Coastal storm hazard mitigation Atlantic County barrier islands and Ocean City, New Jersey

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

S. * S . .0 S. S~~~oom

Atlantic County Barrier Islands And Ocean City. Now Jersey

APPENDIX X

BRIGANTINE

ATLANTIC CITY

VENTNOR

MARGATE

LONGPORT

OCEAN CITY

HT
393
.N5
C6 37
1985

MM~~~~* U .u
W~ ~ --;

p.ropertY of CSC Lb:ar?

COASTAL STORM HAZARD MITIGATION:

Atlantic County Barrier Islands And Ocean City, New Jersey

CITY OF BRIGANTINE CITY OF MARGATE

CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY BOROUGH OF LONGPORT

CITY OF VENTNOR CITY OF OCEAN CITY

Prepared By :
New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection
Division Of Coastal Resources
Bureau Of Planning And Project Review
CN 401
Trenton, New Jersey
Principal Authors: Ruth Ehinger and Mark Mauriello

In Cooperation With :
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division Of Water Resources
And
Department Of Law And Public Safety
Division Of State Police

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
= 1 985 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
:cZ' -CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A

COMPREHENSIVE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (CCA) WITH THE

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

REGION II, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this report was made possible by a
grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The Division of Coastal Resources extends its appreciation
to Mr. Frank Petrone, Director of FEMA Region II, who
secured funding for this study. Other FEMA personnel who
provided assistance and support for this project include Mr.
Joseph Picciano, Ms. Rosemary Oliveri, and Mr. Robert
Reynolds.

The New Jersey Division of State Police, under the
direction of Major Harold Spedding, was responsible for
managing the contract with FEMA. The New Jersey Division of
Water Resources, Bureau of Floodplain Management also
provided invaluable technical assistance throughout this
planning study.

Special appreciation goes to local Hazard Mitigation
Steering Committee members who worked with the Division of
Coastal Resources in developing hazard mitigation plans
for each municipality.

The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Marilyn
Harris of the NJDEP Word Processing Center for her patience and co-
operation in preparing this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

PART I: HAZARD MITIGATION AND RECOVERY PLANNING

A. Introduction ...................

B. Barrier Island Processes .............12
1. Nodal Zones.................13
2. Ideal Island ................14
3. Storm Frequency...............14
4. Hurricanes and Northeast Storms.......14
5. Destructive Components of Storms ......17

C. People and Property at Risk............19
1. Population Trends..............20
2. Assessed Values...............24
3. Insurance In Force .............25

D. Storm Hazard Mitigation Strategies . . .... . ..25
1. Land Acquisition................27
a. Physical Factors .........28
b. Social Factors ..........29
2. Land Use Controls ...............29
a. Density, Land Use and Setbacks ...30
b. Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR)...............39
c. Land Exchange............41
3. Construction Standards............42
4. Floodproofing Existing Structures . . ....46

E. Shore Protection..............47
1. New Jersey Shore Protection Master Pl'a'n-' 50
2. Reach Concept................50
3. Erosion Classification ...........52
4. Recommended Shore Protection Plans .....52

F. Construction and Reconstruction of
Infrastructure .................55

G. Implementation of Storm Hazard Mitigation
Strategies.....................56
1. Public Education ..............56
2. Building Moratorium ..............58
3. Funding ...................59
a. National Flood Insurance Act ....60
b. Congressional Appropriation.....60
c. Bond Issues.............61
d. Green Acres.............61
e. Legislative Appropriation......61

Page

f. Taxes and User Fees.........61
g. Conservation Organizations .....63
h. Corporate Donations.........63
i. Private Donations ..........63

PART II: SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Introduction...................65

B. Brigantine
1. Description .................68
2. Vulnerability ............... 71
3. Recommendations ...............73

C. Atlantic City
1. Description..8...............s
2. Vulnerability................85
3. Recommendations...............87

D. Ventnor
1. Description.................93
2. Vulnerability... . ............954
3. Recommendations...............95

E. Margate
1. Description .................101
2. Vulnerability ................101
3. Recommendations ...............104

F. Longport
1. Description .................107
2. Vulnerability ................107
3. Recommendations ...............109

G. Ocean City
1. Description . ................113
2. Vulnerability ................116
3. Recommendations ...............116

H. General Recommendations ..............125
1. Construction Standards............125
2. Anchoring Existing Structures ........127
3. Flood Insurance Rate Maps ..........127

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............129

REFERENCES ......................132

APPENDIX I - Steering Committee Members and
Attendance...............138

APPENDIX II - Building Construction Checklist.....145

LIST OF TABLES

Numnbe r Title Page

1 Shore Protection Costs by Municipality.. 7
2 Peak Summer Populations...........22
3 Local Evacuation Time............23
4 Market Value of Property Improvements....25
5 Catalog of Shore Erosion Control Methods. 48
6 Engineering Alternatives and Benefit-
Cost Ratios ..............54
7 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
Brigantine...............77
8 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
Atlantic City .............89
9 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
V'entnor ................99
10 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
Margate ................106
11 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
Longport................112
12 Hazard Mitigation Recommendations
Ocean City...............122

LIST OF FIGURES

Numnbe r Title Page

I Shore Protection Spending by Year......6
2 Hazard Management Activities ........9
3 Study Area .................11
4 The Ideal Island ..............15
5 Number of Damaging Coastal Storms
Eastern U.S ..............16
6 Population Statistics............21
7 Flood Insurance Coverage and Property
Values.................26
8 Shoreline Reaches..............51
9 Erosion Classification ...........53
10 Road Map of Brigantine ...........69
11 Post Storm Photograph of Brigantine,
1962....................72
12 Post Storm Photograph of Brigantine,
1962....................74
13 Road Map of Atlantic City..........81

Number Title Page

14 Post Storm Photograph of Atlantic City,
1962 ..................................... 86
15 Road map of Ventnor ....................... 94
16 Post Storm Photograph of Ventnor, 1962 .... 96
17 Road Map of Margate ....................... 102
18 Post Storm Photograph of Margate, 1962 .... 103
19 Road Map of Longport ...................... 108
20 Post Storm Photograph of Longport, 1962... 110
21 Post Storm Photograph of Longport, 1962... 111
22 Road Map of Ocean City .................... 114
23 Post Storm Photograph of Ocean City, 1962. 117
24 Post Storm Photograph of Ocean City, 1962. 118
25 Post Storm Photograph of Ocean City, 1962. 119
26 Post Storm Photograph of Ocean City, 1962. 120

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Coastal storms often result in loss of life and
extensive damages to public and private property. The
heavily developed nature of New Jersey barrier islands
increases this vulnerability to hurricane and northeast
storm hazards. The continued development of coastal areas,
without consideration for the natural hazards present, will
undoubtedly result in future storm damages, and an increased
need for high cost shore protection projects and expenditure
of public funds in post-storm clean-up and repair of storm
damages.

In an attempt to address the ever increasing demand for
shore protection and storm recovery funding, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has contracted with the
New Jersey State Police and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to evaluate and recommend
storm hazard mitigation strategies which could be
implemented in six New Jersey muncipalities. The six
municipalities studied are Brigantine, Atlantic City,
Ventnor, Margate, Longport and Ocean City. Those areas
which are most vulnerable to damages from coastal storms
were identified in a separate report (Coastal Storm
0 ~~ Vulnerability Analysis). Various hazard mitigation
techniques were then evaluated and discussed with members of
each of six local hazard mitigation steering committees
appointed by the mayor of each of the six study area
municipalities. These individual steering committees had
several opportunities to suggest possible mitigation plans
and comment on NJDEP recommendations. All NJDEP and local
suggestions are included in this report.

The technique of hazard mitigation on barrier islands
is a positive approach to minimizing the potential loss of
life and property resulting from coastal storms. The general
approaches to storm hazard mitigation are land use
management, construction practices and shore protection.
The land use management approach to hazard mitigation seeks
to either avoid future storm losses through land management
programs or to minimize the social and economic costs
incurred by shorefront communities where erosion and storm
damages occur. Improved land use management can be
accomplished through land acquisition, zoning control, and
wise expenditures of public funds for infrastructure siting
and repair.

The purchase of property in high hazard areas for
conservation and public safety purposes would decrease a
municipality's vulnerability to storm damage while at the
same time possibly increasing public access to the shore and
recreational opportunities. However, the applicability of
this approach is limited by the availability of funds.

Through zoning changes, the maximum number of people
and amount of improved property exposed to storm hazards can
be controlled. A conservation zone can be established
through a dune and beach protection ordinance. The
institution of a setback line would prevent most building
in close proximity to the water or oceanfront bulkheads and
seawalls, the area most vulnerable to wave damage.

The technique of transfer of development rights would
establish preservation zones with attendant development
rights and receiving zones where development rights must be
purchased to exceed the zoned density. High hazard areas
would be designated preservation zones and safer areas of
the community would be designated as receiving zones, where
higher density development would be allowed with purchased
development rights. This technique is most suitable for
islands which have not already exceeded evacuation
capabilities or municipalities with mainland and barrier
is land components.

In a post-storm situation it may be possible to
relocate heavily damaged utilities and roads outside of high
hazard and erosion areas or to abandon the infrastructure
entirely. In some cases, alternate existing routes can be
used to service the same areas and the right of way can be
used for dune creation and serve as a buffer between
developed areas and the ocean while saving the cost of
reconstruction and eliminating storm repairs.

Damages to structures can be decreased by requiring
buildings in flood hazard areas to meet stringent standards.
The floodplain management regulations established under the
National Flood Insurance Program and the recent addition of
floodproofing requirements to the BOCA Code (which is the
uniform building code in New Jersey) are major steps in this
direction. However, additional strengthening of these codes
is advisable.

Shore protection can be accomplished using either
non-structural or structural methods. The former includes
dune creation and beach nourishment, the latter includes
groins, bulkheads and seawalls. Because of the relatively
high cost of structural shore protection, and the potential
impacts of structures on recreational beaches, non-
structural shore protection options should be considered and
implemented if feasible, and shore protection should be
implemented in association with other hazard mitigation
strategies. This is a more cost effective long term
strategy.

Although the concept of hazard mitigation is a
relatively new one, its potential for reducing storm damages
along the coast is very high. Many of the recommended
hazard mitigation techniques, particularly downzoning,
oceanfront setbacks and acquiring oceanfront property,
dirctly contrast existing development practices along the
New Jersey coast. It must be realized, however, that future
coastal development should incorporate new ideas to mitigate
coastal storm damages. The ideas as discussed in this
report have been successfully applied at several coastal
locations in the United States. Comprehensive development
plans which incorporate coastal storm hazard mitigation are
increasingly needed in New Jersey's densely developed
coastal municipalites. Hopefully this report will serve as
a catalyst for redefining planning objectives at the local
level and realizing the inherent danger of increased
development along the Atlantic Ocean.

The report makes the following major conclusions and
recommendations.

1. Because of the densely developed nature of the
study area, and the associated high property values, hazard
mitigation techniques may have to be implemented primarily
as a post storm program.

2. Coastal municipalities should reevaluate their
master plans and zoning ordinances in light of coastal storm
vulnerability.

4. A public awareness/education program is needed for
the public to learn why hazard mitigation is such an
important planning element.
5. Each coastal municipality should request that FEMA
include wave runup data on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

6. Coastal municipalities should initiate a
structural inspection program to determine whether buildings
are adequately anchored to foundations and provide
guidelines for anchoring.

7. Each oceanfront municipality should adopt and
enforce an effective beach and dune ordinance to protect the
beach area and promote dune building, planting and
maintenance.

B. Dune fields should be created where possible and
enhanced where existing.

9. Each oceanfront municipality should establish
oceanfront setbacks.

10. Oceanfront property should be acquired for
conservation purposes where possible.

11. All oceanfront property presently in municipal
ownership should be retained in municipal ownership,
preferably for open space or recreational use.

12. Property owners should be advised to install
protective shutters, on windows and glass doors and minimize
use of wide paned glass.

13. Municipalities should institute programs for
inspection, repair and reinforcement of bulkheads and
seawalls.

14. Each municipality should review its zoning in
terms of maximum population at full build out and consider
downzoning in light of evacuation capabilities. Studies
should be made to consider the feasibility of increasing the
capacity or raising the elevation of escape routes,
considering costs, environmental constraints and
accessibility due to flooding of approaches.

PART I: HAZARD MITIGATION AND RECOVERY PLANNING

A. INTRODUCTION

The New Jersey coast faces the constant threat of
damage from hurricanes and northeast storms. While there
has been a marked lull in the number of severe storms that
have struck the Jersey shore in the past 20 years, coastal
scientists and residents generally agree that another major
storm is inevitable. At the same time, development along
the coast has continued despite recent downturns in
construction activity elsewhere. The population and
property now at risk far exceed that which existed at the
time of the most destructive storm in recent memory, the
March 1962 northeast storm. Furthermore, due to the
sometimes imperceptible retreat of the shoreline, accel-
erated by increasing sea level rise, the beaches afford less
natural protection today than in the past.

Coastal erosion continually threatens the densely
developed New Jersey barrier islands. This problem, first
recognized in the mid-1800's, has required large capital
expenditures to complete shore protection projects,
including groins, jetties, bulkheads, seawalls and
beachf ill. The need for high cost shore protection has
increased significantly over the past twenty years,
primarily as a result of increased coastal development.
With 45 municipalities fronting the Atlantic Ocean, the
competition for shore protection funding in New Jersey can
be expected to increase and therefore, spending in New
Jersey can be expected to continue to increase accordingly.
Brigantine, Absecon Island and Ocean City experience severe
erosion problems, have limited access routes and high
seasonal populations, and are experiencing rapid growth.
Therefore, they were selected for this study of coastal
storm preparedness. Table 1 and Figure I indicate that at
least $17.4 million was spent for shore protection in the
study area from 1960 through 1984.

7- Hi

4:_[ ttqt ft
-Iit 41- 4- ONE + +
+#
j4 -
4
14
14
i_-q t. + 4 4

-r++4

v"IT

+ =tit- -
--4+ _Jt4, J+- + -4+ +jj+ T
zl::v
T- -IT +
-4-4-- +L-- -
_tt

-i qt, j_ r
+r t -1--v -t-t-
V41t

44-- +

t -T -:Flats-,
4-4# *T #F Baltic-,

-t-l-t- t4 *Pt tp
41-4
;Tt4i
1 #41-
f-
.4' r4_
4-4- -V-
:1 L I
L 1- 4-- j 4 ---- --

-:4 'I-
tt_
L -I- 5=

:,t Z-,r 1-7 7"
L
- -_Tt _z

.. ........

44,/
-A I

4 4
-44
:+
+ t7
+,4 4+=
j 4-
im
4 T
. r - , -, 4 1, . . . q

L 4
tt t LA-
11 .. .... ....
tr I _: 1. Ift . .....
4 . . . . . . . . . .
V CHN IS+

t t -++ +t4-1- -t- t-

TABLE 1: SHORE PROTECTION COSTS BY MUNICIPALITY 1960-1984*

MUNICIPALITY STATE SHARE LOCAL SHARE

Brigantine $1,460,246 $418,989
Atlantic City 4,963,021 1,025,669
Ventnor 0 0
Margate 127,930 0
Longport 653,144 219,442
Ocean City 6,742,165 1,822,271

Totals $13,946,506 $3,486,371

Ventnor received no oceanfront shore protection money
from 1960-1984, and Margate spent less than $130,000 during
the same time. Because of their downdrift location, these
two cities were the recipients of much of the beachf ill
placed on the Atlantic City shore. The beaches of Ventnor
and Margate, although not very high, were wide enough to
maintain some degree of oceanfront protection.

Despite the downtrend in shore protection spending
during the 1970's, increased expenditures are anticipated in
the future. The relatively small amount of money directed
to study area projects during this period was due primarily
to a statewide financial crisis which reduced all shore
protection funding.

With the prospect of continued erosion and increasing
shore protection costs, the state and federal governments
are examining various alternatives. One of these
alternatives is hazard mitigation through land use controls.
Because erosion cannot be completely controlled, the
damaging effects of erosion should be mitigated to the
maximum extent possible. The increasing cost of erosion
control and shore protection can be moderated through
comprehensive storm hazard mitigation techniques involving
land management. Land management is a more cost effective
long range solution to the erosion problem than many of the
current structural shore protection methods.

*Although records of certain known projects were not found,
this list represents nearly the total amount spent on shore
protection. Shore protection projects include construction
and maintenance of groins, bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, and
the placement of beachf ill.

It is realized that development cannot be prevented or
eliminated, but the recreational, intrinsic and strategic
worth of barrier islands is such that intensive and
committed policies consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of barrier islands are imperative (National
Science Foundation, 1980). Traditional development patterns
need to be modified at the local level in order to achieve
sound development and resource protection goals.

The information contained in this and a companion
Coastal Storm Vulnerability Analysis (NJDEP, 1984a) was
assembled in response to the increasing threat of a major
coastal storm, of which the March 1984 northeaster was
merely a rude reminder. Comprehensive storm preparedness
can be viewed as a series of six related activities as
adapted from McElyea et al., 1982 and Haas et al., 1977 (see
Figure 2).

1. Mitigation involves activities which reduce the
potential damage and loss of life caused by a major storm;
these activities are not tied to a specific disaster, but
arise from a long-term concern for avoiding damage.

2. Planning, for each of the following post-storm
activities, entails anticipating key problems and needs
arising from a major storm, identifying methods and
resources to ameliorate them and generally preparing, well
in advance of a storm, for the quick and rational
mobilization and deployment of available resources.

3. Emergency Response activities immediately precede a
particular disaster in the form of evacuation and, following
the disaster, include search and rescue operations and
provision of emergency housing and medical care.

4. Restoration involves repairs to damaged infrastructure,
debris removal and other quick remedies and improvements to
essential services that enable the community to function,
however marginally.

5. Short-term Recovery encompasses the period of several
years after a storm during which the full range of repair
and reconstruction activities are completed to return the
community to pre-storm levels of social and economic vital-
ity (i.e., "normalcy").

FIGURE 2: HAZARD MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

/> \

PLANNING
EMERGENY2 1/2 YRS.

HORT TERM

AND
BEFORE THSOR: G PLA NNING T

AMERGENCY 10 YRS.
\RESPONSE \/
\ < ~~~~~~LONG TERM/

-.,,.

STORM EVENT

ADAPTED FROM RECONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING DISASTER (1977) AND
BEFORE THE STORM : MANAGING DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE HURRICANE
DAMAGES (1982)

6. Long-term Recovery constitutes those projects that
better the community often by commemorating the storm event,
educating the public, and providing added protection from
future storms.

The Coastal Storm Preparedness Study, of which this
report is the third and final study phase, addresses the
full range of problems and issues arising from the activi-
ties described above. The principal objectives of the study
are to enhance New Jersey's capability to respond in an
integrated, planned manner to major storms and, where
possible, minimize the potential loss of life and property
in the State's densely populated coastal zone. The study
encompasses the three barrier islands in and around Atlantic
City (see Figure 3). These islands contain the Atlantic
County municipalities of Brigantine, Atlantic City, Ventnor,
Margate and Longport, and Ocean City in Cape May County.
These six municipalities have a total year round population
of 84,600 (1980 census) and an estimated peak daily seasonal
population of 425,000 (Mitchell, 1984). Each island is
densely developed and is connected to the mainland by one or
more causeways.

The Coastal Storm Preparedness Study was conducted in
three parts:

Phase I -- Vulnerability Analysis identifies hazard
areas and the degree of potential loss of life and property
damage that may be incurred from a 100-year storm. Shore
protection structures are mapped and their ability to
withstand an onslaught of wind, water and waves is
postulated. Seasonal and non-seasonal (year-round)
populations on the barrier islands are estimated. The value
of structures in particularly vulnerable portions of the
study area is tabulated along with the amount of insurance
in force.

Phase II -- Emergency Response Planning involves the
preparation of a sample severe weather plan which describes
activities and responsibilities during such an emergency and
includes evacuation procedures which were presented and
explained to local officials. The New Jersey State Police,
Office of Emergency Management, and the local emergency
management coordinators are continuing to work together to
develop specific severe weather plans for each municipality.

.TLANTIC CITY

VENTNOR
N MA BRGATE N
LONGPORT

OCEAN CITY

4 0 4

MILES

FIGURE 3: STUDY AREA

Phase III -- Hazard Mitigation and Recovery Planning,
the focus of this report, presents general strategies and
site-specific recommendations to reduce the State's
vulnerability to damage from coastal storms in the study
area. The adoption of the recommended storm mitigation
measures in the form of a post-storm redevelopment plan
would enable a municipality to more quickly recover from a
major coastal storm and incur less damages and costs in
future storms. Furthermore, it would facilitate the
response of various state and federal agencies to any
disaster declaration, as well as assist the municipality to
have greater input in the post-disaster recommendations of
such agencies (e.g. the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team).

At a minimum, it is hoped that the several volumes that
constitute the Coastal Storm Preparedness Study will
increase the awareness and understanding of both the
destructive forces of coastal storms and the prospects for
minimizing potential losses through sound development
practices.

B. BARRIER ISLAND PROCESSES

Barrier islands are dynamic land forms subject to life
threatening flooding and other storm related damages.
Geologically, New Jersey's barrier islands are young and
extremely mobile. Formed originally on high areas between
old river valleys, New Jersey's barrier islands developed
further offshore than where presently located (Halsey,
1979). Made of unconsolidated sands, silts and clays, these
islands are easily moved by natural processes. Rising sea
level has caused the barrier islands to slowly migrate
landward and upward in space and time to their present
position.

Major storm processes are also intricately linked to
this migration. The energy associated with major storms
accounts for most of the movement of sediment landward and
upward on barrier islands.

Despite development and structural alterations, most
beach and dune systems are maintained in balance by sediment
restored back to the beaches during calm periods subsequent4
to erosion during storms. This usually takes days or weeks,
and sometimes months, depending on the severity of the
storm. Severe storms occur under low pressure atmospheric
conditions which cause a local sea level rise to occur.
This local sea level rise, combined with heightened wave
formation, enables storm waves to strike and quickly erode

the beach and dune system farther inland. Post-storm fair
weather waves are less effective at picking up the sand from
the nearshore and redepositing it back onto the beach.

The most important processes in shaping barrier islands
are winds and waves combined with tidal movements. Winds and
waves combine to produce longshore drift, which is defined
as the movement of sediment in the nearshore zone. Major
storms with winds from the northeast are responsible for
moving the majority of sediment along our coast. This
predominantly southerly sediment movement is opposed by
prevailing lighter intensity winds whose waves move less
sediment but occur more frequently in time. If there is a
period of lower frequency and intensity of storms, most
beach areas will appear to be in a state of equilibrium,
because less sediment has been removed by storms.

On the northern end of drumstick shaped barriers such
as Absecon Island and Peck Beach (Ocean City) , there are two
critical erosion areas: the inlet section and the nodal zone
(see Vulnerability Analysis for complete discussion of
geomorphology). Depending on the location of the main ebb
channel or any welding shoals, these two sections may become
one large erosion zone during storms. The inlet section of
a drumstick barrier island is one of the most repetitively
damaged and flooded areas on a barrier island, in part
because it is usually the most seaward in location, is
situated adjacent to the deepest portion of the inlet
channel, and is usually oriented to directly receive the
northeast storm waves. Because of this potential for
damage, this area on developed barrier islands is usually
the most structurally fortified section of the island, even
though these structural measures are not altogether
effective and quickly fall into disrepair.

1. Nodal Zones

The nodal zone is the area at which the predominant
direction of littoral drift diverges (American Geological
Institute, 1962) .Along New Jersey's barrier islands, a
nodal zone is often characterized by increased erosion due
to a lack of sediment remaining in the area. Because the
direction of longshore drift diverges in the nodal zone,
sediment is moved out of the area. The narrow beaches
within the nodal zones are then more susceptible to damage
from coastal storm erosion and flooding. However, due to
inlet channel changes, the position of a nodal zone can
shift, and therefore, the hazard to the adjacent beach areas
can also change. This shift can occur seasonally or can

happen over a period of years, thus changing the erosion
pattern of the area. Therefore, it is imperative that
observations and measurements of the littoral environment be
made to identify the location and movement of a nodal zone
before shore protection projects or substantive changes to
the oceanfront are contemplated.

2. The "Ideal" Barrier Island

Pilkey and Neal (1980) illustrated their concept of an
ideally developed island as one which is both aesthetic and
safe (Figure 4) . The "ideal" island would allow dynamic
coastal processes to go on relatively unhindered, without
shorefront stabilization. This concept of development
provides recreational benefits and safety at minimum cost.
Although such an island does not exist in New Jersey, this
view enables us to see clearly how past development
practices have increased the potential hazard from coastal
storms, and the cost of protecting barrier island residents
and property.

3. Storm Frequency

The New Jersey coast is vulnerable to damage from both
hurricanes and northeast storms. The risk of living on
barrier islands has changed over time as a result of the
historical variations in storm frequencies and because
shoreline erosion constantly makes property that is close to
the sea more exposed to the perils of high energy waves and
storm surge (Dolan and Hayden, 1980) .Figure 5 indicates
the number of damaging coastal storms affecting the eastern
United States between 19223 and 1984. There appears to be a
cyclic pattern to the frequency of damaging coastal storms,
with alternating periods of high and low frequency. As
coastal development continues to increase and sea level
continues to rise, an increase in the frequency of damaging
storms can be expected.

4. Hurricanes and Northeasters

The storms which present the greatest hazard to New
Jersey's coastal zone are hurricanes and northeast storms.
These storms have historically caused significant shore
erosion and associated property damage. Although these
storms can be equally devastating, they are two very
distinct storm systems.

