rebuild their structures im diately. Typically the pressure to rebuild is

great and local governments are not prepared to say "no" to such requests.

One effective approach to this problem is the immediate declaration of a

temporary moratorium on rebuilding. This would provide sufficient time for

the local damage assessment team to do its job and the task force to consider

appropriate mitigation opportunities. Once the damage assessment is cour-

pleted, the moratorium can be lifted for minor damage areas. A time limit to

the moratorium, such as six months from its initial designation, is probably

advisable. As well, the jurisdiction may wish to permit the immediate

rebuilding of certain "lifeline" structures and facilities, such as hospitals,

regardless of the damage zone they are located in.

5. Taking Advantage of Redevelopment Opportunities

The ease with which opportunities can be capitalized upon in the

aftermath of a hurricane will be in large part dependent on the extent and

nature of the damages incurred (Ciborowski 1981). Ihat is, if in an impacted

area destruction is both widespread in terms of the number of structures

affected and the extent of damage for each-structure, substantial changes in

land use patterns will be more feasible. Ihe greater the variation and

mixture of these damages, the less likely are major land use changes duri ng

reconstruction. The existence of undamaged or moderately damaged homes a nd

buildings will tend to increase the political resistance to such changes.

The extent and size of this damage area will in turn determine the

magnitude of the mitigative opportunities whichare feasible. Substantial

redirecting of urban settlement patterns away from high storm hazard areas

will simply not be possible in circumstances where the damage area is

relatively small. However, less ambitious mitigative programs may be more

appropriate and feasible in these circum tances (e. g., the purchase of smaller

damage sites and their use as open space).

It is important to remember as well that hurricane damages may open up

the possibility of changes in land uses which are responsive to various

local objectives not directly related to hurricane hazard mitigation.

Destruction from a hurricane may provide opportunities to advance these

objectives, and the locality should be prepared to act quickly to capitalize

upon the circumstances. 1he recovery task force can serve as the body which

oversees and adva nces this "opportunities-pursuing" process. Again, ideally

the reconstruction process should be guided by (in varying degrees of

specificity) the reconstruction policies and redevelopment plans developed

before the storm hits.

VII. Conclusions

This paper has argued that coastal localities must face up to and

adequately plan for future hurricanes or severe storms. It has examined

alternative approaches to mitigating storm hazards both in advance of the

event and during reconstruction. 7he use of development management measures

has received the bulk of attention and it was argued that such approaches to

mitigation should be pursued more aggressively. A variety of development

management measures were reviewed and applied to the reduction of storm

hazards, from conventional zoning to the public acquisition of undeveloped

land. It should be remembered that the economic, political and ecological

situation of each coastal locality will be unique and that specific measures

should be considered with these factors in mind.

A recurrent theme in this paper is that it is important to place storm

hazard reduction in the context of other local development goals and

objectives. This observation has several implications. The first is that in

storm hazard reduction efforts, the presence of opportunities to advance

other community goals may increase substantially the feasibility of such

hazard reduction measures. While it may not be feasible to purchase high

hazard parcels solely to reduce the extent of property at-risk, when the

locality determines that such lands are also badly needed for open space and

recreational uses, these overlapping objectives may together cause such a

program to be feasible. Secondly, in the local development management

process, the reauction or permission of storm risks must be balanced against

other legitimate public goals. For instance, a locality may permit a certain

development in a high hazard area if these risks are counter-balanced by other

amenities and project features provided by the developer and highly valued by

the public.

References

Adler, Steven P. and Edmund F. Jansen. Hill Reestablishment: Retros ective
Study of a Relocated New England Towns Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fto Belvoir, VA. May, 1978.

Baker, Earl J. "Hurricanes and Coastal Storms: A Resource Paper on Risk
Assessment, Warning Response, Non-Structural Damage Mitigation, and
Awareness" prepared for NOAA. May 1979.

Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and David R. Godschalk. The Hurricane
Hazard: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. Chapel Hill, NC;
Center for Urban and Regional Studies. January, 1984.

