Coastal storm hazard mitigation a handbook on coastal planning and legal issues

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

COASTAL STORM
HAZARD MITIGATION

A Handbook on Coastal Planning and Legal Issues

KFN2251.8
.A83
1985

Now Jersey Department of Environmental Prote4tion Olvislon of Coastal' Resources

COASTAL STORM HAZARD MITIGATION

A Handbook On Coastal Planning And Legal issues

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, Sc 29405-2413

Prepared By:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Coastal Resources
Bureau of Planning and Project Review

1985

Property of CSC Library

This Handbook has been prepared in accordance with a
comprehensive cooperative agreement (cca) with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency,Region II, New York

PREFACE

In an attempt to address the ever increasing demand for shore
protection and storm recovery funding,. the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) contracted with the New Jersey State Police and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1983 to evaluate storm
hazard mitigation strategies which could be. implemented in New Jersey
municipalities and prepare a handbook on their implementation. This Coastal
Storm Hazard Mitigation Handbook has been prepared by DEP's Division of
Coastal Resources.

Hazard mitigation is a positive approach which works to minimize the
potential loss of life and property resulting from coastal storms. The
general techniques of storm hazard mitigation are land use management,
construction practices and shore protection. The land use management
approach 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 rep@iir.

Although the concept of hazard mitigation is relatively new, 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, directly contrast
with existing development practices along the New Jersey coast. The ideas
discussed in this report, however, have been successfully applied at coastal
locations in several other states.

Comprehensive development plans which incorporate coastal storm hazard
mitigation are.increasingly needed in New Jersey's densely developed coastal
municipalities. Hopefully this report will serve as a catalyst for
redefining planning objectives at the local level in response to the
inherent danger of increased development along the Atlantic Ocean.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures ............................................. 3
List of Tables ........................... ................... 3

A. Introduction ........................................... 5.

B. Coastal Features and Processes
1. Shore Forms ....................................... 8
2. Shoreline Dynamics.. ....................... 10
a. Littoral Drift ... .......................... 10
b. Waves .......................................... 10
C. Winds .......................................... 11
d. Tidal Inlets ................................... 11
e. Storm Surge .................................... 11
f. Sea Level Rise ................................. 12
g. Coastal Storms ................................. 12

C. People and Property at Risk ............................ 14
1. Population ........................................ 14
2. Assessed Values ............. *............ .... 17
3. Insurance in Force ................................ . 17

D. Storm Hazard Mitigation.Strategies....* ....... 17
1. Land Acquisition ............... .......... :* ........ 17
2. Land Use Controis .................................. 19
a. Density, Land Use and Setbacks ................. 19
b. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ........... 23
c. Land Exchange .................................. 24
3. Construction Standards ............................ 25
4. Floodproofing Existing Structures ................. 26
5. Construction and Reconstruction of
Infrastructure ................................... 27
6. Shore Protection ... *.... 0... *00 ................... 27
a. New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan ........ 29
b. Reach Concept .................................. 29
c. Erosion Classification ......................... 30
d. Recommended Shore Protection Plans ............. 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

E. Implementation of Storm Hazard Mitigqtion
Strategies
1. Public Education .................................. 30
2. Building Moratorium ............................... 37
3. Funding ........................................... 37
a. National Flood Insurance Act ................... 37
b. Congressional Appropriation .................... 38
c. Bond Issues .................................... 38
d. Green Acres ................ * .................... 38
e. Legislative Appropriation ....................... 39
f. Taxes and User Fees ............................ 39
9. Conservation Organizations ..................... 39
h. Corporate Donations ............................ 39
i. Private Donations .............................. 40

F. Legal Issues and Flood Ordinance Preparation
1. Legal Issues ...................................... 40
a. General Judicial Responses ..................... -41
b. Taking Issue ................................... 43
c. Avoiding Legal Problems ........................ 44
2. Model Ordinance ................................... 46

G. Federal Prograim.Q ....................................... 46
1. Hurricane Preparedness Program .................... 46
2. Disaster Assistance Program ....................... 49
3. National Flood Insurance Program .................. 49

H. Recommendations ........................................ 52

References Cited ............................................ 54

Appendix I-Federal, State and Count7 Contacts ............... 57

Appendix II-Selected Bibliograph7 ............. ............. 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

1 Hazard Management Activities ...................... 6
2 Identification of Shoreline Zoqes ................. 9
3 Shoreline Reaches .............. *...... ............. 31
4 Erosion Classification ............................ 32
5 Model Ordinance .................................... 47
6 Disaster Response Flow Chart ...................... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1 Population in Oceanfront Municipalities ........... 14
2 Local Evacuation Times In Hours ................... 16
3 Catalog of Shore Erosion Control Methods .......... 27

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 reside 'nts generally agree that another major
storm is inevitable. At the same timej. 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, accelerated 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 beachfill. The need for
high cost shore protection has increased significantly over'the past twenty
years, primarily as a result of increased coastal development. From 1959 to
1974, $49 million in State, Federal, municipal and county funds were spent
on shore protection projects in New Jersey. In 1977, voters approved a
Beaches and Harbors Bond Issue, which appropriated $20 million for shore
protection purposes. In 1983, a $50 million Shore Protection Bond Issue was
approved. This provided $40 'million in grant funds and $10 million in
loans.

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. 7he increasing
cost of erosion control and shore protection can be moderated through
.comprehensive storm hazard mitigation techniques involving land matiagement.
Land management is a more cost effective long range solution to the erosion
problem than many of the current structural shore protection methods.

In an effort to mitigate the hazard of inhabiting coastal areas, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency contracted with the New Jersey State
Police and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to prepare this
handbook for use by local officials and planners. The handbook outline's
coastal processes and shoreline response, with particular emphasis on the
effects of coastal storms. It also includes a discussion of hazard
mitigation techniques and legal issues involving their implementation.

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 1)..

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.

FIGURE t*-HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIVITLES*

RESTORATION
2 1/2 Y R S.

SHORT TERM
1/2 RECOVERY
mos.

MITIGATION

A N, 0

PLANNING

EMERGENCY 10 YRS.

RESPONSE

LONG TERM

2 WKS. RECOVE-RY

STORM EVENT

ADAPTED FROM RECONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING DISASTER (1977) AND

BEFORE THE STORM : MANAGING DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE HURRICANE

DAMAGES (1982)

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 immedia:tely 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 is
completed to return the community to pre-storm levels of social and economic
vitality (i.e., "normalcy").

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 principal objectives-of storm preparedness planning,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.

A municipality preparing a Coastal Storm Preparedness Plan should first
analyze its. vulnerability, identifying 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 should be mapped and their
ability to withstand an onslaught of wind, water and waves should be
examined, seasonal and non-seasonal (year-round) populations on the barrier
islands should be estimated, and the value of structures in particularly
vulnerable portions of the municipality should be tabulated.

The vulnerability analysis should be used to evaluate the
municipality's zoning and present and proposed development, in light of the
hazard mitigation strategies discussed in this handbook. Appropriate zoning
changes should be made, including the adoption of a post-storm redevelopment
plan which 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 a disaster declaration, *and enable the municipality 'to have
greater input in the post-disaster recommendations of such agencies. A list
of federal, state and county agencies available to assist in this effort is
found in Appendix 1.

A severe weather plan should also be prepared describing activities and
responsibilities during an emergency, including evacuation procedures. The
local emergency management coordinators should work closely with the county
emergency management coordinators and the New Jersey State Police, Office of

Emergency Management (see Appendix I) in preparation of the severe weather
plan.

Many of the hazard mitigation techniques presented have never been used
in New Jersey. Because the concept of hazard mitigation is relatively new,
any recommendations will have to be developed and refined cooperatively
between appropriate state, county and muiiicipal, groups. 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
discussion and implementation of hazard mitigation plans. Underlying this
effort should be a recognition that the long term. safety of the
municipalities and their inhabitants is of primary importance, and also that
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.

B. COASTAL FEATURES AND PROCESSES

1. Shore Forms

In New Jersey,- about 80% of the open ocean coast consists of barrier
islands and spits; the remaining 20% is headlands (Figure 2). -The Northern
Headlands area (most of Monmouth County) is char=terized by narrow beaches
at the base of subdued bluffs which have been eroded from the unconsolidated
Coastal Plain formations. The beach sands are coarse*to medium in size,
with a characteristic mineral composition whose source can be traced to the
Coastal Plain formations (McMaster, 1954). Coarser grain sands and this
distinctive mineralogy also characterize the Sandy Hook spit to the north
and the Northern Barrier Island Complex to the south. The coarser sand
sizes in this northern sector result in steeper beaches and offshore
profiles. The Northern Headlands extend from Monmouth Beach on the north
through Long Branch, Asbury Park, and Point Pleasant to Bay Head on the
south. The low headlands for this area have elevations of 15 to 25 feet and
terminate in a low bluff line which borders the narrow beach. Headland
elevations diminish and the beach widens progressively to the southern
terminus of the headlands.