* PERPENDICULAR ACCESS OF UTILITIES

*LARGE CRAFT MARINA ON MAINLAND
SMALL BOAT DOCKING ON ISLAND

� NO FINGER CANALS FIXED SPAN *UNDISTURBED SALT MARSH

* BACKSIDE EROSION CONTROL AABUTMENTS
BY PLANTING MARSH UF NO UTILITIES
GRASSES s s ACROSS INLET

POTENTIAL
INLET

NIMUM DISRUPTION OF TOPOGRAPY NO AT EMPTED
OVERWASH AREA AND VEGETATION STABILIZATION
-DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERED IN - NO SEAWALLS *NO DEVELOPMENT
* NO DEVELOPMENT HIGHER, FORESTED AREAS -NO JETTIES -INLET ALLOWED TO
cIi MIGRATE
-NO GROINS
-POTENTIAL CUTOFF -ALL BEACH-FRONT COTTAGES ON
WHEN NEW INLET STILTS BEHIND DUNE LINE -NO BEACH - PUBLIC RECREATION AREA
FORMS -ACCESS TO BEACH BY BOARDWALK REPLENISHMENT - NO ROADS, BRIDGES OR UTILITIES
-NO ROADS, BRIDGES OR OVERACROSS INLET
UTILITIES ACROSS
-ROADS GO AROUND OR OVER BUT
NECK
NOT THROUGH DUNES
-PUBLIC RECREATION AREA
-ALL BUILDINGS TEMPORARY a
EXPENDABLE

-ROADS PLANNED TO PROVIDE STORM
EVACUATION
* DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BASED ON ISLANDS
-NO VEHICLES ON BEACH NATURAL CARRYING CAPACITY, RE;

-SHALLOW WELLS a SEPTIC TANKS

-NO CENTRAL SEWER OR HI-RISE
CONSTRUCTION

FIGURE 4 : THE IDEAL ISLAND

SOURCE: PILKEY AND NEAL, 1980

10-
0).
07 *
o 9 --

8- /

O
!-
0
0

23 26 30 34 38 402 46 50 54 58 6 66 70 73 77 81 84

4 YEAR AVERAGE - 1923 TO1984
00

92973 RICHARDSON 977

2397 26 0 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 73 77 81 84

4 YEAR AVERAGE - 1923 TO 1984

FIGURE 5 : NUMBER OF DAMAGING COASTAL STORMS - EASTERN UNITED STATES

SOURCE:

1923-1982 MATHER ET AL. (1984)
NOTE: 1981-1984 IS A 3 YEAR AVERAGE
1962-1973 RICHARDSON (1977)

1973-1984 NJDEP (1981, 1984)

Hurricanes are formed over the warm waters of the Gulf
of Mexico, Caribbean Sea or Atlantic Ocean, and are
classified as having winds of 74 m.p.h. or higher. Although
the duration of a hurricane is relatively short, the
intensity of hurricane wind, waves and associated storm
surge produces the greatest hazard to coastal residents in
New Jersey. In addition, because hurricanes require warm
ocean water to maintain the storm's intensity, they occur in
summer and early fall, the period when the coast is most
heavily populated.

Extratropical storms, better known as northeasters,
usually develop as low pressure systems that slowly move
offshore. Accompanying winds, although not usually of
hurricane force, blow onshore from an east-northeasterly
direction for sustained periods of time. Because of the
often slower moving nature of these storms, their duration
may be longer (up to several days), and the resulting damage
may ultimately exceed the destruction from a hurricane.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two types of
storms is that northeasters are usually more predictable
than hurricanes in track and intensity. Due to more
accurate forecasting, better pre-storm evacuation and
preparation measures can be initiated. It should also be
recognized that astronomically high tides can significantly
increase the potential for coastal erosion, flooding and
property damage during either type of storm.

5. Destructive Components of Storms

Coastal storms present a significant hazard along the
New Jersey shore in several ways. The large number of
barrier island inhabitants, the density and type of
development, the low island elevations and the low elevation
and limited number of barrier island access/egress routes
combine to create a potentially dangerous storm scenario.

Storms acting on barrier islands often modify them by
two important processes: overwash and inlet formation.
Overwash occurs when the combined effects of erosion, wave
runup, and storm surge cause the water to overtop the
barrier beach, channeling water and sand toward the bay.
Tidal inlet breakthroughs can be formed on barrier beaches
during storms, often as a result of overwash events (Aubrey,
1980). The individual destructive components of coastal
storms are described below.

Wind - The strong winds which accompany coastal storms
and hurricanes can be very damaging in several ways.
Sustained winds, over 74 m.p.h. (and upward of 150 m.p.h.
for a Category 5 hurricane) for a hurricane, exert
tremendous pressure on buildings and threaten their basic
structural integrity.

Roofs, siding, decorative edgings, and windows are
especially vulnerable to wind damage. Strong winds also
transfer energy to the sea surface, resulting in increased
wave heights, periods and energy.

Storm Surge - During storms, reduced atmospheric
pressure and strong winds pile up water along the coast,
causing a temporary local rise in sea level known as storm
surge. The surge associated with coastal storms and
hurricanes usually consists of three parts (Gross, 1972):
1. a slow, gradual rise in water level beginning several
hours before the storm's arrival, 2. a sharp rise in water
level as the storm center passes (surge) , and 3. a rise and
fall of sea level as the resurgences or oscillations set up
by the storm pass. Combined with high energy storm waves
and astronomically high tides, storm surges can be extremely
destructive.

Waves - Storm waves increase the hazard to coastal
areas because a) the wave height is increased, and b) the
wave period is increased. The resulting high energy waves
reach the shore in quicker succession, thereby speeding up
the process of beach erosion and coastal flooding. As more
beach is eroded, more property is exposed to storm waves,
and the risk of damage greatly increases. As storm waves
destroy beachfront structures, the wreckage creates another
serious hazard. This debris can be propelled by waves and
currents, battering other structures along the way.

Sediment transport in the offshore direction on the
beach face is a result of high energy storm wave action.
Short period high energy waves tend to flatten the beach
profile, eroding the dune-berm and forming a scarp (cliff).
The formation of a scarp is intensified by oblique wave
approach and alongshore swash movement. Wave swash moving
alongshore hastens erosion at the base of the scarp by
undercutting the dune-berm and transporting the eroded
sediment downdrift and offshore.

Tidal Flooding - Coastal flooding in New Jersey is due
primarily to landward flows caused by high tides, waves from
strong winds and storm surge. Tidal f loods can also be

caused by the combination of waves generated by hurricane
winds and runoff resulting from the heavy rains that
accompany hurricanes. Most severe tidal floods are caused
by tidal inundation generated by high winds superimposed on
the regular or spring cyclic tides. Hurricanes are the
primary source of the extreme winds. in the case of tidal
floods associated with hurricanes, the high velocities of
hurricane winds often produce storm surges of four to five
feet above normal for a category I hurricane, and greater
than eighteen feet for a category 5 hurricane (Neumann et
al., 1981) . Both types of storms often cause water to build
up in the bays and creeks behind barrier islands. As the
tide ebbs, the winds prevent water from draining out through
the inlets and the next flood tide causes even higher tidal
levels.

Sea Level Rise - The damaging effects of coastal
erosion are amplified by the continued and gradual rise in
sea level which has been occurring since the melting of the
Pleistocene glaciers approximately 15,000 years ago. The
change in sea level along the New Jersey coast is dependent
largely on this change in the polar ice mass, which in turn
depends on numerous climatic and atmospheric variables. A
tectonic component, which may also affect the local rate of
sea level rise, is difficult to quantify and, therefore,
scientists use the term "relative" in describing sea level
change.

Measurement of tidal levels in Atlantic City from
1940-1970 indicates that local relative sea level is rising
at a rate of approximately one foot per century (NJDEP,
1981) . Because of the low elevation and gentle slope of
most New Jersey barrier islands, a slight vertical rise in
sea level can result in a significant horizontal
displacement of the shoreline. This results in more land
being subjected to erosive forces of the ocean. In a
natural state, a barrier island wi~ll tend to migrate
landward and upward in response to rising sea level.
However, when barrier islands are extensively stabilized,
movement of sand from the ocean beach landward to the
bayshore is prevented, and the island may drown in place.
This seem-s to be happening on many New Jersey barrier
islands.

C. PEOPLE AND PROPERTY AT RISK

The potential for loss of life and damage to property
from a severe coastal storm or hurricane is high, though not
uniformly high, throughout the study area. For example, a

beachfront block in the casino district of Atlantic City has
been assessed at over 170 million dollars (1982 dollars)
while many interior blocks carry assessments of less than
one million dollars. Likewise, a wide disparity in property
values occurs along the beachfront of the study area.

The variation in property values, and the corresponding
population densities, provide a basis for determining the
benefits of alternative mitigating techniques as well as
their likely costs. But whatever the potential loss in any
particular section of a community at this time, the area
becomes increasingly vulnerable as population grows and land
values escalate. For the same reason that the risk of loss
will increase with time, opportunities for hazard mitigation
will decrease.

1. Population Trends

Over the last two decades the six municipalities in the
study area experienced a net decline in year-round residents
of 7%. This statistic conceals the fact that 4 of the 6
communities grew substantially during this time frame (see
Figure 6 -- Margate changed little). Only Atlantic City
experienced a sharp decrease in year-round residents between
1960 and 1980. A resurgence, owed largely to the
introduction of casino gambling in 1976, is anticipated to
continue through the end of the century. Based on both
economic and demographic factors, a 31% population increase
is projected between the years 1980 and 2000 for the study
area communities (N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Planning
and Standards).

The State does not have a clear handle on the number of
people on the barrier islands at peak times. The New Jersey
Shore Protection Master Plan (NJDEP, 1981) includes
population statistics and seasonal population ratios by
municipality. A more recent study of tourism in New Jersey
(NJDEP, 1984c) includes estimates of shorefront visitors by
municipality and by type of accommodation. Each of these
sets of figures was used by James K. Mitchell (1984) to
estimate peak summer populations in New Jersey's coastal
municipalities and thus derive high and low peak population
estimates (Table 2) .No seasonal population ratios were
available for Absecon island, so the high peak population
was estimated as twice the low peak.

CENSUS POPULATION PROJECTED POPULATION

60-

ATLANTIC CITY

50-

40 -

o
o
o 30-

OCEAN CITY
D 20-
ao

Z VENTNOR
ffi C BRIGANTINE
10 - MARGATE

LONGPORT
0
1960 1980 2000

YEAR

FIGURE 6: POPULATION STATISTICS

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, 1980

TABLE 2: PEAK SUMMER POPULATIONS

High Peak Low Peak
Population Population
Municipality EstimateI Estimate2

Brigantine 22,445 14,691
Atlantic City 683,596 341,798
Ventnor 34,050 17,025
Margate 29,830 14,915
Longport 6,162 3,081
Ocean City 136,700 34,631

1Estimates from NJDEP (1981)
2Estimates from NJDEP (1984c)

Since the number of visitors to these barrier islands
during the tourist season already greatly exceeds the number
of year-round residents, the difficulty of safely carrying
out a full-scale evacuation becomes evident. Should an
increase in visitors approaching that of permanent residents
occur over the next two decades, an already questionable
evacuation capability will become clearly inadequate.

Evacuation times were estimated by Mitchell (1984)
using both of the peak summer population estimates shown in
Table 2 and assuming different traffic volumes (Table 3).
The traffic volume is assumed to be either at capacity or at
what is defined as the 30th peak hour volume. The latter is
a frequently used figure in roadway design representing the
30th highest hourly volume measured over a long period (e.g.
a month or a year) and is described by Mitchell as "typical
rush hour traffic on a normal summer day".

TABLE 3: LOCAL EVACUATION TIMES IN HOURSI

High Peak Population Low Peak Population
Estimate Estimate

Community Number 30th Peak Capacity Number 30th Peak Capacity
of Hour Traffic of Hour Traffic
People Traffic Flow People Traffic Flow
Flow Flow

Absecon
Island 783,020 16.4 12.4 391,510 9.0 7.1

Ocean
City 136,700 14.0 10.4 34,631 5.0 4.1

1Taken from Mitchell (1984)

These evacuation times are based on the following
assumptions: (1) populations at risk are as shown in Table
2; (2) all evacuation is carried out by road; (3) no persons
remain in communities at risk after evacuation is complete;
(4) evacuation vehicles carry an average of 4 passengers;
(5) two lane evacuation routes carry only outbound traffic
while one lane of four lane routes remains open for inbound
and emergency vehicles; (6) there is a uniform reaction of
1.0 hour in all communities at risk; (7) non-delayed travel.~
time to safe locations varies from 1.0 hour (Long Beach
Island to Absecon Island) to 2.0 hours (Cape May County);
and (8) evacuees follow optimal routing and scheduling plans
(Mitchell, 1984).

Mitchell's work indicates that the evacuation time for
Absecon Island is on the order 7.1 to 16.4 hours. This
includes Brigantine City which shares its evacuation route
with Absecon Island. For Ocean City, evacuation time
estimates are 4.1 to 14.0 hours. Note that these estimates
are for evacuation of the barrier islands only, not for an
evacuation of all low lying areas. A larger scale
evacuation would affect Cape May County and increase the
evacuation times for Ocean City.

Both Mitchell and the Division of Coastal Resources
recognize the difficulty in accurately estimating peak
summer populations, particularly for day visitors. The
Division feels that the estimates derived from the tourism
study (NJDEP, 1984c) are more accurate, as population
studies were a major focus of the study and figures were
carefully validated. Thus the evacuation times of 7.1 to 9
hours to evacuate Absecon island and 4.1 to 5 hours to
evacuate Ocean City are felt to be more realistic.

The National Hurricane Center has indicated that it is
unlikely to be able to issue a Hurricane Warning for the New
Jersey coast more than 12 hours before hurricane conditions
occur. Furthermore, the Coastal Storm Vulnerability
Analysis (NJDEPI 1984a) indicated that most available escape
routes will be inundated 2 to 3 hours before the center of
the storm passes. Mitchell noted that his evacuation time
estimates do not take into account the closure of roads due
to high winds or water. When all of this information is
taken into account, it is apparent that if the high peak
population estimates are correct, the evacuation times for
Brigantine, Absecon Island and Ocean City already exceed the
time period likely to be available between issuance of a
Hurricane Warning and closure of evacuation routes. If the
low peak population estimates are correct, the evacuation
time approximately equals available time for
Brigantine/Absecon Island and is about one half of the
available time for Ocean City. In either case, a large
number of people are at risk on these islands and may be
unable to escape should a hurricane strike.

2. Assessed Values

The value of structures in the first block along the
beachfront is placed at over 1�, billion dollars for the six
municipalities (see Table 4). This figure represents 37% of
the total value of structures in the municipalities although
the beachfront block constitutes only 8% of the total land
area. Thus, the most vulnerable property is also the most
valuable, owing both to the oceanfront vantage. The low
value per acre in Brigantine reflects its less developed,
more residential character.

TABLE 4: MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS IN $1000'S*

BEACHFRONT BLOCK ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY
Per % of Per
Municipality Total Acre Total Total Acre

Brigantine $ 99,724 $237 29 $347,400 $85
Atlantic City 1,076,184 2,131 49 2,195,316 290
Ventnor 122,916 1,217 31 395,225 294
Margate 112,558 1,237 23 496,462 554
Longport 46,200 1,050 45 103,258 538
Ocean City 184,514 549 21 893,844 240

TOTAL $1,642,096 $4,431,505
AVERAGE $1,097 $249

Based on 1982 Tax Books with 1983 equalization ratios applied to
assessed value of improvements; excludes value of land and contents of
structures.

3. Insurance in Force

Nearly three-fourths (71%) of the federal flood
insurance coverage in New Jersey insures structures in
coastal municipalities, 25% in the study area alone. While
sizeable, the 25%, which equates to over 1.2 billion
dollars, covers only about one fourth of the 4.4 billion
dollar total value of improvements in the six
municipalities. The percentage of exposed risk, that is,
the percentage of the total value of property that is not
covered by flood insurance, ranges from 38% in Brigantine to
97% in Atlantic City (see Figure 7).

D. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Storm hazard mitigation strategies are means by which
loss of life, injuries to people and damages to property
caused by coastal storms can be decreased. This section
addresses general strategies which have been used to reduce
property damage due to storms in various parts of the
country, with examples from a number of states. Not all
strategies would be feasible in each municipality in the
study area. The mitigation strategies fall into five
categories: land acquisition, land use controls, shore
protection, construction standards and control of
infrastructure construction, which are discussed in detail.

VALUE OF PROPERTY IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (STRUCTURES ONLY)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

38% UNINSURED

BRIGANTINE : :

97% UNINSURED

ATLANTIC CITY

69% UNINSURED

VENTNOR ,

0 68% UNINSURED

MARGATE / /1

480% UNINSURED

LONGPORT / I

47% UNINSURED
OCEAN CITY///////EY

69�/o INSURED BEACHFRONT

68�/ UNINSURED NON-BEACHFRONT

! I UNINSURED

FIGURE 70: FLOOD INSURANCE COVERAGE
SOURCE: NJDEP , 1984a

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNUE

Each of these can be implemented either prior to a storm or
to guide reconstruction and redevelopment after a storm has
caused significant damages.

1. Land Acquisition

Acquisition of land in high hazard areas for conserva-
tion, shore protection (e.g. dune creation) and public
safety purposes is one strategy available for storm hazard
mitigation. In addition to decreasing a municipality's
vulnerability to storms, the public acquisition of lands
increases public access to the shore and recreational
opportunities, although access to dune areas would be
restricted to preserve the dunes as protective features.
There are several drawbacks to the approach, primarily the
high cost of acquiring developed waterfront properties and
the loss of tax ratables to the community. If the acquired
property provides public access for recreation, the lost
property tax revenue may be offset by increases in recre-
ational income from beach fees or recreation related expen-
ditures and the resulting tax revenue. In some cases,
businesses and residences could be relocated within the
municipality, thereby minimizing the revenue loss to the
municipality. In addition, the reduction in storm damages
would save the municipality in the cost of post storm clean
up and repairs.

Funding for land acquisition is the critical and most
important aspect of the program. The high level of develop-
ment in New Jersey's coastal zone has caused property values
to soar, making acquisition a very expensive option.

in addition to the funding methods discussed in the
funding section (Part I, Section G), municipalities may be
able to exchange public properties located outside of high
hazard areas for target hazard prone properties, either with
or without monetary consideration. Local governments may
also acquire land through condemnation (police powers) with
compensation.

The acquisition of target area properties can be
accomplished either in fee-simple or less than fee simple
(i.e. easements) purchases. Fee simple purchase would
transfer the property rights and ownership completely. The
purchase of easements would transfer some but not all of the
property rights, while not transferring ownership. Ease-
ments may be either positive (allowing some use of the
property) or negative (prohibiting some use of the
property). Although easements cost less than fee simple

purchase, they do not provide as much control over the
property. Acquisition of development rights is discussed in
Part I, Section D2.

Target acquisition areas should be identified and
ranked prior to storm damage, based on the following natural
and man-made physical factors as well as social factors.

a. Physical Factors

Erosion Rate and Beach Stability: ~Erosion hazard areas
have been delineated using factors such as beach width and
height, presence of dunes, sediment budget and density of
development (Nordstrom et al., 1977; NJDEP, 1981). The
presence of shoreline engineering structures has caused
accelerated erosion, usually of adjacent, down-drift
shorelines. Previous dune removal or encroachment has
destroyed natural storm buffers and depleted large sand
reservoirs. In addition, removal of beach vegetation has
increased the potential for sediment transport and erosion.
A high erosion rate would be heavily weighed in setting pri-
orities for land acquisition.

Inlet Proximity: inlets are by nature highly dynamic
and, therefore, adjacent areas are subject to cyclic
patterns of erosion and accretion which may change suddenly.
Historical coastal charts provide a chronology of inlet
migration and associated shoreline changes. Tidal inlet
history can be examined to predict future movement and
effects on the adjacent shoreline. For this reason, the New
Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan has identified barrier
island tips as primary acquisition targets and the State has
purchased several of these areas (e.g. Corson Inlet State
Park, Townsend's Inlet Waterfront Park, Barnegat Light State
Park, Strathmere State Natural Area).

island Breaching: By looking at historical records,
areas of barrier island breaching and locations of former
inlets can be identified. These areas are especially
vulnerable to breaching during severe storms. Lagoonal
development on the bay side of a barrier island reduces the
width of the island by bringing water closer to the center
of the island. This increases the susceptibility to
breaching during a storm, usually from the back side of a
barrier island, due to storm elevated water levels.

Overwash Areas: Previous overwash areas can be
identified by examining storm damage records and aerial
photographs. in addition, the system of roads in highly

developed areas can act as a network of overwash passes
during storms. Many roads perpendicular to the shore which
provide access to the beach also provide flood channels for
sand and stormwater.

Density of Development: Undeveloped sites should be
prime acquisition targets because they serve as buffers to
developed areas. Conversely, areas which have a history of
high property damage and thus high hazard are also prime
acquisition sites, though more likely to be available only
in a post-storm setting.

b. Social Factors

Sites which have the potential for increasing the
recreational use of and public access to the shore should be
given high priority for acquisition.

Coastal land acquisition can be implemented as either a
pre-storm or post-storm program. Pre-storm acquisition is
preferable as it minimizes exposure of people and property
to coastal hazards although it is more expensive. The level
of coastal development and the associated property values
create an economic obstacle for acquisition in much of the
coastal zone. Because the value of structures in developed
coastal areas is about equal to the value of the land,
post-storm acquisition may be a more realistic approach
(NJDEP, 1981) since the expected damage to structures during
a severe storm will reduce the cost of post-storm
acquisition.

Ideally, an acquisition plan identifying target
acquisition sites would be developed prior to a major storm,
consider the physical, social and economic factors discussed
above and include an evaluation of potential funding
sources. The acquisition plan could then be implemented
immediately following a severe storm with accompanying
damages.

2. Land Use Controls

Each municipality in New Jersey is required under the
Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1) to adopt master
plans and zoning ordinances, by approval of the governing
body. These plans and ordinances can designate and regulate
areas subject to flooding and thus incorporate storm hazard
mitigation. Among the mitigation measures which could be
incorporated in zoning ordinances are the establishment of
preservation/conservation zones, maximum development

densities, and waterfront setbacks. A program can also be
instituted for transferring development rights out of storm
hazard areas.

if zoning ordinances were changed in a community to
accomplish storm hazard mitigation, some existing uses would
become non-conforming uses. The Municipal Land Use Law
states that a non-conforming use may be repaired or restored
in the event of partial destruction. This is generally
taken to be less than 50% loss, although it may be otherwise
defined by a municipality. in order for a storm mitigation
plan to be effective, once a non-conforming dwelling unit or
structure is damaged 50% or more, it should be permitted to
be rebuilt only if it would comply with existing ordinances.

a. Density, Land Use and Setbacks: In order to
reduce the danger to life and property from storms, the
oceanfront area can be zoned at a lower density than areas
further inland (e.g. single family homes, rather than
multi-family and highrise structures), thus effectively
setting limits to population and property exposed to storm
hazards. Multi-family residences should be located on
safer, interior portions of an island. The planned overall
density (i.e. full build out under the Master Plan) should
be closely related to the carrying capacity of the island.
Carrying capacity includes such factors as realistic
evacuation capabilities, water supply, sewerage and road
capacities, and land area. Sanibel, Florida has been zoned
using this approach to establish maximum allowable density
(Butler et al., 1980) . Ideally, the maximum allowable
density would not exceed the ability of the population to be
evacuated between storm warning and storm arrival. As noted
previously, estimates indicate that two of the three barrier
islands in the study area already exceed this density and
Ocean City may exceed it, depending on which population
estimates are accurate and whether a general or local (i.e.
barrier islands only) evacuation is ordered. Therefore, it
is essential for these municipalities to reexamine their
zoning, and seriously consider downzoning, particularly in
areas where full build out has not yet occurred.

Another means of decreasing the vulnerability to storms
is to establish a conservation zone along the oceanfront.
Only limited development would be permitted in this zone,
and only if the development was designed to promote recre-
ational use (for example walkways and gazebos over dunes for
physical and visual beach access) or shore protection. The
conservation zone may be defined to include only the beach,
the beach and dunes, or extend further inland in high hazard

areas. Protection of the beach alone is not adequate storm
protection, and protection of beach, dunes and inland areas
is ideal.

The def inition of a dune is critical to determine the
effectiveness and enforcement of any dune protection
ordinance, and must at least include all dunes in existence
at the time of enactment. Ideally, such ordinances should
take into account the dynamic nature of dunes and protect
them as they migrate. The definition of a dune may include
areas which would under natural conditions have dunes, even
if there is no dune at a given time. In some ordinances, the
landward slope is not recognized as a part of the dune and
has been weakened by heavy encroachment. Lastly, protection
of secondary and tertiary dunes should also be incorporated
in ordinances.

The establishment of setback lines beyond which no new
development or redevelopment may occur is an extremely
effective storm hazard mitigation technique. Setbacks can
be established at either the state or the local level,
through legislation or zoning regulations respectively. No
development other than water dependent uses or support
facilities for public recreational use would be allowed
seaward of the setback line in the area of extreme high
hazard. Setback lines may be established on the basis of
erosion rate, distance from the shoreline, elevation, wave
runup, existing shore protection structures and their
anticipated useful life, limits of vegetation, presence of
dunes, as well as other factors, or any combination of
these. In order to be effective, the location of the
setback line at a given site should change as conditions
change rather than be stationary over time. Ordinances may
incorporate language that provides for review and
redesignation over time, usually a 2-10 year period.

Some states prohibit most development seaward of the
setback, while others require special construction
practices. The setback program and permitting authority
reside with the state in some instances, and with county or
local government in others. In any case, the local govern-
ments may establish more stringent setbacks.

In addition to the establishment of strict oceanfront
setbacks, municipalities could provide for the relaxation of
setbacks on the landward side of a property to enable
development to occur further inland. In other words, a
municipal ordinance may state that a project located on an
oceanfront lot is not required to meet the standard side or

rear yard setback. Such a provision would be particularly
useful in rebuilding after a storm, to allow damaged
buildings on previously developed lots to be rebuilt further
inland.

Examples of land use legislation at the state level are
discussed below.

Texas

The Texas Open Beaches Act (Section E, Chapter 61)
defines beaches and affirms the rights of the public for
access to and use of public beaches. In effect, this
establishes a conservation zone on the beach. The Act
defines public beaches as "any beach area, whether publicly
or privately owned, extending from the line of mean low tide
to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to
which the public has acquired the right of use or easement
to or over the area by prescription, dedication,
presumption..." (61.001(5)). The Act prohibits creation,
erection or construction of "any obstruction, barrier or
restraint that will interfere with the free and unrestricted
right of the public" to access the beach or use property
abutting a state-owned beach. The attorney general or any
county or district attorney may file suit to obtain court
order to remove any obstruction or to prohibit interference
with access and use.

As the vegetation line has retreated with storm
erosion, in particular as a result of Hurricane Alicia in
1983, the State of Texas has condemned properties which were
seaward of the new vegetation line and prohibited rebuilding
of those more than 50% destroyed. This action is now the
subject of law suits filed by the property owners involved.
In two cases, the Texas District Court has ruled that the
beach area to which the public has access changes as the
vegetation line moves. One case involved a specific home
which was not permitted to be rebuilt. The second ruling
does not involve particular houses, merely the question of
whether, after the hurricane, the beach is public up to the
vegetation line. This decision may be appealed (Moran and
Smith, 1984).

The Texas Natural Resources Code provides for county
establishment of a dune protection line on barrier islands
and peninsulas in order to preserve " sand dunes that offer a
defense against storm water and erosion of the shoreline"
(Chapter 63). The line may not extend more than 1000 feet
inland of the mean high tide line. Permits are required for

certain activities within such areas, and may be issued only
where it is demonstrated that the activity "will not mate-
rially weaken the dune or reduce its effectiveness as a
means of protection from the effects of high wind and
water".

