Click for next page ( 95


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 94
5 State Programs and Experiences TYPES OF STATE PROGRAMS Only about one-third of the water-boundary (coastal) states have active erosion hazard area management programs that include the establishment of erosion setbacks for new construction (Table 5-1~. However, it is noteworthy that several states have general setback requirements that, while not based on erosion hazards, have the effect of limiting construction near the shoreline. About two-thirds of the states measure the rate of recession (erosion) with the use of aerial photographs. Besides being used for state regulation, recession rates are useful in providing information and education to property owners and in support of local government regulations. The absence of erosion hazard area programs in most states can be attributed to a lack of erosion, lack of development, reliance on shore protection to control upland erosion, ant] other factors. Some states presently are considering erosion-based setback requirements or recently have implemented them. Program Elements Coastal states have gained considerable experience in the im- plementation and administration of regulatory erosion programs. 94

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 95 Nineteen of twenty-three states responding to a Coastal States Or- ganization survey conducted by the state of North Carolina in 1986 inclicated they use direct regulatory authority to mitigate damage from coastal hazards. The survey found that about 82 percent of the responding states have regulations to mitigate coastal hazards, including erosion, flooding, storm surge, and so on. The Association of State Floodplain Managers Survey of 1988 found that about 33 percent of the states had a regulatory program specifically addressing erosion hazard management. Erosion hazard zones often have been delineated, in conjunction with university and consulting specialists. Each state has developed slightly different regulations in hazard areas. This appears to be based on the language of the law being enacted; the geomorphology of the coast; and the result of discretionary decisions, such as the threshold rate of recession, the years of setback protection, and other locally decicled variables. Most states with setback regulatory programs use the local unit of government to administer the program, either on a mandatory or voluntary basis. In most instances the local unit of government is given latitude in formulating local regulations. This allows the local unit of government to retain control of its land use activities and exceed the minimum state requirements, if it desires. Technical standards also vary from state to state. Most states with regulatory programs have established a threshold erosion stan- dard of 1 foot per year to define a high hazard area. Some states have established setback requirements along all erodible shores be- cause even small erosion losses can threaten homes constructed too close to the shoreline. State and local governments employ several techniques to trans- form recession rate data into hazard zones with specific setback re- quirements. Many state programs employ data averaging or "group- ing" procedures. Grouping involves placing recession rates that are sirn~lar in magnitude (usually defined as a variation from a mean value) in a common pool. The rates then are averaged for the length of shoreline. The process results in a single value being assigned as the representative recession rate for a length of shoreline. Some states establish only one setback standard per local unit of gov- ernment. Likewise, local units of government sometimes adopt the highest setback in the community as the standard throughout the community for ease of administration. Some states require different setbacks for different classes of buildings, such as a midyear setback

OCR for page 94
96 ._ C) _ Ct C~ .D o _ ~ U. ~ Ct ._ ~ ~ U) o o CO ;: _ C) ~ ~ p4 V) o _ .5 ~ C) ~ _ ~ .~ .Y o C;} U~ Ct ~ V) U. ~o Ct o ._ o o~ . . E~ CQ 40 o V) ~4 1 m c) C~ ~ C) * C~ ~ O ~ _ ._ ~ ~ ~ -o Ct O _ _ ~ V) ~ ~ o o _ t~ ~ U ~, V, ~ o o ._ - . cn a: cd ~ o o C'.= o ~ o ._ e, U' ~-Z~ZZ~Z~Z) z ~ z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ z z ~ ~ z ~ z z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z ~ z ~ ~ >~>o~zIz>~)o>~o Z z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ Z ~ Z V ~ Z ~ z z ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z z z ~ z z z ~ z z~ z~z~ zzzzz~ ~zzzz~ z~z~z~z o c) -c = _ = 0 ~ 'o 0 3 ~ C ~ c ~ ~ =- c ~ ~ 3 v V ~ ~ V tr: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z

OCR for page 94
97 _ Ct cd _C o _ ~ LL V, .5 o - In ED Z ~ Z Z Z ~ Z Z Z Z Z ~ c) o ca it> ~ D ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ O e A, ~ ~ ~ A c<, .5 _ | at,, i' D .m ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z Z ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z O.O O^ ~ .= _ U) D o O Z O Z O ~ O O ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ O Cal ~ ~ ~ Via ~ ~ ~ 1' .= ~) ~ C~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z ~ Z Z ~ ~ Z ~ O ^ 1 o~ ~ h. ~ ~ ~ o D, ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ Z ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z h ~ ^, .O ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~-' II >~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 Pt ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ,~,, ~ ~ ~s ,; u S c "~ `' ~ ,,, ' e ti 5.3 v Ct ~: o _ ~a o ~> o CO a: 4 - o C) ._ - 3 o c, c~ ~D c~ ~: c~ - ct c~ c~ o *