The Northern Barrier Island Complex consists of two long barrier
elements: (1) the south-prograding Barnegat barrier which extends 21 miles
from Bay Head to Barnegat Inlet and (2) Long Beach Island, 20 miles to the
south. The tidal lagoons or backbays behind these barriers are quite wide,
ranging from 3 to 4 miles in most places.

The Southern Barrier Island Complex consists of a chain of smaller
islands separated by seven inlets. This complex is separated from the
Northern Complex by the large double inlet system of Beach Haven-Little Egg
Inlet. The beaches of the Southern Barrier Island Complex are characterized
by fine-grain sand sizes and the resulting flatter beach slopes, as well as
a heavy mineral assemblage distinctive from the northern beaches (McMaster,
1954). The Beach Haven-Little Egg Inlet system represents a sharp boundary
between the compositional and textural characteristics of the northern
beaches (medium to coarse sizes and opaque heavy minerals) and the beaches
to the south (fine sizes and hornblende-garnet heavy minerals).

REFERENCE:
NORDSTROM, 1977;YASSO AND KARTMAN, 1975.

Sussex

,:PASSAIC

BERGEN

WARREN i MORRIS

f @Essex
W
AUDSO

UNION
NSOMERSET
HUNTEROON

RARITAN
AY

NORTHERN
JM 100LESEX ARRIER SPIT

MERCER MONMOUTM
NORTHERN
HEADLANDS

OCEAN' ATLANTIC

DELAWARE BURLINGTON OCEAN
RIVER

NORTHERN BARR IER

ISLANDS COMPLEX

niLDUCESTER

SALIM

ATLANTIC

0 a 16 24 32
CUMSFERLANO

SCALE IN MILES

CAPE MAY

r
SOUTHERN BARRIER
ISLANDS COMPLEX
DELAWARE SAY
IDENTIFICATION
ELIN
SOUT14ERN HEADLANDS OF SHOR E ZONES

FIGURE 2

2. Shoreline Dynamics

The natural dynamics of the coastal system must be evaluated in any
study of shoreline erosion to determine potential hazard and mitigation
measures.

a. Littoral Drift

The barrier islands and headlands along the coast represent a dynamic
response to the forces of wind, waves, and tides. Waves impinge on the shore
and move the sand along as littoral drift when they approach at an angle to
the shore. The direction, angle of approach, and wave size and shape vary
from place to place, and with time or season, depending on the
characteristics of prevailing and storm-related winds in the offshore areas
and the refracting effects of bottom configuration as the waves approach the
-shore.

The location of a "nodal zone" in the littoral system has a significant
impact on sediment distribution. The nodal zone is the area at which the
predominant direction of -littoral drift diverges (American Geological
Institute, 1962). 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 important 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.

b. -Waves

Storms pose a hazard to coastal areas because the wave heights and
periods are increased. The resulting high energy waves reach the shore in
quicker succession, thereby speeding up the process of beach erosion and
coastal f looding. As more beach is eroded, more property is exposed to
storm waves, and the risk of damage greatly increases. As storm waves
destroy beachfrorit 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 offshor 'e 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). 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.

C.* Winds

In addition to its influence on waves and the related effects of
transport in the shore zone, wind is also important in the transport of sand
above the high water line, where it contributes to dune formation and the
transfer of sand along and between the dune and beach systems. Sand
transport begins when the wind velocity 'reaches a certain threshold level
which varies as a function of the sand grain size. Bagnold (1954) suggests
that the basic threshold value for the initiation of sand movement by wind
is approximately 10 mph.

Over a given period of time, the total amount of sand transported in a
particular direction is primarily dependent on the duration and direction of
the wind. Other factors influencing sand transport in the beach and dune
areas include rainfall, salt spray, drying, stabilizing vegetation, local
topography, the degree of development, and human activities. Oceanfront
highrise structures may aggravate beach erosion by channeling winds onto the
same portion of the beach.

d. Tidal Inlets

Tidal inlets, another major element of the coastal system, are short,
narrow waterways which hydraulically connect the backbays and estuaries with
the open ocean. Natural inlet channels are primarily maintained by tidal
currents, which help to prevent shoaling of the inlit. Inlets generally
scour to a maximurn depth in the area of greatest constriction, usually in
the central part immediately between the barrier islands or land masses
which contain them.

As with barrier islands, the tidal inlets are in a state of "moving
equilibrium" because tidal current flow, waves, and littoral drift are
constantly changing. Depending on the combination of these coastal
processes, inlets may remain stationary and open, closed, or migrate
laterally. The migration of inlets is generally a one-directional movement,
following the net littoral drift..

Shore areas adjacent to the inlets thus represent highly transitory
areas due to inlet dynamics. Where inlets of the Southern Barrier Island
Complex have been artificially stabilized with terminal shore protection
structures, the shore is continually subject to erosion caused by the
dynamic fluctuations of the inlet system. In particular, the southern shore
of each inlet is a persistent problem area because erosion threatens inlet
and shore stabilizing structures and the developed areas behind them.

e. Storm Surge

DurinS 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.

f. 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, at which
time the shoreline was at the edge of the continental shelf, some 80 to 100
miles east of the present-day coast. 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. Because of the low elevation and gentle slope of most New
Jersey beaches, 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.

ge Coastal Storms

The most dramatic example of the effect of the dynamic forces of nature
on the shore zone is the impact of severe storms. 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.

Surricanes 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
more 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

12.

astronomically high tides can significantly increase the potential for
coastal erosion, flooding and property damage during either type of storm.

Mather and others *(1964) have classified storms for the east coast of
the United States according, to the extent of coastal damage (light,
moderate, and severe) from 1921 to 1962. New Jersey recorded 25 light, 26
moderate, and five severe storms for thisperiod, with an average recurrence
interval for moderate and severe storms of one every 1.4 years. This
recurrence interval is low compared to other coastal sectors, indicating a
lower frequency of damaging storms. Mather and others point out that once
in every 30 years a very severe storm will bring extensive damage not only
to a particular area but to the entire coast. This recurrence interval
appears to be a conservative figure based on New Jersey's experience with
damaging coastal storms of March 1962 and March 1984 (less than 30 year
interval).

In light of the nature of coastal development and the characteristics
of storm surges from hurricanes and northeasters, structures located
directly along the beach and properties landward of these areas are subject
to a high risk of damage from floating debris carried inland by storm
surges.

The great northeaster of March 6-8, 1962, is an example of the severity
of storms which affect the New Jersey coast. It was a complex, unexpected
storm of sustained direction and intensity, combined with high spring tides.
Although the water level was generally higher during the September 1960
hurricane Donna, the storm of March 1962 was more widespread and inflicted
substantially greater overall damage and loss of life. This was primarily
due to its duration, the damaging high waters, and destructive waves
generated by gale force winds. The storm lasted for five successive high
tides over a period of 2 days. Each succeeding tide had less beach or dune
or bulkhead to dissipate its for-ce and could reach farther inland, until in
some cases the sea was able to cut completely through the barrier islands
(USACOE, Philadelphia District,,August 1963).

The damages resulting from the 1962 storm were unequaled by any storm
in history along the New Jersey coast. In New Jersey alone, the storm was
responsible for killing 14 persons and injuring more than 1300. Property
damages in New Jersey exceeded $120 million (1962 dollars). Unfortunately,
the devastation of the March 1962 storm was soon forgotten, and population
and development have continued to increase in shore areas, much of it within
the actual overwash zones of the storm. Since present population and
development levels of the State's barrier islands exceed pre-1962 levels,
future severe storms will undoubtedly result in far heavier tolls in lives,
injuries and property damage.

The demand for oceanfront properties directly on barrier islands or
onshore areas with.ready access to beaches remains high, despite the history
of hurricanes, northeasters-, and other storms, the costly damages, and the
inevitable risk.

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 coast. 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 blacks carry assessments of less than one million
dollars. Less extreme disparities in property values occur along the
beachfront of the entire coast.

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 ralues
escalate. For the same reason that the risk of loss will increase with
time, opportunities for hazard mitigation will decrease.
1.' Population

The 1980 Census indicates that the total permanent population in
oceanfront municipalities in New Jersey is 205,164. The distribution by
county is shova in Table 1.

TABLE I - POPULATION IN OCEANFRONT MUNICIPALITIES

Population in Oceanfront
CountX Municipalities

Monmouth 107,650
Ocean 28,039
Atlantic 70,649
Cape May 38,826

Of more concern than the permanent population is the peak seasonal
population, particularly as hurricanes, the most destructive and
unpredictable storms, occur in the summer and early fall.