North Carolina

Pursuant to North Carolina's Coastal Area Management
Act of 1974, the State Coastal Resources Commission has
identified ocean hazard areas of particular environmental
concern. Three categories of ocean hazard areas have been
identified: Ocean Erodible Areas, High Hazard Flood Areas
and Inlet Hazard Areas. State permits are required for
major development in these areas.

In essence, the Ocean Erodible Area defines a setback
line. This area is the shoreline which has "a substantial
possibility of excessive erosion and significant shoreline
fluctuation." The area extends from the mean low water line
landward to a point determined by the vegetation line and
the 100 year storm recession line. The setback line from
the first line of vegetation is calculated by multiplying
the average annual rate of erosion by 30, with a minimum
setback of 60 feet. The Ocean Erodible Area also extends
landward to "the recession line that would be generated by a
storm having a one percent chance of being equalled or
exceeded in any given year" (a 100 year storm) (N.C.A.C.
15:07H.0304(1) (b)). North Carolina's High Hazard Flood Area
is the V-zone (coastal high hazard area) delineated on
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Lastly, the Inlet Hazard
Areas are high erosion shorelines located along inlets.

Standards have been developed by the North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission to guide permit decisions in
Ocean Hazard Areas. These standards are of four types:
erosion control, construction standards, setback require-
ments and regulation of public facilities. The erosion
control standards require development to occur inland of the
crest of the primary dune or the long term erosion setback
line, whichever is furthest from the first line of stable
vegetation. if this precludes any practical use of a lot
existing as of June 1, 1979 the development may be seaward
of the primary dune if it is located behind the long-term
erosion setback line and it is not located on or in front of
a frontal dune. Where no primary dune is present, the
development shall be set behind the frontal dune or the
long-term erosion setback line, whichever is furthest
landward.

Certain uses may be permitted seaward of the oceanfront
setback line, including sand parking lots, beach accessways"
elevated decks, gazebos, storage sheds, temporary amusement
stands and campgrounds that do not involve substantial
permanent structures. These uses are permitted if they are
inland of the vegetation line, involve no significant
alteration or removal of primary or frontal dunes or dune
vegetation, and have overwalks to protect dunes. In Ocean
Erodible Areas, lots recorded prior to June 1, 1979 are not
subject to strict setback requirements where that would
preclude placement of permanent structures on the lot,
although structures built on these lots must still be at
least 60 feet landward of the vegetation line, entirely
behind the landward toe of the frontal dune and setback on
the lot the maximum feasible distance from the ocean
(McElyea et al., 1982). The lowest habitable floor of the
structure shall be no more than 1000 square feet or 10% of
the lot size, whichever is greater.

In the Inlet Hazard Area only single family and duplex
units and readily movable non-residential structures are
permitted and setbacks are required.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts, through Executive Order No. 181 (1980),
ordered State agencies to adopt policies for barrier
beaches, including the policy that" no development shall be
permitted in the velocity zones or primary dune areas of
barrier beaches."

Massachusetts also regulates barrier islands,, beaches
and dunes under its Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (c.
131, S.105) and Wetlands Protection Act (c. 131, S.40). The
Protection Act is implemented at the local level through a
permit program which ensures that an activity will not have
an adverse effect on the important characteristics of
identified resources (e.g. beaches, dunes) such as their
ability to respond to wave action, their volume, and
vegetative cover. Barrier islands are mapped under the
Wetlands Restriction Act, which is implemented at the State
level. On altered (developed) barriers, beaches and dunes
are generally mapped as barrier beach resources and a field
determination made as to the appropriate restriction line,
depending on the extent of existing alteration of the
resource (e.g. number of groins, bulkheads).

Rhode island

The Rhode Island Coastal Management Program has cate-
gorized barrier beaches as either developed or undeveloped.
Development is only allowed on developed barrier beaches,
and is subject to construction regulations. The regulations
prohibit building on dunes, prohibit additional structural
shoreline protection, and require new structures to be
elevated an additional six feet in velocity zones.
Structures on dunes which are damaged 50% or more by storm
floods, waves or wind may not be rebuilt.

Rhode Island has measured erosion rates on barrier
beaches and requires a construction setback of 50 feet from
the shoreline. Where erosion rates have been determined to
be critical, the setback is calculated by multiplying the
average annual erosion rate by 30 (anticipated life span of
a structure).

Georgia

As another example, Georgia's Shore Assistance Act of
1979 established a permit system for structures on sand
dunes, and submerged lands. The dynamic dune field is
defined as the ocean facing area of beach and sand dunes
extending from ordinary high water inland to trees 20 feet
high, coastal marshes or a structure existing on April 25,
1979, the effective date of the Act. Criteria are set forth
for structures in the dynamic dune field. Among the
requirements are that the structure be placed at the
landward part of the site, that the project retain and
restore vegetation and topography as best possible, that the
structure be built to hurricane resistant standards, and
that normal functions of sand transport be maintained. In
beach areas, eroding sand dune areas and areas without
dunes, no permits are to be issued except for shoreline
engineering structures, boardwalks or crosswalks. Georgia
does not require a permit for repair of a house damaged less
than 80%.

Glynn County, Georgia, which includes St. Simons Island
and Sea Island, has adopted regulations more stringent than
Georgia's Shore Assistance Act (Butler et al., 1980). A
Beach and Dune Protection District was established in 1974
which includes both a primary and a secondary dune district.
only fencing and elevated boardwalks are permitted in the
primary dune district, which extends 40 feet inland from the
landward toe of the primary dune. This definition provides
the benefit of a boundary which varies with conditions and
over time. Buildings on pilings are allowed in thie secon-
dary dune district.

New York

On August 2, 1981 the New York legislature amended the
State's Environmental Conservation Law by passing the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act (N.Y.S.A. 841:34-0101 et
seq.). The Act states that parts of the coastline of New
York are prone to erosion which can cause extensive losses
to property, natural resources, and human lives. in addi-
tion, the Act states that such losses often result in large
expenditures of public funds and that construction practices
often contribute to the potential for damage. Its purpose
is to minimize such damages and expenses.

Coastal erosion hazard areas likely to be subject to
erosion within 40 years are to be identified and mapped
based on analysis of shoreline recession. Natural
protective features are also to be mapped. Erosion hazard
areas of two types are defined: natural protective feature
areas and structural hazard areas. The landward boundary of
the erosion hazard area is located either 25 feet from the
landward edge of a natural protective feature (i.e. dune,
bluff or beach where no dune or bluff exists) or at a
distance from the bluff equal to 40 times the average annual
recession rate plus 25 feet in structural hazard areas along
bluffs which are receding one foot or more per year. The
erosion hazard boundaries established are subject to review
and adjustment every ten years and after major coastal
storms. Further, the Act states that "any activities,
development or other actions in such erosion hazard areas
should be undertaken in such manner as to minimize damage to
property and to prevent the exacerbation of erosion hazards.
Such actions may be restricted or prohibited if necessary to
protect natural protective features or to prevent or reduce
erosion impacts".

The Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act calls on local
governments 'to encourage the achievements of these aims
through preparation of an erosion hazard area ordinance or
law which sets minimum standards and criteria to be used to
approve or deny development in the erosion hazard areas.
Standards and criteria which are considered include
alternatives to and need for the activity, setbacks, effects
on erosion, placement of erosion protection structures or
use of non-structural measures, and effects on natural
protective features and natural resources. Standards for
erosion protection structures would also be included. The
Act includes provisions for the granting of variances and
requires permits for development in hazardous areas.
Lastly, the Act states that public actions which would

encourage new development in coastal erosion hazard areas
should not occur unless protective measures are first taken.

The State of New York has prepared draft maps and held
public hearings for the south shore of Long Island and is in
the process of preparing draft maps for New York City.
ordinances have not yet been adopted as they are not
required until six months after adoption of final maps.
Thus, it is still too early to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Act.

Florida

Florida has adopted construction setback or control
lines under its Beach and Shore Preservation Act (Chapter
161, F.S.) . The law requires the establishment of a
construction control line which marks the landward limit of
the impact zone of a 100 year storm surge. The control line
is established by county governments and is based on ground
elevations relative to historic storm tides, wave uprush,
shoreline erosion , dune lines, vegetation lines, beach and
offshore contours and existing upland development. Until
county lines were established throughout the State, the
control line was taken as 50 feet from the mean high water
line. All counties subject to the Act (i.e. having sandy
beaches) have established control lines, which are marked by
monuments. The designated control lines are subject to
review when the State finds a need for review (previously a
five year review period was established) . The Act
specifically provides that the line does not define a
seaward limit for structures, but simply defines an area in
which special structural and siting considerations are
required to insure protection of the beach and dune system.
Permits are required for construction, excavation and
alteration seaward of the control lines. Structures in
existence prior to establishment of the control line are
exempt from the law.

The effectiveness of the coastal control line was
studied after Hurricane Eloise hit Florida in 1975. The
study showed that average losses increased for structures
located nearer the shoreline and were higher for those
seaward of the control line than for those landward (Shows,
1978) . Shows noted that "the spatial distribution of losses
demonstrates the importance of small absolute distances from
the setback line"m.

Florida's control line also delineates the landward
extent of State claims to tidelands. This line is used in

conjunction with beach restoration and shorefront protection
projects as well as public access.

Lastly, Chapter 161 of the Florida law provides for the
creation of Beach and Shore Preservation Districts in
Florida at the county level. The District authorities can
establish shore preservation programs and have the power to
acquire lands, exercise eminent domain, construct facilities
and make rules and regulations.

New Jersey

Gares et al. (1980) have suggested the establishment of
Dune Management Districts for New UTersey. A Dune Management
District would have a dynamic boundary subject to periodic
review and would be based on a storm of given frequency.
Gares et al. recommended using a 50 year storm and a 10 year
planning period. In delineating the district, the shoreline
erosion rate, dune formation and migration, the length of
the planning period and the frequency of overwash would be
considered to determine the recommended ideal dune height
and width based on the amount of protection desired while
still allowing dune migration. New construction would be
prohibited in the Dune Management District, and overwashed
sand would not be removed. Rebuilding of damaged structures
would be examined on a case by case basis. Public
acquisition of vacant land is also recommended.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations
(44 CFR 60.3) include design, performance and elevation
standards for building in flood hazard areas. The regu-
lations are to be enforced at the local level, which has
been a weakness of the program in some areas, and must be
incorporated into the ordinances of municipalities which
participate in the NFIP. All of New Jersey's shorefront
municipalities are in the NFIP. in addition to identifying
flood prone areas, FEMA has identified coastal high hazard
areas in oceanfront communities. Coastal high hazard areas,
or V-zones, are areas subject to high velocity waves of at
least 3 feet in height.

Section 60.3 of the NFIP Regulations states that sand
dunes function as natural barriers that mitigate the effects
of coastal flooding and that alteration of dunes in coastal
high hazard areas (V zones) must be prohibited if potential
flood damage would be increased. The Federal Insurance
Administration (1978) developed model ordinances for review
of building permit applications which require review of
development proposed in a Coastal High Hazard Area to

determine if it would alter sand dunes so as to increase
potential flood damage, and prohibit alteration of sand
dunes which would increase potential flood damage. Such an
ordinance has been adopted in all of the shorefront
municipalities in New Jersey. However, the NFIP regulations
and consequently a number of ordinances do not protect dunes
outside of the V zone, nor clearly protect dunes in the V
zone. Developers have often argued successfully that the
replacement of a dune by a shore protection structure such
as a bulkhead, revetment or seawall, provides better
protection than a dune, regardless of impacts such a
structure might have on the beach.

A recently completed assessment of dune ordinances in
New Jersey (NJDEP, 1984b) indicates that most dune
ordinances describe a fixed and static legally defined line,
such as a building line or dune area, that does not
recognize future beach erosion or past processes that may
have caused the dunes to migrate landward past the building
line since the ordinance was adopted. The consequence is
that the ordinance does not prevent building in natural dune
areas which are landward of the building line. A second
problem is that municipalities often grant variances to
their dune ordinances and allow building in dune areas out
of fear that they would otherwise have to buy the lot. Dune
ordinances seldom provide clear guidance for building new
dunes, repairing damaged dunes, improving existing dunes, or
for placing structures in a dune zone (e.g. walkways to the
beach).

b. Transfer of Development Riqhts

The technique of transfer of development rights (TDR)
involves the establishment of preservation/conservation
zones with attendant development rights or credits and the
establishment of receiving zones where development rights
can be purchased to exceed the zoned density. Unsold
development rights would be taxable just as property is
taxable. Once development rights to a property were sold,
the land would remain in ownership of the seller but would
not be subject to development and would decrease in value
accordingly.

In the context of storm hazard mitigation, high haz-
ard/high erosion areas would be designated preservation
zones and the development rights for the property within
these zones would be calculated and allocated based on
property ownership. Safer areas of the community would be
designated as receiving zones, where higher density

development would be allowed with purchased development
rights. In municipalities which are already developed, this
technique would come into effect as redevelopment occurred
and, in some cases, might be associated with an overall
downzoning of the municipality.

Development rights can be purchased in either a pre- or
post-storm setting to prevent rebuilding of structures
significantly damaged by a storm. In order to be most
effective as a mitigation technique, the TDR program should
be mandatory, although a voluntary program would also be
worthwhile. In a mandatory program, the marketability of
development rights would have to be guaranteed, perhaps
through creation of a development rights bank by the munic-
ipality or the state. The bank would buy development rights
and sell them to developers in the receiving zone when they
became marketable.

The attractiveness of the TDR approach is that it would
phase out and eventually eliminate development in areas of
high hazard while monetarily compensating property owners
for not developing or redeveloping their property, without
spending tax dollars.

TDR has been used in Collier County, Florida, on the
Gulf coast, where 40,000 acres have been designated as a
special treatment zone which can generate development
credits and thus serve as a preservation area. The special
treatment zone consists mainly of barrier islands,
mangroves, salt marshes and beaches. The receiving zones
for development rights are those areas in the County zoned
multi-family, and housing can be built at a higher density
in the receiving zones with the purchase of development
rights. Areas from which development rights are transferred
must be preserved either by a restrictive covenant or by
donation to the County or a non-profit conservation
organization. In one example of the use of TDR in Collier
County, two development rights (one right per two acres)
were purchased for $6000 each and used to build additional
condominium units which were marketed for $150,000 to
$200,000 each (Bentz, 1983).

There has been a moratorium on the prog~ram since 1982
due to the increased density being placed on only one
island, Marco island, which has received all of the excess
development to date and due to the perceived inequitability
in receiving $3000 per acre of land assessed for tax
purposes at $50 per acre.

TDR is presently being used in New Jersey in areas
covered by the Pinelands Act. The enabling legislation
establishing the Pinelands Commission gave the Commission
land use powers which are relied upon for this program.
Burlington County is actively using funds from a revenue
bond to buy transfer development credits which it plans to
sell to developers in the future.

Elsewhere in New Jersey, the Superior and Appellate
Courts recently ruled on East Windsor Township's use of TDR
to preserve farmland. The Superior Court found that in the
absence of specific regulations in the Municipal Land Use
Law, municipalities do not have the authority to engage in
TDR. The Appellate Court upheld this decision. The case had
been appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court but was
recently settled prior to that court making a ruling. The
courts did not rule on the constitutionality of TDR.
Enabling legislation has been introduced in the New Jersey
Senate and Assembly which would specifically give
municipalities the authority to engage in TDR.

A TDR program to reduce storm-related losses may soon
be explored in a municipality in Cape May County under
funding from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. The project will determine the viability of the
program for one municipality and its applicability to other
coastal communities. The project involves documentation of
the risk and economic cost of past storms, analyzing
existing land use and calculating the existing development
potential of the island. Transfer sites are to be
identified and their development capacity evaluated.
Preservation and transfer districts will be delineated and a
market analysis of development rights undertaken.

C. Land Exchange

Where publicly owned vacant land is available within a
reasonable distance and outside of a flood hazard area, that
land may be traded for privately owned land in a high flood
hazard area. As an example, Arizona law provides for a
governing body to petition the State to designate an area as
eligible for flood relocation assistance and exchange for
State land. The program is voluntary (a majority of people
within the area must have signed a petition requesting
relocation) and a suitable parcel of land owned by the State
or other governmental entity must be located within 25
miles. A floodplain land exchange fund may be used by the
State either to purchase land to support the relocation, or
for condemnation of private lands within a floodplain which

is not exchanged, or to compensate the State trust for
exchanges involving private land valued lower than the State
land for which it has been exchanged (Sections 26-322 and
37-610-01, Arizona Revised Statutes).

3. Construction Standards

Requiring that builders build to minimum hurricane or
storm resistant building standards is a means of reducing
storm damage. Building codes can take the form of
performance standards or specifications. The floodproofing
requirements of BOCA and the Southern Standard Building Code
are, for the most part, performance standards. The Southern
Building Code Congress is now completing a deemed compliance
manual for one and two family buildings with specifications
and drawings. In other words, design according to the
manual specifications will be deemed to comply with the
Southern Standard Building Code. In areas governed by the
code, this should provide some engineering involvement in
design of homes, which have been found more vulnerable to
storm damages than either fully or partially engineered
buildings.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's 1981
publication entitled Design and Construction Manual for
Residential Buildings in Coastal High Hazard Areas provides
technical information on construction materials and design
details to withstand storm winds and waters. These guide-
lines are not binding upon builders and are not considered
to be stringent standards. other publications provide
design standards as well, including Elevated Residential
Structures (FEMA, 1984) and Coastal Design: A Guide for
Builders, Planners and Homeowners (Pilkey et al., 1983).
These guidelines cover such information as materials,
anchoring, fastenings, foundations, bracing, shape of house,
wind and water loads, etc. A general discussion of
construction standards for hurricane resistance in Texas,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island and New Jersey
follows.

Texas

The Texas Coastal and Marine Council, in 1981, pub-
lished Model Minimum Hurricane Resistant Building Standards4
for the Texas Gulf Coast, in response to legislation mandat-
ing the development of standards. The adoption and imple-
mentation of these standards is up to each municipality.
The standards describe hazard zones, based on potential
exposure to wave and scour, battering by debris, flooding,

wind and design parameters. Specific requirements for
structural integrity of foundations, masonry, steel and
iron, wood, concrete, cladding and glazing, and roofing
construction are established for each zone. A study by Hix
(1976) of 5 types of structures ranging from single family
houses to condominiums to 10 story high rises, indicated
that designing to these standards would increase the
structural cost of construction by 3-8% and the overall
finished cost by 1-3% compared to building only to the
Southern Standard Building Code.

South Carolina

The South Carolina Coastal Council sponsored a study by
the Department of Civil Engineering at Clemson University of
coastal construction codes for coastal high hazard areas (V
zones). The study included a review of regulations now in
use and designation of hurricane design criteria for South
Carolina. As a result, A Supplement to the Southern Building
Code for Hurricane Protection was prepared in January 1984
to be used as a guide for local communities. The supplement
deals primarily with woodframe, multi-story residences on
pilings but can be adapted to commercial, utility or
high-rise buildings. The design storm on which the
supplement is based is a 100 year flood, with the associated
wind speed and storm surge height. The model code contains
performance standards for battering loads, water loads, wind
loads, scour, and wood connections. Shutters would be
required for all glasswork below the Base Flood Elevation
plus Wave Height. Breakaway walls are prohibited as they
would generate battering material in a storm.

The South Carolina model code uses more recent wind
load design (American National Standards institute) than
does the Texas model code because the Model Code authors
find it more suitable for coastal conditions. The standards
assume that scour will equal the predicted wave height and
that scour around piles shall be taken as twice the pile
diameter or twice the greatest dimension for non-round
piles. This is more detailed than the Texas model code,
which makes no specific requirement.

North Carolina

I ~ ~~~North Carolina has a State Building Code and a Residen-
tial Building Code which apply throughout the State. The
former applies to new residential and commercial con-
struction, and the latter to construction, alteration,
repair and removal of one and two family dwellings only.

The Residential Building Code includes standards for wind
resistance in coastal areas experiencing winds greater than
75 mph. The State Building Code provides standards for
areas subject to winds greater than 80 mph. In addition,
the North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission has
established standards for Ocean Hazard Areas pertaining to
piling size, embedment and resistance to decay, insects and
corrosion, foundation stability and minimum floor elevations
(N.C.A.C. 15:7H. 0308(d)) and requires that exposed
structural connections be either enclosed or rust proofed.
The rapid rusting of non-galvanized fasteners in coastal
areas has been responsible for structural failures in
coastal storms. Cantilevered decks and walkways must be
designed to be stable in wave forces of a 100 year storm or
be designed to break away without structural damage to the
main structure.

A report prepared for the North Carolina Office of
Coastal Zone Management (McElyea et al., 1982) finds that
the North Carolina State Building Code may need amendments
to protect structures against a 100 year coastal storm. In
particular, McElyea et al. (1982) reference a 1981 study by
Sheaf fer and Roland recommending new standards which relate
to "(1) wind, waves, flooding, erosion and scour, soils,
structural stability and related conditions, and (2) special
fire and structural hazards associated with multi-story,
multi-family modular wood frame buildings".

Since the construction standards were implemented and
the report was written by McElyea et al. (1982) , the North
Carolina coast was struck by Hurricane Diana in September
1984. A study of damages by Spencer Rogers (1985) indicated
that inadequately anchored porches and balconies resulted in
major damages and that most damages were to buildings built
before the code went into effect. Rogers' comparison of
damages caused by Hurricane Alicia in Texas and Hurricane
Diana in North Carolina showed that although the type of
development and the wind speeds (100 mph) were similar,
Diana caused significantly less damage than Alicia, showing
the success of the construction standards. Rogers noted
that the wind speeds were well below the design wind speed
(120 mph) and that the force of the wind increases with the
square of the velocity, so the standards have yet to be
completely tested.I

Rhode Island requires construction in high flood hazard
areas to exceed the State building code. Pilings must

penetrate 10 feet below mean sea level; floors, roofs and
walls must be fastened to floor beams with metal straps or
"hurricane clips"; the roof pitch must be more than 400 to
reduce lift during high winds; glass windows must withstand
100 mph loads; houses must be elevated an additional 6 feet
(Lee and Olsen, 1983).

New Jersey

In New Jersey, the Basic Building Code of the Building
Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA)
has been adopted as a Uniform Construction Code (N.J.S.A.
52:27D-1 et .)and must be used by all municipalities. It
is administered by the New Jersey Department of Community
Affairs and enforced at the local level. Flood proofing
requirements were not made part of the code until January,
1984 nationally and August, 1984 in New Jersey. The flood
proofing section of the code (Section 1313) applies to all
new structures located in flood prone areas, and to
structures undergoing substantial changes (greater than
50%), using the 100 year flood as the minimum criterion for
determining flood prone areas and establishing the base
flood level. The code requires that all buildings and
structures located within a flood prone area have the lowest
structural member, except pilings and columns, at or above
the base flood level. Buildings and structures which are
not in Use Group R (i.e. which are not single-family
residences) may alternatively comply with water tight con-
struction provisions of the code. The flood proofing
requirements of the code in coastal high hazard areas
pertain to anchoring of buildings and structures to piles
and columns, fastening of building components, and placement
of obstructions below the lowest floor. A registered
professional architect or engineer must certify that all
applicable flood proofing requirements are met before a
Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

Although the addition of these flood proofing require-
ments to the BOCA Basic Building Code has strengthened the
code and incorporated the construction standards of the
National Flood Insurance Program, it is still considered by
many to be somewhat inadequate. Because Flood Insurance
Rate Maps do not recognize wave runup in delineating coastal
high hazard areas and, therefore, there are no specific
construction standards for development in wave runup zones,
there is the potential for major storm damage. in addition,
standards are felt to be inadequate with regard to design
wind speeds and anchoring of walls and roofs. Lastly, the
performance standards are too general, which makes

interpretation and enforcement difficult. More specific
guidelines are needed (e.g. to interpret the regulations for
breakaway walls).

Municipalities in New Jersey are required to use the
BOCA Basic Building Code as the construction standard and
may not supplement the code with more stringent standards,
either as a building code or under a zoning or special
ordinace. Therefore, in order for adequate standards to be
adopted in coastal communities, the standard must first be
incorporated into the BOCA Building Code at the national
level and then the amended code adopted by the State.
Alternatively, legislation could be passed at the State
level establishing stronger flood proofing controls.

4. Floodproofing Existing Structures

Modifications can be made to existing structures to
decrease the likelihood of flood damage. Houses can be
jacked up and elevated on piles, although this is less
practical for structures with a slab-on-grade foundation,
attached units and large brick or masonry structures
(Illinois DOT, 1984). In Elevated Residential Structures, a
FEMA publication (1984) , the following four criteria
characterize structures for which raising is generally
feasible:

1. accessible below the first floor for placement of
jacks and beams,

2. light enough to be jacked with conventional house
moving equipment,

3. small enough to be raised in one piece, and

4. strong enough to withstand the stress of the
raising process.

Particularly suitable are wood frame homes and light
commercial buildings which are raised above the ground,
although brick and masonry structures can be raised. The
publication also includes a comparison of the costs of
elevated foundations over conventional foundations and
design and construction guidelines for new construction.

Structures which are located in flood zones and are not
anchored (i.e. only anchored by gravity) , or are poorly
anchored, can be anchored to prevent flotation. The means

of anchoring depends on the design of the house. Some
alternatives are driving piles at house corners to which the
house is then fastened, use of ground anchors, and use of
diagonal struts under the house (Pilkey et al., 1983).
Additional fastenings can be added to existing houses which
are not adequately tied together (e.g. fastening of roof to
wall) and interior walls reinforced (Pilkey et al., 1983).

Gordon (1981) notes an additional method of preventing
flotation: reducing hydrostactic pressure by providing trap
doors in first floor rooms. Small openings can also be made
in walls of crawl spaces, basements and garages to allow
floodwaters to more easily enter these areas. This is a wet
floodproofing technique and will allow hydrostatic pressure
to equalize on each side of the structure walls and minimize
the likelihood of wall and foundation failure. If wet
floodproofing is done it should be accompanied by raising
the contents within the house where feasible (e.g. furnace,
hot water heater, electrical service) (Illinois DOT, 1984).
Raising utilities may also be beneficial where the house
floods only a few feet. Tax incentives, such as credits,
deductions and rebates are all means of encouraging property
owners to take floodproofing measures.

E. SHORE PROTECTION

Several steps can be taken to combat the erosion
problem on barrier island beaches. The options range from
no action" to "corrective measures . The various
corrective shore protection measures, including structural
engineering and non-structural solutions, are listed in
Table 5. These include measures which armor the shoreline,
decrease offshore wave energy, or increase sedimentation.
The majority of these solutions are high cost options and
require large expenditures, usually from passage of federal
and/or state legislative appropriations or, in New Jersey's
recent experience, bond issues.