Benton, Arthur R., Carolyn A. Clark and Wallace W. Snell. 'Galveston Island-
A Changing Environment, Texas A&M University. January, 1980.

Berke, Philip and Carlton Ruch. "Application of a Computer System for Hurricane
Emergency Response and Land Use Planning," Journal of Environmental
Management, forthcoming, fall, 1985.

Bosselman, Banta and Callies. 1he Taking Issue. Washington: Council on
Environmental Quality. 1976.

Brower, David J., Lee 0. Einsweiler, and Luther Propst. Carrying Capacity
Analysis, Town of Nags Head, N.C. Coastal Resources Collaborative, Inc.
1984.

Brower, David J. et al. Development Management in Small Towns. Chicago:
APA, Planners Press, 1984.

Burby, Raymond, Steve French and Edward Kaiser. A Conceptu@l Framework for
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Flood Plain Land use management. Chapel Hill,
N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies. April, 1979.

Burchell, Robert (ed.). New Frontiers of Planned Unit Development: A
Synthesis of Expert Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 1973.

Burchell, Robert (ed.). Planned Unit Developments Rutgers University:
Center for Urban Policy Research. 1972.

Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. Local Government Policies for
Urban Development: A Review of the State of the Art. Eugene: University
of Oregon. April, 1974.

Carmichael, O.M. "Transferable Development Rights as a Basis for
Land use Control." Florida State University Law Review,, Vol. 2, pp. 35-107.
1974.

Center for Urban and Regional Studies. Review of State Programs and
Policies to Reduce Coastal Storm Hazards. Chapel Hill, N.C.: UNC. 1984.
Draft.

Cibrowski, Adolf. "Urban Design and Physical Planning as Tools to Make
Cities Safer in Earthquake Prone Areas." Institute of Urban Design and
Physical Development. Warsaw Technical University. February, 1981.

City of Sanibel, Florida. Comprehensive Land use Plan. Adopted July, 1976,
revised May, 1980.

Clark, John. The Sanibel Report: Formulation of a Comprehensive Plan
Based on Natural Systems. Washington, DC: The Conservation
Foundation. 1976.

Collier, Courtland et al. Guidelines for Beachfront Construction with
Special Reference to the Coastal Construction Setback Line. Florida Sea
Grant. 1977.

Conservation Foundation. Flood Hazard Management and Natural Resource
Protectio2. Prepared for FEMA, October, 1980.

Costonis, John. "Development Rights Transfer: An Exploratory Essay,"
83 Yale Law Review. 1973.

Costonis, John. Space Adrift: Landmark Preservation and the
Market Place. 1974.

Coughlin, Robert and John Keene (eds.). 1he Protection of Farmland: A
Reference Guidebook for State and Local Governments." Washington: USGPO.
1981.

Coughlin, Robert E. and Thomas Plaut. "Less-Than-Fee Acquisition for the
Preservation of Open Space: Does it Work?" AIP Journal. October, 1978.

Coughlin, Robert E. et al. Saving the Garden: The Preservation of Farmland
and Other Environmentally_Valuable Landscapes. Philadelphia, PA: Regional.
Science Research Institute. 1977.

Dames and Moore. Design and Construction Manual for Residential Buildings
in Coastal High Hazard Areas. Washington, DC: HUD. 1981.

David, Elizabeth and Judith Mayer, "Comparing Costs of Alternative Flood
Hazard Mitigation Plans: The Case of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin,"
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 50, No. 1, Winter 1984,
pp. 22-35.

Department of City and Regional Planning. Currituck County Outer Banks
Carrying Capacity Study. University of North Carolina at Chapel Rill.
June, 1983.

Downing, Donald. "Sewer and Water Pricing and Investment Policies to
Implement Urban Growth Policy,- Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 11,
No. 2, April 1975.

Dressler, J.H. "Agricultural Land Preservation in California: Time For a
New View. Ecological Law 2!!arterly 8: 303-38. 1979.