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. Mitchell focused his study on
barrier islands and spits since they have the greater evacuation problems,
with limited and frequently low access routes. His report included all of
the oceanfront municipalities in Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May Counties.
Only Sea Bright, Monmouth Beach and Gateway National Recreation Area were
included in Monmouth County, as the other municipalities are considered
headlands, with more numerous and higher evacuation routes. The peak
population estimates for all of these municipalities range from about
693,000 to 1,589,000.

Evacuation times were estimated by Mitchell (1984) using both of the
peak summer population estimates and assuming the traffic volume to be
either at capacity or at what is defined as the 30th.peak hour volume (Table
2). 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".

The evacuation times are based on the f ollowing 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, 1934).

Estimates were made both for local evacuations (Table 2) (i.e.
oceanfront municipalities only) and for a general evacuation of low-lying
mainland areas and barrier islands.

Both Mitchell and the Division of Coastal Resources recognize the
difficulty in accurately estimating peak summer populations, particularly
for day visitors.. The Division believes that the estimates derived from the
coastal tourism study (NJDEP, 1984c) are 'more accurate.9 as- population
estimates were a major focus of the study and figures were carefully
validated.

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, in many coastal
areas, the available escape routes will be inundated several 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 local evacuation
times for mid Ocean County, Long Beach Island and the Atlantic and Cape May
County barrier islands 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
Strathmere/Sea Isle City- In either case, a large number- of people is at
risk on these islands and may be unable to escape should a hurricane strike.

If a general evacuation were required for all of Cape May County, the
evacuation time, for the barrier islands would'be significantly increased.

TABLE 2: LOCAL EVACUATION TIMES IN HOURS

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

Gateway 20,000 3.7 2.5 101000 2.6 2.0
National
Recreation
Area

Sea Bright .5436 3.6 3.0 2245 2.4 2.1

Monmouth 4313 1.8 1.6 3812 1.7 1.6
Beach

Northern 56,388 5.9 ? 48,379 5.2 ?
Ocean
County

Mid Ocean 178,953 9.0 6.7 91,'63 5.3 4'2
County

Long 122,215 9.3 7.9 30,214 .3.8 3.5
Beach
Island

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

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

Strath- 25,560 13.3 6.2 13,079 7.8 4.2
mere-Sea
Isle City

Stone 31,880 8.7 4.9 15,177 5.2 3.4
Harbor-
Avalon

Wildwoods 216,269 16.9 11.9 52,585 5.6 4.4

Taken from Mitchell (1984)

2. Assessed Values

The value of structures in the first block along the beachfront is
typically a larger percentage of the total value of structures in the
municipality than its size relative to total land area would suggest. Thus,
the most vulnerable property is also the most valuable, owing both to the
oceanfront vantage.

3. Insurance in Force

Nearly three-fourths (71%) of the federal flood insurance coverage in
New Jersey insures structures in coastal municipalities.

In the four oceanfront counties, the total value of flood insurance
policies in force in March 1984 was approximately 4.3 billion dollars,
representing about 63,000 policies. The breakdown by county is as follows:

County Number of Policies Coverage

Monmouth 5,581 $ 304,770,000
Ocean 24,694 1,576,090,000
Atlantic 11,921 785,470,,000
Cape May 20,572 1,613,700,000

Total 62,768 $4,280,030,000

These insurances *policies do not provide coverage only in. oceanfront
municipalities but include structures located throughout each county.
Although the amount of coverage is significant, much of the property in the
coastal areas is not covered by flood insurance.

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 whirh have been used
in various parts of the country to reduce property damage due to storms,
with examples from a number of states. Not all strategies would be feasible
in every municipality. The mitigation strategies fall into five categories:
land acquisition, land use controls, shore protection, construction
standards and control of infrastructure construction.

1. Land Acquisition

Acquisition of land in high hazard areas for conservation, 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 coamunity. If the acquired property provides public
access for recreation, the lost property tax revenue may be offset by

increases in recreational income from beach fees and the resulting tax
revenue from recreation related expenditures. In some cases, businesses and
residences could be relocated to safer areas within the municipality,
thereby minimizing the revenue loss to the municipality. In addition, the
reduction in storm damages would potentially save the municipality costs for
post-storm clean up and repairs.

Funding for land acquisition is the critical and most important aspect
of the program. The high level of development In New Jersey's coastal zone
has caused property values to soar, making acquisition a very expensive
option. Funding methods are discussed in Section E-3. In addition,
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 govermiments may also acquire land through
condemnation (police powers) with compensation.

The acquisition of target area properties c 'an 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. Easements 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 Section D-2-b.

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.

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 pf development (Nordstrom et al., 1977; NJDEP,
1981). A high erosion rate would be heavily weighed in setting priorities
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. For this reason, the New Jersey Share 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: Areas of barrier island breaching, former inlets,
and areas with lagoonal development on the bay side are especially
vulnerable to breaching during severe storms.

Overwash Areas: Previous overwash areas can be identified by examining
post-storm aerial photographs. These areas are likely to overwash in future
storms. In addition, the system of roads in highly developed areas can act
as a network of overwash passes during storms. Storm damage records
indicate that damages are high in overwash areas.

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.

Potential Public Use: 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
should 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.

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 conservation zones, maximum
development densities, and waterfront setbacks. Property assessments should
reflect development potential under these ordinances. 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 by a storm, 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 or duplexes,
rather than multi-family and high-rise structures), thus effectively setting
limits to population and property exposed to storm hazards. Also, eroding
shorelines pose a greater threat to oceanfront high-rise structures because
of their permanence due to engineering design and long term use. Souses, on

the other hand, are more easily relocated. Motels, due to their seasonal
occupation, limit the population exposed to risk from winter northeast
storms and also provide public access to shorefront areas. Therefore, they
are more suitably located near the beach than are private residences.
M@lti-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 c4acities, 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. Downzoning is warranted in many municipalities,
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 were designed for
recreational or water dependent 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 definition 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.

Various approaches have been taken to dune protection around the
country. North Carolina has perhaps the strongest dune protection laws,
requiring most development to occur inland of the crest of the primary dune
where one is present, and elsewhere, inland of the frontal dune. In Texas,
the counties establish dune protection lines and development is permitted
only where it will not materially weaken or reduce the effectiveness of the
dune as a means of protection from high wind and water. Georgia's Shore
Assistance Act sets forth criteria for developing in a dune field, among
them that the structure be placed at the landward part of the site, that the
project retain and restore vegetation as best possible and that normal
functions of sand dune 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 the secondary
dune district.

Other states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have also
adopted various restrictions to building on dunes, generally aimed at
preserving their protective features in terms of volume, vegetative cover
and ability to respond to wave action.-

. Paul Gares et al., (1980) have suggested the -establishment of Dune
Management Districts for New Jersey. 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 pe:,.-iod 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.

Section 60.3 of the National Flood Insurance Program (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
reqqire 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 w@uld 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 ordin 'ances 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, t 'hat 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 property. Dune ordinances seldom provide clear
guidance for building new dunes, repairing damaged dunes, improving existing

dunes, or f or placing structures in a dune zone (e.g. walkways to the
beach) .

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, shore protection 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, V zone boundary, 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 autherity reside with the state in some instances, and with
county or local government in others. In any case, the local governments
may establish more stringent setbacks.

North Carolina has established a setback from the vegetation line equal
to the distance calculated by multiplying the average annual rate of erosion
by 30, with a minimum setback of 60 f eet. Exceptions are made where this
precludes permanent structures, if the building is as far back as possible
and at least 60 feet inland of the vegetation line. Rhode Island also--
calculates setbacks based on multiplying the average annual erosion rate by
30. Tfie figure "30" was chosen as the anticipated life span of a structure.
New York recently (1981) passed a law to establish coastal erosion hazard
areas based on a 40 year life span. The New York statute is to be
implemented by the adoption of municipal ordinances. In each of these
cases, the types of structures permitted are accessways, decks, shore
protection measures and temporary structures which will not exacerbate
erosion nor expose further property to -damages. Florida's setback line is
unusual in that it does not prevent construction but defines an area where
special structural and siting conditions are required.

The previous examples refer to setbacks from natural shorelines.
Setbacks are also critically needed from oceanfront shore protection
structures such as seawalls, bulkheads and revetments. Waves breaking on
such 'structures rush up and over the structures, potentially @Iamaging any
buildings or other structures behind them. This process is termed wave
runup and overtopping. Wave runup is measured as the vertical height above
the stillwater surge level that the rush of water reaches.' In New Jersey,
where much of the oceanfront is fortified, storm damage due to runup is
likely to be significant.