TABLE 5: CATALOG OF SHORE EROSION CONTROL METHODS

METHODS OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS PROBLEMS

Structural

Groins To impede Sufficient Can cause
longshore longshore downdrift
transport transport erosion.
and induce or artificial Aesthetically
sedimentation nourishment unpleasing.
Hazard to swim-
mers.

Bulkheads To retain soil Sufficient soil Can cause
and protect foundation to erosion in
eroding shore- withstand forces front of and
lines adjacent to
structures.
Impedes beach
access.

Seawalls To protect Supply of suit- Causes erosion
shorelines from able stone in front of and
moderate - adjacent to the
heavy wave structure.
action Impedes beach
access and is
aesthetically
unpleasing.

Revetments To protect Availability of Can cause
eroding shore- suitable stone erosion in
lines from and protection front of and
wave and from toe scour adjacent to
current structure.
scour Subject to
scour and
settlement
damage.

Breakwaters To diminish Suitable supply Swimming and
wave energy of stone and navigation
and induce supply of hazard. Can
sedimenta- sediment in cause shoaling
tion longshore and completely
system block longshore
drift causing
adjacent
erosion.

Non-Structural

Beach To increase Large quantity of Temporary - has
Nourishment beach width suitable sand to be done on a
and height nearby periodic basis.
and provide Play require
sedimentation structures to
to the long- hold sand in
shore system place.

Dune Building To create and Space for dunes, Easily
& Maintenance maintain a supply of sand, disturbed.
dune line or vegetation and Requires
zone fences to regular
stabilize maintenance.

Artifical To reduce current Purchase of Does not sig-
Seaweed velocity and "seaweed" and nificantly
induce anchoring attenuate wave
sedimentation materials action. Can be
dislodged and
carried away.
Preliminary
research by
NJDEP
found this
method to
by ineffective.

The problem of beach erosion is affected primarily by
wave action, size and supply of littoral sediment,
predominant winds, and proximity to tidal inlets.
Therefore, each solution must be "customized" to each
specific problem site, taking into account all possible
variables. The physical processes acting in certain areas
must be examined to determine the probable response to
different shore protection solutions.' The cost of a project
must also be weighed against the value of the property being
protected and the expected benefit, both economic and
recreational, from such a project.

Due to the problems often associated with shore
protection structures, North Carolina does not allow the
construction of seawalls, bulkheads and other shoreline
erosion control structures except beach nourishment or berm
projects if their purpose is to protect property. In
emergency situations, which are defined by the State as when
the erosion scarp is within 20 feet of the foundation of a
building, the placement of sand bags for protection is
allowed. The sand bag structure may be up to 3 bags (15
feet) wide. This restriction applies regardless of when a
structure was built.

1. New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan

The New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan (NJSPMP)
(NJDEP, 1981) provides a plan for all future shore
protection work. It represents 1) a review of past and
present erosion and shore protection trends, 2) an
evaluation of impacts and implementation of alternative
approaches to shore protection (engineering and land
management) and 3) a comprehensive shore protection plan
which is consistent with State coastal management policies
and objectives. The geographical area studied in the Shore
Protection Master Plan includes the Raritan Bay shore from
Perth Amboy to Sandy Hook, south along the Atlantic Ocean
shore to Cape May, and north along the Delaware Bay and
River to Crosswicks Creek.