OCR for page 94
98 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION for single-family structures, a 60-year setback for multiple-family structures, and a Goodyear setback for industrial buildings. The point from which the setback is measured is broadly termed the "reference feature." The reference feature varies from state to state but relies heavily on the geomorphic character of the area. In cliff or bluff areas the top edge or crest of the bluff often is used. In low dune areas, the dune crest or edge of vegetation is used. The high tide line is used in many other jurisdictions. The hierarchy approach (see Chapter 6) used in administration of the Upton-Jones Amendment is effective in determining the proper reference feature for a national program. Many state programs provide an additional setback over and above the average rate of recession, multiplied by the anticipated years of protection. The state of New York, for example, identifies the bluff face and crest as a special protective feature, allows no development on it, and measures the setback from the landward side of the feature. This has the effect of increasing the setback by 25 feet. In Michigan an additional 15 feet of setback is added to areas where recession rates vary in excess of a set formula. In North Carolina all erodible shores have a minimum setback of 60 feet, regardless of the rate of erosion. Program Experience States with an administrative experience in erosion setback pro- gra~ns believe their programs are important elements in property loss reduction. Although existing development continues to be threat- ened and lost, future development will be assured some minimum useful life. Almost all states have modified their original programs to improve effectiveness or correct unforeseen problems. Improve- ments such as having greater setback for large buildings, requiring movable building designs near the hazard area, establishing appropri- ate procedures to address additions or partially damaged structures, assessing the role of shore protection in setback regulations, and es- tablishing procedures for updating or modifying setbacks have been addressed by several states. State experience has shown that recession rate data must be updated periodically to reflect changes in the effectiveness of shore protection or beach nourishment; other human-induced changes such as dredging, harbor construction, and so on; water level fluctuations on the Great Lakes; subsidence or mean sea level rise; and other

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 99 factors. Depending on the magnitude of change, updates may be required as infrequently as every decade or as frequently as after every major storm or hurricane. Pennsylvania and Indiana update their recession rate data using ground surveys conducted every 2 years. North Carolina updates using aerial photography every 5 years; Michigan and Texas update data every 10 years. Florida has updated its comprehensive survey for each county on an average of 10 to 12 years. An erosion hazard management program will not realize its oW jectives without effective enforcement policies. These enforcement actions, which are time consuming, have been rare to date. Al- though state programs have had relatively few enforcement actions, failure to pursue aggressive enforcement results in reduced voluntary compliance. States rarely have been challenged for a taking of property when imposing erosion setback regulations. This is believed to be because of several factors. First, the courts have a long history of upholding the public safety rationale of these kinds of regulations. Second, some programs will waive a portion of the setback if the property lacks sufficient depth. Third, many of the takings have been of privately owned property whose owners generally cannot afford the expense of a lawsuit against the state. Other programs allow a waiver for well- engineered shore protection and a maintenance plan. In addition, some people recognize that property that can no longer meet build- ing requirements becomes substandard from natural erosion events as much as by regulation. Therefore, direct constitutional takings challenges have been rare. Although state coastal zone erosion management programs are effectively addressing setbacks for new construction, they have had limited success in addressing losses in areas where development pre- dates the implementation of the setback program. Nor have the states fully addressed the anticipated eventual losses to structures built following current setback guidelines a structure with a use- ful life of 60 to 100 years eventually may be lost if built with a Midyear setback. States address this limitation in a variety of ways. Some states disseminate technical information on shore protection to encourage efforts to slow the historic rate of recession. Other educational efforts are designed to achieve a larger setback voluntar- ily. Some states require coastal structures to be placed on piling to prevent collapse during major storms. As a secondary benefit, these structures are readily moveable. Thus, the property owner clearly