In Massachusetts, the Blizzard of 1978 struck a similarly fortified
coastline causing extensive damages.. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps in
Massachusetts have since been revised to reflect the extreme hazard of

building close to these oceanfront structures. The areas within the wave
runup zone are designated as Coastal High Hazard Areas (V zones). It is
recommended that oceanfront municipalities in New Jersey petition FEMA to
revise their maps in similar fashion, and that setbacks be required from
oceanfront bulkheads and seawalls to prevent building in this area where
severe damage is likely.

In addition to the establishment of S;*trict 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.

b. Transfer of Development Rights

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 hazard/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 liunicipalities @rhich 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 municipality 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. There has been a moratorium on the program 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 Only $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 is -being explored in a
municipality in Cape May County undeir funding from the New-Jersey Department
of Eavironmental 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 calculaiting the
existing development potential of the. island. Receiving sites are to be
identified and their development capacity evaluated. Preservation and
receiving 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 (1) -to
purchase land to support the relocation, (2) for condemnation of private
land within a floodplain which Is not, exchanged, or (3) 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 are, for the most part, performance standards.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's 1981 publication entitled
Design and Construction Manual for Residential Buildings in Coastal High
'ffazard Areas provides technical information on construction materials and
design details to withstand storm winds and waters. These guidelines are
not binding upon builders and are not considered to be stringent standards.
Other, publications provide design standards as well, including Elevated
Residential Structures (AIA Foundation, 1984), Coastal Design: A Guide for
Builders, Planners and Homeowners (Pilkey et al., 1983), Model Minimum
Hurricane Resistant Building Standards for the Texas Gulf Coast (Texas
Coastal and Marine Council, 1981) and A Supplement to the Southern Building
Code for Hurricane Protection (Edge et7 al., 1984). These guidelines cover
such information as materials, anchoring, fastenings, foundations, bracing,
shape of house, wind and water loads, etc.

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 seq.) and must be used by all
municipalities. It is administered by the New Jersey Department of Community
Affairs and enforced at the local level. *Floodproofing requirements were
not made part of the code until January, 1984 nationally and August, 1984 in
New Jersey. The floodproofing section of the code (Section 1313) applies
to all new structures located in flood prone areas, and to structures
underg;ing 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 residentiil) may
alternatively comply with water tight construction provisions of the code.
The floodproofing 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 floodproofing requirements are met before a Certificate
of Occupancy can be issued.

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 construct@on official of Atlantic
City, for consideration for incorporation in the 1985 edition of BOCA.

Although the addition of these f loodproof ing requirements 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 nio specific construction standards for development
in wave runup zones, there is the pote'n'tial 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 ordinance. 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 floodproofing 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 (AIA
Foundation,* 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 f lotation. 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).

William - Gordon (1981) notes an additional method of preventing
flotation: reducing hydrostactic pressure by providing. trap doors in first
f loor 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 these 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.

5. Construction and Reconstruction of Infrastructure

Proximity to infrastructure is 'an important determinant of where
development occurs because access to roads, sanitary 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
discouraged. On densely developed coastlines such as New Jersey's, this
approach would only be useful in guiding post-storm redevelopment of damaged
utilities and roads where existing homes and businesses have been largely
destroyed. Utilities and roads could then be relocated outside of high
hazard/er6sion areas.

6. 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 3.
These include measures which armor the shorelines, 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 3: CATALOG OF SHORE EROSION CONTROL METHODS

METHODS OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS PROBLMS

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.

METHODS OBJECTIVE REQUI NTS PROBLEMS

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- Cause erosion
shorelines from able stone in front of and
moderate - adjacent to the
heavy wave structure.
action Impede beach
access and are
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 May require
sedimentation structures-to
to the long- hold sand in
shore system place.

METHODS OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS PROBLEMS

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.

Artificial To reduce current Purchase of Does not sig-
Seaweed velocity and 11seaweed" 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 priz@arily by wave action, size
and suppl,? of littoral sediment, predominant winds, and proximity to tidal
inlets. Therefore, each solution must be 11customized" 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.

a. New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan

The New Jersey Shore Protection Master Plan (NJDEP, 1981) providis 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 New Jersey 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.*

b. The Reach Concept

Development of the engineering plans for New. Jersey coastal areas 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 sIm-flar 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 are shown on
Figure 3, together with the affected counties and political subdivisions'
within each reach.

C. Erosion Classification

Four erosion categories for New Jersey Shoreline reaches were presented
in the New Jersey 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 (1) - areas having the
least suitable natural and man-made protection from the operating erosive
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 New
Te-rsey-'s coast are identified in Figure 4. Most of the shorelines are.clas-
sified as critical or significant erosion areas.

d. 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.

Under the New Jersey Shore Protection Program Rules and Regulations
(N.J.A.C. 7:7F), the State's shore protection grants and loans are
conditioned on compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection
Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et
12cL._) pertaining to dunes, beaches, coastal erosion hazard areas,*and publ7lc-
access. Thus, if a municipality permits building on beaches, dunes and in
erosion hazard areas, it is not eligible for state shore protection funding.

E. * 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 awar .e 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, and publication and distribution of brochures and
pamphlets.

17*

r
RARITAN BAY

SANDY HOOK T@O
-t7 r-7 2--- LONG BRANCH

LONG BRANCH TO
3@-SHARK RIVER
INLET

SHARK RIVER
INLET TO
MANASQUAN I NLET

", 90 MANASQUAN INLET
DELAWARE RIVER
TO MANTOLOKING

6--,-.MANTOLOKING TO
BARNEGAT INLET

.7' LONG BEACH ISLAND

6 A

PULLEN ISLAND AND
0 U8- 9 A- .6A4. 0% BRIGANTINE ISLAND

ABSECON ISLAND
(ATLANTIC CITY,VENTOR,
MARGATE,LONGPORT)
10-- PECK BEACH
ta (OCEAN CITY)
Z. C. 0@ - --
DELAWARE SAY '--LUDLAM ISLAND
(SEA ISLE CITY,STRATHMERE)
12--SEVEN MILE BEACH
(AVALON,STONE HARBOR)
3--FIVE MILE BEACH
(THE WILDWOODS)
CAPE MY INLET SHORELINE REACHES
TO CAPE MAY POINT

31 FIGURE 3

SNOOK

Maim"

04
lilt

Ai.

A. A.I x

EROSION CAT

I CRITICA
Sir
.0ilf

WON-fit

3 v
I w
C L

'9e4
c'y 2

rib

'9e4Cjt

EROSION
CLASSIFICATION
4 REACHES 2 TO 5
WfftcAL Mius

49p,

TARM

KEY:
EROSION CATEGORIES:
CRIIICAL
SIGNIFICANI
MDERATE
'9e4 CJY AON-ERODING

33 FIGURE 4 (cont'd.)

fir Tr7

m"a
IN

Cil

.04

REACH 6 0

EROSION
CLASSIFICATION
REACHES 6 TO 7 KEY:
EROSION CAff_fiO tjSt

S16MIFICMI
MODERATE
mz
lam

34 FIGURE 4 (cont'd.

141

EROSION CLASSIFICATION
REACHES 8 TO 10

XEY:
EROSION CATEWRIEI
CRITICAL
swivicAmr
MDERATE

35
FIGURE: 4 (cont'd.)

W-1

7-7
oil

Y-1

If-

-40.1

-A,

I@'.oo

EROSION CLASSIFICATION
REACHES 11 TO 14

CRIT(CAL
SIGNIFICW
MDMTE
llkn V'

FIGURE 4 (cont

Community outreach programs are another way of educating 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 implementation
of hazard mitigation strategies at the local level.

Community awareness can also be increased by techniques such as marking
historical flood levels in conspicuous 'locations, or requiring notification
in deeds, mortgages, or 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.

Funding for information and educational programs may be available at
the federal level (Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 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 prohibiting
reconstruction and repair of @,torm 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 the 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 is an example of a municipality
which has proposed such a plan (Rogers, Golden & Halpern, 1981).

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. Fund-IRE

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 t hat a statute, ordinance or regulation
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 property 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 following a major northeaster in 1978
and to acquire properties in Baytown, Texas following damage due to
Hurricane Alicia in 1983.

b. Congressional Appropriation a!@d Initiatives: Past, Congressional
Appropriations for the Departments of State, Commerce and Justice (P.L.
98-411), have includid funding for the continuation of New Jersey's Coastal
Management Program and, on one occasion, for specific beach and dune
restoration projects. Other appropriations may be made in the future. In
addition, each year Congress may appropriate funds for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to imp lement authorized navigation and shore protection
projects.

Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing legislation and the
reauthorization of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which would
provide funding for the state Coastal Management Programs, are being
considered by Congress in 1985.