Duncan, Myrl E. 'Toward a Theory of Broad-based Planning for the Preservation
of Aricultural Land," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 61-135. 1984.

FEMA. Interagency Hazard Mitigation Report. Covering Brazonia, Chambers,
Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris and Matagorda Counties. September 1, 1983.

FEMA. Interagency Post-Flood Recovery Progress Report, Denton, Texas.
December, 1983. -

Fox, G.M. and B.R. Davis. "Density Bonus Zoning to Provide and Moderate
Cost Housing," Hastings Cont. L.Q. 3: 1015-71, Fall 1978.

Furuseth, Owen J. and John T. Pierce. Agricultural Land in an Urban Society.
American Association of Geographers. 1982.

Godschalk, David R. and David J. Brower. "Mitigation Strategies and Integrated
Emergency Management," Public Administration Review, January, 1985.

Godschalk, DavidR., Francis Parker, and Thomas R. Knoche. Carrying Capacity
A Basis for Coastal PlannLn&? Department of City and Regional Planning,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. June, 1974.

Godschalk, David R. and Francis H. Parker. "Carrying Capacity: A Key
to Environmental Planning?" J. of Soil and Water Conservation 30(4):
160-165, 1975.

Godschalk, David R., David J. Brower et al. Constitutional Issues of Growth'
Management. Chicago: APA Planners Press. 1979.

Gustafson, Greg and Wallace. "Differential Assessment as Land use Policy,"
J. of the American Institute of Planners. 1975.

Haas, Eugene, Robert Kates and Martyn Bowden (eds.). Reconstruction
Following Disaster. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1977.

Hagman, Donald and Dean Misczynski. Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value
Capture and CoMEensation,. Chicago: ASPO. 1978.

Humphries, Stanley M. and Larry R. Johnston. Reducing the Flood Damage Potential
in Ocean City, Maryland. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, April, 1984.

Johnson, William K. Physical and Economic Feasibility of Nonstructural
Flood Plain Management Measures. Ft. Belvoir, VA: Institute fo@_
Water Resources. March, 1978.

Kamm, Sylvan. Landbanking: Public Policy Alternatives and Dilemmas.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 1970.

Keene, John et al. Untaxing Open Space.. Washington, DC: Council on
Environmental Quality. 1976.

Kusler, Jon. A Perspective on Flood Plain Regulations for Flood Plain
Management* 1976.

Kusler, Jon. Innovative Local Floodplain Management: A Summary of Local
Experience. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science. 1982.

Kusler, Jon A. Floodplain Acquisition: Issues and Options,in Strengthening
Federal Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council. October,
1979.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. Hurricane Damage Mitigation Plan for
the South Shore - Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. October, 1984.

Lynch, Lisa. "Potential Inlet Zones on the North Carolina Coast," School
of Forestry and Environmental Science, Duke University. December, 1983.

Maine Land and Water Resources Council. Policy Recommendations for
Reducing Coastal Storm Damages. Prepared for Governor's Committee on
Coastal Development and Conservation. December, 1978.

McElyea, William A., David J. Brower and David R. Godschalk. Before the
Storm: Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages. Chapel Rill, NC:
Center for Urban and Regional Studies. September, 1982.

Meador, Toni I. "Managing Growth on Florida's Gold Coast: Boca Raton and
the Growth Cop," Fla. Environmental and Urban Issues. February, 1979.

Merriam, Dwight. "Making TDR Work," 56 North Carolina Law Review. 1978.

Neumann, Charles et al. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean,
1871-1980, NOAA. June 1978, revised July, 1981.

Nielson, C.A. "Preservation of Maryland Farmland: A Current
Assessment," University of Baltimore Law Review, 3: 429-460. 1979.

Nugent, Michael. "Water and Sewer Extension Policies as a Technique for
Guiding Development," Carolina Planning, Vol. 2, Winter, 1976.

Onslow County, N.C. Hurricane Storm Mitigation and Post-Disaster
Reconstruction Plans. Prepared by Henry Von Olsen and Associates, Inc.
April, 1984.