OCR for page 94
100 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION will have the option of relocation over shore protection or loss of the building in the future. Even given the forethought many states have put into their ero- sion management programs, most states still face a series of dilem- mas. First, if the state requires setbacks that are sufficient to protect new structures for the anticipated useful life of the structure (60 to 100 years), the setbacks may become too restrictive to obtain prop- erty owner or political support. In addition, existing structures are not addressed, including the need to demolish or relocate structures threatened from erosion loss. (A few states have provided low-interest loans or small grants to encourage relocation of houses threatened by erosion.) States generally lack the resources necessary to address the removal or relocation of threatened structures. In addition, a state with a more limited geographical scope is not as able to pool the risk as a federal program might be. Where shore protection is used to extend the life of buildings, problems associated with shore protection usually occur, including high cost, limited effectiveness, maintenance needs, adverse impacts on adjacent property, and Toss of recreational beaches. To provide specific examples of the nature of state coastal erosion management programs, this committee reviewed programs in four states: Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, and California. MICHIGAN'S GREAT [AEE:S SHORELAND EROSION PROGRAM At various times in Michigan's history, the hazards and costs of unwise development in erosion areas clearly have been demon- strated. In the early 1950s high water levels on the Great Lakes caused millions of dollars worth of damage to Michigan shoreline properties (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1982~. Dur- ing subsequent low water years, many homes were built too close to the bluffline. When high water levels returned in the late 1960s, damage to homes and businesses occurred once again. An estimated $46 million in property damage has been attributed to Great Lakes shore erosion occurring between Labor Day 1972 and Labor Day 1976. Another $50 million was spent on shore protection (University of Michigan, 1978~. A preliminary survey for the period 1985 to 1987 showed the cost of high water levels in Michigan (both erosion and flooding) to be $222 million. A survey of the Lake Michigan shoreline of the lower Peninsula of Michigan found 995 homes and cottages

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 101 within 25 feet of the edge of active erosion. Erosion damage can be extremely costly both for property owners and the public. In past instances when severe storms have caused extensive erosion damage, the public has absorbed part of the loss through disaster assistance, disaster loans, and damage to public facilities. For example, after a 1973 storm, disaster declarations led to Small Business Administra- tion loans and grants to property owners along southern Lake Huron for repair of shore protection and damaged homes. After a 1985 storm, the Michigan legislature appropriated $6 million to alleviate damage on public and private property. The Shorelands Protection and Management Act, Public Act 245 of 1970, as amended, directs the Michigan Department of Natural Re- sources to (1) identify areas of high-risk erosion, (2) designate these areas and determine how they should be regulated to prevent prop- erty loss, and (3) enact administrative rules to regulate the future use and development of high-risk erosion areas (Shorelands Protec- tion and Management Act, 1982~. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources offers technical assistance to property owners and to local units of government to implement shorelands management activities. The process by which Michigan carries out its management strat- egy for high-risk erosion areas includes the following: 1. Identification of high-risk erosion areas. High-risk erosion areas do not include all Great Lakes shorelines that experience ero- sion problems. Only those areas where the bluffline is receding (mov- ing landward) at a long-term average of 1 foot or more per year are considered high risk. Of 3,288 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, Michigan has approximately 350 miles of shoreland that is classified as high-risk erosion areas. 2. Designation of high-risk erosion areas. To initiate formal designation of high-risk erosion areas, the department first seeks in- put from local units of government. Letters are sent to property owners who will be affected by the designation, notifying them that their property has been identified as a high-risk erosion area. The letter also invites property owners to a department-sponsored meet- ing where the program is explained and an opportunity for comment is provided. Those property owners who do not attend the meeting receive a second mailing that explains the proposed designation and its significance. After a period for comment, the department reviews all information and sends official letters to property owners whose

OCR for page 94
102 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION parcels are formally designated as high-risk erosion areas, and it notifies the appropriate local units of government of the designation. 3. Implementation. Michigan's program emphasizes a non- structural approach to reduction of damages from shore erosion. This approach has been taken because structural protection in the form of erosion control devices may be prohibitively expensive in some cases, ineffective in others, and, if improperly designed, may accel- erate erosion on adjacent property. The nonstructural program uses setback provisions to protect permanent structures from damage. In accordance with this approach, enlargements to existing structures and new permanent structures, including septic systems to be built in a designated high-risk erosion area, must be built a sufficient dis- tance landward from the bluffline. Setback requirements achieve two main objectives. First, they alert the owner or buyer of shoreline property to the potential erosion hazard along a stretch of shoreline; second, the setback is designed to protect permanent structures for a period of 30 years. These regulations are implemented either through department-approved local zoning or state permit procedures. Under Michigan's program, areas subject to serious shore erosion are identified initially by field survey. When evidence of active erosion is found, the area undergoes further study. Final classification of a high-risk erosion area is based on estimated long-term recession rate studies for the area. Bluff recession is determined by comparing low-altitude aerial photographs of the shoreline from two different time periods and noting the change in position of the bluffline. Calculations then are made to deterrn~ne the average annual recession rate. Two different photogrammetric methods are used. First, stereoscopic examination of photographs assists in accurate bluff detection. Second, the Zoom Transfer Scope is used to measure movement of the bluffline by superimposing the two photographic images. The average annual recession rate is determined for the last 20 to 50 years, a period during which both high and Tow water levels have occurred. Bluffline setbacks are calculated from the average annual reces- sion rate. The average annual recession rate is multiplied by 30 years. The resulting value then may be adjusted slightly for recession rate variability within an area. This process yields a distance, expressed in feet, that is the minimum required setback distance from the bluffline. Calculation of setbacks assumes that long-term recession rates will continue to be approximately the same in the future as they have been in the past.