2. The Reach Concept

Where appropriate, development of the engineering plans
for New Jersey is based on a regional (reach) approach,
rather than stop-gap piecemeal solutions. Along ocean
shores, piecemeal solutions often tend to aggravate the
erosion problem in adjacent shore areas. The "reach
concept" is the method whereby consistent shore protection
engineering plans are developed within areas affected by
similar coastal processes. The reach concept attempts to
reduce the potential for any one shore erosion control
program to produce adverse effects in adjacent shore areas.
Shore protection is thereby provided for an entire coastal
section, irrespective of political subdivision boundaries,
rather than for only local erosion problem areas as has been
the traditional practice in New Jersey. The reaches that
have been developed for the New Jersey Shore Protection
Master Plan (NJSPMP) are shown on Figure 8, together with
the affected counties and political subdivisions within each
reach.

~~~ D ~~~~~RARITAN BAY

-, ~~~~~~~~~~SANDY HOOK TO
H I~6'~Q ~ ~ - 2-~LONG BRANCH

. . . . . . 4 LONG BRANCH TO
cv I-UI0.r 3,-SHARK RIVER

SHARK RIVER
AAQANINLETTO
NMANASQUAN IN4LET

DELAWARE RI VER TO4ANTOLOKING
6MANTOLOKING TO
BARNEGAT INLET

-' ~~~~~~~ - ~~~~LONG BEACH ISLAND

PULLEN ISLAND AND
0 U 8 F~~~~~~~~R I G-ANTIN IISLAND
- ~~~~ABSECON ISLAND
(ATLANTIC CITY,VENTOR,
MIARGATE , LONGPORT)

~~~~~~~~~(CEA CITY)W

DELAWARE SAY ' \ ~ - -LUDLAM ISLAND HEE
(SEA ISLE CITY,STRATHEE

13-FIVE MILE BEACH
14 ~(THE WILOWOODS) #STUDY AREA

CAPE KAY INLET
TO CAPE MAY POINT

FIGURE 8 : SHORELINE REACHES

SOURCE: NJDEP. 1981
51

3. Erosion Classification

Four erosion categories for New Jersey barrier island
reaches were presented in the Shore Protection Master Plan
(NJDEP, 1981) . Criteria for these erosion classifications
include beach width, presence of dunes, sediment budget,
presence and functional performance of shore protection
structures, proximity to development, and wave climate. The
erosion categories are defined as follows: Critical Erosion
(I) - areas having the least suitable natural and man-made
protection from the operating erosion forces, while
receiving significant erosive attack and damage to
protective features; Significant Erosion (II) - areas where
a low to moderate level of protection exists, but where
erosive forces are expected to reduce this level in time;
Moderate Erosion (III) - areas with a moderate to high
degree of protection for the level of erosive processes that
are operative; Non-Eroding (IV) - non-eroding or stable.
The erosion categories for Brigantine, Absecon island and
Ocean City are identified in Figure 9. Most of the shoreline
on the three barrier islands is classified as critical or
significant erosion areas.

4. Recommended Shore Protection Plans

The New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan ranks
different engineering alternatives in order of benefit-cost
ratio. This analysis was based on four parameters:
engineering costs, public service costs, recreational
benefits, and property protection benefits. The engineering
alternatives and benefit-cost ratios are listed on Table 6
for Brigantine, Absecon island and Ocean City (Peck Beach).
Note that only 9 of the 15 alternative plans have a
benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0 These projects have a
higher funding priority. As of January 1985, the status of
implementation for the various engineering alternatives by
reach is as follows:

Reach 8, Brigantine - No action on alternatives.
Dune maintenance/repair: Scheduled within 5 years.
Estimated Cost: $75,000

Reach 9, Absecon Island - Alternative 3.
Maintenance of structures: completed spring 1984.
Cost: $3,000,000.
Beachfill: Scheduled for spring 1985.
Estimated Cost: $7,500,000.

. l
,-. J -r. -, - 4-L. .... / ,,

i" ". /t - a NX,' I
.. '>/ -./�

-~~%'"(4.. - aw' I_ 7' 4

V M MJ,-TSIGNIFICANT

S,. x~ m1' PWODERATE
] ONI-ERODIN6

FIGURE 9: EROSION CLASSIFICATION

SOURCE: NJDEP, 1981

Storm Erosion Recreational Combination Limited
Protection Development Program Restoration Maintenance

o 75'berm along the o Existing beach if main- o Initial fill for storm o Beach fill to 75' berm o Maintenance of
developed northern tained will satisfy the erosion protection. width at northern half existing functional
groin protected area recreational demand This berm width more of developed section structures
and 100' berm for through the entire than satisfies recrea- o Beach nourishment at o Dune maintenance
the southern portion planning period tional demand to 2030 10 year intervals o Post storm berm
of the reach o Maintenance of existing o Beach nourishment at o Maintenance of existing repair
BRIGANTINE ISLAND o Beach nourishment at functional structures 10 year intervals functional structures
10 year intervals o Dune maintenance o Maintenance of existin o Dune maintenance
o Dune maintenance functional structures
o Dune maintenance

BCR*=0.06 BCR=0.17 BCR=0.06 BCR=0.07 BCR=0.04

o 75' berm in groin o Initial fill to 400' o Recreational develop- o Beach fill to 100' bermI o Maintenance of
field at northern recreational berm width ment alternative width at Longport existing functional
end of island, 100' in Atlantic City; design applies here o Beach nourishment at structures
berm elsewhere tapered to 150' at 3 year interval o Post storm berm repair
o Beach nourishment at Jackson Street; 150' o Maintenance of existing
3 year intervals elsewhere functional structures
o Maintenance of 1o Beach nourishment at
existing functional 3 year intervals
structures o Maintenance of existing
functional structures

BCR=1.36 BCR=1.45 BCR=1.45 BCR=1.12 BCR=0

o Initial fill to 75' o Initial fill for re- o Initial fill for storm o Initial fill to storm o Maintenance of exist-
width in northern creational beach at protection design berm design at northern ing functional
groin field, 100' northern end of island o Periodic beach ex- portion of island structures
width elsewhere o Periodic berm expansion pansions for recreation o Beach nourishment at o Dune maintenance
o Beach nourishment at o Beach nourishment at at northern public 5 year intervals o Post storm berm repair
5 year intervals 5 year intervals access area o Maintenance of existing
o Maintenance of o Maintenance of existing o Beach nourishment at functional structures
PECK BEACH existing functional functional structures 5 year intervals o Dune maintenance
structures o Dune maintenance o Maintenance of existing
o Dune maintenance functional structures
o Groin construction/ o Dune maintenance
modification

BCR=1.41 BCR=1.70 BCR=l1.42 BCR=1.60 BCR=l.18

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ENGINEERING PLANS

SOURCE: NJDEP, 1981BENEFITICOST RATIO
* BCR - BENEFIT/COST RATIO

Reach 10, Peck Beach - Alternative 2.

Beachfill: Completed fall 1982.
Cost: $5,000,000.

Under the New Jersey Shore Protection Program Rules and
Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:7F) , shore protection grants and
loans will be conditioned on compliance with the Department
of Environmental Protection Coastal Resource and Development
Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seS1. pertaining to dunes,
beaches and coastal erosion hazard areas.

F. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Proximity to infrastructure is an important determinant
of where development occurs because access to roads, sani-
tary sewer lines and potable water is essential. Thus by
not extending infrastructure to particularly hazard prone or
sensitive areas, development of these areas can be dis-
couraged. This technique is used in Pennsylvania and
Florida. In Massachusetts, Executive Order #181 (1980)
prohibits use of state and federal funds for construction
projects which encourage growth and development in hazard
prone barrier beach areas. In North Carolina, the "General
Use Standards for Ocean Hazard Areas" (N.C.A.C. 15:07H.0306)
state that public funds shall be used to construct growth
inducing public facilities in ocean hazard areas only when
1) there is an overriding public interest and benefit, 2)
existing hazards will not be increased or buffers lost, 3)
the facilities will be reasonably safe from flood and
erosion related damage, and 4) the facilities will not
promote growth and development in ocean hazard areas.
Infrastructure is included in this regulation.

The federal government recently took steps to limit the
use of federal funds to construct or expand infrastructure
on barrier islands. In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act which prohibits expenditure of federal
funds to construct or expand infrastructure, structures or
facilities or to provide flood insurance or other aid to
designated undeveloped barrier islands. Certain types of
expenditures are exempt from the Act. The Act does not
pertain to reconstruction of storm damaged infrastructure on
developed barrier islands. To date, the federal government
has not designated any undeveloped barrier islands in New
Jersey. However, revisions to the maps are being considered
this year with more than 1000 areas under review as
potential designated undeveloped barriers. Fourteen of
these areas are in New Jersey.

on barrier islands which are already developed, as in
New Jersey, this approach would only be useful in guiding
post-storm redevelopment of damaged utilities and roads
where existing homes and businesses have been largely de-
stroyed. Utilities and roads could then be relocated
outside of high hazard/erosion areas. Control could be
exerted at either the federal, state, or local level,
depending on the funding source for repairs. If a Presiden-
tial Disaster were declared, public assistance might be
available for infrastructure repair and replacement under
the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Regional Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency could condition
funding for utility and road repairs in high hazard areas
upon protection of the structures from future damages. The
state could also attach such conditions to its post storm
aid. At the state level, legislation, executive order, or
departmental policy or regulations could be used to
implement this policy.

Construction of new utilities (sewer and water lines)
may be funded by federal, state or municipal government.
Once constructed, repair and maintenance costs are usually
borne by the utility company and paid out of user fees.

The relocation of roads and utilities would require
purchasing new rights-of-way. The purchase of rights-of-way
is not eligible for federal disaster relief funds, although
the construction itself would be eligible. Repair of public
facilities is funded at 75% of costs by FEMA, but this
percentage can be increased by up to 10% for mitigation
measures. A portion of shore protection funds could be made
available for relocation of infrastructure in areas with
continued, severe erosion (Baker, 1980).

G. IMPLEMENTATION OF STORM HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES

1. Public Education

In order for storm hazard mitigation strategies to be
accepted and implemented at the local level, the public must
be made aware of their vulnerability to storms, potential
costs of storms and means of reducing storm damage. In
particular, local officials must be convinced of storm
hazards and evacuation problems in order to better serve,
advise and educate their constituents. Public awareness
programs can involve a variety of media and techniques
including radio and TV spots, newspaper article series and
supplements, publication and distribution of brochures and

pamphlets, public meetings and slide shows, and educational
programs in schools and Scout groups.

Newspapers are an effective means of reaching the
public. They are most effective in educating people about
storms when technical information is integrated with stories
of more personal and local interest. An effective approach
is to combine a local/human interest story, photos, a
description of historical events, and interviews with
discussion of vulnerability to future storms and mitigation
strategies. Newspaper supplements or inserts which can be
removed as a whole and saved have also been used to educate
people about storm hazards and response. In addition to
including mapping of escape routes and hazardous areas,
means of reducing hazards and the high cost of storms may be
introduced as well as means of implementing these hazard
reduction strategies.

Radio and television spots are another means of educat-
ing the public about their vulnerability to storms and
hazard mitigation. Radio reaches a more limited audience
than the more costly TV spots, but can focus on the local
audience. In contrast, television can reach a broader
audienced encompassing seasonal coast dwellers throughout
the State and the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan
areas. An example of this approach is the three part
special report on Long island's coastal hazards recently
aired on a New York news program. Commercials,
documentaries and interviews are all formats which might be
used with these media and on cable television.

Pamphlets or brochures on storm hazards and hazard
mitigation may be prepared and distributed by mailings, with
utility bills, door-to-door, or in public areas or stores
frequented by year round and seasonal residents.
A study of the effectiveness of three different public
education techniques was conducted in Texas (Ruch, 1980).
The public awareness program included the mailing of a
survival checklist and map brochure, broadcasting radio
interviews on hurricane preparedness and survival, and
broadcasting television spots showing hurricane force and
destructiveness. Groups exposed to only one of these
techniques were compare'd to a group exposed to none. The
study revealed a significant increase in hurricane knowledge
of those exposed only to the brochure compared to those with
no exposure, but a lower perception of danger and hurricane
impact. Those exposed only to television differed only in
increased perception of danger during later hurricane

advisories and those exposed only to radio only differed in
decreased danger perception at early advisory stages.

Community outreach programs are another way of educat-
ing the public. These include school curricula in coastal
storm hazard mitigation as well as public meetings, slide
shows and presentations at civic or club meetings. All can
be used to educate and attempt to gather support for imple-
mentation of hazard mitigation strategies at the local

Community awareness can also be increased by techniques
such as marking historical flood levels in conspicuous
locations, or requiring notification in deeds, mortgages,
real estate sales that a particular property is subject to
flood hazards (Hildreth, 1980; U.S. Water Resources Council,
1981). Such hazard notification not only involves home
buyers and developers, but has the added benefit of
involving realtors, financial institutions (lenders) and
title companies.

At the New Jersey shore, many homes are seasonally
occupied and owners live in northern New Jersey or the
Philadelphia area. Thus, educational efforts should be
focused on the summer months in an attempt to reach these
people.

Funding for informational and educational programs may
be available at the federal level (Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers), as well as the state and local levels.

2. Building Moratorium

Enactment of a post-storm building moratorium prohibit-
ing reconstruction and repair of storm damaged structures
may be useful to enable a state or municipality to evaluate
damages and more wisely accommodate post-storm development
so as to incur less damages and costs from future storms.
During the moratorium period, damages would be assessed,
reconstruction plans made and changes in high hazard area
designations accomplished. Effectiveness of building codes,
acquisition priorities and funding sources would be
evaluated. A moratorium could be imposed at either the4
state or local level and could be restricted to structures
receiving a specified amount of damage (e.g. 50% damage or
higher). A municipality could be divided into districts,

with a moratorium imposed on those areas which received
heavy damage and where redevelopment should be questioned.

Sanibel, Florida proposes three such districts, a
Redevelopment District, a Restoration District and an
Impacted District, with criteria for defining the districts
established prior to such damage. A moratorium would be
applied to the first, permits required in the second, and
repairs allowed without permits in the third (Rogers, Golden
& Halpern, 1981).

Rosenthal (1980) proposes the formation of a "Recovery
Task Force" within two weeks of a disaster, during which
time damages and hazard mitigation options would be
assessed, vital community facilities restored and temporary
reconstruction plans prepared. In the following ten weeks,
amoratorium would be placed on heavily damaged and
hazardous areas, local legislation enacted to revise zoning
and building codes, a reconstruction Master Plan adopted,a
reconstruction agency formed, and funding sources
investigated (including disaster aid, acquisition funds,
private investment) . Under this scenario, as in Sanibel,
zones would be established in the municipality for (1)
immediate rebuilding (2) rebuilding with some changes, and
(3) no rebuilding prior to reassessment (high damage, high
hazard areas) . During the time period of the moratorium
(perhaps 60-90 days) , development controls could be put into
effect to guide redevelopment. This time period could also
be used to identify the methods for implementing post-storm
reconstruction plans, which might include establishment of a
governmental body with condemnation powers. The length of
the moratorium would have to accommodate the pressure to
rebuild for the summer season, particularly if the storm
occurred in the late winter or spring.

The adoption of post-storm development plans by both
local and state government prior to the next major storm
would minimize the need for and duration of a post-storm
building moratorium, and provide for a speedier recovery.

3. Funding

A number of the hazard mitigation strategies require
funding for implementation. The highest cost strategies are
land acquisition and shore protection measures. Funding may
be available at the federal, state ' and local level. A
number of funding sources are discussed below, as well as
their use in several states.

a. National Flood Insurance Act (1968): Section 1362
of this act provides for federal purchase of high hazard
properties which have federal flood insurance and are
damaged substantially beyond repair by flooding.
Furthermore, properties in flood hazard areas which are
covered by flood insurance and have sustained damage as a
result of a single casualty of any nature under such
circumstances that a statute, ordinance or regulationI
precludes repair or restoration, or permits repair or
restoration only at a significantly increased construction
cost, may also be purchased. Lastly, structures which incur
significant flood damage three times in five years equal to
25% of the value of the structure each time are eligible for
purchase. This voluntary program pays the pre-flood value
of the property less the insurance payment, but does not pay
relocation costs.
FEMA evaluates the anticipated savings through propertyI
acquisition, the community's commitment to hazard mitigation
(e.g. floodplain management regulations, matching funds) and
the community's proposed use of the acquired property (which
must be recreational or open space) in evaluating the
request for Section 1362 funds. The major problem with the
program is that its funding by Congress has been
significantly lower than the applications for funds. These
funds were used to acquire storm-damaged property in
Scituate, Massachusetts followi ng a major northeaster in
1978 and are presently being used to acquire properties in
Baytown, Texas following damage due to Hurricane Alicia in
1983.
b. Congressional Appropriations and Initiatives: As
part of the fiscal 1985 Appropriations Act for the
Departments of State, Commerce and Justice (P.L. 98-411)
funding may be available for specific beach and dune
restoration projects, and for the continuation of New
Jersey's Coastal Management Program. Other appropriations
may be made in the future. in addition, each year Congress
may appropriate funds for the US Army Corps of Engineers to
implement authorized navigation and shore protection
projects.
Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing legislation and4
the reauthorization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act which would provide funding for the state Coastal
Management Programs will be considered by Congress this
year.

c. Bond Issues: The voters at the state, county or
municipal level could decide to fund an acquisition or shore
protection program by authorizing a bond. In 1983, New
Jersey passed a $135 million bond issue for Green Acres, $28
million of which was for open space or park acquisition. in
1977, the State passed a $30 million bond issue, $20 million
of which was for shore protection, and a second shore
protection bond issue for $50 million was passed in 1983.

d. Green Acres: The State, through its Green Acres
Program, could provide partial funding for land acquisition.
Newly acquired sites could be added to the State Park
System.

The Green Acres priority ranking system considers
various characteristics in determining prime acquisition
target areas. These characteristics include water frontage,
other water resources features, outstanding or unique
natural features, endangered species habitats, native
wildlife and plant species habitats, historic and cultural
resources, acquisition costs, alternative preservation
techniques, alternative sites, development threats,
statewide and immediate service area recreation needs,
critical recreation access sites and connectors,
accessibility, special needs, integrity of purposes, public
use potential, public support, and relationship to planning.
This priority system favors larger parcels of land because
of the greater potential for public use.

e. Legislative Appropriation: The State could enact
legislation which would appropriate funds to purchase high
hazard coastal property. Such legislation may be more
likely in the wake of a severe storm for purchase of damaged
property.

As an example, in 1981, the North Carolina General
Assembly enacted a beach access statute and appropriated $1
million for initial implementation. It has appropriated
$1.2 million for the program in each of the past three
years. The statute requires that land which is in a high
hazard area, and thus unsuitable for development, but is
I ~ ~~useful for access be given high acquisition priority.
f. Taxes and User Fees: A surcharge, similar to a
luxury tax, could be added to the cost of tourist-related
products, housing, and services provided in coastal towns,
or a tax could be placed on property or non-tourist
activities or uses.

For example, in North Carolina, a 1983 Act authorizes aI
transient occupancy tax at the county level, with
requirements for use of the revenues varying by county. In
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, a designated portion of
the tax must be used for activities and programs aiding and
encouraging convention and visitor promotion. Remaining
revenues can be used for acquiring, constructing, financing,
maintaining and operating various tourist or visitor related
facilities. Three other counties are authorized to spend
funds only to further development of travel, tourism and
conventions in the county through state, national and
international advertising and promotion. A fifth county
(Hanover County) must use 80% of the revenue to control
beach erosion and 20% to promote travel and tourism
(excluding planning, constructing, operating, etc., a civic
or convention center) . Several city occupancy taxes were
also authorized for tourist-related expenditures including
public facilities and control and repair of waterfront
erosion.

A municipal services taxing unit may be created under
Florida law to collect a special tax for provision of
services the county does not provide, including beach
erosion control projects. On Captiva island, Florida, a
private resort community known as South Seas Plantation,
which comprises the northern third of the island, privately
funded a beach nourishment and beach vegetation project.
A special tax was assessed to property owners within the
resort community, based on the benefit which the property
owner would receive from the project, which was in turn
based on location of property and beach frontage. About 87%
of costs were assessed to beachfront owners and 13% to
non-beachfront owners, with payment permissible in a lump
sum or over an eight year period with 10% interest
(Gooderhamn and Workman, 1983).

Florida also places an excise tax on deeds and other
instruments which convey lands, tenements, or other realty,
or interest therein (Chapter 81-33) . 7.2% of the taxes
collected are paid to a Water Management Lands Trust Fund,
to be used to acquire lands for water management, water
supply and conservation and protection of water resources.
An additi~onal 13.3% is paid into a Land Acquisition TrustI
Fund.
Florida law also provides for the creation of Beach and
Shore Preservation Districts at the county level. The
Districts may levy a special benefits tax for capital,
operation and maintenance costs of the beach and shore

preservation program. The tax can be levied on each taxable
property in proportion to the benefits the property will
receive. Martin County, Florida adopted a Beach Impact Fee
based on household size and beach acquisition costs in order
to acquire beachfront property for recreational use. The
fee is required as a condition for approving planned unit
developments (Florida Department of Community Affairs,
I ~ ~~1984) . Bonds may also be issued to cover these costs.
Similarly, a small sales tax (e.g. �2 percent) could be
levied at the county level, and distributed to
municipalities for uses including land acquisition.
In 1983, North Carolina enacted a State income tax
credit (maximum $5000) for donation of lands useful for
beach access or fish and wildlife conservation. A similar
approach could be used for oceanfront high hazard zones.
Another alternative would be a reduction in property taxes
on undeveloped properties in high hazard areas which agree
to remain undeveloped, or generally a tax structure which
encourages appropriate use of high hazard areas and discour-
ages -inappropriate use, for example by placing a special
assessment on building in high hazard areas to partially
cover public costs of building there. Tax incentives such
as deductions, credits and rebates can also be used to
encourage relocation out of flood hazard areas.

Several methods of imposing taxes or user fees to fund
shore protection are currently under consideration in New
Jersey. A bill proposing a one percent tax on hotels,
motels, campgrounds and seasonal homes to fund shore
protection was introduced to the State legislature in 1985.
A bill which would require that each coastal municipality
pay a certain percentage of the collected beach fees into a
fund for shore protection is also being considered.

g. Conservation Organizations: Such groups purchase
high hazard property land and retain it as open space.

h. Corporate Donations: Large companies and busi-
nesses in the shore area, especially those which benefit
most from summer tourists, could be encouraged to make tax
deductible contributions to an acquisition program.
I ~~~~i. Private Donations: Donations of land or money for
an acquisition program can be made as outright conveyances
(fee simple) which provides the greatest tax benefits,
bargain sales (selling at less than full market value) , life
estates, or donations in trust. The granting of

conservation or scenic easements is another possibility. In
New Jersey, lands can be transferred to the State Natural
Lands Trust or other qualified recipients including federal,I
state, county and municipal government agencies and
conservation groups. The State Natural Lands Trust was
created by the legislature in 1968 and is an arm of state
government formed to seek donations of land to hold as
permanent open space and to assist potential donors of suchI

PART II:. SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

A. INTRODUCTION

Each of the six municipalities in the study area was
analyzed individually with regard to current zoning and
building practices, existing ordinances and patterns of
development. The vulnerability of each municipality was
reviewed in terms of current land uses and specific
hazardous areas were identified. Although these communities
are already densely developed, there is considerable
development pressure and the remaining vacant land is
rapidly being built upon and existing structures are being
razed and replaced by denser development.

Members of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, met with
representatives of each of the six coastal municipalities
being studied. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss
specific problems and storm vulnerability of each city, as
well as storm hazard mitigation strategies which would be
suitable to address these problems. Each mayor appointed a
steering committee to meet periodically with members of the
Division of Coastal Resources. The committees varied by
municipality but generally included planning and zoning
board members, the emergency management coordinators,
construction officials, and municipal engineers and
planners. The county planner, county emergency management
coordinator and a member of the county environmental
commission were also invited. A list of committee members
is found in Appendix I.

Three meetings were held with each steering committee
over a four month period (see Appendix I) . The first
meeting was an introductory session which outlined the
purpose of the Coastal Storm Preparedness Study. The local
steering committee members were presented with draft copies
of the Vulnerability Analysis, vulnerability maps, shoreline
change maps, aerial photographs of previous storms and
potential hazard mitigation strategies, and were asked to
evaluate these in terms of local problems and needs.

I ~~~~The second meeting served as a forum for the steering
-committee to discuss specific hazard mitigation techniques
within each municipality. Prior to the meeting, the
steering commxittee members were presented with worksheets
outlining the different areas of vulnerability within each
municipality, and asked for their recommendations regarding
hazard mitigation techniques. Division of Coastal Resources

representatives presented their mitigation strategies and
discussed them along with those of the local steering
committee. The various ideas were evaluated in terms of
existing development and land use patterns, storm
vulnerability, and implementation potential.

The recommendations made by the Division of Coastal
Resources and the local steering committees are listed in
Tables 7-12 and are followed by discussions of the
strategies for each municipality.

The purpose of the third meeting was to review a final
draft of the hazard mitigation report with the local
steering committee.

As expected, there were a few meetings at which the
DEP' s specific hazard mitigation recommendations were not
well received by some members of the local steering
committees. There were several types of adverse reactions:
1) a general apprehension of the State's intention to help,
2) a question of whether any of the recommendations would be
feasible in terms of implementation and cost, 3) a fear of
losing ratables by increasing oceanfront setbacks,
establishing conservation zones, and limiting post-storm
reconstruction, and 4)a feeling that no government agency
should determine where people live or how they should use or
develop private property. In contrast, the local steering
committees were generally supportive of dune building and
enhancement, post-storm acquisition of oceanfront
properties, elevating escape routes, and inspection programs
and anchoring of existing structures, provided funding was
available.

Many of the hazard mitigation techniques presented have
never been used in the study area. Because the concept of
hazard mitigation is relatively new, any recommendations
will have to be developed cooperatively between appropriate
state and local groups over a period of time. The Municipal
Land Use Law requires that a municipality reexamine its
master plan and development regulations every six years and
prepare a report of findings, including any recommended
changes. This would be an appropriate time for discussionI
and implementation of hazard mitigation plans. This process
will require education of local planners, government
officials, and the general public. It is important for all
people to realize that (1) the long term safety of the towns
and their inhabitants is of primary importance, and (2) the
availability of future shore protection and post-storm

recovery funds will be limited and may be contingent on
local efforts to reduce or mitigate storm damages.

At present, post-storm recovery funds in the form of
federal disaster assistance are available upon Presidential
declaration of a disaster pursuant to the Federal Disaster
Relief Act. Disasters were declared in New Jersey coastal
areas following storms in 1971, 1976 and 1984. In addition,
large amounts of federal assistance were provided following
the 1962 northeast storm, prior to passage of the Federal
Disaster Relief Act. Assistance is available in many forms
and under many programs (National Governors Association,
1979), for both public assistance and individual and family
assistance.

In December, 1980, an Executive Order established
procedures for activation of an Interagency hazard
Mitigation Team in response to a Presidential disaster
declaration. Each team would include members from the
primary federal agencies involved in assistance. The Team
is responsible for evaluating the damages and preparing a
report which recommends a comprehensive approach to
mitigating future flood damages during the post-flood
recovery period. Federal agencies are to conform to the
report recommendations to the fullest extent practicable.
The mitigation recommendations are required to emphasize
non-structural measures.

in addition to the report of the Interagency Hazard
Mitigation Team, a state which receives federal disaster
assistance is required under Section 406 of the Disaster
Relief Act, to prepare a Long Range Recovery Plan.

The Long Range Recovery Plan, often referred to as the
406 Plan, is designed to elaborate on the re-port of the
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team and to develop hazard
mitigation plans and a framework for implementing these
plans. The Plan must be prepared within six months of the
disaster declaration.

FEMA can require various mitigation measures as a
condition of disaster assistance. in accepting disaster
assistance the state agrees to take action to mitigate
future flood hazards. Thus it is apparent that the
implementation of hazard mitigation plans is an important
aspect of the federal disaster assistance program and the
granting of disaster aid in the future may depend on the
progress the state and municipalities have made in
implementing these plans.

Lastly, the issue of storm hazard mitigation is an
economic issue and the availability of federal, state and
local funds (presently a 75% federal: 25% state or local
share) is not guaranteed.

B. BRIGANTINE

1. Description* and Present Land Use Regulations

Brigantine (Figure 10) is approximately 6.3 square
miles in size (4,038 acres). Approximately half of the City
consists of State regulated wetlands and most of the
remaining land is developed. The 1980 population was 8,318
or approximately 4 people per acre of upland. Sixteen
percent of the population consists of senior citizens and
the mean family income is relatively high at $23,935. The
total market value of real property is $282.3 million.
Brigantine Boulevard provides the only access to the
mainland, via Atlantic City and Route 30.

Land use in Brigantine is primarily residential, and
single family dwellings predominate, with the mean value of
residental property per acre of upland equal to $182,910.
Only 33.6% of the housing is seasonal. Much of the City is
zoned for single family dwellings, particularly the
northeastern section around the golf course, the central
portion of the island between 8th and 31st Streets South,
and some areas near Absecon Inlet.

Most of the City's oceanfront is zoned to allow higher
density development. Along the City's northern oceanfront,
garden apartments, hotels and motels are permitted uses, and
current land use reflects the zoning for the most part.
Garden apartments are permitted along Steelman's Bay. The
area behind the dune conservation zone at the southern end
of Brigantine and along St. Georges Thorofare is zoned for
garden apartments, townhouses, and/or motels. Several
condominium developments have recently been constructed in
these areas. Most remaining portions of the City are zoned
for one to four family homes.

The major commercial development in the City is located
along Brigantine Boulevard and in the vicinity of the

* All demographic data in the following sections is taken
from 1980 Census and NJDEP (1984c). Population densities and
property value per acre were calculated by the Division ofI
Coastal Resources to reflect developable land only.

-- ~ ~ ~ N1 Rm -pop Boo - 6--

(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~lc
Q~~~~~~~~p0~~~~U L P oi nt

aid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HAY

~~I '' BAY

% R3 I -

?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~A~ 4 ASS* -HORE -W- '

oc~~ ~ SON ~~ BRIGANTINE 8~AE4S ~ N

FIGURE 10: Road Map Of Brigantine, Afr~d S. Patton. 180

traffic circ].e, although an additional area along the ocean
and at the northern tip of Brigantine is zoned commercial.
Marinas, boatyards and related commercial activities are
found along the back bay shores.
In Brigantine, no non-conforming building may be
enlarged, extended or increased, if such enlargement,
extension or increase will increase the degree of
non-conformity. Any such addition or improvement shall not
exceed the present bulk requirements nor encroach upon any
existing yard or setback requirements. Any non-conforming
building destroyed by windstorm, fire, explosion or other
act of God to an e-xtent of more than 60% of the recorded
true value as appraised in the records of the tax assessor
shall be deemed completely destroyed. Such structures may
not be rebuilt, repaired, or restored except in conformity
with the Municipal Land Use Ordinance. Undersized lots inI
existence as of January 1, 1967 may be built upon subject to
certain conditions.
The Municipal Land Use Ordinance of the City of
Brigantine includes among its many purposes "to secure
safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and
man-made disasters" and "to encourage the control of surface
water runoff, and to encourage the control of soil erosion
and sedimentation and to prevent flooding and other damageI
to land. " Accordingly, in 1962 after the storm of March
6--8, the City adopted an ordinance protecting beaches, sand
dunes and the dune line (referring to that established by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and any other artificial
or natural protective barriers. The ordinances prohibited
removal, alteration, interference with or destruction of any
part of these features or any act which tended to lessen the
protection afforded by these features.
This action was greatly strengthened by the 1982
adoption of an ordinance to define, delineate and regulate
beach and dune areas. A Dune and Shoreline Management Plan
was prepared by Pennoni Associates, Inc. for the City
Commission of Brigantine in 1981. The Plan assessed the
characteristics and conditions of existing dunes, mapped
regulated dunes, and established a development restriction
line, a Dune Maintenance District, a Dune Restoration
District and a Dune Reconstruction District which were
incorporated into the Land Use Ordinance. The dune andI
beach areas are designated a Conservation Zone. The
ordinance requires permits for movement or displacement of
sand within these districts, sets forth conditions for
issuance of permits and prohibits all construction

activities other than shore protection projects and dune
management programs seaward of the dune restriction line.
The City acquired arnd condemned property in order to
implement the ordinance. Although this is one of the
strongest dune protection ordinances in New Jersey, it does
not protect all existing dunes in Brigantine, as it only
applies to dunes seaward of the development restriction
line.

in addition to its Dune ordinance, Brigantine has also
instituted an ordinance pertaining to construction,
reconstruction or repair of bulkheads. The ordinance
requires that the top of oceanfront bulkheads be a minimum
of 11 feet abcve mean sea level and all other bulkheads be
at least 9 feet above mean sea level. The ordinance also
contains specifications on materials used and construction
methods.

2. Vulnerability

In order to define the coastal storm vulnerability of
Brigantine City, different areas were examined in terms of
beach width and height, erosion rate, presence of dunes,
types of shorefront structures, and land use patterns. The
primary vulnerability results from the narrow, low beaches
and close proximity of development to the oceanfront,
especially north of South 8th Street (see Vulnerability
Analysis, Plate No. 1). The erosion rate for northern
Brigantine (from about 40th Street South to 14th Street
North) is 3.1 feet/year (Nordstrom et al., 1977), as
measured from aerial photographs for 1952 and 1971. No
shoreline change rate is available for the southern portion
of Brigantine but it continues to accrete as a result of
lengthening of the jetty. Post-storm photographs taken in
March 1962 also served as indicators of the most vulnerable
areas by showing the different levels of storm damage in the
City (Figure 11).

Development patterns on Brigantine Island, like most
seaside resorts, encouraged the building of residential and
commercial structures as close to the beach as possible.
This has commonly resulted in high density development in
the most hazardous part of the barrier island, adjacent to
the narrow beach. As the erosional forces of the ocean
gradually reduce beach width, the developed areas become
more susceptible to storm wave attack. Wave runup analyses
can be found in the Vulnerability Analysis, Part I-C.

"4 ~Z

FIGURE 11: Brigantine: 4th Street North - 20th Street South, March 10,
1962. Note extensive beach erosion and washover between 2nd
Street North and 7th Street South.

Some oceanfront sections of Brigantine are fortified
with shore parallel bulkheads which act as breakwaters
during storms. North of 2nd Street North, only a low timber
bulkhead and a narrow beach separate the ocean from
developed areas (Figure 12) . Such structures tend to
instill a false sense of security in adjacent landowners who
believe the structure will safeguard their homes.
Therefore, construction directly behind oceanfront bulkheads
continues despite the fact that beaches are eroding. This
construction is then vulnerable to damage from storm wave
runup and overwash.

There is a wide dune f ield at the southern end of the
island from 45th Street South to the Absecon Inlet jetty.
This southern section of the City is able to support a dune
field because of the positive sediment budget in the area.
This is enforced by the blocking of the southerly moving
longshore sediment by the Brigantine jetty at Absecon Inlet.

Tidal flooding also presents a serious danger because
of the low elevation of the island and the manner in which
many of the older homes were constructed (slab/block
foundation, not raised above base flood elevation) . This
hazard is greatest in the golf course area of Brigantine
where the elevations are lowest and many homes were built
before base flood elevations were established by FEMA. This
flotation zone is delineated on plate number 1,
Vulnerability Analysis.

3. Recommendations

The City of Brigantine had mixed reactions to some of
the specific hazard mitigation strategies suggested by
members of the Division of Coastal Resources. The City's
and Division's recommendations are listed in Table 7. All
steering committee members agreed that the dunes along the
beachfront need to be better maintained. The floodproofing
and buffering effect of dunes is recognized and future
improvements are planned such as better planting and
fertilizing, reorienting of pathways, building of dune
walkover structures, and closing street end gaps. The idea
of inspecting homes in the flotation zones for proper
anchoring was also approved.

one of the primary problems pointed out by the
F ~~Brigantine committee members is that the City is already
fully developed and land use changes are, therefore,
difficult to achieve. Some committee members believe that

'4
.m~~~~~~~~~~Ji
r BRIGANTIN~~~~E AVENUE

FIGURE 12: Brigantine: 14th Street North - Roosevelt Boulevard, March 10,
1962. Note damage to structures along oceanfront and washover
penetration landward of Brigantine Avenue. Undeveloped area
north of 14th Street North exhibits a typical response of a
natural beach to severe storm event.

all oceanfront structures (homes) destroyed by storm should
be rebuilt on the same site using improved construction
methods and standards. However, the consensus of the
Committee is that all possible efforts should be made to
acquire heavily damaged properties in the rnbst vulnerable
areas. The Division of Coastal Resources feels that the
proposed zoning changes should be implemented now so that
orderly and well thought out post-storm redevelopment will
take place.

The Brigantine representatives also disagree with the
suggested land use/zoning changes because of the potential
loss of ratables. if acquisition, increased oceanfront
setbacks and downzoning techniques are utilized in
Brigantine, many homes located in the coastal high hazard
area and wave runup zone might not be rebuilt following a
damaging storm. This would obviously result in a decrease
of ratables,' a generally unpopular idea. The Division of
Coastal Resources recommends land use changes, in particular
downzoning and increased setbacks, and suggests ways in
which lost ratables can be offset. Although some of these