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 1977, the State prassed 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.In 1983, New Jersey also
passed a $135 million bond issue for Green Acres, $28 million of which was
for open space or park acquisition.

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 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. Florida and North Carolina both use this
approach, with Florida permitting the creation of*muaicipal services taxing
units and the imposition of special benefits taxes for beach preservation
and North Carolina authorizing transient occupancy taxes at the county
level.

Florida also places an excise tax on deeds and other instruments which
convey lands, tenements, or other realty, or interest therein (Chapter
81-33) which may be used in part to acquire lands for water management and
protection of water resources. An additional 13.3% is paid into a Land
Acquisition Trust Fund.

Another alternative would be a -reduction in property taxes on
undeveldped 'properties in high. hazard areas which agree to remain
undeveloped, or generally a tax structure which encourages appropriate use
of high hazard areas and discourages inappropriate use, for example by
placing a special assessment on building in high hazard areas to partially
cover public costs of build 'ing 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 and retain it as open space.

h. Corporate Dona-tions: Large companies and businesses in the shore
area, especially those which benefit most from slimmer tourists, could
consider making tax deductible contributions to an acquisition program.

i. Private Donations: Donations of land or money for an acquisition
program can be made as outright conveyances (fee simple) which provide the
greatest tax benefits, bargain sales (selling at less than full market
value), life.estates, or donations in trust. Me granting of conservation
or scenic easements is @nother possibility. 'In New Jersey, lands can be
transferred to the State Natural Lands Trust or other qualified recipients
including federal, 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 such lands.

F. LEGAL ISSUES AIM ORDINANCE PREPARATION

1. Legal Issues*

Floodplain 'regulations raise constitutional issues similar to those
involved in broader land use regulatory efforts. In determining the
constitutional validity* of regulations, courts look first at the general
validity of the regulations and then at their specific validity as applied
to a particular landowner. They first decide whether the unit of government
or agency adopting- the regulation was authorized to do so by an act of
Congress or a state statute, and whether statutory procedures were followed.
Having found sufficient statutory powers and compliance with statutory
procedures, they then decide whether the regulations (1) serve valid police
power objectives, (2) have a reasonable tendency to achieve or aid in the
achievement of those objectives, (3) afford equal treatment to similarly
situated landowners, and (4)'permit reasonable private use of land so that a
"taking" of private property does not occur. During the last decade, most
lawsuits contesting floodplain regulations did not challenge the general
validity of restrictions (adequacy of basic power and compliance with
statutory procedures); but rather contested the constitutionality of
regulations as applied to a particular property in the context of these four
basic tests.

This approach has been followed 'by courts across the nation in
floodplain and other cases. When arguing their claims, landowners may
concede the general validity of a floodplaia, wetlands, or other regulation
but argue that it is irrational, arbitrary, or capricious as applied to
their land or that it "takes" their property without "just compensation". A
court may find that the regulation is in fact unconstitutional as applied to
particular property, but this will not stand as a determination of the
constitutionality of the regulation as applied to other lands. A pinpoint
approach favors general judicial acceptance of floodplain -regulations;
however, it has led.to a fair amount of litigation.

This section is excerpted from Jon A. Kusler, 1982,* Floodplain
Regulations and the Courts 1970-1981. Prepared for the U.S. Water
Resources Council and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Legal case
citations fouhd in Kusler are not included and the publication is
quoted without identification of omissions.

a. General Judicial Responses

During the 1970s courts responded to the following general legal
requirements for floodplain and resource protection regulations.

(1) The agency or local government adopting regulations must be
authorized to do so by-an enabling statute or-home rule powers.
Inadequately authorized regulations fail to meet due process requirements;
they are considered ultra vires and invalid by the courts.

In the 1970s, no court invalidated regulations for lack of enabling
authority. In fact, several cases commented upon the sufficiency qf general
enabling statutes, and several upheld the power of special districts to
adopt regulations. In addition, some courts held that local units had a
duty to adopt floodplain regulations or consider flooding when required to
do so by a particular statute: those courts directed compliance with the
statutes.

(2) Statutory procedures for adoption and amendment of regulations
must be carefully followed, otherwise regulations violate due process
requirements and are ultra vires.

This general requirement. was adhered to in the 1970s. One court held
that an informally adopted floodplain "resolution" did not reguiate because
the local government had not followed procedures required for a formal
ordinance. Several cases have held the denial or approval of a special
exception permit invalid because statutory procedures had not been followed.

(3) State land use regulations must not, in general, pertain to
matters of exclusively local concern, otherwise state regulations may
contravene local home rule statutes or constitutional provisions.

In the 1970s, no court invalidated state regulations as violating local
home rule powers. Courts in at least three cases specifically upheld
regulations against claims that state regulations violated home rule
provisions, concluding that flooding is a matter of greater than local
concern. In addition, courts in at least six cases have upheld state
coastal zone, wild and scenic river, and similar resource regulations
against home rule arguments with no adverse decisions for such
resource-based state regulations.

(4) Regulations must serve legitimate police power objectives.
Regulations that fail to do so violate due process requirements.
Regulations designed to prevent landowners from increasing flood damages on
other lands, threatening public safety, or causing victimization were
clearly designed to serve valid objectives. The reduction of losses to the
landowners themselves (which indirectly affect society) and the reduction of
the need for flood control works at public expense were also -considered
valid objectives, although few cases had yet been decided on these points.

Cases in the 1970s provided strong support for protection of public
safety, and.prevention of nuisances and victimization. Courts in some cases
endorsed not only these traditional objectives but also regulations adopted
to protect owners from flooding, protect flood storage, qualify a community

for flood insurance, reduce -flood losses, protect floodways until public
purchase was possible, and reduce the cost of public services.

(5) Regulations must be reasonable; that is, the regulatory standards
and procedures must have some tendency to accoarplish the regulatory goals
such as reduction in flood losses, If regulations are not reasonable, they
violate due process requirements.

(6) Standards for agency action must not 'be vague or indefinite.-
otherwise regulations violate due process requirements.

In the 1970s courts sustained broad statutory and ordinance standards
for issuance of special permits and variances when they were challenged.
However, some courts have found an insufficient factual basis (of erosion or
flooding, for example) to deny or justify issuance of'permits.

(7) Regulations must not discriminate between similarly situated
landowners, otherwise regulations violate 14th Amendment due process
requirements.

Courts strongly endorsed eqt1al degree of encroachment and cumulative
impact standards in floodway restrictions and quite often focused on equity
considerations in deciding whether regulations were a taking of private
property.

(8)- Regulations must not "take" private property without payment of
just compensation, otherwise regulations violate 14th Amendment and 5th
Amendment requirements of due process and prohibitions against taking.
Floodway and coastal high hazard area restrictions, and elevation
requirements for outer flood fringe areas do not take property, even where
such restrictions severely affect private landowners. Prior to 1970, very
strict regulation of outer fringe areas and "wetland restrictions" might be
held a taking. With few exceptions, in the 1970s courts upheld floodplain
regulations against taking challenges. Restrictions upheld included highly
restrictive regulations for outer areas as well as for floodway and coastal
high hazard zones.

(9) Units of government may not, under most circumstances, increase
flooding or flood damages to 2rivate lands. Under certain circumstances,
government bodies may be responsible for increased flood damage on private
lands under theories such as taking, nuisance, and trespass when the
governmental unit constructs, operates or maintains flood control works,
roads, or other public structures or facilities.

Despite a growing trend during the 1970s - to hold governments
responsible for positive actions resulting in increased flood losses,
governments were not held responsible for failing to provide flood
insurance, disaster assistance, flood control works, or floodplain
regulations. Several federal court decisions refused to hold the Federal
Insurance Administration liable for failure to broadly advertise the
National Flood. Insurance Program (NFIP). The courts held that the program
has been adequately advertised. A relatively large number of decisions have
addressed NFIP responsibility for payment of local insurance claims. Most
of these involved interpretation of the flood insurance statutes.

b. The Taking Issue

Tests for a taking. Federal and state courts decisions during the
decade emphasized similar factors in deciding whether a taking had occurred.
Several tests were often simultaneously applied. The taking issue was not
usually addressed in isolation but in combination with questions about the
validity of the regulatory objectives,. the reasonableness, basic fairness
(due process) and nondiscriminatory nature of':the regulations. Regulations
that were deficient in other aspects were in several instances held to be a
taking. The usual final test was, Did the regulations prevent all economic
or reasonable use of the land? The entire parcel was generally examined,
not just the area subject to flooding. Regulations which confined property
to open space uses were sustained in a aumber of important decisions.