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 103 The effect of the regulations on private property include the following: 1. Building requirements. Designation of a parcel as a high-risk erosion area affects the property owners if they wish to build a new permanent structure on the parcel or enlarge an existing structure. The building requirements call for any structure or enlargement to be set back from the bluffline by a minimum required distance that would protect the structure from erosion damage for about 30 years. Septic systems as well as buildings must adhere to the setback. Some local units of government have adopted minimum setbacks in their zoning ordinances. Where setbacks have not been incorpo- rated into zoning, the property owner must obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources before construction can begin. If the property lacks sufficient depth to meet the setback, a special exception may be granted. 2. Special exceptions. If a parcel established prior to high-risk erosion area designation lacks adequate depth to provide the min- imum required setback from the bluffline, the parcel is termed a substandard lot. A special exception may be allowed on a substan- dard lot to permit the building of a structure as long as it can be moved before it is damaged by shore erosion. Special exceptions will be granted only as follows: A sanitary sewer is not used, and the septic system is located on the landward side of the movable structure. The movable structure is located as far landward as local zoning restrictions will allo~r. The movable structure is designed and built in accordance with proper engineering standards. Access to and from the structure site is of sufficient width and acceptable grade to allow for moving the structure. The foundation and other construction materials are removed and disposed of as part of the moving operation. If a substandard lot does not have access to and from the structure site of sufficient width and acceptable grade to allow for a movable structure, a special exception may be granted to utilize shore protect on. The special exception will be granted only if the shore protection is designed to meet or exceed proper engineering standards for the Great Lakes and a professional engineer certifies that the shore protection has been designed and built in accordance with these standards.

OCR for page 94
104 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION If property owners appeal the high-risk designation or the disarm proval of a permit, an admit istrative hearing is held. The proceedings of the hearing are forwarded to the Natural Resources Commission, which is composed of citizens appointed by the governor. The com- mission may reach a decision on the hearing officer's recommenda- tions or it may hold additional hearings prior to reaching a decision. Should property owners disagree with the final decision and wish to carry the case further, they have 30 days after the commission's final determination to petition the Michigan Circuit Court for a judgment. Michigan's Shorelands Protection and Management Act pro- vides that local units of government may administer and enforce the minimum setback requirements established under the act by incor- porating them into zoning ordinances. The primary advantage of local enforcement of shoreland regulations is that it increases the ef- ficiency of administration. To ensure that shoreland ordinances meet the intent of the state legislation and comply with the minimum requirements for protection established by the state, ordinances and amendments must be reviewed and approved by the department. The department also periodically reviews the performance of local zoning authorities to ensure that administration is consistent with the leg- islation. In addition to zoning, local building code inspectors assist in the enforcement of shoreline setbacks through review of building permit applications. Building inspectors check each application in their jurisdiction to determine if the proposed construction is on a parcel of property designated as a high-risk erosion area. If it is, the building inspectors will withhold permits until they are assured that the state erosion setback permit has been issued. NORTH CARO[INA'S COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM North Carolina h" 320 miles of ocean shoreline. Although 50 percent of this shoreline is in public ownership primarily in two na- tional seashoresthe remaining half of the coastline faces substantial development pressure. No areas of the North Carolina coast contain the concentration of high-density development of Miami Beach, but few beach areas in the state retain the low-density, scattered cottage atmosphere associated with Nags Head in the 1940s. Over the past 50 years, over half of the state's ocean coast has experienced average erosion rates of 2 feet per year or greater, with 20 percent exceeding 6 feet per year (Benson and McCullough, 1988~.