areas are presently developed, the northern end of the City
is being redeveloped at a higher density as motel units,
including the Brigantine Motor Lodge, are replaced by
condominiums. First, if homes are set back further or not
rebuilt in the high hazard areas following a storm, future
storm damages and costs to the City will automatically be
reduced. The use of acquired or setback buffer areas will
also limit damage to structures outside of the high hazard
area by reducing overwash and battering by oceanfront
debris. The loss of ratables can also be offset by a slight
increase in the beach user fees, which are relatively
inexpensive at seven dollars per season.

Lastly, the Brigantine Steering Committee strongly
believes that much of the City's coastal storm vulnerability
could be reduced by the continued use of shore protection
structures. In particular, the City recommends the
construction of two new groins along the northern beaches,
at 7th and 14th Streets North, and raising of the oceanfront
bulkhead north of Roosevelt Boulevard. in spite of their
high cost, these proposals do not necessarily guarantee
positive results. A new engineering study would be required
to determine the probable effects on adjacent beaches from
any new shore protection project. A higher bulkhead could
result in increased scouring of the beach in front of the
structure and increased downdrift erosion and undercutting
of dunes. Because of the high cost of structural shore
protection measures, as well as the limited availability of

these funds at the state and federal level, the
implementation of lower cost land management techniques may
ultimately be accomplished at the local level.

TABLE 7: BRIGANTINE HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Oceanfront: North 9th-
14th St.
1. Beach width �50 feet; 1. Change zoning to incorporate 1. Rebuild bulkhead to higher
no dunes; erosion rate future setbacks landward of elevation; build new groin
of -3.1 ft/yr; Brigantine Ave. right-of-way; at North 14th Street; beach
structures in wave try to build up dunes seaward fill; look to purchase or
runup zone. of bulkhead; don't allow post- swap high hazard oceanfront
storm reconstruction within land if funds are available.
V-Zone or wave runup zone;
Change B-1 zone to zone
permitting only recreational/
service uses (i.e., restaurant/
snack bar; parking; shops) at
low density.

Oceanfront: Roosevelt Blvd.-
North 9th Street
2. Narrow beach with no dunes; 2. Rezone to conservation all beach 2. Rebuild bulkhead to higher
erosion rate of -3.1 area seaward of Brigantine Ave.; elevation; build new groin
ft/yr; hotel/motel incorporate future setbacks at 7th Street; beachfill;
development seaward of landward of Brigantine Ave.; Purchase or swap properties
Brigantine Ave., within reestablish and maintain dunes. substantially damaged if
the V-zone and wave runup funds are available.
zone.

Oceanfront: South 8th St.-
Roosevelt Blvd.
3. Narrow beach; low dunes 3. Dunes need to be repaired and paths 3. Dunes should be repaired;
with many paths; over- closed or reoriented; dune purchase or swap properties
wash area; erosion rate of walkover structures need to be substantially damaged if
-3.1 ft/yr; V-zone built; structures should not be funds are available.
boundary landward of rebuilt seaward of Brigantine
some structures. Ave. if substantially damaged in
storms; extend conservation zone
to Brigantine Ave.

TABLE 7 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Golf Course Area - north
of Roosevelt Blvd.
4. Very low elevation; 4. Older homes should be inspected 4. Homes should be surveyed
flotation zone. for adequacy of anchoring; home- but city may not have
owners should be encouraged to resources to complete;
anchor or raise homes advise homeowners to
properly in order to reduce purchase Federal Flood
potential for flotation; Insurance and also to
if city cannot complete the raise or anchor structures
survey, an information sheet properly
should be provided to homeowners
to aid them in conducting their
own inspection.

Oceanfront: South l7th-8th
5. Low dunes with many 5. Dunes should be enhanced; 5. Repair and enhance dunes.
paths; structures along dune paths should be closed
V-zone boundary. or reoriented; increase
landward setbacks from Ocean
Avenue for post-storm.
reconstruction and new
construction. Between south
16th and 13th streets, rezone R-4
district to conservation
zone. Abandon Ocean Avenue
if destroyed and incorporate
in dune system

Oceanfront: South 27th-17th
6. Low dunes with many 6. Dunes need to be enhanced, paths 6. Repair and enhance dunes;
paths; V-zone boundary closed and walkover structures build walkover structures
landward of homes. built; don't allow new structures at streetends; close paths
or rebuilt structures in V-zone. in dunes.
V-zone.

TABLE 7 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Oceanfront: South 27th-36th
7. Low dunes with paths. 7. Dunes need to be enhanced; close 7. Repair and enhance dunes;
paths; build walkover structures. build walkover structures
at street ends; close
paths in dunes.

Oceanfront: South 44th-
36th
8. Low dunes with many 8. Improve dune district; don't 8. Improve dune district.
paths; V-zone boundary allow new or rebuilt structures
landward of Ocean in V-zone, by increasing setbacks
Avenue and structures. landward of Ocean Avenue and
re-zoning to conservation district;
eliminate high density (R-4) zone
landward of Ocean Avenue.

South 44th St. - Absecon
Inlet
9. Low dunes with many 9. Improve dune district by fencing, 9. Improve dune district.
paths. planting, eliminating gaps.

Foot of Bridge -
Brigantine Boulevard
and Absecon Inlet
10. V-zone; Located on 10. Rezone to preclude residential
escape route; use (including hotels, motels);
undeveloped. consider water dependent uses
or park and ride lot; require
waterfront setbacks for
structures.

C. ATLANTIC CITY

1. Description and Present Land Use Regulations

Atlantic City is not typical of New Jersey's barrier
island communities due to the presence of casino gambling
and its long history as an urban area. It is the largest
urban center in the New Jersey coastal zone. The City is
11.94 square miles in size, about one third of which is
upland (Figure 13). The ocean and inlet beach are 4.3 miles
long. Three roads provide direct access from the mainland
to Atlantic City, these being the White Horse and Black
Horse Pikes (Routes 30 and 40 respectively) and the Atlantic
City Expressway. The population of 40,199 is nearly as high
as the other five cities in the study area combined.
Twenty-three percent of these people are senior citizens.
The mean family income is $16,848. The population density
of Atlantic City is the highest in the study area, about
sixteen people per acre of upland. If Atlantic City
rebuilds according to present zoning, densities will
increase greatly.

Unlike the other five municipalities in the study area,
residential property value in Atlantic City is a small
portion of the total real property value of $847.8 million.
Sixty-one percent of real property is classified as
commercial, valued at $519.8 million. Residential
development is valued at $285,969 per acre, very little
(11.5%) of which is seasonal.

High-rise casino-hotels, commercial buildings and
multi-family residential structures characterize Atlantic
City's development. Atlantic City's Boardwalk extends from
the City of Ventnor, along the entire oceanfront around into
Absecon Inlet. New Jersey voters passed a constitutional
referendum to legalize gambling in 1976, which was followed
by passage of the Casino Control Act in 1977. The City was
subsequently rezoned and redevelopment has occurred in
limited portions of the City, the bulk of this work
centering on the beachfront blocks.

The oceanfront blocks from Roosevelt Avenue to Virginia
Avenue and from Connecticut Avenue to Absecon Inlet at
Atlantic Avenue are zoned resort commercial, with a 56 acre
urban renewal tract between the two districts. A second
resort commercial zone is located along the Inlet, at the
end of Maine and New Hampshire Avenues near Gardner's Basin
and a third is located in the marina area. The purpose of
the resort commercial districts is to provide for transient

G~~~~~~~~rea Island

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ATLANTIC C ITY
7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AAn rR
or" _ 91)~~~~~~

__I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 /
IiII3
7.2' O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tu~~~~~~Vn i c e ~ SV

'~ '~,', ~ ~oc c~~ '~ RunPar

helsed-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,

OA, Hill,~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

PI.

P~~~~~~~~~4 fv O
Mr~~~~~~~~u~

FIGURE 13: Road Map Of Atlantic City idS.PtolS

and tourist-oriented uses, while encouraging residential
development as well. Permitted uses include casino-hotels,
multi-family housing, restaurants, retail shops and offices.
Buildings may be 385 feet high in this zone.

The Atlantic City Land Use Ordinance stipulates that
buildings abutting the Boardwalk may not be set back.
However, the planning board may authorize a setback if the
~etback will be developed in a manner designed to promote
the continuity, unity and functionality of the Boardwalk as
an active pedestrian way. This also applies in the
residential zones abutting the Boardwalk.

At present, nine casinos are operating on the
oceanfront and several casino expansions, a new casino, and
high-rise condominiums are under construction. One
additional casino is operating in the marina area (with an
expansion underway) and a new casino is scheduled to open
there in May 1985. Redevelopment has yet to begin near
Gardner's Basin. A Master Plan was prepared by Resorts
International for the Atlantic City Housing Authority in
April 1983 for the Urban Renewal Tract. The plan provides
for five casino hotels along the oceanfront and mixed
residential and commercial use across Pacific Avenue. A new
hotel casino and a hotel casino expansion are under
construction on the oceanfront in the urban renewal tract,
while most of the tract remains vacant.

Seaward of the Boardwalk is the Beach District.
Presently there are five recreational piers extending into
the ocean in this district, some of which are now closed to
the public. The remaining oceanfront is zoned for
multi-family high rises and hotels between Roosevelt Place
and Elberon Avenue and single family dwellings between
Elberon Avenue and the City of Ventnor. Current uses on the
oceanfront in the single family district do, however,
include a pediatric hospital for children and three
high-rise condominium/apartment buildings.

inland of the oceanfront resort commercial district, a
strip of the City several blocks wide, centered on Atlantic
Avenue, is zoned as the central business district and for
mixed commercial-residential use. This reflects the present
land use, although the potential exists for denser
development. Smaller neighborhoods and heavy commercial
districts are located throughout the City.

The southwesterly end of Atlantic City, between the
City of Ventnor and Albany Avenue, is zoned for and is

developed as one and two family dwellings and townhouses.
Multi-family dwellings are also permitted along and within
three blocks of Beach Thorofare between Albany and Missouri
Avenues. Building height in these areas may not exceed 35
to 40 feet. Chelsea Heights, located across Beach Thorofare
from the main portion of Atlantic City, is developed with
single family detached units, which reflects current zoning.

South of Route 30 and north of Bacharach Boulevard is
the residential area known as Venice Park, which extends
down to Mediterranean Avenue. It is now and will, under
current zoning, remain single family. However, across both
Route 30 and Mediterranean Avenue, higher density,
multi-family housing is permitted. A large portion of this
area is vacant, and townhouses exist in much of the area.

The North Inlet section of Atlantic City is a blighted,
low rise, residential area between Maryland Avenue and the
Absecon Inlet where little redevelopment has occurred. Much
of the housing has been abandoned and/or neglected. The
Inlet is bulkheaded from Caspian Avenue to Euclid Avenue,
with a gap near the abandoned Hackney's Restaurant. The
North Inlet section is primarily zoned for high density,
multi-family use, including high rises around Gardner's
Basin (including hotels). In 1981, an ordinance was passed
creating two high-rise overlay districts between Connecticut
Avenue and the Inlet. High rises up to 250 feet in height
are permitted along Atlantic Avenue and up to 385 feet high
on Maine Avenue and the waterfront.

In 1983 a plan for redevelopment of the North Inlet was
prepared by American City Corporation for the New Jersey
Casino Control Commission. The plan would generally conform
with existing zoning, with the exception of maritime use
areas along Clam Creek, Delta Basin and Gardner's Basin and
two proposed commercial and service centers (Inlet Center
near Lighthouse Park and Upland Center at the inland end of
Gardner's Basin). The plan is designed to "create a
balanced residential community..., create economic value ....
conserve and enhance the Inlet's natural features...,
implement adequate prevention and protection techniques to
control flooding in the Inlet, preserve sound residential
and historically significant structures .... irmprove public
access to the Inlet's waterfront.... create neighborhoods
that offer a full range of housing choices .... preserve and
assess the maritime industries in the area..." and provide
access to commercial uses (American City Corp., 1983). In
order to meet these goals, neighborhood commercial centers
are proposed, as are housing development plans for each

Inlet neighborhood, parks, and roadway modifications and
closures. Of particular relevance to this study is the
proposal to 1) realign Maine Avenue to continue around the
Inlet beyond Caspian Avenue, 2) create a tree lined median
for the street to serve as a major collector street, while
3) Vermont and New Hampshire become one-way streets for
local traffic and 4) Rhode Island Avenue -is closed to
traffic and becomes a bike path and walkway. Also pertinent
are the retention of the Gardner's Basin Maritime Park,
realignment of the Boardwalk north of Melrose Avenue along
Maine Avenue, maintenance of views of the Absecon Lighthouse
from the Boardwalk, and the proposal to redevelop both
Hackney's Restaurant on the Boardwalk and Starn' s
Restaurant at Maine and Caspian Avenues, as restaurants.

The Division of Coastal Resources regulates much of the
development in Atlantic City under the Coastal Area Facility
Review Act. Developments of 25 or more dwelling units or
hotel rooms, parking areas two acres or more in size, and
roads and sewers which are at least 1200 feet in length are
regulated under the Act. The Division has guidelines for
use in regulating development in the North Inlet section of
Atlantic City which presently have a basic conflict with the
City's zoning provisions. The City zoning provides for the
tallest buildings along the waterfront (385 feet in the
resort commercial zone and along the Absecon Inlet and 220
feet around Gardner's Basin) ,with lower height limits
further inland. However, the Division guidelines provide
for a transition from low heights on the waterfront to
higher buildings further inland on both the Inlet and the
oceanfront east of Virginia Avenue. Only low to medium rise
buildings (transitioning up to 9 stories) north of Melrose
Avenue are acceptable under these guidelines, which are
based on the State's Coastal Resource and Development
Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seg.).

The City permits non-conforming buildings and uses to
continue indefinitely, but does not allow them to be altered
or enlarged, extended, placed on a different portion of a
lot, or re-established after the physical operation has
ceased or has been discontinued. A building which houses a
non-conforming use and is damaged may be repaired or
restored within 12 months. However, if the non-conforming
structure or non-conforming portion of the structure is
destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 60% of its
replacement value, it may only be reconstructed in
conformity with the zoning ordinance. A building which
houses a conforming use, but which does not conform to other
land use regulations (e.g. setbacks, lot size) may be

rebuilt. In districts where single family dwellings are
permitted, non-conforming lots of record on the effective
date of the ordinance may be built upon notwithstanding
ordinance limitations, subject to certain conditions.

2. Vulnerability

The most critically eroding area of Atlantic City is
adjacent to Absecon Inlet, where there is literally no beach
(Figure 14) . A deteriorating timber bulkhead and several
stone groins provide only minimal protection for the Inlet
shoreline of Atlantic City. (A discussion of the
effectiveness of the shore protection structures can be
found in Vulnerability Analysis, Part I,C.) Overtopping of
this bulkhead by storm waves and high tides occurs
frequently, in part because of the deep channel located
approximately 300 feet offshore. The vulnerability of this
section of the City is evidenced by the repeated damage to
the stretch of Boardwalk between Oriental and Arctic
Avenues. The jetty on the Brigantine side of Absecon Inlet
only minimally protects the Inlet shoreline of Atlantic
City, which is subjected to the direct force of northeast
storm winds and waves.

The vulnerability to damage from storm waves is high
for the entire oceanfront of Atlantic City. The flat,
gently sloping beaches provide very little protection to
shorefront development. Although the Boardwalk is the first
beachfront structure, oceanfront bulkheads and building
foundations constitute the first substantial barriers to
storm waves. Because of the nature of the City's Resort
Commercial zone, high density casino hotel development lies
directly on the inland side of the Boardwalk, which is also
the A-zone/V-zone boundary as mapped by FEMA (Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 1983). The potential for
oceanfront damages may change when the beach is artificially
filled in 1985, although it would not affect the V-zone
boundary.

Several sections of Atlantic City are especially
vulnerable to damages resulting from tidal flooding. These
areas include Gardner's Basin, Venice Park and Chelsea
Heights. All are low lying residential. districts surrounded
by tidal waterways on at least two sides (see: plates 5 and
6, Vulnerability Analysis). The homes typical of these
areas are timber frame structures set on concrete slab or
block foundations, which are more susceptible to flotation
than newer homes built on pilings above the base flood

NT A VEjUE

FIGURE 14:Atl antic City: Absecon Inlet Shoreline, March 10, 1962. Note
damage to boardwalk and bulkhead along Maine Avenue, and on the
oceanfront between Vermont and Rhode Island Avenues.

elevation. Flood damage in these low lying areas was evident
in the March 1984 storm.

3. Recommendations

As was the case with most municipalities in the study
area, Atlantic City representatives were only partially
receptive to the hazard mitigation techniques recommended by
the Division of Coastal Resources. In Atlantic City, the
extremely high value of oceanfront property, particularly
the resort commercial (casino) zones, makes land use changes
very unpopular and acquisition almost impossible. The
resort commercial zone which extends from Roosevelt Avenue
all the way around Absecon Inlet, encourages casinos to be
built abutting the Boardwalk. Because no setbacks are
required, the high cost casinos and accompanying hotels and
high rise condominiums are constructed in an area which is
the most vulnerable to storm wave, wind and flood damage.
The Atlantic City Planning Board can, however, authorize
setbacks if the development is designed to promote
"continuity, unity and functionality of the boardwalk."
There are two significantly sized areas that have yet to be
redeveloped and in which the Division believes setbacks from
the Boardwalk should be incorporated. These areas are the
Uptown Urban Renewal Tract (along the Boardwalk between
Virginia and Connecticut Avenues) and the Absecon Inlet
area. Setbacks would not preclude commercial use of the
space but would prevent permanent structures other than the
Boardwalk to be located there. The land management
techniques recommended by the Division of Coastal Resources
would most easily be implemented in these two areas simply
because they are currently vacant. Even so, the high value
of this land will cause many developers and property owners
to oppose any restrictions whatsoever and the City feels
that it would impose an economic hardship on any casino
which is required to set back from the Boardwalk.

Due to the concentration of resort commercial
development adjacent to the City's narrow beach, both State
and City Committee members agree that a major beach
nourishment project is needed soon. It was also agreed that
sand dunes serve an important function as storm wave and
flood buffers. There is, however, some doubt as to whether
the City's beaches, are wide enough to maintain dunes. The
City used to place snow fences on the back of the beach in
the winter and build up a small dune, then bulldoze it away
in the spring. It is strongly recommended that the City
resume the installation of sand fences to increase
deposition of sand on the beaches, at least in the

southwestern end of the City where existing beaches are
wider. These newly formed dunes should then be permanently
maintained and a dune ordinance adopted. The Division of
Coastal Resources is available to provide technical
assistance regarding dune building.

A program of acquiring high hazard waterfront property,
particularly along the Inlet, to serve as a storm buffer is
recommended, but may be economically unfeasible. One
possible funding source for acquisition is the New Jersey
Green Acres Program. Because of the high public use,
accessibility, and sound planning relationship, acquisition
of high hazard property along Absecon Inlet scores
relatively high on the Green Acres Priority System Rating.

one hazard mitigation recommendation has recently been
approved. This specific recommendation is to raise the road
surface of Arkansas Avenue from Baltic Avenue to the
Atlantic City Expressway entrance. Department of
Environmental Protection and Atlantic City Office of
Emergency Management representatives met with Clyde Fear,
Executive Director of the Expressway Authority, who
indicated the Authority's willingness to finance the
project. The increased street elevation will reduce the
degree of flooding on this critical route, allowing more
time for storm evacuation. Topographic data is now being
collected for use in roadway design.

TABLE 8: ATLANTIC CITY HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Absecon Inlet Shoreline
1. No beach; V-zone 1. Repair bulkheads; rezone and 1. Beach nourishment;
boundary along Maine require setbacks to preserve reconstruct and repair
Avenue; bulkhead in open space in wave runup zone groins, bulkheads,
poor condition; Board- landward of Maine Avenue; set- jetties; extend inlet
walk susceptible to backs should be greater between jetty on Brigantine
storm damage between Euclid and Oriental Avenues; side.
Oriental and Arctic; do not rebuild boardwalk if
area adjacent to Inlet damaged; consider using Maine
is zoned Resort- Avenue as a promenade to avoid
Commercial and High repeat cost of replacing storm
Density Residential. damaged Boardwalk; don't allow
construction waterward of
Maine Avenue; where possible
relocate infrastructure away
co ~~~~~~~~~from Maine Avenue; downzone
first block on Maine Avenue
(between Atlantic and Baltic)
to RM-1.

Gardner's Basin
2. Very low (6'NGVD) 2. Repair/rebuild bulkheads; 2. Reconstruct bulkhead and
elevations; entire inspect and properly anchor seawall.
area subject to structures in flotation zone.
frequent flooding,
especially along
Baltic Avenue.

Oriental Avenue (Inlet)-
Connecticut Avenue
3. Narrow, low beach; 3. Beach nourishment; incorporate 3. Beach nourishment.
overwash area; V-zone setbacks from Boardwalk for new
boundary at Boardwalk; construction and rebuilding;
two senior citizen reconstruct damaged Boardwalk
homes adjacent to within setback area; repair
Boardwalk, bulkhead in bulkhead; don't run
poor condition. utility lines under the Boardwalk.

TABLE 8 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Urban Renewal Tract
(Connecticut Avenue to
Virginia Avenue
4. Narrow, low beach; 4. Beach nourishment; 4. Beach nourishment;
V-zone boundary at since presently undeveloped, build groins; dune
Boardwalk. setbacks (50') from the present development.
Boardwalk would provide a buffer
for new construction, moving it
away from the area of storm
wave impact; rebuild damaged
Boardwalk directly in front of
structures; don't allow utility
lines to run under the Boardwalk-
run them up the side streets
from Pacific Avenue.

Virginia Avenue-Morris Avenue
5. Narrow, low beach; V-zone 5. Beach nourishment; create 5. Beach nourishment.
at Boardwalk; zoned Resort- dunes where feasible.
commercial.

Morris Avenue-Roosevelt Place 6. Install fencing to create
6. Low beach; V-Zone at Boardwalk; dunes.

zoned Resort-commercial.

Roosevelt Place-Jackson Avenue:
Oceanfront
7. Low beach; 7. Install fencing to 7. Dune development and
erosion rate 5.6 ft/yr; effectively maintain and maintenance.
V-zone boundary at -expand dunes on both sides
Boardwalk; zoned of the Boardwalk; incorporate
residential highrise. setback from Boardwalk for new
and rebuilt development.

TABLE 8 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Arkansas & Missouri
Avenues - Access
to Expressway
8. Area from Arctic 8. Raise elevation of Arkansas 8. Raise roadways and
Avenue to and Missouri Avenues to improve drainage.
Expressway entrance at least 8' in order to tie
subject to early into Atlantic Avenue escape
flooding; elevation route (+8'); investigate cause
6'-8' NGVD. of flooding at Atlantic City
Expressway toll plaza for possible
correction.

Albany & So. Blvd; West
End Avenue
9. Much of roadway elevation 9. Raise low parts of roadway to 9. Recondition older
6' NGVD; frequent at least 7'NGVD; build dike along bulkheads.
flooding restricts West End Avenue to hold back
evacuation route. tidal floods; repair/rebuild
bulkheads; install flap gates
in storm sewers to prevent
tidal flooding.

Chelsea Heights & Venice
Park
10. Low elevation; 10. Repair bulkheads; inspect and 10. Reconstruct bulkheads
surrounded on 3 properly anchor structures. where needed; provide
sides by water; informational sheet on
older, low lying anchoring homes.
structures subject
to flooding and
flotation.

Brigantine Blvd., across
Brigantine Bridge
11. Vacant property; on 11. Don't allow residential development;
major evacuation route; consider commercial or transportation
subject to storm wave zone.
action.

TABLE 8 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Entire oceanfront
12. Extensive use of wide 12. Try to design buildings to minimize 11. Reduce amount of glass
pane glass; structures exposure of wide pane glass to coverage facing ocean.
(restrooms, storage areas, highest energy storm winds; do not
sitting pavilions, cabanas, place non-water dependent structures
etc.) located on or over beach, seaward of Boardwalk.
seaward of Boardwalk.

D. VENTNOR

1. Description and Present Land Use Regulations

Ventnor (Figure 15) is a suburban community, two square
miles (128 acres) in size and 1.7 miles long. Approximately
130 acres are wetlands. The 1980 population was 11,704,
which is about 10.2 people per acre of upland. Twenty-two
percent of the population is senior citizens. The mean
family income is $25,072. There are no roads connecting
Ventnor directly to the mainland. Access is via the bridges
and causeways which terminate in Atlantic City and Margate.

Ventnor is primarily a residential community, with
high-rise development along some of the oceanfront and
low-rise in the rest of the City. The City is almost
entirely developed with the exception of the area known as
Ventnor West. Total market value of all real property is
$200.2 million. The median value per upland acre of
residential property is $329,968 and only 25% of the
residences are seasonal.

Most of Ventnor is zoned for one and two family houses,
and existing uses reflect this zoning. A portion of Ventnor
Heights is zoned for and developed as garden apartments and
townhouses. West of Monmouth Avenue, one and two family
homes exist in the area zoned for single and two family
dwellings and townhouses. Further west, along Beach
Thorofare, the City owns a 175 acre parcel of land, of which
about 85 acres are wetlands and 90 acres upland. This area,
called Ventnor West, is zoned Planned Residential. A
conceptual plan was prepared for Ventnor West in 1979 by
R.E. Hughey Associates which calls for 865 units, including
single family detached homes, townhouses and condominium
apartments. At present, Ventnor is pursuing resolution of
Tidelands claims on the property and has no immediate plans
to develop. The City has several commercial districts along
Ventnor Avenue, Dorset Avenue and West End Avenue.

There are presently six high-rise apartment/condominium
buildings on the oceanfront, three of which are
non-conforming uses. The zoning ordinance does allow for
additional high rises in the oceanfront block between Surrey
Place and the Atlantic City border. Ventnor does not permit
extension or enlargement of non-conforming uses. If a
non-conforming use or structure ceases operations for more
than one year, any subsequent use must conform with
regulations. Whenever a non-conforming structure has been
damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of 75% of its

IN 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~'Pork Iolnd 9'? ~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ 1c
Pl!",~~~~~~- - I' k ~ 3
~ LA4~3 ~J-- Great sld
0~~~~~~d 0 i S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~io

'~~~~~~~~~~~~. C C>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~FIEL

'I~~~~~-A ~
~ ' *-4~t'-- OR~ , NrI SuC

* ftw C -Amk- - -LL I'Y'-

market value, it may be rebuilt or repaired only in
conformity with zoning regulations.

2. Vulnerability

The oceanfront property is protected by a series of
bulkheads and seawalls of varying heights (see:
Vulnerability Analysis, Part I, B and C). This oceanfront
area is most vulnerable to damage from storm waves and
overwash, as is the case with the majority of coastal
cities. The erosion rate for Ventnor is 5.6 feet/year based
on aerial photographs for 1952 and 1971 (Nordstrom et al.,
1977) and the beach width ranges from 50 feet at the Margate
boundary to 200 feet at the Atlantic City boundary. Being
located downdrift of Atlantic City, Ventnor's beaches
ultimately receive some benefit from beachf ill placed on
Atlantic City's beaches. Major storm damage is usually
limited to the block seaward of Atlantic Avenue and is
concentrated at street ends where the roads have been
lowered to allow ramped access to the boardwalk (Figure 16).
The flat, gently sloping beach in Ventnor has no dunes,
which increases the potential for flooding and storm damage.
A boardwalk extends from Atlantic City to Margate, located
seaward of the bulkheads.

The greatest storm hazard results from the location of
residential structures directly behind the oceanfront
bulkheads and seawalls. These structures are situated in
the wave runup zone, which is the area most heavily impacted
by storm waves and debris breaking over oceanfront
structures (see Vulnerability Analysis, Plate 7).

Another serious hazard presents itself in the part of
the City known as Ventnor Heights. More than half of this
area is subject to tidal flooding from Inside Thorofare and
Beach Thorofare due to the low elevation of this section of
the City. The flooding problem is exacerbated by the fact
I ~ ~~that many of the homes were built too low and not adequately
anchored. The area of Ventnor Heights most affected by
flooding is delineated as the flotation zone on Plate 7,
Vulnerability Analysis.

3. Recommendations

I ~ ~~~Members of the Ventnor Steering Committee were
receptive to discussing hazard mitigation, but were not
convinced that Ventnor is particularly susceptible to storm
damages and, therefore, that extensive mitigation and zoning
changes are required. This is primarily the result of

ATLANTIC AVENUE

FIGURE 16:Ventnor: Suffolk Avenue - Washington Avenue, March 10, 1962.
Most damage was limited to the boardwalk and street end bulk-
heads. Washover was concentrated at street ends, due to bulk-
head failure.

minimal damages caused by both the March 1962 and March 1984
northeasters. These storms produced severe damages in other
coastal towns, but relatively minor damages in Ventnor.

The first and simplest hazard mitigation technique is
dune building on the municipal beach. Unfortunately, the
beach in parts of Ventnor, especially at the southern end,
may not be wide enough to maintain a dune line. It is
possible that the northern beach has sufficient width to
permit the building and maintenance of a dune. The Division
of Coastal Resources plans to provide technical assistance
to the City of Ventnor regarding dune building, despite the
fact that certain oceanfront property owners are opposed to
dunes because they believe dunes will obstruct their ocean
view. Decks could be built to allow oceanfront property
owners the same vista.

The idea of increasing oceanfront setbacks in order to
create a wider buffer zone was not well received by many of
the Steering Committee members. They argue that increasing
setbacks will not allow the building or rebuilding of the
large, spacious homes typical of Ventnor' s oceanfront, and
that homes should be rebuilt but elevated. However, homes
of different architectural design could be built on these
relatively deep lots.

In the area of land acquisition, the Ventnor
representatives do not see the need to purchase high hazard
oceanfront property. One reason for this is the extremely
high cost of such a purchase. Another reason is that the
city already owns several oceanfront properties, including a
playground, community building and a fishing pier. Members
of the Division of Coastal Resources still encourage the
acquisition of all possible oceanfront property for
inclusion in the City's conservation/recreation zone. One
possible technique for accomplishing this is by transfer of
development rights. This is possible because the large ( 80
acres) City owned tract of land known as Ventnor West could
serve as a receiving zone. This concept is described in
Part I, Section D2.

The downzoning of the northern oceanfront area from
high density to medium density was also recommended to the
Ventnor Steering Committee. The purpose of this was to
limit the number of high-rise/high density residences in
that part of the City with the greatest storm vulnerability,
the oceanfront. This area presently contains low-rise
buildings, which should make the rezoning more palatable.
Local Committee members disagreed, claiming that the present

zoning lends continuity to the Ventnor-Atlantic City border.
They also feared losing ratables. However, as no high-rises
have yet been built here, it is really a question of not
gaining ratables.

It was mutually agreed that the City's bulkheads should
be inspected and repaired if necessary.

TABLE 9: VENTNOR HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Suffolk-Fredericksburg Avenue
Oceanfront
1. Very narrow beach; 1. Build dunes on both sides of 1. Repair and strengthen
erosion rate 5.6 oceanfront bulkhead, if oceanfront bulkheads;
feet/year; overwash possible; rezone to low rebuild damaged buildings
area; medium density density the block seaward at higher elevation.
residential zone of Atlantic Avenue; increase
directly behind setbacks from the bulkhead;
oceanfront bulkhead consider Transfer of Development
(V-zone boundary); Rights (TDR) between oceanfront block
homes in wave (Transfer) and Ventnor West (Receive).
runup zone.

Jackson to Surrey Avenue:
Oceanfront
2. Low beach; no dunes; 2. Rezone from high density high rise 2. Build dunes in areas of
high density (zone 9) to medium (zone 3) or beach which can
residential moderate (zone 1,2); increase accommodate them; repair
development directly setbacks from bulkhead; create and strengthen
behind oceanfront dune seaward of bulkhead; oceanfront bulkheads;
bulkhead, in wave consider TDR to Ventnor West. retain highrise zone.
runup zone.

Dorsett & Monmouth Avenues:
West End Avenue
3. Evacuation route is 3. Repair bulkheads along Inside 3. Repair bulkheads along
very low at this point Thorofare; construct berm Inside Thorofare;
(6') and subject to along West End Avenue or raise investigate and experiment
frequent flooding. road; install flap gates to with flap gate use on
prevent tidal flooding via West End Avenue.
storm sewers.

TABLE 9 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Ventnor West
4. Undeveloped, low 4. Develop at low to moderate
lying area; density; consider designation
evacuation routes as receiving area for transfer
subject to early of development rights; include
flooding. wetlands in conservation zone.

Ventnor Heights
5. Very low area; 5. Inspect structures for proper 5. Inspect structures for
flotation zone. anchoring and anchor as needed. proper anchoring.

0
o

E. MARGATE

1. Description and Present Land Use Regulations

Margate City (Figure 17) is 1.5 square miles in size
and has very few wetland areas. in 1980, 9,179 people lived
in this community, a density of 10.2 people per acre, and
twenty-one percent of the population is senior citizens.
The mean family income was $34,636. The Margate-Northfield
Boulevard (Route 563) provides direct access to and from the
mainland.
Margate is predominantly developed in single family
dwellings, with a residential development value of $533,409
per acre. The total value of all real prop~erty in Margate
is $290.6 million, 4.6% of which is commercial. The
commercial uses are found in three areas, one at each end of
the city along Ventnor Avenue and a third at the southern
end of the city on Beach Thorofare. Apartments and
townhouses are permitted in these zones.

Exclusive of the small commercial zone, the entire city
east of Vendome Avenue is zoned single family and this is
the current land use. Twenty-five percent of the'residences
are seasonal. Multi-family residential districts are
located west of Vendome Avenue, both in the two oceanfront
blocks and between Ventnor and Monmouth Avenues. Single and
two family houses, apartments and townhouses are permitted
in these areas, although most of the area presently consists
of single family dwellings. There are three high rises on
the oceanfront in this zone at present, but the current
height restriction is 35 feet.

2. Vulnerability

Margate is protected by a series of bulkheads and
seawalls on the oceanfront, placed at varying distances from
Atlantic Avenue. Most were constructed and are owned and
maintained by the City. As is the case in most coastal
municipalities, primary storm vulnerability results from the
proximity of residential development to the oceanfront and
the small beach height and width. The erosion rate is 5.6
feet/year based on aerial photographs for 1952 and 1971
(Nordstrom et al ., 1977), which explains the low, narrow
beach and, therefore, the storm vulnerability. Post-storm
photographs indicate that the majority of storm damage is
limited to the area seaward of Atlantic Avenue (Figure 18).
This area is impacted chiefly by wave runup and overwash of
the oceanfront bulkheads and seawalls (see: Vulnerability

101

* I. Winkle -
IL~7 ~ Island

'3s ~~Ci~~ \Nhirlpool
_o~p~o Isiand Island SHELTER
2 -L__ - I " 0 1r 6 I S L A N D

I) Cedar Jones IsdBAr
Yc Islandsli'd on

* ,- Pork ISland

.nL~~~~~~~i~~~l ~ ~ ~~~alz~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ D~~une ~
". i2 ,IOSPnA/TYI,~C~EI cson ~'~~~ A\

Is~~~~oi~~~~1 -L. c- *-1 - Af4"
19CACH~ rs

HA RBOR PI
INLET~~~
'4Ad B.A Patton, :11

-- - - - - - - - - - - - --,--- '
a

c" 1GR~A7FIGURsEY 17 Roa MapE Of Margt

hla~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Afe 3.r Patn,1

0~~
I'r~~~~~~~~~~~~~lo

FIGURE 18: Marate: Essex Avenue - Madison Avenue, March 10, 1962. Note
extensive washover, especially in the southern end of the City.

Analysis, Part I-C). Because of the high density
residential development landward of the bulkheads and
seawalls, many homes are located in the wave runup zone
where storm damage is greatest.

The southwest section of Margate is also vulnerable to
damage as the result of tidal flood inundation from Beach
Thorofare and Longport (see Vulnerability Analysis, Plate
No. 8). This flooding is a consequence of the City's low
elevation (6 feet NGVD) landward of Ventnor Parkway as well

3. Recommendations

Several hazard mitigation techniques were discussed
with members of Margate's Steering Committee. Dune building
was considered but may be infeasible due to the narrowness
of the beach. Less importantly, concern was expressed by
some local committee members that dunes would block the
ocean view and also cause sand to blow onto private lawns
along the oceanfront. From a hazard mitigation standpoint,
these two reasons are trivial and indefensible.

The idea of incorporating greater oceanfront setbacks
into the local zoning ordinance was not well received.
Because many oceanfront lots are only 40 feet deep, there is
no room for much of a setback while still allowing
reconstruction of homes on these lots. However, the
Division of Coastal Resources encourages any increase in
setbacks, no matter how small. The reason for this is
simple: the greater the landward distance between
residences and the oceanfront seawall or bulkhead, the less
damage is likely to occur, especially as a result of low
frequency storms.

Another Division recommendation is to downzone the
southern oceanfront area from Residential Multi-Family to a
lower density. Again, the purpose of this zoning change is
to reduce the level of high density development in the
vulnerable oceanfront block. Most of the existing
oceanfront zoning in Margate is single family, and most of
the multi-family zone presently contains single family
dwellings.

The representatives of Margate's Steering Committee
agreed with the Division of Coastal Resources that a
city-wide bulkhead inspection and maintenance program would
be an important step in reducing tidal flooding during
storms. it was also suggested by a Margate Committee member

104

that storm shutters be used to cover glass windows and doors
exposed to the direction of the highest storm winds to

minimize damage.

105

TABLE 10: MARGATE HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL _RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Brunswick to Essex Avenue:
Oceanfront
1. Indentation of 1. Develop dunes where feasible; 1. Beach nourishment;
bulkheads focuses change zoning to incorporate repair bulkheads.
wave energy in greater setbacks from bulkheads
small area; erosion to establish a buffer area;
rate 5.6 ft/yr; repair bulkheads.
homes built
directly behind
bulkheads in wave
runup zone.

South of Cedar Grove Avenue,
Landward of Ventnor Pkwy.
CD 2. Very low elevation 2. Repair bulkheads; inspect 2. Repair bulkheads;
( 6'NGVD); old ineffective structures to ensure proper inspect homes for proper
bulkhead along Beach anchoring to foundation; anchoring.
Thorofare; flotation anchor if needed.
zone.

Cedar Grove to Coolidge
Avenue: Oceanfront
3. Very narrow beach; 3. Rezone to a lower density 3. Repair and raise
erosion rate 5.6 (R-25, R-40) in high hazard bulkheads; consider
ft/yr; no dunes; oceanfront area; increase setbacks for multi-
multi-family setbacks from bulkhead/ family development.
development located seawall to establish buffer.
right up to bulkhead/
seawall and in wave
runup zone.

F. LONGPORT

1. Description and Present Land Use Regulations

Longport (Figure 19) is much smaller than the other
five municipalities in the study area, both in acreage (0.44
square miles) and population. There are no wetland areas in
Longport. A greater proportion (38%) of the population of
1,249 consists of senior citizens. Median family income is
$27,370. Longport Boulevard, also known as the
Longport-Somers Point Road (Route 152), is a bridge causeway
system to the mainland.

Residential land use predominates in Longport, with
residential development valued at $835,372 per acre and a
density of 6.5 people per acre. Total property value is
$94.2 million. The majority (54%) of the housing is
seasonal and consists of single family dwellings for which
most of the city is zoned. There are a few multi-family
residential and commercial motel/hotel districts within
Longport where townhouses and motels have been built,
primarily between 15th and 17th Streets between the ocean
and bay, and on either side of Longport-Somers Point Road.
Although high rises are no longer permitted, there are two
on the oceanfront. There are a few blocks devoted to
commercial uses.

The zoning code for the Borough of Longport provides
that a non-conforming use terminate upon abandonment for
more than one year. A non-conforming use may not be
enlarged, extended, moved on the lot or structurally altered
in any way except as required for normal maintenance or to
modernize or redecorate existing bath, kitchen, utility or
living areas or to prevent damage or injury. A
non-conforming structure may not be enlarged or altered so
as to increase its non-conformity. A non-conforming
structure or use may be restored or reconstructed if damaged
or destroyed by fire or other accidental cause, subject to
the above. An undersized lot (area, width or depth) in
existence at the time of enactment of the code, may be used
for a permitted use, subject to certain conditions.

2. Vulnerability

The Borough of Longport is extremely vulnerable to
storm damage because of several factors, including absence
of a measurable beach, proximity to Great Egg Inlet, low
elevation and narrowness of the Longport section of Absecon
Island. This part of Absecon Island has experienced severe

107

' ii Whirlpool
T~~~D~~~p~ ~ I i HELTEA
gPO -J A~:L' p Island SLAAEt
I ' 4~~~~~~~~~, B~~~~AY
c Lones
I,) ( Cedar 7K~ 'G~22C
~I 9; 563r L -J
-Potk Island

Ernst, ~ z
RE~~~~~~~~~i-'A T~.~
~~v*,~ ~

(IVL E Tcl, ~-
7'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

R~7EG IS Road Map OfLong
jj' GREAT -- " - --- - *-</-t&,~fir" , *. ;

l fr S. P 19 8
4911I. 1L.