Palm, Risa. Real Estate Agents and Special Studies Zones Disclosure:
The Response of California Rome Buyers to Earthquake Hazards Information.
Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. 1981.

Parsons, Kermit C. Public Land Acquisition for New Communities and the
Control of Urban Growth: Alternative Strategies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, Center for Urban Development Research. March, 1973.

Petak, William and Arthur Atkisson. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and
Public Policy. NY: Springer-Verlag. 1982.

Peterson, C.A. and C. McCarthy. "Farmland Preservation by Purchase of
Development Rights: The Long Island Experiment." DePaul Law Review,
26: 447-91, Spring, 1977.

Platt, Rutherford. Options to Improve Federal Nonstructural Response to
Floods. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council* December, 1979.

Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl. Washington, DC:
Council on Environmental Quality. 1974.

Rogers, Golder and Halpern. Hurricane Evacuation and Hazard Mitigation
Study for Sanibel Florida. November, 1981.

Rose, Jerome. Transfer of Development Rights. New Brunswick, NJ: Center
for urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. 1975.

Rose, Jerome G. "The Transfer of Development Rights: A Preview of an
Evolving Concept," Real Estate Law Journal, Vol. 3, 1975.

Ruch, Carlton. Hurricane Relocation Planning for Brazoria, Galveston,
Harris, Fort Bend and Chambers Counties. College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University. June, 1981.

Schneider, Devon M., David R. Godschalk and Norman Axler. The Carrying
Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool. PAS Memo, Repor@ 338, 1978.

@Simpson, Robert and Herbert Riehl. 1he Hurricane and Its Impact. Baton
Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Univ. 1981.

Soqth Carolina Water Resources Commission. Floodplain.Management Program
Newsletter, June-July, 1982.

Spagna, Neno J. "Transfer of Developmental Rights: The Collier County
Experience," Fla. Environmental and Urban Issues, Vol. VI, No. 3, 1979.

Stone, John R. Hurricane Evacuation Planning: Estimating Evacuation Times
for Non-Metropolitan Coastal Co-minities. Raleigh, NC: UNC Sea Grant, 1982.

Strong, Ann L. Landbanking: European Reality, American Prospect. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press. 1979.

Stroud, Nancy. "Impact Taxes: 1he Opportunity in North Carolina,"
Carolina Planning, Fall,.-.1.978.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Tampa Bay Region Huriicane
Evacuation Plan. June, 1981.

Texas Coastal and Marine Council. Model Minimum Hurricane Resistant
Building Standards for the Texas Gulf Coast. Austin, TX. June, 1981.

4
Texas Division of Emergency Management. Hazard Mitigation Plan for the
Counties on'the Upper Texas Coast Affected by Hurricane Alicia. lustin, TX:
January, 1984.

Town of Nags Read, N.C. Hurricane Hazard Mitigation and Post-Storm
Reconstruction Plan. Prepared by Coastal Resource Collaborative, Inc.
1984.

Town of Surf City, North Carolina. Hurricane Evacuation, Hazard Mitigaion
and Post-Disaster Reconstruction Plan. Prepared by George Eichler and
Associates. 1984.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Ponchartrain, La., and Vicinity
Hurricane Protection, Description and Diagram. September, 1980.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection... A Guide fox
Local Government Officials. 1981.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations. Federal Assistance
to States and Communities for Hurricane Preparedness Planning. House
Report No. 98-557. 1983.

Whyte, William. The Last Landscape. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1968.

Yasso, Warren E., and Elliott M. Hartman. Beach Forms and Coastal Processes.
Albany, NY: NY Sea Grant Institute. April, 1976.

Zaneski, Cyril. "Preserving Farmland: County Questions Proposal for
Slowing Urban Sprawl, " Winston-Salem Journal. January 29, 1984.

F----
DATE DUE
I
, I-
- '@
i

I
I

I
i

------- -
I I ----I
i - I
-- I
I
I
i GAYLORDiNo. 2333 ps

3 6 000034183