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 109 The recreation and economic benefits of beach restoration are intended to be realized by the entire state. Given the extent of current erosion conditions, Florida ~ proposing to share the cost of these projects on a fixed 75/25 percentage basis with local governments and private interests. This is a change from the traditional public/public financing of erosion control projects to a public/private partnership. For those projects with partial federal funding, the project costs would be decreased proportionally for the state, local, and private interests. Because this alternative is so costly, beach nourishment is most viable econoIriically in areas with dense development, a large available sand supply, and relatively low wave energy. Few localities are fortunate enough to have all the characteristics to justify this approach as a long-range solution. In Florida, where the benefits derived from the beaches are shared throughout the state, 67.3 miles of eroded beach has been restored or renourished from 1965 to 1984 at a total cost of $115 million ($1.9 million per mile for nourishment and $1.7 million per mile for renourishment) (State of Florida, 1986~. Eighty-six percent of all funds expended were spent in the state's more heavily developed southeastern counties. Miami Beach alone has cost $5.2 million per mile to nourish 10.5 miles of beach front (Pilkey and Clayton, 1989~. With the high cost of real estate (Miami Beach hotels recently were assessed at $235 million per miles and the high tourist revenues, it is easy to generate a favorable benefit-cost ratio for coastal engineering projects. CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL EROSION MANAGEM1:NT PROGRAM California's coastal erosion problems are complex because of its pattern of coastal development, land morphology, and wave climate. Eighty percent of California's population of 26 million people live within 30 miles of the 1,100 anile shoreline (California State Sen- ate, 1989~. It extends In latitude from Boston, Massachusetts, to Charleston, South Carolina. While the task of developing a program to combat long-term coastal changes is a desirable policy objective, it has many policy and technical problems. The land form of California is quite different from the Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts, leading to further differences in defin- ing and dealing with coastal hazards. In California plate tectonics and the last excursion of sea level are key factors that have given rise

OCR for page 94
110 UNAGING COASTAL EROSION to the series of coastal terraces that characterize most of California's coast. It is a "collision coast" (Inman and Nordstrom, 1971), and many sections of the coast are rising (Castle et al., 1976; Ewing et al., 1989~. The other major feature of California's land form are drowned river valleys. There are a number of state agencies concerned with various aspects of California's coastal zone management program. The ma- jor ones are the California Coastal Commission; California State Coastal Conservancy; Department of Boating and Waterways of the Resources Agency; State Lands Commission; Bureau of Land Management; Department of Parks and Recreation (the state park system includes 292 miles of ocean and bay frontage); State Water Resources Control Board, with its nine regional water quality boards; supra-agencies of local governments, such as the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC, which has final authority over San Francisco Bay, rather than the Coastal Com- mission); San Diego Associations of Governments; and 70 coastal counties and cities. The Department of Boating and Waterways, among other things, is charged with coordinating the work of other state and local agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in implementing the state's beach erosion-control program. The de- partment also participates in the wave statistics gathering system, together with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to gather nearshore and deep ocean wave data on a real-time basis, with the center lo- cated at the University of California at San Diego (Coastal Data Information Program, 1983~. The department also funds studies to obtain other data and research in regard to sand sources by rivers, weather and climate variability along coastal southern California, currents off CaTifornia's shore, and spatial structure of wind along the California coast. The California Coastal Conservancy was created in 1976 by the state legislature to take positive steps to preserve, enhance, and restore coastal resources and to acIdress issues that regulation alone cannot solve. The California Coastal Commission, a regulatory agency, has had three stages: the original Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972; the first stage of the Coastal Act of 1976, which extended through the termination of the regional commissions in 1981; and the present stage, which began in 1981. These are summarized in

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 111 Table 5-2 (Fischer, 1985~. Under the 1976 act, priorities for coastal usage are public access; public recreation; marine environments; land resources, including sensitive habitats and agricultural lands; development, with attention to concentration of new devel- opment, scenic resources, and development in hazard areas; and ~ industrial development. The act requires coastal localities to prepare their own plans for development within their jurisdictiona Local Coastal Program (LCP). Many localities have broken up into smaller planning units, so it is anticipated that there wiB be a total of 126 LCPs. Until a region has an LOP certified by the Coastal Commission, all development permits must be requested from and issued by the commission. As of April 1989, 55 still do not have certified LCPs in place (California State Senate, 1989~. In addition, the commission is to review each certified LOP every 5 years. In addition to their regulatory and operational activities, each of these agencies issues reports, some of which are useful in coastal zone erosion management. One report, by the predecessor to the De- partment of Boating and Waterways, the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, was referred to in Chapter 2 of this re- port (Habe} and Armstrong, 1977~. Another publication is "Coastal Protection Structures and Their Effectiveness" (Fulton-Bennett and Griggs, 1986~. The California Coastal Conservancy has issued a number of reports, such as "Public Beaches: An Owners' Manual" (Mikkelsen and Neuwirth, 1987) and "The Urban Edge: Where the City Meets the Sear (Petrillo and Grenell, 1985~. The California Coastal Commission issues a large number of staff reports on spe- cific cases that come before the commission. The comrn~ssion also prepares more general technical reports, some specifically concerned with coastal erosion Dewing et al., 1989; Howe, 1978~. In making the commission the coordinator for the state's coastal policy and regulator of all coastal development (except within San Francisco Bay, for which the Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC] is responsible), the act bestows on the commission the role