~~~~*~~~~~~Gdy~~~~~~~~~~~a ~lrd, B.Pttn 18

erosion since the late 1800's when approximately 184 acres
of beach was lost from the lower end of Longport (Board of
Commerce and Navigation, 1922). The oceanfront is now
protected by bulkheads, a massive seawall, and a terminal
groin. The oceanfront block is most vulnerable to damage
from wave runup and overtopping of the bulkheads and
seawall. Details of the wave runup analysis are found in
the Coastal Storm Vulnerability Analysis, Part I-C.

Post-storm photographs (March, 1962) have shown the
most severe damage from storm waves to occur within 100 feet
of the seawall (Figure 20). Overwash sediment, transported
by storm waves and surge, was deposited as far as 1,000 feet
inland, blocking all the major evacuation routes. The
section of Longport south of 27th Street was completely
overwashed during the March, 1962 northeaster, a 34-year
event (Figure 21).

Along with the hazard from storm waves, Longport is
also vulnerable to severe tidal flooding due to the low
elevation and narrowness of the spit. The Longport spit is
only 450 feet wide at 21st Street. This fact, combined with
the spit's proximity to Risley's Channel, causes Longport to
be especially susceptible to breaching during severe storms.
The part of the Borough landward of Ventnor Avenue becomes
flooded during even moderate storms, with frequencies of as
little as six years (U.S.G.S., 1962).

3. Recommendations

Due to their similar development patterns, and because
they have the same engineering consultant and construction
official, the Longport Steering Committee meetings were
combined with those of neighboring Margate. Unfortunately,
the only actual representatives of Longport in attendance
were the building inspector, city engineer and emergency
management coordinator (one meeting). Members of the
Division of Coastal Resources did receive a completed hazard
mitigation work sheet from Longport Mayor Howard Kupperman.
The Mayor indicated that improvements were needed to the
stone groins and jetties, and that better drainage is
required for the central part of the Borough. The other
Division of Coastal Resources recommendations, including
acquisition, zoning changes, anchoring surveys and increased
setbacks were not commented on.

109

CITY BOUNDARY

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ENTNOR

FIGURE 20: Longport: Southern Margate - Northern Lonqport, March 8, 1962.
Note severe beach erosion and extensive washover as far inland
as Ventnor Avenue.

-go
ATLANTIC AVENUE

FIGURE 21: Longport: 24th Avenue - 11th Avenue, March 8, 1962. Note
damage to oceanfront boardwalk, complete washover back to Atlantic
Avenue and loss of beach. The narrowness of this spit increases
the potential for breaching during sever storms.

TABLE 11: LONGPORT HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

Entire Boro: Oceanfront
1. Very little beach; 1. Change zoning to incorporate 1. Improve groins and jetty.
no dunes; erosion greater setbacks from ocean-
rate 5.6 ft/yr; front seawall and bulkheads;
overwash area; establish a dune line in
residential existing right of way (20')
development in between seawall and first homes.
wave runup zone,
directly up to
seawall (V-zone
boundary).

Oceanfront South of
11th Avenue-tip
M) ~of Island
2. Narrow, low beach; 2. Investigate for acquisition;
overwash area; prevent rebuilding of storm
residential development damaged structures.
in wave runup zone;
located along
unstable inlet.

Entire Boro: Inland
of Ventnor Avenue
3. Very low elevation 3. Inspect and repair bulkheads
( 6'NGVD); frequent along Risley's Channel;
flooding; flotation inspect structures and ensure
zone. proper anchoring.

. _ . . , . _

G. OCEAN CITY

1. Description and Present Land Use Regulations

Ocean City occupies the entire island of Peck Beach
(Figure 22). The City is 5.83 square miles (3731 acres) in
area with about 8 miles of oceanfront. Approximately 770
acres of Ocean City are wetlands. The City is not as densely
populated as Absecon Island.Ocean City's density is4.7 people
per acre of upland. The total population is 13,949 of whom
26% are senior citizens. Mean family income is $24,609. The
median value of residential property per acre of upland is
$97 ,9 38 .Amusements are concentrated on the boardwalk. Two
bridge-causeway systems provide access to the island from
the mainland (Roosevelt Boulevard (Route 623) and Route 52),
and a bridge-causeway system crosses each inlet to the
adjacent barrier islands. Ocean City is strongly oriented
toward resort-recreational activities, with 59% of all
housing seasonal and a relatively high number of motel rooms
for the study area.

Ocean City's zoning ordinances are now being revised.
Presently, most of Ocean City is developed with one and two
family houses, which reflects the existing zoning. The
oceanfront at the northern end of Ocean City (5th Street to
1st Street) is zoned for 3 or more family residences, hotels
and business. Presently, much of the area is smaller 1-2
family houses, with the exception of a high-rise
apartment/condominium building and some low-rise
condominiums.

That portion of the island three blocks north and six
blocks south of the Route 52 bridge is zoned for higher
densities than much of the rest of the island. The
boardwalk is found in this area and extends from Saint James
Street about 2.4 miles down to 23rd Street. The oceanfront
block from 6th Street to 14th Street is in the Boardwalk
Zone. Permitted and existing uses in the zone are retail,
amusements, entertainment, parking and restaurants on and
within 200 feet of the boardwalk. From a line 200 feet west
of the boardwalk and within this zone, retail, restaurant,
parking, hotel/motel, amusement and entertainment are
permitted uses. Inland of the Boardwalk Zone is the
Hotel/Motel Zone which also allows guest houses and single
to multi-family houses, offices, retail and parking. Much
of this zone still consists of smaller 1-4 family
residences. Further inland is the Central Business Zone,
and nearer the back side of the island are multi-family,
motel, business and industrial zones.

113

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i 4i
R040 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ V ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~t r~~~~~~

GA~~~o N I~TU 5AD

GN~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~PA

WHAROR

FIGURE 22: Road Map Of Ocean City

Alfred B. Patton. 1980

h~~~~~~~A--

The second major area zoned for business and light
industry is located along and at the foot of the Roosevelt
Boulevard Bridge. A recreation zone is located along the
bay north of the Roosevelt Boulevard Bridge, which is
occupied in part by an airport. Inland of this is an
undeveloped transportation zone, along the abandoned
railroad right-of-way.

Most of the oceanfront in Ocean City is bulkheaded,
although the bulkheads are irregular and there are gaps,
sometimes several blocks long, which are not bulkheaded.
North of 15th Street there is little to no beach in front of
the bulkheads. From 18th Street to 57th Street, residences
have been built very close to the bulkheads. From 29th to
34th Street, there is a wider beach with dunes in front of
the bulkhead and further south the bulkhead is buried
beneath the sand in some areas, with intermittent dunes.

Ocean City first adopted a dune ordinance in October,
1971. The ordinance defined an "Atlantic Ocean Coastal
Beach Zone" in which no building could be erected or used
except for recreation, access, public safety and shore
protection uses. In addition, non-conforming uses which
were destroyed by more than 50% could not be rebuilt. The
ordinance also set construction standards for waterfront
buildings and an oceanfront bulkhead setback.

In November 1971 the ordinance was amended to (1)
permit restoration or repair of partially destroyed
non-conforming uses, (2) repeal the oceanfront bulkhead
setback and (3) specify that wood pilings and bulkheads be
treated with creosote to prevent decay. Subsequently, in
1974 an ordinance was passed to permit single family
dwellings in the Atlantic Ocean Coastal Beach Zone if such
use would neither threaten the public health, safety and
welfare, nor lead to damage or loss of property, and would
meet design criteria. The amendment arose out of a claim
that the building prohibition in this zone amounted to a
taking of property and the failure of Ocean City voters to
approve a referendum for a bond issue to secure funds to
purchase the affected lands.

A flood damage prevention ordinance adopted in 1978
established a permit requirement for development or
construction within the 100 year floodplain. Basically the
ordinance requires that federal floodplain management
regulations be met for new construction and substantial
improvements, and states that there shall be no alteration

of sand dunes within the V-zone which would increase
potential flood damage.
At present, non conforming uses which are 50% destroyed
can only be rebuilt as conforming uses. This figure may be
changed to 75% with the new ordinance.I
2. Vulnerability

With a developed oceanfront approximately 8 miles long,
ocean City is highly vulnerable to damage from coastal
storms. The shore is fortified with a wide range of
engineering structures designed to protect the beach and
adjacent development. These structures include timber and
stone groins, bulkheads and revetments. Although theseI
structures do offer some protection, they do not treat the
basic problem, which is a negative sediment budget. The
historical erosion rate along the Ocean City shoreline
ranges from 6 to 12 feet/year (Nordstrom et al., 1977) as
measured from vertical aerial photographs for 1952 and 1971.

Analysis of post-storm photographs indicates different
levels and types of damage in different parts of Ocean City.
The northern end of the City, from 30th Street to Great Egg
inlet, generally suffers storm damage to beaches, oceanfront
bulkheads and structures within the wave runup zone (Figures
23 and 24). Overwash penetration in this area is limited
primarily to the first or second shore parallel road. South
of 39th Street, overwash penetration can be expected to be
much greater, reaching as far back as Bay Avenue, largely
because of the narrowness and low elevation of this part of
the island (Figures 25 and 26). Again, however, much of the
problem of vulnerability is due to the fact that high
density (7 homes/acre) residential development lies directly
on the landward side of the oceanfront bulkheads in the wave
runup zone. Part I-C of the Vulnerability Analysis explains
the effect of wave runup on bulkheads and adjacent
structures. Devoid of protective dunes, the low, narrow
beaches provide very little protection to inland
development, while allowing storm waves to break directly at
the bulkhead.

3. Recommendations

The Ocean City Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee was
generally receptive to most of the mitigation techniques
described by the Division. As a matter of fact, several of
the hazard mitigation recommendations, including zoning
changes and increased setbacks, are being incorporated into

116

w - � -w

FIGURE 23: Ocean City: East Atlantic Boulevard - 6th Street, March 8, 1962.
Damage to the northern end of the City was relatively minor, but
increased markedly south of 5th Street.

FIGURE 24: Oc ea n C ity: 5th Street -15th Street, March 8, 1962. Note
extensive washover and boardwalk damage, particularly south of
11th Street.
�~ l

FIGURE 24:0Ocean City: 5th Street - 15th Street, March 8, 1962, Note
extensive washover and boardwalk damage, particularly south of
11th Street.

FIGURE 25: Ocean City: 37th Street - 47th Street, March 8, 1962. Note
severe damage to oceanfront bulkheads and adjacent homes in the
wave runup zone. Washover area extends inland to West Avenue.

0 m

FIGURE 26: Ocean City: 52nd Street - 59th Street, March 8, 1962. Note
damage to homes in the wave runup zone, seaward of Central Avenue.
Washover extends inland to West Avenue.

the current master plan revisions. Ocean City plans to
conduct surveys of structures in flotation zones and to
recommend methods of proper anchorage. The City is also in
the process of replacing older bulkheads, and is interested
in establishing bulkhead standards as well as making
oceanfront bulkheads mandatory inland of any dunes.

Among the land use changes, the City intends to
incorporate residential setbacks from the oceanfront
bulkhead in the Boardwalk Zone extending from 6th to 15th
Street. This setback requirement would apply only to
residential structures and not boardwalk related commercial
structures.

in terms of general development policies, the City is
in the process of revising its master plan and zoning
ordinance. These revisions are expected to reduce the
population at maximum build out by 20%, from 26,000 to
21,000.

One of Ocean City's primary concerns is the continued
development of vacant oceanfront property. The City has
tried several times to prevent such development using the
existing dune ordinance, but has been unsuccessful. The
City, however, did not take advantage of expert witnesses
available through the State Department of Environmental
Protection and Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Professionals working for these two groups often provide
technical assistance and court testimony to reinforce
established coastal development policies, including hazard
mitigation strategies.

The Ocean City Planning Board has already approved one
hazard mitigation recommendation regarding land use. The
Board adopted a 25 foot residential setback from the
oceanfront bulkhead line. This increased setback, based on
wave runup calculations, will reduce the number of
structures, and associated storm damage in this high hazard
area.

The Vulnerability Analysis indicated that the
topographic mapping used to prepare the Flood insurance Rate
Maps for Ocean City was inaccurate. The true elevations are
lower than those shown on the maps, resulting in incorrect
designation of flood zones. it is recommended that the
Federal Emergency Management Agency obtain accurate
topographic maps of Ocean City and revise the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps accordingly.

121

TABLE 12: OCEAN CITY HAZARD MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

AREA OF D. E .P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

North Street-Great Egg
Inlet: Oceanfront
1. Narrow beach with 1. Improve/expand existing dunes; 1. Beach nourishment using
low dunes; V-zone acquire, when possible, all dredged material from
boundary at front property seaward of Beach Great Egg Inlet;
row of beach homes; Road and East Atlantic and improve dunes; city
erosion rate incorporate property and acquires oceanfront
-8 ft/yr. portion of road into dune property whenever
zone (road can be narrowed possible.
as one way street).

North Street-5th Street
Oceanfrcont
2. Narrow beach; no 2. Rezone high density residential 2. Residential setbacks
dunes; overwash to Boardwalk commercial and/or from bulkheads.
area; erosion rate lower density; incorporate setbacks
-12 ft/yr; high from oceanfront bulkhead or Boardwalk;
density residential consider abandoning Boardwalk where
development seaward it is frequently damaged.
of Corinthian Ave.;
structures built in
wave runup zone.

5th-15th Streets: Oceanfront
3. Very low, narrow beach; 3. Incorporate setbacks from 3. Institute residential
overwash area; nodal Boardwalk line into setbacks from bulkheads;
zone; erosion rate zoning plan; rebuild Boardwalk repair old bulkheads;
-12 ft/yr; V-zone inshore of Bulkhead; rezone from consider relocating
boundary landward of residential to commercial along damaged infrastructure.
many structures. Boardwalk; don't allow multi-family
development in Boardwalk zone;
repair/replace older bulkheads;
modify groins to allow more sand
movement over the tops.

TABLE 12 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

l5th-25th Streets:
Oceanfront
4. Very little/no 4. Incorporate setbacks from 4. Institute residential
beach; overwash bulkhead to create buffer; setbacks from oceanfront
zone; erosion rate build dunes where feasible; bulkhead; repair old
-6.1 ft/yr; structures rezone all lots seaward of bulkheads; build dunes
in wave runup zone. Wesley Avenue to zone 1 or where possible; consider
2; repair/replace old mandatory bulkhead
bulkheads. ordinance for oceanfront
lots behind dunes.

25th-29th Street:
Oceanfront
5. Low dunes with many 5. Repair and enhance dunes by 5. Improve dunes; consider
paths; erosion rate refencing, planting and closing residential setbacks
-6.1 ft/yr; houses in gaps; construct dune walkover from oceanfront bulkhead;
wave runup zone; structures; incorporate setbacks consider mandatory
overwash zone. from bulkhead; consider bulkhead ordinance for
acquisition of storm damaged oceanfront lots behind
property seaward of Wesley dunes.
Avenue; downzone oceanfront
block between 28th and 29th
from zone 3 to zone 2 or 1.

29th-36th Streets:
Oceanfront
6. Dunes are wide but too 6. Repair dunes primarily by 6. Repair dunes; consider
low, with many paths; closing gaps; incorporate residential setbacks from
structures built in setbacks from oceanfront oceanfront bulkheads;
wave runup zone; bulkheads; build walkover consider mandatory
overwash zone. structures. bulkhead ordinance for
oceanfront lots behind
dunes.

TABLE 12 (continued)

AREA OF D.E.P. RECOMMENDED HAZARD LOCAL RECOMMENDED HAZARD
VULNERABILITY: MITIGATION TECHNIQUES MITIGATION TECHNIQUES

36th-47th Streets:
Oceanfront
7. Low, narrow beach; 7. Dune building and repair, 7. Dune building; residential
erosion rate -6.1 especially at street ends; setbacks from bulkhead;
ft/yr; homes located develop setbacks from land acquisition where
in wave runup zone; oceanfront bulkhead; possible; consider
V-zone boundary consider acquisition mandatory bulkhead for
right at residential of storm damaged property oceanfront lots behind
area; overwash zone. seaward of Central Avenue dunes.
for incorproation into
dune zone.

47th-59th Streets:
Oceanfront
8. Narrow beach; overwash 8. Dune building and repair, 8. Dune building; residential
area; erosion rate especially at street ends; setbacks from bulkhead;
-6.1 ft/yr; homes develop setbacks from land acquisition where
built right up to oceanfront bulkhead; possible; consider
oceanfront bulkhead consider acquisition mandatory bulkhead for
(V-zone boundary) in of storm damaged property oceanfront lots behind
wave runup zone; overwash seaward of Central Ave. dunes.
zone.

East Atlantic to Fifth Street
between Bay and West
Avenues
9. Low elevation; wood 9. Inspect structures and anchor 9. Inspect and anchor
frame structures or elevate as required. structures as needed.
susceptible to
flotation.

H. General Recommendations

1. Construction Standards

The municipal steering committees generally agreed that
more stringent construction standards are an essential
I ~ ~~ingredient to storm hazard mitigation in New Jersey. The
possible levels of implementation are at the state level and
at the level of BOCA International Inc.

At the state level, legislation would be required to
either permit municipalities to enact more stringent
construction standards than BOCA standards in areas prone to
coastal flooding or require the Department of Community
Affairs (or other Departments) to develop such standards for
the coastal communities.

Because BOCA has been adopted as a uniform construction
code in New Jersey, no municipality may adopt more
restrictive construction standards, nor standards for
construction practices not covered by BOCA. However,
through participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program, municipalities are required to adopt floodplain
management regulations.

BOCA International, Inc. provides for annual submission
of proposed code revisions. A New Jersey committee
consisting of local construction officials, State officials
and a FEMA representative developed a revised section on
flood resistant construction. The proposed revisions were
submitted to BOCA on August 1, 1984 by Robert Williams, the
construction official of Atlantic City, for consideration
for incorporation in the 19085 edition of BOCA. The major
changes proposed are:

a. All basement floor surfaces in flood hazard zones
shall be located at or above the base flood elevations.

b. in flood hazard zones, enclosed spaces below the
base flood elevation shall not be used for human occupancy
with the exception of structure egress, entrance foyers,
stairways and incidental storage. Fully enclosed spaces
shall be provided with vents, valves or other openings which
will automatically equalize the lateral pressure of flood
waters acting on the exterior wall surfaces. The bottom of
the openings shall be no lower than 12 inches and no higher
than 24 inches above finished grade. A minimum of two
openings per building, or one opening for each

125

understructure space, whichever is greater, shall be
required.

C. In flood hazard zones, where water resistant
construction is used in non-residential buildings in lieu of
elevating the buildings, requirements are set forth for
openings below the base flood elevation, for floor and wall
penetrations, for utilities, and for shutoff valves in
sanitary and storm sewer systems.4

d. High hazard zones are defined as areas of tidal
influence subject to three foot waves or higher, high
velocity wave runup or wave induced erosion.

e. Unacceptable materials for breakaway walls in high
hazard zones are specified.

f. Piling embedment standards for high hazard zones
require consideration of combined wave and wind loads and
scour.

g. New or replacement mechanical and electrical
systems must be placed above the base flood elevation or
protected to prevent water from entering or accumulating
within the system components during floods up to the base
flood elevation.

h. Requirements are set for mobile units.

i. Alterations and repairs of buildings, and
increases in building height or floor area are addressed.
j. Submission by a registered professional architect
or engineer of plans and specifications as well as a signed
statement by same that the design meets the flood resistant
construction standards is required.

In addition to these proposed revisions to BOCA, which
would be a significant improvement to standards for coastal
hazard areas, the following should also be considered:

a. Standards for protection of buildings and
structures from damage due to winds anticipated from a 100
year storm (about 100 mph in New Jersey). The failure of
windward walls or windows has resulted in heavy structural
damages as internal pressures are increased and roofs and
leeward walls lost. It has been suggested that in hurricane
prone areas, buildings must be designed to withstand greater
internal pressure due to the likelihood that windows will

126

break (Joseph Minor, personal communication, 1984).
Presently, the design wind is that of a 50 year storm, which
is 80 mph for New Jersey.

b. Standards for withstanding battering loads.
C. The elimination of all breakaway walls for new
construction in coastal high hazard areas.
d. More specific guidelines for how the required
flood proofing can be implemented (i.e. more specific

2. Anchoring Existing Structures

The Vulnerability Analysis pointed out the
susceptibility of houses in each municipality to flrotation
in the design storm. This possibility would not only cause
serious damage to the floating structure but also to nearby
structures with which it comes in contact. The houses in
each identified flotation zone should be surveyed to
determine whether they are suf ficiently anchored to prevent
flotation. Owners of inadequately anchored homes should be
notified and made aware of the potential damages they face
as well as methods by which their home could be anchored.
in addition, owners who renovate their homes should
seriously consider elevating or anchoring them.

A surveying and anchoring program would be eligible for
a Community Development Block Grant from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development. Alternatively, local
construction officials may be able to conduct such a survey.
As a minimum, the mailing of an information sheet to
homeowners in flotation zones describing the problem, hazard
and possible solutions should be undertaken.

3. Flood Insurance Rate Maps

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has prepared
Flood Insurance Rate Maps for each municipality to identify
flood hazard zones. In the six municipalities in question,
velocity (V) zones (coastal high hazard areas) and areas
inundated by the 100 year flood (A zones) have been
identified. Only Atlantic City, Margate and Ventor have
areas which are above the 100 year base flood elevation
(i.e. B zones) . In a few areas of the country, notably in
New England following the Blizzard of 1978, the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps were drawn to include areas prone to
damage from wave runup on bulkheads and seawalls within the
coastal high hazard zone. This designation clearly
identifies the extreme danger in building in close proximity

127

to these structures, and requires development in the area to
build to higher construction standards.

Wave runup should be used in defining the high hazard
area on the Flood insurance Rate Maps for each municipality.
A municipality may petition the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to revise the maps to include wave runup, and should

do so in all cases.

1 28

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Because of the densely developed nature of the study
area, and the associated high property values, hazard
mitigation techniques may have to be implemented primarily
as a post-storm program. It is important that coastal
municipalities develop and implement specific hazard
mitigation plans in order for rational post-storm recovery
and redevelopment to take place.

2. Coastal municipalities should reevaluate their master
plans and zoning ordinances in light of coastal storm
vulnerability. The implementation of hazard mitigation
strategies should be accomplished as part of the periodic
master plan review and revision required under the Municipal
Land Use Law.

3. Because funding for shore protection projects is very
limited and shore protection costs are high, coastal
municipalities that make a concerted effort to mitigate
future storm damages should receive higher funding priority.
Shore protection funding and post-storm recovery assistance
may be contingent on local efforts to implement hazard
mitigation strategies.

4. Members of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection are available to assist local municipalities in
developing and implementing hazard mitigation techniques and
educational programis. This support might consist of
technical assistance (scientific and planning), expert
witness testimony, and references on a wide range of
subjects. In order for an effective hazard mitigation plan
to be accepted and implemented, local residents must
understand the concept. A public awareness/education
program is needed for the public to learn why hazard
mitigation is such an important planning element. Because
politicians are generally responsive to local majority
opinion, the benefit of increased public awareness can be
quite far reaching.

5. Each coastal municipality should request that FEMA
include wave runup data on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
This data will more accurately determine coastal high hazard
areas.

6. Coastal municipalities should initiate a structural
inspection program to determine whether buildings are
adequately anchored to foundations. Guidelines for the
inspections, as well as remedial measures, should be

129

developed by the local building officials and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. A sample building
construction checklist can be found in Appendix 2 (Texas
Coastal and Marine Council, 1981).

7. Each oceanfront municipality should adopt and enforce
an effective beach and dune ordinance to protect the beach
area and promote dune building, planting and maintenance.I
The building restriction line should be subject to periodic
review, particularly after major storms. A thorough, well
written dune ordinance can be a very effective barrier
island management tool.

B. Dune fields should be created where possible using
standard fencing and planting techniques, thus providing
additional protection for landward development. Where dunes
already exist, maintenance and enhancement through fencing,
planting and closing gaps will improve the protective
capacity of the dune system. Wooden walkovers or angled
walkways should be used to gain beach access.

9. Each oceanfront municipality should establish
oceanfront setbacks. Setback lines can be measured from
bulkheads, seawalls or boardwalks, and should be at least
25-50 feet landward of these structures, depending on beach
and nearshore profiles.

10. Acquisition of oceanfront property for conservation
purposes is recommended. The acquisition and conservation
should not be limited to the beachfront but should also
include any building lots adjacent to the beachfront. The
New Jersey Green Acres Program often purchases property,
especially along the bea~chfront, for conservation and
recreation use.

11. All oceanfront property presently in municipal
ownership should be retained in municipal ownership,
preferably for open space or recreational use.