Preventing nuisances. Without exception, courts held that prevention
of nuisances on private lands was not a taking. Regulations controlling
uses that would be "nuisance like" in causing damage to adjacent lands or
threatening public safety do not take any property right because landowners
have no right to make nuisances of themselves. During the 1970s many cases
upheld floodway and other regulations designed . to prevent offsite
nuisance-like effects even when those regulations prohibited all or
essentially all.economic use of lands.

PUysical interference with privatelands. In contrast with the
decisions on auisanre prevention, courts have almost always held that public
activities which physically interfere with private lands constitute a
taking. For example, public construction of a dune on private land which
had been damaged by a severe storm in March 1962, was held to be a taking.
But several courts held that because regulations do not physically interfere
with private lands, they do not constitute takings.

"Public use" of-private land. Courts have usually held that natural
conveyance of flood flows, flood storage, erosion control, and other passive
flood hazard reduction functions are not public uses of private land that
require compensation. As one court in a floodplain case-noted, "[Tlhe State
has not placed appellant's land in the path of floods, nature has".
Floodplaia regulations do not enhance any government enterprise.

Balancing private and public interests. Courts generally have balanced
society's need for regulations against the impact of regulations on private
landowners: severe impact on individual property owners can be justified
when the public need is great. In recent years courts have come to rely
increasingly on the legislative process to balance the needs and impacts and
have minimized judicial oversight.

Equity in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Courts noted that
government actions which "unfairly" burden a few for the good of the many
may be held a taking, although during the decade no floodplain regulations
were held invalid on equitable grounds alone. Two Supreme Court decisions
and many lower court decisions on takings have stressed the need for equity
in regulations.

Regulations Adopted to serve regional, statewide, or national needs and
.which apply uniformly to flood-prone properties are less likely to be held a

taking. In finding that no taking had occurred, several courts emphasized
the role of regulations as part of a broader plan or program.

Diminution in value. Courts held that regulations may diminish
property values, but that at some point such diminution will constitute a
taking. This test has been cited in many cases during the last decade, but
rarely has it been more than one of seyeral factors considered. Instead,
courts have paid more attention to whether the regulations deny all
reasonable use of the land.

Denial of all reasonable or economic use of land. The most common
"final" test taking during the decade was whether regulations denied all
"reasonable" or "economic" use of land. A detailed economic analysis was
rarely undertaken. In a number of cases, courts have found that
agriculture, forestry, and other open space uses were "reasonable" in
certain contexts. Courts also held that the regulation's impact on an
individual's entire property, not just the floodplain portion, must be
considered in deciding whether reasonable uses remain. - Although courts
emphasized, as a matter of principle, that regulations must not prohibit all
reasonable use, in several cases they held that proposed uses that would
increase flood heights or would be subject to severe flood damages were not
reasonable despite few remaining economic uses for the land.

No right to destroy the natural suitability of the land. Several
courts held that landowners had no right to destroy the natural suitability
or capability of lands. Hence, prohibition of uses threatening such
suitability was not considered a taking.

C. Avoiding Legal Probl s

During the 1980s state and local governments will be able to regulate
floodplain areas with greater confidence because of the last decade's
favorable court decisions on the taking issue, the sufficiency of flobdplain
enabling statutes, regulatory objectives, and maps. They can also adopt
broader resource management programs with flood-hazard reduction components
due to the widespread support for wetland, coastal zone, and other
environmental regulations during the decade. Despite greater confidence,
communities and states should carefully prepare and implement regulations to
avoid legal problems. Where there are questions concerning the validity of
adoption procedures (e.g., for-resolutions) regulations should be readopted.

States and local governments should design programs to avoid inverse
condemnation ("taking") problems. One way of doing this is to focus
regulatory goals and standards upon the "nuisance" impacts of floodplain
activities such as cumulative increases in flooding, pollution, or other
damages to adjacent, upstream, or downstream lands. Courts have been
sympathetic to regulations designed to prevent any increased damage to other
lands, including not only traditional floodways but also zero-rise floodway
restrictions, dune protection regulations, flood storage and stormwater
detention regulations, strict control of chemical and gasoline storage and
other hazardous and nuisance uses in the floodplain. The difficulties posed
by the taking issue can 'also be diminished by applying regulations
consistently to similarly situated properties and by distinguishing between

the application of regulations (controlling private use) and eminent domain
powers (some measure of public use).

Comprehensive community planning and regulations and even-handed
administration of regulations will also . help to meet taking challenges
because courts carefully examine the overall rationality and fairness of
regulations in deciding whether a taking has occurred.

Governments should provide a sound factual base (maps and other data)
for regulations and for the issuance and denial of permits since courts now
examine the data base with increasing care. Floodplain maps should be
upgraded as watershed conditions change, new flood data becomes available,
or development pressures occur. Nevertheless, relatively small-scale and
inaccurate maps may suffice where administrative procedures are available to
upgrade data on a case-by-case basis as development permits are submitted.

It is also important that the raw data used to prepare maps be
preserved for future support of regulations in court. Communities and states
should retrieve such information from flood iasurance study contractors
before the data are lost. Contractors are required to keep it no longer than
five years. It is also important that states and communities use experts in
hydrology, water resources engineering, and other water-related subjects in
fact finding to form the basis for issuance or denial of permits.

Governments should, to the extent possible, provide similar degrees of
regulations for similarly situated flood-prone properties since courts are
increasingly concerned with the fairness and equity of regulations. In
general, regulatory agencies should define floodway lines- to provide
conveyance on both sides of a stream. However, mathematical precision is
not necessary for setting boundaries. Uniform flood protection elevations
should be applied to similarly flooded properties. Only when there are sound
reasons should distinctions be made between similarly situated properties.

Regulations should be consistent with broader community and regional
planning goals and guidelines. Courts more easily justify the rationale and
equity of regulations that are based on soundly conceived short-term and
long-term comprehensive data-gathering, planning, and regulatory programs.
Comprehensive data gathering may include community-wide or regional resource
inventories. Comprehensive planning way include that done for floodplain
management, disaster mitigation, drainage, and land use management.

Governments should review floodplain permits and subdivision plans with
cari to avoid potential claims of liability which may arise if development
increases flood heights. To avoid such liability, agencies may require that
landowners whose activities increase flood heights on other lands purchase
easements from other affected landowners. , Governments should also define
floodway boundaries to avoid substantial flood height increases. They
should describe flood maps as approximate and warn that larger flood events
may o c cur. Governments. should also construct and operate drainage works,
dikes, dams, and other flood control measures with increasing care in light
of the emerging doctrines of municipal liability. In short, governments
should avoid any action which may increase private flood damages.

.45

2. Model Ordinance

The Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Center for
Governmental Responsibility, University of Florida College of Law (1982),
have prepared A Model Flood Management Ordinance which illustrates the
principles discussed in this section and.-also includes a detailed commentary
and legal analysis. Part I of the brdinance, Findings of Fact and
Objectives, is included in its entirety as Figure 5. It should be noted
that "The model ordinance was developed primarily for inland, freshwater
situations. It incorporates the minimal regulations for Coastal High Hazard
Areas required by the NFIP... coastal communities should probably consider
strengthening those sections, however, in view of the high hazard posed by
hurricane forces and the instability of many coastal locationsit (Southwest
Florida Water Management District et al., 1982, p.13). The Findings and
Objectives section (Figure 5) clearly shows the purpose of the regulation to
be the protection of the public from the harmful effects of the prohibited
use, rather than to acquire benefits for the public which it would not
otherwise have.

G. FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Is: the Federal agency
responsible for coordinating emergency management at all levels of
government. It has the statutory responsibility to deal with a broad range
of hazards - through mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery
activities. These activities are embodied in each of the programs which
FEMA administers.

Among the FEMA Programs are the Hurricane Preparedness Program, the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Federal Disaster Assistance
Program established by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (?.L. 93-288)i

1. Hurricane Preparedness Program

The Hurricane Preparedness Program is FEMA's program to foster
hurricane preparedness at high-risk, high-population areas by providing
financial and technical assistance to state and local officials to conduct
quantitative hurricane preparedness studies. This program includes a
comprehensive planning study of the hurricane vulnerability and necessary
response for a high-risk, high-population region, resulting in elements for
state and local Emergency Operations Plans that provide the highest possible
level of hurricane preparedness and evacuation capability. The study
utilizes state of the art hurricane hazard planning tools and emergency
transportation planning techniques and normally is composed of two projects;
first, a- Population Preparedness Project and subsequent .ly, a Property
Protection Project.

The State of New Jersey'recently completed a vulnerabiltiy analysis and
storm hazard mitigation plan for the barrier islands of Atlantic County and
Ocean City (NTDEP, 1984a; NJDEP, 1985).