OCR for page 94
112 . ~ ~ _ o . Ce of _ _d > o ~ d_ V Ct o A: be Ct CQ Ct o V Ct ._ JO ._ Ct V o o . . c Cal ~4 o so CQ hTi Cat o CM EM O ca . - ~ ca ._ En: - ~ . - o ca v To ~ ca o o ~4 _ _ . ~ ~ ~ o . i_ o of - o - v to 4~}, o .s ~ C'S ~ ~, o o ~ =, C.) p4 ~ .^ c,q ~4 P~ o .~ C~ ca U. . ~ cD ca 04 i-4 ~ _ 3 C} =, ~ o ~ ~= o o ~ C~ ~ _ ca O ;> ~ C) ~ C) cq :~ ~ o ,= G.) ~ d_ C~ - P4 ~. C~ E ~ ~ o =0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ^-~ ~ .= ~ ~ _ ~ P~ O ~ C~ _ ~ _ o ~ ~o ~q . ~ .3 ~ ~ ~ ~- O V, o O ~ -. ~4 e ~ O r~ V

OCR for page 94
113 U. Cat v _ , . _ ~ C) o in, , ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ ] ~ 9 , Cat of 1 U. C) V: ~ _ U:} 3 o 4_ ~ ~ o o o oo AL As, ~ _ To v i,: '> o o . ~ V' By _ ;> C', o Oo eat C) o . i_ C) ~ ~ 4 ._ C~ ~ eats U. ,D - Can ,D o Ctd Cat Cat C) ;^ ~ ' ~ ~ a>` o 3 ~ ~ o .O ~ ~ ~ ;> ~ ~ U. .4 U. o Cad ~ ~ _1 ~ pet ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ tV ~ C) ~ ~ o ~ :_ ,= ~ .m ? I ' c) _ O ~ U. C) ~ ~ O _ >~ O S ~ ~ ~ c~, Ce ~ o ~ ~ s o ~ . ~ _ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~ ~ ~ ~ V C) C) ::' C~ o ~ _ Ce X ~ ~ ~ ~ Cq _ ~ ._ Ct C) ~ Ct o tD 5 ._ ~ U' O ca O ~ ~ O ,~ oc .s C~ 3 ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~v _ 0 ~ d_ ~ . ~ _ .= ~ 4 ca x o C~ o ~ ~, O ca g ,D . C~ ~ . _4 ._ ~ Ct ~; ._ cd oo S~ CD ._ o . . V P~ o V:

OCR for page 94
114 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION of long-term planner for the coast's future. This requires in-depth research in areas such as the following: for the coast; the consequences of the greenhouse effect and rising sea levels ~ the long-term prospects for and implications of offshore en- ergy resource development; ~ toxic and hazardous materials handling and spill cleanup in the coastal region; ~ long-term land use possibilities and dangers for flood and geologic hazard areas; power plant development and siting; shore erosion, especially in developed areas; and . scientific studies of existing coastal resources and the impact of planned clevelopment. According to the California State Senate (1989) report, little of this has been done, owing largely to budgetary restraints. Some of the complexities encountered in a state as varied geographically and politically as California are discussed in the booklet Coastal Recre- ation in California: Policy, Management, Access" (Heiman, 1986~. The act mandates the creation of the Coastal Resource Information Center to collect information ranging from past Coastal Commission decisions to scientific studies and technical data relevant to specific portions of the coastal zone. Due largely to budgetary restraints, the center is not yet in operation (California State Senate, 1989~. There are several "wave climates," and the waves vary in inten- sity, number, and direction of approach. California's wave climate may be worsening, but there Is no way to predict the future trend. The magnum waves of 1978 reshaped the statistical base of wave climates for California, increasing the size of the "Goodyear wave. The storms of the E} Nina winter of 1982-1983 did it again for most of the state (Walker et al., 1984), and the storm of January 17-18, 1988, did it yet again for a section of southern California, with Seymour (1989) estimating it to have a recurrence interval of not less than 100~200 years. Second, it Is clear after the integrated effects of the unprecedented series of storms in 1982 and 1983 and the January 17- 18, 1988, storm that coastal erosion in California is not going to see all development in hazardous areas wiped out in one event. Rather, the pattern is one of damage and repair. Hazard abatement rather than redevelopment appears to be the logical response to that level of damage. It is the duration of the storm, the number of storms