12. Property owners should be advised to install protective
shutters on windows and glass doors and minimize use of wide
paned glass.

13. Municipalities should institute programs for
inspection, repair and reinforcement of bulkheads and
seawalls.

14. The peak population on each of the three barrier
islands is estimated to approach or exceed that which can be

130

evacuated within the anticipated warning time of a hurricane
strike. Each municipality should review its zoning in terms
of maximum population at full build out and consider
downzoning. Studies should be made to consider the
feasibility of increasing the capacity or raising the
elevation of escape routes, considering costs, environmental
constraints and accessibility due to flooding of approaches.
The NJDEP should also make this consideration a factor in

their review of coastal development applications.

131

REFERENCES

American City Corporation. 1983. Inlet Community
Redevelopment: A Balanced Residential Community Concept
and Strategy for Reinvestment. Atlantic City, New
Jersey. New Jersey Casino Control Commission,
Lawrenceville, New Jersey, 208 pp.

American Institute of Architects Foundation. 1984.
Elevated Residential Structures. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 137 pp.

Aubrey, D.G. 1980. Our dynamic coastline.
Oceanus, Vol. 23, No. 4. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, p. 5-13.

Baker, A.C. 1980. Perspectives on erosion: barrier island
management. In Coastal Zone '80, B.L. Edge, ed.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, p. 1-18.

Board of Commerce and Navigation. 1922. Report on the
Erosion and Protection of New Jersey Beaches.
MacCrellish & Quigley, Co., Trenton, New Jersey, 73 pp.

Building Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc.
1981. The BOCA Basic Codes, 8th ed. Building Officials
and Code Administrators International, Inc., Homewood,
Illinois, 508 pp.

Butla, K.S., K.N. Nichols and R. Quay. 1980. Managing
barrier islands: role of local government. In Coastal
Zone '80, B.L. Edge, ed. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, p. 2036-2051.

Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. 1980.
A Coordinators Education And Mitigation Model For
Disaster Preparedness in Coastal Areas. Brunswick,
Georgia, 102 pp.

The Conservation Foundation. 1980. Coastal Environmental
Management: Guidelines for Conservation of Resources
and Protection Against Storm Hazards. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 161 pp.

Dolan, R. and B. Hayden. 1980. Templates of change:
storms and shoreline hazards. Oceanus, Vol. 23, No. 4.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts, p. 32-37.

132

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1983. Flood Insurance
Study, Wave Height Analysis, City of Atlantic City, New
Jersey, Atlantic County. Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington D.C., 11 pp.

Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. 1981. Design and
Construction Manual for Residential Buildings in
Coastal High Hazard Areas. U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 189 pp.

Federal Insurance Administration. 1978. Guide
for Ordinance Development. Community Assistance Series
No. 1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, D.C.

Flood Loss Reduction Associates. 1981. Floodplain
Management Handbook. U.S. Water Resources Council,
Washington, D.C.

Gares, P., K. Nordstorm, and N. Psuty. 1979. Coastal
Dunes: Their Function, Delineation, And Management.
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 112 pp.

Gares, P.A., K.F. Nordstorm and N.P. Psuty. 1980.
Delineation and implementation of a dune management
district. In Coastal Zone '80, B. L. Edge, ed. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, p. 1269-1288.

Gooderham, K. and R. Workman. 1983. Privately funded beach
vegetation program. In Coastal Zone '83, O.T. Magoon
and H. Converse, ed. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, p. 897-911.

Gordon, W.R., Jr. 1981. Reduction of Coastal Storm Damages
to Residential Structures: Modifying Existing
Unelevated Structures. Marine Advisory Service,
University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island,
8 pp.

Gross, M.G. 1972. Oceanography, A View of the Earth.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 581
pp.

Haas, J.E., R.W. Kates, and M.J. Bowden, eds. 1977.
Reconstruction Following Disaster, M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 330 pp.

133

Halsey, S.D. 1979. Nexus: new model of barrier island
development. In Barrier Islands: from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, S.P. Leatherman, ed.
Academic Press, New York p. 185-210.

Hildreth, R.G. 1980. Legal aspects of coastal natural
hazards management. In Coastal Zone '80, B.L. Edge,
ed. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, p.
1370-1385.

Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Water
Resources. 1983. Elevating or Relocating a House to
Reduce Flood Damage. Local Assistance Series 3c.
Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago,
Illinois, 22 pp.

King, H. 1984. Preserving public waterfront access in
conjunction with local land development approvals: the
Martin County experience. In Resource Report No. 4.
Urban Waterfront Management Project, Florida Department
of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida p. 17-22.

Lee, V. and S. Olsen. 1983. Barrier island legislation in
Rhode Island: the coastal resources management program.
In Preventing Coastal Flood Disasters: The Role of the
States and Federal Response, J. Monday, ed. Association
of State Floodplain Managers, Wisconsin, p. 177-182.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1983. Hurricane Damage
Mitigation Plan For The South Shore of Long Island,
Counties of Nassau and Suffolk. Long Island Regional
Planning Board, New York, 2 vols.

McElyea, W.D., D.J. Brower, D.R. Godschalk. 1982. Before
The Storm: Managing Development To Reduce Hurricane
Damages. Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, 185 pp.

Mitchell, James K. 1984. Hurricane Evacuation in Coastal New
Jersey. Rutgers Geography Discussion Paper No. 21. New
Brunswick, New Jersey, 57 pp.

Minor, Joseph. 1984. The Structural Effects of Hurricane
Alicia: An Assessment of Building Damage: Workshop
presented at the National Hurricane Conference, April
26, 1984, Tampa, Florida.

134

Moran, K. and G. Smith, 1984. Ruling favors state in
beachfront case. In Houston Chronicle, December 22,
1984, Houston, Texas, pp 1 and 12.

National Governors Association. 1979. Federal Emergency
Authorities, Abstracts. Center For Policy Research,
Washington, D.C.

National Science Foundation. 1980. A Report On Flood Hazard
Mitigation. National Science Foundation, Washington,
D.C., 253 pp.

Neumann, C.,G. Coy, E. Caso, and B. Jarvinen. 1981.
Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean,
1871-1980. National Climate Center, Ashville, North
Carolina.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1981. New
Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan. Trenton, New
Jersey, 3 vols.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1984a.
Coastal Storm Vulnerability Analysis, Barrier Islands
of Atlantic County and Cape May County, Parts I and II.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1984b.
Assessment of Dune and Shore Protection Ordinances in
New Jersey. Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton,
New Jersey, 21 pp.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1984c.
Impacts of Coastal Energy Development on New Jersey's
Shorefront Recreational Resources, prepared by Rogers,
Golden & Halpern, Inc. Division of Coastal Resources,
Trenton, New Jersey, 51 pp.

Nordstrom, K.F., S.F. Fisher, M.A. Burr, E.L. Frankel, T.C.
Buckalew and G.A. Kucma. 1977. Coastal Geomorphology of
New Jersey, Vols. I & II. Center for Coastal and
Environmental Studies Technical Report #77-1, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Pilkey, 0. and W. Neal. 1980. Barrier island hazard mapping.
Oceanus, Vol. 23, No. 4. Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, p. 38-46.

135

Pilkey, O.H., Sr, W.D. Pilkey, O.H. Pilkey, Jr. and W.J.
Neal. 1983. Coastal Design: A Guide for Builders,
Planners and Homeowners. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.

R.E. Hughey Associates, Inc. 1979. Ventnor West... a
Planned Residential Community. R.E. Hughey Associates,
Inc., Margate, New Jersey.

Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. in association with Simpson
Weather Associates and H.W. Lochner, inc. 1981.
Hurricane Evacuation and Hazard Mitigation Study
prepared for the City of Sanibel. Rogers, Golden and
Halpern, Philadelphia.

Rosenthal, J.C. 1980. Post disaster reconstruction planning:
opportunity for hazard mitigation? In Hurricanes and
Coastal Storms: Awareness, Evacuation, and Mitigation,
E.J. Baker, ed. Florida Sea Grant College, Gainesville,
Florida, p. 125-130.

Ruch, C. 1980. Awareness program component assessment. In
Hurricanes and Coastal Storms: Awareness, Evacuation
and Mitigation. Florida Sea Grant College,
Gainesville, Florida, p. 143-149.

Shows, E.W. 1978. Florida's coastal setback line - an effort
to regulate beachfront development. Coastal Zone
Management Journal 4, p. 151-164.

Texas Coastal and Marine Council. 1981. Model Minimum
Hurricane-Resistant Building Standards. Texas Coastal
and Marine Council, Austin, Texas, 199 pp.

Thomas, D.M. and G. W. Edelen, Jr. 1962. Tidal Floods,
Atlantic City and Vicinity, New Jersey, Atlas HA-65.
United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

United States Congress. 1964. Atlantic City, New Jersey,
Beach Erosion Control Study, House Document 325. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 47 pp.

United States Congress. 1964. Interim Hurricane Survey,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, House Document 298. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 121 pp.

136

United States Geological Survey. 1981. Facing Geologic and
Hydrologic Hazards, Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1240-B. United States Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C. p. 50.

Wood, F.J. 1976. The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring
Tides. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Washington,
D.C., 537 pp.

137

APPENDIX I

HAZARD MITIGATION
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

AND

MEETING SCHEDULE

r
i

'~. 138

BRIGANTINE STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/6/84 7/11/84 9/27/84

Carmen D. Benedetto Brigantine Police x
Department

Matthew Doran Brigantine Building x x x
Department

Pat Doran Brigantine City Engineer x x

Charles Fetter Brigantine City x x
Administrator

Joseph Greco Brigantine Commissioner x x x

J. Edward Kline Brigantine Mayor x x

Jack O'Connor Brigantine Police x x
Department

Robert ShiDlev Brigantine Commissioner x x

George McDermott Brigantine City
Administrator x

James Eden Atlantic County Emergency x
Management Deputy
Coordinator

Brian Lefke Atlantic County Division x
of Planning

Robert Reynolds Federal Emergency x
Management Agency

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

139

ATLANTIC CITY STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/20/84 7/11/84 9/25/84

Robert Badger Atlantic City Engineering x x x
Department

Harvey Burns Atlantic City Department of x
Public Works

John DeFrancesco Atlantic City Department of x
Public Works

Jody Schaaf Loen Atlantic City Division of x x x
Planning

Jackie McBride Atlantic City Office of x x
Emergency Management

Jim Masland Atlantic City Office of x x
Emergency Management

Allyn Seel Atlantic City Office of x x x
Emergency Management

Amy Lempert Casino Control Commission x

Richard Ross Casino Control Commission x

James Eden Atlantic County Office of x
Emergency Management

Frank Siracusa Atlantic County Office of x
Emergency Management

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Robert Reynolds Federal Emergency x
Management Agency

140

VENTNOR STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/20/84 7/11/84 9/27/84

William Dombrosky Ventnor Construction x
Official

Thomas Klein Ventnor Water & Sewer x x
Superintendent

William Melfi Ventnor Emergency x x
Management Coordinator

Marilyn Tees Ventnor Zoning and x
Planning Boards Secretary

Joseph Verruni Ventnor City Administrator x x x

Ed Winkleman Ventnor Zoning Board x

Brian Lefke Atlantic County Division x
of Planning

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x
Environmental Protection

Robert Reynolds Federal Emergency x
Management Agency

141

MARGATE STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/20/84 7/18/84 9/25/84

Russell Roney Margate City Commissioner x

Roger Rubin Margate Planning Consultant x x

Raymond Schulze Margate Coordinator x x x
Emergency Management

Donald Sullivan Margate Construction x x
Official

J. Thomas Woods Margate City Engineer x x

James R. Eden Atlantic County Office x
of Emergency Management

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

142

LONGPORT STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/20/84 7/18/84 9/25/84

David Buzby Longport, Emergency x
Management Coordinator

Howard Kupperman Longport Mayor

George Portscher Longport Public Works x

Donald Sullivan Longport Construction x x
Official

J. Thomas Wood Longport Borough Engineer x x

James R. Eden Atlantic County Office x
of Emergency Management

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

143

OCEAN CITY STEERING COMMITTEE

NAME AFFILIATION MEETING ATTENDANCE
6/7/84 7/10/84 9/25/84

Jeanne Clunn Ocean City Councilwoman x x x
Cape May County
Environmental Commission

Joseph Kane Ocean City Administrator x x x

Henry Knight Ocean City Councilman x x x
Ocean City Planning Board

George Morgan Ocean City Emergency x x x
Management Coordinator

John Murphy Ocean City, Deputy Coordinator x
Emergency Management

Richard Snyder Ocean City Division of x x x
Public Works

Woody Jarmer Cape May County Planning x
Board

David Rutherford Cape May County Planning x
Board

Ruth Ehinger New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Mark Mauriello New Jersey Department of x x x
Environmental Protection

Robert Reynolds Federal Emergency x
Management Agency

144

Appendix 2: Building Construction Checklist

I. LOCATION [ I] B0 FLOOR ELEVATION. Is the minimum I I [ E. ADEQUACY OF DESIGN. Has the slruc-
YVSNO floor elevation o( the structure above flood ture been designed by a registered professional
El El A. BEACH ACCESS. Does the structure block levels established by applicable codes and re engineer, qualified to do work in this field?
?w'~I ~ acces to publicbeachuture quirementsDo building drawings have the seal and signa-
violate topubli beachepovsion Doeas teStrutuequrmns
violate open beach provisions of Texas Stae 0 LI C. BREAK-AWAY CONSTRUCTION. Do ture of a registered professional engineer?
Law? (Contact the Texas AttorneyGnral's city or county building codes require con-
office or the General Land Office of Texas struction below flood level to be "break- IV. FOUNDATION DESIGN
(GLO).) ot hGeaway" construction? vls No
O GO awa LIEB. WAVE FOROTESTO. ItHeauldns lcatedbe
U E0 B. DUNE PROTECTION. Has care been EL LU D. LOCAL EROSION RATES. If the struc- l El A. WAVE FORCES. If the building is located
I 1taken to protect any dunes and their vegeta- ture is located near bay or Gulf waters, have within a flood plain, has the foundation been
Ilfarln ldtion? Have the requirements of State Sand local erosion rates been determined? (Contact designed to withstand wave forces and batter-
Dune Protection legislation been met? If the the Bureau of Economic Geology, the Texas ing action from floating debris?
structure is a mtultiple unit dwelling, motel, or Coastal and Marine Council (TCMC) and the 0 0 B. EROSION. Has the foundation been de-
subdivision, has a single joint access route or GLO.) signed to adequately withstand the effect of
walkway to the beaches been planned? (Con- El 0 E. EROSION PREVENTION. Have mea- erosion or scour due to wind and water run-
II ~tact the GLO for further information.) sores been taken to prevent erosion due to off? A structure built on pilings and properly
Ii ij/ *Ij~El0 E C. ZONING REGULATIO NS. Does the wind and flood water runoff, including provi- anchored is generally much less susceptible to
I~~~~~~~~~~ion Hav th'euieet of StautueSn locat roion withtespc toe detrmnes lE .~E C IEFUDTO.I d?~ fCoundactio

II II building and building site plan conform to city sion for adequate natural or planted vegeta- severe storm damage than a structure built on
Dune Protec~~~~~~~~~~~~~tion? aegslabfudtion.be ei h

fIr i and co untyi zoning regulations regarding type tion a slab foundation.
11111I~~~ii1(11I II I of structure, location with respect to dunes LI U E WHIEN EROSION OCCURS. Shoulld storm C) 17 C. PILE FOUNDATION. If a pile foundation
I~ I~I~ ~ ~iii~ an IIwt r and other po ionofapplicable so erosion occur, is the foundation still is used, are pilings driven deep enough below
It II an~~~~sudiwtr n te rvisionhs ofappial siorznge jo eint acrcess rou to esg orL .

zoning laws? (Check with your contractor o teGto supporte gravity and winforaon
. lii I I s bonin dCe th our the structure? (See Section IV, Foundation possible higher occurring wind pressures and
~~~ '~~~~~~~~~~I I I I II wave ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~forces after scouting has taken place?
~ II El El 0[ D. BUILDING PERMITS. Have the necessary Design.) wave
II 1 I II 0 city or county buildin' prmits been obtained? El I I G. SUBSIDENCE. Does the location have a Knowledge of the nature and character of the
UIP jj jii ii I I any, tuttnlcli I), stlit-d str ucturlvi~al~e ittvolve so, hand f lo tws aken r unoff, into pt-co red is ge n eall much le tible this d'rition
C.Hve requirements (if local utility districts, if history of gr~oknd subsidence or sinking? If soil tinder the structure is necessary to make
us any, been met? Dixv% flit- %fracture involve ~~~~~~~so, his this bf-vu taken into accountl in &-~sign, thlis &-tecrmination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cntu c tion in wetland or in navigalile watters access, and hurricane evactuation routes? II 1.I). fe'ILE SPACING. Are the itiled% or other
and require a permnit Iron the U.S. Army Ilave measures IM-en taken to prevwis subsi f,,ilaiionsspa.cel widely enough apart to al-
I~ II ~Corps of Engineers or the GLO? dence in likely areas? (Contact the TCMC or low free flow of flood water runoff and with-
III0El E E. EVACUATION ROUTE. Does the build- the Bureau of Economic oloy.) stantl the effects of storm scour and erosion?
Geology.) WH E. CORROSION RESISTANCE. Have pil-
ing site have an adequate neans of evacuation ng be E. tReated To Have pil -
in the event of a hurricane? Is the elevation of ings been properly treated to prevent damage
the evacuation route higher than the expected due to constant moisture, salt water, marine
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h II dequateo tosupote hghravtyand idlaso the sxpcou oed toresitfrcs uetodesg ro

storm tide elevations? Road elevation informa- borers and rot?
FOR THE tion is available from city, county and State III. WIND LOAD DESIGN
ANDSH REL NEDepartment of H.ighways and Public Trans. ves
TEXAS COAST AND SHORELINE YES NO
poration. L LI A. DESIGN WIND. VELOCITIES. Has the -
13 F. INSURABILITY. Have the requirements design wind velocity been determined on the
and recommendations of insurance companies basis of governing building code requirements
Building construction on the Gulf Coast presents been checked pertaining to minimum floor el- or higher possible wind velocities? I las the el-
many special problems unique to shoreline construction. evation and structural requirements to assure fect of negative (suction) pressure been con. ' .1
Problems which can arise from the great degree of expG insurability? sidered in alle aind load dteign (Chek wioth e-'
sure to high wins, flood waters, erosion, subsidence and C] El G. OWNERSHIP. Has particular attention been cy or county building dlartment fficials to
high~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~la o~sve renvironments mutb onsieeRd byility ybidingsatmetrficias, to

highly corroive environnts mut be considered by paid to boundaries between State owned and determine minimum design wind velocities
owne and prospective owners of shorelin properties. privately owned lands, especially on water- and pressures for which the structure must nhe -.
This checlist is intended as a guide f persons - ront structures? If in doubt. check with local designed.)s
vesting in shoreline properties. Although it brings to government or the GLO. LI 1- B. BUILDING FRAME DESIGN. Has the
light the most frequently encountered problems, it is structural frame been designed to withstand -
recomended that a registered professional engineer be II. ELEVATION, EROSION & pressures and suction forces due to required
retained who is experienced and qualified in the field of SUBSIDENCE design or posile higer wind vlwloitirs -
~shoreline building design.~ v YES NO I lave shape facturs and the effect of roof slopen
E El A. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN FLOOD been taken into account in calculating design
PLAIN. Is the builan within adesnated wind pressure?
flood plain area? have vcitey, county, and other I[i . C. GENERAL BUII.DING DESIGN. Iave all
applicable flood levels been checked? Have I'- building elements (doors, siding. railing. etc.)
quirements and recommendations of applicag been designed Ito withstand forces due to re-
ble flood plain code requirement been met quired design or possible stronger occurring
(Consult your local city or county engineer.) wind or velocities?

0 0 B. VERTICAL WALL REINFORCEMENT. boxes and breaker boxes been located above
I-as vertical reinforcing steel and concrete flood level and in a place not subjected to driv-
been provided at cormer-s openings, and at ing "ain?
regular intervals along walls without open- 0 0 B. WATER & SEWERAGE. Are all water and
iog? sewerage lines constructed of a nion-corrosive
[Jo C. BOND BEAM. Has a properly designed re- material and located to avoid damage and con-
'UF ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~inforced concrete bond beam, which will resist tamsination due to flooding, erosion, and float-
- . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uplift forces. been provided at the top of the ing debris?
- - - - ro-' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wall, continuously around the structure?
L] 0 D. ROOF ANCHORS. Has the roof system IX. QUALITY ASSURANCE
'--TOP PLATE --JO I S T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~been securely anchored to the bond beam to Y ES No
'~~~~~TOP PLATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~resist uplift forces due to design wind veloci- 0 C] A. PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Does the
Eft~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N~~~~~~~~!OIST ~~~~~~~~~~~~ties? contractor have a complete set of detailed con-
RAFTE~~~t rp_,,i 0 0 ~~~E. TIE TO FOUNDATION. I-as vertical wall asutction drawings and specifications which
STUD CONN. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reinforcethent been adequately tied to the cover all aspects of construction?
____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~foundation and to the bond beam to form a 0 J0 B. CONTRACTOR. Is the contractor qualified
continuous tie from the foundation to the and experienced in coastal construction?
roof? 0 0 C. INSPECTION. Have arrangements been
j.-WALL STUD r fFtCiCN -UfU Aemmbrmade to have a qualified registered profes-
00~ ~ ~~~~~~t cry VI ROCOFNGCI DSIDIN. Ar membe sional engineer inspect the construction of the
connections and fasteners adequate S N building? Hav local building code regulations
loads from high design wind velocities estab- ysNben checke fothncssyofrqrd
lished for the area? 0 0 A. ROOFING SYSTEM. Can you determine if beeuIVdingth insecestyfrqions?
o 0 H. WALL BRACING. Is diagonal wall bracing the roofing system which is being used has b i d n npcin
or properly attached plywood wall sheathing been adequate in previous high wind situa- REFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL
provided to meist high lateral loads on the tioria?
structure? 0 0 B. BUILT-UP ROOF. Are all layers properly SHORELINIE CONSTRtICTION INFORMATION
o3 0 1. CORROSION. Are bolts, straps, plates, adhered to previous layers and to the struc- a.,o EOO, &oyTsAuo ..tOi.

nails, and all other metal fasteners hot dip gal- tural roof itself? Has loose gravel been elimi- uC-n~ BiTu~ ~~ c.""3~du
vanized or otherwise protected from corro- m ated from the roofing system to avoid dam- hrno, S..o B. a P .O. 80. izasa
M&SiLLTED COH iSLAB Sion? age to windows and other structures during A.TtO 1h u~f~5i
~~ STUD COHN. ~ SILL PLATE -'high wind? Fdd-. Ohw... A..huie Adul. T -. t
BROLT SEETcreased and fasteners adde to reduce high up- P .O. asa-tuo o .Z930
- - :~~-.'i~ P3� 'Y-~ - -'�,.~ .~~ lift ressure on roofs? .zouco,,,m..TMFeI Im C - .- A_ ..-73769
~~~~,~~ C ) D. SE&JeRELY A T TC CORNERS & rwT754T- M.I C-
TYP WALL SECTION - >,.- * ~~~~~~~~,, ,~~.." EDGES. Have the corners and eds of shing- P ... A,... .O. TB. 1340h
LL S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ECTONI, roofing material, siding, antiany other dH"N0
no .ijZZ7~~~~~~~~~~ building elements been securely attached to iisODc..os-.
h.-AII... .-4s-J~~~~~~~~~-$.., ~~prevent loosening during high winds? 7T-'54* h700C.MA-
,, 0~~~~~~~ 0 E. ROOF PANELS. If roof panels are used, AT8O
V. WOOD FRAME BUILDING 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ZIJ~~~~ have they been securely attached to the struc-
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tural frame to resist design uplift pressures? iA.CW1. T- S4.50 .dPol.T,.0...
CONSTRUCTION 0 00 F. WALL SIDING. Has a tyeo rall siding A.... T-. MM3 t~uB~..
yhsfNO been used which can be affxe to provide M ai.i.uu.us. . A-.. cou aEItsno
0 ] A. SILL PLATE. Are sill plates securely attached e n u h s r n t t o w h t a d e i g w n d v - P OD.4 4 P O . "19
to foundation hy means of anchor bolts (or enought reght itstn esig in e P0d 5.11 4294 3 Go. a.. 775
metal stasin the case of pile foundations) toQ G.SUTR.* H a v osutters bee provided Sp34teonsors.. 7
resist uplift and lateral forces caused by design ~,,- ~for all glass openings and any other openigT..~hi.i.o.
wind pressures? ~wihmyne rtcinfo ihwns
00 B. WALL CONNECTIONS. Are wall studs whc- a edpoeto Ifrom hg ha brochure was develkped by the Teaa Cou-1a andl Manor
securely attached to sill plates and top plates? ~~~~~~~~~~~~Are shutters such a type that can be installed Council in cooptcautas with Galusato Ensiinceuog Inc. Corpus
seurl atche toOF sill platers and toist seurlyat- I O C eTEBOCUIDN quickly and easily? Ch r isti Team, and repiesents a continuinS ellon by the spousm of
00 C. ROOF. Are rafters and joists sec~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~te ureya-V.ONRT BLCB U D I G t Hricae Amuenisa Ptogram to educate the publsic on how beat
tached to top plates? C O S T U T I N VI__IITE
00F D. HURRICANE STRAPS. Are metal hurrn- COSRCINVII TLTES Not .g h ieadpoeyi uranvn Ara.
cane straps required by governing buildi YsNo pcal Vset OM uuusHriaeRsiutBif
:500I A. DESIGN. Has the structure been designed 0 0 A. TELEPHONE & ELECTRICAL. Has all Aiica e i oa uno unaele~ii sbo
codes? These straps are highly recommen Sojodnb have been d~evelpe to the Tens CatsaL For tutsher wn
on all coastal construction. by a registered professional engineer to resist wiring been encased in a non-corrosive, water- famnun on these suniodnis or xddtiacal colie of t hisnechurr,
LI I]1 E. CONTINUOUS CONNECTION. Heave pressures and suction forces due to design tight conduit? Are all conduits placed in such cnatyu oa ~idn fiil rteTa.Csa n an
metal straps been provided to insure a pi-wind velocities established by the city or a stunner as to avoid damage due to flooding, Council, P.. flax 13407, Austin, Texss 78711. powne 512l
tive, continuous connection from the founda- county, or poasible higher storm velocities? erosion, and floating debris? Have junction 4 7 589
tion to the structural members of tile roof?
C) LJ . MEMBER DESIGN. Have floor, roof avid
wall members been designed to carry addi-
tional loads due to higher design wind pres-
sure?

Source: Texas Coastal And Marine Council, 1981