46'

FIGURE 5: A MODEL FLOOD MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

L MMINGS OF FACT AND OBJEC71M

A. This ordinance is based on a finding of the following facts:

1. Because of variations in rainfall and the amount of surface water, flooding is a
natural, recurring phenomenon.
2. Flooding and lands that are sl@biect to flooding (flood prone lands) serve the
following important functions in the regional hydrologic cycle and ecological
system.

a. Flood prone lands provide natural storage and conveyance of flood
waters;
b. The water on flooded lands may provide recharge to groundwater and is a
basic source of flow to rivers, streams and estuaries;
C. Temporary storage of surface waters on flood prone lands regulates flood
elevations and the timing, velocity and rate of flood discharges;
d. Flood prone lands maintain water quality by reducing erosion, removing
nutrients and other pollutants and allowing sediment to settle;
00 Natural flood prone lands export detritus and other food sources@ to open
water bodies and are vital habitat for fish, birds, wildlife and native
plant communities.

3. Uncontrolled development of flood prone lands inconsistent with their natural
functions and improper management of flood waters have the following
significant adverse impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the
community:

a. The owners of homes and bu siness structures located in frequently
flooded areas and their customers, guests7 e=ployeesq children and future
generations are subjected to unreasonable- risk of personal injury and
property, damage.
b. Expensive and dangerous search and rescue and disaster relief operations
must be conducted when developed properties are flooded.
C. Roads and utilities associated with development are subject to damage
from flooding at great expense to taxpayers and rate payers.
d. Flooding of developed properties leads to demands for government to
construct expensive and environmentally damaging projects to control
flood waters.
e. Loss of natural water storage capacity leads to- reduction in available
water supply.
f. The level, velocity, frequency and duration of flooding on other lands are
often increased when flood waters are obstructed, diverted, displaced or
ch-mm-elized.
g. Water quality is degraded, freshwater inflows to estuaries are'disrupted
and habitat is lost.
h. Property values are lowered and economic activity is disrupted by
damaging floods.

B. This ordinance h as the following objectives:

I. To minimize the potential for property damage and personal injury from
flooding;

Z. To restrict adverse interference with the normal movement of surface waters;
3. To maintain the o-ptl:=u= storage capacity of watersheds;

4. To maintain desirable groundwater levels;

5. To maintain the natural h7drological and. ecological functions of wetlands and
other flood prone lands;

6. To prevent increased erosion and sedimentation;

7. To maintain water quality;

B. To protect the public from the economic and social disruption of flood damage.

9. To protect the public from the costs of flood relief;

10. To avoid the need to construct costly and environmentally- disruptive flood
management structures;

11. To assist the community in qualif7ing Mr partici-3ation in the National Flood
Insurance Program.

C. The objectives of this ordinance are to be achieved by implementing a flood
development review system that:

1. Restricts the construction of buildings in the most frequently flooded areas;

Z. Requires the elevation or flood pivofing of buildings in less frequently flooded
areas;

3. Restricts interference with the normal movement of flood waters;

Restricts increases in the rate or volume of surface water discharge.

S. This ordinance is. not intended to waive more stringent local regulations or the
permitting requirements of any other governmental agency.

SOURCE: Southwest Florida Water Management District and The Center For

Gover=ental Responsibility, University of Florida, College of

Law, 1982

2. Disaster Assistance Program
The @eclaration of a major disaster or an emergency by the President
authorizes Federal assistance under f.L. 93-288 and sets other Federal
disaster relief programs into action. The flow chart in Figure 6 indicates
the procedures taken once a disaster has been declared. FEMA can require
various mitigation measures as a condition of disaster assistance.

FEMA promotes hazard mitigation immediately following a disaster
through the activation of an intergovernmental interagency hazard mitigation
team. The team surveys the disaster area, identifies hazard mitigation
opportunities and makes recommendations concerning these opportunities. The
team is composed of representatives of various federal agencies, state
representatives and FEMA employees who coordinate team activities. The team
draws upon its members' broad expertise in damage assessment and disaster
recovery to identify mitigation opportunities and formulate recommendations
incorporated into a report that is 'completed within fifteen days of a
Presidential Disaster Declaration. The report includes team
recommendations, identifies a lead agency responsible for implementation,
and establishes a schedule for implementation and possible sources of
funding or resources. A subsequent report is prepared by FEMA 90 days after
the Disaster Declaration to monitor implementation of the initial
recommendations and update them as appropriate..

State's which accept federal disaster assistance are required by
Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act to prepare long range hazard
mitigat*:*Lon plans within 6 months of signing the federal/state agreement,
following the declaration of a disaster. This hazard mitigation plan
provides for activities designed to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of New Jersey who reside in the affected counties, and to
reduce future damage to public and private property. The plan is intended
to serve as a guide to those federal, state and local government agencies
responsible for instituting plans for the reduction of damage from coastal
storms.

Thus 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.

3. National Flood lnsurance_@@raq*

The YE11A program that normally provides the greatest opportunity for
coastal storm and flood damage mitigation is the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) All of New Jersey's oceanfront municipalities participate
in the NFIP.

Portions of this section are. taken from Rhode Island Office of State
Planning, 1984, The National Flood Insurance Program: A Handbook for
Rhode Island Communities.

Federal Emergency
Management Agency
w (FEMA) Local Officials
4-

New JE SEV
oavainoe: Office 4-
N.J. S1,14
Officials
4,_ it J. alai* Ollico of
Disaster Preparedness

P6.1.81 'Do A14ZIO.'r Disaster Decl FEIwIA 1160140DA;l
got DI,
a sector (I fEMA National Director
utwey
5 Request

PRESIDENT

FEMA Associate Direct,-
Other federal Agencies state and Local plogla.; 4-
and Sul .4

federal Coordinating
Offices (FCO)
r Establish Disaster 61610 Coordinating
field Office Office# i[SCO) GOVERNOR

(A FEMA Regional Director Goveinor's Authadited
0 Representative (GAR)

DEPT OF C"VIRO"MENTAL
S IG:n.
Individual Assistance runsal Public Assistance Hazaid Mitigation PROTECTION Hull=
D@saeq. Mitigation PI

Brisling&
with Sislakocal
Officials
Temporary Housing Damage Survey Report E.O.11980 Revi-11
11
family agents JOSR) Prepare on

sit Counseling Unemployment Project Application U Hazald Mitigation Team*
Assistance MT)
@cd

DIsbuissmoni of Fuqds

Figure 6
=j

Jill @Qj,:dl-.IInjj
I.., to Co@

DISASTER RESPONSE FLOW CHART.
SOURCE: LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD 1984

The NIFIP is a federal program which makes flood insurance available to
owners of flood-prone property. Prior to the institution of the Program by
Congress in 1968, flood insurance was not generally available at rates which
the average homeowner or small business could afford. Congress felt that by
providing floodplain property owners with insurance against future flood
damages, it could alleviate the heavy financial burdens and economic
distress which recurring flood disasters have traditionally created for
individuals, local economies and for the"aationas a whole.

In addition to making flood insurance available to current floodplain
occupants, Congress also had the longer-range goal of reducing the drain on
the federal treasury due to flood disaster relief efforts and expenditures
for remedial flood control projects. To accomplish this, Congress linked
the availability of low-cost insurance for floodplain dwellers and
businesses to the institution of land use and construction practices
designed to protect new construction and development from future flood
damages.

Participation in the NFIP begins at the local level, with an agreement
between a municipality and FEMA. The municipality agrees to adopt and
enforce the NFIP floodplain management regulations (44 CFR 60.3) and FEMA
agrees to sell flood insurance in the community. FF11A prepares Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIF11s) which identify the flood prone areas in the
municipality. The flood prone areas are based on a 100-year flood, wLich is
a flood having a one percent change of being equalled or exceeded in any
given year, or occurs on the average once every 100 years.

The NFIP regulations (CFR, Title 44, Ch. 1, Parts 59 and 60) define a
Coastal High Hazard Area as an area subject to high velocity waters,
including coastal storm and hurricane wave wash. These areas are identified
on a FIRM as a Zone VI-30. More specifically, a Coastal High Hazard Area
is an area- capable of supporting at least a three foot high breaking wave.
This criterion was established after tests by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers indicated that waves of this height possess sufficient energy to
damage structures of designs typically found in coastal areas. Wave runup
areas can also be included in the V zones on FIRMs, but have not been in New
Jersey.

Waves with heights of less than three *feet can be expected to exist
within the remaining portion of coastal flood hazard areas, (mapped as Zones
A1-99) where the ground surface elevation is below the Base Flood Elevation
or 100-year stillwater surge elevation.

Storm surge or stillwater surge is defined as the sea level rise above
normal tide level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress and the
reduction of atmospheric pressure on the water surface caused by coastal
storms, particularly hurricanes (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977).