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAM; AND E~fPEIR]ENCES 115 during the year, the direction Mom which waves approach the shore, the profile of sand or cobbles on the beach, and the configuration of the improvements that determine the degree of property damage. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, hap been making an intensive study ". . . to provide coastal data and information to planners and decisionmakers ~c, that better and more informed decisions can be made regarding the restoration and main- tenance of the 1,100 mile California coasts (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983~. Many reports were issued during 1987 and lg88, and the final reports are to be issued at the end of 1989. Most of the studies have been for southern California (see, e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 and 1988~. The storms of 1982 and 1983 caused over $100 million damage to structures and utilities located along the California coastline. Most of the structures damaged were constructed before the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. In order to rn~nimize or prevent damage from storms such as those that battered the state in 1982 and 1983, the California Coastal Commission has attempted to regulate the design of structures in potentially hazardous areas. The Statewide Interpretive Coastal Act Guidelmes contain a section that defines coastal bluff top areas that will require detailed geologic and/or eng~neer~g studies before a development permit can be issued by the commission. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states that New development shall: (1) Minimize the risks to life and property ~ areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazard; (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." As required by Costar Commission guidelines, geotechnical studies are required withm the Area of demonstration." The area of demonstration includes the base, face, and top of ad bluffs and cliffs. The extent of the bluff top consideration should include that area between the face of the bluff and a line described on the bluff top by the intersection of a plane inclined at a 20 degree angle from the horizontal passing through the toe of the bluff or cliff, or 50 feet inland from the edge of the cliff or bluff, whichever is greater. ~ areas of known geologic stability or instability (as determined by adequate geologic evaluation and historic evidence), the commission may designate a lesser or greater area of demonstration.

OCR for page 94
116 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION All geotechnical reports for structures proposed to be located within the area of demonstration must consider, describe, and ana- Tyze the following: 1. cliE geometry and site topography; 2. historic, current, and foreseeable cliff erosion, including in- vestigation of recorded land surveys and tax assessment records in addition to the use of historic maps and photographs, where avail- able, and possible changes in shore configuration and sand transport; 3. geologic conditions, including soil, sediment, and rock types and structural features such as bedding attitudes, faults, and joints; 4. evidence of past or potential landslide conditions, the im- plications of such conditions for the proposed development, and the potential effects of the development on landslide activity; 5. impact of construction activity on the stability of the site and adjacent areas; 6. ground surface water conditions and variations, including hydrologic changes caused by the development (i.e., introduction of sewage effluent and irrigation water to the ground water system); 7. potential erodibility of the site and mitigating measures to be used to ensure minimized erosion problems during and after con- struction; 8. effects of marine erosion of sea cliffs; 9. potential effects of seismic forces resulting from a maximum probable earthquake; and 10. any other factors that might affect slope stability or littoral transport. Because of the adverse impacts so commonly associated with large coastal protective devices (groins, breakwaters, etc.), the com- mission has favored the use of beach nourishment to reduce shoreline recession rates. However, it was decided that in some instances large coastal structures are the only viable alternative to solving a severe shore erosion problem. For example, in May of 1983 Chevron Oil Company applied for a peanut before the commission to install a 900-foot-Iong semipermeable rock and concrete groin at the southern boundary of its waterfront refinery in E! Segundo. As a result of the potential impacts, Coastal Commission permits typically have had conditions that attempt to satisfy the concerns of parties located im- mediately downdrift of the proposed structure. In the Chevron case, the following permit conditions were required by the commission and accepted by Chevron:

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 117 1. State Lands Commission approval; 2. utilization of aerial photographs to monitor project impacts; 3. beach profile readings at designated locations during specific times of the year; 4. sand tracer studies; 5. downdrift nourishment; 6. commitment to instigate any adverse impacts to surfing con- ditions in the project vicinity; 7. a planned maintenance program; 8. a monitoring program to determine if fib material migrated back to the offshore site; 9. review of data by an unbiased third party; 10. an assumption of risk to indemnify and hold harmless the California Coastal Co~runission against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability arising out of acquisition, de- sign, construction, operation, maintenance, existence, or failure of the permitted groin project; and 11. the above-mentioned conditions dealing with sand supply monitoring will exist for a period of 10 years. SUMMARY In the absence of a comprehensive program to address the na- tion's coastal erosion hazards, many states have implemented their own programs. The states' experience is valuable in the formulation of a national program. The committee considered this experience in formulating the recommendations for an effective and responsive min- imum program (see Executive Summary). The Federal Emergency Management Agency should establish a program that supports accu- rate state, local, or university data acquisition efforts and encourages effective erosion area management at the state and local levels. :EtEFERENCES Benton, S., and M. McCullough. 1988. Average Annual Long Term Erosion Rate Update Methods Report. Division of Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North Carolina. California State Senate. 1989. Report on the California Coastal Commission, Advisory Commission on Cost Control in State Government. Submitted to the Senate Rules Committee pursuant to S.R. 40 (1984), April 1989, No. 409-S.

OCR for page 94
118 MANAGING COASTAL EROSION Castle, R. O., M. R. Elliot, J. P. Church, and S. H. Wood. 1976. The Evolution of the Southern California Uplift, 1955 Through 1976. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1342. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Coastal Data Information Program. 1983. Monthly Reports, Institute of Marine Resources, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, California. Ewing, L. C., J. R. Michaels, and R. J. McCarthy. 1989. Draft Report: Planning for an Accelerated Sea Level Rise Along the California Coast. Staff Report, California Coastal Commission, June 26, 1989. Fischer, M. L. 1985. California's Coastal Program. APA J. Summer:312-321. Fulton-Bennett, K., and G. B. Griggs. July 1986. Coastal Protection Structures and Their Effectiveness. Joint publication of the California State Depart- ment of Boating and Waterways and the Marine Sciences Institute of the University of California at Santa Cruz. Habel, J. S., and G. A. Armstrong. July 1977. Assessment and Atlas of Shoreline Erosion Along the California Coast. California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. 277 pp. Heiman, M. 1986. Coastal Recreation in California: Policy, Management, Access. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California. Howe, S. 1978. Wave Damage Along the California Coast, Winter, 1977-78. Staff Report, California Coastal Commission, December 11. Inman, D. L., and C. E. Nordstrom. 1971. On the tectonic and morphologic classification of coasts. J. Geol. 79:1-21. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Great Lakes Shorelands Erosion. Lansing, Mich. Mikkelsen, T. H., and D. B. Nenwirth. 1987. Public Beaches: An Owners' Man- ual. Berkeley, Calif.: California State Coastal Conservancy in association with Western Heritage Press. Owens, D. 1983. Land acquisition and coastal resources management: A pro- grammatic perspective. William Mary L. Rev. 24:625. Owens, D. 1985. Coastal management in North Carolina: Building a regional consensus. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 51:322. Petrillo, J., and P. Grenell, eds. 1985. The Urban Edge: Where the City Meets the Sea. Los Altos, Calif.: California State Coastal Conservancy in cooperation with William Kaufmann, Inc. Pilkey, O. H., and T. D. Clayton. 1989. Summary of Beach Replenishment Expe- rience on U.S. East Coast Barrier Islands. J. Coastal Research 5~1~:147-159. Seymour, R. J. 1989. Wave observations in the storm of January 17-18, 1988. Shore & Beach 57~4~:10-13. Shorelands Protection and Management Act. 1982. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. State of Florida. 1986. A Proposed Comprehensive Beach Management Program for the State of Florida. Division of Beaches and Shores, Tallahassee, Florida. University of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory. 1978. Michigan Shoreland Damage Assessment Program, 1977-1985, Technical Report No. 112. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. U.S. Great Lakes Shoreland Damage Study.

OCR for page 94
STATE PROGRAMS AND EXPERIENCES 119 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1983. Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study: Plan of Study, September. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1987. Northern Califor- nia Coastal Photography, Beach Profile and Bathymetry Index. Ref. No. CCSTWS 87-7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1988. Coastal Cliff Sedi- ments, San Diego Region to the Mexican Border (1887 to 1947~. Ref. No. CCSTWS 88-8, December, prepared by Brian A. Robinson & Associates, Inc., Van Nuys, California. Walker, J. R., R. A. Nathan, R. J. Seymour, and R. R. Strange III. 1984. Coastal Design Criteria in Southern California. Nineteenth Coastal Engineering Conference: Proceedings of the International Conference, September 3-7, 1984, Houston, Texas, ASCE, Vol. III, pp. 2827-2841.