The NFIP Regulations (44 CFR 60.3) include design, performance and
elevation standards for building in flood 'hazard areas. The regulations 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. The regulations recognize the
function of sand dunes as natural barriers that mitigate the effects of

coastal flooding and, therefore, require that the alteration of sand dunes
in coastal high hazard areas (V zones) be prohibited if potential flood
damage would be increased.

The local administration of the NFIP is monitored through the Community
Assistance and Program Evaluation (CAPE) program, which in New Jersey is
carried out by the Office of Floodplain Management in the Division of Water
Resources. In addition, FEMA annually reviews information provided by
participating communities pertaining to permits and variances granted. if
FEMA finds that a municipality fails to adequately enforce the floodplain
management regulations, it may place the municipality on probation or
suspend it from the NFIP. If a community is suspended, no new flood
insurance policies may be written and existing policies may not be renewed
when they expire.

H. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Because of the densely developed nature of the New J6rs ey coast and the
associated high property values, ha 'zard mitigation techniques may have to be
implemented primarily as a post-storm program. It is important that coastal
residents and officials now plan, 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 storm vulnerability. The implementation of hazard
mitigation strategies should be accomplished as part of the periodic master
plan review and revi.@ionrequired 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 rec-eive higher funding
priority from the State. Shore protection funding and post storm recovery
assistance may be contingent on local efforts to implement hazard mitigation
strategies.

4. Staff of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection are
available to assist municipalities in developing and implementing hazard
mitigation techniques and educational programs. This support can 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..

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. Non-water oriented development should
be prohibited in 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

developed by the local building officials and -the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.

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. 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 management tool.
Property assessments should reflect development potential under such an
ordinance.

8. 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. Oceanfront property should be acquired for conservation purposes
whenever possible. The acquisition and conservation should not be limited
to the beachfront but should also include building lots adjacent to the
beachfront. The New Jersey Green Acres Program often purchases property,
especially along the beachfroat, 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. Peak population in some oceanfront municipalities is estimated to
approach or exceed that which can be 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.

REFERENCES CITED

American Geological Institute. 1962. Dictionary of Geological Terms.
Doubleday and Company, New York. 545 pp.

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

Bagnold, R.A. 1954. The Physics of Wind Blown Sand and Desert Dunes.
William Morrow and Co., New York.

Butler, 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.

Edge, B.L., J.S. Fisher, W.O. Connor and S. Nnaji. 1984. A Supplement to the
Southern Building Code for Hurricane Protection. Department of Civil
Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 50 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., 169 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.

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.

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 N.J. Bowden, eds. 1977. Reconstruction
Following Disaster, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 330 pp.

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.

Kusler, Jon A. 1982. Floodplain Regulations and the Courts. Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center Publication 5, Boulder,
Colorado, 51 pp.

Mather, J.R. and others. 1964. Coastal storms of the eastern United States.
Journal of Applied Meterology 3:693-706

McElyea, W.D., D.J. Brower and D.R. Gbdschalk. 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.

McMaster, D.L. 1954. Petrography and Genesis of the New Jersey Beach Sands.
Division of Planning and Development, Bureau of Geology and Topography
Geological Series Bulletin 63, Trenton, New Jersey, 239 pp.

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

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 Ocean
City, 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 Protectioq. 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.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1985. Coastal Storm
Hazard Mitigation: Barrier Islands of Atlantic County and Ocean City,
New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal
Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, 146 pp.

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

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.

Rhode Island Office of State Planning. 1984. The National Flood Insurance
Program: A Handbook for Rhode Island Communities. Rhode Island Office
of State Planning, Providence, Rhode Island, 115 pp.

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.

Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Center for Government
Responsibility, University of Florida College of Law. 1982. A Model
Flood Management Ordinance. Southwesti.. Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, Florida, 95 pp.

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

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1963. Report
on Operation Five-High March 1962 Storm: Disaster Recovery Operations
from 6-8 March 1962 Storm. Under Public Law 875, 81st Congress.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Shore Protection Manual,
Volumes I-III, Washington, D.C.

United States Water Resources Council. 1981. Floodplain Management Handbook.
U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C., 88 pp.

APPENDIX I

FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY CONTACTS

The following is a list of the various federal, state and county
agencies which ate. available to provide information and assistance in
analyzing and responding to coastal storm hazards and flooding problems.

Federal Agencies

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10278
(212) 264-8395

Technical U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Assistance a) New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
(212) 264-0100

b) Philadelphia District
U.S. Custom House
2nd & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-4848

Technical U.S. Geological Survey
Assistance Water Resources Division
P.O. Box 1238
RM. 420, Federal Building.
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08607

State Agencies

Flood New Jersey Department of Environmental
Insurance Protection
and NFIP Division of Water Resources
Regulations CN 029
Trenton, N.J. 08625
(609) 292-1840

Coastal New Jersey Department of Environmental
Management/ Protection
1k Planning Division of Coastal Resources
CN 401
Trenton, N.J. 08625
(609) 984-0856

Emergency New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety
Management, Division of State Police
Evacuation Office of Emergency Management
Planning P.O. Box 7068
West Trenton, N.J. 08625'
(609) 882-2000 Ext. 201

County Agdncies

Planning, state/federal coordination, evacuation

Monmouth Planning Board
County P.O. Box 1255
Freehold, N.J. 07728
(201) 431-7460

Office of Emergency Management
Hall of Records Annex, Main St.
Freehold, N.J. 07728
(201) 431r7400

Ocean Planning Board
County CN 2191
Toms River, N.J. 08753
(201) 929-2054

Office of Emergency Management
Robert J. Miller Air Park
Rt. 530
Berkeley Twp., N.J. 08721
(201) 341-3451

Atlantic Planning Board
County 1333 Atlantic Ave
Atlantic City, N.J. 08401
(609) 345-6700

Office of Emergency Management
201 Dolphin Ave.
Northfield, N.J. 08225
(609) 645-7700 Ext. 4470

Cape May Planning Board
County Library Building
Cape May Court House, N.J. 08210
(609) 465-7111

Office of Emergency Management
Library Building
Cape May Court House, N.J. 08210
(609) 465-9408

APPENDIX II

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

COASTAL STORK VULNERABILITY AND HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING

AIA Research Corporation. 1981. Design Guidelines for Flood Damage
Reduction. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington. D.C. , 10 1
PP.

Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. 1984. Coastal Storm
Preparedness Guide. Brunswick, Georgia, 60 pp.

Federal Emergency Management Agency and Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management. 1983. Preparing for Hurricanes and Coastal Flooding: A
Handbook for Local Officials. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
Washington, D.C. 136 pp.

Farrell, S.C. and J.W. Sinton. 1984. Storm Mitigation Planning for Avalon,
New Jersey. Stockton Center For Environmental Research, Pomona, New
Jersey, 42 pp.

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

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 and D.R. Godsch4lk. 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.

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

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1984. Coastal Storm
Vulnerability Analysis, Barrier Islands of Atlantic County and Ocean
City, 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. 1984. 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. 1985. Coastal Storm
Mitigation: Barrier Islands of Atlantic County and Ocean City,
New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, 146 pp.

Nordstorm, K.F., S.F. Fisher, M.A. Burr, E.L. Frankel, T.C. Buckalew and
G.A. Kucma. 1977. Coastal Geomorp4.0logy of New Jersey, Vols. I & II.
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies Technical Report #77-1,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Ralph M. Field Associates, Inc. 1981. State and Local Acquisition of
Floodplains and Wetlands: A Handbook on the Use of Acquisition in
Floodplain Management. U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.
137 pp.

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

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN

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

Edge, B.L., J.S. Fisher, W.O. Connor and S. Nnaji. 1984. A-Supplement to the
Southern Building Code for Hurricane Protection. Departme .nt of Civil
Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 50 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 Haz 'ard Areas. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 189 pp.

-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.

Ill inois 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.

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 Nostraad
@Reinhold, New York.

Texas Coastal and Marine Council. 1981. Model Minimum Hurri cane-Re s is taut
Building Standards. Texas Coastal and Marine Council, Austin, Texas,
199 pp.

LEGAL ISSUES

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.

Kusler, Joa A. 1981. Floodplain Regulations and the Courts. Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication 5,
Boulder, Colorado, 51 pp.

Southwest Floriaa'Water Management District and the Center for Government
Responsibility, University of Florida College of Law. 1982. A Model
Flood Management Ordinance. Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, Florida, 95 pp.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

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

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1984. A Guide for Hurricane
Preparedness Planning for State and Local Officials. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 30 pp.

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

Rhode Island Office of State Planning. 1984. The National Flood Insurance
Program: A Handbook for Rhode Island -Communities. Rhode Island Office
of State Planning, Providence, Rhode Island, 115 pp.

PUBLIC AWARENESS

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1985. Hurricane Awareness Workbook.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 217 pp.

3666 28